The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9342.htm

Digital
The effect of digital accounting accounting in
systems on the decision-making the banking
industry
quality in the banking industry
sector: a mediated-moderated
model Received 19 January 2022
Revised 19 February 2022
Accepted 19 February 2022
Manaf Al-Okaily
School of Business, Jadara University, Irbid, Jordan
Rasha Alghazzawi
Department of Accounting, Princess Sumaya University for Technology,
Amman, Jordan
Abeer F. Alkhwaldi
Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business,
Mutah University, Karak, Jordan, and
Aws Al-Okaily
Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – Recently, the increasing development of digital accounting systems has raised their effects on the
quality of decision-making. Consequently, this research aims to evaluate the effects of digital accounting
.systems success factors on the advancement of decision-making quality in Jordanian banks
Design/methodology/approach – The questionnaires were sent to 187 decision-makers who are actual
users of digital accounting systems in Jordanian banks. A quantitative research approach was adopted to test
the proposed research model based on the partial least squares-structural equation modeling method.
Findings – The empirical results of the current research revealed that data and information quality had a
significant impact on the overall decision-making quality with the digital accounting systems, whereas system
quality had an insignificant impact on it. The results empirical also confirmed that information quality has
mediated the relationship between data and system quality and decision-making quality. Eventually, analytical
decision-making culture has moderated the relationship between information quality and decision-making quality.
Originality/value – The current research will provide attractive implications and recommendations for
practitioners, accounting managers and decision-makers about evaluating the effect of digital accounting
systems on improving the decision-making quality in Jordanian banks.
Keywords Digitalization, Jordanian banks, Digital accounting, Jordanian context, PLS-SEM,
Decision-making quality
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
All business entities must have a functional accounting department to operate correctly. Global Knowledge, Memory and
Communication
Even nonprofitable entities are operated by choices that are taken based on different © Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9342
financial reports (Kapoor and Goel, 2017). As the storm of technology has hit the whole wide DOI 10.1108/GKMC-01-2022-0015
GKMC world in the past few decades, it was only a matter of time until it reached day to day
professions. Technological advancements shaped a new way of performing various tasks
within the accounting profession, resulting in a whole new revolution growing every day
(Smith, 2015). At first, automation aimed to reduce the workload on accountants by using
technology in performing redundant tasks and shifting their attention to more advanced
situations, which led to a major increase in their productivity. Accountants used to work
using papers and calculators to make the records and verify whether the ledgers were
accurate. However, nowadays, it is all about using new accounting information systems and
tools that have dramatically changed the accounting profession to be much more efficient
(Schmitz and Leoni, 2019).
Digital accounting systems is traditionally known as a system that an organization uses
to collect and process its financial data and information so that it can be used by decisions-
makers, thus enhancing organizational performance (Dagiliene and Šutiene, 2019; Huy and
Phuc, 2020). However, current digital accounting systems differ from earlier ones in several
ways, especially as software nowadays deals with Big Data, which has created new data
mining opportunities (Balios, 2021; Oatley, 2021). Further, the implication of blockchain
technology and the Internet of Things (IoT) are driving the current and next movement of
digital transformation (Sandner et al., 2020). Blockchain, for example, can increase security
and transparency by providing a joint ledger (Diedrich, 2016).
With all the previously mentioned and several other technological advancements in
several fields including accounting, the term business intelligence became more widely used
in literature (Niu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020; Wieder and Ossimitz, 2015; Popovic et al.,
2012). Business intelligence can be described as computerized methods of turning data into
information (Pirttimäki et al., 2006), which is ultimately used to improve organizational
decision-making (Dagiliene and Šutiene, 2019; Popovic et al., 2012). There is no doubt that
the business intelligence concept includes digital accounting systems (Rikhardsson and
Yigitbasioglu, 2018), which is the focus of the current study. Even though it is not clearly
understood how the investment in business intelligence is linked to the value of a business
(Krishnamoorthi and Mathew, 2018; Mithas et al., 2013), the business intelligence market has
presented and expected to present a significant and growing percentage of market share
(Klisarova-Belcheva, 2017).
The information generated by these systems benefits the success of organizations.
However, if it is not really put to use in the decision-making, this information will have little
influence on an organization’s ultimate performance (Al-Okaily, 2021). Researchers in the
field of information systems, inclusive of accounting software, have a gap to fill related to
the relationship between digital accounting systems and business success, which remains
unclear until now (Schryen, 2013). Further, organizations today require evaluating the
benefits and costs of digital accounting systems to justify the expenditure and document its
contribution to the organization’s value (Petter et al., 2008, 2012). Thus, the entity’s value can
be easily linked to the quality of the decision-making process. For instance, LaValle et al.
(2011) document that top-performing organizations use rigorous analysis to make decisions
at twice the rate of lower-performing ones. These analyses are used to shape strategies and
support daily decisions-making processes.
On the other hand, the expected benefits of digital systems could not always be achieved
if the organizations ignore factors affecting how to use the information provided by these
systems (Al-Okaily, 2021; Sharma and Yetton, 2003). For successful information systems,
organizations must excel not only in establishing the technological part of the systems, but
also in promoting a positive environment of use of information, especially in the attitude of
using the information in decision-making processes (Popovic et al., 2012). Moreover, the use
of these systems in some cases is optional, so we can expect a more substantial impact of Digital
analytical culture in these voluntary settings. Analytical culture may have significant accounting in
implications on the quality of decision-making. Many studies (Puspitawati, 2021; Ahmed,
2021; Jasim and Raewf, 2020) neglect factors affecting how the information provided by
the banking
these systems is used, which produce a gap the researchers try to fill in this study. The topic industry
of success of digital accounting systems has only gradually evolved in recent literature and
there have been a few attempts to research the impact of digital accounting systems on
organizational decision quality. However, there is still a large gap to be filled, particularly
regarding the culture of the analytical decision-making that contributes to the system’s
success. The analytical decision-making dimension is added to the model of this study and
its moderation effect on the association between information quality and decision-making
quality is examined to contribute to the open question in the literature in this regard.
ık et al. (2013) suggest that the benefits of business intelligence have not been sufficiently
Is
researched and thus need further attention, especially as the implementation of these systems
is complex and requires considerable resources that need to be justified (Yeoh and Popovic,
2016). However, none of the earlier studies has provided an in-depth analysis of digital
accounting success in Jordan. Mainly as the success of these systems depends on the quality of
many factors, including data, information and the systems quality, as documented by several
studies in other contexts (Al-Okaily and Al-Okaily, 2022; Ouiddad et al., 2020; Wieder and
Ossimitz, 2015; Popovic et al., 2012). Consequently, our study aims to provide a comprehensive
understanding in a Jordanian context of the relationships among success dimensions. This
paper carries original insights regarding digital accounting success through the inclusion of
diverse segments of digital accounting systems and an analytical decision-making culture in
the model. It can be predicted that the evaluation of the relationships between the dimensions
of such a model will permit the understanding of its factors of success.
Considering all the developments in the digital accounting systems, which are claimed to
be advancements of the previous settings (Gonzales, 2011), this research examines if the
current digital accounting systems succeeded in enabling better organizational decision-
making quality? The key contribution of this research is to propose a theoretical model to
measure the digital accounting effect on decision-making quality using the DeLone and
McLean modified success model in developing countries (i.e. Jordan). As a theoretical
development, this research also extended and altered the model by integrating the cultural
factor as a critical factor of digital accounting contribution to decision-making quality. In
addition to this context-specific contribution and the theoretical expansion, our study also
reduces the knowledge gap regarding the success of digital accounting systems by
particularly operationalizing the dimensions on an organizational level among Jordanian
banks listed in Amman Stock Exchange.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a literature
review. Then, hypotheses are developed in Section 3, along with a brief illustration of the
theoretical underpinning. The research model is then conceptualized in Section 4. Sections 5
and 6 presented and discussed the study results. The last two sections are dedicated to
implications, limitations and directions for future work.

2. Literature review
Toward the end of the 20th century, wireless networking technology began to emerge, the
intranet and extranet began to change the way accountants’ access and share information
between them and their outside surroundings. Moreover, social media established a new
way of communication between accountants and their clients. Nowadays, technological
GKMC inventions aim to dramatically change the accounting profession more than ever (Belfo and
Trigo, 2013; Dimitriu and Matei, 2014).
Digital revolutions have affected the business world tremendously by changing and
developing immensely. Entities have been forced to familiarize themselves and cope with
new and upcoming trends due to increased technological growth and the need to operate
emerging technologies. Automation has been in progress to cultivate in connected business,
such as the auditing sector, where four key concepts, as documented by experts, have been
exposed to be important to the automation; cloud accounting, IoT, blockchain and big data.
These approaches were opening to be known in the accounting sector and researchers are
also highlighting their potentials to create automation in accounting. Accountants now have
the time to spend on more sophisticated analysis and achieve statistical accounting with
better competence to forecast the firm’s financial state (Zhang et al., 2020).
When the four previously mentioned concepts are introduced in the accounting field in
various amounts, they generate the opportunity for electronic reading, analysis and
transmission of the necessary information for accounting procedures (Zhang et al., 2020;
Qasim and Kharbat, 2020; Moll and Yigitbasioglu, 2019). When they are correctly
collaborating, there is a considerable chance to decrease the manual records by individuals
and a single individual can disclose exclusively in the technology to prepare all of the
accounting records (Uwadiae, 2015). For example, blockchain technology helped in several
aspects of the accounting field. First, because almost all the documents are automated, it is
easy to direct them for numerous other applications. Second, all the members have
admission on all the transactions on the blockchain; therefore, it raises the audit capability
and reliance. Finally, it reduces fraud since the changes on the blocks are extremely hard; as
a result, it might occur very rarely and even if it occurred, all the participants could realize
such an alteration happened. The other benefit of using blockchain in this manner is that
two parties contributing to a deal can exchange the invoice through the blockchain, which
marks the transaction procedure faster, paperless and also avoid any misused (Fanning and
Centers, 2016). Applying this technology, as the application of all other new technologies,
has its difficulties, weaknesses and harmful effects. There is a debate that there are not
enough tools to make sure that the system works as it is supposed to, which leads to the
little dependability of the system (Qasim and Kharbat, 2020)
With all these technological innovations, the term business intelligence became more
common in literature (Niu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020; Wieder and Ossimitz, 2015; Popovic
et al., 2012). Business intelligence can be defined as the various computerized methods of
converting data into information (Pirttimäki et al., 2006), which is eventually used to
enhance the process of decision-making (Dagiliene and Šutiene, 2019; Popovic et al., 2012).
Digital accounting systems are an essential part of business intelligence tools (Rikhardsson
and Yigitbasioglu, 2018), which is the focus of the current study.
On the other hand, decision quality measures the extent to which the outcomes of a
decision match the expectations within an organization (Visinescu et al., 2017). Previous
studies showed that decision quality is influenced by several factors, including the
information quality of the decision-making process. However, practitioners and academic
research suggest that, in many entities, users do not necessarily make the connection
between the decision-making process and their business intelligence capabilities (Visinescu
ık et al., 2013).
et al., 2017; Is

3. Theoretical underpinning and hypotheses development

The McLean and DeLone success model has been used in several studies related to the
success assessment of information systems (Al-Okaily, 2021; Wieder and Ossimitz, 2015;
 ık et al., 2013; Popovic et al., 2012). The model’s introduction started with DeLone and
Is Digital
McLean (1992), which identified categories that have been referred to as the common accounting in
dimensions of information system success, such as the quality of the system, the quality of
the banking
information produced, and the usage level.
Because of some criticism and suggestions related to the changing nature of the industry
information systems, the model was later modified in 2003 by including an additional
dimension linked to the service quality (Petter and McLean, 2009). Other researchers later
suggested a few other modifications, such as incorporating information technology support,
user attitude, integrating individual and organizational impact as separate dimensions and
finally, the addition of feedback links (Gorla et al., 2010; Urbach and Müller, 2012). This
model and all its amendments, emphasizes the understanding of the connections between
the different dimensions of information systems success which leads to the final success
variable; presented as the “net benefits” in the original model. The current study uses some
of the main success dimensions of the models and extends the model by incorporating the
cultural factor as a critical factor of digital accounting contribution to decision-making
quality as presented in Figure 1.

3.1 Data quality

In management science, there is a clear distinction between information and data. Data is
facts that do not carry a specific meaning, while information is data that processed and
gathered to collectively carry a logical meaning. Data quality refers to the representation
quality of related facts. The distinction between information quality and data quality clearly
appears in the information systems context (DeLone and McLean, 1992, 2003). Research
suggests that data quality is a critical success factor for information systems (Kulkarni et al.,
2017; Yeoh et al., 2008). In managing the success of their information systems, organizations
refer to data problems as a critical and challenging factor. It is claimed that a great
percentage of projects related to business information systems fail due to data quality
issues. These issues include for example; poor data maintenance and handling, flaws in the
process of migration from one system to another, and unreliable importing source of data,
especially external ones (Ferencek and Kljajic Borštnar, 2020; Is ık et al., 2013). Thus, we
assume the following:

H1. Data quality is positively related to decision-making quality.

Figure 1.
Research model
GKMC Furthermore, because providing high-quality information for decision-making includes
processing data in a way that is useful for users, this implies that data quality is an
antecedent of information quality. Hence, it is logical to anticipate that high-quality data
contribute to better information. Accordingly, we also hypothesis the following:

H2. Data quality is positively related to information quality.

3.2 Information quality

Uncertainty is considered a key factor that affects organizations’ decision-making on many
types of operations. The role of uncertainty in decision-making has received considerable
research attention within the last few decades. According to previous studies, information
gathering could be considered the most adopted approach used to decrease uncertainty
(Sniazhko, 2019). The need for high-quality information is recognized as an essential element
for organizations to make coherent decisions and succeed in today’s rapidly changing
business environment (Al-Okaily et al., 2020a; Al-Okaily et al., 2020b; Pirttimäki et al., 2006).
Information is expected to reduce uncertainty by identifying the available alternatives to
choose from in the decision-making process and anticipating the consequences of selecting
one option over another. Accordingly, we hypothesis the following:

H3. Information quality is positively related to decision-making quality.

Based on the previous hypotheses, we can indirectly predicate that data quality will enhance
decision-making, as information quality facilitates the relationship between data quality and
decision-making quality. Wieder and Ossimitz (2015) found a significant relationship
between decision-making quality and information quality and revealed mediating effects of
data and information quality. Moreover, some studies provide support for the indirect effect
of system quality, through information quality, on organizational success (Phuong and Dai
Trang, 2018; Lin, 2010; Gorla et al., 2010). Gorla et al. (2010) point out the relevance of the
system quality–information quality association for digital accounting success model. Thus,
the current study assumes the following hypotheses:

H4. Information quality mediates the relationship between data quality and decision-
making quality.
H5. Information quality mediates the relationship between system quality and decision-
making quality.

3.3 System quality

The system quality indicates whether the system has the essential factors to accomplish the
required tasks. These factors include, for example, reliability, flexibility, accuracy and ease
of use (DeLone and McLean, 2016). According to previous studies, system quality could be
seen as positively associated with the decision-making quality as it decreases the effort of
the decision-making process, which enhances the quality of this process (Gonzales et al.,
2015; Arnott and Pervan, (2015). However, some studies have shown some contradictory
results (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020; Motaghian et al., 2013), which motivate the current study to
contribute to the ongoing debate and develop the following hypothesis:

H6. System quality is positively related to decision-making quality.

A flexible system can be modified easily and quickly, which efficiently meets changes in the Digital
needs of information users. This originates relevant and updated output, implying a high accounting in
quality of information with respect to the content of information; a low-quality system
the banking
usually results in low quality of information. This is due to the output of these systems being
irrelevant, inaccurate and even sometimes incomplete information (Phomlaphatrachakom, industry
2020; Gorla et al., 2010). From this, the current study assumes the following:

H7. System quality is positively related to information quality.

3.4 Analytical decision-making culture

Inside organizations, people from different cultures may decide in a different way (Yates and
de Oliveira, 2016). For successful information systems, organizations must excel not only in
establishing the technological part of the systems but also in promoting a positive
environment of use of information, especially in the attitude of using the information in
decision-making processes (Popovic et al., 2012). Moreover, the use of these systems
sometimes is optional so we can therefore expect a stronger impact of analytical culture in
these voluntary settings.
Analytical culture may have significant implications on the decision-making quality.
The influence of poor data quality may differ across decision environments (Is ık et al., 2013).
The decision-making literature suggests that the organizational decision-making culture
will likely affect the decision-makers’ choice of using information (Singh et al., 2002). One
example is the study by Popovic et al. (2012) that found that the use of information in
business processes is positively impacted by an organizational culture of analytical
decision-making. Although the same study has found a direct influence of information
quality on its utilization, where the quality of information negatively impacts their use in
business processes within environments where analytical decision-making is the adopted
culture. These inconsistent results motivate the present study to suggest the following
hypothesis:

H8. Analytical decision-making culture moderates the association between information

quality and decision-making quality.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Instrument measurement
The questionnaire used constructs and measures that have been validated in the prior
literature. The measures were selected based on related literature to ensure validity and
reliability. For example, four items were derived from the work of Lin et al. (2006) and Gable
et al. (2008) to assess system quality that covered the technical characteristics of the digital
accounting system. Four measures also were taken from prior literature to measure
information quality (Lin et al., 2006; Gable et al., 2008), which assessed the features of
information provided by the digital accounting system. For data quality, four items were
derived from Torres and Sidorova (2019) study that was used in this research to assess the
data underlying digital accounting system solutions in terms of accuracy, comprehensive,
correct and consistent. To gauge analytical decision-making culture, we used three indicator
acquired from Popovic et al. (2012) study. Decision-making quality was evaluated using four
items adapted from a study by Alalwan et al. (2014) and Ouiddad et al. (2020) that assessed
the impact of digital accounting systems on decision-making quality. All measurement
GKMC items were displayed in Appendix 1 and were assessed using a five-point Likert scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

4.2 Data collection

The Jordanian banking sector has a high investment in enterprises systems such as digital
accounting as a vital tool to get competitive advantages in today’s business world (Abu
Afifa and Saleh, 2021a, 2021b; Al-Okaily, 2021). The sample frame of this research is 16
Islamic and commercial banks that contribute to about a quarter of the national economy. A
full list of digital accounting users working in these banks was not obtained because of
privacy and security reasons (Al-Okaily et al., 2021). Therefore, we used a purposive
sampling technique to select system end-users such as financial managers, accounting
managers and supervisors, auditors and accountants. G*Power software was used to
calculate the minimum sample size. By running a priori power analysis using a medium
effect size with a significant level of 0.05 and the power of 0.95, thus, the suggested
minimum sample size needed to assess the research model developed is 119. However, our
research sample size was increased as recommended by Barlett et al. (2001), to mitigate error
in sample size and to consider the occurrence of nonresponse by some participants. Overall,
350 questionnaires were distributed to decision-makers (e.g. accounting managers) at the
bank headquarters in Amman (capital city) asked them to help and distribute questionnaires
to actual users. That is due to accounting managers being particularly responsible for
accounting processes in their banks and having sufficient information about the actual user.
A total of 211 questionnaires were collected before screening the data. Of the total responses,
187 valid responses were used for further analysis. The description of respondents’
information is shown below in Table 1.

Measure Option Frequency

Gender Male 109

Female 78
Age Less 30 56
30–40 74
41–50 41
Over 50 16
Education PhD 7
MSc 51
BSc 124
Diploma 5
Job title Manager 11
Director and supervision 34
Analyst 27
Auditors 26
Accountants 81
Missing 8
Experiences in the position Less 5 45
5–10 67
11–15 57
Over 15 18
Table 1. Experiences in accounting systems use Less 5 39
Demographic 5–10 91
characteristics 11–15 33
summary Over 15 24
5. Research results Digital
The measurement model examination is the basic stage to assess the reliability and validity accounting in
of the measurement model for partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM). With regard to the evaluation of the measurement model, the reliability of the
the banking
questionnaire items is assessed using the factor loading (FL) of 0.7, the internal consistency industry
reliability is evaluated based on Cronbach’s alpha (a) and composite reliability (CR) of 0.7
and more, the convergent validity based on average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.5 and
more. As seen in Table 2 and Figure 2, all items FL were within the suggested range.
Moreover, the CR and AVE of all research factors above the cut-off values of 0.7 and 0.5,
respectively. Consequently, all of these values were within the accepted scope, and this
verifies the possession of measurement model reliability is established and thus the research
can proceed securely.
Regarding discriminant validity, it shows the degree to which the measurement items
reflect their factor differently from all other items in the proposed model. In fact, the
discriminant validity can be assessed using three ways, namely, the heterotrait-monotrait
(HTMT) ratio way (Henseler et al., 2015), Fornell and Larcker correlation way and cross-
loading’s way (Hair et al., 2014). The first way is an alternative way to assess discriminant
validity in PLS-SEM, as Henseler et al. (2015) suggested. Discriminant validity can be
evaluated based on the multitrait and multimethod matrix, namely, the HTMT of
correlations. HTMT values near 1 indicate an insufficiency of discriminant validity. Hence,
Table 3 illustrates the values of the HTMT criterion, which satisfies the lowest value of
HTMT and is within the suggested range.
The second way is to evaluate discriminant validity based on the Fornell–Larcker
correlation matrix. In this way, Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend that discriminant

Reliability and Validity

Discriminant
Convergent validity Internal consistency reliability validity
Indicators FL AVE a CR HTMT
Variable code >0.7
0.5
0.7 CR
0.7 <0.9

Data quality DQ1 0.834 0.591 0.768 0.852 Yes

DQ2 0.766
DQ3 0.738
DQ4 0.733
Information quality IQ1 0.903 0.806 0.920 0.943 Yes
IQ2 0.882
IQ3 0.930
IQ4 0.876
Systems quality SQ1 0.860 0.792 0.912 0.938 Yes
SQ2 0.905
SQ3 0.938
SQ4 0.854
Analytical decision- ADMK1 0.908 0.764 0.846 0.907 Yes
making culture ADMK2 0.892
Table 2.
ADMK3 0.820
Decision-making DMQ1 0.929 0.859 0.945 0.960 Yes Outcomes summary
quality DMQ2 0.955 for reflective
DMQ3 0.917 measurement (outer)
DMQ4 0.905 model
GKMC

Figure 2.
Measurement model
results

# ADMC DMQ DQ IQ SQ

ADMC
DMQ 0.838
Table 3. DQ 0.760 0.684
Heterotrait-monotrait IQ 0.702 0.704 0.845
(HTMT) ratio SQ 0.821 0.610 0.555 0.524

validity is well-established when the AVE of a single factor is greater than the squared
multiple correlations of that factor with other factors (Hair et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2011).
Therefore, in agreement with that, discriminant validity in the Fornell and Larcker principle
exists if the diagonal items are greater than other off-diagonal items in the rows and
columns. As shown in Table 4, the values in a bold font represent the square root of AVE of
all factors. In this regard, it is found that the square root of the AVE of each of the 12 latent
factors is higher than its correlation with any other factor in the path model.
The cross-loadings is the third way used to evaluate discriminant validity which focuses
on the items’ cross-loadings where an item expected to load more on its proposed factor than
the other factors (Hair et al., 2014). As displayed in Table 5, the outcomes showed that all
factors load higher on their corresponding factors than other factors in the path model.
Therefore, the analysis indicates that most factors and signals in the track model show

# ADMC DMQ DQ IQ SQ

ADMC 0.874
DMQ 0.759 0.927
Table 4. DQ 0.614 0.584 0.769
Fornell–Larcker IQ 0.623 0.657 0.738 0.898
correlation matrix SQ 0.729 0.568 0.464 0.479 0.890
# ADMC DMQ DQ IQ SQ
Digital
accounting in
ADMK1 0.908 0.757 0.584 0.594 0.713 the banking
ADMK2 0.892 0.650 0.505 0.539 0.660
ADMK3 0.820 0.561 0.518 0.490 0.518 industry
DMQ1 0.666 0.929 0.493 0.564 0.498
DMQ2 0.706 0.955 0.542 0.613 0.527
DMQ3 0.700 0.917 0.557 0.643 0.521
DMQ4 0.735 0.905 0.567 0.613 0.554
DQ1 0.498 0.467 0.834 0.652 0.394
DQ2 0.454 0.448 0.766 0.563 0.329
DQ3 0.463 0.415 0.738 0.529 0.356
DQ4 0.474 0.464 0.733 0.515 0.347
IQ1 0.564 0.621 0.649 0.903 0.441
IQ2 0.573 0.568 0.651 0.882 0.420
IQ3 0.560 0.571 0.689 0.930 0.430
IQ4 0.540 0.601 0.660 0.876 0.430
SQ1 0.593 0.489 0.400 0.421 0.860
SQ2 0.650 0.524 0.410 0.426 0.905 Table 5.
SQ3 0.677 0.533 0.438 0.443 0.938 Cross-loadings
SQ4 0.675 0.471 0.405 0.415 0.854 correlation matrix

acceptable discriminant validity. Therefore, as a conclusion, the proposed path model has an
adequate level of validity and reliability.
After verifying the measurement model, the subsequent stage in the PLS analysis is
assessing the structural model and hypotheses testing. Table 6 below shows the sum-
up of results after examining the hypotheses of this study (path coefficients- b ). First,
results mainly show that decision-making quality is significantly and positively
affected by IQ and DQ that have the highest influential role among other drivers of
decision-making quality, which means that all of these hypotheses were supported. In
contrast, an insignificant relationship between SQ and DMQ has been found, which
does not agree with the relevant hypothesis and was not supported. On the other hand,
data quality and SQ have a significant and positive influence on IQ, which agrees with
the current hypotheses. As shown in Figure 3, results supported the postulated
hypotheses by examining the mediating effect of trust. This point out that IQ has
partially mediated the association between both data quality and system quality with
decision-making quality. Finally, ADMK has moderated the association between IQ
and DMQ, as displayed in Figure 4.

# Paths Beta Standard error T-value P-value Decision

H1 DQ ! DMQ 0.545 0.048 11.350 0.000 Accepted

H2 DQ ! IQ 0.657 0.032 20.645 0.000 Accepted
H3 IQ ! DMQ 0.277 0.052 5.364 0.000 Accepted
H4 DQ_ ! IQ ! DMQ 0.182 0.035 5.216 0.000 Accepted
H5 SQ ! IQ ! DMQ 0.048 0.013 3.629 0.000 Accepted
H6 SQ ! DMQ 0.026 0.054 0.477 0.633 Rejected Table 6.
H7 SQ ! IQ 0.174 0.037 4.747 0.000 Accepted Results of
H8 Moderating role of ADMC 0.084 0.027 3.147 0.002 Accepted hypotheses testing
GKMC

Figure 3.
Result of hypotheses
testing

5
4.5
Decision-Making Quality

4
3.5 Moderator
3 Low Analytical Decision-
Making Culture
2.5
2 High Analytical Decision-
Figure 4. Making Culture
Moderating role of 1.5
analytical decision-
making culture
1
Low Information Quality High Information Quality

6. Research discussion and implications

The current study contributes to the literature by assessing some of the related factors of the
information system success model and by demonstrating that data and information quality,
except for system quality on improve the decision-making quality in the digital accounting
systems among Jordanian banks as displayed in Figure 3. As expected, empirical results
provide strong evidence about the role of data quality in both decision-making quality and
information quality with the digital accounting systems, hence H1 and H2 were accepted.
These results are consistent with earlier studies results as Kulkarni et al. (2017) and Yeoh
et al. (2008) which stated that data quality is an essential success factor for information
systems, which in turn affects providing high-quality information for decision-making
includes processing data in a way that is useful for individual and organizational
performance.
 Regarding the mediation effects of information quality, the findings empirically Digital
confirmed a significant positive influence of information quality both directly and indirectly accounting in
in improving the decision-making quality with the digital accounting systems in Jordanian
banks; hence, H3–H5 were also accepted. These results align with the findings of DeLone
the banking
and McLean, (2016) in their IS success model which state that quality of information is a industry
critical role in enhancing organizational and individual performance. Likewise, Pirttimäki
et al. (2006) indicated that the need for high-quality information is essential for organizations
to make coherent decisions and succeed in today’s rapidly changing business environment.
On the other hand, our current study findings are also consistent with the findings of Wieder
and Ossimitz (2015), which found a significant relationship between decision-making
quality and information quality and revealed mediating effects of data and information
quality.
Unexpectedly, the empirical outcomes also revealed that system quality has no
significant impact on the decision-making quality with the digital accounting
systems. In contrast, system quality significantly impacted information quality and
hence, H6 was rejected and H7 was accepted. However, our study results only showed
significant results between system quality and a positive impact on information
quality but also confirmed that system quality had an insignificant impact on
decision-making quality (H6). Although these findings are consistent with some prior
studies (Al-Okaily, 2021; Wanko et al., 2019; Wibowo and Sari, 2018; Hidayat and
Akmad, 2017), they are not consistent with the original work of DeLone and McLean
(1992), which consider system quality as a critical factor to assess the information
system success model. Thus, this result means that users believe it is hard to use the
digital accounting systems and it is perceived as not easy to use since it needs more
effort and time of the decision-making process, which in turn does not improve the
quality of this process (Gonzales et al., 2015). Ouiddad et al. (2020) found similar
outcomes that indicated that this outcome might be because of the difficulties
managers face while using digital systems.
Finally, regarding the interaction effect between analytical decision-making
culture, information quality and decision-making quality, the t-values are positive
and significant (t-values = 3.147, p < 0.002) and hence H7 was accepted. In this
regard, analytical decision-making culture strengthens the positive relationship
between information quality and decision-making quality. Figure 4 illustrates that
information quality is more predictive of the decision-making quality when the level
of analytical decision-making culture is high. This can be explained that analytical
culture may have significant implications on the quality of decision-making. In
addition, our findings are in agreement with Popovic et al. (2012), who reported that
the use of information in business processes is positively impacted by an
organizational culture of analytical decision-making.
Overall, our outcomes provided the theoretical model to assess the ability of digital
accounting systems in improving the quality of decision-making among Jordanian banks.
This theoretical model can also act as a guideline for future research activities in the related
domain. Specifically, we were capable of emphasizing the impact of data, information and
system quality on the effectiveness of the decision-making quality among Jordanian banks.
Along with the research objectives, the research proposed model in this study was designed
to test whether the quality of information mediates the relationship between data and
system quality on decision-making quality. However, the empirical results of the current
study found that information quality, directly and indirectly, impacted the decision-making
quality with the digital accounting systems and plays an important role in improving the
GKMC decision-making quality in Jordanian banks. With regard to the moderation effects of
information quality, analytical decision-making culture has moderated the relationship
between information quality and decision-making quality. Thus, the study results also
contribute toward an improved understanding of the essential factors behind the
advancement of decision-making quality by decision-makers in Jordanian banks through
digital accounting systems usage.

7. Limitations and future research

Similar to any other research, our study has some limitations that require to be
considered when interpreting its results. These limitations introduce opportunities
for researchers in future aiming to understand how digital accounting technologies
help contribute to decision-making process quality. One of the study limitations is
represented findings generalization. This study was done in the context of banks in
Jordan; thus, our outcomes may not be generalizable to other contexts. The results
might not be generalizable to other sectors and vice versa. Therefore, future works
should focus on other sectors such as the service and manufacturing sectors that also
used digital accounting in their business activities. Furthermore, this study gathered
data from bank headquarters in Amman (capital city) of Jordan and future research is
recommended to expand this research to other cities. Respondents’ in other parts of
the country may response differently. Another limitation is related to the nature of the
study, which is cross-sectional. This sometimes makes it an issue to infer conclusions
related to cause-and-effect relationships. A longitudinal study could assess the same
sample and model respond in future research. This will introduce a time lag between
the evaluation of the predictors and outcome constructs. Future studies also may
replicate this effort with other research approaches, including case studies which may
permit deeper insights. One additional limitation is the nature of predictor constructs
used in this work which are related to technological factors. For example, user
training as a lack of adequate training programs is a constraint in reaching the full
expected benefits.

References
Al-Okaily, A., Al-Okaily, M., Shiyyab, F. and Masadah, W. (2020a), “Accounting information system
effectiveness from an organizational perspective”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 10 No. 16,
pp. 3991-4000.
Al-Okaily, A., Abd Rahman, M.S., Al-Okaily, M., Ismail, W.N.S.W. and Ali, A. (2020b), “Measuring
success of accounting information system: applying the DeLone and McLean model at the
organizational level”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Vol. 98 No. 14,
pp. 2697-2706.
Abu Afifa, M.M. and Saleh, I. (2021a), “Management accounting systems effectiveness, perceived
environmental uncertainty and companies’ performance: the case of Jordanian companies”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 30 No. 2, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-07-2020-2288.
Abu Afifa, M.M. and Saleh, I. (2021b), “Management accounting systems effectiveness, perceived
environmental uncertainty and enterprise risk management: evidence from Jordan”, Journal of
Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 704-727, doi: 10.1108/JAOC-10-2020-
0165.
Ahmed, A.A.A. (2021), “Corporate attributes and disclosure of accounting information: evidence from
the big five banks of China”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 3, p. e2244.
Alalwan, J.A., Thomas, M.A. and Weistroffer, H.R. (2014), “Decision support capabilities of enterprise Digital
content management systems: an empirical investigation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 68,
pp. 39-48.
accounting in
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M. and Sinclair, J. (2020), “Evaluating E-learning systems success: an empirical
the banking
study”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 102, pp. 67-86, doi: 10.1016/J.CHB.2019.08.004. industry
Al-Okaily, M. (2021), “Assessing the effectiveness of accounting information systems in the era of
COVID-19 pandemic”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems,
Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-08-2021-0148.
Al-Okaily, M. and Al-Okaily, A. (2022), “An empirical assessment of enterprise information systems
success in a developing country”, The Jordanian Experience. The TQM Journal, Vol. ahead-of-
print No. ahead-of-print, available at: https://lnkd.in/gVYWFSqQ.
Al-Okaily, A., Al-Okaily, M. and Teoh, A.P. (2021), “Evaluating ERP systems success: evidence from
Jordanian firms in the age of the digital business”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-04-2021-0061.
Arnott, D. and Pervan, G. (2015), “A critical analysis of decision support systems research”, Formulating
Research Methods for Information Systems, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 127-168.
Balios, D. (2021), “The impact of big data on accounting and auditing”, International Journal of
Corporate Finance and Accounting (IJCFA), Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Belfo, F. and Trigo, A. (2013), “Accounting information systems: tradition and future directions”,
Procedia Technology, Vol. 9, pp. 536-546.
Dagiliene, L. and Šutiene, K. (2019), “Corporate sustainability accounting information systems: a contingency-
based approach”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the dependent
variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 9-30.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2016), “Information systems success measurement”, Foundations and
TrendsV R in Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-116.

Diedrich, H. (2016), Ethereum: Blockchains, Digital Assets, Smart Contracts, Decentralized Autonomous
Organizations, Wildfire publishing, Sydney, p. 360.
Dimitriu, O. and Matei, M. (2014), “A new paradigm for accounting through cloud computing”, Procedia
Economics and Finance, Vol. 15, pp. 840-846.
Fanning, K. and Centers, D.P. and (2016), “Blockchain and its coming impact on financial services”,
Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 53-57.
Ferencek, A. and Kljajic Borštnar, M. (2020), “Data quality assessment in product failure prediction
models”, Journal of Decision Systems, pp. 1-8.
Fornell, V. and Larcker, C. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with observable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gable, G.G., Sedera, D. and Chan, T. (2008), “Re-conceptualizing information system success: the
is-impact measurement model”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 9
No. 7, p. 18.
Gonzales, M. (2011), “Success factors for business intelligence and data warehousing maturity and
competitive advantage”, Business Intelligence Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 22-29.
Gonzales, R., Wareham, J. and Serida, J. (2015), “Measuring the impact of data warehouse and business
intelligence on enterprise performance in Peru: a developing country”, Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 162-187.
Gorla, N., Somers, T.M. and Wong, B. (2010), “Organizational impact of system quality, information quality
and service quality”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 207-228.
GKMC Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed, a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Hult, J.G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications, Inc, USA.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hidayat, R. and Akmad, S. (2017), “Implementation of enterprise resource planning system in
manufacturing firm in Indonesia”, International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and
Information Technology, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 1434-1440.
Huy, P.Q. and Phuc, V.K. (2020), “The impact of public sector scorecard adoption on the effectiveness of
accounting information systems towards the sustainable performance in public sector”, Cogent
Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 1717718.
ık, Ö., Jones, M.C. and Sidorova, A. (2013), “Business intelligence success: the roles of BI capabilities
Is
and decision environments”, Information and Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Jasim, Y.A. and Raewf, M.B. (2020), “Information technology’s impact on the accounting system”,
Cihan University-Erbil Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 50-57.
Kapoor, N. and Goel, S. (2017), “Board characteristics, firm profitability and earnings management:
evidence from India”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 180-194.
Klisarova-Belcheva, S., Ilieva, G. and Yankova, T. (2017), “Business intelligence and analytics
– contemporary system model”, Trakia Journal of Science, Vol. 15 No. Suppl.1,
pp. 298-304.
Kotrlik, J.W.K.J.W. and Higgins, C.C.H.C.C. (2001), “Organizational research: determining appropriate
sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research”, Information
Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, p. 43.
Krishnamoorthi, S. and Mathew, S.K. (2018), “Business analytics and business value: a comparative
case study”, Information and Management, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 643-666.
Kulkarni, U., Robles-Flores, J.A. and Popovic, A. (2017), “Business intelligence capability: the effect of
top management and the mediating roles of user participation and analytical decision making
orientation”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 7, p. 1.
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M.S. and Kruschwitz, N. (2011), “Big data, analytics and
the path from insights to value”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
Lin, H.F. (2010), “An investigation into the effects of is quality and top management support on ERP
system usage”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 335-349.
Lin, H.Y., Hsu, P.Y. and Ting, P.H. (2006), “ERP systems success: an integration of is success model and
balanced scorecard”, Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 215-228.
Mithas, S., Tafti, A. and Mitchell, W. (2013), “How a firm’s competitive environment and digital
strategic posture influence digital business strategy”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 511-536.
Moll, J. and Yigitbasioglu, O. (2019), “The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of
accountants: new directions for accounting research”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 51
No. 6, p. 100833.
Motaghian, H., Hassanzadeh, A. and Moghadam, D.K. (2013), “Factors affecting university instructors’
adoption of web-based learning systems: case study of Iran”, Computers and Education, Vol. 61,
pp. 158-167.
Niu, Y., Ying, L., Yang, J., Bao, M. and Sivaparthipan, C.B. (2021), “Organizational business intelligence
and decision making using big data analytics”, Information Processing and Management,
Vol. 58 No. 6, p. 102725.
Oatley, G.C. (2021), “Themes in data mining, big data and crime analytics”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Digital
Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, p. e1432.
accounting in
Ouiddad, A., Okar, C., Chroqui, R. and Hassani, I.B. (2020), “Assessing the impact of enterprise resource
planning on decision-making quality”, Kybernetes, Vol. ahead-of print No. ahead-of print, doi: 10.1108/
the banking
K-04-2019-0273. industry
Petter, S. and McLean, E.R. (2009), “A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean is success
model: an examination of is success at the individual level”, Information and Management,
Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 159-166.
Petter, S., DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (2008), “Measuring information systems success: models,
dimensions, measures and interrelationships”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 236-263.
Petter, S., DeLone, W. and McLean, E.R. (2012), “The past, present and future of ‘is success’”, Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 5, p. 2.
Phomlaphatrachakom, K. (2020), “Accounting control system, accounting information quality, value
creation and firm success: an empirical investigation of auto parts businesses in Thailand”,
International Journal of Business, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 159-177.
Phuong, N.N.D. and Dai Trang, T.T. (2018), “Repurchase intention: the effect of service quality, system
quality, information quality and customer satisfaction as mediating role: a PLS approach of m-
commerce ride hailing service in Vietnam”, Marketing and Branding Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 78.
Pirttimäki, V., Lönnqvist, A. and Karjaluoto, A. (2006), “Measurement of business intelligence in a
Finnish telecommunications company”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 83-90.
Popovic, A., Hackney, R., Coelho, P.S. and Jaklic, J. (2012), “Towards business intelligence systems
success: effects of maturity and culture on analytical decision making”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 729-739.
Puspitawati, L. (2021), “Strategic information moderated by effectiveness management
accounting information systems: Business strategy approach”, Jurnal Akuntansi, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 101-119.
Qasim, A. and Kharbat, F.F. (2020), “Blockchain technology, business data analytics and artificial
intelligence: use in the accounting profession and ideas for inclusion into the accounting
curriculum”, Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 107-117.
Rikhardsson, P. and Yigitbasioglu, O. (2018), “Business intelligence and analytics in management
accounting research: status and future focus”, International Journal of Accounting Information
Systems, Vol. 29, pp. 37-58.
Sandner, P., Gross, J. and Richter, R. (2020), “Convergence of blockchain, IoT and AI”, Frontiers
Blockchain, Vol. 3, p. 522600.
Schmitz, J. and Leoni, G. (2019), “Accounting and auditing at the time of blockchain technology: a
research agenda”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 331-342.
Schryen, G. (2013), “Revisiting is business value research: what we already know, what we still need to know
and how we can get there”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 139-169.
Sharma, R. and Yetton, P. (2003), “The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence
on successful information systems implementation”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 533-556.
Singh, S.K., Watson, H.J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “EIS support for the strategic management process”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Smith, S.S. (2015), “Accounting: evolving for an integrated future”, Journal of Accounting, Finance and
Management Strategy, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 1.
Sniazhko, S. (2019), “Uncertainty in decision-making: a review of the international business literature”,
Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 1650692.
GKMC Torres, R. and Sidorova, A. (2019), “Reconceptualizing information quality as effective use in the
context of business intelligence and analytics”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 49, pp. 316-329.
Urbach, N. and Müller, B. (2012), “The updated DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success”, Information Systems Theory, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1-18.
Uwadiae, O. (2015), “Financial Reporting Automation”, Deloitte.
Visinescu, L.L., Jones, M.C. and Sidorova, A. (2017), “Improving decision quality: the role of business
intelligence”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 58-66.
Wanko, C.E.T., Kamdjoug, J.R.K. and Wamba, S.F. (2019), “Study of a successful ERP implementation
using an extended information systems success model in Cameroon universities: case of CUCA”,
World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, Cham, Springer, pp. 727-737.
Wibowo, A. and Sari, M.W. (2018), “Measuring enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems
effectiveness in Indonesia”, Telkomnika (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and
Control), Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 343-351.
Wieder, B. and Ossimitz, M.L. (2015), “The impact of business intelligence on the quality of decision
making–a mediation model”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 64, pp. 1163-1171.
Yates, J.F. and de Oliveira, S. (2016), “Culture and decision making”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 136, pp. 106-118.
Yeoh, W. and Popovic, A. (2016), “Extending the understanding of critical success factors for
implementing business intelligence systems”, Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 134-147.
Yeoh, W., Koronios, A. and Gao, J. (2008), “Managing the implementation of business intelligence
systems: a critical success factors framework”, International Journal of Enterprise Information
Systems, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 79-94.
Zhang, Y., Xiong, F., Xie, Y., Fan, X. and Gu, H. (2020), “The impact of artificial intelligence and
blockchain on the accounting profession”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 110461-110477.

Further reading
Akroyd, C., Askarany, D., O’Grady, W. and Spraakman, G. (2013), “Requirements for
information technology with newly hired management accounting graduates”, CAAA
Annual Conference.
Alsaad, A. and Al-Okaily, M. (2021), “Acceptance of protection technology in a time of fear: the
case of covid-19 exposure detection apps”, Information Technology and People, doi:
10.1108/ITP-10-2020-0719.
Deshmukh, A. (2006), Digital Accounting: The Effects of the Internet and ERP on Accounting, IGI
Global.
Ghasemi, M., Shafeiepour, V., Aslani, M. and Barvayeh, E. (2011), “The impact of information
technology (IT) on modern accounting systems”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 28, pp. 112-116.

Appendix. Measurements items and sources

Factors – Code Measurements – Items Sources
Data Quality/Torres and Sidorova (2019)
 DQ1 The data available for the DAS is accurate
 DQ2 The data available for the DAS is comprehensive
 DQ3 The data available for the DAS is correct
 DQ4 The data available for the DAS is consistent
Information Quality/Lin et al. (2006) and Gable et al. (2008) Digital
 IQ1 The information provided by the DAS is always timely accounting in
 IQ2 The information provided by the DAS is useful the banking
 IQ3 The information provided by the DAS is easy to understand industry
 IQ4 Importance of information related to decision-making
System Quality/Lin et al. (2006) and Gable et al. (2008)
 IQ1 The information provided by the DAS is always timely
 IQ2 The information provided by the DAS is useful
 IQ3 The information provided by the DAS is easy to understand
 IQ4 Importance of information related to decision-making
Analytical Decision-Making Culture/Popovic et al., (2012)
 ADMK1 The decision-making process is well established and known to its stakeholders
 ADMK2 The bank’s policy is to incorporate available information within any decision-making
process
 ADMK3 I consider the information provided by the DAS regardless of the type of decision to
be taken
Decision-Making Quality/Alalwan et al. (2014) and Ouiddad et al. (2020)
 DMQ1 Based on the information from DAS, the outcome of the decision that I make is
usually correct (the outcome may have minor errors)
 DMQ2 Based on the information from DAS, the outcome of the decision that I make is
usually accurate (the outcome has no errors at all)
 DMQ3 Based on the information from DAS, the outcome of the decision that I make is
usually precise (the DAS will lead to the same outcome every time I face the same
problem)
 DMQ4 Based on the information from DAS, the outcome of the decision that I make is
usually dependable

About the authors

Manaf Al-Okaily serves as an Assistant Professor of Accounting Information Systems (AIS) at
Jadara University, Jordan. Al-Okaily earned his Doctor of Philosophy in AIS from University
Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia. His current research interest is in the domain of Digital
Transformation in Accounting and Finance, Intelligent Accounting Systems, as well as FinTech
Services Acceptance and Adoption. Al-Okaily has published more than 30 scholarly articles in
reputable and leading academic journals including Information Technology and People, Technology
in Society, EuroMed Journal of Business, Kybernetes Journal, VINE Journal, and the TQM Journal.
On top of that, he has reviewed several referred articles in highly ranked journals (e.g., Scopus and
Clarivate Analytics). Manaf Al-Okaily can be contacted at: [email protected]
Rasha Alghazzawi, Assistant professor at Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT)
and currently the head of the accounting department. Graduated with a PhD in accountancy from
University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom in the year 2018. Research interests include; financial
technology, digital accounting, international accounting, and financial information.
Abeer Alkhwaldi is an Assistant Professor at Department of Management Information Systems,
Mutah University, Jordan. She received her PhD degree in “Management Information Systems” from
University of Bradford, UK (2019). Her research interests include Human-Computer Interaction (HCI),
technology acceptance/adoption, e-government, mobile government, e-services, e-learning, distance
learning, HRIS, digital transformation, digital accounting, accounting information systems, perceived
security, blockchain, e-payment, e-wallet, and FinTech- related issues. She participated in many
GKMC international scientific conferences (e.g., IEEE 12th International Conference for Internet Technology
and Secured Transactions (ICITST), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK) and her research has
appeared in a number of in peer-reviewed Journals (e.g., journal of International Education in
Business (JIEB) and Leadership in Health Services).
Aws Al-Okaily is a PhD candidate of Accounting Information Systems and a research assistant at
Universiti Sains Malaysia Graduate School of Business. He graduated with an MPhil in Accounting
Information Systems from Universiti Malaysia Terengganu in 2020 and a Bachelor of Accounting
from Hashemite University in 2017. The emphasis of his research lies in intelligent systems of
accounting, business and finance. His research publications have appeared in reputed international
journals such as TQM Journal, VINE Journal, Kybernetes Journal, Global Knowledge, Memory and
Communication, Cogent Business and Management and among others. He has served as a peer
reviewer for numerous publications in leading academic journals.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]