Eileen Peacock

Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources

There has been considerable research on the factors that predict whether individuals will accept and voluntarily use information systems. The technology acceptance model (TAM) has a base in psychological research, is parsimonious, explains usage behavior quite well, and can be operationalized with valid and reliable instruments. A limitation of TAM is that it assumes usage is volitional, that is, there are no barriers that would prevent an individual from using an IS if he or she chose to do so. This research extends TAM by adding perceived user resources to the model, with careful attention to placing the construct in TAMs existing nomological structure. In contrast to measures of self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control that concentrate on how well individuals perceive they can execute specific courses of action, this paper examines perceptions of adequate resources that can facilitate or inhibit such behaviors. The inclusion of both a formative and reflective set of measures provides the opportunity for the researcher and manager to decide whether to evaluate only the overall perceptions of adequate resources or also the specific underlying causes. The extended model incorporating these measures was then tested in the field. The results confirmed that perceived user resources is a valuable addition to the model.

Accounting for the Development Costs of Internal‐Use Software

In this paper, we evaluate accounting practices for internal‐use software expenditures. Statement of Position No. 98‐1 (SOP No. 98‐1) requires expensing certain costs and capitalizing others. We argue that current accounting practice does not allow enough capitalization, since costs incurred during the systems analysis stage of model‐based systems development are expensed regardless of whether they create future benefits. The quest for uniformity in accounting treatment in the form of a single rule for multiple economic phenomena (i.e., treating all systems acquisition and development methods the same) results in reduced ability to reflect economic differences between systems acquisition and development methods. To illustrate, we provide an example of the differential effects of adopting SOP No. 98‐1 for firms using different development approaches. Under the SOP, “Analysis” costs are expensed. Under model‐based approaches, especially those with downstream effects, these Analysis costs are assets, since t...

RETHINKING AIS: AN INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS CURRICULUM

ABSTRACT This paper describes a new Financial Information Systems curriculum that integrates information technology and financial information in the development of business information systems, and discusses the problems we experienced in establishing the new program. Our intention is to provide accounting graduates with the knowledge they need to leverage the latest information technologies to support the use of financial information in management decision-making, and to integrate financial information and internal controls into business information systems. Our cross-disciplinary approach expands the horizons of our students, from one of viewing accounting as a stand-alone, untimely, inflexible information system, capturing only “accounting transactions” and their limited characteristics, to one of a more realistic real-time, enterprise-wide, activity-driven information system, used by a variety of users with a variety of needs. We also shift the focus from implementing costly controls to that of embedding controls within information systems during systems development, and of continuous systems monitoring.

An analysis of comparison questions in the context of auditing

Within the cognitive sciences, two taxonomies for classifying questions have been proposed (Graesser, Lang, & Horgan,1988; Lehnert, 1978). Both have neglected to include a category for comparison questions. We provide a definition of comparison questions and show how they related to the semantic categories of the two taxonomies. We present examples of comparison questions posed by auditors who are attempting to learn about a company during the initial stages of an audit. Comparison questions are particularly important to auditors because they uncover discrepencies and they focus the auditors’ search for information. Auditors are concerned with diagnosing the financial health of a company on the basis of symptoms and financial indicators of the companys performance. These critical comparisons involve comparison in performance of a company over time and comparison between a company and industrial averages. The auditors use of comparison questions is closely linked to the diagnostic process.