1
The Genesis of Management Accounting Practice : A Case Study in a High Technology Company
Hirofumi Asada1
Abstract
This paper examines the process of intra-organizational management accounting (MA)
change. I use a case study to provide evidence of a genetic process of a particular MA
practice in a Japanese high technology company. The use of an evolutionary framework
in this study can also help explain the way in which the genesis of new MA techniques
takes place. Looking at the history of the capital budgeting system in the company, I
show that calculative architecture, routine and practice play key roles in the MA change
process. I argue the essential roles of entrepreneurship to realize constitutive relations
between knowledge and action, and provide some conceptual settings for further
discussion.
Key words: MA Change, Genesis, Evolutionary Framework, Entrepreneurship
1 Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Ph.D. Candidate, Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
2
1. Introduction: Enthusiasm in MA change study
Over the past few decades there have been many studies that have taken up
Hopwood’s (1987), concerns on accounting change. We can see a movement to this area
through special issues on Management Accounting Change in Management Accounting
Research as well as the formation of a new Journal on accounting and organization
change “Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change” as well as conferences such
as the “Global Accounting and Organizational Change Conference” Issues such as
“whether management accounting has not changed, has changed, or should change,
have all been discussed.” (Burns and Scapens, 2000, p.3) To a greater or less extent,
most of MA researches concerns change. Nowadays, researchers are becoming aware
that ‘Accounting is not a static phenomenon.’ (Hopwood, 1987, p.207).
At the same time, practitioners continue to be interested in change, because of
changing economic climate and other contexts. From their point of view, the direction of
change and how to manage change would be main concerns. Anyway, to respond these
needs, there are many books and consulting firms which focus on change in the world.
Since Hopwood’s (1987) call for more study of the accounting change process, this
academic enthusiasm was started. MA change research has focused on parts of the
process of MA change in various ways. There are many divergent theories to explain
changing in MA practices, for example, Institutional theory, Actor Network theory,
Diffusion theory etc. Despite this, we have no comprehensive framework to connect rich
understandings in these previous studies. Now seems to be that “time for systematizing
the analysis of management accounting change along some key dimensions” (Busco et
al., 2007, p.125).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the process of intra-organizational
management accounting (MA) change. In particular the paper aims to bridge the
criticism of traditional historical studies by using an evolutionary framework. The
paper is set out as follows. Section 2 provides a review of previous works on MA change
and describes research questions. In section 3, I introduce the evolutionary framework.
I narrate some MA change stories in my case company in sections 4 and 5. Finally, in
section 6, I present some conclusions.
2. Research Questions
2.1. What are MA change process and my focus?
3
How do I understand MA change process comprehensively? This paper seeks to
examine and develop evolutionary framework to systematize fields of MA change study.
To connect various field of MA change study, by utilizing evolutionary framework, I
specify possible fields of MA change study from a view point of process.
There are many kinds of studies and theory used in previous studies. Some studies
examined the causal relations between external environment and organizational
variables which includes MA techniques based on contingency theory (Anderson, 1995;
Gosselin, 1997; Baines and Langfield-Smith, 2003). Other researchers argued that
particular changes in management accounting did not occur in response simply to one
individual originating factor, and that MA change is a complex process involving the
interaction of motivator, catalyst and facilitator (Innes and Mitchell, 1990). Successive
studies developed antecedent factor analysis (Cobb et al., 1995; Kasurinen, 2002). This
line of research affected other quantitative research based on survey research (Libby
and Waterhouse, 1996; Williams and Seaman, 2001, etc.). Many papers on the MA
change process have used “Institutional Framework” developed by Burns and Scapens
(2000). This framework used some perspectives which stem from New Institutional
Sociology (NIS), Old Institutional Economics, and Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory.
This framework originated from Barley and Tolbert’s (1997) work and their notion of
“script” to mobilize institutions. They explained the process of institutionalization
which provides homogeneity of practices in the context of accounting successfully. There
is also a stream of MA change studies which use Actor Network theory (see for example;
Chua, 1995; Briers and Chua, 2001; Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005; Jones and Dugdale,
2002). Their aim is to overcome the dichotomy between structure and agency to respond
to Latour’s call (2005) for a ‘flat sociology’ which changes the notion of the social (Busco
et al., 2007, p.130).
These studies provide rich explanations of the diffusion process of MA practice, in
particular those concerning the process of homogenization. These different “theories”
provides us with ways of understanding the MA change process. This papers aims to
take these different theories to develop a holistic understanding of the MA change
process. The evolutionary framework provides a framework for analyzing the MA
change as a process which includes the genetic process and replication process. At the
same time, the framework assumes the presence of a change agent, which is a
genealogical and ecological entity. To explain a genetic process of unique MA practice,
prior research didn’t provide adequate framework. An evolutionary framework
overcomes this by using a few conceptual devices. These include the notion of
calculative architecture which helps us to understand this genetic process of MA change.
4
I aim to show that this ontological hypothesis will provide us with rich understandings
of change process.
As noted above, recent academic research in this area has used Burns and Scapens
(2001) framework to study MA change. These studies focus on the ‘stability’ and
‘diffusion’ process. This stream of studies stems from the work of DiMaggio and Powell
(1983) on new institutional sociology and the idea of isomorphism. In other words, the
process of generating heterogeneity of MA practice has not been well explored.
Lounsbury (2008) noted that;
While the early statement by Meyer and Rowan (1977) signaled the study of both homogeneity and
heterogeneity, research on the institutional sources of practice variation has only begun to be
developed. This is mainly because isomorphic homogeneity was emphasized in subsequent writings
such as in the seminal article by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) that focused scholarly attention on the
convergence of practices and organizational symbolic structures across organizational fields.
(Lounsbury, 2008, p.353)
These studies succeeded to some extent in explaining the replication process of MA
practice in an organization and between organizations. But they did not adequately
explore how a unique MA practice is generated? This is because they lack an analytical
tool for developing a genetic process of MA practice. In this paper I mobilize an
evolutionary framework and the notion of calculative architecture to overcome this
problem.
2.2. How can I understand supply-side issues?
Accounting change studies share many characteristics with historical studies as they
both deal with historical data to analyze how and why change occurs. Depending on
types of evidence these studies have collected, many of them tried to predict accounting
change in the future (for example, Libby and Waterhouse, 1996). But what is common
and different between historical and change studies is not well explored. As a result a
comprehensive understanding of MA change has not taken place. Before introducing an
integrative framework to understand MA change studies, it is necessary to define the
domain of MA change.
According to Luft (1997), there are three types of historical studies. The first two are
based on economics, while the third one is based on post modern social theory. Efficiency
based explanations represented by Chandler (1962, 1977, 1990), and Johnson and
Kaplan (1987) aim to explain the history of MA as a way of increasing economic
efficiency. Other theories such as the “class conflict” explanation used by Armstrong
5
(1987), Hopper & Armstrong (1991) and Hopper et al., (1987) have also argued that the
allocation of resources is based on an economic explanation. However, Postmodern
Social Theory explanations (Hoskin and Macve, 1988; Miller and O'Leary, 1987 etc.)
tried to show how the supply of new management accounting devices can be explained
through a diffusion process. They use various social theories to produce insightful
explanations about MA change. These theories, though, are not adequate for a
comprehensive understanding of the MA change process.
At the same time, the lack of consideration for supply side explanation is seen as a
problem in organizational literatures about innovation diffusion. Rogers (1962) and
following researches provide a rich base of analysis for the diffusion of innovation, but
also have been criticized by some researchers that they place too much emphasis on the
demand side and not enough on the supply side institutions of diffusion (Brown, 1981).
Nowadays, MA change study shed light on supply side issues by various theoretical
perspectives and methods. We’ll make a brief review of papers which deal with such
problems in later section of this paper.
I understand this issue by transformation of MA techniques not in time and space.
Then I point out the importance of emergent change by a human actor. I also aim to
show that the nature of change, is non-linear, and path-dependent, with stability, by
analysis of this issue.
2.3. What is a ‘change’ of accounting?
Before examining these research questions above, we must consider what would be a
object of change. It is not so easy to answer this problem. In relation to the word
“genetic”, I assume that the old and new accounting practices can be identified clearly.
However existing conceptual devices are not adequate to distinguish these differences.
That is because they can’t adequately specify the location of a particular MA practice or
techniques in time and space (Quattrone and Hopper, 2001).
There are many rich evidences from survey research of MA change. Some of them use
questionnaire and ask the practitioner about the “change” which is occurred in a period.
More importantly, how the respondent recognized the “change”? They identified the
location of change but did not defined what the “change” mean? For example, does the
change of transfer price apply for the “change” in this case? How about alternation of
user of a management accounting system? Of course, we recognize there is a great
contribution of this research for change studies, but also there is serious problems
remaining in such types of research. Unfortunately, this is not a unique problem for
survey researches. When we researchers conduct case study researches, sometimes it is
6
not clear what we regard as change.
This has the potential of miscommunication between researchers about change studies.
It seemed that we need to have theoretical framework to analyze this issue. For this
purpose, ‘MA practice’, ‘MA technique’ and ‘MA system’ is not enough to discuss
“changes”. We need to focus on more details of these items. This problem will be
examined in this paper. I explore the agency of replicators of organizational memory in
accounting context. Hereby I can overcome this problem.
3. Theoretical framework
The first use of evolution theory into management studies was carried out by Mead
(1899). After that, there were many divergent studies which use ‘evolution theory’ to
explain organizational phenomena, even in accounting (e.g. Littleton, 1933 etc.). And
there is no consensus about what is ‘evolutionary theory’. Therefore, we will start to
declare what is our own ‘evolutionary theory’2.
3.1. Evolutionary framework and perspectives
The process of evolution; Variation, Selection, and Retention
The early studies which introduce this perspective into organizational studies are
made by Campbell (1965). He noted about evolutionary wisdom that:
For an evolutionary process to take place, there need to be variations (as by mutation, trial, etc.),
stable aspects of the environment differentially selecting among such variations and a
retention-propagation system rigidly holding on to the selected variations. The variation and the
retention aspects are inherently at odds. Every new mutation represents a failure of reproduction of
a prior selected form. Too high a mutation rate jeopardizes the preservation of already achieved
adaptations. There arise in evolutionary systems, therefore, mechanisms for curbing the variation
rate. The more elaborate the achieved adaptation, the more likely are mutations to be deleterious,
and therefore the stronger the inhibitions on mutation. For this reason, we may expect to find great
strength in the preservation and propagation systems, which will lead to a perpetuation of
once-adaptive traits long after environmental shifts have removed their adaptedness. While this has
2 In this paper we propose a comprehensive framework to analyze the MA change process. This framework consists of a combination of different perspectives. A perspective simply means a way of thinking, but this word should be distinguished from theory, because some perspectives do not attribute to a particular theory. Also a theory can include many perspectives.
7
been stated in biological form, a similar expectation would hold for the products of sociocultural
evolution.
This argument indicates that there are three distinct processes in evolution which is
variation, retention and selection, the applicability of evolutionary analogy into
socio-cultural phenomena. According to a survey of evolutionary research in
organizational studies (Baum and Singh, 1994), evolutionary process consists of three
parts, which are variation, selection and retention, and some researchers slightly
changed this idea (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006). The terminology about these three
components in evolution seems to vary depending on researchers. However, the most
important idea of this evolutionary process perspective is the separation between
genetic process (variation) and replication process (selection and retention). The
evolutionary framework assumed that there are different logics between genetic process
and replication process. In other words, there are different reasons to generate and
replicate a MA practice.
Variation Selection and Retention
(Figure 1; The process of evolution)
From these studies on organizational evolution studies, we can identify the first
perspective which concerns the process of evolution. The evolutionary process consists
of three different and continual processes. In an accounting context, we can regard
variation process as a genetic process of “new” MA practice. Selection and Retention
processes represents a constant retention of existing MA practice or an abandonment
(or natural disappearance) of a particular MA practice.
In a historical study, Miller and Napier (1993) put forward the focus on the outcomes of
the past, rather than origins of the present. This means that the emergence of
calculation cannot be reduced to the functions it subsequently comes to carry out (ibid.,
p.642). This concept is largely similar to the process perspective in the evolutionary
framework.
The Agency of evolution; ecological entity and genealogical entity
In order to explain an evolutionary process, two conceptual entities, ecological entity
and genealogical entity, are used (Eldredge, N. 1985; Baum and Singh, 1994). The
8
genealogical entity means an agency of replication like DNA in human body. The
genealogical entities as hardware represent a storage device of organizational memory.
On the other hand genealogical entities as software represent knowledge in
organization itself. The ecological entity means an agency of interaction like human
body. It reduces knowledge to action field and leads to change. In that sense, it
represents MA practice in the context of accounting.
(Figure 3; The agency of evolution)
This dichotomy stems from biology and is a key player in the replication process.
However, coming free from the origin, we tolerate that there is an interrelation between
genealogical entity and ecological entity. Sometimes, genealogical entity is redefined by
ecological entity in relation to the contextual factors. And also we identify a hierarchical
structure of two entities which is described in following table.
Genealogical entity A Genealogical entity B
Ecological entity a Ecological entity b
Context α Context β
9
(Figure 2; Ecological and genealogical entities (Baum and Singh, 1994, p.10) )
The epistemological nature of evolution
Evolutionary framework focuses cumulative (or genealogical) evolution. This is a
remarkable contrast with original contingency theory which focuses static relations
between organizational agency and environment. And such a nature of evolution is
called path-dependence. But, in MA change study, it is not well examined why MA
change has such nature. The word evolution sometimes is used by comparison with
revolution which means rapid, radical and dramatic change (Burns and Vaivio, 2001).
Such a usage of the dichotomy of evolution and revolution relate to this nature. Because,
in general, cumulative change seems to be gradual and small changes in appearance.
I can point out that the nature of critique for the teleology, which sometime means
equilibrium analysis in neo-classical economics, is also very important character in
evolutionary approach. This means researches focus not only linear change process but
also random change process. This idea is not a unique attribute of evolutionary
approach. There are some researches which share this perspective (Quattrone and
Hopper, 2001; Andon et al. 2007, etc.). And also, in historical studies, the applicability of
the notion of "progress" was increasingly questioned in the 1960s and 1970s. This is also
distinctiveness of the new accounting history and accounting change in contrast to
10
traditional historical studies (Miller et al., 1991, p.399).
3.2. The Types of change
By using the evolutionary framework, I will provide a heuristic taxonomy of MA
change studies to reveal the comparative position of this paper. Sawabe (2007) provide
fundamental ideas for this typology. By institutionary evolution perspective he divided
MA researches into three categories which are (1) identification and replication process
of replicator, (2) action and interaction of MA technique, (3) formulation process of
replicator. I’ll try to change his rough sketch into more sophisticated and concrete
descriptions in following sections. Also we will add new areas of MA change study to the
prior research.
3.2.1. Agency and change
The first taxonomy is introduced by the concept of agency in evolutionary framework.
There are four distinct areas of MA change study.
Type 1-1; Stability study: temporal replication of genealogical entity
This type of study deals with why and how an MA practice is replicated and is
abandoned. If the genealogical entity is successfully replicated, we can see the stability
of the MA practice. Researches on stability of accounting practice have been explored
mainly by using institutional theory (for example, Granlund, 2001; Siti-Nabiha and
Scapens, 2005).
On the other hand, if it fails to replicate, we can identify the abandonment of a
particular MA practice. But if some MA practice is abandoned and the function of it is
necessary to operate a organization, it is likely to be substituted by another MA practice.
That’s why this issue often involves issues of implementation (Type 2).
Furthermore, we have to emphasize that if we can’t identify the change in superficial
aspect of accounting technique, there is a potential of change in a genealogical entity.
Even if there is no changes in the calculation (for example, EVA, NPV etc.), emergent
usages of these accounting techniques would provide new accounting routines. This
possibility requires in-depth investigation for researchers.
Type 1-2; Diffusion study: spatial replication of genealogical entity
Second type of change study examines the process of diffusion between organizations.
Diffusion studies traces paths on which particular MA practices is carried. For example,
the diffusion of BSC, ABC and other MA practices has been explored in this area. Using
Actor Network Theory, some other researchers explored the diffusion process of ABC
11
(Briers and Chua, 2001; Jones and Dugdale, 2002).
Bjørnenak (1997) examined the factors which influence the implementation of ABC in
Norway. In this paper, the determinant of MA change is examined from two different
perspectives which are ‘demand perspective’ and ‘market and infrastructure
perspective’. What’s interesting is that it explored not only demand side but also supply
side of MA change.
Malmi (1999) explain what drives innovation diffusion in MA during its various phases
based on Abrahamson (1991). He identified four perspectives with potential to explain
the diffusion of accounting innovations which are the efficient-choice, forced selection,
fad and fashion perspectives. And this paper conclude that efficient choice may explain
the earliest adoptions, whereas fashion-setting organizations exert considerable
influence in the take-off stage, and diffusion is explained both by mimetic behavior and
efficient-choice.
Type 1-3; Implementation study: ontogenesis, formulation of genealogical entity
This type of change concerns the formulation process of MA. How do ecological entities
(come about) from the genealogical entities. Especially, the studies of implementation of
a particular accounting technique in a company fall under this categories. This type of
study is easy to be combined with diffusion type. Because a implementation of an
accounting technique in a company is a result of diffusion of it in a population. But it is
unnecessary to be replicated completely in implementation process. In few cases, it
would lead to an innovation. Implementation studies mainly concerns the motivation or
the antecedent of change, for example, external environment, internal politics and so on.
Functional studies tend to focus on socio-economic factors as a motor of change.
Innes and Mitchell (1990) examined mixed influence from external environment and
internal environment on management accounting change and provided new analytical
model which included three factors of change. Using a case of change in management
accounting reports in a bank, Cobb et al. (1995) developed this model and added a
element of barriers to the framework. In addition, Kasurinen (2002) divided the barriers
into three subcategories, titled confusers, frustrators and delayers. These analysis are
mainly based on contingency theory perspective in the sense that they focus on static
relations between environment and MA practice. We can point out that these studies
share same domain with stability studies, because the barrier would be a source of
stability.
Libby and Waterhouse (1996) generated evidence on the extent and determinants of
management accounting and control systems change by multiple regression of
medium-sized Canadian makers. They provided a list of management accounting
12
systems which 23 systems included, and asked respondents whether change had
occurred in any of these systems during the period of 1991-1993. After that, these
systems were divided into five main types: planning, controlling, costing, directing and
decision making. They concluded that organizational capacity which was measured by
number of existing systems at the end of the test period was the best predictor of MA
change. Using Hofsted’s (1980, 1982) framework on national culture, Williams and
Seaman (2001) applied this model to firms in the Singaporean manufacturing sector.
Sulaiman and Mitchell (2005) explored the forms which management accounting
change has taken in manufacturing companies. y utilizing a simple typology of
management accounting system change, derived from the existing research literature,
consisting of addition, replacement, output modification, operational modification and
reduction. This classification is combined with information on the incidence, location,
importance and success of management accounting changes. On the other hand,
Williams and Seaman (2002) hypothesized that MA changes don’t have an influence on
performance directly, and examined the indirect effect of MA and control systems
change on departmental performance by a cross-sectional sample of Singaporean firms.
Shields (1995) analyzed behavioral variables which are associated with ABC success
by Shields and Young’s (1989, 1994) model which is a comprehensive theoretical model
about the implementation of cost management systems.
Type 1-4; Innovation study: phylogenesis, variation, change of genealogical entity
This change process concerns the genetic process of “new” MA practice. Whether new
or not is judged by whether a genealogical entity has changed or not. Therefore a new
practice for a company is not necessarily ‘new’ in this context. This type of change study
explores why the unique MA practice. There do not seem to be many studies in this area,
because most of prior research did not have enough conceptual devices to treat this
issue. And also this paper focuses on this type of study.
However, then I need to specify the object of change. Because whether can we
categorize it into genealogical entity or not depends on our focus. In general, such a
genealogical entity has hierarchical structure (Baum and Singh, 1994). If that is valid, a
genealogical entity in a level would not be a genealogical entity in other levels. Then I
should specify the level of analysis.
In this paper, I focus on MA practices in headquarter as the object of change. I then
clearly distinguish MA practices from MA systems, techniques, and processes. The
concept of practice includes structural aspect of MA, and also timeline. And practice
concerns both of a technique and system (as a set of techniques). I recognize the
difficulty of bounding between these two items. But we will apply the separation by
13
practitioners.
3.3.2. Process of change
The second taxonomy shows how I can categorize previous studies in the process of
change which consists of pre-change, change and post-change. Most of studies written
above are categorized in pre-change and change study. And it is difficult to categorize
particular paper into single area, because most of them concern more than two
processes.
Type2-1; Pre-change study
In evolutionary framework this study is regarded as a study of the environment in
which variation take place. Studies on antecedent of MA change are categorized in this
area. They assume that a change is an even as a result of some factors. Contingency
theory is one of the most popular theories of the studies. They examine causal relation
between internal and external organizational factors and particular MA practice.
Studies on supply and demand side of MA are also categorized in this type of study.
Supply side study explores how and why particular MA knowledge becomes available to
be used. Therefore diffusion study which explores spatial replication of genealogical
entity is a kind of pre-change study in this taxonomy. On the other hand, Demand side
study explores what is the reason particular MA knowledge is used.
Type2-2; Change study
This type of study deals with changes directly and examines how changes from ‘old’ to
‘new’ MA practice have happened. In the word of evolutionary framework, this process
represents variation process. Implementation study and innovation study are
categorized in this area.
Type 2-3; Post-change study: Retention, Consequence of Change
From a standpoint of evolutionary process, post-change study represents selection and
retention process after variation. Stability study which explores retention and
abandonment of MA is categorized in this area.
Sometimes, MA change studies include examination of results of implementation and
innovation. Such a constitutive aspect of MA is also very important part of MA change
process study. For example, Baines and Langfield-Smith (2003) explored the
relationships between the changing competitive environment and organizational
variables as a result of MA change by using structural equation modeling. These studies
would provide evidences for next change (variation) of MA practice. Because changes of
context would have potential for further changes of MA practice.
14
3.3.3. Motor of change
In the evolutionary framework, what makes a variation of genealogical entity is not
presumed. There are many complementary perspectives to explain what causes the
change. Most of researches presume some motors of change implicitly or explicitly.
Nevertheless this issue has never been well explored.
Then, we have some complementary work in organizational change study. Van de Ven
and Poole (1995) give us very suggestive taxonomy for this issue. They reviewed
interdisciplinary literatures to identify alternative theories used to explain processes of
change in the social, biological, and physical science. And they concluded that there are
four basic perspectives which are life-cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolution.
Type3-1; Life-cycle
In “life-cycle” perspective, change is caused by a prefigured program or rule which is
regulated by nature, logic or institutions (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). A typical
example of this perspective is “the Marxian idea that history is progressing - whether
'deterministically' or not - through a series of stages, from 'primitive communism',
through classical antiquity, feudalism and capitalism, to socialism and communism in
the future.” (Hodgson, 1993, p.41). Hodgson labels this type of ‘evolution’ as
‘developmental’.
Type3-2; Evolution
The “evolution” perspectives assumed population scarcity, competition or
commensalism as a generating force (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). But we need to
recognize that there are two different way of thinking concerning their ‘evolution’. First
type, which stems from economics, focuses on technological efficiency and regards a
change as a consequence of pursuit for it. The other focuses on institutional factor and
regards change as a consequence of an institutional isomorphic process (DiMaggio and
Powell, 1983). The perspective, which takes both competition and institution into
account, is called ‘two-stage dissemination model of change’ (Greenwood and Hinings,
1996).
Type3-3; Dialectic
The “dialectic” explains change as a result of conflict and confrontation between
opposing forces, interests or classes (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). For example, Cooper
et.al. (1996) explored change of organizational archetype by utilizing geographical
analogy of ‘sedimentation’. They described oscillation of organizational archetype
between two opposing forces. Seo and Creed (2002) combined dialectical perspective
with institutional theory. They introduced four ‘source of institutional contradiction’ to
15
resolve paradox of embedded agency in the structure-agency dichotomy. There are many
studies which utilize dialectics in organizational study (for example, Greenwood et al.,
2002; Greenwood and Hinings, 2006). However there are not many studies specialized
in accounting change study.
Type3-4; Teleology
In “teleology” perspective, goal enactment which is consensus on means, cooperation or
symbiuosism play a crucial role in a change process (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
They argued that this approach underlies functionalism (Merton, 1968), decision
making (March and Simon, 1958), voluntarism (Parsons, 1951), social construction
(Berger and Luckmann, 1966), adaptive learning (March and Olsen, 1976) and other
theories which presume an organizational entity proceeds toward a goal. In general,
‘evolutionary’ study is skeptical for this perspective.
3.3.4. Categorization of this paper
As noted above, this paper seeks to explore innovation process of MA by utilizing case
of a large manufacturing company in Japan. This study deals with supply side issue and
change process. Hence, pre-change and change process would be main fields of this
paper. Concerning motors, this paper examines all of possibility. This issue closely
related to the role of managers. Life-cycle perspective and teleology perspective regard
that there is no significant impact of human actor on change process, because change
process is predetermined (by God). Other two perspectives accept potential possibilities
which human actor affect a change.
4. Research Design
4.1. Research Site
Murata Manufacturing Company, Ltd (MMC) is a maker of condensers and other
electronic parts. On consolidated basis, it generated sales of US $6,317 million from its
74 subsidiaries with 34,067 employees (as of March 31, 2008). MMC has a unique
management system called Murata Matrix Management (MMM). MMC was founded in
1944 as a small factory making condensers in Kyoto. After World War II, they grew
steadily and are now recognized in Japan for their original management system.
4.2. Research method and limitation
I use single case study method to explore the above research questions. The
16
investigation was conducted mainly by interviewing practitioners including the former
CFO. I used the first few non-structured interviews to understand MMC’s management
system. The following interviews were then conducted using semi-structured interviews
to explore the changing in the firms management systems. I also communicated with
the firm via email and received some information. To confirm the accuracy of the
description and protect company secrets, I sent all final interview drafts to MMC.
Date Locat ion In te rviewee Hou rs
1 2005.11.24 Fukui Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Former CFO and Corporate auditor of the subsidiary
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Manager, Planing Department of Production, Fukui
3.5
2 2006.5.14Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head Office
Former CFO
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter1
3 2006.6.22Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head Office
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Staff, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter2
4 2006.6.26Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head Office
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Staff, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter3
5 2006.6.29Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head Office
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Staff, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter3
6 2006.7.6Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head Office
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Staff, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter3
7 2006.7.13Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head Office
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Staff, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter2
8 2006.10.4Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head OfficeManager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter 2
9 2006.11.6Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head Office
Former CFO
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Staff, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
2
10 2006.11.20Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Yokaichi Plant
Manager, Accounting and Planing Department, Headquarter
Manager, Plant Administration, Yokaichi Plant3
11 2006.11.21 Fukui Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.Senior Manager, Accounting Department, Headquarter
Manager, Accounting Department, Fukui3.5
12 2006.12.7 Murata Electronics Singapore(Pte.)Ltd. Assistant General Manager, Finance & Accounting, Singapore 1.5
13 2006.12.19Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Head OfficeFormer CFO 1.5
Total - - - 31
(Table 1; Interview schedule)
I also had access to internal data which included the company magazine which was
first published in 1976. Izumitani (2001) which was written by the former CFO of MMC
provided us rich information about management systems and the establishment of such
system in MMC. MMC (1995) which is MMC’s history book was also helpful for
understanding the context the firm operated in.
In usual, it is quite difficult to set up triangulation on investigations because of
accessibility. Also in this paper, triangulation on interviewees is not adequate.
Interviewee is almost exclusive to managers and staffs in accounting department. Most
of internal information on which we rely has bias because it is produced by MMC itself.
In order to avoid fatal misunderstandings, I tried to complement such evidences by
other evidence from various resources.
5. Case description and findings
17
Here we have very interesting case evidence about the change process of MA practice.
MMC has always faced capital budgeting problems. This was because they continued to
expand their businesses at a rapid rate and thus were always short of funds. As a
consequence, they have changed capital budgeting systems in response to
organizational context. The changes that took place in the capital budgeting system can
be seen through three stages.
5.1. Stage1: performance measurement system
MMC was established in 1944 as a small factory in Kyoto, and started to grow through
the boom in radio sales from 1947 to the early 1950’s. It produced titanium condensers
which were an important radio component. In 1951, with increasing demand of
electronic parts MMC build a new factory in Fukui. After that they expand their
business and built a number of plants throughout Japan.
To manage these subsidiaries, top management in headquarter used an independent
accounting system which is called Dokusan system in Japanese. The system allows
managers of subsidiaries strong authority to decide their operational work. And they
assumed responsibility for the profit of their plants. That is because MMC headquarter
has not enough resources, for instance number of managers and functional staffs, to
manage many workers in geographically dispersed employees. They thought that even
if managers did not have enough ability to manage big company, they can well manage
their small business unit. This independent management style influence later
management systems.
In 1954, after special procurement boom of Korean War (1950-1953), MMC faced a
financial difficulty under the deflation-led recession. MMC cut down the size of their
employees. Such experiences changed the concept of management to “Scientific
Management” and top management came to attach importance to “stability”. After that,
as the market of black-and-white TV and transistor radio grew, MMC expanded their
business smoothly. An expansion of production scale and increasing variety of product
increase complexity of production process. And this complexity pushed up the number of
processes in a product line. In 1959, in order to manage lengthened processes, process
income accounting was implemented. This technique is to manage a part of process
precisely and timely by separating a process into many small profit management units.
What’s interesting is that originally there was no capital budgeting system in MMC till
1960’s, despite it was already big that there were more than 4,000 employees in MMC.
One of the reasons seem to be that Japanese company raised fund from their main bank.
MMC also did not have enough fund and they depended on liability from main bank at
18
that time. They could not decide about their new business autonomously. Most of big
capital investment proposal was assessed by main bank. Main bank substantially has
decision-making authority (Kazusa, 2003).
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
系列1
(Figure 4; Number of employees in MMC Group)
Top management focused mainly on product development and operational
management. The situation led to implantation of transfer price, and income
management system. This income management system produced a base of capital
budgeting system in future. Especially, to manage by separating company into small
unit stem from the luck of administrative power in pioneer days.
And during this period, budgetary control system, internal charge system and
estimating cost accounting were also implemented to manage “scientifically”. This was
strongly lead by a officer who are a brother of founder and have deep interested in
management. Internal charge system means that headquarter charges interest cost on
cost centers. The reason of implementation of internal charge system seems to be that
MMC had not enough cash at that time. After World War Two, in Japan, the priority
production system which intended to allocate money for a particular industry was
implemented and that is because MMC could not raise funds enough for expanding
their business. And at that time, most of companies depends on bank for their fund
because direct finance market was not well established. That’s why managers had
strong concerns on quite expensive interest cost.
So it was necessary and most important topic of management to manage cash tightly for
capital investment and inventory investment. Estimating cost accounting was used for
determining prices of products. At that time, managers decided prices of products by
accumulating estimated cost and necessary profit.
19
5.2. Stage2: ex post assessment system (pure income system)
In early 1970’s, remarkable increasing market of color television involved increasing
demand for ceramic condenser, because 2-3 times condensers are needed for color TV
compared with black-and-white TV. To enhance production, MMC construct many
factories as a subsidiary in Hokuriku and Sanin region. This geographical expansion of
production seeks to raise fund which was allocated for the provinces from government
and taking cooperative funds from regional private banks. Low labor cost was also a one
of the reasons. As a result of such expansion and enhancement of production, complexity
of managing subsidiaries became a subject of discussion. Each subsidiaries used to be a
business unit and manager in headquarter was only monitoring the performance of
these unit. But the situation had been changed, and different factory came to produces
same products. Then top management recognized necessity of managing not by
subsidiaries, but by business units beyond the boundaries of legal corporations.
In October 1974, MMC started to reconstruct organizational structures which included
management accounting systems. MMC implemented product line organization system
and assume the manager authority to manage a consistent business process from R&D
to marketing. It also meant that functional staffs in factory came to be under the
command of business unit manager. But factory manager remained to have a authority
to manage production line. Because it was trouble to move power from local factory
manager to business unit manager in headquarter. After this restructuring, MMC
headquarter tried to integrate regulation over subsidiaries. But it was also difficult
problem especially in big influential subsidiaries. For example, former CFO (and
Vice-president) Hiroshi Izumitani was seconded to a subsidiary in Fukui during
1977-79 to reform such attitude and integrate divergent procedures and regulations.
While a long history of independent management system, it became to difficult to
control factory manager. However, this new organizational structure was gradually
accepted. At the beginning of 1980’s, integration of functional staff organization had
been completed. Functional staffs move to subsidiaries from headquarters or vice versa
frequently, this rotations enables central coordination by headquarters. Then the
original form of MMM was constructed.
Matrix organization has been separated by two dimension which are product line
organization (PO) and geographical organization (GO). PO consists of few strategic
business units (SBU) which include product units. And the head of PO has a strong and
consistent decision-making authority to control overall business processes which
include R&D, production and marketing. They assume responsibility and accountability
for the total performance of the SBU.
20
(Figure 5; Conceptual organization chart about PO)
The production process is separated into just about main three processes, which are
material, ceramic and process. In MMC, product units are regarded as a profit center.
And three main process included in a product unit also calculate their profit by using
transfer prices. These transfer prices are mainly reflect the market price, and are
decided by the negotiation between units and coordination by functional staff. Business
units calculate their profit by a formulated form (see figure 5). These profits which are
calculated in each unit will be used for measuring their performance by being compared
to their budget. And the performance reflects on a bonus.
GO mainly consists of local factories as a profit center. The managers of GO accept
responsibility and accountability for the productivity of factory lines and effective
operation of the factory. For example, if they have unused or leftover space in the factory,
they attract new product lines which the enhancement of production is required from
PO. As a result, from the point of view of lower management in a factory, they belong to
both chains of command in PO and GO. A unique character of this matrix organization
is that this structure has constancy, which is different from project organization.
Headquarters staff organization, which includes accounting, personnel affairs, general
coordination affairs and information system department etc., located at just beneath
CEO. The staffs control functional staffs in branches and subsidiaries. They also play a
role of coordination of horizontal coordination between managers of PO and GO, or
vertical coordination between headquarter and subsidiaries. They don’t command
directory, but coordinate conflicts between these organizations. In addition, staff
department is regard as a cost center.
After the implementation of internal charge system in 1960’s, the nature of operating
income had drastically changed. The profit means a profit which interest cost is
deducted, in other words, residual income. At that time, they didn’t consider capital cost
because capital/asset ratio was quite low and capital cost didn’t have much impact. But
21
in late 1970’s, they changed calculation method of interest cost and took capital cost into
account.
In 1960’s, mentioned above, there isn’t necessity to have capital budgeting system and
it was not used as a tool of capital budgeting. But in early 1970’s, they got almost
satisfactory funds and their situation was dramatically changed. That was because
MMC launched stock exchange in Osaka and Tokyo in 1969, and also Singapore in 1976,
Luxembourg in 1977, Frankfurt in 1978. This satisfaction was recognized by top
manager as a welcome but somewhat problematic phenomena (presidential policy
announcement in 1973, from corporate magazine, 1977). Financial satisfaction and
breaking away from the dependence on main bank lead to demand for autonomous
decision making system. Top management considered that it was in danger of losing
disciplined investment after getting relief from bank’s assessment process. Then this
“residual” income management system came to be used as a tool for decision-making.
In early 1970’s, “trichotomy of cost” was implemented under this context. This unique
accounting technique separated cost into three categories “variable costs”, “process
costs” and “indirect costs”. Variable costs were defined in the same way we define them
today. Process cost defined as a cost which is in semi-proportion to outputs and accrues
accompanying with process. Indirect cost means a fixed cost except of process cost.
Variable cost and process cost are called “pure cost”, and then the notion of pure profit
(=sales – pure cost) was generated (see Figure X; calculation of business unit profit).
The purpose of this trichotomy was to compare an increment of process cost with
decrement of variable cost as a result of a investment. They used this pure income to
judge the profitability of investments.
Sales based on prduction volume 100
Variable cost 20
Marginal profit 80Semi-fixed cost 15
Interest cost on process 5
Pure income 60Fixed cost 10
Sales and Administrative cost 5
Other interest cost 5
Operating income 40
(Figure 6; Simplified calculation form of business unit profit)
In the electronic industry in Japan, after World War II, capital intensification went on
increasingly. So, it was necessary to analyze efficiency of investment by comparing
decrement of labor cost and increment of equipment cost. In addition, their
22
management philosophy “manage scientifically” seems to have an influence on this
unique technique. Until current system has been established in late 1980’s, this pure
income system plays a key role in capital budgeting in MMC.
5.3. Stage3: capital budgeting system in late
From late 1970’s, MMC started to full-scale globalization of production and marketing.
Many subsidiaries are established or purchased in diverse countries, for example
Singapore (1972), U.S. (1973), Taiwan(1978), Brasil (1986), Mexico(1987), Thailand
(1988), Malaysia (1993). MMC had a policy about production in foreign countries, which
was “Produce only in where the market exists”. That is because MMC did not try to
produce in where only there are cheap labor powers. This starting overseas operation
mainly responded to needs of parts supply from makers which started operation in
response to inviting from local government. During 1980’s, MMC continue to grow up,
and consolidated sales in 1899 became 4.5 times compared to 1890. After Plaza Accord
in 1985, Japanese Yen increasing rapidly, many Japanese makers move their factory
abroad. Accordingly MMC expand their business worldwide. MMC developed a new
type of oscillation device which was made of ceramic. Ceramic oscillation device could be
cheaper than the device which was made of crystal. And this device is necessary for
electronic equipment which a computer is loaded. This new product accelerates the
growth of MMC. While this period, composition of electronic devices had been advanced
increasingly with the times. As a result, MMC reorganized business unit frequently.
In late 1980s, major part of current system has been formed. This capital budgeting
system is well established compared to prior system. The process of capital budgeting
system consists of three sub-processes which are budgeting, RINGI and post-audit.
(Figure 7; process of capital budgeting)
In budgeting process, capital investment proposal is examined based on given
conditions. Then, 4 types of measurement below are compared to standards and
determine whether it would be accepted or not. This technique is called “Net
Investment Analysis” (Kazusa and Asada, 2007). All of these measures are calculated
based on “Net Return from Investment (NRI)” which means increment pure income.
(Concerning big investment cases, sometimes it causes increase of administration cost.
Budgeting RINGI Post-audit
23
Then the increment administration cost will be taken into account.)
1. Return on Investment (%);
Yearly NRI/ Investment × 100
2. Payback Period (month);
Investment / ( Monthly NRI + Monthly increment depreciation )
3. Increment Return on Asset (times);
Yearly NRI / ( Investment + Increment liquid assets )
4. Investment Effectiveness (%);
Yearly NRI × Years of depreciation / Investment × 100
Of course, not only such quantitative measures, but also other qualitative conditions
about business strategy are taken into account.
RINGI process is an ordinary process of budgetary control in Japan. When they
execute budget, lower managers write RINGI upon given format to explain the validity
and effectiveness by using detailed and latest information about the proposal. As a
general rule, the total quantity of proposals needs to be appropriated in budget. And
then RINGI is sent to higher level managers to invite comment. Up to appropriate level
of manager who has enough authority for the decision making, it will be continued and
approved at last. Of course, sometimes managers reject and send back it to improve the
plan. This process complements the weakness of rough budget and also enables sharing
information vertically.
In Japan, it is very unique to have post-audit system. Managers of particular
investment proposal obligated to report the performance in a period. And then, if actual
achievement is lower than target results, they have to make and show a plan to improve
it. This process will continue until achieving expected results. Post-audit system
intends not only to follow up the achievement, but also to prevent easy planning. This
system enables managers to focus on unfavorable variances. As a result, they can
manage limited investment easily.
6. Implication and Conclusion
6.1. Changes of Calculative Architectures
Through a part of case description I saw a change process of MA systems and practice.
MMC implemented independent accounting system which includes transfer price, pure
income system which includes internal charge system, matrix management system and
24
capital budgeting system which is interrelated with pure income system in turn. The
motivations of implementation at that time were rational. And each MA systems are
tightly coupled with socio-economic context and also related to organizational context.
The most interesting point of this case evidence is in changing aspect of calculation of a
particular technique. Now I term it a “calculative architecture”. These words simply
represent a calculation and a combination of calculations as an objective reality. For
example, calculative architecture of pure income system can be explained by elements of
sales, variable cost, process cost, and interest cost etc. and its sequence.
In this case, the calculative architecture of capital budgeting system has been
gradually changed in response to contingent factors or the context at each time. For
example, the calculative architecture of pure income system has been fabricated
through the emergence of independent accounting system, income management system
and internal charge system. It would never appear without former system and
calculative architecture. Because the nature of pure income, which is a variation of
residual income and divisional profit, was crucially important to transform it for capital
budgeting field. And the change of routine from ex-post assessment to ex-ante
assessment would never have been caused without this pure income.
(Figure 8; A process of phylogenesis)
Then, important implication from case evidence is that calculative architecture works
as a genealogical entity. Prior researches in organizational change studies tend to
regard routine as an exclusive genealogical entity (McKelvey, 1982; Nelson and Winter
1982). But what would be routines are not well examined. In accounting change studies,
Burns and Scapens (2001) defined “rules” and “routines” as “the formally recognized
Calculative
Architecture
Routine A
Realm of Action
Ex post assessment (Performance measurement)
Realm of Action
Ex ante assessment (Capital Budgeting)
Calculative
Architecture
Routine B
Motor of Change
25
way in which ‘things should be done’. ” and “the way in which ‘things are actually done’”
(p.6). And they also noted that;
In the context of management accounting, rules comprise the formal management accounting
systems, as they are set out in the procedure manuals; whereas routines are the accounting
practices actually in use. Clearly, there will be a relationship between rules and routines, but it is
important not to confuse the two. Management accounting practices in use may not actually
replicate the systems set out in the procedure manuals.
I can interpret this paragraph based on evolutionary framework that routines can be
regarded as a genealogical entity, but rules cannot, because MA practices in use may not
replicate in it. I would like to argue that a calculative architecture also plays a key role
to replicate MA practice and there is a mutually constitutive relation between way of
use and object of use. In addition, it would be a source of path-dependent nature of MA
change in the phylogenetic process.
Then I need to slightly modify these core concepts to explain our argument clearly.
Sometimes, routine includes both way and object of use, but I argue that this separation
is crucially important for an analysis of emergent MA practice. Then, routine was
defined as knowledge and practice in Burns and Scapens (2000). But I should
distinguish the aspect of knowledge from ‘practice in use’. Because routinized
knowledge is modified through the use in practice.
Way of use Object of UsePurpose (function), procedure,
applicable contextInstrument
Calculative Architecture
Practice
RuleKnowledge
in Recognition
Action
Knowledgein Use
Routine
(Table 3; Rules, Routines and Calculative Architecture)
Quattrone and Hopper (2001) raised question about the teleological change story, using
analogy of drifting boat (p.426). However, the authors also recognized the purposeful
activity of practitioners. In addition, practitioners are not completely free in the ocean
which is fulfilled by uncertainty, because they have a small boat and oars. They must
try to respond to contingent factors by using these existing instruments sometimes in
an unpredictable way. And Miller and Napier (1993) noted that;
26
We need to disturb the self-evidence of existing calculative practices, and to be attentive to the
changes in meaning that have accompanied their emergence. We need to see contemporary
accountancy as nothing other than an assemblage of disparate components that has been put
together in piecemeal fashion. (Miller and Napier, 1993, p.644)
These two literatures imply the possibilities of change in the meanings or functions of
calculations in relation to the change of the context. I can explain such a process more
clearly by utilizing the conceptual settings described above. Furthermore, what kinds of
genealogical entities would be crucial in any situations are also problematic. I can deal
with these problems in evolutionary framework by using notion of calculative
architecture. I can say that calculative architecture plays a key role in phylogenetic
process. In this case, the nature of the identified change in ontogenetic process was
“non-linear” and “ex-post rational”. Because such innovation is not planed in advance,
and the function is emerged after long time passed.
Then what is MA practice which means the object of change here became problematic.
Because I can’t specify what can be treated as a change without specifying it. This issue
involves a lot of problems about time and space horizontally and vertically.
That concerns levels of analysis, in other words hierarchy (Baum and Singh, 1994). In
this case, we mainly focus on the MA practices and systems in headquarter. Actually,
MMC consists of many other brunches and subsidiaries. There may be many alternative
way of use of a particular MA technique. The described MA practice in MMC is only
local practice in headquarter. And also a particular MA practice connects with other one,
such a mulitiered nature of accounting makes it increasingly difficult to analyze. As a
consequence, it is not so easy to identify ‘new’ and ‘old’ MA practice and these differences.
Even in historical studies, “the absence of an invariant object” has been seen as
problematic issue (Miller and Napier, 1993).
This problem concerns the nature of change. Quattrone and Hopper (2001) argue that
very little is known about “(w)hat the concept of change means, whether it can be
conceptualized independently from its process and how these factors relate to the
practice of accounting” (p.404). This proposition somehow stems from the lack of
consideration about the object of change and observability of the object. For example,
institution and routine have been a main object of change study, but we are not sure
about how we can observe or identify it.
In this case, I identified the changes of calculative architecture after transplanting it
into another realm of action. At the same time, this transplantation led a change of a
routine. Now I specify these genealogical entities as an object of MA practice change.
Calculative architecture has remarkable superiority in observability compare to
27
routines or practice. And then evolutionary framework as an interface endows to make
it work by constructing the field of integration with other knowledge.
6.2. Roles of human actors
Routine and calculative architecture are both developed to respond to multiple
contingency. In general, the instrumental aspect of calculation is emphasized, that is
why rational choice of such a management device occupied main stream of change study.
But this linear change is only one of possibilities. Clearly there is an interrelation
between those two components. In the case described above, calculative architecture
constitutes routines of MA practice in the change of context.
Cooper et al. (1996) explored the change of organizational archetype by using the
geological metaphor of sedimentation based on Greenwood and Hinings (1988) and
other their works. They emphasized dialectical aspect of change rather than linear
change, and some of dialectical oscillations of organizational archetype are also
mentioned in our description. Obviously, the point of view of calculative architecture has
shared similar focus with their studies of organizational archetypes. Miller and Napier
(1993) also supports our genealogical view of calculation by the explanation of
emergence of calculation and change of the meaning in the social context. I believe that
the evolutionary frame work would be a platform for the study of accounting change
process in a company.
However, this constitutive aspect of calculative architecture depends on managers
which facilitate these combinations between routine, calculative architecture and
context. I need to emphasize the role of human actor in change process. Even if there is
a mutually constitutive relation between two genealogical entities, it is never made
manifest without some actions by human actors. In that sense, human actor like a
manager is essential element of MA change process.
28
(Figure 9: The relations between agents, entrepreneurship and context)
Despite the crucial importance of human actor’s work in change process, the role of it
has not been well explored. Some studies on institutional entrepreneurship examined
roles of entrepreneur in institutional change processes (Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006).
But this idea is criticized because of basic problem which is called the ‘paradox of
embedded agency’ (Seo and Creed, 2002, p.223) which means impossibility of explaining
endogenous institutional change. To avoid the problems, I carefully exclude the concept
of institution and structure-agency dichotomy. Moreover, studies on institutional
entrepreneurship only mentioned ‘institutional change’ and did not mention ‘accounting
change’. There are a lot of MA changes without institutional change.
And then, I would like to start new discussion about styles of entrepreneurship. Here, I
suppose some heuristic typology of styles of entrepreneurship along with change
processes. There are three types of manager’s role as follows; Pre-change controller who
identify and specify the demand for management, or supply some knowledge as
solutions; Implementer who implement and diffuse innovations in space and time;
Post-change controller who identify the new function or adverse function of the
solutions, discard unnecessary items or put it into another area. It should be
emphasized that, as described above, managers or CFO seems to play nonuniform roles
in MA change process.
Practice
Routine &
Architecture
Organizational Context
Entrepreneurship
Management
Entrepreneurship
29
(Figure 10: The styles of entrepreneurship)
In the analysis of this case, former vice-president who is a brother of founder had a
strong interest in management system and technique. He acted as a pre-change
controller of internal charge system and other techniques especially in the change
process of capital budgeting. In his papers in corporate magazine, he analyzed
competitive environment and introduce various techniques to improve management.
The style of pre-change controller is to interpret organizational context and find a ‘new’
routine and architecture.
On the other hand, the former CFO played a key role as not only an implementer, but
also a post-change controller. He managed practices of accounting techniques to fulfill
expected functions of ‘new’ techniques. The style of implementer is to fabricate given
routine and architecture. At the same time, he managed after change process, at last,
wrote a book about management practice in MMC when he was CFO, which is used as a
text book in internal education in MMC. The style of post-change controller is to
reinterpret ‘new’ routine and architecture and to diffuse or abandon it.
More interestingly, capital ownership system which was carried by him was discarded
in few years, because of an adverse effect which is pointed out by former CFO as a
post-change controller. Of course, MMC has a nature of Japanese company, and their
process of decision making is not hierarchical necessarily. Hence, many people
committed each event and came into play as various types of players.
By the idea of institutional entrepreneurship, institutional framework provides
complementary explanations for evolutionary framework through human actor’s
recognition. As is the case with previous researches, a radical change in the context
induced institutional change. After the oil crisis in 1973, the president and founder of
MMC announced new policy for managers which emphasize shift for pursuing capital
efficiency from simple enhancement of business presidential policy announcement in
1973, from corporate magazine, 1977). This also seemed to prepare for the listing on
security market in Singapore. 2 years later from this announcement, in 1975, the senior
manager of accounting department made a statement that they intended to change
their role from ex-post calculation for directing management (manager’s policy
Pre-change controller Implementer Post-change controller
30
announcement in 1975, from corporate magazine, 1977).
This change in conception of control (Fligstein, 1990) affects later change in MA
practice via cognitive perspective of manager as a pre-change and post-change controller.
Existing techniques tended to be related to capital efficiency and used as a device of
increasing capital efficiency. But I point out that there is a big time difference between
the change in the conception of control and the formulation of capital budgeting system.
6.3. Contributions and further research
The contribution of this paper is to better understand MA change process by the
notion of calculative architecture as a genealogical entity in evolutionary framework.
We tried to reveal the potentials of evolutionary framework as a comprehensive
framework of change explanation. This framework is developed for especially explaining
the ‘process’ of MA change. In addition, we need to focus on accounting specific features,
for example calculative architecture, to understand MA change process.
And one of the most important characters of it is non-adaption of structure-agency
dichotomy. In a sense, our focus is very local and we never assume the structure which
constraints agencies. I prefer to use the flat relations in a web of actors. Hereby, we
avoid fruitless dispute about identification of structure and the relation of these two
entities. And we believe this rejection of the dichotomy would not be a fatal lack of
explanations. Because I think we can treat this issue more clearly from the viewpoint of
entrepreneurship.
And also this paper provides heuristic taxonomy of types of change by utilizing few
perspectives in evolutionary framework. This typology is not exhaustive completely, but
it would be a useful starting point of discussion. It endows to reveal the poor area of MA
change process study. Furthermore, this taxonomy assists to connect the scattered
researches in various areas and hopefully provide integrative knowledge for increasing
development.
The rough sketch of role of human actor also provides a one of research possibilities for
further research. I argue that we need to connect studies on entrepreneurship and
accounting change. From case evidence, I found that multiple entrepreneur affected MA
change and they played nonuniform roles at different time processes. Then this multiple
players and multiple roles provided the nature of MA change, which was called
non-liner or non-teleological. However I have not had enough understanding on this
issue. We need to discuss styles of entrepreneurship along with MA change process
more and more.
31
Acknowledgement
I am really grateful for Murata Manufacturing Company and Hiroshi Izumitani,
Hideaki Yuri, Keiji Hariyama, and other associate participants for interviews. Also, I
would like to thank Chris Akroyd (University of Auckland), Stephen Jollands
(University of Auckland), Yasuyuki Kazusa (Fukui prefectural university), and Okihiro
Maruta (Kyushu University), Norio Sawabe (Kyoto University) for their useful
comments on early version of this paper.
Reference
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of
innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586-612.
Aldrich, H.E. (1999) Organizations Evolving, Sage Publications of London.
Anderson, S.W. (1995). A Framework for Assessing Cost Management System Change:
The Case of Activity Based Costing Implementation at General Motors,1986-1993,
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 1-51.
Andon, P., Baxter, J., Chua, W.F. (2007). Accounting change as relational drifting: A field
study of experiments with performance measurement, Management Accounting
Research, 18, 273–308.
Armstrong, P. (1987). The rise of accounting controls in British capitalist enterprises,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 415–436.
Baines, A. and Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to management accounting
change: a structural equation approach, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28,
675-698.
Barley, S. R. and Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying
the Links Between Action and Institution. Organization studies, 18(1), 93-117
Baum, J.A.C. and Singh, J.V. (1994). Organizational hierarchies and evolutionary
processes: Some reflections on a theory of organizational evolution. In J. A. C. Baum &
J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Baxter, J. and Chua, W.F. (2003). Alternative management accounting
research—whence and whither, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 97–126.
Bhimani, A. (1993). Indeterminacy and the specificity of accounting change: Renault
1898–1938, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(1), 1-39.
Bjørnenak, T. (1997). Diffusion and accounting: the case of ABC in Norway,
Management Accounting Research, 8, 3-17.
32
Briers, M. and Chua, W.F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in
management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based
costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(3), 237-269.
Brown, L. (1981). Innovation diffusion. London: Methuen.
Burns, J. and Scapens, R.W. (2000). Conceptualizing management accounting change:
an institutional framework, Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 3-25.
Burns, J. and Vaivio, J. (2001). Management Accounting Change, Management
Accounting Research, 12, 389-402.
Busco, C., Quattrone, P. and Riccaboni, A. (2007). Management Accounting Issues in
interpreting its nature and change, Management Accounting Research, 18, 125–149.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). "Ethnocentrism and other altruistic motives." In D. Levine (ed.),
The Nebraska Symposium on Motivation , 13, 283-311, Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial
Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chandler, A. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American
Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chandler, A. (1990). Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chua, W.F. (1995). Experts, networks and inscriptions in the fabrication of accounting
images: A story of the representation of three public hospitals, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 111-145.
Cobb, I., Helliar, C. and Innes, J. (1995). Management Accounting Change in a Bank,
Management Accounting Research, 6, 115-175.
Cooper, D.J., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R. and Brown, J.L. (1996). Sedimentation and
Transformation in Organizational Change: The Case of Canadian Law Firms,
Organization Studies, 17(4), 623-647.
Dechow, N., and Mouritsen, J. (2005). Enterprise resource planning systems,
management control and the quest for integration. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 30 (7/8), 691–733.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., (1983). “The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological
Review, 48(2), pp.147-60.
Eldredge, N. (1985). Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and modern
evolutionary thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Espeland, W.N. and Hirsch, P.M. (1990). Ownership changes, accounting practice and
33
the redefinition of the corporation, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1/2),
77-96.
Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration,
Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gosselin, M. (1997). The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption
and implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
22(2), 105–122.
Granlund, M. (2001). Towards explaining stability in and around management
accounting systems, Management Accounting Research, 12, 141–166.
Granlund, M. and Malmi, T. (2002). Moderate impact of ERPS on management
accounting: a lag or permanent outcome?, Management Accounting Research, 13,
299–321.
Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1988). Design archetypes, tracks and the dynamics of
strategic change. Organization Studies, 9(3), 293-316.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (1982). Scoring guide for values survey model. Arnhem: IRIC.
Hopper, T. and Armstrong, P. (1991). Cost Accounting, Controlling Labour and the Rise
of Conglomerates, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(5/6), 405-438.
Hopwood, A.G. (1987). The Archaeology of Accounting Systems, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 12(3), 207-234.
Hoskin, K. and Maeve, R. (1986). Accounting and the Examination: A Genealogy of
Disciplinary Power, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(2), 105-136.
Hoskin, K. and Maeve. R. (1988). The Genesis of Accountability: The West Point
Connections, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(1), 37-73.
Innes, J. and Mitchell, F. (1990). The Process of Change in Management Accounting:
Some Field Study Evidence, Management Accounting Research, vol.1, 3-19.
Izumitani, H. (2001). Accounting for making a business visible. Nikkei Publishing Inc.,
Tokyo.
Jones, T.C. and Dugdale, D. (2002). The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of
modernity, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(1/2), 121-163.
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan. R., (1987). Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
Kasurinen, T. (2002). Exploring Management Accounting Change: The Case of Balanced
34
Scorecard Implementation, Management Accounting Research, 13, 323-343.
Kazusa, Y. (2002) Debt dependent investment planning and payback method: fusion of
accounting technique and accounting system, Journal of Osaka University of
Economics, 53(3), 49-68.
Kazusa, Y. and Asada, H. (2007). Matrix management and management accounting in
Murata manufacturing: Pure Income Analysis and Discount payback method,
Accounting, 59(1), 150-159. (Chuokeizai-Sha Inc., Tokyo. JAPAN)
Libby, T. and Waterhouse, J.H. (1996). Predicting change in management accounting
systems, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 8, 137-150.
Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in
the institutional analysis of practice, Accounting Organizations and Society, 33(4/5),
349-361.
Luft, J.L. (1997). Long-Term Change in Management: Accounting: Perspectives from
Historical Research, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 163-197.
Malmi, T. (1999). Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: an exploratory
empirical analysis of Finnish firms, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
24,649-672.
McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational Systematics: Taxonomy, Classification, Evolution.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mead, G.H. (1899). The Working Hypothesis in Social Reform, American Journal of
Sociology, 5(3), 367-371.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B., (1977). “Institutionalised organisations: formal structures
as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp. 340-363.
Miller, P., Hopper, T. and Laughlin, R. (1991). The new accounting history: An
Introduction, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16 (5/6), 395-403.
Miller, P. and Napier, C. (1993). Genealogies of calculation, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 18(7/8), 631-647.
Napier, C.J. (2006). Accounts of change: 30 years of historical accounting research,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 445-507.
Nelson R. R., and S.G. Winter. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2001). What does organizational change mean?:
Speculation on a taken for granted category, Management Accounting Research, 12,
403-435
Robson, K., (1991). On the arenas of accounting change: the process of translation,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, 547–570.
35
Robson, K., (1992). Accounting numbers as “inscription”: action at a distance and the
development of accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17 (7), 685–708.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. The Free Press, New York.
Sawabe, N. (2007). Evolutionary institutionalism in accounting research, Kaikei, 171(5),
654-666.
Shields, M.D. (1995). An empirical analysis of firms’ implementation experiences with
activity-based costing. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 148–166.
Shields, M., and S. M. Young. (1989). A behavioral model for implementing cost
management systems. Journal of Cost Management (Winter), 17-27.
Shields, M., and S. M. Young. (1994). Behavioral and organizational issues. In
Handbook of Cost Management, edited by B. Brinker. New York: Warren Gorham
Lamont.
Siti-Nabiha A.K. and Scapens R.W. (2005). Stability and change: an institutionalist
study of management accounting change, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 18(1), pp. 44-73.
Sulaiman, S. and Mitchell, F.(2005). Utilising a typology of management accounting
change: An empirical analysis, Management Accounting Research, 16, 422-437.
Van de Ven, H.A. and Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in
Organisations. Academy of Management Review 20, 510–540.
Van de Ven, H.A. and Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative Approaches for Studying
Organizational Change, Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377-1404.
Williams, J.J. and Seaman, A.E. (2001) Predicting change in management accounting
systems: national culture and industry effects, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
26, 443-460.
Williams, J.J. and Seaman, A.E. (2002) Management accounting systems change and
departmental performance: the influence of managerial information and task
uncertainty, Management Accounting Research, 13, 419-445.
Yazdifar, H., Zaman, M., Tsamenyi, M., Askarany D. (2008). Management accounting
change in a subsidiary organization, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(3), pp. 404-430.