There are a lot of posts that traditional auditing is dying. Or it’s at a crossroads. Or it needs to adapt. Or, whatever.
I’ve been in the internal audit profession for a long time. And I have no idea what an author means when they talk about traditional auditing.
I suspect it refers to their opinion about low-value work that falls within the realm of internal auditing. I don’t know why they choose to throw the label of ‘traditional’ onto these low-value activities. Maybe the author has a very personal image of low-value activities in their background. But to extend their experience to the entire profession feels like an unworthy stretch. It paints a broad brush. And there have always been great internal audit departments that add high-value to their executive teams and their Audit Committees. Their tradition centers on excellence.
So when an author finds fault with ‘traditional auditing’, they’re being pretty vague. And, as internal auditors, it’s not good to be vague.
My thoughts on this are simple.
Of course, every CAE should focus on high-value work. That’s always been true. There’s nothing about 2025 that suddenly makes this idea more relevant. Although, I’ll admit that the value equation continually changes. But not always in the way we might think.
I believe there’s great benefit in discussing the difference between what’s perceived as low-value audit work versus high-value audit work. That conversation might be both surprising and enlightening. It would no doubt provide CAEs with ideas to consider. And it might lead to strategic conversations with their Audit Committees about the best use of the internal audit department. But that conversation (and it needs to be a conversation) has to get specific.
And let’s recognize that ‘low-value-work’ for some organizations may be ‘high-value-work’ for others. And vice-versa. So, no one has a universal answer on this one.
Just a thought.