Factors influencing the planned adoption of continuous monitoring technology

Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 53-69

  Gonzalez, George C ^a   Sharma, Pratyush Nidhi ^b   Galletta, Dennis ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Continuous auditing; Continuous monitoring; Internal auditing; Technology adoption; UTAUT

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870737980     PISSN: 08887985     EISSN: 15587959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/isys-50259     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Behavior, Action-Control: from Cognition to Behavior. Edited by Kuhl, J., and J. Beckman, 11-39. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
2. Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by Berkowitz, L. New York, NY: Academic Press.
3. Alles, M., G. Brennan, A. Kogan, and M. A. Vasarhelyi. 2006. Continuous monitoring of business process controls: A pilot implementation of a continuous auditing system at Siemens. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 7 (2): 137-161.
4. Alles, M., G. A. Kogan, and M. A. Vasarhelyi. 2008. Putting continuous auditing theory into practice: Lessons from two pilot implementations. Journal of Information Systems 22 (2): 195-214.
5. Bagozzi, R., and Y. Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74-94.
6. Bedard, J., C. Jackson, M. Ettredge, and K. Johnstone. 2003. The effect of training on auditors' acceptance of an electronic work system. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 4: 227-250.
7. Birkinshaw, J., A. Morrison, and H. Hulland. 1995. Structural and competitive determinants of a global integration strategy. Strategic Management Journal 16 (8): 637-655.
8. Brown, C., J. Wong, and A. Baldwin. 2007. Review and analysis of the existing research streams in continuous auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 4: 1-28.
9. Cassel, C., P. Hackl, and A. H. Westlund. 1999. Robustness of partial least-squares method for estimating latent variable quality structures. Journal of Applied Statistics 26: 435-446.
10. Chan, D., and M. Vasarhelyi. 2011. Innovation and practice of continuous auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 12: 152-160.
11. Chin, W. W. 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research, edited by Marcoulides, G. A., 295-336 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
12. Associates: Compeau, D. R., and C. A. Higgins. 1995. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research 6 (2): 118-143.
13. Curtis, M., and E. Payne. 2008. An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 9: 104-121.
14. Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 13 (3): 319-339.
15. Deloitte. 2010. Continuous monitoring and continuous auditing: From idea to implementation. Available at: http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/AERS/us_aers_ CACM_070710.pdf
16. DeSanctis, G., and M. Poole. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5 (2): 121-147.
17. Dowling, C. 2008. Discussion of: An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 9: 122-126.
18. Dowling, C. 2009. Appropriate audit support system use: The influence of auditor, audit team, and firm factors. The Accounting Review 84 (3): 771-810.
19. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20. Gefen, D., E. Rigdon, and D. Straub. 2011. An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly 35 (2): iii-xiv.
21. Gefen, D., D. Straub, and M.-C. Boudreau. 2000. Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS (4): 7.
22. Gonzalez, G. C., P. N. Sharma, and D. F. Galletta. 2012. The antecedents of the use of continuous auditing in the internal auditing context. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13 (3): 248-262
23. Grant Thornton. 2011. Looking to the Future: Perspectives and Trends from Internal Audit Leaders. Charlotte, NC: Grant Thornton LLP
24. Greenfield, G., and F. Rohde. 2009. Technology acceptance: Not all organizations or workers may be the same. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10: 263-272.
25. Groomer, S., and U. Murthy. 1989. Continuous auditing of database applications: An embedded audit module approach. Journal of Information Systems 3 (2): 53-69.
26. Henseler, J., and M. Sarstedt. 2012. The goodness of fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/492v53438l257xn0/ fulltext.pdf
27. Hermanson, D., B. Moran, C. Rossie, and D. Wolfe. 2006. Continuous monitoring of transactions to reduce fraud, misuse, and errors. Journal of Forensic Accounting VII: 17-30.
28. Hunton, J., E. Mauldin, and P. Wheeler. 2008. Potential functional and dysfunctional effects of continuous monitoring. The Accounting Review 83 (6): 1551-1569.
29. Inkpen, A., and J. Birkinshaw. 1994. International joint ventures and performance: An inter-organizational perspective. International Business Review 3 (3): 201-217.
30. Kim, H., M. Mannino, and R. Nieschwietz. Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: Impact of technology features and complexity. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10: 214-228.
31. King, W. R., and J. He. 2009. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 43: 740-755.
32. KPMG. 2010a. Continuous Auditing and Monitoring: Are Promised Benefits Now Being Realized? KPMG LLP. Available at: http://www.kpmg.com/be/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/ continuous-auditing-and-monitoring.aspx
33. KPMG International (KPMG). 2010b. What is driving continuous auditing and continuous monitoring today? KPMG International Cooperative. Available at: http://www.kpmg.com/cn/en/ issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/continuous-auditing-continuous-monitoring-o-201003. aspx
34. Kuhn, J., and S. Sutton. 2006. Learning from WorldCom: Implications for fraud detection through continuous assurance. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 3: 61-80.
35. Lee, Y., K. A. Kozar, and K. R. T. Larsen. 2003. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 12: 752-780.
36. Legris, P., J. Ingham, and P. Collerette. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 40: 191-204.
37. Liang, H., N. Saraf, Q. Hu, and Y. Xue. 2007. Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly 31 (1): 59-87.
38. Podsakoff, P., S. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879-903.
39. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). 2006. State of the internal audit profession study: Continuous auditing gains momentum. Available at: http://www.pwc.com/en_BE/be/systems-process-assurance/pwcstate-of-internal-audit-2006.pdf
40. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). 2007. State of the internal audit profession study: Pressures build for continual focus on risk. Available at: http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/internal-audit/assets/state_ internal_audit_profession_study_07.pdf
41. Ratley, J. 2011. From the President and CEO. Fraud Magazine (May/June): 2.
42. Sheppard, B. H., J. Hartwick, and P. R. Warshaw. 1988. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research 15: 325-343.
43. Silva, L. 2007. Post-positivist review of technology acceptance model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (4): 255-266.
44. Turner, M., B. Kitchenham, P. Brereton, S. Charters, and D. Budgen. 2010. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 52: 463-479.
45. Vasarhelyi, M., M. Alles, and A. Kogan. 2004. Principles of analytic monitoring for continuous assurance. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 1 (1): 1-2l.
46. Vasarhelyi, M., and F. Halper. 1991. The continuous audit of online systems. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (1): 110-128.
47. Vasarhelyi, M., A. Kogan, and M. Alles. 2002. Would continuous auditing have prevented the Enron scandal? The CPA Journal July.
48. Vasarhelyi, M., S. Kuenkaikaewa, and J. Littley. 2012. The acceptance and adoption of continuous auditing by internal auditors: A microanalysis. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13 (3): 267-281.
49. Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425-478.
50. Verver, J. 2008. Continuous monitoring and auditing: What is the difference? Protiviti's KnowledgeLeader. Available at: http://www.protiviti.com/en-US/Documents/Featured-Articles/Continuous_ Monitoring_Auditing.pdf