An Extension of the REA Framework to Support Balanced Scorecard Information Requirements

Abstract

In this paper, we propose extensions to the resource-event-agent (REA) framework to encompass the information requirements of the balanced scorecard and other management systems that incorporate nonfinancial measures. The REA conceptual accounting framework was designed to describe the information architecture related to an organization's economic activity (e.g., McCarthy 1982;Dunn et al. 2005). Geerts and McCarthy (2001b, 2002) extended the original REA to include value-chain level configurations, task-level configurations, and encompass a broader array of business economic phenomena. Yet, the REA framework remains closely tied to its accounting roots, with a focus on economic events and financial resources. A substantial number of organizations are adopting strategic management systems that include both financial and nonfinancial measures to overcome known limitations of systems based on traditional financial data alone (e.g., Said et al. 2003;Eccles et al. 2001;Ittner et al. 2003). We therefore examine whether the REA framework supports the information requirements of this broader domain and propose extensions to fill the gaps identified.

Knowledge Management and Balanced Scorecard Outcomes: Exploring the Importance of Interpretation, Learning and Internationality

“…One reason that Hypotheses 5b and 5c were not supported may be based on the complex relationship which exists among balanced scorecard outcomes. In fact, an alternative approach proposes testing the balanced scorecard in the following order: (1) innovation and learning; (2) internal processes; (3) customer emphasis; and (4) financial performance (Church and Smith, 2007;Kaplan and Norton, 2000;Mo¨ller and Schaltegger, 2005). The results of testing these relationships within the context of our study are provided in Table 4.…”

Equational zero vector databases, non-equational databases, and inherent internal control

“…[Romney and Steinbart, (2009), pp.123-124]. Contrary to this position, this paper is a defence of double-entry accounting in modern AIS. While some describe double-entry accounting as artifactual, expendable, unappealing and myopic [e.g., Batra and Sin, (2008), p.200;Church and Smith, (2007), p.2], we provide mathematical proof to refute this position. We argue that the mechanics of ledgers and journals are not artefacts, but are instead an integral part of the inherent internal control structure embedded in an accounting system.…”

A conceptual model for segregation of duties: Integrating theory and practice for manual and IT-supported processes

“…Empirical research could compare the segregations proposed here to those recommended in the evaluation tools sold by commercial software vendors. This could be complemented by a design science model to extend the REA framework (e.g., Church and Smith, 2007) to address SoD in the design of business processes. One approach would be to classify REA's Events as custody, recording, primary authorization or secondary authorization tasks, then specify restrictions on Event-Agent relationships so that a single Agent is unable to perform segregated duties for a specific transaction.…”