A field study of user versus provider perceptions of management accounting system services

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate user versus provider perceptions of management accounting system (MAS) services using the DeLone and McLean information system success model and the theoretical lens of social perception theory. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative survey data were collected and analyzed using ordinal regression. Qualitative interview data concerning user‐provider perceptions of MAS service information quality, importance, use, and satisfaction were utilized to corroborate and explain the data analysis. Findings The results suggest that there are significant perceptual differences about MAS service quality by users versus providers. For this organization, the paper identifies what these differences are, why they exist, and how organizations may identify and narrow identified gaps. Research limitations/implications The paper is based on a case study that may not be generalizable to broader populations. It uses a cross‐sectional, correlational, self‐report survey, therefore is unable to make causal or directional inferences. Future research should assess MAS services in different organizations, industries, and cultures. Practical implications The paper is among the first to provide quantitative and qualitative evidence of perceived differences in accounting service quality, approaches to uncovering sources of differences, and steps that organizations may take to improve service quality. Originality/value This paper is the first to apply the DeLone and McLean information system success model in the context of MAS service quality. The paper examines perceptions of MAS providers and users to evaluate services and investigates perceptual differences across functions and at different organizational levels.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.