Business Process Complexity, System Complexity and Perceived Audit Quality

Today’s organizational information technology (IT) landscape is dominated by ERP systems. These systems are typically known to bring changes within the organization. Past studies have focused on the technical perspective—the idea of integrating organizational information computing needs with change management and system learning. Although ERP systems can carve a new audit landscape requiring auditors to accommodate audit processes, controls, and test when auditing in a post-ERP implementation environment, few studies have discussed the implications. In this paper, the authors examine how perceived post-ERP implementation changes influence perceived audit quality. Using empirical evidence gathered from auditors experienced in a post-ERP implementation audit, the research found that auditor’s perception of changes in an audit due to ERP implementation have significant impacts on the perceived audit quality. Results indicate that perceived ERP-related changes in an audit process increased perceived audit quality whereas decreased substantive testing in auditing ERP implementation had a positive effect on perceived audit quality. However, findings suggest that control risk associated with auditing ERP implementation reduced perceived audit quality.

Promotion

Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions

The Effect of Pure Audit Firms, Non-Provision of Non-Audit Services to Audit Clients, and a Fee Schedule on Audit Quality Perceptions

This research model deals with market perceptions of audit quality. The actual quality of audit and the perception of audit quality are two different concepts. The perception of audit quality is based on user's perceptions and inferences of financial statements, while the actual audit quality notes the auditor's ability to detect and report major accounting distortions. The research method is descriptive survey and its category is applied developmental research. The study population are teachers, accountants, CPAs, auditors and managers of audit firms, financial managers of listed companies on the Stock Exchange of Tehran. The sample population are 217 who were randomly selected. Data were collected by questionnaire made by the researcher that its validity and reliability was approved by factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. To examine the deletion or confirmation of the statements of the questionnaire in two stages of the binomial test, and to identify the factors affecting the market perception, the quality of the audit was used as exploratory factor analysis and confirmation of the first and second order. The results of the research showed that the four factors affecting the market perception from audit quality which are the audit process, professional people and the structural characteristics of the company and the audit reporting results and they affect the market perception of audit quality by 36 effective variables.

This paper measures differences in the perception of audit quality between professionals, and attempts to categorise the professionals on the basis of their perceptions. We firstly perform a REBUS‐PLS analysis. We thus identify three groups of professionals with different audit quality perceptions. We then run chi‐square tests to evaluate differences in perception depending firstly on the professional's role in the audit process (auditor vs. preparer) and then by incorporating other variables connected with the individuals’ own characteristics. Contrary to existing research, our study reveals no significant differences in perception between auditors and preparers. In contrast, our study indicates that differences in audit quality perception can be explained in particular by the professionals' level of expertise and the existence of shared values among professionals. This study therefore demonstrates the need to look beyond the ‘role‐perception gap’ in order to understand differences in audit quality perception. It confirms the existence of an ‘epistemic community’ that explains the differences in audit quality perception.

An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is an integrated set of programs that provides support for core organizational activities. ERP is a software infrastructure embedded with “best practices,” or best ways to do business based on common business practices or academic theory. The aim is to improve the cooperation and interaction between all the organizations’ departments, such as the products planning, manufacturing, purchasing, marketing and customer service department. ERP systems is a fine expression of the inseparability of IT and business. As an enabling key technology as well as an effective managerial tool, ERP systems allow companies to integrate at all levels and utilize important ERP systems applications, such as supply-chain management, financials and accounting applications, human resource management and customer relationship management (Boubekri, 2001). ERP systems hold the promise of improving processes and decreasing costs. Furthermore, two important new frontiers for ERP systems are electronic business (e-business) and supply-chain management (Wang and Nah, 2001). The systems can connect with suppliers, distributors, and customers, facilitating the flow, the product and information. ERP systems implementation is costly and complex. In many cases, an ERP system is the largest single investment in any corporate-wide project. The software is expensive, and the consulting costs even more. Meta Group found that the average ERP systems implementation takes 23 months with total owners’ cost of $12 million (Stewart, 2000). The ERP systems implementation is the process where business process and ERP system match each other. Usually the firm has to change the business process per ERP systems. Sometimes most positions have to be redesigned according to the ERP systems. Thus the difficulties and high failure rate in implementing ERP systems have been widely cited in the literature (Davenport, 1998; Kim, Lee, & Gosain, 2005)). The failure percentage of ERP systems was determined by one study as ranging from 40 to 60% and from another study as between 60 and 90% (Langernwalter, 2000; Ptak and Schragenheim, 2000; Yingjie, 2005). Although the failure rates of these ERP implementations have been highly publicized, this has not distracted companies from investing large sums of money on ERP systems (Somers & Nelson, 2004). ERP systems provide companies with the means of integrating their business functions into a unified and integrated business process. As companies implement more enterprise based systems throughout their organizations, the need for integration of these systems becomes even more paramount. Expanding from the functional areas of accounting, human resources, and shop floor control to an enterprise-wide system has become a format for producing full organization integration. Over the past few years, limited research has been conducted about ERP implementation issues: mainly case studies in individual organizations have been reported. That is a motivation toward conducting empirical studies to explore critical factors that affect ERP systems implementation. This study presents the results of an empirical study that surveyed managers from seven corporations, who were identified as having a key role in ERP systems implementation, in order to assess empirically which CSFs are critical in leading a successful implementation of ERP systems. A factor analysis solution was used to derive factors affecting successful ERP implementation. These factors are: ERP implementation management, users aptitudes and communication and technical knowledge. The study reveals that about 81.5 % of the variances in ERP systems implementation were explained by the critical factors identified in the study. The remainder of this article is organized in four sections. First ERP-related literature is reviewed. The next section introduces the research methodology, followed by the presentation of the results. The paper ends with the conclusions and implications for future research and practice.

An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is an integrated set of programs that provides support for core organizational activities. ERP is a software infrastructure embedded with “best practices,” or best ways to do business based on common business practices or academic theory. The aim is to improve the cooperation and interaction between all the organizations’ departments, such as the products planning, manufacturing, purchasing, marketing and customer service department. ERP systems is a fine expression of the inseparability of IT and business. As an enabling key technology as well as an effective managerial tool, ERP systems allow companies to integrate at all levels and utilize important ERP systems applications, such as supply-chain management, financials and accounting applications, human resource management and customer relationship management (Boubekri, 2001). ERP systems hold the promise of improving processes and decreasing costs. Furthermore, two important new frontiers for ERP systems are electronic business (e-business) and supply-chain management (Wang and Nah, 2001). The systems can connect with suppliers, distributors, and customers, facilitating the flow, the product and information. ERP systems implementation is costly and complex. In many cases, an ERP system is the largest single investment in any corporate-wide project. The software is expensive, and the consulting costs even more. Meta Group found that the average ERP systems implementation takes 23 months with total owners’ cost of $12 million (Stewart, 2000). The ERP systems implementation is the process where business process and ERP system match each other. Usually the firm has to change the business process per ERP systems. Sometimes most positions have to be redesigned according to the ERP systems. Thus the difficulties and high failure rate in implementing ERP systems have been widely cited in the literature (Davenport, 1998; Kim, Lee, & Gosain, 2005)). The failure percentage of ERP systems was determined by one study as ranging from 40 to 60% and from another study as between 60 and 90% (Langernwalter, 2000; Ptak and Schragenheim, 2000; Yingjie, 2005). Although the failure rates of these ERP implementations have been highly publicized, this has not distracted companies from investing large sums of money on ERP systems (Somers & Nelson, 2004). ERP systems provide companies with the means of integrating their business functions into a unified and integrated business process. As companies implement more enterprise based systems throughout their organizations, the need for integration of these systems becomes even more paramount. Expanding from the functional areas of accounting, human resources, and shop floor control to an enterprise-wide system has become a format for producing full organization integration. Over the past few years, limited research has been conducted about ERP implementation issues: mainly case studies in individual organizations have been reported. That is a motivation toward conducting empirical studies to explore critical factors that affect ERP systems implementation. This study presents the results of an empirical study that surveyed managers from seven corporations, who were identified as having a key role in ERP systems implementation, in order to assess empirically which CSFs are critical in leading a successful implementation of ERP systems. A factor analysis solution was used to derive factors affecting successful ERP implementation. These factors are: ERP implementation management, users aptitudes and communication and technical knowledge. The study reveals that about 81.5 % of the variances in ERP systems implementation were explained by the critical factors identified in the study. The remainder of this article is organized in four sections. First ERP-related literature is reviewed. The next section introduces the research methodology, followed by the presentation of the results. The paper ends with the conclusions and implications for future research and practice.

PurposeWith increased competition under the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in December 2015, CPA and Tax Auditors are free to export their services within AEC partner countries. Hence, it is crucial that the growing numbers of auditors in the region differentiate themselves by providing superior perceived audit quality and client value in order to retain (and attract) clients. Based on theoretical foundations of service-dominant logic and culture theory, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of client involvement in the audit process and client psychological comfort in influencing client perceptions of audit quality.Design/methodology/approachA survey was used to collect data from firms listed on the Thai Stock Exchange. The unit of analysis was the client firm. A key informant method was used whereby a senior manager, heavily involved in the auditor assessment and selection process answered all questions on behalf of their company. Data from 190 firms are subsequently analyzed with structural equation modeling.FindingsBoth client level of involvement and psychological comfort impact their perceptions of three dimensions of audit quality: service quality, independence and competence. Audit quality in turn is strongly associated with overall client satisfaction.Originality/valueWhile various scholarly works have examined audit quality, this study does so in an emerging, highly collectivist culture (Thailand) where due to cultural norms, relationships take on added importance. More importantly, for the first time, the study shines the spotlight on the role that client involvement in the audit process, and client psychological comfort, play in influencing client perceptions of audit quality.

SUMMARY This article summarizes Knechel, Thomas, and Driskill (2020), conceptualizing financial auditing as an economic service. In contrast to the production of tangible goods, a central characteristic of economic services is substantial customer/client participation in the production process. Financial auditing is an intensive collaborative network service due to the multiple parties involved in the production and consumption of the resulting output. This introduces significant heterogeneity and complexity into the planning and conduct of the audit, the resulting audit output, and perceptions of audit quality. While the independence of the auditor is necessary, ignoring the essential nature of auditor-client cooperation may generate unexpected costs which impair audit quality. The multitude of parties involved in an audit creates tension between audit quality and audit efficiency and makes objective definitions of audit quality difficult. Excessive standardization of the audit process may not increase audit quality. JEL Classifications: G18; G28; G34; G38.

This study generally aims to analyze determinants audit quality with moral judgment as the moderating and has a specific purpose to know; influence of competence on perceived audit quality, the influence of independence on perceived audit quality, the influence of due professional care on perceived audit quality, the influence of leadership style on perceived audit quality, the influence of organizational culture on perceived audit quality, the influence of moral judgment on perceived audit quality and partially, competence, independence, due professional care, leadership style and organizational culture influence of perceived audit quality with moral judgment as a moderating variable. This study is an empirical study using saturation sampling technique. Data obtained by distributing questionnaires to 44 auditors BPK RI representatives of North Maluku province, with response rate as much 86.4%. Data analysis was performed using regression analysis or test the assumption of Ordinary Least Square (OLS) with a regression test to test the absolute difference value on variable moderation. These results indicate that: Auditor competence may increase the perceived audit quality, auditor independence may increases perceived audit quality, auditor due professional may attitude may increases perceived audit quality, leadership style may increases perceived audit quality, organizational culture had no effect on perceived auditor quality and moral judgment does not strengthen or weakens perceived audit quality, but a moral judgment on an individual basis may increases perceived audit quality.

Auditor specialization, perceived audit quality, and audit fees in the local government audit market

In recent years there appears to have been a veritable boom in the provision of ‘quality audits’– that is, audits of organizations' production processes and management systems. Despite the rising significance of this international audit movement affecting hundreds of thousands of organizations world‐wide, there has been limited interest in, or critique of, the practice of quality audit by academic auditing researchers. This paper traces the history of quality assurance standards and auditing and finds that quality auditing is not simply an outgrowth of an engineering inspection function. Rather, for several decades, quality auditors have consciously modelled their practice on that of the statutory financial audit, which in turn, exposes them to similar issues with regard to the long standing ‘expectations gap’ debate. Yet, despite what the authors argue are critical links with the financial audit, there has not been any notable involvement on the part of the accounting profession with quality auditing. The growing demand for ‘added‐value’ audits poses considerable questions for the future development and organizational significance of quality auditing. Current developments in both quality and financial audit services suggest that these two influential audit movements are now competing against each other to promote business excellence and contribute to business strategy.

Corporate collapses and audit failures have threatened the credibility of the audit function, with audit quality once again being a major issue. Motivated by the significance of auditing and perceptions of audit quality in enhancing the reliability and credibility of financial statements, this article investigates the relative importance of audit team and audit firm attributes in perceptions of audit quality by users of audit services. Data are gathered from 81 users of audit services and analysed using adaptive conjoint analysis in order to measure the relative importance of audit team and audit firm attributes in perceptions of audit quality. The results show that, in general, users of audit services perceive audit team attributes as being relatively more important than audit firm attributes in perceptions of audit quality. The findings of the study have implications for regulators and the accounting profession concerned with improving confidence in corporate governance and the effectiveness and integrity of the audit process, and for audit firms in monitoring and promoting the quality of their audit services.

The PCAOB conducts inspections of public company auditors to improve audit quality and build investors' confidence in the quality of financial reporting (PCAOB 2010f). While there is some evidence that the inspection reports could be improving actual audit quality (e.g., Gramling et al. 2011; Carcello et al. 2011), their impact on perceptions of audit quality remains largely unexplored. We investigate the effects of inspection reports, which consistently disseminate negative information in the form of audit deficiencies (and in some cases, quality control criticisms) on perceived audit quality and potential auditor switching. We report the results of an experiment in which 90 corporate executives considered one of three response patterns that firms typically offer across multiple inspection reports: consistently provide concessions, consistently provide denials, or provide mixed responses that consist of both concessions and denials. We find that PCAOB inspection reports generally decrease perceived audit quality, regardless of response pattern, which, in turn, is generally associated with an increased likelihood that executives will consider switching auditors. We offer implications for audit policy and research, including the possibility that, while PCAOB inspections could be improving actual audit quality, the reports could be imposing costs by reducing perceived audit quality and, in turn, increasing the likelihood of auditor changes. Data Availability: Contact the first author.