FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4282938019> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4282938019 endingPage "5" @default.
• W4282938019 startingPage "1" @default.
• W4282938019 abstract "In September 2020 the senior editors of JIS organized a workshop aimed at generating research ideas for potential JIS publications on robotic process automation (RPA). Panelists from industry and academia were invited.The workshop brought together Accounting Information Systems (AIS) researchers, representatives from leading RPA product and service providers, RPA users, and practitioners working with or considering working with RPA, to have a conversation on RPA related challenges and research opportunities. Through this interaction we hoped to achieve the following objectives: First, provide an opportunity for RPA software, implementation firms, and users to articulate some of the issues/challenges they face. Second, provide an opportunity to researchers interested in these topics/ideas to start exploring the possibility of collaboration with practitioners on addressing these research questions. Third, convert these research topics/ideas into a call for papers for a special section of JIS on the topic of RPA in order to expand our understanding of this growing area of activity.In a review of RPA academic literature, Plattfaut and Borghoff (2022) argue that there is a plethora of RPA definitions. Based on systematic analysis of all definitions from this literature, they define RPA as a technology that allows the deployment of computer programs (bots) that automate rules-based processes through a graphical user interface (GUI). For example, it can read emails and trigger responses, open PDFs and use OCR to read contracts, log in to ERP systems to read/write data, leverage human-supervised machine learning (ML) to identify non-explicit rules, or enable customers to interact directly with systems via forms, surveys, and chatbots (Moffitt, Rozario, and Vasarhelyi 2018; Plattfaut 2019; Miers, Kerremans, Ray, and Tornbohm 2019).Approaching the RPA from both the supply side (firms involved in the delivery of RPA solutions) and demand side (firms investing in RPA initiatives) there is ample evidence that the market is vibrant. According to Gartner's 2019 report, RPA is the fastest-growing software segment with an annual growth of 63 percent (Miers et al. 2019). According to Kashif Mahbub (Automation Anywhere), finance and accounting and HR are two of the biggest buyers of RPA in large organizations, and over 90 percent of the global enterprises will be using RPA in one form or another over the next two years. Automation Anywhere, one of the RPA vendors, estimates that their clients have deployed 2.6 million bots.1 In comparison, the largest employer in the U.S. is probably Walmart, which has around 3 million employees. Thus, as emphasized by Tran Nguyen, bots represent a formidable digital workforce.2 A survey by Protiviti (2019) has shown that relatively large companies (i.e., companies with sales of $1 billion or more) have been investing between $10 million and $20 million per year in RPA projects and this is likely to continue in the near future. Tony Abel—one of the architects behind this survey—explained that this spending is motivated by expected benefits in increased productivity, better product quality, and strong competitive market position. However, the success of these investments is hindered by inability to prioritize potential projects and pursue the best applications.A Gartner report (Miers et al. 2019) focuses on several misconceptions and challenges associated with RPA; for example:The state of diffusion of an emerging technology determines “what types of research questions we can address, what research data is available and what methodologies are available to study a technology and its uses” (O'Leary 2008, 241). The 2019 Gartner Hype Cycle does not include RPA in its list of technologies tracked by Gartner.3 However, in a local version of the Hype Cycle (Dubai, UAE), RPA software is shown in the trough of disillusionment.4O'Leary (2008) argues that during this stage, information about the technology is likely to be limited. However, as RPA adoption grows5 the opportunities for research are growing too.Research at the intersection of RPA and accounting has been relatively active. For example, Moffitt et al. (2018) and Christ, Eulerich, Krane, and Wood (2021) have examined the use of RPA in external and internal audit, respectively, and suggested several research topics, including challenges of RPA implementation and how to address them. The study by Kokina and Blanchette (2019) leverages feedback from RPA adopters to analyze implementation issues and performance outcomes. Organizations benefit from automating rules-based, well-structured processes with digital inputs. The primary benefits include cost savings, improved process documentation, lower error rates, more accurate measurement of process performance, and better report quality. Two recent studies (Cooper et al. 2019, 2020) have examined RPA implementations among the Big 4 accounting firms. While the former looked at the RPA leaders within the accounting firms to gain insights into how RPA software is currently being used, the latter examined how both firm leaders and lower-level employees perceive and respond to RPA. While both groups agree on the positive effects of RPA on employee performance and career prospects, only firm leaders believe RPA will improve work satisfaction. A few studies have used a design science methodology to build useful artifacts for practitioners, including Zhang, Thomas, and Vasarhelyi (2021) designing a methodology for using attended automation in audit tasks and Eulerich, Pawlowski, Waddoups, and Wood (2021) developing a framework to help auditors select tasks appropriate for automation using RPA.Our panelists (e.g., Tony Abel, Kashif Mahbub) reiterated that one of the key motivations for implementing RPA is to free employees from mundane activity to do more “cognitive” work (Lacity and Willcocks 2021). An even larger vision expressed by some of our participants is the digital transformation of the organization. Proponents of this vision are sometimes defensive about it, asserting that the goal is not the replacement of humans but rather their empowerment through technology and argue that employee concerns may be fueled by their lack of experience with bots.When it comes to implementation of automation, there are two competing views. One side argues that automation should be handed over to IT, while the other pushes for “democratization” of automation by empowering employees to be involved in automating their own processes through RPA. The former enables the creation of centers of excellence and centralizing of the governance of automation, but day-to-day employees don't have any control over it. David Wood pointed to the lack of research that compares and contrasts these competing views.An issue that is raised frequently is how many and which accounting tasks can be added to or replaced by RPA. What is the need for a technical proof of concept (POC) or a business case analysis (ROI) for an implementation of RPA before proceeding with an RPA project? Also, as noted earlier, RPA is just one approach to automating a process. Why choose it rather than enterprise systems with workflow capabilities, or visual basic and Python scripts to integrate multiple processes? How should entities go about determining whether or not RPA is a good fit in a particular situation? Is there a need for a framework for prioritizing processes to be automated first (e.g., Eulerich et al. 2021)? Some of our panelists argued that there is no need for a technical POC or prioritization because the time and cost invested in such activities is equal to or more than the benefit of implementing a small pilot project. They argue that building a bot is so quick and easy that even if a lower payoff process is selected it will still have a positive return compared to the delay and cost of formal business case analyses and priority setting. These arguments run counter to conventional academic thinking but may be supportable in the near term, at least when the opportunities for exploring RPA applications seem endless. However, they may understate the risk that at some point in time there could be a plethora of disparate, uncoordinated RPA implementations that dramatically increase the cost of integrating sub-systems (e.g., Eulerich et al. 2021). Thus, it would be useful to investigate whether such adaptation steps and costs are small or large. Does the maturity of the organization matter to the choice of approach?Developing RPA applications is similar to end-user computing that became a problem decades ago when Excel and Excel macros were being produced by end users throughout organizations with negative repercussions. This led to the expression, “spreadsheet hell.” With the growth of edge computing are we going to “RPA hell?” How can we prevent RPA from becoming shadow IT and should we prevent this? What should good governance structures look like? Should RPA governance be located in the IT department, an RPA center of excellence, or in the business units? How can the entity give its business units the right to build bots while having some degree of control over its overall IT architecture? Sound system management and security risk management can be compromised if there are processes that IT management is not even aware of. Also, there is a risk that RPA will help to keep “zombie systems” alive. That is, RPA can be used to patch legacy systems and keep them running when they should be deactivated and replaced (Eulerich et al. 2021).Jacob Summers raised the problem of monitoring bots. RPA apps may be brittle, in the sense that even small changes in the processing environment may cause them to stop functioning. Unless they are proactively monitored, their failure may escape users' notice. But can users effectively monitor robotic processes? There is an opportunity to investigate the design of bots to ensure their resilience and the inclusion of dashboards to monitor their performance and trigger alarms when expected routines are not completed.Another question that was raised is, “How auditable are some of these systems?” In particular, for systems that touch the financial reporting process, there needs to be assurance about the effectiveness of their processing controls and the integrity of their processing outcomes. Are they covered by the COSO-based SOX 404 audit procedures? An issue raised by Dan O'Leary relates to segregation of duties. How do we deal with the combination of what were previously considered incompatible functions within a single bot? What types of documentation do they require, and should they require SOC 2 assurance (ControlCase 2016)? If they are outsourced to service organizations, they may also require SOC 1 assurance (ControlCase 2016).Audit procedure can be very complex. Can we bring the auditor's professional judgment inside an RPA-assisted process? Attended process automation has been suggested as a way of addressing this complexity (Zhang et al. 2021) so that auditors, instead of the bots, decide the path or the route of the automation process. This seems to be a viable but stop-gap process, as it carries with it numerous risks such as inappropriate auditor override of processes, stalled, incomplete or short-circuited processes, and judgment-associated limitations such as those that are already part of the process. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that auditor judgments are still required in key aspects of the audit such as fraud risk assessments, fair value assessments, and other judgment-based procedures. The optimal manner of designing audit automation processes is, therefore, an important area for research, keeping in mind the potential consequences of deskilling auditors by automating more and more of their procedures. Can the judgment processes be entirely cut-off from the routine processes without being compromised? Where is the tipping point?Tony Abel (Protiviti) focused on employee satisfaction. There seems to have been a great deal of animosity toward and fear of automation since the creation of the assembly line. The creation of RPA and AI-based improvements to business processes, have rekindled the fear of massive layoffs and other disruptions of work. However, Tony Abel notes that, “Frankly, we've not seen much if any. Less than 10% of our clients are saying, ‘I'm actually using automation as a way to ratchet headcount down.'” This is supported by Leslie Willcocks (2020) who argues that the fears of massive layoffs due to the deployment of RPA and other automation tools are overblown and don't take into account many of the concurrent and conflicting changes taking place simultaneously and pulling the forces affecting work places in opposite directions.At the same time, terminology used by some proponents of the “digital workforce” serves to stoke the fears of automation. For example, Tony Abel quotes business leaders as saying, “I want to position my organization for growth. I want to be able to deploy digital employees alongside my human employees in such a way that, maybe as I grow, I don't have to hire at the same pace” or “I want to use this as a way to upskill my staff, to do much more value-add strategic activities, leaving the bots and the digital employees to do the more transactional things.”This leads to the question about the nature of the future workforce, whether in industry or the professions. Will people like to co-exist with a digital workforce? Will they adapt to changes in their jobs, that to process designers seem logical and beneficial, but to them are frustrating and upsetting? For example, some academics (Lacity and Willcocks 2021) and some panelists (Jacob Summers, Kashif Mahbub) extol the value of replacing repetitive, boring tasks with RPA to enable people to focus on more meaningful and challenging tasks. But one of our panelists (Ralf Plattfaut) pointed out that many people like to have some routine tasks in their day because they make their workday more manageable overall. Can employees that are relieved of their mundane tasks perform more valued-added cognitive tasks without extensive retraining and will they be enthusiastic about or at least accepting of the changes to their jobs and the organization itself? These questions deserve investigation in both industrial and professional settings.In conclusion, we encourage AIS researchers to consider the issues raised by the workshop as research opportunities. We also direct researchers to the forthcoming paper by Plattfaut and Borghoff (2022) which lays out an extensive research agenda based on an extensive review of the literature on RPA." @default.
• W4282938019 created "2022-06-16" @default.
• W4282938019 creator A5000598183 @default.
• W4282938019 creator A5051997338 @default.
• W4282938019 date "2022-03-01" @default.
• W4282938019 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W4282938019 title "<i>JIS</i> Workshop on Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Research: Views from RPA Industry Leaders and AIS Researchers" @default.
• W4282938019 cites W2886573619 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W2901174424 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W2982637769 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W2985921739 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W3035363886 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W3125480572 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W3194241964 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W3197804770 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W3211736643 @default.
• W4282938019 cites W4212916967 @default.
• W4282938019 doi "https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-10809" @default.
• W4282938019 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4282938019 type Work @default.
• W4282938019 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W4282938019 countsByYear W42829380192022 @default.
• W4282938019 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4282938019 hasAuthorship W4282938019A5000598183 @default.
• W4282938019 hasAuthorship W4282938019A5051997338 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C110354214 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C115901376 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C117671659 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C110354214 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C111919701 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C115901376 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C117671659 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C127413603 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C41008148 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C78519656 @default.
• W4282938019 hasConceptScore W4282938019C98045186 @default.
• W4282938019 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W4282938019 hasLocation W42829380191 @default.
• W4282938019 hasOpenAccess W4282938019 @default.
• W4282938019 hasPrimaryLocation W42829380191 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W2000388703 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W2151021235 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W2363161008 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W2369901114 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W2382285006 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W2391009556 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W2474655341 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W3118599064 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W4285794660 @default.
• W4282938019 hasRelatedWork W47642517 @default.
• W4282938019 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W4282938019 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4282938019 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4282938019 workType "article" @default.