Electrotransferencia e inmunotinción (Western Blot)

Jänkälä’s (2007) doctoral dissertation is the most comprehensive MCS study that has been conducted in the Finnish small business context. Jänkälä’s study is very wide and only the most relevant parts concerning the thesis topic will be covered here.

Jänkälä investigates the use of MCS practices and the role of those in a contingency theoretical framework. The data includes both rapidly growing and more stable traditional firms, employing 10 – 49 persons. Due to the novelty of topic, this is an exploratory study, conducted in two phases: first, a qualitative pilot study and second, a survey analysed with quantitative methods. Survey data covers responses from 183 managing directors. The MCS and contextual factors effect on financial performance is investigated (fit approach).

Survey results suggest that firms use a wide range of MCS. Jänkälä reports that it seems that the strategy is positively associated with both growth and profitability. On the other hand, the use of a comprehensive MCS is not related to neither growth nor increased profitability. This can be interpreted that the decisive factor is the long-term target setting, which may lead to adoption of a more sophisticated MCS, which in its turn supports the target achievement. Firms, which have been profitable or had lower growth rate in sales use more advanced MCS practices. Nevertheless, use of more advanced dimensions of MCS seems to predict significant improvements for longer-term growth in net sales. One can ponder whether the results have been affected by the general economic situation as the base data was gathered 2001. Jänkälä compares the performance and net sales three years before (1997-2000) and two years after (2002- 2003) the base year. There had been a strong growth in the GDP in Finland up to 2000, then significantly slower growth during 2002-2003.

The pilot study (2009) was qualitative, conducted with face-to-face semi-structured interviews and short questionnaire. Pilot companies were at least 5 years old (start-ups were excluded), 12 owner-managers were interviewed, six from stable companies and six from growing. Seven of the companies were micro companies. The companies were located in northern Finland and represented different industries and services, varying in sales, average was 0,3 million euros and on average 5,5 persons. Eight of the interviewees had vocational education, and three had university degree (out of which one in economics and business administration).

Common conclusions of the pilot study are that entrepreneurs deem net income and liquidity follow up important. Planning and budgeting was done once a year, investments should be profitable (but no specific method was used), the possible selling of the business was not considered important. The entrepreneur is the main capital investor and possible external financing is received from bank. Findings suggest existence of non- financial objectives in small business: respect, reputation, success. Generally the entrepreneurs enjoy their work, independence and being in control of things. Family entrepreneurship background seems to be an influential factor: entrepreneurship is considered as one alternative among many.

The growth firms in the study consider the developing of the business and liquidity important and investments are carefully estimated. “Grow or Die” mentality. Growth is gained through networking and geographical spread. Profitability is first and foremost seen as enabling the development of the business. Second priority is own earnings and benefits, which entrepreneurs benchmark with the level one could earn in a larger firm as a manager.

Attitudes are cautious against new shareholders or venture capitalists. Informality of organization and free information flow are perceived important (note, these are also characteristics for innovation). Growth firms seemed to have or aim for a more structured way of running the business. Companies strive for healthy and controlled growth. Non-financial returns are valued less than in the over all sample.

The owners of the traditional businesses in the study are modest in their expectation for earnings: “minimum standard of living”. Budgets are usually done once a year. Companies do not expect growth; they are rather fighting against decline. They see expansion a risk and being too dependent on the one owner-manager. More importance is put on the non-financial rewards. Owner has the role of a manager not a leader. Less emphasis on openness in communication or discussing financials with employees. Entrepreneurship has become a life style and the owners would not work for another anymore.

These results from Jänkälä’s pilot study offer a valuable background information for this thesis as well. The owners’ characteristics seem to differ quite notably between the growth companies and stable companies and it will be interesting to see how the results of this study comply with Jänkälä’s findings.

Sandino (2007) studied the choice of MCS adoption by 131 start-up companies (32 public) in the retail industry in the United States. The retail industry makes Sandino’s study specifically interesting, as the growth usually comes with opening of new branches, meaning geographical spread and therefore, controls that are more formal are needed relatively early. Study was conducted in two stages: first exploratory interviews (40), then survey (97) to a larger sample of 2-10 years old companies, which were analysed with quantitative methods.

Sandino considers both the life-cycle models and contingency theory. Based on the life cycle literature, Sandino suggests that an early-stage company first implements only the formal controls that are seen to liberate managers’ time to focus informally on firm’s strategy. The interviews conducted in the first research phase revealed that managers describe the implemented controls by their purpose, not so in direct concepts as for instance “budgets”.

The key findings from Sandino’s study are that all the sample companies adopt the same set of “basic MCS” (budgets, pricing and inventory control) first. The basic MCS seem to represent a “hygiene” factor in the industry. This could be relevant also in this thesis study, when the case companies are all from construction industry (for example time keeping needed already in the very beginning as a prerequisite for invoicing). Sandino’s concept of “additional MCS” includes the chosen strategy. Third finding is that the contingency model holds: MCS fit improves performance.

Limitations of Sandino’s study are generalizability outside retail sector, possible survivorship bias, not using data triangulation, memory and interpretation bias (answers are based on the respondent’s recollection). Relatively small sample size. Possible self- selection bias, but that was mitigated with efforts to maximize the rate of response. All in all, Sandino (2007, p. 268) states, “the real question is not whether MCS are needed, but which MCS are best suited to the contingencies of each firm.”