بررسی حسابرسی عملکرد از دیدگاه حسابرسان دیوان محاسبات کشور

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس‌ارشد حسابداری، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

2 عضو هیئت علمی، گروه حسابداری، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه: با توجه به نقش و جایگاه ویژه حسابرسی عملکرد در ایفای مسئولیت پاسخ‌گویی، در این پژوهش، دیدگاه حسابرسان دیوان محاسبات کشور، به عنوان متولیان نظارت بر فعالیت‌های بخش عمومی، درباره حسابرسی عملکرد بررسی شده است.
روش پژوهش: پژوهش حاضر، از نظر هدف، کاربردی و به لحاظ ماهیت و روش، در زمره پژوهش‌های توصیفی از نوع پیمایشی است. نمونه پژوهش شامل 267 نفر از حسابرسان دیوان محاسبات کشور است. در این پژوهش داده‌ها از طریق پرسش‌نامه استاندارد، جمع‌آوری و با استفاده از آزمون دو جمله‌ای تجزیه و تحلیل شده است.  
یافته‌ها: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که ارزیابی اثربخشی، جزئی از فرایند حسابرسی عملکرد است. حسابرسان برای اجرای بهتر حسابرسی عملکرد نیازمند ورود به حوزه‌های تصمیم‌گیری و سیاست‌گذاری هستند. هم‌چنین، حسابرسان بخش عمومی افراد مناسبی برای انجام حسابرسی عملکرد هستند. البته، باید از سایر تخصص‌ها نیز در گروه حسابرسی عملکرد استفاده شود. حسابرسی‌های عملکرد دیوان محاسبات کشور در شرایط کنونی، بر بهبود مدیریت بخش عمومی مؤثر اما در ایفای بهتر مسئولیت پاسخ‌گویی بی‌تأثیر است.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: دیوان محاسبات کشور برای انجام حسابرسی عملکرد به شیوه مؤثر باید دامنه رسیدگی خود را به حوزه‌های تصمیم‌گیری و سیاست‌گذاری گسترش داده و در برنامه‌ریزی‌های سالیانه به گونه‌ای عمل کند که زمینه ورود به این حوزه‌ها از بُعد ارزیابی آثار ناشی از تصمیم‌‌های اتخاذ شده فراهم شود. هم‌چنین، استفاده از نظرات تخصصی کارشناسان سایر رشته‌ها در حسابرسی‌ها باید مد نظر دیوان محاسبات کشور قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating Performance Audit from the Perspective of Auditors of the Supreme Audit Court of Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Yazdanshenas 1
  • H. Imani (Ph. D.) 2
1 M. A. in Accounting, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 Faculty Member, Department of Accounting, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Regarding the role of performance auditing in accountability, this study aims to evaluate the Supreme Audit Court auditors' perception of performance auditing.
Method: This applied study has a descriptive survey research design. The sample consists of 267 auditors of the Supreme Audit Court of Iran. We collected the data by distributing standard questionnaires and analyzed them using the binominal-test.
Results: The results indicate that the effectiveness assessment is part of the performance audit process. Auditors need to enter into decision-making and policy-making fields in order to have better performance audits. Public sector auditors have the necessary qualifications for performance auditing, but they need to use other specialists in the performance audit team. The Supreme Audit Court's performance audits are currently effective in improving the public sector management, but ineffective in terms of accountability.
Conclusion: In order for the performance audits to be done in more effectively, the Supreme Audit Court should develop its scope to the areas of decision-making and policy-making; and in annual planning, The Supreme Audit Court should act in such a way as to provide the grounds for entering these areas from the perspective of evaluating the results of the decisions made. Also, in other subjects, the Supreme Audit Court should consider relying on experts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • accountability
  • Decision Making and Policy Making
  • effectiveness
  • Management Improvement
  • Performance Audit
1        Zarei, B. and B. Mehrandish (2017). “Evaluation of Using Information Obtained From Public Sector Accounting System in Decision-Making and Accountability of Managers (Case Study: Tehran University of Medical Sciences)”, Journal of Health Accounting, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 25-43. [In Persian]
2        Sabbagh Kermani, M. and M. Basakha (2009). “The Role of Good Governance in Improving the Efficacy of Government Expenditures:  Case of Health and Education Sectors of Islamic Countries”, Journal of Economic Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, 109-130. [In Persian]
3        The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (1987). “Concepts Statement No. 1”, Available at: https: //www.gasb.org/jsp/GASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1176160039864&acceptedDisclaimer=true[Online][3 May 2019]
4        Favchi, H. (2005). “A Review of the Features and Structure of Performance Audit Reports”, Journal of Audit Science, Vol. 5, No. 15, pp. 7-21. [In Persian]
5        Imani Barandagh, M. (2014). “The Challenges Beyond the Obligation of Performance Audit in the Government Agencies of Iran”, Journal of Health Accounting, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1-19. [In Persian]
6        Pendlebur, M. and O. Shreim (1990). “UK Auditors’ Attitudes to Effectiveness Auditing”, Financial Accountability & Management,Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 177-189.
7        Grimwood, M. and C. Tomkins (1986). “Value for Money Auditing-Towards Incorporating a Naturalizing Approach”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 251-272.
8        Kotiranta, A. (2015). “The Role of SAIs in Auditing Policy and Law-Making”, International Journal of Government Auditing, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 14-17.
9        Loke, C. H.; Ismail. S.; and F. A. Hamid (2016). “The Perception of Public Sector Auditors on Performance Audit in Malaysia, An Exploratory Study”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 90-104.
10    Rahimian, N. (2008). “Public Sector Auditing and its Types”, Journal of Audit Science, Vol. 7, No. 27, pp. 4-16. [In Persian]
11    Hosseini Araghi, H. (2008). Public Sector Auditing: Theorical and Practical, 1st Edition, Tehran: University of Economic Sciences. [In Persian]
12    Habashi, N. (2015). “Comparison of the Performance Evaluation of the Audit Courts of Twelve Developed and Developing Countries with the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Journal of Audit Science, Vol. 15, No. 59, pp.147-174. [In Persian]
13    Driessen, A. and A. Molenkamp (1993). “The Perspective of Operational Auditing: A New Management Tool”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 19-25.
14    Auditing Standards of the Supreme Audit Court (2018). “Performance Audit Standard No. 4210”, Available at: http://www.dmk.ir/dorsapax/userfil es/file/standardha/4210.0001.pdf [Online][3 May 2019] [In Persian]
15    National Audit Act (1983). “Part. 2”,Available at:  http://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/1983/44/part/II/data.pdf [Online][3 may 2019]
16    Barrados, M.; Mayne. J.; and T. Willeman (2000). “Accountability For Collaborative Programme Delivery Arrangement In Canada’s Federal Government”, International Review of Administrative Scienc,Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 495-511.
17    Babajani, J. (2009). The Benefits of Implementing Performance Audit in the Country and its Role in Accountability, 1st Edition, Tehran: The Supreme Audit Court Publications. [In Persian]
18    Skandari, K. and Sh. Kordbacheh (2018). “Explaining the Need for Performance Audit Standards in Government Agencies”, Shebak, No. 35, pp. 49-57. [In Persian]
19    Nakhaei, K.; Hosseinpour, M.; Barzegaran, A.; and A. Khorashadizadeh (2018). “Investigating the Effect of Performance Audit on Justice and Social Responsibility in Public Administrative Agencies”, New Research in the Humanities”, No. 40, pp. 91-116. [In Persian]
20    Mahdavi, Gh. H. and M. Mohammadian (2017). “Executive Challenges of Performance Audit in Administrative Agencies”, Financial Accounting and Auditing Researches, Vol. 9, No. 36, pp. 27-47. [In Persian]
21    Fattahi, S.; Khoshnoud A. and E. Gholipour (2015). “Investigating the Effect of Performance Audit on Improvement of the Productivity in Iranian Public Sector”, Journal of Audit Science, Vol. 15, No. 61, pp.107-134. [In Persian]
22    Khoddamipour, A. and R. Kaffashpour (2015). “The Impact of Performance Budget’s Main Elements on Performance Audit Implementation from the View Point of Experts and Auditors of the Supreme Audit Court”, Journal of Governmental Accounting, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 41-52. [In Persian]
23    Etebarian, A.; Emadzadeh M.; and A. Rohani (2014). “Relationship between Performance Audit and Reducing Corruption through Increasing Transparency, Improving Accountability and Promoting Trust”, Journal of Audit Science, Vol. 14, No. 55, pp. 5-30. [In Persian]
24    Johnsen, A.; Reichborn‐Kjennerud, K.; Carrington, T.; Jeppesen, K. K.; Taro, K.; and J. Vakkuri (2019). “Supreme Audit Institutions in a High‐Impact Context: A Comparative Analysis of Performance Audit in Four Nordic Countries”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 158-181.
25    Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. and A. Johnsen (2018). “Performance Audits and Supreme Audit Institutions’ Impact on Public Administration: The Case of the Office of the Auditor General in Norway”, Administration & Society, Vol. 50, No. 10, pp. 1422-1446.
26    Brazel, J.; Carpenter. T.; and J. Jenkins (2010). “Auditors Use of Brainstorming in the Consideration of Fraud Reports from the Field”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 85, No. 85, pp. 1273-1301.
27    Raudla, R.; Taro, K.; Agu, C.; and J. W. Douglas (2016). “The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organizations”, Organization Review, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 217-233.