Despite the well documented advantages of Continuous Improvement (CI) management, implementation failures are discouragingly high (Jazayeri & Hopper 1999). The most significant reason for failure in becoming a CI organization is cultural resistance (Irani et al. 2003), due in part to insufficient trust (Chenhall and Langfield-Smith 2003). When employment contracts fail, employees will resist changes perceived to threaten their welfare. This paper uses an innovative action research approach (Kaplan, 1998) to design and implement a Management Control System (MCS) that will reduce this problem. Unfortunately, a single theoretical perspective (information economics, agency theory, or learning theory) will not provide sufficient insights for implementation, since each theory assumes away critical application issues covered by the other theories (Covaleski et al. 2003). Drawing from several theoretical sources for this research, an MCS designed to support both the im本文来自辣.文,论-文·网原文请找腾讯324,9114 is developed and applied in an American factory. A Continuous Improvement Accounting Information System (CI-AIS) is merged with an MCS using suggestions from 1) information economics (adaptive feedback), 2) agency theory (to reduce agency risk and shirking through management of uncertainty, economic loss, and group participation), and 3) constructivist learning theory (incremental formative assessment, collaboration, and repetition to learn a new culture). The proposed MCS is composed of an in-process budgeting system that facilitates the following four actions leading to the successful management of Continuous Improvement initiatives: 1) prioritizing problems, 2) analyzing the root cause of problems, 3) strategically designing change activities for improvement, and 4) validating subsequent changes to align with accounting-based performance contracts.中国电信通信实训室接线员实训报告
USING AN ACCOUNTING-BASED MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM FOR CULTURAL CHANGE
“Innovation action research engages the researcher in an explicit program to develop and implement entirely new approaches” (Kaplan 1998). While the more mainstream approach to research requires examination of phenomena independent of the observer, action research, on the other hand, requires the participation of the researcher in the design and testing of new solutions to problems. The innovative action research approach, demonstrated by Kaplan (1998) with activity-based costing and the balanced scorecard, is to 1) identify the problem in practice, 2) explain a new solution to the problem justified with existing research or theory, 3) apply the new solution, and 4) improve it. The first three steps are explicated in this paper.
Theoretical knowledge can only be validated through application. Innovation action research uses insights from theory to suggest an alternative solution in practice. The solution applied in this paper includes insights provided from information economics, agency theory, and constructivist learning theories. This combination of theoretical perspectives is necessary since no single theory is sufficient. A single theoretical perspective such as information economics or agency theory will not provide sufficient insights for implementation since each theory assumes away critical application issues (e.g., frictionless and instantaneous contracting) covered by the other theories (Covaleski et al. 2003).
Just as innovative action research has a documented role in the development and evolution of Activity-Based Costing and the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan 1998), it is a particularly useful approach for the implementation of theory in a CI context.
The increasingly competitive global economy has prompted more and more businesses to adopt Continuous Improvement (CI) strategies. Some have enjoyedsignificant improvements in competitiveness and reduction in costs (Bohoris 1995; Corbett and Rastrick 2000; Najmi and Kehoe 2000; Pool 2000; Prabhu et al. 2000; Terziovski and Samson 2000; Zairi and Whymark 2000a; Zairi and Whymark 2000b; Zairi et al. 1994; and Kahn 1998). These, however, are the exceptions. Unfortunately, CI implementation failures are all too common and results have been disappointing (McManus 1994; Martichenko 2004; Voss and Blackman 1996; Strebel 1996; Ezzamel et al. 1990; Ezzamel and Willmott 1998; Saravanamuthu 1998; Lewis 1996; Ngowi 2000; Maull et al. 2001; Calori and Sarnin 1991; Sinclair and Arthur 1994; Klein et al. 1995; and Corbett and Rastrick 2000).CSS网页制作实训报告
World Class Management (WCM) programs, for example, designed to introduce a CI culture, typically take a minimum period of 15 to 18 months until the implementation is validated through accounting reports. Unfortunately, even with a liberal investment of resources, the reported impact on most companies has been unacceptably low (Westrup, Hopper, and Jazayeri 2001). Implementation failure often results when there is an overemphasis on tools and techniques (Corbett and Rastrick 2000) while transitioning to a business culture that is open to change1 is neglected (Page and Curry 2000).2651
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 下一页