Introduction
Accounting has always played an information system function in an organisation. When Luca Pacioli wrote his Summa in 1494, a chapter described how merchant families in Venice used a double-entry bookkeeping methodology to keep track of goods and money (Thompson, 1994). At that time, the accounting function played the role of documenting juridical transactions, but also was a means of showing ethical actions. In addition to this, the geometrical dimension was important, which helped the user to document a transaction in more than one dimension. In many ways, financial reports and information have always been about understanding the business and operations (Littleton, 1953). Through the gathering and structuring of accounting information, these reports add another dimension of understanding, which in many ways help management in their work with planning and controlling the performance.
Technology in different forms drives the renewal of how things are done in an organisation (Peppard and Ward, 2016). This can be understood by considering how technologies, as in machines, change how products or services are realised. However, technology also deals with how the work is achieved, how processes are run and who does what. When exploring how accounting as a function has changed over time, the most important development arose when computerised systems were introduced. Simple, well-defined, routine tasks were moved to transaction-based systems that did the simple calculations that accounting is based on (Simkin et al., 2015). By this time, the concept of accounting information systems was born and new ways of structuring reports, as well as making supporting decisions, were emerging. The way an organisation chooses to work with its accounting information system (AIS) informs the ability management has to plan for and control operations (Emmanuel et al., 1990). The new ways of working with accounting issues in the form of AIS did not in itself bring anything new to the organisation. The accounting function was still working in the same way, but automation shortened the time and increased the possible variations when compiling financial reports. By doing so, the technology, regarding computers as machines and the way work was conducted, changed in many organisations when AIS was introduced.
In a more structured way, AIS could act as the catalyst for changing how operations are planned for and monitored, focusing the organisation on expected performance and measuring whether or not the performance is achieved. When changing how things are done in an organisation, a more structured process of how change itself should be done could be applied. This is usually referred to as change management and can be understood as the process where different aspects of organisations operations, such as technical areas, personnel aspects and cultural dimensions, could be altered (Chaffey and White, 2010). From an AIS perspective, change is also dealing with how the business as such is transformed into more efficient and improved operations, bringing an improved performance as a result. In order to understand how AIS delivers improved performance through change management it is important to first understand the development of AIS as such, into what is has become today, and then also try to understand how these new forms of AIS contribute to change in organisations.
In this chapter, the emphasis is on describing the background behind AIS and its role in changing organisations. Even though advanced information systems in general, and modern AIS in particular, bring new opportunities to an organisation and the management function, it is important to first understand the new context in which AIS is situated. It is also important to understand the new challenges managers are facing when trying to benefit from the new, more advanced systems and try to grasp where AIS trends are heading and what kind of change that brings. These areas will be covered in this chapter, namely: AIS in a new context, AIS and the management challenge, and AIS and trends that drive change.
AIS in a new context
Over the years AIS has become more complex, but also increased in ability. Earlier systems would more or less “just” do the work of the accountant, but in more recent systems a widely expanded ability to do advanced analyses has become possible (Simkin et al., 2015). We could say there are three rough phases in accounting. The first was when tasks were done by hand in books and the focus was on summarising columns and checking that the figures were correct. In the next phase, the computer entered the scene and routine-based work was automated whereby one of the immediate effects was that the need to check numbers was less important. It was however, still important to check that the numbers entered into the system were correct. In the third and current phase, the accounting function has a more integrated role within a broader, more comprehensive system, usually called an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. It is still an information system and deals with accounting issues, but it is more or less integrated into an even more complex context.
Information systems
When trying to understand what drives change and how systems such as AIS contribute to this, a natural first step is to try to understand information systems as such. One of the first scholars who coined the phrase in a research conference in New York during the mid-1960s was Börje Langefors (Langefors, 1995). At that time, the ability to process data in order to process information was discussed and this new concept was called an information system. Later, additional meaning was added, such as capturing, storing, processing and communicating information within an organisation, usually with the help of some kind of technology (Alter, 1999). It is important however to remember that an information system in general, and an AIS in particular, contributes to the management function by offering different forms of performance reports that in various ways help managers with decision-making, e.g. to plan and control operations (Davis and Olson, 1984).
The more abilities the information system brings, the more the management function needs to understand how to use its features in managing the business. This idea is something that Peter Checkland and his colleagues in Lancaster worked on (Checkland and Holwell, 1998). Their approach was that instead of looking at a system as something merely technical, and in a way “hard”, they wanted to add a “soft” dimension by also considering how real-world management problems were addressed. One insight they elaborated was that people in general, and managers in particular, wanted to act in a purposeful way. In order to do this, they needed some sort of information support and it is here that information systems enter – “information systems exist to serve, help or support people taking action in the real world” (Checkland and Holwell, 1998, p. 10). Translated to an AIS context, this means that these systems are built to help managers act in a purposeful way, by supporting them with information aimed at actions within the organisation.
Stand-alone systems
When computers were introduced on a larger scale in business sometime around the early 1980s, the software companies used was generally limited to one narrow task or function (Bradford, 2014). Accounting is an early and good example of this. The software was characterised as narrowly focused on a single function, and as a result data and/or information were partitioned between the departments dealing with different functions. Another consequence from this was that the same data could be stored in two different systems, making it harder to work with in decision-making. One way of describing and also understanding this type of information system is that it was a stand-alone solution, a system that did not communicate with others. In a way, it focused on a single user’s needs, for example, a specific manager’s request.
Another way of describing these systems or software is that they supported what is called end-user computing (Chaffey and White, 2010). The end-user of the information system used the system as a tool, an optional source of information, or as merely a transaction processor that kept the records in order. Advanced calculations could be done with these systems but as digital communication outside and inside an organisation was not that well developed, it was the user that formed and controlled the way the systems were used and the role they played. A simple example is that of a spreadsheet, where different forms of information systems such as management and executive ones, calculated data from the early AIS, and by doing so transformed it into information. In this way accounting data became management information. Even though such software are early examples of information systems, their development over the years has been enormous.
ERP – enterprise resource planning
Up to and including the 1990s there was increased development in various forms of more advanced information systems. Especially within the manufacturing industry, a new standard was set where the specific focuses were on inventory, materials planning, and later, resource planning (Bradford, 2014). In a way, this allowed managers to implement management control in the way influential authors such as Robert Anthony (1965) stated it should be – about obtaining the resources needed to achieve organisational goals. Still, some of the early systems, such as material requirements planning and manufacturing resource planning, were stand-alone systems. Nevertheless, their data came from different sources and departmental borders were somewhat erased. When the information systems used today, e.g. ERP systems, were introduced, they – in different forms and ways – integrated various functions, and by doing so expanded the possibility for management to have information systems support (Simkin et al., 2015).
A typical ERP system includes several different facets of business functions (Bradford, 2014). It therefore integrates data from not only accounting, but also from customers, human resources, supply chain, inventory, and sales and marketing, to mention a few. The accounting function in general, and AIS in particular, have through this integration come to play a new role where it is not only the traditional financial statements that are interesting to report, but rather more detailed commentary on, for example, a specific product or customer, some parts of a process, or strategic information about different scenarios. As AIS has a new role in a more advanced information system context, and its focus on management information support, systems have begun to drive a change in the way management is using AIS information. Scholars such as Kaplan and Norton (1996) have arrived at the conclusion that even though financial information in the new era of advanced information systems is not enough, it is still crucial for the business to be able to reach its strategic goals and to stay competitive. Accounting information still dominates, but in a different context.
A critical challenge – information overload
What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence, a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.
Nobel Prize winner, Herbert Simon
When working with modern, advanced ERP systems and AIS it has become a huge challenge to navigate the immense amount of data that are exponentially increasing around and within organisations. In some cases, the volume of data produced and stored doubles within six to twelve months, which makes data and information almost impossible to work with in a structured way. Information, as described earlier, is intended to support managers’ decisions and actions, and therefore the value of it decreases when too much unstructured information is presented. There are several different ways of dealing with this overload. One is to work with aggregated information, the bigger picture, and when there is a deviation between goals and performance a deeper drill-down is needed. This is usually possible with modern AIS. Another way of managing information overload is through the use of different filters – for example, via key indicators or specific performance measures, which focus a manager’s attention on specific results. An advanced AIS brings a multitude of opportunities, but also comes with some important challenges, especially relating to the amount of information produced.
What the future brings
The ability to present a broader picture has, in many ways, facilitated managers with new tools and hopefully new insights into what is occurring in a business. This makes it even more important for the management function to be able to interpret and incorporate new information into their everyday work. One of the challenges for the future is then for managers to learn and change the way things are conducted within an operation in order to stay competitive. As the new form of AIS and its role in ERP systems are transforming into becoming the metaphorical backbone, or nerve system, in an organisation, the ability to use the system to create increased customer value or growth is what separates the “wheat from the chaff” per se. In the future, these new systems will play an increasingly important role, and organisations that manage to understand their new functions will be able to benefit from the opportunities they bring. Accounting will still be accounting, and information systems still information systems, but in a new context they will bring added value to management in ways and forms that were not there before (Simkin et al., 2015). As an illustration of how information systems such as AIS can contribute to change, the case of Philz Coffee is a good illustration.
Business case – Philz Coffee
In San Francisco there is a chain of coffee shops, Philz Coffee. Founded by Phil Jaber, it is a family-owned and managed business. Over the years they have established themselves as a quality supplier of a blend of real authentic coffee, which is served both in the coffee shops and sold to those who want to make it at home. When Phil’s son Jacob became CEO, one of his challenges was to expand the business and scale up what was a known success to a larger setting. They wanted to increase the number of coffee shops and also expand coffee sales. As the core business was fundamentally about everything, from making the different flavours to selling a hot cup of coffee, there was both a demand on point-of-sale happenings, but also regarding inventory management in a productive way. In order for the business to be able to grow, Philz Coffee needed to change the way things were done.
Jacob decided to contact NetSuite, an ERP systems provider. They offered Philz Coffee a system solution that was cloud-based, making it possible to connect to over the Internet, and by doing so, accessible from different locations. It also connected all major functions in the operations, from production, packaging and inventory, to marketing and sales. In the middle of everything was the accounting module. It kept track of all the financial consequences from running the operation. Through the system, Jacob was able to plan for and measure the performance in different parts of the business, both financial performance as well as other forms. NetSuite helped Philz Coffee expand its business through changes in how integrated information systems were used to manage the operations. Even though AIS is still a crucial function, it has become an even more important part in an ERP system, providing managers with financial information and, if needed, adding other integrated information into the management function.
In many ways a new information system, and in particular a new and advanced AIS, brings with it new ways of working and running an operation. In this way implementing an AIS also comes with change in the organisation, change that needs to be managed in order to be successful. How management deals with change lays the foundation for the coming success of a system implementation and the technical side of the AIS implementation becomes a socio-technical challenge. This is in many cases dealt with through different forms of change management, where the technical side of an AIS implementation is accompanied by a softer organisational implementation endeavour.
AIS and the management challenge
Changing how things are done and processes are run in an organisation are typical management challenges. These affect how people in the organisation should behave and do their work, but also are a matter of how different technological solutions are implemented, where one of the most obvious is the information system. From a work-centred perspective, operations and also changes in, for example, a process, are therefore about people, information and technology. Albeit from another perspective, change in an organisation is about changing the organisation itself. This is an important distinction because changing an organisation can be both of more strategic importance and, when it is operationalised, of a lower level importance. Change in many cases comes down to how managers alter their way of taking decisions and acting upon them. Different actors in an organisation, those who could be described as change agents, then drive change.
Work-centred analysis
A fruitful way of looking at an organisation and its processes is through work-centred analysis, a model developed by Steven Alter (Alter, 1999). This focuses on an information system’s role in an organisation. In doing so, there is an initial need to understand what kind of product or service the organisation tries to compete with and the customers are willing to pay for. Thus, from one perspective it is important to understand and follow what could be described as the result that is generated from the core business process, or what the organisation does. At the centre of the model are the business processes that produce the goods or services and this is, on the other hand, built on three equally important parts: people, information and technology. In order to understand what is occurring within an organisation and how technology affects the core processes, one can look at the organisation from a behavioural perspective, where people and information are important to be able to describe a process. Yet, from another perspective, the technological solution that produces information is also equally important to understand. These two perspectives are considered as two sides of the same coin.
When used to analyse a system within an organisation, it becomes important to try to understand what kind of problem the system is supposed to solve. When Checkland (1981, Checkland and Scholes, 1990) discussed the softer side of systems, he noted there were some organisational problems that needed addressing. It is important when doing a systems analysis to describe the situation where the problem occurs in enough depth, and as a result a specific management problem is contextualised. Then, different solutions to the problem within the context are presented and the ability to implement a solution is described. Altogether, a good systems analysis, with the focus on actual ambitions or problems within an organisational context, should form the basis for a blueprint of future possible changes. Analysing the value and contribution from systems such as AIS then forms the basis for this change to occur.
Organisational change
Processes that bring change in an organisation can be understood from different perspectives. From one perspective, change could be about incremental change, where on-going adjustments to new circumstances, or a fine-tuning of operations, are the focus. On the other hand, change in an organisation can also be about more strategic decisions that have longer-term consequences. Whatever way change occurs, it is important to note whether the organisation wants to be proactive or reactive. When an incremental or minor change is decided upon it could very well be reactive, but if the change discussed in an organisation is more of strategic importance it might be crucial to be proactive. When working with ERP systems in general, and AIS in particular, it is important to think through what consequences the system will have for the organisation. In many cases, it is of strategic importance and senior management needs to be proactive in facilitating the needed change that a new system brings with it.
Synonymous to organisational change is organisational learning (Senge, 1990). When an organisation changes the way it does things, usually based on some kind of experience or new insight, there is an inherent element of learning. This is effectively what happens when a new information system is implemented, such as an AIS. The organisation needs to learn how to take advantage of the new possibilities that the system brings, which are made concrete when conducting operations in a new way. Sometimes the new system forces employees to do things differently, but learning and change frequently come from employees themselves. However, often there is a discrepancy between what people in an organisation know and what they, on the other hand, do (Argyris, 1982). Many of the opportunities that a new system offers are not fully learned until it changes the way work is done in a permanent way. As such, organisational learning and organisational change are intertwined.
Change management and change agents
Managing change in an organisation is usually thought of as something realised over several phases (Jay and Smith, 1996). In the first phase, there is a need to understand why change is required, resulting in some sort of plan for the change process, where different milestones are identified and a cost-benefit analysis occurs. In the next phase, different forms of preparation are realised, including environmental analysis, critical success factors and different forms of threat to change. Then, in the third phase the change is implemented. This also involves thinking through if there is an additional need to change working procedures or to test the new system in one department. In the final fourth phase, the change needs to be stabilised through support in different forms, which also might include fine-tuning and additional training. Altogether, there is usually the need to think the entire project through so that the desired change will be made.
Usually, there is also a need to have a change agent who is in charge of the entire process of working through the change phases. This is of course done with the help and mandate of senior management. The change agent could be understood as a form of project manager that runs the change process, monitoring and ensuring goals are met and that necessary resources are available. In addition, the change agent might also be responsible for communicating why change is needed. Communication is often something that is crucial for an organisation to adapt to changes, and in many cases an organisation needs to believe, not only understand, why change is needed. When long-term, strategic change is about to happen, this could be described as a transformational change and the ability of the transformational leadership is important. If this leadership is not working as it should, it could contribute to a change project failing. To paraphrase Brown (1994), transformational leadership is a key to successful management of technology change, involving the instilling of a sense of purpose in staff and encouraging them to identify emotionally with the organisation and its goals.
A critical perspective on change management challenges
There seems to be a never ending search in many organisations for the next change. The structures, forms and ways of doing the job seem to be continually questioned, and something new is needed, something that the others have. This ongoing strive to find the new “Holy Grail” per se sometimes makes it difficult for an organisation to mature in the latest organisational change, and therefore they miss out on the benefits they initially hoped to achieve. It then becomes important to ask the question within senior management if the need for change matches the opportunities that it brings. When it comes to changing AIS, it is even more crucial to ask that question as the accounting function is imbedded in so much of what is done and changing such a system, especially to an ERP, brings many additional alterations. If the information processed and used today is close to what is needed from a management perspective, then the additional value of changing a system might not outweigh the cost, or the effort, of doing so. In some cases, a new AIS also means a new internal structure or process, and the cost of changing a system must also include that of business process.
An even faster change pace in the future
There is a problem with the rate of change in many organisations. This problem has to do with the fact that a lot of the earlier change theories were developed under circumstances that were more stable. Through technological innovation and new systems, such as advanced AIS and integrated ERP, old models are not applicable in the same way. As such, a modern form of change management also focuses on how to change an organisation’s culture, getting employees to understand that change will benefit them, altogether forming a more dynamic view on the constant state of change (Goldberg, 1992). The concept of business agility has come to encompass this new state of constant change, where the focus is on the organisation’s ability to rapidly change when new expectations occur in the environment around the organisation and its ability to change in a cost-efficient manner. Changes in an organisation come with a cost and it has become even more important for senior managers to be able to estimate the benefit and value from changing the organisation compared to the cost. Implementing a new AIS is no longer only about hardware and software costs, there is a lot more to it than that.
In many cases the new technical opportunities drive the ability to use advanced information systems and data analysis to improve efficiency and increase innovation. New systems and advanced analyses drive how management understands and make decisions within a company, decisions and actions that in the long-term end up in the AIS. Complex and advanced integrated systems, where AIS plays an important part, today drive change when it comes to how operations are achieved and how businesses gain competitive advantage.
AIS and trends that drive change
In the majority of companies there is a never ending quest for increasing revenue, growth and/or increased profitability. Through modern, advanced AIS there is an opportunity to track and monitor various parts of an organisation that contribute to these aforementioned parameters. In some industries, there is a saying that 20% of the customers generate 80% of the revenue. With the help of modern AIS, this can be monitored and acted upon. For example, performance that deviates from targets could be tracked through a detailed AIS, which brings new opportunities for management. Moreover, a change in how the management accounting function works can be facilitated through implementing a new AIS, especially if it automates routine work and frees time for more advanced analysis. Analysis, decisions and actions are all possible through advanced digital initiatives in general, and complex analysis of financial data in particular, and in many ways may contribute to a more productive business.
Expecting the unexpected
When planning for any new system, there is an implied idea that managers know what they are planning for, that is, what they want the system to contribute with. However, in many cases it might be hard to overview all possible contributions that a system might bring, especially if it also means changing and improving the way things are done in an organisation. One of the ideas behind an ERP implementation is that it facilitates an increased ability to plan and control operations. This could be done through advanced analysis and calculation, and integrating and analysing data in a new way may also reveal findings not previously known (Chapman, 2005). Such findings could be out of line with the intentions behind implementing a specific system, but when discovered they transpire to be valuable. From a management control perspective, these insights and discoveries might be quite valuable and, in different ways, drive the renewal and transformation of how management control is conducted.
As the accounting function is based on norms and rules, these norms and rules are also reflected in the way an AIS is built. Nevertheless, AIS is a technically driven solution which may not contribute to a strategic purpose. However, if the new system is integrated within an ERP, and therefore both contribute to a new technical platform whilst implying a strategic move, there is also a possibility that the organisation changes its operations (Hyvönen, 2003). Several of the AIS software packages offered on the market are what could be called best-of-bread (BoB) systems that are more or less developed to comply with accounting standards and they have also been developed with the needs of a certain industry in mind. This makes it more difficult to use systems to facilitate major changes within an organisation, as they are standardised. In order for an organisation to experience business value from such a system, there needs to be a clear strategic intent, which also drives and tries to maximise a positive business change (Davenport, 2000).
Adopting or not adopting a new feature
Within management accounting and control research there has been an on-going development for some years now when it comes to new ways of managing an organisation based on financial and non-financial information. It started with a discussion regarding the ways management accounting and control developed since industrialisation. Scholars such as Johnson and Kaplan (1987) suggested that the methods and techniques formed during industrialisation, and still used at that time, had lost relevance. One of the new methods developed as an answer to this problem was the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) that used both financial and non-financial information in the work of managing an organisation in general and to transform a strategy into actions in particular. One of the problems with that model was that it depended heavily on an advanced information system support, and at that time the systems were not that developed and difficult to use (Olve et al., 1999). Because of a poor system support, it became hard to adopt new models, such as the balanced scorecard.
When more advanced ERP solutions with clear and advanced AIS function were developed, it became easier to support new needs from management (Spathis and Constantinides, 2004). These new systems also changed accounting processes as such, making them to some extent automatic.
The empirical evidence confirms a number of changes in the accounting processes introduced with the adoption of ERP systems. The most frequently quoted ones involve the introduction of an internal audit function, the use of non-financial performance indicators, and profitability analysis at segmental/product level. It is noteworthy though that these changes stem from the main advantages of ERP system, which have also been the driving force for managers adopting them.
Spathis and Constantinides, 2004, p. 243
Through the use of advanced AIS like an ERP system, there is an opportunity to be more flexible and also to improve the quality of usefulness within financial reports. In many ways, this facilitated an improved competitive position, through the modern use of accounting information together with the non-financial, bringing a more efficient management function via the adoption of the ERP solution and changing the business processes.
Resistance to change: changing AIS but keeping the operations the same
It is common that an organisation shows resistance to change, especially when it comes to changes in structure and how work is done. This has, in a way, to do with the comfort and stability of existing processes as what organisations strive for. When implementing a new AIS/ERP system there may be resistance to learning the new techniques, as well as accepting the new responsibilities (Gupta, 2000). This may be traced back to poor training, yet there may also be additional costs associated with new systems which give them a negative character within an organisation. This could be due to different ambitions and how the projects shift in focus and in scope (Bredmar et al., 2014). Different phases in an AIS or ERP system project also focus on different areas and new needs might be targeted that also bring new costs and decisions.
When dealing with resistance in an organisation, it can be described as barriers that need to be addressed in a conscious way. An opportunity could become a barrier if the organisation does not look at it as an opportunity but a problem. There might be some initial ideas or suggestions that bring changes to operations and processes that on implementation all of a sudden become problems that the organisation does not want or think they need (Bredmar et al., 2014). They instead merely wanted a modification change, not a total remake (Sulaiman and Mitchell, 2005). One of the problems with change is that in the first phases of a change project, for example driven by an implementation of a new AIS, there might be some value or benefits pinpointed and communicated as a rhetorical argument as to why the change is needed. Nevertheless, at the end, the change that was actually implemented may look different and might not deliver the value or benefit initially thought of or argued for.
The accountants’ new role and future implications
Changing the way things are done in an organisation is not something easily done. This makes it even more important to understand what new role the accountant might play in this process and an organisation’s quest for additional value by managers and as competitive advantage. In many cases, there is an increased need among managers to get additional support from accountants just to understand newly packaged financial information that advanced systems deliver (Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003). Even though new systems usually bring change, this is not always the case. A stand-alone AIS might not per se mean that functions or structures are changing, as this is, to an extent way, up to the accountant and the managers, especially when it comes to how the systems are used. Similarly, implementing new management accounting techniques, which could be understood as a change process, is not necessarily driven by introducing new ERP or AIS systems (Booth et al., 2000).
Effectively, the accountants’ work has become broader today, with more of an educational and informational function, as the routine work of day-to-day transactions has been narrowed (Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003). The accountant and the AIS function have thus come to play a new and increasingly important part in delivering value to the organisation, and by doing so change is arising in a slower, more indirect way. New software and technical solutions which bring opportunities to be evaluated, as well as increase competitive advantage and the management function’s abilities, are the ones who will find their way into the established practices of an organisation.
Summary
The form of technical development that organisations have faced over more than 20 years, especially when it comes to new administrative, advanced information systems, is in many ways remarkable. It has forced organisations to change the way they handle their operations, in some cases due to the demand of the customer, in some cases due to the possibilities that arise from new technical solutions. New AIS features have also created a need for more thought through change management, driving the urgency for understanding how change in administrative processes comes about and how these new opportunities can work as a force that creates a competitive advantage. AIS constitutes more than ever a system that can create the basis for an efficient business, a system that drives renewal and a system that in the long run makes a company profitable by showing what parts of an operation are most profitable. In a way advanced AIS have come to play the role of the catalyst that more or less forces the organisation to think through how operations are done and in what ways it could be improved in order to stay competitive. AIS are more and more becoming the backbone and nerve system that it once was envisioned to be, back then as a metaphor, and today literally is.
References
Alter, S. (1999). Information Systems: A Management Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning and Action: Individual and Organizational. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Booth, P., Matolcsy, Z. and Wieder, B. (2000). The impacts of enterprise resource planning systems on accounting practice: the Australian experience. Australian Accounting Review, 10(3), 13–29.
Bradford, M. (2014). Modern ERP: Select, Implement, & Use Today’s Advanced Business Systems. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
Bredmar, K., Ask, U., Frisk, E. and Magnusson, J. (2014). Accounting Information Systems implementation and management accounting change. Business Systems Research, 5(2), 125–138.
Brown, A. (1994). Transformational leadership in tackling technical change. Journal of General Management, 19(4), 1–12.
Chaffey, D. and White, G. (2010). Business Information Management: Improving Performance Using Information Systems. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Chapman, C. S. (2005). Not because they are new: developing the contribution of enterprise resource planning systems to management control research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(7/8), 685–689.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Davenport, T. H. (2000). Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davis, G. B. and Olson, M. H. (1984). Management Information Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Emmanuel, C., Otley, D. and Merchant, K. (1990). Accounting for Management Control. London: Chapman and Hall.
Goldberg, B. (1992). Managing change, not the chaos caused by change. Management Review, 81(11), 39.
Gupta, A. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: the emerging organizational value systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(1), 114–118.
Hyvönen, T. (2003). Management accounting and information systems: ERP versus BoB. European Accounting Review, 12(1), 155–173.
Jay, K. E. and Smith, D. C. (1996). A generic change model for the effective implementation of information systems. South African Journal of Business Management, 27(3), 65–70.
Johnson, H. T. and Kaplan, R. S. (1987). Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Langefors, B. (1995). Essays on Infology. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Littleton, A. C. (1953). Structure of Accounting Theory. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
Olve, N.-G., Roy, J. and Wetter, M. (1999). Performance Drivers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Peppard, J. and Ward, J. (2016). The Strategic Management of Information Systems: Building Digital Strategy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Scapens, R. W. and Jazayeri, M. (2003). ERP systems and management accounting change: opportunities or impacts? A research note. European Accounting Review, 12(1), 201–233.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Century Business.
Simkin, M. G., Norman, C. S. and Rose, J. M. (2015). Core Concepts of Accounting Information Systems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Spathis, C. and Constantinides, S. (2004). Enterprise resource planning systems’ impact on accounting processes. Business Process Management Journal, 10(2), 234–247.
Sulaiman, S. and Mitchell, F. (2005). Utilising a typology of management accounting change: an empirical analysis. Management Accounting Research, 16(4), 422–437.
Thompson, G. (1994). Early double-entry bookkeeping and the rhetoric of accounting calculation. In A. G. Hopwood and P. Miller (Eds.), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice, 24th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–66.