Managing Accounting Analysis 19 (2008) 324–343
Procedure of administration control procedures as a package—A case study in control system variety in a growth ﬁrm context Mikko Sandelin ∗
Helsinki School of Economics, Department of Accounting and Finance, P. O. Package 1210, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
Abstract This empirical case study examines the operation of management control practices as a package within a growth ﬁrm context simply by paying particular attention to the couplings between cultural, employees, action and results handles. The analysis focuses on two different management control deals in the face of identical contingencies for different points of time. The paper argues that the features of a control package depends on internal persistence, speciﬁcally within the reciprocal cordons of design and style and work with between an initial mode of control and other control factors. Moreover, this argues that control package variety can be driven by the way in which the managing responds to functional needs. Two diverse control plans are considered equiﬁnal to the magnitude of limited operational complexity, whereas a great accounting-centric control package is likewise sufﬁcient in the face of increasing levels of operational difficulty. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All privileges reserved. Keywords: Management control package; Control system range; Internal uniformity; Functional requirements; Equiﬁnality; Growth ﬁrm
1 . Introduction This kind of empirical case study examines the operation of management control practices being a package in a growth ﬁrm context. Although it has been identified that ‘soft' and simple modes of control typically characterize tiny ﬁrms (e. g. Bruns and Waterhouse, 1975; Merchant, 1981; Flamholtz, 1983; Chenhall, 2003; Vendor and Truck der Stede, 2007), an ever-increasing body of literature today suggests that expansion renders managing control devices (MCS), specifically management accounting systems (MAS), more formal (Granlund and Taipaleenmäki, 2005; Moores and Yuen, 2001) and that formal MAS aid the growth of the ﬁrm (Davila and Create, 2005; Sandino, 2007; Greiner, 1998). Inside the growth ﬁrm context, the more comprehensive management control package deal has been researched to a limited extent. Lukka and Granlund (2003) have paid particular focus on organizational tradition and Bijou (2005) offers focused on socialization practices because primary control mechanisms, while other research have analyzed MAS and formal common operating types of procedures (Granlund and Taipaleenmäki, june 2006; Davila and Foster, 2006; Sandino, 2007). The main pushed here is that an equally great ﬁnal condition can be attained by various control system patterns in the face of comparable contingencies (Huikku, 2007; Service provider and Otley, 2007; Ferreira and Otley, 2005; Gerdin, 2005; Spekle, 2001; Otley, 1999; Chapman, 1997; Fisher, 1995). The need for coordination and control could be met by several substitute ∗
Tel.: +358 9 4313 8457; fax: +358 9 4313 8678. Email address: mikko. [email protected] ﬁ.
1044-5005/$ – see entrance matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Every rights reserved. doi: 12. 1016/j. scar. 2008. '08. 002
M. Sandelin / Management Accounting Research 19 (2008) 324–343
managing control system designs (Gerdin, 2005). Backup theory, as it builds around the assumption that variables are related to each other in a one-to-one manner, attempts optimal control system styles in speciﬁc circumstances at the cost of system variety (Spekle, 2001; Gerdin, 2005; Merchant and Vehicle der Stede, 2006). Moreover, a long-held view in organizational style literature shows that multiple means of control usually do not only go with each other but may also function as alternatives (Galbraith, 1973; Mintzberg, 1983; Fisher, 1995; Abernethy and Chua, mil novecentos e noventa e seis; Ferreira and Otley, june 2006; Huikku, 2007). The potential for reaching the same ﬁnal state by various conﬁgurations of control elements and systems in the face of similar eventualities is referred to as equiﬁnality (Doty ain al., 1993; Gresov and Drazin, 1997). In...
Recommendations: Abernethy, Meters. A., Chua, W. N., 1996. A ﬁeld examine of control system " redesign”: the effect of institutional processes in strategic decision. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (2), 569–606. Ahrens, Big t., Dent, L. F., 98. Accounting and organizations: realizing the richness of ﬁeld research. Diary of Supervision Accounting Study 10, 1–39. Ahrens, Big t., Mollina, Meters., 2007. Organisational control while cultural practice—A shop ﬂoor ethnography of any Shefﬁeld metal mill. Accounting, Organizations and Society thirty-two (4–5), 305–331. Alvesson, Meters., Kärreman, G., 2004. Extremite of control. Technocratic and socio-ideological control in a global management consultancy ﬁrm. Accounting, Organizations and Society twenty nine, 423–444. Darkish, D., june 2006. Management Control System Packages. PhD texte, University of Technology, Sydney. Brown, M., Malmi, To., Booth, P., 2008. Freely coupling theory of administration control systems. Paper shown in 08 Global Managing Accounting Exploration Symposium (GMARS). Bruns, W. J., Waterhouse, J. They would., 1975. Budgetary control and organizational structure. Journal of Accounting Analysis 13, 177–203. Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. M., Long, C. P., 2005. Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Research 15 (4), 411–431. Chapman, C. H., 1997. Reﬂections on a contingent view of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society twenty-two (2), 189–205. Chenhall, Ur. H., the year 2003. Management control system design and style within the organizational circumstance: ﬁndings by contingency-based exploration and guidelines for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (2/3), 127–168. Collier, P. M., 2006. Entrepreneurial control and the building of a relevant accounting. Management Accounting Research 16, 321–339. Covaleski, M. A., Evans III, L. H., Luft, J. L., Shields, M. D., the year 2003. Budgeting analysis: three theoretical perspectives and criteria pertaining to selective incorporation. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12-15. Davila, T., Foster, G., 2005. Administration accounting systems adoption decisions: evidence and implications by early-stage/startup businesses. The Accounting Review 80, 1039–1068. Doty, D. H., Glick, Watts. H., Huber, G. P., 1993. Fit, equiﬁnality, and organizational performance: a check of two conﬁgurational hypotheses. Academy of Management Diary 36 (6), 1196–1250. Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from example research. School of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.
M. Sandelin as well as Management Accounting Research 19 (2008) 324–343
Ferreira, A., Otley, D., 2005. The look and utilization of management control systems: a prolonged framework for analysis. Doing work paper. Fisher, J., 95. Contingency-based exploration on management control devices: categorization by simply level of complexness. Journal of Accounting Literature 14, 24–48. Flamholtz, Elizabeth. G., 1983. Accounting, spending budget and control systems inside their organizational context: theoretical and empirical points of views. Accounting, Companies and World 8 (2/3), 153–169. Flamholtz, E. G., 2005. Tactical organizational advancement and ﬁnancial performance: significance for accounting, information, and control. Advances in Management Accounting 14, 139–165. Flamholtz, Elizabeth. G., Das, T. K., Tsui, A. S., 1985. Toward a great integrative framework of company control. Accounting, Organizations and Society 15 (1), 35–50. Galbraith, T. R., 1973. Designing Intricate Organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MUM. Gerdin, T., 2005. Supervision accounting program design in manufacturing departments: a great empirical research using a multiple contingencies strategy. Accounting, Companies and Contemporary society 30, 99–126. Granlund, Meters., 2001. To explaining steadiness in and around management accounting devices. Management Accounting Research doze (2), 141–166. Granlund, M., Taipaleenmäki, T., 2005. Administration control and controllership in new economic climate ﬁrms—a your life cycle point of view. Management Accounting Research sixteen, 21–57. Greenhalgh, R. T., 2000. Data and the transnational SME control. Management Accounting Research eleven, 413–426. Greiner, L. E., 1998. Advancement and innovation as businesses grow. Harvard Business Assessment, 55–64. Gresov, C., Drazin, R., 1997. Equiﬁnality: efficient equivalence in organization style. Academy of Management Review 22 (2), 403–428. Gupta, A. E., Smith, T. G., Shalley, C. Elizabeth., 2006. The interplay among exploration and exploitation. School of Supervision Journal forty-nine (4), 693–706. Huikku, J., 2007. Explaining the non-adoption of post-completion auditing. Euro Accounting Review 16 (2), 363–398. Keating, P., 95. A structure for classifying and assessing the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 66–86. Kärreman, Deb., Sveningsson, S i9000., Alvesson, Meters., 2002. The return to machine bureaucracy? Administration control in the work settings of professionals. Intercontinental Studies of Management and Organization 32 (2), 70–92. Langﬁeld-Smith, E., 1997. Managing control systems and approach: a critical review. Accounting, Businesses and Culture 22, 207–232. Langﬁeld-Smith, E., 2007. An assessment quantitative analysis in management control systems and strategy. In: Chapman, C. S., Hopwood, A. G., Shields, Meters. D. (Eds. ), Handbook of Administration Accounting Research—Volume 2 . Elsevier, Oxford. Lukka, K., 2006. Approaches to case research in management accounting: the nature of empirical involvement and theory linkage. In: Jönssön, S i9000., Mouritsen, T. (Eds. ), Accounting in Scandinavia—The Upper Lights. Kristianstads Boktryckeri, Sweden, Kristianstad. Lukka, K., 2007. Management accounting change and stability: usually coupled guidelines and routines in action. Supervision Accounting Research 18, 76–101. Lukka, T., Granlund, Meters., 2003. Paradoxes of administration and control in a fresh economy ﬁrm. In: Bhimani, A. (Ed. ), Supervision Accounting in the Digital Economy. Oxford University or college Press. 03, J. G., 1991. Search and fermage in organizational learning. Business Science a couple of (1), 71–87. March, J. G., 06\. Rationality, mischief, and adaptable intelligence. Ideal Management Log 27, 201–214. Merchant, K. A., 1981. The design of business budgeting program: inﬂuences on managerial tendencies and performance. The Accounting Assessment 56 (4), 813–829. Merchant, K. A., 1998. Contemporary Management Control Systems. Prentice Hall, Nj. Merchant, T. A., Otley, D., 2007. A review of the literature upon control and accountability. In: Chapman, C. S., Hopwood, A. G., Shields, M. D. (Eds. ), Guide of Supervision Accounting Research—Volume 2 . Elsevier, Oxford. Product owner, K. A., Van dieser Stede, T. A., 2006. Field-based research in accounting: accomplishments and prospects. Behavioral Research in Accounting 18, 117–134. Service provider, K. A., Van jeder Stede, Watts. A., 2007. Management Control Systems. Prentice Hall. Kilometers, R. At the., Snow, C. C., 78. Organizational Technique, Structure, and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York. Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B., Glick, W. L., 1997. Retrospective reports in organizational analysis: a reexamination of recent evidence. Schools of Management Journal forty, 189–204. Mintzberg, H., 1983. Structures in Fives: Creating Effective Companies. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ-NEW JERSEY. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, L., 1998. Technique Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Ideal Management. Free of charge Press: Bob & Schuster. Mitchell, N., Reid, G. C., 2k. Editorial. Challenges, challenges and opportunities—the small enterprise as a environment for administration accounting study. Management Accounting Research 10, 385–390. Moores, K., Yuen, S., 2001. Management accounting systems and organizational conﬁguration: a life-cycle perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26, 351–389. Otley, D., 1999. Performance supervision: a construction for managing control devices research. Management Accounting Research 10, 363–382. Otley, D., 2001. Increasing the boundaries of supervision accounting study: developing systems for functionality management. British Accounting Assessment 33, 243–261. Otley, M., Berry, A. J., year 1994. Case study study in management accounting and control. Management Accounting Research 12 (10), 45–65. Perren, D., Grant, G., 2000. The evolution of management accounting routines in small business: a social construction perspective. Management Accounting Analysis 11, 391–411. Porter, Meters. E., 85. Competitive Benefits. Creating and Sustaining Remarkable Performance. Cost-free Press, New york city.
M. Sandelin / Management Accounting Study 19 (2008) 324–343
Sandino, Capital t., 2007. Bringing out the ﬁrst management control systems: facts from the selling sector. The Accounting Assessment 82 (1), 265–294. Scapens, R. T., 1990. Researching management accounting: the role of case studies. United kingdom Accounting Assessment 22, 259–281. Simons, Ur., 1995. Redressers of Control: How Managers use Ground breaking Control Systems to Drive Ideal Renewal. Harvard Business Institution Press, Boston. Spekle, Ur. F., 2001. Explaining administration control structure variety: a transaction expense economics point of view. Accounting, Agencies and Society 26, 419–441. Yin, R. K., 93. Applications of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.