Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1999
Publisher
The Clute Institute
Source Publication
Review of Business Information Systems
Source ISSN
1534-665X
Abstract
Although there has been a number of articles written about the possible use of expert systems by management accountants, there has been limited research to support such predictions. The primary purposes of this paper are to examine management accoun-tants’ use and perceptions of expert systems. A survey instrument was designed to eli-cit responses (Likert scale and open-ended) about management accountants' perceptions of the current and future use of expert systems and to determine their knowledge, interest and involvement with such systems. The findings of this study indicate that although respondents are moderately interested and involved with expert systems, they have a limited knowledge of those systems. The respondents do agree that expert systems will be utilized more in the future, and that management accountants will be involved in the development and use of expert systems. Expert systems will be utilized to reduce inventories and improve productivity. The respondents, however, do not agree that expert systems are currently used for the management accounting applications used in this study. Also, their expectations regarding the current and future use of expert systems are significantly different. Expectations of the future use of expert system can be found in management accounting literature over the past fifteen years. The findings of this study indicate prior expectations have not materialized.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Akers, Michael D.; Jordan, Robert E.; and Porter, Grover L., "An Examination of Management Accountants’ Use and Perception of Expert Systems" (1999). Accounting Faculty Research and Publications. 38.
https://epublications.marquette.edu/account_fac/38
Comments
Published version. Review of Business Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1999): 59-66. DOI. © 1999 Clute Institute. Used with permission.