Home  About us  Contact
 

Control Risk (control + risk)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting75%

Selected Abstracts

CRAS-CBR: Internal control risk assessment system using case-based reasoning

EXPERT SYSTEMS, Issue 1 2004
Sung-Sik Hwang
Abstract: Information technology and the Internet have been major drivers for changes in all aspects of business processes and activities. They have brought major changes to the financial statements audit environment as well, which in turn has required modifications in audit procedures. There exist certain difficulties, however, with current audit procedures especially for the assessment of the level of control risk. This assessment is primarily based on the auditors' professional judgment and experiences, not on objective rules or criteria. To overcome these difficulties, we propose a prototype decision support model named CRAS-CBR using case-based reasoning to support auditors in making their professional judgment on the assessment of the level of control risk of the general accounting system in the manufacturing industry. To validate the performance, we compare our proposed model with benchmark performances in terms of classification accuracy for the level of control risk. Our experimental results show that CRAS-CBR outperforms a statistical model and staff auditor performance in average hit ratio. [source]

Modelling Audit Risk Assessments: Exploration of an Alternative to the Use of Knowledge-based Systems

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDITING, Issue 1 2003
Paul Lloyd
This paper compares decision-modelling approaches. The decision modelled is the assessment of inherent and control risk in the purchases, accounts payable and inventory cycle. It is modelled using two different approaches. Firstly, knowledge-based models are constructed using established development shells. Secondly, a model is constructed using a conventional procedural programming language. Both modelling approaches are tested against the output of human practitioners and compared to each other to determine if the more restrictive, assumption-laden approach offered by the procedural model is adequate to deal with the decision problem under examination, or if the greater flexibility offered by the knowledge-based approach is required. This comparison yields positive results. The procedural model is able to reproduce satisfactorily the output of the human decision makers and the knowledge-based models for the chosen decision problem. This result emphasises the importance of devoting time to the selection of the most appropriate modelling approach for a given decision problem. [source]

Auditing SAP R/3 , Control Risk Assessment

AUSTRALIAN ACCOUNTING REVIEW, Issue 22 2000
PETER BEST
This paper provides an introduction to auditing in an SAP R/3 environment, focusing primarily on the assessment of control risk. A number of distinguishing characteristics of the SAP R/3 system that affect the audit are described. The application of a standard internal control framework to the assessment of application controls is illustrated. Two significant pervasive general control areas are examined - system development and program maintenance, and user access control. Relevant controls in these areas are discussed and methods for auditing these controls are outlined. Several opporhcnities for research in the auditing of SAP R/3 are proposed. [source]

The Impact of False Rejection Risk on Posterior Audit Risk Measurement

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDITING, Issue 1 2001
Anne D. Woodhead
This paper investigates false rejection risk, analysing the a priori relationship between the risk of false rejection and the more common risk of false acceptance, of an account balance by a substantive test. The paper uses probability theory to specify the relationship between these two risks and thus generate a model of posterior audit risk. The paper proceeds to investigate the relationship using the power function of basic statistics. This specifies the relationship between (i) the probability of rejecting the account balance and (ii) the size of the error which the balance contains. We argue that unless there is a discontinuity in the power function around the specified value of material error, then posterior audit risk will be unaffected by the substantive tests undertaken. Posterior risk will then be determined entirely by the assessed inherent and control risks. This conclusion is counter-intuitive to the approach to audit risk adopted by many professional pronouncements and results from the adoption of a mathematically rigorous definition of the risks encountered by the auditor. The primary conclusion is that the discontinuity arises under conditions of careful audit planning. If planning is careful, then false rejection risk contributes very little to posterior risk. In addition, there is very little difference between planned risk and posterior risk. [source]