SUMMARY: This paper describes how auditors conduct brainstorming sessions to comply with the requirements of SAS No. 99. We gather evidence by interviewing 22 auditors at all personnel levels across seven audit firms (including all of the Big 4 firms) and by observing actual brainstorming sessions. The results reveal how auditors prepare for brainstorming sessions and allow us to describe a typical four-step brainstorming session process. We describe brainstorming group interactions and provide evidence on brainstorming session outcomes in terms of fraud risk assessments, audit plan modifications, and budget modifications. Finally, we report how audit firms encourage professional skepticism during brainstorming.
REFERENCES
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(
AICPA
). 1997
. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82. New York, NY:
AICPA
.American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(
AICPA
). 2002
. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY:
AICPA
.American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(
AICPA
). 2006
. Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 109. New York, NY:
AICPA
.Asare
S.
, and
Wright
A.
2004
. The effectiveness of alternative risk assessment and program planning tools in a fraud setting
. Contemporary Accounting Research
21
(Summer):
325
–352
.Beasley
M.
, and
Jenkins
J.
2003
. A primer for brainstorming fraud risks
. Journal of Accountancy
196
(December):
32
–38
.Brazel
J.
,
Carpenter
T.
, and
Jenkins
J. G.
2007
. A field investigation of auditors’ use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud
. Working paper, North Carolina State University
.Brown
H.
,
Hurtt
K.
, and
Joe
J. R.
2006
. An examination of the effectiveness of brainstorming techniques in fraud risk analysis
. Working paper, Boston College
.Carpenter
T.
2007
. Audit team brainstorming, fraud risk identification, and fraud risk assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99
. The Accounting Review
(October
)..
2007
. The effect of fraud training programs on professional skepticism, fraud risk factor evaluation, and fraud risk assessment
. Working paper, University of South Florida
.Gibbins
M.
, and
Jamal
K.
1993
. Problem-centered research and knowledge-based theory in the professional accounting setting
. Accounting, Organizations and Society
18
(July):
451
–466
.Lynch
A.
2004
. Auditors’ performance in computer-mediated fraud assessment brainstorming sessions: An investigation of the effects of anonymity and creativity training
. Ph.D.
dissertation
, University of South Florida
.Marczewski
D.
, and
Akers
M.
2005
. CPAs’ perceptions of the impact of SAS 99
. The CPA Journal
75
(June):
38
–40
.McConnell
, Jr., D.
, and
Banks
G.
2003
. Expanded guidance for auditor fraud detection responsibilities
. The CPA Journal
73
(June):
26
–33
.Osborn
A.
1953
. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York, NY:
Scribner’s
.Payne
E.
, and
Ramsay
R.
2005
. Fraud risk assessments and auditors’ professional skepticism
. Managerial Auditing Journal
20
(3
):
321
–330
.Ramos
M.
2003
. Auditors’ responsibility for fraud detection
. Journal of Accountancy
195
(January):
28
–36
.Valacich
J.
,
Dennis
A.
, and
J. F.
Nunamaker
, Jr..
1991
. Electronic meeting support: The GroupSystems concept
. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies
34
:
261
–282
.Wilks
T.
, and
Zimbelman
M.
2004
. Decomposition of fraud-risk assessments and auditors’ sensitivity to fraud cues
. Contemporary Accounting Research
21
(Fall):
719
–745
.
This content is only available via PDF.
American Accounting Association
2007
