Description
A case study with a large Audit Firm
Page 1 of 13
Usage of technology in audit: A case study with a
large Audit Firm
1
Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
Rutgers the State University of New Jersey
[email protected]
Silvia Romero
Montlair State University
[email protected]
! "he authors a##reiate the aess given to these audit teams that allowed
for this researh. Some data has $een withheld for #rivay #ur#oses. "he
authors thank for the multi#le omments reeived at the Rutgers Aounting
Researh forum and several other #resentations in #artiular the omments
of Mr. Paul %yrnes.
Page 2 of 13
Usage of technology in audit: A case study with a
large Audit Firm
Abstract
Accounting information systems are ubiquitous in today’s business, supporting most of its
operational functions. Since their review and assessment is necessary and appropriate software
tools are now available, this paper asks: Do auditors use the available technological tools !hat
are the difficulties they find Are there mediators to facilitate usability
"hrough a cross sectional case#based field study comparing four engagements in a ma$or audit
firm, this paper finds that the characteristics of the audit team determine the levels of technology
adoption. %owever, quality integration between technology support teams and auditors may
improve usability and consequently increase technology adoption.
Keywords: audit tools, audit technology, usability audit
Introduction
"he potential of technological tools, and the progressive digiti&ation of business, has
changed the way e'ternal audits are conducted. "he increasing ubiquity of accounting
information systems has made it necessary enhance the auditor’s toolset and to include
speciali&ed teams to evaluate those systems throughout the e'ternal audit. Dowling (rror:
)eference source not found, looks at factors that determine the appropriate usage of
technological tools* and Dowling and +eech (rror: )eference source not found compare the
audit support systems used in five big audit firms. ,n this paper, on the other hand, we focus on
tool usage and their conditionants. !e also discuss what are the difficulties found in system
implementation and tools to facilitate usability. "hese questions are investigated through a cross
sectional case#based field study comparing four audit engagements. "he following section
reviews the literature, the ensuing section discusses the methodology, and the final two sections
address findings and conclusions.
Conditions that favor usage of technology
,n this section we e'amine the determinants of technology usage. "hen, by conducting
interviews with audit teams, we inquire why available technological tools are not used. -urther
analysis leads to suggestions concerning tools to improve the levels of usage.
Manager’s attitudes !eliefs and social environment
./any times users do not rely on decision aids even when doing so would improve the
quality of the decision0 (rror: )eference source not found. -or any technological tool to be
adopted in an audit engagement, the audit manager must believe that its use will provide some
advantage. %owever, auditors are often overconfident in their $udgments and believe that they do
not need the tool, and will adopt it only if it confirms their $udgment (rror: )eference source not
found. Different studies have e'amined the determinants of information technology usage.
Page 3 of 13
1arahanna et al. (rror: )eference source not found present the following key constructs in the
innovation#decision process:
2. ,nnovation’s perceived attributes,
3. ,ndividual’s attitude and beliefs, and
4. 5ommunications received by the individual from his6her social environment about the
innovation 7sub$ective norm8. "hese norms are determined by the individual’s beliefs
about what their peers e'pect from them.
"herefore, when audit managers do not have the required knowledge about a new tool
and6or do not perceive its benefits, the tool will only be adopted if there is substantive pressure
by peers or supervisors. Dowling (rror: )eference source not found surveys 9:; auditors of
large and medium si&ed audit firms, and finds evidence that intention to use a system increases
the appropriate use. She also finds that perceived normative pressure and auditor’s attitude
influence appropriate auditor’s system usage. %owever, lack of knowledge about the tool might
convince the auditor that s6he should rely on other evidence &rror' Referene soure not
found.
Arnold and Sutton (rror: )eference source not found e'press concerns that the continued
use of an intelligent decision aid might reduce auditors’ skills in the domain of the decision aid.
"hey propose that the intelligent decision aid should become an electronic colleague* so that
while individuals do not make decisions with the use of an aid, the decision aid receives
feedback and maintains a dialogue that continuously helps the decision maker arrive at a final
$udgment. 1arahanna et al. (rror: )eference source not found suggest .attitude toward adopting
7or continuing to use8 an ," tool is generated by the individual’s salient beliefs about the
consequences of adopting 7continuing to use8 the tool 7behavioral beliefs8 and evaluation of these
consequences.0 Attitude was also found to influence the auditor’s intention to use a system
appropriately(rror: )eference source not found. "herefore, if audit managers are not technology
adopters, their beliefs and attitudes, as well as their perceptions of the attributes of the tool,
might prevent them from considering it as an electronic colleague. o reliance
on the company’s
internal controls*
they make their
own tests.
," Support team
checks the internal
controls before they
start the audit.
Auditors do not
request support of
technical teams
because of their
e'pertise with audit
software.
"he company
switched ()Cs in
this period.
Audit team finds their
work facilitated by the
client having an ()C
system because all the data
is in the same source.
/ore consistency in the
data.
Ese of word
processor and
spreadsheets
@(S @(S @(S
Audit manager
sometimes prefers
manual reports.
@(S
Ese of email
and electronic
file transfer
@(S @(S @(S @(S
Ese of audit
software for
data
e'traction
@(S
Fournal e'traction
performed by the
client with script
provided by
auditors. Auditors
use their own
laptops.
@(S
Data e'traction
performed by the
client with script
provided by auditors.
Audit team uses own
laptops.
@(S
Data e'traction
performed by the
client with script
provided by
auditors.
@(S
Data e'traction performed
by the client with script
provided by auditors.
Ese of audit
software for
S=D
@(S
Data e'traction
done by the client
with script
provided by
auditors. Audit
team
uses own laptops.
>= >= @(S
Esed in a pilot S=D.
/ultiple rule#based errors.
/anagers would not rely
on the results. Don’t
e'pect to use in the future.
,f the internal audit used it,
they would leverage their
work only if they could
map the risks with the
financial statements risks
they are worried about.
5an get same result with
other tools.
Ese of
software by
forensic team
>ot mentioned. @(S
"o test manual
transactions in their
own server.
@(S
"he audit team
engaged forensic.
"hey rely more on
forensic than on
any tool they can
use themselves.
@(S
Page * of 13
+eterminants of technological tools ado'tion
"he interviewed audit managers are 5CAs with an accounting undergraduate degree and
an average of D years in the audit firm. !hen hired they are not required to have previous
systems knowledge. %owever, the firm has intensive training programs, and requires auditors to
complete the corresponding module 7s8 before using any specific tool. !hen new software is
introduced, it is communicated to the auditors via email. Auditors are free to decide whether to
adopt the software.
!e found that the usage of those tools depends on the characteristics of the auditor and
also on the integration of the support teams. ,f the auditor is interested in technology, when those
tools are presented, s6he enrolls in training or gets information about the benefits it would bring
to the audit. !hen the auditor is not a technology adopter, use of new tools is driven by the
supporting team 7,"8. "his relationship between ," and audit managers seems to be stronger than
the simple suggestion of new technological tools. "he ensuing anecdotes illustrate:
• ,n one of the teams, where the ," consultant had an accounting background, his
work was more integrated with the audit team, and he collaborated to present and
facilitate access to the available tools. %e seemed to understand better what the
auditor needed and how to make the tools useful by facilitating the access to
them.
• ,n the other three companies where the ," consultant had a background in
,nformation Science, the participation of the support team was limited to testing
the client’s controls. ,n this situation 7auditor technology adopter and support
team with no audit background8, the audit teams were more reluctant to use new
tools and limited their use to spreadsheets, word processors, email and electronic
transfer of documents and files. !hen the audit managers were technology
adopters, although they had knowledge of the capabilities of the new tools, the
software was not adopted due to the cost 7time required to implement it
successfully8 and attitude 7feeling that the results would not change in terms of
findings8.
• !hen the audit manager was not a technology adopter, he did not respond to
emails announcing new tools and showed no interest in determining the
advantages it would bring. Although this audit manager used spreadsheets, word
processor, email and electronic transfer of documents, he e'pressed his preference
for hand written reports and documentation.
,e'orted issues faced !y the audit teams
All the audit teams were concerned with client collection of the data. "he fact that the
client is in the middle of the data e'traction process causes concern to the audit teams, all the
interviewees would prefer independent data access
• =ne e'ample of the problems audit managers faced relates to the implementation
of audit software in service companies. ?oth teams interviewed in this industry
Page - of 13
7insurance company and bank8 started using the software to test for segregation of
duties 7S=D8. ,n this specific e'ample, the success in implementation varied
according to the relationship between the ," support team and the audit team. "he
standard rules embedded in the software are appropriate for manufacturing
companies. "herefore, difficulties were found when the reports indicated
hundreds of violations of S=D that were only related to manufacturing rules.
o ,n the insurance company, where the audit manager was a technology
adopter and the ," consultant had accounting background, both teams
worked together in producing the necessary rules and analy&ing the
violations to determine which of them were due to real internal control
deficiencies. "he implementation was a success and they e'pect to e'tend
the usage of the software to other areas in the future.
o ,n the financial institution, on the other hand, the audit manager was a
technology adopter, but the ," consultant had no accounting background
and little involvement in the audit engagement. "he audit team applied the
standard rules, finding hundreds of meaningless violations. ?ecause there
was no ," involvement, they found themselves overwhelmed. "hey ended
up eschewing the software and relying on other evidence. ,t appears that
the ," consultant was unaware of the auditors’ needs, or that the audit
managers did not think that ," was needed, since they could use the tools
by themselves. As a result, the audit team did not find the software helpful,
and decided not to use it again. "he audit team believes that specific rules
7a tailored approach8 would enhance the results and usability of the
software, but they do not think the effort is worthwhile since they have
other alternatives to get the same results. "his finding relates the low level
of usability with cost and attitude factors.
.ers'ectives for the future
Gasarhelyi et al. (rror: )eference source not found used the modified Delphi method
7(rror: )eference source not found and (rror: )eference source not found8 to predict the effect
of technological changes in auditing in the ne't ten years, which will determine how the audit
will be done and the level of training needed for auditors. =ne of the key findings in that study is
the need to shift from the current sampling#based audit to a model that includes continuous
monitoring of all transactions, error reporting and immediate response. "hey discuss that the
development of such an audit will reduce the time necessary in identifying risks, since e'ternal
auditors will rely on the work of internal auditors, and allow more time for interpretation of the
results. "hey also envision the use of H?)+#formatted data to e'amine similar risks among
clients in the same industry, and the use of resources like sensors, biometrics and voice
recognition as tools for evaluating evidence. "herefore, the envisioned audit of the future relies
on technological tools, and requires access to quality data.
At the end of the interviews, we asked auditors about what changes they need and how
they envision audit in the near future. "heir answers can be classified in the following categories:
Page 1/ of 13
2. %ave access to the client’s data independently. "hey understand that measures
have to be taken to guarantee the security and privacy of the data. "he
interviewees do not e'pect it to be easy to obtain, but they report it as one of
the main concerns and a first step necessary to guarantee data quality with the
automation of audit envisioned by (rror: )eference source not found.
3. "he development and update of electronic working papers. As discussed in the
general adoption of software, this need is related to the technological
sophistication of the manager. "he manager with little interest in technology,
for e'ample, finds that the whole team produces better results when they have
to read and work on paper. %is technological needs are limited to transferring
files. ,n general, however, managers find it helpful to have electronic working
papers in order to facilitate the production, review, storage and transfer of
documents.
4. "raining is considered to be appropriate by all the interviewees. %owever, they
would appreciate more formal communications about available technological
tools as well as the applications, and advantages.
D. )egarding how they envision audit in the future, the scenario is similar to the
one depicted in the aforementioned study (rror: )eference source not found.
All managers agree on the importance and benefits of continuous control
monitoring of all transactions. %owever, although they e'pect it will be
implemented, they believe it will take time, because companies are currently
concerned about the financial crisis and therefore reluctant to make new
investments.
Conclusions and limitations of the study
"his study e'amined four engagements within a large audit firm. ,t aimed to increase
understanding of the deployment, usage, and enablers of technology adoption in day to day
practice. ,t was observed that although there are audit#specific software tools, those tools are not
fully used for a variety of reasons. 5ost of adoption relative to time required to effectively
internali&e and utili&e the tool, in addition to auditor attitude, were found to influence the levels
of adoption and usability. !e also found that the inclusion of an integrated ," support team that
assists auditors in understanding and ad$usting the tools, acts as a facilitator to adoption. ,n our
sample, the accounting knowledge of the supporting ," consulting team manager facilitated
adoption since he could understand what the auditors needed. !e presented the difficulties
auditors face when using technology, such as access of independent data, and their e'pectations
for the future. ew Fersey: Crentice %all, 2;K2.
I29J /. Gasarhelyi, D. +ombardi, and ). ?loch, ."he -uture of Audit: A /odified Delphi
Approach in 3AA;,0 working paper, 3A2A.
I2:J
A case study with a large Audit Firm
Page 1 of 13
Usage of technology in audit: A case study with a
large Audit Firm
1
Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
Rutgers the State University of New Jersey
[email protected]
Silvia Romero
Montlair State University
[email protected]
! "he authors a##reiate the aess given to these audit teams that allowed
for this researh. Some data has $een withheld for #rivay #ur#oses. "he
authors thank for the multi#le omments reeived at the Rutgers Aounting
Researh forum and several other #resentations in #artiular the omments
of Mr. Paul %yrnes.
Page 2 of 13
Usage of technology in audit: A case study with a
large Audit Firm
Abstract
Accounting information systems are ubiquitous in today’s business, supporting most of its
operational functions. Since their review and assessment is necessary and appropriate software
tools are now available, this paper asks: Do auditors use the available technological tools !hat
are the difficulties they find Are there mediators to facilitate usability
"hrough a cross sectional case#based field study comparing four engagements in a ma$or audit
firm, this paper finds that the characteristics of the audit team determine the levels of technology
adoption. %owever, quality integration between technology support teams and auditors may
improve usability and consequently increase technology adoption.
Keywords: audit tools, audit technology, usability audit
Introduction
"he potential of technological tools, and the progressive digiti&ation of business, has
changed the way e'ternal audits are conducted. "he increasing ubiquity of accounting
information systems has made it necessary enhance the auditor’s toolset and to include
speciali&ed teams to evaluate those systems throughout the e'ternal audit. Dowling (rror:
)eference source not found, looks at factors that determine the appropriate usage of
technological tools* and Dowling and +eech (rror: )eference source not found compare the
audit support systems used in five big audit firms. ,n this paper, on the other hand, we focus on
tool usage and their conditionants. !e also discuss what are the difficulties found in system
implementation and tools to facilitate usability. "hese questions are investigated through a cross
sectional case#based field study comparing four audit engagements. "he following section
reviews the literature, the ensuing section discusses the methodology, and the final two sections
address findings and conclusions.
Conditions that favor usage of technology
,n this section we e'amine the determinants of technology usage. "hen, by conducting
interviews with audit teams, we inquire why available technological tools are not used. -urther
analysis leads to suggestions concerning tools to improve the levels of usage.
Manager’s attitudes !eliefs and social environment
./any times users do not rely on decision aids even when doing so would improve the
quality of the decision0 (rror: )eference source not found. -or any technological tool to be
adopted in an audit engagement, the audit manager must believe that its use will provide some
advantage. %owever, auditors are often overconfident in their $udgments and believe that they do
not need the tool, and will adopt it only if it confirms their $udgment (rror: )eference source not
found. Different studies have e'amined the determinants of information technology usage.
Page 3 of 13
1arahanna et al. (rror: )eference source not found present the following key constructs in the
innovation#decision process:
2. ,nnovation’s perceived attributes,
3. ,ndividual’s attitude and beliefs, and
4. 5ommunications received by the individual from his6her social environment about the
innovation 7sub$ective norm8. "hese norms are determined by the individual’s beliefs
about what their peers e'pect from them.
"herefore, when audit managers do not have the required knowledge about a new tool
and6or do not perceive its benefits, the tool will only be adopted if there is substantive pressure
by peers or supervisors. Dowling (rror: )eference source not found surveys 9:; auditors of
large and medium si&ed audit firms, and finds evidence that intention to use a system increases
the appropriate use. She also finds that perceived normative pressure and auditor’s attitude
influence appropriate auditor’s system usage. %owever, lack of knowledge about the tool might
convince the auditor that s6he should rely on other evidence &rror' Referene soure not
found.
Arnold and Sutton (rror: )eference source not found e'press concerns that the continued
use of an intelligent decision aid might reduce auditors’ skills in the domain of the decision aid.
"hey propose that the intelligent decision aid should become an electronic colleague* so that
while individuals do not make decisions with the use of an aid, the decision aid receives
feedback and maintains a dialogue that continuously helps the decision maker arrive at a final
$udgment. 1arahanna et al. (rror: )eference source not found suggest .attitude toward adopting
7or continuing to use8 an ," tool is generated by the individual’s salient beliefs about the
consequences of adopting 7continuing to use8 the tool 7behavioral beliefs8 and evaluation of these
consequences.0 Attitude was also found to influence the auditor’s intention to use a system
appropriately(rror: )eference source not found. "herefore, if audit managers are not technology
adopters, their beliefs and attitudes, as well as their perceptions of the attributes of the tool,
might prevent them from considering it as an electronic colleague. o reliance
on the company’s
internal controls*
they make their
own tests.
," Support team
checks the internal
controls before they
start the audit.
Auditors do not
request support of
technical teams
because of their
e'pertise with audit
software.
"he company
switched ()Cs in
this period.
Audit team finds their
work facilitated by the
client having an ()C
system because all the data
is in the same source.
/ore consistency in the
data.
Ese of word
processor and
spreadsheets
@(S @(S @(S
Audit manager
sometimes prefers
manual reports.
@(S
Ese of email
and electronic
file transfer
@(S @(S @(S @(S
Ese of audit
software for
data
e'traction
@(S
Fournal e'traction
performed by the
client with script
provided by
auditors. Auditors
use their own
laptops.
@(S
Data e'traction
performed by the
client with script
provided by auditors.
Audit team uses own
laptops.
@(S
Data e'traction
performed by the
client with script
provided by
auditors.
@(S
Data e'traction performed
by the client with script
provided by auditors.
Ese of audit
software for
S=D
@(S
Data e'traction
done by the client
with script
provided by
auditors. Audit
team
uses own laptops.
>= >= @(S
Esed in a pilot S=D.
/ultiple rule#based errors.
/anagers would not rely
on the results. Don’t
e'pect to use in the future.
,f the internal audit used it,
they would leverage their
work only if they could
map the risks with the
financial statements risks
they are worried about.
5an get same result with
other tools.
Ese of
software by
forensic team
>ot mentioned. @(S
"o test manual
transactions in their
own server.
@(S
"he audit team
engaged forensic.
"hey rely more on
forensic than on
any tool they can
use themselves.
@(S
Page * of 13
+eterminants of technological tools ado'tion
"he interviewed audit managers are 5CAs with an accounting undergraduate degree and
an average of D years in the audit firm. !hen hired they are not required to have previous
systems knowledge. %owever, the firm has intensive training programs, and requires auditors to
complete the corresponding module 7s8 before using any specific tool. !hen new software is
introduced, it is communicated to the auditors via email. Auditors are free to decide whether to
adopt the software.
!e found that the usage of those tools depends on the characteristics of the auditor and
also on the integration of the support teams. ,f the auditor is interested in technology, when those
tools are presented, s6he enrolls in training or gets information about the benefits it would bring
to the audit. !hen the auditor is not a technology adopter, use of new tools is driven by the
supporting team 7,"8. "his relationship between ," and audit managers seems to be stronger than
the simple suggestion of new technological tools. "he ensuing anecdotes illustrate:
• ,n one of the teams, where the ," consultant had an accounting background, his
work was more integrated with the audit team, and he collaborated to present and
facilitate access to the available tools. %e seemed to understand better what the
auditor needed and how to make the tools useful by facilitating the access to
them.
• ,n the other three companies where the ," consultant had a background in
,nformation Science, the participation of the support team was limited to testing
the client’s controls. ,n this situation 7auditor technology adopter and support
team with no audit background8, the audit teams were more reluctant to use new
tools and limited their use to spreadsheets, word processors, email and electronic
transfer of documents and files. !hen the audit managers were technology
adopters, although they had knowledge of the capabilities of the new tools, the
software was not adopted due to the cost 7time required to implement it
successfully8 and attitude 7feeling that the results would not change in terms of
findings8.
• !hen the audit manager was not a technology adopter, he did not respond to
emails announcing new tools and showed no interest in determining the
advantages it would bring. Although this audit manager used spreadsheets, word
processor, email and electronic transfer of documents, he e'pressed his preference
for hand written reports and documentation.
,e'orted issues faced !y the audit teams
All the audit teams were concerned with client collection of the data. "he fact that the
client is in the middle of the data e'traction process causes concern to the audit teams, all the
interviewees would prefer independent data access
• =ne e'ample of the problems audit managers faced relates to the implementation
of audit software in service companies. ?oth teams interviewed in this industry
Page - of 13
7insurance company and bank8 started using the software to test for segregation of
duties 7S=D8. ,n this specific e'ample, the success in implementation varied
according to the relationship between the ," support team and the audit team. "he
standard rules embedded in the software are appropriate for manufacturing
companies. "herefore, difficulties were found when the reports indicated
hundreds of violations of S=D that were only related to manufacturing rules.
o ,n the insurance company, where the audit manager was a technology
adopter and the ," consultant had accounting background, both teams
worked together in producing the necessary rules and analy&ing the
violations to determine which of them were due to real internal control
deficiencies. "he implementation was a success and they e'pect to e'tend
the usage of the software to other areas in the future.
o ,n the financial institution, on the other hand, the audit manager was a
technology adopter, but the ," consultant had no accounting background
and little involvement in the audit engagement. "he audit team applied the
standard rules, finding hundreds of meaningless violations. ?ecause there
was no ," involvement, they found themselves overwhelmed. "hey ended
up eschewing the software and relying on other evidence. ,t appears that
the ," consultant was unaware of the auditors’ needs, or that the audit
managers did not think that ," was needed, since they could use the tools
by themselves. As a result, the audit team did not find the software helpful,
and decided not to use it again. "he audit team believes that specific rules
7a tailored approach8 would enhance the results and usability of the
software, but they do not think the effort is worthwhile since they have
other alternatives to get the same results. "his finding relates the low level
of usability with cost and attitude factors.
.ers'ectives for the future
Gasarhelyi et al. (rror: )eference source not found used the modified Delphi method
7(rror: )eference source not found and (rror: )eference source not found8 to predict the effect
of technological changes in auditing in the ne't ten years, which will determine how the audit
will be done and the level of training needed for auditors. =ne of the key findings in that study is
the need to shift from the current sampling#based audit to a model that includes continuous
monitoring of all transactions, error reporting and immediate response. "hey discuss that the
development of such an audit will reduce the time necessary in identifying risks, since e'ternal
auditors will rely on the work of internal auditors, and allow more time for interpretation of the
results. "hey also envision the use of H?)+#formatted data to e'amine similar risks among
clients in the same industry, and the use of resources like sensors, biometrics and voice
recognition as tools for evaluating evidence. "herefore, the envisioned audit of the future relies
on technological tools, and requires access to quality data.
At the end of the interviews, we asked auditors about what changes they need and how
they envision audit in the near future. "heir answers can be classified in the following categories:
Page 1/ of 13
2. %ave access to the client’s data independently. "hey understand that measures
have to be taken to guarantee the security and privacy of the data. "he
interviewees do not e'pect it to be easy to obtain, but they report it as one of
the main concerns and a first step necessary to guarantee data quality with the
automation of audit envisioned by (rror: )eference source not found.
3. "he development and update of electronic working papers. As discussed in the
general adoption of software, this need is related to the technological
sophistication of the manager. "he manager with little interest in technology,
for e'ample, finds that the whole team produces better results when they have
to read and work on paper. %is technological needs are limited to transferring
files. ,n general, however, managers find it helpful to have electronic working
papers in order to facilitate the production, review, storage and transfer of
documents.
4. "raining is considered to be appropriate by all the interviewees. %owever, they
would appreciate more formal communications about available technological
tools as well as the applications, and advantages.
D. )egarding how they envision audit in the future, the scenario is similar to the
one depicted in the aforementioned study (rror: )eference source not found.
All managers agree on the importance and benefits of continuous control
monitoring of all transactions. %owever, although they e'pect it will be
implemented, they believe it will take time, because companies are currently
concerned about the financial crisis and therefore reluctant to make new
investments.
Conclusions and limitations of the study
"his study e'amined four engagements within a large audit firm. ,t aimed to increase
understanding of the deployment, usage, and enablers of technology adoption in day to day
practice. ,t was observed that although there are audit#specific software tools, those tools are not
fully used for a variety of reasons. 5ost of adoption relative to time required to effectively
internali&e and utili&e the tool, in addition to auditor attitude, were found to influence the levels
of adoption and usability. !e also found that the inclusion of an integrated ," support team that
assists auditors in understanding and ad$usting the tools, acts as a facilitator to adoption. ,n our
sample, the accounting knowledge of the supporting ," consulting team manager facilitated
adoption since he could understand what the auditors needed. !e presented the difficulties
auditors face when using technology, such as access of independent data, and their e'pectations
for the future. ew Fersey: Crentice %all, 2;K2.
I29J /. Gasarhelyi, D. +ombardi, and ). ?loch, ."he -uture of Audit: A /odified Delphi
Approach in 3AA;,0 working paper, 3A2A.
I2:J