local at foreign literature
Usage of technology in audit: A case study with a large Audit Firm1
Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
Rutgers the State University of New Jersey miklosv@rutgers.edu Silvia Romero
Montclair State University romeros@mail.montclair.edu Usage of technology in audit: A case study with a large Audit Firm
Abstract
Accounting information systems are ubiquitous in today’s business, supporting most of its operational functions. Since their review and assessment is necessary and appropriate software tools are now available, this paper asks: Do auditors use the available technological tools? What are the difficulties they find? Are there mediators to facilitate usability?
Through a cross sectional case-based field study comparing four engagements in a major audit firm, this paper finds that the characteristics of the audit team determine the levels of technology adoption. However, quality integration between technology support teams and auditors may improve usability and consequently increase technology adoption.
Keywords: audit tools, audit technology, usability audit
Introduction
The potential of technological tools, and the progressive digitization of business, has changed the way external audits are conducted. The increasing ubiquity of accounting information systems has made it necessary enhance the auditor’s toolset and to include specialized teams to evaluate those systems throughout the external audit. Dowling [1], looks at factors that determine the appropriate usage of technological tools; and Dowling and Leech [2] compare the audit support systems used in five big audit firms. In this paper, on the other hand, we focus on tool usage and their conditionants. We also discuss what are the difficulties found in system implementation and tools to facilitate usability. These questions are investigated through a cross sectional case-based field study comparing four audit engagements. The following section reviews the literature, the ensuing section discusses the
Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
Rutgers the State University of New Jersey miklosv@rutgers.edu Silvia Romero
Montclair State University romeros@mail.montclair.edu Usage of technology in audit: A case study with a large Audit Firm
Abstract
Accounting information systems are ubiquitous in today’s business, supporting most of its operational functions. Since their review and assessment is necessary and appropriate software tools are now available, this paper asks: Do auditors use the available technological tools? What are the difficulties they find? Are there mediators to facilitate usability?
Through a cross sectional case-based field study comparing four engagements in a major audit firm, this paper finds that the characteristics of the audit team determine the levels of technology adoption. However, quality integration between technology support teams and auditors may improve usability and consequently increase technology adoption.
Keywords: audit tools, audit technology, usability audit
Introduction
The potential of technological tools, and the progressive digitization of business, has changed the way external audits are conducted. The increasing ubiquity of accounting information systems has made it necessary enhance the auditor’s toolset and to include specialized teams to evaluate those systems throughout the external audit. Dowling [1], looks at factors that determine the appropriate usage of technological tools; and Dowling and Leech [2] compare the audit support systems used in five big audit firms. In this paper, on the other hand, we focus on tool usage and their conditionants. We also discuss what are the difficulties found in system implementation and tools to facilitate usability. These questions are investigated through a cross sectional case-based field study comparing four audit engagements. The following section reviews the literature, the ensuing section discusses the
References: [1] C. Dowling, “Appropriate audit support system use: the influence of auditor, audit team, and firm factors,” The Accounting Review, vol. 84, 2009, pp. 771-810. [2] C. Dowling and S. Leech, “Audit support systems and decision aids: current practice and opportunities for future research,” Internation Journal of Accounting Information Systems, vol. 8, 2007, pp. 92-116. [3] M. Eining, D. Jones, and J. Loebbecke, “Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.,” Auditing: A journal of practice and theory, vol. 16, 1997, pp. 1-19. [4] R. Ashton, “Preassure and performance in accounting decision settings: paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback and justification,” Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 28, 1990, pp. 148-180. [5] E. Karahanna, S. Detmar, and N. Chervany, “Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre- Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs.,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, 1999, pp. 183-213. [6] V. Arnold and S.G. Sutton, “The theory of technology dominance: Understanding the impact of intelligent decisionʼs aid on decision makers ' judgments,” Advances in accounting behavioral research, vol. 1, 1998, pp. 175-194. [7] R.P. Oisen, “Can Project Management be Defined?,” Project Management Quarterly, vol. 2, 1971, pp. 12-14. [8] J. Klonglan, Gerald E. And E Walter Coward, “The Concept of Symbolic Adoption: A Suggested Interpretation,” Rural Sociology, vol. 35, 1970, pp. 77-83. [9] R. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and methods, Sage Publications, 2003. [10] V. Arnold, “Behavioral research opportunities: Understanding the impact of enterprise systems. No Title,” International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, vol. 7, 2006, pp. 7-17. [11] A. Rom and C. Rohde, “Management accounting and integrated information systems: A literature review,” International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, vol. 8, 2007, pp. 40-68. [12] A.M. Lillis and J. Mundy, “Cross-sectional field studies in management accounting research -Closing the gaps between surveys and case studies,” Journal of Management Accounting Research, vol. 17, 2005, pp. 119-141. [13] B. Cushing and J. Loebbecke, Comparison of audit methodologies of large accounting firms, American Accounting Association, 1986. [14] A. Arens and J. Loebbecke, Applications of statistical sampling to auditing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1981. [15] M. Vasarhelyi, D. Lombardi, and R. Bloch, “The Future of Audit: A Modified Delphi Approach in 2009,” working paper, 2010. [16] G. Rowe and G. Wright, “The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 15, 1999, pp. 353-375. [17] A. Baldwin-Morgan, “Impact of Expert System Audit Tools on Auditing Firms in the Year 2001: A Delphi Investigation,” Journal of Information Systems, vol. 7, 1993, pp. 16-34.