A ‘time–space odyssey’: management control systems in two multinational organisations

This paper analyses the effects of implementing an Enterprise Resource Planning system (ERP) upon management control in two multinational organisations. How ERP was configured in each corporation created different forms of distance and relations between headquarters and the scattered subsidiaries. The construction of spatial and temporal separations (i.e. distance) and how they were understood and managed had profound effects on management control. In one organisation the ERP reproduced existing structures and distance which permitted conventional accounting controls based on action at a distance to be maintained. The second organisation used ERP to collapse distance through real-time information in a matrix structure. This did not increase centralisation but rather produced constantly changing loci of control and managerial feelings of ‘minimalist’ control.     

Information and the transnational SME controller

One of the issues that face the small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) when expanding is the ‘control’ issue and this paper investigates and presents preliminary evidence of ‘controlling’ or ‘management accounting’ practice in a transnational SME. Wibsey, the site of the case, is now a small group of companies that have expanded from a U.K. base into 10 European countries. This expansion has posed complex problems, which have increased the information requirements of the SME. The contextual issues of complexity and resulting challenges for the transnational organization in its management accounting, information and control systems are considered. Wibsey uses traditional management accounting as the basis of supporting decision-making in the group and a lower level of information need is reported, in contrast to Dent (1996) (Dent, J. F., 1996. Global competition: challenges for management accounting and control,Management Accounting Research , 7(2), 247–269), because the group chooses to maintain a traditional ‘accounting-led’ evaluation system in controlling and evaluating its transnational operations.     

Smaller business governance: Exploring accountability and enterprise from the margins

Smaller businesses now rank higher upon the corporate governance agenda. This agenda places their accountability and ‘enterprise’ particularly at issue. It is only put at issue because of just one possible problematization however. That problematization firstly assumes judicious accountability to be the crux of good governance with accounting at its hub. It secondly assumes that smaller businesses are the very seedbed of any ‘enterprise economy’, virtually irrespective of what form they take, or ‘enterprise’ they display. By then combining these assumptions together, this finally reproblematizes any relationship between accountability and ‘enterprise’, so that ‘de-regulation’ and decoupled accountability liberates smaller business ‘enterprise’ further. Others might question and challenge the very basis, as well as particular formulation, of this problematization however. A better grasp of the greater fluidity and complexity of smaller businesses would make the boundaries of their accountability and ‘enterprise’ more clear and leave their respective margins more suitably exposed. As a key potential instrument for that purpose managerial accounting research might then better inform the debate by specifically rendering these boundaries more visible while also identifying the precise scope for manoeuvre at/across their margins as well. To that end this paper uses certain enabling frameworks to construct and interpret the particular case of managerially accounting for a grown smaller business working across exactly those margins from the perspective of a ‘reflective practitioner’ acting as a field researcher for these purposes. As well as offering fresh insights into how far the boundaries of accountability and enterprise might legitimately stretch, this case calls for more critical thinking about how they might change.     

What does organizational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category

Despite widespread research on why and how organizations change, what constitutes change is often taken for granted. Its definition is avoided. Studies based on individuals’ rational choice imply that change flows from purposive actions in accordance with an objective, external reality whereas contextualism argues that change results from institutional pressures, isomorphisms and routines. But both depict change as the passage of an entity, whether an organization or accounting practices, from one identifiable and unique status to another. Despite their differences over whether reality is independent, concrete and external, or socially constructed, both assume that actors (or researchers) can identify a reality to trace the scale and direction of changes. This reflects modernist beliefs that organizational space and time are unique and linear. The paper takes issue with this and argues that ‘a-centred organizations’ and ‘drift’ should replace conventional definitions of organizations and change. The arguments are inspired by the arguments of the sociology of translation and constructivism, and insights from two case studies of Enterprise Resource Planning system implementations in large multinational organizations. The latter illustrate how defining change is problematic—as new systems gave rise to multiple spaces and times within the organizations. The paper traces the implications of this for control and accounting studies tout court.     

The effect of framing and negotiation partner’s objective on judgments about negotiated transfer prices

A common approach to set transfer prices is via intra-firm negotiation. However, Luft and Libby [Luft, J. L., & Libby, R. (1997). Profit comparisons, market prices and managers’ judgments about negotiated transfer prices. The Accounting Review, 72(2), 217–229] found that because of the existence of self-serving biases, negotiating managers have different expectations regarding what constitutes a ‘fair’ transfer price, leading to a less efficient negotiation process. In this study, we examine two factors that are expected to affect managers’ transfer price negotiation judgments, namely, framing as a gain or as a loss and the negotiation partner’s objective (whether the partner’s objective involves high or low concern-for-others). We propose that these two factors affect managers’ perceptions of the negotiation context, and thus the way they interpret the economic and social consequences of accounting information. Our results show that a loss frame (compared to a gain frame) exacerbates managers’ self-serving biases and increases the ‘transfer price expectation gap’ between buyers and sellers. Further, in our experiment where market price is higher than equal-profit price, we find that managers’ transfer price expectations are lower (and deviate more from the prevailing market price) when they are negotiating with a partner with high concern-for-others than with a partner with low concern-for-others. We discuss the broader implications of these results for the design of management accounting systems.     

Structuration theory and mediating concepts: Pitfalls and implications for management accounting research

Giddens’ way of conceptualizing how structures work as both the medium for and outcome of human action – duality of structure – has been emphasized as a valuable point of departure when studying management accounting in its social context. However, we argue that in the literature there are different ways of using mediating concepts between social structure and action, whereby management accounting systems are conceptualized as both the medium for action, and human action as such. Using the often-cited article by Burns and Scapens [Burns J, Scapens RW. Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Management Accounting Research 2000;11(1):3–25] as an illustrative example, we discuss theoretical and methodological consequences of these different ways of conceptualizing management accounting. A main conclusion is that when management accounting is defined through concurrently referring to both ‘virtual’ structures that generate action and the situated doings of individuals, structure and action risk becoming conflated and there is a risk of drawing erroneous conclusions about structural change or stability. The paper closes with some methodological suggestions as to how these problems can be avoided.     

Intangibles and accounting classifications: in search of a classification strategy

The present paper is concerned with classification of ‘intangibles’ and what classification theory can teach us about a ‘good classification’. The present study led to three conclusions about the classification of intangibles. One is that the value of classification lies in its function as a heuristic device, i.e. as a help construction. Accounting becomes the art of background design. Another conclusion is that if we choose to account for intangibles it does not need to change the transaction base of financial accounting. Rather, it is an issue how to classify and label a universe of transactions. Finally, the dichotomy tangible–intangible should not be acknowledged as a supposition. Depending on perspective, purpose and type of financial accounting model, other concepts may do a better job in classifying the accounting world.     

Accounting relativism: the unstable relationship between income measurement and theories of the firm

The knowledge structures underlying accounting representations are rarely investigated and usually tend to be taken for granted. As a case of the problematic knowledge foundations of accounting, we concentrate on one of the most relevant conceptual underpinnings informing the construction of the accounts—the relationship between theories of the firm, accounting theories, and income measurement. In particular we analyse and compare the ways in which this relationship has been conceived and developed in two theoretical contexts, the Italian tradition of Economia Aziendale and the US entity vs proprietary debate. Various and contradictory approaches to the concept of the firm and income calculation in these two theoretical traditions emerge. Such a conceptual variety is what we refer to as ‘accounting relativism’. This is defined here as the co-existence of different accounting representations and measurements, both of which are not objectively rankable in any conceptual hierarchy, because of the incommensurability of their basic assumptions, i.e. of their knowledge bases. This intrinsically ‘unstable’ character of accounting at a conceptual level is likely to have relevant implications, representing a major source of theoretical variety, as well as a premise for making sense of power uses of accounting within organisational settings. ©     

The evolution of management accounting routines in small businesses: a social construction perspective

This paper explores the development of management accounting in small firms through a social construction perspective. Taking Dirsmith’s (1998) (Dirsmith, M. W. 1998. Accounting and control as a solution to technical problems, political exchanges and forms of social discourse: the importance of substantive domain, Behavioural Research in Accounting, 10 (Supplement), 65–77) lead we examine the evolution of control and decision-making processes within four growth-orientated service sector businesses. Key to the perspective is the notion of the owner–manager and his/her employees as creators of management accounting routines that form through a cycle of action, externalization and habitualization. These routines still remain in the control of the originator and are flexible in nature. As the business grows these routines may become objectified into localized management accounting ‘facts’ and they may also be challenged by externally imported accounting conventions. This paper explores the creation of idiosyncratic accounting knowledge and the effects of its transmission over the history of the businesses.