Advertisement

Uses of Management Control Tools in the Public Healthcare Sector

  • Nicolas PetitEmail author
  • Gulliver Lux
Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

This study focuses on identifying the specific uses of management control tools in public organizations. This research is based on interviews with managers from 43 organizations in the healthcare sector. Data was analyzed and interpreted through the methodology proposed by Gioia et al. Organizational research methods, 16(1), 15-31, (2013). The different uses specified by managers of these organizations were compared with Henri’s work Accounting, organizations and society, 31(1), 77-103, (2006). Findings show matching elements, as well as differences in public sector specificities. This study ends with a discussion about the non-use of existing tools, the multi-uses of tools and the observable dichotomy between political and management uses.

Keywords

Tools Use Role Healthcare sector 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Both authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Human and Animal Studies

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Abernethy, M. A., & Brownell, P. (1999). The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic change: An exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(3), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansari, S., & Euske, K. J. (1987). Rational, rationalizing, and reifying uses of accounting data in organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(6), 549–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachelet, C. (2004). Usages des TIC dans les organisations, Une notion à revisiter? Paper presented at the annual meeting of AIM. Actes du 9e colloque AIM INT d’Evry.Google Scholar
  4. Berland, N., & Pezet, A. (2009). Quand La Comptabilité Colonise L'économie et La Société. Perspectives Critiques Dans Les Recherches en Comptabilité, Contrôle, Audit. In D. Golsorkhi, I. Huault, & B. Leca (Eds.), Les Études Critiques En Management, Une Perspective Française (pp. 133–162). Québec: Presses de l’université de Laval.Google Scholar
  5. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 58(2), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breton, P., & Proulx, S. (2002). L’explosion de la communication. In Sciences et Société, broché/étude. Édition La Découverte: Paris/Montréal.Google Scholar
  8. Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., & Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burlaud, A., & Gibert, P. (1984). L'analyse des coûts dans les organisations publiques: Le jeu et l'enjeu. Politiques et management public, 2(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambat, P. (1994). Usages des technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC): Évolution des problématiques. Technologies de l’information et société, 6(3), 249–270.Google Scholar
  11. Chiapello, È., & Gilbert, P. (2012). Les outils de gestion: Producteurs ou régulateurs de la violence psychique au travail? Le travail humain, 75(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demeestère, R. (1989). Y-a-t-il une spécificité du contrôle de gestion dans le secteur public? Politiques et management public, 7(4), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Docq, F., & Daele, A. (2001). Uses of ICT tools for CSCL: How do students make as their own the designed environment. In Proceedings Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht, 197-204.Google Scholar
  14. Essid, M., & Berland, N. (2011). Les impacts de la RSE sur les systèmes de contrôle. Comptabilité-contrôle-audit, 17(2), 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., & Neely, A. (2007). Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibert, P. (1986). Management public, management de la puissance publique. Politiques et management public, 4(2), 89–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guthrie, J., Manes-Rossi, F., & Levy, O. R. (2017). Integrated reporting and integrated thinking in Italian public sector organisations. Meditari accountancy research, 25(4), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen, S. C., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2004). Multiple facets of budgeting: An exploratory analysis. Management Accounting Research, 15(4), 415–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henri, J. F. (2006). Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(1), 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofstede, G. (1981). Management control of public and not-for-profit activities. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6(3), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hussenot, A. (2006). Vers une reconsidération de la notion d’usage des outils TIC dans les organisations: une approche en termes d’enaction. Colloque international de Rennes: Pratiques et usages organisationnels des sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication, 158-160.Google Scholar
  23. Jauréguiberry, F. (2010). Pratiques soutenables des technologies de communication. Projectics, 6(3), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jauréguiberry, F. (2012). Retour Sur Les Théories du Non-Usage Des Technologies de Communication. In S. Proulx & A. Klein (Eds.), Connexions: Communication Numérique et Lieu Social (pp. 335–350). Presses Universitaires de Namur: Namur.Google Scholar
  25. Lacroix, J. G., Møeglin, P., & Tremblay, G. (1992). Usages de la notion d’usage: NTIC et discours promotionnels au Québec et en France. Les nouveaux espaces de l’information et de la communication.Google Scholar
  26. Lenhart, A., & Horrigan, J. B. (2003). Re-visualizing the digital divide as a digital spectrum. IT & society, 1(5), 23–39.Google Scholar
  27. Lux, G. (2016). Les représentations de la performance des directeurs d’Etablissements et Services Médico-Sociaux. Revue interdisciplinaire management, homme et entreprise, 21(2), 46–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lux, G. (2017). The Medico-Social Institutes Directors’ perception of performance. Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise 29(5):3Google Scholar
  29. Lux, G., & Petit, N. (2016). Coalitions of actors and managerial innovations in the healthcare and social healthcare sector. Public organization review, 16(2), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynn, L. E. (1996). Public management as art, science, and profession. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (2003). Analyse Des Données Qualitatives. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
  32. Moisdon, J.-C. (1997). Du Mode D’Existence Des Outils De Gestion. Paris: Ed. Seli Arslan.Google Scholar
  33. Nobre, T. (2001). Management hospitalier: Du contrôle externe au pilotage, apport et adaptabilité du tableau de bord prospectif. Comptabilité-contrôle-audit, 7(2), 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ouellet, L. (1992). Le Secteur Public et Sa Gestion. In R. Parenteau (Ed.), Management Public– Comprendre et Gérer Les Institutions De l’État. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Phiri, J. (2017). Stakeholder expectations of performance in public healthcare services: Evidence from a less developed country. Meditari accountancy research, 25(1), 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rocher, S. (2008). Implantation et rôle d’un outil de gestion comptable. Revue Française de Gestion, 190(10), 77–89.Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Simon, H. A. (1954). Centralization vs. decentralization in organizing the controller's department: A research study and report (no. 4). Controllership foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Simons, R. (1990). The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: New perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1–2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  43. Speklé, R. F., & Verbeeten, F. H. (2014). The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verrier, P. E. (1989). Les spécificités du management public: Le cas de la gestion des ressources humaines. Politiques et Management Public, 7(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the internet. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sino-French institute of SuzhouRenmin University of ChinaSuzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Accounting DepartmentUniversity du Québec à Montréal-UQAMMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations