Melco Management Accounting Research
Discussion Paper Series
No.MDP2024-005

The Multiple Effects of Calculative Devices: From Management
Control to Management Controlling
August 2024

Stephen Jollands
Senior Lecturer, Department of Finance and Accounting
University of Exeter, Business School
Asako Kimura*
Professor, Faculty of Business and Commerce Kansai University
3-3-35, Yamatecho Suita, Osaka, 564-8680 Japane-mail: asakmr@kansai-u.ac.jp
Michiyasu Nakajima
Professor, Faculty of Business and Commerce Kansai University*Corresponding author

Maki Makoto Foundation
Nagoya, Japan
Discussion Paper Series of the Melco Management Accounting Research, in order to promote
the study of management accounting, has published this unfinished paper onto the Web. Pleaseobtain the permission of the author when citing this paper.

The Multiple Effects of Calculative Devices: FromManagement Control to Management Controlling

Stephen Jollands
Senior Lecturer, Department of Finance and Accounting
University of Exeter, Business School

Asako Kimura
Professor, Faculty of Business and Commerce
Kansai University

Michiyasu Nakajima
Professor, Faculty of Business and Commerce
Kansai University

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank John Burns, Chris Akroyd, theparticipants at the 26th International Congress on Social and Environmental
Accounting Research and of the 10th European Network for research in
Organisational and Accounting Change (ENROAC) Conference, Galway, Ireland,
3-4 June 2015 for helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper.

The Multiple Effects of Calculative Devices:From Management
Control to Management Controlling
Stephen Jollandsa
University of Exeter, Business School

Asako Kimurab
Kansai University

Michiyasu Nakajimac
Kansai University

Abstract:
This research questions what is known about the processes that utilise
management controls. It has as a starting point the recognition that whenmanagers utilise these artefacts they do so to influence the actions of others.
However, it is these others that act and as such they may do so in many differingways, only some of which align with the programmes of the managers. Hence, theuse of management controls can assist in providing a simplification of the world
but they can never tame it. These issues are explored within a case study thatexamines an inter-organisational project. This project was set up by anorganisation with four of its suppliers to focus on a specific management control
whose technical attributes promised separate and collective benefits for all those
involved. However, rather than the project constructing ‘matters of fact’ it produced
a whole stream of ‘matters of concern’. These resulted in many unforeseen tensions
and outcomes that highlighted that not all of the actors involved were aligned withthe programme of the managers who set the project up. While the project lasted aconsiderable amount of time, many unforeseen tensions and outcomes resulted inits eventual abandonment without the original programme being realised. Thesefindings illustrate that much may be gained from refocusing from studying
management controls to examining the processes of management controlling.
However, this kind of research requires a shift away from traditional methods,
such as statistical analysis and interviews, to a more engaged research approach.
Keywords: Management control, Management controlling, Inter-organisational
control, Power, Practice Theory
Article classification: Research paper1. Introduction
The aim of this research is to investigate what is really known about thepractices of management control. There is an extensive literature that examines
various aspects of these artefacts. This literature often takes for granted what ismeant by the notion of ‘control’. Here, control is thought of as a specific type of theuse of power that managers exert in order to influence the actions of others, where
those others are quite often employees. As outlined by Latour (1986), those that aresaid to exert power do not undertake any actions and therefore only have it inpotentia. Thus Latour (1986) notes that power is never absolute and those that aresaid to possess it never really seem to. Whereas, those that are said to undertakethe actions as a result of the management controls utilised are the ones that holdthe power in actu as they always have a choice to act otherwise. Hence, whenmanagement controls are utilised to control others it is those others that act. In
other words management controls are the actors enrolled (Jollands, Akroyd, &Sawabe, 2015) by those that have control in potentia in their efforts to influence
the actions of those that have control in actu. In line with Chua’s (2007) discussionof strategy and strategising, this paper aims to examine whether, in the light ofwhat is already known about management controls, the extant knowledge would
benefit from a focus on management controlling. That is, it questions whether it isbetter to examine the processes of control, the enactment of controlling, rather thansolely examining the artefacts that are enrolled into these processes.
In examining the processes of control it is recognised that much of theliterature is dominated by knowledge derived from the statistical analysis andinterpretive understandings of these practices. This research departs from theseapproaches through advocating for the examination of “witnessable practices” thatare part of actors’ everyday activities rather than on a “cognitive or conceptual
understanding of the individual” (Rawls, 2002, p. 7). This will typically involve theneed for participant observations where the researcher(s) become as taken for
granted within the setting as possible (P. A. Adler & Adler, 1987). It is thisapproach that will allow development of knowledge about the witnessable practices
that constitute the enactment of controlling.
Within this research a case study is utilised where two of the authors
undertook this approach. Specifically examined were the attempts of actors within
an organisation, AssembleCo[1], as they try to utilise a specific management
control, material flow cost accounting (MFCA), to influence the practices of aselected group of four of its suppliers. MFCA is a calculative device (Callon & Law,
2005; Callon & Muniesa, 2005; Jollands & Quinn, 2017) that aims to provide
visibility over volume and cost of waste (material loss) produced within the
production process (International Standard Organization, 2011). The actors within
AssembleCo mobilised MFCA due to its technical aspects having the potential toprovide benefits beyond the organisation to the broader supply chain. These
potential benefits are both in terms of reductions in cost of production and alsomaterial efficiency leading to a reduced environmental burden (Kimura &Nakajima, 2014) [2].
The examination of processes of control, the enactment of controlling, in aninter-organisational setting is selected as it has the potential to highlight thedifficulties and specifics (Mouritsen, Mahama, & Chua, 2010) of controlling thatwill enable knowledge to develop in line with the stated aim of this research. It has
been established that the use of inter-organisational management controls haveboth inter- and intra-organisational effects (Cuganesan & Lee, 2006; Mouritsen,
Hansen, & Hansen, 2001). However, less is known about the effects of thesemanagement controls on the broader network of organisations that participate ina given supply chain.
A project was entered into by actors from AssembleCo and representatives
from their suppliers, which focused on the calculative device of MFCA. This project
was an attempt by the actors from AssembleCo to try to influence and change(control) the practices of their suppliers. The project was deployed by the actors
from AssembleCo in an attempt at controlling that would not be perceived as themovertly using power. However, the findings highlight that the technical attributesof MFCA were not sufficient in themselves to attain all of the predicted benefits
from the project. Here, rather than the MFCA calculation producing matters of fact
it opened up a whole stream of matters of concern (Latour, 2005). Unexpected
tensions resulted in a reordering of relationships between all the parties and theprogrammes of specific actors resulted in the eventual abandonment of the project.
This demonstrates that the use of management controls, which hold out thepotential for win-win situations within a supply chain, will not automatically resultin a linear progression to these promised benefits. Rather it is important toacknowledge that controlling is always a precarious process that will not
automatically result in the implementation of the desired programme. Specificallythe increasing inclusion of many, disparate actors will increase the potential
number of competing objectives, which in turn may result in many unintended orunexpected actions being undertaken by those that are the object of control. Thismeans the power of those that are attempting controlling are always only inpotentia with the many actors being the target of this power holding it in actu.
Thus, this research suggests there are benefits to the extant literature from an
ongoing examination of management controlling.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: In the next section we overview
the relevant literature that assisted us to develop the focus of the research. The
theoretical lens employed and how this assisted to focus the analysis is thenoutlined. This is followed by an overview of the methods employed and providing asummary of the organisations that were involved in the project. Then an overview
of the MFCA project of AssembleCo is provided prior to presenting the analysis,
discussion and concluding.

2. Literature Review
What do we really know about the practices that surround management
controls? There is extensive research and literature about them. They have been
defined in a multitude of ways (see for example: Bisbe & Otley, 2004; Ferreira &Otley, 2009; Jollands et al., 2015; Otley, 1999; Simons, 1995; Tessier & Otley, 2012).
They have been investigated using many differing perspectives including
positivism (see for example Kober, Ng, & Paul, 2003; Widener, 2007), contingency
theory (see for example Chenhall, 2003; Otley, 1980, Forthcoming), transaction
cost economics (see for example Dekker, 2004; Speklé, 2001), institutional theories(see for example Abernethy & Chua, 1996; Scapens, 1994; Seal, Berry, & Cullen,
2004) and actor network theory (see for example Dechow & Mouritsen, 2005;
Quattrone & Hopper, 2005). Further, they have been conceptualised in manydifferent ways including as levers (Simons, 1995), inscriptions (Robson, 1992),
packages (Malmi & Brown, 2008), and enabling or coercive (P. S. Adler & Borys,
1996). This research can usefully be divided into ‘content’ and ‘process’ approaches(Chenhall, 2005). Here “‘content’ studies seek to identify ‘effective’ strategic
practices and/ or managing strategic change” whereas “‘process’ studies, bycontrast, investigate the ‘steps’/processes of making and implementing strategy”(Chua, 2007, p. 488). Despite all the knowledge that has been generated there is noconsensus as to even what constitutes these artefacts and as a result the extant
knowledge currently has many weaknesses.

One such weakness is that much of this literature has its foundation in theperspective that management controls are utilised in rational processes of enacting
a desired state. From this perspective management controls are utilised inrationally thought out processes, involving consciously designed decisions, to either
maintain a specific state of action or to change the actions of a given set of actors ina linear progression from one state to another (Andon, Baxter, & Chua, 2007;
Quattrone & Hopper, 2001, 2005). An example of this is provided by Andon et al.
(2007, p. 274) when they note “an organisation moves from being an ‘Organisation
without an ABC system’ (State A) to an ‘Organisation with an ABC system’ (StateB)”. This perspective, therefore, rest on there being an optimal system ofmanagement controls that will maximise the benefits for the organisation, withbad performance being the result of poor implementation or usage of these
artefacts (Chua & Mahama, 2007; Dambrin & Robson, 2011). However, such
perspectives take many things for granted, such as what constitutes change andthe processes through which it occurs (Hopwood, 1987; Quattrone & Hopper, 2001).
Further, this perspective does not acknowledge that issues may exist with theability of management controls to measure what it is they are designed to(Dambrin & Robson, 2011). After all these management controls “are not the world:
they are only representing it in its absence” (Latour, 1987, p. 247). Most strikingly,
however, is that what can be considered ‘rational’ is merely a construction and,
therefore, may change in different spaces and times (Quattrone & Hopper, 2001).
There is, therefore, a need to understand that management controls are
utilised in a complex and messy reality making it problematic as to how well therational perspective holds in practice (Justesen & Mouritsen, 2011; Robson, 1991).
Perspectives that rely on rational underpinnings assume that changes in states areeasily identifiable, including clearly being able to identify those involved, thenature of the consciously designed decision and every step in the process
undertaken (Andon et al., 2007; Quattrone, 2015; Quattrone & Hopper, 2005).
Rather it is best to understand the use of management controls within a context ofpoly-rationality and a-centred organisations (Quattrone & Hopper, 2001). That is,within a complex and messy reality, changes in state, including the decisions andactions taken, can unfold reactively as well as proactively, through negotiation,
conflict or struggles, with no guarantee or a priori understanding of how ‘successful’
their deployment will be (Briers & Chua, 2001; Mouritsen, 1999; Mouritsen &Thrane, 2006; Preston, Cooper, & Coombs, 1992; Quattrone, 2015). Further it may
involve incompleteness, experimentation, serendipity, drift and chance (Andon etal., 2007; Quattrone & Hopper, 2001). This means that the use of management
controls as well as the effects that they produce can be unpredictable, unintended
and surprising (Christensen & Skærbæk, 2007; Hopwood, 1987; Mouritsen et al.,2010). Importantly these unpredictable, unintended and surprising effects may
construct order and control and/or ambiguity and disorder (Chua & Mahama,2007). These effects may then be constructed by relevant actors as the ‘successful’
result of ‘rationale’ decision making and actions or the ‘unsuccessful’ result of ‘poor
implementation’ (Dambrin & Robson, 2011; Quattrone & Hopper, 2005). As
Quattrone and Hopper (2005, p. 761) note:“Understanding multiple attempts to create order, spaces, and times is theuneasy task facing managers and management control scholars alike. It requires
substituting linear and unique depictions of control with ones that recognise how
actors with divergent expectations and beliefs define organisational spaces andtimes to exert their own views of order.”Within these attempts to ‘create order, spaces and time’ management
controls are useful to actors in that they help to produce a simplification of reality(Mouritsen, 1999; Quattrone & Hopper, 2005). They allow for the reduction of thecomplexity and messiness through the construction of specific depictions of thatreality, including the imposing of specific identities (Miller, 1991; Mouritsen, 1999;
Mouritsen et al., 2001). However, while they assist in simplifying the complexity
and messiness, they can never tame it (Andon et al., 2007; Quattrone & Hopper,
2001). Again this is as a result of the management controls being inscriptions that
represent the world in its absence (Latour, 1987). This may be further complicatedby the management controls themselves. If, for instance, competing management
controls construct the world differently this will have implications for how the
managers who utilise them understand specific concepts, such as flexibility,
innovation, and productivity (Mouritsen, 1999). Thus, in helping to simplify reality,
management controls acts upon how reality is constructed. In other words, as noted
above, they produce effects (Chua & Mahama, 2007; Jollands et al., 2015). For
example, they construct new possibilities for management intervention (Mouritsen
et al., 2001) and who are ‘those in control’ compared to who are ‘those being
controlled’ (Quattrone & Hopper, 2005).
This separation of controller and controlled equates to these artefacts being
utilised as a means to influence the behaviours of others (Jollands et al., 2015) or

in other words controlling is a way of deploying power. In recognising this it isnecessary to examine what the programme of those enrolling these artefacts is. In
trying to discern this analysis should go beyond just the ‘action at a distance’
explanation (Robson, 1992). For example, in Law’s (1986) analysis of thePortuguese attempts to control their outposts in India in the fifteenth andsixteenth century he notes that it was the aim of Lisbon (the centre) to change thenotion of distance through improved technology. They undertook this not only togain knowledge of what is occurring half way around the world at the periphery
but also to act upon the actions being undertaken there. But wherever power is atplay political manoeuvring follows, which creates the uncertainty discussed above(Quattrone & Hopper, 2005). So it would seem that research would benefit fromthis recognition of controlling in relation to power (Justesen & Mouritsen, 2011;
Kraus & Strömsten, 2016; Mouritsen & Thrane, 2006).
However, in understanding controlling in these terms it must be recognisedthat power is never absolute. For example, most governments in the world mobilise
their power through laws, police forces, prisons, etc. only to find that people do not
act in accordance with their programme and continue to commit crimes such as
murder. Thus, control, even in the most tight and important areas, is neverabsolute due to the inability to ever totally enrol every actor into a given
programme (Andon et al., 2007; Jollands et al., 2015; Latour, 1991). Hence thisresearch aims to examine the process of controlling and thereby open up future
research to the prospects that it can and often does fail (Callon, 1986). Research todate, with a few notable exceptions (see for example Andon et al., 2007; Briers &Chua, 2001; Chua & Mahama, 2007; Jollands et al., 2015), present, to a degree,
sanitised results where the effects produced by these artefacts result in some formof ‘success’ or ‘control’. The analogy that may be utilised to elaborate on this is that
it is much like how statistical based positivistic accounting research never presents
and discusses where their hypothesis has not been supported by significant results.
If the extant knowledge over the processes of management controlling is toprogress then understandings need to be developed of their use in a multitude ofdifferent outcomes.
Moving from researching management controls to management controlling,with its relation to power, is a shift, as advocated by Chua (2007), from focusing on
nouns to verbs. As also discussed below, implementing a study focusing on verbs
requires getting as close as possible to the actual practices to witness how they are
undertaken rather than just actor’s impressions of them. It is only through thesemeans that understandings of the witnessable practices of management
controlling will be able to develop (Garfinkel, 2002; Rawls, 2002).
An ideal setting for such an investigation is provided by inter-organisational
relations, where partnering organisations see each other’s operations as objects to
be managed and controlled (Chua & Mahama, 2007; Miller & O’Leary, 2007;
Mouritsen et al., 2001). Structuring in order to take advantage of the potential
benefits of inter-organisational relationships is becoming increasingly morecommon (Mouritsen et al., 2010). As Cuganesan and Lee (2006, p. 141) note,“networks continue to be promoted as a means of: responding to heightenedcompetition; sharing costs and risks; keeping apace of constantly renewed
information.” However, in this setting management controlling becomes more
problematic as the complexity, risks, complicatedness, instability, fragility andmessiness increases from that of just within one organisation (Chua & Mahama,
2007; Dekker, 2004; Mouritsen & Thrane, 2006). This setting provides many morequestion to the actors involved. For example, how are the expected benefits to be
distributed among the participants in a way that at least gives a sense of equity
and in doing so enabling the collaboration to continue? For instance Coad andCullen (2006, p360) overview the use of an inter-organisational control to identify
non-value adding practices at the suppliers, that when removed resulted in costsavings for both parties involved. However, they do not outline how it was
negotiated for those benefits to be shared. With the justification for the setting inplace, the next section overviews the theoretical perspective taken in this research.

3. Theoretical Perspective
The theoretical perspective mobilised within this research reflects theunderstanding of a messy and complex reality but can still place management
controls at the centre of the research (Justesen & Mouritsen, 2011). Specifically, it
is grounded in the practices of the actors rather than in relating social theories tothese practices (Garfinkel, 2002). In this way it maintains the focus on developing
understandings of the processes and enactment of management controlling.
Further it opens up, through taking a no a priori stance, the potential for any
outcome, intended or surprising, including those that may deemed to be ‘successful’or ‘failures’ (Callon, 1986; Latour, 2005; Munro, 1999).

This perspective allows the examination of, within the processes ofcontrolling, how the artefacts and actors are mobilised to construct the world
around them. In turn it enables an understanding to develop of what is surprising,unintended and the effects that are created (Mouritsen et al., 2010). Thus, asheterogeneous elements are combined in the efforts to implement a programme theanalysis can follow what develops to discern the enactment of controlling (Latour,
1987, 2005). In so doing it allows for the potential for the management controls to
assist in processes of controlling as well as simultaneously acting against them
(Chua & Mahama, 2007).
With the emphasis on action (Chua, 2007) the focus becomes on thewitnessable practices (Rawls, 2002) that constitute the enactment of controlling.
This enables the analysis of methods, or the procedures, that actors use foraccomplishing what they do (Garfinkel, 2002). Hence this perspective examines thethings commonly done to create and recreate practices that others will recognise(Rawls, 2002). In this way it enables an understanding of how people makethemselves accountable, or understood, by others (Garfinkel, 1967, 2002, 2006).
Actors will often utilise management controls, including within interorganisational settings, to assist them in this process of making themselves
accountable and thereby the enactment of controlling (Akroyd & Maguire, 2011).
The important feature is the “setting” not the actors as they may change but the“setting” will endure (Garfinkel, 2002).
In short, therefore, this perspective provides a focus on the witnessable
practices rather than the interpretations of those practices (Rawls, 2002). It isthrough being able to witness actual practice (Preston et al., 1992) that something
concrete may be said about what actors do and how within that they makethemselves understood by others. For this very reason abstract notions, such astrust (see for example Minnaar, Vosselman, van Veen-Dirks, & Zahir-ul-Hassan,2017), while they may ‘exist’, do not form part of the knowledge derived. Only if theabstract concept can be discerned in the practices that have been observed will it
become part of the account of these actions. But then it is only as a concept that is
mobilised through witnessable practices (such as speaking) rather than an abstract
notions that somehow ‘exists’. For example, it is a concept that is labelled ‘trust’that has a concrete existence and acts rather than there being an object ‘out there’of trust that has an existence of its own. However, no actor is dismissed without
seeing how they act and what effects they produce (Latour, 2005). The aim of sucha perspective of practice is, unlike interpretive social science which stresses thevalidity of accounts (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006), the utility of the accounts
produced (Garfinkel, 2002), here on the enactment of controlling.
As mentioned above, this requires an acknowledgement that controlling isin relation to power. Here power is thought of as the consequences of those that act
rather than what makes them act (Latour, 1986). However, those that canassemble materials, including management controls, and deploy methods, such as
management controlling, to entice others to act may generate themselves in linewith their desired programme – but importantly this can never be assumed to be
the case (Law, 1992). This is, as discussed above, especially the case as power isnever absolute. Rather those that utilise management controls to assist in theirattempts of controlling only wield power in potentia. It is those that act as a resultof the effects of these artefacts that have power in actu as they always have theoption to do otherwise (Latour, 1986).
This otherwise may be motivated by any number of factors (Munro, 1999).
Further, as many actors are often involved with any given programme the outcome
is never certain given the multitude of motivations that could be at play (Latour,
1986). Thus, actors may have any number of motivations for acting in any specific
way that may / may not be influenced by a management control and therefore may/ may not relate to the underlying programme of those deploying these artefacts. It
is this ability to act in many divergent ways with a multitude of differing
motivations that makes controlling never a guaranteed outcome. A specific actor
may become interested in a specific programme of action through the enticementof a management control. However, becoming interested does not prohibit the actor
from removing their support and acting in a contradictory way (to whatever degree)
at any moment (Callon, 1986). Hence, controlling involves many complexities thatmake an outcome where the desired programme is achieved far from certain(Latour, 1986). As such, understanding why and how (Latour, 1999) the result ofcontrolling is otherwise also needs attention. This is why a focus on the process andenactment of controlling is a compelling proposition. The next section now provides
an explanation of how data was collected and the case organisations that thiscollection focused on.

4. Method
In order to investigate the aim of developing knowledge of and the case forresearching the processes and enactment of controlling a longitudinal case study
was undertaken. The focus of this case study was on an organisation, AssembleCo,
which undertook a project focusing on encouraging four of their suppliers; AlphaCo,
BetaCo, CignaCo, and DeltaCo; to utilise the calculative device Material Flow Cost
Accounting (MFCA). The project was undertaken in an effort to minimise waste
being produced across the supply chain and thereby forge closer relations withspecific suppliers from the plastic injection moulding industry. The project wasseen as being able to benefit all parties involved financially through cost reductions.
As discussed above, this setting was selected as it allowed for the examining ofcontrolling in a context (inter-organisational relations) where the associations arelong and more easily observable (Garfinkel, 2002).
Further details of each of these organisations are provided below. Briefly,
however, each is based in Japan and each, including AssembleCo, utilise plastic
injection technology to produce component parts that are included in theassembling and production of other products. While AssembleCo primarily
assembles components into products that it supplies to other manufacturers within
the electronic and automotive industries, it has a strategy of splitting the
production of the components it needs between its own factories and outsourcing
to its suppliers. It is with four of these suppliers of components that AssembleCo
set up an inter-organisational project that focused on gaining benefits from thecommon use of the MFCA calculations. It is this project that forms the basis of datacollection for this research.
In collecting data from the case study it is acknowledged that the researchers,
like all actors, are part of the world around them and add to the theorisation of it
like every other actor (P. A. Adler & Adler, 1987; Latour, 1986). Further, thetheoretical perspective mobilised in this research typically involves the need forparticipant observations where the researcher(s) become as taken for granted
within the setting as possible (P. A. Adler & Adler, 1987). Validity for thisperspective is gained through a researcher attaining “unique adequacy” (Garfinkel,
2002). That is, “unique adequacy” enables a researcher to understand practice invery much the same ways as practitioners do (P. A. Adler & Adler, 1987). Further,
these types of participant observations have many strengths over interview
techniques (Alvesson, 2009), especially as the aim of the research does not involvethe actors interpretive understandings of their practices. As such, two of theauthors fully participated in the project as experts enrolled by AssembleCo due totheir knowledge in the technical aspects of MFCA. The ability to gain this level ofaccess was as a result of an established relationship that one of the authors heldwith AssembleCo that went back to 2008.
The specific project that is focused on lasted between January 2011 andNovember 2013. Through participating in the project, the two authors observedroughly 133 hours and 25 minutes of the meetings that constituted the project andgained an in depth understanding of events as they unfolded over this time. A
summary of the observations is provided in Table One below. We now turn, in thenext section, to providing the details of the MFCA project initiated by MFCA,
including an overview of all the organisations that were involved.

Table 1 – Summary of data collection activities
Time span of project
January 2011 to November 2013
Total time of participant observations
133 hours 20 minutes
Number of participant observations
39
Averagetimeofparticipant
3 hours and 25 minutes
observations
Meetings attended by actors from:
AssembleCo
25
AlphaCo
16
BetaCo14
CignaCo
16
DeltaCo
13
ParentCo
2
Meetings held at the premises of:AssembleCo
20
AlphaCo
6
BetaCo3
CignaCo
3
DeltaCo
5
ParentCo
2
Meetings held in the country of:
Japan
31
China
3
Thailand2
Malaysia
2
Indonesia1

5. AssembleCo’s inter-organisational MFCA projectThis section provides details of the inter-organisational project that
AssembleCo initiated, which utilised MFCA as its focal point. This starts with an
overview of the organisations involved before proceeding to giving details of how
the project unfolded over time. As will become apparent from the overview of theorganisations, the actors from AssembleCo had a multiplicity of objectives for thisproject that goes well beyond the efficiency promised by the technical aspects of
MFCA.
5.1 Overview of case organisations
AssembleCo is a multinational Japanese company that has its headquarters
in the southwest part of Japan. It is capitalised at around three hundred million
yen (which is approximately 1.75 million pounds Stirling[3]). In 2013 it had
approximately one thousand employees in Japan and a further five thousand
globally. Their production is spread across factories located in Japan, China, Korea,
Malaysia, Indonesia, the USA and Italy. AssembleCo is a sub-business unit of aholding company, ParentCo, which has further sub-business units as outlined in
Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: The organizational chart of ParentCo

ParentCo is a company that specialises in producing electronic andmechanical parts, and mainly focuses on supplying automobile companies. As such,
AssembleCo assembles components together into parts that are then on-sold toelectronic and automobile companies, who in turn install these parts into their own
products. Specifically AssembleCo utilises the technology of plastic injection
moulding[4] as part of this process. In turn, AssembleCo relies upon approximately
forty eight suppliers to provide components for use within its production process.
Twenty two of these suppliers operate within the plastic injection moulding
industry, with the others supplying the metal press components that are requiredin the process of assembling components into parts. Prior to the commencement of
the MFCA project five of these twenty two supplied more than seventy percent of
AssembleCo’s requirements. However, none of these five were selected to take partin the project. Rather the four suppliers that took part were selected on the basisof either being the up and coming challengers or having a reputation as being
companies that used advanced technology.
In a sense, AssembleCo uses its suppliers for capacity management. As
demand increases beyond what its’ factories can produce it outsources the excess
amount of production to the suppliers. AssembleCo does not, however, share with
its suppliers the advanced technology that it uses in its own production process. It
also keeps a standard amount of production for its own factories at all times. This
creates stability for its own operations and in so doing creates issues for the
suppliers, which are typically smaller companies. This project had the potential toalleviate these issues for the suppliers. That is, through a focus on reducing cost,
AssembleCo would then be able to sell the parts it produced at a lower price. This
would then create more stable demand and thereby stabilise the amountoutsourced to the suppliers. The two main components of labour and material wereseen as the only means for reducing the cost of a part. Labour costs were
determined mainly through economic conditions and it was unlikely these could besignificantly reduced. Therefore, MFCA was seen to be able to assist as it focusedon reducing the waste of material and thereby reducing the cost of producing eachpart.
In terms of structure, three of the four suppliers involved with this project
have some similarities: AlphaCo, BetaCo and CignaCo are family owned andmanaged businesses with each having a president who is a second-generation
owner. In contrast DeltaCo is a subsidiary of a much larger chemical company. As
a result the president of DeltaCo has less autonomy in comparison to the presidentsof the other three suppliers.
AlphaCo is the smallest of the four suppliers with roughly one hundred
employees. AlphaCo’s headquarter is located within the mid-west part of Japan
with all its factories being domestically located. In 2013 AlphaCo had acapitalisation of approximately ten million yen (approximately fifty-seventhousand pounds Stirling). AlphaCo specialise in providing AssembleCo withcomponents made out of thermosetting plastic[5]. AlphaCo has a long establishedrelationship with AssembleCo of more than 10 years.
The second supplier, BetaCo, is also a relatively small company with around
two hundred employees. Its headquarters and one of its factories are located in thenortheast of Japan. Of all the suppliers, BetaCo is geographically located thefurthest from AssembleCo. BetaCo has overseas operations in Thailand, thePhilippines and China[6]. In 2013 BetaCo had an approximate capitalisation of
sixty million yen (approximately three hundred and forty three thousand pounds
Stirling). BetaCo specialises in producing micro-sized plastic components. At thestart of the project, unlike the other three suppliers, they had no existing
relationship with AssembleCo. Rather AssembleCo utilised the invitation toparticipate in the project as a means to establish such a relationship, with the aimof gaining a new supplier with a reputation for high quality production.
The third supplier is CignaCo, who has approximately two hundred and forty
employees in Japan. CignaCo is also located in the mid-west of Japan and has
overseas operations in Thailand, Indonesia and the USA. In 2013 CignaCo had anapproximate capitalisation of six hundred million yen (just under three and a half
million pounds Stirling). CignaCo specialises in producing thermoplastic[7] partsfor AssembleCo. In the past the relationship between CignaCo and AssembleCo
was very good, with a reasonable volume of parts being ordered. This ended when
the purchasing manager for AssembleCo made a decision, for no apparent reason,to scale back the amount purchased to a bare minimum. However, this manager
relocated within ParentCo to another sub-business unit and hence this project wasseen as a way to re-establish the previously strong relationship.
The final supplier invited to participate in the project, DeltaCo, had around
two hundred and twenty employees and has three factories, all located within
Japan. DeltaCo's headquarters and manufacturing sites are all located in the midwest part of Japan. In 2013 they had an approximate capitalisation of forty million
yen (approximately two hundred and twenty eight thousand pounds Stirling). As
with CignaCo, they specialise in thermoplastic parts. However, DeltaCo utilises
significantly different technology from CignaCo in the production of thecomponents it supplies to AssembleCo. Unlike all the other three suppliers,
because DeltaCo is a subsidiary of a much larger organisation, it could use its sizeand position to gain an advantage through purchasing customised raw material,
plastic pellets, specifically designed to maximise their production process. As theother three suppliers were all independently owned companies of a relatively small
size they only had access to purchasing standard plastic pellets from the raw
materials suppliers.
5.2 On the importance of moulds
To understand the significance of what happens within the project it isimportant to know that while all five companies use the process of plastic injection

moulding to produce the same kind of components they all do this in slightly
different ways. That is, while they all use similar machines and are confronted withsimilar issues within the production process, each of the companies has a different
approach to overcoming these issues. Specifically, the different approaches revolvearound the technical specifications of the mould that is used, with each company
designing, developing and utilising their own unique version. The way in which themould is designed will affect the rest of the production process. For example if themould only produces one component then the production process can be conducted
at a faster rate than if the mould produces ten components where more care must
be taken to ensure that the plastic is injected to all the spaces within the mould.
This is specifically why Delta utilises customised plastic pellets as they enable amore consistent flow into the mould. Another important element that differs
between the suppliers as a result of the specific mould used is the temperature thatthe plastic is injected at. The other machines used within the production process
are the same across all the companies and the output of the process is standardised
among them as well. This makes the mould the most important component in theprocess as it how each company derives its competitive advantage.
Figure 2 is an illustrative example of the inside of a mould and shows where
the plastic is injected to in order to produce parts. How the mould is designed, in
terms of the sprue, runner and gate, will dictate how much material waste is
produced. The sprue is “[t]he opening in an injection mould through which themelted plastic is fed from the nozzle of the injection machine to the runner” where
the runner is “the channel through which the melted plastic flows to the cavity”(Sapene, 2007, p. 174). The gate is “the area through which the melted plastic
enters into the cavity and core section of the mould where the plastic part is shaped”(Sapene, 2007, p. 172). This example demonstrates that the material waste may be
reduced by redesigning the mould in terms of the sprue, runner and gate.

Figure 2: Conceptualisation of a representative mould

Redesigning the mould can be problematic in that many unexpected issues
can arise. To start with it is very difficult to alter the design of existing moulds.
This, therefore, requires them to redesign and develop new moulds from scratch.
Redesigning new moulds from scratch is a costly and time consuming process. The
benefits of doing so are that it can enable the shortening of the sprue, runner andgate and thereby reduce the material loss. Also redesigning the mould provides theopportunity to increase the number of parts that are produced by each mould.
However, increasing the number produced by each mould may cause issues within
the production process as it requires the workers to simultaneously manage moreparts. Another issue is that the re-designing of moulds is a very technicallychallenging process with not all suppliers having the required skill set within theirorganisations to do this. All of the suppliers selected to participate in this project
did have this skill set available within their organisation[8]. We now in the next
section overview the events that occurred during the project.
5.3 The origins of the inter-organisational project
AssembleCo introduced MFCA to their production process in 2008. This was
as a result of the Special Production Improvement Department from ParentCo
sponsoring this project within AssembleCo. Based upon a presentation made about
MFCA at AssembleCo the Production Manager agreed to become the project leader.
This was an important enrolment to the project as the Production Manager was
also a member of AssembleCo’s board and had responsibility for domestic
procurement. A team was formed shortly after that consisted of the Production
Manager, outside consultants, the two managers of the production lines involved,

and representatives from the Production Improvement Department. The ProjectManager had the purpose for this project of addressing issues related to resource
in-efficiency within the production process.
The analysis performed by MFCA focuses on where material loss is generated
in the production process. The initial analysis suggested that the material loss was
related to three different types of issues: internal technical issues, internal capital
investment issues and external issues[9]. The internal technical issues relate to
how material was being lost within the production process and hence the initialefforts that resulted targeted these to be reduced through the use of Kaizen[10].
However, the benefits that can be derived from these types of activities have theirlimits and hence the other two areas soon became the focus of discussion in termsof how best to keep reducing material loss.
The internal capital investment issues proved to be more problematic asthese need to be addressed through the use of reengineering of existing machinesor through the purchase of new equipment. This required the development of newtechnologies with corresponding long-term capital investment. It proved to be
problematic as it also required cooperation from the Department of Production
Engineering and the R&D Department. The Department of Production
Engineering was located within the AssembleCo factory to assist with production
related issues. However, while direct communication between the Production
Department and the Department of Production Engineering occurred on a daily
basis, different priorities and practices resulted in difficulties with enrolling theirsupport for the MFCA project. In relation to the R&D department other issues wereencountered, such as it was not physically located within the factory but rather
attached to the operations of ParentCo. This meant that little face to facecommunication between the Production Department and the R&D Department
existed. As AssembleCo is a financially independent sub-business unit there would
be implications for their budget in using the R&D Department’s services. This was
further complicated by the R&D Department having a one year project plan withlittle time or budget left for undertaking new projects. As a result it was hard toconvince the R&D Department that cost reductions from MFCA should be apriority. The final complication was that, as mentioned above, the suppliers werebeing utilised for capacity management. As production levels were stable, thismeant that AssembleCo had a relatively fixed budget. As such there was no extra
money available to be spent on initiatives that arose from the MFCA project.

The problems with addressing the internal capital investment issues meantthat attention turned to investigating the external issues. The MFCA analysis of
AssembleCo’s production process suggested that the level of material loss at their
suppliers was significant and concentrating on this may provide considerable cost
reduction. This was further reinforced through AssembleCo having alreadyexperimented in redesigning their own moulds, with success achieved for some ofthe products. A decision was made to focus efforts on reducing material loss
through forming collaborations with suppliers. It was also decided that this would
take the form of a project focusing on the use of MFCA at specific suppliers.
Addressing the external issues meant enrolling the support of the suppliers.
As explained above, four specific suppliers were selected and invited to participate
in the MFCA project. As all four suppliers’ production processes varied slightly, andspecifically in respect to the moulds used, MFCA was put forward as a means that
could be used by all to minimise the material waste despite these criticaldifferences. As shown in Figure 2 above, how the mould is configured will
determine how much material waste is produced. It was proposed that through theuse of MFCA material loss could be reduced at the suppliers, thereby reducing thecost for all.
In effect AssembleCo put the calculative device of MFCA analysis forward asa means to enable reducing the material loss it was responsible for, even if thatmaterial loss occurred within their suppliers’ production processes. In this way thecost of production would be reduced across the supply chain. The upper
management at AssembleCo were in effect using this calculative device to assist inefforts to manage and control the costs of these selected suppliers in an effort toaddress issues related to their own strategic imperatives. However, as will be
discussed below, enacting this controlling would prove to be problematic.
5.4 Project start-up and initial stages
The initial steps focused on selecting who from within AssembleCo would be
involved in the project. The team that was assembled were typically senior
managers from the Production Department and staff members of the Procurement
Department. All of the participants had in common that their roles involved
responsibility in relation to the outsourcing of production of the components to the
suppliers. Given his previous support for the use of MFCA in AssembleCo, theProduction Manager was selected to lead this project.

In making the selection of who would be invited to participate, the project
team researched a wide range of their suppliers. This included senior managers
from AssembleCo visiting the factories of twenty different suppliers. Many criteria
for supplier selection were considered, including competencies and quality ofoutput. Given their importance the main criteria for selecting the suppliers settled
on their abilities to design and produce their own moulds. The criteria aligned thecapabilities of the selected suppliers, ability in relation to moulds, with the focus of
the project, waste reduction and cost savings. With the criteria in place four
suppliers were selected and invited to join the project.
The project team set up an initial meeting with these suppliers at
AssembleCo’s headquarter on the 18th and 19th of December 2011. This meeting
constituted and facilitated the formal invitation for these suppliers to join the
MFCA project. In essence this meeting was used to start interesting the actors into
the use of MFCA and, thereby, enrolment into the project. On the 18th theProduction Manager gave a presentation that outlined AssembleCo’s intended
procurement policy and how the targets of this project fed into implementing this.
The intended procurement policy was based upon a reorganization of AssembleCo’s
global supply chain. Like many Japanese manufacturers, AssembleCo’s strategy
focused increasingly on growth in sales through expansion in overseas markets. As
a result issues around their global supply chain also became increasingly
important. To address these issues, at least in part, AssembleCo had established
new factories within these overseas markets and had plans to move more of its
production capabilities overseas in the future. Part of the stated rationale for this,along with shortening the physical distances within the supply chain, was to lower
the risks associated with foreign exchange fluctuations. This also had implications
for the supply chain within Japan and, therefore, the four suppliers invited toattend this meeting. As AssembleCo moved more of its production capabilities
overseas it would no longer need to maintain so many suppliers within Japan. Thisimplied that AssembleCo would in the near future reselect and renew the
relationship with the suppliers it felt it needed in Japan. The Production Manager
explained that the suppliers who AssembleCo would maintain doing business withwould be those that helped them increase productivity and in doing so establisheda Kaizen between the organisations. It is precisely these outcomes that the MFCA
project promised to produce.
The Production Manager also gave a presentation about MFCA. As the
suppliers had not heard of MFCA before it was explained in detail. This included

overviewing how MFCA could deliver benefits beyond cost reductions, such as
reductions in fail rates and cost. After the Production Managers presentation there
were further presentations made by project team members that outlined thetechnical aspects of MFCA, including how it is implemented. These presentations
included case study examples of the implementation of MFCA at organisations,
including a discussion of the use of it at AssembleCo. Outlined were the ‘typical’issues encountered during its implementation and use. Also discussed were theissues within production that MFCA would bring visibility to and thereby enable
solutions to be implemented. It was explained that these were issues and benefits
that were likely to be common across all five companies.
The second day of this meeting focused on the suppliers. The representatives
from each of the suppliers took it in turns to introduce their organisation. While
there were some existing relations between the suppliers, on the whole this did notexist, with the level of familiarity typically being at recognising the otherorganisation’s name. For example, the representatives from AlphaCo and BetaCo
previous to this meeting didn’t have any existing relationship. This is not
surprising given that there were significant differences in the features of theirrespective products and their operations were geographically distant from eachother.
After these introductions the discussion moved to how the project should
progress, including what the steps and stages should be. At this point none of the
suppliers had formally committed to the project. The outcome of these discussions
was that all of the representatives from the four suppliers agreed in principle, but
not formally, to AssmbleCo’s proposal for this project. Further the representatives
agreed to introduce MFCA on a trial basis to their factories and to meet again to
keep the discussions between the five organisations going. It was also agreed thatany resulting findings from the joint project would exclusively be kept between theorganisations that participated. However no decision was made as to when or
where the next meeting would occur.
With no agreement over where or when the next meeting would be held, it
fell to the Production Manager and the other project members from AssembleCo tofollow up on what had been decided. They held informal meetings and negotiations
with each of the four suppliers. These included discussions over what were thecritical issues that should be discussed when the next meeting is held. The criticalissue that developed out of this was the offshoring of production, with China seenas the key location. All four suppliers had in common that they wanted to knowhow to succeed in setting up and running production facilities in China. Across thefour was the common acknowledgement of a paradox that related to operating in
China. This related to how could the cost of production be lower in China: the cost
per employee is lower in China but more employees are required than in Japanand hence there is a higher total labour costs. Further, the defect rates are higher
in China compared with Japan. The paradox related to reconciling these issues
with still being able to maintain a lower total cost of production in China incomparison to Japan. Based on the common interests in the issues of offshoringproduction to China, AssembleCo arranged for the next meeting with the four
suppliers to occur at their factory in China. With its focus on the complexities ofsuccessfully conducting production in China, this trip demonstrates that the
motives of the representatives of the suppliers were not necessarily aligned withthe purpose that the Production Manager had for this project.
5.5 Solidification of the MFCA project
The meeting at AssembleCo’s factory in China took place on the 6th and 7th ofJune, 2012. In discussions with two of the authors who also attended this meeting,representatives of each of the four suppliers stated that they attended this meetingin efforts to forge ever closer relations with AssembleCo. The representatives from
BetaCo also stated that the potential benefits of this ever closer relation were thereestablishment of receiving orders from AssembleCo. The representatives fromthe other three suppliers also stated that the benefits for their organisations of theever closer relations were the increase in the levels of orders that AssembleCo
placed with them.
The purpose of this meeting was to examine the processes within this factoryin order that all the participants of this project could come to a common
understanding of the variety of issue these operations faced. While each of the
suppliers is different and had its own unique challenges, the ideal outcome wasstated as finding a specific issue common between all five organisations asendsetting, for all five, concrete targets in relation to it. The starting point for this wasa presentation made by the Manager of AssembleCo’s Chinese factory. This
presentation covered such topics as the present condition of the factory, issues
related to operating in China, the impacts of movements within the Chinese
economy and many other current issues. In brief, while the factory’s orders wereincreasing it faced increased labour costs due to the Chinese government raising
the minimum wage. Competition as a whole in China was fierce given a saturated

market with many competing organisations and as such it was not easy to securea consistent level of orders. In relation to the factory’s supply chain they mainly
used the Chinese operations of Japanese companies as suppliers. Even though
Chinese suppliers could deliver at a lower cost, the corresponding quality was poor
necessitating using the Japanese subsidiaries.
In discussions with the two authors who attended this meeting,representatives from AssembleCo stated that they wanted to share this overview
of issues with the suppliers so as to emphasise the impact of the suppliers
operations on their activities. After the presentation was made a general discussion
was held in which the representatives of the four suppliers discussed these issues
related to the Chinese factory. This included discussing what they could do as acollective to assist with the improvement of the operations and outcomes for all fiveorganisations. From this they developed a document which outlined an agreementthat had the aim of bringing focus to and solidify the project. This agreement
included the significance, purpose and target of this project. According to theagreement, they aimed to make a collective with the purpose to accomplish higher
resource efficiency through focusing on the elements of EQCD (environment,
quality, cost, delivery). Through this collective alliance, with the focus on efficiency,
they aimed to gain a global competitive advantage for all five organisations.
Further the representatives of the five organisations set the first level of targets for
improved resource efficiency and agreed that this should be achieved through theuse of MFCA. Specifically the agreement focused on three targets as reflected in
the following, which is quoted from the original document (translated fromJapanese into English by the authors):
1.Visualising the resource efficiency in the company’s own processes.
-

Visualisation of and reduction activities in relation to material loss, both inregards to that caused by the design of the mould and that caused by otherproduction factors.

-

Prior to taking action on material loss in regards to mould redesign acomplete cost / benefit analysis should be conducted.

-

The formation of links between the project participants, their R&D
departments and material suppliers.

2.Analysis of manufacturing costs inside Japan with costs of manufacturing
globally.
-

Analysis of differences in the cost structure between Japan and elsewhere.

-

Developing a means for calculating the product unit cost in different contexts.

3.Development of knowledge of how to better co-operate between the fivecompanies.
-

Developing knowledge of the means to ensure that this cooperation extends
beyond Japan.

As the document demonstrates, the agreement was developed in a way thatit reflected, at least in part, the stated objectives of the representatives of all fiveorganisations. For example, the first target, with its reference to efficiency andmaterial loss, is a clear prompt to the suppliers to introduce the use of MFCA totheir factories. Therefore, while the document may have had internal
inconsistencies, it was constructed in an attempt to act in a way that further
solidified the network that was forming. An example of the way in which this acted
to enhance the inter-organisational relations can be seen in the actions of DeltaCo
subsequently to this meeting. DeltaCo being part of a much bigger organisation
had relations with the suppliers of plastic that enabled them to access cheaper andcustomised pellets. DeltaCo leveraged this arrangement to gather the other fourorganisations with it into a buying collective that allowed all to purchasecustomised raw materials at a lower price.
This agreement, however, also left many issues outstanding. Specificallywhile the representatives of all five organisations discussed what steps they shouldtake in order to honour the agreement there was no discussion around important
aspects related to this. For example they did not discuss and make clear how any
subsequent benefits, including who would own patents, that were derived throughthe MFCA project would be shared across organisations. For instance, if theimplementation of MFCA resulted in cost reductions within one of the four
suppliers how this would be shared between the supplier and AssembleCo was notdiscussed – was the benefit to be retained fully by the supplier or shared with
AssembleCo through a decrease in the price of the components supplied? Further,

if the project resulted in the development of new or improved technology then who
would own the patent was also not discussed.
On the second day of the meeting AssembleCo allowed the representatives
from the four suppliers to take a tour of their factory. For obvious reasons, suchfactory tours are not common between organisations within the same
manufacturing industries. So for AssembleCo to allow their suppliers to take sucha tour, even though they are not direct competitors with each other, is quite
unusual. During the factory tour, as they were inspecting specific aspects of the
production process, some of the representatives from the suppliers took out
magnifying glasses and stop watches from their pockets. They utilised these tools
to confirm the quality of the components being produced and to measure the timeit took to complete specific aspects of the production process[11]. Further, theyclosely inspected failed components to ascertain the reason for the failure.
The factory tour was followed by a discussion focusing on what had just been
observed. The members of the project team from AssembleCo stated that they werelooking to receive suggestions on how to improve their processes from the suppliers.
An example of the types of suggestions made by the suppliers was in relation to
how the components were collected when being removed from the mould. Most
moulds produce two or more components at a time (refer to figure 2 above). For
instance, when one mould produces four components, currently they are all
emptied into a single collection box. The suggestion was made that if there werefour separate collection boxes then if defects started to occur it would be easier to
identify what particular part of the mould was giving rise to this failure.
As part of this discussion the project team from AssemleCo asked therepresentatives from the suppliers to focus their attention on one of the parts that
this particular factory produced. They supplied to the representatives a completedpart as well as the manufacturing cost information that related to it. Some of therepresentatives deconstructed the part in an effort to understand its’ construction.
Following on from this they used calculators to estimate how much it would cost to
produce the same completed part in their own factories. This resulted in many of
the representatives commenting that their factories could produce the completedpart for significantly less than it cost AssembleCo to make in this Chinese factory.
Giving such access to parts and costing information is very uncommon. The
Production Manager of AssembleCo’s closing remarks focused on that he didn’t
want to start competition among the four suppliers. He suggested that the
suppliers should start sharing key technical aspects with each other, asAssembleCo had just done, in their efforts of reducing material inefficiency. He
noted that these key issues would be different for the four suppliers, in accordancewith the unique features of their production process. His remarks focused on
wanting to gather improvement opportunities in regards to these technical issues
and in doing so to move the focus away from cost. He overviewed how a focus oncost could result in increased competition, either real or imagined, between the four
through their differing ability to reduce price. However, a focus on technical issues,
he noted, could bring a more positive atmosphere as they are different for eachsupplier. In turn the results of the MFCA calculation would also be different ineach supplier as they use unique processes that will mean that the material loss
will occur at different points in their process.
5.6 MFCA at the suppliers and unexpected effects
Before the completion of the meeting in China a rough schedule wasdeveloped as to further meetings and workshops that would include visits to eachof the suppliers’ factories, with DeltaCo agreeing to be the first. Before the next
formal meeting a trial of MFCA was held by each of the four suppliers. Each of thefour suppliers analysed their products through the use of MFCA and sharedinterim results in the ongoing workshops or directly just with AssembleCo.
After the China meeting unexpected events began to happen. For example,
the representatives from AlphaCo visited BetaCo’s operations on the 16th of July2012 without any representatives from AssembleCo being present. This was
unexpected due to the organisations not having any prior contact before joining the
MFCA project. During this visit the representatives discussed the MFCA projectin terms of how their specific operations related to it and what their respective
expectations for the project were. As BetaCo is a relatively small organisation they
focused on producing the components in large batches and through the use of
mainly automated operation. As such their expectations in relation to the project
were around issues in increasing productivity. After taking a tour of BetaCo’s
factory, the representatives from AlphaCo focused the discussions on how BetaCo
managed to keep a stable quality level despite producing in such large batches.
Through this discussion they gained visibility of BetaCo’s techniques, such as how
they had a dedicated employee group for the maintenance of the moulds. The
purpose of this dedicated group was not to take corrective measures, as is theindustry norm, but rather to devise preventative measures to stop defects occurringin the first place.

The most unexpected aspect of this visit was that the President of BetaCo
arranged directly with the President of AlphaCo for their organisation toundertake a contract with an electronics company that their organisation could not
fulfil. Specifically the electronics company had asked BetaCo to produce a new part.
While BetaCo already had contracts for other parts with this electronics company
it was unable to undertake this new contract as the part in question was physically
too large to fit on their production line. However, as a result of the forging of thisalliance in the MFCA project, BetaCo recommended to the electronics company
that they use the services of AlphaCo to undertake this production.
This unexpected event was not an isolated outcome. Another example
occurred on the 1st and 2nd of November 2012 when the Thailand Branch Managers
of BetaCo and CignaCo visited each other’s factory. The factories are located near,but on opposite sides of, Bangkok. At the time of the visits CignaCo had too manyorders than it could fulfil. During the discussions between the Branch Managers
they negotiated to utilise the spare capacity that the BetaCo Thailand factory
currently had to cover the amount of production that was excess to the CignaCo
Thailand factory’s capacity.
The first formal meeting between representatives of all five organisations
after all the suppliers had introduced MFCA was held at BetaCo’s headquarters
on the 19th of October 2012. This meeting started with a tour of BetaCo’s factory
and a discussion by the representatives of what they had seen on the tour. The
meeting then focused on discussing specific issues relating to the outcomes of the
MFCA calculations at CignaCo and DeltaCo. Specifically, the representatives from
CignaCo outlined how they had disclosed the figure of material loss[12] to theirworkers in a weekly report. They stated that their aim in releasing the information
to the workers was to impress upon them that waste meant cost was being incurred.
Further the workers were set targets to aim for in relation to material loss. As
noted by the representatives, this was used to act upon the workers to prompt themto find ways to reduce material loss. One of the suggestions by a worker was toswitch to using an alternative material that would result in less material loss.
However, in order to use this alternative material they needed to gain theagreement with the organisation they were selling the components to, which was
AssembleCo.
The representative from DeltaCo outlined the issues that the MFCA analysis
highlighted about efforts to reduce material cost through using recycled material.
Specifically there was a tension between reducing costs through using morerecycled material and the ratio of recycled material to virgin material affecting thestrength of the components being produced. That is, while the increased use ofrecycled material lowers the cost it also lowers the resulting strength of thecomponent. The buyer, in this case AssembleCo, specifies the ratio of recycledmaterial that is allowed to be utilised within a given component. The
representatives of DeltaCo asked whether representatives from AssembleCo would
join the new product development meetings at DeltaCo to discuss this issue
relating to the ratio and, thereby, help formulate solutions that are acceptable toboth organisations. Part of these proposed meetings would be to examine therelated issue of the type of raw materials utilised by DeltaCo in producing thecomponents. Issues arose as DeltaCo did not directly deal with the raw materials
supplier but rather received these from AssembleCo. As stated by the
representatives from DeltaCo, they are happy to get the plastic pellets from
AssembleCo rather than directly from the raw materials supplier but they wanted
to have more influence over the type of pellets they were expected to use and how
these pellets were designed.
The final meeting of interest in this stage of the project was held at AlphaCo’s
factory on the 4th of February 2013. As had become the norm of these meetings, it
started with and had subsequent discussions of a factory tour. AlphaCo is thesmallest organisation of the four suppliers and they produce a wide variety of
products using small batches. Their operational workers take responsibility for thewhole production process including the checking of the quality of each component
produced. This responsibility also extends to the maintenance of the moulds withevery worker being trained in the skills of mould maintenance. This does not,however, extend to the maintenance of the plastic injection machines as these are
maintained by the company that manufactures them. Hence, this is unlike larger
companies who typically have a maintenance department for this.
The discussion that followed the tour highlighted many issues andsuggestions in relation to AlphaCo’s production process. For example, a
representative from DeltaCo pointed out that issues may be being caused by thereliance on a conveyor belt that was old and worn. A representative from
AssembleCo also highlighted issues in relation to time management. Specificallythey noted how, as each worker was responsible for the whole production processof a component, this prevented the implementation of a Kanban[13] system thatwas suggested could bring many benefits. Further, the Procurement Manager from
AssembleCo noted an issue in relation to the lack of management information

about the individual production progression. As each worker looks after the wholeprocess, they are, therefore, not responsible for maintaining a targeted tact
time[14]. The Procurement Manager suggested the introduction of suchinformation so that the workers could better monitor their own progress.
Subsequent to this discussion all four suppliers presented their final resultsfrom the MFCA analysis and resulting Kaizen activities. The discussion by thevarious representatives around the outputs of the MFCA analysis and Kaizen
activities resulted in these being deemed as ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’. One
example that was deemed ‘successful’ was the change that DeltaCo made in the
mould they used. They adopted the use of a redesigned mould that allowed themto increase the number of components produced per mould. Another similar
example, but that was deemed ‘unsuccessful’, was CignaCo’s decision to change tousing a different mould. Rather than resulting in improvements to productivity,
the new mould led to unexpected increases in material loss.
Based on these discussions the representatives from AssembleCo encouraged
the four suppliers to continue their Kaizen activities in the search for greater
efficiency. Further they set targets for the four suppliers, such as increasing mouldlife, increasing the automation of their operation and continuing the use of MFCA
analysis. However, rather than giving common targets to all four they gave specificand different issues with related targets to each supplier to concentrate theirimprovement activities on. Part of the justification for these individual targets wasthat the representatives from AssembleCo, as part of their normal, ongoingcommercial relationship, would regularly visit, independently, each of the
suppliers’ factories. They noted that support for these individual efforts would
always be available. In response to this suggestion the President of CignaCo urgedthat they consider having common issues that all five organisations concentrated
upon and, thereby, collectively pooled their resources towards solving. As part ofthis he made a direct request to the representatives of AssembleCo to share withall four of the suppliers their organisations design sheets of either the parts being
produced or the mould they were using to produce the components. The senior
managers from AssembleCo who were in attendance rejected this request outright.
They stated that they did not want to share all the issues with all the suppliers,
but rather wanted to have different issues with individual suppliers. They backed
up this decision by noting that it was impossible, in their view, to have a focus oncommon issues between all five organisations as the moulds and production
processes used differed significantly between them. This discussion was brought toa close through the raising of the issue of patent ownership. A representative from
DeltaCo asked the question of which organisation would have the ownership of apatent when the collaboration in the MFCA project resulted in an innovative
solution to an issues. To this question no consensus could be reached.
At the conclusion of this meeting the Production Manager of AssembleCo
announced that he was going to retire from AssembleCo at the age of sixty years
old, which would occur next April. He had been a critical supporter of this projectboth through his leadership but also through his influence as a member of
AssembleCo’s board. Thus the representatives from all five organisations had adiscussion about the continuation of the inter-organisational MFCA project after
the retirement of the Production Manager. In announcing the retirement of the
Production Manager the person to succeed him in this role was not disclosed.
5.7 The death of the MFCA project
Despite the impending retirement of the Production Manager, activities
related to the project, continued. For example, on the 15th of February 2013 thePresident of AlphaCo made a visit to the factory of AssembleCo in Indonesia. Thisvisit was prompted by the Senior Managers of AssembleCo suggesting that
AlphaCo expand through buying and setting up their own Indonesian based
factory. Hence the president of AlphaCo visited AssembleCo’s factory in order toinvestigate whether the Indonesian economic situation favoured their expansion
into manufacturing there. Based upon the visit the President of AlphaCo took thedecision not to set up a factory there. The reasons given by the President included
rising operating cost and poor infrastructure. Further, AssembleCo did not commit
to ordering any of the components that AlphaCo would make there, despite therecommendation of setting up there made by their senior managers. As stated by
the President of AlphaCo this suggestion, with no corresponding confirmed orders,created doubts towards the intentions of the senior managers of AssembleCo.
The Production Manager formally retired as a regular employee ofAssembleCo in April 2013. An arrangement was made so that he became atemporary employee so that he could remain as an observer to the project. A new
senior manager was appointed in his place. However, the new senior manager only
had the responsibility for the procurement department. That is, the new
Procurement Manager did not have the broad span of responsibilities of the old
Production Manager, including not being appointed as a member of AssembleCo’s
board. He did take over as the leader of the MFCA project, with his firstengagement with the project being as an observer at the February 2013 meetingat AlphaCo’s factory.
In April 2013 the new Procurement Manager invited the representatives
from the four suppliers to a meeting where he delivered a presentation about
AssembleCo’s procurement policy for the fiscal year of 1 April 2013 to 31 March
2014. The presentation began with the announcement that there would be anotherformal meeting to discuss these plans with all existing suppliers, not just theseselected four, in June. The current meeting was utilised to inform therepresentatives that AssembleCo would return to a policy of sourcing components
from a broad range of suppliers. As part of this the new Procurement Manager
signalled that there would be a reduction in the amount of resources invested indeveloping new moulds. Specifically they would be looking to repair existing
moulds rather than developing and making new moulds. He stated that this would
mean that suppliers would no longer specifically need the technical abilities todevelop their own moulds.
A pivotal meeting was organised by the Production Manager and the new
Procurement Manager on the 17th of May 2013 at the headquarters of AssembleCo.
The Production Manager extended the invitation to this meeting beyond direct
members of the project to powerful (Latour, 1986) members of AssembleCo,
including board members and senior managers or other departments. The key partof this meeting was the presentation made by the Production Manager, now acting
only as an observer. Specifically, he presented his argument for the importance ofthe MFCA project, including an explanation of the significance, purpose and targetof the project. This included stating that the project did not only focus on
procurement problems but rather issues that permeated across the whole company
and argued that the solutions to these issues would more easily be found withcooperation from the four selected suppliers. He finished his presentation bystrongly urging that the decision should be made to continue to invest time andresources into this project. Despite these arguments made by the Production
Manager, subsequent to this meeting the new Procurement manager took thedecision to dissolve the MFCA project. As such a few concluding meeting were heldwith the four suppliers to bring the project to a conclusion.

6. Analysis, discussion and conclusion
In the above section an overview of the project that formed the focus of thiscase study was provided. As with the case study in Coad and Cullen (2006) theinter-organisational project developed out of an intra-organisational dilemma.
That is AssembleCo had identified, through the use of MFCA, three possible meansof making improvements in the material loss within its processes. These were
technical issues within operations that required redesigning products andprocedures, internal capital investment issues that required new engineering or
equipment, and issues caused by their suppliers’ product or design. Out of the three
the last was decided upon as it was seen as the best option in that it required theleast amount of investment and change to be undertaken by AssembleCo.
In setting up the project AssembleCo selected three of its current suppliers
and one other supplier whom it wished to forge a commercial relationship with. In
selecting these four suppliers AssembleCo excluded a further seventeen suppliers.
This was a deliberate strategy adopted by the Production Manager who had aprogramme that aimed to serve AssembleCo’s interests by reducing the number ofsuppliers to just a few. In this sense the MFCA project was a means for making the
suppliers understand (and thereby controlling) what their roles would be within
the planned future state. However, while the suppliers went along with this it isimportant to note that they did so as long as it aligned with their own motivations.
As Callon (1986) notes, we must be aware that it is often a fine line between support
and treason.
The use of MFCA and the resulting inter-organisational project wasundertaken by the Production Manager in relation to his programme for managing
and controlling the suppliers operations. However, the enrolment of MFCA was toput in place a means by which the Production Manager could influence thesupplier’s actions without it being a direct intervention (Miller, 1991). MFCA andthe project were sufficient to interest (Callon, 1986) the four suppliers who engaged
with the Production Manager’s programme. Further, supplier selection was basedon them not being in direct competition in regards to supplying to AssembleCo.
Hence the Production Manager programme was designed to provide a steadyplatform of suppliers who co-operated with each other in order to maximise theircollective outcomes. All four suppliers, however, did have similar processes and onsome occasions did compete to supply components to other companies. What theProduction Manager overlooked in setting up the project and selecting suppliers ishow they interacted beyond their relations with AssembleCo. This opens up amultitude of unknown potential motivations of the representative from the four
suppliers in participating in the project. This in turn did not necessarily mean thateach of these representatives was motivated by the same benefits as promised by
the programme of the Production Manager.
Specifically, the Production Manager utilised the benefits, such as costsavings, from the technical qualities of MFCA to interest the representatives fromthe suppliers to participate in the project. Further the Production Manager
referred to how MFCA was known as an ‘environmental management accounting’device (Kimura & Nakajima, 2014) and the utilisation of experts to make it
understood that the use of this calculative device could result in a reduction in theenvironmental burden caused by their supply chain[15]. In the initial stages of the
project the actions of the representatives from the suppliers suggested that they
were participating based on these potential benefits of cost and environmental
burden reduction. This can specifically be seen in the drawing up of the agreement
between all of the actors involved. In effect this agreement should have provided
the basis for all involved to understand what the project was aiming to achieve andhow all would have benefited.
As the project progressed though the technical attributes of MFCA were notsufficient in themselves to attain all of the predicted benefits from the project. Whatis striking is that most of the project meetings did not seem to focus per se on thetechnical output of MFCA but rather broader issues of interest to those involved.
Thus, rather than the MFCA calculation producing ‘matters of fact’ it opened up awhole stream of ‘matters of concern’ (Latour, 2005). For example, many of therepresentatives from the suppliers became interested in using this project as ameans of discovery of how the other suppliers gained their competitive advantage
in producing their products. This was seen, for instance, in the examination of
AssembleCo’s production process within China, where the representative used stop
watches and magnifying glasses in their efforts to gain such knowledge. Hence theproject centred on MFCA did result in learning across the supply chain but not in
the intended or expected way. Hence, the introduction of the MFCA projectproduced multiple effects (many of which were surprising or unexpected) thatcreated many other types of changes. Here, however, unlike in many otherexaminations of the introduction of a management control, the calculative device,
MFCA, remained stable and constant.

These multiple surprising and unexpected effects created tensions, which inturn resulted in a reordering of relationships between all the actors involved andthe programmes of specific actors resulted in the eventual abandonment of the
project. That is, once the Production Manager retired, his successor made thedecision to abandon the project based on the risks and potential costs in relation tohis own aims, goals and purpose rather than those of AssembleCo. Thus we seethat management controlling may be driven in turn by any number of motivations,only some of which will be aligned with the broader interests of the organisation
concerned. So while the project may have been labelled as ‘unsuccessful’ by manyof the actors involved, its major outcome was a reorganisation of the relationships
between the organisations involved. Hence, while MFCA was promoted for its
technical abilities, its enrolment produced other effects that meant the benefits ofcost savings and to the environment were all but forgotten.
Perhaps most striking was that within the agreement that was written up
and within the activities that occurred as part of the project there were no
discussions of how any benefits that materialised would be shared. That is, if costsavings were realised there was no discussion or agreement over what portion ofthese benefits would be accrued to each organisation that was involved. The
exception to this was the discussions around who would own any patents or
intellectual property that arose from the project. However, even these discussions
concluded without resolution. Again there could have been a multitude of reasonsand motivations for this. For example, actors within AssembleCo know how muchmaterial it supplies to their suppliers and then how much it orders in components.
Hence, just like Archimedes, behind the scenes they can calculate the material loss
and savings to be gained from reducing this. Related to this is that the suppliers
need to pay for the materials they source from AssembleCo up front. Therefore, ifthey can reduce the amount of materials used then they can gain the immediate
benefit from this without the need to distribute the benefits.
This demonstrates that the use of management controls, such as MFCA,
which hold out the potential for win-win situations within a supply chain, will not
automatically result in a linear progression (Quattrone & Hopper, 2001) to thesepromised benefits. In examining the actions of the Production Manager it can beseen that he never relied upon a rational review of the costs and benefits associatedwith the project, including those that related to the technical aspects of MFCA.
Rather the decision to start the project was as a result of the Production Manager
downplaying the potential issues that may result. Instead he focused on andpromoted the project through stressing the benefits that would be derived for
AssembleCo. These included the closer relations with a few key suppliers as wellas the cost and environmental benefits derived from MFCA. However, upon his
retirement so many aspects of the project were still not solidified or made durable.
This meant that for the manager that succeeded him the potential of issues arising
was still visible, particularly given the issues that had already arisen. This is best
demonstrated with reference back to the suppliers visit to AssembleCo’s factory in
China. The learning of AssembleCo’s processes that had occurred gave thepotential, real or not, for the suppliers to imitate what they observed. This wascompounded by the new manager being in the earlier stages of his career at
AssembleCo. As such his own success was far from settled and may have been
compromised by a project that had not lived up to initial expectation. He therefore
took the decision to abandon it within a short time of taking on this new role.
Out of all the actions outlined above it is not possible to conclude which were
motivated by the intended influence of the enrolled management control.
Specifically these actions may have been motivated and influenced by other actors,
things or reasons that just happened to produce effects and outcomes that may
erroneously be attributed to the management control. What was definitely within
the witnessable practices examined were a multitude of motivations that produced
different outcomes than those that aligned with the programme of the Production
Manager. This can be seen within the trip to China. The discussions of therepresentatives of the suppliers focused on how to do business there rather than
the furtherance of exploring the technical abilities and benefits from the use of
MFCA. However, it must be noted that the Production Manager did reactively
engage with this as a means to interest (Callon, 1986) the representatives from the
suppliers to engage with the project.
This suggests that a focus on witnesable practices (Rawls, 2002) can provide
knowledge that is unable to be sourced through interviews of the actors and theirinterpretive understandings (Alvesson, 2009). However, the above discussion
demonstrates that care should be taken in trying to derive motivations of actors
even when they are stated within an interview. Regardless, the above strongly
suggests that management controlling is always a precarious process that will not
automatically result in the implementation of the desired programme. Hence
future research must take care not to just report ‘successful’ use of management
controls. It must also engage with the multitude of questions that arise from a focus
on episodes that can be labelled as ‘unsuccessful’.

In relation to this, the above demonstrates that the inclusion of many,
disparate actors will increase the potential number of competing objectives andmotivations at play, which in turn may result in many unintended or unexpectedactions being undertaken by those that are the object of control (Justesen &Mouritsen, 2011). This can be seen in that the outcome of this project was areorganisation of the relationships between the organisations involved. Initiallythis had been one of the goals that the Production Manager had set for the project.
However, it had planned to utilise the project as a means of establishing durable
relationships with high quality suppliers that would have long term benefits for its
own operations. To a certain degree it had been ‘successful’ in achieving this goalas can be seen, for example, in the establishment of a commercial relationship with
BetaCo. However, what had not been anticipated was that the bringing together ofthese four suppliers would result in their interacting together. The result of thisinteractions were many unexpected outcomes, such as the co-operation among
these suppliers to achieve better commercial performance in respect to supplying
to other organisations other than AssembleCo. This highlights the impossibility ofmanagement controlling all outcomes and demonstrates that the more actors that
become involved the greater the complexities that arise in attempts to try to do so.
This example clearly illustrates that the power of those that are attempting
controlling are always only in potentia with the many actors being the target of
this power holding it in actu (Latour, 1986). Hence, in line with Chua’s (2007)
discussion of strategy and strategising, the above suggests that the extant
knowledge would benefit from a move in focus from management controls tomanagement controlling.
Notes:
1. All company names and people involved have been given a pseudonym toprotect their identities as agreed by the researchers when undertaking thisresearch.
2. In making this comment it is acknowledged that there is a large literature;(for example see Alcott, 2005; Holm & Englund, 2009); that critiques thisviewpoint. Specifically it is argued that calculative devices, such as MFCA,
that focus on efficiency in resource use, a relative measure, actuallyencourage increases in consumption, in absolute terms, of that resource.
This paper does not aim to enter into this debate but rather acknowledges

this as the perspective of those that were the spokespeople for the MFCA
project, which is the focus of this research.
3. The exchange rate calculation is based on ¥175 per £1.
4. Plastic injection moulding is “the process by which objects are formed whena plastic material is fed through a nozzle into a mold where it is held until
removed in a solid state, duplicating the cavity of the mold.” (Sapene, 2007,
p. 172). Within this process the mould is “the cavity, core, and basecomponents that comprise the tool in which a plastic part is formed or
molded.” (Sapene, 2007, p. 173)
5. Thermosetting plastic “differ in that they are not re-mouldable. Strong crosslinks are formed during the initial moulding process that give the materiala stable structure. They are more likely to be used in situations where
thermal stability is required. They tend to lack tensile strength and can bebrittle.”(from

http://www.lgschemistry.org.uk/PDF/Thermosoftening_and_thermosetting_plastics.pdf accessed 9 September 2014) Parts that are used in automobilesand electronics often need this kind of property due to being close to otherparts that produce significant heat, such as the engine of a car.
6. It is worth noting that at the time the project started BetaCo didn’t haveany factories in China or the Philippines.
7. “Thermoplastics can be made 'plastic' and malleable at high temperatures.

Modern thermoplastic polymers soften anywhere between 65 ºC and 200+
ºC. In this state they can be moulded in a number of ways: They differ fromthermoset plastics in that they can be returned to this plastic state byreheating.

They

are

then

fully

recyclable.”(from

http://www.lgschemistry.org.uk/PDF/Thermosoftening_and_thermosetting_plastics.pdf accessed 9 September 2014)
8. AssembleCo often loans its moulds to their suppliers who do not have theskill set available within their organisation to make their own moulds. In
these situations AssembleCo pays the supplier for the cost of the material
and the cost of producing the part but not for the depreciation costs that areassociated with the mould.
9. These are common issues that result from MFCA analysis (Nakajima, 2011;
Nakajima & Kimura, 2012).

10. Kaizen in general is a system of continuous improvement utilised andcustomised within Japanese organisations. Refer to Imai (1997) and Brunet
and New (2003) for further details.
11. Within this industry it is routine behaviour to carry a magnifying glass. It
is used to make random checks on parts coming off the production line.
These checks are necessary as buyers will inspect whether there arescratches or cracks on the parts. Hence, magnifying glasses are used inchecking quality as buyers demand damage free parts.
12. Material loss is defined in ISO14051 as the following; "all material outputs
generated in a quantity centre, except for intended products NOTE 1
Material losses include air emissions, wastewater and solid waste, even if
these material outputs can be reworked, recycled or reused internally, or
have market value. NOTE 2 By-products can be considered as eithermaterial losses or products, at the discretion of the organization.”(International Standard Organization, 2011, p. 3)
13. Kanban is a technique developed by Toyota and is a means of using cards(the Kanban) within a large scale manufacturing facility to coordinate theflow of work-in-progress inventory (see Mitra & Mitrani, 1990 for further
description).
14. Tact time is the time to produce one unit of a product. Tact time is calculated
by “daily operation time / daily volume of production”.
15. Again it is acknowledged that there is a substantial literature that
demonstrates the opposite happens in practice. That is, it has been known
since the industrial revolution that relative gains in efficiency in using a
resource result in increases in the absolute level of use of that resource. Thisis known as Jevon’s paradox or within modern ecological economics as therebound effect. Hence any efficiency gains made through the use of MFCA
are in practice more likely to result in increased environmental burden
rather than less. However, for the purposes of this paper what is importantis that the actors within these organisations utilised efficiency gains as anargument for reducing environmental burden (also see note 2 above).
Further, the debate about the potential for such calculative devices to assist
within supply chains (see for example Kogg & Mont, 2012) is not addressed
within this research.

References:
Abernethy, M. A., & Chua, W. F. (1996). A field study of control system"redesign": The impact of institutional processes on strategic choice.

Contemporary Accounting Research, 13(2), 569-606.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications.
Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling andCoercive. [Article]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61-89.
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research inmanagement accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819-841.
Akroyd, C., & Maguire, W. (2011). The Roles of Management Control in a ProductDevelopment Setting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management,

8(3), 212-237.
Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons' paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), 9-21. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020
Alvesson, M. (2009). At-Home Ethnography: Struggling with Closeness andClosure. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.),

Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life
(pp. 156-174). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Andon, P., Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2007). Accounting change as relational
drifting: A field study of experiments with performance measurement.

Management Accounting Research, 18(2), 273-308. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.06.007
Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management
control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations andSociety, 29(8), 709-737.
Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects
in management accounting change: A field study of an implementation ofactivity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(3), 237269.
Brunet, A. P., & New, S. (2003). Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(12),1426-1446. doi: doi:10.1108/01443570310506704

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of
the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power,

action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London:
Routledge.
Callon, M., & Law, J. (2005). On qualculation, agency, and otherness.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 717-733.
Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic Markets as Calculative Collective
Devices. Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229-1250. doi:
10.1177/0170840605056393
Chenhall, R. (2003). Management control systems design within its
organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research anddirections for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2,3),
127-168.
Chenhall, R. (2005). Content and process approaches to studying strategy andmanagement control systems. In C. Chapman (Ed.), Controlling strategy:

Management, accounting, and performance measurement (pp. 10–36).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, M., & Skærbæk, P. (2007). Framing and overflowing of public sector
accountability innovations: A comparative study of reporting practices.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(1), pp. 101 - 132.
Chua, W. F. (2007). Accounting, measuring, reporting and strategizing - Re-using
verbs: A review essay. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4-5), 487494.
Chua, W. F., & Mahama, H. (2007). The Effect of Network Ties on Accounting
Controls in a Supply Alliance: Field Study Evidence. Contemporary

Accounting Research, 24(1), 47-86. doi: 10.1506/7156-201w-1290-83h4
Coad, A. F., & Cullen, J. (2006). Inter-organisational cost management: Towards
an evolutionary perspective. Management Accounting Research, 17(4),342.
Cuganesan, S., & Lee, R. (2006). Intra-organisational influences in procurement
networks controls: The impacts of information technology. Management

Accounting Research, 17(2), 141.
Dambrin, C., & Robson, K. (2011). Tracing performance in the pharmaceuticalindustry: Ambivalence, opacity and the performativity of flawed measures.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(7), 428-455. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.07.006

Dechow, N., & Mouritsen, J. (2005). Enterprise resource planning systems,
management control and the quest for integration. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 30(7,8), 691-733.
Dekker, H. C. (2004). Control of inter-organizational relationships: evidence on
appropriation concerns and coordination requirements. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 29(1), 27-49. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00056-9
Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management
systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting

Research, 20(4), 263-282.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology's Program: Working out Durheim's

Aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Garfinkel, H. (2006). Seeing sociologically : the routine grounds of social action
Boulder, Colo: Paradigm Publishers.
Holm, S.-O., & Englund, G. (2009). Increased ecoefficiency and gross reboundeffect: Evidence from USA and six European countries 1960–2002.

Ecological Economics, 68(3), 879-887. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.006
Hopwood, A. G. (1987). The archeology of accounting systems. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 12(3), 207-234. doi: 10.1016/03613682(87)90038-9
Imai, M. (1997). Gemba kaizen : a commonsense low-cost approach to

management / Masaaki Imai. New York :: McGraw-Hill.
International Standard Organization. (2011). ISO14051 Environmental
management –Material flow cost accounting- General framework:
International Standard Organization,.
Jollands, S., Akroyd, C., & Sawabe, N. (2015). Core values as a management
control in the construction of “sustainable development”. Qualitative

Research in Accounting & Management, 12(2), 127-152. doi:
doi:10.1108/QRAM-04-2015-0040
Jollands, S., & Quinn, M. (2017). Politicising the sustaining of water supply in
Ireland – the role of accounting concepts. Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, 30(1), 164-190. doi: doi:10.1108/AAAJ-04-20152018

Justesen, L., & Mouritsen, J. (2011). Effects of actor-network theory in accounting
research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(2), 161 - 193.
Kimura, A., & Nakajima, M. (2014). The Potential for MFCA Spread in Supply
Chains Through Information Sharing. Kansai University Review ofBusiness and Commerce, 15, 15-35.
Kober, R., Ng, J., & Paul, B. (2003). Changes in strategy: a match over time?

Advances in Accounting, 20, 199-232.
Kogg, B., & Mont, O. (2012). Environmental and social responsibility in supply
chains: The practise of choice and inter-organisational management.

Ecological Economics, 83, 154-163. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.023
Kraus, K., & Strömsten, T. (2016). Internal/inter-firm control dynamics andpower—A case study of the Ericsson-Vodafone relationship. Management

Accounting Research, 33, 61-72. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.04.001
Latour, B. (1986). The power of associations. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action andbelief: a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 264-280). London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers
through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A
Sociology of monsters : essays on power, technology, and domination (pp.
103-131). London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor

network theory and after Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-networktheory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Law, J. (1986). On the methods of long distance control: vessels, navigation, and
the Portuguese route to india. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: a

new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 234-263). London: Routledge.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, andheterogeneity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 5(4), 379-393. doi:
10.1007/bf01059830
Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management

Accounting Research, 19(4), 287.

Miller, P. (1991). Accounting Innovation Beyond the Enterprise: Problematizing
Investment Decisions and Programming Economic Growth in the U.K. in
the 1960s. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(8), 733-762.
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (2007). Mediating instruments and making markets:
Capital budgeting, science and the economy. Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 32(7–8), 701-734. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.003
Minnaar, R. A., Vosselman, E., van Veen-Dirks, P. M. G., & Zahir-ul-Hassan, M.
K. (2017). A relational perspective on the contract-control-trust nexus in
an interfirm relationship. Management Accounting Research, 34, 30-41.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.003
Mitra, D., & Mitrani, I. (1990). Analysis of a Kanban Discipline for Cell
Coordination in Production Lines. I. Management Science, 36(12), 15481566. doi: doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.12.1548
Mouritsen, J. (1999). The flexible firm: strategies for a subcontractor’s
management control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(1), 31-55.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00059-7
Mouritsen, J., Hansen, A., & Hansen, C. Ø. (2001). Inter-organizational controls
and organizational competencies: episodes around target costmanagement/functional analysis and open book accounting. Management

Accounting Research, 12(2), 221-244.
Mouritsen, J., Mahama, H., & Chua, W. F. (2010). Actor-network theory and thestudy of inter-organisational network relations. In H. Hakansson, K.
Kraus & J. Lind (Eds.), Accounting in networks (pp. 292-313). New York :London: Routledge.
Mouritsen, J., & Thrane, S. (2006). Accounting, network complementarities andthe development of inter-organisational relations. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 31(3), 241-275. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.04.002
Munro, R. (1999). Power and Discretion: Membership Work in the Time ofTechnology. Organization, 6(3), 429-450. doi: 10.1177/135050849963004
Nakajima, M. (2011). Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner
Production: Systematization of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA)
into Corporate Management System. Kansai University Review ofBusiness and Commerce, 13, 17-39.

Nakajima, M., & Kimura, A. (2012). Promotion of Innovative Improvement
Integrated MFCA with Budgeting (in Japanese). The Journal of Cost

Accounting Research, 36(2), 15-24.
Otley, D. (1980). The Contingency Theory of Management Accounting:Achievement and Prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(4),413.
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management
control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363382.
Otley, D. (Forthcoming). The contingency theory of management accounting andcontrol: 1980–2014. Management Accounting Research. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.02.001
Preston, A. M., Cooper, D. J., & Coombs, R. W. (1992). Fabricating budgets: A
study of the production of management budgeting in the national healthservice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 561-593.
Quattrone, P. (2015). Governing Social Orders, Unfolding Rationality, and Jesuit
Accounting Practices: A Procedural Approach to Institutional Logics.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3), 411-445. doi:
10.1177/0001839215592174
Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2001). What does organizational change mean?
Speculations on a taken for granted category. Management Accounting

Research, 12(4), 403-435. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mare.2001.0176
Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2005). A `time-space odyssey': management control
systems in two multinational organisations. Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 30(7-8), 735-764.
Rawls, A. W. (2002). Introduction. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodology's

Program: Working out Durheim's Aphorism. Lanham: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Robson, K. (1991). On the arenas of accounting change: The process oftranslation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(5–6), 547-570. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90041-C
Robson, K. (1992). Accounting Numbers as "Inscription": Action at a Distance andthe Development of Accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17(7), 685-708.
Sapene, C. (2007). Cost Analysis of Plastic Injection Molds. USA: Lulu.com.

Scapens, R. W. (1994). Never mind the gap: Towards an institutional perspective
on management accounting practice. Management Accounting Research,

5(3,4), 301.
Seal, W., Berry, A., & Cullen, J. (2004). Disembedding the supply chain:
institutionalized reflexivity and inter-firm accounting. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 29(1), 73-92. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00055-7
Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control : how managers use innovative control

systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business
School Press.
Speklé, R. F. (2001). Explaining management control structure variety: atransaction cost economics perspective. Accounting, Organizations andSociety, 26(4-5), 419-441.
Tessier, S., & Otley, D. (2012). A conceptual development of Simons’ Levers ofControl framework. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 171-185.
Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7/8), 757-788.