مدارک و شواهد در مورد سودمندی سیستم های حسابداری مدیریت در محیط تولید یکپارچه Evidence on the usefulness of management accounting systems in integrated manufacturing environment

1.0 INTRODUCTION This study investigates the mediating role of managerial use of management accounting system (MAS) information (hereafter, the use of MAS information) in the relationship between integrated manufacturing practices (IMP) and organisational performance (OP). Its focus is on (i) the relationship between IMP and OP, and (ii) the role of the use of MAS information in the IMP – OP relationship. In this study, IMP comprises three manufacturing practices: Just in Time (JIT), Total Quality Management (TQM) and Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT). The extant literature suggests that simultaneous use of these techniques (JIT, TQM and AMT) may enable firms to gain the most benefit as together they create a ‘streamlined flow of automated, value-added activities, uninterrupted by moving, storage, or rework’ (Snell and Dean, 1992, p. 472) and ‘they have important strategic potential in that they blend the stages, functions, and goals of manufacturing’ (Dean and Snell, 1996, p. 460). Yet, the results reported in prior research on lean manufacturing (Hofer et al., 2012; Yang, Hong and Modi, 2011; Banker, Bardhan and Chen, 2008) and IMP (Dean and Snell, 1996) are either inconsistent with the expectation above or inconclusive. For example, Dean and Snell (1996) report no significant relationship between IMP and OP. This is also the case for the components of IMP (i.e., JIT, TQM and AMT). For instance, our literature search on JIT adoption reveals inconclusive results. Though some studies (see, Maiga and Jacobs, 2009; Zhou and Ward, 2006; Fullerton, McWatters and Fawson, 2003; Shah and Ward, 2003; Fullerton and McWatters, 2002) provide evidence supporting a positive relationship between adoption of JIT and performance, others (see Narasimhan, Swink and Kim, 2006; Christensen, Germain and Birou, 2005; and Balakrishnan, Linsmeier and Venkatachalam, 1996) find no such relationship. Similarly, inconclusive results on TQM – performance and AMT – performance relationships are reported in prior research (Koc and Bozdag, 2009; Kaynak, 2003; Kotha and Swamidass, 2000; Hendricks and Singhal, 1997; Dean and Snell, 1996).