Accounting information systems_implementation_and_

125
Business Systems Research Vol. 5 No. 2 / June 2014
AIS
Accounting Information Systems
Implementation and Management
Accounting Change
Krister Bredmar, Urban Ask, Elisabeth Frisk
School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Johan Magnusson
School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Norwegian School of Information Technology-NITH, Oslo, Norway
Abstract
Background: There is an on-going discussion within management accounting
research regarding how to work with performance measures. In the process of
developing new forms of performance measurement the task of choosing business
metrics is central. This process is closely connected to the implementation of IT
solutions. Objectives: In order to understand how new performance measurement
solutions are implemented and used, it becomes crucial to understand how
measures are selected and how new accounting information systems (AIS) are
developed and implemented. Methods/approach: The paper builds on the case of
an on-going AIS project at a large, public university in Sweden. The empirical
material was collected using a semi-action research approach over a two-year
period. The majority of the material comes from written documentation and minutes.
Results: Even though the implementation of a new AIS triggers a change in the
management accounting practice, this study shows that this is done in more than
one perspective. Conclusions: As the project develops, new priorities and objectives
evolve, which in the end shape what management accounting change becomes.
Keywords: AIS implementation; performance measurement; management
accounting change
JEL main category: M
JEL classification: M1, M15
Paper type: Research article
Received: 29, November, 2013
Accepted: 2, April, 2014
Citation: Bredmar, K., Ask, U., Frisk, E., Magnusson, J. (2014), “Accounting Information
Systems Implementation and Management Accounting Change”, Business Systems
Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 125-138.
DOI: 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
Acknowledgment: We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Marianne and
Marcus Wallenberg Foundation and the Söderberg Foundation for the monetary
support necessary in writing this paper.
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/23/2016 05:12:37AM
via free access

126
Introduction
For some time, there has been an extensive discussion within management
accounting research about how to work with measures in a new way. This debate
has its roots in the relevance lost debate that started 30 years ago. Today this
debate has come to focus on how to measure and manage performance in
different ways. In the centre of the process of developing new forms of performance
measurement is the task of choosing business metrics. This is a process or task that is
closely connected to the IT solution an organization chooses to use. In a modern
context that solution often connects wider system thinking into one larger Enterprise
System. In order to understand how new performance measurement solutions are
implemented and used, it also becomes crucial to understand how the measures
are selected and how new enterprise systems are developed. This is important in
order to understand the context in which performance indicators are effective.
IT development projects and management accounting change
In IT development projects there is usually a well-defined project plan and clear
goals on what to implement and who should participate. There are numerous lists on
how to run a successful IT project, and it is not unusual that a normative, almost
instrumental, perspective dominates an implementation project. But, in the end, this
highly structured way of working is primarily about the needs and wishes of the
people in the organization. The way different actors in the project work together and
the way decisions are made are of great importance, while the way communication
and coordination is managed is of even greater importance. There is also a need to
handle different kinds of knowledge barriers or challenges, especially those
associated with using the systems. Altogether, an IT project is like a coin; it has two
sides, one about the configuration and the system itself and one about how the
system is used by the people in the organization. These two dimensions need to be
addressed in order to successfully run an IT project.
The task of working with management accounting issues is to a large extent a
practice that is driven by routines and rules. There are instructions about how to do
the budget, what calculation is needed to set a price and what measures an
operation should be evaluated by. But in an day to day operation, managers also
need to understand what is going on and how the reports should be understood
(Bredmar, 2012). A traditional approach, the contingency- style, is that the
management accounting function should fit the environment and be a part of the
configuration of the organizational system. By saying that, there is also a notion that
management accounting change is brought about by managers’ new information
requirements. Management accounting change then becomes a question of how
the formal systems should be configured and, at the same time, what needs, formal
and informal, the manager has. Even though change is taking place, management
accounting is still a practice that to a large extent is based on routines and rules.
To understand the interaction between an IT project and management
accounting change the socio-technical concept could be used. This view is based
on an idea that the technical systems and the social systems need to be studied
together in order to understand how an organization undergoes change. Even
though these two systems are independent of each other, they are correlated, and
they are co-producers of an organizations outcome. An IT project is not only a
technical challenge but also a project dependent on human and organizational
circumstances. Implementation then becomes a social process as well as a
technical one. By integrating these two perspectives, performance can improve. A
more comprehensive picture is then painted where complex actor networks are
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

127
emerging and heterogeneous networks of IT supported organizational processes are
formatted. Consequently, socio-technical theories can provide a better
understanding of what is going on in an organization undergoing change through
the implementation of new technologies.
Research objective
In order to grasp the recent debate about new forms of performance measures
there is a need to understand how measures are developed and defined, how AIS
projects are run and implemented and how management accounting change is
conducted formally and informally. This paper seeks to understand that through the
help of socio-technical theories. The quest for better performance measures is not
only about the best software or the best management accounting practices, but
rather about understanding how they best complement each other. The empirical
material for this paper comes from an on-going AIS project at a large Swedish
university. The focus for this paper is on how performance indicators are developed
and defined and which implications this process has had on the larger AIS project.
There is also an interest in in how this search for performance indicators has changed
management accounting practice. In the next section, a theoretical outline is
presented followed by a methodology section. Then, the empirical material is
presented followed by a discussion and conclusions.
Literature review
Even though the interest in performance measurement and management has
renewed since the early 1990’s and the relevance lost debate, the ideas are by no
means new ideas in themselves. During the mid-1950, several books and articles with
substantial contributions to the field were published. Drucker (1954) discussed a
balanced set of measures including areas such as marketing, innovation and
attitudes to mention a few. Argyris (1952) was dealing with the ambition to measure
and quantify an operation, and Ridgway (1956) was expressing concerns about how
performance measurement was used. In recent years, however, no single author has
contributed and been cited as much as Robert S Kaplan within the field of
performance measurement in general and when it comes to a balanced set of
performance measures in particular (Kaplan, Norton, 1992). His and Norton’s
publications on a balanced performance measurement system have been the
departing point for a vast research output among management accounting
researchers all over the world. This makes the performance measurement and
management area an interesting field to study and explore even more.
Performance measurement research
Over the years, research within the field of performance measurement has
connected the concept and ideas to several additional fields. There is a natural
connection to general concepts like management, strategy and systems, but also to
areas such as productivity, efficiency, outcomes and information in general (Neely,
2005). There is also an interest in benchmarking, implementations and models, which
has a natural junction to performance measurement (Taticchi, Tonelli, Cagnazzo,
2010). Even though different scholars have contributed to the understanding of what
performance measurement is or is not over the years, there still seems to be a need
to identify problems, propose frameworks and verify theories in different empirical
settings (Neely, 2005). Yet another important area is how different systems handling
performance measurement are designed and implemented (Neely et al., 1997).
There is a natural way of understanding performance measurement in relation to
several other areas, and it is also natural to talk about the development and design
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

128
of different systems, but in a way it all comes down to management issues in general
and management accounting and control tasks in particular.
Designing, developing and implementing a new system, several different aspects
need to be understood. From its simplest description a system is just a technical
and/or mechanical device that is installed into an organisation. Then, there is only a
need to train employees and get the machine running. But, in many cases,
information systems is more about how they are used and in what ways they can
contribute to a competitive advantage (Rackoff, Wiseman, Ullrich, 1985). A common
way of understanding successful implementation is that it needs top management
support and that the employees need training (Hwang, Lin, Lin, 2012). Many models
of system implementation describe different phases and steps. One such a model
has been developed by Markus and Tanis (2000).In the first phase, a business case
and the solution constraints are decided. In the second phase, the project itself is
configured and rolled out, and in the next phase bugs are eliminated and the
system is getting to normal operations. In a final fourth phase, the system is
maintained and supported and in the long run updated. In models such as this, the
system design and implementation is done in a fairly normative and controlled
fashion.
Implementing systems
In many cases, implementing a system and getting it up and running is not enough,
however. It needs to be a part of the organisation’s competitive edge (Alter, 1999).
This can also be described through a form of system development model (Soh,
Markus, 1995). In this model, three processes take the IT expenditure all the way
through to organisational performance. In the first process, IT costs become IT assets,
and in a second process, the actual use in the organisation is taking place. In a third
process, a competitive position is established and the impact of the IT solution is
generating organisational performance. Altogether there are several different
critical areas that need to be monitored. Nah, Lau and Kuang (2001), for example,
define eleven critical factors determining ERP implementation success. These follow
Markus and Tanis’ (2000) process model. It is particularly interesting that factors such
as effective communication and determining project champions are crucial in the
first charting phase. In the project phase, it is important to develop a change
management program and culture, and in the third phase, it is more about
monitoring and evaluating performance. In many ways, the models we use are
simple descriptions of something much more complex, and the model makes it
possible to grasp and act upon the understanding that the model gives. But at the
same time, the model can hardly incorporate all aspects of a much more complex
and disparate reality in many organisations.
From another point of view, the implementation of a system is also about a
change in the way an organisation works. This change can be described as “the
need for management accounting systems to change to support managers’ new
information requirements.” (Baines, Langfield-Smith, 2003). Changes in the
organizations design, which in the long run lead to a change in organizational
performance, is brought about by changes in strategy, changes in the competitive
environment, and most interesting for this paper, changes in technology. However,
Baines and Langfield-Smith’s work points to the fact that a change in organizational
factors more or less comes from a change in strategy, even though there is a relation
for example between greater use of advanced management accounting
techniques have great reliance on non-financial management accounting
information. But management control systems can also be seen as a tool for
delivering information to operating managers. By doing so, the focus and use of
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

129
advanced management accounting techniques have changed, leading to an
integration of operations and strategic priorities (Chenhall, Euske, 2007). A change in
the way information is used, through new technology, is in a way also a change in
how the organization works e.g. what the information utilises and how they use the
information.
Management accounting and change
Even though the intention sometimes is to make more vast changes, the use of
accounting information could rather be seen as a way of smoothing organizational
frictions (Lukka, 2007). Changes can then be seen as the implementation of a
certain management accounting technique, for example ABC or advanced
performance measurement systems. In many cases, however, the change is rather
about changing how things should be done, the rules, and understanding how
things informally are done, the routines. In addition, there are also institutions where
common assumptions, socially constructed, lead actors in an organisation when it
comes to activities and relationships (Burns, Scapens, 2000). Altogether, these three
concepts helps to understand how a formal change in the management
accounting techniques also has effects on the informal ways of working in the
organisation. In this way, there can be both stability and change when
management accounting rules and routines are changed (Lukka, 2007). “Not only
can formal rules legitimate the existence of an organisation, while allowing informal
routines to remain intact, but informal routines can also act as the ‘protecting’
device, legitimating the existing formal rule systems and shielding them from
pressures for change.” (Lukka, 2007). It is then interesting to try to understand how
formal changes are done when it comes to management accounting and how
informal routines protect the organization from change.
It is then important to understand that change can both be about changes in
technology where organizational change follows, or organizational and technical
changes can be undertaken at the same time (Robey, Ross, Boudreau, 2002). In
addition to this perspective, there is also a possibility to look at change as a social
process, which then forms a socio-technical process of change. “Consequently, it
can be argued that many organizational impacts only remain unanticipated,
because systems developers are reluctant to tackle the human and organizational
aspects of IT projects. Systems development projects have typically been viewed as
exercises in technical change, rather than socio-technical change …” (Doherty,
King, 2005). Compared to a standard model, a socio-technical approach is seen as
an on-going social process rather than just launching the technical implementation
in one shot. Instead of treating the effects as direct and immediate, the
technological effects are indirect and involve different time scales (Kling, Lamb,
1999). It is also clear that instead of having an expert who leads the change project,
the expert needs to be a co-learner, contributing to the change while learning
himself (Trist, 1981). In order to get the change process working, both the
organisational dimension and the technical one need to be understood.
Resistance to change and organizational support
From another perspective, change sometimes also brings about resistance, and
several barriers could be identified. Cobb, Helliar and Innes (1995), for example,
describe how different forces such as motivators, catalysts and facilities in different
forms can shape potential for change. Through the leaders in the organization, these
potentials then become actual change in the organization. But there is also a risk
that the potential for change runs into barriers for change, which then makes the
potential “bounce off” and does not become an actual change. When change is
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

130
taking place there is also a possibility that the change itself becomes a momentum
for additional change, which then becomes a form of on-going process. The barriers
could for example be different perceptions of priority, the attitudes among staff and
their turnover, to name a few. The influencing forces of change could be both
positive, they shape potential for change, and negative, they become barriers for
change (Kasurinen, 2002). Consequently, it becomes important to both identify and
work with the potentials for change and the barriers, in order for a change to
happen.
When different technical solutions are in place it becomes important to support
and work with a sponsorship process, which makes managers act in accordance
with the change, and an education process, which advocates the merits in the
change (Argyris, Kaplan, 1994). In addition, and along the same line, there is also a
need to create an internal commitment, which should make it easier to overcome
barriers and different threats to change. This process primarily involves motivation
and support for individual action in the organization, actions in line with the change
(Argyris, 1990). Behavioural and organizational variables are central for change to
come about (Shields, 1995). Some examples are top management support, training,
ownership of resources and specially canned software. There is also a risk that
previously working structures become resistance and barriers, which then hinder
change to take place. In a way there is a change challenge prior to the technical
implementation and then other challenges once the technical solution is in place.
In general, different typologies could be identified in the technical level change in
management accounting. Sulaiman and Mitchell (2005) define and describe five
different forms of change arguments and logics, which could be described as
typologies. The first form is named “addition” where management accounting
techniques new to the organisation are introduced. They could also be an extension
of the existing techniques. In a second category, “replacement”, the new technique
replaces the old or existing management accounting system. In the next typology
the output from the system is modified, named “output modification”. The fourth
form or typology is a change that modifies the operations of the management
accounting system, “operational modification”. And the last typology, “reduction”, is
a form of change where no new system or technique is introduced and the old
system is removed. Altogether, this typology of technical change levels in
management accounting systems helps to form useful categories helping to identify
and understand change efforts.
Even though much has been written about performance measurement in
general, not much has been published on how to choose business metrics, for
example. This is almost taken for granted, and still it is a key task for implementing
new management accounting ideas and techniques. There have been studies
showing that business metrics need to be changed and more or less dynamic (Henri,
2010), but still how have they been chosen and what role do they play in a
management accounting and technical change? While this paper is focused on
management accounting change, information systems implementation and socio-
technical theories, the operationalization of working with performance measures will
be about how these measures and metrics are chosen.
Method
Selected case
The empirical material is based on one larger case, which was selected through a
convenience sample. This study is based on material from a project that a large
Swedish university was working with focusing on a management information system.
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

131
Through different expert functions, the authors were able to follow the project at
close range and also supported the project managers with second opinions,
comments and sometimes also direct suggestions. From time to time, the authors
were also part of shorter project phases, evaluating different solutions and
supervising project assistants. It was a project that was promoted from the top
management level and run all the way through deans down to local administrations
and department managers. Even though the top management first brought about
the needs of a new management information system, the focus and aim of the
project was centred on the middle management and their work routines. The
university itself could be described as a traditional European university with an
equally large focus on teaching and research. It comes out on top in several
rankings and has a high accreditation standard. Furthermore, the middle
management works with a traditional structure and rules and routines resemble other
universities.
Collecting the empirical material
The empirical material was collected over a two-year period starting in the autumn
of 2011 when the project was launched. From time to time, one or more authors
were participating in meetings and informal discussions with the project team and
management. In addition to this growing understanding during the project, relevant
project documentations and minutes have also formed the empirical material. In
addition to this, semi-structured interviews were done with selected members of the
project organisation. Even though the authors from time to time have been working
closely to the project, the ambition is not to present this study as an action research
method or study, but rather as a descriptive example of how this kind of project can
be understood.
Analysing case- and action-research material
In the analysis of the empirical material a conventional case study method was used
and the findings were structured in accordance with that. Even though the ambition
behind the method has not been to do an action research project, there are several
resemblances with action research. From one point of view, action research is a
project where researchers are involved with the members of an organization over a
matter that is of concern to them (Eden, Huxham, 1996). In action research, focus is
on the setting, which is also an important factor for understanding change in this
study. There is also a tension between producing new theory through a research
project and producing understanding that could be used in a practical setting. In
this study, it has been important to try to contribute to existing theory, but also to
develop an understanding that could be applied to practice. In the process of using
an action research inspired method, it has been important for us to try to explore the
“data” rather than collecting it in a classical sense, which is in line with Eden and
Huxham’s (1996) reasoning. One important benefit from doing an action research
inspired project is the ability to triangulate data, and by doing so giving a more just
presentation. As presented earlier, even though this has not been a pure action
research project, it has been inspired by the method and its benefits in many ways.
Results
The university is currently working with its profile for the upcoming years, focusing on
how they should be organized in 2020. This comes from an escalating need to
sharpen a profile and to monitor how resources are used in the mission to educate
research and interact with the community. It is also important to form a coherent,
decentralized management structure with high quality output altogether packaged
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

132
in a modern form. From a national perspective, the department of education has
focused on promoting strategic profile work with an increased autonomy. With this
also comes the ability to define scopes and aims and how the management control
function should be designed. As a consequence, lower level managers and their
strategic responsibility have come to play a crucial part in the reorganisation of the
university operation.
AIS project
In the project instructions for the AIS project there was a clear and sharp description
of the need for better information for lower level managers. The project instructions
state, “At the University of XXXXX, we currently have problems to grasp and thus
understand our operations. The required information is not easily accessible: it is
based on uncertain data, different systems and deficiencies in data management.
This makes it difficult for the department heads and other managers to make rational
and informed decisions. Also follow-up is complicated, extremely time-consuming.”
This was one of the major aims with the project, to supply relevant management
information and decision support and increase the lower level managers’ ability to
make decisions and act in a strategic, coherent way. The information should be
easy to access, have a high quality, support management control and an increased
ability to evaluate if goals are met.
There was also a clear project plan with three phases. In the first phase,
development and preparations were done, which had a time period of eight
months. In this phase, the focus was on modelling different concepts and ideas,
forming user-groups and defining strategies associated to the group. In this phase it
was also important to define business metrics/ performance indicators, and there
was an intention to limit the number of indicators to 4-8 for the higher-level
management team. In the second phase, running over six months, there was a focus
on implementation where different software specifications were developed, data
connections with previous systems were analysed, an adjustment of data storage
needs and a limited number of reports, 4-8, were to be defined. In the final phase,
the ambition was to get the system running and established within the organisation.
In this one-year phase, there was an interest in evaluating the function of the
management information system and also to define the continued support needs
and establish the long run strategic needs. Altogether, the project plan resembles
similar project plans with a clear timetable and well-defined goals and tasks. The
most interesting phase for this study is the first one where the performance indicators
were defined, and the rest of the results section will describe this.
Ending the first phase
In the first phase, one of the most important parts was to develop and design
performance indicators, which also is the focus of this study. The first phase was
reported and in a way ended in April 2012, which was a bit ahead of the original
plan. The overall impression from the first phase was that the organisation was
genuinely interested in the project and confirmed the need for a project like this.
There were several more general conclusions that were drawn from the first phase.
During this period, several focus areas had been defined, which then formed the
base for performance indicators, which all together should be few, especially at an
aggregated management level. In addition to this, there was a need to develop
more specific performance measures and indicators that were unique for each
department and presented as a palette of measures and indicators. One of the
most important measures was student satisfaction, but it was necessary to develop
methods and structured information to grasp this. Along the measures it was also
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

133
concluded that it is important to establish target levels for the measures in order to
follow the progression, especially on department level. These indicators should have
a close connection to strategic aims. At this stage, it was also important to support
lower-level managers so that these measures were used to monitor strategic actions
in the daily operations, which might need some additional analysis. In addition to
department managers, administrators and the top-level management teams, other
internal stakeholders were identified, who needed to be able to monitor what was
happening in the operations. They needed to be able to gather information from
different sources to get a broader picture. Altogether the management information
system should be built on a platform, which would secure quality and stability.
One important area in the first phase was to secure that the IT solution really
supported the needs in the organisation in the long run, so that there was a clear
and strong connection between the need and the IT support. So the needs were
analysed and one of the tasks was to evaluate different measures and indicators
used at other universities. This was presented in a list where 400 indicators and
measures were compiled from about 20 sources. One initial conclusion was that
there was a wide dispersion of measures and indicators, and to be able to work with
the list and shorten it there was a need to analyse how they meet different criteria
relevant for a department manager at the university. After working with the list and
consulting different experts, the list was shortened to include 48 measures and
indicators. These were then presented to a reference group during a workshop, and
they then summarised their interest, e.g. the department managers’ interest, into five
focus areas. These were 1] research and publication, 2] student satisfaction, 3]
education and resources, 4] employees and 5] financial status. The information
sources were also targeted, and the project team compiled a list of more then 25
different data sources. This would be the core for the performance measures design
and development. In the next step, six workshops were arranged with close to 50
representatives from different departments. This resulted in a form of information-
model where three important information areas were connected: education,
employees and organisation.
Re-shaping the project
The project report on phase one continued to discuss and analyse how to handle
different aspects of such vast information. This was however, so far so good. At this
stage there were two more dominant actors who in a way “dictated” what was to
be decided on and how the next step should be done. The first one was a female
manager (KX) working within the organisation and the second one was a male
consultant (KY) hired for the project. KX had an important role in the first phase
working with the workshops forming the 48 measures/indicators list. Later on in the
next project phase, KY took more of a responsibility for the measures list and
shortened it to include 15 measures. He wanted to have a simpler output, which
could be worked with and integrated in Excel. In this phase, there was also some
workshops and comments from department managers. In a way a feeling was
growing that the indicators themselves were not as important as the larger
information integration. During this period the overall project manager also left the
project.
One important additional task for the project team was to select a vendor and
work with the configuration of reports and integration of information sources. There
were four software platforms that were interesting, which also were included in the
evaluation. These were SAP Business Objects, IBM Cognos, Oracle, Microsoft and SAS
Institute. They were all evaluated with the help of Gartners information. An
evaluation model were defined and used to evaluate the different solutions. Two of
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

134
the solutions were more attractive and interesting for the university, Microsoft and
Oracle, and the project team decided to recommend Microsoft’s solution. Since the
reports, the information integration and in the end the performance measures are
the products of the chosen solution, it was important to evaluate the vendors and
platforms in a detailed way.
At this later phase of the project, a new project management was selected and
the once grand project became smaller. Several of the early goals, aligning the
project with the 2020 vision for the university for example, were not that important
anymore. The project team was cut in size and several parts of the larger project
were put on hold. It became more and more important to integrate new systems
into the old ones and to modify the existing software solutions. The initial need for
better information was not that crucial anymore and a feasible solution was talked
about more frequently. The decision power over the project resources were
redirected to higher-level managers and the interaction with middle management
stopped. Different forms of evaluations and reports on the progress and conclusions
were written, and in general, the project, once an open and collaborative project,
became a closed, high-level managed project. This development came about just
before the entire project was supposed to be implemented. A once offensive and
future focused project became a modification of already existing management
accounting systems and practice.
Discussion
When searching for a common ground for understanding how AIS projects are
implemented and if/how it changes management accounting practice, especially
with a focus on performance metrics and indicators, one can start with how the
project itself is organised and run. The studied project has support from the highest
management levels and was in a way started there. It has enough founding and
internal staff. All the way throughout the project, managers and experts have been
involved and have been able to influence decisions and directions. From time to
time different actors have had the lead, more or less responsible for the project and
its outcome. In this sense, it is run in a traditional way, with quality staffing and
support and resources from top-level managers. It is clear that from several
perspectives, it is an AIS project with a clear focus on effectiveness and increased
management utilisation.
Project ambition
It is also clear that the project has a performance measurement perspective that is
important for the organisation, right along the ideas of traditional performance
measurement and management intentions. Several different performance
perspectives are covered and discussions about how to find, gather and present
information from up to 20 sources were discussed. There is a significant interest in
combining measures and trying to find new ways of reporting and using information.
It became clear when 50 managers and staff attended a workshop where measures
and performance management were presented and discussed. In a way, there are
at least two phases within the project phases that are interesting to picture. The first
phase could be seen as a wishing phase, where almost everything is possible. In a
first survey, nearly 400 measures were identified with the help of how other universities
were running their performance measurement and management. In a second
phase, within the project phases, there was a clearer focus on implementing what
was feasible. Now, the project coordinator was narrowing down the amount of
measures. From the perspectives studied, this is a performance measurement
project, but there are of course several other important dimensions too.
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

135
One important angle for this study, which is harder to describe in a clear way, is
if/how management accounting practice has changed. In a way this has to do with
the fact that the study is taking place ex-ante the actual change of operations is
taking place. The project, even though embedded in the organisation, is still under a
planning/implementing phase and it is therefore hard to target actual change in
practice. One additional problem is that it is also hard to see what management
accounting change is. One example is that it has to do with implementing new
management accounting techniques, but at the same time it is much more. From
one perspective, it is about rules, routines and institutions, which in a way come
closer to this study. There is no new technique per se, even though new information
technology has been used, and the longer the project is run the more it seems to be
touching on rules and routines in the departments. Change is not planned for but
occurring as the AIS project moves forward.
Conclusions
In a way AIS projects, like the one investigated in this paper, trigger change. In this
study, this is not in a way that can be described as new rules or routines, nor is it new
management accounting techniques that are implemented. But the ability to
package management accounting information in a different way is a form of
management accounting change, at least when it comes to how managers and
staff at the studied university think about management accounting information.
Thinking and acting are two important dimensions of a continuously changing
process. Through reading a report and interpreting it, management control actions
could be the next step (Bredmar, 2012). Changing rules and routines, and in the long
run institutions, begins with how we think and talk and interpret our organisation and
operations. The studied AIS project has more or less forced managers and staff to
think about and ask for new kinds of performance measures, think about how
management accounting information can be gathered and presented, and
probably, in the long run, change how they look at the organisation they work in.
Previous research
There are several conclusions that are in line with findings in previous research.
Kasurinen (2002) showed that there was a gap between the original goals and the
goals of lower level business unit managers. In a way that is also a conclusion from
this study. The initial goals were formulated in a certain way, and in the end lower
level managers embraced different goals and ambitions. It was also clear that the
ambition behind the project shifted over time, and from the start the project was a
strategic, long-term investment that ended up being more of an increased
efficiency project. The willingness by senior project staff to implement the project
results also shifted when there was extensive support from the beginning but almost
no support at the end. Altogether, the goals from the start were changed and at the
end the entire project looked different.
In a way AIS projects like this trigger change. But it seems like the ambitions from
the beginning was more extensive than it came to be at the end. In the first phase of
the project almost 400 measures and indicators were interesting, but in the end the
ones in charge of the project settled with a handful. This phenomenon is interesting
in itself. At first there was a higher ambition, and in the end the expectations were
lowered. Still, there were discussions about how to change the use of performance
measures in the organisation, what sources they should be compiled from and who
should define lower-level information needs. Something seems to happen between
the initial glorious possibilities and the cruel day-to-day work. It is wrong to say that it
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

136
is all because of the computer systems that were analysed, but at the same time
they sometimes promise more then they deliver (Bredmar, 2011).
Implemented changes
It is also clear that at the end senior managers wanted more of a modification
change (Sulaiman, Mitchell, 2005) and not change in addition or operations of the
management accounting system, which was the initial indication. Among the
typologies introduced earlier, the initial ambition was more of a replacement or
operational modification change orientation, but as the analysis and project results
grew and came into shape, the ambition and change focus moved from
replacement to modification. Previous research shows that the easiest form of
change is the modification and that the most problematic is when new techniques
are introduced or old systems are replaced (Sulaiman, Mitchell, 2005). Our findings
support this conclusion. There was a growing need to integrate the new techniques
and ideas into the existing systems and by doing so turning the change into
organizationally constitutive artefacts (Vaivio, 1999). The ambition in the different
phases of the project could be categorised along different typologies, but at the
end a modification ambition was the one that was most enduring and interesting for
senior management.
In a way AIS projects like this trigger change, but maybe not in the way or form
that we usually depicts change. Possibly change is something more elusive, hard to
track and describe. Maybe it is only possible to see after a much longer period than
this study and project can grasp. Maybe change is occurring and still we do not
have the methods and means to understand it. AIS projects like this, which this study
is based on, changes the way an organisation looks at management accounting
information. AIS system becomes new tools that open opportunities that were not
there before. Just the thought of having these opportunities might be a change, a
change in the way we think about what we need in order to do management
accounting work.
References
1. Alter, S. (1999). "Information systems: a management perspective", 3rd ed.,
Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
2. Argyris, C. (1952), "The impact of budgets on people", New York: Controllership
Foundation.
3. Argyris, C. (1990), "The dilemma of implementing controls: the case of managerial
accounting", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 503-511.
4. Argyris, C., Kaplan, R. (1994), "Implementing new knowledge: the case of activity-
based costing", Accounting Horizons, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 83-105.
5. Baines, A., Langfield-Smith, K. (2003), "Antecedents to management accounting
change: a structural equation approach", Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 28, No. 7-8, pp. 675-698.
6. Bredmar, K. (2011), "Performance measurement - does ERP systems measure up?",
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 33-41.
7. Bredmar, K. (2012), "The act of interpretation - Accounting reports and
management control action", Business Management Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.
30-38.
8. Burns, J., Scapens, R. W. (2000). "Conceptualicing management accounting
change: an institutional framework", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11,
No. 1, pp. 3-25.
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

137
9. Chenhall, R. H., Euske, K. J. (2007), "The role of management control systems in
planned organizational change: an analysis of two organizations", Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 32, No. 7-8, pp. 601-637.
10. Cobb, I., Helliar, C., Innes, J. (1995), "Management accounting changes in a
bank", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 155-175.
11. Doherty, N. F., King, M. (2005), "From technical to socio-technical change:
tackling the human and organizational aspects of systems development
projects", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-5.
12. Drucker, P. F. (1954). "The practice of management", New York: Harper.
13. Eden, C., Huxham, C. (1996), "Action research for management research", British
Journal of Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 75-86.
14. Henri, J. F. (2010), "The periodic review of performance indicators: an empirical
investigation of the dynamism of performance measurement systems", European
Accounting Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 73-96.
15. Hwang, M. I., Lin, C. T., Lin, J. W. (2012), "Organizational factors for successful
implementation of information systems: disentangling the effect of top
management support and training", Proceedings of the Southern Association for
Information Systems Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 23-24 March, 2012.
16. Kaplan, R., Norton, D. (1992), "The balanced scorecard - Measures that drive
performance", Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, pp. 71-79.
17. Kasurinen, T. (2002), "Exploring management accounting change: the case of
balanced scorecard implementation", Management Accounting Research, Vol.
13, No. 3, pp. 323-343.
18. Kling, R., Lamb, R. (1999), "IT and organizational change in digital economies: an
socio-technical approach", Computers and society, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 17-25.
19. Lukka, K. (2007), "Management accounting change and stability: loosely coupled
rules and routines in action", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18, No. 1,
pp. 76-101.
20. Markus, M. L., Tanis, C. (2000), "The enterprise system experience - from adoption
to success", in R. W. Zmud (ed.), "Framing the domains of IT research: Glimpsing
the future through the past", Cincinnati, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, pp. 173-
207.
21. Nah, F. F. H., Lau, J. L. S., Kuang, J. (2001), "Critical factors for successful
implementation of enterprise systems", Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 285-296.
22. Neely, A. (2005), "The evolution of performance measurement research",
International Journal of Operations & Productions Management, Vol. 25, No. 12,
pp. 1264-1277.
23. Neely, A. et al. (1997), "Designing performance measures: a structured
approach", International Journal of Operations & Productions Management, Vol.
17, No. 11, pp. 1131-1152.
24. Rackoff, N., Wiseman, C., Ullrich, W. A. (1985), "Information systems for
competitive advantage: implementation of a planning process", MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 285-294.
25. Ridgway, V. F. (1956), "Dysfunctional consequences of performance
measurements", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 240-247.
26. Robey, D., Ross, J. W., Boudreau, M. C. (2002), "Learning to implement enterprise
systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change", Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 17-46.
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

138
27. Shields, M. D. (1995), "An empirical analysis of firms' implementation experiences
with activity-based costing", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.
7, No. 1, pp. 148-165.
28. Soh, C., Markus, M. L. (1995), "How IT creates business value: a process theory
synthesis", Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information
Systems.
29. Sulaiman, S., Mitchell, F. (2005), "Utilising a typology of management accounting
change: an empirical anaysis", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16, No.
4, pp. 422-437.
30. Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., Cagnazzo, L. (2010), "Performance measurement and
management: a literature review and a research agenda", Measuring business
excellence, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 4-18.
31. Trist, E. (1981), "The evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual framework
and an action research program", available at:
http://www.sociotech.net/wiki/images/9/94/Evolution_of_socio_technical_system
s.pdf (17 July 2014)
32. Vaivio, J. (1999), "Exploring a 'non-financial' management accounting change",
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 409-437.
About the authors
Krister Bredmar, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at the School of
Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg. His research interests include
Performance Management and Management Control in general. Author can be
contacted at krister.bredmar@gu.se
Urban Ask, PhD, is Associate Professor of Business Administration at the School of
Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg. His research interests include
Accounting Information Systems, Business Intelligence and Analytics and Interactive
Data Visualization. Author can be contacted at urban.ask@handels.gu.se
Elisabeth Frisk, PhD, is Assistant Professor in Business Administration at the School of
Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg. Her PhD was in Informatics
(Evaluating as Designing: Towards a Balanced IT Investment Approach) and she has
a master in Accounting. Her research interests involve Evaluating Information System
(IS) Investments, Managing as Designing, Accounting and Control for Sustainability,
Business Intelligence and Interactive Data Visualization. Author can be contacted at
elisabeth.frisk@handels.gu.se
Johan Magnusson, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at the School
of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg and a Visiting Professor at
The Norwegian School of Information Technology-NITH in Oslo, Norway. His research
interests include IT Governance, Enterprise Systems and Interactive Data
Visualization. Author can be contacted at johan.magnusson@handels.gu.se
- 10.2478/bsrj-2014-0015
via free access

Accounting information systems_implementation_and_

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Accounting information systems_implementation_and_ (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Accounting information systems_implementation_and_