Comparing the Outcomes of Nominal Group, Round Robin and Open Discussion Fraud Brainstorming Techniques
Speaker
Abstract
| With the objective of testing and improving the effectiveness fraud brainstorming, a large international CPA firm commissioned the current study, which analyzes three brainstorming techniques (nominal group, round robin and open discussion) via a between-participant field experiment involving 150 audit clients and 2,614 auditors. The results indicate that nominal group and round robin brainstorming resulted in equivalent numbers of unique fraud risks and comparable increases in planned audit hours, while open discussion brainstorming yielded the least number of unique ideas and the smallest increase in planned audit hours. Furthermore, nominal group and round robin brainstorming resulted in more changes/additions to the nature and timing of substantive testing than open discussion brainstorming. In this study, nominal group and round robin brainstorming were equally effective, and open discussion brainstorming was least effective. |
| Contact information: |
| Paolo Perego |
