ROLE OF THE CONTROLLER:
UNDER PRESSURE DUE TO LEAN IMPLEMENTATIONS?
Abstract:
The rise of lean management is often discussed in recent literature. Lean management is about eliminating all forms of waste in business processes. The role of the controller is likely to change due to lean. Reporting about activities happened in the past can be perceived as waste. Consequently, when companies start with lean, expectations about the role of the controller will change. This study contributes to the question how individual and organizational factors influence the role of the controller, in a situation of role conflicts and ambiguities. The findings of this study stem from a case study within three lean companies. Controllers should have a proactive behavior and empathy with the business in order to have added value for lean companies. Organizations can influence the role of the controller by: outsourcing basic financial activities, integrating controllers into project teams, and providing a proper IT landscape.
Key Words: Role of the Controller, Lean Management, Individual Factors, Organizational Factors, Role Expectations.
Author:
Joost Swart
Student number:
s2800063
University:
University of Groningen
Faculty:
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc BA track:
Organizational & Management Control
Supervisor:
dr. S. Tillema
Co-Assessor:
dr. M. P. Van Der Steen
Date:
20 June 2016
1. INTRODUCTION
Controllers, as financial professionals, can have many different roles within companies (Lambert & Sponem, 2012). Traditionally, controllers should enact management control and inform the top management team (Macintosh & Daft, 1987; Sathe, 1983). Controller’s principal objective was to meet top management’s expectations. Last decades the role of controllers has changed (e.g., Baldvinsdottir & Burns, 2005). Nowadays, controllers should satisfy more stakeholders, such as: operations managers, R&D departments, and logistics managers (Järvenpää, 2007). These stakeholders can have unique expectations about the role of the controller (role expectations). The more role expectations, the higher the possibility that conflicting and ambiguous objectives arise. This study will respond to Lambert & Sponem’s (2012) recent call for further studying how controllers cope with these conflicting representations of role expectations. This study will also address how organizational and individual factors influence the role of the controller in a situation of conflicting and ambiguous role expectations. Thus, the traditional role of controllers comprises of meeting top management’s expectations exclusively. Many authors argue, however, that this traditional role of controllers is more or less outdated. They argue that controllers become more and more involved in decision making processes and receive more authority (e.g., Baldvinsdottir & Burns, 2005; Granlund & Lukka, 1998; Lambert & Sponem, 2012; Zoni & Merchant, 2007). More involvement and more authority enables controllers to act as business partners. The role of a controller as business partner is broader oriented. Accordingly, business partners are, among others, generalists, team players, and have a helicopter view over the company (Quinn, 2014; Siegel, Sorensen, & Richtermeyer, 2003). Summarizing, controllers in the traditional role should exclusively meet expectations of top management; and controllers as business partner should cope with expectations of multiple stakeholders.
nonfinancial indicators instead of financial indicators (Kristensen & Israelsen, 2014), extensively collaborate with lower-level employees (Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2016), and visually stimulate innovations (Kennedy & Brewer, 2006). Thus, the role of the controller changes because of lean. Lean companies are, therefore, appropriate case companies for this study.
Aim of this study is to discover how individual and organizational factors influence the role of controllers in a situation of conflicting and ambiguous role expectations. The research question is:
In a situation of conflicting and ambiguous role expectations due to lean implementations, how do individual and organizational factors influence the role of controllers?
This study makes the following contributions. Firstly, this study adds to the lean literature. Especially, how lean organizations and controllers should overcome conflicting and ambiguous role expectations. Secondly, this study shows how role conflicts and role ambiguity arises due to organizational changes. It will focus on the collaboration between controllers and operations management. Finally, this study addresses how roles are influenced by organizational and individual factors. In order to make these contributions I will interview controllers (or: financial professionals) and operations managers of Auping, Heineken, and Dutch-plant (pseudonym). These companies operate according to the lean philosophy, and therefore, these companies will be interesting in order to investigate conflicting and ambiguous role expectations.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section provides a literature review. Thereafter, the methodology will be discussed. Subsequently, the results will be presented. Final section 5 will provide the discussion, conclusion, and limitations of this study.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Within this literature review, I will, firstly, describe how the role of controllers has changed over the years. Secondly, I will introduce lean management, and especially, how lean affects control within organizations. Thereafter, using role theory I will identify role expectations and explain potential role conflicts and role ambiguity due to lean. Finally, I will present the theoretical framework for this study.
2.1 Different Perspectives on the Role of Controllers
Transition. Traditionally, the role of controllers was to enact management control in companies
(Macintosh & Daft, 1987). Role expectations has changed frequently the last decades (Baldvinsdottir & Burns, 2005; Byrne & Pierce, 2007; Järvenpää, 2007). Controllers became part of cross-functional teams and became more involved in decision-making processes (Byrne & Pierce, 2007; Siegel, 2000). Within this new role, controllers are often characterized as business partners (Järvenpää, 2007; Quinn, 2014; Siegel et al., 2003).
control (Sathe, 1983). This role is not suitable for companies in dynamic markets, because it reduces flexibility. It is, therefore, widely accepted that companies should move away from bean counters as controllers (e.g., Granlund & Lukka, 1998; Zoni & Merchant, 2007).
Järvenpää (2007) argues that controllers should have a business-oriented role (i.e. becoming active advisors). This enables controllers to contribute to the organization. According to Granlund & Lukka (1998), the transition of the role of controllers can be seen as continuum, where roles, demands, and trends shift from historians (bean counter), to watchdogs, to consultants, and it ends with a controller being a member of the management team (business partner).
Business Partners. Controllers should adopt a business-oriented role and become active advisors
of the management team (Baldvinsdottir & Burns, 2005; Granlund & Lukka, 1998; Granlund & Malmi, 2002; Järvenpää, 2007; Zoni & Merchant, 2007). Many controllers adopted this business-oriented role. Therefore, the role of business partner was introduced in the literature. Quinn (2014: 24) defines a business partner as ‘a controller who has a strong, embedded, supporting relationship with business managers, providing them with insights on business challenges’. According to Järvenpää (2007), a business partner supports core processes such as manufacturing; but the business partner also supports processes such as IT, HRM, and strategy. Siegel (2000) states that the role of business partners is less transactional and more analytical, extra involved in the decision-making process, and business partners are key players within cross-functional teams.
Requirements for Business Partners. In order to act as, and become, a business partner, there
are some requirements which needs to be fulfilled. Those requirements occur chiefly on individual- and organizational level (Byrne & Pierce, 2007).
Individual Factors. Controllers themselves are very important in the process of becoming a
business partner. Siegel et al. (2003) states that controllers themselves should demonstrate and act as a business partner (e.g., proactive, involved). Due to a dynamic business environment, the business partner should be flexible in order to provide management with reliable and up to date insights (Quinn, 2014). According to Siegel et al. (2003), a business partner should: understand accounting (e.g., taxes, cash flows), be an expert in technologies (daily use of company’s software), be a generalist (in order to work with multiple departments), be a team player, have a helicopter view (to understand business processes and provide ideas for improvements), and finally be aware of how the firm earns its money.
Organizational Factors. Not only should controllers meet the individual requirements, also the
Another issue I want to address is in the grey area between organizational factors and individual factors, namely the distance between controllers and operations (or other) managers. Baldvinsdottir & Burns (2005) claims that decreasing the distance between both parties increases the involvement of controllers. Thus, being more ‘visible’ at the business field enables controllers to take the business partner role. This issue contains some organizational factors and some individual factors as well. According to Baldvinsdottir & Burns (2005), management should encourage controllers to launch control activities out-of-the-function, for example, controllers can operate within the operations site. Encouraging controllers to work more out-of-the-function is concerned with the organizational structure, which is part of the organizational factors. Baldvinsdottir & Burns (2005) states, however, that not all controllers are able to collaborate extensively with operators. Controllers should learn additional skills and not every controller is able to, or willing to, develop themselves to accomplish mentioned goal.
2.2 Lean Management: How it Emerged and How it Affects the Control in Companies
Aim of this study is to investigate how, in a situation of conflicting and ambiguous role expectations due to lean implementations, organizational and individual factors influence the role of the controller. Therefore, I will discuss how lean management can lead to conflicting and ambiguous role expectations. Starting with the roots of lean management and what lean is about.
Lean Management. During the aftermath of World War II automobile manufacturer Toyota
faced tough times because of the strong market competition. After having analyzed the Western market, Toyota decided that they should create competitive advantages by improving efficiency (Holweg, 2007). It followed that Toyota aimed at eliminating all forms of waste in their processes in order to reduce costs and improve their competitive position. Holweg (2007) states that the process of eliminating waste was like an iterating learning cycle. Toyota’s dynamic learning capabilities were key in the success of eliminating waste in all processes. The book “The Machine That Changed The World” coined the term lean management to describe Toyota’s strategy (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1992). Arnheiter & Maleyeff (2005: 10) state that ‘the goal [of lean management] is perfection and the journey to perfection is never ending’.
Maintenance are often used for the continuous improvement and standardization of production processes (Cua, McKone, & Schroeder, 2001). Lean manufacturing uses a combination of these three advanced techniques in order to fulfill lean goals (Kennedy & Widener, 2008).
The manufacturing process is often the starting point of waste elimination by cause of the most hidden waste at this stage, but lean can include more (Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2016). If all forms of waste are eliminated in the core processes, the remaining supporting functions will be eliminated from wastes. Summarizing, lean management includes: waste elimination, customization, empowerment, and standardization. Lean focuses on reducing costs, improving efficiency, and increasing customer value.
Fullerton et al. (2013) claims that empowerment of employees is directly positively related to the level of lean implementation. Thus, lean companies provide employees with enough authority and more responsibilities to make important decisions about processes themselves (Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2016; Vidal, 2007). In a situation with empowered operators, the organizational structure changes as well. How this will impact control will be discussed subsequently.
Impact on Control. Generally, controlling is seen as a supporting function for manufacturing
firms. Control should, therefore, mainly support lean management. Controlling is an overhead activity and one could say overhead activities are waste, since they do not directly increase customer value. On the other hand, controllers can stimulate innovations by helping operators with their improvement processes. For example, when an operator wants to calculate the gains of a particular improvement the controller can help with or verify calculations of the operator. Since lean is an iterative process, improvements and innovations are commonplace. Thus, within improvement processes controllers can play a crucial role. On the other hand, lean companies should always stick to some responsibilities (e.g., reports) as well. For these reasons, lean companies cannot operate without the knowledge of controllers.
In a situation of lean management, the whole company should become ‘lean’ in order to be a successful lean company (e.g., Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2016; Kennedy & Brewer, 2006; Tillema & van der Steen, 2015). Table 1 summarizes guidelines (or: practices) for control in lean companies, all guidelines are equally important. These guidelines differ from regular control and will be discussed subsequently.
Table 1: Guidelines for Lean Control
1. Uncomplicated reports (Fullerton et al., 2013; Netland, Schloetzer, & Ferdows, 2015)
2. Visual performance measurement (Fullerton et al., 2013; Netland et al., 2015)
3. Performance based on nonfinancial indicators
(Fullerton et al., 2013; Kristensen & Israelsen, 2014; Maskell & Baggaley, 2006)
4. Collaboration with business managers (Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2016; Maskell & Baggaley, 2006)
5. Value Stream Mapping (Fullerton et al., 2013)
6. Stimulating innovations (Kennedy & Brewer, 2006; Maskell & Baggaley, 2006)
between the level of lean implementation and uncomplicated reporting systems. Using uncomplicated lean focused performance reports enables lower-level employees to evaluate their own efforts, plan their activities, and seek for improvements in processes. This boosts empowerment even further.
Secondly, these lean focused reports are often visualized and live presented nearby the operational processes (Maskell & Baggaley, 2006). Operators can check their progress, notice how they perform, and compare it with targets. Thus, it enables them to improve their processes. It follows that operators can adjust their activities based on these results. Thus, visual performance measurements should be introduced in lean organizations (Fullerton et al., 2013; Netland et al., 2015).
Thirdly, the use of nonfinancial performance indicators is positively related to lean management control (Netland et al., 2015). Financial performance indicators were long seen as the most important indicators to measure performance (Hansen, Otley, & Van der Stede, 2003). Lean controlling emphasizes, however, nonfinancial indicators to measure firm and employee performance (Fullerton et al., 2013). This adds to the statement that lean companies emphasize customer value over shareholder value (Haskin, 2010).
Fourthly, lean controlling emphasizes control based on outputs (e.g., first time right, throughput times), behavior (e.g., standardization), and social norms (e.g., empowerment, training) (Kristensen & Israelsen, 2014). In order to measure these activities it follows that control should focus on nonfinancial indicators. Another example why lean companies emphasize nonfinancial indicators is concerned with rewarding systems. If a purchasing manager is rewarded based on cutting costs; he/she could purchase cheap materials, but this could harm the quality of the products which contradicts with lean’s total quality management (Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005).
Fifthly, lean management focuses on the whole value stream (Fullerton et al., 2013). The value stream is the sequence of processes which a product takes from start to end, or from order to delivery (Haskin, 2010). Every procedure to optimize the value stream should meet the rules of lean management (Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005). Hence, lean controlling functions should focus on improving the value stream and emphasize value stream mapping if possible.
Sixthly, lean management is an iterative process, innovations to eliminate waste are commonplace (Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005; Holweg, 2007). Lean controlling should, therefore, recognize and support gains from innovations as well (Maskell & Baggaley, 2006). Recognizing gains from innovations is sometimes difficult, since standardizing processes are not always quantifiable. There is a need for mutual trust with operations managers.
Impact on the Controller. Controllers in a business partner role already have many skills which
processes. Lean controllers should have technological skills in order to work with advanced software packages. Lean controllers should be team players, since employees in lean companies often work in project teams. Lean controllers should oversee the company from a helicopter view in order to find potential business improvements. Lean controllers should be flexible, since operators or other managers could need controller’s immediately. As far the similarities between business partners and lean controllers.
Since literature is scarce about new skills controllers should have within lean companies, I will make some assumptions based on literature about new required skills for controllers. Controllers should be able to make complicated calculations and reports concise and understandable for lower-level employees. Making these uncomplicated reports is important in order to speak a common language within the company.
Another new skill is concerned with old controlling activities and lean controlling activities. Within lean companies, control is embedded in the production hall. Hence, it is no longer the activity for controllers to register all numbers of the operations department. A new activity for controllers is that they should translate the incoming numbers of the operating site towards numbers which are relevant for top management, headquarters, or shareholders. One could say that a controller within lean management should, therefore, have empathy with the business. Since, you need empathic ability to understand figures of operations.
Table 2 summarizes the required skills for business partners and the required skills for controllers within lean companies.
Table 2: Requirements for Business Partners and Lean Controllers
Required Skills Business Partner Lean Controller
Accounting X X Generalist X X Technological X X Team Player X X Helicopter View X X Flexible X X Conciseness X Empathy X
level managers want to oversee the total performance of departments instead of all nugatory details. Furthermore, controllers are involved in improvement processes and collaborate with operations more frequent. Controllers should support operators in their battle to eliminate wastes. After all, when daily practices and skills change, role expectations will change as well. Hence, the role of controllers will change due to lean.
2.3 Role Expectations, Ambiguity & Conflicts
When many people can influence the role of controllers, ambiguous or conflicting expectations are likely to emerge. This issue is addressed in role theory (Brookes et al., 2007; Major, 2003). Role theory emphasizes human conducts (i.e. behavior, identities, and expectations) which are appropriate for the particular position individuals occupy (Biddle, 1979; Emeni & Urhoghide, 2014; Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel, & Gutman, 1985). Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman (1970) claim that role theory recognizes dysfunctional individuals and how this affects firm performance. Byrne & Pierce (2007: 487) state that ‘role theory postulates that focal role occupants enact roles based on the expectations of role senders’. In this study, role occupants are the controllers and the role sender is the one who sends role expectations to controllers. Historically, the role sender for controllers was top management, but with lean there are more role senders involved.
With a role theoretic approach it is possible to compare and explain differences in role expectations. Rizzo et al. (1970) specify two important parts of role theory, namely role conflicts and role ambiguity. Role conflicts arise when role expectations are contradictory, incompatible or mutually exclusive, so that achieving one set of expectations excludes the ability to achieve other sets of expectations (Brookes et al., 2007; Major, 2003). Role conflicts could lead to employees dissatisfaction and a decrease in organizational effectiveness (Rizzo et al., 1970). A form of a role conflict is role overload, whereby the expectations of the role sender(s) exceeds the capacity of the role occupant. In that case, it is not possible to accomplish all expectations (Brookes et al., 2007; Major, 2003). Role ambiguity means that expectations of certain roles are unclear or confusing. Role ambiguity emerges when there is insufficient crucial information available for the role occupant and when there is a lack of clarity of the roles in order to fulfill expectations (Major, 2003; Rizzo et al., 1970).
Role Expectations for Controllers. As described in section 2.1, controllers’ role expectations has
With respect to lean control versus the business partner role, a source for potential ambiguity or conflicting role expectations concerns the following. Headquarters expects complicated accounting reports from controllers, while operations managers expect uncomplicated reports in order to continuously improve their processes.
2.4 Theoretical Framework
This literature review addressed some critical points. The role of controllers has frequently changed due to changing role expectations (Byrne & Pierce, 2007; Järvenpää, 2007). According to Fullerton et al. (2013) & Netland et al. (2015), lean management will change controlling again. When control is changing because of lean, role expectations towards the role of controllers will change as well. Changing role expectations can lead to conflicts or ambiguities. Conflicting and ambiguous representations of role expectations are best noticeable when practices change.
Accordingly, changing role expectations influence the role of the controller. There are, however, more factors which influence this role. Individual factors such as skills and learning capacity, influence how well an individual can align with new role expectations. Controllers should, probably, learn new skills in order to meet changing role expectations (Quinn, 2014; Siegel et al., 2003). Beyond individual factors, organizational factors influence how well controllers can meet new role expectations as well. Organizations should provide controllers with an environment in which they can adapt towards the new role.
After all, it is unclear how controllers deal with these conflicting and ambiguous representations of role expectations and it is unclear how organizational factors and individual factors influence the role of the controller. This study will explore this area.
Starting point of this study is the controller as business partner perspective. This role brings several role expectations along, as discussed in section 2.1. When companies choose for lean management, control within the company will change. Accordingly, role expectations towards controllers in those companies are likely to change as well (section 2.2). When role expectations are changing, role conflicts and role ambiguity are likely to arise (section 2.3). Organizational and individual factors influence whether the controller is able to conquer those conflicting and ambiguous role expectations and it determines the outcome of the role of controller as well. After all, aim of this study is to investigate how the role of controllers is influenced by organizational and individual factors in a situation of role conflicts and role ambiguity due to a lean implementation. This leads to the following research question: In a situation of conflicting and ambiguous role expectations due to lean
implementations, how do individual and organizational factors influence the role of controllers?
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design
Research Method. The literature field about accounting and controlling is quite mature. However, how
the role of controllers is influenced by organizational and individual factors, in a situation of conflicting and ambiguous role expectations, is not studied yet. Studying this gap requires an inductive case study. Starting with analyzing the theory, some expectations have been derived and depicted in the theoretical framework. These expectations will be investigated by using multiple cases. After the data collection, outcomes will be analyzed and explained in order to refine the theory. The refined theory comes closer to reality (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The empirical cycle, as created by Aken, Berends, & Bij (2012), provides structure to how research activities can be performed. Theory development is about observation, induction, and/or the first part of deduction. During this study I will use the theory development process as stated in figure 2.
Figure 2: Theory Development Process (Aken et al., 2012)
Research Objects. According to the literature review, companies which implemented lean
management are interesting cases for this study. The following cases have been selected: Auping, Heineken, and Dutch-plant (pseudonym). These companies have all implemented lean management, but these companies differ as well.
Productive Maintenance (TPM) in order to increase efficiency of their breweries and to be able to compete with foreign breweries. Another interesting difference is that Heineken and Dutch-plant work with a shared service center (SSC) for the financial administration, while Auping does not have such a SSC. The selected plants of Heineken and Dutch-plant are part of a bigger concern. Therefore, they have to deal with burdens from headquarters (HQ). At Auping the operations department and financial department are located at HQ, thus they do not have to cope with burdens from HQ. These differences and similarities make that these companies are interesting and selected for this case study.
Data Sources. How the role of controllers is influenced by organizational and individual factors
is the core of this study. It is, therefore, important to interview the main objects of this issue, namely: controllers. Companies often use different names for the controller. Therefore, I will use the term ‘Financial Professional’ in combination with ‘Controllers’ in order to find the right persons within the case companies. The goal of interviewing controllers is to find out how they perceive their new role, and how they cope with conflicting and ambiguous role expectations. Besides how they perceive the new role, I want to ask controllers about their responsibilities and how these changed because of lean. These questions are based on individual factors. The organizational factors are important in this study as well. Aim is to find how organizational factors (can) influence the role of controllers. For example, which working environment organizations create for controllers.
Not only financial professionals can explain this issue, also operations managers are key figures in this study. According to the literature, financial professionals should collaborate more often with operations managers after lean implementations. It is, therefore, interesting how these managers perceive the new role of these financial professionals. Additionally, interviewing operations managers should provide me with a picture of how organizational factors influence the role of controllers.
For each case company I will interview two financial professionals and one operations manager. In companies with (more than) two financial professionals, it may be the case that one acts as a business partner, while the other still acts as the number cruncher. Interviewing two financial professionals should reduce the chance that I get a biased view of the reality.
3.2 Data Collection and Data Analysis
Data Collection. The interviews will be conducted in research teams of two students. An advantage of
interviewing in pairs is that it will reduce researchers bias (Aken et al., 2012). Furthermore, we can complement each other. We will use a semi-structured interview design, because this will enable us to stay flexible and open-minded. In total we will interview nine respondents in three companies, from which six are financial professionals and three are operations managers. We will record the interviews in order to transcribe the interviews completely afterwards.
Company Visit. Before I made my questionnaire, I visited a lean company. Goal of this visit was
Lowe (2014), academic studies should be relevant for practitioners; the observations enabled me to better relate theory to practice and to set up better interview questions.
Questionnaires. The questionnaires are included in Appendix I. We will use two different
questionnaires, one for the financial professionals and one directed at operations managers. The topics can be divided into three parts, namely: role expectations, organizational factors, and individual factors. Role expectations will be divided into conflicting and ambiguous expectations and is concerned with the collaboration between controllers and their stakeholders. Organizational factors I want to address are about topics, such as: the importance of controlling in the organization, how lean affects financial activities, the organizational structure, and distance between controllers and operations managers. Questions with regard to individual factors cover topics, such as: necessarily skills of the controller, how lean has changed activities for controllers, how controllers stay valuable for lean companies, and how financials deal with multiple role expectations.
Data analysis. I will code all transcripts manually. Coding enables me to identify patterns while
reading the transcripts line-by-line (Stern, 1980). Before I start with coding, I will set up some inductive codes in advance. Theory development is about refining theory or filling a literature gap. Therefore, it is hard to define all codes in advance without reducing flexibility. During the coding part, I can, however, still add some codes to my code book. The inductive codes I will use during the data analysis are: former role of controlling, individual factors, organizational factors, role expectations, and current role. These codes are listed in my code book, which states in Appendix II. Since the interviews are in Dutch, the coding part will be done in Dutch in order to reduce the chance on translation errors. Quotes which will be used in the analysis part are translated from Dutch to English.
4. ANALYSIS
This analysis section presents the findings of the three case studies: Auping, Heineken, and Dutch-plant. The findings will be presented based on the empirical part of the theoretical framework. The structure is as follows: Former Role of Controllers, Changing Role Expectations (distinction made between controllers expectations and managers expectations), Current Role of Controllers, and it ends by explaining whether the current role meets the role expectations (explained through organizational and individual factors). Firstly, case-by-case and thereafter with the use of a cross-case analysis.
4.1 Auping
management in their corporate program. Within Auping’s headquarter I have interviewed an operations controller (OC), an accountancy manager (AM), and a logistics manager (LM) who was also the leader of the lean program. OC’s role is more involved in operations, while AM’s role is more aimed on transactional processes.
Former Role
The financial professionals who I have interviewed are working for Auping approximately 3.5 and 1 year. Therefore, the former role of controlling at Auping is mainly based on how the logistics manager perceived their former role. According to the logistics manager, a time-consuming activity in the former role of controlling was concerned with budgeting processes and controlling how departments performed based on the forecasts. Control was not ‘melted’ into the operations side previously. The distance between control and operations was perceived as big. Not only physical distance, but there was also a perceived gap between needs and demand.
“Back then, it was really like controlling was at one side, while the operations were on the other side. And things were thrown from side to side. It was mainly control throwing stuff about numbers to operations. Preferably, numbers about last month, or last year...” (LM)
Thus, the former role was described as a reactive style. Subsequently, Auping decided that their controllers should work more according to the lean philosophy.
Changing Role Expectations
Along with the shift to become more lean, expectations of controller’s role has changed. These expectations differ between controllers and business managers.
Controllers. The role of finance is a form of waste, according to an operations controller. Controllers
think that their role should add more value to the business.
“We have to change the image that finance is a goal itself. […] You didn’t add something directly to the product. Therefore, you have to work harder to show your added value.” (OC)
In order to show added value, controllers think that their role requires a proactive behavior. Controllers should look for opportunities to make own processes and other processes more lean.
“An important characteristic for controllers is that they take own responsibility, and they should proactively search for improvements. […] What can I do differently, what can I do less, and what should I do.” (AM)
With the empowerment of operators, controllers collaborate more often with lower-level employees. Controllers should be able to translate difficult issues into understandable topics, according to an OC.
According to an operations controller, controllers are, possibly, the only ones with an independent role within Auping. One could say the controller is the conscience of the company. Controllers should be never satisfied and should have the ability to overview the whole company, according to OC.
Operations Managers. According to a logistics manager, making business cases for every investment
takes too long and restrains process improvements. Therefore, LM expects that the new role of controllers is less focused on those financial activities.
“You lose the momentum, you lose your credibility, and with the next improvement we don’t inform the controllers; since we don’t want to wait for weeks until something happens.” (LM)
Operations is more and more focused on actual figures. Showing today what went wrong yesterday, and not what went wrong previous month. Therefore, controllers should focus on actual figures instead of forecasts.
“The world of Finance is dominated by budgets and forecasts. The lean organization operates on the basis of actuality. That conflicts. […] Within ten years, finance should be completely focused on actuality.” (LM)
Improving business processes behind the usual scope of controllers requires empathic ability. LM thinks controllers should understand and ‘feel’ the business. Also, because you can sometimes not identify gains from waste eliminations directly.
“For that [helping with business improvements] is some empathy required, which is not something usual in the traditional field of controlling. However, individuals can have those empathic skills.” (LM)
Thus, controllers themselves expect that their role will become more proactive with more possibilities to add value to the company. According to a logistics manager, controllers should stop making business cases for every investment, focus on actual figures, and have empathy for the business.
Current Role
The former role of control was reactive, controllers and operations managers have mentioned how role expectations has changed. In order to verify if role expectations are fulfilled already, I should first describe the current role of Auping’s controllers.
The controlling department has started with lean three years ago. An important objective for the controllers is to minimalize the budgeting processes, since the added value of these processes was considered nihil and it was very time-consuming. The controlling department established an Annual Operating Plan (AOP). The AOP is, in a nutshell, a tool which translates a long-term strategy into year pockets. The AOP is not in the first place about finance. It is more about what the organization wants to do. Operators deliver data in order to make the AOP. Consequently, this idea fosters empowerment.
(ROFO), which is every quarter. And the next step is not a forecast per quarter, but it should become a continuously changing forecast.” (OC)
The current role of the AM is still concerned with accountancy duties and controlling plants located abroad. On the other hand, the current role of the OC is less involved in financial activities.
“Gradually, I’m much more like a companion than the one who has the absolute truth. So, it’s more like being a process manager than being the financial man.” (OC)
The AOP was established within the controlling department. That shows how controllers are proactively stimulating and improving business processes in their current role. Auping made a clear distinction in terms of roles for the controllers between operational and transactional processes.
Alignment of Current Role and Expectations
A logistics manager of Auping mentioned that interference of controllers can delay business improvements. On the other hand, controllers think that they can add value to the business if they are involved in project teams. An organizational factor which can conquer this role conflict is concerned with integrating finance into improvement teams. When a controller is already involved in the project, it should not take too long to calculate the profitability of the investment. This organizational factor is not granted yet.
“Finance is insufficiently integrated in these project groups, to be honest.” (OC)
However, it is not only this organizational factor which can conquer abovementioned role conflict. An crucial individual factor is a proactive behavior of controllers. Controllers should be more visible at the gemba, otherwise collaborating with operators will be too difficult. Controllers should develop this skill further.
“With all my respect, but lots of my colleagues are moving not often enough to the floor. That’s the place where it all happens.” (OC)
On the other hand, controllers should provide top management with monthly reports and forecasts. Another conflicting role expectation. Some of these activities are very labor intensive and time-consuming, and could be automated, according to both financial professionals. Auping could, thus, develop an organized IT landscape, an organizational factor, in order to automate financial activities and help controllers in their efforts to become more visible at the gemba.
“Automating labor intensive processes, enables me to contribute more to operations.” (AM)
Of course it is not only automating financial activities which enables controllers to collaborate more with operations. Workplace flexibility, which is important at Auping, enables controllers to be more visible for operations as well.
Individual factors (such as: proactive behavior) and organizational factors (such as: integrating finance in projects, investing in IT, and workplace flexibility) can help controllers overcoming conflicting role expectations.
4.2 Heineken
Heineken is a Dutch brewery with plants all over the world. In 2003, Heineken Corporate decided to implement Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) in all their breweries and lean in their administrative departments. Heineken’s plant in ‘s-Hertogenbosch was one of the pilot plants which implemented TPM in 2003. The implementation failed in its first year due to a lack of practical knowledge. Therefore, in 2004, Heineken recruited experienced people who had worked with TPM already. Together with consultants, these recruited people were the ‘change managers’ in the brewery. In five years the brewery in ‘s-Hertogenbosch was totally TPM focused. The slogan within the brewery is: “If you do what you did. You get what you got”. This slogan represents the continuous drift to improve your performance every day. Heineken’s plant in ‘s-Hertogenbosch consists of approximately 500 employees, from whom 400 are part of the brewery. I have interviewed two business controllers (BC1 & BC2), and one technical service manager (TM).
Former Role
The finance department has changed drastically when Heineken decided to outsource the financial activities to a shared service center in Poland. Before this reorganization, the finance department consisted of eight financials and was more focused on basic financial activities. Nowadays, the finance department consists of two business controllers.
“All financial services, such as accounts payables, accounts receivables, and reporting have been outsourced to the shared service center.” (BC1)
In the past, control was operating in the operations department. The reorganization, along with other changes in the strategy, explains why controllers became less visible for operators. For the past few years, controllers are trying to be more in the gemba.
“Earlier, control had their own office here at the operations department. They were visible and operators walked in and out. […] Recently, they [controllers] try to be here at least one morning per week.” (TM)
Changing Role Expectations
With the transition from reactive control towards a proactive business partner role, some role expectations has changed.
Controllers. Since controllers work with many parties, controllers find that it is important to distinguish
work between those different parties.
“We are always in a split between supporting operations and focusing on financial activities. That is the grey area, what do you do out of your finance role and what out of your brewery role.” (BC1)
If controllers are more on the floor, the proactivity of controllers will increase. Proactive behavior of controllers should enable before-the-fact control, according to a business controller.
“When we have a proactive role, we can try to prevent issues from happening and steer towards company’s vision and strategy.” (BC2)
Controller’s perception is that they need to be independent in making judgements and they should be results oriented and have the ability to convince their stakeholders.
“You have to realize what your role is. I’m not here to make friends and be nice to everyone, because it can reduce my ability to stay independent.” (BC2)
Thus, independence is important for controllers of Heineken. Controllers find that they should work more out-of-the-function in order to fulfill the business partner role, which could reduce independence.
“Go to the line, don’t stay behind your Excel sheet, talk with the people. […] Your input comes from the floor. So you need business knowledge and knowledge about process improvements. Both in theory and in practice.” (BC1)
Operations Manager. The perception of a technical manager is that controllers react instead of
proactively act and controllers should operate much more out-of-the-function.
“They should leave their office building more often and take a walk on the work floor. They are always available, but they will never visit you.” (TM)
At times it is hardly possible to calculate the gains from innovations. According to a technical manager, controllers should, therefore, understand the strategy and vision of operations departments.
“Often beliefs and vision are not quantifiable. The controller then needs some empathy in order to make the best decisions for the organization.” (TM)
Following quote illustrates the expectations from a technical manager towards the role of the controller.
“Finance may stay somewhat conservative. […] As long as they know where we are going to. It’s okay if they sit at the back of our cart, they don’t have to be the front-runners. But they should ride along with us, and maybe they can help us speeding up sometimes.” (TM)
Operations managers expect controllers to have empathy in order to understand processes and the business.
Current Role
Four years ago, Heineken Corporate decided that all business controllers should become business partners. It is still a bit questionable how the exact role of a business partner should look like.
“We are still in the transition phase from business control to business partnering. It still is vague what it in the end means.” (BC1)
When the controllers ‘became’ business partners, some struggles arose. A technical manager mentioned that controllers stopped with basic activities (such as: reporting) and became more involved in processes.
“Controllers became my partners, but I received more work. So they were a bit lazy partners. They did the fun things and for me only the basic activities were left. […] But today we found a right working mode, since we discuss much more on a strategic level.” (TM)
Thus, the new role of controllers within Heineken is concerned with being proactively involved in the business, without losing independence. Heineken’s controller is: an independent person with enough knowledge to convince people and to advice the business.
“In my opinion, you can see the role of a controller as an Internal Consultant.” (BC2)
The collaboration with operations is in the current role of controllers more focused on strategic issues. Controller’s current role is more involved in operational processes, while at the same time their role stays independent.
Alignment of Current Role and Expectations
An important role conflict concerns working out-of-the-function of controllers. Controllers themselves want to work out-of-the-function more often, while a technical managers expects that they become more visible. Thus, controllers are aware of this role expectation, but they are not often enough at the gemba. Working together with operations should improve results, according to a controller.
“If we bundle our forces, then we are very strong. We are supplementary to each other.” (BC1)
The collaboration between operations and control is not perceived as optimal yet. However, both departments speak a common language. Speaking this common language and being visible for the operators leads to more common understandings. Which conquers this role conflict and enables controllers to get empathy with the business.
“Because we speak a common language, the distance between finance and operations has decreased.” (BC1)
“I can live with a red-colored dashboard, as long as it is in the interest of Heineken.” (BC1)
Thus, the most important individual factor is that controllers should have empathy in order to conquer ambiguous role expectations. Organizational factors, such as providing a climate wherein controllers can work out-of-the-function and speaking a common language, are crucial in the battle to overcome conflicting role expectations.
4.3 Dutch-plant
Dutch-plant (pseudonym) is a plant of a manufacturing company of sanitary products. Its headquarter (HQ) is located in Germany. The plant in The Netherlands is specialized in sanitary products, such as: baths, whirlpools, and shower bases. In 2006, Dutch-plant faced a major reorganization. Administrative duties were centralized and a part of the production was relocated to the Czech Republic. Due to financially tough times, in 2008, Dutch-plant realized it had to change and become more efficient. Management decided to send all employees a survey. In order to identify their needs and in order to achieve some ideas which should improve the efficiency of the plant. Together with a consultant, some employees, and the survey data, Dutch-plant implemented lean management in 2008. Dutch-plant is the only plant of the concern which implemented lean. I have interviewed two financial managers (FM1 & FM2) and one production manager (PM). Finance plays a key role within Dutch-plant.
Former Role
Since the reorganization in 2006, several administrative duties have been centralized and removed from the plant. The remarks below from a financial manager illustrate the different responsibilities of the financial department at HQ and Dutch-plant.
“Administrative parts are centralized to the headquarter. Thus, we are working with a shared service center accounting. Which means that a big accounting department at Germany is responsible for the financial administration. [...] They deliver the monthly reports and they follow our forecasts, but we make our own decisions.” (FM1)
The former role of the financial professionals was concerned with registering and collecting data. It was like controlling the business as number crunchers.
“In the past our role was strongly pointed on control. Are those records correct? And if there states €100,000 is it really €100,000?” (FM1)
The distance between operations departments and the controlling department was significant. Rarely, controllers went to the gemba. Additionally, controllers and operations management collaborated not often enough.
Controller’s former role was concerned with collecting data, controlling the business and controllers operated ad-hoc, in the perception of a production manager.
Changing Role Expectations
Ad-hoc working and extensively controlling the business is not desirable within lean organizations, because it is not directly value adding. Therefore, expectations towards controller’s role has changed.
Controllers. According to a financial manager, the new role of controllers should be much more
concerned with collaborating with others. He argues, therefore, that controllers should be visible and listen more to colleagues.
“Before lean, I think I was much more behind my desk at our department. […] Now, we should know what is going on.” (FM2)
A financial manager mentioned that controllers should be full-fledged business partners. Accordingly, a proactive behavior is very important, because this contributes to your generic knowledge which enables you to support purposeful.
“In order to become a full-fledged partner, you need enough generic knowledge to make decisions, to swap ideas, and to stimulate the business.” (FM1)
Operations Manager. A production manager calls for mutual trust between operations and controllers.
Controllers should, in his opinion, trust operators with investments in business improvements, since gains are not always quantifiable.
“When we are standardizing processes. Well, sometimes it is impossible to calculate the gains. Because, what is the gain if an operator walks 2 meters instead of 7 meters in order to grab his tools. […] Investing in standardization processes requires mutual trust sometimes.” (PM)
Headquarters. The implementation of lean has changed the role of the finance department locally, but
expectations from HQ towards the finance department did not change significantly. HQ still decides which reports controllers have to deliver. Some accounting methods are, therefore, based on the old philosophy, while at Dutch-plant, it is important to eliminate wastes and stimulate innovation processes. Controllers should deal with this field of tension. The following quote of a productions manager illustrates these different role expectations again.
“They (the controllers) have not got an easy job in here. They should stick to the rules of Germany, and on the other hand they have to deal with guys like me.” (PM)
Current Role
Controllers are continuously searching how principles of lean accounting can help them in their role as controller. Lean tools, such as: backflush method and matching principle for invoices, are already implemented at Dutch-plant. Dutch-plant tried to use value stream mapping as well, but after many unsuccessful attempts they did not implement this tool. There are, thus, some difficulties to assimilate theory about lean principles and how to use them in practice.
“Every time I read about lean accounting, my final conclusion is: Yeah, nice those ideas. But how can I use them in practice. How is it possible to transform traditional rules of the game and the traditional bookkeeping and administrative duties into lean accounting.” (FM1)
Furthermore, controllers are more proactively involved in the business. Which supports talking with colleagues about business issues, and supporting on difficult topics. The proactive behavior of controllers is really a conscious topic. In this way controllers prevent that employees see them as ad-hoc workers who are exclusively working with numbers.
“After lean we spread our wings and now we are going much more to the floor.” (FM2)
A financial manager mentioned that they operate more out-of-the-function and are more involved in core processes. The following quote of a production manager adds to this remark.
“Formerly, the financial professionals were the ones who made the numbers and forecasts, and the ones who were controlling me. […] This is transformed towards a supporting role and they are much more involved in projects. That transition is fantastic to see.” (PM)
From HQs point of view, the local controllers are responsible for all financial ins and outs. At Dutch-plant the role of the controller is, however, much more concerned with supporting and thinking along with operators and managers in order to improve processes and eliminate waste.
“Thus, for headquarters controlling is the most important function. But locally we are more involved in the core processes. Sometimes that leads to ambiguity.” (FM2)
Controllers, in their current role, implemented some useful lean tools in order to raise efficiency. Collaboration with operations increased, since controllers work more out-of-the-function. Controllers’ role is, however, still concerned with reporting activities in order to meet HQs demands.
Alignment of Current Role and Expectations
“I am like a mediator between our operations at Dutch-plant and our headquarter. […] I do not want to bother our local plant with the burden of the headquarter.” (FM1)
Operations calls for mutual trust, while controllers want to collaborate more with operations as well. This role expectations can be fulfilled by the organizational structure, there should be room for project teams. Accordingly, controllers can interfere with all kind of projects, and transform those projects and activities into numbers. Following quote shows the importance of the attendance of controllers in teams.
“We are already part of some project teams, however, some projects operated without controllers. Afterwards, we have reaped the consequences from those projects since we were confronted with big unexpected financial disappointments.” (FM2)
Collaborating with operators takes new role expectations along. The top is interested in the helicopter view and more generic information. While lower-level employees are more curious in details. Controllers should have the ability to make complicated data concise.
“Towards the people on the floor we deliver public reports in a very brief form with only a few figures and graphs.” (FM2)
Individual factors which can conquer conflicting role expectations are concerned with the ability: to act as a mediator, act proactive, and to make concise reports. Organizational factors, such as: the burden of HQs and a structure wherein teamwork is important, are factors which can influence the role of the controller.
4.4 Cross-Case Analysis
In this cross-case analysis I will place emphasis on relevant similarities and differences between the three cases.
Former Role
The former role of controllers in all three companies was concerned with basic financial activities. Due to the implementation of shared service centers, the size of the financial departments at the plants of Heineken and Dutch-plant decreased significantly. Auping still has a relatively large financial department, that is also because their financial department acts as service center for plants in foreign countries. Thus, within Heineken and Dutch-plant these basic financial activities have been outsourced, while at Auping there is a clear distinction of roles and responsibilities between the financial professionals.
Changing Role Expectations
Controllers. Controllers in the case companies are aware that they should focus on adding value to the
that they should work more out-of-the-function in order to gain generic knowledge and collaborate with operations.
Operations Manager. All (business) managers in the case companies argue that controllers should have
empathy with the business. Empathy can foster mutual trust, which is required when gains of investments are not directly measurable. Mutual trust reduces the need to make complicated calculations for every investment.
Current Role
Controllers within Auping stimulate lean management explicitly, probably more than controllers at other case companies. Cause of this observation can be that Auping conscious have chosen for lean management in economically successful times. Where Heineken and Dutch-plant used TPM and lean more as last resort in order to overcome inefficiencies and financially tough times.
Controllers in all three case companies should still deliver data to headquarters or top management. On the other hand, they all reduced the distance to operations. Thus, controllers work more out-of-the-function, but they should still deliver reports to the top.
Alignment of Current Role and Expectations
Thus, which individual and organizational factors can conquer situations of conflicting and ambiguous role expectations and influence the role of the controller? An often occurring ambiguous role expectations concerns becoming visible for operations. On one hand, controllers should still report to the top, while on the other hand operations expects that controllers are visible. The demand to make reports is already reduced through reorganizations. Becoming visible is concerned with both organizational and individual factors. Companies should stimulate the integration of financial professionals in improvement teams. Simultaneously, controllers should have empathic skills and a proactive behavior in order to add value in those teams.
5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION 5.1 Summary of Findings
Aim of this study was to answer the following research question: In a situation of conflicting and
ambiguous role expectations due to lean implementations, how do individual and organizational factors influence the role of controllers? Within this question, I have made one assumption. Namely, that due
to lean implementations conflicting and ambiguous role expectations arise. During the empirical research, I found indeed conflicting and ambiguous role expectations after the role of the controller has changed.
about reactive controlling versus proactive controlling. Role ambiguities were also observable, namely controllers who wanted to collaborate with operations more frequently while operations did not expect that controllers interfere continuously on operational issues. Another changing role expectation is concerned with the cognitive ability of the stakeholders of controllers. Controllers should work with both operators and top management, therefore, controllers should be able to make reports which fit to the stakeholder’s demands.
Organizational and individual factors can conquer conflicting role expectations and influence the role of the controller. Starting with the organizational factors. The organizational structure is very important for controllers in order to get involved in operational processes. If organizations emphasize workplace flexibility or working in project teams, organizations enables controllers to become involved at operations. Organizations can reduce time spent on basic financial activities if they are able to automate or outsource them. This enables controllers to focus more on core processes as well.
Individual factors which influence the role of the controller and can conquer conflicting role expectations are concerned with skills and behavior. Controllers should have a proactive behavior, which means that they are looking for opportunities themselves to add value to the business. Proactivity is important as well in order to collaborate with operators. As long as controllers maintain their position and stay in their ‘ivory towers’, operators are not interested to collaborate with controllers, since the distance between both parties is too big. Additionally, when controllers become more involved in the business, their empathy to the business will develop further. Empathy is required in order to work effectively with operations. Controllers should have the ability to make concise reports, because operators, as new stakeholder, do not want complicated reports to find out how they performed. Ambiguous and conflicting role expectations are commonplace when the role of the controller is changing. Organizational and individual factors can influence the role of the controller, and these factors can diminish conflicting role expectations. In figure 3, the framework of this study is presented. Without the stereotypes (business partners and lean control) and with empirical findings.
5.2 Findings related to Extant Literature
According to Järvenpää (2007), Quinn (2014), and Siegel et al. (2003), controllers should already take the business partner role. The controllers of the case companies are, however, not in the business partnering role yet. Case companies want their controllers becoming more involved in the process and act as business partner. This contradicts with the study of Lambert & Sponem (2012), who found that not all organizations want their controllers to be business partners. Lambert & Sponem (2012) argue that operations managers may not recognize the relevance of analysis and information provided by controllers. In practice, operations managers are willing to collaborate with controllers. Operations managers, in this study, understand how analysis and calculations contribute to process improvements. Furthermore, Lambert & Sponem (2012) argue that operations managers experience interacting with controllers as a waste of time. Since waste elimination is the most important topic of lean organizations, one could argue that Lambert & Sponem’s claim should definitely hold in this study. However, this claim seems to be irrelevant at lean companies for two reasons. Firstly, although operations managers think that reading reports about results of previous year, or month is indeed a waste of time, these reports are disappearing in lean organizations. Secondly, operations managers argue that they understand the added value of controllers and they argue that controllers and operators make each other perform better if both parties interact regularly.
Reorganizations of the finance department can, confirmed by Järvenpää (2007), stimulate controllers to transform to the business partner role. When basic financial activities become outsourced, controllers are better able to proactively improve the business. Without saying that lean companies need business partners; minimalizing financial activities is always preferred, because controllers can spent more time on core processes. Thus, investing in organizational factors can foster the ability to improve individual factors. Lean companies can gain from investments in technologies. Those technologies should be convenient and work easily (Hopkins, 2010). When there is one common IT landscape, it reduces time spent on searching in different databases. Thus, it is an elimination of waste when organizations invest in proper IT packages. Therefore, technology drives the role of the controller.
Controllers should inform top management about the profitability and all financial ins and outs (Macintosh & Daft, 1987; Sathe, 1983). This holds for controllers in lean companies as well. On the other hand, controllers should stimulate and improve business processes (Maskell & Baggaley, 2006). Thus, top management and operations have different role expectations towards controllers. Empathy and proactivity, as individual factors, enables controllers to overcome these role conflicts. Empathic ability enables controllers to prioritize activities better and understand which activities are urgent.
5.3 Theoretical Implications
This study, however, found that operations managers are willing to collaborate with controllers. Cause of this contradiction could be that within lean environments more collaboration is required between controllers and operations departments.
Maskell & Baggaley (2006) present on a clear and concise manner how lean accounting should be performed. They neglect, however, how controllers should cope with changing role expectations which come along while implementing lean tools. This study addresses that conflicting and ambiguous role expectations arise due to lean. It further states how these role expectations can be conquered with organizational and individual factors.
5.4 Practical Implications
Byrne & Pierce (2007) found how antecedents and characteristics influence the role of the controller. In their call for further research they raise the question which particular factors are relevant in specific organizational contexts. This study is focused on lean companies. Within this specific context, it is important that controllers receive enough authority and freedom to focus more on business improvements. An important part of their former duties was concerned with basic financial activities. Those activities can be outsourced or automated in order to obtain more time which can be spent on analysis for process improvements.
With respect to the individual factors of the controller, it is important to have empathy and a proactive behavior. This is helpful in the collaboration with operations and it will enable controllers to add more value to the organization. When the controller is involved in the business, operators are more likely to use the knowledge of controllers and vice versa.
5.5 Limitations
Typical for all studies is that they take a number of limitations along. Firstly, this study was aimed at lean companies exclusively. Secondly, the selection of the interviewees was left to a liaison within the case companies. They could have selected favorable managers or just determined relevant interviewees based on availability. Thirdly, this study has taken place in The Netherlands. This country is famous for their compromises, everyone can add ideas to current concepts. Therefore, it is possible that within other cultures there is less need for a proactive controller with empathic skills. Fourthly, this study was conducted in manufacturing firms, it could be possible that within service companies findings differ.
5.6 Future Research
project teams. Thirdly, a conflict between forms of control is identified in this study. Top management sometimes need a reactive controller, while operations management need a proactive controller. Future research could focus on the conflict reactive versus proactive controlling and investigate whether it is preferable that one controller performs both roles. Fourthly, this study found that operations managers and controllers are willing to collaborate together. The study of Lambert & Sponem (2012) contradicts with my findings, thus, an extensive case study could explore this phenomena even further in order to find generalizability’s.
