Every holiday season, millions of people gift or receive an Apple Watch, a WHOOP device or some other fitness tracker as they gear up for New Year’s resolutions. Year after year, getting healthier sits near the top of the list.
Processing Content
But “getting healthier” means different things to different people. For some, it means losing weight. For others, it means building muscle, sleeping better, reducing stress, improving performance, looking better or simply feeling better day to day.
The watch itself is not the transformation. It’s simply a tool designed to help drive behavioral change over time through continuous monitoring, feedback, visibility, accountability, and data.
And for a few weeks, it works.
People close their rings. Track their sleep. Watch their heart rate. Monitor their weight. Obsess over recovery scores. They tell themselves this time will be different.
Then life happens.
Work piles up. Kids have activities. Meetings stack up. The notifications become background noise. Eventually, the device is still technically there, but the behavioral changes quietly disappear. The watch stays on the wrist while old habits slowly take back over.
Oddly enough, there is a strong parallel between that cycle and what many accounting firms are currently experiencing with their systems of quality management.
Ever since the AICPA released the new quality management standards, firms across the profession raced toward the Dec. 15, 2025 implementation deadline. Risk assessments were completed. Responses were designed. Policies were documented. But for many firms, the focus was simply on getting the “watch” purchased, while monitoring felt like something they would figure out later once the system was officially implemented.
But implementation of the AICPA’s Statement on Quality Management Standards No. 1 was never supposed to be the end goal. SQMS No. 1 was designed to drive continuous improvement through ongoing monitoring, remediation and behavioral change over time. Just like a fitness tracker, the system itself is not the transformation. The value comes from how firms use the information, visibility, and feedback loops to continuously improve over time.
And “healthier” firms can mean different things too. Improved audit quality. Better consistency. More efficient workflows. Better technology integration. Stronger training. More scalable operations. Less stress during busy season. Better delegation. Better client experiences. That’s the bigger opportunity SQMS was intended to create.
SQMS No. 1 requires firms to evaluate whether their system of quality management is designed, implemented and operating effectively. That requires more than documentation. It requires consistent follow through, operational discipline, and a willingness to continuously evaluate whether the system is actually working in practice.
The firms that benefit most from SQMS will not necessarily be the firms with the most polished implementation binders. They will be the firms that embrace monitoring as an ongoing operational process rather than a completed compliance project.
Over the past few years, we have worked with firms across the country helping design, implement, and now operationalize and monitor their new systems of quality management. Nearly halfway into 2026, one thing is becoming increasingly clear across the profession: Implementation was only the beginning.
And across the profession, many of the same monitoring challenges are beginning to emerge.
Challenge 1: Buying and using are two different things
A lot of people buy fitness trackers with great intentions. But buying the device itself does not create healthier habits.
For many people, purchasing the watch feels like progress. The setup gets completed. The goals get entered. The apps get connected. But after the initial excitement fades, the device often becomes little more than an accessory.
A similar pattern is beginning to emerge across many firms.
SQMS implementation was often approached as a project with a deadline. Once the documentation was completed and the system was formally “implemented,” attention shifted back to the next urgent issue facing the firm.
But monitoring is where the real work begins.
The standard was never designed to reward firms for simply standing up a system. It was designed to create ongoing behavioral change through continuous monitoring, evaluation, remediation and improvement. Implementation was the starting point, not the finish line.
Challenge 2: Busy season kills consistency
Most people do not abandon fitness trackers because they suddenly stop caring about their health. They abandon consistency because life gets busy.
Work piles up. Kids have activities. Travel happens. Stress increases. The notifications slowly become background noise. Over time, old routines quietly take back over.
Accounting firms are experiencing a very similar cycle.
In the accounting profession, something always feels more urgent. Engagement deadlines. Staffing shortages. Client requests. Technology transitions. Monitoring becomes something firms intend to revisit once things slow down.
But things rarely slow down. And that’s exactly why monitoring matters in the first place.
The firms that improve over time are usually not the firms with the least operational pressure. They are the firms that build systems capable of functioning consistently even during periods of stress.
SQMS was never designed to work only when firms have extra time. It was designed to become part of how firms continuously operate, evaluate and improve.
Challenge 3: Old habits die hard
One of the more interesting aspects of fitness trackers is they expose the gap between perception and reality.
Someone may think they are sleeping enough until the data says otherwise. They may feel like they are staying active enough until they notice their weight quietly trending in the wrong direction over time. The data often reveals problems long before people are willing to fully acknowledge them.
Quality management monitoring is supposed to create that same type of visibility for firms.
Historically, many firms only really paused to look themselves in the mirror when peer review rolled around every three years. SQMS is fundamentally different. It shifts the expectation from a point in time inspection to continuous operational evaluation.
Monitoring is not simply reviewing a few files after issuance and calling it complete. SQMS takes a much broader view of the entire system. Are acceptance procedures actually working? Are independence processes functioning properly? Are training programs producing the right competencies? Are remediation activities truly being completed? Are there more efficient and technology-enabled ways to perform the work?
Answering those questions requires meaningful information systems and reliable data flows.
Right now, many firms are still manually chasing engagement information, independence confirmations, and training records across disconnected spreadsheets and systems. That’s not continuous monitoring. That’s administrative survival.
The firms gaining the most traction are increasingly treating quality management as operational infrastructure rather than a documentation exercise.
Challenge 4: Accountability partners
Most people are more successful with health goals when accountability exists. A trainer. A coach. A workout partner. A structured program. Someone helping maintain consistency after the initial motivation fades.
Quality management is not much different.
Many firms are discovering that monitoring requires a very different skill set than implementation. It requires operational discipline, follow through, analysis, remediation and continuous evaluation over time.
Some firms have the internal infrastructure and resources to manage that independently. Others are realizing they need outside support, better technology, or stronger accountability structures to make the process sustainable long term.
There’s no shame in that.
Most local firms outsourced sophisticated IT functions years ago because they recognized that maintaining secure and effective systems required specialized expertise and continuous oversight. Quality management monitoring is increasingly evolving into a similar type of operational function.
And that may be one of the biggest mindset shifts still ahead for the profession.
The bigger opportunity
The best fitness transformations rarely happen because someone bought a device. They happen because the person consistently changes behaviors over time using the information the system provides.
The same is true for firms. SQMS was never really about implementation. It was about firm transformation. Not just improving audit quality, but building healthier, more efficient, more scalable, more technology enabled and more sustainable firms over time. That was always the real opportunity behind the standards.
The firms that succeed will not necessarily be the firms with the cleanest implementation checklists. They will be the firms that actually use monitoring the way a fitness tracker was intended to be used, as an ongoing feedback loop that changes behavior before problems become crises.
Buying the Apple Watch was never the hard part. Using it consistently is.
Credit: Source link
