ERP systems and management accounting: a multiple case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The present study seeks to refine the findings and theory on the impact that enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementations have had on management accounting. Specifically, the purposes of this paper are to analyze the changes that ERP implementations have had on performance measures, management accounting techniques, activities of management accountants, and the use of non‐financial information. Design/methodology/approach The controllers of 13 major Canadian firms were interviewed as part of a multiple case study. Open‐ended questions were used. Findings The research assesses how ERP implementations through more computational power, relational databases, standardized state‐of‐the‐art transaction processing, and extended chart of accounts change management accounting. The enhanced computing power and overall standardization lead to more accurate and timely information. The standardized transaction processing and the charts of accounts have increased the availability of information from units and products previously deficient of information, and ensured a consistency of information across all units and products. The standardization and automation of transaction processing has reduced the amount of data entry done by management accountants. Performance measures have been standardized, expanded to more units and products, increased in accuracy, and produced more quickly. Management accounting techniques have become more efficient and effective. Management accountants are less involved with data entry, thus allowing them to undertake more analyses. Non‐financial information is more extensive. Originality/value This research provides new insights or contributions to understanding how ERP systems impact management accounting and management accountants. First, ERP system implementations affect management accounting. Second, the three part lens or conceptual framework – physical, transactional, and information – explicates the impact of ERP systems on management accounting and management accountants. Third, understanding the impact is further guided by recognizing the expanded chart of accounts inherent with ERP systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".