COMMUNICATION EFFECTS OF COMPLIANCE AUDIT SOFTWARE IN DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Year 2026, Issue: 34, 60 - 72, 16.02.2026

Ali Aycı

https://doi.org/10.58348/denetisim.1752823

https://izlik.org/JA26JB95WU

Abstract

This study examines the communication effects of compliance audit software within the context of digital transformation in public auditing. Auditing extends beyond the execution of technical procedures and represents a multidimensional communication activity involving interaction, negotiation, and meaning-making between auditors and auditees. From this perspective, the study explores how software-based auditing practices influence communication processes by reducing communication failures while simultaneously generating new constraints. The research adopts a mixed-methods design, combining a conceptual case analysis conducted through the compliance audit software Adjuster with a descriptive survey administered in 2024 to 27 internal auditors working across different public institutions. The findings demonstrate that standardized workflows, traceable documentation systems, and automated guidance mechanisms significantly reduce audit preparation time and help minimize process-related communication failures. A majority of participants anticipate time savings exceeding 30 percent through the use of digital audit platforms. At the same time, the results indicate that software-mediated communication may limit key communicative dimensions such as empathy, contextual understanding, and emotional interaction, particularly in the transmission of critical audit findings. In conclusion, the study suggests that a hybrid communication model—combining software-based procedural discipline with the semantic richness of face-to-face interaction—offers a more effective approach and provides practical implications for digital transformation policies in public auditing.

Keywords

Organizational Communication , Audit , Digital Transformation , Media Richness Theory

UYUM DENETİM YAZILIMLARININ DİJİTAL DÖNÜŞÜMDEKİ İLETİŞİMSEL ETKİLERİ

https://izlik.org/JA26JB95WU

Abstract

Bu çalışma, kamu denetiminde dijital dönüşümün, uyum denetim yazılımları aracılığıyla iletişim süreçlerini nasıl dönüştürdüğünü incelemektedir. Denetim, yalnızca teknik prosedürlerin uygulanmasından ibaret olmayıp, denetçi ile denetlenen arasındaki etkileşim, müzakere ve anlam üretimi süreçlerini içeren çok boyutlu bir iletişim faaliyetidir. Bu bağlamda araştırma, yazılım tabanlı denetim uygulamalarının iletişim kazalarını önlemedeki rolünü, süreçsel kazanımlar ve iletişimsel sınırlılıklar ekseninde ele almaktadır. Çalışma, karma yöntemli bir araştırma deseniyle kurgulanmış olup; Adjuster adlı uyum denetim yazılımı üzerinden yürütülen kavramsal bir vaka analizi ile 2024 yılında farklı kamu kurumlarında görev yapan 27 iç denetçiye uygulanan betimleyici anket çalışmasını bir araya getirmektedir. Bulgular, denetim yazılımlarının standartlaştırılmış iş akışları, izlenebilir kayıt sistemleri ve otomatik yönlendirme mekanizmaları sayesinde denetime hazırlık süresini azalttığını ve süreçsel iletişim kazalarını önemli ölçüde sınırladığını göstermektedir. Katılımcıların büyük çoğunluğu dijital platformlar sayesinde %30’un üzerinde zaman tasarrufu sağlanacağını öngörmektedir. Bununla birlikte, yazılım tabanlı iletişimin empati, bağlam ve duygusal etkileşim gibi iletişimsel boyutları sınırlayabildiği; bu durumun özellikle kritik bulguların iletilmesinde ilişkisel riskler doğurabileceği tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak çalışma, denetimde yazılım temelli süreçsel disiplin ile yüz yüze iletişimin anlamsal zenginliğini birleştiren hibrit bir iletişim modelinin en etkin yaklaşım olduğunu ortaya koymakta ve kamu denetiminde dijitalleşme politikalarına yönelik uygulamaya dönük çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Organizasyonel İletişim , Denetim , Dijital Dönüşüm , Medya Zenginliği Teorisi

References

• Adjuster. (2025). Kurumsal Web Sitesi. https://adjuster.com.tr/ Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2021). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for a complex world. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Argenti, P. A. (2009). Corporate communication (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Beattie, V., Brandt, R., & Fearnley, S. (2001). Behind the audit report: A descriptive study of auditor-client relationships. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wal
• BİGDES (2025), Bilgi ve İletişim Güvenliği Uyum ve Denetim İzleme Sistemi, Kurumsal Web Sitesi https://cbddo.gov.tr/bigdes/
• Carpenter, T., Reimers, J., & Wong, S. (2023). Technology in audit: A review of current practices and future directions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 42(1), 55–74.
• Cornelissen, J. (2020). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice (6th ed.). SAGE.
• Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
• DeVito, J. A. (2018). The interpersonal communication book. Pearson.15. Basım
• Eisenberg, E. M., Goodall, H. L., & Trethewey, A. (2021). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (9th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
• Francis, J. R. (1994). Auditing, hermeneutics, and subjectivity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(3), 235-269.
• Francis, J. R. (2011). A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 125–152.
• Gamage, P., & Lock, K. L. (2019). A communication-based model for improving audit engagement effectiveness. Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(2), 158-183.
• Gendron, Y., & Bédard, J. (2006). On the constitution of auditability: A study of the challenging and contested character of audit work. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 25(1), 101–129.
• IIA, (Institute of Internal Auditors) (2017). International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF). Janiesch, C., Zschech, P., & Heinrich, K. (2021). Machine learning and business process management: Present and future challenges. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63(3), 361–370.
• Karapınar, A., & Dölen, T. (2022). Bağımsız denetçi bakış açısı ile gözetim faaliyetlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye örneği. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 9(2), 831-850.
• Koskela, K., & Palonen, T. (2023). Ambiguity and automation: Communication risks in digital inspection systems. Government Information Quarterly, 40(2), 101745.
• Lee, J., & Han, K. (2022). Audit trail and accountability in digital public sector auditing. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(1), 75–93.
• Lee, K., & Menon, R. (2019). The effects of subjectivity on manager and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review, 94(5), 273-295.
• Martinez, S., & Gupta, R. (2024). Building trust from a distance: The role of communication platforms in remote auditing teams. Journal of Information Systems and Auditing, 35(1), 88-105.
• Mautz, R. K., & Sharaf, H. A. (1961). The philosophy of auditing. American Accounting Association.
• Nguyen, T., Ngo, L., & Tran, H. (2020). E-government and internal communication in the public sector. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(4), e2114.
• OECD. (2020). Digital Government in Türkiye: A pathway to public sector modernisation. OECD Publishing. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2023). Spotlight: Professional competence and skepticism are essential to quality audits. https://pcaobus.org/documents/competence-and-skepticism-spotlight.pdf
• Pettersson, M., & Eriksson, M. (2023). Automated messages and misunderstandings in algorithmic communication. Information Society, 39(1), 24–38.
• Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
• Rainey, H. G., & Howes, D. (2021). Organizational change in public administration: Digitalization and its discontents. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1091–1105.
• Schmidt, H., & Takahashi, Y. (2022). Standardizing judgment: How digital tools reduce auditor subjectivity in municipal audits. European Journal of Accounting & Finance Research, 18(4), 210-228.
• Schmidt, J., Drews, P., & Funk, B. (2022). From data to decisions: A framework for AI-supported decision-making in organizations. Journal of Decision Systems, 31(sup1), 256-281.
• Schulz, R., & Kunz, D. (2021). Communication breakdown in AI-mediated auditing. AI & Society, 36(3), 493–506.
• Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
• Tang, Y., & Lin, S. (2020). The dynamics of face-to-face vs. online communication in audit teams. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 16(1), 112–129.
• Vodanovich, S., Sundaram, D., & Myers, M. (2021). Digital transformation and the public sector: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101564.
• VERBİS (2025), Veri Sorumluları Sicil Bilgi Sistemi, Kurumsal Web Sitesi, https://verbis.kvkk.gov.tr/
• Williams, A., & Chen, L. (2023). The impact of digital workflow platforms on communication errors in public sector audits. Journal of Government Auditing and Accountability, 41(2), 115-132.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
• Yıldız, D., & Ertaş, A. (2022). Türkiye’de kamu denetiminde dijital dönüşüm: Sayıştay örneği. Kamu Yönetimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(2), 112–134.
• Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., & Xu, H. (2022). Intelligent auditing: A framework for big data-driven public audit systems. Information Processing & Management, 59(2), 102807.
• Zhou, S., Zuo, L., & Wang, Y. (2023). Building a digital memory: The role of blockchain in corporate accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(2), 345-361