Search results

The purpose of this article is to provide scenarios for the incorporation of sustainable waste minimisation strategies that were determined during a research project that investigated sustainable engineering and construction processes.

The research included a thorough review of sustainable engineering and construction practices throughout the world and the collection of additional information from high‐level executives from some of the top ranked global engineering and construction firms. The research was limited to collecting data from high‐level engineering and construction executives since they were the most knowledgeable about the use of sustainable strategies within their firm.

The results determined the main types of construction waste and sustainable strategies that could be used to minimise the amount of waste generated by the construction industry.

he research was limited to collecting data from high‐level engineering and construction executives since they were the most knowledgeable about the use of sustainable strategies within their firms. The research could affect members of the engineering and construction industry, since it provides methods for implementing sustainable strategies that help to reduce the amount of waste generated by the construction industry.

The research is unique because it addressed waste minimisation strategies for the building construction industry and for the industrial and heavy/highway construction industries.

This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments.

A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors.

Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages.

This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities.

Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns.

This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.

The purpose of this paper is to establish policy recommendations to address service and care delivery challenges facing hospital emergency departments (EDs) responding to the needs of increasing numbers of older adults.

The consensus development process used an international expert interdisciplinary panel, convened at an international conference. Following a round table discussion and think‐tank session, a nominal group method with constant comparative analysis and coding techniques was used to identify policy recommendations. Two rounds of electronic input followed the face‐to‐face meeting to reach consensus on priority ranking of the policy recommendations. Findings underwent an external review by four independent experts.

A total of seven categories of policy recommendations were developed: education, integration and coordination of care, resources, ED physical environment, evidence‐based practice, research and evaluation, and advocacy.

The consensus development process did not include a systematic literature review on the topic. However, participants included experts in their disciplines.

The recommendations may assist administrators, policy makers, clinicians, and researchers on future directions for improving emergency care and service delivery for older adults.

The paper describes the process and results of a consensus development activity for ED care and services of older adults.