Advertisement

Business Research

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 134–153 | Cite as

MAS Integration and Controllership Effectiveness: Evidence of a Preparer-User Perception Gap

  • Barbara E. WeißenbergerEmail author
  • Hendrik Angelkort
  • Gero Holthoff
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that managers establish a positive link between management accounting system (MAS) integration and controllership effectiveness, which is fully mediated by the perceived consistency of financial language. Our paper extends this research by analyzing whether controllers have similar perceptions on MAS design. Testing a series of multi-group structural equation models, we find evidence for a preparer-user perception gap with respect to the mediating impact of a consistent financial language. Our results contribute to the still-ongoing controversial debate on MAS integration by indicating that the effectiveness of MAS design cannot be evaluated solely from an instrumental perspective independent from users’ perceptions.

JEL classification

M41 

Keywords

management accounting system controllership effectiveness preparer-user perception gap structural equation modeling (SEM) survey multi-group analysis 

References

  1. Angelkort, Hendrik (2010): Integration des Rechnungswesens als Erfolgsfaktor für die Controllerarbeit: Eine empirische Untersuchung deutscher Großunternehmen, Lang: Frankfurt/Main et al.Google Scholar
  2. Arnegger, Martin and Christian Hofmann (2007): Periodisierung von Erfolgskomponenten zur Steuerung langfristiger Aufträge, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 77 (2): 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, Richard P. (1994): Structural Equation Models in Marketing Research: Basic Principles, in: Richard P. Bagozzi (ed.): Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell: Cambridge, 317–385.Google Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988): On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1): 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belkaoui, Ahmed (1978): Linguistic Relativity in Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 3 (2): 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlant, Debbie, Reese Browning, and George Foster (1990): How Hewlett Packard Gets Numbers It Can Trust, Harvard Business Review, 68 (1): 178–182.Google Scholar
  7. Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989): Structural Equations With Latent Variables, Wiley: New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, Kenneth A. and Richard Lennox (1991): Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective, Psychological Bulletin, 110 (2): 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browne, Michael W. and Robert Cudeck (1993): Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit, in: Kenneth A. Bollen and J. Scott Long (eds.): Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, 136–162.Google Scholar
  10. Bruns, William J. Jr. and Sharon M. McKinnon (1993): Information and Managers: A Field Study, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5 (1): 84–108.Google Scholar
  11. Byrne, Barbara M. (1989): A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models, Routledge: New York, NY et al.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrne, Barbara M. (2009): Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, 2nd ed., Routledge: New York, NY et al.Google Scholar
  13. Chandler, Daniel (2007): Semiotics: The Basics, 2nd ed., Routledge: New York, NY et al.Google Scholar
  14. Choe, Jong-Min (1998): The Effects of User Participation on the Design of Accounting Information Systems, Information and Management, 34 (3): 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chwolka, Anne (1996): Controlling als ökonomische Institution: Eine agency-theoretische Analyse, Physica: Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, John Maurice (1923): Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  17. Daft, Richard L. and John C. Wiginton (1979): Language and Organization, Academy of Management Review, 4 (2): 179–191.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, Tim R. V. and Lance P. McLaughlin (2009): Is Finance a Business Partner Yet?, Strategic Finance, 90 (3): 35–40.Google Scholar
  19. Demski, Joel S. and Gerald A. Feltham (1976): Cost Determination: A Conceptual Approach, Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  20. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios (2006): The Error Term in Formative Measurement Models: Interpretation and Modeling Implications, Journal of Modelling in Management, 1 (1): 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ewert, Ralf (2006): Fair Values und deren Verwendung im Controlling, in: Alfred Wagenhofer (ed.): Controlling und IFRSRechnungslegung, Schmidt: Berlin, 21–48.Google Scholar
  22. Ewert, Ralf and Alfred Wagenhofer (2007): Management Accounting Theory and Practice in German-Speaking Countries, in: Christopher S. Chapman, Anthony G. Hopwood, and Michael D. Shields (eds.): Handbook of Management Accounting Research Vol. 2, Elsevier: Amsterdam et al., 1035–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Festinger, Leon (1957): A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981): Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1): 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granlund, Markus and Kari Lukka (1998): Towards Increasing Business Orientation: Finnish Management Accountants in a Changing Cultural Context, Management Accounting Research, 9 (2): 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haried, Andrew A. (1972): The Semantic Dimensions of Financial Statements, Journal of Accounting Research, 10 (2): 376–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harman, Harry H. (1967): Modern Factor Analysis, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  28. Hopper, Trevor M. (1980): Role Conflicts of Management Accountants and Their Position Within Organizations Structures, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5 (4): 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopwood, Anthony G. (1974): Accounting and Human Behavior, Haymarket: London.Google Scholar
  30. Hronsky, Jane F. and Keith A. Houghton (2001): The Meaning of a Defined Accounting Concept: Regulatory Changes and the Effect on Auditor Decision Making, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26 (2): 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hu, Li-Tze and Peter M. Bentler (1995): Evaluating Model Fit, in: Rick H. Hoyle (ed.): Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 76–99.Google Scholar
  32. Ijiri, Yuji, Robert K. Jaedicke, and Kenneth E. Knight (1966): The Effects of Accounting Alternatives on Management Decisions, in: Robert K. Jaedicke, Yuji Ijiri, and Oswald Nielsen (eds.): Research in Accounting Measurement, American Accounting Association: Chicago, IL, 186–199.Google Scholar
  33. Indjejikian, Raffi J. and Michal Matějka (2006): Organizational Slack in Decentralized Firms: The Role of Business Unit Controllers, Accounting Review, 81 (4): 849–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jain, Tribhowan N. (1973): Alternative Methods of Accounting and Decision Making: A Psycho-Linguistical Analysis, Accounting Review, 48 (1): 95–104.Google Scholar
  35. Järvenpää, Marko (2007): Making Business Partners: A Case Study on How Management Accounting Culture Was Changed, European Accounting Review, 16 (1): 99–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, H. Thomas and Robert S. Kaplan (1987): Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business School: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, T. Colwyn and Robert Luther (2005): Anticipating the Impact of IFRS on the Management of German Manufacturing Companies: Some Observations From a British Perspective, Accounting in Europe, 2 (1): 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joseph, Nathan, Stuart Turley, John Burns, Linda Lewis, Robert Scapens, and Alan Southworth (1996): External Financial Reporting and Management Information: A Survey of U.K. Management Accountants, Management Accounting Research, 7 (1): 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kumar, Nirmalya, Louis W. Stern, and James C. Anderson (1993): Conducting Interorganizational Research Using Key Informants, Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6): 1633–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maas, Victor S. and Michal Matějka (2009): Balancing the Dual Responsibilities of Business Unit Controllers: Field and Survey Evidence, Accounting Review, 84 (4): 1233–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Müller, Martin (2006): Harmonisierung des externen und internen Rechnungswesens, Gabler: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  42. Nunnally, Jum C. and Ira H. Bernstein (1994): Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Pierce, Bernard and Tony O’Dea (2003): Management Accounting Information and the Needs of Managers: Perceptions of Managers and Accountants Compared, British Accounting Review, 35 (3): 257–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pfaff, Dieter (1995): Der Wert von Kosteninformationen für die Verhaltenssteuerung in Unternehmen, Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 34 (Special Issue), 119–156.Google Scholar
  45. Ployhart, Robert E. and Frederick L. Oswald (2004): Applications of Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis: Integrating Correlational and Experimental Approaches, Organizational Research Methods, 7 (1): 27–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robey, Daniel (1979): User Attitudes and Management Information System Use, Academy of Management Journal, 22 (3): 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sathe, Vijay (1982): Controller Involvement in Management, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  48. Schäffer, Utz (2007): Management Accounting and Control Scales Handbook, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  49. Schermelleh-Engel, Karin, Helfried Moosbrugger, and Hans Müller (2003): Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures, Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2): 23–74.Google Scholar
  50. Schweitzer, Marcell and Ulrich Ziolkowski (eds.) (1999): Interne Unternehmensrechnung: Aufwandsorientiert oder kalkulatorisch?, Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 42 (Special Issue).Google Scholar
  51. Schultz, Randall L. and Dennis P. Slevin (1975): Implementation and Organizational Validity: An Empirical Investigation, in: Randall L. Schultz and Dennis P. Slevin (eds.): Implementing Operations Research/Management Science, American Elsevier: New York, NY et al., 153–182.Google Scholar
  52. Shields, Michael D. (1995): An Empirical Analysis of Firms’ Implementation Experiences With Activity-Based Costing, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7 (1): 148–166.Google Scholar
  53. Siegel, Gary and James E. Sorensen (1999): Counting More, Counting Less: Transformations in the Management Accounting Profession. The 1999 Practice Analysis of Management Accounting, Institute of Management Accountants: Montvale, NJ.Google Scholar
  54. Simons, Dirk and Barbara E. Weißenberger (2008): Die Konvergenz von externem und internem Rechnungswesen: Kritische Faktoren für die Entwicklung einer partiell integrierten Rechnungslegung aus theoretischer Sicht, Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis, 60 (2): 137–160.Google Scholar
  55. Simons, Dirk and Barbara E. Weißenberger (2010): Integration von externer und interner Rechnungslegung: State-of-the-Art und Zukunftsperspektiven nach 15 Jahren betriebswirtschaftlicher Diskussion, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 70 (4): 271–280.Google Scholar
  56. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Hans Baumgartner (1998): Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1): 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steinmetz, Holger, Peter Schmidt, Andrea Tina-Booh, Siegrid Wieczorek, and Shalom H. Schwartz (2009): Testing Measurement Invariances Using Multigroup CFA: Differences Between Educational Groups in Human Values Measurement, Quality and Quantity, 43 (4): 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tait, Peter and Iris Vessey (1988): The Effect of User Involvement on System Success: A Contingency Approach, MIS Quarterly, 12 (1): 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trahan, Emery A. and Lawrence J. Gitman (1995): Bridging the Theory-Practice Gap in Corporate Finance: A Survey of Chief Financial Officers, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 35 (1): 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagenhofer, Alfred (1996): Vorsichtsprinzip und Managementanreize, Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 48 (12): 1051–1075.Google Scholar
  61. Weaver, Samuel C. (2001): Measuring Economic Value Added: A Survey of the Practices of EVA Proponents, Journal of Applied Finance, 11 (1): 50–60.Google Scholar
  62. Weber, Jürgen and Utz Schäffer (2008): Introduction to Controlling, Schäffer-Poeschel: Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  63. Weißenberger, Barbara E. (1997): Die Informationsbeziehung zwischen Management und Rechnungswesen, Gabler: Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weißenberger, Barbara E., IGC-Arbeitskreis „Controller und IFRS” (2006): Controller und IFRS: Konsequenzen einer IFRSFinanzberichterstattung für die Aufgabenfelder von Controllern, Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis, 58 (4): 342–364.Google Scholar
  65. Weißenberger, Barbara E. and Hendrik Angelkort (2011): Integration of Financial and Management Accounting Systems: The Mediating Influence of a Consistent Financial Language on Controllership Effectiveness, Management Accounting Research, 22 (3): 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weygandt, Jerry J., Donald E. Kieso, and Paul D. Kimmel (2005): Managerial Accounting: Tools for Business Decision-Making, 3rd ed., Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  67. Ziegler, Hasso (1994): Neuorientierung des internen Rechnungswesens für das Unternehmens-Controlling im Hause Siemens, Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 46 (2): 175–188.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara E. Weißenberger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hendrik Angelkort
    • 1
  • Gero Holthoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business Administration and EconomicsJustus Liebig University GießenGermany

Personalised recommendations