پذیرش و بکارگیری نوآوریهای مبتنی بر فعالیت: باتاکید بر آشنایی، پذیرش و میزان استفاده
محورهای موضوعی : حسابداری مدیریت
محمد نظری پور
1
(استادیار گروه حسابداری دانشگاه کردستان، ایران)
سعید غنجعلی‌پورگوشکی
2
(کارشناس ارشد حسابداری، دانشگاه کردستان، ایران.)
کلید واژه: نوآوریهای مبتنی بر فعالیت, ویژگیهای نوآوری, آشنایی, پذیرش, میزان استفاده,
چکیده مقاله :
نوآوریهای مبتنی بر فعالیت را می توان هرگونه رویة حسابداری مدیریت دانست که از مفهوم "فعالیتها" بعنوان هستة اصلی خود استفاده می نماید. این پژوهش تلاش دارد تا ضمن تبیین مفهوم نوآوریهای مبتنی بر فعالیت، عوامل تاثیرگذار بر آشنایی، پذیرش و میزان استفاده از نوآوریهای مبتنی بر فعالیت را شناسایی نماید. جامعه آماری این پژوهش شرکتهای تولیدی شهر کرمان بوده و داده های مورد نیاز از طریق پرسشنامه محقق ساخته جمع آوری شده است. دورة زمانی انجام پژوهش تابستان 1395 بوده است. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها و آزمون فرضیه های پژوهش از مدل رگرسیون لجستیک باینری و ضریب همبستگی پیرسون استفاده شده است. یافته های پژوهش نشان می دهد ویژگیهای نوآوری ارتباط معناداری با آشنایی با نوآوریهای مبتنی بر فعالیت ندارند. از میان ویژگیهای نوآوری تنها ویژگی مزیت نسبی با پذیرش نوآوری ارتباط مثبت و معناداری دارد. از میان عوامل سازمانی تنها دو ویژگی حمایت حامی‌‌داخلی و سطح سربار با آشنایی با نوآوری و دو ویژگی حمایت مدیریت ارشد و حمایت حامی‌‌داخلی با پذیرش نوآوری ارتباط مثبت و معناداری دارند. عوامل عدم اطمینان محیطی با میزان استفاده از نوآوری مبتنی بر فعالیت ارتباط مثبت معناداری دارد.
Activity-based innovations can be defined as ‘any management accounting practice that uses the concept of ‘activities’ as its hard core’. This study specifies the concept of activity-based innovations and identifies the factors influencing ABI initiation, adoption and extent of use. The statistical population of this study is Kerman manufacturing companies. Required data was collected through self-made questionnaire. The research period has been the summer of 2017. Binary logistic regression model and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to test the research hypotheses. According to the research findings, there is no a meaningful relationship between innovation attributes and initiation of "activity-based innovations." Among the attributes of innovation, only the relative advantage has a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of innovation. Among the organizational factors, only two factors “top management support” and the “levels of overhead” have a positive and significant relationship with initiation of innovation as well as only two factors “top management support” and “champion support” have a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of innovation. Environmental uncertainty factors have a positive and meaningful relationship with the extent of use of "activity-based innovation"
* Al-Dahiyat, M. A. (2003). Towards an effective design of management control systems: A contingency approach. University of Huddersfield. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
* Al-Omiri, M., & Drury, C. (2007). A survey of factors influencing the choice of product costing systems in UK organizations. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 18, 399-424.
* AmirAtashani,M., Moshdeei, M. & MahmoudZadeh, A. (2015). Prioritization of management accounting techniques on National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, Journal of Farayandno, 9 (4), 79-92. (in Persian)
* Askarany, D. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in organisations. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (Vol. 5). USA: IDEA Group Publishing.
* Ax, C., & Bjørnenak, T. (2005). Bundling and diffusion of management accounting innovations-the case of the balanced scorecard in Sweden. Management Accounting Research, 16(1), 1-20.
* Baird, K. M., Harrison, G. L., & Reeve, R. C. (2004). Adoption of activity management practices: a note on the extent of adoption and the influence of organizational and cultural factors. Management Accounting Research, 15(4), 383-399.
* Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33, 825-845.
* Bjørnenak, T., & Mitchell, F. (2002). The development of activity based costing journal literature, 1987-2000. European Accounting Review, 11, 481-508.
* Booth, P., & Giacobbe, F. (1998). The impact of demand and supply factors in the diffusion of accounting innovations: the adoption of activity-based costing in Australian manufacturing firms. In Sixth Biennial Management Accounting Research Conference. Sydney: University of NSW.
* Brierley, J. A. (2008). An examination of the factors influencing the level of consideration for activity-based costing. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 58-67.
* Brierley, J. A. (2011). Why the proper definition of the ABC matters: a note. Advances in Management Accounting, 19, 225-249.
* Brown, D. A., Booth, P., & Giacobbe, F. (2004). Technological and organizational influences on the adoption of activity- based costing in Australia. Accounting and Finance, 44, 329-356.
* Chenhall, R. H. (2007). Theorizing contingencies in management control research. In C. S. Chapman.
* Clarke, P. J., Hill, N. T., & Stevens, K. (1999). Activity-based costing in Ireland: barriers to and opportunities for change. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10(4), 443-468.
* Cooper, R. (1988). The rise of activity-based costing - part two: when do I need an activity-based cost system? Journal of Cost Management, 41-48 (Fall).
* Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36, 123-139.
* Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Initiation, adoption, and implementation of innovation: effects of context, organization, and leaders. British Journal of Management, 17, 215-236.
* Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: assessing the role of management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495-522.
* Damanpour, F., & Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006). Research on organizational innovation: distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23, 269-291.
* Dunk, A. S. (1989). Management accounting Lag. Abacus, 149-155.
* Fichman, R. G. (2000). The diffusion and assimilation of information technology innovations. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the future through the past (pp. 105-128). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Press.
* Foster, B. P., & Ward, T. J. (1994). Theory of perpetual management accounting innovation Lag in hierarchical organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(4-5), 401-411.
* Giwa, M. (2009). Activity based costing e Is it still relevant? Bristol University. Unpublished MSc. Dissertation.
* Gosselin, M. (1997). The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption and implementation of activity based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 105-122.
* Govindarajan, V. (1984). Appropriateness of accounting data in performance valuation: an empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9, 125-135.
* Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., Macfarlane, F., & Peacock, R. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations: A systematic literture review. Oxford: Blackwell.
* Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581-629.
* Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK's largest companies. Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 137-153.
* Johnson, H. T. (1992). Relevance regained: From top-down control to bottom-up empowerment. New York: The Free Press.
* Jones, T. C., & Dugdale, D. (2002). The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 121-163.
* Kaplan, R. S., & Anderson, S. R. (2007). Time-driven activity-based costing: A simpler and more powerful path to higher profits. Harvard Business School Press.
* Kaplan, R. S., & Cooper, R. (1998). Cost and effect: Using integrated cost systems to drive profitability and performance. Harvard Business School Press.
* Krumwiede, K. R. (1998). The implementation stages of activity-based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 239-277.
* Kwon, T., & Zmud, R. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systems Implementation. In R. Boland, & R. Hirscheim (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research (pp. 227-251). New York: John Wiley.
* Liu, L. Y. J., & Pan, F. (2007). The implementation of activity-based costing in China: an innovation action research approach. The British Accounting Review, 39, 249-264.
* Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2003). Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2/3), 169-249.
* Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: state, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143.
* Noreen, E. (1991). Conditions under which activity-based cost systems provide relevant costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 159-168 (Fall).
* Pike, R. H., Tayles, M. E., & Abu Mansor, N. N. (2011). Activity-based costing user satisfaction and type of system: a research note. The British Accounting Review, 43, 65-72.
* Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
* Schoute, M. (2011). The relationship between product diversity, usage of advanced manufacturing technologies and activity-based costing adoption. The British Accounting Review, 43(2), 120-134.
* Taylor, J., & McAdam, R. (2004). Innovation adoption and implementation in organizations: a review and critique. Journal of General Management, 30(1), 17-38.
* Zawawi, N. H. M., & Hoque, Z. (2010). Research in management accounting innovations: an overview of its recent development. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(4), 505-568.
_||_