Enough people and skills for the audit: ISA 220
How the engagement partner makes sure an audit team has enough time, people and specialists, at the right moment, as ISA 220 (Revised) requires.
By Achekam · · 4 min read · For Accountants & audit firms in South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya
The audit plan says the manufacturing client's inventory needs a valuer and the IT systems need someone who understands the ERP. Fieldwork starts in two weeks. The valuer has not been engaged, the IT specialist is booked on another job, and half the team is still finishing a deadline elsewhere. On paper the engagement is resourced. In practice it is not.
ISA 220 (Revised) puts that problem squarely on the engagement partner's desk. Resourcing is no longer something the firm sorts out in the background while the partner focuses on technical matters; it is part of the partner's responsibility for quality on the engagement.
What ISA 220 (Revised) asks of the partner
ISA 220 (Revised), Quality Management for an Audit of Financial Statements, deals with the engagement partner's and team's responsibilities for quality management on an audit. It is effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2022. The IAASB's ISA 220 (Revised) page gives the standard and its supporting material.
ACCA explains that the revised standard makes the engagement partner responsible for ensuring that sufficient and appropriate resources are available to the team in a timely manner, in line with the firm's policies and procedures. It adds that the partner is also responsible for the competence of the team and of any external expert or internal auditors providing direct assistance.
The IAASB's description of the standard adds a further expectation: the engagement partner and team are required to be proactive in managing and achieving quality on an audit. Waiting for problems to surface during fieldwork is not enough.
Four kinds of resource
Resources on an audit are more than headcount. The partner should think about:
| Resource | Questions to ask |
|---|---|
| Time | Is the budget realistic for the risks identified? Is the timetable achievable given the client's year-end and the reporting deadline? |
| People | Are the right grades available, at the right time, and not committed elsewhere? |
| Competence | Has each person done similar work? Does anyone need guidance or supervision beyond the usual? |
| Specialists | Which areas need an expert, such as valuations, actuarial work, tax or IT, and is each one competent and engaged in time? |
Competence applies to specialists as much as staff. The partner should know what the expert will do, their qualifications and experience, and how their work will be reviewed. Using an expert covers that evaluation.
Spotting gaps before fieldwork
Being proactive means checking resources at the points where problems are cheapest to fix:
- At acceptance or continuance: does the firm have the skills for this client at all?
- At planning: once risks are assessed, do they call for specialists or more senior time than budgeted?
- Before fieldwork: are the people actually available on the dates agreed, and has every specialist confirmed?
- During fieldwork: are hours tracking the plan, and has anything happened that changes what the team needs?
A note on the planning file recording what was considered, what gaps were found and how they were filled is the simplest evidence that the partner met the requirement.
Using planned and logged hours in Achekam
Achekam lets staff compare each engagement's planned hours with hours logged, and see a people-by-weeks capacity plan. A week with no capacity recorded shows as "not set", which is useful in itself: a team plan full of "not set" weeks means nobody has confirmed availability.
For the partner, these views answer two questions early. Before fieldwork: are the people the plan relies on actually free in those weeks? During fieldwork: is the engagement consuming hours faster than planned, and in which areas?
The work desks support the same habit day to day. Each professional has a My Work list and a Professional Inbox, and the Supervision, Manager and Partner desks show their level's review queue, returned work and risks. A growing review queue at manager level is often the first sign that a team is under-resourced. Opening a review from a desk does not by itself give sign-off authority.
Recording specialists, and the screens that stay empty
Specialists can be recorded on an audit through Achekam's Specialists & Experts screen, which gives the file a place to show who was involved and in what area.
Be aware of a limit. The Audit Resource Pools and Delivery Centres screens stay empty, because no route or screen adds a pool or a centre. Firms that organise staff into pools or use a delivery centre should keep that arrangement in their own records rather than expecting those screens to hold it.
Raising a resource problem
Sometimes the partner cannot solve a resource gap alone. The firm may simply not have an IT specialist free, or the client's timetable may be impossible. The partner should raise it with the firm's leadership, in writing, with the risk it creates and the options: delay, engage an outside specialist, reduce other commitments, or, in the end, reconsider the engagement. Pressing on regardless is the one option the standard does not leave open.
How resourcing connects to direction and review of the team's work is the subject of supervision under ISA 220. At the next planning meeting, open the capacity plan alongside the risk assessment and check the two agree.
General guidance only, not advice on your own circumstances. Tax and payroll rules change: check the current position with the authority or your adviser.
