Artificial Ladies against corruption: searching for legitimacy at the Brazilian Supreme Audit Institution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.158530Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence Systems, Auditing Processes, Institutional Theory, CorruptionAbstract
This study depicts the search for legitimacy by four information technology artifacts in helping auditors in the surveillance against fraud and corruption by the Brazilian Supreme Audit Institution (TCU). ALICE, ADELE, MONICA, and SOFIA are Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems proposed to aid auditing processes in the public sector. A web-based survey has been used to gather the responses from 60 auditors across Brazil and semi-structured interviews with the Chief Data Officer, three IT Developers and five TCU Audit Managers selected by purposive sampling. The research finds that the use of AI-based systems is low among auditors at the TCU due to the perceived limited benefit. While some respondents recognized the advantages of the AI-based systems, they are put off by the weak theorization and diffusion regarding the meaning and the use of AI-based systems within the organization; they showed a priority for using traditional auditing methods instead of digital innovation, restricting the potential of anticorruption control by technological artifacts.
Downloads
References
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
Published
Issue
Section
License
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.
