《288.Fxxx通讯有限公司内部控制存在的问题及其完善 外文文献.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《288.Fxxx通讯有限公司内部控制存在的问题及其完善 外文文献.doc（8页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、USING AN ACCOUNTING-BASED MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMFOR CULTURAL CHANGEAbstractDespite the well documented advantages of Continuous Improvement (CI) management, implementation failures are discouragingly high (Jazayeri & Hopper 1999). The most significant reason for failure in becoming a CI organizat
2、ion is cultural resistance (Irani et al. 2003), due in part to insufficient trust (Chenhall and Langfield-Smith 2003). When employment contracts fail, employees will resist changes perceived to threaten their welfare. This paper uses an innovative action research approach (Kaplan, 1998) to design an
3、d implement a Management Control System (MCS) that will reduce this problem.Unfortunately, a single theoretical perspective (information economics, agency theory, or learning theory) will not provide sufficient insights for implementation, since each theory assumes away critical application issues c
4、overed by the other theories (Covaleski et al. 2003).Drawing from several theoretical sources for this research, an MCS designed to support both the implementation and management of CI cultures is developed and applied in an American factory.A Continuous Improvement Accounting Information System (CI
5、-AIS) is merged with an MCS using suggestions from 1) information economics (adaptive feedback), 2) agency theory (to reduce agency risk and shirking through management of uncertainty, economic loss, and group participation), and 3) constructivist learning theory (incremental formative assessment, c
6、ollaboration, and repetition to learn a new culture).The proposed MCS is composed of an in-process budgeting system that facilitates the following four actions leading to the successful management of Continuous Improvement initiatives: 1) prioritizing problems, 2) analyzing the root cause of problem
7、s, 3) strategically designing change activities for improvement, and 4) validating subsequent changes to align with accounting-based performance contracts.USING AN ACCOUNTING-BASED MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM FOR CULTURAL CHANGE“Innovation action research engages the researcher in an explicit program
8、to develop and implement entirely new approaches” (Kaplan 1998). While the more mainstream approach to research requires examination of phenomena independent of the observer, action research, on the other hand, requires the participation of the researcher in the design and testing of new solutions t
9、o problems.The innovative action research approach, demonstrated by Kaplan (1998) with activity-based costing and the balanced scorecard, is to 1) identify the problem in practice, 2) explain a new solution to the problem justified with existing research or theory, 3) apply the new solution, and 4)
10、improve it. The first three steps are explicated in this paper.Theoretical knowledge can only be validated through application. Innovation action research uses insights from theory to suggest an alternative solution in practice. The solution applied in this paper includes insights provided from info
11、rmation economics, agency theory, and constructivist learning theories. This combination of theoretical perspectives is necessary since no single theory is sufficient. A single theoretical perspective such as information economics or agency theory will not provide sufficient insights for implementat
12、ion since each theory assumes away critical application issues (e.g., frictionless and instantaneous contracting) covered by the other theories (Covaleski et al. 2003).Just as innovative action research has a documented role in the development and evolution of Activity-Based Costing and the Balanced
13、 Scorecard (Kaplan 1998), it is a particularly useful approach for the implementation of theory in a CI context. The increasingly competitive global economy has prompted more and more businesses to adopt Continuous Improvement (CI) strategies.Some have enjoyedsignificant improvements in competitiven
14、ess and reduction in costs (Bohoris 1995; Corbett and Rastrick 2000; Najmi and Kehoe 2000; Pool 2000; Prabhu et al. 2000; Terziovski and Samson 2000; Zairi and Whymark 2000a; Zairi and Whymark 2000b; Zairi et al. 1994; and Kahn 1998). These, however, are the exceptions. Unfortunately, CI implementat
15、ion failures are all too common and results have been disappointing (McManus 1994; Martichenko 2004; Voss and Blackman 1996; Strebel 1996; Ezzamel et al. 1990; Ezzamel and Willmott 1998; Saravanamuthu 1998; Lewis 1996; Ngowi 2000; Maull et al. 2001; Calori and Sarnin 1991; Sinclair and Arthur 1994;
16、Klein et al. 1995; and Corbett and Rastrick 2000).World Class Management (WCM) programs, for example, designed to introduce a CI culture, typically take a minimum period of 15 to 18 months until the implementation is validated through accounting reports.Unfortunately, even with a liberal investment
17、of resources, the reported impact on most companies has been unacceptably low (Westrup, Hopper, and Jazayeri 2001). Implementation failure often results when there is an overemphasis on tools and techniques (Corbett and Rastrick 2000) while transitioning to a business culture that is open to change1
18、 is neglected (Page and Curry 2000).Further, Quattrone and Hopper (2001), after investigating alternative approaches to SAP adoption, called for research in organizations where specific productivity expansion paths cannot be predicted in advance and where “control is no longer about prescribing righ
19、t courses of action but describing possible courses of action.” The model presented in this paper responds directly to these suggestions.One of the primary factors responsible for CI implementation failures is cultural resistance (Samson 1997; Kotter and Heskett 1992). This paper introduces a MCS sp
20、ecifically designed to overcome cultural resistance and efficiently improve productivity. Resistance to new strategies can occur when employment contracts are not aligned with corporate strategies. One solution to such resistance is to provide more compensation to agents in order to match the level
21、of risk that they bear. Alternatively, this paper suggests modifying the MCS in order to reduce agency risk and make contracting more efficient. MCSs can assist in the formation and implementation of new management strategies (Simons 1995; Langfield-Smith 1997). They may use rule-based, standardized
22、 procedures within formal hierarchical structures, or they may use informal relationships characterized by cooperative personal interactions (Merchant 1985) as in a business culture. As employment contracts are designed by a company facing strategic change, flexibl MCSs are most appropriate (Simons
23、1990; Chapman 1998). The preferred result is a cooperative approach to strategic change in a work environment of mutual trust. Where trust is sufficient, cultural change tends to proceed effectively. Where trust is insufficient, changes are likely to be resisted (Chenhall and Langfield-Smith 2003).
24、The strategic design of the MCS can increase the level of trust among co-workers and facilitate their successful adaptation to change.Since accounting profitability is a common normative value for most business cultures (Irani et al. 2003) accounting-based employment contracts are viable for both ex
25、isting cultures and CI cultures. Consequently, accounting as the well-established dominant form of contracting (Sunder 2002) in business organizations should be considered when other methodologies fail (Lambert 2001).Unfortunately, even when cultural change succeeds, financial improvement is not nec
26、essarily guaranteed. One Texas oil-drilling equipment company that was awarded the Malcolm Baldridge quality award from the U.S. Department of Commerce later sought Chapter 11 protection (Kaplan 1992). This indicates that even successful implementations may, in the extreme, become economic failures
27、without sufficientaccounting. Thus, to improve implementation and reduce economic failure, the CI-AIS must provide both cultural change and CI decision support.First, this paper discusses the culture shift necessary for successful CI implementation. Then, previous research is used to design an adapt
28、ive MCS that will both enable, complement, and support the new CI culture (Adler and Borys 1996, Ahrens and Chapman 2004) and at the same time guide efficient CI productivity expansion learning models. Such an MCS is the focus of this paper.MANAGEMENT BY EXCEPTION AND STANDARD COSTINGWhile few organ
29、izations operate at the extreme of a scientific management approach, this dominant paradigm significantly influences the design and operating conditions of most organizations to a greater or lesser extent. This discussion examines the conditions at the extremes which will provide insights into facto
30、rs influencing performance without defining them in all specific conditions. Regardless of the degree of impact, the management of in-process costs in a CI culture is inconsistent with the traditional use of standard costs in budgeting systems.Changing the culture and set of beliefs regarding the na
31、ture and objectives of control is required in order to introduce CI. Traditional management models in manufacturing settings emphasize Taylors scientific method with its Management by Exception (MBE) practices (Taylor 1911). The scientific method is a “one best way” approach based on several assumpt
32、ions:1. The production technology is known,2. The environment is both known and stationary,3. Inputs are homogeneous, and4. A single, understood goal is to be achieved (Jaikumar and Bohn 1992).Under these conditions, experts are hired to design the “one best way” to produce a product. Managements ob
33、jective is to insure that the “one best way” is implemented efficiently. This has led to a MBE approach to operational management forming part of the organizations culture within which employment contracting takes place. One example of MBE practices is to establish material and labor standards that
34、define the most efficient way to complete processes. It is assumed that these standards represent the “one best way” that cannot be improved upon. Meeting the standards is part of the employment contract and sets the boundaries for management activities.Standard costing systems have been used to ass
35、ign costs to these standards and annual budgets are prepared to assist management in its planning and control functions. Standard costing and budgeting systems, based on these principles and the assumption that existing practices are nearly optimal, allow organizations to 1) contract efficiently bas
36、ed on accounting data, 2) reduce uncertainty in the coordination and communication of activities, 3) allocate resources, and 4) focus problem-solving efforts on exceptions, or variances, from the established standards.Structured responsibility center accounting systems of this type create the bounda
37、ries for rational decision making. Contracting based on accounting data determines the limitations required for analyzing operating decisions. The accounting information that results from such decisions then becomes the normative criteria for the business culture, oftentimes referred to as “how we d
38、o things around here.” However, how and where to best design technological process improvements is debatable. One view is that this should occur “off-line” in a controlled environment before implementation. Another approach assumes that only the in-process “laboratory of the shop floor” is efficient
39、 (Leonard-Barton 1992). This paper is limited to examining the latter process: in-process CI activities.CONTROL CULTURE: EFFICIENT PRODUCTIVITY CHANGEWhen an accounting system is closely aligned with an organizations business strategies, an efficient basis for employment contracting can be establish
40、ed. Over a period of time, the scientific method of management produces, reinforces, and, its critics would say, coerces an efficient culture of control which assumes that few improvements should be made during the operating period. The components of this control culture in a manufacturing environme
41、nt typically include:1. Engineered factory production lines with “practical standards,” that are accepted as the “one best way” to operate,2. Specialized responsibility centers coordinated through production schedules to manage and control operations, and3. A centralized annual budgeting system thro
42、ugh which participants establish implicit contracts and commitments with one another to work cooperatively.Such a culture, in which employees and managers share expectations about future behavior (Luhmann 1979), has been effective in reducing uncertainty and promoting stability as long as market dem
43、and and competitive pressures remain relatively static. However, the traditional control culture supported by standard costing and annual budgeting is less efficient whenever changing market conditions require the firm to respond, adjust, and capitalize on new opportunities for future survival and g
44、rowth. In this control culture, changes in operating capabilities are mainly managed annually as part of the capital budget. They are not anticipated during the operating cycle. In-process improvement is rare since operations are presumed to be designed in the “one best way.” This creates the tenden
45、cy of the MBE system to control and shape innovation, rather than sparking or inspiring learning and improvement (Ahrens and Chapman 2004, pp. 296-297) as required in a CI culture.To counter such a tendency, this paper attempts to go one step further than merely enabling innovation. Instead, an AIS
46、is proposed that directs productivity expansion (as in target costing) through change and innovation by systematically identifying high priority problems or events that can be improved in-process, i.e., within the operating cycle. This AIS also serves as one of the critical components of a culture-c
47、hanging MCS. Modifying the traditional MCS in this way will allow accounting-based employment contracts to support CI and, at the same time, reduce cultural resistance to change.CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ADOPTION: CULTURAL CHANGEWhen faced with new competitive pressures, firms may adopt CI practices bu
48、t experience only limited success, or even failure. A key reason for these disappointing results is that employment contracts built on the existing culture provide little or no incentive for employees to actually seek improvements. However, the linear contracts introduced with CI implementation (e.g., failu
