ntinuum from job shop to continuous flow production (Table 2). Second, we use the production/taskinterdependence measure from Macintosh and Daft (1987), which captures whether the production/task
process is independent, sequential, or reciprocal (see Bouwens and Abernethy (2000) for a recent adoption,
and Van de Ven et al. (1976) for the original measure). Finally, resource traceability captures the extent
to which resources can be traced to the main products/services and production/service processes. This
measure is more comprehensive, and more representative of our setting, than prior measures that primarily
9 Our respondents are from manufacturing, service, and government organizations. Therefore we modified the standard
manufacturing process questions to address all three settings. We use the term production/task process to reflect the sequence
of steps necessary to accomplish the unit’s operational goals. Specifically, we define the term product as the major output of the
respondents’ unit (products or services) and the term production process as the way in which they create their unit’s output.
426 S.C. Hansen, W.A.Van der Stede / Management Accounting Research 15(2004) 415–439
Table 2
Sample firm and respondent demographics (overall N= 57)
1. Respondent characteristics Minimum Maximum Mean S.D.
1.1. Respondent tenure in firm (N= 56) 1 year 28 years 10 years 7.66
1.2. Number of years responsible for preparing the
budget of your unit (N= 57)
1 year 20 years 5 years 4.41
2. Overall firm characteristics
2.1. Public/private/government (N= 56) Public Private Government
26 (47%) 22 (39%) 8 (14%)
2.2. Organization structure [ORG STRUCTURE]
(N= 56)
28 (49%) 9 (16%) 20 (35%)
28 (49%) 9 (16%) 20 (35%)
2.3. Manufacturing/service (N= 57) Manufacturing Service
37 (65%) 20 (35%)
3. Production/task type [PT TYPE] (N= 52) Job-shop Batch flow Paced flow Continuous
14 (27%) 12 (23%) 3 (6%) 23 (44%)
4. Size indicators Minimum Maximum Mean S.D.
4.1. Full-time employees in unit (N= 56) 7 38,000 4045 8966
4.2. Annual sales for unit (millions) (N= 33) 0 12,000 1003 2278
4.3. Annual sales for firm (millions) (N= 34) 1.900 32,000 5400 8242
4.4. Annual budget for unit (millions) (N= 35) 0.865 1200 665 2074
5. Use of rolling budgets [BU ROLLING] (N= 57) YES: 13 (23%) NO: 44 (77%)
If YES, rolling time horizon (N= 13) 1 month 2 (15%)
3 months 8 (62%)
6 months 3 (23%)
6. Budget completion on time (N= 57) YES: 45 (79%) NO: 12 (21%)
If NO, weeks overdue (N= 12) Minimum Maximum Mean S.D.
1 6 3.54 1.45
and exclusively focused on the degree of resource sharing across organizational units (e.g., Govindarajan
and Fisher, 1990).
3.2.2.4. External environment. Most prior studies use a measure of the uncertainty (predictability, stability)
in an organization’s economic and competitive environment at-large (e.g., Gordon and Narayanan,
1984). We use a more focused competition measure containing three items, which assess the degree of
competition for the unit’s main products/services, employees, and inputs.
3.2.2.5. Control variable. We control for size using the log of the number of employees.
3.2.3. Budgeting characteristics
Table 1, Panel C, shows our measures of the following budgeting characteristics: (1) the number of
iterations to finish the budget; (2) whether or not the unit uses a rolling budget; (3) the extent to whic
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。