SMEs failure is common within the first 5 years. For efficient resource management and improve corporate performance, SMEs need management accounting systems. Structure, strategy, and staff qualifications affect MAS adoption in organizations.
Objective
: This study aims to examine the effect of contingent factors in the adoption of MAS, as well as the effect of MAS on performance, and also the role of MAS as a mediator between performance and contingent factors in SMEs in Jordan.
Methods
PLS-SEM was used to evaluate a questionnaire of accounting department heads and finance managers from Jordanian SMEs (N = 415).
Results
Decentralization, accounting staff qualification, differentiation strategy, and low-cost strategy directly increase MAS adoption. This study shows that MAS improve performance significantly. This study also shows that MAS mediate the relationship between decentralization, accounting staff qualification, differentiation strategy, and low-cost strategy and SME performance in Jordan.
Conclusions
The study found that contingent factors can help us understand how managers can use MAS information to improve performance. The results only somewhat expand the corpus of research on MAS’s usefulness, but they help us understand the aspects that may affect MAS design and performance in firms.
GhasemiRAzmi MohamadNKaramiM, et al.The mediating effect of management accounting system on the relationship between competition and managerial performance. Int J Account Inf Manag2016; 24(3): 272–295. DOI: 10.1108/ijaim-05-2015-0030.
2.
GlushakovaOVChernikovaOPStrekalovaSA. How to estimate the effectiveness of corporate strategy execution. Ekonomicheskii analiz: teoriya i praktika = Eco Analy: Theo Prac2020; 19(2): 341–358.
3.
HutahayanB. The mediating role of human capital and management accounting information system in the relationship between innovation strategy and internal process performance and the impact on corporate financial performance. Benchmarking2020; 27(4): 1289–1318. DOI: 10.1108/bij-02-2018-0034.
4.
SimonsR. The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: new perspectives. In: Readings in Accounting for Management Control. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1990, pp. 622–645.
5.
DiegtiarOABezuhlyiOVTararuyevYO, et al.Certain aspects of the management accounting system for small and medium-sized enterprises. Univers J Acc Fin2021; 9(3): 469–476. DOI: 10.13189/ujaf.2021.090321.
6.
ShqairMIAltaraziSA. Evaluating the status of SMEs in Jordan with respect to Industry 4.0: a pilot study. Logistics2022; 6(4): 69. DOI: 10.3390/logistics6040069.
7.
International Management. Accounting practice statement: MA Concepts. International Federation of Accountants IFAC, 1998.
8.
FuadahLLYulianiSRH. The mediating role of management accounting systems that influence management style on managerial performance. In: Proceedings of the 5th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference (SEABC 2019). Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2020.
9.
OtleyDT. The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. Account Org Soc1980; 5(4): 413–428. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(80)90040-9.
10.
ShabbirMSWisdomO. The relationship between corporate social responsibility, environmental investments and financial performance: evidence from manufacturing companies. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2020; 27(32): 39946–39957. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10217-0.
11.
KesumawatiNKAIgamadPAanbD. The role of business strategies, environmental uncertainty and decentralization as moderating the effect of management accounting systems on managerial performance. Int Res J Manag IT Soc Sci2019; 6(3): 37–45. DOI: 10.21744/irjmis.v6n3.627.
12.
GodilDIKashifMSarwatS. Contingency framework of management accounting system in SMEs of Pakistan. Global Manag J Acad Corp Stud2019; 9(2): 19.
13.
NguyenTHNguyenDTNguyenTA, et al.Impacts of contingency factors on the application of strategic management accounting in Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises. Cogent Bus Manag2023; 10(2). DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2218173.
14.
HaldmaTLäätsK. Contingencies influencing the management accounting practices of Estonian manufacturing companies. Manag Account Res2002; 13(4): 379–400. DOI: 10.1006/mare.2002.0197.
15.
KingaziGPChaluHKitindiE. The relationship between organizational characteristics variables and management accounting system attributes in manufacturing firms. Bus Manag Rev2020; 24(1): 50–70.
16.
NovasJCAlvesMDSousaA. The role of management accounting systems in the development of intellectual capital. J Intellect Cap2017; 18(2): 286–315. DOI: 10.1108/jic-08-2016-0079.
17.
PorterME. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1985.
18.
AlliyahSDewiNG. The impact of management accounting system on SME’s performance. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities and Social Science 2021 (BIS-HSS 2021). Paris: Atlantis Press SARL, 2023, pp. 628–633.
Abu AfifaMMSalehI. Management accounting systems effectiveness, perceived environmental uncertainty and companies’ performance: the case of Jordanian companies. Int J Organ Anal2022; 30(2): 259–288. DOI: 10.1108/ijoa-07-2020-2288.
21.
Adu-GyamfiJYushengKAyisiAL, et al.Determinants of management accounting practices by manufacturing firms. EPRA International Journal of Economics2021; 8(5): 55–61.
22.
DlaminiB. Factors influencing the use of Management Accounting Practices among SMEs in emerging economies: a case of Zimbabwe. J Account Manag2022; 12(2).
23.
AmaraTBenelifaS. The impact of external and internal factors on the management accounting practices. Int J Finance Account2017; 6(2): 46–58.
24.
AnhDNP. Factors affecting the use and consequences of management accounting practices in a transitional economy: the case of Vietnam. J Econ Dev2016; 18(1): 54–73.
25.
MsomiMP. Factors influencing the adoption of management accounting practices (MAPs) by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector in Durban. Durban, South Africa: Durban University of Technology, 2020. https://openscholar.dut.ac.za/bitstream/10321/3680/3/MsomiM_2020.pdf
26.
HeryantoGSudibyoY. The influence of organizational culture on corporate performance: using management accounting system as the mediating variable. OIDA Int J Sustain Dev2017; 10(01): 35–48.
27.
KrishnanSNGaneshLSRajendranC. Management accounting tools for failure prevention and risk management in the context of Indian innovative start-ups: a contingency theory approach. J Ind Bus Res2022; 14(1): 23–48. DOI: 10.1108/jibr-02-2021-0060.
28.
NowarR. Management accounting techniques in Egyptian business firms: expected outcomes perspective. Acad J Contemp Commer Res2023; 3(2): 43–74. DOI: 10.21608/ajccr.2023.304707.
29.
PedrosoEGomesCF. The effectiveness of management accounting systems in SMEs: a multidimensional measurement approach. J Appl Account Res2020; 21(3): 497–515. DOI: 10.1108/jaar-05-2018-0059.
30.
PuspitawatiLFitriosRAlghifariES. Comparative study of management accounting system models on company performance in Indonesia and Malaysia financial institutions. J East Eur Cent Asian Res2023; 10(3): 527–541. DOI: 10.15549/jeecar.v10i3.1286.
31.
NurhidayahW. Management accounting practices and performance of micro, small and medium enterprises in Makassar city. Jurnal Economic Resource2021; 4(2).
32.
LestariSDLeonFMWidyastutiS, et al.Antecedents and consequences of innovation and business strategy on performance and competitive advantage of SMEs. J Asian Finance Econ Bus2020; 7(6): 365–378.
33.
JaradatZTahaRMat ZinR, et al.The use and implications of management accounting practices in small and medium-sized enterprises. Asia-Pasific Manage Acc J2021; 16(1): 250–295. DOI: 10.24191/apmaj.v16i1-10.
34.
ChenhallRH. Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Account Org Soc2003; 28(2-3): 127–168.
35.
ChenhallRHMorrisD. The impact of structure, environment, and interdependence on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. Account Rev1986; 61: 16–35.
PellegriniMMCiampiFMarziG, et al.The relationship between knowledge management and leadership: mapping the field and providing future research avenues. J Knowl Manag2020; 24(6): 1445–1492. DOI: 10.1108/jkm-01-2020-0034.
38.
LeHMNguyenTTHoangTC. Organizational culture, management accounting information, innovation capability and firm performance. Cogent Bus Manag2020; 7(1): 1857594. DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1857594.
39.
McAdamRMillerKMcSorleyC. Towards a contingency theory perspective of quality management in enabling strategic alignment. Int J Prod Econ2019; 207: 195–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.07.003.
40.
HariyatiHTjahjadiBSoewarnoN. The mediating effect of intellectual capital, management accounting information systems, internal process performance, and customer performance. Int J Prod Perform Manag2019; 68(7): 1250–1271. DOI: 10.1108/ijppm-02-2018-0049.
41.
GunarathneNLeeK-H. Corporate cleaner production strategy development and environmental management accounting: a contingency theory perspective. J Clean Prod2021; 308(127402): 127402. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127402.
42.
MonehinDDiers-LawsonA. Pragmatic optimism, crisis leadership, and contingency theory: a view from the C-suite. Publ Relat Rev2022; 48(4): 102224. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102224.
43.
ShenkarOEllisS. The rise and fall of structural contingency theory: a theory’s ‘autopsy. J Manag Stud2022; 59(3): 782–818. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12772.
44.
CelikGShinDStraussR. Aggregation information and organization structure. Discussion Paper 1052018.
45.
NairSSoon NianY. Factors affecting management accounting practices in Malaysia. Int J Bus Manag2017; 12(10): 177. DOI: 10.5539/ijbm.v12n10p177.
46.
NugrahaniTSKalandaraDAAryandhaPN. The contingent factors on small and medium-sized enterprises industry sector. In: Proceedings of the 1st UPY International Conference on Education and Social Science (UPINCESS 2022). Paris: Atlantis Press SARL, 2023, pp. 7–21.
47.
LawrencePRLorschJW. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm Sci Q1967; 12(1): 1. DOI: 10.2307/2391211.
48.
PavlatosO. Strategic cost management, contingent factors and performance in services. J Account Manag Inf Syst2018; 12(2): 215–233. DOI: 10.24818/jamis.2018.02002.
49.
ShahzadiSKhanRToorM, et al.Impact of external and internal factors on management accounting practices: a study of Pakistan. Asian J Acc Res2018; 3(2): 211–223. DOI: 10.1108/ajar-08-2018-0023.
50.
PrihastiwiDASholihinM. Factors affecting the use of management accounting practices in small and medium enterprises: evidence from Indonesia. Journal Dinamika Akuntansi2018; 10(2): 158–176.
51.
JohnsonTHKaplanRS. Relevance lost: the rise and fall of Management Accounting. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987.
52.
VisedsunNTerdpaopongK. The effects of the strategy and goal on business performance as mediated by management accounting systems. Economies2021; 9(4): 149.
53.
LatifahLSetiawanDAryaniYA, et al.Business strategy–MSMEs' performance relationship: innovation and accounting information system as mediators. J Small Bus Enterprise Dev2021; 28(1): 1–21.
54.
AzudinAMansorN. Management accounting practices of SMEs: the impact of organizational DNA, business potential and operational technology. Asia Pac Manag Rev2018; 23(3): 222–226. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.07.014.
55.
PhamDHDaoTHBuiTD, et al.The impact of contingency factors on management accounting practices in Vietnam. J Asian Finance Econ Bus2020; 7(8): 77–85. DOI: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.077.
56.
UyarM. The management accounting and the business strategy development at SMEs. Probl Perspect Manag2019; 17(1): 1–10. DOI: 10.21511/ppm.17(1).2019.01.
57.
DamayantiAAugustineY. The effect of management accounting systems and enterprise risk management to organizational performance with a competitive advantage as an intervening variable. Eur J Bus Manag2019; 11(15): 42–53.
58.
BransahW. Analysing the effects of management accounting practices on financial performance of manufacturing companies in Ghana, using management accounting practices. Finance Manag Eng J Africa2019; 1(7): 70–96.
59.
OgungbadeOIIdodePEEzekielAM. An empirical investigation of the adoption status of new cost and management accounting techniques among Kenyan manufacturing companies. SSRN Electron J2016; 4(7): 68. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2798037.
60.
SreekumarKPavithranKB. Management accounting practices and organisational performance: a study of environmental and organizational antecedents as perceived by finance and accounting managers. Scholars’ Press, 2018.
61.
WahyuniNTriatmantoB. The effect of the organizational change on company performance mediated by changes in management accounting practices. Accounting2020; 6: 581–588.
62.
SuryanaARifa’iAAFirmansyahD. Factors affecting the application of management accounting to MSMEs. Asian Journal of Applied Business and Management2023; 2(1): 47–62. DOI: 10.55927/ajabm.v2i1.2923.
63.
HairJFJrMatthewsLMMatthewsRL, et al.PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int J Multivar Data Anal2017; 1(2): 107. DOI: 10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574.
64.
DiamantopoulosASarstedtMFuchsC, et al.Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J Acad Market Sci2012; 40(3): 434–449. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3.
65.
MalhotraD. The desire to win: the effects of competitive arousal on motivation and behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2010; 111(2): 139–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.005.
66.
SekaranUSBougieRJ. Research methods for business: a skill building approach. 7th ed.Nashville, TN, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
67.
SammutRGrisctiONormanIJ. Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud2021; 123(104058): 104058. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104058.
68.
LeeC. Factors influencing the credibility of performance measurement in nonprofits. Int Rev Publ Adm2021; 26(2): 156–174. DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2021.1884342.
69.
YusoffMSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in medicine journal2019; 11(2): 49–54.
70.
HairJFJrHowardMCNitzlC. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J Bus Res2020; 109: 101–110. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.
71.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Routledge, 2013.
72.
ChinWW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. In: MacrolidesGA (ed). Modern methods for business research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, 1998, pp. 295–336.
73.
HenselerJRingleCMSinkovicsRR. The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009, pp. 277–319.
74.
FalkCFBiesanzJC. Two cross-platform programs for inferences and interval estimation about indirect effects in mediational models. Sage Open2016; 6(1): 215824401562544. DOI: 10.1177/2158244015625445.
75.
BreeceDMooreS. Mind-boggled to organized in one easy step: project management software acquisition to the rescue. Journal of Case Studies2023; 41(3).
