TOS017
Cut low-assurance-value activities first and document how remaining resources meet IIA quality requirements before approving any budget reduction.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Audit contradiction TOS017 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Audit Cost Reduction vs Audit Quality
Business ContextOrganizations expect audit functions to operate efficiently and control their cost. Reducing staffing, specialist support, testing, technology, or review indiscriminately can lower expenditure while weakening evidence quality, coverage, professional judgment, and the reliability of assurance.
Audit TRIZ ResolutionReduce activities that consume resources without materially contributing to assurance before reducing quality-critical capabilities. Automation, risk-based testing, control reliance, reusable analytics, simplified administration, and elimination of duplicate work can lower cost while preserving essential evidence and judgment.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 2 – Taking Out removes audit activities that provide limited assurance value.
Principle 28 – Mechanics Substitution automates repetitive work where reliability can be maintained.
Principle 3 – Local Quality concentrates resources on higher-risk and judgment-intensive areas.
Expected Outcome
Lower audit cost
Preserved audit quality
Better resource utilization
Greater high-risk coverage
Decision Indicators
Cost reductions are achieved mainly through smaller audit samples or fewer reviews.
High-value specialists are removed while low-value administrative work remains.
Audit quality deficiencies increase following budget reductions.
Teams perform substantial repetitive manual work.
Coverage declines proportionally whenever audit budgets decrease.