Performance management change in archaeological sites: The case of Herculaneum Conservation Project

  • Francesca Manes-Rossi
  • Alessandra Allini
  • Rosanna Spanò
  • Riccardo Macchioni
Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

This study focuses on the issues relating to the implementation of management accounting systems in complex settings such as archeological sites. The aim is to understand the conditions under which the implementation of performance management systems (PMS) may enable cultural organizations to fulfil their multiple objectives and the factors which play a crucial role in such dynamics. Focusing on the Herculaneum Conservation Project (HCP) the study explains how PMS came to be implemented having been made acceptable to all parties involved. The Middle Range Theory as developed by Broadbent and Laughlin (Accounting control and controlling accounting: interdisciplinary and critical perspectives, Bingley, Emerald, 2013) was utilized to explore how the PMS change took place in the HCP, and focus on the factors influencing this process. The findings reveal that the change in the PMS benefited from the involvement of a multidisciplinary Specialist Work Group. This involvement reduced the natural tendency to resist the forces of change and increased the commitment of the various groups of stakeholders to the new culture. The findings reveal how PMS were developed in the context of a multifaceted approach to change, allowing us to draw both theoretical and practical lessons that may be brought to bear in other complex contexts.

Keywords

Performance management system Management change Middle Range Theory Cultural organizations Herculaneum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution from participants to the 37th EGPA Annual Conference in Toulouse. Special thanks go to Professor Robert Scapens for his comments, as well as for our challenging debates on the first version. We are also grateful to the editor and the anonymous reviewers: their comments encouraged us in improving the research. The responsibility for the work is in any case only attributable to the authors.

References

  1. Abernethy, M. A., & Chua, W. F. (1996). A field study of control system redesign: The impact of institutional processes on strategic choice. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13(2), 569–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agyemang, G., & Broadbent, J. (2015). Management control systems and research management in universities: An empirical and conceptual exploration. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(7), 1018–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 31(8), 819–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amans, P., Mazars-Chapelon, A., & Villesèque-Dubus, F. (2015). Budgeting in institutional complexity: The case of performing arts organizations. Management Accounting Research, 27, 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baines, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to management accounting change: A structural equation approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7/8), 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakhshi, H., & Throsby D. (2010). Culture of innovation, an economic analysis of innovation in arts and cultural organizations, NESTA Research ReportGoogle Scholar
  8. Biggi, C., D’Andrea A. & Pesaresi P. (2014). Herculaneum: Joining forces to secure heritage benefits for the ancient and the modern towns/herculaneum : Antik ve Modern Kentlerin Mirastan Kazanımlarını Korumak için Güçlerin Birleştirilmesi, in Bachmann, M,. Maner, C., Tezer, S. and Göçmen, D. (a c.) HERITAGE IN CONTEXT. Conservation and Site Management within Natural, Urban and Social Frameworks/Doğal, Kentsel ve Sosyal Çerçevede Koruma ve Alan Yönetimi. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.Google Scholar
  9. Bonini Baraldi, S. (2014). Evaluating results of public sector reforms in Rechtsstaat countries: The role of context and processes in the reform of the Italian and French cultural heritage system. International Public Management Journal, 17(3), 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boorsma, M., & Chiaravalloti, F. (2010). Arts marketing performance: An artistic-mission-led approach to evaluation. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 40(4), 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brewer, B., Leung, J. Y., & Scott, I. (2015). Value-based integrity management and bureaucratic organizations: Changing the mix. International Public Management Journal, 18(3), 390–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brizzi, M., D’Andrea A., Sepio D., De Silvia M., & Court S. (2005). Planning a conservation project: The information system of the Insula Orientalis I. In S. Dequal (a c.) International Cooperation to Save the World’s Heritage: CIPA 2005 XX Symposium, 26 September–1 October 2005, Italy: Torino, p. 691Google Scholar
  13. Broadbent, J. (2013). Building on foundations: Analysing and developing the work of Richard Laughlin. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 3(24), 173–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Broadbent, J., Gallop, C., & Laughlin, R. (2010). Analysing societal regulatory control systems with specific reference to higher education in England. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(4), 506–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (1997). Developing empirical research: An example informed by a Habermasian approach. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(5), 622–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2009). Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2013). Accounting control and controlling accounting: Interdisciplinary and critical perspectives. Emerald: Bingley.Google Scholar
  18. Broadbent, J., & Unerman, J. (2011). Developing the relevance of the accounting academy: The importance of drawing from the diversity of research approaches. Meditari Accountancy Research, 19(1/2), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organisation of hypocrisy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Burns, J., & Scapens, R. (2000). Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Busco, C., Caglio, A., & Scapens, R. (2015). Management and accounting innovations: reflecting on what they are and why they are adopted. Journal of Management and Governance, 19(3), 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Campanale, C., & Cinquini, L. (2015). Emerging pathways of colonization in healthcare from participative approaches to management accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 39, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carnegie, G., & Wolnitzer, P. (1996). Enabling accountability in museums. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(5), 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chiaravalloti, F. (2014). Performance evaluation in the arts and cultural sector: A story of accounting at its margins. The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 44(2), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Christiansen, J. K., & Skærbæk, P. (1997). Implementing budgetary control in the performing arts: Games in the organizational theatre. Management Accounting Research, 8(4), 405–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cinquini, L., Collini, P., Marelli, A., & Tenucci, A. (2015). Change in the relevance of cost information and costing systems: Evidence from two Italian surveys. Journal of Management and Governance, 19(3), 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Court, S., & Biggi C. (2009). Young people in conservation: international and local participation in safeguarding the cultural heritage of Ercolano, In Macchia, A., Borrelli, E. and Campanella, L. (Eds.) Proceedings of the first international meeting of youth in conservation of cultural heritage, (pp. 1–8). Rome, 24–25 November 2008. Rome, IA-CS.Google Scholar
  28. Court, S., & Biggi C. (2010). Separated from heritage: Local community perceptions of Herculaneum’s values. In Second HERITY international conference measuring the value of material cultural heritage (pp. 165–169). Rome, 3–5 December 2008. Rome, Herity.Google Scholar
  29. Court, S., D’Andrea, A., Del Duca, F., Pesaresi, P., & Thompson, J. (2016). Benefits for people and places: bringing together residents, visitors and non-visitors for Herculaneum. In P. F. Biehl, C. Prescott, & H. A. Soderland (Eds.), Sustainability and heritage tourism. London: Maney.Google Scholar
  30. Dent, J. F. (1991). Accounting and organisational cultures: A field study of the emergence of a new organisational reality. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 16(8), 705–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dunphy, D. C., & Doug, A. S. (1988). Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organisational change: Beyond the O.D. model. Organization Studies, 9(3), 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Edson, G., & Dean, D. (1996). The handbook for museums. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Etzioni, A. (1961). Complex organizations : A sociological reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  34. Ezzamel, M., Robson, K., Stapleton, P., & McLeanb, C. (2007). Discourse and institutional change: Giving accounts and accountability. Management Accounting Research, 18, 150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ferlie, E. (2007). Complex organisations and contemporary public sector organisations. International Public Management Journal, 10(2), 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferri, P., & Zan, L. (2014). Ten years after: The rise and fall of managerial autonomy in Pompeii. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(4), 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ferri, P., & Zan, L. (2017). Partnerships for heritage conservation: Evidence from the archeological site of Herculaneum. Journal of Management and Governance, 21(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fiondella, C., Macchioni, R., Maffei, M., & Spanò, R. (2016). Successful changes in management accounting systems: A healthcare case study. Accounting Forum, 40(4), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gilhespy, I. (1999). Measuring the performance of cultural organizations: A model. International Journal of Arts Management, 2(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  41. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change. Organization Studies, 9(3), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hopper, T., & Bui, B. (2016). Has management accounting research been critical? Management Accounting Research, 31, 10–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (1990). The process of change in management accounting: some field study evidence. Management Accounting Research, 1(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jacobs, K. (1995). Budgets: A medium of organizational transformation. Management Accounting Research, 6(1), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laino, A. (2014). La partnership pubblico-privato per la conservazione, la manutenzione e la valorizzazione di Ercolano. Facility Management Italia, 25, 28–34.Google Scholar
  47. Laughlin, R. (1991). Environmental disturbances and organizational transitions and transformations: Some alternative models. Organization Studies, 12(2), 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laughlin, R. (2007). Critical reflections on research approaches, accounting regulation and the regulation of accounting. The British Accounting Review, 39(4), 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lehman, G. (2006). Perspectives on language, accountability and critical accounting: An interpretative perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(6), 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lehman, G. (2013). Critical reflections on Laughlin’s middle range research approach: Language not mysterious? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leicester, G., & Sharpe, B. (2010). Producing the future. Understanding watershed’s role in ecosystems of cultural innovation. International futures forum. Bristol: Watershed.Google Scholar
  52. Libby, T., & Waterhouse, J. H. (1996). Predicting change in management accounting systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 8, 37–150.Google Scholar
  53. Liguori, M., & Steccolini, I. (2011). Accounting change: Explaining the outcomes, interpreting the process. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(1), 27–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liguori, M., & Steccolini, I. (2014). Accounting, innovation and public-sector change. Translating reforms into change? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(4/5), 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lodh, S. C., & Gaffkin, M. J. R. (1997). Critical studies in accounting research rationality and Habermas: A methodological reflection. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8(10), 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lord, B., & Lord, G. D. (1991). Manual of museum planning. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  57. Lukka, K. (2007). Management accounting change and stability: Loosely coupled rules and routines in action. Management Accounting Research, 18(1), 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Manes-Rossi, F., Allini, A., & Dainelli, F. (2015). Innovations in the measurement of cultural value the British Museum. In P. De Lancer Julnes & E. Gibbson (Eds.), Innovation in public and non profit sectors (pp. 35–55). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3), 235–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Brien, D. (2010). Measuring the value of culture: A report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77933/measuring-the-value-culture-report.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2017.
  61. Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129–141.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2392231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paarlberg, L. E., & Bielefeld, W. (2009). Complexity science—An alternative framework for understanding strategic management in public serving organizations. International Public Management Journal, 12(2), 236–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pesaresi, P. (2013). The Herculaneum conservation project’s programmed maintenance cycles for the archaeological site of Herculaneum. In M. Boriani, R. Gabaglio, & D. Gulotta (Eds.) Online proceedings of the conference built heritage 2013. Monitoring conservation and management. (pp. 184–193). Milan, Nov 18–20 2013, at: http://www.bh2013.polimi.it/papers/bh2013_paper_292.pdf Accessed 10 Sept 2017.
  65. Pesaresi, P., & Martelli, Castaldi M. (2007). Conservation measures for an archaeological site at risk (Herculaneum, Italy): From emergency to maintenance. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 8(4), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pignataro, G. (2011). Performance indicators. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics (pp. 366–372). UK: E. Elgar Pub.Google Scholar
  67. Power, M. (2013). Theory and theorization: A comment on Laughlin and Habermas. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ragin, C., Drass, K., & Davey, S. (2006). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson. Arizona: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  69. Robson, N. (2006). The road to uniformity: Accounting change in UK voluntary hospitals. Accounting and Business Research, 36(4), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rodríguez, D. O., Galera, A. N., & López Hernández, A. M. (2006). Consensus among public managers as strategy for standardization of performance indicators. International Public Management Journal, 9(4), 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scapens, R. (1990). Researching management accounting practice: The role of case study methods. The British Accounting Review, 22(3), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sharma, U., & Lawrence, S. (2015). Power, politics and privatization: A tale of a telecommunications company. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 28, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smith, K. (1982). Philosophical problems in thinking about organisational change. In P. S. Goodman, P. S. Goodman, et al. (Eds.), Change in organizations (pp. 316–374). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  74. Thompson, J. (2007). Conservation and management challenges in a public-private partnership for a large archaeological site (Herculaneum, Italy). Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 8(4), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thompson, J., & D’Andrea D. (2009). Gestione di un progetto multidisciplinare in un sito archeologico complesso. In Coralini, A. (Ed.) Atti del convegno internazionale Vesuviana: archeologie a confronto, Bologna, 14–16 gennaio 2008, (pp. 237–251). Bologna, Edizioni Antequem.Google Scholar
  76. Townley, B., Cooper, D. J., & Oakes, L. (2003). Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1045–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (Vol. 3). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.Google Scholar
  78. Vicente, E., Camarero, C., & Garrido, M. J. (2012). Insights into Innovation in European Museums: The impact of cultural policy and museum characteristics. Public Management Review, 14(5), 649–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods. USA: Sage Inc.Google Scholar
  80. Zan, L. (2002). Renewing Pompeii, Year Zero. Promises and expectations from new approaches to museum management and accountability. Critical perspectives on accounting, 13(1), 89–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SalernoFiscianoItaly
  2. 2.Federico II UniversityNaplesItaly
  3. 3.University of Campania Luigi VanvitelliCapuaItaly

Personalised recommendations