IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v8y1999i1d10.1023_a1008686105218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology and Group Decision Process in Going-Concern Judgements

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna L.Y. Ho

    (Graduate School of Management, University of California at Irvine)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna L.Y. Ho, 1999. "Technology and Group Decision Process in Going-Concern Judgements," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 33-49, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008686105218
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008686105218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008686105218
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008686105218?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
    ---><---

    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. Gerardine DeSanctis & Marshall Scott Poole, 1994. "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 121-147, May.
    2. Chalos, P, 1985. "Financial Distress - A Comparative-Study Of Individual, Model, And Committee Assessments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 527-543.
    3. Alison Hubbard Ashton & Robert H. Ashton, 1985. "Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(12), pages 1499-1508, December.
    4. M. Lynne Markus & Daniel Robey, 1988. "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 583-598, May.
    5. Kida, T, 1980. "An Investigation Into Auditors Continuity And Related Qualification Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 506-523.
    6. Joey F. George & George K. Easton & J. F. Nunamaker & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1990. "A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 394-415, December.
    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. David S. Kerr & Uday S. Murthy, 2004. "Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 381-399, July.
    2. Mazlina Mustapha & Soh Jin Lai, 2017. "Information Technology in Audit Processes: An Empirical Evidence from Malaysian Audit Firms," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(2), pages 53-59.
    3. Gary Kleinman & Dan Palmon, 2009. "Procedural Instrumentality and Audit Group Judgment: An Exploration of the Impact of Cognitive Fallibility and Ability Differences," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 147-168, March.

    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. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    2. Pamela J. Hinds & Diane E. Bailey, 2003. "Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 615-632, December.
    3. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    4. Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten & Bruce A. Reinig, 2013. "Introduction to the Special Issue: “Cognitive Perspectives on Group Decision and Negotiation”," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 867-872, September.
    5. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, 2018. "Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: Why Smart City planning needs to go beyond corporate visioning?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 330-339.
    6. Marie-Claude Boudreau & Daniel Robey, 2005. "Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 3-18, February.
    7. Wm. David Salisbury & Michael Parent & Wynne W. Chin, 2008. "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: The Differential Effect of GSS Restrictiveness on Process Satisfaction and Group Cohesion," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 303-320, July.
    8. Bradley C. Wheeler, 2002. "NEBIC: A Dynamic Capabilities Theory for Assessing Net-Enablement," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 125-146, June.
    9. Cuellar, Michael J. & Gallivan, Michael J., 2006. "A framework for ex ante project risk assessment based on absorptive capacity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 1123-1138, September.
    10. Boyer O’Leary, Michael & Wilson, Jeanne M. & Metiu, Anca, 2011. "Beyond Being There: The Symbolic Role of Communication and Identification in the Emergence of Perceived Proximity in Geographically Dispersed Work," ESSEC Working Papers WP1112, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2753 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Teija Laitinen & Maria Kankaanpaa, 1999. "Comparative analysis of failure prediction methods: the Finnish case," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 67-92.
    13. Edward Christensen & Jerry Fjermestad, 1997. "Challenging Group Support Systems Research: The Case for Strategic Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 351-372, July.
    14. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2008. "The entanglement of technology and work in organizations," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33898, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Ravi Anand Rao & Rahul De’, 2015. "Technology assimilation through conjunctures – a look at IS use in retail," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 31-50, February.
    16. Kun Shin Im & Varun Grover & James T. C. Teng, 2013. "Research Note---Do Large Firms Become Smaller by Using Information Technology?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 470-491, June.
    17. Abdesamad Zouine & Pierre Fenies, 2014. "The Critical Success Factors Of The ERP System Project: A Meta-Analysis Methodology," Post-Print hal-01419785, HAL.
    18. Rajiv Kohli & Sarv Devaraj, 2003. "Measuring Information Technology Payoff: A Meta-Analysis of Structural Variables in Firm-Level Empirical Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 127-145, June.
    19. Bianco, Federica & Michelino, Francesca, 2010. "The role of content management systems in publishing firms," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 117-124.
    20. Sony, Michael & Naik, Subhash, 2020. "Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and proposed theoretical model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    21. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.

    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:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008686105218. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.