Imbrication in Operational Control Practices: Evidence from a Complex Process Industry Setting

  • Fazlin Ali
  • Alan Lowe
Part of the Technology, Work and Globalization book series (TWG)


We illustrate how control practices emerge as a result of imbrication as people interact with material artefacts and technology. We show how imbrication modifies control practices as people seek a balance between various organizational aims: standards of product quality; targeted yield and budgeted cost figures. Our case is set in a Malaysian palm oil refinery. We examine how computer control systems affect work practices and attitudes to control in the refinery. Our focus is on specific areas of the refinery plant operations and how activities in these areas contribute to our understanding of the nexus of control systems and how these systems interact with other organizational activities.


Refinery operation Palm oil Malaysia Management control Control practices Case study Imbrication Sociomateriality 


  1. 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
  2. Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2008). Be(com)ing the chief financial officer of an organisation: Experimenting with Bourdieu’s practice theory. Management Accounting Research, 19(3), 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bijker, W. E. (2001). Social construction of technology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social & behavioral sciences (pp. 15522–15527). Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organisation Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciborra, C. (2006). Imbrication of representations: Risk and digital technologies. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1339–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vaujany, F.-X., & Mitev, N. (2013). Introduction: Space in organisations and sociomateriality. In F.-X. de Vaujany & N. Mitev (Eds.), Materiality and space: Organisations, artefacts and practices (pp. 1–24). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dechow, N., & Mouritsen, J. (2005). Enterprise resource planning systems, management control and the quest for integration. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 30(7–8), 691–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, HJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Howard-Grenville, J. A., & Carlile, P. R. (2006). The incompatibility of knowledge regimes: Consequences of the material world for cross-domain work. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(5), 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jørgensen, B., & Messner, M. (2010). Accounting and strategising: A case study from new product development. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 35(2), 184–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Justesen, L., & Mouritsen, J. (2011). Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(2), 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leonardi, P. M. (2012a). Car crashes without cars: Lessons about simulation technology and organisational change from automotive design. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leonardi, P. M. (2012b). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing social interaction in a technological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leonardi, P. M. (2013a). The emergence of materiality within formal organisations. In P. R. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How matter matters: Objecs, artifacts, and materiality in organisation studies (pp. 142–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leonardi, P. M. (2013b). Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Information and Organisation, 23(2), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organisation, 18(3), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowe, A., & Jones, A. (2004). Emergent strategy and the measurement of performance: The formulation of performance indicators at the microlevel. Organisation Studies, 25(8), 1313–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lowe, A., & Koh, B. (2007). Inscribing the organisation: Representations in dispute between accounting and production. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(8), 952–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nama, Y., & Lowe, A. (2014). The “situated functionality” of accounting in private equity practices: A social “site” analysis. Management Accounting Research, 25, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organisation Science, 23(3), 612–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norman, D. (1999). Affordance conventions and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organisation Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orlikowski, W. J. (2010a). The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orlikowski, W. J. (2010b). Practice in research: Phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 23–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organisation. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otley, D. T. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Preston, A. M., Cooper, D. J., & Coombs, R. W. (1992). Fabricating budget: A study of the production of management budgeting in the national health service. Accounting Organisations and Society, 17(6), 561–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2001). What does organisational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 403–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2005). A “time–space odyssey”: Management control systems in two multinational organisations. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 30(7–8), 735–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quinn, M. (2014). Stability and change in management accounting over time—A century or so of evidence from Guinness. Management Accounting Research, 25(1), 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robey, D., Raymond, B., & Anderson, C. (2012). Theorizing information technology as a material artifact in information systems research. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing social interaction in a technological world (pp. 217–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sassen, S. (2002). Towards a sociology of information technology. Current Sociology, 50(3), 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schatzki, T. R. (2005). The sites of organizations. Organization Studies, 26(3), 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor, J. R. (2001). Toward a theory of imbrication and organisational communication. The American Journal of Semiotic, 17(2), 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner, E. L., Moll, J., & Newell, S. (2011). Accounting logics, reconfiguration of ERP systems and the emergence of new accounting practices: A sociomaterial perspective. Management Accounting Research, 22(3), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fazlin Ali
    • 1
  • Alan Lowe
    • 2
  1. 1.Universiti Putra MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Accounting, RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations