David Otley

The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis

Contingency theories of management accounting have become a current vogue but have produced few significant new results. By surveying the development and content of these theories it is argued that they have been based on an inadequate and insufficiently articulated model. An improved model, based on ideas of organizational control and effectiveness, is put forward which suggests appropriate directions for future work that will be both perceptive and cumulative.

Budget Use And Managerial Performance

The effectiveness of a management accounting system depends not only on the appropriateness of its technical characteristics to the particular organizational and environmental circumstances to which it is applied, but also on the way in which organizational participants make use of the information that it provides. It is a commonplace that accounting information is often ignored, sometimes manipulated, and even falsified by those to whom it is provided. Many of the reported examples (see Rosen and Sneck [1967], Lowe and Shaw [1968], Mintzberg [1975], and Yetton [1976]) indicate that dysfunctional behavior frequently stems from the fact that the information provided by the accounting system does not adequately match the complexity of the underlying organizational and economic events; but it is also evident that distortion of information can occur even when the accounting system itself is technically adequate. Such distortion is a consequence of the divergence of individual goals from those of the organization and most commonly manifests itself in attempts to make accounting reports reflect more favorably on an individuals contribution to overall organizational performance. Although evidence in anecdotal form abounds (for example, Dearden [1960] and Schiff and Lewin [1970]), little consideration has been given to the type of circumstances in which manipulation of accounting data occurs. It is important to know whether distortion of accounting information is inevitable and can therefore be limited only by ever stricter methods

Accounting for management control

While the limitations of the contingency approach are recognized, it seems heroic to assume that a single accounting information system will work equally well in all types of companies. We have identified one contingent variable — the incidence of non-programmed decision making — as a potentially significant influence in the design of accounting information systems. Within an organizational theory perspective, the multidivisional company was chosen to exemplify the difficulties of applying conventional accounting systems because of the high incidence of non-programmed decision making. Whether or not the conventional system can be modified or requires replacement is our concern in this chapter.

Practice Developments in Budgeting: An Overview and Research Perspective

Practitioners in Europe and the U.S. recently have proposed two distinct approaches to address what they believe are shortcomings of traditional budgeting practices. One approach advocates improving the budgeting process and primarily focuses on the planning problems with budgeting. The other advocates abandoning the budget and primarily focuses on the performance evaluation problems with budgeting. This paper provides an overview and research perspective on these two recent developments. We discuss why practitioners have become dissatisfied with budgets, describe the two distinct approaches, place them in a research context, suggest insights that may aid the practitioners, and use the practitioner perspectives to identify fruitful areas for research. INTRODUCTION Budgeting is the cornerstone of the management control process in nearly all organizations, but despite its widespread use, it is far from perfect. Practitioners express concerns about using budgets for planning and performance evaluation. The practitioners argue that budgets impede the allocation of organizational resources to their best uses and encourage myopic decision making and other dysfunctional budget games. They attribute these problems, in part, to traditional budgeting’s financial, top-down, commandand-control orientation as embedded in annual budget planning and performance evaluation processes (e.g., Schmidt 1992; Bunce et al. 1995; Hope and Fraser 1997, 2000, 2003; Wallander 1999; Ekholm and Wallin 2000; Marcino 2000; Jensen 2001). We demonstrate practitioners’ concerns with budgets by describing two practice-led developments: one advocating improving the budgeting process, the other abandoning it. These developments illustrate two points. First, they show practitioners’ concerns with budgeting problems that the scholarly literature has largely ignored while focusing instead 1 For example, Comshare (2000) surveyed financial executives about their current experience with their organizations’ budgeting processes. One hundred thirty of the 154 participants (84 percent) identified 332 frustrations with their organizations’ budgeting processes, an average of 2.6 frustrations per person. We acknowledge the many helpful suggestions by the reviewers, Bjorn Jorgensen, Murray Lindsay, Ken Merchant, and Mark Young. 96 Hansen, Otley, and Van der Stede Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2003 on more traditional issues like participative budgeting. Second, the two conflicting developments illustrate that firms face a critical decision regarding budgeting: maintain it, improve it, or abandon it? Our discussion has two objectives. First, we demonstrate the level of concern with budgeting in practice, suggesting its potential for continued scholarly research. Second, we wish to raise academics’ awareness of apparent disconnects between budgeting practice and research. We identify areas where prior research may aid the practitioners and, conversely, use the practitioners’ insights to suggest areas for research. In the second section, we review some of the most common criticisms of budgets in practice. The third section describes and analyzes the main thrust of two recent practiceled developments in budgeting. In the fourth section, we place these two practice developments in a research context and suggest research that may be relevant to the practitioners. The fifth section turns the tables by using the practitioner insights to offer new perspectives for research. In the sixth section, we conclude. PROBLEMS WITH BUDGETING IN PRACTICE The ubiquitous use of budgetary control is largely due to its ability to weave together all the disparate threads of an organization into a comprehensive plan that serves many different purposes, particularly performance planning and ex post evaluation of actual performance vis-à-vis the plan. Despite performing this integrative function and laying the basis for performance evaluation, budgetary control has many limitations, such as its longestablished and oft-researched susceptibility to induce budget games or dysfunctional behaviors (Hofstede 1967; Onsi 1973; Merchant 1985b; Lukka 1988). A recent report by Neely et al. (2001), drawn primarily from the practitioner literature, lists the 12 most cited weaknesses of budgetary control as: 1. Budgets are time-consuming to put together; 2. Budgets constrain responsiveness and are often a barrier to change; 3. Budgets are rarely strategically focused and often contradictory; 4. Budgets add little value, especially given the time required to prepare them; 5. Budgets concentrate on cost reduction and not value creation; 6. Budgets strengthen vertical command-and-control; 7. Budgets do not reflect the emerging network structures that organizations are adopting; 8. Budgets encourage gaming and perverse behaviors; 9. Budgets are developed and updated too infrequently, usually annually; 10. Budgets are based on unsupported assumptions and guesswork; 11. Budgets reinforce departmental barriers rather than encourage knowledge sharing; and 12. Budgets make people feel undervalued. 2 For example, in their review of nearly 2,000 research and professional articles in management accounting in the 1996–2000 period, Selto and Widener (2001) document several areas of ‘‘fit’’ and ‘‘misfit’’ between practice and research. They document that more research than practice exists in the area of participative budgeting and state that ‘‘[this] topic appears to be of little current, practical interest, but continues to attract research efforts, perhaps because of the interesting theoretical issues it presents.’’ Selto and Widener (2001) also document virtually no research on activity-based budgeting (one of the practice-led developments we discuss in this paper) and planning and forecasting, although these areas have grown in practice coverage each year during the 1996– 2000 period. Practice Developments in Budgeting 97 Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2003 While not all would agree with these criticisms, other recent critiques (e.g., Schmidt 1992; Hope and Fraser 1997, 2000, 2003; Ekholm and Wallin 2000; Marcino 2000; Jensen 2001) also support the perception of widespread dissatisfaction with budgeting in practice. We synthesize the sources of dissatisfaction as follows. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 10 relate to the recurring criticism that by the time budgets are used, their assumptions are typically outdated, reducing the value of the budgeting process. A more radical version of this criticism is that conventional budgets can never be valid because they cannot capture the uncertainty involved in rapidly changing environments (Wallender 1999). In more conceptual terms, the operation of a useful budgetary control system requires two related elements. First, there must be a high degree of operational stability so that the budget provides a valid plan for a reasonable period of time (typically the next year). Second, managers must have good predictive models so that the budget provides a reasonable performance standard against which to hold managers accountable (Berry and Otley 1980). Where these criteria hold, budgetary control is a useful control mechanism, but for organizations that operate in more turbulent environments, it becomes less useful (Samuelson 2000). Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 relate to another common criticism that budgetary controls impose a vertical command-and-control structure, centralize decision making, stifle initiative, and focus on cost reductions rather than value creation. As such, budgetary controls often impede the pursuit of strategic goals by supporting such mechanical practices as lastyear-plus budget setting and across-the-board cuts. Moreover, the budget’s exclusive focus on annual financial performance causes a mismatch with operational and strategic decisions that emphasize nonfinancial goals and cut across the annual planning cycle, leading to budget games involving skillful timing of revenues, expenditures, and investments (Merchant 1985a). Finally, claims 7, 11, and 12 reflect organizational and people-related budgeting issues. The critics argue that vertical, command-and-control, responsibility center-focused budgetary controls are incompatible with flat, network, or value chain-based organizational designs and impede empowered employees from making the best decisions (Hope and Fraser 2003). Given such a long list of problems and many calls for improvement, it seems odd that the vast majority of U.S. firms retain a formal budgeting process (97 percent of the respondents in Umapathy [1987]). One reason that budgets may be retained in most firms is because they are so deeply ingrained in an organization’s fabric (Scapens and Roberts 1993). ‘‘They remain a centrally coordinated activity (often the only one) within the business’’ (Neely et al. 2001, 9) and constitute ‘‘the only process that covers all areas of organizational activity’’ (Otley 1999). However, a more recent survey of Finnish firms found that although 25 percent are retaining their traditional budgeting system, 61 percent are actively upgrading their system, and 14 percent are either abandoning budgets or at least considering it (Ekholm and Wallin 2000). We discuss two practice-led developments that illustrate proposals to improve budgeting or to abandon it. Although the two developments reach different conclusions, both originated in the same organization, the Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing-International (CAM-I); one in 3 We note that there are several factors that inevitably contribute to the seemingly negative evaluation of budgetary controls. First, given information asymmetries, budgets operate under second-best conditions in most organizations. Second, information is costly. Finally, unlike the costs, the benefits of budgeting are indirect, and thus, less salient. 98 Hansen, Otley, and Van der Stede Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2003 the U.S. and the other in Europe. The U

Control, organisation and accounting

Abstract Organisation control is a subject of fundamental importance to the designer of accounting control systems. Yet discussions of accounting control tend to take place against a back-cloth of incomplete and outmoded theories of organisation and simplistic and authoritarian concepts of control. In this paper, the applicability of a cybernetic model of control to the control of human organisations is explored, with particular reference to the role of accounting information systems. The analysis uncovers a number of issues that require resolution before the model can be applied to accounting information system design. Some directions for research on accounting controls are discussed.

A review of the literature on control and accountability

Abstract This chapter provides a review of the broad field of the literature on control and accountability, which is generally seen as being encompassed within the domain of management control systems (MCS) research. It describes researchers’ definitions of the MCS domain, the frameworks and conceptualizations they have used to provide structure to the field, and the research methods that have been used to advance knowledge. It then describes some of the findings in key issue areas. The main focus of the review is on “financial accountability” types of controls, those that involve holding individuals (or sometimes groups of individuals) accountable for generating results measured in accounting terms. By its nature, the subject matter overlaps with other chapters in the book. The main distinguishing feature of the literature reviewed here is that it takes a holistic view of the overall process of accountability and control in organizations, rather than focusing on any single aspect or control technique.

Budgetary criteria in performance evaluation: a critical appraisal using new evidence

Abstract Previous studies on the use of budgetary criteria in performance evaluation have used a wide range of variables, measures and models, but have concentrated upon extending rather than repeating previous work. This study includes replications of parts of five previous studies and obtains results that differ in many respects from previous findings. Because of the use of similar measures and models, it can be concluded that the different results stem primarily from the different sample of managers studied. More generally, it is suggested that control practices differ across organizations, cultures and time; universal findings should not be expected. Rather, a more coherent programme of work is required to explicate the varied ways in which budgetary techniques can be used in performance evaluation and management. ©

Control, organization and accounting

Organization control is a subject of fundamental importance to the designer of accounting control systems. Yet discussions of accounting control tend to take place against a back-cloth of incomplete and outmoded theories of organization and simplistic and authoritarian concepts of control. In this paper, the applicability of a cybernetic model of control to the control of human organizations is explored, with particular reference to the role of accounting information systems. The analysis uncovers a number of issues that require resolution before the model can be applied to accounting information system design. Some directions for research on accounting controls are discussed.

Reliance on accounting performance measures: dead end or new beginning?

Abstract A considerable body of literature has developed following Hopwood ( Hopwood (1972) . An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research Supplement 156–182) studying the consequences of evaluative style on managerial behaviour and performance. However, this literature also displays some confusion and ambiguity concerning both the conceptualization and measurement of evaluative style. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the different instruments that have been used to assess reliance on accounting performance measures and to set out proposals for future development. ©

Chapter 14 – Case-Based Research in Accounting

Publisher Summary The chapter discusses case-based research in accounting and its benefits. It describes the richness of this kind of research that addresses the task of understanding and theorizing the content, processes, and context of the accounting practice. It presents a personal reflection of the authors on their case research and enumerates the problems faced. It outlines some ideas on how to think about, construct, design, and interpret case-based research in accounting. This kind of research has moved on from positivist methods to include constructivist and subjectivist approaches. The chapter briefly reviews these issues and discusses certain methods that are used in accounting research, followed by a review of some issues and compromises involved in a research design, and in conducting a case-based fieldwork. It also explores a few skills required to undertake case-based research and some considerations of the ethical issues that can arise. Finally, the chapter considers the contributions and limitations of case-based research in accounting.