identification of user needs for technology training in a

1

Author: Hoy, Leya K.

Title: Identification of User Needs for Technology Training in a Mid-Sized

Accounting Firm

Graduate Degree/Major: MS Career and Technical Education

Research Advisor: Dr. Carol Mooney, EdD

Month/Year: Fall, 2013

Number of Pages: 63

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and

that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University

Library website

I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been

used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the

laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.

My research advisor has approved the content and quality of this paper.

STUDENT:

NAME: Leya Hoya DATE: 12/20/13

ADVISOR: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):

NAME: Carol Mooney DATE: 12/20/13

2

Hoy, Leya K. Identification of User Needs for Technology Training in a Mid-Sized

Accounting Firm

Abstract

Technology changes occur frequently in mid-sized accounting firms. Mid-sized accounting

firms often struggle to observe or assess an employee’s ability or inability to adapt to rapid

changes in technology. The purpose of this study was to determine if the current technology

skills of a mid-sized accounting firm were keeping pace with rapid changes in technology.

Training that needs to occur in modern public accounting firms is not the same as it was thirty

years ago (Trenholm, 2008). The research examined employee’s perception of their current

technology skills, solicited their views on training, and researched best practices to resolve

technology training needs. A survey instrument was used to have participants rate their

confidence level with technology. This survey did not assess their technology skills, only their

confidence with various types of software and hardware technology. This study documents that

there are staff within the accounting firm that would benefit from technology training. Fifty

percent of the users perceive that they have a technology skills gap.

3

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................5

Chapter I: Introduction .....................................................................................................................6

Background ..........................................................................................................................6

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................7

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................7

Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................8

Research Questions ..............................................................................................................8

Methodology ........................................................................................................................8

Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................9

Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................9

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................10

History of Accounting Technology ...................................................................................10

Teaching Accounting Technology .....................................................................................13

Technology Training for Accounting Staff........................................................................14

Chapter III: Methods and Procedures ............................................................................................17

Method of Study ................................................................................................................17

Participant Selection and Description ................................................................................17

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................18

Procedures Followed ..........................................................................................................18

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................19

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................20

4

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................21

Response Rate ....................................................................................................................21

Confidence Using Technology ..........................................................................................21

Item Analysis .....................................................................................................................39

Summary ............................................................................................................................47

Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations .........................................................48

Summary ............................................................................................................................48

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................49

Recommendations ..............................................................................................................50

References ..........................................................................................................................51

Appendix A: Email to Survey Participants ....................................................................................55

Appendix B: Consent to Participate ...............................................................................................56

Appendix C: Survey Instrument ....................................................................................................57

5

List of Tables

Table 1: Rate of Response ................................................................................................ 21

Table 2: Confidence Levels Using Windows 7 and Internet Browsers ............................ 23

Table 3: Confidence Levels for Selected Email Technology ........................................... 25

Table 4: Confidence Levels for Selected Microsoft Word and Excel Tasks .................... 27

Table 5: Confidence Levels Using Various Accounting Software ................................... 31

Table 6: Confidence Levels Using Various Hardware Items ........................................... 34

Table 7: Technology Resources Used............................................................................... 35

Table 8: Description of User ............................................................................................. 36

Table 9: Satisfaction Rating .............................................................................................. 37

Table 10: Age Category .................................................................................................... 37

Table 11: Level of Education Attained ............................................................................. 38

Table 12: Position Title ..................................................................................................... 39

Table 13: Percent Results for Windows 7 and Internet Browsers .................................... 40

Table 14: Percent Results for Email Technology ............................................................. 41

Table 15: Percent Results for Microsoft Word & Excel Tasks ........................................ 42

Table 16: Percent Results for Software Applications ....................................................... 43

Table 17: Percent Results of Hardware Items................................................................... 44

Table 18: Percent Results of Technology Resources ........................................................ 45

Figure 1: Self Description as a Technology User ............................................................. 46

Table 19: Percent Result of Firm Investment Satisfaction ............................................... 46

6

Chapter I: Introduction

Background

No longer can you enter a business office and not see a computer or some form of

technology on every desk. As technology within an office evolves and changes, so must the

users of that technology. The accounting profession began thousands of years ago and although

the need for tracking financial account information has remained the same, the methods by

which we record and report that information have not. Sweeping changes in technology have

become a regular occurrence, and the pace of change for users to adapt to these changes seems so

to be accelerating (Kremer, 1993; Mishra, Koehler & Kereluik, 2009; Kurzweil, 2001). The

days of sorting through paper files, creating manual ledgers, and preparing a trial balance may

still exist, but are rare for a majority of the accounting population. With automated systems,

these processes are now computer-generated (Trenholm, 2008).

Accounting students’ technology skills are often outdated soon after they graduate

(Badua, Sharifi, & Watkins, 2012). While educational institutions can incorporate new

technologies into their curriculum to assist the new accounting professional, we must not forget

those who are already out in the field and how new technologies challenge these individuals to

evolve. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) is the national

organization that sets standards for the accounting profession. The AICPA Vision Project (CPA

forum) made a highlighted position statement that technology is the single largest issue for CPAs

and adapting to technology is a core competency (AICPA, 2011).

Training that needs to occur in modern public accounting firms is not the same as it was

thirty years ago (Trenholm, 2008). Not only are mid-sized accounting firms challenged with the

changes in hardware like personal computers or laptops, mobile devices, and office equipment,

7

but the various software applications that operate these devices also come with their own

learning requirements. Public accounting firms need to create an environment of learning and

training programs to keep pace with these changes (Boomer, 2005).

In an article written by Jeff Stimpson, “Teaching Tech to Partners”, he emphasizes the

need for all staff members to embrace learning, use the best practices available for training, and

consider mentoring with an individual or implementing a team of technology staff to help train

(2009). Training should not be viewed as a human resource benefit reserved only for staff and

partners; it should be a required activity for all staff. As Trenholm noted, “Well-rounded and

technically competent staff are the future of the public accounting profession” (2008).

Statement of the Problem

Technology changes occur frequently in mid-sized accounting firms. Mid-sized

accounting firms often struggle to observe or assess an employee’s ability or inability to adapt to

rapid changes in technology. Gary Boomer, CPA, (2008) strikes at the importance of this

problem when he states “Technology offers incredible opportunities for some, while it causes

crises in personal confidence of others” (p. 24). The mid-sized accounting firm that will be

examined has not conducted a formal assessment of technology skills and training needs.

Without the proper identification of skills needed to work with the current available technology

tools, accounting staff may be working inefficiently and with less confidence.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine if the current technology skills of a mid-sized

accounting firm located in Wisconsin are keeping pace with rapid changes in technology. This

research will be conducted to identify accounting staff training needs as they relate to the

changes in technology. The study conducted for this research will examine employee’s

8

perception of their current technology skills, solicit their views on training, and research best

practices to resolve technology training needs.

Importance of the Study

As a professional organization, clients rely on the expertise of accounting firms for more

than just a tax return. They look to accounting firms for their information technology support as

well (Kracunas & Smith, 2012). To remain competitive, Accounting firms need to balance their

information technology changes with the expense of keeping staff trained and knowledgeable,

which in turn builds staff efficiency and confidence. This research study will be conducted in

correlation to the National Research Agenda for Career and Technical Education Research

Problem Area 5: Research Objective 5.1: Research Activity 5.1.3 Professional Development of

Teachers (Trainers) and Research Objective 5.2: Research Activity 5.2.3 Workforce

development.

Research Questions

This study will attempt to answer the following questions:

1. What computer/technology changes are occurring in a mid-sized accounting firm in

Wisconsin?

2. What issues and/or skills gaps exist within a mid-sized accounting firm because of

technology?

3. What are some tools, if any, that can be utilized or practiced within a mid-sized

accounting firm to help recognize these skills gaps or training needs?

Methodology

The method to answer the research questions will be through the process of conducting a

needs assessment. A needs assessment will assist with providing knowledge that a skills gap

9

may exist and imply a need for training. A survey will be given to employees of a mid-sized

accounting firm consisting of the following potential participants: Principal partners, Firm

manager, Certified Public Accountants, Accountants, and Administrative staff personnel. The

results will be analyzed and shared with the Principal partners and Firm manager of the firm.

Limitations of the Study

The scope of this research will focus only on technology skills. It will not involve soft

skills or education levels. The focus will be limited to a single mid-sized accounting firm. This

study will define mid-sized to be 15 to 50 employees only. This research will not formally

assess skill levels of staff, but will ask to self-assess their skills. With self-assessment,

individuals may not want to appear incompetent. Variations in reported skill level may result.

Definition of Terms

Accounting. The practice of organizing, maintaining, recording, and analyzing financial

activity (Eisen, 2000)

AICPA. Founded in 1887 it stands for American Institute of Certified Public

Accountants and is the national professional organization of Certified Public Accountants

(WWW.AICPA.ORG).

CPA. Stands for Certified Public Accountant. Accountants who become CPA certified

are those who meet the statutory title of qualified accountants in the United States because they

have passed the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination and have met additional state

education and experience requirements for certification

Firm. In the context of this paper this word means a business unit or enterprise

Mid-sized accounting firm. Fifteen to nearly one hundred accounting professionals

employed within the firm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Public_Accountants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Certified_Public_Accountant_Examination

10

Chapter II: Literature Review

This chapter will give a brief history of technologies used in accounting, describe how

the rapid changes in technology are challenging students and professors at the post-secondary

level of education, and discuss what training is offered to staff at accounting firms. It will also

include data about perceived gaps in professional knowledge.

History of Accounting Technology

At the core of every business is the essential requirement for transactional recordkeeping

known as Accounting. The need to keep track of financial transactions has been around for

thousands of years. Basu and Waymire (2006) noted that “the core record-keeping technology of

accounting is necessary for the emergence of complex exchange and the sophisticated markets

and economic organizations that presently characterize advanced human economies”(p. 202).

Verifiable financial transactions make it difficult for people to disagree, useful for predicting

future markets, and in turn create a culture of economics and law.

The earliest account of financial record-keeping technology is believed to be Sumerian

clay tokens that were first used around 3000 BC (Mouck, 2004). Traders created clay tokens

representing the items they wished to trade. These tokens were sealed inside clay envelopes

which were stamped with representations of what they contained to “seal the deal”. This later

led to representations simply being stamped on clay tablets, which lead to modern writing

(Mattessich, 2012).

The next major leap in accounting technology after the exchange of tokens was the

invention of the abacus. The abacus has been described as the first calculator. The abacus

consisted of beads on wires within a wooden frame. This design made it possible to slide the

11

beads across for counting and calculating. The abacus is a counting tool that is still used in

several countries today (Pepe, 2011).

After the abacus, came large tabulation machines or adding machines introduced in the

late 1800’s. One of these first machines to assist in the calculation of numbers was called the

“comptometer” developed by Dorr Eugene Felt. The name is fitting due to the large volume of

computing work that is done in accounting. The machine’s ability to add, subtract, multiply and

divide numbers was a welcome upgrade from manual counting or calculating. William S.

Burroughs took the large tabulation machines to the next level by adding a printing capability

and additional computing abilities. Burroughs Adding Machine Company became an industry

leader in the development of accounting machines. Companies were pleased with the ability to

have less accounting staff and also have faster, more timely, reporting of financial numbers.

These large tabulation machines evolved into the much smaller “10 key” calculator that fits onto

a work desk or a hand held calculator.

The last major leap in accounting technology was the advent of the computer. A website

article titled Computer History 101: The Development of The PC, reminds us of some key time

periods regarding the evolution of the personal computer. In 1981, IBM introduced their first

personal computer. In 1990 the World Wide Web (WWW) was developed. In 1993, Microsoft

was developing the operating system Windows 95, and in 2009 Microsoft released Windows 7

(Bestofmedia Team, 2011). Since this article was written, Microsoft has already released

Windows 8. The significance of this timeline is to realize the rate of development and rapid

changes in technology since the personal computer was introduced.

With the introduction of computers, came the need for software applications. The most

common application that has served the accounting industry is the spreadsheet. The idea of the

12

electronic spreadsheet can be credited to Professor Richard Mattessich from the University of

California – Berkeley during the 1960’s. But it was not until Daniel Bricklon and Bob Franksten

created VisiCalc in 1979 that the electronic spreadsheet gained widespread use. This new

spreadsheet software provided a tool to help do away with paper ledgers of columns and rows

and manually calculating totals with adding machines. From VisiCalc came Lotus 1-2-3, which

also brought the power of creating charts, plotting, and database management. Then in 1985,

Microsoft Excel was introduced. Spreadsheet software enables the accountant to enter rows and

columns of data and to total or create various calculations with the assistance of a program

formula. Spreadsheets became a way to store an electronic version of paper ledgers or journals

and financial statements. They increased accuracy and efficiency. Data could be stored,

updated, re-formulated, and printed numerous times over without re-keying prior entries into

totals. Date entered into one place on a spreadsheet could be used to recalculate multiple other

values in the same sheet, or even across several other sheets (Powers, 2002).

Progressing from spreadsheet applications, the next major innovation in accounting

technology was integrated financial software. Integrated accounting software brought the

functions of all accounting modules into one software application. The financial transactions of

the cash/bank account(s), customer accounts receivable, capitalized fixed assets, vendor accounts

payable, notes payable, owner or shareholder equity, payroll, and financial reporting activities

can be completed, tracked and compiled in one software application in real time. An example of

this integration is as follows: to invoice a customer for a sale, you would no longer create a

manual invoice. The invoice would be created within the software. By creating the invoice, the

system needs a customer account set up. When the invoice is created, items selected to add to

the sales invoice will automatically be deducted from inventory. Upon saving the invoice, a

13

credit amount of the total sale will post to revenue sales and a debit will be posted to accounts

receivable.

Much of the financial software is tailored to be industry specific. By integrating the

software to all areas of business functions, posting changes to the financials becomes more

automated and efficient. For example: a restaurant uses a point of sale software to have their

wait staff enter food and beverage orders and at various times those transactions are posted to the

restaurant financials, updating income and expense accounts as well as creating more efficient

daily deposit transactions to the bank.

Now that accounting transactions have become largely automated by technology, the

evolution and changes of technology will still continue. Jeff Drew writes about some of the

visions of the future in the Journal of Accountancy after consulting with professional CPA’s

(Drew, 2012). Amy Vetter, CPA Programs Leader at Intacct Corp., stated “With pervasive

computing, CPAs increasingly will use mobile devices to access cloud-based applications,

communications, and data. This connectivity will help CPAs work more efficiently and

exchange information with clients more effectively” (Drew 2012). By understanding the history

of accounting technology and hearing the predictions of the future, it becomes evident that there

is a need to address technology training.

Teaching Accounting Technology

Accounting technology changes rapidly and colleges have struggled to prepare students

to cope with these changes. Accounting faculty not only need to keep themselves apprised of the

changes in technology, but they also need to be prepared to share those changes with students. A

recent survey of accounting faculty showed that “[accounting technology] changes at such a

14

rapid rate that topics in these areas needs to be constantly and quickly updated” (Badua, Sharifi,

& Watkins, 2012).

An issue with teaching accounting technology at the university level is that the

technologies taught to students may be outdated before they graduate. To keep pace with

changes in skill set needed by accounting graduates, the profession has called for a significant

change in accounting education. The AECC (Accounting Education Change Commission) found

that although technology in the workplace has exploded, the integration of technology into the

curriculum has been slow. A move from content-driven to skills-driven curriculum and lectures

replaced with other learning strategies needed to occur (Roberts, Kelley, & Medlin 2007).

Despite the problems inherent in teaching technology, faculty continue to make it a focus

of their curriculum. Roberts, Kelley, and Medlin (2007) noted that “new technology applications

excite students and stimulate learning” and that they also “increase the perception of instructor

effectiveness”. They also noted other positive effects on students, including learning more in

less time and improved attitudes toward computers. Higgins and Mooney (2011) “believe it is

important to use software and computer projects in the classroom so that our students will benefit

from learning how to learn software and will recognize the application of concepts.”

Faculty have other barriers to teaching technology that must be overcome: fear of change,

the possibility of appearing incompetent, fear of failure, and/or lack of time to develop

instruction to develop to its particular use. Faculty will adapt, but to succeed they have to have

the resources, the training and a support system among their colleagues (Roberts, Kelley, &

Medlin, 2007).

Technology Training for Accounting Staff

15

Technology training is also a major concern for accounting firms. Recent graduates do

not necessarily have all the skills they need, and long-time employees will need training updates

to stay current with technology changes. However, little data on what training is offered to

accounting staff is available (Banker, Chang, & Kao, 2011; Chang & Hwang, 2003; Wessels,

2005).

One of ways accounting firms attempt to adapt to new technology is by requiring staff to

have ongoing training. The only formalized training required for accounting firms is what is

regulated by licensure requirements. Accountants, who are licensed, are Certified Public

Accountants (CPA). Only Certified Public Accounts are required to meet formalized training

requirements in the form of CPE credits or continuing professional education credits.

Organizations such as the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accounts) and WICPA

(Wisconsin Institute of Certified Public Accountants) have assisted in formalizing this training

and reporting requirement. The required training is outlined on the organizations websites and

publications to licensed CPA’s. The current curriculum listed by the 2013-2014 AICPA

catalogue included some of the following areas: Income tax, FASB (Financial Accounting

Standards Board) review and standards, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles),

Auditing compilations and reviews, Ethics, Financial reporting, Fraud, and Peer review.

Technology is changing the environment in which today’s accountants practice. Accountants

must possess a broader set of knowledge, skills and abilities than prior generations (Roberts,

Kelley, & Medlin, 2007). Technology training has to be managed at the Firm level. Gary

Boomer, CPA and writer of Boomer’s Blueprint published in Accounting Today, has written

about the need for firm level training. He notes that those who declare that they do not care for

technology are expressing such sentiments out of fear and lack of confidence (2008).

16

Technology training is critical whether it is learning about the latest changes to Microsoft’s

operating system, an office suite, tax software, cloud computing, or mobile applications

(Fineberg, 2010).

The benefits of training are clear. Staff with adequate training, have greater confidence

and are more productive (Stimpson, 2009). A recent study indicated that when technology

investments occur concurrently with professional training, the value of the technology is

enhanced (Chen, Yang, & Yang, 2012). Gregory LaFoliette, CPA, CITP, and Executive Editor

for CPA Technology Advisor reported on the findings of the AICPA survey which revealed that

partners in the upper quartile of firms were working 3% less and earning 65% more because of

technology (2006).

Knowledge of the history and current state of technology in the accounting field, assists

in understanding the pace of change. Post-secondary education facilities and accounting firms

need to keep pace with the change. Keeping pace with technology changes requires tools to

identify user needs.

17

Chapter III: Methods and Procedures

The purpose of this study was to determine if the current technology skills of a mid-sized

accounting firm are keeping pace with rapid changes in technology. The research was conducted

to determine if a skills gap exists among staff members and identify training needs in one

accounting firm.

This chapter includes an overview of the methods of this study, information about the

participants that were selected, a description of the participants, the survey instrument, data

collection, and data analysis procedures. The chapter will conclude with limitations of the study.

Method of Study

A literature review provided a brief history of technologies used in accounting. The

purpose was to show the rate at which technology in the field of accounting is changing at an

even faster pace than in prior decades. The review also presented the challenges that this rate of

change causes for both educators and students at the post-secondary level of education and

accounting firm staff within a mid-sized accounting firm. The result of this study was to present

perceived gaps in professional knowledge and a need for technology training. To provide data

related to the perceived skills gap or training needs, the primary collection for this data was

conducted through the use of an online survey. This form of descriptive research created a

snapshot of technology areas for which a skills gap exists and a need for training.

Participant Selection and Description

A local mid-sized accounting firm in Wisconsin was contacted and the Firm Manager and

Managing Principal Partner agreed to allow the participation in the needs assessment by their

employees. Employees of the mid-sized accounting firm consisted of the following: seven

Principal partners, one Firm manager, fourteen Certified Public Accountants, five Accountants,

18

and four administrative staff personnel. Of the seven Principal partners, five are equity owners

and two are income Principals only (they do not own equity in the firm). Of the fourteen

Certified Public Accountants, the following have additional titles that consist of four Managers,

two Supervisors, one Senior, and one Semi-Senior. Of the four administrative staff personnel,

two are office receptionists and two are payroll administrators. A total of 31 employees,

consisting of staff and owners, were considered to be the population and sample for this study.

Instrumentation

To answer the research questions, a survey was designed using Qualtrics, an online

survey software tool supported by UW-Stout. The survey was designed to be completed by

employees within ten to fifteen minutes. The survey was designed using Likert scale response

options for the listed software and hardware applications and features, with the intention of

obtaining the respondents confidence level as it relates to the various software applications and

hardware used within the accounting firm. The survey also included an opinion question to

obtain staff feedback on the firm’s investment in training. The survey concluded with asking

three demographic questions such as age range, position with the firm, and level of education

obtained.

The survey was peer reviewed by Graduate students at UW-Stout. A brief pilot of the

survey was also completed by a firm technology team member. A copy of the survey instrument

can be reviewed in Appendix C.

Procedures Followed

The Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research form

was completed and submitted to UW-Stout on November 4, 2013. The Institutional Review

19

Board for the Protection of Human Subjects Board approved this research on November 26,

2013.

Employees of the mid-sized accounting firm were emailed an explanation of the

assessment. A copy of the email can be reviewed in Appendix A. The email contained the link

to the survey and they were asked to complete it online. Upon opening the link to the survey, the

respondents were provided with a “Consent to Participate in UW-Stout Approved Research”

document. The consent document provided respondents with a brief description of the survey,

the assurance that they could complete it without risk to their employment, and details of the

anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. A copy of the consent document can be

reviewed in Appendix B.

To increase the response rate, the survey was emailed to all participants on three separate

occasions. First, they were invited to participate. Second, they were reminded both by email and

in a tax and audit annual update meeting. And third, they were given a final reminder for an

opportunity to participate.

Data Analysis

Results of the survey were collected within the Qualtrics application. Questions 1

through 5 asked participants to rate their confidence using office technology hardware and

software. An average value was calculated for questions 1 through 5 as it relates to the value

assigned each of the choices in the Likert scale. Zero was the lowest value, and 5 being the

largest value. Question 6 displayed choice results as percentage of popularity for the types of

resources that the participants seek as being the most commonly used forms of help for

technology assistance. Question 7 displayed as a percentage of popularity from the four choices

participants were given to rate themselves as a technology user. Question 8 described the

20

opinion the participants have about the investment the accounting firm makes in training and

education. Participants were given the choices to either disagree, be neutral, or agreed with the

investment currently made. Questions 9 through 11 gathered demographic information of the

participants such as age, level of education, and position title with the firm. Data was recorded

as frequency counts for each response, and user responses were averaged for each question.

Limitations of the Study

The scope of this research focused only on technology skills. It did not involve soft skills

or education levels. The focus was limited to a single mid-sized accounting firm in Wisconsin.

This study surveyed only 31 employees of a mid-sized accounting firm. This research did not

formally assess skill levels of employees, but asked them to self-assess their skills. With self-

assessment, individuals may not want to appear incompetent. Participants may also rate their

skill level higher than what it may actually be, had it been formally assessed. As a result, the

findings of the study may or may not be generalized to other mid-sized accounting firms.

21

Chapter IV: Results


accounting firm are keeping pace with rapid changes in technology. The survey conducted was

conducted to identify accounting staff training needs as they relate to the various types of

technology used currently. The survey was designed to examine employee’s perception of their

current technology skills, solicit their views on training, and find their most commonly used

resources that assist with their technology training needs.

Response Rate

The survey was distributed to 31 employees of the mid-sized accounting firm. A total of

30 responses were received. This resulted in a 96.8% response rate. Table 1 presents these

results.

Table 1

Rate of Response

Number of Participants contacted

Number of responses Response rate

31 30 96.8%

Confidence Using Technology

The first question asked participants to rate their confidence with some very basic

technology used frequently in an accounting firm. The focus was on the current Windows 7

operating system, the use of internet browsers, and the online tool for secure client file transfer

known as Sharefile. For technology item 1; Windows7 navigation and tools, 1 participant

selected “not confident, 2 selected “somewhat”, 8 selected “neutral”, 14 selected “highly

confident”, and 5 selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of

3.87.

22

Technology item 2: Internet bookmarks, 1 participant selected “not confident, 3 selected

“somewhat”, 5 selected “neutral”, 13 selected “highly confident”, and 8 selected “absolutely”.

The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 4.

Technology item 3: Internet simple search, 1 participant selected “not confident, 1

selected “somewhat”, 2 selected “neutral”, 14 selected “highly confident”, and 12 selected

“absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 4.37.

Technology item 4: internet advanced search, 1 participant selected “don’t use”, 5

selected “not confident”, 9 selected “neutral”, 9 selected “highly confident”, and 6 selected


Technology item 5: internet download or upload, 1 participant selected “not confident, 2



Technology item 6; use of Sharefile via the internet, 3 participants selected “don’t use”, 2



3.6. Table 2 below displays the results of their confidence ratings for these basic tools of

technology.

23

Table 2

Confidence Levels Using Windows 7 and Internet Browsers

Responses Mean

# Technology 0 =

Don't Use

1 = Not Confid

ent

2 = Somewhat

3 = Neutral

4 = Highly

confident

5 = Absolut

ely

Total Respons

e

Average Value

1

Windows 7: Navigation & tools 1 2 8 14 5 30 3.87

2

Internet browser: Bookmarks 1 3 5 13 8 30 4

3 Internet: Simple search 1 1 2 14 12 30 4.37

4

Internet: Advanced search 1 5 9 9 6 30 4.3

5

Internet: Download & Upload 1 2 8 12 7 30 3.93

6

Internet: Sharefile folder 3 2 2 8 12 3 30 3.6

Survey question 2 addressed the use of email. Participants were asked to rate their

confidence using various email features. Email technology item 1: using folders, 3 participants

selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “somewhat”, 6 selected “neutral”, 13 selected “highly


4.57. Three participants responded as “don’t use”.

Item 2: preview pane, 2 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not confident, 1



24

Item 3: searching in email, 3 participants selected “somewhat”, 9 selected “neutral”, 10

selected “highly confident”, and 8 selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a

mean score of 4.77.

Item 4: archive, 5 participants selected “don’t use”, 4 selected “not confident, 3 selected


The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 3.47.

Item 5: address book, 1 participant selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not confident, 3



Item 6: contacts, 1 participant selected “don’t use”, 3 selected “somewhat”, 6 selected

“neutral”, 15 selected “highly confident”, and 5 selected “absolutely”. The participant responses

resulted in a mean score of 4.63.

Item 7: distribution lists, 4 participants selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “not confident, 4


“absolutely”. The participants responses resulted in a mean score of 3.6.

Item 8: calendar, 2 participants selected “somewhat”, 7 selected “neutral”, 12 selected

“highly confident”, and 9 selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean

score of 4.93.

Item 9: Sharefile “add-on” tool, 4 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not

confident, 3 selected “somewhat”, 11 selected “neutral”, 8 selected “highly confident”, and 3

selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 3.9. Table 3 below

displays the results of their confidence ratings for performing these tasks in email.

25

Table 3

Confidence Levels for Selected Email Technology

Responses Mean

# Email Technology

0 = Don't Use

1 = Not Confident

2 = Somewhat

3= Neutral

4 = Highly

confident

5 = Absolu

tely

Total Response

Average Value

1 Use folders 3 1 6 13 7 30 4.57

2 Preview pane 2 1 1 6 13 7 30 4.60

3 Search 3 9 10 8 30 4.77

4 Archive 5 4 3 11 4 3 30 3.47

5 Address book 1 1 3 8 12 5 30 4.47

6 Contacts 1 3 6 15 5 30 4.63

7 Distribution lists 4 2 4 13 6 1 30 3.60

8 Calendar 2 7 12 9 30 4.93

9

Sharefile (convert files for secure transfer) 4 1 3 11 8 3 30 3.90

Survey question 3 focused on the software applications Microsoft Word and Excel.

Participants were asked to rate their confidence with performing various tasks within each

application. Item 1: Word copy and paste, 1 participant selected “somewhat”, 2 selected



Item 2: Word text formatting, 1 participant selected “not confident, 2 selected



Item 3: Word tables, 2 participants selected “don’t use”, 4 selected “not confident, 5



26

Item 4: Word mail merge, 5 participants selected “don’t use”, 4 selected “not confident, 3



Item 5: Excel cell formatting, 1 participant selected “not confident, 4 selected



Item 6: Excel linking cells, 1 participant selected “not confident, 5 selected “somewhat”,

7 selected “neutral”, 12 selected “highly confident”, and 5 selected “absolutely”. The participant

responses resulted in a mean score of 4.5.

Item 7: Excel formulas, 1 participant selected “not confident, 1 selected “somewhat”, 2

selected “neutral”, 14 selected “highly confident”, and 12 selected “absolutely”. The participant


Item 8: Excel sort and filter, 1 participant selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not confident,

3 selected “somewhat”, 10 selected “neutral”, 10 selected “highly confident”, and 5 selected

“absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 4.4

Item 9: Excel charts, 4 participants selected “don’t use”, 4 selected “not confident, 7



Item 10: Excel pivot tables, 4 participants selected “don’t use”, 5 selected “not confident,



Item 11: Excel print features, 2 participants selected “not confident, 4 selected


27

The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 4.4. Table 4 below displays the results of

their confidence ratings for these basic tasks in Microsoft Word and Excel.

Table 4

Confidence Levels for Selected Microsoft Word and Excel Tasks

Responses Mean

# Technology 0 =

Don't Use

1 = Not Confident

2 = Somewhat

3 = Neutral

4 = Highly

confident

5 = Absolutely

Total Response

Average Value

1 Word: Copy & paste 1 2 13 14 30 5.33

2 Word: Text formatting 1 2 5 11 10 29 4.93

3 Word: Tables 2 4 5 9 8 2 30 3.77

4 Word: Mail merge 5 4 3 9 6 1 28 3.36

5 Excel: Cell formatting 1 4 5 12 8 30 4.73

6 Excel: Linking cells 1 5 7 12 5 30 4.50

7 Excel: Formulas 1 1 4 6 11 7 30 4.53

8 Excel: Sort & filter 1 1 3 10 10 5 30 4.40

9 Excel: Charts 4 4 7 8 4 3 30 3.43

10 Excel: Pivot tables 4 5 11 6 3 1 30 3.07

11

Excel: Printing features 2 4 8 12 4 30 4.40

Survey question 4 contained a list of the software used most frequently within the mid-

sized accounting firm. Participants were asked to rate their confidence using the applications.

Item 1: Accounting CS-bookkeeping, 13 participants selected “don’t use”, 4 selected “not

confident, 5 selected “somewhat”, 4 selected “neutral”, and 4 selected “highly confident”. The

participants responses resulted in a mean score of 2.4.

28

Item 2: Accounting CS-payroll, 17 participants selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “not

confident, 4 selected “somewhat”, 3 selected “neutral”, and 4 selected “highly confident”. The

participant responses resulted in a mean score of 2.17.

Item 3: BNA (research and tax forms), 8 participants selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “not


selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 3.

Item 4: CBS-client bookkeeping solutions, 16 participants selected “don’t use”, 5


confident”, and 1 selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 2.

Item 5: Creative Solutions, 11 participants selected “don’t use”, 4 selected “not confident,



Item 6: PPC Smart Practice Aides, 8 participants selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “not


selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 3.23.

Item 7: Checkpoint Tools for PPC, 8 participants selected “don’t use”, 3 selected “not



Item 8: ProSystem fx - Engagement, 5 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not



Item 9: ProSystem fx – Practice Management, 3 participants selected “don’t use”, 3


29


3.83.

Item 10: ProSystem fx - Tax, 2 participants selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “not



Item 11: ProSystem fx – Fixed Assets, 6 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not



Item 12: MAS (Master Accounting Series) 90, 26 participants selected “don’t use”, 1

selected “not confident, 1 selected “somewhat”, and 2 selected “neutral”. The participant


Item 13: Microsoft Great Plains, 25 participants selected “don’t use”, 2 selected

“somewhat”, 2 selected “neutral”, and 1 selected “highly confident”. The participant responses


Item 14: QuickBooks, 5 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not confident, 2



Item 15: Sage 50 (formally known as Peachtree), 7 participants selected “don’t use”, 1



3.67.

30

Item 16: Tvalue, 5 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not confident, 1 selected


The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 4.07. Table 5 presents the results of their

confidence ratings for other frequently used software.

31

Table 5

Confidence Levels Using Various Accounting Software

Responses Mean

# Software application

0 = Don't Use

1 = Not confident

2 = Somewhat

3 = Neutral

4 = Highly confide

nt

5 = Absolutely

Total Response

Average

Value

1 Accounting CS - Bookkeeping 13 4 5 4 4 30 2.40

2 Accounting CS - Payroll 17 2 4 3 4 30 2.17

3 BNA 8 2 9 5 5 1 30 3.00

4

CBS - Client Bookkeeping Solutions 16 5 5 2 1 1 30 2.00

5 Creative Solutions 11 4 4 4 4 3 30 2.83

6 PPC Smart Practice Aides 8 2 8 1 9 2 30 3.23

7 Checkpoint Tools for PPC 8 3 6 1 10 2 30 3.27

8 ProSystem fx: Engagement 5 1 5 4 10 5 30 3.93

9

ProSystem fx: Practice Management 3 3 4 9 8 3 30 3.83

10 ProSystem fx: Tax 2 2 4 9 7 6 30 4.17

11 ProSystem fx: Fixed Asset 6 1 4 5 11 3 30 3.77

12 MAS 90 26 1 1 2 30 1.30

13 Microsoft Great Plains 25 2 2 1 30 1.47

14 QuickBooks 5 1 2 7 13 2 30 3.93

15 Sage 50 (Peachtree) 7 1 1 10 8 3 30 3.67

16 TValue (Amortization) 5 1 1 6 14 3 30 4.07

32

Survey question 5 contained a list of various computer hardware items used within an

office. Participants were asked to rate their confidence with running updates on their PC to other

technology tools such as features on their desk phone, office copier, fax, and scanner. Item 1:

Running updates, 2 participants selected “not confident, 3 selected “somewhat”, 14 selected



Item 2: phone greeting, 1 participant selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “not confident, 4



Item 3: phone voicemail, 1 participant selected “not confident, 3 selected “somewhat”, 10



Item 4: duplex copies, 2 participants selected “somewhat”, 2 selected “neutral”, 11


mean score of 5.4.

Item 5: copier finishing features, 4 participants selected “don’t use”, 3 selected



Item 6: print to copier, 5 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “not confident, 2



33

Item 7: fax from front desk, 3 participants selected “don’t use”, 1 selected “somewhat”, 8



Item 8: fax to email, 3 participants selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “somewhat”, 8



Item 9: scan document to file, 1 participant selected “don’t use”, 2 selected “not

confident, 3 selected “neutral”, 11 selected “highly confident”, and 13 selected “absolutely”.

The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 5.

Item 10: change default setting on scanner, 1 participant selected “don’t use”, 2 selected

“not confident, 4 selected “somewhat”, 1 selected “neutral”, 13 selected “highly confident”, and

9 selected “absolutely”. The participant responses resulted in a mean score of 4.67.

Item 11: scan to email, 2 participants selected “don’t use”, 3 selected “neutral”, 15


mean score of 4.97. Table 6 presents the results of their confidence ratings for frequently used

hardware items.

34

Table 6

Confidence Levels Using Various Hardware Items

Responses Mean

# Technology 0 =

Don't Use

1 = Not confiden

t

2 = Somewha

t

3 = Neutra

l

4 = Highly

confident

5 = Absolutel

y

Total Respon

se

Average Value

1 Desktop/Laptop: run updates 2 3 14 5 6 30 4.33

2 Phone: change greeting 1 2 4 9 9 5 30 4.27

3

Phone: send & retrieve voicemail 1 3 10 10 6 30 4.57

4 Copier: duplex (two-sided) 1 2 11 16 30 5.4

5

Copier: Finishing features (hole punch, staple, collate) 4 3 4 8 11 30 4.5

6 Copier: Print from desktop 5 1 2 2 9 11 30 4.4

7

Fax: send from office (front desk) 3 1 8 7 11 30 4.63

8 Fax: receive to email 3 2 8 8 9 30 4.5

9

Scanner: scan document to file 1 2 3 11 13 30 5

10

Scanner: change default settings 1 2 4 1 13 9 30 4.67

11

Scanner: scan to email 2 3 15 10 30 4.97

Survey question 6 asked participants what resources they turn to for help with

technology. They were asked to select the three most commonly used resources. The results of

their choices were as follows: 70% selected trial and error, websites 43.33%, co-workers

.76.67%, help files or manuals 33.33%, technical support 33.33%, and firm technology team

35

members 46.67%. Webinars, vendor training, books, journals or magazines, and other where not

selected by any of the respondents. Table 7 presents the results of their choices for the most

commonly used technology resources.

Table 7

Technology Resources Used

# Technology resource Responses %

1 Trial & error 21 70.00%

2 Websites 13 43.33%

3 Co-workers 23 76.67%

4 Help files or manuals 10 33.33%

5 Webinars 0 0.00%

6 Technical support 10 33.33%

7 Vendor training 0 0.00%

8 Firm technology team members 14 46.67%

9 Books 0 0.00%

10 Journals/Magazines 0 0.00%

11 Other 0 0.00%

Total responses 91

Survey question 7 asked users to describe themselves as technology users. Participants

were asked to complete the following sentence: I describe myself as a technology user who is

_________. Three participants described themselves as “in need of training”. Twelve described

themselves as “capable, I get the job done”. Twelve described themselves as “proficient, I do the

36

job efficiently”. Three described themselves as “an expert, I could train others”. Table 8 below

displays the results of their choices for how they describe themselves as technology users.

Table 8

Description of User

# Answer Response %

1 in need of training 3 10.00%

2 capable, I get the job done. 12 40.00%

3 proficient, I do the job efficiently 12 40.00%

4 an expert, I could train others 3 10.00%

Total 30 100.00%

Survey question 8 asked participants to rate their current satisfaction with the mid-sized

accounting firms investment in technology training and education. Participants where give the

choice to either disagree, be neutral, or agree with the following statement: I am satisfied with

the investment my firm makes in training and education. Four participants disagreed. Seventeen

were neutral. Nine participants agreed with the firm investment in training and education. Table

9 presents the results of their choices for satisfaction with the firm’s investment in technology

training and education.

37

Table 9

Satisfaction Rating

Statement Disagree Neutral Agree Total Responses

I am satisfied with the investment my firm makes in training & education

4 17 9 30

Result % of response 13% 57% 30% 100%

Survey question 9 asked participants to classify themselves in an age group. Participants

were not required to complete this question. Of the 28 participants that completed this question,

25% are in the age group 20 to 34; 35.71% are ages 35 to 44; 17.86% are ages 45 to 54, and

21.43% are ages 55 or older. Table 10 presents the participants by age group.

Table 10

Age Category

Age group Response %

20 to 34 7 25.00%

35 to 44 10 35.71%

45 to 54 5 17.86%

55 or older 6 21.43%

Total 28

Survey questions 10 asked participants to identify what level of education they have

obtained. Participants were not required to complete this question. Of the 29 participants that

completed this question, one participant identified their highest level of education was

graduating from high school. Two participants obtained two year technical degrees. Twenty two

38

graduated from college. One participant had completed some graduate education. Three have

completed graduate school. Table 11 presents the highest level of education obtained by the

participants.

Table 11

Level of Education Attained

Level of Education Response %

Graduated from high school 1 3.45%

Some college 0 0.00%

2 year Technical degree 2 6.90%

Graduated from college 22 75.86%

Some Graduate School 1 3.45%

Completed Graduate School 3 10.34%

Total responses 29

Survey questions 11 asked participants to identify their position title within the

accounting firm. Participants were not required to complete this question. The participants

identified themselves as follows: 4 administrative, 7 accountants, 13 CPA’s, 5 Principals, and 1

as other. Table 12 below presents the various position titles that identify the participants.

39

Table 12

Position Title

Position Title Response %

Administrative 4 13.33%

Accountant 7 23.33%

CPA 13 43.33%

Principal 5 16.67%

Other 1 3.33% Total responses 30

Item Analysis

For the purpose of determining a skills gap or need for training in a particular area, an

item rated with a value of 3 or less was calculated within the range of responses as a percentage

based from the number of respondents. Example: if 12 of the 30 respondents rated any item at

level 0, 1, 2, or 3, then the percentage within that range equals 12 divided by 30 (40%). For the

purpose of determining a skills gap or need for training, it was established that any item that

results in a respondent rate of 50% or greater, was an area that should be considered for training.

Fifty percent represents half of the respondents. Fifty percent would seem an appropriate level to

establish areas of need for which the firm would benefit by focusing training on these items.

Of the six items to rate in Question 1, two items resulted in a score of 50% for those

rating a value of 3 or less. As seen in Table 13 below, advanced searches using the internet and

the use of Sharefile internet application both resulted in a score of 50%.

40

Table 13

Percent Results for Windows 7 and Internet Browsers

# Technology % of 0 to 3 % of 4 & 5 1 Windows 7: Navigation & tools 37% 63% 2 Internet browser: Bookmarks 30% 70% 3 Internet: Simple search 13% 87% 4 Internet: Advanced search 50% 50% 5 Internet: Download & Upload 37% 63%

6 Internet: Sharefile folder (client file transfer) 50% 50%

For survey question 2, of the nine email technology features to rate, three items:

Archiving, use of distribution lists, and converting to a secure email via the Sharefile “add-on”

tool, had scores greater than 50% for those rating with a value of 0 to 3. The percentages were as

follows: 77% Archive, 77% for the use of distribution lists, and 63% for Sharefile.

41

Table 14

Percent Results for Email Technology

# Email features % of 0 to 3 % of 4 & 5

1 Use folders 33% 67%

2 Preview pane 33% 67%

3 Search 40% 60%

4 Archive 77% 23%

5 Address book 43% 57%

6 Contacts 33% 67%

7 Distribution lists 77% 23%

8 Calendar 30% 70%

9 Sharefile (convert files for secure transfer) 63% 37%

Survey question 3 focused on tasks performed in Microsoft office applications Word and

Excel. Of the eleven items rated, 5 resulted in a percentage score greater than 50% for those

rating a value of 0 to 3. The percentages were as follows: 67% Tables in Word, 70% mail merge

in Word, 50% sort & filter data in Excel, 77% charts in Excel, and 87% pivot tables in Excel.

42

Table 15

Percent Results for Microsoft Word & Excel Tasks

# Microsoft Application Tasks % of 0 to 3 % of 4 & 5

1 Word: Copy & paste 10% 90%

2 Word: Text formatting 27% 70%

3 Word: Tables 67% 33%

4 Word: Mail merge 70% 23%

8 Excel: Sort & filter 50% 50%

9 Excel: Charts 77% 23%

10 Excel: Pivot tables 87% 13%

11 Excel: Printing features 47% 53%

Survey question 4 contained a list of 16 commonly used accounting software applications

within the firm. For analysis and due to the fact that some staff members do not use some of

these applications, the 0 or “don’t use” selection was eliminated from the total of responses to

determine skills gap or training needs. For example: if 5 participants selected 0, “don’t use”, the

number of respondents for analysis is 30 minus 5 or 25. The total of those who responded 1, 2,

or 3 were then added together and divided by the total number minus the “don’t use” responses.

Those who selected a rating of 4 or 5 were also added together and divided by this new value of

total respondents. Of the 16 items, 11 resulted in a score of 50% or higher for those rating a

value of 1 to 3. The percentages were as follows: 76 % Accounting CS-Bookkeeping, 69%

Accounting CS-Payroll, 73% BNA (research and tax forms), 86% CBS-Client Bookkeeping

Solutions, 63% Creative Solutions, 50% PPC Smart Practice Aides, 59% ProSystemfx – Practice

43

Management, 54% ProSystemfx – Tax, 100% MAS 90, 80% Microsoft Great Plains, 52% Sage

50 (Peachtree). Table 16 displays the results of the computations.

Table 16

Percent Results for Software Applications

# Software Application % of 1 to 3 % of 4 & 5 1 Accounting CS - Bookkeeping 76% 24% 2 Accounting CS - Payroll 69% 31% 3 BNA 73% 27% 4 CBS - Client Bookkeeping Solutions 86% 14% 5 Creative Solutions 63% 37%

6 PPC Smart Practice Aides 50% 50% 7 Checkpoint Tools for PPC 45% 55% 8 ProSystem fx: Engagement 40% 60% 9 ProSystem fx: Practice Management 59% 41%

10 ProSystem fx: Tax 54% 46% 11 ProSystem fx: Fixed Asset 42% 58% 12 MAS 90 100% 0%

13 Microsoft Great Plains 80% 20% 14 QuickBooks 40% 60%

15 Sage 50 (Peachtree) 52% 48% 16 TValue (Amortization) 32% 68%

Survey question 5 contained 11 hardware items for participants to rate. Of the eleven

items to rate, only two resulted in a score of 50% or greater for those responding a rating of 0 to

3. Running updates on their PC was 63% and changing their phone greeting was 53%.

44

Table 17

Percent Results of Hardware Items

# Hardware % of 0 to 3 % of 4 & 5 1 Desktop/Laptop: run updates 63% 37% 2 Phone: change greeting 53% 47% 3 Phone: send & retrieve voicemail 47% 53% 4 Copier: duplex (two-sided) 10% 90%

5 Copier: Finishing features (hole punch, staple, collate) 37% 63%

6 Copier: Print from desktop 33% 67% 7 Fax: send from office (front desk) 40% 60% 8 Fax: receive to email 43% 57% 9 Scanner: scan document to file 20% 80%

10 Scanner: change default settings 27% 73% 11 Scanner: scan to email 17% 83%

Question 6 asked participants to select their three most commonly used resources when

needing help with technology. The top three were as follows: Co-workers 76.67%, Trial and

error 70%, and firm technology team members 46.67%.

When you need help with technology, what resources do you turn to most often?

(Select the 3 most commonly used resources)

45

Table 18

Percent Results of Technology Resources

# Technology Resource Response % 1 Trial & error 21 70.00% 2 Websites 13 43.33% 3 Co-workers 23 76.67% 4 Help files or manuals 10 33.33% 5 Webinars 0 0.00% 6 Technical support 10 33.33% 7 Vendor training 0 0.00% 8 Firm technology team members 14 46.67% 9 Books 0 0.00%

10 Journals/Magazines 0 0.00% 11 Other 0 0.00%

Total 91 100.00%

Survey question 7 asked participants to describe themselves as technology users. For the

purpose of analyzing this question, anyone who described themselves by selecting number 1 or

number 2 were considered those who may be lacking in some technology skill or would benefit

from technology training. The total of those responding to 1 and 2 resulted in a 50% of the total

respondents. Participants that chose number 1 or number 2 describe themselves as in need of

training or capable. Fifty percent of the other respondents selected number 3 or number 4,

describing themselves as proficient, efficient, experts, and trainers.

46

Figure 1. Self-description as a technology user

Survey question 8 asked participants to rate their satisfaction with the firm’s investment

in training and education. The percent allocated to each response was the result of the number in

each category divided by the number of responses. The total of those who disagree and are

neutral was 13% plus 57% for a total of 70%. Only 30% agreed with the overall investment the

firm makes towards training and education.

Table 19

Percent Result of Firm Investment Satisfaction

# Statement Disagree Neutral Agree Response

1 I am satisfied with the investment my firm makes in training & education

4 17 9 30

Percent of responses 13% 57% 30%

Need, 10.00%

Capable, 40.00% Proficient, 40.00%

Expert, 10.00%

Self described technology user

Need

Capable

Proficient

Expert

47

Summary

The research was conducted to determine if a skills gap exists among staff members and

identify training needs in one accounting firm. The following items resulted in a percentage

score of fifty percent or higher and may be areas for which a skills gap exists or areas that should

be viewed as training needs: advanced internet searches 50%, Sharefile internet application

50%, archiving email 77%, email distribution lists 77%, Sharefile email “add on” tool 63%,

tables in Word 67%, mail merge in Word 70%, charts in Excel 77%, pivot tables in Excel 87%,

Accounting CS-Bookkeeping 76%, Accounting CS-Payroll 69%, BNA online (research and tax

forms) 73%, CBS-Client Bookkeeping Solutions 86%, Creative Solutions 63%, PPC Smart

Practice Aides 50%, ProSystemfx – Practice Management 59%, ProSystemfx – Tax 54%, MAS

90 100%, Microsoft Great Plains 80%, Sage 50 ( Peachtree) 52%, running updates on their PC

63%, changing their phone greeting 53%. The top three technology resources were Co-workers

76.67%, Trial and error 70%, and firm technology team members 46.67%. Fifty percent of the

participants described themselves as “in need” of training or capable versus fifty percent who

chose to describe themselves as proficient, efficient, experts, and trainers. Only 30% agreed with

the overall investment the firm currently makes towards training and education.

Chapter Five will summarize the purpose of this study, present the conclusions as a result

of the study, and detail some recommendations for further study.

48

Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary

Technology changes occur frequently in mid-sized accounting firms. Mid-sized

accounting firms often struggle to observe or assess an employee’s ability or inability to adapt to

rapid changes in technology. The purpose of this study was to understand the pace at which

technology has evolved in the field of accounting and to determine if the current technology

skills of a mid-sized accounting firm are keeping pace with the rapid changes in technology. The

research was conducted to determine if a skills gap existed among staff members in one mid-

sized accounting firm.

Specifically, the following research questions were addressed:

1. What computer/technology changes are occurring in a mid-sized accounting firm in

Wisconsin?

2. What issues and/or skills gaps exist within a mid-sized accounting firm because of

technology?

3. What are some tools, if any, that can be utilized or practiced within a mid-sized

accounting firm to help recognize these skills gaps or training needs?


accounting firm are keeping pace with rapid changes in technology. A survey was developed

and conducted to identify accounting staff training needs of a firm as they relate to the various

types of technology used currently. The survey was designed to examine employee’s perception

of their current technology skills, solicit their views on training, and find their most commonly

used resources that assist with their technology training needs.

49

A survey instrument was used to have participants rate their confidence level with

technology. The survey was designed using Qualtrics, an online survey software tool supported

by UW-Stout. The survey was designed using Likert scale response options and asked

participants to rate their level of confidence for the listed software tasks, applications and

hardware features as it relates to the various software applications and hardware used within the

accounting firm. The survey also included an opinion question to obtain staff feedback on the

firm’s investment in training.

The survey was distributed to 31 employees of the mid-sized accounting firm. A total of

30 responses were received. This resulted in a 96.8% response rate.

Conclusions

This study documents that there are staff within the accounting firm that would benefit

from technology training. Twenty-two items of the 53 rated, resulted in a score of 50% or higher

for those items rated with a value of 3 or less. The top three technology resources were Co-

workers 76.67%, Trial and error 70%, and firm technology team members 46.67%. This

demonstrates a need for training because it is inefficient use of time to have co-workers disrupted

throughout the day with technology issues. It is also inefficient for users to try multiple solutions

in hopes of finding the right one. Additional training would also remind users to consult

technology team members more frequently.

The survey shows that at least 50% of users perceive that they have a technology skills

gap. Even if these users are capable of performing their work with their current skill-set, training

would increase their confidence levels and make them more efficient. There is probably also

room for improvement among the 50% that consider themselves proficient and experts. This

survey did not actually assess their technology skills, only their confidence with the technology.

50

Confidence does not necessarily equal competence. Even if users are confident, they could still

benefit from training.

Only 30% of participants believe that the firm’s investment in technology training and

education is sufficient. Additional training could raise employee’s confidence in the firms’

commitment to training. Even if all the employees do not attend the training, making the training

available can have a positive impact on employee morale and perception of the firm.

Recommendations

The results of this study should drive the development of training plans for the Principals,

Firm Manager, and firm technology team to consider. This study could also be used as a

foundation for a technology committee to collaborate on firm wide technology training needs

and presentations. Not all areas of technology have the same skills gap, so the participants’

responses should be used to focus on the areas where training is needed most.

A formal skills assessment should be conducted. Due to the fact that most participants

are not willing to appear incompetent, their self-rating levels of confidence may be overstated. A

skills assessment could assist with identifying actual skill levels and if the skill levels match the

job requirements.

51

References

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2011). CPA horizons 2025 report.

Retrieved from

http://www.aicpa.org/Research/CPAHorizons2025/Pages/CPAHorizonsReport.aspx

Badua, F. A., Sharifi, M., & Watkins, A. L. (2012). The topics, they are a-changing: The state of

the accounting information systems curriculum and the case for a second course. The

Accounting Educators’ Journal, 21(1). Retrieved from

http://www.aejournal.com/ojs/index.php/aej/article/view/199

Basu, S., & Waymire, G. B. (2006). Recordkeeping and human evolution. Accounting Horizons,

20(3), 201–229. doi: 10.2308/acch.2006.20.3.201

Banker, R. D., Chang, H., & Kao, Y. (2011, September 30). Impact of information technology on

public accounting firm productivity. American Accounting Association. Retrieved May

30, 2013, from http://aaajournals.org/doi/abs/10.2308/jis.2002.16.2.209

Bestofmedia Team. (2011, August 23). Computer history 101: The development of the pc.

Retrieved from http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/upgrade-repair-pc,3000-5.html

Boomer’s Blueprint: Declassify your firm’s intelligence. (n.d.). Accounting Today. Retrieved

from http://www.accountingtoday.com/ato_issues/2008_13/28381-1.html

Boomer, G. (n.d.). Boomer’s blueprint: The training-learning culture in 2008. Accounting Today.

Retrieved from http://www.accountingtoday.com/ato_issues/2008_5/27001-1.html

Chang, C. J., & Hwang, N. R. (2003). Accounting education, firm training and information

technology: A research note. Accounting Education, 12(4), 441–450. doi:

10.1080/0963928032000065557

52

Chen, Y.-S., Yang, Y.-F., & Yang, L.-W. (2012). The IT productivity paradox: Effects of

training in audit firms. Human Systems Management, 31(3), 241–254.

doi: 10.3233/HSM-120775

Drew, J. (2012, June 01). Technology and CPAs: Visions of the future. Journal of Accountancy.

Retrieved from http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2012/Jun/20114844

Eisen, P. (2000). Accountin. (4th ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc.

Fineberg, S. (2010, December). Tech training takes off. Accounting Today. Retrieved from

http://www.accountingtoday.com/ato_issues/24_16/tech-training-takes-off-59701-1.html

Finch, B., Scheuermann, S., Cook, E., & Reedy, H. J. (1991). Training within the accounting

firm. Journal of Education for Business, 66(4), 217–222. doi:

10.1080/08832323.1991.10117474

Higgins, L. N., & Mooney, J. L. (2011). Software applications and computer projects: A

comparison of what AIS professors and other accounting faculty are using in their

courses. Review of Business Information Systems (RBIS), 4(4), 1–16.

Kracuna, B., & Smith, M. (2012, August). Leverage advanced technologies, achieve business

goals. Retrieved from http://www.aicpa.org/infotech

Kremer, M. (1993). Population growth and technological change: One million B.C. to 1990. The

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 681–716. doi: 10.2307/2118405

Kurzweil, R. (2001, March 7). The law of accelerating returns | KurzweilAI. Retrieved June 9,

2013 from http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

LaFollette, G. L. (2006). Is technology the road to riches in public accounting? CPA Technology

Advisor, 16(1), 58.

53

Mattessich, R. (2012). The beginnings of accounting and accounting thought: Accounting

practice in the Middle East (8000 BC to 2000 BC) and accounting thought in India (300

BC and the Middle Ages). New York, New York: Routledge.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational

technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 49.

Moorthy, M. K., Ong Oi Voon, Samsuri, C. A. S. B., Gopalan, M., & King-Tak Yew. (2012).

Application of information technology in management accounting decision making.

International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 2(3), 1–16.

Mouck, T. (2004). Ancient mesopotamian accounting and human cognitive evolution.

Accounting Historians Journal, 31(2), 97–124.

Pepe, A. A. (2011, April 19). The Evolution of Technology for the Accounting Profession. CPA

Practice Advisor. Retrieved October 6, 2013, from

http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/article/10263076/the-evolution-of-technology-for-

the-accounting-profession

Power, D. (n.d.). A brief history of spreadsheets. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from

http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2002/cmsc434-

0101/MUIseum/applications/spreadsheethistory1.html

Roberts, F. D., Kelley, C. L., & Medlin, B. D. (2007). Factors influencing accounting faculty

members’ decision to adopt technology in the classroom. College Student Journal, 41(2),

423–435.

Senik, R., & Broad, M. (2011). Information technology skills development for accounting

graduates: Intervening conditions. International Education Studies, 4(2), 105. doi:

10.5539/ies.v4n2p105

54

Stimpson, J. (2009, June). Teaching tech to partners. Practical accountant. Retrieved from

http://www.accountingtoday.com/prc_issues/2009_5/-50545-1.html

Trenholm, S. P. (2008, March 1). Training in the modern tax practice. The Tax Adviser.

Retrieved June 9, 2013, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Training in the modern tax

practice.-a0203028396

Wessels, P. L. (2005). Critical information and communication technology (ICT) skills for

professional accountants. Meditari Accountancy Research, 13(1), 87–103. doi:

10.1108/10222529200500006

55

Appendix A: Email to Survey Participants

From:

Sent: Subje<:t:

Importance:

Dear co-worker,

Ley• Hoy Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:40 PM Technology Training · Survey

I am in the process ot completing my thesis for my Master's degree program al UW-Stout. To complete my degree program, I am focusing my thesis on technology training needs in the field of accountang.

Technology, as you know, changes at a fairly rapid pace. The purpose of the survey is to obtain accounting staff views and confidence levels in regards to the use of technology in the o ffice.

The dastribut ion of this survey has been approved by Management.

The survey should only take about 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

Please click on the l ink to take the survey: Technology Tr<ining Surv,•y

Yo ur tame and participation is greatly appreciated.

Ley a Hoy, Accountant/Software Specaalast Bauman Associates, Ltd. Certa'aed Public Accoootants & Ad-.soas PO Box 1225 EaJCiare WI 5-4702-1225 .\'t:~llt:•v .. v~

!.IA.l ' 'lf!tm@b§urp.J'IGJ?I tQM II(•~ 71b $j4-2001.'foll Free 1-688-9!12-~o A~ 715·834·2774

Fnr business For you. For lif• .

CONFIOEHTIAUTY NOTICE; This lnii>$JnS$K)II (lfldlor 11!6/JIIadted docaJmalls) ma-1 corataon conMtnt.- 1t1/omrot.rxt lle101!!1•"9 to ()Je sendof, which JOilllended "*"!lot..., name<i ~ If you 11rtf1011he-~ you arehet<bynoofed 1taat snyiiJIIIUII>ottl«< us. -...e ~8/'dlot -o/tt>e iOIIcM "9 cor.le<alsiS stndly proh/111«1 H you hll•• -11"411a1nSn11Ss.<ln n emJf. plsase rr;X]y us ..,.,.,ltoit

56

Appendix B: Consent to Participate

Consent to Participate In UW-Stout Approved Research

Title: Training Needs Assessment

Research Sponsor: Dr. Carol Mooney, EdD EdS Career & Technical Education UW Stout (715)232-1444

Investigator: Leya Hoy, Graduate Student MS-Career & Technical Education

Description: This short survey will assess your feelings and attitudes about computer software and hardware training. You will be asked to rate your confidence level with a variety of computer related tasks. Risks and Benefits: Your participation in this survey will have no effect on your employment with the Firm. The benefit of completing this survey will be to help the Firm determine if there is a need for training and what areas of our practice would benefit from additional staff training. Time Commitment and Payment: The survey will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Confidentiality: Your name will not be included on any documents. You cannot be identified from any of the responses you complete in the survey. Right to Withdraw: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If you are participating in an anonymous online survey, once you submit your response, the data cannot be linked to you and cannot be withdrawn. IRB Approval: This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions or concerns regarding this study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the IRB Administrator. Investigator: Leya Hoy.

IRB Administrator Sue Foxwell, Research Services 152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg. UW-Stout Menomonie, WI 54751 715.232.2477 [email protected]

Advisor: Dr. Carol T. Mooney, EdD

Statement of Consent: By completing the following survey you agree to participate in the Training Needs Assessment.

mailto:[email protected]

57

Appendix C: Survey Instrument

Technology Training Survey Q1 Common Software: Please rate your confidence using the following applications: 0 = Do not use this software 1 = Not Confident, need training 2 = Somewhat confident, could benefit from training 3 = Neutral, I know enough to get my job done 4 = Highly confident, I navigate quickly and work efficiently 5 = Absolutely confident, I could be a trainer

0 = Don't Use (1)

1 = Not Confident

(7)

2 = Somewhat

(2)

3 = Neutral (3)

4 = Highly confident

(4)

5 = Absolutely

(5) Windows 7: Navigation & tools (1)

Internet browser:

Bookmarks (2)

Internet: Simple

search (3)

Internet: Advanced search (4)

Internet: Download & Upload

(5)

Internet: Sharefile

folder (client file

transfer) (6)

58

Q2 Email: Please rate your confidence using the following email features: 0 = Do not use 1 = Not Confident, need training 2 = Somewhat confident, could benefit from training 3 = Neutral, I know enough to get my job done 4 = Highly confident, I navigate quickly and work efficiently 5 = Absolutely confident, I could be a trainer

0 = Don't Use (1)

1 = Not Confident

(2)

2 = Somewhat

(3)

3= Neutral (4)


(5)

5 = Absolutely

(6) Use folders

(1)

Preview pane (2)

Search (3) Archive (4)

Address book (5)

Contacts (6) Distribution

lists (7)

Calendar (8) Sharefile (convert files for secure

transfer) (9)

Q3 Microsoft Word & Excel: Please rate your confidence using the following application items: 0 = Do not use 1 = Not Confident, need training 2 = Somewhat confident, could benefit from training 3 = Neutral, I know enough to get my job done 4 = Highly confident, I navigate quickly and work efficiently 5 = Absolutely confident, I could be a trainer

0 = Don't Use (1)

1 = Not Confident

(2)

2 = Somewhat

(3)

3 = Neutral (4)


(5)

5 = Absolutely

(6) Word: Copy & paste (1)

Word: Text formatting

(2)

Word:

59

Tables (3) Word: Mail merge (4)

Excel: Cell formatting

(5)

Excel: Linking cells (6)

Excel: Formulas

(7)

Excel: Sort & filter (8)

Excel: Charts (9)

Excel: Pivot tables (10)

Excel: Printing

features (11)

60

Q4 Accounting - specific software: Please rate your confidence using the following applications: 0 = Do not use 1 = Not Confident, need training 2 = Somewhat confident, could benefit from training 3 = Neutral, I know enough to get my job done 4 = Highly confident, I navigate quickly and work efficiently 5 = Absolutely confident, I could be a trainer

0 = Don't Use (1)

1 = Not confident

(2)

2 = Somewhat

(3)

3 = Neutral (4)


(5)

5 = Absolutely

(6) Accounting

CS - Bookkeeping

(1)

Accounting CS - Payroll

(2)

BNA (3) CBS - Client Bookkeeping Solutions (4)

Creative Solutions (5)

PPC Smart Practice Aides

(6)

Checkpoint Tools for PPC

(7)

ProSystem fx: Engagement

(8)

ProSystem fx: Practice

Management (9)

ProSystem fx: Tax (10)

ProSystem fx: Fixed Asset

(11)

MAS 90 (12) Microsoft

Great Plains (13)

61

QuickBooks (14)

Sage 50 (Peachtree)

(15)

TValue (Amortization)

(16)

Q5 Hardware: How confident are you at using the following hardware features: 0 = Do not use this hardware 1 = Not Confident, need training 2 = Somewhat confident, could benefit from training 3 = Neutral, I know enough to get my job done 4 = Highly confident, I navigate quickly and work efficiently 5 = Absolutely confident, I could be a trainer

0 = Don't Use (1)

1 = Not confident

(2)

2 = Somewhat

(3)

3 = Neutral (4)


(5)

5 = Absolutely

(6) Desktop/Laptop: run updates (1)

Phone: change greeting (2)

Phone: send & retrieve

voicemail (3)

Copier: duplex (two-sided) (4)

Copier: Finishing

features (hole punch, staple,

collate) (5)

Copier: Print from desktop (6)

Fax: send from office (front

desk) (7)

Fax: receive to email (8)

Scanner: scan document to file

(9)

Scanner: change default settings

62

(10) Scanner: scan to

email (11)

Q6 When you need help with technology, what resources do you turn to most often? (Select the 3 most commonly used resources) Trial & error (1) Websites (2) Co-workers (3) Help files or manuals (4) Webinars (5) Technical support (6) Vendor training (7) Firm technology team members (8) Books (9) Journals/Magazines (10) Other (11) ____________________ Q7 I describe myself as a technology user who is ___________. in need of training (1) capable, I get the job done. (2) proficient, I do the job efficiently (3) an expert, I could train others (4) Q8 Firm investment in Training

Disagree (1) Neutral (2) Agree (3) I am satisfied with the

investment my firm makes in training &

education

Q9 What is your age? 20 to 34 (1) 35 to 44 (2) 45 to 54 (3) 55 or older (4)

63

Q10 What is the highest level of education you have completed Graduated from high school (1) Some college (2) 2 year Technical degree (3) Graduated from college (4) Some Graduate School (5) Completed Graduate School (6) Q11 What is your position title with the Firm? (Please select the title that closely matches) You may also indicate Senior, Junior, or Manager, etc in the Other field provided. Administrative (1) Accountant (2) CPA (3) Principal (4) Other (5) ____________________

identification of user needs for technology training in a

Documents