Audit: using technology without diluting audit quality

Audit firms face simultaneous pressure to improve quality, attract and develop people, use technology well and deliver work efficiently. These demands can reinforce each other, but only if leadership understands the limits of each tool and the conditions for good professional judgement. A fast analysis is not automatically sufficient audit evidence; a larger dataset is not automatically a better conclusion.

The IAASB's Technology Quality Management workstream explicitly considers how emerging technologies, including AI, affect audit and assurance engagements and quality management. IFIAR's inspection survey programme remains a reminder that consistent execution of high-quality audits is an ongoing challenge. These sources do not evaluate a particular firm; they establish why quality must remain central to an appointment.

Put technology inside the quality system

The leader should know what a tool is used for, how it was validated, which evidence it can and cannot produce, and who reviews exceptions. If an AI-enabled system highlights anomalies, the audit team must decide how to investigate them. If it generates a summary, a professional must verify its sources and relevance. Governance should cover selection, use, monitoring and change of the tool, rather than treating it as a one-time purchase.

This requires collaboration across methodology, technology, engagement partners, ethics and risk. The appointment brief should specify whether the incoming leader owns a practice, a quality function or a technology programme. Those mandates have different independence and decision-right requirements.

Preserve scepticism and apprenticeship

Audit quality depends on professionals who can recognise when evidence is incomplete or an explanation is too convenient. If junior staff see only polished outputs, they may have fewer opportunities to learn how to test a claim. Leaders must design supervision that develops the reasoning behind an audit conclusion, not only the ability to operate a tool.

An executive-search assessment can probe a concrete judgement. Ask the candidate to describe an engagement or programme where technology identified an issue, failed to identify one, or produced ambiguous information. Who decided what additional work was required? What did the team learn? How did the leader change training, methodology or controls as a result? Specifics reveal more than a general commitment to innovation and quality.

The leader should also understand how quality is monitored across the practice, not only within one engagement. If a tool changes how evidence is selected or reviewed, what patterns might appear in internal inspections, coaching or remediation? How are concerns from teams brought to methodology leadership? A good candidate can distinguish an isolated error from a systemic weakness and can explain how the firm learned from both. That is particularly important when deployment is spreading faster than the evidence about its effects.

The future talent model belongs in the mandate. If software performs some of the initial procedures, junior auditors still need opportunities to understand assertions, challenge management and form conclusions. Ask how the executive would redesign learning assignments and review conversations so that time saved on preparation becomes deeper professional work, rather than simply a smaller training ground for future partners.

Test the difficult trade-off

The strongest audit leader can protect independence and quality when commercial pressure is real. Ask how they handled a situation where the most efficient approach was not sufficiently persuasive, or where a new tool's output conflicted with an experienced team's concerns. The candidate should be able to explain escalation, evidence and the final decision without claiming that judgement was replaced by a model.

The search brief should ask:

• Which quality outcomes must improve, and how will the firm know?
• What authority will the role have over methodology, talent and technology?
• How will the firm develop future partners' judgement as tasks change?
• What evidence shows the candidate can challenge both clients and internal commercial pressure?

Technology belongs in the audit-quality agenda. The appointment should go to a leader who can integrate it with professional standards, people development and the independence on which confidence in audit depends.