审计员对流程偏差的分类

IF 2 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
M. Hosseinpour, Mieke Jans
{"title":"审计员对流程偏差的分类","authors":"M. Hosseinpour, Mieke Jans","doi":"10.2308/isys-2023-051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In addressing control deficiencies, auditors increasingly rely on data analytics. Despite the need to align information presentation with auditors’ cognitive structures, scant scholarly attention is given to how auditors internally categorize process deviations. This study investigates experienced auditors’ categorization of 62 deviations, revealing three primary categories: missing, reordered, and duplicated activities. These insights inform the development of active-learning algorithms, aligning with auditors’ knowledge structures to mitigate redundant processing risks. Blindly adopting process management research outcomes, however, poses a risk to auditing quality, impacting both effectiveness and efficiency in risk assessment and control testing. This research highlights the importance of validating and aligning deviation categories with auditors’ nuanced interpretations to enhance audit tools’ efficacy.","PeriodicalId":46998,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Auditors’ Categorization of Process Deviations\",\"authors\":\"M. Hosseinpour, Mieke Jans\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/isys-2023-051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In addressing control deficiencies, auditors increasingly rely on data analytics. Despite the need to align information presentation with auditors’ cognitive structures, scant scholarly attention is given to how auditors internally categorize process deviations. This study investigates experienced auditors’ categorization of 62 deviations, revealing three primary categories: missing, reordered, and duplicated activities. These insights inform the development of active-learning algorithms, aligning with auditors’ knowledge structures to mitigate redundant processing risks. Blindly adopting process management research outcomes, however, poses a risk to auditing quality, impacting both effectiveness and efficiency in risk assessment and control testing. This research highlights the importance of validating and aligning deviation categories with auditors’ nuanced interpretations to enhance audit tools’ efficacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Information Systems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-2023-051\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-2023-051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在处理控制缺陷时,审计人员越来越依赖数据分析。尽管需要根据审计师的认知结构调整信息呈现方式,但学术界却很少关注审计师如何对流程偏差进行内部分类。本研究调查了经验丰富的审计师对 62 个偏差的分类,揭示了三个主要类别:缺失、重新排序和重复活动。这些见解为主动学习算法的开发提供了参考,它与审计人员的知识结构相吻合,可降低冗余处理风险。然而,盲目采用流程管理研究成果会给审计质量带来风险,影响风险评估和控制测试的效果和效率。这项研究强调了验证偏差类别并使其与审计师的细微解释相一致以提高审计工具功效的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Auditors’ Categorization of Process Deviations
In addressing control deficiencies, auditors increasingly rely on data analytics. Despite the need to align information presentation with auditors’ cognitive structures, scant scholarly attention is given to how auditors internally categorize process deviations. This study investigates experienced auditors’ categorization of 62 deviations, revealing three primary categories: missing, reordered, and duplicated activities. These insights inform the development of active-learning algorithms, aligning with auditors’ knowledge structures to mitigate redundant processing risks. Blindly adopting process management research outcomes, however, poses a risk to auditing quality, impacting both effectiveness and efficiency in risk assessment and control testing. This research highlights the importance of validating and aligning deviation categories with auditors’ nuanced interpretations to enhance audit tools’ efficacy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Information Systems
Journal of Information Systems BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
21.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Information Systems (JIS) is the academic journal of the Accounting Information Systems (AIS) Section of the American Accounting Association. Its goal is to support, promote, and advance Accounting Information Systems knowledge. The primary criterion for publication in JIS is contribution to the accounting information systems (AIS), accounting and auditing domains by the application or understanding of information technology theory and practice. AIS research draws upon and is informed by research and practice in management information systems, computer science, accounting, auditing as well as cognate disciplines including philosophy, psychology, and management science. JIS welcomes research that employs a wide variety of research methods including qualitative, field study, case study, behavioral, experimental, archival, analytical and markets-based.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信