123 EFECTOS DEL DIVORCIO.

As discussed in Chapter 7, Section 7.5, during project Kappa accounting practices consisted of estimating and analyzing the accounting performance of the new product in development, in light of the cost target defined within the PDD, as well as accounting for these costs to senior managers at the pre-defined review meetings. These practices involved the project manager, the project leader, and the sourcing manager for the materials cost, and the manufacturing engineer, the project leader, and the project

148

manager for the labour cost (see Chapter 7, section 7.5, see also Table 7.1). The discussions and collaborations on the accounting performance of Kappa resulted in the emergence of the multiple interests and concerns at stake for project Kappa, involving both the staff in charge of the accounting practices (non-accountants), as well as other staff within the team of project Kappa.

In the next subsections, building on the two empirical instances illustrated in Chapter 7, Section 7.5 (see also Figures 7.5 and 7.6), how the multiple interests, concerns and purposes at stake during project Kappa caused tensions among the desires, the intentions, and the motivations of the participating actors is explained. The study of how accounting mediated among the multiple interests, concerns and purposes at stake, regarding the unfolding of project Kappa, facilitates understanding of how accounting engaged with the rationale for innovation during the project and, consequently, how accounting facilitated the unfolding of the process for innovation. The analysis conducted in the next subsections leads to the answer of the second research question:

how does accounting engage with the rationale for innovation through processes of mediation?

8.3.1 How the mediation of accounting supported the desires and the intentions for innovation

In the first periodical meeting for the estimate of the materials cost of product Kappa in Phase 2, the sourcing manager expressed his disagreement with the project leader’s intention to adopt the new mechanics for product Kappa. During this meeting, the project leader responded by emphasizing that the new mechanical solution for product Kappa would have generated significant advantages in the mechanical performance and, more importantly, for the entire functionality of the new product as well. In Phase 3, when the prototype for Kappa was available with the new mechanics (see Chapter 7, Section 7.5), the sourcing manager emphasized his interest in adopting the traditional technology for the mechanics of Kappa, which was a solution that had already been consolidated within the other products at Beta. The new technology was complex and would have required the cooperation of the suppliers. In challenging the intentions of the project leader with respect to innovation, the sourcing manager referred to accounting figures that were based on the suppliers’ quotations, showing how the adoption of the new mechanics was expensive. In doing so, the sourcing manager

149

stimulated the project leader to re-examine the innovation. This involved him carrying out a further, in-depth study of the new mechanical technology he intended to adopt since he was motivated by the desire for that innovative technology for Kappa. The project leader performed an in-depth analysis of the accounting impacts of the new mechanical technology in order to contest and respond to the accounting figures presented by the sourcing manager and reported within the BOM cost document (see Figure 7.4). By relying on the support of the mechanical designer and the manufacturing engineer, who had interests that were in line with the intentions of the project leader and who were also interested in this new mechanical solution, the project leader “defended” (project manager) his intention by relying on accounting practices (see Figure 7.5).

The manufacturing engineer who was interested in implementing the new mechanical solution, since this would have simplified the assembly of the product, supported the project leader’s interest in pursuing innovation by demonstrating that the estimate of the labour cost to assemble the new mechanics was lower than the cost currently incurred for a similar product with the same dimensions as Kappa, but assembled with the traditional mechanical technology used at Beta (the one suggested by the sourcing manager). Moreover, the project leader, the project manager and the mechanical designer studied and compared the number of the mechanical parts used in this product that was similar to Kappa, adopting the traditional mechanical technology, and its cost, with the number of the mechanical parts, and their cost, required for the adoption of the new technology. From this analysis, it emerged that there was no significant difference between the two mechanical solutions in terms of cost. Even though the mechanical components of the similar product analysed were less expensive than the components designed for Kappa, the new product required fewer mechanical parts due to the introduction of the new technology. Therefore, Kappa would have had fewer and more expensive mechanical components whose total cost was comparable to the total cost of the mechanical components for a similar product considered for this comparison. The analysis conducted by the project leader, in collaboration with these other staff, demonstrated that the adoption of the new mechanics did not generate a higher cost than the traditional mechanical components insisted upon by the sourcing manager (see Section 7.5 and Figure 7.5). The result of this analysis using accounting data clarified that the new mechanical technology did not have a high impact on the cost of the new product as stated in the project report.

150

The challenge by the sourcing manager of the project leader’s intention to adopt a new mechanical part opened up a space for discussion and reflection in which the project leader and other staff on the team subsequently evaluated the innovative technology for the mechanics in detail. The tension between the sourcing manager and the project leader opened up many spaces for discussion and reflection where the interests of the different experts, motivated to defend their interests in the project, were mediated by accounting, specifically by the accounting figures of the project report (the materials and labour cost figures). The project report and the accounting figures regarding the materials and labour costs (see Figure 7.2) were revealed to be in the centre of every conversation and discussion of the multiple actors involved. The project report with the accounting figures, linking the different interests at stake for innovation, mediated within the discussions and reflections in which everyone mobilised accounting to sustain their various interests. Playing a mediating role, accounting indicated “to all the actors involved what [...was] needed from each of them” (Miller and O’Leary, 2007, p.703) – namely reflections based on accounting – in their intervention to address the tensions and facilitate the unfolding process for innovation. Consequently, accounting facilitated the emergence of a choice for innovation (Miller and O’Leary, 2007; see also Christner and Strömsten, 2015; Revellino and Mouritsen, 2015), e.g. the adoption of the new mechanics in Phase 3, after the assembly of the second prototype of Kappa (see Chapter 7, Section 7.5). This occurred since the mechanical solution, in which the technical advantages were significant, was not as expensive as shown in the project report. It resulted that the desire and intention of the project leader for the new mechanical technology were sustained through the mediation of accounting among the different interests and motivations at stake for Kappa, which made it possible to address and manage the tensions with the sourcing manager, whose interest (i.e. the adoption of the mechanical technology currently used which was consolidated at Beta) in this instance was not fulfilled.

8.3.2 How the mediation of accounting did not support the desires and the intentions for innovation

When the third prototype of Kappa was available in Phase 3, a new system for the closure of a mechanical element of Kappa was implemented. The project leader, with the support of the mechanical designer, had conceived of this system that, as also explained in Chapter 7, Section 7.5, required shipment from the manufacturer to the

151

mechanical supplier, who then had to assemble it within the mechanical box with a special technology using glue. The sourcing manager did not agree with the project leader about the proposal for the shipment of this system from the manufacturer to the mechanical supplier, which was complex and would have required the cooperation of the suppliers. Furthermore, this proposal entailed a higher cost than the cost incurred if it were to be assembled in-house. The quality engineer also disagreed with the project leader and the mechanical designer on this point (see Figure 7.6). Both the sourcing manager and the quality engineer were interested in managing and assembling the new system in-house at the lower cost.

The various interests that were emerging about the acquisition of the new system for the closure of a mechanical element of Kappa opened up chains of reflections and discussions that subsequently turned into conversations about the effects of accounting on the project leader’s intention (see Figure 7.6). Those who had different interests from the project leader (i.e. the sourcing manager and the quality engineer) claimed that the adoption of this solution would have caused higher production costs and a negative cost performance reported to the senior managers in the project report. In this vein, the intention of the project leader, also sustained by the mechanical designer, was challenged by opposite interests from other staff, ultimately generating tensions among them. Accounting linked the different interests at stake (of the sourcing manager and the quality engineer) and the intentions of the project leader thus facilitating their discussions. By playing a mediating role, accounting indicated “to all the actors involved what [...was] needed from each of them” (Miller and O’Leary, 2007, p.703) – namely reflections based on accounting – as they addressed the tensions and facilitated the unfolding process of innovation. Similarly to the previous instance, accounting is shown to provide a means through which interested parties can intervene within the process, thus influencing the course of the process for innovation (Miller and O’Leary, 2007; Christner and Strömsten, 2015; Revellino and Mouritsen, 2015). Therefore the intention of the project leader was not granted or permitted because the final decision was to not incorporate the new system for the closure of the mechanical part in Kappa. The technology supported by the project leader was not adopted. This happened as a result of the accounting arguments that were advanced by other staff, e.g. the quality engineer and the sourcing manager, which demonstrated a high cost for the system, with a significant impact on the project report. This led the project leader and the mechanical

152

designer to redesign the new system for the closure of the mechanical element of Kappa without the need to use glue on the device, in a way that made in-house assembly possible.

Relying on the two instances discussed above, accounting was in the middle of the conversations and reflections on the unfolding materialization of innovation, (i.e. the prototypes), and accounting was used to link, represent (Miller and O’Leary, 2007) and defend the single interests and concerns of the actors at stake. By playing a mediating role, accounting indicated “to all the actors involved what [...was] needed from each of them” (Miller and O’Leary, 2007, p.703) – namely reflections based on accounting – in their intervention to address the tensions and facilitate the unfolding process of innovation. Accounting was used to challenge, or support, the desires and intentions put forward by the project leader, and represented a means for intervention (Miller and O’Leary, 2007; Christner and Strömsten, 2015; Revellino and Mouritsen, 2015) within the process of innovation, resulting in reinforcing or reinventing the project leader’s desires and the intentions for innovation. In doing so, accounting facilitated choices for