IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING CHANGES IN AUSTRALIA 635

IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING CHANGES IN AUSTRALIA 635

The findings indicate that the majority (59%) of establishments were either dissatisfied with their adopted cost and management accounting systems or believed that their systems need improvement. Only 9% were very satisfied and 32% moderately satisfied with their current system.

Table 5 reveals the significance of association between organizational satisfaction and the levels of implementation of six management accounting techniques in Australia.

Table 5 The Significance of the Association Between Organizational Satisfaction and the Levels of Implementation of Six Management Accounting Techniques in Australia

SMA TC Satisfaction with current systems

According to Kendall’s tau-b, the level of association between the organizational satisfaction and the extent of implementation of ABC has a value of 0.016 (standard error 0.085), which is statistically significant only at the 0.851 level. Thus the findings do not support the notion that the higher the levels of adoption of ABC, the higher the levels of organizational satisfaction. Though the above findings are not in line with what advocates of ABC (e.g., Adam & Fred, 2008) believe, the results are consistent with those findings (e.g., Banker, Bardhan, & Chen, 2008) which suggested that ABC adoption by itself does not improve organizational performance.

Kendall’s tau-b for the level of association between the organizational satisfaction and the extent of implementation of ABM has a value of 0.092 (standard error 0.087), which is statistically significant only at the 0.294 level. Thus as with the ABC, the findings do not support the notion that the higher the levels of implementation of ABM, the higher the levels of organizational satisfaction.

Kendall’s tau-b for the level of association between the organizational satisfaction and the extent of implementation of BSC has a value of 0.042 (standard error 0.084), which is statistically significant only at the 0.617 level. So, similar to ABC and ABM, the findings do not support the notion that the higher the levels of adoption of BSC, the higher the levels of organizational satisfaction.

According to Kendall’s tau-b, the level of association between the organizational satisfaction and the extent of implementation of benchmarking has a value of 0.025 (standard error 0.086), which is statistically significant only at the 0.767 level. Thus these findings also do not support the notion that the higher the levels of adoption of benchmarking, the higher the levels of organizational satisfaction.

Kendall’s tau-b for the level of association between the organizational satisfaction and the extent of implementation of SMA has a value of 0.029 (standard error 0.084), which is statistically significant only at the 0.734 level. So, similar to other four techniques, the findings do not support the notion that the higher the levels of adoption of SMA, the higher the levels of organizational satisfaction.

And finally, Kendall’s tau-b for the level of satisfaction with implemented accounting systems and the diffusion of target costing has a value of -0.078 (standard error 0.080), which is statistically significant only at the 0.333 level. As with other five management accounting changes, the findings are not supporting that the implementation of target costing increases the level of organizational satisfaction in organizations.

According to the findings, the extent of organizations satisfactions with their implemented management accounting systems is not significantly related to the adoption of any of six management accounting innovations (addressed in this study). This might appear to be at odds with the literature (especially the ABC

636 IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING CHANGES IN AUSTRALIA literature), which considers “organizational dissatisfaction with their implemented traditional accounting

systems” as a major motivation for the diffusion of new management accounting techniques (Beng, Schoch, & Yap, 1994; Bork & Morgan, 1993; Gosselin, 1997).

Exploring other contextual factors (from organizations points’ of view), we asked our targeted respondents to identify the “strengths” and the “weaknesses” of their implemented management accounting techniques as potential hindering or facilitating factors influencing their decision to implement new management accounting changes and innovation in their organizations.

Tables 6 and 7 list the “strengths” and the weaknesses’ of management accounting techniques (implemented by organizations). These tables also show the levels of association between these factors (listed under the strengths and the weaknesses of management systems) and the implementation of relatively new management accounting techniques respectively. According to Table 6, the level of association between “simplicity” (as one of the of strengths of the implemented systems) and the implementation of benchmarking is statistically significant (significant at p < 0.062), while the findings provide no support for a significant association between “simplicity” and the other five management accounting techniques addressed in this study. Likewise, there are some relatively significant individual relationships between other factors (listed as strengths of implemented accounting systems) and six management accounting changes addressed in this study as follows: between “widely understood” and the diffusion of the BSC (significant at p < 0.036); between “tailored to demand” and ABM (significant at p < 0.005); between “accurate (reliable)” and SMA (significant at p < 0.017); between “flexible, reconcile and links well to other parts of business” and the BSC (significant at p < 0.037) and finally between “easy to maintain, follow, and use” and target costing (significant at p < 0.076).

Table 6 The Significance of the Association Between Management Accounting Techniques and the Strengths of Implemented Accounting Systems

The major strengths of implemented accounting system

Benchmarking SMA TC Simplicity

0.819 0.784 Widely understood

0.535 0.141 Tailored to demand

0.198 0.520 Up to date information

0.128 0.216 Cost effective

0.658 0.832 Accurate (reliable)