Webinar Description
Key Takeaways
- Framework for distinguishing audit tasks requiring human judgement from those suitable for automation
- Comparison of build-versus-buy approaches for AI tools, including data privacy and governance considerations
- Strategies for building a business case for GRC technology investments
- Practical guidance on implementing enterprise-grade guardrails for AI in assurance functions
- Suitable for assurance, audit and GRC professionals at a foundational level
Introduction
Internal audit and assurance functions face mounting pressure to expand their coverage while operating with constrained resources. As organisations grow more complex and regulatory expectations intensify, traditional approaches to audit work are proving insufficient. This session addresses how assurance teams can strategically deploy artificial intelligence to handle routine administrative tasks, freeing professionals to focus on the higher-value analytical and advisory work that organisations increasingly require from their internal audit functions.
The programme is designed for audit, assurance and governance, risk and compliance professionals seeking to understand where automation fits within their operations. It assumes no prior technical knowledge and focuses on practical frameworks rather than implementation specifics.
The Shift from Traditional Oversight to Smart Delegation
Assurance teams have historically operated as comprehensive reviewers, manually processing documentation, extracting data from vendor reports and performing detailed reconciliation work. While thorough, this approach consumes significant professional time on tasks that do not necessarily require the judgement and expertise that auditors bring to their roles.
The concept of smart delegation represents a fundamental rethinking of how audit work is distributed. Rather than viewing automation as a replacement for professional judgement, this approach positions AI as a tool for handling the administrative components of audit work. Tasks such as extracting data from vendor SOX reports and performing tick-and-tie procedures are well-suited to automation, as they follow predictable patterns and require consistency rather than interpretation.
By reallocating routine work to automated systems, assurance professionals can redirect their attention toward activities that genuinely benefit from human insight: evaluating control design, assessing emerging risks, advising business units on governance matters and providing strategic input to leadership. This shift does not diminish the role of the auditor but rather elevates it, allowing teams to deliver greater organisational value without proportional increases in headcount.
Developing a Framework for Task Classification
Central to effective automation is the ability to accurately classify audit tasks according to their suitability for human or machine execution. Not all work can or should be automated, and misclassifying tasks creates risk rather than efficiency.
The session provides a structured framework for dissecting team workloads and categorising activities. Tasks requiring professional judgement—such as evaluating the adequacy of management’s risk assessments, interpreting ambiguous evidence or exercising professional scepticism in interviews—remain firmly within the human domain. These activities depend on contextual understanding, ethical reasoning and the ability to recognise subtle indicators that may not be apparent in structured data.
Conversely, routine administrative tasks characterised by repetitive data handling, standardised formats and rule-based processing are strong candidates for automation. The framework helps teams identify these opportunities systematically rather than through ad hoc experimentation, reducing the risk of automating inappropriately or overlooking genuine efficiency gains.
Evaluating Build-Versus-Buy Decisions for AI Tools
Organisations considering AI adoption in their assurance functions face a fundamental choice between developing custom solutions internally and procuring enterprise-grade platforms from established vendors. Each approach carries distinct implications for data privacy, technical debt and governance.
Building proprietary AI tools offers the potential for customisation and may appear cost-effective in the short term. However, internally developed solutions often accumulate technical debt as they require ongoing maintenance, updates and security patching. They may also lack the robust data protection controls that enterprise platforms incorporate by design, creating potential vulnerabilities in how sensitive audit information is processed and stored.
Enterprise-grade solutions typically provide more mature governance frameworks, including audit trails, access controls and compliance certifications. These platforms benefit from dedicated development resources and are designed to meet the security expectations of regulated industries. The trade-off involves reduced customisation flexibility and ongoing licensing costs.
The session examines these considerations in detail, helping participants evaluate which approach aligns with their organisation’s risk appetite, technical capabilities and strategic priorities. Understanding these trade-offs is essential for making informed recommendations to leadership.
Establishing Enterprise-Grade Guardrails
Introducing AI into assurance functions without appropriate controls creates new categories of risk. Data protection concerns are paramount, as audit work frequently involves access to sensitive financial information, personal data and confidential business intelligence. Any automation solution must incorporate safeguards that prevent unauthorised access, data leakage or inappropriate use of information.
Effective guardrails extend beyond technical controls to encompass governance structures, policies and oversight mechanisms. Organisations must establish clear accountability for automated processes, define escalation procedures for anomalies and maintain human oversight of AI-generated outputs. The goal is not to constrain the benefits of automation but to ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of data integrity or regulatory compliance.
This dual focus—leveraging automation while maintaining robust protections—represents the core challenge for assurance leaders. The session addresses how to balance these priorities in practice, providing guidance that participants can apply within their own organisational contexts.
Building the Business Case for GRC Technology Investment
Securing board approval for technology investments requires more than enthusiasm for innovation. Decision-makers expect clear articulation of benefits, realistic cost projections and honest assessment of risks. The session equips participants with strategies for constructing compelling business cases that resonate with executive audiences.
Effective proposals typically emphasise three categories of benefit. First, increased risk coverage demonstrates how automation enables the assurance function to examine more transactions, test more controls and monitor more processes without proportional resource increases. Second, quantifiable efficiency gains translate time savings into financial terms that boards understand. Third, organisational resilience arguments position technology investment as strengthening the organisation’s ability to respond to emerging risks and regulatory changes.
Participants will leave with practical approaches for framing these arguments in terms that align with their organisation’s strategic priorities, increasing the likelihood of securing necessary approvals and resources.
Who Should Attend
This session is appropriate for internal auditors, assurance professionals, compliance officers and GRC practitioners who are exploring how automation might enhance their functions. The content assumes no prior technical background and is pitched at a foundational level, making it accessible to those new to the topic while providing structured frameworks that more experienced professionals can adapt to their circumstances.
Participants seeking continuing professional education will receive one CPE credit in the Information Technology field of study upon live attendance and participation.