Technology and Group Decision Process in Going-Concern Judgements

Accounting and auditing practices are continually being affected by advances in technology. This study empirically examined the effect of group decision processes and technological advances on group going-concern decision making. Groups with access to group decision support systems (GDSS) were compared to groups without access to GDSS for their going-concern judgments. The results show group discussion induced auditors to be more conservative and to consider factors which may have overlooked at the individual level, though neither structure significantly reduced the considerable variance in the individual going-concern judgments. Further, as compared to their counterparts in the face-to-face discussion groups, GDSS groups indicated much higher confidence in their group's final assessment of the client's going-concern status and a higher level of satisfaction and agreement with the group decision processes. The findings suggest that while group discussions did not significantly reduce auditors' considerable variance in going-concern judgments, future research should investigate which explicit models would improve the consensus on going-concern evaluations.

[1]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  The impact of technological support on groups: An assessment of the empirical research , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[2]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment , 1988, MIS Q..

[3]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[4]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Quality of Group Judgment , 1977 .

[5]  A. Zander Making Groups Effective , 1982 .

[6]  Michael Ray Ruble,et al.  An empirical test of a decision support system in a group decision-making environment , 1984 .

[7]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Support Systems: New Perspectives , 1992 .

[8]  F. Strodtbeck,et al.  Becoming first among equals: Moral considerations in jury foreman selection. , 1985 .

[9]  I. Benbasat,et al.  The Effects of Group, Task,Context, and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems , 1993 .

[10]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[11]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[12]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[13]  Poppy Lauretta McLeod,et al.  An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. , 1987 .

[15]  Ira Solomon,et al.  Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: Judgment and decision-making research in auditing , 1995 .

[16]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation , 1988, MIS Q..

[17]  P. Yetton,et al.  Individual and Group Judgments of Internal Control Systems , 1983 .

[18]  William E Messier Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: Research in and development of audit-decisions aids , 1995 .

[19]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  Member Variation, Recognition of Expertise, and Group Performance , 1987 .

[20]  T. Connolly,et al.  Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work , 1990 .

[21]  Annette Cecilia. Easton,et al.  An experimental investigation of automated versus manual support for stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing in small groups , 1988 .

[22]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information technology for negotiating groups: generating options for mutual gain , 1991 .

[23]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[24]  K. Trotman,et al.  Auditor Consensus in Going Concern Judgments , 1985 .

[25]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System , 1987, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Thomas Kida AN INVESTIGATION INTO AUDITORS CONTINUITY AND RELATED QUALIFICATION JUDGMENTS , 1980 .

[27]  Paul Gray,et al.  Group decision support systems , 1987, Decis. Support Syst..

[28]  P. Chalos Financial Distress - A Comparative-Study Of Individual, Model, And Committee Assessments , 1985 .

[29]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[30]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[31]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results , 1985 .

[32]  Hayward R. Alker,et al.  Mathematics and Politics , 1965 .

[33]  Hillel J. Einhorn,et al.  Expert measurement and mechanical combination , 1972 .