PhD – Page 4 – Micheal Axelsen | Information Insights

Update on the PhD

September 20, 2011June 5, 2009 by micheal

Hmmm. Well today was meant to be a really productive day in which I dealt with all the outstanding issues, wrote papers, read papers and set up my PC.

PC got in the way through a case of destruction of MX records, and so I got half an article read (Tversky & Kahnemann 1974). I also have to update the interview protocol for the ARC project. There is a bit of fun going on at the moment in the context of exactly trying to define what an ‘IS audit’ is. Grrr.

Still I am adamant that I will get somewhere with this – look out for a short paper on cognitive psychology and its relationship with user expertise. Now I really should go and do some proper work. It is my intention to use this blog a bit more to pick up this material around technology dominance and so on. Let’s see how that goes.

What are the AIFRS changes?

September 20, 2011January 21, 2009 by micheal

Just a note I’ve prepared based upon my PhD project. You’ll either get it or you won’t.

AIFRS Changes

At the core, AIFRS is made up of two factors: Auditing Standard changes (ASAâ€™s) and Australian Accounting Standard changes (AASBâ€™s).

Therefore, there are two components impacting upon IT audit methodology:

More information to be recorded by the business on the basis of changes to the Australian Accounting Standards, being the Share Register (AASB101 and AASB103), Asset Register (AAS25, AASB3, AASB5, AASB6, AASB102, AASB116, AASB117, AASB119, AASB127, AASB130, AASB131, AASB132, AASB136, AASB137, AASB138, AASB140, AASB141, AASB1023, AASB1038, AASB1049, AASB1050, AASB1051, and AASB1052), and Liabilities Register (AAS 25, AASB2, AASB3, AASB4, AASB 119, AASB130, AASB131, AASB132, AASB137, AASB1004, AASB1050, and AASB1052). These AASB’s are not definitive.
Modifications in the Audit Standards that affect the processes that the auditor should use in considering all of the financial information relating to the formulation of its opinion on the financial statements.

Audit Methodology

The project makes direct reference to the need to identify IT Audit methodologies. When discussed with practitioners, they did not distinguish between audit methodologies and IT audit methodologies.

Accordingly Lynne Gehrke has adopted the Cushing & Loebbecke (1986) approach to the audit methodology. Although ISACA through its CISA program has an audit methodology that it outlines, there is not really such a thing (so it seems) as a seprate IT audit methodology. Accordingly, the implications need to be examined upon the audit methodology as a whole.

AIFRS, IT Audit

But maybe I’m a knowledge labourer after all

September 20, 2011December 15, 2008 by micheal

For some time I’ve been one of those accounting/ICT people who delves into the world of knowledge management every now and then. This is an area of practice where buzz words abound – communities of practice, centres of excellence, and the venerable ‘knowledge worker’ to name a few.

In the past week I’ve had cause to think of these terms, particularly ‘knowledge worker’. It sounds like a good thing, doesn’t it? After all, you work with knowledge to create all sorts of good things of value for the business. However recently I’ve been swotting up on the ‘theory of technology dominance’ and a presentation by Steve Sutton in 2006 implied another term for when you work with ephemeral ‘knowledge-based’ stuff but with little latitude for exercising professional judgment due to the constraints of technology: ‘knowledge labourer’.

And then there was the video recently relating to the ‘mother of all demos’ where Doug Engelbart referred to ‘intellectual workers’ in 1968. Clearly that term didn’t much catch on – possibly there are elitist overtones.

It seems that we have as a result three terms here that apply – I’ve tried to put my twist into the definition:

knowledge labourer: works to rule creating and storing information and data within the rules set by an information system, and as a result getting little opportunity to develop or exercise professional judgment. Such people can be recognised by a bureaucratic insistence upon rules and an oft-stated desire to unplug the computer.
knowledge worker: has more freedom to create ‘knowledge’ such as documents, strategies, and developed information, but in response to a business need and with a commercial imperative. These people spend a great deal of time trying to explain the value they provide to the business, and generally look nervous in recessions.
intellectual worker: tends to be working on several high-brow things at once, mainly because it interests them rather than out of any commercial necessity. These people use their intellectual smarts to advance the body of knowledge rather than their bank balance. Such people can usually be recognised as frustrated PhD students who used to have higher-paying jobs as knowledge labourers or workers before becoming ‘bored’.

By my definition I’m at risk of being an ‘intellectual worker’. Although @sjjoyner probably put it best when describing a ‘knowledge labourer’: "@maxelsen Here I was thinking you were being witty. Now it sounds serious and a deeply awful occupational class."

I wonder how many people are more knowledge labourers than knowledge workers…

Technorati Tags: knowledge management,intellectual workers,knowledge workers,knowledge labourers

Accounting for the Emission Trading Scheme

September 20, 2011November 11, 2008 by micheal

As part of the good old PhD, I’m looking at some of the impacts of reporting changes around the adoption of IFRS in Australia upon audits.Â As part of this, I’m taking a look at accounting for the Emissions Trading Scheme – mostly because it’s interesting and topical.

The Australian Government has flagged an intention to create an emissions trading scheme, but has rather less-than-helpfully (in some ways) left the creation of accounting for its business impact to the International Accounting Standards Board.Â According to the IASB work program, an exposure draft regarding accounting for emissions trading scheme will be provided in the second half of 2009, and IFRS standards will be released in 2010.Â Alternative accounting models are to be brought to IASB in Q3 2008 (presumably, about now).

Rather less than conveniently, if IASB’s work program doesn’t slip, the new accounting standards will be released about the time the emissions trading scheme is implemented.Â Hmmm.

The project overview is provided here for IASB: emissions trading scheme.

However, the above seems to relate to how to account for the dollar impact of the scheme (presumably, accounting for assets and expenses created by the scheme etc).Â There is in addition a current reporting obligation under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.Â This is of course NOT the ETS, but it does give us some things to do right now.Â A copy of the guidelines for reporting obligations can be found on the government’s website.

By 2010, organisations that produce more than 50 kilotonnes of CO2 and/or use 200 terajoules of energy are subject to these requirements.Â There is an enormous scope of the non-accounting information that is required just in order to determine whether or not the corporation exceeds the threshold (see also this link:Â https://www.oscar.gov.au/Deh.Oscar.Extension.Web/Content/NgerThresholdCalculator/Default.aspx).

These reporting requirements appear to apply to at least government agencies, although it is uncertain whether State Departments (e.g. Queensland Health) are captured by these requirements.Â The advice for government agencies is that they should set up their systems to make this apply, and likely it will be made apply in any event due to the need for them to maintain a reputation.

A lot to absorb.Â By the way this blog is starting to creak under its own weight and desperately needs a redesign – I will redesign the categories and so on when I get a chance (so perhaps this is permanent).