The paper "Why Innovation is Regarded as an Important Research Subject" is a great example of management coursework. Innovation has been considered a significant research subject. This is because innovations can enable organizations to successfully adjust and thrive in an unpredictable business environment (Rodgers 1995). However, management accountants have failed in their roles as innovators in the highly dynamic business environment. Thus, the topic is thus important owing to the changing roles of management accountants to the process of innovation, which is to provide information to managers in ways that are progressively relevant to the changing business circumstances.
According to Lukka and Granlund (2002), the perceptions of the failure of the management accountants are prevalent in relation to the low levels of success experienced in executing ‘ fresh’ inventions of management accounting such as the ‘ score-card’ and ABC. Innovation is thus important to eliminate the lack of innovation described as ‘ accounting lag’ by Kaplan (1986) to ensure management accounting remains relevant to the volatile business environment and addresses the information necessities of managers. The term ‘ accounting lag’ as described by Kaplan was formulated at a time when there was limited research on innovativeness in management accounting innovation.
Presently, innovation in management accounting describes different streams of the topic. The topic of innovation in management accounting has concurrently developed with researchers examining the changing roles of the accountants. Thus, the innovativeness topic in the discipline can be discussed alongside the changing roles of management accountants. For a long time, management accountants have been linked with different roles, known in light of the roles of attention directing, problem-solving and scorekeeping roles. While the role of scorekeeping and focus directing tasks commonly pay attention to reporting compliance and control-kind matters, the problem-solving objective pays attention to providing pertinent information for making decisions for business unit managers. According to Perera, McKinnon and Harrison (2003) and (Lukka and Granlund, 1998), the role of problem-solving has increasingly been more significant relatively as managers of business units have increasingly faced indeterminate settings in which emerging and diverse info is required to address the doubts.
Thus, the topic of innovation in management accounting information is needed to keep pace with such kinds of uncertainties.
Therefore, business unit managers have increasingly questioned the relevance of management accounting to address the changing information requirements of administrators of business units. Management accountants are called upon to use limited time in operating in the accounting role and spend extra time in businesses with those who need information on management accounting in a bid to be more innovative (Cobb, Helliar and Innes (1995) and Cooper 1996). These recommendations are linked with the duties of administrative accountants and the level to which they incline to an accounting or business unit perspective.
In the innovation topic, the objective involvement function has been inadequately measured in management accounting. Nonetheless, the elements associated with a functional (accounting) or enterprise unit orientation has been seen in numerous case studies. In the topic of innovation, the description of the evolution of role involvement is critical. There are high possibilities that the literature on the topics of innovation and role participation of management accountants might be linked. According to research, it is likely that management accountants inclining towards a perspective of business unit will not merely formulate additional inventions but will incline to be more dynamic.
On the other hand, management accountants will show an inclination to more orientation to functional (accounting).
Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, organizations and society, 26(3), 237-269.
Burns, J., & Scapens, R. (2000). Role rehearsal. Management Accounting, 78(5), 18.
Cobb, I., Helliar, C., & Innes, J. (1995). Management accounting change in a bank. Management accounting research, 6(2), 155-175.
Cooper, R. (1996). Look out, management accountants. Strategic Finance, 77(11), 20.
Emsley, D. (2005). Restructuring the management accounting function: A note on the effect of role involvement on innovativeness. Management Accounting Research, 16(2), 157-177.
Granlund, M., & Lukka, K. (1998). Towards increasing business orientation: Finnish management accountants in a changing cultural context.Management Accounting Research, 9(2), 185-211.
Kaplan, R. S. (1986). Accounting lag: the obsolescence of cost accounting systems. California management review, 28(2), 174-199.
Lukka, K., & Granlund, M. (2002). The fragmented communication structure within the accounting academia: the case of activity-based costing research genres. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(1), 165-190.
Perera, S., McKinnon, J. L., & Harrison, G. L. (2003). Diffusion of transfer pricing innovation in the context of commercialization—a longitudinal case study of a government trading enterprise. Management Accounting Research, 14(2), 140-164.
Rogers, E.M., (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, fourth ed. New York: Free Press.
Tuomela, T. S., & Partanen, V. (2002). Restructuring the accounting function–antecedents, barriers, and consequences. In Third Conference on New Directions in Management Accounting: Innovations in Practice and Research, 2, (2), 1061-1086.