The questionnaires of main research B were filled out during the conference and analysed af-terwards. Only fully completed questionnaires (i.e. answers were provided for all five obliga-tory questions) were considered. Provided answers were allocated to a number according to their rank (strongly disagree = 1; somewhat disagree = 2; neither agree nor disagree = 3; some-what agree = 4; strongly agree = 5). Based on these numbers, average agreement rates were calculated per question. An average agreement rate of 3.0 or higher was considered as signifi-cant.
A total of 22 questionnaires were completed, one of which did not hold answers to all obligatory questions. Thus, the average agreement rates were calculated on the basis of 21 complete ques-tionnaires. In relation to the 72 participants who signed up for the lecture, the return rate amounts to 29.2%. The results are shown in the following table:
Table 14: Results of main research B
Source: Own calculation (n = 21)
Factor group ‘frameworks conditions’ holds an average agreement rate of 2.3 which is below the significance level of 3.0 and thus considered low. 71.4% of all respondents strongly or somewhat disagree to ‘framework conditions’ having a negative impact on CA adoption, while only 14.3% strongly or somewhat agree. Therefore, conditions in the internal or external envi-ronment of a company are not found to impair internal auditors in their decision to adopt CA.
The average agreement rate for factor group ‘skills’ ranks just below the significance level at 2.9. Six out of 21 respondents selected ‘neither agree nor disagree’, the remaining responses are split almost evenly between agree (7) and disagree (8). This almost even distribution implies the absence of a tendency in either direction. Consequently, these results do not clearly identify a significant negative impact on CA adoption arising from lacking auditors’ skills. Therefore, missing skills are not found to impair internal auditors in their decision to adopt CA.
As for factor group ‘skills’, the average agreement rate for factor group ‘results’ ranks at 2.9 and thus below the significance level of 3.0. Nine out of 21 respondents (and thus almost 43%) selected ‘neither agree nor disagree’. Each six respondents selected either agree or disagree which shows that distribution of responses is even. In contrast to factor group ‘skills’, the distribution of responses for factor group ‘results’ is even more centre-based. Consequently, these results do not identify a significant negative impact on CA adoption arising from improper results of CA activities. CA’s shortage in delivering inaccurate results is therefore not found to impair internal auditors in their decision to adopt CA.
The average agreement rate of 3.9 for factor group ‘resources‘ is clearly above the significance level of 3.0 and is therefore considered high. 76.2% of all respondents indicated that limits in their cost and time budgets make them reluctant to introduce or enhance CA activities in their company. Only 14.3% of the respondents did not see a lack of resources as having an impact on CA adoption. With only 9.5% opting for ‘neither agree nor disagree’, respondents show a very clear opinion, compared to the other questions. Consequently, the lack of proper resources is found to be one major weakness when it comes to the adoption of CA.
Factor group ‘support’ features an average agreement rate of 3.4 which is above the significance level of 3.0. 47.6% of all respondents ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that missing support from management or other departments impacts their decision on adopting CA. Only 23.8% do not see that the missing support has a significantly negative impact on CA adoption. These results underline the significance of CA failing if proper support is missing. Thus, missing sup-port is found to impair internal auditors in their decision to adopt CA.
The detailed results can be found in appendix 12.
Alongside these findings, survey question 6 provided further factors impairing companies in their CA efforts. These are listed below:
• Lack of resources among auditors to approach CA (2 replies).
• Internal audit function fears to approach something new (1 reply).
• Senior management wants internal audit function to focus on efficiency. CA does not match this focus (1 reply).
• CA is not seen as a strategic internal audit topic. Instead, responsibility for CA is un-derstood to rest with first line or second line departments (1 reply).
The first reason (‘lack of resources’) corresponds to factor group ‘resources’ (survey question 4). The fact that two respondents explicitly mentioned this reason under survey question 6 in-dicates the importance of this issue and thus reinforces internal auditors’ view that a shortage in resources prevents them from fostering CA.
As second reason, ‘fear to approach something new’ was mentioned by one respondent corre-spondents. The fact that this reason was explicitly mentioned under survey question 6 implies that internal auditors consider CA as a new methodology which substantially diverges from their established practices. However, as this reason was mentioned by only one respondent, its value is small.
The third reason and the fourth reason (‘missing relevance of CA to internal audit function’ and
‘efficiency focus’) are each mentioned by one respondent. They do not fit in any of the five factor groups and are thus considered as new insights of why internal auditors refrain from using CA. Similar to reason ‘fear to approach something new’, these two reasons are only of small value as they were mentioned only once.