IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v35y2010i3p316-333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models

Author

Listed:
  • Knechel, W. Robert
  • Salterio, Steven E.
  • Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia

Abstract

As the audit environment becomes more demanding and complex, so does the set of analytical tools available to an auditor. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of two complex audit technologies commonly used by auditors, benchmarking of performance measures and strategic analysis, on the risk judgments of auditors carrying out the initial planning of an audit. We conduct an experiment that utilizes a Balanced Scorecard for organizing and evaluating analytical evidence about the performance of business units within a large client. Our first principal finding is that external benchmarking can cause an auditor to focus on performance measures that are unique to a business unit and disregard performance measures that are common to multiple business units but not benchmarked. However, our second finding is that an in-depth strategic analysis completed prior to assessing a client's business risk or risk of material misstatement allows an auditor to incorporate more information from performance measures in risk assessments regardless of whether the performance measures are benchmarked. Strategic analysis facilitates a more balanced and accurate assessment of the risks across the business units being evaluated. We also provide evidence that the latter result occurs because in-depth strategic analysis allows auditors to develop a more complete mental model of a client, which has been a long time belief of advocates of business risk audit methodologies and consistent with current and emerging auditing standards on risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Knechel, W. Robert & Salterio, Steven E. & Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia, 2010. "The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 316-333, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:35:y:2010:i:3:p:316-333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361-3682(09)00096-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markman, Arthur B. & Medin, Douglas L., 1995. "Similarity and Alignment in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 117-130, August.
    2. Mutchler, JF & Hopwood, W & McKeown, JM, 1997. "The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 295-310.
    3. N. Venkatraman, 1989. "Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises: The Construct, Dimensionality, and Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 942-962, August.
    4. Bell, Tb & Tabor, Rh, 1991. "Empirical-Analysis Of Audit Uncertainty Qualifications," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 350-370.
    5. Sumantra Ghoshal & D. Eleanor Westney, 1991. "Organizing competitor analysis systems," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 17-31, January.
    6. Srikant Datar & Susan Cohen Kulp & Richard A. Lambert, 2001. "Balancing Performance Measures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 75-92, June.
    7. Iselin, Errol R., 1988. "The effects of information load and information diversity on decision quality in a structured decision task," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 147-164, March.
    8. Kida, T. & Smith, J. F. & Maletta, M., 1998. "The effects of encoded memory traces for numerical data on accounting decision making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 451-466.
    9. Anne L. Roggeveen & Dhruv Grewal & Jerry Gotlieb, 2006. "Does the Frame of a Comparative Ad Moderate the Effectiveness of Extrinsic Information Cues?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(1), pages 115-122, June.
    10. Knechel, W. Robert, 2007. "The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 383-408.
    11. Chewning, Eugene Jr & Harrell, Adrian M., 1990. "The effect of information load on decision makers' cue utilization levels and decision quality in a financial distress decision task," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 527-542.
    12. Robson, Keith & Humphrey, Christopher & Khalifa, Rihab & Jones, Julian, 2007. "Transforming audit technologies: Business risk audit methodologies and the audit field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 409-438.
    13. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    14. Spathis, Charalambos & Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2003. "Using client performance measures to identify pre-engagement factors associated with qualified audit reports in Greece," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 267-284.
    15. Lipe, Marlys Gascho & Salterio, Steven, 2002. "A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 531-540, August.
    16. Joyce, Ej & Biddle, Gc, 1981. "Anchoring And Adjustment In Probabilistic Inference In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 120-145.
    17. Curtis, Emer & Turley, Stuart, 2007. "The business risk audit - A longitudinal case study of an audit engagement," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 439-461.
    18. Erickson, M & Mayhew, BW & Felix, WL, 2000. "Why do audits fail? Evidence from Lincoln Savings and Loan," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 165-194.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    2. Michael E. Cummings & Hans Rawhouser & Silvio Vismara & Erin L. Hamilton, 2020. "An equity crowdfunding research agenda: evidence from stakeholder participation in the rulemaking process," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 907-932, April.
    3. Cheng, Mandy M. & Humphreys, Kerry A. & Zhang, Yichelle Y., 2018. "The interplay between strategic risk profiles and presentation format on managers' strategic judgments using the balanced scorecard," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 92-105.
    4. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    5. Jacqueline Christensen & Pamela Kent & Tom Smith, 2016. "The decision to outsource risk management services," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(4), pages 985-1015, December.
    6. Green, Wendy J. & Cheng, Mandy M., 2019. "Materiality judgments in an integrated reporting setting: The effect of strategic relevance and strategy map," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-14.
    7. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    8. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    9. Lee, Lorraine & Casterella, Gretchen, 2023. "A mental model approach to teaching database querying skills with SQL and Alteryx," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    10. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    11. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruynseels, Liesbeth & Willekens, Marleen, 2012. "The effect of strategic and operating turnaround initiatives on audit reporting for distressed companies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 223-241.
    2. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.
    3. Schultz Jr., Joseph J. & Bierstaker, James Lloyd & O'Donnell, Ed, 2010. "Integrating business risk into auditor judgment about the risk of material misstatement: The influence of a strategic-systems-audit approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 238-251, February.
    4. Daniel VILSANOIU & Mihaela SERBAN, 2010. "Changing Methodologies in Financial Audit and Their Impact on Information Systems Audit," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 59-65.
    5. Wally Smieliauskas, 2008. "A Framework for Identifying (and Avoiding) Fraudulent Financial Reporting," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 189-226, August.
    6. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    7. Flint, Christine & Fraser, Ian A.M. & Hatherly, David J., 2008. "Business risk auditing: A regressive evolution?—A research note," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 143-147.
    8. Rihab Khalifa & Nina Sharma & Christopher Humphrey & Keith Robson, 2007. "Discourse and audit change," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(6), pages 825-854, October.
    9. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    10. Stocks, Morris H. & Harrell, Adrian, 1995. "The impact of an increase in accounting information level on the judgment quality of individuals and groups," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 685-700.
    11. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    12. Willenborg, Michael & McKeown, J.C.James C., 2000. "Going-concern initial public offerings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 279-313, December.
    13. Yu‐Feng Hsu & Wei‐Po Lee, 2020. "Evaluation of the going‐concern status for companies: An ensemble framework‐based model," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 687-706, July.
    14. Faulconbridge, James R. & Muzio, Daniel, 2021. "Valuation devices and the dynamic legitimacy-performativity nexus: The case of PEP in the English legal profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    15. Chrysovalantis Gaganis & Fotios Pasiouras & Charalambos Spathis & Constantin Zopounidis, 2007. "A comparison of nearest neighbours, discriminant and logit models for auditing decisions," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1‐2), pages 23-40, January.
    16. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    17. Holm, Claus & Zaman, Mahbub, 2012. "Regulating audit quality: Restoring trust and legitimacy," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 51-61.
    18. Dale Tweedie & Christian Nielsen & Nonna Martinov‐Bennie, 2018. "The Business Model in Integrated Reporting: Evaluating Concept and Application," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(3), pages 405-420, September.
    19. Asokan Anandarajan & Gary Kleinman & Dan Palmon, 2008. "Novice and expert judgment in the presence of going concern uncertainty: The influence of heuristic biases and other relevant factors," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(4), pages 345-366, April.
    20. Michael Doumpos & Chrysovalantis Gaganis & Fotios Pasiouras, 2005. "Explaining qualifications in audit reports using a support vector machine methodology," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 197-215, December.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:35:y:2010:i:3:p:316-333. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.