An Exploration of Technological Innovations in the Audit Industry: Disruption Theory Applied to a Regulated Industry*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Technological innovation is increasing throughout the audit industry. Although prior research has explored how specific technological innovations have influenced the audit product and the profitability of the audit, the strategic implications of technological innovation for the audit industry have yet to be examined. To address this issue, we adopt Christensen's seminal theory of technological innovation (introduced in his 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma ) to gain insight into the results of 27 semistructured interviews with auditors and audit technical specialists. Consistent with Christensen's sustaining and efficiency strategic responses, our findings suggest that, at this time, technology is primarily being used by the audit industry to strengthen the audit industry's ability to serve mainstream clients by providing a “higher‐quality” and lower‐cost audit to replace menial tasks that historically have been done by junior auditors. We find that industry‐disruptive new market entry is currently prevented by regulatory and professional barriers; however, strategic disruption to the audit industry appears inevitable as technology is already being used in audits of nonregulated markets by new entrants. Strategically, the audit industry will survive in its current recognizable form only if self‐disruption occurs before the regulatory barriers are dropped, which requires significant upskilling in the industry to ensure that firms have the skills to be first movers whenever technological innovations are introduced.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".