Quality assurance has sometimes been treated as a periodic compliance exercise: something that happens internally on an ongoing basis, with a more formal assessment every five years. The Standards, however, invite us to think more broadly. They provide a framework that encompasses governance, conformance, performance, continuous improvement, and external assurance. The challenge now is to turn that framework into a quality culture that genuinely strengthens internal audit functions and increases the confidence of the boards and audit committees they serve.

This edition of Internal Audit Review explores that challenge from five different perspectives.

We begin by examining the architecture of quality assurance created by the Global Internal Audit Standards and what it means for internal audit leaders seeking to build an effective and credible quality framework.

We then consider a question that deserves more debate: is the fully external model still the unquestioned gold standard for quality assessment? There is a strong case for independent external scrutiny, but the profession should also be willing to examine whether a well-designed Self-Assessment with Independent Validation (SAIV), particularly as technology develops, might deliver greater value than it has traditionally been given credit for.

The discussion then moves from the periodic assessment to the Quality Assurance and Improvement Program itself. A QAIP should be much more than paperwork or evidence assembled for an assessment. Properly designed, it is a defence for the internal audit function — helping demonstrate its value, identify weaknesses before they become significant, and provide the board with confidence that quality is being actively managed.

That leads to the question of time. Five years is a long time to wait for an independent view of quality. Our fourth article explores the case for continuous self-assessment within the SAIV model and asks whether internal audit should be thinking about quality as a continuous discipline rather than a point-in-time event.

Finally, we turn to artificial intelligence. AI has the potential to transform how quality assurance is performed — from analysing evidence and identifying patterns to supporting standards mapping and continuous monitoring. But technology brings its own risks. There is an argument for AI augmentation, not autonomy. AI can strengthen the quality assessment process, but professional judgment, accountability, and independence must remain firmly with people.

Taken together, these articles are not intended to argue for one single model of quality assurance. Rather, they ask whether the profession should be prepared to challenge some of its assumptions about how quality is assessed, demonstrated, and improved.

The future of quality assurance may not be about choosing between internal and external assessment, or between human judgment and technology. It may instead be about combining them intelligently: continuous internal scrutiny, meaningful independent validation, appropriate external challenge, and technology that enables professionals to examine more evidence and identify more insight without surrendering their judgment.

The 2024 Standards provide the architecture. It is now up to the profession to decide how ambitious we want to be in building upon it.