No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the body of knowledge about to what extent integrated information systems, such as ERP and SEM systems, affect the ability to solve different management accounting tasks. Design/methodology/approach -The relationship between IIS and management accounting practices was investigated quantitatively. A total of 349 responses were collected using a survey, and the data were analysed using linear regression models. Findings -Analyses indicate that ERP systems support the data collection and the organisational breadth of management accounting better than SEM systems. SEM systems, on the other hand, seem to be better at supporting reporting and analysis. In addition, modern management accounting techniques involving the use of non-financial data are better supported by an SEM system. This indicates that different management accounting tasks are supported by different parts of the IIS.Research limitations/implications -The study applies the methods of quantitative research. Thus, the internal validity is threatened. Conducting in-depth studies might be able to reduce this possible shortcoming. Practical implications -On the basis of the findings, there is a need to consider the potential of closer integration of ERP and SEM systems in order to solve management accounting tasks. Originality/value -This paper adds to the limited body of knowledge about the relationship between IIS and management accounting practices.

PurposeThis paper investigates the use of management controls when environmental uncertainty and hostility increase abruptly. Specifically, it explores this in the context of the 2008 financial crisis in six banks located in two countries.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on 26 qualitative interviews with selected managers employed by the six banks. Eight interview guides were developed based on the typology of controls in Malmi and Brown (2008). Respondents explained which changes in management controls occurred after the crisis.FindingsBoth organic and mechanistic management controls were mobilized at the same time to deal with the change. The use of controls played three main roles: (1) guide and control behavior, (2) change internal and external perceptions and (3) discharge accountability. Finally, control use during a crisis evolves as individual managers design and implement controls. There is no “grand design” rationally guiding the design of the overall system of controls.Originality/valueThe use of management controls in dealing with an increase in uncertainty and hostility cannot be labeled either organic or mechanistic, but will depend on the specific type of change in environmental characteristics. Management controls evolve by interaction with outside actors, as well as internal techniques.

No abstract

No abstract