Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right?
View graph of relations

Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right? / Otley, D T.

In: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2008, p. 229-239.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Otley, DT 2008, 'Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right?', Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854419

APA

Otley, D. T. (2008). Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(2), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854419

Vancouver

Otley DT. Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 2008;21(2):229-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854419

Author

Otley, D T. / Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right?. In: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 2008 ; Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 229-239.

Bibtex

@article{74e9ed9898ac490cbbf90cc3b9295c58,
title = "Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right?",
abstract = "Purpose – This paper sets out to demonstrate a conceptual structure for the study of performance management systems which subsumes one major aspect of management accounting activity, namely performance evaluation and control. Design/methodology/approach – The approach takes the form of a review of management accounting practices and change over the past 20 years, to give insight into how research can become more fruitful in the future. Findings – Management accounting is argued to be an unhelpful conceptual category in developing insight and theories in the field of organizational control practices. A wider framework is proposed that has fewer limitations. Practical implications – Many of the practical implications have already been observed in organizational practices; for academic research, the practical implication is the need to move beyond the confines of an artificial management function and seek to establish a more appropriate basis for theorisation. Originality/value – The paper gives guidelines and criteria for evaluating the likely contribution of different research approaches. It is hoped that these will be helpful in encouraging researchers to move outside conventional boundaries in developing fresh approaches to understanding long-standing issues and practices.",
author = "Otley, {D T}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1108/09513570810854419",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "229--239",
journal = "Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal",
issn = "0951-3574",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right?

AU - Otley, D T

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Purpose – This paper sets out to demonstrate a conceptual structure for the study of performance management systems which subsumes one major aspect of management accounting activity, namely performance evaluation and control. Design/methodology/approach – The approach takes the form of a review of management accounting practices and change over the past 20 years, to give insight into how research can become more fruitful in the future. Findings – Management accounting is argued to be an unhelpful conceptual category in developing insight and theories in the field of organizational control practices. A wider framework is proposed that has fewer limitations. Practical implications – Many of the practical implications have already been observed in organizational practices; for academic research, the practical implication is the need to move beyond the confines of an artificial management function and seek to establish a more appropriate basis for theorisation. Originality/value – The paper gives guidelines and criteria for evaluating the likely contribution of different research approaches. It is hoped that these will be helpful in encouraging researchers to move outside conventional boundaries in developing fresh approaches to understanding long-standing issues and practices.

AB - Purpose – This paper sets out to demonstrate a conceptual structure for the study of performance management systems which subsumes one major aspect of management accounting activity, namely performance evaluation and control. Design/methodology/approach – The approach takes the form of a review of management accounting practices and change over the past 20 years, to give insight into how research can become more fruitful in the future. Findings – Management accounting is argued to be an unhelpful conceptual category in developing insight and theories in the field of organizational control practices. A wider framework is proposed that has fewer limitations. Practical implications – Many of the practical implications have already been observed in organizational practices; for academic research, the practical implication is the need to move beyond the confines of an artificial management function and seek to establish a more appropriate basis for theorisation. Originality/value – The paper gives guidelines and criteria for evaluating the likely contribution of different research approaches. It is hoped that these will be helpful in encouraging researchers to move outside conventional boundaries in developing fresh approaches to understanding long-standing issues and practices.

U2 - 10.1108/09513570810854419

DO - 10.1108/09513570810854419

M3 - Journal article

VL - 21

SP - 229

EP - 239

JO - Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

JF - Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

SN - 0951-3574

IS - 2

ER -