Rethinking Innovation in Audit: Six Questions Worth Exploring

Audit professionals across the country are facing a familiar challenge: how to evolve their practices in ways that reflect real progress—not just automation for automation’s sake. With so many tools and technologies being introduced to the profession, it's tempting to jump in and hope the efficiencies follow. But some firms are finding that without clear direction, the pursuit of “innovation” can lead to fragmented processes, underused software, and more complexity, not less. 

Here’s a set of six questions that some audit teams are using to shape that conversation—with the goal not of finding instant answers, but of approaching change with intention. 

1. What problem are we trying to solve? 

This might sound obvious, but it’s often skipped. It’s easy to implement a tool to speed up a process—but what if that process no longer serves a useful purpose? Or what if the real challenge isn’t speed, but clarity? 

Some firms are stepping back and looking at broader goals: reducing burnout during peak seasons, improving consistency across teams, or delivering insights clients can actually use. These goals each require different approaches. Sometimes it's new software. Other times it's just clearer communication, or using current tools more effectively. 

2. What do our clients actually need? 

While audits remain a regulatory requirement, the audit itself isn’t always what clients value most. Many clients are far more engaged when the process yields insights they can use operationally—benchmarks, trends, risk flags. 

Adding value doesn’t always mean adding new offerings. In some cases, it’s as simple as spending more time asking clients what they’re trying to accomplish. Some firms have also experimented with structured post-engagement discussions to uncover unmet needs. 

3. What do our people need? 

Tools can be helpful—but they’re not a substitute for clarity. Often, the real barrier isn’t the absence of technology, but the need for training, time, or confidence to use what’s already available. 

Some firms are exploring short skills assessments—not to evaluate performance, but to uncover hidden strengths or gaps across the team. Others are giving teams time to explore new tools without the pressure of immediate productivity, or involving younger staff in process redesign to reflect the way they already work. 

Innovation here may also involve rethinking work structure itself—whether every task requires a CPA designation, whether flexible scheduling can boost focus, or how task-based staffing could support peak periods. 

4. What are our current processes—and are they still serving us? 

It’s easy to default to last year’s audit file. The “Same As Last Year” approach can save time in the short term, but it can also lock teams into outdated workflows. When processes remain unexamined, even the best technology won’t deliver its full value. 

Some firms are using flowcharts to map current workflows, then comparing them against redesigned versions. A single audit cycle review can highlight steps that no longer add value—or uncover opportunities to consolidate or remove duplicate work. 

5. Is there a better way to reach the same audit objective? 

Recent events—like the widespread shift to remote auditing—have opened doors to new ways of gathering audit evidence. Read-only access to client systems, screen-sharing, audio transcripts, and embedded data analytics are being used more widely. 

These aren’t necessarily high-cost solutions, but they can offer more targeted evidence and free up time on both sides. Teams capturing walkthroughs on video or embedding audio interviews into files are finding that documentation can be clearer, faster, and more useful when it's not limited to PDFs and memos. 

6. What are we prepared to stop doing? 

One of the trickiest parts of innovation is subtraction. New approaches often get layered on top of old ones rather than replacing them. The result? Extra work, not transformation. 

Several firms have flagged this issue in the context of data analytics. Even after running full-population regression tests, some teams default to also running traditional price tests “just in case.” Without clear internal discussion on what replaces what, new tools can become additions—not solutions. 

Some teams are piloting after-action reviews, borrowed from other sectors. These post-audit debriefs focus on what worked, what didn’t, and what changes could improve the next cycle. It’s not a performance review—it’s a process conversation. That distinction matters. 

Final Thought 

Innovation doesn’t always mean disruption. Sometimes it’s just rethinking how well the way we work aligns with the kind of audit we want to deliver—and the kind of workplace we want to lead. 

Not every change needs to be dramatic. But asking the right questions upfront can create space to try, revise, and learn—without simply doing the same thing, faster.