The interrelations of decision‐making rationales around BSC adoptions in Finnish municipalities

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management - Tập 58 Số 8 - Trang 787-802 - 2009
AnttiIlmari Rautiainen1
1School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the interrelations of the decision‐making rationales around accounting performance measurement (PM) adoptions in Finnish municipalities. Previous studies informed by new institutional sociology (NIS), have tended to assume that accounting PM adoptions occur because of either “rational” or “institutional” reasons. The accuracy of this “polar” view is empirically analyzed in this paper (as called for by Ribeiro and Scapens).Design/methodology/approachSurvey data (199 responses, 48 per cent response rate) were analyzed with factor analyses using, for example, SPSS and LISREL programs.FindingsThe decision‐making rationales (factors) around Balanced Scorecard (BSC) adoption were labeled “mimetic”, “rational” and “normative‐experimental”. Mimetic rationale correlated negatively with the other factors.Research limitations/implicationsThe data was small. Further, as case studies and LISREL diagnostics often suggest, there may be other forces involved in PM adoption related decision‐making.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the interplay of the various pressures may facilitate the management of PM development projects.Originality/valueRational and institutional rationales are opposed also in the Finnish public sector (corroborating DiMaggio and Powell), but this “polar” view needs to be amended with individual or “experimental” aspects (corroborating Granlund). Acknowledging all three rationales refines public sector PM adoption literature (Lapsley and Wright). Finally, the rationales were interrelated, i.e. able to interact or counteract in PM adoption related decision‐making.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abernethy, M. and Chua, W. (1996), “A field study of control system ‘redesign’: the impact of institutional processes on strategic choice”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 569‐606.

Andon, P., Baxter, J. and Chua, W. (2007), “Accounting change as relational drifting: a field study of experiments with performance measurement”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 273‐308.

Bollen, K. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.

Boomsma, A. and Hoogland, J. (2001), “The robustness of LISREL modelling revisited”, in Cudeck, R., du Toit, S. and Sörbom, D. (Eds), Structural Equation Models: Present and Future. A Festschrift in Honour of Karl Jöreskog, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL, pp. 139‐68.

Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (2000), “An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 281‐306.

Burns, J. and Scapens, R. (2000), “Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3‐25.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1989), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, first publ. 1979 by Heinemann (reprinted by Gower, Aldershot).

Busco, C., Riccaboni, A. and Scapens, R. (2006), “Trust for accounting and accounting for trust”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 11‐41.

Cheng, M‐I., Dainty, A. and Moore, D. (2007), “Implementing a new performance management system within a project‐based organization. A case study”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 60‐75.

Cobb, I., Helliar, C. and Innes, J. (1995), “Management accounting change in a bank”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 155‐75.

Covaleski, M. and Dirsmith, M. (1988), “The use of budgetary symbols in the political arena: an historically informed field study”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1‐24.

DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, April, pp. 147‐60.

Foucault, M. (1991), “Space, knowledge and power”, in Rabinow, P. (Ed.), The Foucault Reader, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 239‐56.

Granlund, M. (2001), “Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 141‐66.

Hall, M. (2008), “The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 2‐3, pp. 141‐63.

Hood, C. (1995), “The ‘New public management’ in the 1980s: variations on a theme”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2‐3, pp. 93‐109.

Jackson, A. and Lapsley, I. (2003), “The diffusion of accounting practices in the new ‘managerial’ public sector”, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 359‐72.

Järvinen, J. (2006), “Institutional pressures for adopting new cost accounting systems in Finnish hospitals: two longitudinal case studies”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 21‐46.

Johnsen, Å., Nørreklit, H. and Vakkuri, J. (2006), “Introducing a Nordic perspective on public sector performance measurement”, Foreword, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 207‐12.

Jokipii, A. (2006), “The structure and effectiveness of internal control. A contingency approach”, Academic dissertation. Acta Wasaensia 166, University of Vaasa, Vaasa.

Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1999), LISREL 8. User's Reference Guide, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard – measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71‐9.

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2000), “Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 167‐76.

Kurunmäki, L., Lapsley, I. and Melia, K. (2003), “Accountingization vs legitimation: a comparative study of the use of accounting information in intensive care”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 112‐39.

Lapsley, I. (2008), “The NPM agenda: back to the future”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 77‐96.

Lapsley, I. and Wright, E. (2004), “The diffusion of management accounting innovations in the public sector: a research agenda”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 355‐74.

Little, R. and Rubin, D. (1987), Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, Wiley, New York, NY.

Lounsbury, M. (2007), “A tale of two cities: competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 289‐307.

Lounsbury, M. (2008), “Institutional rationality and practice variation: new directions in the institutional analysis of practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 4‐5, pp. 349‐61.

Malmi, T. (1999), “Activity‐based costing diffusion across organizations: an exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish firms”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 649‐72.

Modell, S. (2004), “Performance measurement myths in the public sector: a research note”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 39‐55.

Modell, S. (2006), “Institutional and negotiated order perspectives on cost allocations.The case of the Swedish university sector”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 219‐51.

Northcott, D. and Llewellyn, S. (2003), “The ‘ladder of success’ in healthcare: the UK national reference costing index”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51‐66.

Olson, O., Guthrie, J. and Humphrey, C. (2001), “Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for public services under NPFM”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 505‐22.

Pihlanto, P. (2000), “Institutional theory and the level of an individual. Reflections on the Burns & Scapens Framework”, Summary, Discussion and Working Papers 9:2000, Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.

Ribeiro, J. and Scapens, R. (2006), “Institutional theories in management accounting change. Contributions, issues and paths for development”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 94‐111.

Rogers, E. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY.

Scott, W. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Shields, J. and Shields, M. (1998), “Antecedents of participative budgeting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 49‐76.

Shields, M., Deng, F. and Kato, Y. (2000), “The design and effects of control systems: tests of direct and indirect models”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 185‐202.

Thakkar, J., Deshmuk, S.G., Gupta, A.D. and Shankar, R. (2007), “Development of Balanced Scorecard. An integrated approach of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) and analytic network process (ANP)”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 25‐59.

Veblen, T. (1898), “Why is economics not an evolutionary science?”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 373‐97.

Williamson, O. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press, New York, NY.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Tập 58 Số 8

787-802

Thông tin tác giả