System of Quality Management Resources


Advisory Services for Public Company Auditors

New QC Standards Readiness and Implementation

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) has adopted the new International Standard on Quality Management 1 (ISQM 1). In addition, the PCAOB has indicated its intention to issue new quality control (QC) standards in the near future. As a result, firms that are required to follow IAASB or PCAOB standards need to reconsider their internal quality controls and begin to implement new processes to comply with these new requirements. 

Preparation and Assessment Process

Risk Assessment

  • The firm’s process of implementing the risk-based approach to quality management.
  • Consists of establishing quality objectives, identifying and assessing quality risks and designing and implementing responses to quality risks. 

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

  • Design and implement a risk assessment process (Ref: Para. A39–A41)
  • Establish the quality objectives specified by this ISQM and any additional quality objectives considered necessary (Ref: Para. A42–A44)
  • Identify and assess quality risks to provide a basis for the design and implementation of responses. In doing so, the firm shall:
  • Obtain an understanding of the conditions, events, circumstances, actions or inactions that may adversely affect the achievement of the quality objectives. (Ref: Para. A45–A47)
  • Consider how, and the degree to which, the conditions, events, circumstances, actions or inactions in paragraph 25(a) may adversely affect the achievement of the quality objectives. (Ref: Para. A48)
  • Design and implement responses to address the quality risks (Ref: Para. A49–A51)
  • Establish policies or procedures that are designed to identify information that indicates additional quality objectives. (Ref: Para. A52–A53) 


Governance & Leadership

Deals with matters such as the:

  1. Firm’s culture
  2. Leadership responsibility and accountability
  3. The firm’s organizational structure
  4. Assignment of roles and responsibilities, and
  5. Resource planning and allocation.

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

Establish the following quality objectives that address the firm’s governance and leadership:

  • Demonstrates a commitment to quality through a culture that exists throughout the firm, which recognizes and reinforces: (Ref: Para. A55–A56) 
  • Serving the public interest by consistently performing quality engagements;
  • Importance of professional ethics, values and attitudes;
  • Responsibility of all personnel for quality relating to the performance of engagements; and
  • Importance of quality in the firm’s strategic decisions/actions including financial and operational priorities.
  • Leadership is responsible and accountable for quality. (Ref: Para. A57)
  • Leadership demonstrates a commitment to quality through their actions and behaviors. (Ref: Para. A58)
  • Organizational structure & assignment of roles, responsibilities, and authority is appropriate to enable the design, implementation, & operation of firm system of quality management. (Ref: Para. A32, A33, A35, A59) 
  • Resource needs, including financial resources, are planned for and resources are obtained, allocated or assigned in a manner that is consistent with the firm’s commitment to quality. (Ref: Para. A60–A61) 


Ethical Requirements

  • Deals with fulfilling relevant ethical requirements by the firm, its personnel, and ethical requirements that apply to others external to the firm.

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

Establish the following quality objectives that address the fulfillment of responsibilities in accordance with relevant ethical requirements, including those related to independence: (Ref: Para. A62–A64, A66) 

  • The firm and its personnel: 
  • Understand the relevant ethical requirements to which the firm and the firm’s engagements are subject; and (Ref: Para. A22, A24) 
  • Fulfill their responsibilities in relation to the relevant ethical requirements to which the firm and the firm’s engagements are subject. 
  • Others, including the network, network firms, individuals in the network or network firms, or service providers, who are subject to the relevant ethical requirements to which the firm and the firm’s engagements are subject: 
  • Understand the relevant ethical requirements that apply to them; and (Ref: Para. A22, A24, A65) 
  • Fulfill their responsibilities in relation to the relevant ethical requirements that apply to them. 


Acceptance & Continuance

Deals with the firm’s judgments about whether to accept or continue a client relationship or specific engagement.

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

Establish the following quality objectives that address the acceptance and continuance of client relationships and specific engagements: 

  • Judgments by the firm about whether to accept or continue a client relationship or specific engagement are appropriate based on: 
  • Information obtained about the nature and circumstances of the engagement and the integrity and ethical values of the client (including management, and, when appropriate, those charged with governance) that is sufficient to support such judgments; and (Ref: Para. A67–A71) 
  • The firm’s ability to perform the engagement in accordance with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements. (Ref: Para. A72) 
  • The financial and operational priorities of the firm do not lead to inappropriate judgments about whether to accept or continue a client relationship or specific engagement. (Ref: Para. A73–A74) 

Engagement Performance

  • Deals with the firm’s actions that support consistent quality engagements through direction, supervision and review, consultation, and differences of opinion.
  • Includes how the firm supports engagement teams in exercising professional judgment and professional skepticism.

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

Establish the following quality objectives that address the performance of quality engagements: 

  • Engagement teams understand and fulfill their responsibilities in connection with the engagements, including, as applicable, the overall responsibility of engagement partners for managing and achieving quality on the engagement and being sufficiently and appropriately involved throughout the engagement. (Ref: Para. A75) 
  • The nature, timing and extent of direction and supervision of engagement teams and review of the work performed is appropriate based on the nature and circumstances of the engagements. (Ref: Para. A76–A77) 
  • Engagement teams exercise appropriate professional judgment and professional skepticism. (Ref: Para. A78) 
  • Consultation on difficult matters is undertaken and conclusions are implemented. (Ref: Para. A79–A81) 
  • Differences of opinion within the engagement are communicated and resolved. (Ref: Para. A82) 
  • Documentation is assembled timely after the date of the engagement report. (Ref: Para. A83–A85) 

Resources

  • Deals with obtaining, developing, using, maintaining, allocating and assigning resources in a timely manner to enable the design, implementation and operation of the SQM.
  • Includes 1) technological, 2) intellectual, 3) human resources, and 4) service providers.

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

Establish the following quality objectives that address appropriately obtaining, developing, using, maintaining, allocating and assigning resources in a timely manner: (Ref: Para. A86–A87, A95–A97)

Human Resources 

  • Personnel are hired, developed and retained and have the competence and capabilities to achieve quality objectives (Ref: Para. A88–A90); demonstrate a commitment to quality and are held accountable (Ref: Para. A91–A93); and individuals are obtained from external sources when needed to achieve quality objectives. (Ref: Para. A94) 

Technological Resources

  • Appropriate technological resources are obtained or developed, implemented, maintained, and used, to enable the operation of the firm’s system of quality management and the performance of engagements. (Ref: Para. A98–A101, A104)

Intellectual Resources

  • Appropriate intellectual resources are obtained or developed, implemented, maintained, and used, to enable the operation of the firm’s system of quality management. (Ref: Para. A102–A104)

Service Providers 

  • Human, technological or intellectual resources from service providers are appropriate for use in the firm’s system of quality management and in the performance of engagements. (Ref: Para. A105–A108)

Information & Communication

  • Deals with obtaining, generating or using information regarding the SQM, and communicating information within the firm and to external parties on a timely basis to enable the design, implementation, and operation of the SQM.

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

Establish the following quality objectives that address obtaining, generating or using information regarding the system of quality management: (Ref: Para. A109) 

  • The information system identifies, captures, processes and maintains relevant and reliable information that supports the system of quality management, whether from internal or external sources. (Ref: Para. A110–A111) 
  • The culture of the firm recognizes and reinforces the responsibility of personnel to exchange information with the firm and with one another. (Ref: Para. A112) 
  • Relevant and reliable information is exchanged throughout the firm, including: (Ref: Para. A112) 
  • Information sufficient to fulfil responsibilities relating to the system of quality management; and 
  • Information when performing activities within the system of quality management or engagements. 
  • Relevant and reliable information is communicated to external parties, including: 
  • Information from the firm to or within the firm’s network or to service providers, and (Ref: Para. A113) 
  • Externally when required by law, regulation or professional standards. (Ref: Para. A114–A115) 

Monitoring & Remediation

  • Provides the firm with information about the design and operation of the SQM; and
  • Addresses the remediation of deficiencies on a timely basis.

Requirements of the ISQM 1 Standard (and Proposed SQMS 1)

Establish a monitoring and remediation process to: (Ref: Para. A138) 

  • Provide relevant, reliable and timely information about the system of quality management. 
  • Take appropriate actions to respond to identified deficiencies and remediate them on a timely basis. 
  • Design and perform monitoring activities to provide a basis for the identification of deficiencies.
  • Include the inspection of completed engagements in its monitoring activities. (Ref: Para. A141, A151–A154)
  • Assess the competency and objectivity of individuals performing monitoring. (Ref: Para. A155–A156) 
  • Evaluate findings to determine whether deficiencies exist. (Ref: Para. A157–A162)
  • Evaluate the severity and pervasiveness of identified deficiencies. (Ref: Para. A161, A163–A164)
  • Design and implement remedial actions to address identified deficiencies. (Ref: Para. A170–A172)
  • Communicate on a timely basis monitoring and remediation process. (Ref: Para. A174) 

By Jackson Johnson July 30, 2025
Introduction In today’s regulatory climate, audit firms must take a fresh look at how they evaluate engagement acceptance and client continuance. The stakes have never been higher. With the PCAOB’s newly adopted QC 1000 standard and the AICPA’s SQMS 1 framework now in effect , firms are expected to demonstrate a more rigorous, risk-based approach to quality control—starting with the very first decision: "Should we take this engagement?" The PCAOB recently released a new Audit Focus: Engagement Acceptance on this topic (Audit Focus). At the same time, we’ve been speaking, writing, and helping firms improve their process in this area. On the steps of PCAOB’s recent and timely guidance, this article explores the evolving risk landscape and offers practical guidance for firms to strengthen their engagement acceptance protocols in line with new regulatory expectations and JGA’s quality management insights. The New Risk Landscape: What QC 1000 and SQMS 1 Require The PCAOB’s QC 1000 standard introduces a scalable, risk-based framework that applies to all firms performing PCAOB engagements. It emphasizes that engagement acceptance is not just a procedural checkpoint, it’s a critical quality control decision that must reflect the firm’s risk profile, independence safeguards, and capacity to deliver a high-quality audit. Key risks highlighted in QC 1000 include: Independence and ethics violations: Firms must have systems to identify and escalate potential conflicts, including automated tracking of financial interests. Monitoring of in-process engagements: Firms are expected to assess quality risks before and during engagements, not just after the fact. Scalability and oversight: Larger firms face enhanced requirements, including external oversight and formal complaint tracking mechanisms. Similarly, SQMS 1 requires firms to design and implement a system of quality management that includes robust procedures for engagement acceptance and continuance. These procedures must consider: integrity and reputation of the client firm competence and resources ethical and legal requirements, and risks to audit quality and compliance. Issues arising from poor or inconsistent client or engagement acceptance policies and procedures isn’t new, but is being looked at in new ways by firms and their regulators with the: decrease in public company auditors qualified or going to market on conducting public company audits increasing number of firms that have been stripped of their privilege to conduct public company audits, and movement of companies to different auditors (think BF Borgers as the most egregious example, but your typical attrition in the most common case). The PCAOB, AICPA, and other regulators around the world, will take these business risks and apply them in a new lens in their inspection, peer review, and enforcement processes as they look at how firms have identified and addressed risks when implementing their QC system when it comes to client acceptance. Improving Communications: Predecessor Auditors & Audit Committees Recent PCAOB inspection findings and the Audit Focus document emphasize that engagement acceptance decisions are under increasing scrutiny. Deficiencies in areas like AS 1301 (Communications with Audit Committees) and AS 2610 (Successor Auditor Communications) often stem from weak or incomplete risk assessments at the outset of the engagement. Firms must be prepared to engage in transparent, candid conversations with audit committees, especially when the going gets tough. Whether it’s disclosing an unanticipated CAM , identifying a material weakness in internal control , or explaining a shift in audit scope, the ability to communicate openly and credibly is a hallmark of audit quality. Similarly, in our article on audit committees , we emphasized that audit committees are becoming more sophisticated and assertive. They expect auditors to be proactive, risk-aware, and ready to explain their judgments—not just their procedures. The Audit Focus does a great job of asking questions for firms to consider in assessing the quality of both management and the AC. As part of your engagement acceptance process, assess not only the technical risks of the engagement, but also the firm’s ability to maintain transparency and trust with the audit committee. Ask: Will we be able to have frank conversations with this client’s governance team? Are we prepared to deliver difficult messages if needed? Do we have the right people and protocols in place to support those conversations Internal Inspections: Engagement Acceptance as a Root Cause The Audit Focus also highlights how engagement acceptance decisions can directly impact audit quality and inspection outcomes. We encourage firms to examine their internal inspection programs to see how/whether outcomes can inform or rise to potential root causes targeting the firm’s engagement/client acceptance process. For example, a risk-based selection for the annual internal inspection process should include certain jobs tied specifically to new client and new engagements:
By Jackson Johnson July 15, 2025
Introduction As explored in previous JGA Advisor articles, the implementation of quality management standards such as ISQM 1, SQMS 1, and QC 1000 has reshaped how audit firms approach compliance, risk, and continuous improvement. These standards demand a proactive, risk-based, and firm-wide system of quality management (SoQM) that is both scalable and adaptable to local jurisdictions. We have seen through our work with firms that a tech solution is just part of the equation. Of course, having the right human capital with the capacity, drive, skills, and leadership to influence implementation across so many functions of the firm is critical. Also, understanding a baseline of risks and controls – beyond the minimum explained in the standards – will go a long way for smoother implementation. We recommend taking a look at the AICPA Practice Aid and many other AICPA resources for firms embarking on their implementation journey. While the standards themselves are rigorous, the complexity of implementation—especially across multiple jurisdictions—has led many firms to look to ways to document their system with reliable workflows in a database or other system. What we have seen is that – at a minimum – an excel solution, especially coupled with other tools like smart sheets, is the easiest entry point for a tech solution for implementation. Other more advanced tools not only streamline compliance but also enhance documentation, accountability, and real-time monitoring. In this article, we explore how three platforms—Inflo, Caseware, and QMCore—are helping firms meet these challenges and elevate their quality management systems. Why Software Matters for Quality Management Successfully implementing a SoQM under ISQM 1, SQMS 1, QC 1000, or other jurisdictional standards requires more than policies and procedures—it requires leadership, training, communication, and a culture of quality. But most importantly, it requires technology. Software platforms like QMCore, Inflo, and Caseware offer firms the ability to: Assign and track ownership of quality tasks across the firm, ensuring accountability, and transparency. Streamline risk assessment, monitoring, and remediation, which are core to all modern quality management standards. Provide real-time reporting and dashboards that allow leadership to monitor compliance and identify deficiencies early. Adapt to evolving regulatory requirements across jurisdictions, including CSQM 1 (Canada), SSQM 1 (Singapore), ASQM 1 (Australia), and PES 3 (South Africa). Educate and enable staff through embedded guidance, links to standards, and intuitive workflows. For firms evaluating whether to adopt software, the key considerations should include: scalability, jurisdictional adaptability, ease of implementation, audit trail integrity, and the ability to evolve with regulatory changes. We strongly suggest taking a look at our previous guidance on adoption of software audit tools as well. There are other applications being developed for the market as well. Inflo: A Centralized Platform for Quality Management Oversight Inflo’s Quality Management solution is designed to help firms implement and maintain a System of Quality Management (SoQM) that aligns with ISQM 1 and other global standards. Unlike traditional tools that focus solely on audit execution, Inflo’s platform provides a centralized environment for managing the entire quality lifecycle—from risk assessment to monitoring and remediation. Key Features of Inflo’s Quality Management Platform: Centralized Oversight: Inflo consolidates all quality management activities into a single platform, giving firm leadership real-time visibility into the status of quality objectives, risks, and responses. Customizable Risk Assessment: Firms can tailor their risk identification and assessment processes to reflect their unique service lines, geographies, and regulatory environments. Automated Monitoring & Remediation: Inflo streamlines the tracking of deficiencies and corrective actions, ensuring that issues are addressed promptly and transparently. Evidence of Compliance: The platform maintains a complete audit trail of all quality management activities, supporting both internal reviews and external inspections. Scalable Across Jurisdictions: Inflo’s solution is adaptable to various regulatory frameworks, making it suitable for firms operating in multiple countries or under different standard-setting bodies. By integrating quality management into a digital workflow, Inflo helps firms move beyond static documentation and toward a dynamic, data-driven approach to compliance and continuous improvement. Caseware: Integrated Methodology and Real-Time Collaboration Caseware’s cloud-based platform, particularly through its Dynamic Audit Solution (DAS), offers a comprehensive approach to quality management. Built in collaboration with CPA.com and the AICPA, Caseware provides: End-to-End Audit Workflow: Integrating methodology, workpapers, and execution tools in a single environment. Real-Time Collaboration: Enabling teams to work simultaneously on engagements, improving efficiency and reducing version control issues. Data-Driven Risk Assessment: Supporting a risk-focused audit approach aligned with ISQM 1 and SQMS 1. Caseware is especially effective for firms embedding quality management into daily audit operations while maintaining compliance with evolving standards. QMCore (FinReg): Purpose-Built for Global Quality Management Standards QMCore, developed by FinReg, is a purpose-built platform designed to help firms implement and maintain a System of Quality Management (SoQM) in compliance with ISQM 1, SQMS 1, QC 1000, and their global counterparts. It is powered by the FinReg GRC platform and has received technology accreditation from the ICAEW. Key Benefits of QMCore: Comprehensive Coverage: Seamlessly integrates all eight components of ISQM 1 and SQMS 1, including governance, risk assessment, monitoring, and remediation Task Ownership and Accountability: Allows firms to assign responsibilities clearly and track progress with ease Monitoring & Remediation: Embedded tools provide high visibility into deficiencies and corrective actions, with real-time dashboards and drill-down analytics Jurisdictional Flexibility: Adaptable to regional standards such as CSQM 1, SSQM 1, ASQM 1, and PES 3 Audit Trail Integrity: Tracks all inputs and changes, ensuring transparency and defensibility; and User Enablement: Educates staff on the standards, enables them to act, and evidences compliance through structured workflows and embedded guidance. QMCore is securely hosted on AWS and accessed via the internet, making it easy to implement and scale across firms of varying sizes and geographies. Conclusion The shift to modern quality management standards is not just a compliance exercise—it’s an opportunity to enhance audit quality, improve operational efficiency, and build a culture of continuous improvement. Software platforms like Inflo, Caseware, and QMCore are proving essential in helping firms navigate this transformation. Other players may be entering the market, and we encourage a discussion to understand the latest and compare benefits and what’s best for your firm. At Johnson Global Advisory, we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®. For more information, please contact your JGA audit quality expert .
June 24, 2022
Los Angeles, CA.: Johnson Global Accountancy (“JGA”) is pleased to announce the expansion of our current quality management implementation and monitoring services to launch of a full suite of services to help public accounting firms tackle the new Quality Management (“QM”) Standards required by the IAASB, AICPA, and PCAOB. “An audit firm’s system of quality management is an important pillar of the financial reporting ecosystem,” stated Jackson Johnson, President of JGA. “Since JGA started in 2017, we have been advising our U.S. and international clients on improving and monitoring their systems of quality management. It is, therefore, a natural fit for us to partner with public accounting firms all over the world on their design, implementation, and continuous monitoring of QM programs under the newly effective standards.” As firms face the new standards and their respective implementation dates, firms all over the world are required to evaluate and design quality management programs to prepare for the upcoming implementation dates. This includes designing a system that identifies and responds to all the quality risk areas using the firm’s processes, policies, and controls. JGA QM services include: Risk Assessment Implementation and Training Monitoring Evaluation and Testing Quality Management Readiness Root Cause and Remediation JGA is committed to supporting firms in the process of enabling their systems of quality management with customized software solutions. Our experience encompasses working with firms to provide expertise in a scaled set of managed services and software to complement the most successful implementation tools for our clients. Learn more about JGA’s QM services here. About Johnson Global Accountancy JGA is dedicated to helping public accounting firms around the globe achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by CPAs and former PCAOB inspection staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical about working alongside firm leadership to ensure the right controls, policies, and practices are implemented throughout the organization. ###
Show More