AQI6 – Exploring Firm Review Processes

Understanding the quality management processes within audit firms is vital for ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of engagements. Let’s delve into the description, interpretation, and key observations of Firm Review Processes.

Indicator: Firm Review Processes encompass engagement-related reviews conducted by personnel outside the engagement team. This includes the nature, coverage, frequency, and outcomes of these reviews.

Purpose: The aim is to assess the quality of engagements and internal quality management processes.

How to Interpret the AQI:
Assessment of Internal Quality Management: Firm Review Processes provide insights into the effectiveness of internal monitoring systems and the quality of engagement performances. Satisfactory results suggest adequate engagement quality.
Comparison with External Inspection Results: These internal quality management results can be compared with external inspection outcomes to gauge consistency and identify areas for improvement.

ISQM1 paragraph 32(h) emphasises the importance of evaluating service providers

It’s paramount for the firm to thoroughly evaluate service providers enlisted to aid in the firm review process. Selecting the appropriate service provider to offer guidance on technology and methodology is equally crucial. I’ve observed that when service providers lack expertise in the technology or methodology employed, there’s a risk of erroneous advice and potential loss of efficiency or duplicated work for the firm.

These insights into firm review processes are instrumental in enhancing audit quality, driving continuous improvement, and ensuring adherence to professional standards.
As audit professionals, let’s leverage these observations to refine internal quality management processes, promote transparency, and uphold the highest standards of professionalism.

AQI5 – Understanding Engagement Quality (EQ): Review Partner Hours (%) and EQ Review Team Hours (%)

Assessing engagement quality is essential for maintaining audit integrity and reliability. Let’s delve into the significance of the Engagement Quality (EQ) metrics and how they impact audit quality and effectiveness.

Indicator: EQ Review Partner Hours (%) and EQ Review Team Hours (%) represent the hours charged to the audit client by the EQ review partner and team as a percentage of the total audit hours for completed engagements.

Purpose: These metrics quantify the extent of pre-issuance EQ reviews, providing insights into the thoroughness of audit file scrutiny.

How to Interpret the AQI:
Higher Percentages: Indicate greater involvement of the EQ review partner and team, potentially covering more areas of significant judgment in the audit file. However, excessively high percentages may signal overreliance on the EQ reviewer to resolve issues that should have been addressed by the engagement partner.
Lower Percentages: May suggest inadequate time spent by the EQ review partner or insufficient attention to critical judgment areas. It’s essential to ensure all significant judgment areas are adequately addressed, regardless of the percentage of EQ review hours.

Quality Over Quantity: The EQ metrics provide a gauge of review thoroughness but do not inherently signify the eligibility or objectivity of the EQ reviewer. Quality assurance should prioritise comprehensive review coverage rather than simply maximising review hours.
Continuous Improvement: Regular evaluation and refinement of EQ review processes are essential to optimise audit effectiveness and mitigate risks associated with under or over-reliance on EQ reviewers.

This AQI, presented as an average per firm, offers valuable insights into the rigor of EQ review processes and their impact on audit quality.

In AQI2, we explored Fee Recovery, remember to include appropriate budgeted hours for the EQ Partner and Team.

Let’s strive for a balanced approach to EQ review, ensuring thorough scrutiny of audit files while maintaining independence and objectivity.

Our Caseware SQM solution includes a library of Monitoring Activities and can help facilitate EQ Reviewers with tailor made work programs for engagement files and firm monitoring.

AQI4 – Exploring Tenure: Partner Experience (years)

Understanding the tenure of engagement partners is paramount in evaluating audit quality and expertise. Let’s delve into the significance of this metric and its implications for audit excellence.

Indicator: Tenure: Partner Experience (years) measures the average tenure of engagement partners in years.

Purpose: This indicator reflects the accumulated experience of partners working on audit clients, including technical partners and CEOs, whose time may not be directly booked to audit clients.

How to Interpret the AQI:
Greater Years of Experience: Indicates a higher level of experience and expertise accrued by the engagement partner. This extensive experience may contribute to enhanced audit quality and effectiveness. However, it is essential to assess whether engagement partners have stayed abreast of Continuing Professional Development requirements and gained diverse experience relevant to their role.

IRBA Code Considerations:
Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care: Registered auditors are obligated to attain and maintain professional knowledge and skills at the required level to ensure competent service delivery. This includes acting diligently and adhering to applicable technical and professional standards.

This AQI, presented as an average per firm, offers valuable insights into the proficiency and competence of engagement partners.

As auditors, it’s crucial to prioritise ongoing professional development and adherence to industry standards. Let’s leverage this insight to bolster audit quality and uphold the highest standards of professionalism.

At Caseware we believe that electronic working paper files tell a story, if you are still reviewing paper based files or PDF versions, perhaps it is time to visit our Success Community’s Getting Started page and get your own copy of Caseware Working Papers.

AQI3 – Exploring Tenure: Firm (years)

Understanding the duration of a firm’s tenure with an audit client is crucial in assessing independence and familiarity threats. Let’s delve into the significance of this metric and its implications for audit quality.

Indicator: Tenure: Firm (years) measures the average number of completed years a firm has served as the audit firm for a client.

Purpose: This indicator provides insights into the level of independence or familiarity threat associated with the auditor-client relationship.

How to Interpret the AQI:
Longer Tenure: Poses a greater familiarity threat to independence, as prolonged relationships may lead to complacency or undue sympathy towards the client’s interests.
Shorter Tenure: Indicates less experience and knowledge of the client’s business, potentially impacting the depth of the audit. However, it also mitigates familiarity threats associated with long-term relationships.

IRBA Code Considerations:
Familiarity Threat: Arises from a long or close relationship with a client, potentially compromising the auditor’s objectivity and independence. This threat underscores the importance of vigilance and professional skepticism in maintaining integrity throughout the audit process.

This AQI, presented as an average per firm, offers valuable insights into the dynamics of auditor-client relationships and their impact on audit quality. As auditors, it’s essential to balance the benefits of long-term client relationships with the need for independence and objectivity. Let’s leverage these insights to enhance audit quality and uphold the highest standards of professionalism. Caseware Cloud allows for the documentation of “Client Since” field for easy reporting on client tenure.

AQI2 – Exploring Independence: Fee Recovery (%)

Understanding the nuances of audit fee recovery, is pivotal in assessing audit quality and efficiency. In this piece, we are going to explore the intricacies of this vital metric and its implications for audit firms.

Indicator: Total audit fees billed to the client as a percentage of the total audit fees internally charged for completed engagements.

Purpose: This metric sheds light on how effectively firms recover fees for their services.

How to Interpret the AQI:

  • Low Percentage: Indicates that a firm has charged less for its services, leading to fees being “written off” and not fully recovered. This could stem from inefficiencies in supervision, project management, or succumbing to fee pressures.
  • High Percentage: Reflects efficient fee recovery, indicating better project management, accurate budgeting, and alignment of actual time spent with budgeted hours.

IRBA Code Considerations:

  • 300.6 A1 (a): Highlights self-interest threats arising from quoting excessively low fees, compromising the ability to deliver services by professional standards.
  • 330.3 A1 & A2: Emphasizes the impact of fee levels on an auditor’s ability to perform professional services and the ethical considerations associated with quoting fees below market standards.

This AQI provides valuable insights into audit firms’ operational efficiency, budgeting accuracy, and adherence to professional standards.

As we navigate the complexities of audit quality, let’s leverage these indicators to drive improvements in service delivery, project management, and adherence to professional standards.

AQI1 – Understanding Independence: Non-audit Fees (%)

In the world of auditing, maintaining independence is paramount. One crucial metric in assessing this independence is the percentage of non-audit fees billed in relation to total audit fees. In this piece, we are going to unpack what this metric entails and delve into how it impacts decision-making and quality.

Indicator: Non-audit fees billed as a percentage of total audit fees to the client.

Purpose: To provide insights into the firm’s dependency on a client for non-audit services.

How to Interpret the AQI: The AQI (Audit Quality Indicator) measures the firm’s reliance on non-audit services compared to audit services. A higher percentage suggests a greater reliance on non-audit services like taxation and consulting. While this may signal client demand or diversified services, it can also raise concerns about independence.

Implications of a Higher Percentage:

  • Diminished Independence Perception
  • Potential Threats to Audit Quality
  • Increased Demand for Non-Audit Services from Clients
  • High potential for Conflicts of Interest

Regulatory Guidance:

King IV Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa, 2016: Recommends audit committees oversee non-audit service provision by external auditors.
Companies Act 71 of 2008: Requires auditors to be deemed independent by the audit committee.
IRBA Code of Professional Conduct for Registered Auditors: Addresses fee dependencies and independence considerations extensively.

Understanding and upholding independence is not just a regulatory requirement but also a cornerstone of trust and reliability in auditing. Let’s stay vigilant in ensuring practices uphold the highest standards of independence and quality.

IRBA released the 2023 Audit Quality Indicators (AQI) report

The Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) released the 2023 Audit Quality Indicators (AQI) report on 16th February. The full report can be accessed here. Over the coming weeks, I’ll be diving into these AQIs to understand how they can enhance audit quality for firms and share the insights with you every Friday, starting from the 8th of March. The 14 AQIs are an invaluable resource for stakeholders in the financial reporting ecosystem. They provide tangible, measurable insights for meaningful discussions on factors influencing audit quality. The full report can be accessed here.

The 5 AQI categories include:

  • Independence
  • Tenure
  • Review
  • Workload
  • Other

Caseware Africa Transforms Firms’ Quality Management with their new SQM App

An innovative solution that proactively manages quality

Johannesburg, 19 August 2022: Powering 20 000 users across the African continent, Caseware Africa, a division of Adapt IT, is a global leader in audit and financial reporting software. With decades of expertise in helping auditors and accountants automate compliance, Caseware Africa has introduced a brand-new cloud-based app to help firms manage their System of Quality Management: SQM Quality.

SQM Quality is designed by audit, data, and quality experts, and provides a quality management system intended to assist firms in fully, and efficiently, complying with the requirements of the International Standard on Quality Management 1 (ISQM 1), whilst leveraging the benefits of technology to proactively facilitate quality management, and ultimately, promote compliance.

The industry shift from the International Standard on Quality Control 1 (ISQC 1) to ISQM 1 has signalled a subtle, yet significant change in focus from ‘control’ to ‘management’. In pursuit of compliance to the new standard, professional audit and accounting firms providing services in various fields, have been required to update their engagements and processes to establish a system of quality management that extends beyond the possession of a manual with policies and procedures.

“In light of how the new standard has done away with most of the mandatory policies and procedures previously included in ISQC 1 and leaving it up to the firms to determine what’s most appropriate for their specific circumstances, it’s more important than ever for every employee to be their own compliance officer. In addition, it is imperative that firms establish a firm-wide environment of collaboration between people and technology to address the problems of the past, and ultimately make compliance more efficient,” says Christiaan Steyn, Assurance Product Manager at Caseware Africa.

SQM Quality empowers finance professionals to design, operate, and monitor their quality management system through the processes of establishing quality objectives, identifying, and assessing risks, and designing and implementing risk responses, in a manner that is effortless and efficient. It also includes a component that allows for the monitoring and remediation of processes to drive continual improvement of the system and, ultimately, the firm’s ability to fulfil the requirements of ISQM 1.

The Benefits of SQM Quality:

  • SQM Quality empowers professionals and firms to easily attend to all parts of the quality management system.
  • Numerous international standards are supported, empowering firms to meet the requirements of various local markets across the world with a single system solution.
  • User permissions differentiate between roles and responsibilities across the firm.
    Responsible parties are guided to document their understanding of the firm, and the nature of its services, to assist in identifying and assessing quality risks.
  • Firms can select objectives, risks, and policy and procedure responses, from a pre-populated library that can be customised and expanded upon as needed.
  • Network firms can export network-wide objectives, risks, and responses to member firms.
  • A built-in form builder enables firms to design tasks as instructions to users to direct, and track, the completion of actions linked to policy and procedures responses.
  • Throughout the process, users can hyperlink to documents and other records saved elsewhere on Caseware Cloud for ease of reference and secure storage.
  • SQM Quality includes a firm-specific quality risk assessment matrix that automates the identification of quality risks for which responses are required.
  • The user with the final responsibility of the system of quality management will be able to review dashboards of information and oversee the publishing, or export, of that information as required by the firm’s operations.

    Designed to optimise the changes and opportunities of ISQM 1, SQM Quality enables firms to design, operate, and monitor their system of quality management with ease, offering a single solution that attends to all parts in a way that is automated, accurate, and complete.

“In a rapidly developing world where spreadsheets are no longer the answer, everyone is accountable and collaboration is key. A solution like SQM Quality becomes more than a ‘nice to have’, it’s a necessity and an investment in efficiency, accuracy, and automation that will get things done – and done properly.” Steyn concludes. 

ISRS4400(R): Agreed Upon Engagements

What is an agreed-upon procedures engagement?

This can be defined as an engagement in which a practitioner agrees on specific procedures, usually audit-like in nature, with a client or a third party, and provides a report on findings against those agreed procedures. There is no assurance provided by the report, and the user is left to draw their own conclusions based on the agreed procedures and the findings reported against them. Previously, these were often referred to as factual findings.

Are these engagements subject to a standard?

Yes! The standard that applies to Agreed-Upon Procedures is ISRS4400 – International Standard on Related Services 4400 (Revised): Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements. This standard was recently revised by the IAASB, and the revised standard is applicable for engagements where the terms of engagement are agreed on or after 1 January 2022. The revision of this standard by the IAASB (previously ISRS4400 – which replaced ISA920) Engagements to Perform Agreed Upon Procedures Regarding Financial Information) addressed the increasing demand for these types of engagements for both financial and non-financial information and incorporated the types of updates generally being made to the standards to enhance professional judgment, independence, accountability and consistency in the profession.

Are these engagements common?

Yes, increasingly so. In many cases, agreed-upon procedures are requested by third parties on specific aspects of a client’s business, and often these parties have a template or format for the reports they require. When this happens, practitioners may not always identify that the engagement being performed falls into the scope of ISRS4400. The term “factual findings report” may be more commonly used or identified. These engagements are the ones that fall into the scope of ISRS4400 (and are now referred to only as findings, and not factual findings). Some common engagements that fall into the scope of agreed-upon engagements include:

  • Reports to a funder on whether grant expenditure by a grant recipient is incurred in terms of the conditions of the approved grant or contract.
  • Confirmations or certificates of turnover provided to franchisors on the turnover earned by franchisees.
  • The verification of claims against investment or incentive schemes managed by the Department of Trade and Industry (for example in automotive, IT, import and export sectors).
  • Section 18 certificates for non-profit organisations confirming that donations are spent for the intended purpose.
  • Business TV licence audits.
  • Due diligence reviews.
  • Confirmations of earnings or EBITDA or other calculations for debt covenants

What is challenging about accepting and conducting these engagements?

Even with the revisions in the new standard, the nature and extent of these engagements varies greatly in size, frequency, complexity and risk. Although they are not assurance engagements, the report issued by a practitioner must still comply with the standard as well as with the extant ISQC1 and the new international standards on quality management – these will become effective in 2022, and thus, still exposes practitioners to quality risks. Given the extremely varied nature of these engagements, applying a consistent approach has been challenging in the past. Some of these challenges have arisen from the following:

  • The previous standards applied to financial information which provided very little guidance on procedures that were compliance, performance or non-financial in nature.
  • Difficulty in establishing a consistent, repeatable approach between engagements and between recurring engagements. Because all engagements require procedures that are unique to the activity, it is not possible to apply a standard set of work programmes, and therefore, very difficult to obtain, and maintain, a consistent approach with comparable work flows, work programmes and internal quality management mandates.
  • The standard is not well known and does not generally form part of the graduate accounting education syllabi. This means that practitioners need to read, understand, and interpret, the standard for themselves, if they are aware of it at all. This has resulted in the past in inconsistent approaches between practitioners.
  • Difficulty in communicating requirements of procedures with clients or third parties. The engaging party is usually clear on what they need in a report and what it will be used for, and thus provide their understanding of the procedures they require to be performed. In the execution of these procedures, there is often more detail or a sub-set of additional processes that the practitioner needs to perform to identify and acquire the information required to report against the original method. It can be challenging for team members to determine how to obtain the evidence needed to perform the required tasks, or what to request from the client – this may need to be explained differently to the wording of the agreed-upon process.
  • Where these engagements are performed manually i.e., not through specifically designed software, there is substantial repetition between recording the agreed-upon procedures in an engagement letter; doing so again in the working papers and again in the Agreed-Upon Procedures Report. Where the engagement comprises many procedures, this is very time consuming and subject to many errors of omission or transposition and carries a higher risk of the report not aligning with the initial required methods in the engagement letter.
  • The higher volume of manual documentation and repetition can also result in these engagements not being as viable – in terms of the time required in relation to the fees earned for these activities.
  • There is also the additional cost of having to repeat, or re-populate, documentation on engagement files for recurring activities in said manual files.
  • The use of manual engagement files always carries an increased risk to practitioners’ inefficiencies through the requirements for manual signoffs, document misplacements, lack of evidence on completion, timelines of reviews etc., and ensuring that file assembly and archiving requirements are met.

An efficient, quality solution to conduct Agreed-Upon Procedure engagements

Caseware Africa has introduced a cloud-based Smart Engagements solution for Agreed-Upon Procedure Engagements called ISRS AGREED UPON, that addresses and resolves many of the quality and efficiency challenges.

  • By using ISRS AGREED UPON, for engagements, files can be populated with client and standing information relating to acceptance, continuance, skills, capacity, and independence requirements in the first engagement, and rolled forward to subsequent encounters, enabling practitioners to harness efficiencies in recurring events.
  • The procedures included in the ISRS AGREED UPON, solution have been compiled to ensure compliance with the requirements of the new ISRS 4400(R) standard relating to acceptance and continuance, ethical and independence requirements and the other changes brought into the new standard, for example, the use of experts. These changes have been fully incorporated and thus practitioners using this product will not have to rewrite previous manual work programmes for the changes in the standard.
  • ISRS AGREED UPON, can be adapted for the level of guidance required by your team. There is an option to select procedures that are core, or that are extended. Both facilitate compliance with the ISRS(R)4400 standard. Core procedures create efficiencies by reducing the number of procedures required for experienced users who understand the requirements for documentation, whist the extended procedures facilitate better documentation and therefore, make compliance easier for inexperienced users who require more detailed prompts or questions in order to arrive at the conclusions that an experienced user would.
  • ISRS AGREED UPON, automates the inclusion of the actual agreed-upon procedures throughout the engagement file and related documents. The procedures themselves are captured once, and the engagement letter, work programmes and the Agreed-upon Procedures Report is populated from this source. This drives efficiencies by reducing the amount of repetitive documentation, and also resolves challenges relating to inconsistencies between agreed processes and reported procedures and findings.
  • ISRS AGREED UPON, enables the practitioner to “reword” or tailor an initially agreed procedure to an inquiry or procedure that will facilitate asking for relevant information from clients in a manner that is understandable and will elicit the correct information/response. This “rewording” continues to be linked to the originally agreed procedure, ensuring a clear link between the work performed and the procedure to which it relates.
  • ISRS AGREED UPON, enables the practitioner or team members to capture, at the time that the procedure is performed and concluded upon, the finding that should be integrated into the Agreed-upon procedures report. This finding is automatically transferred to the report within ISRS AGREED UPON,, creating efficiencies between executing procedures and compiling the Agreed-upon procedures report. This also ensures that the agreed-upon procedures are directly aligned to the conclusions per procedure that are included in the Agreed-upon procedures report.

Last say

One of the primary drivers of the IAASB’s revision of the Agreed Upon Procedures standard was the increasing use of these engagements for both financial and non-financial information. Taking into consideration the changes and expansion in financial and non-financial reporting and the increased level of assurance that users, funders, and regulators require from businesses, the investment in a solution that facilitates compliance and drives efficiencies will ensure that you are able to viably provide these services to clients with confidence, increasing the value offered to clients and improving efficiencies and quality.

Five Keys Area To Test When Building An Audit Plan

Auditors today are working in an exceptionally complex and ever-evolving industry. In an environment where there is pressure to add more value with fewer people and less time, auditors are challenged to discover more risks, audit more areas, more frequently, and uncover fraud for their clients.

Yesterday - Ineffective Audit Planning Methods

Many audits today are conducted at planned intervals rather than based on thoughtful consideration of evidence that points to patterns or areas of risk. Instead, auditors select a given area and assess risk areas based on consultation with the organisation. Depending on responses, an audit will either be performed annually or every two to three years for internal controls if it’s deemed to be less risky. Unfortunately, this method can facilitate overlooking risk areas and permit fraud or other issues to go undetected.

Today - Effective Methods For Building An Audit Plan

To help improve the effectiveness of audits and clearly demonstrate their value, auditors can deliver more value for their clients by firstly optimising audit planning. Secondly, empowering teams with systems and tools that focus subject matter expertise on the audit, as opposed to spending unnecessary time in extracting information from systems and preparing data within spreadsheets.

Thirdly, it is important to pinpoint findings that will save the company money and improve business operations. A more systematic approach to audit planning offers a variety of advantages, including:
• Breaking risks down into individual factors and then being able to align them across the audit landscape
• Individually scoring risks for each financial statement area.
• Calculating an overall score but also ensuring that specific levels of risk are clearly reflected on financial statements.
• Evaluating relative risk levels in order to establish the audit scope.

The Data Analytics Approach to Audit Planning

It’s well known amongst auditors that data analytics helps to simplify and improve audits, eliminate manual tasks, reduce costs, detect potential fraud, errors, and abuse – and most importantly these valuable insights are attained earlier in the process. However, many auditors are missing the opportunity to leverage data analysis software to help prepare a rounded and well-thought out audit plan. Using data analytics during the audit planning phase helps to focus audits, allocate resources effectively, optimise audit expertise resources, save time, and identify significant information about the business.

Audit Planning – Get It Right With Data Analysis

Running data analytics tests during the audit planning phase, helps to provide a better understanding of what is happening and highlights the areas of greatest risk. Moreover, it shows where control breakdowns are occurring, and the state of risk management in the company. Utilising insights provided by data analysis in this phase of the audit process helps shift or refine the focus of the audit early on. Also, if used in the planning process it can provide auditors with a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the business and can help to identify specific questions that need to be put to the company to adjust the focus of the audit – as and where required. Moreover, data

analytics helps to automate a significant number of manual tasks and save considerable time and costs. What can often take days to complete can be executed within minutes when the audit commences.

What Is The Best Approach To Build An Audit Plan?

Firstly, complete a risk assessment – but where to start? Trying to analyse each area can be time-consuming and overwhelming. Instead, the best option is to start with a few key areas at a time and the ones that reveal the most problems are the ones that should be audited first. Testing can then be expanded from there.

The Five Key Areas To Test

Data analytics applied to the following five key areas will reveal potential risk – an audit plan can be built based on the information revealed from scrutinising the following:

1. Accounts Payable
2. Accounts Receivable
3. General Ledger
4. Payroll
5. Stock and Inventory

Why Use Caseware IDEA®

Advanced data analysis tools help auditors strategically plan their audits and lead to better, more effective, audits. Caseware IDEA® has been the trusted industry leader for audit analytics for over 25 years. Caseware IDEA® has a strong presence in over 130 countries, is used by more than 250,000 users globally, and is trusted by audit firms of all sizes.

The Value Proposition Caseware IDEA® Brings To Audit Capabilities

Increases audit scope by allowing users to import all their records, including spreadsheets, and exported data from databases, accounting programs such as Pastel, for example, other ERP systems plus travel and entertainment applications in formats such as PDFs, plain text (.txt), print-report (.prn), open database connectivity (ODBC) and SAP.

  • Automates the sampling processes by eliminating the need to export data into spreadsheets and preparing manual sample sets.

  • Analyses 100 percent of the data across a multitude of datasets.

  • Streamlines testing procedures with built-in workflows.

  • Protects the integrity of the data by locking source data files so that they are read-only.

  • Creates an auditable trail so analysis can be documented, shared, and repeated.

  • Creates repeatable tests to reduce time spent on routine tests. Caseware IDEA® also offers more than 100 audit-relevant tasks and a variety of advanced features to help auditors better plan and execute their audits.

  • The following is a sample of these features:

    • Universal file conversion capabilities make it fast and easy to import all records.

    • Advanced audit functions with just a click, including Gap Detection, Benford’s Law, advanced fuzzy duplicate, summarisation, stratification, sampling, and more.

    • Data visualization with the ability to either auto-populate or custom-build dashboards with charts and field statistics into which auditors can drill down.

    • Audit automation through languages like Python or IDEAScript.

Brief Bio:

Christiaan Steyn, Assurance Product Manager, Caseware Africa, a division of Adapt IT. Christiaan is an Associate General Accountant (SA), with extensive technical knowledge and a passion for technology. He completed his articles at a medium-sized auditing firm where he gained experience in various industries. He was later appointed Template Developer and then moved to the role of Product Manager at CQS Holdings – which was subsequently acquired by Adapt IT and renamed to Caseware Africa.

We use cookies to determine how our website is used and help provide tailored online content. For more information see our Cookies Policy.

Caseware + Adapt It Logo

Ask about the Caseware cloud solutions that are empowering firms and organisations to collaborate remotely with clients and colleagues.