Not documented equals not done-leads to great quality or checkbox mentality?

While reading professional standards, it struck me that the basic premise of documenting a professional services engagement is that in case the professional is sued for malpractice, the working papers will prove the extent of, and diligence put in, the work done. Of course, it has positive uses also such as helping plan the assignment, building the knowledge bank for recurring assignments, and infusing a general discipline into the whole process. Also, there is always merit in having a checklist to avoid making mistakes during complex processes. Hence, I cannot reasonably argue the merits of following a checklist/process. The only issue is whether the person performing the assignment, will consider the checklist/standard as the end of his responsibility, given the protection from negligence lawsuits filed by disgruntled clients.

So now we are at a corundum. The protection from negligence lawsuits is the trigger to motivate professions to comply with service quality standards. But senior professionals themselves write the standards, so chances are they would incorporate recent memory, and rarely include future looking requirements identified from academic research. For example, India is going through several paradigm shifts in terms of introducing IFRS/XBRL/e-filing. But while ICAI has been quick to clamour for new professional work in these areas, it has been slower to issue fresh/modified guidance. And this is not a new phenomenon. New standards are often issued after the horse has bolted from the stable(viz scams/issues/controversies). For instance, while complex financial instruments valuation made the headlines in 2008, their formal auditing guidelines were published only in Oct-11. So for mistakes done before that, the auditor could claim protection. And some standards have been issued only when the ICAI has been dragged kicking and screaming. For example,the reporting standard on segment reporting/cash flow statement needed SEBI to step in, and cut the red tape.

So how do we motivate professionals to go beyond the minimal standards? There could be a best practices repository, and the professional submitting the most/top rated ones could be awarded. Or there could be awards for uncovering the highest amount of scam, mistakes, issues(subject to client confidentiality agreements) etc. Also, the data base could have a weightage while selecting auditors for key assignments and complex work. Lets see if this idea sees the light of day in my life!