APC003
Replace fixed calendar audit cycles with condition-based triggers so engagements fire when risk signals justify them, not merely by elapsed time.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Audit contradiction APC003 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Audit Frequency vs Audit Cost
Business ContextMore frequent auditing can identify deterioration earlier and improve assurance responsiveness, but repeating conventional engagements increases audit cost, management workload, and disruption. Reducing frequency saves resources but may allow important control changes to remain undetected.
Audit TRIZ ResolutionReplace uniform engagement frequency with condition-based assurance. Automated indicators, continuous monitoring inputs, risk events, control exceptions, and organizational changes can determine when additional audit attention is required. Full engagements occur when risk signals justify them rather than solely according to fixed calendar cycles.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 19 – Periodic Action adjusts audit frequency to the characteristics and rate of change of the risk.
Principle 23 – Feedback uses current risk and control information to trigger additional assurance.
Principle 28 – Mechanics Substitution replaces selected repetitive manual procedures with automated analytics and monitoring.
Expected Outcome
Earlier detection of deterioration
Lower recurring audit cost
Risk-responsive audit frequency
Reduced unnecessary fieldwork
Decision Indicators
Stable processes undergo repeated audits with nearly identical results.
High-risk changes occur between scheduled engagements.
Audit frequency is determined mainly by historical cycles.
Management experiences repeated disruption from routine audits.
Additional audit frequency requires substantial staffing increases.