SYNOPSIS We investigate the implementation of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) software in public accounting by interviewing RPA leaders at Big 4 firms. RPA software automates the input, processing, and output of data to streamline repetitive, mundane tasks. Many of our findings are unique to accounting. For instance, participants report tax services are furthest along in RPA adoption, followed by advisory and assurance services. Furthermore, RPA has not impacted fees, but there is concern that clients may desire fee reductions due to decreased employee hours. Finally, unlike other technology implementations, RPA adoption is driven primarily by lower-level employees. Similar to other domains, our results indicate massive efficiency and effectiveness gains from RPA implementation. Also, interviewees do not expect reduced head count to result from RPA use. This study is the first to discuss the benefits, opportunities, and challenges to implementing RPA in accounting and serves as a catalyst for future research.

Companies depend on internal control to protect the integrity of information systems. IT security and data privacy training are critical controls for safeguarding company information. Employees often dislike the training, however, which can cause a lack of attention to, and poor understanding of, training concepts leading to less effective internal control. To improve the training experience, companies are implementing principles of games in employee training modules, a practice known as gamification. Utilizing a laboratory experiment on data privacy training and a field study involving IT security training for employees of a bank, we test whether a training environment with basic gamification elements results in greater trainee satisfaction and knowledge acquisition than traditional, non-gamified training. We find basic gamification results in higher satisfaction levels in the lab and field, but only marginally significant improvements in learning. Furthermore, these learning improvements are quite small (e.g., 1 to 3 percent). Finally, we find that “gamers” (i.e., those who participate in gaming on their own time) gain more knowledge from gamified training than “non-gamers,” although gamers are less satisfied with gamified training

No abstract

The use of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is a recent innovation in the public accounting industry, and the Big 4 firms are at the forefront of its implementation. This paper examines how the adoption and use of RPA is affecting the perceived work experience of firm leaders and lower-level employees at Big 4 accounting firms. We interview 14 RPA leaders, survey 139 lower-level employees, and compare and contrast their responses. We find that the two groups generally agree that RPA is having a positive influence on the profession. Both groups believe that RPA is positively changing the work employees perform and improving employee career prospects. However, while firm leaders believe RPA will improve work satisfaction, lower-level employees report no such improvements. Our insights provide direction for the accounting profession as it increases the use of RPA and for future research studies examining related issues.

Previous rankings of accounting literature have largely ignored the subtopic of accounting education research. Given the important role that rankings play in creating incentives and benchmarks, ranking education research may improve both the quality and quantity of research in this subtopic. This paper ranks academic institutions and individual accounting researchers based on their production of accounting education research. We show that the correlation between education research rankings and singular, noneducation research rankings is very low (i.e., ranges from 0.20 to 0.31), emphasizing the importance of considering education rankings separately from other topical areas in accounting research. We also provide evidence of the institutional factors that contribute to producing accounting education research and when professors produce this type of research in their careers. These findings will likely be of interest to current faculty, administrators, and industry leaders as they make decisions based on accounting education research. JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M49. Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.