IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Explaining the Non-Adoption of Post-Completion Auditing

Listed author(s):
  • Jari Huikku
Registered author(s):

    This field study examines reasons for the non-adoption of post-completion auditing (PCA) of capital investments. The empirical evidence is based primarily on interviews conducted in the 30 largest Finnish manufacturing companies. PCA can be briefly described as a formal process that checks the outcomes of individual investment projects after the initial investment is completed and the project is operational. Management Control Systems and PCA literatures suggest that different control systems can act as alternatives for each other. This paper specifically analyzes and maps alternate capital investment controls (ACICs) that enable the achievement of benefits suggested for PCA and draws upon the equifinality concept to discuss the role of ACICs in discouraging PCA adoption. The findings suggest that ACICs do exist, and, therefore, PCA non-adopters do not necessarily jeopardize successful capital investments. The ACICs identified in this study included formal and informal systems and procedures for performance measurement (e.g. following up production key figures, sales and profit centers) and organizational learning (e.g. utilizing central expertise and experienced internal resources). Furthermore, the empirical evidence from this study suggests that smaller companies with fewer major strategic, complex and repetitive capital investments can perceive ACICs to be sufficient, and discourage the adoption of formal PCA.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal European Accounting Review.

    Volume (Year): 16 (2007)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 363-398

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:363-398
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180701391006
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:363-398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.