1

The 9
th
Asian Academic Accounting Association Annual Conference
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
29 November 1 December 2008






Implementation of Audit Quality Control System:
Preliminary Evidence from Small and Medium Audit
Practices in Malaysia









Aida Hazlin Ismail, Zuraidah Mohd-Sanusi, Yusarina Mat Isa, Syazliana Kasim,
Kamaruzaman Muhamad and NorAzam Mastuki

Universiti Teknologi MARA
Faculty of Accountancy
40000 Shah Alam
Selangor, MALAYSIA
Tel: 60 (3) 5544-4913
Fax: 60 (3) 5544-4921
E-mail: [email protected]












Paper submitted for presentation at the 9
th
Asian Academic Accounting Association
Annual Conference, Dubai, 29 November 1 December 2008. Correspondence
concerning this paper should be addressed to Aida Hazlin Ismail, Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Malaysia; e-mail: [email protected]
2
Implementation of Audit Quality Control System: Preliminary Evidence from
Small and Medium Audit Practices in Malaysia

Aida Hazlin Ismail, Zuraidah Mohd-Sanusi, Yusarina Mat Isa, Syazliana Kasim,
Kamaruzaman Muhamad and NorAzam Mastuki
Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam
Malaysia

Abstract

This paper studies the implementation of International Standards on Quality Control 1
(ISQC 1) among the small and medium audit firms in Malaysia. Since J uly 2006, the
Malaysian Institute of Accountant (MIA) has adopted the ISQC 1 as part of the
approved standard of auditing in Malaysia. However, the implementation of ISQC 1
among small and medium audit firms in Malaysia is not encouraging. A focus group
interview has been conducted to gain the perceptions of the practitioners from small
and medium audit firms on the implementation of ISQC 1 in their firms. Results show
that most of them are lack of exposure and knowledge on the ISQC 1 standards.
Therefore, due to this matter, most of the respondents have pessimistic perceptions
regarding the implementation of ISQC 1.


Keywords: audit quality, quality control system, ISQC 1, small and medium audit
practices.
3
1. Introduction
Assessment on audit quality of audit firms ensure that an audit firms processes are
systematic and disciplined, and work to improve the effectiveness of the firms
practices (Brinkley, 2006). Auditing the auditors through external evaluations is
becoming a driving force of continuous improvement for the profession (Brinkley,
2006). To compete successfully in this environment, audit firms must continually
strive to exceed client expectations and maximize client satisfaction. The challenges
for all the audit firms are to understand the determinants of client satisfaction and to
maintain audit quality (Ismail et. al., 2006).

Whilst previous corporate collapses, resulted in the media and regulators
focusing on the adequacy of audit quality in audit firms in general, it is useful to
specifically consider the quality assessments among the small and medium audit firms
as small and medium audit firms are commonly associated with lower audit quality
(Beatty, 1989). Larger audit firms are more likely to be associated with superior
ability to perform more powerful test, thus resulting in more precise information
which eventually lead to higher audit quality, all else being equal (Beatty,1989).

Malaysian Institute of Accountant (MIA) has, in J uly 2006, adopted the
International Standards on Quality Control 1 (ISQC 1) as part of the approved
standard of auditing in Malaysia. In essence, ISQC 1 focuses on the quality of audit
performed by all members of MIA and they are expected to comply with the standard.
Nevertheless, evidence showed that the implementation of ISQC 1 is rather limited in
Malaysian small and medium audit firms (Normah & J ohari, 2007).

4
Small and medium audit firms tend to operate based on nonstandard operating
procedures, which essentially does not reflect total compliance to the ISQC 1. In
addition, to the small and medium audit practitioners, complying with ISQC 1
implementation is a major hurdle to them (Normah & J ohari, 2007). Hence, this study
explores the issue to ascertain the perceptions of audit practitioners on the
implementation of ISQC 1 among small and medium audit firms in Malaysia. This
research is in conjunction with what has been suggested by Pflugrath et. al. (2007)
that since complying with the ISQC 1 mandatory changes is such a burden to the
auditors, hence he suggested that there is a need for timely research on this standard.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Audit quality
The demand for auditing services arises from a need to facilitate dealings between the
parties involved in business relationships-shareholders, creditors, public authorities,
employees and customers, etc (Arrunada, 2000). The accounting profession has faced
increasing pressure from external parties to monitor and improve the quality of the
audit process (Sutton, 1993). Sutton (1993) argued that there is a need for accounting
researchers to developed objective measure in evaluating process quality. Audit
process comprised of engagement planning, interim fieldwork, year-end fieldwork
and final administration. He has developed and validated a set of key factors
influencing the quality of audit process in the large international audit firms. His
results support that there exists a consensus among experienced auditors on a set of
key audit quality factors which have a significant impact on overall audit quality.

5
There are numerous of previous researches done on studying multi-aspects of
audit quality and have found evidence that large audit firms serve those clients that
demand greater quality as a result of audits performed by large audit firms are
perceived to be of higher expected quality than audits by small firms. For example,
DeAngelo (1981) provides a theoretical argument suggesting that audit quality
increases with audit firm size because of differences in the loss functions faced by big
versus small audit firms. In addition, Palmrose (1988) finds that large firms auditors
have lower litigation rates than small auditors. Similarly, Dupoch and Simunic (1982)
also found that audit quality is a function of the number and extent of audit
procedures performed by the auditor and that larger firms have more resources with
which to conduct tests. This is also consistent with Moore and Scott (1989) that
demonstrates audit firm size is positively related with the extent of audit work
undertaken.

Although many studies have examined the influence of audit size in measuring
audit quality, some studies measured audit quality using a direct approach. For
example, Carcello et al. (1992) assessed audit quality based on the perceptions of
auditors, prepares and users. Using twelve components of audit quality, Carcello et al.
(1992) suggested that four components to be most important in determining audit
quality. The components include audit team and firm experience with the client,
industry expertise (especially within the audit team), responsiveness to client needs,
and compliance with the general standards (competence, independence, and due care)
of generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). Furthermore, among the three
groups, there were significant differences in the importance assigned to each factor.

6
Both preparers and users placed significantly more importance on adherence
to the general standards of GAAS than did audit partners. Auditor responsiveness to
client needs was seen as more important by preparers than by partners. On the other
hand, audit partners placed more emphasis on a skeptical attitude than did preparers.
Finally, users also placed significantly less emphasis on involvement of high-ranking
members of the audit team than did partners. The attributes of audit quality should
provide insight into the determinants of client satisfaction however, the relationship
between satisfaction and audit quality is diverse (Cronin and Taylor, 1994). The
factors associated with high quality audits may not be exactly the same factors that
drive client satisfactions. However, it is important to determine which of the identified
audit quality attributes are associated with client satisfaction (Behn K et al., 1997). In
addition, a lot of prior research is related to audit quality, financial information risk
and value relevance of audits relies on the assumption that there is a time invariant
audit quality difference between big and small auditor (Tilis, 2005).

2.2 The development of ISQC 1
In 2004 the International Auditing and Assurance Board (IAASB), of the International
Federation of Accountants (IFAC) has approved the International Standard on Quality
Control (ISQC 1) concerning the Quality Control for Firms that Perform Audits and
Reviews of Historical Financial Information and Other Assurance and Related
Services Engagements. In line with the requirement by IFAC, Malaysian Institute of
Accountants (MIA) has imposed that all registered accountants and auditors
(practitioners) in Malaysia to comply with the new Quality Control standards by 30
June 2006. The standards introduce several new concepts and requirements in respect
of quality control within auditing firms. As a result, practitioners face with additional
7
responsibilities in respect of implementing new quality control safeguards and
procedures.

ISQC 1 is different from ISA 220 Quality Control for audits of Historical
Financial Information which sets out the quality control standards to be applied to
individual audit engagements. On the other hand, ISQC 1 deals with firm wide
quality control which provides reasonable assurance that firms and its personnel
comply with professional standards and regulatory and legal requirements; and reports
issued by the firm or engagement partners are appropriate in the circumstances (Holt,
2006, p.14). ISQC 1 sets out six quality control elements that must be rigorously and
comprehensively addressed. It covers (1) leadership responsibilities for quality within
the firm; (2) Ethical requirements; (3) Acceptance and continuance of client
relationships and specific engagements; (4) Human resource; (5) Engagement
performance; and (6) Monitoring. The standard requires audit firms to document
evidence of the operation of each of the six elements of its quality control system and
retain that documentation for an appropriate period.

As the adoption of ISQC 1 is still in the early stage of implementation,
therefore, number of prior research concerning the ISQC 1 is limited. Pflugrath et. al.
(2007) support the requirements of ISQC 1 as relevant to the quality control of
accounting firms and have potential to positively impact the quality of the audit
performance. However, this study concerns the interactive effects of the code of
ethics and technical competency, which form an integral part of standard-setters
quality control standards, upon the quality of auditor judgments. Another relevant
8
study to date (Booth and Schulz, 2004) appears to provide support for ISQC 1s
recommendations by finding that an overall strong ethical environment can
significantly reduce the tendency of managers to continue failing investments.
However, this study is a management accounting field and therefore the applicability
of this study to the auditing field is limited.

A survey done on the quality control of audit firms in South Africa (Research
Report 2005) indicates that small and medium audit firms were quite pessimistic on
the implementation of ISQC 1. The survey reported that there were differences in
opinion (in respect of the size of audit firm) as to which partner should be given the
responsibility of monitoring and implementing quality control systems. Other than the
sole practitioners and firms with two-three partners, respondents did not support
systems of quality control comprised of informal structures. They were seriously
concerned on the issue of the excessive time that partners will be spending on
quality control reviews.

3. Research Methodology
3.1 Data collection
In obtaining the information from practitioners, the researcher team has collaborated
with MIA to conduct a focus group interview with small and medium audit firms
around Klang Valley area. The respondents comprise of experienced practitioners
who are either senior partners or sole practitioners. These are the right respondents as
they are regarded as responsible for the implementation of quality control policies and
procedures in their firms. As such, they are regarded as the informed respondents and
9
capable of providing objective and views that are representative of both their personal
views and their firms positions on quality control policies and procedure. The
respondents are drawn from cross section, comprising of small and medium firms,
sole practitioners and administrator.

As such, the information gathered from the focus group meetings with the
informed respondents will enable the assessment of the perceptions from the
practitioners point of views on the implementation of ISQC 1 in their own respective
firms. In addition, the problems and challenges that the practitioners anticipate in
implementing ISQC 1 were identified. Besides that, the respondents are also asked to
provide suggestions regarding ISQC 1. Their suggestions could be used as guidance
for MIA to enhance the awareness and positive impact on the implementation of
ISQC 1 in Malaysia especially for the small and medium audit firms.

3.2 Structure of the interview
The objectives of the focus group interview are mainly two fold which are to gain
information for the research analysis and also as an education platform for the
practitioners to know more about the ISQC 1 standards. Hence, a short briefing has
been conducted by one of the research team members on the basic knowledge of
ISQC 1 before the interview session started. The content of the briefing is mainly on
the Introduction of ISQC 1, definitions and elements of ISQC 1 which are the
Leadership responsibilities for Quality within the firm, Ethical requirements,
Acceptance and Continuance of client relationships and specific engagements, Human
resources, engagement performance, monitoring and documentation.

10
The interview was a semi structured interview which according to Bruce L.
Berg (1988, p.17), located somewhere between the extremes of completely
standardized and completely non standardized interviewing structures. To facilitate the
interview sessions and to be more productive, a list of questions that would be
discussed during the interview has been prepared in advance prior to the interview.

4. Data Analysis and Interpretation
In this section, the results from the interview focus group are analyzed and
interpreted. The interview was conducted in two parts where by the first part was
before the briefing session on ISQC 1. The briefing was presented by one of the
research team member and the second part was conducted after the briefing session.
This is done in order to obtain their perceptions of the respondents before and after
the briefing session on ISQC 1 in Malaysia.

4.1 Respondent profile
The Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) has helped to select and invite the
participants for the interview session. However, the selection was limited to only 10
practitioners as this is just to get the preliminary feedback on the implementation of
ISQC 1 in Malaysia from the small and medium size audit firms. The majority of the
respondents attending the interview were experienced partners, senior administration
executive as well audit as senior of small and medium size audit firms. These levels of
respondents are the most suitable candidate as the target group for the interview
because they are responsible for the firms system of quality control.

11
Majority of the partners are senior partners with number of practicing years
ranging from 10 to 30 years of experienced. General profile on number of staff for the
small audit firms are 1 to 3 partners, 1 to 5 managers and 5 to 30 numbers of staff
currently working with the firm. However for the medium size audit firm the profile
on number of staff are approximately 20 partners, 40 managers and 250 numbers of
staff. Nevertheless, most of the small firms are recently incorporated between 5 to 30
years of incorporation. Therefore, that is a strong reason why the firms are currently
low in total number of staff working in the firms as compared to medium size firm.

4.2 Feedbacks and suggestions
Questions were asked regarding the perceptions of the respondents towards ISQC 1
implementation in Malaysia. Majority of the respondents are not in favor of the
implementation of ISQC 1 in Malaysia as they are of the opinion that it is a burden
and responsibility for the small and medium audit firms. The main reason is because
most of the audit firms do not have sufficient partners to lead the quality team, and
therefore their main constraint is lack of staff to be in-charged of the quality matters.
There is also feedback from respondent with the opinion that this ISQC 1 is not a user
friendly standard. Therefore, the respondent feels that it is difficult to understand the
standard and to implement them in their practice.

However, despite all the negative perceptions on ISQC 1 implementation for
the small and medium audit firms, there are a few respondents whom agree and
support the implementation of this standard. One of the feedback was the
implementation of ISQC 1 among audit firms could help the professions to be able to
improve their quality of their audit practices. In addition, another respondents support
12
the idea of implementation of ISQC 1 because this is one way to enhance the quality
control of the audit firm. Besides that, the implementation of ISQC 1 could be an
excellent step to enhanced professionalism and standards among small and medium
audit firms in Malaysia.

The respondents were asked on suggestions to enhance the implementation of
ISQC 1 among small and medium audit firms in Malaysia. Majority of the
respondents agreed that training and workshop are the most important ways to
enhance awareness and implement ISQC 1 among audit firms. As this is a newly
introduced standard, therefore most of the small and medium audit firms are not
familiar with this standard. Therefore, it is important for them to get the basic
knowledge and information on what is ISQC 1 all about before they could implement
in their daily work practices. Another suggestion is to educate the students from
higher learning institute on the importance of ISQC 1. This is to ensure that the
students whom will the future employees of the audit firms understand and know the
importance of this standard to be used in their work.

4.3 Problems arises
The respondents were asked question on any problems arises during the
implementation of ISQC 1 in their firm. One of the respondents encounters the
problem of delegation of responsibility in the implementation of ISQC 1. This is
because due to small number of staff in small and medium audit firm. Therefore,
delegation of responsibility for the quality controls is limited. Another interesting
problem arises is the respondent feels that it is such a waste of their precious time to
fill up all the forms and checklist required in the ISQC 1 especially during the peak
13
period of audit month. Hence, this might result a misleading opinion of quality
controls practiced in the firm because the checklist might not be answered correctly.

Other than the above problems, another issue arises in the development of ISQC 1
and creating awareness of ISQC 1 among the staff members of the firm. The
respondent also highlighted that it is difficult to get the staff members to understand
the concept of ISQC 1 to be implemented in the firm. This might be due to less
exposures and training has been conducted on the ISQC 1 to the audit staff. In
addition, another issue is concerning lack of staff to be responsible on the quality
control management and training that needs to be conducted for the staff members on
ISQC 1. This problem arises in the small audit firms where the total numbers of staff
are limited to less than 10 people inclusive of the partners and administrators.

5. Conclusion
This study provides insights into the recent implementation of ISQC 1 on small and
medium audit practitioners in Malaysia. Furthermore, this study also analyzes the
perceptions of audit practitioners on the problems in implementing ISQC 1. Using a
focus-group interview, ten audit practitioners has volunteered to participate in the
study. Most of the respondents agreed that the implementation of ISQC 1 for the
small and medium audit firms a burden to them especially on internal matters such as
lacking number of staff in-charged the quality control system and understanding the
standard itself. This evidence is consistent with the survey conducted in South Africa
(Research Report, 2005) which also found that small and medium audit firms were
quite pessimistic on the implementation of ISQC 1. Audit firms with single or few
partner(s) were concerned on the time spent in monitoring and implementing quality
14
control systems. However, some of the respondents did agree that ISQC 1 is an
effective method towards the improvement of quality control system for small and
medium audit firms. In fact, they also agree that ISQC 1 could enhance their
professionalism and credibility. The findings also indicate that they suggest a further
training on ISQC 1 is still needed in enhancing the implementation of ISQC 1.

This preliminary finding on the implementation of ISQC 1 could assist the
profession in monitoring the quality of the audit process as well as the audit firms. In
conjunction with this current study, a further study is done to develop a quality
assurance on the audit firms using a self-assessment checklist in Malaysia. This
approach is hoped to help the small and medium audit firms to assess their efficiency
and effectiveness of their audit firms based on standards and benchmark information
given in the ISQC 1 Standard (MASA, 2007). In doing so, MIA has supported this
project and closely worked with the model provided in other countries such as
Australia and Pakistan. Audit quality is an increasingly important issue and should be
a useful area of exchange of national experiences (Mazur et al., 2005).


15
References

Arrunada, B. 2004. Audit failure and the crisis of auditing. European Business
Organization Law Review 5: 635-643.

Arrunada, B. 2000. Audit quality: attributes, private safeguards and the role of
regulation. The European Accounting Review 9 (2): 205-224.

Beatty, R. P. 1989. Auditor Reputation and the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings. The
Accounting Review, 64 (4): 693-709.

Behn K et al. 1997. The determinants of audit client satisfaction among clients of Big
6 firms. Accounting Horizons 11 (1):7-24.

Booth, P. and Schultz, A-K-D. (2004), The impact of an ethical environment on
managers project evaluation judgments under agency problem conditions.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29 : 473 -488.

Cronin,J .J . & S.A.Taylor,1994. SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of
service quality. Journal of Marketing 58(J anuary):125-131.

DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and
Economics 3: 183-199.

Dupoch, N. & D. Simunic 1982. Competing in Auditing: An assessment. Paper
presented at Syposium on Auditing Research IV. University of Illanois at
Urbana-Champaign.

Holt, O. 2006. No time to lose: New audit, assurance and related services quality rules
apply now. The Pakistan Accountant, September-December: 14-16.

16
Krishnan, J . & Schauer, P.C. 2000. The differentiation of quality among auditors:
Evidence from the not-for-profit sector. Auditing 19 (2): 9-25.

Malaysian Approved Standards on Auditing (MASA). 2007. Malaysian Institute of
Accountants.

Mazur, J ., Revesz, J ., Vella, B. & Havens, H. 2005. Guidelines on Audit Quality.
International Journal of Government Auditing 32 (2): 10-14.

Moore, G. and W.R. Scott. 1989. Auditors Legal Liability, Collusion with
Management and Investors Loss. Contemporary Accounting Research. Spring
:754 -774.

Omar, N. and J ohari, xxx. 2007. ..

Palmrose, Z-V. 1988. An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The
Accounting Review (J anuary): 5573.

Pflugrath G., N. Martinov-Bennie and L. Chen (2007). The impact of codes of ethics
and experience on auditor judgements. Managerial Auditing Journal 22(6):
566-589.

Research Report, 2005. Implementation of International Quality Control Standards in
South Africa. School of Accountancy, University of the Witwatersrand, South
Africa.

Sutton, S.G. 1993. Toward an understanding of the factors affecting the quality of the
audit process. Decision Sciences 24 (1): 88-105.

Tilis, L. 2005. Audit quality and risk differences among auditors. Downloaded from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=700243 at 28 J anuary 2008.