Alan S. Dunk’s research while affiliated with University of Canberra and other places

Technological change, competing product introductions, and shorter product life cycles are often regarded as having made product life cycle cost analysis a significant factor contributing to the performance of manufacturing and marketing departments. Research consensus indicates that the ability of managers to influence life cycle costs is greatest during the product design phase, as it defines and establishes the fundamental characteristics of a product. However, a review of the literature suggests that the role of budget as a planning or control mechanism influences the relation between product life cycle cost analysis and performance. Specifically, when budgets are used primarily as a planning mechanism, product life cycle cost analysis is expected to have a positive impact on departmental performance. In contrast, when budgets are used predominantly as a control mechanism, life cycle cost analysis is unlikely to contribute to performance. The results of an empirical study provide support for this expectation. The findings therefore show that role of budget is critical to the extent to which life cycle cost analysis contributes to positive performance outcomes. Consequently, organisations need to ensure that budgets are used primarily as a planning rather than as a control mechanism to facilitate life cycle cost analysis enhancing departmental performance.

Participative control systems in manufacturing industry have received considerable organizational attention as a means of enhancing performance in response to growing global competition. Firms are advised to adopt a technologically proactive stance, and to implement policies that assist them in becoming or remaining competitive. Corporate reliance on a technology policy in manufacturing organizations, however, may condition participation's effectiveness. The study examines whether participative budgetary control systems are effective in enhancing performance not only when the level of technology policy is taken into consideration but also when the line functions of production and marketing are controlled for. The results suggest first, that technology policy influences the association between participation and performance for production managers, but not for marketing managers. Second, participation is effective in enhancing production manager performance when the emphasis on technology policy is low, but not so when it is high.

Empirical evidence suggests that competitive advantage is of considerable importance to organizations as global competition, extensive changes in technology, and customer demands intensify. However, little work has been done in the management accounting arena to identify critical organizational strategies that might facilitate it. Following a literature review, this study assesses the extent to which product life cycle cost analysis, customer involvement, and cost management contribute to the competitive advantage of firms. The findings of this research show that life cycle cost analysis, customer involvement, and cost management enhance an organization's competitive advantage, consistent with the study's theoretical expectations. The provision of empirical evidence on the utility of these three variables to the promotion of competitive advantage underscores the need to conduct further research focusing on them in management accounting. Copyright © 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction In any form reserved.

Organizations are increasingly calling for greater budgetary oversight of the product innovation process. A major focus of their concern is the costs associated with product innovation together with their need to enhance their financial performance through these endeavours. However, the literature has raised a number of issues arising from such budgetary proposals, suggesting that the creativity of those involved in product innovation should not be constrained by cost concerns, that the use of management control systems is incompatible with product innovation, and that budgets may stifle innovation. It is argued in this paper that the extent to which product innovation has a positive impact on the financial performance of firms is dependent on the manner in which budgets are used in organizations. If budgets are used predominantly as a planning mechanism, then such budget planning facilitates product innovation resulting in enhanced performance. In contrast, if budgets are used primarily as a control mechanism, then it is unlikely that product innovation will contribute to financial performance. The results of the study are consistent with these expectations. This paper makes a contribution to the literature by providing empirical evidence of the impact of budgets in the context of product innovation.

A number of recent influential reports have identified off balance sheet financing as an important factor in the build up of systemic risk in the banking and finance sector during the period leading up to the Global Financial Crisis. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reacted to these reports and other pressure by unveiling Basel III as part of an extensive reform package, an important component of which is a number of measures designed to reduce the impact of off balance sheet financing on systemic risk. This paper identifies some concerns relating to the design of these measures and illustrates how reliance by the Committee on figures found in general purpose financial reports is questionable, as the International Accounting Standards Board has recently proposed modifying rules for consolidation accounting in ways which promote off balance sheet financing. This paper demonstrates how the Board’s proposals interact with Basel III in ways that are unlikely to reduce systemic risk.

This paper will investigate the perceived usefulness of a set of forty‐two measures by 155 production department managers and 134 marketing department managers. Among the major findings is that the vast majority of measures rated as significantly useful by marketing managers were nonaccounting measures, and they rated accounting measures to be significantly useful only if they summarized the dimensions of departmental performance, i.e., were “composite” measures. Production managers, on the other hand, rated accounting measures to be significantly useful in assessing departmental performance, but also rated several nonaccounting measures to be significantly useful . Résumé Le but de cette étude est d'examiner l'utilité de 42 mesures telle que percue par 155 directeurs de services de production et 134 directeurs de marketing. Parmi les découvertes majeures, on a conclu que la vaste majorité des mesures perçues comme utiles par les directeur de marketing étaient les mesures non comptables, les mesures de comptabilité n'étant jugées utiles que si elles exposaient le volume de rendement du service, c'est‐à‐dire s'il s'agissait de mesures composées. Les directeurs de production, par contre, ont trouvé les mesures comptables très utiles dans l'évaluation du rendement du service, mais ont également qualifié plusieurs mesures non comptabales de très utiles.

This study examines the extent to which managerial roles moderate the relation between budgetary participation and job satisfaction. Managerial roles, defined in terms of line versus staff, may serve as a situational variable that assists in explaining the equivocal results found in studies for the association between budgetary participation and job satisfaction. The findings of this study suggest that the link between budgetary participation and job satisfaction is dependent on the role a manager undertakes in an organization. The relation between budgetary participation and job satisfaction was found to be significantly more effective for line managers than for staff managers.

Evidence suggests that innovation budgets need to be carefully managed due to increasingly demanding markets, changes in technology and greater international competition. Companies often express concern over the magnitude of their innovation costs, potentially inhibiting them from investing in new product development. This has given rise to concern for innovation budget pressure, which focuses on constraining costs to budgeted levels even if further expenditure might facilitate enhancements in terms of the quality and speed of the innovation process. However, suggestions have been made that decision systems in these settings could benefit in terms of performance outcomes from improvements in information system (IS) information quality. The literature suggests that the impact of quality of IS information on departmental performance is dependent on whether there is an emphasis on innovation budget pressure. The results of this study show that when innovation budget pressure is high, quality of IS information enhances performance. In contrast, when the emphasis on innovation budget pressure is low, quality of IS information does not promote performance.

Arguments have been made in the literature that product quality provides a basis for establishing and maintaining a firm's competitive advantage. Proposals suggest that the framework provided by environmental management accounting facilitates product quality having the attributes that are likely to contribute to competitive advantage, and hence it is likely that environmental accounting plays an influential role in that relation. The purpose of this study is to examine empirically whether there is evidence for environmental management accounting impacting on the relation between product quality and competitive advantage. These findings support the view that environmental management accounting has an important role to play in firms. Specifically, the results of the study suggest that product quality contributes to a firm's competitive advantage when the reliance on environmental management accounting is high. However, it fails to do so when the reliance on environmental management accounting is low.

Issues relating to the financial and non-financial performance of firms are attracting considerable research attention. Four specific factors are focused on this paper, namely quality of information system (IS) information, corporate environmental integration, product innovation, and product quality to investigate the extent to which these variables influence financial and non-financial performance. All four independent variables were found to enhance the performance assessed in non-financial terms. In contrast, the results show that product innovation alone influences financial performance. The findings of this study suggest that the efficacy of these factors may be more effectively assessed by evaluating their impact on performance measured in non-financial terms, thereby suggesting that the inclusion of non-financial measures in performance evaluation models should enhance control system functioning.