Expertise Management by Public Accounting Firms

Research suggests that professional expertise may be viewed as an attribute of an accounting firm rather than just an attribute of individual experts. One research paper constructs a model that leads to the identification of three strategies applicable to accounting firms. A Knowledge firm develops and sells proprietary knowledge to a selective clientele, whereas a Full Service firm develops and sells general professional knowledge to a broad clientele. A Relationship firm is in-between the other two firm types. 

Associations are hypothesized between these strategies and a variety of firm activities such as client selection, diffusion (or concentration) of expertise within the firm, sharing of expertise within the firm, and formalization of quality control processes. A questionnaire was completed by 219 audit and tax partners and consulting, insolvency and forensic accounting principals in 15 public accounting firms.

The results are consistent with the existence of three distinct types of firms. The results also indicate that partners are aware of local pressures that they personally face (such as the need to sell more services to clients) and less aware of the effect of broad structural features of the firm (such as size and decision aids). The key structural features that are salient to partners involve the need for selectivity in choosing clients and the need for the firm to develop specialized proprietary technical knowledge.

To learn more about this research on expertise, read the paper “Expertise Management by Public Accounting Firms” by Michael Gibbins and Karim Jamal, University of Alberta (February 6, 2001 Version).

Professional scepticism and other key audit issues

There is an ongoing debate about whether professional accountants are sufficiently sceptical in applying professional judgment. For example, the concerns of regulators and others have been highlighted in the media and form part of the discussions on the future of the accounting profession. In this regard, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (Audit and Assurance Faculty) is exploring the possibility of conveying key messages on the issues and has discussed this possibility with the UK Professional Oversight Board (POB).

The result is a new set of videos Professional scepticism and other key audit issues now available on the ICAEW website. The purpose of the videos is to highlight some of the concerns of the POB (and other regulators around the world) and to be constructive about how audit firms respond to the issues. In total, there are ten videos with one compilation video (about 40 minutes long). It is hoped that, in addition to individual auditors watching them, some firms will play the videos as part of training activities and team meetings.

The longest video (about 17 minutes) highlights the fundamental importance of professional scepticism. The video provides key messages on the issues that will be of interest to firms at the current time. Martyn Jones (ICAEW Vice-President) speaks about how auditors should be dealing with the challenges and the need to understand that scepticism is a behavioural issue for the entire audit team. John Kellas (POB Chairman) talks about what the Audit Inspection Unit (AIU) has been looking at in the current climate and describes the ways a lack of scepticism can be apparent. Myles Thompson (Chairman of the faculty’s Technical and Practical Auditing Committee) outlines the personality traits that auditors need to have and gives tips on how to produce documentation that demonstrates scepticism.

The messages are relevant to auditors from firms of all sizes and the personal qualities that are spoken about are needed for all types and sizes of audit. The key points also apply internationally, not just in the UK. Other subjects covered in the videos are group audits, quality control, audit committee reporting, audit documentation, ethical matters and concluding remarks.

Can you really teach good judgment? (Part 3 of 3)

Research in the areas of judgment and decision making over the last few decades indicates that additional knowledge about common threats to good judgment, together with processes and tools for making good judgments, can improve the professional judgment abilities of both new and seasoned professionals. The research also confirms that professional judgment in the context of teams or groups is crucial because many important judgments are made in groups.

In learning about group judgments and decisions, three key themes should be kept in mind. First, the same judgment process, such as that illustrated in the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework (available at the KPMG University Connection) applies to both individual and group judgments. Second, it is important to be aware of the judgment traps and biases, and to take steps to mitigate them in group settings. Third, successful group leaders manage group judgment processes by properly structuring the group’s interaction and by effectively managing conflict.

With the movement in financial reporting toward more principles-based standards and more fair value measurements, exercising good professional judgment is increasingly important. It is clear that professionals will be required to apply more and better professional judgment on a consistent basis. As the accompanying exhibit shows, the more critical the judgment, the more rigorous the process and the more time it will take to make good judgments.