Maturity levels for private internal investigations
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355717733139 |
| Author | Petter Gottschalk |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Maturity levels for private internal
investigations: The case of fraud
examinations
Petter Gottschalk
Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI Norwegian Business School, Norway
Abstract
The purpose of private internal investigations by fraud examiners is to reconstruct the past by identifying past events and
sequences of events. In this article, work by fraud examiners is studied in terms of maturity; introduce a five-stage model
for investigation maturity: chaos, mess, disclo sure, clarification, and investment. Based on stu dent term papers in a
financial crime class, six investigation reports are allocated to levels in the maturity model. The average score for the
investigation reports is a level 3 disclosure, where the investigation is problem-oriented and often limited by the mandate.
Based on the low average score, this article discusses the privatization of law enforcement, secrecy of investigation
reports, lack of disclosure to the police, competence of private investigators, and limits of the investigation mandate.
Keywords
Financial crime, internal investigation, fraud examination, evaluation, maturity model
Submitted 24 May 2017, Revise received 28 Aug 2017, accepted 02 Sep 2017
Introduction
Stages of growth models for maturity levels can be used to
assess and evaluate a variety of phenomena (Ro¨glinger
et al., 2012; Solli-Sæther and Gottschalk, 2015). In this
article, we use the concept of maturity levels to evaluate
private internal investigations by fraud examiners (Brooks
and Button, 2011; Button and Gee, 2013; Button et al.,
2007a, 2007b; Schneider, 2006; Williams, 2005). The pur-
pose of this article is to develop the characteristics of inves-
tigations at different maturity levels.
This research is important because reports of private
investigations tend to be kept secret and never disclosed
to the media, the public or even law enforcement
(Gottschalk and Tcherni-Buzzeo, 2017). Exceptions in the
United States include Va lukas’ investigation at Lehman
Brothers (2010) and at General Motors (2014).
Based on publicly available investigation reports com-
pleted in 2016 and 2017 in Norway, a class of business
school students was asked to evaluate maturity levels in
their term paper in spring 2017. Student evaluations are
presented to illustrate the diversity of maturity leve ls in
private internal investigations.
This article starts with a review of the literature on inter-
nal investigations and stages of growth models. Six sample
investigation reports evaluated by students are then pre-
sented. Student evaluations of the reports are discussed in
terms of a five-stage maturity model. Finally, problems
related to internal investigations are discussed.
Internal investigations
The purpose of private internal investigations by fraud
examiners is to reconstruct the past by identifying past
events and sequences of events. The past may be an event
or a series of events in which, for example, someone did
something to somebody. Previous events are typically neg-
ative and have caused some damage. The goal of the inves-
tigation is to uncover the facts in a particular situation; the
truth of the situation is the ultimate goal. A private
Corresponding author:
Petter Gottschalk,Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior,
BI Norwegian BusinessSchool, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway.
Email: petter.gottschalk@bi.no
International Journalof
Police Science & Management
2017, Vol. 19(4) 285–293
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461355717733139
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
To continue reading
Request your trial