Browsing Research Communication by Author "Scheipers, Geert"
Value-based management control processes to create value through integration: a literature reviewAmeels, Anne; Bruggeman, Werner; Scheipers, Geert (Vlerick Business School, 2002)In the last decades, management accounting faced increasing challenges to adopt new approaches, designed to fit the changes in the economic environment and to correct perceived inefficiencies in existing controlling structures. This paper focuses on one of those recent developments, viz. value-based management (VBM). Since VBM is claimed to be changing financial management at the highest level in some of the world's largest companies, this literature review compares the value-based management approaches of six consultants, viz. Stern Stewart & Co, Marakon Associates, McKinsey & Co, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, L.E.K. Consulting and HOLT Value Associates and tries to assess the potential of their management frameworks. Value-based management can be defined as an integrated management control system that measures, encourages and supports the creation of net worth. Although VBM is more than metrics, we first focused on a non-exhaustive number of value-based metrics, divided in two segments, the listed perspective-segment and the non-listed perspective. Since metrics are a means and not the goal of a VBM-program, we compared not only the metrics used by the six consultants, but also analysed their value-based management constructs as a whole. This analysis was based on the fundamental components of a holistic VBM-program, as defined by several researches on value-based management. This comparison revealed some clear similarities between the approaches, but also demonstrates distinctions and different accents. There is for instance a clear unanimity about the focus on maximizing shareholder value, about the conviction that the interests of all stakeholder groups are best served when putting the shareholder first and about the impact of value-based management on collaboration. Notwithstanding the similarities, they all six suggest using different types of measures, combine different systems and processes, have other views on strategy development and advocate their own training & education program.