International Journal of Accounting and Information Management

Emerald Article: A field study of user versus provider perceptions of

management accounting system services
Gary Fleischman, Kenton Walker, Eric Johnson

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. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Seleshi Sisaye, Jacob Birnberg, (2010),"Extent and scope of diffusion and adoption of process innovations in management
accounting systems", International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 2 pp. 118 - 139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/18347641011048110
Cornelia Dascalu, Chirata Caraiani, Camelia Iuliana Lungu, Florian Colceag, Gina Raluca Guse, (2010),"The externalities in social
environmental accounting", International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 1 pp. 19 - 30
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/18347641011023252
Nur Haiza Muhammad Zawawi, Zahirul Hoque, (2010),"Research in management accounting innovations: An overview of its recent
development", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 7 Iss: 4 pp. 505 - 568
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/11766091011094554

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

A field study of user versus

provider perceptions of
management accounting system
services
Gary Fleischman and Kenton Walker

Received 5 September 2008

Accepted 17 December 2009

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA, and

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

International Journal of Accounting

and Information Management
Vol. 18 No. 3, 2010
pp. 252-285
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1834-7649
DOI 10.1108/18347641011068992

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

providers concerning MAS services. We collect, analyze, and triangulate quantitative

survey data as well as qualitative interview data concerning user-provider perceptions
of MAS service information quality, importance, use, and satisfaction.
We define MAS services as information, advice, and reports that management
accountants (MAs) provide to MAS end-users that support user decision-making tasks.
This definition (and related analysis), which is consistent with the information systems
(IS) literature, has only been utilized in two previous user versus provider service studies
(Pierce and ODea, 2003; Byrne and Pierce, 2007) using the accounting context. We
therefore contend that this study is exploratory. The definition implies that both users
and providers mutually agree that the end product constitutes a service. For example,
our definition of services does not include accounting techniques (e.g. activity based
costing per Shields, 1995) or a mere subset of specialized MAS knowledge (e.g. cost
knowledge per Dearman and Shields, 2001). Furthermore, user versus provider
perceptions of MAS services need to be periodically monitored because of changes in
technology and user systems needs.
Identifying that user versus provider perceptual differences about MAS service
quality exist is not a noteworthy research agenda in and of itself. However, being able
to identify what these differences are, why they exist, and how one can narrow the
identified gaps is both pragmatically and academically useful. In sum, understanding
perceptual differences between these groups is essential for success of the system and
the services it supports. Identifying and measuring user and provider perceptions of
the MAS may help providers improve the quality of services to support the operational
needs of users (Watson et al., 1993). In addition, differences in perceptions between
users and providers may suggest the need to improve communications, implement
training activities, or other management actions.
The D&M IS success model provides a useful and relevant framework for
conducting this investigation of MAS service perceptions. We expand 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 incorporates perceptions of MAS
providers, as well as users, to evaluate services, and is only the third empirical study to
ever do so other than Pierce and ODea (2003) and Byrne and Pierce (2007). Third, we
investigate differences in perceptions of individuals across functions and at different
organizational levels (management and staff). Our results indicate that perceptions of
MAS services, and their ultimate success, differed between users and providers in
important ways. Management of this organization used analyses of these differences to
initiate programs for improving the quality of their MAS service activities that our
conclusions summarized.
The remainder of this manuscript is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses why
this study is important to the MAS literature. Section 3 provides the theoretical
framework and literature that supports the development of four hypotheses. Details
about the subject company and its environment appear in Section 4. In Section 5, we
discuss the research methods used in the study, followed in Section 6 by a discussion of
the quantitative questionnaire results. Section 7 is an interpretation of the qualitative
interview data that provides contextual insight. We present conclusions, implications,
and directions for future research in the final section.

User versus
provider
perceptions
253

IJAIM
18,3

254

2. Importance to the MAS literature

The intangible nature of knowledge production (e.g. accounting information services),
the inputs of human insight and interpretation, and the output of knowledge
(i.e. accounting) services are poorly abstracted and codified within accounting
systems (Roberts, 2003) which [p]oints to a significant agenda for research
(Bhimani and Roberts, 2004, p. 3). Furthermore, [d]iscussions about the relevance of
management accounting for decision making have to a large extent relied on anecdotal
evidence and intuition rather than on large-scale empirical work (Joseph et al., 1996,
p. 75). In short, we have a very limited understanding about the usefulness of MAS
services at the operational level (van der Veeken and Wouters, 2002). In order to
address this problem, Hopwood (1983) and Kaplan (1986) suggest researchers assess
MAS service delivery in organizational contexts. We conduct this case study research
to provide insights into how individuals inside and outside of the MAS function
perceive these services.
MAS service quality is important because it may lead to increased use of such
services, higher levels of user satisfaction, and more effective decision making.
Successful service provision will likely elevate the status of the accounting discipline in
organizations, and lead to increased resource allocations. The issue of service quality is
well researched in a number of disciplines, with hundreds of articles published across
numerous organizational and service settings, including health care (Ward et al., 2005),
public administration (Callahan and Gilbert, 2005), and IS (Bharati and Berg, 2005), to
name a few. Surprisingly, few accounting studies have assessed user satisfaction with
MAS services, and only two studies have compared management accounting providers
versus user service perceptions. Therefore, little is known about:
.
MAS service information quality and satisfaction that includes both user and
provider perceptions of the MAS function;
.
relative importance of various MAS service offerings;
.
communication misunderstandings and/or barriers to improving service
performance; and
.
how organizations may adjust to improve the usefulness of these services.
This exploratory study attempts to address each of these issues.
If organizations do not identify what service(s) customers want and need, and fail to
monitor changes in user preferences, it is very likely that these internal customers will
not be satisfied (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Aldhizer et al., 2002). Following this thrust is
essential for accountants to ask themselves and their service users whether each group
is collectively satisfied with communications between the groups, decision-usefulness
and quality of information they provide/receive, and the overall level of satisfaction
with service offerings. Answers to these and other questions can be instructive for
preparing service improvement and training plans.
Role theory further justifies the importance of our study of user-provider MAS
services. This theory suggests that MAS service providers (labeled as focal roles by the
theory) are significantly influenced by the service needs and expectations of MAS
users (labeled as role senders by the theory) (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Therefore, accountants should solicit and assess user needs and perceptions of
current performance. Within the accounting literature, Hopper (1980), Sathe (1982),

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

environments and the substantially diverse roles of individuals within organizations

(Ives and Olson, 1984; Badawy, 1997). Other factors such as user/provider education,
knowledge, and functional orientation also may contribute to perceptual differences
(Schiffmann, 1990; Baron and Byrne, 1991).
Comparable dissimilarities are likely to exist between MAS users and providers.
These differences lead to divergent organizational loyalties, approaches to problem
solving, and vocabularies (Jiang et al., 2000). Differences between IS/MAS providers
and users often result in conflicting system desires, goals, and perceptions of the
relative importance of information (Lucas, 1981; Daft, 1988; Vancouver and Schmitt,
1991) with the result that MAS users and providers may perceive the system
differently.
In sum, social perception theory promulgates that it is likely there will be MAS
provider versus user perceptual differences. However, no existing theory that we are
aware of can predict a priori what these specific differences will be, why they exist, and
how management may narrow these gaps. Therefore, the remainder of this study will
investigate these issues using both quantitative and qualitative data. The following
section presents the studys hypotheses.
3.3 Hypotheses and research questions
In this subsection, we present our four hypotheses. We first present working
hypotheses pertaining to overall service importance (quality) in H1 and use (frequency)
in H2. H3 specifically focuses on satisfaction, with H3a predicting user-provider
satisfaction differences concerning service importance and usage while H3b assesses
satisfaction differences pertaining to characteristics of information quality.
H4 addresses perceptual differences between management and staff levels.
3.3.1 Overall importance (quality). The D&M IS success model (1992, 2003) contains
three quality components; information quality, system quality, and service quality.
Here we focus on information importance as a proxy for information quality. This was
deemed appropriate because company management wished to obtain a single, overall
perception of MAS quality from its employees using a term they believed employees
understood well. DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) suggest that information importance
is a subset of information quality. In addition, other research suggests that information
importance is a key component in measuring overall user information satisfaction and
MAS quality, and therefore warrants special consideration (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). For example, it is paramount that systems providers
understand the specific service attributes of IS (and MAS) that users perceive to be the
most important, because it is these attributes that underpin their perceptions of
information systems success (Whyte et al., 1997, p. 35). Relative importance (quality)
of information provided by MAS services is crucial because this perception is a reflection
of user personal judgment that ultimately determines if services of the system are
satisfying (acceptable or not) to users (Lyytinen, 1988; Adelman, 1992; Jiang and Klein,
1999). Consistent with social perception theory, we present the following working
hypothesis:
H1. There are differences between users and providers concerning the perceived
importance (quality) of MAS services.

Although it is important to identify that these differences exist, it is probably more

relevant to ascertain what these differences are and why they exist. Owing to a lack of
theory and prior research to address these questions, we pose a related integrated
research question as follows:
RQ1. What are the user-provider MAS differences in perceived service importance
(quality) and why do they exist?
3.3.2 MAS use (frequency). The D&M IS success model (1992, 2003) emphasizes the
importance of system use (frequency) as a measure of the success of an IS, and this
measure is often viewed as the best measure to determine system success as a whole
(Zmud, 1979). Numerous empirical studies have corroborated the portion of the D&M
IS success model that views system quality and information quality as primary
influences on system use and user satisfaction (Igbaria and Tan, 1997; Wu and Wang,
2006). One advantage of measuring system usage is that it is relatively easy to
operationalize as a proxy measure of user satisfaction (Melone, 1990; Thong and
Yap, 1996).
Powers and Dickson (1973) assumed that if users are satisfied with an IS, then they
will use it and if they view the system as unsatisfactory, then they will not use it.
Baroudi et al. (1986) found that user satisfaction led to system use, and Robey (1979)
found a strong relationship between IS usage and user satisfaction. Mahmood and
Swanberg (2001) concluded that there is a strong and positive relationship between the
actual amount of usage and the perceived usefulness of an IT system. However, a
number of studies caution that system use is only a good proxy of user satisfaction and
overall IS/MAS success if use of the system is voluntary and not mandatory (DeLone
and McLean, 1992; Thong and Yap, 1996; Whyte et al., 1997). This literature, combined
with social perception theory, suggests the second working hypothesis:
H2. There are perceptual differences between users and providers concerning
which MAS services users most frequently utilize.
As stated above, it is important to identify these differences, but we are more
concerned with identifying what these differences are and why they exist. Therefore,
we offer the following research question:
RQ2. What are the perceptual differences between MAS users and providers
regarding specific services that users utilize more frequently? Why do these
perceptual differences exist?
3.3.3 Satisfaction. The literature reviewed previously relating to user versus provider
perceptual differences of MAS service importance (quality) and frequency of use
suggests a positive association with both measures and user/provider satisfaction
(DeLone and McLean, 1992, 2003). Therefore, if MAS users and providers differ with
respect to the services that they perceive are most important and most frequently used,
then they will also differ in their perceived overall satisfaction with these services,
consistent with social perception theory. H3a follows:
H3a. There are perceptual differences between users and providers concerning
levels of satisfaction with MAS services used/provided based on service
importance and usage.

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

Notes: *Indirect reporting responsibility; division accounting

managers report directly to DM; area accounting officers report
directly to power station managers

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

Annual business plan

Annual budgets
Long-term planning
Other (specify)

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
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

Document management services

General clerical services
Other (specify)
Planning/budgeting
Management
Staff meetings
Other (specify)

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.

Importance of service used/Provided

Very
unsatisfied
(Most important
service used/
provided)

2.

Satisfied

Very
satisfied

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Please write below any services you are:

a.

Particularly satisfied with (under the appropriate reason for satisfaction).

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

Ordinal regression is a form of ordered cumulative logistic regression in which the

response variable is expressed in terms of the cumulative odds of the response being
included within a particular rank given the values of the independent variables (Menard,
2002).
Ordinal regression assumes that the logistic function is the same for all values of the
independent variables (the parallel lines/proportionate odds assumption). Violations of
this assumption require the use of other regression techniques (e.g. a multinomial
logistic model) that does not require proportionate odds. However, these techniques are
less powerful when the dependent measure is based on a true ordinal measure (Norusis,
2005). The assumption of parallel lines was violated when the original six-level
response variable 1 to 6 (where 6 not rated) was used.
A common approach to solving this problem is to reduce the number of categories of
the response variable by collapsing categories with few or no observations into adjacent
categories (OConnell, 2000). Accordingly, we collapsed the original six-category
response scale into a three-level response variable (1 to 3), where 1 denoted an original
rating of 1 or 2, 2 denoted an original rating of 3 or 4, and 3 denoted an original rating
of 5 or 6. The parallel lines assumption was met for all models using the reduced
response scale. In addition to meeting the proportional odds assumption criterion, the
reduced response scale justifies the inclusion of services coded 6 (i.e. not listed), in that
a reasonable interpretation of a service not listed is that a respondent did not consider the
service as important or as frequently used as the services that were listed. We selected
the complementary log-log as the link function, which is appropriate when higher
ratings are more likely than lower ratings (Norusis, 2005).
Significant differences in perceived importance between Status and/or Level were
observed for six accounting services, which provides support for H1 and H4. Ordinal
regression results for these six services are shown in Table III. A negative coefficient
for Status indicates that users were more likely to assign a higher importance rating
(i.e. closer to 1) to the service compared to providers. Likewise, a negative coefficient
for Level indicates that managers were more likely to assign a higher importance
rating to the service compared to staff.
Results for status show that users were more likely to list planning and
management reporting as higher in importance compared to providers. Conversely,
providers were more likely to list routine accounting, accounting information system
(AIS) support, and accounting management as important relative to users.
Results for Level indicate that two services, management reporting and accounting
management, were more likely to be rated higher by managers than by staff. Further,
Level was interactively significant with Status for planning and management
reporting. The interaction for both services was driven by the higher likelihood of
provider staff (staff accountants) to list these services as less important (i.e. a rating
of 2 or 3) compared to provider management or users. We discuss implications of
these results in connection with the analysis of the interview comments below. These
findings as a whole partially answer research questions RQ1 and RQ4 regarding what
these differences were between the focal groups.
6.2 Frequency of accounting services used/provided
Tabulated responses to the question concerning frequently used accounting services
appear in Table IV. To examine differences in frequency rating tendencies by both

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

Note: denotes interaction term was not significant

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

Note: As in notes of Table II

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

Note: As in note of Table III

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

Significance Status level Significance

Parameter estimates

272

Dependent measure

2 Log
likelihood

IJAIM
18,3

in Table VI. Taken as a whole, these user-provider differences supported H3a.

Identifying what these differences are partially answers RQ3a.
Additionally, we asked users and providers to identify specific accounting services
that they were particularly satisfied or dissatisfied with, concerning information
quality (H3b). We measured information quality using an aggregation of three
characteristics (accuracy, timeliness, and relevance) that are positively associated with
user satisfaction (DeLone and McLean, 1992, 2003). This question was in an
open-ended format, where respondents could list any number of services within each
category. Table VII shows the frequency of responses (satisfied or not satisfied) for
each service by users and providers. The distribution of satisfied versus dissatisfied
responses was significantly different between users and providers for two services:
planning and management Reporting. In both cases, users reported higher levels of
dissatisfaction with the information quality associated with services compared to
providers. These user-provider differences support H3b, while identifying what these
differences are partially answers RQ3b. We discuss implications of these findings
further in the analysis of interview comments below.
7. Analysis and results of qualitative data
In general, our qualitative interview results mirrored our quantitative questionnaire
results. Because results for importance and frequency are similar in terms of their
implications for service quality, we discuss them together, followed by a discussion of
the satisfaction ratings.
7.1 Importance and frequency (use)
Users and providers differed significantly in their importance rankings of five of
the 11 accounting services: planning, routine accounting, management reporting,
AIS support, and accounting management. Of these, two (planning and management
reporting) were ranked higher by users than providers. This suggests that users placed
more emphasis on two customer-oriented (managerial) accounting services. Conversely,
providers tended to rate more highly the importance of technical and/or internally oriented
accounting services: routine accounting, AIS support, and accounting management.
Users and providers differed in their frequency (use) rankings of seven services,
including all five of the five services ranked differently for importance plus training
and other services. As with the importance rankings, users tended to rank the internal
services planning and management reporting as used more frequently, while providers
tended to rank routine accounting, training, AIS support, other services, and
accounting management more highly on frequency of use. These findings corroborate
user-provider differences regarding importance (H1) and use (H2). They also identify
what the differences were, partially supporting RQ1 and RQ2.
The following discussion addresses why user-provider differences exist based on
interview data, addressing RQ1 and RQ2 further. In addition, the discussion addresses
why there are related user-provider satisfaction differences, which answers RQ3a.
In general, the results suggest a self-serving bias by providers, in that importance
(quality) rankings tended to favor internal accounting services compared to
customer-oriented services. Comments from interviews with users generally support
this interpretation. For example, users commented that on-site accounting in support
of profit centers helped fix responsibility and accountability for actions (corporate
controller, production corporate management, and power station managers). Users also

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

11. Accounting management

10. Other services

9. Fixed asset management

8. Land and property administration

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

Note: Based on accuracy, timeliness, and relevance

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

Provider comments emphasized the services they tended to rank higher in

importance (routine accounting, AIS support, and accounting management) and/or
frequency (routine accounting, training, AIS support, and accounting management).
These findings are consistent with Pierce and ODea (2003) since services such as routine
accounting are focused on technical accuracy and preciseness. In addition, the focus on
routine accounting corroborates anecdotal evidence that suggests that accounting
professionals are biased towards traditional financial accounting as compared with
less-structured and rule-based subfields such as managerial accounting.
Most providers believed user training was beneficial, but that significantly more
training was necessary (division accounting manager, division accountants, area
accounting officers, and production corporate providers group). Providers also generally
perceived the advice they provided to users as helpful based on an absence of complaints
(accounting staff, division accounting manager, accountants, and area accounting
officers).
Many providers acknowledged that they did not pay enough attention to
management accounting, particularly budgeting, within the accounting function
(accounting staff, division accountants, area accounting officers, production corporate
providers, and production corporate accounting staff). Finally, most providers
emphasized the importance of the accounting function to the success of the company
and that the function was well organized and managed, but that accounting needed
significantly more corporate resources to expand services in some areas (division
accounting manager, division accountants, area accounting officers, and production
corporate providers).
7.2 Satisfaction with information quality
Users and providers differed significantly on reported satisfaction for five of the
11 accounting services: planning, routine accounting, management reporting, training,
and AIS support. For all five services, providers tended to report higher levels of
satisfaction compared to users. This suggests that, irrespective of the importance and
frequency users associated with these services, the quality and/or timeliness of service
did not meet users expectations. In particular, users were not as satisfied as providers
with either planning or management reporting the two services users ranked as most
important and most frequently used. Users indicated that they were dissatisfied with
these services more frequently than did providers. This result is bolstered by
comments expressed by several users in the interview process that accounting is out
of touch with the needs of users (corporate finance manager, production general
manager, and DM) and that much of the information provided by accounting is not
relevant to the decision needs of users (production general manager and DM). In the
words of one power station manager, accounting work is self-serving. Taken as a
whole, these findings address both what and why user-provider information quality
differences exist, which addresses RQ3b.
7.3 Effects of level (manager/staff)
Additional insights into the apparent discontinuity of views between providers and
users of accounting services are apparent when we evaluated provider/user differences
by organizational level. The pattern of responses for the status level interactions in
the planning and management reporting models suggests that provider staff lack

awareness of the significance placed by users on planning and management reporting,

even though provider management ranking of these services is consistent with user
rankings. This in turn could indicate that provider staff members are excessively
focused on more internally oriented services (e.g. routine accounting) and/or that
provider management has not clearly communicated to the staff the value that users
place on customer-oriented services. In particular, accounting staff tended to rank
the frequency of routine accounting significantly higher than did any of the other three
groups, including provider management. This effect is again illustrative of the
self-serving attitude expressed by one station manager: greater significance of
the service to the provider than to the user. In sum, these findings address both what
and why perceptual differences exist between managers and staff concerning MAS
service importance and use, which addresses RQ4.
8. Conclusions
The results of this study provide evidence to support the contention that there are
significant perceptual differences about MAS services between providers and users
that we found in support of all four hypotheses. Social perception theory (Baron and
Byrne, 1991; Ross and Fletcher, 1985; Schiffmann, 1990; Srull and Wyer, 1988; Jiang
et al., 2000) supports, a priori, the quantitative questionnaire findings that are
corroborated by the qualitative interview data. The number of differences as well as
their relative magnitude of significance provides an indication of how widespread
these differences may be in organizations, which has significant MAS service policy
implications that we will discuss subsequently.
We wish to emphasize that although there are a number of key user-provider
perception discontinuities, this does not imply that EC simply has a bad accounting
system. We believe that ECs system is, in general, relatively effective, although a
number of user-provider communication breakdowns are evident.
8.1 What are the user-provider perceptual differences?
Significant differences in perceptions about the importance of accounting information
services were found in association with the service that providers/users ranked as most
important as well as the service used most frequently, which supported H1 and H2. We
identified what these differences were in order to address RQ1 and RQ2. For example,
users generally thought that planning and management reporting were the most
important and most frequently used services, while providers generally indicated that
routine accounting was the most important and frequently used service. We find
that these findings in particular are consistent with Byrne and Pierce (2007), who found
that accountants tend to focus on technical accounting information that is consistent
with their financial accounting training in general. Accounting professionals need to
educate users that much of the information used for specialized internal managerial
reports emanates from technical financial accounting information. These results also
imply that accounting professionals may need additional communication training to
help them better identify what users really want and need to do their jobs effectively.
There were also significant provider-user differences in perceived satisfaction with
MAS services, with respect to importance and service use (which supported H3a) as
well as with information quality (which supported H3b). We addressed what these
differences were in response to RQ3a and RQ3b. For example, with respect to

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

8.5 Limitations and future research

Although the findings of this study advance our understanding of perceptual differences
between MAS providers and users, we note a number of limitations. Case studies are
most useful for identifying novel relationships and processes; however, their
unstructured approach to problem solving limits causal inference and generalizability
to broader populations (Chenhall, 2003, p. 160). Therefore, future research should seek to
approach the question of user-provider gaps in MAS information services using both
different industries and alternative methodologies (e.g. controlled experimental settings)
to allow generalization of these results across different corporate environments and
cultures. Despite this limitation, field research is necessary to further our understanding
of how accounting functions in practice, the limitations of accounting for satisfying
multiple and conflicting demands made upon it and to test academic theories (Ahrens and
Dent, 1988). Furthermore, we conducted this study using a cross-sectional, correlational,
self-report survey, so we are not able to make causal or directional inferences.
Future research should assess user-provider MAS service perception differences
using case studies of diverse organizations. Aggregate research of this type over time
permits scholars to identify and aggregate conclusion commonalities across similar
case studies. These commonalities should highlight critical factors of success that MAs
must carefully consider in order to satisfy MAS service users in particular, as well as
generally enhance the professions organizational status to that of business partner.
References
Adelman, L. (1992), Evaluating Decision Support and Expert Systems, Wiley, New York, NY.
Ahrens, T. and Dent, J.F. (1988), Accounting and organizations: realizing the richness of field
research, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 1-39.
Aldhizer, G.R. III, Turner, L.D. and Shank, M.D. (2002), Determinants of consulting service
quality for accounting and nonaccounting service providers, Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Badawy, M. (1997), The role of the technical manager, in Katz, R. (Ed.), The Human Side of
Managing Technological Innovation: A Collection of Readings, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 229-45.
Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S. (1983), Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer
user satisfaction, Management Science, Vol. 29, pp. 530-45.
Baron, R. and Byrne, D. (1991), Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction, 6th ed.,
Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Baroudi, J.J., Olson, M.H. and Ives, P. (1986), An empirical study of the impact of user
involvement leads to system acceptance, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 110-25.
Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, R. (2007), The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-84.
Bharati, P. and Berg, D. (2005), Service quality from the other side: information systems
management at Duquesne Light, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 367-80.
Bhimani, A. and Roberts, H. (2004), Management accounting and knowledge management:
in search of intelligibility, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Byrne, S. and Pierce, B. (2007), Towards a more comprehensive understanding of the roles of
management accountants, European Accounting Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 469-98.

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.

Mahmood, M. and Swanberg, D. (2001), Factors affecting information technology usage:

a meta-analysis of the empirical literature, Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 107-30.
Melone, N.P. (1990), A theoretical assessment of the user-satisfaction construct in information
systems research, Management Science, Vol. 236 No. 1, pp. 76-91.
Menard, S. (2002), Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, 2nd ed., Series: Quantitative Applications
in the Social Sciences, No. 106, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mia, L. and Chenhall, R.H. (1994), The usefulness of management accounting systems,
functional differentiation, and managerial effectiveness, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Nelson, R. (1991), Educational needs as perceived by IS and end-user personnel: a survey of
knowledge and skill requirements, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 502-25.
Nelson, R., Todd, P.A. and Wixom, B.H. (2005), Antecedents of information and system quality:
an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 199-235.
Norusis, M. (2005), SPSS 13.0, Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
OConnell, A.A. (2000), Methods for modeling ordinal outcome variables, Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 170-93.
Oliver, R.L. (1993), A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction: compatible
goals, different concepts, Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 2,
pp. 65-85.
Palanisamy, R.S. (2001), Empirically testing the relationships between user involvement,
information waste and MIS success, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 70-103.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.
Pierce, B. and ODea, T. (2003), Management accounting information and the needs of managers:
perceptions of managers and accountants compared, The British Accounting Review,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 257-90.
Powers, R.F. and Dickson, G.W. (1973), MIS project management: myths, opinions and reality,
California Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 147-56.
Reeves, C. and Bednar, D. (1994), Defining quality: alternatives and implications, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-45.
Roberts, H. (2003), Management accounting and the knowledge production process,
in Bhimani, A. (Ed.), Management Accounting in the Digital Economy, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 185-201.
Robey, D. (1979), User attitudes and management information use, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 527-38.
Robey, D., Smith, L. and Vijayasarathy, L. (1993), Perceptions of conflict and success in
information systems development projects, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 123-40.
Ross, M. and Fletcher, G. (1985), Attribution and social perception, in Lindzey, G. and
Aronson, E. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Random house, New York, NY,
pp. 73-114.
Sathe, V. (1982), Controller Involvement in Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

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

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

User versus
provider
perceptions
285