Common sense is not common

The phrase "common sense" has become something of a catchphrase for President Donald Trump and some members of the White House staff. However, it's important to recognize that everyone interprets "common sense" differently. A prime example is the tragic midair collision near Washington, D.C., in early 2025, involving a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Eagle commercial aircraft.

Before official investigations had concluded, President Trump publicly blamed the incident on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies and the competence of air traffic control staff. In contrast, retired Taiwanese pilot and well-known YouTuber James Wang offered his own professional assessment shortly after the event, stating that over 70% of the responsibility likely rested with the helicopter pilot. This view aligned closely with preliminary findings released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which indicated that the Black Hawk had been flying at 278 feet—well above the 200-foot limit designated for that air corridor—leading directly to the collision.

While President Trump’s assertion regarding personnel policy may have resonated with some, the deeper investigation showed that the crash stemmed from operational and procedural failures, including the fact that a single air traffic controller had been managing both aircraft—a rare and questionable setup during that time of day.  Ultimately, this tragedy illustrates that what one person considers "common sense" may not be universally accepted or accurate.

"Common Sense" and Internal Auditing: A Professional Perspective

In internal auditing, instead of "common sense," I prefer to use the term "professional judgment."
Professional judgment refers to the subjective and often qualitative evaluation of conditions that arise during an audit, particularly in grey areas where a simple "Yes" or "No" decision is insufficient.
Auditors must exercise judgment in determining the sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence collected to support their conclusions.

In our daily practice, audit programs are never static or rigid. Our professional adjustments should naturally evolve from our diverse work exposures and accumulated experiences.

For example:

• If you have never worked in the textile industry, you may not fully understand the concept of material utilization or appreciate the critical role of production planning and control.

• Without experience in the food industry, the principles of HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) would be unfamiliar.

• Similarly, those without exposure to the retail sector may not grasp the importance of supply chain management and store operations.

Such accumulated industry experiences contribute to what I refer to as a "sense of professional adjustment."

Learning from Real-World Experience

Professional judgment is not solely built through formal experience; it also draws from everyday life wisdom.  During the pandemic, for instance, government subsidies were readily available to support employment, business vehicle, and restaurant operations, with information openly accessible on government websites.

At that time, I was working for a Chinese sauces and condiments manufacturer. One of my audit assignments involved reviewing the Administration Department, including checking whether the department had applied for relevant pandemic subsidies for the company's vehicle fleet. Unfortunately, the company’s staff canteen, managed by Factory Operation department failed to submit the subsidy application on time, resulting in the loss of millions in eligible funding. 

This oversight reflected a lack of societal awareness and a missed opportunity to facilitate better interdepartmental communication.  In this case, the company’s management clearly suffered from "operational silos," where departments functioned independently without coordination or information sharing.

When this issue is overlooked by a company of ten thousand people, including many colleagues and management, and your internal audit can point it out and provide improvement suggestions, that’s where the satisfaction from work arises. This incident serves as a vivid example of why effective internal communication is critical—and where internal audit has a crucial responsibility to bridge gaps and promote organizational synergy.