IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00534794.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Automatisation des tableaux de bord et cohérence des comportements

Author

Listed:
  • Denis Travaillé

    (CREGOR - Centre de Recherche sur la Gestion des Organisations - UM2 - Université Montpellier 2 - Sciences et Techniques)

  • Christine Marsal

    (LEG - Laboratoire d'Economie et de Gestion - UB - Université de Bourgogne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Cet article a pour objet de s'interroger sur les rapports entre l'automatisation des tableaux de bord et la cohérence des comportements. Il ressort de l'étude de deux cas, celui d'une entreprise industrielle et celui d'une banque, que l'augmentation de la formalisation ne crée pas davantage de rigidité mais produit au contraire plus de dynamique ou de continuité et de permanence. Cependant, les résultats montrent aussi la limite d'une gestion automatique de la cohérence dans la mesure où la production des informations nécessaires à l'adaptation à long terme de la firme semble difficilement automatisable.

Suggested Citation

  • Denis Travaillé & Christine Marsal, 2007. "Automatisation des tableaux de bord et cohérence des comportements," Post-Print halshs-00534794, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00534794
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00534794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00534794/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Agency Problems and Residual Claims," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 327-349, June.
    2. Iselin, Errol R., 1988. "The effects of information load and information diversity on decision quality in a structured decision task," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 147-164, March.
    3. Richard O. Mason & Ian I. Mitroff, 1973. "A Program for Research on Management Information Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 475-487, January.
    4. Leone, Andrew J. & Rock, Steve, 2002. "Empirical tests of budget ratcheting and its effect on managers' discretionary accrual choices," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 43-67, February.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. James P. Walsh, 1995. "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 280-321, June.
    7. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    8. Joseph Fuller & Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Just Say No to Wall Street: Putting a Stop to the Earnings Game," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 59-63, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aziz El Atiki El Guennouni & Khalid Chafik, 2015. "L'impact de l'intégration des ERP sur la fonction contrôle de gestion : transformation ou stabilité ? Essai d'élaboration d'un cadre conceptuel de recherche," Post-Print hal-03380217, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Denis Travaillé & Christine Marsal, 2007. "Automation of dashboards and the coherence of organizations: paradoxes and ambiguities based on two particular case studies," Working Papers CREGO 1070601, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    2. Denis Travaillé & Christine Marsal, 2007. "Automatisation des tableaux de bord et cohérence du contrôle de gestion : à propos de deux cas," ACCRA, Association francophone de comptabilité, vol. 13(2), pages 75-96.
    3. Tarek Roshdy Gebba & Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged, 2016. "Corporate Governance of UAE Financial Institutions: A Comparative Study between Conventional and Islamic Banks," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7.
    4. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2005. "The Role and Significance of Cooperatives in New Zealand Agriculture, A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Working Paper Series 3847, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    5. J. David Cummins & Mary A. Weiss & Hongmin Zi, 1998. "Organizational Form and Efficiency: An Analysis of Stock and Mutual Property-Liability Insurers," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-02, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    6. Brogi, Marina & Lagasio, Valentina, 2022. "Better safe than sorry. Bank corporate governance, risk-taking, and performance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    7. Isabelle Le Breton–Miller & Danny Miller, 2006. "Why Do Some Family Businesses Out–Compete? Governance, Long–Term Orientations, and Sustainable Capability," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(6), pages 731-746, November.
    8. Panagiotis Staikouras & Christos Staikouras & Maria-Eleni Agoraki, 2007. "The effect of board size and composition on European bank performance," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 1-27, February.
    9. Ayman Hassan Bazhair & Mohammed Naif Alshareef, 2022. "Dynamic relationship between ownership structure and financial performance: a Saudi experience," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 2098636-209, December.
    10. Maug, Ernst, 1997. "Boards of directors and capital structure: Alternative forms of corporate restructuring," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 113-139, April.
    11. Wiwattanakantang, Yupana, 1999. "An empirical study on the determinants of the capital structure of Thai firms," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 7(3-4), pages 371-403, August.
    12. Paul Gompers & Joy Ishii & Andrew Metrick, 2003. "Corporate Governance and Equity Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 107-156.
    13. Agarwal, Vikas & Daniel, Naveen D. & Naik, Narayan Y., 2009. "Role of managerial incentives and discretion in hedge fund performance," CFR Working Papers 04-04, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    14. Corten, Maarten & Steijvers, Tensie & Lybaert, Nadine, 2017. "The effect of intrafamily agency conflicts on audit demand in private family firms: The moderating role of the board of directors," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 13-28.
    15. Attiya Y. Javid & Robina Iqbal, 2010. "Corporate Governance in Pakistan : Corporate Valuation, Ownership and Financing," Governance Working Papers 22830, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    16. Carine Catelin & Céline Chatelin, 2001. "Privatisation, gouvernement d'entreprise et processus décisionnel:une intégration de la dynamique organisationnelle à travers le cas de France Télécom," Working Papers CREGO 1010501, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    17. Evans, Lewis T & Quigley, Neil C, 1995. "Shareholder Liability Regimes, Principal-Agent Relationships, and Banking Industry Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 497-520, October.
    18. Farah, Bassam & Chakravarty, Dwarka & Dau, Luis & Beamish, Paul W., 2022. "Multinational enterprise parent-subsidiary governance and survival," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(2).
    19. Fumitoshi Mizutani & Eri Nakamura, 2014. "Managerial incentive, organizational slack, and performance: empirical analysis of Japanese firms’ behavior," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(1), pages 245-284, February.
    20. Noel O'Sullivan, 2005. "Why do executives serve as non-executives? Pre-Cadbury evidence from UK non-financial companies," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 161-176.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00534794. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.