Mulheres artificiais contra a corrupção: em busca de legitimidade no Tribunal de Contas da União
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.158530Palavras-chave:
Sistemas de Inteligência Artificial, Processos de Auditoria, Teorização, CorrupçãoResumo
Este estudo descreve a busca pela legitimidade de quatro artefatos de tecnologia da informação para auxiliar auditores na vigilância contra fraude e corrupção no Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU). ALICE, ADELE, MONICA e SOFIA são sistemas de Inteligência Artificial (IA) propostos para auxiliar os processos de auditoria no setor público. Um questionário online foi utilizado para reunir as respostas de 60 auditores de todo o Brasil, com entrevistas semiestruturadas com o Diretor de Dados, três desenvolvedores de TI e cinco gerentes de auditoria do TCU selecionados por amostragem intencional (purposive sampling). A pesquisa demonstra que o uso dos sistemas baseados em IA é baixo entre os auditores do TCU devido a um limitado benefício percebido. Embora alguns respondentes reconheçam as vantagens dos sistemas baseados em IA, o seu uso é adiado por uma fraca teorização e difusão em relação ao significado e ao uso desses sistemas dentro da organização; os auditores mostraram uma prioridade no uso dos métodos tradicionais de auditoria em detrimento da inovação digital, restringindo o potencial de controle do uso dos artefatos tecnológicos contra a corrupção.
Downloads
Referências
Banks, M. (2007). Using visual data in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution. Organization Studies, 18(1): 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106
Bierstaker, J. L., Burnaby, P., & Thibodeau, J. (2001). The impact of information technology on the audit process: an assessment of the state of the art and implications for the future. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(3): 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900110385489
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.07.001
Borge, M. (1999). The role of supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in combating corruption. Transparency International. Paper presented at the workshop Public Sector Financial Transparency and Accountability: The Emerging Global Architecture and Case Studies. 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference. Durban, October 1999. Retrieved from: http://9iacc.org/papers/day4/ws2/dnld/d4ws2_mborge.pdf
Braun, R. L., & Davis, H. E. (2003). Computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: analysis and perspectives. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(9): 725-731. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900310500488
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. 57-71. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Carmo, P. N., Souza, B. F., Reis, M. V., & Vieira, J. C. (2018). Aprendizado de Máquina em Ações de Controle no Tribunal de Contas do Estado do Maranhão. In: VII Jornada de Informática do Maranhão, 2018, São Luiz. JIM 2018.
Chen, H., Chung, W., Xu, J. J., Wang, G., Qin, Y., & Chau, M. (2004). Crime data mining: A general framework and some examples. Computer, 37(4): 50-56. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2004.1297301
Christianson, M. K., (2016). Mapping the terrain: The use of video-based research in top-tier organizational journals. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116663636
Currie, W. (2009). Contextualizing the IT artifact: towards a wider research agenda for IS using institutional theory, Information Technology & People. 22(1):63-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840910937508
Davenport, T. H., & J. Kirby. (2016). Just how smart are smart machines? MIT Sloan Management Review (Spring). Retrieved from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/just-how-smart-are-smart-machines [Accessed in Sept, 21, 2019].
Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2013). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2):147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Digiampietri, L. A., Roman, N. T., Meira, L. A. A., Filho, J. J., Ferreira, C. D., Kondo, A. A., Constantino, E. R., Rezende, R. C., Brandão, B. C., Ribeiro, H., Carolino, P. K., Lanna, A., Wainer, J., & Goldenstein, S. (2008). Uses of artificial intelligence in the Brazilian customs fraud detection system. Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 289:181-187. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220268016_Uses_of_artificial_intelligence_in_the_Brazilian_customs_fraud_detection_system
Dye, K. M. (2007). Corruption and fraud detection by Supreme Audit Institutions. Performance Accountability and Combating Corruption, Washington, DC: World Bank. 303-322. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/PerformanceAccountabilityandCombatingCorruption.pdf [Accessed in Sept, 21, 2019].
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research, 3rd edition. London, SAGE Publications.
Empson, L. (2017). Elite interviewing in professional organizations, Journal of Professions and Organization, 5 (1), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jox010
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet research, 15(2): 195-219. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114: 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
Gepp, A., Linnenluecke, M. K., O’Neill, T. J., & Smith, T. (2018). Big data techniques in auditing research and practice: Current trends and future opportunities. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40: 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2017.05.003
Goto, M. (2018). The emergence of disruptive technology and retheorization of professional logic: A case study of Big 4 accounting firms in Japan on AI audit. 34th EGOS Colloquium. Tallinn, Estonia.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022-1054. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069285
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159744
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317-371. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590299
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital Innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization. 28(1):52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
IBA, Global Employment Institute. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and Robotics and Their Impact on the Workplace. Retrieved from: https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=c06aa1a3-d355-4866-beda-9a3a8779ba6e [Accessed in Dez, 20, 2018].
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9:1, 24152. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.24152
Jans, M., Alles, M., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2013). The case for process mining in auditing: Sources of value added and areas of application. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14(1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.06.015
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245): 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415
Kayrak, M. (2008). Evolving challenges for supreme audit institutions in struggling with corruption. Journal of Financial Crime, 15(1): 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790810841707
Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence: How Automation is Changing Auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting. 14(1): 115–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51730
Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Questionnaire design. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, 439-455. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work. In: The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, 215-254
Liguori, M., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2012). Some like it non-financial… Politicians’ and managers’ views on the importance of performance information. Public Management Review, 14(7): 903-922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.650054
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078111
Mahzan, N., & Lymer, A. (2014). Examining the adoption of computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: Cases of generalized audit software use by internal auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(4): 327-349. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2013-0877
Melo, M. A., Pereira, C., & Figueiredo, C. M. (2009). Political and Institutional Checks on Corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9): 1217–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009331732
Mena, S., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Theorization as institutional work: The dynamics of roles and practices. Human Relations, 69(8), 1669–1708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715622556
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293 [Accessed in Dec, 18, 2018].
Mikhaylov, S. J., Esteve, M., & Campion, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: opportunities and challenges of cross-sector collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128), 20170357. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0357
Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: An assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research, 16: 231-254. https://doi.org./10.1016/j.mar.2005.03.001
Muggleton, S. (2014). Alan Turing and the development of Artificial Intelligence. AI Communications, 27(1): 3-10. https://doi.org/10.3233/AIC-130579
Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W. (2010). Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics: An inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton's health care reform initiative. Organization Science, 21(4): 823-841. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0490
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145. https://doi.org/10.2307/258610
OECD .(2017). Auditing for more robust internal control and risk management systems, in Brazil's Federal Court of Accounts: Insight and Foresight for Better Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279254-7-en
Othman, R., Aris, N. A., Mardziyah, A., Zainan, N., & Amin, N. (2015). Fraud Detection and Prevention Methods in the Malaysian Public Sector: Accountants’ and Internal Auditors’ Perceptions. Procedia Economics and Finance. 28: 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01082-5
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016689486
Perols, J. L., Bowen, R. M., Zimmermann, C., & Samba, B. (2016). Finding needles in a haystack: Using data analytics to improve fraud prediction. The Accounting Review, 92(2): 221-245. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51562
Ralha, C. G., & Silva, C. V. S. (2012). A multi-agent data mining system for cartel detection in Brazilian government procurement. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(14): 11642-11656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.04.037
Ramirez, J. A. O., & Perez, J. A. C. (2016). Impact of Supreme Audit Institutions on the Phenomenon of Corruption: An International Empirical Analysis. Journal of Public Governance and Policy: Latin American Review, 2(3):34-59. Retrieved from:http://www.revistascientificas.udg.mx/index.php/JPGPA/article/view/6072
Rapley, T. (2014). Sampling strategies in qualitative research. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London, 49-63.
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., González-Díaz, B., Braci, E., Carrington, E., Hathaway, J., Jeppesen, K. K., & Steccolini, I. (2019). Sais work against corruption in Scandinavian, South-European and African countries: An institutional analysis. The British Accounting Review, 100842. Article in Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100842.
Roulston, K. (2014). Analysing interviews. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, 297-312.
Salovaara, I. (2012). Beth Simone Noveck: Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. 2009. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 28(52): 4. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v28i52.5731
Silva, W. V. (2016). The pillars of the data analysis strategy and consumption of information at the TCU. Federal Court of Accounts Journal, 48(137): 13-17. Retrieved from: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/de/biblioteca-digital/revista-do-tcu-n-137-sep-dec-2016-federal-court-of-accounts-journal.htm [Accessed in Dec, 15, 2018).
Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven Institutional Change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 877–904. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0013
Sousa, W. G., Melo, E. R. P., Bermejo, P. H. D. S., Farias, R. A. S., & Gomes, A. O. (2019). How and where is artificial intelligence in the public sector going? A literature review and research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 101392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.004
Sperb, P. (2017, August, 25). Watson, a inteligência artificial a serviço da PF gaúcha. Veja online. Retrieved from https://veja.abril.com.br/blog/rio-grande-do-sul/watson-a-inteligencia-artificial-a-servico-da-pf-gaucha/ [Accessed in Dec, 18, 2018].
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22(4): 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00993595
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy Management Review, 20(3): 571-560. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Tara, I. G., Gherai, D. S., Laurentiu, D. R. O. J., & Matica, D. E. (2016). The Social Role of the Supreme Audit Institutions to Reduce Corruption in the European Union-Empirical Study. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 52: 217-240. Retriveded from: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=521495 [Accessed in September, 21, 2019].
Taurion, C. (2016). Technological innovations in government auditing. Federal Court of Accounts Journal, 48(137): 7-12. Retrieved from: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/de/biblioteca-digital/revista-do-tcu-n-137-sep-dec-2016-federal-court-of-accounts-journal.htm [Accessed in Dec, 15, 2018].
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. [Electronic version]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:22-39. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/131
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. 175-190. London: SAGE.
Valle-Cruz, D., & Sandoval-Almazan, R. (2018). Towards an understanding of artificial intelligence in government. Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research Governance in the Data Age - Dgo’18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209397
Williams, T. (1995). The use of audit software in fraud detection. Journal of Financial Crime, 2, (4): 305 - 310. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025655
Wongpinunwatana, N., Ferguson, C., & Bowen, P. (2000). An experimental investigation of the effects of artificial intelligence systems on the training of novice auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(6): 306-318. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900010344511
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World. Organization Science, 23(5): 1398-408. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
Zerbino, P., Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2018). Process-Mining-enabled audit of Information Systems: methodology and an application. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.05.030
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
A RCO adota a política de Acesso Livre (Libre Open Access), sob o acordo padrão Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). O acordo prevê que:
- A submissão de texto autoriza sua publicação e implica compromisso de que o mesmo material não esteja sendo submetido a outro periódico. O original é considerado definitivo;
- Autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attributionque permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista;
- Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com necessário reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista;
- Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre);
- A revista não paga direitos autorais aos autores dos textos publicados;
- O detentor dos direitos autorais da revista, exceto os já acordados no acordo de Libre Open Access (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), é o Departamento de Contabilidade da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo.
Não são cobradas taxas de submissão ou de publicação.
São aceitos até 4 autores por artigo. Casos excepcionais devidamente justificados poderão ser analisados pelo Comitê Executivo da RCO. São considerados casos excepcionais: projetos multi-institucionais; manuscritos resultantes da colaboração de grupos de pesquisa; ou que envolvam grandes equipes para coleta de evidências, construção de dados primários e experimentos comparados.
É recomendada a ordem de autoria por contribuição, de cada um dos indivíduos listados como autores, especialmente no desenho e planejamento do projeto de pesquisa, na obtenção ou análise e interpretação de dados e redação. Os autores devem declarar as efetivas contribuições de cada autor, preenchendo a carta ao editor, logo no início da submissão, responsabilizando-se pelas informações dadas.
É permitida a troca de autores durante todo o processo de avaliação e, antes da publicação do manuscrito. Os autores devem indicar a composição e ordem final de autoria no documento assinado por todos os envolvidos no aceite para publicação. Caso a composição e ordem de autoria seja diferente da informada anteriormente no sistema, todos autores anteriormente listados deverão se manifestar favoráveis.
No caso de identificação de autoria sem mérito ou contribuição (ghost, guest or gift authorship), a RCO segue o procedimento recomendado pela COPE.
