A longitudinal study of applicable decision aids for detailed tasks in a financial audit

Abstract

This paper reports on changes in the extent to which decision aids are perceived to be useful for performing detailed financial audit tasks. The decision aids investigated were automation (AU), decision support systems (DSS), and knowledge‐based expert systems (KES). Data were collected from highly experienced mangers and partners from various international accounting firms in 1988 and 1996. The participants were asked to select the decision aid they viewed as applicable for each task in a comprehensive inventory of audit tasks. While the data indicate an increase in the choice of tasks for decision aids use between the two years, the fact remains that a majority of the responses (79% in 1988 and 69% in 1996) indicated human processing (HP) only. We present a list of detailed tasks for which at least 50% of the responses indicated some form of an applicable decision aid in 1996. We also discuss implications for practice and research. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ICT in Auditing: Impact of Audit Quality Norms on Interpersonal Interactions

“…Rather, they contribute to a clearer and deeper understanding of why the presence of technology impacts relations and interactions between differently ranked auditors. Primarily, the study here confirms that integration of methodology in the ICT and utilization of it during audit engagement actually might increase productivity and efficiency, as it was previously argued by Abdolmohammadi & Usoff (2001), Banker et al (2002, Elliot et al, (1985) and Janvrin et al (2008), however, in relation with ICT and CAATTs. At the same time, productivity and efficiency of GAM and ICT are positively acknowledged across both observed groups of audit ranks.…”

“…In short, the data indicated that the tool has a constraining influence on users (subordinate auditors) in relation to administering the audit process, and thus provides the mechanism of a remote quality protection to superiors, which finally diminishes the necessity for interactions between auditors at different levels. Early literature on implementation and utilization of the ICT and CAATTs identified that, in the auditing context, the use of technology as a tool may positively contribute to productivity and efficiency of auditors' performance during audit engagements (Abdolmohammadi & Usoff, 2001;Banker et al, 2002;Elliot et al, 1985;Janvrin et al, 2008), and support almost any audit task (Pedrosa & Costa, 2012). But also, as presented above, the literature built on an alternative stream where scholars investigated impacts of technology and audit tools on professional judgment (Bell et al, 2002;Bonner, 1999), thoughts facilitation (Pieptea & Anderson, 1987) and decision-making skills (Adler, 1987).…”

“…They have proposed canons of a 'good science' as a procedure that should be followed to help a researcher to develop a well-integrated set of concepts, which will provide the theoretical explanation of social phenomena under study. Since the literature on implementation and use of ICT in audit services have already recognized several core concepts that resulted from implications that technology made on auditing and auditors (Abdolmohammadi & Usoff, 2001;Banker et al, 2002;Bierstakeret al, 2001;Janvrin et al, 2008), the canons of grounded theory here aim at serving as a tool for extending and as well understanding relations between concepts. To ensure a systematic approach to answering the research question, I draw on some research tools from grounded theory depicted by Corbin & Strauss (1990, 2008 and the case-study methodology by Eisenhardt (1989) to guide theorybuilding from case study research.…”

“…Over the past decades, two research streams were segregated in connection with roles and impacts that ICT brought to audit profession and auditors as carriers of the profession. On the one hand, literature indicated that audit firms tend to turn to the ICT in order to increase work efficiency and quality of the audit reports, which they use as a tool to yield bigger profits while shortening the engagement time and servicing more clients in a unit of time (Abdolmohammadi & Usoff, 2001;Banker, Chang, & Kao, 2002;Janvrin, Bierstaker, & Lowe, 2008, Elliot, Kielich, & Marwick, 1985. Additionally, literature shows that socially designed technology (Berg, 1998) provides a wide range of audit tools that may support almost any audit task that span from data extraction to data analysis (Pedrosa & Costa, 2012), which contributes to productivity and disburdening auditors, but also reducing the level of auditors' responsibilities.…”

“…The second group of studies revealed that utilization of auditing tools during audit engagement might moderate the structure and sequence of auditing procedures. Thus, ICT-based audit tools have potential to facilitate auditors' thoughts (Pieptea & Anderson, 1987) through which the ICT generates a list of tasks that keeps auditor's focus to those that are estimated to be essential for a particular engagement (Abdolmohammadi & Usoff, 2001). Glover, Prawitt & Spilker (1997) argued that ICT relaxes the need for professional assistance for newcomers as tools enable relatively inexperienced auditors to approach tasks mechanistically.…”