Search results

This paper seeks to endorse the management control system taxonomy by Robert Simons to explore whether, how and why different approaches to management control are more intensely employed: in different phases of the radical innovation process; and in innovation projects showing different degrees of radicalness. Moreover, it aims to discuss the influence exerted by some contextual variables.

Case studies concerning four innovation projects (two radical in nature and two incremental) implemented by two companies operating in the home automation industry in Italy were conducted.

It is found that radical innovation projects, especially in the early stages of development, are characterized by a stronger reliance on flexible and social control management systems, while diagnostic control mainly emerges in late development and commercialization. Moreover, the moderating effect of the hypothesized contingent variables is widely discussed.

The work shows that Simons' taxonomy of the management control systems is a useful framework for exploring management control in radical projects at a strategic level, but also that it should be refined, as evidence shows a systematic hybridization of the systems adopted. An important implication is the great reliance on interactive systems, especially in the early stages. In this perspective, a deeper analysis on the nature and the proper management of interactivity could represent an interesting development of this study.

The recurrent features in the two cases provide practitioners with a useful benchmark about management control of radical innovation projects in two successful companies. Case histories suggest the great importance of information sharing among the functions, and the need to properly develop interface structures between the involved functions to favor it in radical innovation processes.

The paper is one of the first works on management control in radical innovation projects, and it contributes to the literature debate in two main ways: it tests Simons' taxonomy of management control systems for innovation projects, and it highlights the areas of improvement for analyzing “radicalness” in innovation processes.

This paper aims to explore management control in the strategic development of business model and managerial innovations. The issue is approached from the perspective of managerial work, aiming to outline what managers consider as essential elements of management control in these often iterative and learning-intensive developmental activities.

The study is based on the views of 20 managers engaged in strategic development and its control in various organisations. The interview data consist of the respondents’ experiences and project cases involving non-technological innovations. Qualitative content analysis is used to identify three key concepts of management control of business model and managerial innovations.

The findings suggest that with managerial and business model innovation, appropriate management control could be established by aligning the innovation being developed with the strategic story of the organisation, leveraging co-creational projects and experimentation with close customer contact.

The focus of this qualitative research is on building an initial framework. Future research could expand understanding of managerial work and accounting by examining this study’s outcomes in more practical detail in various contexts.

The findings of this study lead managers and researchers to consider management control of non-technological innovations as an enabling system supporting successful innovations.

This study adds a unique perspective to the literature by conceptualising and offering managerial implications for management control in the context of strategic development of non-technological innovations.

The number of theoretical and empirical research on management control of innovation activities has significantly increased. Existing studies in this field are characterized by a wide dispersion and a multitude of different definitions. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of the literature on management control of innovation activities and to synthesize the current body of knowledge.

Following a systematic review approach, this article reviews 79 articles on management control for innovation activities from 1959 to 2019 and inductively derives a multi-dimensional framework.

The review of existing studies advances the debate about the detrimental versus beneficial character of management control systems for innovation, showing that the repressing character of control is not inherent to control itself, but emanates from the design of the respective management control system.

The multi-dimensional framework connects and combines existing research and thus synthesizes the current state of knowledge in this field. Additionally, the framework can guide practitioners to systematically assess context factors and consequences of their management control systems design, and it shows avenues for future research.

The scientific and practical value of this paper is the convergence of the current body of knowledge consisting of various definitions and conceptualizations and the identification of avenues for future research.

On the one hand, there is a long tradition of approaching management control and innovation as opposites that prompt organisational tensions. On the other hand, recent studies have shown that management control may foster innovation and promote innovative behaviour. At the same time, both these perspectives focus on innovation management, and discussions regarding the role of management control in innovation leadership are conspicuously absent from the literature. In this chapter, we analyse how innovation leaders use management control in two service companies. We demonstrate that, in contrast to innovation managers who employ management control systems primarily for planning, monitoring, and evaluation purposes, innovation leaders use management control for advocacy, engagement, and visibility.

This study aims to reinforce the important role of management control systems (MCSs) in managing change through adopting a unique approach to the conceptualisation of Simons’ (1995) levers of control, specifically focussing on the enabling (beliefs and interactive) and constraining (boundary and diagnostic) levers of control and empirically examining their association with management innovation and organisational performance.

A mail survey questionnaire was used to collect data, with the Dillman (2007) tailored design method used in regards to the development of questions, and the personalisation and distribution procedures. A total of 645 questionnaires were distributed to either the Financial Controller or Chief Financial Officer of manufacturing business units identified in the OneSource database.

The findings reveal that the use of enabling controls was directly associated with organisational performance and with three management innovation dimensions (new structures, processes and practices) with new structures positively associated with organisational performance. It was also found that the use of constraining controls was indirectly, through the extent of adoption of new management techniques, associated with organisational performance.

The findings have important implications for managers in respect to how they use controls to enhance innovation and organisational performance.

The findings highlight the importance of the use of MCS, specifically both enabling and constraining controls, in facilitating change (management innovation) and performance. Hence, the findings provide empirical evidence in support of Simons’ (1995, 2000) theoretical assertion that the levers coexist to provide benefits to organisations.

The paper aims to analyze the influence of the enabling design of management control systems (MCS) on the intensity of use of management controls (budgeting and reengineering and improvement) in innovation (of processes and marketing).

A survey was conducted with mid-level managers of the companies that are considered the most innovative in Brazil. Structural equation modeling was applied to analyze the data.

The enabling MCS design positively and directly influences the intensity of use of management controls (budgeting and reengineering and improvements) and innovation (of processes and marketing). Indirect effects are also observed in the relationship between the enabling MCS design and innovation, through the intensity of use of reengineering and improvements. Environmental uncertainties reflect negatively on the intensity of use of management controls and innovation. These results broaden the discussions on the factors that can affect innovation actions and highlight the importance of considering them in the MCS design.

The value of the study lies in contributing to minimize inconsistencies in research results concerning the effects of MCS on innovation and of factors that may act as intervening factors in such a relationship. It discusses the influence of internal organizational factors, related to MCS design, and of external factors, environmental uncertainties, on the intensity of use of specific management controls and on the promotion of innovations in companies imbued with this mission.

The purpose of this paper is to consider how organizations with diverse, interdependent functions with differing evaluative principles and differing ideas as to which behaviors are the most desirable, use management controls in their efforts to achieve innovation.

The authors conducted a case study of TechCo, an Australian technology start-up company, over a 12 month period.

The authors demonstrate how the clash of differing evaluative principles among interdependent teams led to the organization seeking new ways of organizing, which in turn, enabled the organization to better manage the interdependencies between the diverse functional areas. Additionally, the findings show how, through the use of management control systems, the organization was able to promote idea generation and “buy-in” across all functional areas, order competing priorities for innovation and set the agenda as to what constituted “acceptable” innovation for the organization to pursue.

The authors find that management controls play an important role in managing the tensions between differing evaluative principles in diverse functional areas in a heterarchical organization, and in supporting innovation in such an environment. As such, the authors provide the first research evidence on how management controls are used within a heterarchy to generate and select innovative ideas.

The purpose of this study is to present the evolution of thinking on the role of management control systems (MCSs) in innovation, according to the development of control practices, and to provide a reflection on the achievements of the more recent literature.

This paper assesses articles, books and book chapters that have explored MCSs in innovation, together with seminal works on management accounting and control.

Moving from the traditional phase where MCSs were seen as detrimental to innovation, the literature has now reached a new consensus that attributes a positive role to control. In this recent phase, it arises from the literature that MCSs in the realm of innovation should embrace a multiplicity of controls; MCSs depend on the magnitude and innovation mode of a company; MCSs evolve over time; and that synergies and tensions are expected to arise. Adding these factors to the inherent complexity of innovation, the assertion is that qualitative approaches should be undertaken to infuse the field with more fine-grained evidence. It is also proposed that this methodological approach be used to address the following points: (1) the use of multiple controls; (2) synergies and tensions; and (3) behavioural aspects of controls in relation with innovation.

The paper is of value for researchers who have an interest in studying the use of MCSs in innovation and in qualitative research and proposes some areas of research that could be explored.

The aim of this chapter is to highlight the role of organizational reflectiveness as a possible enabler for innovation. In order to support the process of innovation, we need to understand organizational learning on a more detailed level, including reflection as an elemental sub-process in experiential, transformational, and action learning.

We present a tool and preliminary empirical findings for measuring an organization’s level of reflectiveness. We also provide some preliminary empirical results regarding whether reflectivity results in the generation of new innovations relating to work practices and processes.

The chapter fills two research gaps, and in doing so contributes to measuring and controlling organizational learning and innovation activities. First, we complement the existing conceptualization of reflective practice by utilizing the management control system (MCS) (Malmi & Brown, 2008) in the analysis of reflectiveness on the organization level. Finally, in the conclusion, we present reflective practice as a potential concept and practical tool for enhancing the interactive use of MCS. The interactive use of MCS has been recognized for its potential in boosting learning, creativity, and innovations in certain contexts (Davila, Foster, & Oyon, 2009), but so far the definitions for interactive use remain descriptive and varied among management accounting theorists.

The approach in this study is predominantly conceptual, with empirical and exploratory findings derived from measuring the level of reflectiveness in three organizations. The study enhances the understanding of management control based on the theoretical notion of multilevel reflection on a practice-based level. Empirically, reflective practices are often studied as a learning phenomenon on the individual and collective levels. However, such an approach generally does not incorporate managerial pragmatism regarding the causes of institutionalized learning or the means of managerial control for enabling reflection and, in consequence, innovations.

The mechanistic-organic assumptions of SF address those organizational factors related to structural arrangements, contextual factors, job-task work activities, and human resources management policies. Organizations adopt structures and procedures in search of legitimacy and institutionalization (Riebero & Scapens, 2006, p. 96). Structures manifest themselves in centralized (mechanistic) and/or decentralized (organic) forms. These structures can be loose or tightly controlled; they can involve independent or interdependent tasks. These conditions have a direct impact on the operation of management information and control systems that will, in turn, impact organizational learning and process innovations, which, ultimately, affects organizational performance.