exploring the dual responsibilities of operations managers

When spaces collide: exploringthe dual responsibilities of

operations managersAmanda Curry and Anders Hersinger

Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences,Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the ways in which notions of space, constituted bymanagement accounting and operations, interact, conflict and are understood by operations managers in avariety of situations within the context of iron ore mining. The authors address a dual question: How doaccounting space and production space relate to each other? And what does it mean for operations managersto reside in both those spaces at once?

Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on field studies at a mining company involvingoperations managers who experience tensions between accounting and production responsibilities and mustprioritize between different courses of action to create value.

Findings – In contrast to the view that management accounting poses a problem for operations managers inproduction environments, the authors show how especially discursive tensions foster reflection and choice.Operations managers prioritize their actions in accordance with management accounting or operations basedon how they experience and reflect upon the tensions they encounter, dominating artifacts and theirexperienced relation to space. Operations managers are not tied to specific spaces, but they prioritize theirresponsibility to management accounting or operations depending on the space to which they feel a sense ofbelongingness.

Originality/value – Drawing upon a conceptualization of tensions between management accounting andoperations as a spatial phenomenon, it is possible to understand the dilemmas experienced by operationsmanagers in a dynamic and relational way. The authors propose that viewing tensions between managementaccounting and production as spatial phenomena enables a novel understanding of how such tensions cancreate reflexivity in responsibility with operations managers.

Keywords Management accounting, Responsibility, Production, Tension, Space, Everyday work,Operations managers

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThis paper is based on the observation that although the nexus between managementaccounting and operations is an important management concern, there is a scarcity ofresearch addressing their diverging orientations and focal points (Hansen and Mouritsen,2007). There are also diverging views in the literature about the way in which managementaccounting and operations relate to each other.

From one perspective, management accounting should add a vertical point of view tooperational decision-making, the latter which typically is characterized by a lateralorientation among operations managers (Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007). From another

We would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their help to improve this manuscript.

When spacescollide

619

Received 6 February 2019Revised 13 July 2019

16 January 20201 July 2020

24 August 2020Accepted 25 August 2020

Qualitative Research inAccounting &Management

Vol. 17 No. 4, 2020pp. 619-647

© EmeraldPublishingLimited1176-6093

DOI 10.1108/QRAM-02-2019-0031

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:https://www.emerald.com/insight/1176-6093.htm

perspective, vertically oriented management accounting disrupts production, causingdysfunctional action in operational settings (Philipoom and Fry, 1999; Chen, 2008). Someresearchers suggest that there is a need to balance or align management accounting andoperational work (Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 1998). Othershold that the tensions need to be contained in various ways (Tillema and van der Steen,2015).

Key issues seem to involve the contrasting principles of vertical and lateral managementcontrol systems and the associated work of managers (Mouritsen, 1999; Abrahamsson et al.,2016; Mack and Goretzki, 2017). Often, researchers focus on tensions between contrastinglogics and the impact those might have on actors’ behavior (Ezzamel et al., 2012; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016).

While such studies have resulted in many insightful ideas about tensions inorganizations, the actors involved have been attributed a rather passive role, where theiractions are the result of logics that shape their behavior. In this paper, we wish tosupplement this line of research by shedding light on how the actors’ own intellectual, moraland emotional processes allow them to understand the tensions between managementaccounting and operations that they experience in their everyday work.

We rely on a framework that emphasizes the connections between internal subjectiveorder and external spatial order (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009). That is, we see tensions asexperienced by operations managers in terms of how they perceive their dualresponsibilities toward management accounting and operations. Operations managers aredeeply involved in activities that reflect their responsibility for maintaining the continuousflow of production. Simultaneously, they need to understand and adhere to managementaccounting to meet their responsibility for fulfilling a company’s financial goals (Styhre,2012). As indicated by the very concept of the “operations manager” (i.e. a manager involvedin operations), these actors transcend two territories and must be able to navigate acrossboth domains to accommodate their responsibilities. In turn, the tensions they experiencecause them to reflect and assume responsibility while making choices.

We propose that the theoretical concept of space is relevant for studying the nexusbetween management accounting and operations because it denotes the organizationalmeasures, procedures and responsibilities that underlie the differentiation of groups in anorganization. Thereby, space makes it possible to understand how everyday work isvisualized and made calculable and manageable (Robson, 1992). In this paper, we definespace as a complex social construction based on values and meanings (Zhang et al., 2008).Space therefore can differentiate between groups and reflects particular responsibilities andvalues (shared) within a group. Yet, space is not merely abstract and cognitive. Rather,space constitutes sets of relations between artifacts and actors and connects internalsubjective order with external spatial order (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009).

Space can thus be constructed via actors’ acquisition and distribution of knowledge, viamoral obligations and actors’ curiosity. According to Bauman (1993, p. 182), when actorscome to understand and share their understandings it can establish a feeling of spacebelongingness as a result of their experience. Therefore, space manifests itself in individualand collective patterns of perception (Zhang et al., 2008). However, space is not static overtime. Instead it allows for a theorization that new relationships might require new spaces,and that spaces can be disrupted. This implies that space is constructed by actors, yet actorscan be assigned to respond to this space via well-defined responsibilities. Thus, there is amutually constitutive relationship between operations managers and space.

In this paper, we explore what it means for operations managers to be required to dealwith management accounting and operational responsibilities simultaneously. Specifically,

QRAM17,4

620

we explore the ways in which notions of space, as constituted distinctly by managementaccounting and operations, interact, conflict and are understood by operations managers ina variety of situations within the context of iron ore mining. In so doing, we draw onCarmona et al.’s (1997, 2002) conceptualization of “accounting space” as analytical andcalculable and contrast this conceptualization with the concept of “production space” as ageneric term for space constituted by the lateral flow of production.

Accounting space is “articulated upon physical factory space that makes possible theassessment, comparison, ranking and differentiation of operators and activities” (Carmonaet al., 2002, p. 244). In contrast, production space concerns the activities (Wheelwright, 1981;Johnston Brignall and Fitzgerald, 2002) and horizontal information-sharing (Chenhall, 2008)that enable the continuous production of output. From this point of view, we address a dualquestion:

Q1. How do accounting space and production space relate to each other?

Q2. What does it mean for operations managers to reside in both those spaces at once?

This paper contributes to the literature on tensions between management accounting andoperations with a conceptualization of space that puts human action in a nexus of processes,people and artifacts. Such a conceptualization allows an understanding of tensionsas experienced by operations managers in a dynamic and relational way, where operationsmanagers relate to space in terms of feelings of belongingness. Additionally, the paper givesinsight into not only the reasons for operations managers’ action as subject to institutionalframes but also internal intellectual, moral and emotional processes. This paper alsoresponds to what has been referred to as a “significant omission” in terms of theorizingspace in accounting research (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009, p. 138), by showing howconceptualization of tensions as a spatial phenomenon enables theorization of how actorsunderstand, could come to question, and act upon their responsibilities. We propose that itmay be less a matter of minimizing these tensions than of understanding how they cancreate reflexivity among operations managers in their responsibility.

2. Space, accounting and everyday work in the literatureThis study is theoretically informed by the notion of space and draws upon the concepts ofaccounting space and production space in particular to contribute the literature on tensionsbetween management accounting and operations and how such tensions can be understoodto enable operations managers to act in their everyday work. First, we discuss previousresearch on the nexus between management accounting and operations. Thereafter, weaddress how the concept of space provides a theoretical framework that explicatedifferentiation of groups and how actors can relate to accounting space and production space.

2.1 Nexus between management accounting and operationsIn a production environment, lateral information sharing across entities is said to increaseemployee engagement and local knowledge (Denton, 1991, p. 42; Johnston et al., 2002) andimprove operational performance (De Leeuw and Van Den Berg, 2011). To minimizedisruptions in the production process requires coordination between various productionsequences. In addition, focusing on operational performance puts great emphasis onreducing costs (Hansen and Mouritsen, 2006). This leaves operations managers who areresponsible for the production process to handle the requirements of operationalperformance and cost reduction simultaneously.

When spacescollide

621

Although management accounting and operations share a common agenda that focusesprimarily on increasing firm value, the former has received criticism for not supporting thelateral flows that characterize successful production (Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007). Theorysuggests that managing standardized production processes often relies on computationalstrategies (Thompson, 1967; Burchell et al., 1980; Earl and Hopwood, 1980). Managementaccounting could be considered foundational to the computational strategies thatcharacterize standardized production processes. In standardized production processes,concrete outputs are in focus (Lowe and De Loo, 2014), which leaves little interest in the tacitlocal knowledge that has been shown to be essential to production processes (Jönsson andGrönlund, 1988).

Operational work decisions typically include approximations and the exercise ofjudgment (Shekhar et al., 2019). From a management accounting perspective, it may beproblematic not to acknowledge heuristics as a component of an operational frame ofreference. Tensions may arise if management accounting intrudes on the lateral productionorientation by imposing orders that are not seemingly in line with operational frames ofreference. For instance, operations managers may find themselves in situations where theyhave to balance the responsibility to reduce costs with the responsibility to maintainconsistent availability of production time on shop-floor machines.

From a management accounting perspective, order must be imposed on chaoticproduction processes. The idea that management accounting should add perspective toproduction-oriented processes may not be unproblematic. For instance, some studies havefound that management accounting and the lateral flow of production may not alwaysoperate in harmony. The mobilization of new technologies has rendered shortcomings in anexisting system visible and therefore questioned (Mouritsen, 1999). Mouritsen therebyhighlights how knowledge can be mobilized to question management technologies that havebeen taken for granted. Management accounting and operations may also produceconflicting representations of their respective realities (Lowe and Koh, 2007).

In a production environment, lateral structures shape daily activities, whereas verticalstructures provide context, forming organizational boundaries (van der Meer-Kooistra andScapens, 2008, 2015). The combination of pressure from vertical structures and emphasis onlateral relationships has been found in previous research to be important for productiveinterrelationships (Varoutsa and Scapens, 2015). These studies emphasize the importance ofacknowledging both vertical and lateral structures as mutually constitutive of theirrespective contexts. Nonetheless, the tensions that arise from the intersection betweenmanagement accounting and operations are encountered by actors who work close to theproduction process andwith one foot in each sphere, such as operations managers.

As mentioned previously, operations managers need to mobilize team members andresources to realize organizational aims. In view of their pursuit of organizational goals,operations managers may also be required to pay attention to management accounting.Irrespective of management accounting, operations managers might have a naturalorientation toward focusing their attention on lateral flows of production. They are thereforesimultaneously responsible for operations and for keeping that operational work in line withthe order imposed by management accounting. In such situations marked by conflictingresponsibilities, operations managers need to prioritize their actions.

Huxham and Beech (2003) suggest that the very nature of tensions involve prioritizingone’s actions. Earlier research exploring a similar environment suggests that operationsmanagers are exposed to tensions that require them to prioritize processes to balance theiraccounting responsibilities with their involvement in everyday work (Styhre, 2012). Actionscarried out in correspondence to organizational aims are therefore often decentralized to

QRAM17,4

622

operational levels (Miller, 1992), where operations managers interpret situations and act inresponse (see for example Jönsson and Grönlund, 1988).

2.2 Space, accounting and operations2.2.1 Space, the differentiation of groups and diverging responsibilities. Previous studieshave examined the social construction of space via actors’ experiences and perceptions,indicating that space “comes to life through symbols scattered” within it (Zhang et al., 2008,p. 893). Such ideas put emphasis on the relations between actors and artifacts inconstructing space. Space, created via management accounting, differentiates amonggroups, where the terminology and artifacts associated with a specific space provides actorswith spatial belongingness (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009).

Carmona et al. (1997) show that the organization of production practices andaccounting practices together improved performance in an eighteenth-century tobaccofactory. Drawing on factory spaces, accounting is used to differentiate, compare,hierarchize and homogenize between groups. The precautions taken, including structuralarrangements and accounting calculations, at the tobacco factory improved the flow ofthe production process. In a subsequent paper, Carmona et al. (2002) build on the tobaccofactory study to examine the relationship between accounting practices and space,arguing that accounting practices can function as a time–space ordering mechanism as itvisualizes calculable accounting spaces.

Space is not only constructed via assigned responsibilities and external spatial order.Rather, an actor’s intellectual, moral and emotional processes partake in constructingspace (Bauman, 1993, p. 181). In these processes, understanding, responsibility andemotions become essential. The idea is that physical spatial order becomescomprehended intellectually, morally and emotionally. Operations managers with anoperational orientation may have greater understanding of operations and therefore feela sense of belongingness to the space that characterizes that operational frame ofreference. In our case, this reflects the assignment of specific accounting relatedresponsibilities to operations managers while being oriented toward maintaining lateralproduction flows.

2.2.2 Constructing space via people, processes and artifacts. Empirical studies haveexplored accounting practices that call for organizing production processes into shop-floorgroups in which actors can be held accountable for their performance (Miller and O’Leary,1994). Management accounting can thus divide groups into vertical accounting entities.Kurunmaki (1999) defines an accounting entity as a representational area of interestconstructed to define activities, people and artifacts. In other words, space may varydepending on the actors who operate within a space (Kurunmäki and Miller, 2008).Accounting entities are given boundaries to provide clarity regarding organizationalresponsibilities (Kurunmaki, 1999; Carmona et al., 2002; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009). In thisway, management seeks to manage everyday work within defined spaces (Hayes, 1983) withthe aid of management accounting (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009). An accounting entity thusdiffers from a purely physical space. Dodge and Kitchin (2005, p. 172) argue that “[s]pacegains its form, function, and meaning in practice.” This implies that accounting space candisrupt or reorganize physical space and production space.

Accounting artifacts partake in creating calculable spaces and shape what counts asknowledge. Scott (2014, p. 104) argues that artifacts can embody certain ideas that can crossspaces. In other words, artifacts are carriers of ideas that are likely to affect operationsmanagers, just as any other actor. Orlikowski (1992;2007) shows how actors interact andinterpret artifacts. She argues that artifacts become an integral part of everyday work.

When spacescollide

623

Styhre (2013) further shows how space is shaped by the relationship between actors andtechnological systems (i.e. artifacts). This implies that artifacts such as production-processcharts, computer systems, automation systems and management accounting shape howoperations managers construct space. Czarniawska and Joerges (1996) argue thatmaterialization of a combination of ideas are like “avalanches” and that, at a given time, in agiven space, one artifact can be dominating. Artifacts embodying either managementaccounting or operations could thus play a part in enabling operations managers toexperience accounting space or production space belongingness related to the attributes andmeanings associated with a specific space.

2.2.3 Tensions and questioning space belongingness. Kurunmaki (1999) suggests that theactors who construct organizational entities do so for a variety of reasons. Constructingaccounting space may therefore be problematic as the meanings of the definitions mightdiffer to those who would be subject to accounting space. Accounting space may thereforebe subject to questioning by operations managers who reside in accounting space andproduction space. Tensions may arise because management accounting differentiatesoperational teams into separate entities (Carmona et al., 2002), whereas the everyday work ofoperations managers relies on cross-functional lateral flows of production and information(Hansen and Mouritsen, 2006). In some cases, accounting space interferes with howoperations managers construct everyday work that is characterized by lateral flow. In thisway, spaces might become blurred (Bauman, 1993, p. 187) and actors may experiencemultiple instances of space belongingness.

Bauman (1993, p. 183) argues that the higher the quality of the knowledge an actor hasabout something, the closer they perceive themselves as belonging to that space. This mightbe referred to as a “with-relation” (Bauman, 1993, p. 182; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009). Theknowledge of operations managers might be so ordinary that they no longer reflect on it. Astronger perception of belonging to one space (Ahrens and Mollona, 2007) might affect howoperations managers are constrained by their responsibilities. For instance, operationsmanagers are likely to have understanding about the production process, and therefore theymight feel that they belong to production space rather than to accounting space and thusrespond to that space. This also implies that if understanding of the attributes associatedwith a specific space is low, it might be harder to relate to that space (Bauman, 1993, p. 184).Operations managers might not feel that they belong to accounting space to the same extentas they do to production space because of their operational orientation.

At times, management accounting can constrain managers (Hopwood, 1972). Theseconstraints make it difficult to question management accounting without accountingunderstanding (Knights and Collinson, 1987; Ezzamel, 1994). Questioning thereforediminishes perceived authority (Quattrone and Hopper, 2005). Bauman (1993, p. 184) arguesthat actors can recognize ambiguities more clearly if they have understanding of theattributes within a space. He further suggests that misunderstandings can cause actors tounderstand things differently. That is, ambiguities can cause actors to experience tensionsand therefore enable them to question something they previously took for granted. Yet,understanding can become a moral responsibility in virtue of which operations managersneed to respond to accounting space. This might be referred to as a “for-relation” (Bauman,1993, p. 205; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009). Moral responsibility might cause operationsmanagers to become “deaf and blind” to what was taken for granted. Such situations whereoperations managers come to know management accounting might undermine productionspace.

Space therefore plays a significant role in everyday work, as it keeps the focus ofoperations managers within defined boundaries, enabling them to recognize the attributes

QRAM17,4

624

and artifacts to be accounted for, such as budget or production targets. What is to beunderstood as knowledge and how knowledge is organized is therefore highly related tospace (Miller and Rose, 1990; Miller and O’Leary, 1994). This could be related to Bauman’s(1993, p. 186) distribution and acquiring of knowledge as operations managers could feeldetached from accounting space because their accounting understanding is inferior to theunderstanding that they have of the production process. Operations managers can thus feeltorn between their responsibilities toward accounting space and production space. In thisway, operations managers are subject to tensions that arise between their responsibility foraccounting space and their responsibility for production space (Figure 1).

Figure 1 shows how we conceptualize an overlap between accounting space andproduction space likely to encompass tensions between operations managers’ divergingresponsibilities. While accounting space is concerned with making abstract space analyticalby quantifying actors and their practices, production space is concerned with activities thatare central to running smooth and continuous operations to maintain steady productionoutput. The concern for both spaces, though, is to protect core operations, albeit withvarying means. Space is in this way dynamic and constructed by relations between people,artifacts and practices and constitutes a theoretical lens through which to study tensionsthat arise in the nexus between management accounting and operations. Operationsmanagers simultaneously shoulder responsibilities for accounting space and productionspace. Nonetheless, either space belongingness can become questioned by operationsmanagers via tensions that may cause them to deliberate and see alternative courses ofaction.

3. Ethnographic method3.1 Research designThe ethnographic method of researching the micro-dynamics of everyday work atoperational levels is not designed primarily to produce understanding that is “better” thanthat of organizational members; rather, it suggests that the researcher and organizationalmembers understand things differently (Czarniawska, 2007, p. 21). In that sense, there is arelationship between practice and research, with a shared learning opportunity for bothparties (Baxter and Chua, 2009). To capture micro-dynamics of practice, researchers need tobe present continuously where action takes place to render the research interpretative andauthentic regarding what happens (Jönsson and Macintosh, 1997). The actions ofindividuals can be understood by identifying situational conditions and their interpretationsof those conditions (Scott, 2014, p. 67). In other words, by observing situations in whichaccounting takes place in the conduct of everyday work, it is possible to understand themicro-dynamics through which actions are embedded in norms, values, shared meanings,habits and scripts for action (Abelson, 1981; Arnold, 2009).

Figure 1.Overlap between

accounting space andproduction space

When spacescollide

625

3.2 Research settingA mining company was chosen as the research setting, for three main reasons. First, themining setting uses a process that is close to standardized and technically rationalproduction (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979), where all iron ore that is produced is sold,making it possible to think in terms of measuring concrete inputs and outputs. Second, inmining settings tensions have the potential to be clearly visualized, making them especiallyillustrative for the purpose of discussion. Mining production environments are typicallycharacterized by capital-intensive structures, complex technology, process orientation andsafety regulations. This includes focus on production surveillance, reduced setup and leadtimes, internal and external networking, employee engagement, preventive maintenanceand self-inspection. Apart from standardized production processes, the everyday workundertaken to secure production is characterized by many interrelated processes. One mainconcern for operations managers is thus their responsibility for running the productionprocess without disruptions. At the same time, operations managers have a financialresponsibility. Third, processes that depend largely on human judgment and thereforecannot be automated are important in mining.

3.2.1 MinCo mining company at two operational levels. MinCo is a high-techmultinational mining group that operates in the northern part of Sweden. The mining groupoperates divisions for marketing, mining and minerals and has several subsidiaries. Miningsettings are capital-intensive with high yearly depreciation costs, capital-intensiveinvestments and simultaneously a high threshold of minimum safety requirements. Inrecent years, MinCo has experienced a significant decline in its operating margin (from34.6% in 2013 to 5.3% in 2014) and suffered from severe declines in iron ore prices, to whichthe company is highly sensitive. MinCo depends on mountains for extraction and productionof iron ore. Seismic events that are a consequence of large-scale underground mining lead totremors in the bedrock. Such seismic activity is under continuous supervision as theorganization strives to reduce its impact on operations.

While this study was conducted, a new CEO was assigned to MinCo, and most of thegroup management team was replaced. The new focus of group management was to be oncost reduction, resulting in the re-arrangement of shift structures and several employeeterminations.

The process of extracting ore from underground mines differs from that of extracting orefrom open pits. In underground mines, ore is extracted using sub-level caving, whereingravity is used to let the ore fall into development drifts (i.e. horizontal tunnels following theore). In open pits, the ore is extracted using bench-mining methods. The mines are exploitedover the course of several years, during which time a mine expands, resulting in a networkof underground roads and various levels with offices and workshops. The road into themines takes the shape of an unstructured spiral with the intention of reaching the iron ore atthe same time as the road is constructed. For operators (and foremen), however, theworkplace is often at the drift, in the machines, where the gathering spot is the coffee room.There are two separate operational venues in the mines, development drift south anddevelopment drift north, with their own machines and equipment because of the longdistances and high costs of transporting heavy machinery. This study was carried out indevelopment drift north and inMinCo’s production plants.

Ore refining uses three types of plants: a dressing plant, where waste rock is separatedfrom ore; a concentration plant, where the ore is processed; and a pelletizing plant, where theprocessed ore is converted into pellets. The concentration plant thus acts as a mediatingplant between the dressing plant and the pelletizing plant. As such, the dressing plant isconsidered a customer of the concentration plant, which in turn is a supplier of the

QRAM17,4

626

pelletizing plant. Teams operating within the plants have their own budgets, areas ofexpertise (maintenance or operations) and responsibilities, and the operations managersstrive to incorporate this thinking into the teams. Thus, a mine and the associated plantsdepend on each other in a value chain (Figure 2).

As Figure 2 shows, the production chain separated into entities can be compared withhow space differentiates among groups, processes and artifacts and creates divergingresponsibilities for and within the entities, yet how the entities are combined via aggregatedorganizational responsibilities. Each plant operates three shifts: a morning shift, an eveningshift, and a night shift (excluding off-weeks). During the night shift, no one is allowed in themines during blasting. A typical day in the mines involves preparation for the blasting thatoccurs at night, whereas a production process operates continuously in the plants. Note thatproduction that is lost for one day cannot be recouped another day, because the bedrock canwithstand only a certain quota of blasting each night.

The researchers conducted this study mainly in one mine and at the concentration plant.This plant (comprising two parallel concentration facilities) is among the older plants in theset. One of the facilities operates two processing sections (the “twins”), and the otheroperates three processing sections (the “triplets”). Operating two sections means that astoppage reduces production by 50% while the section is out of order. For this reason, thereis a strong focus on preventing unplanned stoppages. Operations managers are responsiblefor the availability of the processing sections. This leaves a strong focus on limiting internaldisturbances.

3.3 Data collectionShadowing can help researchers avoid the taken-for-grantedness that leads one to expectothers to see the world as oneself does (Czarniawska, 2007, p. 11). In the present study,shadowing entailed following operations managers in their everyday work while takingfield notes. Simultaneously, we exploited opportunities to ask questions and discuss actionsthat were observed while they were taking place. In this way, unexpected events could becaptured. In addition, the operations managers involved in the study provided commentaryon their everyday work. Shadowing also included formal meeting observations on the shopfloor and in the mines (i.e. at operational levels) as well as interviews with operationsmanagers and engineers to follow up on the observations. Operations managers assumeresponsibility for production, maintenance and engineering. Formal production meetings(such as shift hand-offs, internal manager meetings, goal follow-up meetings involvingoperations managers and engineers and Monday morning staff meetings) were observed.Also, informal encounters and troubleshooting efforts were observed. In addition, theresearchers accessed internal data, such as process maps, logbooks, whiteboard information,spreadsheets, meeting protocols and production data. The internal data should not be seenas a way of increasing our credibility but rather as a means of improving our understanding

Figure 2.Production chain atthe MinComining

organization

When spacescollide

627

of the actions we observed by showing us how they played out in practice (Ahrens andMollona, 2007). For an overview of the empirical material, see Appendix.

During interviews and discussions, the operations managers were asked to account forconcrete situations and explain how they had managed dilemmas in those situations. Inaddition, they were asked to reflect on situations in which they acted based on accountinginformation. They were asked to describe means and routines for handling decisions in fiveconcrete operations-management situations as well as in non-routine situations (i.e.unexpected situations). Operational situations that were potentially important to operationsmanagers were derived from the operations management literature (Schroeder, 1981;Corbey, 1994; Gupta and Galloway, 2003), where managerial work activities can be dividedalong the two dimensions of tactical and strategic decisions and operationalized into fivetypes of operations-management situations (process, capacity, inventory, workforce andquality). The strategic-decision (focusing on fixed costs) and tactical-decision (focusing onvariable costs) dimensions generated distinct operational activities. In addition, unexpectedsituations were sought in the interviews and during observations. In this way, operationsmanagers were given opportunities to account for situations that were important to themwhere tensions could arise. In addition, shadowing provided opportunities for identifyingsituations where operations managers did not explicitly address tensions.

The first author transcribed all of the materials (including field notes and internalcompany documents), because working with materials as much as possible was consideredan important part of the iterative process of interpreting empirical material. Additionally,meetings might be difficult for a transcriber outside of a given project to understand, asmany organizational members talked simultaneously and an outsider would be unfamiliarwith the meeting context (e.g. gestures, people entering or leaving a room, the materialshown and discussed in a meeting). The first author kept a research diary both duringshadowing (in the form of field notes) and after the shifts ended to compile the texts.

3.4 Data analysisTo interpret and analyze the empirical material, situations revealing tensions betweenaccounting space and production space, where action was undertaken, were analyzed andresulted in four narratives. These four narratives were chosen to illustrate dilemmaswherein operations managers encountered tensions that caused them to mobilize actiontoward production space or accounting space. First, these situations were interpreted interms of what was said (how a situation was explained) and done (what happened and howit was handled). Second, the situations were deconstructed (Czarniawska, 1999, p. 23–24),making it possible to further sort data into themes using spreadsheets (Table 1). Empiricalcoding of what was noticed, said, and done enabled categories to emerge, resulting intheoretical patterns of types of tensions between management accounting and operationsresponsibilities and reflection undertaken regarding whether the reflections are aligned withtensions between management accounting and operations. Operations managers’interpretations of the dilemmas they encountered affected our interpretations regardingwhether they responded to accounting space or production space. In these narratives, bothoperations and accounting artifacts played a central part, enabling us to observe the patternof a dominating artifact in each narrative. We coded operations managers’ relation toaccounting space based on whether management accounting creates moral obligations or istaken for granted by operations managers. From these observations emerged the lasttheoretical pattern, priority for mobilizing action. As this last step emerged in narratives itwas analyzed together with and against other steps, generating a results table that is

QRAM17,4

628

discussed in section five of this paper. Additionally, mind-maps were used to obtain anoverview of relations between organizational members and operational situations.

The results reported in Table 1 show how first-order concepts were derived from whatwas noticed, said and done, generating second-order themes based on our theoreticalinterpretations, which resulted in the identification of five dimensions: type of tension,reflection undertaken, dominating artifact, relation to accounting space and priority formobilizing actions.

The type-of-tension dimension indicated how a dilemma played out betweenmanagement accounting and operations. Reflection undertaken showed whether operationsmanagers saw a dilemma as a source of tension between two contrasting spaces. We havechosen to label the distinction between a dilemma that was seen as a source of tension thatoperations managers could “put in words” and a dilemma that had to be addressed as“discursive” and “practical” tension, respectively (see Haugaard, 2003, p. 100, for thedistinction between practical and discursive consciousness) . Guiding us in drawing thisdistinction was also the physical manifestations of the operations managers in terms of their

Table 1.Coding scheme

First-order concepts Second-order themesAggregatedimensions

Saving the customer and therefore theproduction process

The department versus thevalue chain

Type of tension

Maintaining production, but also discusssub-optimization

Sub-optimization versusproduction stoppages

Producing with target, but also collectingevidence to lowering filling ratios

Maximum versus maintainedcapacity

Keeping low inventory and therefore keepingbudget

Capital tied up versusflexibility

No concerns shown for the budgetary results Practical reflection Reflection undertakenAn acceptance of low inventory costs as it didnot clash with the continuous productionUnexpected exchange of mill-lining visualizestensions

Discursive reflection

Concern shown for how budgets distancesgroups creating tensionsRed unfulfilled targets on whiteboard Accounting artifact Dominating artifactAccounting report of capital tied upProcess map of integrated production process Operations artifactCalculated memo of broken boltsHighlights risks from pushing a machine, yetobeys accounting directives

For-relation Relation toaccounting space

Takes tying up capital as a truth With-relationDoes not stop machines to keep a productionflowQuestions other departments calculationsCulturally supporting the lateral way things aredone around here

Production space priority Priority formobilizing action

Constrained by the budget, but does not see achoice but to maintain productionExtensive pressure from accounting to fulfillratio of one’s department

Accounting space priority

Strong belief in accounting rationale ofdifferentiating between departments

When spacescollide

629

body language and their vocal tones. We interpreted these as signs of frustration. This wascoded as whether an operations manager connected the dilemma to a tension between theirdiverging responsibilities. Bauman (1993, p. 183) suggests that tensions can lead tocognition. Thus, confusion in operations managers triggers deliberations where newinsights can be gained. Frustration helped indicate whether an operations managerquestioned their feeling of space belongingness.

Concerning artifacts, there were contrasting artifacts in the narratives where one wascoded as dominating, based on which artifact constituted the basis of compliance. Priorityfor mobilizing action shows whether operations managers prioritized their actions towardaccounting space or production space. The definitions of accounting space and productionspace constituted the coding key for determining a priority.

To present the empirical findings, four narratives were constructed to represent themanagers’ perspective to reveal actors’ subjective interpretations that underlie the objectiveconditions. The intention in constructing the chosen narratives was to provide a “rich andthick portrayal of a way of life, a narrative that can be read and understood by peopleoutside and inside the community” (Jönsson andMacintosh, 1997, p. 370). Thus, illustrationsof dilemmas that arose between management accounting and operational work contributedto our understanding of organizational members’ actions. In this way, narratives wereessential to our understanding.

4. Accounting space, production space and the lateral flow of iron oreThe following sections present narratives illustrating four operations managementsituations experienced by operations managers at the MinCo concentration plant and inthe mines. All four narratives illuminate tensions concerning operations managers’responsibility for management accounting and operations that they experience in theireveryday work. The narratives reveal how the operations managers reflected on theirreasons for mobilizing action and indicate how they prioritized actions in alignment withaccounting space or production space. First, a summary of each situation is provided alongwith one or several illustrative quotations. Thereafter, we provide an interpretation of thenarrative that draws on the theoretical concept of space.

4.1 Running the grinding mill downOne operations manager at the concentration plant explained that the efficiency targets werenot aligned with the practical capacity of the machines. The production process wascompared to a boat’s engine, where drawing the last drops of gas from the tank costs morethan can be gained from making progress over the water. In the same way, using the lastallotment of resources during the production process costs more than the revenue thatwould be generated by producing more iron ore. The operations manager stressed the needto produce at the top of the curve without passing it, which is a daily topic of discussion. Heshook his head in frustration:

The company is expecting a certain level of production. The calculation of our capacity istheoretically based on our installed capacity and our potential production at the plant [. . .] andthat is [sighs] [. . .] well, yeah [. . .]

The operations manager showed that he did not approve of the targets he had to meet toreach his budget, because of the associated risk of financial losses caused by increasedmaintenance costs. A similar issue was raised at a meeting between the production andmaintenance departments, this time regarding the capacity of the machines to meet the

QRAM17,4

630

efficiency targets set in the management accounting system. As one of the operationsmanagers expressed it:

We need to sit down and discuss where we can produce as efficiently as possible; right now, weare not producing on pace with our goals. [Maintenance] scream that we are running the milldown with too-high filling ratios [. . .] It is a problem.

In a discussion between a process engineer and an operations manager,[1] however, theoperations manager said that he had received a video from one maintenance engineer thatshows a mill spitting out raw goods. The operations manager scratched his head as heexplained that the raw goods came out at the back of the mill. He leaned back in his chair,waiting for an answer from the person with knowledge of the process and he assignedresponsibility to the process engineer. The process engineer quietly responded, as he shookhis head:

We are way below [max capacity]. Temporarily there may be [a spillage effect], but not all thetime. That, that’s not right. It can’t be.

The discussions were brief, and the operations manager defended the high capacity neededto fulfill the efficiency targets visualized on the whiteboard even though maintenance raisedconcerns about the filling ratios. The operations manager was torn between hisresponsibility for the availability of the mill and the responsibility to produce his quota ofiron ore. Simultaneously, the operations manager meant that there is no point pushing themachinery to maximum capacity unless they could increase the output of iron ore. He saidwith annoyance:

I can keep up the discussion and defend the process if I can be sure that you are continuouslychecking the process.

The operations manager’s priority was based on the pressure he felt to hit the efficiencytargets for his entity, which was deemed more important than the maintained machinecapacity. Even though he was explicit and discursive regarding the tension betweenfulfilling targets for efficiently produced iron ore and machine maintenance, he showed thathe did not want to defend reducing the filling ratios without conducting a thorough analysisof the process to back up his decision.

Differences between efficiency targets and maintenance work distanced the entities fromeach other and created tension between the operations manager, the process engineer andthe maintenance engineer in their teams. All three managers were concerned with keepingup and protecting the continuous production of iron ore. Even though the operationsmanager insisted that he recognized the importance of maintaining the machines, meetingthe vertical production targets (assigned by the management accounting system) was moreimportant than acting in accordance with the local knowledge and experiences of themaintenance engineers. The assessed efficiency was perceived as valued more highly thanpreventive maintenance. The maximum capacity was contrasted with subjective notions ofhow to produce iron ore output based on tacit knowledge, experience and gut feelings.Despite subjective notions about how to protect the iron ore production process, theoperations manager complied with the efficiency target.

The above narrative suggests the presence of tension between the responsibility forproducing iron ore to the maximum capacity and the responsibility for maintaining machinecapacity. Producing to the maximum capacity was a specified target for the productiondepartment expressed via its differentiation of operational work into teams with separateyet connected procedures. The capacity of the mill needed to be considered, however, to

When spacescollide

631

maintain and secure production of iron ore. The state of confusion experienced by theoperations manager triggered deliberations and reflection. Reflection was undertakenregarding the tension between accounting space and production space that caused theoperations manager to experience tension between the responsibilities he was assigned fortwo contrasting spaces. This tension and subsequent reflection made the tension discursiveto the operations manager. Yet the differentiation between departments shaped byaccounting space and their contrasting targets remained unquestioned by the operationsmanager in the sense that the production targets worked out on the whiteboard showing rednumbers were deemed more important as an artifact than the video of the “spillage effect.”The operations manager’s relationship with the accounting artifact and the engineer whosupported management accounting made management accounting the basis for order. Theoperations manager prioritized action in accordance with his experienced accounting spacebelongingness.

4.2 Conforming to accounting talkOne operations manager at the concentration plant complained about a dilemma regardingtheir individual inventory responsibilities as they needed to balance their budgetary resultswith their availability requirements and organizational goals. The inventory was dividedinto two categories, raw goods inventory and central supply for spare parts. The costs ofkeeping inventory were assigned to central supply, and the engineers or operationsmanagers were charged when signing out spare parts. As a result, operations managersmust weigh each situation regarding when to prioritize their own teams’ responsibilities orgoals to maintain a secure process of continuous production and when to refrain from self-prioritizing and, instead, respond to other departments’ requirements to minimize costs.

To prioritize which spare parts to keep in inventory, one operations manager described aprocess in which the timing with which the spare part was received was a major factor. Theaspect of not tying up capital in inventory unnecessarily was argued to be important for theorganization, a view that was shared by the operations manager. The central suppliesrequirement of keeping inventory costs low resulted in tradeoffs between minimizinginventory costs and running the plant as smoothly as possible. This choice was not alwayssimple. One operations manager exclaimed:

The central supply work actively to keep inventory costs low, which is healthy; we shouldn’t tieup too much capital. At the same time, I am butting heads with my availability requirements andmy engineers, who often want everything in inventory to keep the machines running!

The tension between keeping inventory levels low and keeping the machines runningstemmed from cost targets assigned by management and visualized through managementaccounting. The focus on continuous production, however, nagged at the operationsmanager. He accepted the accounting talk regarding keeping inventory low, but at the sametime he expressed anxiety because, based on his experience, focusing on the lateral flowswould help to maintain adequate production output of iron ore. Keeping inventory costs lowinfluenced the operations manager to a large extent as he did not seem to question thesoundness of tying up capital for the sake of a secured production process. The costs oftying up capital were apparent in accounting reports. The risk of stoppages and the gainsobtained by a secure production process, however, were not.

The above narrative suggests the presence of tension between the responsibility forreducing capital that is tied up and the responsibility for running a flexible productionprocess. Low inventory was encouraged via the accounting space as it differentiated entitiesin its assessment and rankings. Flexibility in securing the production process was then

QRAM17,4

632

forsaken. The tension identified came from differentiation between functions anddeterminations of who was to bear the costs. The operations manager could recognize thatthere was a dilemma but did not articulate the dilemma as tension between accounting spaceand production space. Interestingly, the costs of keeping spare parts were not assigned tothe operations manager’s department until the spare part was collected. The operationsmanager perceived management accounting, in the shape of performance measurement, tobe more important for the company as a whole than for his department. In other words,accounting space was dynamically expanded to firm level. The operations managerconformed to the accounting talk associated with avoiding tying up capital unnecessarilyeven though it might affect iron ore production. The accounting report constituted acalculable artifact in “black on white.”The accounting report visualizes the soundness of nottying up capital. The experience of the engineers, however, was incalculable. The risks theyraised therefore do not carry equal weight. Thus, the prioritized action was in accordancewith the operations manager’s experienced accounting space belongingness.

4.3 Saving the customerWhile walking through the corridors of the concentration plant with an operations manager,one of the operators stopped us to tell the operations manager that the percentage ofadditives in the concentration process was too low [2]. The operations manager thought thatthis was an odd occurrence, as she had not been told of any deviations at the shift handoff[3]. The operator suggested shutting down one of the two processing sections to manage theunexpected problem, but the operations manager wanted to take a closer look.Consequently, she scrutinized the plant’s process map on her computer, where she couldfollow the production process in real time, and recognized a similar situation, revealing toher that the problem did not originate in their plant but was caused by cross-drivingbetween the concentration plant and the pelletizing plant [4].

The operations manager called her peer colleague at the pelletizing plant and asked ifthey were cross-driving in response to filter problems. Thereafter, she decided not to stopthe processing section, believing that the pelletizing plant would fix the filter problemwithina reasonable period of time. If they were to cross-drive for too long, it could affect the qualityof her product (i.e. slugger), which would make it more difficult to reach the cost target forher plant. She chose to help her customer instead by keeping her sections running. Theproblem could be attributed in part to miscommunication, but they were able to solve itrather quickly based on the operations manager’s experience, without any additionalproblems or increased costs. As the operations manager expressed it:

This should have been handed over to me at the shift handoff, and it should be noted in our blackbook [logbook] [. . .] due to filter problems at the [pelletizing plant], I recognized that it might bedue to compressor issues [. . .] all our start-ups must be supervised [. . .] If [the pelletizing plant]can start their compressors, our additives will be back to normal.

This unexpected situation illustrates a dilemma in which the operations manager needed toconsider both the lateral production flow and the financial performance of her entity. Eventhough to some extent she jeopardized the budgetary outcome of her own plant, she chose tocross-drive with the pelletizing plant to help them for the sake of the production process.The operations manager also faced risks of poorer iron ore quality, but she stuck to rules ofthumb regarding when quality was affected. Thus, she focused on the production processrather than on differentiating between the plants based on the budget boundaries and thecustomer terminology assigned by the accounting system, which divided the plants intoseparate entities.

When spacescollide

633

The above narrative suggests the presence of tension between the responsibility forreducing the department’s bottom line and the responsibility for cooperating with otherdepartments to secure production of iron ore. The tension between accounting space and theproduction space identified in this narrative was not discursive to the operations manager,as the reflection undertaken focused on how to mobilize action so as not to stop themachines. A problem was noticed with the potential to harm iron ore production where sheprioritized the production space. She did not wish to re-start the machines, as this requiredsurveillance by production employees, and she did not want to cause trouble for her fellowoperations manager (the customer). The potential cost increases were only predicted,though, and did not constitute a strong artifact compared with the process map thatvisualized her lateral relationship with the other operations manager. In this way, theoperations manager relinquished accounting space in favor of her focus on the productionprocess and reduced stoppages as she experienced production space belongingness.

4.4 Exchanging a mill liningDuring summer vacation, the mill lining in one of the processing sections at theconcentration plant broke down and needed to be replaced to maintain production.The function of the mill lining was to sort out impurities and grind the ore ahead of theconcentration process. A broken mill lining reduced grinding capacity some 33%–50%depending on the plant. The consequences of the breakdown were disruption of productionand increased costs for the replacement of the mill lining. In addition to the lost production,the broken mill lining caused problems associated with the need to organize productionworkers and their tasks while replacing the broken parts. They had not budgeted for thereplacement, causing one operations manager to express distress over the miscalculation.Clearly, this operations manager was constrained by the accounting system and budgetboundaries. He stroked his beard as he sighed:

Nothing is successful in this situation [. . .] We had to write a memo [. . .] It was not included in theinitial calculation. [. . .] The bolts broke down. They did not hold.

The operations manager relied heavily on the set budget. Because they had not budgeted forthe mill-lining exchange, the fear of incurring expenses that exceeded the budget acted as aconstraint on the operations manager. However, some positive aspects stemming from themanagement accounting system were also acknowledged. Via this disruption, theoperations manager could see the advantage of writing the memo (a procedure which wasrequired for each purchase), because doing so enabled the team to make a conscious decisionabout how their memo would be assessed and compared in priority ranking, especiallyregarding budget deviations. The operations manager reasoned with himself:

Is [the operational cost] in the budget or not [. . .] If it is big enough to cause some effect, we writea memo [. . .] This cost is in the pipe [. . .] Do we get approval or not.

One of the maintenance engineers [5], however, considered the exchange of the broken milllining to be successful, whereas the operations manager saw the breakdown as a problemthat disrupted production. The consequences of the mill-lining breakdown were moresignificant than the consequences of the exchange, however, insofar as it became necessaryto discuss the poor durability of the mill lining with the subcontractors. An issue of sub-optimization was elevated by the operations manager, as he said, with exhaustion in hisvoice:

QRAM17,4

634

They [the purchasing department] show nice numbers for buying cheap products [. . .] and then itappears that the bolts do not hold [. . .] Then I must stop my [processing] section, which costs[. . .]. Well, all the savings from buying cheap linings were lost a long time ago.

The operations manager’s mental state reflects the frustration he experienced when he couldnot meet the budget. He failed to see the exchange of the mill lining as a success. Unexpectedsituations that jeopardized the fulfillment of budget targets were seen as failures, even whena solution was found, and the problem was handled rather quickly considering the summervacation. The operations manager relied heavily on the space provided by the budget.

This failure, as expressed by the operations manager, can be contrasted to the success ofhandling the problem during summer vacation, as expressed by the engineer. Unlike theoperations manager, the engineer was not concerned with sub-optimization orthe production target in terms of increased costs. She was interested in minimizing downtime and did not indicate being affected by management accounting to the same extent asthe operations manager was. Even if the budget was set initially by the operations managerand his teams, the belief in the budget as a contract appeared to constrain the operationsmanager.

The above narrative suggests the presence of tension between the budget responsibilityfor each department and the responsibility for minimizing production stoppages. Thebudget constituted an artifact that encouraged separate departments (i.e. purchasing,maintenance and operations) to sub-optimize, affecting lateral flow and putting theproduction of iron ore at risk. The tension identified in this narrative was not apparent tothe operations manager until the unexpected breakdown of the mill lining occurred. Theoperations manager thus raised questions retroactively as the broken bolts required that amemo be written. In turn, the memo shook the perceptions of the budget as a contract and ofspace as static. The memo as an artifact, together with the tension between hisresponsibilities, enabled reflections wherein the operations manager prioritized highlightingthe tension by discussing sub-optimization and how such acts affect production in terms ofquality and production stoppages. Thus, the contrasting spaces experienced by theoperations manager enabled him to question the set budget and the sub-optimization of eachdepartment. Instead, he relinquished accounting space and prioritized his action inaccordance with his experienced production space belongingness.

5. DiscussionIn the following sections, we discuss how the priority of mobilized action among operationsmanagers can be associated with practical or discursive reflection, accounting space andproduction space artifacts, operations managers’ relation to those spaces, and howoperations managers’ feelings of belongingness can be used to understand their priorities.

5.1 From dilemmas to prioritized action in the four narrativesThe narratives reveal several distinct tensions between operations managers’responsibilities for accounting space and their responsibilities for production spaceand indicate how operations managers prioritize action in their everyday work when suchtensions are encountered. For a summary of tensions, reflections, artifacts, relations andpriorities, see Table 2.

Table 2 shows how multiple tensions in operations managers’ everyday work situationsare associated with specific reflections and priorities. The first column shows the topic ofeach narrative as labeled in the empirical section. The second column shows how theencountered dilemma is interpreted as a tension between accounting space and productionspace. The third column shows whether the tension is reflected upon in practical or

When spacescollide

635

Operatio

nal

situation

Typ

eof

tension

Reflectionun

dertaken

Dom

inatingartifact

Relations

betw

eenoperations

managersandaccoun

tingspace

Priority

form

obilizing

actio

n

Run

ning

the

grinding

mill

down

Responsibility

forp

rodu

cing

iron

oreto

maxim

umcapacity

andresponsibilityfor

maintaining

machine

capacity

Discursivereflectio

nconcerning

thetension

betw

eenaccoun

tingspace

andproductio

nspace.

Operatio

nsmanager

experiencescontrasting

spaces

Accountingartifact–

red

unfulfilledtargetson

awhiteboardsupp

ortedby

aprocessengineer’s

calculations

Afor-relatio

nbetw

eenthe

operations

manager

and

accoun

tingspacemakes

managem

entaccountingact

constitutivelyandoblig

ates

the

operations

manager

torespondto

accoun

tingspace.Despitean

operations

artifactv

isualizingthe

productio

nloss,the

operations

managerissensitive

tothe

engineer,w

hosupp

ortsthe

accoun

tingartifactinterm

sof

efficiency

targets.The

experienced

tensionenablesqu

estio

ning

ofaccoun

tingspace,yetisan

accoun

tingspacepriority

Accountingspace.

Managem

enta

ccounting

directives,byproducing

accordingto

target,are

perceivedas

valuable.

Operatio

nsmanager

experiencesaccoun

tingspace

belong

ingn

essas

aresultof

hisrelatio

nships

with

the

engineer

andan

accoun

ting

artifact

Conformingto

accoun

tingtalk

Responsibility

forreducing

tied-up

capitaland

responsibilityfora

flexible

productio

nprocess

Practicalreflectio

nconcerning

thetension

betw

eenaccoun

tingspace

andproductio

nspace

Accountingartifact–

accoun

tingreports

concretizingtied-up

capital

(risks

associated

with

low

liquidity)

Awith

-relationbetw

eenthe

operations

manager

and

accoun

tingspacemakes

managem

entaccountingtakenfor

grantedby

theoperations

manager.M

anagem

enta

ccounting

isperceivedas

aprovider

ofthe

truthun

derlying

thetying-up

ofcapital.Bud

getb

ound

ariesarenot

contrasted

with

acompetin

goperations

artifact.Accounting

spaceisnotq

uestionedand

thereforebecomes

thepriority

Accountingspace.

Managem

enta

ccounting

directives

tokeep

inventory

lowat

thefirm

level.The

operations

manager

experiencesady

namic

accoun

tingspace

belong

ingn

essthat

expand

sto

thefirm

level

(contin

ued)

Table 2.Tensions, reflection,artifact, relation andpriority at MinCo

QRAM17,4

636

Operatio

nal

situation

Typ

eof

tension

Reflectionun

dertaken

Dom

inatingartifact

Relations

betw

eenoperations

managersandaccoun

tingspace

Priority

form

obilizing

actio

n

Saving

the

custom

erResponsibility

forthe

department’s

bottom

lineand

responsibilityforc

ooperatio

nbetw

eendepartmentsto

secure

productio

n

Practicalreflectio

nconcerning

thetension

betw

eenaccoun

tingspace

andproductio

nspace

Operatio

nsartifact–

aprocessmap

visualizingan

integrated

productio

nchain

andacontinuous

productio

nprocess

Awith

-relationbetw

eenthe

operations

manager

and

accoun

tingspacemakes

the

operations

manager

take

managem

entaccountingfor

granted.Yet,the

continuous

productio

nof

iron

oreisvisualized

viaaproductio

nprocesschart,

therebydiminishing

accoun

ting

space.Accountingspaceand

productio

nspacearenot

discursively

reflectedup

on,yet

productio

nspacebecomes

the

priority

Productio

nspace.Bysaving

thecustom

er,the

productio

nprocessisperceivedas

valuable.T

heoperations

manager

experiences

productio

nspace

belong

ingn

ess,reflectin

gher

relatio

nswith

theother

operations

managersanda

strong

operations

artifact

Exchang

ingamill

lining

Responsibility

fore

ach

department’s

budg

etand

responsibilityform

inim

izing

productio

nstoppages

Discursivereflectio

nconcerning

thetension

betw

eenaccoun

tingspace

andproductio

nspace.The

operations

manager

experiencescontrasting

spaces

Operatio

nsartifact–

broken

bolts

andtheirc

osts

calculated

inamem

o

Awith

-relationbetw

eenthe

operations

manager

and

accoun

tingspacemakes

the

operations

manager

take

managem

entaccountingfor

granted.The

operations

manager

isconstrainedby

thebu

dgetand

accusesthepu

rchase

department

ofsub-optim

izingaccordingto

the

accoun

tingspaceratio

naleof

differentia

tingbetw

een

departments.T

hebu

dgetis

contrasted

with

theestim

ated

life

cycleof

themill-lining

bolts

visualized

viacalculations

ina

mem

o.The

discursivelyreflected-

upon

tensionenablesqu

estio

ning

ofaccoun

tingspaceandtherefore

productio

nspacebecomes

the

priority

Productio

nspace.The

productio

nprocessexchanges

themill

liningandthereafter

cross-functio

nald

iscussions

regardingsub-optim

ization

take

place.The

operations

manager

experiencesmultip

ledy

namicspaces

and

constructsproductio

nspace

belong

ingn

essthanks

tothe

calculations

inthemem

o

Table 2.

When spacescollide

637

discursive terms, as this is related to the relations between the operations managers andspace. The fourth column shows the dominating artifact present in each narrative. The fifthcolumn shows how we interpret the relation between the operations managers andaccounting space as indicative of an operations manager’s priority of action. The lastcolumn shows whether the action of the operations managers responds to accounting spaceor production space.

On a general note, the findings show that when spaces collide, operations managers seekguidance and insights from both accounting and production artifacts to make choices andprioritize action. In turn, the choices thus made by them reinforce and sometimes questiontheir spatial belongingness. In particular, when moral obligations characterize the relationbetween an operations manager and accounting, accounting artifacts seem to reinforceconvictions of accounting as truthful representations of reality. Hence, it seems that in theevent of a for-relation between operations managers and accounting space, operationsmanagers are unlikely to abandon their moral conviction by reference to productionartifacts.

On a more specific level, four themes emerge from this empirical study. We discuss themin detail below.

5.2 Practical and discursive reflection on tensions between accounting space and productionspaceThe accounting talk and customer narratives suggest that reflecting on everyday dilemmasmay not always result in discursive tensions between accounting space and productionspace. Such tensions are not always obvious, as the results indicate. Rather, tensions that arereflected upon only in practical terms may make it challenging for operations managers torealize that they can prioritize in more than one way. Even though operations andmanagement accounting are interrelated via organizational goals (Ahrens and Chapman,2007; Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007), the narratives show that management accounting andoperations at times encourage distinct approaches to dilemmas experienced by operationsmanagers. Even attempts to balance distinct frames of reference (van der Meer-Kooistra andScapens, 2008) cause tensions, as shown in the accounting talk narrative. However, toprioritize action does not necessarily imply that one is emphasized while the other isdisregarded. It may also be the case that dilemmas are not recognized as tensions arising atthe nexus of management accounting and operations. As a result, operations managers donot always reflect on their priorities and may take them for granted. Bauman (1993, p. 183)suggests that tensions generate knowledge. For our results, this implies that tensions cancause operations managers to reflect upon their priorities. A failure to reflect, however, couldcause operations managers to accept their accounting space belongingness withoutquestioning it, as shown in the accounting talk and customer narratives.

In the grinding-mill and mill-lining narratives, the reflections undertaken suggest thattensions between management accounting and operations can become discursive tooperations managers. Our narratives support the view that knowledge is needed to questionorder (Knights and Collinson, 1987; Ezzamel, 1994; Quattrone and Hopper, 2005). Even iforganizational groups are differentiated into entities (Miller, 1992; Kurunmaki, 1999), ourresults indicate that tensions that are subjected to discursive reflections could cause suchdifferentiation to become questioned. The discursive tensions may induce operationsmanagers to question taken-for-granted accounting space. Perhaps dilemmas cannot bereflectively managed until they are comprehendible (Bauman, 1993, p. 184). In this way,operations managers can mobilize reflective action. Mobilizing reflective action seems,

QRAM17,4

638

however, to require additional interrelated premises, such as artifacts and operationsmanagers’ relation to accounting space. This is discussed below.

5.3 Dominating artifacts in accounting space and production spaceThe narratives presented here reveal how artifacts may also take on an important role inrendering tensions discursive, mobilizing actions, and constructing space. Our results gainsupport from Styhre (2013), who states that strong artifacts can represent organizationalprocesses visually. The customer narrative shows how the process chart as an artifactmobilizes reflective actions toward production space. In turn, this diminishes the taken-for-grantedness of accounting space even though the tension between accounting space andproduction space remains practically reflected upon. In contrast, in the accounting talknarrative, no artifacts competing with budget boundaries are experienced and the tensionremained un-reflected-upon without any questioning of accounting space belongingness byoperations managers. However, just because an operations artifact is not apparent tooperations managers does not imply that artifacts are altogether absent (Orlikowski, 2007).The lack of dominating operations artifacts in this narrative causes the operations managerto prioritize in accordance with accounting space. The accounting artifact visualizesincreased costs at the expense of a secure production process.

The grinding-mill andmill-lining narratives are characterized by discursive tensions andconsist of operations artifacts (the video showing the “spillage effect” and the broken bolts ofthe mill lining that results in a memo) that compete with accounting space. Yet the twonarratives result in divergent priorities. Although there are contrasting artifacts in thegrinding-mill narrative, action is mobilized toward accounting space. The accountingartifact (targets unfulfilled on the whiteboard marked in red) is perceived as dominating bythe operations manager. A strong for-relation to accounting space is supported byinteraction with other organizational members, and the red numbers “outweigh theirmaterial essence” (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996; Scott, 2014, p. 104). In the mill-liningnarrative, on the other hand, the operations artifact concretizes the production cuts via acalculated memo that undermines the budget’s trustworthiness. The dominating operationsartifact and the with-relation between the operations manager and accounting space enablesprioritization of mobilized action toward production space.

5.4 Relations between operations managers and accounting spaceThe grinding-mill narrative shows how accounting space can be constraining for operationsmanagers. This observation is reminiscent of Ahrens and Chapman (2007), who suggestthat management accounting activities structure social order. Organizational processes maybe structured through activities stipulated via accounting space. Accounting space in thisnarrative is powerful and law-like. In this sense, a “for-relation” (Bauman, 1993, p. 186) toaccounting space may be perceived by operations managers. With support from Hopwood(1972), the narrative reveal that operations managers’ for-relation to accounting spaceconstrains them. In such cases, operations managers can feel obligated to respond toaccounting space. If operations managers cannot relate management accounting to theiroperational work, it may put them in situations where they perceive that they have toprioritize according to accounting space.

In contrast, the accounting talk narrative reveals how accounting space also can be takenfor granted by operations managers. The belief in accounting space seems strong andinstitutionally perceived as the legitimate approach. This can be understood with referenceto Scott (2014, p. 69), who suggests that legitimized ideas provide scripts and rationales foraction. In this way, the vertical premises permeating accounting space are taken for granted

When spacescollide

639

as a basis for compliance. This suggests a “with-relation” rather than a for-relation betweenoperations managers and accounting space, as accounting space permeates their mindset. Itbecomes perceived as an ordinary and integral part of their everydaywork, and thus they donot reflect upon it (Bauman, 1993, p. 182).

The customer narrative suggests that accounting space is not always perceived as thepriority of operations managers. Instead, responsibilities associated with accounting spacecan be assigned to actors via accounting terminology (Hayes, 1983; Carmona and Ezzamel,2009). In this case, the shared understanding of the importance of protecting the “coretechnology” (Thompson, 1967, p. 19) of production space, rather than accounting space, isthe basis of compliance. Like the accounting talk narrative, the taken-for-granted accountingspace suggests a with-relation between operations managers and accounting space.

The mill-lining narrative reveals accounting space as a constraining factor to operationsmanagers when uncontrollable factors compromise successful outcomes. As Hopwood(1972) showed long ago, budget deviations may cause distress. Our results indicate thatoperations managers perceive the budget as a “basis for compliance” (Scott, 2014, p. 67). Inthis way, a taken-for-granted accounting space suggests a with-relation between operationsmanagers and accounting space.

5.5 Accounting space and production space belongingnessThe grinding-mill and accounting-talk narratives reveal ways in which action is mobilized infavor of accounting space. The premises for doing so seem however to differ. First, thenarratives differ regarding the operations managers’ relation to accounting space. Theconstitutive accounting space in the grinding-mill narrative suggests a for-relation toaccounting space whereby operations managers feel obligated to respond to accountingspace (Bauman, 1993; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2009). In the accounting-talk narrative,accounting space is largely taken for granted as a basis for compliance, suggesting a with-relation between operations managers and accounting space.

Second, the narratives differ because of the discursively or practically experiencedtensions between accounting space and production space. The grinding-mill narrativesuggests the presence of discursive tension, whereas the accounting talk narrative suggeststhe presence of practical tension. Unsurprisingly, practical tensions do not seem to fullymotivate operations managers to question accounting space belongingness (Bauman, 1993,p. 184). Discursive tensions enable questioning of accounting space belongingness, but suchquestioning seems to be hampered when operational processes are structured by accountingspace.

Third, the narratives differ regarding artifacts. The grinding-mill narrative posited anoperations artifact that competed with accounting space, but this artifact became lessimportant as a result of social interactions, the way the accounting artifact visualizedmanagement accounting directives, and the relation between the operations manager andaccounting space. The accounting talk narrative did not include an artifact strong enough tocompete with the accounting artifact. The accounting space belongingness was, for its part,never questioned. In both of these narratives, operations managers experienced accountingspace belongingness.

To depart from accounting space and prioritize production space, on the other hand, thecustomer and mill-lining narratives reveal the premises of relations to accounting space,tensions and artifacts. First, accounting space is taken for granted as the basis forcompliance when accounting space is questioned. Both these narratives therefore suggest awith-relation between operations managers and accounting space. The customer narrativesuggests priority toward production space, though, but without an operations manager

QRAM17,4

640

questioning their feeling of accounting space belongingness. The mill-lining narrative, onthe other hand, suggests a recognition of uncertainty characterizing accounting space,rendering it questioned by operations managers.

Second, accounting space belongingness can be questioned via discursive tensions andrendered unquestioned by practical tensions. The customer narrative suggests the presenceof practical tension with a priority toward production space. Yet, accounting spacebelongingness does not seem to be questioned, but rather unreflected upon as an area ofpriority. The mill-lining narrative suggests the presence of discursive tension, wherequestions are raised retrospectively. The acknowledgment of tension between accountingspace and production space indicates that operations managers can question theiraccounting space belongingness.

Third, the customer narrative shows how an artifact of the production process visualizedthe lateral flow characterizing production space. The domination of production spacediminishes accounting space and it would seem that the process chart as an artifact was aninfluential “mental template” (Styhre, 2013). Accounting space belongingness remainsunquestioned, yet production space is prioritized via dominating operations artifacts. Themill-lining narrative shows how a budget can be contrasted with estimates of the life cycle ofa production process. The accounting artifact lost its compliance when the operationsartifact of a memo visualized that the bottom line was not correct. Accounting spacebelongingness could be questioned. Both these narratives suggest that the operationsmanagers experienced production space belongingness.

In the everyday work of operations managers, action is mobilized in ways that reflecttheir relations to space, tensions and artifacts. Operations managers mobilize action towardaccounting space, at times even when they experience discursive tension betweenaccounting space and production space. In contrast, action may be mobilized towardaccounting space in a routine manner during circumstances that feature practical tensions.In mobilizing action toward production space, operations managers depart from accountingspace and construct space in accordance with production space. In this way, space isdynamic and rearranged with the help of dominating operations artifacts that can shake thetaken-for-grantedness of accounting space and reinforce operations managers’ experiencedproduction space belongingness.

6. ConclusionsThis paper shows how the tensions experienced by operations managers concerning theirresponsibilities induce them to reflect, prioritize and act to accommodatemanagement accountingand operations. Operations managers do not only act in correspondence to predetermined framesof reference assigned to, or shared within, a group. Rather, they can feel a sense of belongingnessto both accounting space and production space. Therefore, management accounting andoperations are interrelated in ways that imply that neither can be disregarded, but rather that oneusually dominates the space belongingness perceived by operationsmanagers.

Practical and discursive tensions between accounting space and production space requireoperations managers to mobilize reflective action in their everyday work. We find that artifactsare mobilizers of action and thus significant for the prioritization of space. A dominantaccounting artifact visualizes the priority of accounting space, whereas a dominant operationsartifact seems essential to the priority of production space. An operations manager’s relation toaccounting space and production space is crucial to the manager’s space belongingness. A with-relation between operations managers and accounting space allows operations managers toquestion their accounting space belongingness and instead prioritize their action toward theirresponsibility toward operations and production. In contrast, a for-relation leaves little space for

When spacescollide

641

questioning accounting space belongingness that leads to production space priority. It wouldseem that feeling a sense of accounting space belongingness allows operations managers torearrange production space by incorporating accounting into existing lateral structures. It wouldnot seem unreasonable to suggest that production space belongingness may have a similarinfluence on accounting space.

We find that operations managers tend not to recognize practical tensions asinconsistencies between accounting space and production space. When tensions arepractically reflected upon, operations managers tend not to question accounting spacebelongingness. However, in the event of discursive tension between accounting space andproduction space, an operations manager can recognize the tension and question a feeling ofbelongingness to accounting space or production space previously taken for granted.

Our results further suggest that, when operations managers can relate to managementaccounting, situations arise in which operations managers reflect upon their dual responsibilitiesand prioritize to mobilize action. Tensions between accounting space and production spaceinduce operationsmanagers to act. Therefore, operationsmanagers do not stand flat-footed whenexperiencing tensions between accounting space and production space. Rather, how theyexperience such tensions can change. We therefore suggest that in experiencing tensions,operationsmanagers can integrate accounting space and production space.

In the context of iron ore mining, reflective action is shaped by three main circumstances.First, operations managers need to mobilize action irrespective of whether the tensions theyexperience are practical or discursive. In particular, discursive tension shapes reflection overalternative courses of action. Second, the reflective action of operations managers is shapedby artifacts representing management accounting or operations. In situations characterizedby contrasting artifacts, inconsistencies and differentiations within the organization can berecognized. Third, the reflective action of operations managers can be associated with eithera with-relation or a for-relation to accounting space.

The findings reported here suggest four ways in which operations managers prioritizebetween their responsibilities toward management accounting and operations. In the casewhere tension is discursive and action is prioritized toward management accounting,accounting space provides a constituting schema for operations managers to follow. Thisrelation between operations managers and accounting space can be characterized as a for-relation. In a for-relation, operations managers seem to experience accounting spacebelongingness in the context of iron ore mining. In the situation where tension is practicaland management accounting is prioritized, accounting space seems taken for granted as abasis for compliance in the operations manager’s everyday work. In this scenario, a with-relation to accounting space is experienced by operations managers. In a with-relation,operations managers may feel a sense of production space belongingness. We find that thereare situations involving discursive tensions through which accounting space is experiencedas more important than production space in operations managers’ action priorities. We donot find the same relation between operations managers and production space.

In situations marked by tensions between accounting space and production space whereoperations are prioritized, accounting space belongingness can be questioned by operationsmanagers. Such relations between operations managers and accounting space can becharacterized as with-relations. In this scenario, operations artifacts make it possible foroperations managers to recognize alternative routes for action that lead them away fromthose promoted by accounting space. Interestingly, a with-relation between operationsmanagers and accounting space seems to be a necessary premise for production spacebelongingness in the context of iron ore mining.

QRAM17,4

642

We conclude that the tensions that operations managers experience concerning theirresponsibilities for management accounting and operations trigger reflectiveness and cause themto prioritize their actions. In prioritizing within these tensions, operations managers can reside indual spaces without being obstructed by the presence of those spaces. In certain situations,operations managers experience a sense of accounting space or production space belongingness.Operations managers seem to prioritize their action based on their feeling of space belongingnessbecause they create space intellectually, morally and emotionally.

This paper contributes to the debate concerning the significance of management accountingto operations by conceptualizing tensions between management accounting and operations as aspatial phenomenon. The concept of space allows for a dynamic and relational understanding ofthe responsibility dilemmas experienced by operations managers. In their everyday work,operations managers experience tensions that enable them to question previously taken-for-granted “knowledge.” We propose that this may be less a matter of minimizing these tensionsthan of understanding how such tensions are understood to create reflectiveness in operationsmanagers, whereas previous studies have addressed mainly tensions between managementaccounting and operations as a strategizing issue. Because space is experienced and questioned inthe everyday work of operations managers, tensions cause them to reflect upon and prioritizeaction in accordance with their sense of space belongingness to accommodate their managementaccounting and operational responsibilities.

By revealing subtle tensions existing in a production context, this paper also provides guidanceto professional operations managers that can enable them to take appropriate action in challengingwork situations. This suggests that the process through which operations managers reflectivelymanage tensions between their responsibility for management accounting and their responsibilityfor operationsmay be seen as a discrete competence in itself.

Our conclusions provide insights upon which further studies may build (Roberts, 2006)and examine whether they are transferable to other empirical settings. We consider themobilized actions undertaken by operations managers to be “comments on more thanthemselves” (Geertz, 1973, p. 319). In this study, we do not analyze the organizational andmanagerial consequences of the priorities of the operations managers. This could be thesubject of further studies .

Notes

1. The process engineer was responsible for the availability of the machines, including the mills,

2. This operator was trained to supervise monitors in the control room and follow the productionprocess on several charts and process maps.

3. This situation occurred one hour after the evening shift took over from the day shift.

4. The pelletizing plant temporarily used capacity from the concentration plant.

5. This maintenance engineer was responsible for availability (the analysis of production-stoppagestatistics), the budget and personnel.

ReferencesAbelson, R.P. (1981), “Psychological status of the script concept”, American Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 7,

pp. 715-729.

Abrahamsson, G., Englund, H. and Gerdin, J. (2016), “On the (re) construction of numbers andoperational reality: a study of face-to-face interactions”, Qualitative Research in Accounting andManagement, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 159-188.

When spacescollide

643

Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2007), “Management accounting as practice”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-27.

Ahrens, T. andMollona, M. (2007), “Organisational control as cultural practice – a shop floor ethnography ofa Sheffield steel mill”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 4/5, pp. 305-331.

Arnold, P.J. (2009), “Institutional perspectives on the internationalization of accounting”, In C.S.Chapman, D.J. Cooper and P.B. Miller (Eds.), Accounting, Organizations and Institutions: Essaysin Honour of Anthony Hopwood, University Press. Oxford, (pp. 47-64).

Bauman, Z. (1993), Postmodern Ethics, Blackwell. Oxford.Baxter, J. and Chua, W.F. (2009), “Studying accounting in action: the challenge of engaging with

management accounting practice”, In C.S. Chapman, D.J. Cooper and P.B. Miller (Eds.),Accounting, Organizations and Institutions: Essays in Honour of Anthony Hopwood, UniversityPress, Oxford, (pp. 65-84).

Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J. and Nahapiet, J. (1980), “The roles ofaccounting in organizations and society”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5No. 1, pp. 5-27.

Carlsson-Wall, M., Kraus, K. and Messner, M. (2016), “Performance measurement systems and theenactment of different institutional logics: insights from a football organization”, ManagementAccounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 45-61.

Carmona, S. and Ezzamel, M. (2009), “On the relationship between accounting and social space”, In C.S.Chapman, D.J. Cooper and P.B. Miller (Eds.), Accounting, Organizations and Institutions: Essaysin Honour of Anthony Hopwood, University Press, Oxford, (pp. 137-156).

Carmona, S., Ezzamel, M. and Gutiérrez, F. (1997), “Control and cost accounting practices in the Spanishroyal tobacco factory”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 411-446.

Carmona, S., Ezzamel, M. and Gutiérrez, F. (2002), “The relationship between accounting and spatialpractices in the factory”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 239-274.

Chen, C. (2008), “An objective-oriented and product-line-based manufacturing performancemeasurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 380-390.

Chenhall, R.H. (2008), “Accounting for the horizontal organization: a review essay”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 4/5, pp. 517-550.

Chenhall, R.H. and Langfield-Smith, K. (1998), “Factors influencing the role of management accountingin the development of performance measures within organizational change programs”,Management Accounting Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 361-386.

Corbey, M. (1994), “On the availability of relevant costs” information in operations management”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 35 Nos 1/3, pp. 121-129.

Czarniawska, B. (1999), Writing Management: Organization Theory as a Literary Genre, OxfordUniversity Press on Demand.

Czarniawska, B. (2007), Shadowing: And Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in Modern Societies,Copenhagen Business School Press.

Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996), “Travel of ideas”, In Czarniawska, B. and Sev�on, G. (Eds.).Translating Organizational Change, de Gruyter. Berlin.

De Leeuw, S. and Van Den Berg, J.P. (2011), “Improving operational performance by influencingshopfloor behavior via performance management practices”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 224-235.

Denton, D.K. (1991),Horizontal Management: Beyond Total Customer Satisfaction, Lexington books.Dodge, M. and Kitchin, R. (2005), “Code and the transduction of space”, Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 162-180.Earl, M.J. and Hopwood, A.G. (1980), From Management Information to Information Management,

North-Holland Publishing Co. Amsterdam.

QRAM17,4

644

Ezzamel, M. (1994), “Organizational change and accounting: understanding the budgeting system in itsorganizational context”,Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 213-240.

Ezzamel, M., Robson, K. and Stapleton, P. (2012), “The logics of budgeting: Theorization and practicevariation in the educational field”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 37 No. 5,pp. 281-303.

Geertz, C. (1973), Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture. The Interpretation ofCultures, Basic books. New York, NY.

Gupta, M. and Galloway, K. (2003), “Activity-based costing/management and its implications foroperations management”,Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 131-138.

Hansen, A. and Mouritsen, J. (2006), “Management accounting and operations management: Understandingthe challenges from integrated manufacturing”, In C.S. Chapman, A.G. Hopwood and M.D. Shields(Eds.),Handbook ofManagement Accounting Research, Elsevier. Amsterdam, (pp. 729-752).

Hansen, A. and Mouritsen, J. (2007), “Management accounting and changing operations management”,In T. Hopper, D. Northcott and R. Scapens (Eds.), Issues in Management Accounting, (pp. 3-25):Pearson Education Limited. Harlow.

Haugaard, M. (2003), “Reflections on seven ways of creating power”, European Journal of SocialTheory, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 87-113.

Hayes, D.C. (1983), “Accounting for accounting: a story about managerial accounting”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 241-249.

Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1979), “Link manufacturing process and product life cycles”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57, pp. 133-140.

Hopwood, A.G. (1972), “An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation”,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 156-182.

Huxham, C. and Beech, N. (2003), “Contrary prescriptions: Recognizing good practice tensions inmanagement”,Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 69-93.

Johnston, R., Brignall, S. and Fitzgerald, L. (2002), “Good enough performance measurement: a trade-offbetween activity and action”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 53 No. 3,pp. 256-262.

Jönsson, S. and Grönlund, A. (1988), “Life with a sub-contractor: new technology and managementaccounting”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 513-532.

Jönsson, S. and Macintosh, N.B. (1997), “Cats, rats, and ears: making the case for ethnographicaccounting research”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, pp. 367-386.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,Harvard Business Press.

Knights, D. and Collinson, D. (1987), “Disciplining the shopfloor: a comparison of the disciplinaryeffects of managerial psychology and financial accounting”, Accounting, Organizations andSociety, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 457-477.

Kurunmaki, L. (1999), “Making an accounting entity: the case of the hospital in Finnish health carereforms”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 219-237.

Kurunmäki, L. and Miller, P. (2008), “Counting the costs: the risks of regulating and accounting forhealth care provision”,Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 9-21.

Lowe, A. and De Loo, I. (2014), “The existential perversity of management accounting and control”,Management Control and Uncertainty, In D, Otley and K, Soin (Eds.), Springer, (pp. 239-254).

Lowe, A. and Koh, B. (2007), “Inscribing the organization: representations in dispute betweenaccounting and production”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 952-974.

Mack, S. and Goretzki, L. (2017), “Howmanagement accountants exert influence on managers–a micro-level analysis of management accountants’ influence tactics in budgetary control meetings”,Qualitative Research in Accounting andManagement, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 328-362.

When spacescollide

645

Miller, P. (1992), “Accounting and objectivity: the invention of calculating selves and calculable spaces”,Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 61-86.

Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1994), “Accounting, ‘economic citizenship’ and the spatial reordering ofmanufacture”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 15-43.

Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990), “Governing economic life”, Economy and Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-31.Mouritsen, J. (1999), “The flexible firm: strategies for a subcontractor’s management control”,

Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-55.Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), “The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in

organizations”,Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 398-427.Orlikowski, W.J. (2007), “Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work”, Organization Studies,

Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1435-1448.

Philipoom, P.R. and Fry, T.D. (1999), “Order review/release in the absence of adherence to formalscheduling policies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 327-342.

Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2005), “A ‘time–space odyssey’: Management control systems intwo multinational organisations”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30Nos 7/8, pp. 735-764.

Roberts, B. (2006),Micro Social Theory, PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke.

Robson, K. (1992), “Accounting numbers as “inscription”: action at a distance and the development ofaccounting”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 685-708.

Schroeder, R.G. (1981),Operations Management: DecisionMaking in the Operations Function, McGraw-Hill New York, NY.

Scott, W.R. (2014), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas Interests and Identities, (4th ed.). ThousandOaks, Calif.: SAGEPublications, Inc.

Shekhar, G., Gustafson, A., Hersinger, A., Jonsson, K. and Schunnesson, H. (2019), “Development of a model foreconomic control of loading in sublevel cavingmines”,MiningTechnology, Vol. 128No. 2, pp. 118-128.

Styhre, A. (2012), “Leadership as muddling through: site managers in the construction industry”, InThe Work of Managers: Towards a Practice Theory of Management, Oxford University Press,Oxford and New York, NY, pp. 131-145.

Styhre, A. (2013), “Screenness and organizing: sociomaterial practices in mediated worlds”, VINE,Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 4-21.

Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory,McGraw-Hill. New York, NY City.

Tillema, S. and van der Steen, M. (2015), “Co-existing concepts of management control: the containmentof tensions due to the implementation of lean production”, Management Accounting Research,Vol. 27, pp. 67-83.

van der Meer-Kooistra, J. and Scapens, R.W. (2008), “The governance of lateral relations between andwithin organisations”,Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 365-384.

van der Meer-Kooistra, J. and Scapens, R.W. (2015), “Governing product co-development projects: therole of minimal structures”,Management Accounting Research, Vol. 28, pp. 68-91.

Varoutsa, E. and Scapens, R.W. (2015), “The governance of inter-organisational relationships duringdifferent supply chain maturity phases”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 46, pp. 68-82.

Wheelwright, S.C. (1981), “Japan – where operations really are strategic”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 59, p. 67.

Zhang, Z., Spicer, A. and Hancock, P. (2008), “Hyper-organizational space in the work of JG Ballard”,Organization, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 889-910.

QRAM17,4

646

Appendix

Corresponding authorAmanda Curry can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]

Table A1.Overview of the

empirical material

Interviews Date

Operations manager at the concentration plant Spring 2014Operations manager at the concentration plant Fall 2015Foreman at the concentration plant Fall 2015Maintenance engineer at the concentration plant Fall 2015Operations manager at the concentration plant Spring 2018Operations manager in the mine Fall 2015Operations manager in the mine Fall 2015Operations manager in the mine Fall 2015Operations manager at the auto repair Spring 2018Program manager Spring 2014

Formal observationsTarget review meeting with process engineers at the concentration plant Fall 2015Morning meeting with operations managers at the concentration plant Fall 2015Morning meeting with operations managers in the mine Fall 2015Meeting with the management team Fall 2015Meeting with operations managers and accountants at the concentration plant and the autorepair

Spring 2018

ShadowingEvening shift with a foreman at the concentration plant Fall 2015Day shift with an operations manager at the concentration plant Fall 2015Morning shift with an operations manager at the concentration plant Fall 2015Day shift with an operations manager at the auto repair Spring 2018Afternoon with an operations manager at the concentration plant Spring 2018Car rides with interviewees 2014, 2015,

2018Lunch meetings with interviewees 2014, 2015,

2018Coffee breaks with interviewees 2014, 2015,

2018

When spacescollide

647