By Ajay Kataria
For years, public accounting firms often used global teams to reduce costs, assigning data entry, preliminary tax preparation and other repetitive work to lower-cost regions.
Staffing shortages have pushed firms to consider a larger role for global professionals. The AICPA’s 2025 Trends Report counted 55,152 bachelor’s and master’s accounting graduates in the 2023-24 academic year, down 6.6% from the previous year. Recent enrollment data offers some encouragement: Undergraduate accounting enrollment increased 5.7% in spring 2026, marking the third consecutive year of growth.
Firms facing immediate capacity constraints cannot wait for those enrollment gains to reach the workforce. Many are examining whether global teams can support more of the audit process while meeting the firm’s documentation, supervision and quality expectations.
Adding people alone will not solve the problem. Incomplete workpapers, inconsistent documentation and indirect communication can add review hours and create new bottlenecks for managers. Firms need qualified professionals, shared workflows and clear lines of supervision.
Start With the Right Skills
The qualifications required of global professionals should reflect the work they will perform.
Routine administrative tasks may require limited accounting knowledge. Audit procedures call for a stronger understanding of accounting principles, audit standards, professional skepticism and the firm’s methodology.
Firms assigning audit work to global teams should seek professionals with relevant accounting qualifications and experience applying U.S. GAAP and the AICPA or PCAOB standards that govern the engagement.
A preparer who understands the purpose of an audit procedure is better equipped to document the work performed, evidence reviewed and conclusions reached. For example, knowledge of control risk, analytical procedures and revenue recognition under ASC 606 can help a preparer recognize when evidence is incomplete or a question should be escalated.
Credentials do not guarantee strong performance. They can, however, provide a stronger technical foundation and shorten the time required to prepare professionals for more complex responsibilities.
PCAOB staff has identified insufficient supervision and review, inadequate technical knowledge or training and poor execution of firm guidance among the possible causes of audit deficiencies. Those risks apply to engagement teams regardless of where their members are located.
Firms should match assignments to each professional’s experience and increase responsibility as the individual demonstrates technical knowledge, sound judgment and familiarity with firm standards.
Use One Workpaper System
Global teams are harder to manage when professionals work in separate systems or follow different documentation practices.
Firms can reduce review friction by establishing the same engagement structure across locations.
Provide direct system access. Global professionals should work within the firm’s primary engagement platform using secure, role-based permissions. Working in the same system gives preparers and reviewers access to current information and reduces the need to move documents among disconnected platforms.
Set firmwide documentation standards. Lead schedules, sampling methods, workpaper templates and tick-mark conventions should remain consistent across the engagement. Reviewers should not have to interpret a different documentation style based on where the work was prepared.
Keep review comments in the engagement file. Preparers should address questions within the firm’s software and attach supporting evidence when needed. Keeping the review process in one place creates a record of the question, response and resulting change.
Templates and standardized procedures cannot replace judgment. They give professionals a common structure for documenting that judgment and help reviewers identify missing evidence or departures from the planned approach.
Include Global Professionals in the Team
Global staffing is less effective when professionals receive isolated tasks without the context surrounding the engagement.
Direct communication can help preparers understand the client, the purpose of the procedure and the risks the engagement team is addressing. U.S. seniors and managers should communicate with global professionals rather than routing every question through an intermediary.
That contact can also make review more efficient. Preparers can resolve questions sooner, while managers gain a clearer view of each person’s technical ability and development needs.
Training should extend across the full engagement team. Global professionals need access to relevant technical updates, firm methodology changes and software training. A team member working under outdated guidance can create the same quality and efficiency problems whether that person sits in the United States or another country.
Firms should also explain how responsibilities can develop over time. Professionals who receive regular feedback and see opportunities for growth are more likely to build knowledge of the firm’s clients, systems and expectations.
A one-team approach does not require every professional to hold the same role or authority. Engagement leaders still determine assignments, assess risk, review the work and make the judgments required under professional standards.
Establish Governance Before Expanding
Global delivery does not shift responsibility away from the firm. Engagement leaders remain responsible for supervision, review and audit quality.
Before expanding a global program, firms should establish policies covering:
- system access and data security
- client confidentiality
- independence requirements
- assignment and review responsibilities
- issue escalation
- documentation retention
- the use of firm-approved technology
These controls become more important as the program grows. An informal process that works with two or three professionals may not provide enough oversight for a larger team working across several engagements.
Firms should document who performs each procedure, who reviews the work and how unresolved questions move through the engagement team. They should also monitor whether global assignments are reducing manager workload or merely moving review problems to a different stage of the audit.
Quality measures should extend beyond the number of hours transferred offshore. Firms can examine review-note volume, rework, turnaround time, missed deadlines and the types of issues escalated by preparers. Those measures provide a clearer view of whether the model is improving capacity.
Account for AI in the Operating Model
Artificial intelligence can automate parts of data extraction, document comparison and anomaly identification. Global professionals may use those tools to complete procedures more efficiently, subject to the firm’s policies and approved technology.
AI-generated output still requires evaluation. Engagement teams must understand the source of the information, assess whether the output is complete and accurate and document how it was used.
The same expectations apply to work prepared by global and domestic professionals. Firms should define which tools may be used, what information may be entered and who must review the results.
AI may reduce manual work, but firms still need professionals who can interpret findings, question unexpected results and determine when additional procedures are necessary.
Capacity Depends on the Operating Model
Global staffing can give audit practices more room to grow, but the number of people added tells only part of the story.
Firms that expand head count without improving training, workpaper standards, supervision and communication may transfer tasks without reducing pressure on managers. Review time, rework and turnover can consume much of the capacity the firm expected to gain.
A stronger operating model allows firms to distribute work more effectively and preserve senior professionals’ time for technical judgment, review and client communication.
The result should be a team that produces consistent work across locations and reduces, rather than relocates, workflow bottlenecks.
About the Author
Ajay Kataria is a Fellow Chartered Accountant and the founder of Ajay Kataria & Company, based in Jaipur, India. A former Big 4 (KPMG US Audit) senior professional, his practice focuses on US GAAP/GAAS financial reporting, audit workpaper execution, and support for US CPA practices.
