Adoption, Importance and Barriers to the Implementation of Contemporary Management Accounting Practices: Evidence from Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, complexity in the business environment, and advanced technology intensified the challenges for more management accounting information to meet global competition. Therefore, contemporary management accounting practices have emerged which focused on financial and non-financial information to support managers’ decision making. The research aimed at examining the adoption, importance and barriers to the implementation of CMAPs. To achieve the research aim a list of forty MAPs, 171 questionnaires and factor analysis were used. In terms of MAPs adoption the results indicated 9 factors :fundamental TMAPs; control; WCM; performance evaluation non-financial; budgeting for planning cash flows ;contemporary decision support; traditional decision support; planning and capital budget practice. In terms of importance there are 10 factors; benchmarking practices; costing and decision support; fundamental TMAPs; traditional performance evaluation; control; contemporary performance evaluation; budget for planning day to day; WCM –MRP practice, product life cycle practice and performance evaluation – customer satisfaction. The main conclusion was the relative adoption of TMAPs are higher than CMAPs however, the Egyptian companies are realizing the importance of large number of CMAPs. Moreover, the research examined barriers that could limit the implementation of CMAPs and revealed that the highest barriers were; it takes longer time to change the societal values and practices, high degree of uncertainty avoidance and high cost to implement these advanced practices respectively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".