Using Prototypes to Induce Experimentation and Knowledge Integration in the Development of Enabling Accounting Information

Wouters, Marc; Roijmans, Diana

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1601211

Cited by 45 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This resonates with research in accounting that shows how the introduction of new accounting practices can result in criticisms that they have not been implemented correctly and revised procedures are required to improve the design and implementation process (e.g., Cavalluzzo & Ittner, 2004;Wouters & Roijmans, 2011). A criticism of existing practices is also evident, for example, in the context of performance measurement systems that are seen to require more non-financial measures (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) and financial reports are viewed as needing more narrative information (Chahed, 2010).…”

Section: Responses To Breakdowns In Compromisementioning

confidence: 78%

Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts

Chenhall

Hall

Smith

2013

Accounting, Organizations and Society

195

240

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we develop the concept of compromising accounts as a distinctive approach to the analysis of whether and how accounting can facilitate compromise amongst organizational actors. We take the existence of conflicting logics and values as the starting point for our analysis, and directly examine the ways in which the design and operation of accounts can be implicated in compromises between different modes of evaluation and when and how such compromises can be productive or unproductive. In doing so, we draw on Stark's (2009: 27) concept of 'organizing dissonance', where the coming together of multiple evaluative principles has the potential to produce a 'productive friction' that can help the organization to recombine ideas and perspectives in creative and constructive ways. In a field study of a non-government organization, we examine how debates and struggles over the design and operation of a performance measurement system affected the potential for productive debate and compromise between different modes of evaluation. Our study shows that there is much scope for future research to examine how accounts can create sites that bring together (or indeed push apart) organizational actors with different evaluative principles, and the ways in which this 'coming together' can be potentially productive and/or destructive.2

show abstract

Section: Responses To Breakdowns In Compromisementioning

confidence: 78%

Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts

Chenhall

Hall

Smith

2013

Accounting, Organizations and Society

195

240

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the accounting field the adoption of IVR is still limited and most of the accounting examples of IVR fall in the domain of management accounting (Lyly-Yrjänäinen & Suomala, 2012;Wouters & Roijmans, 2011;Wouters & Wilderom, 2008). Management accounting appears to be the most fruitful area in which IVR can bring together academic scholars and practitioners to solve complex organisational problems.…”

Section: Ivr In Public Sector Accountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The practical relevance of public sector research: the potential contributions of the interventionist approach

Bracci

2017

Rev. contab. organ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E. Bracci / Rev. Cont Org 30 (2017) [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] 4The practical relevance of accounting research is one of the main issue currently present in the debate. Scholars engagement and impact of accounting research are all the more required nowadays. Interventionist research (IVR) is considered a potential methodology that allows researchers to contribute to the advancement of both practice and theory. The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the characteristics of IVR, providing guidance on how it can provide a fruitful methodology to bridge academics and practitioners in the context of public sector research. INTRODUCTIONThere is a growing call made in the literature to increase the practical relevance of accounting research (i.e. Jönsson, 1996;Malmi & Granlund, 2009;Tucker & Parker, 2014;Van Helden & Northcott, 2010) for both managers and policy makers (Coleman, 2007;Swieringa, 1998). The academic/practitioner gap represents an unsolved issue still debated in many facets (Baldvinsdottir, Mitchell & Nørreklit, 2010;Nørreklit, Nørreklit & Mitchell, 2016;Tucker & Lowe, 2014), showing the risk of developing a loop where academic research outputs produced only for academic researchers. In the context of public sector, in particular, we are observing many cases of difficulties and/or failures in bringing about accounting innovations (Arnaboldi & Palermo, 2010) and producing practical relevant accounting research (Tucker & Lowe, 2014), calling for developing research capable of delivering the advancement of both theory and practice. Professional bodies, as well as governments, are pushing universities towards the production of impact-related activities liaising more with the industry and/or the public sector institutions. This is particularly true in the UK and in Italy where universities are required to account for the impact the research activities have generated with an impact on the amount of governmental financing.Method-wise, field research is considered a way through which answering the questions of practitioners and researchers alike (Hopwood, 2002;Lukka & Mouritsen, 2002), trying to bridge academia and practice. Malmi and Granlund (2009) suggest three ways in which to produce practically relevant accounting theories, such as altering some current practices when conducting traditional research, using normative theories as a starting point, and adopting an interventionist research (IVR henceforth) methodology. On a similar manner, Van Helden and Northcott (2010: p. 231) suggest applying interventionist research approaches, engaging scholarship in order to both create new practice and find practical relevant theory or model. IVR can activate a learning process through the continuous collaboration and interaction between the concrete experiences and theoretical observation and development (Dumay & Baard, 2017;Jönsson, 1996).

show abstract

“…The most prominent characteristics of this role are able to experiment, risk-taking, and learning from failures. A person's ability to experiment is crucial for team's performance and new product development, as prototypes (from experimentation) enable more powerful explanation via solution visualization and successful idea evolving (West & Iansiti, 2003;Wouters & Roijmans, 2010). Second, risk-taking involves taking bold actions, and is also an important factor that positively affects creativity in terms of idea boldness ( Baucus, Norton, Baucus, & Human, 2008), firm performance (Antoncic, 2003), and team innovation performance (particularly radical innovation due to higher level of complexity and uncertainty) (Cabrales, Medina, Lavado, & Cabrera, 2008;Rhee, Park, & Lee, 2010).…”

Section: The Experimentermentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Team Structure on Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study

2013

CBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teamwork is gaining increasing attention in a broader management research. In addition to previous research on the relationship between team structure and innovation performance, this study draws from an interesting experience-based theory advanced by Kelley and Littman (2005), which examines teams from design thinking perspective, and tests its contributions and effects on team's innovation performance. According to Kelley and Littman any team should include the following team roles: The anthropologist, the experimenter, the cross-pollinator, the hurdler, the collaborator, the director, the experience architect, the set designer, the storyteller, and the caregiver. We develop theoretical logics to explain how team structure that includes these key team roles and competences lead to a better innovation performance, and propose pertinent hypotheses.Experimental-empirical research and quantitative analysis were used in the study. The study conducted multiple experiments on three samples: a group of foreign entrepreneurship students, a group of technical students, and an additional group of randomly selected individuals, aged between 20 and 58, with diverse backgrounds. A special approach was implemented and a new instrument was developed to evaluate individuals in teams. While the results show that team that possess the major competences proposed by Kelley and Littman are more innovative, preliminary results also show that not all team roles are equally important. Moreover, team roles should be allocated equally among members for better collaboration, member satisfaction, and quick response, and within one team, one prevailing personality is optimal in terms of innovativeness. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and managerial practice.

show abstract

Using Prototypes to Induce Experimentation and Knowledge Integration in the Development of Enabling Accounting Information

Cited by 45 publications

References 81 publications

Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts

Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts

The practical relevance of public sector research: the potential contributions of the interventionist approach

Effects of Team Structure on Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About