Supreme audit court of auditors' insights on operational audit challenges


Ghodratollah Haiarinejad, Sohrab Shekarbegi, Ali Akbar Kazemi and Sadegh JamaliDepartment of Accounting,Islamic Azad University, Ilam branch,Ilam,Iran


This paper presents an empirical study to find out the possible barriers on implementing operational audit. The proposed study distributes some questionnaires among supreme audit court of auditors and analyzes the questions. The results indicate that many governmental organizations are not strongly committed to rules and regulations. There are not sufficient standards on auditing programs and many governmental agencies do not even use operational budgeting system since they are not aware of the benefits of such system. There are some of the most important challenges of having operational accounting and paper suggests some guidelines for having better regulation on removing the main barriers.


DOI: j.msl.2011.01.003

Keywords: Operational audit ,Supreme audit court of auditors ,Senior auditors

How to cite this paper:

Haiarinejad, G., Shekarbegi, S., Kazemi, A & branch,Ilam,Iran, S. (2012). Supreme audit court of auditors' insights on operational audit challenges.Management Science Letters, 2(3), 757-762.


References

Abidin, S., Beattie, V., & Goodacre, A. (2010). Audit market structure, fees and choice in a period of structural change: Evidence from the UK – 1998–2003. The British Accounting Review, 42(3), 187-206

Blume, L., & Voigt, S. (2011). Does organizational design of supreme audit institutions matter? A cross-country assessment. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2), 215-229.

Chung, J., Farrar, J., Puri, P., & Thorne, L. (2010). Auditor liability to third parties after Sarbanes-Oxley: An international comparison of regulatory and legal reforms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19(1), 66-78.Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 32 (200), 675–701.

Friedman, M. (1940). A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(1), 86–92.

Giroux, G., & Cassell, C. (2011). Changing audit risk characteristics in the public client market. Research in Accounting Regulation, 23(2), 177-183.

Guénin-Paracini, H., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Auditors as modern pharmakoi: Legitimacy paradoxes and the production of economic order. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(2), 134-158.

Jennings, M.M., Pany, K., & Reckers, P.M.J. (2008). Internal control audits: Judges' perceptions of the credibility of the financial reporting process and likely auditor liability. Advances in Accounting, 24(2), 182-190.

Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.

Lima, L.H., & Magrini, A. (2010). The Brazilian Audit Tribunal's role in improving the federal environmental licensing process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2), 108-115.

Lines, R., & Nicholson, H. (1994). Nontrivial CAATs: Computer support for complex operational auditing. Computer Audit Update, 1994(1), 21-30

Numata, S., & Takeda, F. (2010). Stock market reactions to audit failure in Japan: The case of Kanebo and ChuoAoyama. The International Journal of Accounting, 45(2), 175-199.

Radcliffe, V. S. (2008). Public secrecy in auditing: What government auditors cannot know. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(1), 99-126.

Schelker, M., & Eichenberger, R. (2010). Auditors and fiscal policy: Empirical evidence on a little big institution. Journal of Comparative Economics, 38(4), 357-380.