IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jacrfn/v21y2009i2p49-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Specific Knowledge and Divisional Performance Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Michael C. Jensen
  • William H. Meckling

Abstract

This classic by the formulators of agency cost theory discusses five common divisional performance measurement methods—cost centers, revenue centers, profit centers, investment centers, and expense centers—while providing a theory that attempts to explain when each of these methods is likely to be the most efficient. The central insight of the theory is that each method offers a different way of aligning decision‐making authority with valuable “specific knowledge” inside the organization. The theory suggests that cost and revenue centers work best in cases where headquarters has good information about cost and demand functions, product quality, and optimal output mix. Profit centers—defined as business units whose managers have responsibility for overall profits, but not the authority to make major capital spending decisions—tend to supplant revenue and cost centers when line managers have a significant informational advantage over headquarters and when there are few interdependencies (or “synergies”) between divisions. Investment centers—profit centers in which unit managers are allowed to make major investment decisions—tend to prevail when the activity is capital‐intensive and when it is difficult for headquarters to identify the value‐maximizing investment strategy. In evaluating the performance of profit centers, rate‐of‐return measures like ROA are likely to be effective when unit managers do not have major influence over the level of new investment. But, in the case of investment centers, Economic Value Added, or EVA, is likely to be the most effective single‐period measure because it is designed to encourage only value‐increasing investment decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael C. Jensen & William H. Meckling, 2009. "Specific Knowledge and Divisional Performance Measurement," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 21(2), pages 49-57, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:49-57
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00225.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00225.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00225.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benito Arruñada, 2017. "How to Make Land Titling more Rational," Working Papers 983, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Brian D. Knox, 2021. "A replication about cause–effect linkage benefits and managers’ strategic judgments," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 225-251, June.
    3. Kruis, Anne-Marie & Sneller, Lineke, 2013. "International Divider Walls," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 31-52.
    4. Konstantinos J. Liapis, 2010. "The Residual Value Models: A Framework for Business Administration," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 83-102.
    5. Der-Fang Hung, 2015. "Sustained Competitive Advantage and Organizational Inertia: The Cost Perspective of Knowledge Management," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(4), pages 769-789, December.
    6. Martin Munene Mutembei & Peter Paul Kithae, 2023. "Effect of Human Resource Planning and Leadership Styles on Performance Contracting in Public Organizations in Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(11), pages 489-506, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:49-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1078-1196 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.