Abstract ABSTRACT: This paper reports the findings of a field study aimed at providing a better understanding of how and why managers of corporations with multiple divisions set the levels of achievability of annual profit center budget targets. The data, gathered from 54 profit centers in 12 corporations, show that most budget targets are set to be achievable an average of eight or nine years out of ten. This finding Contrasts with the proscription made in most management accounting textbooks suggesting that for optimum motivation budget targets should be achievable less than 50 percent of the time. Managers maintain, however, that these highly achievable targets provide considerable challenge, and the high achievability actually provides many advantages, including improved corporate reporting, resource planning, control, and, combined with other control system elements, even motivation.

ABSTRACT This study explores decisions related to formal empirical tests of business models and interpretations and uses of those tests. Business models describe managers' rationales as to how their organizations will achieve success. This study documents a test of one company's business model under seemingly favorable conditions for such a test—a successful single-product firm following a consistent strategy over a long period of time with stable management and publicly traded stock. Although the findings provide only weak support for the hypothesized business model, the confidence of the company's top managers in their business model remained high. Further analyses reveal that the managers' response to the test results is consistent with that expected of Bayesian-rational agents. Our analyses provide the basis for development of a framework for understanding the expected value of testing business models in various circumstances. This framework might explain apparent contradictions between previous studies containing normative statements regarding the value of testing business models. Data Availability: The data used in this study are derived from a proprietary dataset and public sources.

Abstract We examine how metric intensity—that is, the quantity, frequency, and extent to which performance metrics are tracked and used—varies with a firm's dependency on innovation for business success. Although performance metrics are essential in an organization's management control system, little is known about how the use of metrics differs in organizations with varying dependencies on incremental and radical innovation. Drawing on data from a sample of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs), we hypothesize and find that firms' dependency on incremental (radical) innovation is positively (negatively) associated with metric intensity. Furthermore, we find that (1) the positive relationship between the dependency on incremental innovation and metric intensity is stronger when the organizational culture is focused more on “control” and (2) the negative relationship between the dependency on radical innovation and metric intensity is mitigated when the organizational culture is focused more on “flexibility.” Additional analysis shows that the positive (negative) relationship between incremental (radical) innovation dependency and metric intensity can be mitigated by greater use of metrics for decision‐facilitating purposes. Our findings suggest that metrics‐based formal controls are designed to match the types of innovation dependencies and pre‐existing informal controls such as organizational culture. This study highlights the importance of distinguishing different types of innovation dependency in studying management control systems.