Management Accounting Change: Actor-Network Theory vs. Evolutionary Theories
Management accounting “lies not only in techniques but also in the changing context in which such techniques evolve; not only in the implementations of techniques, but also the effects of such implementations; not only in one-sided but also in multiple aspects” (Alawattage and Wickramasinghe, 2007). Therefore there have been many bodies of theories that have explored the external pressures as well as internal transformations of management accounting change. The two bodies of theory that we are going to compare and contrast in relation to management accounting and control systems change are evolutionary theories and Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and are both considered ‘interpretive theories’ within management accounting intellectual bodies and theorists.
Before we can discuss the relative contributions of the two bodies of theory, in regards to management accounting change, we must identify ‘change’ has occurred within management accounting. Some “claim that the fundamental nature of management accounting systems and practices have not changed” (Drury et al, 1993), however there is evidence that management accounting and control systems have changed (Bromwich and Bhimani, 1994), for example “managers now appear to be using their accounting systems and routine financial reports more flexibly and in conjunction with a range of other performance measures” (Miller and O’Leary, 1993). Moreover the management accounting environment has drastically changed in a geographical and historical context, “with advances in information technology, more competitive markets, and different organisational structures” (Burns and Scapens, 2000).
As we have determined there has been change within management accounting in the last 10 years, we can define what evolutionary theories and ANT is in regard to management accounting and control system change. Both bodies of theory are interpretive and generally “the interpretive perspective is a particular methodology for doing management
Before we can discuss the relative contributions of the two bodies of theory, in regards to management accounting change, we must identify ‘change’ has occurred within management accounting. Some “claim that the fundamental nature of management accounting systems and practices have not changed” (Drury et al, 1993), however there is evidence that management accounting and control systems have changed (Bromwich and Bhimani, 1994), for example “managers now appear to be using their accounting systems and routine financial reports more flexibly and in conjunction with a range of other performance measures” (Miller and O’Leary, 1993). Moreover the management accounting environment has drastically changed in a geographical and historical context, “with advances in information technology, more competitive markets, and different organisational structures” (Burns and Scapens, 2000).
As we have determined there has been change within management accounting in the last 10 years, we can define what evolutionary theories and ANT is in regard to management accounting and control system change. Both bodies of theory are interpretive and generally “the interpretive perspective is a particular methodology for doing management