Discussion Question (Week 4)

Discuss the main strategies for control in an organization, illustrating the main advantages
and disadvantages for each. Use examples from your own company or one you know well.

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction

2. MCS – strategy – organisational performance” relationship in a case Company

3. Critical Success Factors

4. Conclusions

References:

1
1. Introduction

The strategy procedure is impacted by management control methods, who impact themselves as
well. As such customizing the data which is seen applicable and significant with respect to the
strategy making and application. The objective in this paper is to examine the connection
between management control systems or MCS, plan and company performance in a specific
organization. MCS are explained roughly in this paper as mechanisms transmitting valuable data
to help the managers in their work and decision making to resourcefully and successfully attain
the preferred company objectives (Chong & Chong, 2007, pp. 268–276).

2. MCS – strategy – organisational performance” relationship in a case Company

IN 1961 the organization Kovinsko podjetje trebnje was established as a socially-held venture
and thus started the history of Trimo. Kovinooprema, one more new firm was born in 1962. Both
these firms and few other small firms were combined together to create Trimo Trebnje in 1971
(Ittner et al, 2003, pp. 715-741). Manufacturing of metal parts and stainless steel equipments was
the primary job of this new firm (Mintzberg, 2003, pp. 44-53). There were a number of
infrastructure and other works in the earlier Yugoslavia and third world economies during the
subsequent time which resulted in an increase in Trimo’s goods requirement.

In the starting of 90’s Trimo faced a number of difficulties which called for a genuine
organizational overhaul. This also implied the requirement for a latest vision and a distinct
methodology in creating and applying a business plan. With the induction of new people in the
top management of the company in 1992, a significant turnaround was attained. Presently, Trimo
is a combined stock organization with worth added per worker of 34000 Euro and focused on the
international market with about 70% of exports to largely European countries and presence in
around 40 different countries(Chong & Chong, 2007, pp. 268–276).

Currently the focus is on the learning company and the mission is to enable genuine and total
solutions in the steel building or structure segment (Ackoff, 2009, pp. 20-25). Given below are
the shareholder’s strategy directions which the mission replicates itself in –

2
 1. By achieving successful completion of solutions, ensuring the consumers about the
augmentation in efficiency.
2. In the organization enhance the potential of every employee.
3. To create a financially healthy organization that gives sufficient return on equity or ROE
increase of the firm to the stakeholders.
4. To be responsible towards the nature and be conscious of the requirement to save it for
future and to aid the various social and environment related issues.

The accomplishment of strategic objectives are reviewed in Trimo every half yearly, whereas the
execution of yearly strategies is monitored on a weekly basis and remedial steps are adopted
immediately on noticing any negative divergence or variation (Chong & Chong, 2007, pp. 268–
276). The workers of Trimo are kept updated regarding the organization’s performance by way
of a number of steps like through departmental conferences that occur on a weekly or two week
interval, a single pager newsletter coming out every week, through the company’s quarterly
magazine and by annual education days in which the MD gives the company’s performance in
the previous year and the strategies for the future. The company changes its plan as per the
movement in the company’s business scenario. As a matter of fact that they were able to
constantly achieve and even surpass their short term and long term objectives during the last 10
years , it can be concluded that Trimo has good experience with supple deeds. Consumer demand
or requirement is what Trimo continues to focus on (Abernethy& Brownell,2009, pp. 189-204).

3. Critical Success Factors

1. People – Trimo’s strength is based on its management and all of its workers. The workers
are the main strong point of the company. Team work, objective focus, innovative
attitude, creative nature and individual skill are the values.

3
 2. Clients or Consumers – The gauge of an organizations success are its passionate and
contended clients. For its consumers, Trimo creates and improves genuine and total
product and service resolutions for its consumers.
3. Value added – Trimo’s faster pace of development is caused by profit and value added
growth and fund availability.
4. Environment – The company ensures to have an organized operation and remaining
concerned about nature.

4. Conclusions

In reference to Trimo’s approach, one of the key deductions is that the leadership approach of
managing director is a significant factor of the company’s successful application of its plan.
Viewing the categorization that differentiates the leadership transactional and transformation
approaches, it can be deduced that the MD is a real transformational leader having the below
mentioned traits-
1. Boss of innovation and out of the box thinking.
2. In the company she makes new roads.
3. Inspires the employees to work for a new and bigger good and to produce change.
Authority and supremacy are utilized by her to stimulate and instigate people to have
conviction and pursue her case. She appeals to bigger inspiration and makes addition to
the quality of people’s lives and the company.
4. She contains vigor generating traits which produce new transformation for the company.
5. Devises a motivating vision then makes the vision possible and promotes small time
sacrifices and lastly following the vision is made a satisfying endeavor by her.

4
References:
1. Abernethy, MA & Brownell, P 2009, ‘The role of budgets in organizations facing
strategic change: an exploratory study’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 24,
no. 3, pp. 189-204.
2. Ackoff, RL 2009, ‘Transformational leadership’, Strategy & Leadership, vol. 27, no. 1,
pp. 20-25.
3. Ashton, C 2007, Strategic Performance Measurement: Transforming Corporate
Performance by Measuring andManaging the Drivers of Business Success, Business
Intelligence Ltd, Wimbledon.
4. Atkinson, AA & Shaffir, W 2008, ‘Standards for Field Research in Management
Accounting’, Journal of Management Accounting Research, vol. 10, pp. 41-68.
5. Bass, BM 2000, ‘From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to
Share the Vision’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 19-31.
6. Chenhall, RH & Morris, D 2006, ‘The Impact of Structure, Environment, and
Interdependence on the Perceived Usefulness of Management Accounting Systems’, The
Accounting Review, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 16–35.
7. Chong, VK & Chong, KM 2007, ‘Strategic Choices, Environmental Uncertainty and
SBU Performance: A Note on the Intervening Role of Management Accounting
Systems’, Accounting & Business Research, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 268–276.
8. Davidhizar, R & Shearer, R 2007, ‘Giving encouragement as a transformational
leadership technique’, Health Care Supervisor, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 16-21.
9. Dent, JF 2000, ‘Strategy, Organisation and Control: Some Possibilities for Accounting
Research’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 15, no. 1-2, pp. 3-25.
10. Hope, T & Hope, J 2005, Transforming the Bottom Line, Nicholas Brealey Publishing,
London.
11. Hopwood, AG 2007, ‘The archaeology of accounting systems’, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 207-234.
12. Ittner, CD & Larcker, DF 2007, ‘Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and
organizational performance’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp.
293–314.

5
13. Ittner, CD, Larcker, DF. & Randall, T 2003, ‘Performance implications of strategic
performance measurement in financial services firms’, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, vol. 28, no. 7-8, pp. 715-741.
14. Mintzberg, H 2003, ‘Strategy-Making in Three Modes’, California Management Review,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 44- 53.
15. Nilsson, F & Olve, N 2001, ‘Control Systems in Multibusiness Companies: From
Performance Management to Strategic Management’, European Management Journal,
vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 344-358.