Beyond the system vs. package dualism in Performance Management Systems design: A loose coupling approach

Abstract A Performance Management System (PMS) can be conceived as either a package or a system, with the latter generally being seen as preferable to the former. This paper tries to go beyond this dualism by adopting an approach which understands the integration of the mechanisms within an overall PMS as being a continuum that ranges from a complete lack of integration to a totally integrated system. Loose coupling theory is used to investigate the type of relationships occurring in a PMS, with no and tight coupling being the extreme ends of a spectrum, with loose coupling representing a range of intermediate solutions providing both a desired level of coordination and also a degree of flexibility for local control needs. To ascertain whether one type of PMS coupling delivers superior performance, in terms of both organizational effectiveness and process innovation, this paper conceptually develops a PMS coupling index and validates this using a sample of 140 managers operating in a variety of sectors. The empirical findings show that the coupling approach demonstrates the effect of different PMS coupling states on both outcomes. Despite differing results from prior studies, intermediate levels of coupling appear to give the best outcomes for both effectiveness and innovation. Although further empirical work is necessary, this study contributes to enriching both the PMS design and the innovation management literature. Practitioners can also benefit from this research by using it to help design or redesign the relationships in a PMS in order to effectively match local and overall control needs.

[1]  Victoria L. Mitchell,et al.  The Effects of Coupling it and Work Process Strategies in Redesign Projects , 1999 .

[2]  Teemu Malmi,et al.  Management control effectiveness and strategy: An empirical analysis of packages and systems , 2016 .

[3]  Tony Davila.  An exploratory study on the emergence of management control systems: formalizing human resources in small growing firms , 2005 .

[4]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[5]  Isabella Grabner,et al.  Management Control as a System or a Package? Conceptual and Empirical Issues , 2013 .

[6]  R. Anthony,et al.  Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis , 1965 .

[7]  V. Govindarajan,et al.  Strategy, Control Systems, and Resource Sharing: Effects on Business-Unit Performance , 1990 .

[8]  T. Pfeiffer,et al.  A Descriptive Analysis on the Implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-Speaking Countries , 2003 .

[9]  Teemu Malmi,et al.  Configurations of control: An exploratory analysis , 2015 .

[10]  O. J. Dunn.  Multiple Comparisons among Means , 1961 .

[11]  Sally K. Widener,et al.  The role of performance measurement and evaluation in building organizational capabilities and performance , 2010 .

[12]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[13]  A. Hopwood.  Accounting and the environment , 2009 .

[14]  Jodie Moll.  Editorial: Special issue on innovation and product development , 2015 .

[15]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  Budgeting as a means for control and loose coupling , 1983 .

[17]  Theresa Libby,et al.  Beyond budgeting or budgeting reconsidered? A survey of North-American budgeting practice , 2010 .

[18]  C. Ittner,et al.  The influence of funding source and legislative requirements on government cost accounting practices , 1996 .

[19]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

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

[21]  K. Weick.  Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[22]  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 .

[23]  Sally K. Widener,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Levers of Control Framework , 2005 .

[24]  D. Marginson,et al.  "Continuous" budgeting: Reconciling budget flexibility with budgetary control , 2010 .

[25]  David Otley,et al.  Performance Management: A Framework for Management Control Systems Research , 1999 .

[26]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  How to kill creativity. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[27]  S. Widener,et al.  Creativity and Control: A Paradox. Evidence from the Levers of Control Framework , 2017 .

[28]  R. Banker,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Performance Measures Linked to Strategy , 2004 .

[29]  David J. Teece,et al.  Business models and dynamic capabilities , 2017 .

[30]  Sven Modell,et al.  Goals versus institutions: the development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector , 2003 .

[31]  Isabella Grabner,et al.  Incentive System Design in Creativity-Dependent Firms , 2014 .

[32]  Jean-François Henri,et al.  Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective , 2006 .

[33]  K. Weick.  Making Sense of the Organization , 2000 .

[34]  Christopher S. Chapman,et al.  Loosely coupled performance measurement systems , 2007 .

[35]  Stephan Kramer,et al.  How Control System Design Affects Performance Evaluation Compression: The Role of Information Accuracy and Outcome Transparency , 2016 .

[36]  Steven E. Salterio,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures , 2000 .

[37]  Kenneth A. Merchant,et al.  The effects of financial controls on data manipulation and management Myopia , 1990 .

[38]  Joshua D. Newton,et al.  Resolving contradictions in institutional demands through loose coupling , 2014 .

[39]  D. Marginson,et al.  Encouraging strategic behaviour while maintaining management control: multi-functional project teams, budgets, and the negotiation of shared accountabilities in contemporary enterprises , 2005 .

[40]  Kim Langfield-Smith,et al.  Structural equation modeling in management accounting research: critical analysis and opportunities , 2004 .

[41]  Josep Bisbe,et al.  Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification , 2007 .

[42]  Joel Demski.  Uncertainty and Evaluation Based on Controllable Performance , 1976 .

[43]  Sven Modell.  Performance Measurement Myths in the Public Sector: A Research Note , 2004 .

[44]  Shirley J. Daniel,et al.  Management Control Systems for J.I.T.: An Empirical Comparison of Japan and the U.S. , 1991 .

[45]  Robert Simons,et al.  Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems , 1991 .

[46]  Julia Mundy,et al.  Creating Dynamic Tensions Through a Balanced Use of Management Control Systems , 2010 .

[47]  Antonio Dávila,et al.  Reasons for management control systems adoption: Insights from product development systems choice by early-stage entrepreneurial companies , 2009 .

[48]  Robert A. Simons,et al.  Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal , 1994 .

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

[50]  Robert A. Simons.  How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal , 1994 .

[51]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Administering Education in Loosely Coupled Schools. , 1982 .

[52]  E. Paraskevopoulou,et al.  Disentangling the Role of Management Control Systems for Product and Process Innovation in Different Contexts , 2018, European Accounting Review.

[53]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system , 1996 .

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

[55]  D. Otley,et al.  The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation , 2004 .

[56]  Frances S. Berry.  Innovation in Public Management: The Adoption of Strategic Planning , 1994 .

[57]  Mathew L. A. Hayward,et al.  Entrepreneurs' capital budgeting orientations and innovation outputs: evidence from Australian biotechnology firms , 2017 .

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

[59]  Rafik I. Beekun,et al.  Organization Structure from a Loose Coupling Perspective: A Multidimensional Approach , 2001, Decis. Sci..

[60]  R. Scapens,et al.  Institutionalization and practice variation in the management control of a global/local setting , 2009 .

[61]  Moshe Farjoun.  Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change As a Duality , 2010 .

[62]  Mariannunziata Liguori,et al.  Accounting change: explaining the outcomes, interpreting the process , 2011 .

[63]  T. Groot,et al.  Loosely Coupled Results Control in Dutch Municipalities , 2014 .

[64]  Cameron Guthrie,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE “FIT”BETWEEN STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DESIGN , 1994 .

[65]  William H. Glick,et al.  Fit, Equifinality, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Test of Two Configurational Theories , 1993 .

[66]  Simon Rodan,et al.  More than Network Structure: How Knowledge Heterogeneity Influences Managerial Performance and Innovativeness , 2004 .

[67]  Christopher D. Ittner,et al.  Does measuring intangibles for management purposes improve performance? A review of the evidence , 2008 .

[68]  Robert Drazin,et al.  Equifinality: Functional Equivalence in Organization Design , 1997 .

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

[70]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Knowledge Specialization, Organizational Coupling, and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More than They Make? , 2001 .

[71]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Approximate Analysis of Variance Test for Normality , 1972 .

[72]  D. Larcker,et al.  Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective , 2001 .

[73]  I. Kurtulus,et al.  Multi-Project Scheduling: Categorization of Heuristic Rules Performance , 1982 .

[74]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology , 1992 .

[75]  Paul M Collier,et al.  The Power of Accounting: A Field Study of Local Financial Management in a Police Force , 2001 .

[76]  Jan Mouritsen,et al.  Accounting as an engine: The performativity of calculative practices and the dynamics of innovation , 2015 .

[77]  C. Lance,et al.  What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research , 2010 .

[78]  R. Chenhall,et al.  The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control , 2015 .

[79]  Sinikka Moilanen.  Learning and the loosely coupled elements of control , 2012 .

[80]  Robert S. Kaplan,et al.  Formal Measures in Informal Management: Can a Balanced Scorecard Change a Culture? , 2015 .

[81]  Berend Van der Kolk,et al.  Strategy implementation through hierarchical couplings in a management control package: an explorative case study , 2016 .

[82]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .

[83]  Margaret A. Abernethy,et al.  A Field Study of Control System “Redesign”: The Impact of Institutional Processes on Strategic Choice* , 1996 .

[84]  Sven Modell.  Institutional Research on Performance Measurement and Management in the Public Sector Accounting Literature: A Review and Assessment , 2009 .

[85]  Marshall W. Meyer,et al.  Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard , 2003 .

[86]  Mary A. Malina,et al.  Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard , 2001 .

[87]  Falconer Mitchell,et al.  Utilising a typology of management accounting change: An empirical analysis , 2005 .

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

[89]  Michael D. Shields.  Established Management Accounting Knowledge , 2015 .

[90]  Kari Lukka,et al.  Management accounting change and stability: Loosely coupled rules and routines in action , 2007 .

[91]  Anne M. Lillis,et al.  The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management control system design , 1995 .

[92]  David Otley,et al.  The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014 , 2016 .

[93]  Robert W. Scapens,et al.  Corporatisation and Accounting Change: The Role of Accounting and Accountants in a Malaysian Public Utility , 2007 .

[94]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Systems Development Ambidexterity: Explaining the Complementary and Substitutive Roles of Formal and Informal Controls , 2010, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[95]  Catherine F. Schryer,et al.  Using Loose Coupling Theory to Understand Interprofessional Collaborative Practice on a Transplantation Team , 2014 .

[96]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[97]  David Otley,et al.  The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis , 2009 .

[98]  Joan L. Luft,et al.  Nonfinancial Information and Accounting: A Reconsideration of Benefits and Challenges , 2009 .

[99]  W. Kruskal,et al.  Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis , 1952 .

[100]  Robert B. Glassman,et al.  Persistence and loose coupling in living systems , 1973 .

[101]  Jeremy Hope,et al.  Beyond Budgeting: How Managers Can Break Free from the Annual Performance Trap , 2003 .

[102]  D. Otley.  The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis , 1980 .