For Internal Audit teams
Make better assurance practice the way your team works.
A six-month improvement partnership focused on a recurring problem in your team's live work — from reports that do not prompt decisions to actions that close without enough evidence of change.
One agreed priority. Live-work application. Evidence reviews. Six-month scope.
Where it starts
Problems teams recognise.
Good reports, unclear decisions
Important work is accepted, but the decision or commitment it should prompt remains vague.
Completed actions, uncertain effectiveness
Closure evidence shows a task happened, but not enough to support the improvement it was meant to achieve.
Strong individuals, inconsistent practice
Quality and challenge depend heavily on which reviewer happens to be involved.
The initial diagnosis decides the focus. A single engagement does not promise to fix every issue across the function.
What is included
One programme, scoped to your team.
- Initial team diagnostic and sponsor intake.
- One facilitated kick-off Lab or working session.
- Five monthly live-work clinics after kick-off.
- Sponsor and leadership conversations on the agreed schedule.
- Focused review of one agreed item per delivery month after kick-off, with limits set out in the proposal.
- Relevant Assurance to Action tools and agreed team access during the programme.
- Midpoint and final evidence reviews, a documented working rhythm and a next-step plan.
Specialist scepticism, reporting or controls material is selected according to the issue. It is not an unlimited library of bespoke courses.
Final participant numbers, review page limits, between-session support and dates are agreed in the scope. There is no promise of unlimited access to Tim.
What useful progress could look like
Prospective examples, not case-study results.
Illustrative outputs of what the team could aim for.
- Report samples make the requested decision and its consequence clearer.
- Action reviews agree ownership and evidence requirements before closure.
- More than one manager applies the agreed review questions consistently.
Progress is assessed using agreed work samples, operational evidence and sponsor feedback alongside repeat self-assessment. A higher Scorecard score does not by itself prove risk reduction or cause.
Fit and responsibilities
The organisation provides an engaged sponsor, an agreed group, suitable live or anonymised examples and capacity to apply changes.
BTL supports and challenges the work. It does not own management's controls, audit sign-off or risk decisions.
This is not a co-source service, a formal external quality assessment, an unlimited document-rewriting service or a management outsourcing arrangement.
Investment
A scoped six-month engagement. Scope, fee and monthly payment schedule are agreed before commitment.
Any support afterwards is optional and separately scoped. Nothing renews automatically.
Questions teams ask
I already own the Toolkit. Does that change anything?
No. Existing Toolkit customers keep the access and licence rights they purchased. The Partnership is optional and does not ask you to replace or upgrade a Toolkit purchase.
Can we commission a single session instead?
Yes. A keynote, workshop or facilitated working session can be commissioned on its own. A standalone session does not include the following months of clinics, leadership support or evidence reviews.
How is confidential information handled?
Your team chooses the live or anonymised examples used, and handling is agreed before anything sensitive is shared. Please do not send confidential documents through the website enquiry form.
How is progress judged?
Using agreed work samples, operational evidence and sponsor feedback alongside repeat self-assessment. A higher Scorecard score is not treated as proof of risk reduction or of causation.