This is an individual assignment that is expected to be 2,000 words in total (subject to the normal +/- 10 per cent rule) You are to draw upon relevant academic research (where appropriate) as well as examples from news media, textbooks and other sources to support your work. Appropriate academic referencing and integrity expectations apply to this assignment and if you have not completed a written assignment for some time, you may wish to remind yourself of academic integrity expectations (eg. look at the university’s guide to Harvard referencing, retake the academic integrity module – AIM).
In tutorial 1, this semester, you discussed Porter’s (1993) model for the expectation gap In lecture and workshop over the last 7 weeks, we have discussed the audit process in some detail. The basic logic was presented in lecture in week In relation to each step or phase (planning, performance, reporting), you are expected to identify one concept or process within each step or phase and evaluate how each of those concepts or processes contributes to a particular component of the audit expectation gap model.
Evaluate how the approach to sampling lends itself to the performance gap or evaluate how the approach to materiality illustrates issues relevant to a reasonableness gap. You are expected, then, to use research to support your argument where appropriate and to draw on examples to help you demonstrate your argument.
You should also think about the key actors in the audit system relevant to the expectation gap,including auditors, but also broader stakeholders, including investors and creditors, but also including other users of accounting information.Indicative Marking Criteria (a full marking rubric will be released).
a) A demonstrated link between concept/process (within each step/phase) and how this contributes to an element of the expectation gap model from Porter (1993). This should be repeated for each step/phase of the audit process (30 per cent);
b) A consideration of the impact of these ‘problems’ on different stakeholders in the audit system (10 per cent);
c) A range of clear examples drawn upon to illustrate the issues raised in each concept/process (20 per cent);
d) An appropriate use of source material (including relevant research articles) to support the argument made (20 per cent); and
e) A well communicated, cogent report on the expectation gap (20 per cent).