AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS * Vol.1, issue 1, 2014

AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS

ISSN: 2392 – 876X

Impact Factor: 2.0178 (UIF)

Volume 1 │ Issue 11 │ October 2015

Available online at: www.researchthoughts.us

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1505094

A BLUEPRINT ON RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR

THE DOUBLE-HYBRID MANAGEMENT

ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer, Hong Kong, China

Abstract: Since the mid-80s, the management accounting field has been responding to a crisis that is captured in the phrase “relevance lost”. Since then, new intellectual thinking and approaches in management accounting have been proposed, very often labeled as strategic management accounting.

Based on the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research of this writer, a few papers on a visionary research theme called double-hybrid management accounting research has been put forward of late by this writer. In this paper, a research strategies blueprint, involving literature review, induction and deduction within the MPSB knowledge supply chain framework, is presented. The blueprint portrays a challenging, yet feasible way to involve academicians and professionals to develop double-hybrid management accounting. A brief exercise to review an article on activity-based management by Armstrong (2002) is provided to illustrate how MPSB management accounting literature can be developed to inform the double-hybrid management accounting research venture. The paper justifies this intellectual project in terms of practical and academic values that it is capable of delivering to the professional and academic communities in systems thinking and management accounting.

Key Words: activity-based management, double-hybrid management accounting research, a research strategies blueprint, the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research, management accounting, systems thinking

INTRODUCTION

The management accounting field has been experiencing a turbulent time since the mid-

80s. There was the crisis about the relevance of management accounting to the business world as described by the work of Johnson and Kaplan which appeared in 1987

2838

Joseph Kim-keung HoA BLUEPRINT ON RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR THE DOUBLE-HYBRID

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

(Johnson and Kaplan, 1991). In response, the management accounting professional bodies and academicians proposed a number of innovative management accounting approaches, which can be considered as strategic management accounting approaches

(Guilding et al., 2000). In 2014, this writer has launched another original research project on management accounting (see Ho (2014a; 2014b; 2014c).), drawing on the Multiperspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research i (see Ho, 2014d; 2015) also conducted by this writer. In essence, these works by this writer propose, based on literature review, the intellectual vision of developing Multi-perspective, Systems-based management accounting called double-hybrid management accounting as well as the professional profile of double-hybrid management accountant, see Figure 1. i The MPSB Research, as conducted by this writer, is grounded on critical systems thinking (see Jackson (2003).).

AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS- Volume 1 │ Issue 12 │ 2015

2839



Referring to Figure 1, which is an updated version of the diagram from Ho (2014c), the aim of double-hybrid ii management accounting research is to develop critical systemsbased management accounting theories. In this regard, theories include models, methodologies and theoretical perspectives. These theories inform management accounting system analysis and design, management accounting system implementation, and management accounting practices, etc... To do so requires development of hard systems-based, soft-systems-based, emancipatory systems-based and postmodern systems-based management accounting. Double-hybrid management accounting constitutes the vital body of knowledge for a double-hybrid management accountant, i.e., a Multi-perspective, Systems-based scholar-practitioner in management accounting, to pursue (Ho, 2014a; 2014b). Nevertheless, the contemporary systems thinking has not made any significant influence in the management accounting community. In particular, in the existing management accounting and systems thinking literature, there is as yet no such thing as hard systems-based management accounting, soft-systems-based based management accounting, emancipatory systems-based management accounting, postmodern systems-based nor critical systems-based management accounting. Instead, the mainstream management accounting literature is mainly grounded in neoclassical economics and the research philosophy of positivism

(Scapens and Yan, 1993; Baxter and Chua, 2003) and it is also not enthusiastic in adopting the systems thinking lens iii in its practices and theoretical development.

Specifically, the academic management accounting literature exhibits willingness to consider different theoretical perspectives in research studies. However, the employment of systems language and systems methodologies in these academic works is rare. In short, the research project on double-hybrid management accounting is right at the visionary stage. How to proceed with the double-hybrid management accounting research is less than clear. To address this concern on research strategies, the paper proposes a research strategies blueprint for the double-hybrid management accounting research, which offers some clarification on this concern. ii The term double-hybrid is solely used for MPSB study in the management accounting field. Its meaning is the same as MPSB. iii The systems thinking lens is typified by the notion of systems age thinking of Ackoff (1981).

2840




THE EXISTING RELEVANT LITERATURE FOR THE DOUBLE-HYBRID


The vision of the intellectual venture to develop double-hybrid management accounting theories and perspective, as depicted in Figure 1, is ambitious and highly unconventional. This is because the existing systems thinking literature and management accounting literature have no works specifically on hard systems-based, soft systems-based, emancipatory systems-based, postmodern systems-based and critical systems-based management accounting theories. Moreover, the underlying theoretical foundation of double-hybrid management accounting research, i.e., the

Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research (with its theoretically anchored critical systems thinking), is essentially a personal sub-Systems Movement (Ho, 2014e) with few followers. Taking all these factors into consideration, the challenge of realizing the double-hybrid management accounting project vision appears tremendous.

Nevertheless, this writer maintains that such an intellectual venture is feasible and worth doing. The reasons are as follows:

Reason 1 – the multiplicity of perspective in the management accounting literature: The existing management accounting literature has examined management accounting from a diversity of perspectives, notably the rational accounting theory studies (RATS), ethnographic or interpretive accounting research studies (EARS) and critical accounting theory studies (CATS), that are similar to the theoretical perspectives of various strands of systems thinking (Ho, 2014a; 2014b; Jönsoson and Macintosh, 1997).

Reason 2 – the ease of adopting various management concepts with generic constitutive rules

based on different systems thinking perspectives: Contemporary critical systems thinking works, notably Jackson (2003: Chapter 15), have already formulated highly condensed generic constitutive rules on systems thinking methodologies that can be readily adopted for informing various perspective-aware and systems-based organizational intervention efforts as well as employing various conceptual and analytical techniques from diverse academic sources, e.g., literature on systems methodologies and management accounting, see also the appendix. Furthermore, the literature of critical systems thinking, e.g., Jackson (2003), Flood and Romm (1996) and Mingers and Gill

2841




(1997), has evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of various systems methodologies, thus facilitating their application with critical awareness.

Reason 3 – the availability of the MPSB techniques to develop the MPSB management

accounting literature via literature review: Via literature review of existing management accounting works with the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) key concepts, e.g.

Ho (2015), it is feasible to produce management accounting ideas that can more easily be adopted to formulate and enhance the double-hybrid management accounting theories and perspective.

These three reasons point to the relevance of the existing systems thinking and management accounting literature for developing double-hybrid management theories.

Via the MPSB literature review-induction-deduction research process working on management accounting-related research projects and topics, double-hybrid management accounting theories can be developed. More specifically, this research process is subsumed under the larger MPSB knowledge supply chain framework of Ho

(2014f), so further research guidelines can be sought from that framework. In due course then, a repository of double-hybrid management accounting literature will be established. These reasons and ideas reveal a research strategies blueprint for conducting double-hybrid management accounting research. This research blueprint is further portrayed in Figure 2 as follows:


2842



Regarding Figure 2, there is already a set of identified academic resources to draw on to launch the double-hybrid management accounting research. The argument from the writer is not to downplay the intellectual challenges ahead for conducting the doublehybrid management accounting research. Undeniably, it is a daunting task.

Nonetheless, it is quite feasible for academicians interested in this intellectual project to start working on it using the proposed research strategies blueprint as presented in

Figure 2. Researchers can now locate their research endeavours in this blueprint to see how their research works fit into the overall research blueprint. For example, some

2843



MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH researchers may focus on the literature review realm to generate MPSB management accounting literature (Research Domain 1 of Figure 2). Another group of researchers may concentrate on formulating double-hybrid management accounting theories

(Research Domain 2). Yet a different group of researchers may conduct action research with some double-hybrid management accounting theories (Research Domain 3). The blueprint encourages distributed and associated research efforts to conduct doublehybrid management accounting research by researchers who are interested in this topic.

Finally, on the practical and academic values of pursuing the double-hybrid management accounting research, it offers a body of actionable management accounting knowledge to professional management accountants who aspire to be internal consultants and team leaders in their organizations (Xydias-Lobo et al., 2004), capable of coping with complex business challenges in a holistic and creative way.

Thus, it is able to generate practical value. Besides, the double-hybrid management accounting research provides an encompassing and vigorous theoretical foundation that synthesizes the existing management accounting literature and draws on insights from the systems thinking literature for developing management accounting theories.

As such, it creates academic value. The next section provides an illustration on how to make use of a key MPSB concept, i.e., the notion of perspective, to comprehend a piece of management accounting article so as to contribute to the double-hybrid management accounting literature.

REVIEWING AN ARTICLE ON ACTIVITY-BASED MANAGEMENT WITH THE

MPSB RESEARCH LENS

To indicate how some MPSB management accounting literature can be derived via the

MPSB Research, the writer reviews a management accounting article on activity-based management, i.e., Armstrong (2002). Briefly, activity-based management is “the entire set of actions that can be taken on a better informed basis using ABC (activity-based costing) information” (Ryan, 2015). The review takes the form of associating some evaluative comments made by Armstrong (2002) with the perspectives of the main strands of systems thinking as identified by Jackson (2003). A somewhat similar review exercise, which makes use of the key MPSB concepts, has been previously conducted by

Ho (2015) on performance measurement models, another management accounting

2844



MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH topic. Armstrong’s (2002) article, to be reviewed here, is a critical evaluation of activitybased management. The review findings on his article are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Perspectives of systems thinking strands and related evaluative comments on activity-based management by Armstrong (2002)

Perspectives of systems thinking strands and associated organizational images (Jackson,

Related evaluative comments on activity-based management by Armstrong (2002)

2003)

1.

The hard systems perspective

Main aims: improving, goal seeking and viability

Associated organizational images: machine, organism, brain, flux and transformation

1.1

“…the more of the labour within a staff department which is indirect in terms of its output activities, the greater will be the proportion of arbitrarily allocation within activity costs…” (Armstrong, 2002: 106).

1.2

Where Scientific Management involved a concrete simplification and standardisation of production processes, ABM offers no positive guide to the revision of working practices..” (Armstrong, 2002:

109).

2 The soft perspective systems

Main aim: purpose exploration

Associated organizational images: culture and political system

1.3

“Providing staff managers succeed in establishing activities ……., these activities, or rather their costdrivers, are likely to become fossilised within the activity monitoring system, especially when this is written into software…….” (Armstrong, 2002: 111).

1.4

“…it is common to find that initial list of activities obtained from staff managers is too extensive to fit into a feasible system… it could…be symptomatic of an attempt on the part of staff managers to insist on the organic complexity of their tasks …” (Armstrong,

2002: 112).

2.1

“ABC found a receptive audience amongst line or production managers because it proposed that staff departments should be subjected to regimes of accountability similar to those already experienced by manufacturing” (Armstrong, 2002: 102).

2.2

“Since there are managerial occupations which profess techniques through which others can be monitored and controlled, senior managers can choose to trust these as an alternative to trusting the managers of the

2845




3 The emancipatory systems perspective

Main aims: pursuit of fairness and empowerment

Associated organizational images: psychic prison and instrument of domination

4 The postmodern systems perspective

Main aim: diversity promotion

Associated organizational image: carnival

5 The critical perspective systems

Main aim: creative holism

Associated organizational images: all organizational images functions concerned..” (Armstrong, 2002: 103).

2.3

“The validity of the truth claims made for ABC is one thing; its social consequences are another….people do not act according to the situation but according to their definition of it. So has been with belief in the reality of activity-based costings…” (Armstrong, 2002:

107).

2.4

“In some of the ABC implementations…, attempts to rank activities according to their value added were described as ‘controversial’ or ‘painful’ …”

(Armstrong, 2002: 109).

3.1

“Where ABM is ‘successfully’ implemented, this image of the staff function may become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the department’s activities may actually be reduced to routine technical or clerical services” (Armstrong, 2002: 103).

3.2

“In some of the ABC implementations…, attempts o rank activities according to their value added were described as ‘controversial’ or ‘painful’ because

‘Everyone had a different definition of what’s valuable to them.’…” (Armstrong, 2002: 109).

4.1

“… one would expect some show of resistance from staff subjected to the ABM frame of reference…

Generally, the voices of the subjects are suppressed…”

(Armstrong, 2002: 112).

Not found. Overall, it is multi-perspective.

2846




Overall, Armstrong’s (2002) makes a number of evaluative comments and observations on activity-based management, some reflecting concerns associated with the hard systems perspective, others more related to the interpretative systems, emancipatory systems, and postmodern systems perspectives. Such evaluation endorses a

“multidimensional” way (Cinquini and Michell, 2005) to investigate activity-based management. Still, no specific viewpoints from Armstrong (2002) resonate with critical systems thinking though the article is multi-perspective. Moreover, Armstrong’s (2002) article does not make use of systems language and notions in his discussion. In other words, his work is not systems thinking-based. The whole review exercise that produces Table 1 is interpretive (or subjective) in nature. Thus, another person doing the same exercise could come up with a slightly different grouping of comments from

Armstrong (2002). Also, some evaluative comments can be associated with more than one perspective, e.g., points 2.4 and 3.2 in Table 1. Taken as a whole, his study unravels the machine metaphor underlying the activity-based management approach, and its application limitations as conceived from various theoretical perspectives. The article of

Armstrong is essentially multi-perspective, but not systems/ holism-based. Table 1 serves an important purpose of pointing to how various strands of systems thinking could potentially be considered to enrich the study of activity-based management. By explicitly reviewing activity-based management with an MPSB perspective, the discussion would then be not only multi-perspective, but also systems-based. All in all, the review exercise by this writer falls within the Research Domain 1 of Figure 2. Being multi-perspective and systems-based enables a more comprehensive and creative managerial response to deal with complex business issues that involve management accounting practices in this case (re: Research Domain 3 of Figure 2). As such, Table 1 contributes to the MPSB management accounting literature (re: Research Domain 1 of

Figure 2), which further informs the double-hybrid management accounting research.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Given the existing insignificant intellectual imprint of contemporary systems thinking to the management accounting field, it is indeed an overwhelming task to develop double-hybrid management accounting theories as well as mobilize academicians to do so. Nevertheless, such a task is not impossible. Nevertheless, it is argued in this paper that, by means of the MPSB Research, it is quite feasible to produce MPSB management

2847



MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH accounting literature. Together with the works on critical systems thinking, e.g., Jackson

(2003), it is quite practicable to formulate double-hybrid management accounting theories (re: Research Domain 2 of Figure 2). Those academicians who are creative and visionary probably will find this kind of intellectual endeavours engaging and stimulating. Others will prefer to conduct empirical research, e.g., case study research and action research, to develop double-hybrid management accounting theories (re:

Research Domain 3 of Figure 2). All these theoretical and empirical research efforts play an important part in the overall double-hybrid management accounting research venture, as depicted in Figure 2. In this respect, this visionary paper, by offering a research strategy blueprint, serves as an invitation to all those who are possibly interested in double-hybrid management accounting to participate in this highly innovative and stimulating intellectual adventure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Ackoff, R.L. 1981. Creating the corporate future. Wiley.

2.

Armstrong, P. 2002. “The costs of activity-based management” Accounting,

Organizations and Society 27. Pergamon: 99-120.

3.

Baxter, J. and W.F. Chua. 2003. “Alternative management accounting research”

Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 97-126.

4.

Cinquini, L. and F. Mitchell. 2005. “Success in management accounting: lessons from the activity-based costing/ management experience” Journal of Accounting &

Organizational Change 1(1). Emerald: 63-77.

5.

Flood, R.L. and M.C. Jackson. 1991. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems

Intervention. Wiley.

6.

Flood, R.L. and N.R.A. Romm. 1996. Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning.

Wiley.

7.

Guilding, C., K.S. Cravens and M. Tayles. 2000. “An international comparison of strategic management accounting practices” Management Accounting Research 11.

Academic Press: 113-135.

8.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014a. “A Research Note on why and how to develop double-hybrid management accountants (DHMAs)” European Academic Research 2(5) August: 6493-

6515.

2848




9.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014b. “An exploratory exercise to establish the profile of a doublehybrid management accountant with justifications” European Academic Research

1(11) February: 4261-4273.

10.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014c. “From strategic management accounting to double-hybrid management accountant: a research note” European Academic Research 2(8)

November: 10537-10563.

11.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014d. “A Review of the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB)

Research with an MPSB Knowledge Supply Chain Framework” European Academic

Research 2(1) April: 705-729.

12.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014e. “Mapping and explaining the Multi-perspective, Systems-based

Research sub-Systems Movement” European Academic Research 2(9) December:

11880-11900.

13.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014f. “A Review of the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB)

Research with an MPSB Knowledge Supply Chain Framework” European Academic

Research 2(1) April: 705-729.

14.

Ho, J.K.K. 2015. “An updated research note on the key Multi-perspective, Systemsbased (MPSB) concepts in the Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research” American

Research Thoughts 1(11) September: 2693-2704.

15.

Jackson, M.C. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Wiley.

Chichester.

16.

Johnson, H.T. and R.S. Kaplan. 1991. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management

Accounting. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. Massachusetts.

17.

Jönsoson, S. and N.B. Macintosh. 1997. “CATS, RATS and RATS: Making the case for ethnographic accounting research.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 22(3-4):

367-386.

18.

Mingers, J. and A. Gill. (editors) 1997. Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of

Combining Management Science Methodologies. Wiley.

19.

Ryan, N. 2015. “Activity-based management” ACCAglobal.com (url address: http://www.accaglobal.com/an/en/student/exam-support-resources/professionalexams-study-resources/p5/technical-articles/activity-based-management.html

)

[visited at October 14, 2015].

20.

Scapens, R.W. and M. Yan. 1993. “Management accounting research in China”

Management Accounting Research 4: 321-341.

2849




21.

Xydias-Lobo, M., C. Tilt and D. Forsaith. 2004. “The Future of Management

Accounting: A South Australian Perspective” JAMAR 2(1). Certified Management

Accountants, Australia: 55-70. (url address: http://www.cmawebline.org/joomla4/images/stories/JAMAR%202004%20Winter/ja mar-v2-1-xydias-lobo.pdf

) [visited at October 5, 2014].

Internet resources

A Facebook page on management accounting research: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-Management-Accounting-418682984981179/

A Facebook page on the MPSB Research: https://www.facebook.com/The-Multiperspective-Systems-based-Research-1630606813892045/


2850




2851

AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS * Vol.1, issue 1, 2014

A BLUEPRINT ON RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR

THE DOUBLE-HYBRID MANAGEMENT

ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

Related documents

Products

Support

AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS * Vol.1, issue 1, 2014

A BLUEPRINT ON RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR

THE DOUBLE-HYBRID MANAGEMENT

ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib