IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v36y2019i4p2142-2177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One Team or Two? Investigating Relationship Quality between Auditors and IT Specialists: Implications for Audit Team Identity and the Audit Process†

Author

Listed:
  • Tim D. Bauer
  • Cassandra Estep
  • Bertrand Malsch

Abstract

While prior research focuses on the audit team made up of auditors, we focus on the collective audit team made up of auditors and specialists—in our context, information technology (IT) specialists. Complex systems in today's audits and researcher and regulator concerns regarding ineffective coordination and communication between the two specializations motivate better understanding of this collective audit team. We investigate how auditors and IT specialists perceive their relationship and how the audit process unfolds when these relationships are good and when they are difficult. Results of interviews conducted with Big 4 audit and IT practitioners provide evidence that they perceive their relationship quality to depend on the level of mutual value and respect. Auditors assert a one‐team view of the collective audit team that includes IT specialists, but IT specialists feel auditors see them as a separate team and a “necessary evil.” The audit process vastly differs between relationships perceived as difficult and good. In difficult relationships, the two specializations often struggle for status, with limited communication or effort to understand how their work fits together. Our findings imply difficult relationships are at risk for poor integration and unsupported reliance on IT functions, shedding light on recurring threats to audit quality identified by PCAOB inspections. In good relationships, auditors and IT specialists appear motivated to engage in frequent and open communication to help understand, coordinate, and complete the audit. Inferences gleaned from good relationships let us highlight prescriptions for audit firms to improve effectiveness of collective audit teams. Même équipe ou équipes distinctes? Étude de la qualité des relations entre les auditeurs et les spécialistes des TI : incidence sur l'identité de l’équipe d'audit et le processus d'audit Contrairement aux chercheurs précédents dont les études étaient axées sur l’équipe d'audit constituée d'auditeurs, les auteurs se concentrent sur l’équipe d'audit mixte, formée d'auditeurs et de spécialistes — dans le cas qui les occupe, des spécialistes des technologies de l'information (TI). Les systèmes complexes qui caractérisent aujourd'hui les audits ainsi que les préoccupations des chercheurs et des autorités de réglementation quant à l'inefficacité de la coordination et de la communication entre les deux sphères de spécialisation appellent à une meilleure compréhension de cette équipe d'audit mixte. Les auteurs s'intéressent à la façon dont les auditeurs et les spécialistes des TI perçoivent leurs relations et dont le processus d'audit se déploie lorsque ces relations sont bonnes et lorsqu'elles sont difficiles. Des entrevues menées auprès de professionnels de l'audit et des TI des Quatre Grands cabinets d'audit révèlent que la perception qu'ils ont de la qualité de leurs relations dépend de la valeur qu'ils s'attribuent réciproquement et du respect mutuel qu'ils éprouvent. Les auditeurs envisagent la collaboration des deux groupes de professionnels au sein d'une même équipe d'audit mixte, alors que les spécialistes des TI croient constituer une équipe distincte aux yeux des auditeurs et être pour eux un « mal nécessaire ». Le processus d'audit diffère considérablement selon que les relations sont perçues comme étant difficiles ou bonnes. Dans le contexte de relations difficiles, les deux groupes de professionnels revendiquent un statut, et la communication ou les efforts d'intégration à l’équipe sont limités. Les constatations des auteurs laissent entendre que des relations difficiles risquent d'entraîner une intégration déficiente et l'appui insuffisamment étayé sur les fonctions TI, ce qui nous éclaire sur les menaces récurrentes à la qualité de l'audit que les inspections du PCAOB ont mises au jour. Dans le contexte de bonnes relations, les auditeurs et les spécialistes des TI semblent motivés à communiquer fréquemment et librement afin de mieux comprendre, coordonner et mener à bien le travail d'audit. Les conclusions associées aux bonnes relations permettent aux auteurs de formuler à l'intention des cabinets d'audit des recommandations visant l'amélioration de l'efficacité des équipes d'audit mixtes.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim D. Bauer & Cassandra Estep & Bertrand Malsch, 2019. "One Team or Two? Investigating Relationship Quality between Auditors and IT Specialists: Implications for Audit Team Identity and the Audit Process†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 2142-2177, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:36:y:2019:i:4:p:2142-2177
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12490
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12490?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Navarro, Patricia & Robb, Sean W.G. & Sutton, Steve G. & Weisner, Martin M., 2020. "The cost stickiness of information technology material weaknesses: An intertemporal comparison between it-related and other material weaknesses," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    2. Bin Fang & Xinming Liu & Chen Ma & Yusang Zhuo, 2023. "Blockchain technology adoption and accounting information quality," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4125-4156, December.
    3. Krieger, Felix & Drews, Paul & Velte, Patrick, 2021. "Explaining the (non-) adoption of advanced data analytics in auditing: A process theory," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:36:y:2019:i:4:p:2142-2177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.