JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.

ORG

22

Using case-based decision support systems for accounting choices (CBDSS): an experimental investigation
N. Wongpinunwatana and K. Ratanaubol
AbstractThe primary objective of this research is to investigate the impact of case-based decision support systems on decision makers' certainty in their selection when using case-based decision support systems for accounting choices emphasizing depreciation methods. Two case-based decision support systems (a plain case-based decision support system and a traditional case-based decision support system) were developed. A laboratory experiment was performed with one hundred and four graduate students studying for a Masters degree in accounting. The results suggested that the effects of asymmetries in the distribution of information and in information processing on certainty in decision making was significant for a traditional case-based decision support system. However, the decision makers perceived value of information moderated the relationship between asymmetries in the processing of information and certainty in decision making. Index Terms Information asymmetry; Accounting choices; Depreciation methods; Decision support systems; Case-based reasoning; Case-based decision support systems

1 INTRODUCTION
revious research related to accounting choices have been conducted generally on the assumption that managers make accounting choices in order to influence an outcome beneficial to the firms or themselves [14]. Fields et al. [14] classify the accounting choice literature into three groups: agency costs, information asymmetries, and externalities affecting non-contracting parties. First, agency costs are generally related to contractual issues such as compensation plans, debt contracts and bond covenants. The examples of research in this agency costs are [9, 20, 22, 41, 47]. Second, information asymmetries generally refer to the relationship between the better informed (managers) and the less informed (investors). In addition, the literature examines the way accounting methods affect equity valuation or the cost of capital. Examples of research in these information asymmetries are [2, 13, 35]. Finally, other externalities are generally related to third-party contractual and non-contractual relations. Normally, firms select accounting methods not only to reduce or to defer taxes but also to avoid potential regulation or political costs. Past research in these other externalities has been done by [23, 26]. The research results, however, are of varying consistency. For depreciation method choices, leverage and size are key determinants of accounting choices [11, 22, 36, 47]. The survey on depreciation methods of some companies listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) during

2001 and 2011 is showed in Table 1. This survey selected only 6 sectors: packaging, automotive, petrochemicals and chemicals, construction materials, food and beverage, and home and office products. The selection criteria were as follows: (1) the companies in these sectors had to have invested heavily in machinery to manufacture products for their normal operation (2) the machines should have been of high value with high depreciation, thereby affecting companies operating income. In addition, only listed companies which had a complete 10-year record of financial statements (from 2001-2011) were selected. In total, 74 of all 476 listed companies were selected. This research collected the companies depreciation methods from notes to financial statements. The data in table 1 shows that almost all listed companies adopted straight-line depreciation (SLD) as a depreciation accounting method in order to compile with depreciation announcement from the Revenue Department of Ministry of Finance. In other words, they selected SLD to avoid regulatory intervention. However, some listed companies apply other depreciation accounting methods (i.e., double declining balance (DDB) and sum of the years digits (SYD). Recently, Thai Financial Reporting Standard No. 16 Property, Plant and Equipment issued by the Federation of Accounting Professions have suggested all companies in Thailand use depreciation methods which reveals companies real performance.

N. Wongpinunwatana is with MIS department, Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, Bangkok, 10200, Thailand. K. Ratanaubol is with Accounting department, Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, Bangkok, 10200, Thailand.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

23

TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OF COMPANIES USING EACH DEPRECIATION

METHOD BY SECTOR

Sector

Automotive Construction Materials Food and Beverage Packaging Petrochemicals and chemicals Home and office products

Percentage of companies using each depreciation method by sector from 2001-2011 SLD DDB SYD 90.48 4.76 4.76 100 80.00 16.67 3.33 92.86 85.71 14.29 83.33 16.67 -

Notes: Most companies used DDB or SYD for assets bought before 1990. Only one company, which was in the Food and Beverage sector, used SYD for all of its machines.

The argument of this study is that if decision makers (who do not intend to manipulate financial statement information) have more information on their accounting choices, they should employ the choice which will indicate true company performance. Furthermore, Francis [15] suggests that future research should (1) provide more evidence on the costs and benefits of the implications of each accounting choice (2) appropriately examine one choice to the exclusion of others and (3) improve research designs and methods. Studies into this have been carried out mainly by [5, 30]. In addition, few studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of information asymmetry and perceived value of information on accounting choices. In this sense, the main aim of this research is to determine whether information on company performance provided by case-based decision support systems (CBDSS) can have a significant impact on decision makers certainty in selecting accounting choice, especially on depreciation methods. There are also a few studies on integrating case-based reasoning (CBR) into the architecture of decision support systems (DSS) [28]. The CBDSS, as an information system has been seen as a major means for companies to increase informative real performance in the eyes of decision makers. Normally, information systems are designed, implemented or used to provide information [19].

of the user [12]. The system has been recognized as a means for formulating better problem-solving processes and improving decision quality during the process of decision making [3, 12, 17, 18, 28]. Four types of support that can be provided to decision makers are (1) passive support by allowing decision makers to make autonomous decisions (2) traditional support by meshing with decisions to improve decision making (3) extended support by actively suggesting solutions for decision makers and (4) normative support by dominating the whole decision process, while managers provide input and specifications [12]. A Case-based reasoning system (CBR) is one type of artificial intelligence system designed to perform like an expert in a specific area [29]. Case-based reasoning represents knowledge in the form of cases. The contents of the cases are stored directly in a case base [46]. To find solutions, case-based reasoning performs analogical reasoning by finding previous cases similar to the present problem and then adapting the previous solutions to fit the current problem. The quality of case-based reasoning's solutions depends on three fundamental factors [21, 27]: (1) the number of well-defined cases stored in the system; (2) the ability of the system to recall experiences by using an index and to interpret the new situation in terms of those experiences; and (3) the adaptation of an old solution to meet the demands of a new situation. Some case-based reasoning systems also possess the ability to evaluate and adapt experiences to avoid repeating past mistakes [27]. Meanwhile, a case-based decision support system (CBDSS) integrates CBR into DSS to enhance problem-solving and decision making. CBR helps solve problems using reasonable knowledge from past cases while DSS is used to help solve problems within a dynamic environment [28].

2.2 Information Asymmetry

Information asymmetry is a condition where one party has a greater quantity of, or more relevant, information than the other. Information asymmetry causes decision makers to become uncertain in their decisions, since decision makers do not have access to the information they need for their decision making processes. Information asymmetry can be classified as asymmetries in the distribution and processing of information [5]. Asymmetries in the distribution of information are sets of information that has different decisional implications. This would mean that different information is available to different parties [43]. Asymmetrical information distribution in the form of hidden information is a necessary precondition for decision making [5]. Asymmetries in the processing of information are an individuals interpretation and processing of information that can hamper decision making. Asymmetries in processing and task complexity are also interrelated. The three elements of task complexity as described by [4] are input, processing, and output. Because of the greater demands placed on memory, the greater the extent of each of the three elements present and the more complex

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Case-based Decision Support System
A Decision Support System (DSS) is a system intended to support managerial decision-makers in semi-structured decision scenarios [28, 40]. DSS typically (1) aim at the less well structured, under-specified problems that upper-level managers typically face (2) combine the use of models or analytic techniques with traditional data access and retrieval functions (3) focus on features that make them easy to use in an interactive non-computer mode and (4) are flexible and adaptable to accommodate changes in environment and decision making approaches

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

24

the task is considered to be [4]. The greater the clarity of the three elements, the less complex the task is considered. The amount of input is measured by the number of alternatives and the number of cues per alternative. Redundancy of the cues, however, can reduce the amount of input. The clarity of input refers to the specification or measurement of the relevant cues. The matching between presented cues and stored cues in memory, and the presentation of information in the form of graphics can also increase the clarity of input. The amount of processing is measured by the number of steps or procedures that have to be executed to solve a problem. Normally, the amount of processing also depends on the amount of input. The clarity of processing is determined by how well the procedure used to solve the problem is specified. The amount of output is the number of goals achieved or solutions per alternative, while the clarity of output is the degree to which a specific goal can be achieved. Depreciation choice tasks typically require only one judgment and have a definite goal or standard by which to judge the output. For example, the goal of the choice is to judge whether the decision maker should select SLD, DDB, or SYD. Furthermore, the input for calculating return on asset (ROA) also is definite defined. The output and input element does not vary substantially in various depreciation choice tasks. Therefore, the output and input elements are treated equally for the three depreciations in this research. Only processing complexity varies.

subjective value of information is based on representativeness, availability, and adjustment and anchoring (or heuristics). Perceived value of information is the worth that information has in the mind of the decision maker. In other words, the decision maker has an internal feeling for how much certain information is worth to him/her.

2.4 Certainty in Decision Making

Certainty is defined as the state of having no doubts about something, e.g., users do not have any doubts about their solution to a problem [8]. Certainty in decision making refers to a belief that one has the capability to make effective decisions for a specific task. In this research, certainty in decision making represents users belief in their ability to make decisions after they have used case-based decision support systems for depreciation methods.

3 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Fig. 1 illustrates the information asymmetries model of certainty in decision making of accounting choices. Asymmetries in the distribution of information are likely to increase certainty in decision making. The research also analyzes asymmetries in the processing of information on certainty in decision making, which is moderated by perceived value of information.

2.3 Perceived Value of Information

Information is data organized and processed in a form that is useful in decision making. The information is valuable to decision makers because it reduces uncertainty, increases knowledge in a particular area of concern and improves the decision making process [16, 39]. The effectiveness of information can be measured in terms of understandability, relevance, timeliness, predictive value, feedback value, verifiability, freedom from bias, comparability, consistency, and integrity (or validity, accuracy, and completeness) [16]. There are many terms for value of information (i.e., the amount a decision maker would be willing to pay for information prior to making a decision). This research defines the value of information as the benefits produced by the information minus the costs of producing it. The major benefits of information are a reduction of uncertainty, improved decisions, and a better ability to plan activities. The costs are the time and resources spent collecting, processing, and storing data, as well as distributing information to decision makers. Unfortunately, determining the value of information is not easy [39]. However, there are three ways to assess the value of information: normative, realistic, and subjective [37]. The normative value of information is calculated by focusing on expected utility. The utility, however, varies by person and circumstance. The realistic value of information is ex-post evaluation or inspection paradox [45]. Therefore, this calculated method is inappropriate for evaluating information content. Meanwhile, the

Fig. 1. Information asymmetries model of certainty in decision making of accounting choices

Information asymmetry [31] makes it very difficult for investors to assess true company performance before investing in those company stocks. Moreover, the more difficult it is for investors to assess real company performance prior to investment and the less they know about the business of selling stocks, the more likely they are to rely on signals to form expectations about real performance [24, 38, 42]. CBDSS is one of the primary means that businesses can use to signal companies real performance to investors. Some secondary data studies have found that providing clear company performance serves to reduce information asymmetry and increase investment [25]. While interacting with the traditional

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

25

case-based decision support system, the decision maker conveys an amount of information more precise than the plain case-based decision support system. With plain case-based decision making, the decision maker requires a higher level of information processing, which may make it easier for him/her to exceed the limits of his/her capacity. Hence, this study proposes the following: H1: When presented with a case-based decision support system, students using a traditional case-based decision support system have more certainty in their decisions than students using a plain case-based decision support system. There are limits to the amount of information the human mind can effectively absorb and process [39]. The decision making quality declines while the decision maker has to process rich information, especially when those limits are exceeded (called information overload). To help decision makers to work their way through excessive information, the traditional case-based decision support system provides information filtering mechanisms that filter out irrelevant information, leaving only relevant data. Without such filtering systems, the decision maker may perceive a higher degree of information overload. Moreover, when individual receives information from case-based decision support systems, he or she will perceive the value of the information which in turn will enhance their certainty in their decisions. Hence, this study proposes that: H2: When presented with case-based decision support systems, students certainty for both case-based decision support systems is negatively correlated with asymmetries in the processing of information. Perceived value of information can also influence certainty in decision making. Decision makers with different perceived value of information will have different certainty in decision making. Therefore, offering the same case-based decision support system to different decision makers also will not lead to the same certainty in decision making. Thus, this study hypothesizes that: H3: Students perceived value of information will moderate the relationship between asymmetries in the processing of information and certainty in decision making; with the same asymmetries in the processing of information, students with more perceived value of information will have more certainty in decision making.

decision on depreciation method, while the two case-based decision support systems were a plain case-based decision support system (plain CBDSS) and a traditional cased-based decision support system (traditional CBDSS). Participants for depreciation tasks were divided into two groups: participants in plain CBDSS and participants in traditional CBDSS.

4.2 Construction of the Research Instruments

Microsoft Excel had been used to build two case-based decision support systems: a plain CBDSS and a traditional CBDSS. Excel was chosen because of its built in features of various functionality with formulas. Furthermore, Excel is a simplistic type of DSS [12]. As personality influences ones decision style [32], both systems in this study have been designed to make them easy to use for individuals to maximize the effectiveness of CBDSSs [12]. The plain CBDSS provided book value of the machines of each listed company and other related information such as accumulated depreciation of the machines, company assets and liabilities, and company net profits (see fig. 2). This information was collected from companies financial statements for the year 2011. Students would be able to use calculation functions from the Excel to calculate their own information to make decisions. Apart from using Microsoft Excel, the traditional CBDSS was also built by using Visual Basic for Application (VBA). VBA is a computer programming language which is used to control Microsoft Excels functionality. This system provided two choices: type in decision makers own data or use the systems cases, which were based on the real data from listed companies financial statements in the year 2011. Once the latter choice is selected, the system provided the companys net profit, the net profit after three depreciations (SLD, DDB, and SYD) and forecasted 5 years return on assets (ROA) for these three depreciations. The system also compared those data for companies within the same categories (see fig. 3). Meanwhile participants had a choice to enter their own data or use provided data. In addition, information on both systems was categorized by six industrial sectors: packaging, automotive, petrochemicals and chemicals, construction materials, food and beverage, and home and office products. As participants had to answer questions on the questionnaire, a five-point scale from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree was used for the rating of certainty in their decisions, asymmetries in the processing of information, and perceived value of information. The questions were adapted from [6]. In addition, the questionnaire also required participants to provide their depreciation selection by sector. To avoid bias and ambiguity in the research instruments, a pilot test was conducted with one accounting manager in one public organization in Thailand. The manager has worked in his current position for almost 10 years. This manager took the two hour test. The test simulated the real experimental procedures. After the pilot test, the research instruments (plain and traditional CBDSSs and questionnaire), as well as the

4 RESEARCH METHOD
4.1 Research Design
A laboratory experiment was designed to gather data on which to test the hypotheses. The experimental design consisted of a task type with one level and two levels of case-based decision support systems. The task type was

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

26

procedures, were adjusted based on the managers comments.

for each sector.

5 RESULTS
This section reports the results of assessing the variables with respect to the assumptions underlying the statistical tests and also reports the research results. A statistical package was used to evaluate the assumptions before proceeding with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and interaction effects in regression suggested by [1, 7, 33, 34].

5.1 Evaluation of Assumptions

One hundred and ten graduate students studying for a Masters degree in accounting participated in this study. The reason for limiting the study to these accounting students was that participants in this area normally understand depreciation much better than participants in other areas. In addition, the participants were accounting staff who have knowledge in depreciation. One hundred and four graduate students fully completed experimental procedures. Therefore, responses from 104 participants were included in the analysis. Sample sizes of all data were quite similar for the two groups: 56 participants in plain CBDSS and 48 participants in traditional CBDSS. With the ratio of 1.16: 1, the discrepancy in sample sizes does not invalidate the use of ANOVA [44]. Table 2 presents demographic data for the participants who provided usable results in each group. Results of the evaluation of assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, linearity, and multicollinearity of each dependent variable were satisfactory. TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR THE PARTICIPANTS

Fig. 2. Plain case-based decision support system

Fig. 3. Traditional case-based decision support system

4.3 Participants
One hundred and four graduate students studying for the Masters degree in accounting at three universities in Thailand participated in this study. These students were selected because they represent accountants. In addition, some of them also work as accountants in the private and public sectors. As accountants, they may have a chance to provide information for accounting managers, who are responsible for selecting accounting choices. The experiment was included in the course outline as a CBDSS exercise worth ten percent of the total course grade. Students were informed that their scores depended on their participation in the CBDSS procedures for the full one hour as well as the quality of their answers to the questionnaire.

WHO PROVIDED USABLE RESULTS

Items Gender: Male Female Age: 21-26 27-32 33-38 >39 Career: Audit Education Accounting Internal auditing Bank Other

Plain CBDSS 25.0 75.0 67.9 26.8 5.4 8.9 5.4 44.6 1.8 16.1 23.2

Traditional CBDSS 10.4 89.6 27.1 18.8 43.8 10.4 2.1 14.6 37.5 4.2 6.2 35.4

4.4 Experimental Procedures

The experiment was conducted in the computer rooms of each university. The experiment ran over a one-hour period and consisted of four sections: instructions (10 minutes), using the case-based decision support system (40 minutes), and answering the questionnaire (10 minutes). Participants interacted with a plain CBDSS or a traditional CBDSS. In addition, the participants answered questions relating asymmetries in the processing of information, perceived value of information, certainty in decision making, and decision on depreciation method

5.2 Analysis and Discussion

One-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA) was used to analyze the effect of asymmetries in the distribution of information on the data of 104 participants. The analysis was performed on dependent variables (certainty in decision). The independent variable was effects of two CBDSSs within depreciation methods. A p-value of 0.05 was used as the significant

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

27

level in the statistical tests. A p-value between 0.05 and 0.10 is generally deemed as marginally significant. H1 suggests that certainty in decision making is higher for traditional CBDSS than for plain CBDSS. The results of a one-way ANOVA in Table 3 indicate significance for the effect of CBDSS on the certainty of decision with a p-value of 0.031. Detail analysis of mean of certainty in decision making shows that the mean value for plain CBDSS was 3.268. Meanwhile, the mean value for traditional CBDSS was 3.688. The mean of certainty in decision making for traditional CBDSS was higher than that for plain CBDSS. The CBDSS appears to affect users' certainty in decision making. Thus, H1 is supported. This result is consistent with that obtained by [5] who found that asymmetries in the distribution of information affected decision quality. TABLE 3 EFFECTS OF CASE-BASED DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS ON
CERTAINTY IN DECISION

perceived value of information will have more certainty in decision making. The interpretation effects of two continuous predictor variables (asymmetries in the processing of information and perceived value of information) in Table 5 and fig. 4 indicate that certainty in decision making was affected by the interaction effect of perceived value of information on asymmetries in the processing of information. All the p-values of asymmetries in the processing of information, perceived value of information, and interaction effect of those two variables were 0.023, 0.000, and 0.007 respectively. In addition, the simple slope test of the variables indicates a significant relationship for those two variables. Hence, the results provide strong support for H3. TABLE 5 COEFFICIENTS OF INTERACTION EFFECTS ON CERTAINTY IN
DECISION MAKING

Model Constant Zscore (Asymmetries in the processing of information) Zscore (Perceived value of information) Zscore (Asymmetries in the processing of information) * Zscore (Perceived value of information)
Note: * p < 0.05

Source Between group Within group Total

Note: * p < 0.05

Sum of Square 4.552 97.295 101.846

df 1 102 103

Mean Square 4.552 0.954

F Value 4.772

Sig 0.031*

Unstandardized Coefficients 3.482 -0.196 0.358 0.232

t 41.186 -2.310 4.145 2.758

Sig 0.000* 0.023* 0.000* 0.007*

H2 suggests that students certainty for both CBDSSs is negatively correlated with asymmetries in the processing of information. Statistical significant support was obtained for the effects of asymmetries in the processing of information on the certainty in decision making with a p-value of 0.000 (see Table 4). TABLE 4 EFFECT OF INTERACTION EFFECTS ON CERTAINTY IN
DECISION MAKING

Source Between group Within group Total

Sum of Square 28.082 73.764 101.846

df 3 100 103

Mean Square 9.361 0.738

F Value 12.690

Sig 0.000*

Note: * p < 0.05, R2 = 0.276

Detailed information of t test on asymmetries in the processing of information showed statistical significance with p = 0.023. In addition, the relationship between asymmetries in the processing of information and certainty in decision making is negative. Therefore, the results provide strong support for H2. H3 suggests that students perceived value of information will moderate the relationship between asymmetries in the processing of information and certainty in decision making; with the same asymmetries in the processing of information, students with more

Fig. 4. Plot of interaction effects on decision making

Detailed analysis was performed with data on the selection of depreciation method choice. The results showed that 65.21 percent selected DDB and SYD instead of continuing to use SLD (the depreciation method applied by most listed companies) while 34.79 percent still continued to use SLD. A plausible reason may be that

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

28

human decision makers generally do not make decisions based on the probability of success (or high return on assets (ROA) in this study), because the penalty of a vital decision that turns out to be wrong is normally substantial [12]. Though many participants found that traditional CBDSS provided useful information (ROA classified by company) for making decisions, some of them still wanted more information such as return on investment and other financial ratios.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Conclusions
To conclude, this research has contributed to knowledge in the following ways. First, it has developed an information asymmetries model of certainty in decision making of accounting choices, emphasizing depreciation methods. Second, it extended prior research on accounting choices by analyzing two types of asymmetries (asymmetries in the distribution of information and asymmetries in the processing of information). Third, this research investigated the perceived value of information which moderates the relationship between asymmetries in the processing of information and certainty in decision making. Finally, the results obtained from this research have statistical significance, supporting the hypothesis that asymmetries in the distribution of information affect the users' certainty in decision making. The research results also provide evidence that the perceived value of information moderates the relationship between asymmetries in the processing of information and certainty in decision making.

other important variables such as compensation and value of taxes have been omitted from the experimental manipulations. These variables may contribute to the low R2 obtained in this research. In addition, the subjects used in this experiment may have affected the empirical findings. Accounting managers working in listed companies may be more suitable subjects than graduate students studying for a Masters degree in accounting. Future research, therefore, should attempt different research methods. Second, studies could be conducted in areas related to the impact of CBDSS on decision making effectiveness. Some research suggests that there is some effect on certainty in decision making and the quality of decision making. Finally, other research methods such as case study research may be conducted to explain the willingness to change depreciation choices to reveal real performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Research Center of Thammasat Business School for financial support.

REFERENCES
L.S. Aiken and S.G. West, Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage, 1991. [2] E. Bartov and G.M. Bodnar, Alternative accounting methods, information asymmetry and liquidity: theory and evidence, The Accounting Review, vol. 71, pp. 397-418, 1996. [3] R.H. Bonczek, C.W. Holsapple, and A.B. Whinston, The enveloping roles of models in decision support systems, Decision Sciences, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 337-356, 1980. [4] S.E.B. Bonner, A model of the effects of audit task complexity, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 213-234, 1994. [5] F.C. Brodbeck, R. Kerschreiter, and A. Mojzisch, Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: the information asymmetries model, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 459-479, 2007. [6] Y. Chen, R. Shang, and C. Kao, The effects of information overload on consumers subjective state towards buying decision in the internet shopping environment, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, vol. 8, pp. 48-58, 2009. [7] J. Cohen and P. Cohen, Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983. [8] Collins Cobuild, English learners dictionary (Australian Edition). Australia: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, 1994. [9] R.A. Dye and R.E. Verrecchia, Discretion vs. uniformity: choices among GAAP, The Accounting Review, vol. 70, pp. 10-22, 1995. [10] L. Eldenburg and N. Soderstrom, Accounting system management by hospitals operating in a changing regulatory environment, The Accounting Review, vol. 71, pp. 23-42, 1996. [11] J. Elliott and W. Shaw, Write-offs as accounting procedures to manage perceptions, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 26 (Suppl.), pp. 91-119, 1988. [12] M.C. Er, Decision support systems: a summary, problems, and future trends, Decision support systems, vol. 4, pp. 355-363, [1]

6.2 Limitations of the Research

The results of this study are limited to only the graduate students so they may not be generalized beyond these students (i.e., the accounting manager). In addition, the research is applicable only to students studying for a Masters degree in accounting in three universities. The research may not be generalized to all accountants in countries where they may place emphasis on different accounting aspects. Moreover, this experiment concerns only a depreciation method choice. Therefore, the results of the research in this study should be generalized with care. As the experiment was conducted in a short period of time (one hour), with the participants using the CBDSSs for the first time, the participants may have not been able to learn how to use the system properly because of a lack of time for learning. As a result, the findings of this research cannot be generalized for situations where the participants used the system for a long period of time. Furthermore, the proposed CBDSSs may not be the best systems; therefore, different methods could yield different results.

6.3 Directions for Future Research

The results of this study suggest several areas for future research. First, although the laboratory experiment provides an efficient mechanism for controlling the independent variables, it lacks realism. There is a risk that

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

29

1988. [13] M. Erickson and S.W. Wang, Earnings management by acquiring firms in stock for stock mergers, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 27, pp. 149-176, 1999. [14] T.D. Fields, T.Z. Lys, and L. Vincent, Empirical research on accounting choice, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 31, pp. 255307, 2001. [15] J. Francis, Discussion of empirical research on accounting choice, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 31, pp. 309319, 2001. [16] U.J. Gelinas and R.B. Dull, Accounting Information Systems, 7th Edition. USA: South-Western, Cengage Learning, 2008. [17] G.A. Gorry and R.B. Krumland, Artificial Intelligence Research and Decision Support Systems. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983. [18] M. Goul, B. Shane, and F. Tonge, Knowledge-based decision support system in strategic planning decision: An empirical study, Journal of Management Information System, vo. 2, no. 2, pp. 70-86, 1986. [19] D.G. Gregg and S. Walczak, Dressing Your Online Auction Business for Success: An Experiment Comparing Two E-Bay Businesses, Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 653-670, 2008. [20] F. Guidry, A.J. Leone, and S. Rock, Earnings-based bonus plans and earnings management by business-unit managers, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 26, pp. 113-142, 1999. [21] U.G. Gupta, How Case-Based Reasoning Solves New Problems, Interfaces, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 110-119, 1994. [22] R.L. Hagerman and M. Zmijewski, Some economic determinants of accounting policy choice, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 1, pp. 141-161, 1979. [23] J. Jacob, Taxes and transfer pricing: income shifting and the volume of intrafirm transfers, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 34, pp. 301-312, 1996. [24] F.R. Kardes, L.C. Maria, J.K. James, and S.P. Steven, The Role of Selective Information Processing in Price-Quality Inference, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 36874, 2004. [25] R.J. Kauffman and C.A. Wood, The Effects of Shilling on Final Bid Prices in Online Auctions, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 21-34, 2005. [26] M.S. Kim and W. Kross, The impact of the 1989 change in bank capital stndards on loan loss provisions and load write-offs, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 25, pp. 69-99, 1998. [27] J. Kolodner, Case-Based Reasoning. USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc, 1993. [28] S. Liao, Case-based decision support system: Architecture for simulating military command and control, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 123, pp. 558-567, 2000. [29] A.J. Jr. Marcella and J.V. Rauff, Utilizing expert systems to evaluate disaster recovery planning, Journal of Applied Business Research, Winter, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 30-38, 1994. [30] E.V. McIntyre, Accounting Choices and EVA, Business Horizons, January-February, pp. 66-72, 1999. [31] S. Mishra, P. Hecht, R. Maeda, and K. Anderson, Positive and negative regulation of easter, a member of the serine protease family that controls dorsal-ventral patterning in the Drosophila embryo, Development, vol. 125, no. 7, pp. 12611267, 1998. [32] P.C. Nutt, Decision Style and Its Impact on Managers and Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

vol. 29, pp. 341-366, 1986. [33] E.J. Pedhazur, Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1997. [34] E.J. Pedhazur, and L.P. Schmelkin, Measurement, design, and analysis: An integraed approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991. [35] S.E. Perry and T.H. Williams, Earning management precedin management buyout offers, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 18, pp. 157-179, 1994. [36] E.G. Press and J.B. Weintrop, Accounting-based constraints in public and private debt agreements, their association with leverage and impact on accounting choice, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 12, pp. 65-95, 1990. [37] D.R. Raban and S. Rafaeli, The effect of source nature and status on the subjective value of information, Journal of the American society for information science and technology, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 321-329, 2006. [38] V.P. Rindova, I.O. Williamson, A.P. Petkova, and J.M. Sever, Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 48, pp. 10331049, 2005. [39] M.B. Romney and P.J. Steinbart, Accounting Information Systems (Eleventh Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc, 2009. [40] M.S. Scott, Management Decision Systems: Computer Support for Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. [41] D. Skinner, The investment opportunity set and accounting procedure choice: preliminary evidence, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 17, pp. 407-446, 1993. [42] R. Spence, Building Peace, Building Hope, Building Relationships: The Process of International Volunteering, Australian Journal of Volunteering, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 73 78, 2002. [43] G. Stasser and W. Titus, Pooling of unshared information to group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 48, pp. 1467-1478, 1985. [44] B. Tabachnick and L.S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics (Fourth Edition). New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc, 1996. [45] M.W. Van Alstyne, A proposal for valuing information and instrumental goods, International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, NC., pp. 57-64, 1999. [46] J. Zeleznikow and D. Hunter, Reasoning Paradigms in Legal Decision Support Systems, Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 9, pp. 361-385, 1995. [47] M. Zmijewski and R. Hagerman, An income strategy approach to the positive theory of accounting standard setting/choice, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 3, pp. 129-149, 1981. Nitaya Wongpinunwatana got Ph.D. in field of information system at the University of Queensland, Australia 1998. Her research interests include decision support systems, e-commerce, computer security, and online-learning. Currently she is working on the research title of role-playing game on information system audit. Kobkaew Ratanaubol is associated professor in accounting at Accounting department, Thammasat Univerisity. Her research interests include accounting and auditing.