Post on 25-May-2018
1
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING AND STRATEGY. FUNCTIONAL ANDINSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES; A CASE STUDY
Järvenpää, M.Turku School of Economics and Business Administration at Pori
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY AND THEORIES
In this study the relationship between management accounting and strategy in the case site, a global high-
tech firm, is tried to explore and interpret by employing functional contingency theory and interpretative
institutional theory. (For contingency theory, look e.g. Thompson 1967, Perrow 1967, Child 1972, Pugh et
al. 1969, Lawrence & Lorsch 1969, Emmanuel et al. 1990, Covalevski et al. 1996 and for institutional
theory, look e.g. Selznick 1957, Berger & Luckman 1967, Zucker 1977, Meyer & Rowan 1977, DiMaggio
& Powell 1983, Scott 1987, Scapens 1994, Covalevski et al. 1996) The rational and irrational relationships
and interplay between environmental, strategic, cultural and organizational characteristics as well as
employed modern managerial technologies behind the strategic management accounting practice are
interpreted. These factors might give some at least seemingly rational contingency explanations to the
phenomena, meanwhile institutional perspective holds the premise, that the relationship between control
systems and environmental as well as company characteristics is also a complex process as well as a
symbolic and interactive one. The modern strategic management accounting agenda as well as the broader
relationship between accounting and strategy in the planning and control processes of the target company
are analyzed in the study. The topics are studied both theoretically by conducting a literature review and
empirically by applying interpretative case-study method, informed by ethnographic sociology. The main
sources of information in this single case study have been semi-structured interviews. Published and
internal material were used extensively as additional sources of information in order to enhance the
reliability of the study by triangulation.
TARGET COMPANY
It has been recommended, that case studies should take place in fast-moving companies, which operate in
changing environment in order to provide illustrations of best practices at the leading edge of adaptive
activity. (Otley 1994, 298) The case site was selected as a representative of the most likely setting (cf.
Keating 1995) in order to find modern strategic management accounting practices, with intentions to refine
this way the strategic management accounting theory. A case site is one of the three business groups of a
global company, which has net sales of 8,5 billion USD and employs over 35,000 people in 45 countries.
The selected business group develops and manufactures infrastructure equipment and systems and it is a
global leader in its technology. Net sales of the target business group was about 2 billion USD and
personnel was over 15,000, while operating profit was over 0,5 billion USD, with 40-60 % annual increase
of all these figures. The targeted business group is the most profitable and fastest growing part of a very
profitable and fast growing company and it competes in global, rapidly growing and changing markets,
because of the recent markets liberalization. The business group is organized as a matrix structure and it
includes two customer segment based and production oriented divisions, which have been divided into
2
nine strategic business units, five of them in the first division and four in the second. There are also
divisions of systems platforms, and a customer service and worldwide area organization. Area organization
sells the company’s systems and customer service arranges the installation.
ENVIRONMENT, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, CULTURE,MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
In this study, four major issues have been analyzed behind the relationship between strategic management
and management accounting; environment, strategy and strategic management itself, culture with
managerial philosophies, and finally organizational structure. Efforts were made in order to interpret the
rational and irrational relationships and interplay between environmental, strategic, cultural and
organizational characteristics as well as employed modern managerial technologies behind the strategic
management accounting practice. These factors might give some at least seemingly rational contingency
explanations to the strategic and other management accounting practices, but according to institutional
theory, the relationship between control systems and environmental as well as company characteristics
could also be very much symbolic and interactive.
Environment has been considered as a central factor affecting on the companies management control
systems (Khandwalla (1972), Gordon & Miller (1976), Amigioni (1978) both in contingency and
institutional oriented studies. Environment and environmental changes are reflected in company strategies,
management philosophies, organizational structures and control systems. These reflections are, however
not straightforward, but they are filtered through organizational and individual processes as well as very
different environmental issues are affecting on the company practices simultaneously. Power relationships,
legitimization efforts, mimic behavior, fashion, and institutionalized nature of existing structures and
systems are affecting of these processes as well as economically rational reasons.
Common topics of discussion in recent years have been global competition, fast environmental changes,
deregulation, less protectionism, emergence of trading blocks, structural changes, excess capacity, mergers
and acquisitions, environmental concerns, Japanese success in world markets, increasing requirement level
of customers and their changing expectations, technological changes and discontinuities, shortened life
cycles of products , alliances and clusters between companies. (Prahalad & Hamel 1994, Otley 1994).
Changes in competition environment were considered as the most important factor affecting on the Finnish
companies’ cost accounting practices (Lukka & Granlund 1996).
The concept of strategy is quite ambiguous and it has several definitions (e.g. Drucker 1954, Chandler
1962, Andrews 1971, Porter 1980, Hax & Majluf 1991) Strategy could firstly be divided into corporate,
business unit and functional strategies. There could also be separated such concepts as strategic planning,
strategic management, strategy formulation and strategy implementation or more broadly strategic thinking
(Näsi 1987). Strategy research could be broadly divided into three phases: the classical strategy and
structure research, analytic strategy research including so called generic strategies and more recent
subjectivist oriented and process oriented research (Quinn & James & Mintzberg 1988). In the classical
phase there could be mentioned research work carried by Chandler (1962), Wrigley (1970) and Rumelt
3
(1974) and the writings of Ansoff (e.g. 1965). The second wave of the classical thinking came mostly in
early 1980s in the form of generic strategies, most notably by Miles & Snow (1978), Porter (1980 and
1985), Miller & Friesen (1978 and 1982). The strategic management accounting literature has relied
mostly on the work of Porter (1980 and 1985), who introduced five competitive forces, which determine
each industries and furthermore he specified three general bases for companies to obtain sustainable
competitive advantage, cost leadership, differentiation and focus strategy and the concepts of value chain
and strategic cost analysis. The pivotal choice between differentiation and cost leadership strategies has
since been criticized by some academics and practitioners and it has been said that in modern competition
you have to be strong in both dimensions. This simultaneous differentiation and cost strategy has been
called outpacing strategy by Horvath et al. (1997), meanwhile Porter (1996) has replied that the ongoing
and intensifying raid for the operational efficiency could not be interpreted as strategy at all. Cooper
(1996) has introduced such concepts as survival zone, confrontation strategy and simultaneous importance
of product functionality, quality and price under intensive competition. Miles and Snow (1978) categorized
different strategic archetypes, defenders, prospectors, analyzers and reactors, according to their responding
to the environment and ways to configure technology, structure and processes. Furthermore, three strategic
missions for the strategic business units have been categorized by Buzzel, Gale and Sultan (1975) and
Hofer and Schendel (1978). Prahalad & Hamel (1990) introduced the concept of core competence, and
suggested the building of the global strategic organizational architecture, which relies on these
organizational core competencies. This idea emphasized group wide value chain arrangements, not just
strategic business unit level value chain and cost management.
The first two categories of strategic management literature have, however, mainly passed the deeper
behavioral dimensions of strategic management or at least treated it as quite unproblematic field. Strategies
are formulated in linear, rational, systematical and analytical way, they are proactive and formal plans.
(Dent 1990) However, Lindblom (1959) saw strategies surviving somehow by “muddling trough”
incremental and unrelated decisions and actions and Mintzberg et al. (1976) recognized, that decision
making were continuously interrupted, continued and repeated, while Pettigrew (1973 and 1985)
described, that the strategic decision making was constituted of conflicts and fights between different
coalitions. These organizationally grounded researches see strategic decision as a messy, disorderly and
disjointed activity with conflicting interests (Dent 1990). According to the incremental strategy
perspective, the strategic management is not linear and rational action but the strategies are formulated or
emerged through social processes, and the emphasis is thus in the process view and the role of actors in
this process can be seen as increasing. (Mintzberg et al 1976, Pettigrew 1985, Johnson 1987). According
to Quinn (1980) incrementalism is not born muddling through, but it is a purposeful, conscious, effective
and systematic executive practice based on iterative series where strategies are generated and implemented
in incremental way step by step. The interpretative strategy perspective assumes that reality is socially
constructed and it holds that complexity of strategic management is due to the attitudinal and cognitive
complexity among diverse stakeholders (Chaffee 1985, Johnson 1987, Santala 1996) and managers shape
the minds and attitudes of the organization’s members in a way that is expected to produce favorable
results (Bourgeois & Brodwin 1984, Chaffee 1985, Pettigrew 1985, Santala 1996), while strategy is a
mental image, an abstraction, which exists only in minds (Mintzberg 1987). Strategic management is hence
a tool to manage organization culture and motivation and commitment are essential success factors and the
scope of the strategic management is not just in top management, but organization-wide. (Van Cauvenberg
4
& Cool 1982, Bourgeois & Brodwin 1984) Furthermore, Mintzberg (1985) has separated concepts of
deliberately and emergent strategies and questioned (1994) the overall relevance of formal strategic
planning, which have been suggested e.g. by Vancil & Lorange (1975), Lorange (1980) and Chakravarthy
& Lorange (1991). Goold & Campbell (1987) studied the planning and control modes of large groups and
they identified three alternatives to arrange these planning and control actions; strategic planning, financial
control and strategic control. Interesting notion is also introduced by Prahalad & Bettis (1986) in the form
of dominant logic.
Applied managerial philosophies might also have effects on the management accounting practices, because
it might e.g. raise different issues as important and thus measurable. They might create new order, culture
and visibility and they might lead to new kind of organizational solutions. Management philosophies are
under continuing development process and they are often closely conceptually related to each others.
According to some commentators, they might, however, affect even very dramatically on management
practices. For example traditional concept of management control (Anthony 1965), which separated this
concept from strategic planning and operational control has been criticized as being much too narrow for
the modern business, because of environmental changes and modern management philosophies (Otley
1994), such as business process orientation, benchmarking, activity based management, JIT, continuous
learning, lean-thinking, total quality management, management through values, empowerment, team
management. It was said to be evident, that management control encompasses parts of both strategic
planning and operational control, when manager continually reformulates the strategy to match the
environment being faced and to monitors the implementation of corrective actions at an operational level.
Responsibility for control and adaptation might be pushed down at relatively low levels. (Otley 1994))
In this study the concept of management philosophy is considered as a holistic action pattern (including
both different kind of management and production philosophies), which is deeply intertwined with the
much more broader concept of organizational culture, which is defined in this study similarly to Schein
(1985) or Morgan (1986) as a shared reality construction (shared basic assumptions, beliefs, meanings,
understanding and sense making). The relationship between organizational culture and management
accounting could also be very multidimensional. Management accounting could impact in cultural changes
and culture can foster or dilute real changes is accounting systems change projects (Partanen 1997).
Environmental factors and management philosophies configure also organizational structures and different
organizations need different kind of information to support their planning, decision making and control
(Hopwood 1986. 9-10) and organizational structure itself could also be considered as a control device
(Emmanuel & Otley & Merchant 1990, 52). Organizational framework create requirements and special
characteristics on the systems operating in it. Organization could be divided by product lines, by
geographical areas, it could be combined from them (a matrix structure) or it could be a project
organization. Organization could operate in only single industry, in few industries or it could be a
diversified conglomerate and the scope of vertical integration could also vary a lot. By their responsibility
bases, units of an organization could be cost centers, revenue centers, profit centers or investment centers.
Finally the organization form could be divided into national, multinational or global organization
according to its degree of internationalization (Porter 1986, Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989, Mouritsen 1995).
Core competence strategy implementation could also lead to more or less formal strategic organizational
5
architecture (Prahalad & Hamel 1990). Organizational structures have changed during decades following
more or less the environmental changes e.g. from hierarchical and vertical pyramid to low and horizontally
connected nets (Drucker 1988), which might make information transformation even quicker and better and
enhance further the key success factors. (Young & Selto 1992) This kind of horizontal thinking could be
also found in several management philosophies.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING LITERATURE
Strategic management accounting could broadly be described as a long range, future and outward looking
approach which is also trying to cope with new views inside the organization as well as it might include
non-financial measures. It could perhaps be generally said that ideas of strategic management accounting
have been developed as one avenue to respond to the famous “crisis” discussion of management
accounting by Johnson & Kaplan (1987). Bromwich (1990) has defined strategic management accounting
as the provision and analysis of financial information on the firm’s product markets and competitors’ costs
and cost structures and the monitoring of enterprise’s strategies and those of its competitors in these
markets over a number of periods.
This type of strategic cost (and revenue or profit) analysis had been suggested most notably by Simmonds
(1981 and 1983), Bromwich (1990) and Bromwich & Bhimani (1994), and Shank & Govindarajan (1989
and 1993). Also Porter himself (1985) should be recognized as one essential contributor in the field,
despite his non-accounting scientific background. Activity based cost management (Cooper et al. 1987),
life cycle costing, target costing (e.g. Kato 1993 and Cooper 1996) and balanced business scorecard
(Kaplan & Norton 1992 and 1993) are considered other major issues of development, which could carry
strategic kind of potential as well as strategic investment appraisals (Bromwich 1990, Shank &
Govindarajan 1993), and different product, customer and competitor analyses.
The relationship between management accounting and strategic management lies not only in these
normative kind of new ideas. It is also said, that fostering multiple perspectives in reporting and
coordinating complexity are increasingly important for management accounting in global competition
(Dent 1996) and global value chain coordination is characteristic to the management accounting of the
global firms (Mouritsen 1995). Management accounting and strategic management are always parts of the
same management and control processes (e.g. in the long term and short term profit planning in budgetary
process) (Welsch & Hilton & Gordon 1988). Strategic management has belonged in the strategic level and
management accounting traditionally more or less in tactical level (Anthony 1965). The relationship is
however not so simply as classical planning model implies (e.g. Hartman 1993). According to Simons
(1991), management control systems could not only be used to control current strategies, but also to
formulate new strategies, if they are used interactively. Furthermore, the budgeting process is said to be
strategic by quantifying and evaluating strategic plans, accounting could have strong influence on how a
firm utilizes its capacity, it can be an instrument for motivation and implementation or it can promote
values in organizations. (Mouritsen 1991)
Conventionally strategic planning and management accounting have been considered as belonging to
different part of the management process (e.g. Anthony 1965), strategy looks also typically outwards and
6
management accounting inwards the company. Strategy is future, qualitatively and long term and
management accounting historically, quantitatively and short term oriented. Strategy tries also look to
whole company or total value chain and create synergy while management accounting splits company into
separate controllable parts. (Look also at e.g. Hartman 1993), thus the development disciplines for strategic
management accounting can broadly be found here: it should be more future, external, total value chain
and long run oriented and include also non-financial measures.1 The agenda of strategic management
accounting will next be analyzed issue by issue in the form of theoretical literature review.
THE AGENDA OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
Most of the publicity of the strategic oriented management accounting innovations has been received by
the activity-based costing (ABC) promoted by Cooper and Kaplan (1987). ABC has since matured into
general management process called activity based-cost management (ABCM or ABM) (Cooper et al.
1992) in which the essence could be found in the process of cost management, not just in the process of
costing. Despite their conceptual differences, ABC has also moved closer to Porter’s value chain thinking
(Mecimore & Bell 1995 Selto 1995). ABC could be part of the studying and reconfiguration of the
company’s value chain. Also the popular business process management seems to fit conceptually well with
the ABC. The strategic relevance of the activity-based cost management could be found firstly in the
potential for more accurate product cost information, which could for example lead to better pricing and
product mix decisions and profitability. ABCM could also be useful in customer and segmental
profitability analyses. Third central strategic element of the ABCM is the close connection with the re-
engineering of the value chain, activity chain or the processes of the firm. It could be hypothesized that this
kind of strategic advantage and the impetus for change from activity-based approach might well be gained
from the preliminary activity analysis phase, without utilizing any routine activity-based costing system2.
Shank & Govindarajan have advocated the usage of strategic cost analysis (1989) or management
(SCM)(1993), which lay in the ideas of Porter (1980 and 1985). According to them, SCM involves three
major steps: the identification of value chain, the diagnosis if its cost drivers and development of
sustainable competitive advantage. These analyses are also linked to the broader strategic cost management
concerned with the value chain. The value chain is defined as the linked set of value creating activities
which stretches from raw materials to the ultimate end-use product delivered to the consumer. SCM
1 Management accountants’ poor education in strategic issues, general management’sunwillingness or ignorance to use management accounting information and people in strategicissues, unrealistic informational requirements, burden of routine reporting needs and theoverhead nature of management accounting function have been proposed as general barriers ofstrategic management accounting development. (c.f. Goold 1986, King et al. 1991, Bromwich &Bhimani 1994, Roslender 1995, Lord 1996, Tamminen 1990) It has also asked whethermanagement accountants should be involved in producing strategic information at all or is italready handled by other functions in a way reasonable enough (Lord 1996)?
2 It is generally noticed, that activity-based cost management could be divided into several phases from thepreliminary activity analysis to the routine activity-based costing and management system.
7
advocates that companies should recognize their place in the total value chain and try accordingly to
develop management accounting information. The emphasis is on the interactions with supplier and
customer linkages. Shank & Govindarajan have in SCM created perhaps the most comprehensive single
framework for strategic management accounting, even though the demonstrated empirical significance has
been so far quite limited (Lord 1996) and not much accounting information has been assessed to be
suitable in analyzing the value chain (Hergert & Morris 1989).
One major contribution to SMA comes from Japan in the form of target costing (TC), which should be
seen as a wider concept than just a technique to set target costs. It could be seen as mechanism to integrate
and control the corporate activities, in which the information flows in flexible way between marketing and
market research, product research and design, production and accounting and which is deeply connected
into the strategic planning and management processes. TC process could be broadly divided into three
major activities: future price projection, profit planning and manufacturing experience (Kato et al. 1995).
Cooper (1996) has divided TC process into price driven costing, product level target costing and
component level target costing. Target costs are tried to be achieved in practice in product planning mainly
through value engineering and after the production has started mainly through continuous improvement.
(Lorino 1996) Target cost management is quite a unique discipline of strategic management accounting in
a way that it has a clear even though culture bounded evidence behind it. Essential characteristics are also
its customer oriented background, cross-functional orientation and importance of organizational learning
as well as the Japanese way to carry it very systematically. Motivation and achievement are emphasized,
not just control activities (Hiromoto 1988).
Life cycle thinking, one strategic analysis tool, has been applied in management accounting in the form of
life cycle cost analysis. The product life cycle spans the time from initial research and development to the
time which sales and support to customers are withdrawn, meanwhile accounting systems and reporting are
usually calendar-based. Product life cycle costing (PLCC) tracks and accumulates the actual costs
attributable to each product from its research and development to customer service and other support in the
marketplace and life cycle budgeting similarly estimates those costs. Life cycle accounting budgeting could
so give important information for pricing decision., and it also highlights the point that all costs from the
different phases of the life cycle should be covered. It also points out the typical early commitment of
costs. The linkages along the value chain as well as linkages along the life cycle could so be made visible.
(Drury 1996, Horngren & Foster & Datar 1991, and Raffish & Turney 1991)
Strategic positioning and competitive advantage are also relative concepts and utilizing these has stated to
need strategic level management accounting information not just about companies itself but also about
their competitors. Simmonds (1981 and 1983) suggested this kind of information in order to determine the
market share and competitors’ cost, volume and pricing issues. He also advocated that this kind of
information should be included in the management accounting reports. Competitor accounting has since
been suggested in different forms e.g. by Goold (1986), Wilson (1991 and 1994), Ward 1992a-b,
Bromwich & Bhimani (1994). Competitor information is receivable through public sources, such as annual
reports, press, official institutions, statistics as well as informal sources, e.g. sales personnel and other
business functions, customers, other competitors and suppliers, analyzing competitors’ products or other
physical observation, shared sources of finance, industry specialists, consultants, trade centers,
8
competitors’ old employees etc. Reliability of competitor accounting has questioned e.g. by Lord (1996).3
Broader concept of benchmarking is a close phenomenon to competitor accounting, but it is often based on
inter organizational cooperation. Competitor accounting could perhaps also be defined as a special
accounting-based form of strategic level benchmarking, which does not include cooperation with the
object of this comparison activity.
It is usually important for companies to launch new successful products into markets in the right time and
with the right price with reasonable profit margin. Decisions concerning new products is one essential part
of long range plans and strategies (eg. Horngren & Foster & Datar 1997). In the context of product
strategies accounting has supported generally pricing and product mix decisions and full costing has
considered relevant approach (eg. Spicer 1992). Activity-based costing, product life cycle analysis and
target costing could be perhaps very useful approaches here. Bromwich (1990) and Bromwich & Bhimani
(1994) had, in addition, suggested a special product attribute costing. In this approach, each of company
activities or resources employed should yield benefit to customers for which they are willing to pay. The
firm should therefore seek to trace the costs of enterprise activities and resources to these benefits (not just
to products as in traditional approach) in order to compare the revenues generated by these benefits with
their costs. Each product should, though, be seen as a bundle of characteristics offered to the consumer
each of which customer is willing to pay (look also Lancaster 1979). Demand of goods are derived
demands for their underlying characteristics. The emphasis used on this kind of analysis depends on a
firm’s strategic approach. In their demonstration (1994), costs were divided into product-volume, activity,
capacity and decision related costs, while benefits were categorized into product, outlet and other benefits.4
Quite similar thinking has also employed in value-based pricing, which also stems from the benefits
experienced by the customer in using the product in special purpose. This method is mainly used in
business to business marketing and it requires careful analysis of the benefits experienced by the customer,
because different customers or segments could value the benefits in a very different way as well as
different product compositions could generate very different benefits. (Webster 1991). Shapiro & Jackson
(1978) have divided value based pricing into four phases: understand the total use situation of the
customer, define and analyze the variables, that determine the benefits to the customer in this use, define
and analyze the variables, that determine the the customer’s costs in using the product and finally
determine the cost/benefit tradeoffs in customer’s use situation.
The selection of the targeted customers can be pivotal issue in strategic positioning. Customers could be
divided into segments for example according to geographical bases, by distribution channel used or by
services supplied. Different sales, administration and other overheads are not allocated into customers by
traditional cost accounting methods and activity-based costing might be utilized here successfully.
Customer profitability analysis investigates, how different customers or group of customers differ from by
their profitability. Traditional presume has been that all costs should allocate into customers and
3 Bogue & Buffa (1986) were, however, able to made quite excellent strategic analyses using only public sourcesof information. Moon & Bates (1993) developed Core-analysis applying also only public material, Christiansen(1993) integrated strategic and financial statement analyses and Rickwood & Coates & Stacey (1990) showedcase-evidence concerning competitor accounting.4 This approach as well as value-based pricing has many similarities with Japanese target costing management,which for example includes “functional analyses”.
9
cumulative sum of customer costs equals the total costs of a firm. Alternative approach is to apply
hierarchical activity-based costing, where activities could be divided for example into enterprises-, market-
, channel-, customer-, order-, parts- and direct-material related costs and profitability could be accordingly
categorized into total profitability and market, channel, customer/segment profitability contribution and
gross margin on parts. (Foster et al. 1994, Horngren et al. 1997, 590)
The competitiveness and success of companies are dependent on several issues and customer focus, time,
quality, learning, education and innovations have been mentioned as critical success factors. Financial
aspect is just one part of management control as well as management accounting is just one part of
management control system. Financial measures typically reflect the result of business activities, not the
activities itself. In recent years there has been a lot of discussion concerning the employment of non-
financial measures in control and performance measurement activities and it has been said that these
measures could give concrete measurement results of the business activities and processes, which could be
therefore better controlled and developed. The terminal point for implementing such measures is the
identification of the key success factors of the company, such as customer satisfaction, excellence in
manufacturing, leadership in marketplace or technology, quality, reliability, fast deliveries etc. Concrete
measures, which could link the performances and applied strategies together, could be defined according
to them. Connection with both strategy and operations have been the pros of non financial measures, while
the contradictory results between different non-financial measures as well as compared with financial
measures have mentioned as negative implications. (Horngren et al. 1991, Fisher 1992, Shank &
Govindarajan 1993, Vaivio 1995).
Kaplan & Norton (1992) have introduced a special balanced scorecard, which brings together financial and
non-financial performance measures in scorecard. Similar ideas have applied earlier in France under the
title “tableu de board” referring the idea of control panel of business (Lebas 1994), and Judson (1990) has
developed Performance Pyramid System, which was further developed by Lynch & Cross (1991), utilizing
similar ideas than Kaplan & Norton. In Balanced scorecard approach physical and operative measures
from four perspectives (financial, customer, internal and innovation) are deducted from the corporate
vision and strategy, thus the BSC is mentioned as a structured approach to measure the performance of a
firm and that the leading rationale behind it is that in order to satisfy its own financial needs, the company
should satisfy the customer needs with such organization, which could do this also in the long run, which
requires effective value chain. One possible linkage between strategy, management accounting and non
financial measures might be found also in the appraisal of costs and benefits caused by the possible
strategic and operational changes indicated by the non financial measures.
There could be found clear connections between strategies, management accounting and capital budgeting
decisions, which affect on the performance of the companies in the long run. Net present value method,
based on the discounted cash flows, is generally suggested as theoretically sound judging method for
capital investments. According to it a company should accept all investments, which generate positive net
present value. In practice, however, the connections between strategy and capital budgeting decisions are
noticed to be essential, a matter of fact, which has been noticed quite in quite limited way in traditional
capital budgeting literature. Problems could occur also in occasions, when investment has been justified by
applying DCF-method but it has been measured afterwards by accounting measures. Specially the
10
investments made in advanced manufacturing technology have been stated to need very careful strategic
conceiving, because consequences of such investment could be very hard to appraise and quantify.
Investments reflect customers, markets, future products and customer needs and capital investment
decision could thus be connected almost into every issue of the strategic management accounting agenda.
(Tomkins 1991, Chalos 1992, Bromwich 1992, Tomkins & Carr 1996) Western companies are accused to
dropping behind in global competition because of slow implementation of modern manufacturing
technologies (Jaikumar 1986) and one reason for that is lack of decent investment appraisal methods
described before (Abernathy & Hayes 1980).
Kaplan & Atkinson (1989) suggested the judgment of all possible benefits gained from the future
investments, Porter connected the technology decisions into strategic analysis and Bromwich & Bhimani
(1991) have suggested special strategic investment appraisal matrix, where in addition to monetary and
non-financial judgment, less easily quantified benefits were noticed by special scoring by managers. Shank
& Govindarajan (1993) and Shank (1996) have applied their value chain - strategic positioning - cost
driver analysis -concept also into the investment appraisal. Tomkins & Carr (1996) have recently linked
together different avenues of strategic management accounting in the form of systematic formal analysis
for investment decisions. Market & competitor analysis, value chain analysis and cost driver analysis are
gathered under this framework. As time has been established as one key success factor, it has had
consequences also into the investment decisions and a special breakeven time analysis (BET) has
suggested, which borrows from the ideas on DCF, payback-time and life cycle analysis. In addition to
studies, which have concentrated on the accounting techniques used for project selections, Slagmulder
(1997) has studied how management control systems are actually used to achieve alignment between single
units’ strategic investments and corporate strategy.
CONTINGENCY AND SUBJESTIVIST APPROACHES TO STRATEGYAND MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
Strategic management accounting has been studied also from contingency and subjectivist approaches, in
addition to the normative and analytical “schools” described before. Contingency approach could be
characterized also partly as normative, but it could be separated from SMA, which aimed at help strategic
decision making. Contingency oriented studies concentrates on describing how accounting systems should
optimally be built in order to support the chosen strategy. For example in studying the meaning of
management accounting for strategic decision making, it has been stated that management uses verbal,
qualitative, general and external information in identifying strategic problems and quantitative, special and
detailed information in implementing phase (Gordon et al. 1978). According to Khandwalla (1973), the
intensity of competition affects the employment of control mechanisms and according to Gordon & Miller
(1978) the rapidly changing environment emphasizes more frequent and future oriented reporting. For
Amigioni (1978) increasing organizational complexity leads to expanding the accounting systems by
adding new elements, while environmental discontinuities would require often adaption of new and
relevant accounting system. The relationships between different strategies (hold, harvest and build) and
measures for incentive plans have been studied by Govindarajan & Gupta (1985). According to Anthony et
al. 1992 and Shank & Govindarajan (1993), long term and subjective measures were found to be more
11
suitable for building strategy and short term quantitative measures for harvest strategy. Under the build
mission budgeting is used for short term planning, not for surveillance control, unit managers played wider
role in preparation and revision of budgets, strategic planning is important, because of growth-related
conditions of high uncertainty, and finally capital budgeting decisions are based on subjectivist and
qualitative issues. The harvest mission was linked with opposite extreme of management control system
characteristics. Relationship between Porters generic strategies (differentiation and cost leadership) and
cost management were discussed by Shank & Govindarajan (e.g. 1993), where traditional cost accounting
(standard costing, product costing) was related with cost leadership strategy and marketing cost analysis
and related issues with differentiation. Connection between different strategic archetypes of Miles and
Snow (1978) and their management control systems (Simons 1987), and also more broader set of
archetypes systems (Porter 1980, Mintzberg 1973 and Utterback and Abernathy 1975) were linkaged to
their management control in following study of Simons (1990). Forecast data, wide commitment to
strategic planning, frequent budget revisions were typical for prospectors and related archetypes
(differentiation and entrepreneurial) and cost control and more top down oriented planning methods for the
opposite archetypes (defender, cost leadership and adaptive strategies). Goold & Campbell (1987) have
separated different styles of strategic management of large enterprises; strategic planning, financial control
and strategic control style, which have impacts also for management control systems employed in these
archetypes.
The normative strategic management accounting literature is mainly based on normative and technical
strategic analysis literature, and thus it is rather objectivist and mechanical by nature. In this sense,
interpretative and incremental strategy perspective could deepen and enrich the picture of strategic
management accounting. Some studies of this kind have also conducted. In these more subjectivist
oriented studies the accounting has been used as a device for strategy implementation, when closing coal
mines (Tomlinson 1993) or for attention directing to strategically relevant issues (Simons 1990) or for
offering the language and support for legitimization, when strategies are negotiated compromises in
organizations (Dermer 1990). According to this subjective point of view, strategic management accounting
could (perhaps) support organizational learning and incremental processes of change by promoting values
through language it offers. (e.g. Hartman 1993, Pellinen 1996)
THEORETICAL CONCLUSIONS
Value chain, cost driver and product attribute analysis, target cost management, balanced scorecard,
competitor accounting and strategic investment appraisal are all avenues, which hold clear position in
strategic management accounting literature. Activity-based cost management, target cost management and
customer profitability analysis have perhaps the widest empirical evidence about their the strategic
relevance, and recently the balanced scorecard approach is also increasingly adopted by the companies.
Implementation of competitor accounting, strategic investment appraisal, value chain, cost driver and
product attribute analysis and life cycle accounting seem to face large amount of technical or behavioral
barriers in organizations, because they are very different from existing management accounting practices
and systems. ABC and customer profitability analysis seem to are closer to the traditional management
accounting practices, and thus they could be psychologically and technically easier applied. Compared
12
with them, balanced scorecard might require more changes to the traditional ways of management
accounting thinking, e.g. because of non-financial aspects. Most of the information required in balanced
scorecard, might, however, be already gathered by different organizational functions. Thus, from the
management accountants’ point of view, it might technically be merely a question of combining and
reporting this data.
It could be said, according to the conducted literature review, that strategic management accounting
literature is rather fragmented by nature, and it includes many different - but often very close and
overlapping - avenues5. It could also be noticed, that strategic management accounting literature of the 90s
relies mainly on the academic strategic discussion of the 70s and 80s, which is later strongly criticized,
particularly from the subjectivist point of view, but also due to the changing competition environment.
More realistic framework for studying management accounting in supporting strategic management
accounting could be outlined by taking into consideration the complex nature of management and decision
making. Strategic management is e.g. usually connected with high uncertainty and disagreement of
objectives (Thompson & Thuden 1959, Burchell et al. 1980), and the individual or organizational actions
might usually be described as only bounded rational (Simon 1972). Decision makers do not have all the
needed relevant information or the information is unconscious or ill-structured (Pihlanto 1983). Such
concepts as individual commitment, values and strategic intent have been increasingly weighted in
strategic management literature (c.f. Bourgeois & Brodwin 1984, Prahalad et al 1989). In this sense, from
the point of view of strategic management, the impetus of management accounting might only be indirect
by nature. Strategic consequences could, however, be seen e.g. in creating, legitimizing, promoting or
stopping the strategies, shared values or strategic intent by giving visibility to some intended or unintended
issues. According to the normative literature, changing contingency factors seem to guide management
accounting practitioners and academics to the fascinating developments and relevance seeking. On the
other hand we have evidence, that it could be very hard and only partially successful to really change
institutionalized systems like accounting in organizations and there could also be other than economically
rational reasons to arrange accounting systems in organizations in some particular way. Furthermore,
external influences are reflected in organizations through complex and sometimes unanticipated processes.
CASE FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
ENVIRONMENT, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, CULTURE, MANAGEMENTPHILOSOPHIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Several simultaneous changes in the 90’s brought huge opportunities and challenges to this particular
industry and also lead to industry restructuring. Deregulation, combined with new technologies and new
services, has created new environment. With deregulation, there emerged a need for target company and its
rivals to supply not only products for established customers but also to supply complete systems with the
services and technologies for new customers. The industry could be characterized by high technological
complexity and intense competition. Successful focus strategy has led the target company to the path of
5 Some excellent literature reviews about strategic management accounting written e.g. by Roslender (1995),Lord (1996) and Tomkins & Carr (1996) should, of course, be noticed in this context.
13
high growth, increasing uncertainty and high profitability. Growth means also global, world wide
competition and globalization of business activities, not only in sales but in production and R&D activities.
This kind of growth means severe challenges for control systems and practices. Case site is thus operating
under high uncertainty, which might lead to higher institutional isomorphism according to DiMaggio and
Powell (1983). Global activities mean also new normative and mimic pressures to the target company.
Company should follow international as well as different local accounting regulation and it also has to
match competitors in quality and speed of the financial reporting. Thus, while management and financial
accounting are deeply interconnected, this has many consequences on the management reporting. Also the
importance of competitor analysis increases. The domination of the technical matters hinders the
importance of the management accounting in decision making, but also states enormous requirements for
the finance & control function to understand complex technology and business. System supply business
means, that single projects are very important.
Both differentiation and cost strategies were emphasized in the target company, even though
differentiation has a dominating role. It was thus interpreted in the study, that the case site followed the
differentiation strategy, but was simultaneously increasingly trying to enhance it’s operative efficiency6. By
focusing, the company had also turned into its new core competencies and was constructing global
organizational architecture based on these core competencies (Prahalad & Hamell 1990) and could thus be
seen as having global organization (Bartlett & Ghoshall 1989). New innovations and technological
leadership are determinants of success but the voice of customer is the key. In this sense the strategy is
close to that of prospector’s strategy according to the typology of Miles & Snow (1978) According to the
strategic mission, the target company could be clearly categorized into that of build strategy. Global core
competence thinking leads to growing importance of the whole interconnected corporation instead of
single units. This tension could be seen in several issues discussed in this paper. The target company has
an extensive and well defined formal strategic planning system as well as an annual planning system
(including budgeting). The control practice could be described strategic planning (Goold & Campbell
1987) and global organization arhetypes (Bartlett & Ghoshall 1989) Planning is conducted with wide
involvement, and commitment to plans are strongly emphasized, which reminds closely culture or crescive
models of Bourgeois & Brodwin (1984) and prospector and differentiation archetypes (Simons 1990).
The target company was characterized as a company with an engineer’s culture. Engineers consists of the
largest group in the firm’s personnel. Thus, the technology, products and production have traditionally
been considered very important in the target company, while commercial and financial voices have played
minor roles. Engineers were, however, characterized as number oriented and exact persons, a matter which
was considered to be good thing for accounting, which produces needed exact-like calculations in order to
create order in uncertain world of the target company. New ways of acting were generally allowed and
encouraged in the target company’s culture, also in the case of accounting. Company was felt as extreme
creative in strategic issues. Cross functional teamwork is characteristic to the target company. It is
promoted by management, and it is also necessary due to the matrix organization structure and the nature
of a business.
6 This kind of efficiency seeking could not be seen as a strategy e.g. by Porter (1996).
14
Ideas of total quality management, process management and continuous improvement, value management
and customer focus were applied in the target company. To conclude, the target company’s corporate
culture supports strongly a new kind of thinking and acting, also in management accounting, but
engineer’s culture was dominant and financial issues have not commonly been judged as high as they
perhaps should in decision making. The business process thinking seemed to highlight the overall need for
management accounting to take active role in also customer and product processes. The customer oriented
philosophy has been heavily promoted by the top management during recent years. This idea is a part of a
corporate wide attempt to create a culture for continuous improvement. There were four corporate values:
customer satisfaction, respect for individual, achievement and continuous learning. The organization was
intended to be re-engineered in order to create more value, and moreover corporate values and strategies
should be supported by performance management. Performance management related measurement had
started. Business process oriented management philosophy is also part of this agenda. Finance & control
function is also aligned to these general business development processes. It was stated that finance &
control function should take part also in the customer and product processes, in addition to its traditional
support process. People share skeptic attitude towards new managerial technologies, such as process
management and activity based costing, which were commonly smiled. However, the promoted corporate
values were usually well respected and understood. The diffusion of customer oriented philosophy had so
far reached in the upper level of organization. The earlier, technical oriented ways of thinking were still
strong in lower levels of the organization. The customer orientation was also a logical consequence of the
new business phase where liberalization of markets had created lots of new customers competing against
each other by differentiating themselves through services.
According to the institutional theory, new action patterns could be adapted because of fashion, competitors
or more generally for managing the uncertainty. Without questioning the rationality of the implementation
in the target company, we can conclude, that new managerial technologies were merely seen as empty fads
and slogans in the target company and particularly in the finance & control function. Real organizational
action patterns changed slowly and not always in intended or predicted way. There could be found much
evidence from the differences between promoted and real organizational cultures.
Target group was organized as a matrix structure and it was also clearly moved into global organization
type. The rapidly changing matrix structure was stated to be problematic to be supported by management
accounting system and the routine activities of reporting were massive. Different organizational
dimensions had different needs, and it was difficult to support them all with one system and clear tensions
between dimensions exist e.g. in the form of separate local reporting systems. Severe needs to foster these
multiple perspectives in global target firm exists (cf. Dent 1996). Complex and changing organizational
structure was hard to support with formal management accounting systems. Organization leads, however,
to active cross-functional teamwork, and organizational structure were considered mentally as low and
flexible.
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING AND STRATEGY
15
The strategically oriented development and practice of management accounting in target company was
quite different than was suggested in the literature. The management accounting’s contribution to formal
strategic planning process did not seem not to be very active, rather, it was on quite marginal level. Mainly,
it took place just when the long range plans were translated into long term profit plans. In broad terms,
signs of strategic management accounting could be seen, when management accounting was used to
quantify the strategic plans and options, and also future markets and customers. Future orientation was
seen very important, but long range calculations were, however experienced to be very hard and frustrating
to produce, because of huge amount of uncertainty, environmental change and corporate growth. The
dominant logic of the top management (personal and interpersonal experience, pure will, strong visions of
the future, technology and market conditions) were most essential issue in strategic decision making,
which thus was hard to support with accounting calculations, (c.f. Mintzberg 1994).
Several important strategic challenges for the management accounting of the case site could, however,
finally be pointed out. There were need for
l well defined strategic control measures (e.g. share of strategically important products’ sales of total
sales)
l supporting the business from measuring and analyzing simultaneously multiple perspectives and
multiple time horizons, including non-financial measures
l promoting strategic intent and commitment as well as organizational profit consciousness and high
achievement level
l interactive scanning of strategic uncertainties, e.g. through budgeting process and budget updates
l controlling and coordinating the global value chain and resource allocation
l ability to give some real substantial content to the strategy process, related to product and customer
management.
Strategic planning was formalized and broad process, which had essential importance for group wide core
competencies as well as business group control. (c.f. global organization type of Bartlett & Ghoshall 1989,
andPorter 1986, strategic planning type of Goold & Campbell 1987 and differentiation and prospector of
Simons 1990). Budgeting was seen primarily as planning and coordination device, not performance
monitoring device, which was in the line with suggestions of Goold & Campbell (1987) made for strategic
planning type of control mechanism, global organization type (Siitonen 1993) and build-mission by
Anthony et al. (1992 ).
Future orientation was at best reached in monthly and quarterly made latest estimate statements in
management accounting reporting. This emphasized highly the importance of the forecast data and budget
updates during the year, which was earlier stated to be typical for strategic archetype of prospector by
Simons (1990). Furthermore, according to Simons (1990, 1991, 1995), management could use formal
management control systems not only to implement and control existing strategies, but also to guide the
emergence of the new strategies by focusing the organizational attention to strategic uncertainties. Thus
management with clear vision of their businesses use control systems selectively in a sense that they
typically use one and only control system interactively and other systems only diagnostically and these
interactive control systems could also formulate new strategies. In target company, budgeting could at the
moment be defined as an interactive control system in the target company, because information gathered
16
by it was typically important and recurring agenda addressed by the highest levels of management, the
process demands frequent and regular attention from operating managers, data are interpreted and
discussed in face-to-face meetings and the process relies on continual challenge and debate of underlying
data, assumptions and action plans. There were however signs, that both the planned new logistics system
or applied new performance measurement might be the next interactive control systems in the future.
Future orientation and tight frequency of reporting were also in line with the high environmental
uncertainty (c.f. Gordon & Miller 1976). The reporting speed had intensified due to the needs of interim
financial reporting required for stock exchanges and fast interim disclosure of competitors. Fast reporting
causes severe problems but it also reserves more time for management accountant’s other activities. Most
important measures for strategic and financial control in business group headquarters as well as in the
business units were order inflow, sales, sales margin and operating profit. Managerial needs of
management accounting information seems to be at least in some occasions quite primitive in a nature7,
when contrasted with suggested sophisticated SMA methods, but they still are hard to satisfy, because of
artificial allocations, consolidations and multiple needs of information.
Activity-based costing was largely considered as consultant’s “another fad”, which have only little
managerial relevance. People were rather well aware of the fashionable character of the ABC, and they
like to resist it in different ways. It was, however, considered to be potentially suitable for the process
management efforts of the company and as time to time made analysis, but not as another routine reporting
system. The ABC system was implemented or the project has started in some plants, and the felt usefulness
varied from unit to unit and from person to person. ABC did not carry strategic, but merely operational
plant-level importance in the target company. Potential future usage for ABC in case site could, however,
be found in customer profitability analysis.
Some value chain analysis has been made in strategic planning processes, but not in sense of management
accounting. Value chain thinking was appraised to be potentially useful as making the dependencies
between different functions visible. The value chain of the business group is so complex and
interdependencies such a mesh, that the potential usefulness of value chain based cost analysis was
considered very limited. In sister business group, which has much simpler value chain, these concepts were
proved to be more useful. It proved to be very difficult to find any evidence for such activities as strategic
cost management by applying interview method. Strategic cost management seemed to be hidden in
general management decisions, and was usually practiced intuitively and unconscious way. The
institutionalized business unit-based reporting structure with massive consolidations dominated accounting
thinking and left value chain thinking distant from the world of finance & control people. Value chain
thinking were also treated as a fad in a similar way than ABC by some people interviewed.
The concrete link between value chain and management accounting was found merely in the form of
budgeting and profit planning, where management accounting seemed to help in coordinating the value
chain by integrating the global marketing and production activities. The sales forecast data and estimate
reporting were essential elements of this process. This kind of activities, typical for global firm, have been
7 Simons (1995) has stated, that interactive control system should be simple by nature, because complex systems could notbe used interactively.
17
described earlier by Mouritsen (1995). Management accounting has been expanded also into exploring
customer’s business (discussed with more details later), which could also be interpreted as the SCM-type
extension to the investigation of the total value chain.
Additionally, there were signs of phenomena, which could be described as a special ”cost management
thinking” in target company. The overall need for cost and profit-related knowledge was said to be
increasing in target organization. People were increasingly interested how their activities affect on the
profitability of the company. In this sense, it could be talk about the need for overall ”organizational profit
consciousness”, which might be one main additional managerial contribution potential for management
accounting function in the future. The importance of the corporate bottom line profitability could,
however, be merely seen as a device of the group to control different units and unit managers to maximize
the wealth of the wholeness instead of their own units. Executive compensation system were also
connected with annual earnings and the value of shares of the whole group. The importance of the
wholeness and the strategic architecture were in this sense put above the unit performance. Long term
managerial view and long term goal congruence were tried to achieve through additional options plan
issued for the top executives.
Target cost thinking was said to be constructed into this industry “by definition”, price erosion is well
known in this industry and cost management is becoming more and more important. Target prices and
costs are conceptually used in corporate planning and budgeting processes and some special cost
management programs have been started in single plants. The research project raise further a question
concerning the existing western cost management practices and need for further comparison with Japanese
practice. In some occasions, product life cycle cost analysis had been made ex ante or during the product
development process in ad hoc bases outside the formal reporting systems. Typically, however, the volume
of product’s demand has exceeded the planned volumes and the profitability has been high. This has led to
only little interest to any ex post calculations of this kind. Furthermore, the allocation of R & D costs was
considered very problematic in life cycle costing, because the products typically form product families with
different generations and variations and the heaviest R & D resources had to be sacrificed into the first
generations and the following ones could be further developed on these bases with less costs.
One important separate aspect of life cycle thinking was the felt need to calculate life time profitability of
customers. This was however considered as complicated calculation problem, due to the long business
relationships with customers, characteristic of the industry.
Competitor analyses were noticed to carry great importance and they were made in target company, but
mainly by the marketing, not accounting people. This kind of data was systematically gathered by almost
all possible sources. Financial information was included in these analyses mainly from competitors’ annual
reports. Trade finance department was the key link between finance & control function and the competitor
analysis in the company. Competitor oriented seminar sessions, including simulated competition games,
were one special form of competitor analysis. Benchmarking was in a wider sense rather extensively used
in target company.
Usage of coherent theory of product attribute costing as such could not be found in a case site, but,
however, overall additional opportunity and need for management accountants was said to be in appraising
18
new products alternatives and new lines of businesses. Management accounting function is one of the
supporting information channels between customers and R & D function and the support was needed in
questions related to timing, risks and economic consequences of different alternatives of action. Concrete
development of target costing or life cycle accounting approaches might be helpful in the product decisions
and product processes in the future. Described new product decisions were proposed to be in existing
business to the target company. Appraisal of more radical and undoubtedly strategic change in the form of
entering into totally new business was stated to need also management accounting support, but here the
information needs, uncertainty and education of management accountants was said to be highly
problematic. New pricing methods were currently in debate in target company, specially in the case of
software products. Here some development work had already been carried out and value-based pricing
approach was planned, where customer’s use of the product and the use situation could define the price as
supplementary or complementary to the traditional more or less cost-based price.
Customer analysis was seen as an essential part of management accounting’s future development. Central
issues in this sense were customer and segmental profitability analysis and analysis of the long term
viability of customers business. It was considered very important to develop proper global customer and
segmental profitability analysis in target company, while business units were the main dimension of formal
monthly reporting. The existing reporting system produced monthly transfer price-based customer (or
account) profitability report by business units. Global customer profitability analysis from important
customers were made on ad hoc basis. Allocation of research and development costs, which were essential
part of target company’s cost structure were seen as a problem for customer profitability analysis.
Customer analyses also bind together the efforts of the global value chain and highlighted the business
group profitability, and thus it was in this sense suitable tool to emphasize the global architecture and
overcome centrifugal tendencies in single units.
The investigation of customers long term viability was born due to the liberalization of the industry’s
market. Old customers were typically well rated state owned or public companies. After liberalization, new
customers are not as solid, and not every of them will be viable in the future, the risks are hence
enormously increased. Also the overall understanding of the customer’s existing and future needs in order
to find right products and action patterns in right time was seen essential for the future of the target
company. This has created demands for management accounting function to take more actively part in
planning and analysis of customer’s future business. Basic financial statement analyses were employed if
possible, but this was not, however, useful for newcomers without any historical records in this particular
business. There has been built entire hypothetical business plans for customers and the role of management
accountant has been to bring his financial knowledge in this discussion. He/she was expected to contribute
to this plan and whole discussion process by constructing hypothesized financial statement and cash flow
analysis according to different presumes concerning the cost structures and investment plans. The business
plan was also an important base for making the commercial and financial bids for the customer. This kind
of development for management accounting was in its early stages but signs were said to be encouraging.
Here the focus of management accounting along the value chain was expanding outside the target
company and the cooperation with other functions and overall business knowledge of management
accounting were increased alongside activities described. Huge problem was, that there were hardly any
19
enough sophisticated controllers for this kind of activities, because of very challenging and novel job
description.
Non-financial performance measurement was widely used in target company in order to measure customer
satisfaction, operative efficiency and people involvement. They were used group wide, and they were
combined with the traditional financial measures. Unit specific non-financial measures had also employed.
The goal of employment of this scorecard was to measure excellence in performance by breaking targets
into concrete measures and linking them to processes of the target company. Non-financial measures were
understood very useful, because they make the processes more visible and shake the existing beliefs.
Management accountant function was, however, with some exceptions, very little involved with these
measures. Accounting people shared commonly the view of their potential, but also stated serious notions
about the reliability of the non-financial measurement.
No formal strategic investment appraisals were found in target company. Global corporate strategy and the
alignment of the unit investments with it, market factors, and the subjective dominant logic of executives
dominated the strategic capital budgeting decisions, not formal investment analyses and quantitative
aspects. These notions find their references from literature concerning core competence (Prahalad &
Hamel 1990) global strategy (e.g. Bartlett & Ghoshall 1989) group-unit tensions (Slagmulder 1997), build
strategic mission and related uncertainty (e.g. Anthony et al. 1992) and subjectivist view (Lumijärvi 1990,
Wikman 1993).
CONCLUSIONS
The case site was selected as a representative of the most likely setting in order to find modern strategic
management accounting practices. However, relatively little evidence about strategic management
accounting was found. Closer to the strategic level some literature-based innovation was considered, it was
more unlikely adopted in the target company as management accounting (SCM, TC and product attribute
analysis, strategic investment appraisal). More strategic the utilized innovation was, it was more unlikely,
that management accounting function got involved in it (e.g. competitor analysis, BSC and SCM). More
sophisticated or distant from the traditional practices and existing systems the advocated practice was,
more unlikely it was adopted. With some exceptions, the case site needed only little strategic management
accounting and the strategically most relevant accounting practices were found from rather surprising
directions, such as budgeting and customer interface. The budgeting could be defined as having concrete
strategic relevance because it was used relatively interactively and it thus was important tool for guiding
the development of new strategic initiatives. Customer concern yielded two important features; customer
profitability accounting and customer analysis. These strategic kind of accounting topics include in
principle quite conventional accounting methods, which were, however, used in innovative way (profit
planning was done interactively, global customer profitability analysis was made to highlight the
profitability of the whole business group, and cash flow and breakeven analyses were used for analyzing
the customers’ business). The management accounting function’s involvement in the strategy process of
the target company was relatively weak and the strategic impetus of the management accounting took place
mainly in the form of few individual interventions. In stead of strategic management accounting, there was
20
need of business and performance management-oriented management accounting, which was in many
occasions rather operative and even rather simple by nature. In this sense, despite the intended most likely
research setting, this study does not give much support to the existing normative strategic management
accounting literature as such.
Some important strategic (and operational) challenges for the management accounting of the case site
were, however, finally pointed out. These are 1) the need for well defined strategic control measures, 2)
supporting the business from measuring and analyzing simultaneously multiple perspectives, 3) promoting
strategic intent and commitment, 4) interactive scanning of strategic uncertainties, 5) controlling and
coordinating the global value chain and resource allocation and finally 6) ability to give some real
substantial content to the strategy process, related to product and customer processes of the target
company.
Environmental and strategic changes and modern managerial philosophies were reflected in a complex
way to the development of management accounting, which was influenced also heavily by the
organizational structure and culture and their ongoing changes in the target company. There could be
found both similarities and differences between the normative agenda of strategic management accounting,
used as a framework for categorizing the case findings, and between the practice of target company. The
strategic management accounting tools suggested in the literature were mainly not used and even not
needed in the case site. Target company is however a very successful firm. In this sense we can say, that
this study does not support very much the normative strategic management accounting literature. Merely
there found out several barriers and problems concerning the strategic management accounting application
and implementation. According to the rhetoric of the contextual generalization, even the overall relevance
of some of the suggested business unit or plant level SMA-tools in studied context (high tech industry,
global, core competence and differentiation strategy) could finally be questioned. In this context central
managerial issues are related with innovation, organizational learning, creativeness, personnel
commitment, technology and skill combinations and transformation, promotion of strategic intent,
coordination of global corporate value chain and societal lobbying. A step towards new theory concerning
the accounting and strategy in described environment could, thus, be suggested. This kind of ideas of
global challenges for management accounting has earlier been suggested by e.g. Dent (1996). Also the
subjective nature of strategic management sets several limitations to the normative strategic management
accounting development.
Management accounting practice and systems of the target company were mainly in line with suggested
strategic characteristics of the contingency theory, but the formulation mechanism of control systems could
be very different than which could be expected from the rational-based assumptions. Environmental
changes and uncertainty had affected on management accounting and had caused pressures to change in
target company. Organizational complexity and organizational changes set also severe challenges and also
limitations to management accounting systems. Entrepreneur culture and free atmosphere gave high
possibilities to develop new kind of management accounting practices. Dominant engineer culture set,
however, pivotal frame for the managerial roles of accounting. Adapted new managerial philosophies set
new demands for performance measurement. Uncertain and ambiguous management situations, which are
typical for the company, might lead to mimetic behavior and institutional routines in order to control these
situations. Environmental changes and strategic choices have lead to global business, which leads to new
21
reporting environment with global coordination and control problems, new regulation, new owners and
also new competitor-related reporting pressures. The adaptation of customer orientation and other
managerial philosophies and also strategy formulation itself might thus be affected by this mimetic
behavior or legitimization efforts. Fads are sometimes promoted and applied, even tough not deeply
believed by personnel. Embedded institutionalized practices, such as accounting change slowly and often
through conflicts.
22
REFERENCES
Abernathy, W. & Hayes, R. (1980) Managing our way to economic decline. Harvard Business Review, 58, 4, p.
64-77.
Amigioni, F. (1978) Planning management control systems, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 5, (3),
279-292.
Andrews, K. (1971) The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Dow-Jones Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Ansoff, I. (1965) Corporate Strategy. New York.
Anthony, R.N. (1965) Planning and Control Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Boston.
Anthony, R.N. & Dearden, J. & Govindarajan, V. (1992) Management Control Systems. 7th ed. Irwin, Boston.
Bartlett, C. & Ghoshall, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders. The Transnational Solution. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.
Berger, P. & Luckman, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday, New York.
Bogue, M. & Buffa, E. (1986) Corporate Strategic Analysis. Free Press, New York.
Bourgeois, L. & Brodwin, D. (1984) Strategic Implementation: Five Approaches to an Elusive Phenomenon,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 241-264.
Bromwich, M. (1988) Managerial Accounting. Definition and Scope - From a Managerial View. Management
Accounting, September 1988, p. 26-27.
Bromwich, M. (1990) The Case for Strategic Management Accounting: The Role of Accounting Information for
Strategy in Competitive Markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol 15 No. 1/2, pp 27-46.
Bromwich, M. (1992) Strategic Management Accounting teoksessa Drury, C. (ed.) Management Accounting
Handbook. CIMA, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford.
Bromwich, M. & Bhimani, A. (1991) Strategic Investment Appraisal. Management Accounting (USA), March.
Bromwich, M & Bhimani, A, (1994) Management Accounting: Pathways to Progress. CIMA, London.
Burchell, S. & Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A. & Hughes, J. (1980) The Roles of Accounting in Organizations and
Society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 5, No 1, 5-27.
Buzzel, R. & Gale, B. & Sultan, R. (1975) Market Share. A key to Profitability. Harvard Business Review, Jan-
Feb, p. 27-42.
Byars, L. (1992) Concepts of Strategic Management. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
Van Cauvenberg, A. & Cool, K. (1982) Strategic Management in New Framework. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol 3, 245-264.
Chaffee, E. (1985) Three Models of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 89-98.
Chakravarthy B. & Lorange P. (1991) Managing the strategy process: a framework for a multibusiness firm.
Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chalos, P. (1992) Managing Cost in Todays Manufacturing Environment. Prentice hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chandler, A. (1962) Strategy and Structure. Cambridge.
Child J. (1972) Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Ashton Study.
Administrateive Science Quarterly 17: 163-177.
Christiansen, M. (1993) Strategic Financial Statement Analysis - A New Approach. Paper presented at the 16th
Annual Congress of the EAA, Turku, April 28-30, 1993.
Cooper, R. (1996) Costing techniques to support corporate strategy: evidence from Japan. Management
Accounting Research, 7, 219-246.
Cooper, R. & Kaplan, R. (1987) How cost accounting systematically distorts product costs. In Bruns, Jr &
Kaplan, R. (eds.) Accounting and Management: Field Study Perspectives. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston. pp. 204-224.
23
Cooper, R. & Kaplan, R. & Maisel, L. & Morrissey, E. & Oehm, R. (1992) From ABS to ABM. Management
Accounting (US), 74/5, pp. 54-57.
Covalevski, M. & Dirsmith, M. & Samuel, S. (1996) Managerial Accounting Research: The Contributions of
Organizational and Sociological Theories. Journal of Managament Accounting Review, Vol 8, pp.
1-35.
Dent, J. F. (1990) Strategy, Organization and Control: Some Possibilities for Accounting Research. Accounting,
Organizations and Society. Vol 15. No. 1/2. pp. 3-25.
Dent, J. (1996) Global competition: challenges for management accounting and control. Management
Accounting Research, 7, p. 247-269.
Dermer, J. (1990) The strategic agenda: accounting for isssues and support. Accounting, Organizations and
Society. Vol 15. No. 1/2. pp. 67-76.
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collegtive
Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, Vol . 48, April, p. 147-160.
Dimnik, T. & Kudar, R. (1989) Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater! CMA Magazine (Canada) 63 (6),
July/August, p. 12-16.
Drucker, P. F. (1954) The Practice of Management. Harper, New York.
Drucker, P. F. (1988) The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb, p. 45-53.
Drury, C. (1996) Management and Cost Accounting (4th ed.). Thomson Business Press, London.
Emmanuel, C. & Otley, D. & Merchant, K. (1990) Accounting for Management Control. 2nd. ed. Chapman &
Hall, London.
Espeland, W. N. & Hirch, P.M. (1990) Ownership Change, Accounting Practice and The Redefinition of The
Corporation, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol15, 1/2, p. 77-96.
Fisher, J. (1992) Use of Non-financial Performance Measures. Journal of Cost Management, Spring, p. 31-38.
Foster, G. & Gupta, M. (1994) Marketing, Cost Management and Management Accounting. Paper presented
at ..Symposium. April 1994, Venice.
Foster, G. & Gupta, M. & Olin, J.M. (1994) Using and moving beyond first generation customer profitability
reports.
Goold, M. (1986) Accounting and Strategy. In Bromwich, M. & Hopwood, A. (eds.) Research & Current Issues
in Management Accounting, p. 181-191.
Goold , M. & Campbell A. (1987) Strategies and Styles. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.
Gordon, L. & Miller, D. (1976) A contingency framework for the design of accounting information systems.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1, 59-70.
Gordon, L. & Larcker, D. & Truggle, F. (1978) Strategic Decision Processses and the Design of Accounting
Information Systems: Conceptual Linkages. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 3, 3/4, p. 203-
213.
Gosselin, M. (1995) The Role of Strategy and Organizational Structure on the Adoption and Implementation of
Innovations in Management Accounting Systems. Research paper, Brugge.
Govindarajan, V. (1989) Implementing Competitive Strategies at the Business Unit Level: Implications of
Matching Managers to Strategies. Stategic Management Journal, Vol 10, 251-269.
Govindarajan, V. & Gupta, A.K. (1985) Linking Control Systems to Business Unit Strategy: Impact on
Performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 10, No 1, 51-66.
Granlund, M. (1994) The Role of Management Accounting in Corporate Crises. Publications of the Turku
School of Economics and Business Administration, Series D-5:1994.
Hartman, S. (1993) Strategic Accounting or Accounting Strategy? An Empirical Investigation of the
Relationship between Strategic Management and Management Accounting. Paper presented at EAA
Doctoral Colloquium in Accounting, Turku, April 25-27, 1993.
24
Hax, A. & Majluf, N. (1991) The Strategy Concept And Process. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hiromoto, T. (1988) Another hidden edge - Japanese management accounting. Harvard Business Review.
July/August, 22-26.
Hofer, C. & Schendel, D. (1978) Strategy Formulation. Analytical Concepts. West Publishing, St. Paul.
Horngren, C. & Foster, G. (1987, 1991 and & Datar, S. 1994 ja 1997) Cost Accounting. A Managerial
Emphasis. 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th editions. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Horvath, P. & Tani, T. (1997) Japanese-German Comparison of Target Cost Management. Paper presented at
the Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association, 23 - 25 April, Graz, Austria.
Jaikumar, R. (1986) Postindustrial Manufacturing. Harvard Business Review 64, 6 (Nov-Dec), p. 69-76.
Johnson, G. (1987) Strategic Change and the Management Process. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Johnson, H.T. & Kaplan R.S. (1987) Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Judson, A. S. (1990) Making Strategy Happen. Transforming plans into reality. Basil Blackwell, London.
Kaplan R. S. (1995) New Roles for Management Accountants. Journal of Cost Management, Fall, pp. 6-13.
Kaplan, R.S. & Atkinson, A. (1989) Advanced Management Accounting, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton D. P. (1992) The Balanced Scorecard-Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard
Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-79.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton D. P. (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard Business Review,
September-October, p. 134-147.
Kato, Y. (1993) Target costing support systems: lessons from leading Japanese companies. Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 4. p?
Kato, Y & Böer, G. & Chow, C. W. (1995) Target Costing: An Integrative Management Process. Cost
Management, Spring, p. 39-51.
Keating, P. (1995) A Framework for Classifying and Evaluating the Theoretical Contributions of Case Research
in Management Accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research. Fall, pp. 66-86.
Khandwalla, P. (1972) The Effect of Different Types of Competition on the Use of Management Controls.
Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn, pp. 275-285.
Khandwalla, P. (1973) Effect of Competition on the Structure of Top Management Control. Academy of
Management Review, June, pp. 285-295.
King, M. & Lee, R.A. & Piper, J.A. &Whittaker, J. (1991) Information Technology and the Changing Role of
Management Accountants. Teoksessa Issues in Management Accounting, eds. Ashton, D & Hopper, T.
S & Scapens, R.W.. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Lancaster, K.J. (1979) Variety, Equity and Efficiency: Product Variety in an Industrial Society. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorch, J.W. (1969) Organizations and Environment. Homewood, IL, Irwin.
Lebas, M (1994) Management Accountants: The Challenges of the Next Decade. A View of Tomorrow:
Management Accountancy in the Year 2004. Issued by the International Federation of Accountants,
New York.
Lindblom, C. (1959) The Science of "Muddling Through", Public Administration Review, Vol 19, p. 79-88.
Lorange, P. (1980) Corporate Planning, An Executive Viewpoint. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lord, B (1996) Strategic management accounting: the emperor’s new clothes? Management Accounting
Research, 7, 347-366.
Lorino, P (1995) Strategy Deployment through Joint Application of Business Process Management and ABC.
Julkaisematon tutkimuspaperi, Brugge.
25
Lukka, K. & Granlund, M. (1996) Cost accounting in Finland: current practice and trends of development.
European Accounting Review, 5:1, 1996, 1-28.
Lumijärvi, O.-P. (1990) Gameplaying in Capital Budgeting. Turun kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja, sarja A -
7:1990.
Lynch, R. L. & Cross, K. F. (1991) Measure up! Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement. Blackwell, USA.
Lyne, S. & Friedman, A. (1996) Activity-based tehcniques and the “new management accountant”. Management
Accounting (UK), July/August.
Mecimore & Bell (1995) Are we ready for fourth-generation ABC? Management Accounting (US) January
1995, pp. 22-26.
Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, pp. 340-363.
Miles, R.E & Snow, C.C. (1978) Organizational Strategy; Structure and Process. Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
Miller, D. & Friesen (1978) Archetypes of Strategy Formulations. Management Science, Vol 24 (9), pp. 921-
933.
Miller, D. & Friesen (1982) Innovation in Concervative and Entrepreneurial Firms. Two Models of Strategic
Momentum. Strategic Management Journal,, Vol 3, pp. 1-25.
Mintzberg, H. (1987) Crafting Strategy. Harvard Business Review. July-August.
Mintzberg, H.. (1994) Strategisen suunnittelun nousu ja tuho. Yritystalous 4/94.
Minzberg, H. & Raisinghani, O. & Theoret, A. (1976) The Structure of Unstructured Decision Process.
Administrateive Science Quarterly. Vol 21, p. 246-275.
Minzberg, H. & Waters, J. (1985) Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal. Vol
6, p. 257-272.
Moon, P. & Bates, K. (1993) Core analysis in strategic performance appraisal. Management Accounting
Research, p. 139-152.
Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organization. Sage Publications, Bristol.
Morrow, M. (ed.) (1992) Activity-based management. Woodhead-Faulkner, Hemel Hempstead.
Mouritsen, J. (1991) Strategisk Regnskabsvaese: Strategiopfattelser inden for regnskabsvaesenet.
Okonomistyring & Informatik, / årgang 1991/1992, nr 3.
Mouritsen, J. (1995a) Management Accounting in Global Firms. In Ashton, D. & Hopper, T. & Scapens, T.
(eds.) Issues in Management Accounting. Pentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Näsi, J. (1987) Liikkeenjohdon viisastenkivet. Espoo.
Otley, D. (1994) Management control in contemporary organizatons: towards a wider framework. Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 5, pp. 289-299.
Partanen, V. (1997) Laskentatoimen muutos ja organisaatiokulttuuri. Case: toimintolaskennan implementointi.
Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Series D-3:1997.
Pellinen, J. (1996) Understanding the functions of accounting in a munitions company. University of Jyväskylä.
Reports from the Department of Economics and Management, 21/1996.
Perrow, C. (1967) A framework for comparative organizational analysis. American Sociological Review 32:194-
208.
Pettigrew, A. (1973) The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making. Tavistock, London.
Pettigrew, A. (1985) The Awakening Giant: Continuityand Change in ICI. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Pihlanto, P. (1983) Laskentatoimi ja valta: Toiminnalliseen informaatiosystematiikkaan perustuvat valtatyypit
eräiden kirjallisuudessa esitettyjen valtasystematiikkojen valossa. Publications of the Turku School of
Economics and Business Administration. Series KR-3:1983.
Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy. Free Press, New York.
Porter, M. (1985) Competitive Advantage, Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York.
26
Porter, M. (1986) Competition in Global Industries. A Conceptual Framework In Competition in Global
Industries. Porter, M. (ed.) Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Porter, M. (1996) What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, Now-Dec, pp. 61-78.
Prahalad, C. & Bettis, R. (1986) The Dominant Logic: a New Linkage Between Diversity and Performance.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol 7, 485-501.
Prahalad, C. & Hamel G. (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation. harvard Business Review, may-June,
79-91.
Prahalad, C & Hamel, G. (1994) Strategy as a Field of Study: Why a search for a new Paradigm? Strategic
Maagement Journal, Vol 15, Special Issue, p. 5-16.
Pugh, D. & Hickson, D. & Hinnings, C. (1969) The context of organization structures. Administrateive Science
Quarterly 14: 91-114.
Quinn, J.(1980) Strategies for Change: "Logical Incrementalism". Richard Irwin, Homewood Ill.
Quinn, J. & Mintzberg, H. & James, R. (1988) The Strategy Process. Concepts, Contetexts, & Cases. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Raffish, N. & Turney, P. (1991) Glossary of Activity based Management. Journal of Cost Management, Fall.
Rickwood, C.P. & Coates, J.B. & Stacey, R.J. (1990) Stapylton: strategic management accounting to gain
competitive advantage. Management Accounting Research, 1990, p. 37-49.
Roslender, R. (1995) Accounting for Strategic Positioning: Responding to the Crisis in Management
Accounting. British Journal of Management. Vol 6, 45-47.
Rumelt, R. (1974) Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Santala, R. (1996) Post-Acquisition Integration of Strategic Management in an MNC. Publications of the Turku
School of Economics and Business Administration, Series A-2:1996.
Scapens, R. (1994) Never mind the gap: towards an institutional perspective on managment accounting.
Managment Accounting Review, 5, pp. 301-321.
Schein, E. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey Bass Publishers. San Fransisco.
Scott, R. (1987) The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. Administrateive Science Quarterly, pp. 493-511.
Selto, F. (1995) Implementing Activity-Based Management. Journal of Cost Management, Summer.
Selznick, P. (1957) Foundations of theory of organizations. American Sociological Review, 12, pp. 25-35.
Shank, J.K. (1996) Analyzing technology investment-from NPV to Strategic Cost Management (SCM). Journal
of Management Accounting Research, 7, 185-197.
Shank, J.K. & Govindarajan V. (1989) Strategic Cost Analysis. Homewood Ill, Richard D. Irwin.
Shank, J.K. & Govindarajan V. (1993) Strategic Cost Management. Free Press, New York.
Shapiro, B. & Jackson, B. (1978) Industrial Pricing to Meet Customer Needs. Harvard Business Review, 56, 6
/November-December 1978, p. 119-127.
Siitonen, L.-A. (1993) Strategisen muutoksen rakenne ja vaikutukset budjetoinnin kannalta. Publications of the
Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Series D-5:1993.
Simmonds, K. (1981) Strategic Management Accounting. Management Accounting (UK) April.
Simmonds, K. (1983) Strategic Management Accounting. In Fawning (ed.) Handbook of Management
Accounting. Gower Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, Hants. Reprinted 1985.
Simon, H. (1972) Theories of Bounded Rationality. In Radner, C. & Radner, R. (eds.) Decision and
Organization, p. 161-176. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Simon, H. (1976) Administrative Behavior (3. ed.) Free Press, New York.
Simons, R. (1987) Accounting control systems and busienss strategy: an empirical analysis. Accounting,
Organizations and Society. Vol 12, 1, p. 357-374.
27
Simons, R. (1990) The Role of Management Control Systems in Creating Competitive Advantage: New
Perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 15, No 1/2, pp. 127-143.
Simons, R. (1991) Strategic Orientation and Top Management Attention to Control Systems. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol 12, pp. 49-62.
Simons, R. (1995) The Levers of Control. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Slagmulder, R. (1997) Using management control systems to achieve alignment between strategic investment
decisions and strategy. Management Accounting Review, 8 (1), pp. 103-140.
Spicer, B. (1992) The resurgence of cost and management accounting: a review of some recent developments in
practice, theories and case research methods. Management Accounting Research, 3, p. 1-37.
Tamminen, R. (1990) Laskentatoimi ja strategia. Jyväskylän yliopiston taloustieteen laitoksen julkaisuja, n:o 80,
Jyväskylä.
Thompson, J.D. (1967) Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw & Hill.
Thompson, & Tuden (1959) Strategies, Structures and Processes of Organizationa Decision. In Thompson et al.
(eds.) Comparative Studies in Administration. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Tomkins, C. (1991) Corporate Resource Allocation. Financial, Strategic and Organizational Perspectives. Basil
Blackwell, Oxford
Tomkins, C. & Carr, C. (1996) Reflections on the papers in this issue and commentary on the state of Strategic
Mnagement Accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 271-280.
Tomlinson, J. (1990) Strategies and Roles for Calculative Regimes: A Review of a Case Study. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol 15, 3, p.267-271.
Utterback, J. & Abernathy, W. (1975) Dynamic Model of Product and Process Innovation, Omega, pp. 639-656.
Uusi-Rauva, E. & Haverila, M. & Kouri, I. (1993) Teollisuustalous. Infacs Johtamistekniikka Oy. Ylöjärvi.
Vaivio, J. (1995) Non-financial Management Accounting Measures: A Case Study. Paper presented at the
Finnish Accounting Tutorial 1995 at Helsinki.
Vancil, R. & Lorange, P. (1975) Strategic planning in diversified companies. Harvard Business Review, Jan-
Feb, 81-90.
Ward, K. (1992) Strategic Management Accounting. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford.
Ward, K. (1992b) Accounting for marketing strategies. Teoksessa Drury, C. (ed.) Management Accounting
Handbook. CIMA, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford.
Ward, K. (1995) Accounting for Marketing. Management Accounting (UK), May, p. 20.
Webster, F. (1981) Top Management’s Concerns about Marketing Issues for the 1980’s. Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 45, 1981.
Webster, F. (1991) Industrial Marketing Strategy. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York. 3. ed.
Welsch, G. & Hilton, R. & Gordon, P. (1988) Budgeting, Profit Planning and Control. Prentice-Hall
International Editions.
Wikman, O. (1993) Yrityksen investointiprosessi ja siihen vaikuttavia tekijöitä. Toiminta-analyyttinen tutkimus.
Turun kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja, sarja A-7:1993.
Wilson, R. (1991) Strategic Management Accounting. Issues in Management Accounting, ed. by Ashton, D. &
Hopper, T. & Scapens, R. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Wilson, R. (1994) Competitor Analysis. Management Accounting /April 1994, p. 24-26.
Wrigley, L. (1970) Diversification and Divisional Autonomy. D.B.A. thesis, Harvard Business School.
Young, M. & Selto, F. (1992) Effective Long-Term Cost Reduction: A Strategic Perspective. Journal of Cost
Management, Spring.
Zucker, L. (1977) The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42,
725-743.