Characterising and Developing Controller Tasks – A German Perspective
1Utz Schäffer/Jürgen Weber/Carsten Prenzler Version: August 27, 2001
1. Motivation ………. 2
2. Characterising controller tasks ……….. 3
2.1. The diversity of controller tasks……….. 3
2.2. Disburdening management ………. 4
2.3. Enhancing management ………..…… 7
2.4. Interim conclusion and critical analysis ……….. 10
3. Considering controller tasks which are aimed at the management’s attention… 12 3.1. Diagnostic and interactive management control tasks……….. 12
3.2. Diagnostic and interactive controller tasks………... 13
4. Developing controller tasks ………. 15
4.1. Situation 1: “Ensure comprehensive controlling”………. 16
4.2. Situation 2: “Realise enhancing function”………. 17
4.3. Situation 3: “Ensure disburdening function”………. 18
4.4. Situation 4: “Realise disburdening function”……….……... 19
5. Conclusion and outlook……… 20
References………. 21
1 We would like to thank the participants of the 5th Management Control Systems Conference in London (U.K.) for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.
1. Motivation
Controllers have become an integral part of corporate practice. However, there is a lack of development perspectives based on theory, despite the challenges currently facing controllers and the need for modifying aspects of controllership.2 In the English and German-language business administration literature, statements regarding con- troller functions often appear normative and are not always – to a sufficient degree – based on theory. Furthermore, different statements frequently appear contradictory and paradoxical – regardless of which language they are written in. On one hand, if controllers underpin management by providing invisible support in planning, monito- ring and supplying information3, they are characterised as being “number slaves”
(“Zahlenknechte”) and “bean counters” (“Erbsenzähler”).4 On the other hand, there is an increasing demand for controllers, as a critical counterpart or internal consultant to the management, to strive for more visibility and thus for more attention from mana- gement5. It appears that both roles or task bundles can be combined only with diffi- culty.
This paper first characterises both roles as observed in German corporate practice.
Using this as a basis, task related similarities and differences will be shown in compa- rison with Anglo-Saxon controller profiles (section 2). The fundamental hypothesis of this paper is that the framework which is developed and the comparison with the partially divergent German development can help to reduce the tension between these task bundles in English speaking regions, too (section 3). This will also show deve- lopment paths for controller tasks that could be a basis for guidelines for organising controllership in a dynamic perspective (section 4).
2 cf. for aspects which need to be modified e.g. Eschenbach (1995), pp.663; Horváth (1998), pp.75;
Steinle (1996), pp.411; Weber (1999), pp.373.
3 cf. books written in German, e.g. Deyle (1975), p.74; Strobel (1978), p.422; Gaulhofer (1991), p.170;
Schneider (1994), pp.149. Anglo-Saxon controllers as invisible service providers: cf. Jackson (1949), p.25; Anderson/Schmidt (1961), p.79; Cohen/Robbins (1966), p.27; Anthony/Govindarajan (2001), pp.106.
4 cf. Weber/Schäffer (2000b), pp.183-186.
5 cf. Deyhle (1997), p.21; Eschenbach (1997), pp.28; Weber (1999), pp.405; as well as Schäffer/Weber (1999), pp.21. Herzog (1999), p.11. For a current discussion in Anglo-Saxon regions, cf. Patmore
2. Characterising controller tasks
2.1. The diversity of controller tasks
In the German literature, controlling is defined heterogeneously.6 In this paper it shall mean the specific function of ensuring rational management.7 Here, rationality is de- fined as being an instrumental rationality, which is relative and is closely linked to an internal model of actors. This is the fundamental principle, which should be aspired to, in economic practice.8
Ensuring rationality of executive actions constitutes increasing the probability of exe- cutive actions corresponding to anticipated means-ends relations.9 Delegating this function to controlling allows scope for organising controllership according to the si- tuative context. Therefore, one can observe a great diversity of controller tasks in Ger- man corporate practice.10 This has been confirmed by a number of empirical studies.11
Despite this diversity, it is possible to recognise some basic patterns:12
• Controllers support management by providing a specific business service, which creates the prerequisite for rational management: they disburden management when implementing and monitoring executive actions and in doing so, support ensuring rational management.
• Controllers support management by acting as its counterpart, critically reviewing and challenging its executive actions and anticipations, as well as playing an pro-
(1972); cf. “the strong controller” in Sathe (1982), p.141; “the chief business intelligence officer” in Pipkin (1989); “the business partnership” in Oliver (1991); Cooper (1996).
6 For an overview, cf. e.g. Küpper (1997), pp.15; Horváth (1998), p.124; Weber (1999), pp.19 and Zenz (1999), pp.16.
7 cf. Weber/Schäffer (1999), pp.731 and Weber/Schäffer/Langenbach (2001), pp.46. This definition of
“Controlling” is close to Anthony’s concept of management control, cf. Anthony (1965), p.17 and Anthony/Govindarajan (2001), p.6.
8 Erich Gutenberg: “An sich liegt nun das Denken in der Zweck-Mittel-Relation allem zu Grunde, und zwar nicht nur im wirtschaftlichen Leben, sondern im menschlichen Leben überhaupt. ‚Unvernünftig handeln‘ heißt überhaupt unzweckmäßig handeln, heißt die Mittel nicht richtig auf den Zweck, dessen Erreichung sie dienen sollen, abgestimmt haben. Welcher Art dieser Zweck sei, der zu realisieren ist, bleibt dabei ohne Belang.” Gutenberg (1929), p.30. and cf. p.28.
9 cf. Schäffer (2001), p.41.
10 cf. e.g. Gaulhofer (1989), p.144; Hahn (1996), p.193; Ziener (1985), pp.41; Amshoff (1994), p.323.
11 cf. e.g. Amshoff (1994); Niedermayr (1994); Stoffel (1995); Weber/Schäffer (1998); Weber/
Schäffer/Bauer (2000).
12 cf. for the following also Weber/Schäffer (1999), p.733.
active role as a consultant. By doing this, they selectively demand the attention of management and thus support the achievement of rational management.
These empirically observable patterns of controller roles and functions in German speaking regions, which are expressed as hypotheses above, will be justified and ex- plained below. Particular attention will be paid in to examining whether the patterns identified correspond to Anglo-Saxon controller profiles, or if these are specifically German perspectives.
2.2. Disburdening management
German controllers support management.13 By providing specific business services, they contribute to creating the prerequisites for rational management, where there is sufficient scope to be aware of responsibility for decisions.14 The first task field in- volved in disburdening management consists of providing data which is relevant for the management (in particular, costs and revenues). Controllers must collate data sup- ply with management’s demand and need for data. They must also establish transpa- rency – a vital requirement for rationality. Their task can therefore be described succinctly as “taking over responsibility for transparency”.15 The controller function is distinguished from traditional accounting by the emphasis on goal-orientated use of data for ensuring the rationality of executive actions, particularly concerning planning and monitoring.
German controllers disburden management regarding planning tasks particularly by taking over tasks related to planning support and planning management.16 Planning support involves the controller taking over tasks relating to the intent creation process that can be delegated by management. This consists of searching for and processing data relevant to the decision making process, generating decisions alternatives, mone- tary evaluation of the possible alternatives as well as a co-ordination in advance of so- lutions. Examining these different tasks shows that delegating them to controllers is
13 The term management service or service task is frequently used, c.f. Deyle (1975), p.74; Schmidt (1986), p.44; Richter (1987), p.88; Küpper/Weber/Zünd (1990), pp.282; Serfling (1992), pp.16; Küpper (1997), p.19; Horváth (1998), p.144; Weber/Schäffer (1999), p.743.
14 c.f. Harbert (1982), p.288 and Schmidt (1995), p.17, who regard this disburdening as being a sub-ob- jective or a prerequisite ensuring rationality. For the effects of disburdening: c.f. Herzog (1999), pp.119; Niedermayr (1994), p.74; Serfling (1992), p.59.
15 cf. Weber (1999), p.348.
justified for various reasons. Controllers have the advantage of being more specialised regarding monetary evaluation. Furthermore, they are not involved in line relation- ships and dependencies to the same extent as managers. This makes the co-ordinating function easier and reduces the danger of the rationality of decisions being diminished as a result of opportunism. Ultimately, controllers have considerable experience in the planning process and can thus disburden management. In addition to the specialisation advantages, the efficiency of this disburdening is also a result of salary-level differentials of the manager on one hand and the controller on the other.17 As a second planning-related functional area for German controllers, planning management can be divided into three sub-tasks. First, designing the planning system (particularly re- garding operative planning and budgeting). Second, methodically and instrumentally supporting the planners (such as by drawing up a planning handbook). And third, sup- porting the planning procedure by taking over component tasks arising from the plan- ning process (such as documenting and monitoring the consistency of the planning procedure). Controllers have specialisation advantages in this field, too.18
Within the scope of monitoring and feedback, German controllers disburden manage- ment by comparing relevant data. The basis of the deviation determination consists of the desired values (e.g. budgeted costs) recorded by the controller on the one hand, and recorded actual values (e.g. cost-centre expenditure from departmental cost ac- counting) on the other. Controllers handle the relevant data systems to such an extent that it is justified to also delegate to them the task of comparing these values. Con- trollers also play an active role in deviation analysis. Reasons for entrusting con- trollers with this task lie in their independence, in their specialisation and its effects (as experience increases, so does the accuracy of intuitive assessments), as well as the salary-level differentials previously mentioned.
The profile of a German controller as a disburdening management service-provider corresponds to the perception of Anglo-Saxon controllership, whose “principal pur- pose is to aid management”.19 The action-determining, actively correcting function of management (controlling) makes use of a modest “help centre for controlling”20,
16 cf. also Horváth (1998), pp.202 and pp.209.
17 cf. Weber (1999), pp.316 and Hahn (1996), p.188.
18 cf. Weber (1999), pp.331; Horváth (1998), p.203; Ziener (1985), p.41.
19 Anderson/Schmidt (1961), p.79. cf. also Willson/Campbell (1981), p.23.
20 Baumgartner (1980), p.50.
which ensures that “management control systems function smoothly”.21 The controller prepares decisions which are recipient-orientated, rather than enforcing these de- cisions or accompanying them critically.22
This “service function in favour of the decision maker” includes only those tasks, which can be delegated, regarding planning, monitoring and supplying data.23 These service areas are also mentioned in the FEI task-catalogue, which has had a lasting in- fluence on the way Anglo-Saxon controllers are understood. Its basic functions – planning, internal accounting and reporting - correspond to the service tasks of Ger- man controllers.24 Upon closer examination, however, differences from country to country become apparent in the way individual service tasks are defined. These will be explained in more detail below.
For Anglo-Saxon controllers, supplying data is the traditional core task.25 In the Ger- man corporate practice, the most important controller tasks consist of budgeting and internal reporting, where controllers take care of the premises and the use of cost ac- counting data. Controllers in American firms are more involved in the operation of cost and financial accounting systems, including coverage and documentation of data.26 The legal-reporting-function of Anglo-Saxon controllers is an extension of the responsibility for financial accounting which includes tax administration and supplying data to government as well as creditors.27 New empirical studies confirm the prominent role of the accounting function. They do however predict – in agree- ment with many postulations found in Anglo-Saxon literature28- a sustained decrease in significance during the next few years.29
21 Bertsch (1990), p.660. cf. also Anthony (1988), pp.59.
22 For forms of recipient orientation cf. Willson/Campbell (1981), pp.22; cf. also Homgren/Sundem (1987), p.11; Anthony/Govindarajan (2001), pp.106.
23 cf. Baumgartner (1980), p.50; Schneider (1993), p.83; Willson/Campbell (1981), p.12.
24 cf. Weber (1999), p.14; Richter (1987), pp.23.
25 The interchangeable use of the terms controllership, management accountant and financial analyst expresses this core task. cf. Anderson et al. (1973): “the core idea is information and the controller’s re- sponsibility therein.”; Anthony (1965), p.78; for empirical proof, cf. Simon et al. (1954), p.12; Henning /Moseley (1970); cf. also Baumgartner (1980), pp.30; Horváth (1998); Stoffel (1995), p.84.
26 cf. Stoffel (1995), pp.155; Hahn (1978), pp.127.
27 cf. Stoffel (1995), pp.69 and pp.155.
28 cf. also Pipkin (1989); Oliver (1991); Cooper (1996).
29 cf. Scheumann (1998); Siegel/Sörensen (1999)
The support which Anglo-Saxon controllers provide for planning and monitoring pro- cesses occurs primarily at the level of short-term budgeting and budget monitoring and particularly in the function of the supplier of formal data, the consolidator and the monetary evaluator or the inspector.30 German controllers have to fulfil these service functions to the same degree,31 but they do not stop here: In Anglo-Saxon firms, ad- visory and moderation tasks regarding content, such as a preliminary coordination and search for business-specific decision alternatives as well as designing planning are less defined at all levels of planning than is the case with German controllers. These co-ordination tasks are more taken over by others usually, for example by line managers themselves.32 New studies on the controllership function point to an ex- pansion of support in the decision-making process. Business-specific interpretation of data, co-operation in overlapping projects and special analyses are becoming in- creasingly important for Anglo-Saxon controllers, compared to consolidating, short- term planning and standardised reporting, however.33
Stoffel does not agree with some authors, however, who describe a strong involve- ment of Anglo-Saxon controllers to the strategic planning process. They contribute substantially to setting targets, formulating and monitoring strategic programmes even more rarely than German controllers.34
Irrespective of country specific background, disburdening management is universally identified as being a function of controllership. Anglo-Saxon and German controller service tasks overlap in the field of formal data-based budgeting (e.g. evaluation, con- solidation), monitoring and internal reporting. In comparison to Anglo-Saxon con- trollers, where the operation of accounting systems plays an important role, the data- supplying service tasks of German controllers focus on the use of cost accounting and encompass broader planning and monitoring activities regarding content and co- ordination. At the moment, a harmonization of the country-specific task bundles can be observed, particularly in involving Anglo-Saxon controllers more into decision-
30 cf. Stoffel (1995), p.69; cf. Horváth (1998); p.53. Both question the Heckert/Willson (1963) defini- tion of the controller as a “counsellor and co-ordinator” of planning. cf. for main emphasis for tasks Siegel/Sörensen (1999).
31 cf. Stoffel (1995), pp.155 and pp.201.
32 cf. Stoffel (1995), p.206 and pp.250.
33 cf. Scheumann (1999); Siegel/Sörensen (1999); Pipkin (1989).
34 cf. Anthony/Govindarajan (2001), p.108; cf. Fern/Tipgos (1988); cf. on the other hand Stoffel (1995), pp.85 and p.251 and Bhimani (1999).
making process. Anglo-Saxon management accountants “spend less time preparing standardized reports and more time analysing and interpreting information.”35
2.3. Enhancing management
The controller functions that have been discussed so far, generate considerable know- ledge of management content and the operational area being managed. To the same degree as controller participation in planning and monitoring processes is restricted to formal data analysis and interpretations, this statement only has limited relevance to the task field of Anglo-Saxon controllers. However, if this knowledge exists, it would seem reasonable (given the controller’s independence from line management and pro- vided he has the relevant behavioural skills36), to assign to controllers tasks which - within the framework of a horizontal relationship – selectively demand the attention of management, in addition to those which disburden management through vertical task delegation. In this way, they work together with managers as equals: critical counterparts and as proactive consultants. This reduces the effects of limited skills (lack of ability) and opportunism on the part of managers (lack of motivation).37
As counterparts, controllers can challenge their managers, such as by critically ana- lysing plans and ideas. In doing so, they are faced with the problem of not having the manager’s specialised and detailed knowledge. They can however gain significant in- dications for evaluating the result of the decision by examining the decision-making process itself. If the manager can “defend” his assumptions and evaluations in a logical and convincing manner, then it is unlikely that there will be any deficits in ability.
As an internal consultant, who not only disburdens management in given tasks but also proactively enhances it, the controller has, within the context of monitoring and feedback, the additional function of conducting deviation analysis in terms of content as well as putting forward suggestions for adaptation measures.38 If, for example, there has been a decrease in motivation among personnel due to on-going manage-
35 Siegel/Sörensen (1999), p.3.
36 Among the required behavioural skills mentioned are the persuasiveness, as well as communicative and conflict-related skills, cf. for example, Küpper/Weber/Zünd (1990), p.289.
37 cf. Gaulhofer (1989), p.149; Baumgartner (1980), pp.100 warns of over-taxing controllers as regards content.
38 Küpper/Weber/Zünd (1990), p.285 demand that controllers make managers “act in time”.
ment problems, a practical solution would be to “cure” the problematic management relationship using appropriate motivating measures. In such a case, undertaking a de- viation analysis in terms of content and the knowledge gained from this pave the way for controllers taking on the function of proposing suggestions. The same applies to the situation where problems have become apparent through deviations and can be solved only by completely changing the end-means conditions.
In German-speaking regions, empirical studies show an increasing significance of the enhancing function of controllers:39
• Amshoff identifies a predominantly innovative-anticipatory attitude among the controllers questioned, which then is linked to a widely extended controlling system.40
• Niedermayr establishes that controllers with countervailing-power are more efficient than less-developed controller types.41
• In the study conducted by Weber/Schäffer/Bauer, managers questioned expressed high satisfaction at the requirement profile of the critical counterpart.42
Although advising management is part of the FEI task-catalogue, in English-speaking regions it is, to a large extent, traditionally regarded as a monetary analysis and eva- luation function. In these regions, suggestions for courses of action and influence on the decision-making process are closely linked to the financial dominance of data.43 This advisory function as a disburdening for management is gaining increasing signi- ficance for Anglo-Saxon controllers. Active intervention in processes that are not going as planned, implementing decisions and formulating standpoints is traditionally left to line managers alone.44 A critical counterpart function of Anglo-Saxon con- trollers is only being discussed in terms of their internal auditory functions, such as process-monitoring.45
39 e.g. Weber/Schäffer/Bauer (2000).
40 cf. Amshoff (1994), pp.242.
41 cf. Niedermayr (1994), p.322.
42 cf. Weber/Schäffer/Bauer (2000).
43 cf. Homgren/Sundem (1987), p.13; For more about the controller function making suggestions, see Simon et al. (1954).
44 cf. Baumgartner (1980); p.50; Anthony et al. (1988), pp.60.
45 cf. Sathe (1983); Siegel (2000).
Sathe criticises, however, the fact that although a purely disburdening function of con- trollership provides high-quality data and analysis, active challenge as well as con- tent-related suggestions from the controller are required in order to make complex de- cisions.46 Within the context of developing new management instruments, such as the Balanced Scorecard or decision-oriented costing systems, many of the more recent Anglo-Saxon publications are demanding a change of role for controllers.47 Through this method competence, the controller becomes more involved in qualitative and strategic questions and part of the management team. The increased preoccupation with content- and future-related themes should, eventually, lead to the controller taking on the role of being a "catalyst of change” or a “business partner”.48 In addition to expanding the disburdening management service using customer-orientated instru- ments, more special analyses and content interpretation of data, the business partner- ship contains elements of the enhancement function of the controller. As part of the inner circle of management, they should proactively search for optimising potentials, be able to answer “no” to general business management questions and participate in improving processes.49 “Many have moved out…and are now positioned in operating departments, where they work on cross-functional teams, have extensive face-to-face communication with people throughout the organization, and are actively involved in decision making.”50
Recent empirical surveys have confirmed that for Anglo-Saxon controllers too, the most important challenge for the future lies in the enhancement function: It remains unclear, however, to what extent Anglo-Saxon controllers have already established themselves as critical counterparts and proactive consultants of managers. The lower intensity of participation of Anglo-Saxon controllers in goal-oriented planning, moni- toring and consulting indicate that the enhancing function is not as strongly pro- nounced at in Germany.51
46 cf. Sathe (1983), pp.31.
47 cf. Schönfeld (1986), p.160; Pipkin (1989); according to Kaplan (1995), new data systems such as ABC costing or BSC are changing the function of the controller as a past-orientated line judge.
48 cf. Pipkin (1989); Sathe (1982), pp.141.
49 cf. Oliver (1991); Scheumann (1998); Siegel/Sörensen (1999).
50 cf. Siegel/Sörensen (1999), p.20.
51 cf. Scheumann (1999) and Siegel/Kulesza (1996), p.26. Scheumann identifies a tendency towards business partner only in cases of decentralised controllers. Siegel/Kule sza does not rate internal consulting among the most important activities of Anglo-Saxon controllers. However, the study of Ahrens/Chapman (1999) contradicts the results of Scheumann (1999) and Siegel/Kulesza (1996). They suggest that British management accountants act as change agents whereas German controllers focus
2.4. Interim conclusion and critical assessment Two separate task blocks can be identified:
• the most efficient disburdening of management possible (vertical relationship) for implementing and monitoring executive actions aimed at increasing management efficiency on the basis of specialisation and the controller’s advantage of having experience as well as salary-level differentials and
• the enhancing role of the controller, which aims at increasing management effectiveness by challenging and advising the management (horizontal re- lationship).
In this way, controllers support management by contributing to the achievement of management rationality through their services and in doing so, they increase the efficiency and effectiveness of executive actions. In a nutshell, controllers help mana- gers to fulfil their management tasks rationally.
From a country-specific perspective, German controllers’ disburdening function fo- cuses on areas such as internal reporting and comprehensive planning and monitoring.
In English-speaking regions, controllers are strongly identified with the term service unit. Their service tasks essentially lie in developing and operating cost and financial accountancy. As far as all other tasks are concerned, such as supporting planning, the controller is primarily a supplier of data and an evaluator. The use of formal data (especially cost accounting data) in budgeting, budget monitoring and internal re- porting represents a common basis of Anglo-Saxon and German controllers. The task bundle “enhancing management” appears to be more common in German-speaking regions. For Anglo-Saxon controllers, the frequent demands for a supporting function based on a partnership-like enhancement function has been gaining more significance in corporate practice.
Applying this idea to practical situations for controllers does however present some problems. Firstly, the task bundles identified can not always be clearly distinguished from each other, which may diminish the clarity of the classification. Secondly, al-
on technical management accounting. Part of this might be explained by different research settings: the survey of Ahrens/Chapman (1999) only analyses the self-images of accountants whereas Scheumann asks managers about the controller´s work, too; cf. Scheumann (1998), p.23. and Ahrens/Chapman (1999), p.43.
though controller tasks concentrate on achieving rationality of management, in practice the tasks are not limited to this. This is mainly due to quantum effects. Within the context of an organisational process, actors are sought for specific tasks and, by the same token, actors who have been recruited must be given sufficient tasks. If the core tasks of the controller are not sufficient, more will be added. Central criteria for this are the actors’ abilities and their suitability for further tasks. Experience, speciali- sation (accounting, management systems) and independence of controllers can also be used elsewhere. Overall, however, the task bundles mentioned describes well what controllers do in practice.
Any attempts to solve the tension between the controller as a supporting service-pro- vider, whose aim consists of disburdening management (vertical relationship) and the controller as a critical counterpart and consultant of management, whose aim is to en- hance and selectively demand the attention of management (horizontal relationship) fail. Differing role-expectations and capability requirements make both of these task bundles appear to be compatible only with great difficulty.52 Controllers receive no support when it comes to the question of controller positioning and which develop- ment path they should aim for in their particular area. The frequent normative postula- tion - found in the German-language controlling literature - of the dynamic increase in the scope of tasks and the opportunity to influence disregard the heterogeneity as well as the interplay of different types of tasks53 and has not been empirically proven. In order to answer this question, we would like to take an approach, which considers the scarce attention of management as the central theme. This appears obvious, as it is, after all, the controller’s task to support management.
3. Considering controller tasks which are aimed at the management’s attention
3.1. Diagnostic and interactive management control tasks
If Simons’ concept is applied54, organising management control should be based on
“return on management” as a maximisation criterion.55 According to Simons, the
52 Regarding demands in Anglo-Saxon regions for a comprehensive controller understanding, cf.
Stoffel (1995); Schönfeld (1986); Gaulhofer (1989), p.185.
53 cf. Zünd (1978), p.3 for his fundamental development stage concept: Registrator – Navigator – Innovator, referring to the three management uses of figures of Simon et al. (1954); Welge (1988), pp.13 is very similar as well as Strobel (1978), pp.424.
54 cf. Simons (1995) and (1999).
management’s attention is a scarce resource, which has to be optimised. “Like its cousins, return on equity and return on assets, ROM measures the payback from the investment of a scarce resource – in this case, a manager’s time and attention. It indi- cates how well managers have chosen among alternative courses of action to deploy that resource optimally.”56 Similar considerations can be found in many other papers.57
Applying the ideas behind ROM generally to management control tasks leads – ac- cording to Simons - to a differentiated consideration of diagnostic and interactive tasks of management control:
• Diagnostic management control tasks give the firm stability without requiring the management’s constant attention. Like a thermostat, they regulate subordinate hierarchic levels through negative feedback loops largely by themselves and do not require any further attention while running. The periodic, stochastic and exception-driven mechanisms of external supervision ensure that the manage- ment’s capacity will only be required to a reasonable extent. The guiding idea here is to have Management by Exception.58
• Interactive management control tasks are at the centre of organisational attention, and management should always be aware of them. They drive the business and ge- nerate tension through challenging routine assumptions. In this way, the manage- ment’s attention is focused on those parts of the management control task, which are particularly marked by strategic uncertainty.59
The relationship between diagnostic and interactive management control tasks can be described as a creative tension between constraining and expansive forces. Firms should cultivate both qualities: stability with the minimum possible demand on the management’s attention along with learning focused on bottlenecks as an expansive element.60
55 cf. Simons (1995), pp.17.
56 Simons (1995), p.72.
57 cf. Ocasio (1997), Franck (1998) and Schäffer (2000).
58 cf. Simons (1995), pp.59.
59 cf. Simons (1995), pp.91.
3.2. Diagnostic and interactive controller tasks
Simons shows the implications of his idea of staff groups. He differentiates between their functions regarding diagnostic and interactive controlling tasks of the manage- ment:
• Accordingly, as far as diagnostic tasks are concerned, staff groups are delegated tasks that take the workload off the management “and thereby free scarce manage- ment attention”.61 For this purpose, they take on the role of “gatekeepers, main- tainers, and systems experts”.62
• As far as interactive management control tasks are concerned, Simons cha- racterises the supporting function of staff groups as follows: “Staff groups are used primarily as facilitators in the interactive process. They assist in gathering, collating and distribution of data and facilitate the meeting in which business managers debate and discuss action plans. The objective is to keep the interactive simple and accessible to operating managers to ensure that it is used by managers throughout the organisation.”63
In both cases, staff groups are assigned tasks, which free management as much as pos- sible from activities that can be delegated. The objective with diagnostic tasks is to free management’s attention from underlying tasks. With interactive tasks manage- ment should find the best possible working conditions. If this principle is applied to controllers, it becomes clear that Simons’ perception of supporting management wide- ly corresponds to the “disburdening management” function of controllers, indepen- dent of the underlying management control task. However, an important aspect of practical controller tasks – the function mentioned previously, characterised as en- hancement – is not taken into consideration in his approach.
If Simons’ differentiation for management control tasks is applied directly to con- troller tasks, one may differentiate between diagnostic and interactive controller tasks;
by taking care of diagnostic tasks, controllers give management a sound basis for their actions without requiring or wanting management’s constant attention as far as con- troller functions are concerned. These tasks include those mentioned in the section
60 cf. Simons (1995), pp.158.
61 Simons (1995), p.121.
62 Simons (1995), p.121.
“disburdening management”, as well as the characterised tasks of the controller model as an “accompanying business management service in the German IGC (“Inter- national Group of Controlling”):
• “Controllers ensure transparency in results, financial matters, process and strategy, thereby contributing to a higher efficiency.
• Controllers co-ordinate objective and plan components in their entirety and or- ganise future-orientated comprehensive company reporting.
• Controllers moderate the controlling process in such a way that each actor can act according to his objectives.
• Controllers provide the required data and information for this.
• Controllers organise and maintain the controlling systems.”64
The aim of diagnostic controller tasks is to increase the efficiency of management and to create the necessary conditions for rational management. The underlying manage- ment processes are comparatively mastered so that controllers can perform their tasks without frequent interaction on the part of management. Modifications are made in small steps; precise work substantiated by figures has priority over creativity.
The objective of interactive controller tasks on the other hand is to gain visibility and hence the management’s attention for those areas where they are required to ensure the company’s rationality. Here, controllers act as the management’s consultants and counterparts (“contre-rôle”), aiming at increasing the management’s effectiveness. Di- rect and frequent communication (“face to face meetings”), critical analysis of funda- mental premises, establishing standards and a pronounced willingness for conflict are all examples of how these tasks are implemented.65 As the management’s attention is a scarce resource, it can only be applied selectively in areas which represent important rationality bottlenecks and which have (or should have) the management’s attention.
63 Simons (1995), p.121.
64 IGC (1997), p.182. For a critical approach and list of possible implicit premises of this model cf.
Herzog (1999), pp.282.
65 This implies other ability requirements for controllers. For an overview of criteria for interactive tasks cf. Simons/Dávila (1998), p.74. For ability to communicate, exerting influence, team work and understanding of business matters as requirements for a business partnership cf. Oliver (1991); Pipkin (1989); Scheumann (1998); Siegel/Sörensen (1999).
Recurring on Simons, the relationship of diagnostic and interactive controller tasks can be described as a creative tension between constraining and expansive forces.
Ideally, controller departments should cultivate both qualities: transparency and stabi- lity of processes and systems with the minimum possible demand on the manage- ment’s attention and controller and management learning focused on strategic uncer- tainties as an expansive element.66 Both of these are mutually dependent. It is only by consistently economising on management attention through disburdening actions that the consultant and counterpart function is given the necessary capacity. By combining both of these strategies, it is possible to maximise the success of this support. This creative tension will now be considered more closely in a dynamic perspective.
4. Developing controller tasks
In the German controlling literature, statements regarding development paths of con- troller tasks are based on the practical experience (therefore often contradictory) and are unable to explane the occurance of certain changes. Herzog suggests a context- specific differentiation of these statements.67 A feasible objective for future research could also be to recommend substantiated possible development paths for different bases of analysis (such as tasks which are essentially book keeping or further veto rights in the management), task situations (such as monitoring the needs of systems design) and the controller’s customers (aptitude, existing trust relationship).68 On the basis of the distinction between these task situations, Herzog’s suggestions shall now be followed.
The matrix below characterises the initial situations. Here the characteristics “accom- plished” and “not accomplished” are possible for both diagnostic and interactive con- troller tasks.69 The results of the 2x2-matrix will now be described and specific stan- dard paths will be derived from them.
66 cf. Simons (1995), pp.158. cf. also Bach et al. (1998).
67 cf. Herzog (1999), pp.289.
68 cf. Herzog (1999), p.290.
69 We regard making these termini more extensively operational as an important task of further research.
Diagram: Matrix of development paths for controller tasks
4.1. Situation 1: “Ensure comprehensive controllership”
The situation outlined in the first box is ideal and is postulated as the management’s objective for controller activities. By providing support in planning, monitoring and collecting data, controllers help management achieve rationality with the least pos- sible demand on management attention. As a critical counterpart and consultant, con- trollers support management learning focused on bottlenecks as an expansive element.
Both task bundles are completely developed and complement each other. In this way, controllers help management to use its scarce attention efficiently. From the per- spective of the management responsible for controller tasks, no further steps towards proactive development of the controller’s work would appear to be necessary. How- ever it is important to ensure that there is a constant awareness of the premises for the current organisation (bottlenecks!) and to ensure that any necessary changes to task bundles are not overlooked. It is also important to constantly improve the efficiency of the support in order to have more freedom for services, which selectively demand the attention of management.
Within this context, it is particularly relevant to mention the current technological de- velopment (“business intelligence”) which makes many controller tasks which dis-
Interactive Controller tasks
Diagnostic Controller
tasks
Accomplished?
Yes
No
No
„Realise Enhancing Function“
„Realise Disburdening
Function“
Yes
„Ensure Com- prehensive Controllership“
„Ensure Disburdening
Function“
1 2
3 4
burden management appear largely automatic.70 For example, a comparison between actual values and target values and a primarily arithmetically-understood deviation analysis does not represent the controller’s advantage of specialisation to the same ex- tent as modern standard systems which allow management to access the relevant data themselves in an interactive user-friendly IT-environment.
4.2. Situation 2: “Realise enhancing function”
The situation outlined in the second box corresponds to a situation in which the con- troller’s diagnostic work is functioning well but interactive support is being neglected.
By limiting management disburdening to tasks involving planning, monitoring and supplying data, there is a risk that controllers will lose the management’s attention permanently and they will “run out of steam”. The controller is doing everything right, but is perhaps increasingly not doing the right things. This reflects the situation of many controllers in practice. In view of current challenges,71 controllers are increa- singly faced with the problem of losing management’s attention.72 Apart from their diagnostic support, controllers have to deal with bottlenecks more and more. Herzog suggests having a certain controller capacity apart from that needed for permanent controller tasks which can be used flexibly “where this pool of knowledge of con- trollers can be accessed in a particularly synergy-effective way. In an appropriate cor- porate culture, the search for suitable synergy potentials can be left to the controller, who can use his prior knowledge to apply his skills flexibly to those areas where he estimates there to be the highest synergies and therefore the maximum value added contribution. This leads directly to a consulting function for the controller.”73
However, controllers are only suitable for these tasks insofar as they have free capa- city, sufficient specialisation and behaviour-related abilities, do not cause exceedingly high costs.74 Controllers whose current and potential abilities are not sufficient will therefore be unable to take on a consulting function. If this is the case, they should re- strict themselves to diagnostic tasks. If however controllers do have these abilities, it would make sense to provide them with sufficient degrees of freedom. Controllers can
70 cf. e.g. Weber/Grothe/Schäffer (1999)
71 cf. e.g. Weber/Schäffer (2000a), pp.132.
72 cf. e.g. the listed acceptance problems in Lanter (1987), p.72.
73 Herzog (1999), p.167.
74 cf. also Herzog (1999), p.108.
gain free capacity by reducing the complexity of existing diagnostic instruments, such as budgeting or cost accounting (“lean budgeting or cost accounting”). The capacity which thus becomes available can be used for interactive tasks. Furthermore, existing diagnostic services can be evaluated (with the management) for their basic relevance and, if necessary, discontinued. Current developments which are being discussed in German-speaking regions and which are referred to by (English) buzz words such as
“self-controlling”, “lean controlling” and “business intelligence”75 may then become opportunities instead of threats. They offer the chance to establish urgently needed space for interactive tasks.
4.3. Situation 3: “Ensure disburdening function”
The situation outlined in the third box corresponds to an enhancement of manage- ment, which is functioning well through a critical counterpart, and consultations fo- cused on bottlenecks. At the same time there is a lack of diagnostic support. There is a risk of being in this situation, if for example, staff groups focus too much on project and consultations, due to vested interests, thereby neglecting the basic work. If con- troller services are focused too strongly on “exciting projects” the controller’s atten- tion needs to be redirected, at least some of the time, to ensuring sufficient dis- burdening.
If management does not accept this controller performance, this will usually ensure that this re-allocation of the controller’s capacity takes place. Then, to a certain extent, controllers have lost the right to providing support, which selectively demands the attention of management. Diagnostic controller tasks must create the conditions for rational management. Only then can the controller concentrate on specific aspects of further work. However a lack of approval from management must also cause the con- troller to ask himself what significance the performance link between diagnostic and interactive tasks has for him. If this does not have any major significance, ambitious controllers can develop into internal consultants who will scarcely be distinguishable from other consultants. It might be wiser to avoid “severing the umbilical cord” and to cultivate the basis for his core competence as much as necessary, if the following con- ditions apply: the controller’s competence lies in his function of providing manage-
75 cf. e.g. Herzog (1999), pp.309; Weber/Grothe/Schäffer (1999), p.18.
ment disburdening in accounting as well as planning and monitoring systems together with the knowledge derived from them for management and the operational areas.76
4.4. Situation 4: “Realise disburdening function”
The situation outlined in the second box is characterised by the fact that controllers do not support management sufficiently either through diagnostic or interactive tasks. If this is the initial situation, first fundamental controlling systems must be established, or improved, as the case may be. In addition, sufficient transparency must be achieved.77 For introducing controlling to medium sized companies and bureau- cracies, Weber recommends first organising and implementing systems of planning, monitoring and supplying data and, particularly, establishing cost accounting.78 Strobel suggests establishing cost and budget controlling step by step,79 and many other authors regard accountancy as the starting point for introducing controlling into a company.80 These fundamental systems form a basis for realising diagnostic con- troller tasks in planning, monitoring and supplying data. The disburdening which management experiences through diagnostic controlling support derived from this ba- sis, as well as the know-how established in controller departments pertaining to management processes and systems as well as a monetary evaluation all serve as a basis for extensive interactive tasks for controllers.
5. Conclusion and outlook
Controllers support management by providing services that contribute to ensuring rationality, thereby increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of executive decisions.
There are two separate task bundles. Firstly, disburdening management as efficiently as possible, in implementing and monitoring executive decisions aiming at increasing management efficiency on a basis of specialisation, advantages of experience and salary-level differentials. Secondly, in a role primarily aimed at effectiveness, the controller enhances management. Here the controller’s objective is to increase management effectiveness by challenging and advising the management. The function
76 cf. also Herzog (1999), p.79; Küpper (1997), p.447; Ebert/Koinecke/Peemöller (1985), p.33.
77 cf. Eschenbach (1997), pp.24; who regards supplying data as the basis for the innovative function of the controller. cf. established accounting as a prerequis ite for working together in a partnership in Pipkin (1989); Oliver (1991), p.41.
78 cf. Weber (1995), pp.332; Eschenbach/Niedermayr (1995), p.527.
79 cf. Strobel (1978), pp.424.
of enhancing management is postulated more and more frequently in the literature on this subject, both in English and German speaking regions. According to empirical studies, this function has been observed to a greater extent in German speaking countries.
Going back to an idea of Simons, it is possible to derive theoretically based statements to combine both task bundles. The critical bottleneck, whose allocation must – ac- cording to Simons - be optimised, is the management’s attention. This objective can be achieved by implementing diagnostic and interactive controller tasks together.
Transparency as well as stability of processes and systems with the least possible de- mand on the management (diagnostic controller tasks) and – as much as possible – management and controller learning focused on strategic uncertainties as an expansive element (interactive controller tasks) should both be realised insofar as the conditions exist. The basis for a further development of controller tasks from these ideas is taking stock of the available management support. Four task situations were distinguished and illustrated with examples from the discussion on controllership in German-spea- king regions: “ensure comprehensive controlling”, “realise disburdening function”,
“ensure disburdening function” and “realise enhancement function”. Specific standard paths were derived from these, which might enrich the discussion on future controller tasks in English speaking regions.
80 cf. e.g. Eschenbach/Niedermayr (1995), pp.66; Harbert (1982), p.250; Zünd (1978), p.3.
References
Ahrens, T./Chapman, C. (1999): The Role of Management Accountants in Britain and Germany, in: Management Accounting, May 1999, p.42-43.
Amshoff, B. (1994): Controlling in deutschen Unternehmungen: Realtypen, Kontext und Effizienz, 2. ed., Wiesbaden 1994.
Anderson, D.R./Schmidt L.A. (1961): Practical Controllership, Revised Edition, Homewood 1961.
Anderson, D.R./Schmidt L.A./McCosh A.M. (1973): Practical Controllership, 3. ed., Homewood 1973.
Anthony, R.N. (1965): Planning and Control Systems, Boston (Mass.) 1965.
Anthony, R.N. (1988): The Management Control Function, Boston (Mass.) 1988.
Anthony, R.N./Govindarajan, V. (2001): Management Control Systems, 10. ed., New York et al. 2001.
Baumgartner, B. (1980): Die Controller-Konzeption – Theoretische Darstellung und praktische Anwendung, Bern et al. 1980.
Bertsch, L.H. (1990): Zum Stand des Controlling in den USA, in: Mayer, E./Weber, J.
(Eds.): Handbuch Controlling, Stuttgart 1990, p.656-669.
Bhimani, A./Keshtvarz, H. (1999): British Management Accountants – Strategically Oriented, in: Cost Management, Vol. 13, Number 2, Mar/Apr 1999, p.25-31.
Böhny, R. (1988): Der Controller als Unternehmensberater, in: Der Schweizer Treu- händer, 1-2/1988, p.9-11.
Cohen, J.B./Robbins, S.M. (1966): The Financial Manager – Basic Aspects of Financial Administration, New York 1966.
Cooper, R. (1996): Look Out, Management Accountants, in: Management Accounting, Part 1, May 1996, S.20-26 und Part 2, June 1996, p.35-41.
Deyhle, A. (1975): Controlling-Funktion und interne Revision, in: ZIR, 10. Jahrgang, 1975, p.73-84.
Deyhle, A. (1997): Management- und Controlling-Brevier, 7. ed., Wörthsee-Etter- schlag 1997.
Ebert, G./Koinecke, J./Peemöller, V. H. (1985): Controlling in der Praxis, 5. ed., Landsberg am Lech 1993.
Eschenbach, R. (1995): Controlling, Stuttgart 1995.
Eschenbach, R. (1997): Controlling als Führungsfunktion – Tendenzen und Kontext, in: Rieder, L./Blazek, A. (Eds.): Controllers Zukunft, Zürich 1997, p.15-32.
Fern, R.H./Tipgos, M.A. (1988): Controller as Business Strategists – A Progress Report, in: Management Accounting, Mar 1988, p.25-29.
Frank, G. (1998): Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit – ein Entwurf, München 1998.
Gaulhofer, M. (1989): Controlling und menschliches Verhalten, in: ZfB Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Volume 59, 2/89, p.141-154.
Gaulhofer, M. (1991): Managementrolle: Controller, in: Staehle, W.H. (Eds.):
Handbuch Management, Wiesbaden 1991, p.167-186.
Hahn, D. (1996): PuK – Controllingkonzepte, 5. ed., Wiesbaden 1996.
Harbert, L. (1982): Controlling-Begriffe und Controlling-Konzeptionen, Bochum 1982.
Heckert, J.B./Willson J.D. (1963): Controllership – The Work of the Accounting Executive, 2. ed., New York 1963.
Henning, D.A./Moseley, R.L. (1970): Authority Role of a Function: The Controller, in ASQ Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 15, 1970, p.482-489.
Herzog, A. (1999): Gestaltung von Controllership – Die Zuordnung von Aufgaben zu Controllern, Wiesbaden 1999.
Horngren, C.T./Sundem, G.L. (1987): Introduction to Management Accounting, 7.
ed., Englewood Cliffs 1987.
Horváth, P. (1998): Controlling, 7. ed., München 1998.
IGC (1997): Controller-Leitbild, in: Controlling – Zeitschrift für erfolgsorientierte Unternehmenssteuerung, Volume 9, 3/1997, p.182.
Jackson, J.H. (1949): The Comptroller: His Function and Organization, 2. Printing, Cambridge, Mass. 1949.
Kaplan, R. S. (1995): New Roles for Management Accountants, in: Journal of Cost Management, Fall 1995, p.6-13.
Küpper, H.-U. (1997): Controlling, 2. ed., Stuttgart 1997.
Küpper, H.-U./Weber, J./Zünd A. (1990): Zum Verständnis und Selbstverständnis des Controlling, in: ZfB Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Volume 60, 3/1990, p.281-293.
Lanter, N. (1995): Beziehungsdynamik im Controlling, Bern 1995.
Niedermayr, R. (1994): Entwicklungsstand des Controlling, System, Kontext und Effizienz, Wiesbaden 1994.
Oliver, L. (1991): Accountants as Business Partners, in: Management Accounting, June 1991, p.40-42.
Patmore, C. W. (1972): The Controller as Consultant to his Management – The Fun- damentals, in: Lemke, B. C./Edwards, J. D. (Eds.): Administrative Control and Executive Action, 2. ed., Columbus, Ohio, 1972, S.86-97, first published in:
Management Accounting, Volume 44, 2/1962, p.29-38.
Pipkin, A. (1989): The Controller´s Role en Route to the 21st Century, in: CMA Magazine, April 1989, p.10-18.
Richter, H.-J. (1987): Theoretische Grundlagen des Controlling, Frankfurt am Main 1987.
Sathe, V. (1982): Controller-Involvement in Management, New York 1982.
Sathe, V. (1983): The Controller´s Role in Management, in: Organizational Dyna- mics, Winter 1983, p.31-47.
Schäffer, U. (2000): Zeit des Managements – Kern einer Theorie der Unternehmens- steuerung? in: Bloech, J./Götze, U./Mikus, B. (Eds.): Management und Zeit, Heidelberg et al. 2000, p.73-93.
Schäffer, U. (2001): Kontrolle als Lernprozess, Wiesbaden 2001.
Schäffer, U./Weber, J. (1999): Controller können von Consultants lernen, in: Harvard Business Manager, Volume 21, 1/1999, p.21-28.
Scheumann, J. (1998): The Controller´s Good Intentions, in: Financial Executive, Mar/Apr 1998, p.23-29.
Schmidt, A. (1986): Das Controlling als Instrument zur Koordination der Unterneh- mensführung – Eine Analyse der Koordinationsfunktion des Controlling unter entscheidungsorientierten Gesichtspunkten, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1986.
Schmidt, R. (1995): Grundfunktionen des Controlling, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1995.
Schneider, M. (1993): Entwicklung des Controlling, Gießen 1993.
Schneider, D. (1994): Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Band 2: Rechnungswesen, München et al. 1994.
Schönfeld, H.-M.W. (1987): Controlling-Konzept und Controller-Funktionen in den USA, in: Mayer, E./Landsberg, G./Thiede, W. (Eds.): Controlling-Konzepte im internationalen Vergleich, Landsberg am Lech 1987, p.133-164.
Serfling, K. (1992): Controlling, 2. ed., Stuttgart et al. 1992.
Siegel, G./Kulesza, C.S. (1996): The Practice Analysis in Management Accounting, in: Management Accounting, Apr 1996, p.20-28.
Siegel, G./Sorensen, J.E. (1999): Counting More, Counting Less, in: Research Report, August 1999.
Simon, H.A./Guetzkow, H./Kometsky, G./Tyndall, G. (1954): Centralization vs.
Decentralization in Organizing the Controller´s Department, New York 1954.
Simons, R. (1995): Levers of Control – How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal, Boston 1995.
Simons, R. (1999): Performance Measurement & Control Systems for Implementing Strategy, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1999.
Simons, R./Dávila, A. (1998): How High is Your Return on Management? in: HBR Harvard Business Review, January-February 1998, p.71-80.
Steinle, C./Eggers, B./Lawa D. (1996): Zukunftsorientierung des Controlling und Controlling in der Zukunft, in: Steinle, C./Eggers, B./Lawa D. (Eds.):
Zukunftsgerichtetes Controlling, 2. ed., Wiesbaden 1996, p.409-418.
Stoffel, K. (1995): Controllership im internationalen Vergleich, Wiesbaden 1995.
Strobel, W. (1978): Begriff und System des Controlling, in: WiSt Wirtschafts- wissenschaftliches Studium, Volume 7, 9/1978, p.421-427.
Vahs, D. (1989): Controlling-Konzeptionen in deutschen Industrieunternehmungen – eine betriebswirtschaftlich-historische Untersuchung, Frankfurt am Main 1989.
Weber, J. (1985): Kostenrechnung als Controllinginstrument, in: krp Kostenrech- nungspraxis– Zeitschrift für Controlling, Volume 29, Sonderheft 1985, p.23-31.
Weber, J. (1999): Einführung in das Controlling, 8. ed., Stuttgart 1999.
Weber, J./Grothe, M./Schäffer, U. (1999): Business Intelligence, Series Advanced Controlling, No. 13, Vallendar 1999.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U. (1998): Controlling-Entwicklung im Spiegel von Stellenan- zeigen 1990-1994, in: krp Kostenrechnungspraxis – Zeitschrift für Controlling, Volume 42, 4/1998, p.227-233.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U. (1999): Sicherstellung der Rationalität von Führung als Funk- tion des Controlling, in: DBW Die Betriebswirtschaft, Volume 59, 6/1999, p.731-746.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U. (2000a): Entwicklung von Kennzahlensystemen, in: BFUP Be- triebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis, Volume 52, 1/2000, p.1-16.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U. (2000b): Balanced Scorecard & Controlling: Implementierung – Nutzen für Manager und Controller – Erfahrungen in deutschen Unternehmen, 3. ed., Wiesbaden 2000.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U./Bauer, M. (2000): Controller und Manager im Team, Series Advanced Controlling, No. 14, Vallendar 2000.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U./Langenbach, W. (2001): Gedanken zur Rationalitätskonzeption des Controlling, in: Weber, J./Schäffer, U. (Eds.): Rationalitätssicherung der Führung – Beiträge zu einer Theorie des Controlling, Wiesbaden 2001, S.46-76.
Willson, J.D./Campbell, J.B. (1981): Controllership – The Work of the Managerial Accountant, 3. ed., New York 1981.
Zenz, A. (1999): Strategisches Qualitätscontrolling – Konzeption als Metaführungs- funktion, Wiesbaden 1999.
Ziener, M. (1985): Controlling im multinationalen Unternehmen, Landsberg am Lech 1985.
Zünd, A. (1978): Begriffsinhalte Controlling – Controller, in: Haberland, G. (Eds.):
Handbuch Revision, Teil Controlling, Nr. 1, München 1978, p.1-25.
