Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Article information:
To cite this document: Gary Fleischman, Kenton Walker, Eric Johnson, (2010),"A field study of user versus provider perceptions of
management accounting system services", International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 3 pp. 252 285
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/18347641011068992
Downloaded on: 17-09-2012
References: This document contains references to 95 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 618 times since 2010. *
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by ANNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1834-7649.htm
IJAIM
18,3
252
Eric Johnson
Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate user versus provider perceptions of
management accounting system (MAS) services using the DeLone and McLean information system
success model and the theoretical lens of social perception theory.
Design/methodology/approach Quantitative survey data were collected and analyzed using
ordinal regression. Qualitative interview data concerning user-provider perceptions of MAS service
information quality, importance, use, and satisfaction were utilized to corroborate and explain the data
analysis.
Findings The results suggest that there are significant perceptual differences about MAS service
quality by users versus providers. For this organization, the paper identifies what these differences
are, why they exist, and how organizations may identify and narrow identified gaps.
Research limitations/implications The paper is based on a case study that may not be
generalizable to broader populations. It uses a cross-sectional, correlational, self-report survey,
therefore is unable to make causal or directional inferences. Future research should assess MAS
services in different organizations, industries, and cultures.
Practical implications The paper is among the first to provide quantitative and qualitative
evidence of perceived differences in accounting service quality, approaches to uncovering sources of
differences, and steps that organizations may take to improve service quality.
Originality/value This paper is the first to apply the DeLone and McLean information system
success model in the context of MAS service quality. The paper examines perceptions of MAS
providers and users to evaluate services and investigates perceptual differences across functions and
at different organizational levels.
Keywords Management accounting, Accounting systems, Information systems
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate user versus provider perceptions of
management accounting system (MAS) services in a corporate organization using the
DeLone and McLean information system success model (D&M IS success model)
(DeLone and McLean, 1992, 2003) as a research framework. The D&M IS success model,
combined with the theoretical lens of social perception theory (Ross and Fletcher, 1985;
Srull and Wyer, 1988; Schiffmann, 1990; Baron and Byrne, 1991; Jiang et al., 2000),
supports four hypotheses about perceptual differences between MAS users and
User versus
provider
perceptions
253
IJAIM
18,3
254
and Byrne and Pierce (2007) draw on role theory to provide a theoretical lens to help
interpret findings related to the roles of MAs and controllers. Pierce and ODea (2003)
also identified role theory as a motivator for this kind of research.
The academic and professional literatures note that MAs wish to elevate themselves
as business partners in organizations, where they function as key advisors and decision
makers (Kaplan, 1995; Lukka, 1998; Sharman, 2007). If the accounting discipline is going
to boost their organizational standing to that of business partner successfully, it must
therefore provide quality decision support services to users. It follows logically that the
accounting function must investigate whether or not users are indeed satisfied with
service qualities such as information importance, accuracy, timeliness, relevance, and
actual usefulness for decision support. Failure to do so leads to user-provider
communication breakdowns and perceptual disconnects about service quality. In
summary, we need to understand what are the user-provider perceptual differences, why
do they exist, and how can these gaps be narrowed. Only by doing so, can accounting
management begin to improve service quality and achieve business partner status.
MAS service delivery is specific to each organization; therefore, a logical way to
study MAS service delivery is one organization at a time. Ultimately, the collective
experiences of several organizations over time may reveal patterns of conduct and
critical success factors that are useful to guide the design, delivery, and management of
MAS services in general. Therefore, this exploratory study attempts to further this
embryonic stream of accounting inquiry.
3. Literature review, theory, and hypotheses
3.1 The D&M IS success model
In 1992, DeLone and McLean conducted a comprehensive review of the IS success
literature and proposed a model of IS success. The model provides a critically important
foundation for research in IS success that represents a major breakthrough in the
literature (Wu and Wang, 2006, p. 729). For example, nearly 300 articles in refereed
journals have referred to, and made use of, this IS success model which underscores its
validity and contribution to the literature (DeLone and McLean, 2003, p. 10).
Specifically, DeLone and McLean (1992) developed the model to incorporate
antecedents of IS success (system quality and information quality) that influenced users
(as evidenced by system use and user satisfaction) and ultimately led to individual and
organization benefits. Ten years later, based on hundreds of articles that used and cited
the model, DeLone and McLean proposed further refinements to the model and an
updated D&M IS success model shown in Figure 1 (DeLone and McLean, 2003).
We define net benefits (success) in this study as the degree of correspondence between
perceptions of providers and users concerning specific MAS services and information
provided to management suggesting actions to improve MAS services. We use the
D&M IS success model as an organizational framework for this study.
As in previous studies using the D&M IS success model, we test only portions of the
model, namely:
.
information quality (importance);
.
system use (frequency of use); and
.
satisfaction (user and provider; management versus staff) (see DeLone and
McLean (2003) for a review of articles testing various portions of the model).
User versus
provider
perceptions
255
IJAIM
18,3
Information
quality
Intention
to use
256
Use
System
quality
Net benefits
User
satisfaction
Figure 1.
The updated D&M IS
success model
Service
quality
Source: DeLone and McLean (2003)
These views of MAS services success are also consistent with the three perspectives
suggested by Kim (1989), namely:
(1) information value (importance/quality);
(2) system usage (frequency); and
(3) user information satisfaction.
Watson et al. (1993) argue that user satisfaction is the most widely used surrogate to
measure overall systems success.
Extensive research exists that investigates perceptions of management IS success,
in general. Only two studies of IS service performance (Jiang et al., 2000, 2001
investigate and compare perspectives of IS users and staff on IS staff performance.
Jiang et al. (2000) developed and administered an instrument to study seven aspects of
IS staff performance evaluation. Jiang et al. (2001) applied the concept of 3608
evaluation techniques to evaluate IS staff.
Surprisingly, there is scant comparable research to the above IS studies using the
accounting context. There are a number of similarities between IS and MAS; both are
intra-firm oriented, highly technical in nature, and are used for operational
decision-making. However, IS and MAS services are quite different from each other in
important ways, which justifies MAS service assessment. For example, IS services are
broader in nature because they provide the technological infrastructure and software
support for information provision to all functional groups. MAS services, in contrast,
are a subset of IS, and are focused on accounting-related data and reports that require
the user to possess a somewhat technical level of accounting-specific understanding
regarding terminology and financial statements. There are a few accounting studies that
focus on MAS success (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987; Jonsson and Gronlund, 1988; Young
and Selto, 1991; Joseph et al., 1996; Turner et al., 1999; van der Veeken and Wouters, 2002;
MacDonald and Richardson, 2002; Aldhizer et al., 2002). However, there are two studies
that we are aware of that have empirically assessed user-provider perceptions in an
accounting services context (Pierce and ODea, 2003; Byrne and Pierce, 2007).
Pierce and ODea (2003) found a number of provider versus user perception gaps
regarding management accounting information, and the study highlighted that MAs
had a number of inaccurate perceptions about their internal customers (users).
For example, MAs primarily focused on technical preciseness and format regarding the
information they provided users. Users, on the other hand, were critical of accountants
that were not concerned about the usefulness of the information they provided.
Specific user complaints focused on a lack of information timeliness and relevance.
In comparison, Byrne and Pierce (2007) identified antecedents and characteristics from
the roles of MAs that relate to service outcomes and how these factors influenced their
job functions. The results suggested a number of conflicts between the 18 matched pairs
of MAs and their operating manager information users. Specifically, role conflict existed
between the two groups, especially regarding management control. Consistent with
Pierce and ODea (2003), Byrne and Pierce (2007) observed interactive conflicts between
users and providers. Our study is therefore only the third empirical study to assess user
versus provider perceptions of accounting services in general, and the first in accounting
to assess user-provider MAS perceptions using the D&M IS success model as a
framework.
The following section summarizes the theoretical lens for the study. Because this is
only the third accounting study to address user versus provider perceptions of
accounting services, the study is exploratory. Based on our literature review, social
perception theory appears to be the most appropriate theoretical lens to suggest that
user versus provider perceptions are likely to differ. The IS literature uses this theory
extensively as reviewed in the following discussion.
3.2 Social perception theory
Social perception theory (Ross and Fletcher, 1985; Srull and Wyer, 1988; Schiffmann,
1990; Baron and Byrne, 1991; Jiang et al., 2000) provides the theoretical foundation to
support hypothesized differences in perceptions between MAS providers and users.
Social perception theory focuses on how various people perceive others, especially
regarding perceptions of what is important. The theory views social perceptions as a
cognitive process whereby people observe, encode, store, and later recall information
about other individuals. In essence, people develop personalized schema, defined as a
cognitive framework for understanding the external world (Srull and Wyer, 1988;
Jiang et al., 2000, p. 425). People develop this schema, or personalized worldview,
gradually over their lifetime based on personal experiences and observations about
their surroundings ( Jiang et al., 2000).
Social perception theory is widely used in the IS literature to explain perceptual
differences that exist between IS users and providers (the term user-designer
communications gap is also common, see Laudon and Laudon, 2006). Research has
delineated many perceptual differences between IS users and providers. Some of these
include:
.
success at matching provider skills to specific tasks (technical versus generalist)
(Jones, 1995);
.
strength of provider organizational skills (Green, 1989; Nelson, 1991);
.
diversity of skills (Klein et al., 2002); and
.
provider skill proficiency and user expectations (Jiang et al., 2003; Tesch et al., 2005).
Robey et al. (1993) note that IS staff generally possess a substantially different culture
from IS users. For example, these dissimilarities often emanate from interpersonal
User versus
provider
perceptions
257
IJAIM
18,3
258
User versus
provider
perceptions
259
IJAIM
18,3
Again, we wish to identify what these perceptual differences are and why they exist in
the following research question:
RQ3a. What are the differences in user-provider perceptions of service importance
and usage? Why do these differences exist?
260
3.3.4 Satisfaction with information quality. The DeLone and McLean (1992) model
suggests that information quality positively influences user satisfaction. DeLone and
McLean (1992, p. 67) list a number of empirical measures of information quality,
including accuracy, timeliness, and relevance. Information quality generally has a
significant influence in satisfying information users (Bailey and Pearson, 1983).
A number of empirical studies have identified the characteristics of data that influence
information quality that corroborate DeLone and McLeans (1992) framework, including
the importance of accuracy (Kim, 1989; Nelson et al., 2005; Bharati and Berg, 2005),
timeliness (Kim, 1989; Bharati and Berg, 2005), and relevance (Kim, 1989; Palanisamy,
2001; Nelson et al., 2005; Bharati and Berg, 2005). MAS literature also identifies
important characteristics of system information quality (Larker, 1981; Gordon and
Narayanan, 1984; Chenhall and Morris, 1986; Mia and Chenhall, 1994). Social perception
theory predicts that MAS providers and users will have differing perceptions of service
satisfaction related to information quality characteristics including accuracy,
timeliness, and relevance. This literature suggests working H3b:
H3b. There are perceptual differences between users and providers concerning
levels of satisfaction with MAS services used/provided based on information
accuracy, timeliness, and relevance.
We also wish to identify what these perceptual differences are and why they exist in
the following research question:
RQ3b. What are the perceptual differences between users and providers concerning
satisfaction with information accuracy, timeliness, and relevance? Why do
these differences exist?
3.3.5 Effects of organizational level (management versus staff). Although not part of the
D&M IS success model, we tested for differences in perceptions of MAS services
between management versus staff. Users of MAS information are likely to have
different needs based on their level in the organizations management hierarchy. For
example, Jonsson and Gronlund (1988) found that output-oriented accounting numbers
do not support learning processes of lower level managers but such information is
appropriate for higher level managers. van der Veeken and Wouters (2002, p. 365)
concluded, [o]utput-based information systems that are suitable for higher-level
managers are of little help for lower-level managers. Persons at various hierarchical
levels (e.g. management versus staff) of an organization will have differing perceptions
of which information services are the most important (Whyte et al., 1997), which is
again consistent with social perception theory. This literature motivates the fourth
working hypothesis:
H4. There are perceptual differences between managers and staff concerning MAS
service importance and use.
Again, we wish to identify what these differences are and why they exist. The
following research question addresses these issues:
RQ4. What are the perceptual differences between managers and staff concerning
MAS service importance and use and why do these differences exist?
4. The subject firm
The subject of this study is a large, multidivisional, and geographically dispersed
electric power generating company that we refer to as electricity corporation (EC). EC is
located in Australia and has been in existence since the early 1900s when it
commissioned its first power station. EC owns and operates more than 30 hydroelectric
(dams) and thermal (coal- or gas-fired) power stations. The company operates in a highly
regulated environment. The company is subject to price controls and must comply with
numerous environmental regulations and government reporting requirements. Sales of
electricity in 2000 were approximately $3 billion. The company employs approximately
2,300 individuals organized into four divisions. The number of employees in each
division ranges from 404 to 664.
EC employs about 200 persons at the corporate headquarters responsible for
coordinating corporate reporting activities, planning, and providing advice to the four
divisions. Headquarters employees provide for corporate services in the areas of
executive management, customer relations, human resources, engineering and
development, production operations, finance, treasury, and internal audit. Division
managers (DM), responsible for all activities in each division, are also located at the
corporate headquarters.
Staff at all locations are organized into four support functions: accounting, human
resources, engineering and development, and production operations. A Corporate
support manager (CSM) located at the corporate headquarters office heads each
function and reports to the general manager. Support personnel have a direct reporting
relationship to the DM and dotted-line responsibility to the CSM. The general manager,
along with other top-level executives including the Controller and VP-finance, reports
to the chief executive officer of the company.
Accounting employs 85 people in the four divisions and at corporate headquarters.
The organization structure of the accounting function is shown in Figure 2.
5. Method
5.1 Survey and interview procedures
We conducted research into MAS service importance, use, and satisfaction with
information quality using two methods: a survey questionnaire and semi-structured
interviews. In consultation with the division accounting managers at each location, we
compiled a comprehensive list of service functions carried out by the accounting
section. We distributed the list to all accounting function employees for their review as
well as to non-accounting personnel in order to achieve a list of services that both
groups could agree on. After several iterations, the final list was completed. In order to
increase the response rate, division management sent a letter accompanying the time
analysis questionnaire instructing all accounting function employees to complete the
survey. The list of MAS service functions is shown in Table I.
We distributed a questionnaire to all budget managers, including accounting, to
obtain data on the use and importance of MAS services and user satisfaction with
User versus
provider
perceptions
261
IJAIM
18,3
262
Corporate
accounting
manager
Corporate
accounting
supervisors
Corporate
accounting staff
Figure 2.
Partial EC accounting
function organization
structure
Division
accounting
managers*
Division
accounting
supervisors
Area accounting
officers
Division
accounting staff
Area
specialists/staff
information quality connected with these services. Two versions of the questionnaire,
taking into account the different roles played by users and providers of accounting
services, were distributed. The provider version gave accounting managers the
opportunity to comment on their perceptions of the quality of services they provide.
Management also attached a letter to the survey instrument instructing the budget
managers to complete the survey instrument in order to increase the response rate. The
questionnaire is shown in Figure 3.
Finally, we interviewed a representative cross section of employees from each of the
four divisions and the corporate office. Discussions with management resulted in
agreement to interview about 160 individuals. The actual distribution of the interview
subjects was five each from the four corporate support groups (20), 48 from accounting,
and 89 from user groups. Some personnel were interviewed individually and others in
small groups to optimize the rate of information gathering. In addition, group interviews
did not mix persons from accounting and user departments and avoided situations
where subordinates and their superiors were in the same group interview. We took these
steps to encourage frank discussion of issues. In order to maintain anonymity of the
subjects, we did not match completed questionnaires with the interviewees. As a result,
we received questionnaires from individuals we did not interview and, conversely, we
interviewed some individuals who did not complete a questionnaire. We requested all
interviewees to complete the survey instrument.
We distributed questionnaires to interviewees within three days of scheduled
interviews to focus their attention on issues related to their perceptions of accounting
services. We structured the interviews to correspond with points made on the
questionnaires. A list of initial interview question/guidelines included the following items:
A. Planning
A1
A2
A3
A4
B. Routine accounting
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
C. Management reporting
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
D. Training
D1
D2
E. Audit/internal control
E1
E2
E3
F. Accounting systems and support
F1
F2
G. Project analysis/special studies
G1
G2
G3
H. Land and property administration
H1
H2
H3
I. Fixed asset management
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
I6
User versus
provider
perceptions
263
Accounts payable
Accounts receivable
Cash management
General ledger maintenance
Journal entries
Labor costing
Reconciliations
Tax
Other (specify)
Monthly report running and 9distribution
Job cost reports
Report creation and maintenance
Monthly commentary
Performance analysis, providing advice
and investigations
Outturn
Statistical returns
Annual accounts
Other (specify)
Provided for non-accounting staff
Internal accounting training
Internal control reviews
Policies and procedures
Time with auditors
Development
Other (i.e. backups, data handling, equipment
maintenance queries)
Sanction preparation and review
Post-project review
Other (specify)
Property taxes
House purchase scheme
Other (specify)
Asset checks
Additions/disposals
Rationalization opportunities
Insurance
Valuation exercises
Other (specify)
(continued)
Table I.
List of management
accounting services
IJAIM
18,3
264
Table I.
J. Other services
J1
J2
J3
K. Accounting management
K1
K2
K3
K4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Does the list of accounting functions cover everything that concerns you?
Do accounting services/reports focus on the most important issues?
What issues are most important?
Is there scope for better integration of accounting with other non-financial data?
Do reports have the right amount of detail?
Are there important financial performance indicators for their area of concern?
What are they?
Do you give/get good financial advice?
Are accounting resources at the right levels throughout the organization?
We allowed interviewees to discuss any aspect of accounting services that they wished.
We took detailed notes at the interviews and we summarized them by interviewee
level, functional orientation, and provider/user status.
5.2 Measures
We used three single-item measures to assess provider versus user perceptions of MAS
services:
(1) importance of accounting services used/provided;
(2) frequency of accounting services used/provided; and
(3) perceived satisfaction with information quality of MAS services used/provided.
Each measure is strongly supported by IS success literature based on the D&M IS
success model (1992, 2003). Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) suggest that single-item
measures are more appropriate than multiple-item measures when the construct consists
of a concrete singular object. In the context of this study, we believe our single-item
constructs are both parsimonious and consistent with these authors recommendations.
In addition, management desired single-item measures, again for the purpose of
parsimony. We conducted a pre-test to ensure that employees understood the items.
We conducted interviews to corroborate (or refute) the validity of survey measures.
5.2.1 Importance of accounting services used/provided and satisfaction. We asked
accounting service provider/user subjects to rank the five MAS services that they
perceived as most important to them from the list of 11 service categories. The concept
of service importance is well established in the literature, as is the practice of ranking
services (Larker and Lessig, 1980; Jones and McLeod, 1986; Kim, 1989; Reeves and
Bednar, 1994; Whyte et al., 1997; Jiang and Klein, 1999; Jiang et al., 2000).
1.
Eleven major categories of accounting services are listed as A. through K. on the following
page. Please rank your use/provision of no more than the five most frequently
used/provided services, and then the most important services used/provided. Indicate your
level of satisfaction with each by circling the appropriate satisfaction index number.
Frequency of use/Provision
Satisfaction index
Very
unsatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
User versus
provider
perceptions
265
(Most frequently
used/provided)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
b.
Especially not satisfied with (under the appropriate reason for dissatisfaction).
Accuracy
Timeliness
Relevance
Subjects were then asked to indicate their relative level of satisfaction with each of
these five services, using a five-point Likert scale where 1 very unsatisfied and
5 very satisfied. Perceived service satisfaction is a well-developed construct
(Bailey and Pearson, 1983; Oliver, 1993; Dion et al., 1998).
5.2.2 Frequency of accounting services used/provided and satisfaction. We asked
accounting service provider/user subjects to rank the five accounting services that they
Figure 3.
Questionnaire for
users/providers of
accounting services
IJAIM
18,3
266
used/provided most frequently from the list of 11 service categories. The concept of
frequency of use as a proxy for service satisfaction is supported in the literature
(Powers and Dickson, 1973; Robey, 1979; Baroudi et al., 1986; Igbaria and Tan, 1997;
Wu and Wang, 2006). As with the importance measure, subjects were then asked to
indicate their relative level of satisfaction with each of these five services on a
five-point scale where 1 very unsatisfied and 5 very satisfied.
5.2.3 Perceived satisfaction with information quality of MAS services used/provided.
We asked MAS service provider/user subjects to list services that they were:
.
very satisfied with versus; and
.
services they were very unsatisfied with based on information quality
characteristics of accuracy, timeliness, and relevance.
Perceived service satisfaction is strongly supported in the literature (Bailey and
Pearson, 1983; Oliver, 1993; Dion et al., 1998) as is satisfaction in connection with
measures of information quality such as accuracy (Kim, 1989; Nelson et al., 2005;
Bharati and Berg, 2005); timeliness (Kim, 1989; Bharati and Berg, 2005); and relevance
(Kim, 1989; Palanisamy, 2001; Nelson et al., 2005; Bharati and Berg, 2005).
6. Analysis and results of quantitative data
A total of 151 questionnaires were completed, 105 by users (representing 62 percent of
non-accounting budget managers) and 46 by providers (representing 51 percent of all
accountants).
6.1 Perceived importance of accounting services used/provided
Tabulated responses to the question concerning important accounting services are
given in Table II. We examined the differences between provider and user ratings of
importance for each service by regressing the importance rating on provider-user
status (Status), an indicator variable coded 0 for user and 1 for provider to assess H1.
Differences between users and providers in their rankings of the perceived importance
of the top five accounting services were compared using a chi-squared test. Results
indicated significant differences between users and providers in the first-ranked
service for perceived importance, but no differences in the services ranked second
through fifth. To examine H4, differences in service quality perceptions between staff
and managers, respondents level within the firm (Level) was included in the model as a
second indicator variable (coded 0 for Manager and 1 for staff). Because of the
relatively small numbers of personnel at the support manager and manager level,
responses from personnel at these levels were combined into a single manager group
(n 59) for comparison with responses from personnel at the staff level (n 92).
The dependent measure, perceived importance, is a rank (ordinal) variable, with the
five services listed by the respondent in order coded as 1 (most important) through
5 (least important). Any service not listed as one of a participants five most important
was coded as a 6. As such, no assumptions can be made regarding the scalar intervals
between rankings; such a scale indicates only that a rank of 1 is higher than a rank of 2, 2
is higher than 3, etc. Further, a response of 6 is not a rating per se; rather, this response
indicates only that the service was not listed among the top five services in importance.
Because linear regression techniques, such as ordinary least squares, are not
appropriate for ordinal-interval response variables, we used ordinal regression.
20
15
43
6
1
1
2
1
16
8
19
10
2
1
1
25
18
33
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
16
4
7
15
2
3
1
3
3
7
14
16
19
6
3
1
2
6
2
8
2
26
5
5
7
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
16
7
5
5
5
8
2
5
6
8
3
51
5
3
3
4
4
3
1
2
2
1
18
3
1
89
1
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
9
2
2
2
29
Notes: a105 questionnaires were at least partially completed by users and 46 by providers; the n for each service ranked (1 to 5) does not match these
maximum totals, however, because not all subjects responded to each ranking question
1. Planning
2. Routine accounting
3. Management reporting
4. Training
5. Audit/internal control
6. AIS support
7. Project analysis
8. Land and property administration
9. Fixed asset management
10. Other services
11. Accounting management
No response
Service
Service ranked
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Providers Users Providers Users Providers Users Providers Users Providers
Users
(n 89)a (n 41)a (n 89) (n 39) (n 79) (n 30) (n 54) (n 28) (n 16) (n 17)
User versus
provider
perceptions
267
Table II.
Accounting services
ranked by perceived
importance of
use/provision
IJAIM
18,3
268
13.474 3
8.467 2
13.155 3
5.486 2
18.007 2
32.801
31.513
30.851
18.843
27.335
x2
, 0.001
0.004
0.064
0.004
0.014
0.153
0.100
0.069
0.097
0.062
Pseudodf Significance
R2
Model fit
Planning
Routine accounting
Management
reporting
AIS support
Accounting
management
Dependent measure
2 2 Log
likelihood
1.041
20.983
1.297
21.509
0.715
0.003
0.004
0.020
0.004
0.002
Status Significance
20.860
21.215
0.455
20.137
0.306
0.018
0.002
0.427
0.614
0.195
Level Significance
1.239
1.652
Status level
Parameter estimates
0.007
0.007
Significance
User versus
provider
perceptions
269
Table III.
Ordinal regression of
perceived importance on
user/provider status and
level
Table IV.
Accounting services
ranked by perceived
frequency of
use/provision
1. Planning
2. Routine accounting
3. Management reporting
4. Training
5. Audit/internal control
6. AIS support
7. Project analysis
8. Land and property administration
9. Fixed asset management
10. Other services
11. Accounting management
No response
Service
270
12
22
51
1
2
4
13
6
23
8
3
1
1
18
23
31
1
3
2
4
1
19
7
9
13
1
3
2
5
5
13
13
17
3
3
6
5
4
5
3
33
3
5
13
2
4
1
3
2
10
7
3
6
6
3
1
4
6
9
3
57
3
6
4
6
5
2
1
1
1
17
97
2
1
3
1
1
8
2
1
4
5
24
Service ranked
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers Users Providers
Users
(n 92)a (n 42)a (n 86) (n 41) (n 72) (n 36) (n 48) (n 29) (n 8) (n 22)
IJAIM
18,3
Status (H2) and Level (H4), we ran a series of ordinal regression models on the
frequency ratings of the 11 accounting services. As with the importance ratings,
frequency ratings were recoded into a three-level categorical variable: 1 for services
listed first or second, 2 for services listed third or fourth, and 3 for services either
listed fifth or not listed. Again, we used the complementary log-log function as the link
function. The regression results are shown in Table V.
Status and/or Level were significantly related to frequency ratings for seven
accounting services: the six that were significant in the importance ratings (planning,
management reporting, training, routine accounting, AIS support, and accounting
management) plus other services. Compared to providers, users were more likely to
assign higher frequency ratings to planning and management reporting. For the
remaining five services, providers tended to assign higher frequency ratings than
users. These user-provider differences provide support for H2. By addressing what the
differences were, we partially answer RQ2.
Level within the organization related significantly to frequency ratings for five
services. Managers tended to assign higher frequency ratings to planning,
management reporting, and accounting management, while staff tended to assign
higher ratings to routine accounting and other services. These user-provider
differences provide support for H4. Identifying what the differences are partially
answers RQ4.
Level was interactively significant with Status for planning, routine accounting,
and management reporting. For planning and management reporting, provider staff
drove the interaction, tending to rate these services lower in frequency compared to the
other three subgroups (the same pattern as observed for the importance rankings of
these services). For routine accounting, we observed the opposite interactive pattern;
staff providers tended to rank this service higher in frequency than any other
subgroup. We discuss implications of these results for service quality below in the
analysis of interview comments.
6.3 Satisfaction associated with use (frequency) and importance ratings
We measured satisfaction ratings for accounting services on a five-point Likert scale
where 1 was defined as very unsatisfied and 5 was defined as very satisfied.
However, because satisfaction ratings were restricted to only the top five ranked
services listed for use (frequency) and importance, sample sizes for less-frequently listed
services (e.g. AIS Support) are extremely small. To address this issue, we combined
satisfaction scores across frequency and importance, so that we could attribute
a satisfaction rating for either frequency or importance to the service as a whole. If a
respondent listed a given service for both frequency and importance, we computed the
services satisfaction score as the average of the individual satisfaction ratings. This
approach also resolved any inconsistencies between an individual respondents
satisfaction ratings for importance and frequency.
Even with this adjustment, the sample sizes for satisfaction were so small as to
preclude a two-way analysis. Accordingly, we assessed differences in mean
satisfaction ratings between users and providers (status) only for each service. Five
services, planning, routine accounting, management reporting, training, and AIS
support, were rated differently between providers and users, with providers more
likely to rate all five services more highly compared to users. These results are shown
User versus
provider
perceptions
271
Table V.
Ordinal regression
of perceived frequency
on user/provider status
and level
18.031
15.164
5.976
6.630
10.519 2
33.919
17.826
22.648
20.778
26.780
3
2
2
2
11.999 3
16.386 3
0.005
, 0.001
0.001
0.050
0.036
0.007
0.001
df Significance
29.397
30.531
Planning
Routine accounting
Management
reporting
Training
AIS support
Other services
Accounting
management
x2
Model fit
0.095
0.133
0.161
0.067
0.075
0.088
0.120
PseudoR2
0.866
2 1.195
1.505
1.095
0.841
2 1.523
1.385
0.024
0.001
,0.001
0.025
0.094
0.010
,0.001
Status Significance
2 0.705
2 1.372
2 0.290
2 0.209
1.376
2 1.620
1.078
Level
0.070
0.001
0.484
0.667
0.034
0.010
0.003
1.336
2.065
2 1.345
0.005
0.003
0.004
Parameter estimates
272
Dependent measure
2 Log
likelihood
IJAIM
18,3
User versus
provider
perceptions
273
Table VI.
Mean rankings of
average perceived
satisfaction with
importance and
frequency of
use/provision by service
type using paired sample
t-tests and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(K-S) Z rests
3.01
(1.14) n 66
3.59
(0.66)n 60
3.22
(1.07) n 88
2.31
(1.18) n 24
3.50
(1.02) n 16
2.33
(1.00) n 9
2.88
(0.79) n 20
3.49
(0.77) n 12
3.31
(1.04) n 30
4.23
(0.78) n 10
3.29
(1.07) n 19
3.61
(0.94) n 23
4.11
(0.55) n 37
3.85
(0.82) n 34
3.13
(0.81) n 19
3.55
(1.13) n 11
3.73
(0.79) n 11
3.33
(0.58) n 3
3.71
(0.81) n 12
3.68
(0.96) n 11
4.14
(0.63) n 7
3.50
(0.94) n 18
Mean (SD)
Providers
20.21
0.09
20.37
20.22
20.45
21.40
20.05
20.82
20.63
20.51
20.60
Difference
20.63a
0.25a
21.02a
20.69
20.96a
23.49a
20.11
22.69b
23.51b
23.34b
22.26a
0.530
0.803
0.315
0.498
0.350
0.003
0.914
0.010
0.001
0.001
0.026
Significance of t
0.46
0.52
0.83
0.41
0.49
1.37
0.28
1.35
1.71
1.30
1.03
K-S Z
0.983
0.948
0.490
0.996
0.973
0.047
1.000
0.052
0.006
0.069
0.243
Significance of Z
Notes: aEqual variance between groups ( p . 0.05); bunequal variance between groups ( p # 0.05); responses are the average ratings of satisfaction with
frequency and satisfaction with importance for each service; ratings were provided on a five-point scale, where 1 very unsatisfied, 3 satisfied,
and 5 very satisfied
7. Project analysis
6. AIS support
5. Audit/internal control
4. Training
3. Management reporting
2. Routine accounting
1. Planning
Users
274
Service
IJAIM
18,3
Service
1. Planning
2. Routine accounting
3. Management reporting
4. Training
5. Audit/internal control
6. Accounting systems and support
7. Project analysis
8. Land and property administration
9. Fixed asset management
10. Other services
11. Accounting management
Status
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Users
Providers
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
16
15
100
93
66
57
3
7
8
8
1
10
3
4
3
6
3
10
6
9
12
12
24
9
11
13
31
6
11
8
4
6
3
11
3
4
2
6
3
2
1
2
1
2
x2
(1 df)
Significance
3.04
0.081
0.31
0.580
10.81
0.001
2.04
0.153
0.25
0.620
0.70
0.404
0.00
1.000
0.14
0.707
2.22
0.137
0.047
0.829
0.30
0.586
indicated generally that internal reports were on time and accurate (corporate finance
manager) and adequately detailed (production division manager). However, other
users commented negatively on what they perceived as an excessive level of detail in
reports (production corporate management), an overly complex budgeting system
(corporate controller, corporate office user group) and an inflexible chart of accounts
that hampered problem identification and remediation (CEO, production corporate
management, user groups, and individual users). By contrast, nearly all provider
groups stated that the chart of accounts was at least adequate, and, in one case,
excellent (division accountant).
Users generally believed that the accounting function spent too much time on
routine accounting and financial reporting. For example, the CEO commented that the
Company makes heavy weather of accounting reporting and that users had insufficient
time to read all of the financial data supplied by accounting. He favored the idea of
cutting the volume of the monthly report by half and speeding up the monthly reporting
cycle. The CEO also expressed a belief that the accounting function was overstaffed.
Many users viewed accounting as unresponsive to requests for information to solve
business and management problems. For example, one division manager commented,
accounting should assist more in solving problems, not saying we cant. Similar
comments included a lack of involvement between accounting and user groups
(production corporate management, DM, power station managers, and corporate office
user group) and the inability of accounting to integrate the accounting and project
management IS (CSM).
User versus
provider
perceptions
275
Table VII.
Chi-squared tests of
user/provider differences
in perceived satisfaction
with information quality
of MAS Services
IJAIM
18,3
276
User versus
provider
perceptions
277
IJAIM
18,3
278
satisfaction concerning importance and service use, five services were rated differently
by providers and users, and it was troubling that in each case providers were more
likely to rate all five services more highly as compared to the satisfaction of users
(Table VI). Similarly, for the two services that providers and users rated differently in
terms satisfaction of information quality (planning and management reporting), users
were much less satisfied than providers (Table VII).
Significant perceptual differences of MAS service use and importance exist between
management and staff, which supported H4. We identify what these differences were to
partially address RQ4. For example, management perceives that accounting services
such as management reporting, training, and accounting management are more
important as compared with staff. Management also uses MAS services such as
planning, management reporting, and accounting management more frequently than
staff. Staff, on the other hand, utilized routine accounting and other services more
frequently than do individuals in management.
8.2 Why do user-provider MAS differences exist? What are possible solutions?
We attempted to identify why users and providers have such divergent perceptions of
MAS services to partially address RQ1-RQ2. In general, the lack of consensus between
providers and users of MAS services in this study suggests a lack of communication
and teamwork between the two groups, at least in some areas (planning, management
reporting, training, and AIS support). This finding was consistent with Pierce and
ODea (2003), who found communication problems between system providers and
users. Our interview findings are similar as well with Pierce and ODea (2003), which
suggests that accounting professionals tend to focus more on technical accounting
issues than with the general usefulness of internal report information that users need to
make effective decisions.
Role theory (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978) suggests that MAs should
consider user service perceptions, expectations, and information needs to adjust the
way they provide information. Coordination and communication between accounting
providers and users are also essential to integrate business strategy and IS planning
(George and George, 2007). Therefore, MAS service providers should consider periodic
internal service quality reviews to enhance communications with users to obtain an
understanding, at least in general terms, of user informational needs. MAS providers
can bridge this communication gap with frequent, candid discussions and should
investigate the causes of any user dissatisfaction, especially regarding training
(Watson et al., 1993; Lings and Greenley, 2005) and AIS support. We found that
training was especially needed to both institutionalize and enhance the budgeting
process among users, consistent with the literature (Frezatti et al., 2007). To improve
communications, an MAS services newsletter to users may be implemented
(Watson et al., 1998) to reinforce service quality and improve the interface between
accounting providers and users (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Additionally, panels or
focus groups consisting of randomly selected accounting information users could also
be used to bridge gaps in MAS provider-user perceptions of importance and usability
(Watson et al., 1993; Hunton and Gibson, 1999; Jiang et al., 2000). Ultimately, the better
MAS providers know the informational predisposition of users, the better they are able
to improve user satisfaction (Woodroof and Burg, 2003). We believe these tactics
and strategies, which focus on enhanced communication as well as training, will result
in a more effective and efficient MAS.
8.3 How were user-provider MAS perceptual differences narrowed?
The results highlighted that there were significant communication barriers between
accounting providers versus users, and this was especially true regarding the
budgeting process. The study also highlighted that accounting providers were biased
towards traditional financial accounting as opposed to managerial accounting decision
support. Most of the provider versus user disconnections pointed to a need for training
for both groups to enhance communication, understanding, and awareness of key
technical terms. Therefore, the company took several actions in response to this
investigation although we are unable to report on the outcomes. Some of these
included:
.
Allocation of additional resources to management accounting support. Financial
accounting activities that were not benefiting lower level management were
reduced or eliminated.
.
Implementation of new training programs for budget managers, and systems
training for accounting staff.
.
Revision of the budgeting process to shorten the budget preparation cycle,
improve communication of business planning parameters and targets in advance
of annual planning, and increase coordination with long-term business plans.
.
Development of a new portfolio of company performance indicators designed to
have maximum relevance to each level of management.
.
Revision of the chart of accounts to eliminate codes that were no longer relevant
and introduction of an annual process to introduce codes that correspond to
objectives and performance measures contained in the current business plan.
.
Launching mandatory training for accounting function managers focused on
developing personnel management skills and planning for the accounting
function.
.
Introducing training programs to improve user understanding of available
accounting services.
8.4 Contribution
We defined MAS services as information, advice, and reports that MAs provide to
MAS end-users that support user decision-making tasks. This definition implied that
both users and providers mutually agree that the end product constitutes a service. For
example, our definition of services did not include accounting techniques or a mere
subset of MAS knowledge or services.
We expanded testing of the D&M IS success model in three ways that significantly
contributes to the MAS literature. First, this is the only study to apply the D&M IS
success model in the context of MAS service quality. Second, this study incorporated
perceptions of MAS providers, as well as users, to evaluate services, and is only the
third empirical study to ever do so using our above service definition. Third, we
investigated differences in perceptions of individuals across functions and at different
organizational levels (management and staff).
User versus
provider
perceptions
279
IJAIM
18,3
280
Callahan, R.F. and Gilbert, G.R. (2005), End-user satisfaction and design features of public
agencies, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 57-73.
Chenhall, R.H. (2003), Management control systems design within its organizational context:
findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 Nos 2-3, pp. 127-68.
Chenhall, R.H. and Morris, D. (1986), The impact of structure, environment, and interdependence
on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems, The Accounting Review,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
Daft, R.L. (1988), Organization Theory and Design, 6th ed., Southwestern, Cincinnati, OH.
Dearman, D.T. and Shields, M.D. (2001), Cost knowledge and cost-based judgment
performance, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13, pp. 1-18.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), Information systems success: the quest for the
dependent variable, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003), The DeLone and McLean model of information system
success: a ten-year update, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 9-30.
Dion, P., Javalgi, R. and Dilorenzo-Aiss, J. (1998), An empirical assessment of the Zeithaml,
Berry, and Parasuraman service expectations model, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 66-86.
Frezatti, F., Braga de Aguiar, A. and Rezende, A.J. (2007), Strategic responses to institutional
pressures, and success in achieving budget targets: a survey at a multinational company,
International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 50-66.
George, J. and George, A. (2007), A framework to integrate the enterprise domain ontology and
organizational change application domain, International Journal of Accounting and
Information Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 3-23.
Gordon, L.A. and Narayanan, V.K. (1984), Management accounting systems, perceived
environmental uncertainty and organizational structure: an empirical investigation,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-47.
Green, G. (1989), Perceived importance of systems analysts job skills, roles, and non-salary
incentives, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 115-33.
Hopper, T. (1980), Role conflicts of management accountants and their position within
organizational structures, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 401-11.
Hopwood, A.G. (1983), On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2-3, pp. 287-305.
Hunton, J.E. and Gibson, D. (1999), Soliciting user-input during the development of an
accounting information system: investigating the efficacy of group discussion,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 597-618.
Igbaria, M. and Tan, M. (1997), The consequences of information technology acceptance on
subsequent individual performance, Information & Management, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 113-21.
Ives, B. and Olson, M. (1984), User involvement and MIS success: a review of research,
Management Science, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 586-603.
Jiang, J. and Klein, G. (1999), User evaluation of information systems: by system typology,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 111-16.
Jiang, J., Sobol, M. and Klein, G. (2000), Performance ratings and importance of performance
measures for IS staff: the different perceptions of IS users and IS staff, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 424-34.
User versus
provider
perceptions
281
IJAIM
18,3
282
Jiang, J., Klein, G., Roan, J. and Lin, J. (2001), IS performance: self-perceptions and user
perceptions, Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 499-506.
Jiang, J., Klein, G., van Slyke, C. and Cheney, P. (2003), A note of interpersonal and
communication skills for IS professionals, Decision Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 799-812.
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Jones, C. (1995), Risks of software system failure or disaster, American Programmer, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 2-9.
Jones, J.W. and McLeod, R. Jr. (1986), The structure of executive information systems:
an exploratory analysis, Decision Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 220-49.
Jonsson, S. and Gronlund, A. (1988), Life with a sub-contractor: new technology and
management accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 512-32.
Joseph, N., Turley, S., Burns, J., Lewis, L., Scapens, R. and Southworth, A. (1996), External
financial reporting and management information: a survey of UK management
accountants, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 73-93.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. and Rosenthal, R. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in
Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R.S. (1986), The role for empirical research in management accounting, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5, pp. 429-52.
Kaplan, R.S. (1995), New roles for management accountants, Journal of Cost Management, Fall,
pp. 6-13.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Kim, K.K. (1989), User satisfaction: a synthesis of three different perspectives, Journal of
Information Systems, Fall, pp. 1-12.
Klein, G., Jiang, J. and Tesch, D. (2002), Wanted: project teams with a blend of IS professional
orientations, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 81-7.
Larker, D. (1981), The perceived importance of detected information characteristics for strategic
capital budgeting decisions, The Accounting Review, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 519-38.
Larker, D. and Lessig, V.P. (1980), Perceived usefulness of information: a psychometric
examination, Decision Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 121-34.
Laudon, K. and Laudon, J. (2006), Management Information System: Managing the Digital Firm,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lings, I. and Greenley, G. (2005), Measuring internal market orientation, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Lucas, H. (1981), An experimental investigation of the use of computer-based graphics in
decision-making, Management Science, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 757-68.
Lukka, K. (1998), Total accounting in action: reflections on Sten Jonssons accounting for
improvement, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 333-42.
Lyytinen, K. (1988), Expectation failure concept and systems analysts view of information
system failures: results of an exploratory study, Information Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 45-56.
MacDonald, L.D. and Richardson, A.J. (2002), Alternative perspectives on the development of
American management accounting: relevance lost induces a renaissance, Journal of
Accounting Literature, Vol. 21, pp. 120-56.
User versus
provider
perceptions
283
IJAIM
18,3
284
Schiffmann, H.R. (1990), Sensation and Perception: An Integrated Approach, 3rd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY.
Sharman, P.A. (2007), Rebalancing the accounting profession, Journal of Corporate Accounting
& Finance, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 45-50.
Shields, M.D. (1995), An empirical analysis of firms implementation experiences with
activity-based costing, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, pp. 148-66.
Srull, T. and Wyer, R. (1988), Advances in Social Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Tesch, D., Miller, R., Jiang, J. and Klein, G. (2005), Perception and expectation gaps of
information systems provider skills: the impact on user satisfaction, Information Systems
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 343-55.
Thong, J. and Yap, C. (1996), Information systems effectiveness: a user satisfaction approach,
Information Processing & Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 601-10.
Turner, L.D., Aldhizer, G.R. III and Shank, M.D. (1999), Client perceptions of MAS quality as
measured by a marketing-based service quality model, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 17-36.
Vancouver, J. and Schmitt, N. (1991), An exploratory examination of person-organization fir:
organizational goal congruence, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 333-52.
van der Veeken, H.J.M. and Wouters, M.J.F. (2002), Using accounting information systems by
operations managers in a project company, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13,
pp. 345-70.
Ward, K.F., Rolland, E. and Patterson, R.A. (2005), Improving outpatient health care quality:
understanding the quality dimensions, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 361-71.
Watson, R.T., Pitt, L.F. and Kavan, C.B. (1998), Measuring information systems service quality:
lessons from two longitudinal case studies, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 61-79.
Watson, R.T., Pitt, L.F., Cunningham, C. and Nel, D. (1993), User satisfaction and service quality
of the IS department: closing the gaps, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 8,
pp. 257-65.
Whyte, G., Bytheway, A. and Edwards, C. (1997), Understanding user perceptions of
information systems success, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 35-68.
Woodroof, J. and Burg, W. (2003), Satisfaction/dissatisfaction: are users predisposed?,
Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 317-24.
Wu, J. and Wang, Y. (2006), Measuring KMS success: a respecification of the DeLone and
McLeans model, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 728-39.
Young, S.M. and Selto, F.H. (1991), New manufacturing practices and cost management: a review
of the literature and directions for research, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 10,
pp. 265-98.
Zmud, R.W. (1979), Individual differences and MIS success: a review of the empirical literature,
Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 966-79.
Further reading
Bonsall, P., Beale, J., Paulley, N. and Pedler, A. (2005), The differing perspectives of road users
and service providers, Transport Policy, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 334-44.
Carman, J. (1990), Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL
dimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Coulthard, L.J. (2004), Measuring service quality, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 46, pp. 479-97 (Quarter 4).
Havelka, D., Sutton, S. and Arnold, V. (1998), A methodology for developing measurement
criteria for assurance services: an application in information systems assurance,
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (supplement ), Vol. 17, pp. 73-92.
Jiang, J., Klein, G. and Carr, C. (2002), Measuring information system service quality:
SERVQUAL from the other side, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 145-66.
Kaplan, R.S. (1984), The evolution of management accounting, The Accounting Review, Vol. 59
No. 3, pp. 390-418.
Parasuraman, A. (1991), Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50.
Swan, J.E. and Bowers, M.R. (1998), Services quality and satisfaction: the process of people
doing things together, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Corresponding author
Kenton Walker can be contacted at: kbwalk@uwyo.edu
User versus
provider
perceptions
285