Performance effects of multiple control forms in a Lean organization: A quantitative case study in a systems fit approach

The primary objective of this paper is to research and test how control forms function and perform in a Lean organization. In the present quantitative case study, we provide statistical support that Lean is a set of multiple control forms (output, behavioral, and social controls) that complement each other to enhance performance, i.e., it is a control package. Therefore, performance is increased if the average level of control forms is increased, and performance is further increased if the control forms are balanced at the same level representing a complementary effect between them. Moreover, we provide a refinement to the statistical approach in testing systems fit models like ours by supplementing the Euclidian distance with the city-block distance. In this way, we are able to show that the control forms in Lean have a balanced complementary effect on performance, which is distinct from a solely additive effect or no effect. The refined understanding of complementary effect between control forms, the notion of balance, in a Lean organization can be utilized in understanding and testing more general control package theory in other contexts. Our data are archival data spanning multiple years in a dedicated Lean organization. This Scandinavian organization has around 2,000 employees and produces small electronic components that are sold to business customers.

[1]  Jan Greve,et al.  The appropriateness of statistical methods for testing contingency hypotheses in management accounting research , 2008 .

[2]  Frank H. Selto,et al.  Explaining cross-sectional workgroup performance differences in a JIT facility: A critical , 1993 .

[3]  B. McKelvey.  Organizations: A Quantum View.Danny Miller , Peter H. Friesen , 1986 .

[4]  James P. Womack,et al.  Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation , 1996 .

[5]  M. Abernethy,et al.  The role of professional control in the management of complex organizations , 1995 .

[6]  S. Mark Young,et al.  Assessing the organizational fit of a just-in-time manufacturing system: Testing selection, interaction and systems models of contingency theory☆ , 1995 .

[7]  Leslie Kren,et al.  The Effect of Behaviour Monitoring and Uncertainty on the Use of Performance-Contingent Compensation , 1993 .

[8]  Peter T. Ward,et al.  Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance , 2003 .

[9]  Bill Carreira.  Lean Manufacturing That Works: Powerful Tools for Dramatically Reducing Waste and Maximizing Profits , 2004 .

[10]  Thomas Ahrens,et al.  Accounting for Flexibility and Efficiency: A Field Study of Management Control Systems in a Restaurant Chain , 2004 .

[11]  K. Hoskin.  Control, organization, and accounting: A genealogy of modern knowledge-power , 1992 .

[12]  Chi Guo-hua.  Management Control Systems Design within Its Organizational Context:A Theoretical Framework , 2004 .

[13]  Michael R. Kinney,et al.  Further Evidence on the Extent and Origins of JIT's Profitability Effects , 2002 .

[14]  P. Adler,et al.  Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive , 1996 .

[15]  R. Banker,et al.  The Role of Manufacturing Practices in Mediating the Impact of Activity-Based Costing on Plant Performance , 2007 .

[16]  Iwao Kobayashi.  20 Keys to Workplace Improvement , 1995 .

[17]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches , 1985 .

[18]  Christopher S. Chapman,et al.  Reflections on a contingent view of accounting , 1997 .

[19]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Toyota Production System , 1993 .

[20]  Lili-Anne Kihn,et al.  Comparing Performance Measurement Approaches in Accounting Research , 2008 .

[21]  Jonas Gerdin,et al.  Management accounting system design in manufacturing departments: an empirical investigation using a multiple contingencies approach , 2005 .

[22]  Johnny Lind.  Control in world class manufacturing—A longitudinal case study , 2001 .

[23]  K. Merchant.  Influences on departmental budgeting: an empirical examination of a contingency model , 1984 .

[24]  Johnathan Roberts,et al.  The Modern Firm: Organizational Design for Performance and Growth , 2004 .

[25]  R. Murray Lindsay,et al.  The use of organic models of control in JIT firms: Generalising Woodward's findings to modern , 1999 .

[26]  V. G. Ouchi,et al.  A conceptual framework for the design and organizational control mechanisms , 1979 .

[27]  D. Brown,et al.  Management control systems as a package—Opportunities, challenges and research directions , 2008 .

[28]  Rosemary R. Fullerton,et al.  The role of performance measures and incentive systems in relation to the degree of JIT implementation , 2002 .

[29]  J. Liker.  The Toyota Way , 2003 .

[30]  J. Bicheno.  The New Lean Toolbox: Towards Fast, Flexible Flow , 2008 .

[31]  Brian H. Maskell,et al.  Why do we need lean accounting and how does it work , 2007 .

[32]  W. Ouchi,et al.  Organizational Control: Two Functions. , 1975 .

[33]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing , 1995 .

[34]  Mikko Sandelin,et al.  Operation of management control practices as a package: A case study on control system variety in a growth firm context , 2008 .

[35]  Frances A. Kennedy,et al.  A control framework: Insights from evidence on lean accounting , 2008 .

[36]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  Mapping Management Accounting: Graphics and Guidelines for Theory-Consistent Empirical Research , 2003 .

[37]  L. Kihn,et al.  Financial Consequences in Foreign Subsidiary Manager Performance Evaluations , 2007 .

[38]  David J. Ketchen,et al.  QUALITY, OPERATIONAL LOGISTICS STRATEGY, AND REPURCHASE INTENTIONS: A PROFILE DEVIATION ANALYSIS , 2007 .

[39]  V. Govindarajan.  A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business-Unit Level: Integrating Administrative Mechanisms with Strategy , 1988 .

[40]  M. Abernethy,et al.  Management control systems in research and development organizations: The role of accounting, behavior and personnel controls , 1997 .

[41]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Cost & Effect: Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive Profitability and Performance , 1997 .

[42]  Brian H. Maskell,et al.  Practical Lean Accounting: A Proven System for Measuring and Managing the Lean Enterprise , 2003 .

[43]  M. Hitt,et al.  Contingency Hypotheses in Strategic Management Research , 2012 .

[44]  Dhananjay Nanda,et al.  The impact of just-in-time manufacturing on firm performance in the US , 1995 .

[45]  Rosemary R. Fullerton,et al.  The production performance benefits from JIT implementation , 2001 .

[46]  Jan Greve,et al.  Forms of contingency fit in management accounting research—a critical review , 2004 .

[47]  K. Langfield-Smith,et al.  The relationship between strategic priorities, management techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using a systems approach , 1998 .

[48]  L. Kihn.  An empirical investigation of the principal top management styles in the emphasis of multiple forms of controls , 2010 .

[49]  Trevor Hopper,et al.  Management accounting within world class manufacturing: a case study , 1999 .

[50]  R. Chenhall.  Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future , 2003 .

[51]  Anthony J. Berry,et al.  Control, organisation and accounting , 1980 .

[52]  Bengt Klefsjö,et al.  The machine that changed the world , 2008 .

[53]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[54]  Hugh Willmott,et al.  Accounting for Teamwork: A Critical Study of Group-Based Systems of Organizational Control. , 1998 .