AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
commercial entities or the third sector). Each of these terms
takes on a different meaning in Western theory of controlling.
Methods represent ways to achieve a predetermined goal through
purposeful and planned action. (
Kráčmar et al., 2013) In
controlling, methods are important for: a) obtaining information
(mostly for the measurement step) and b) comparing (standards
with measured results). Both “provide managers with the type
and amount of information they need to measure and monitor
performance.” (Benowitz, 2001, p. 172) The first group is used
in controlling for clarification of the facts about the object of
control and includes, for example, analysis and synthesis,
comparison, deduction and induction, abstraction, historical
knowledge, statistics, and others. (Kráčmar et al., 2013). In their
essence, they are identical to scientific methods of knowledge.
The second group of methods is often subdivided into
traditional/old and modern methods (Majtán et al., 2016;
Tripathi & Reddy, 2012); whether they are budget-based or not
(quantitative and qualitative techniques) (DuBrin, 2012); in
which area they are applied (Benowitz, 2001). To the countless
examples of controlling techniques we can include: budgets,
financial statements, ratio analysis, financial audits, Balanced
Scorecard (Kaplan, Norton, 1996), benchmarking, quality
control techniques (control chart, sampling, Six Sigma), tools for
project management (Gantt Chart, Critical Path Method/
Program Evaluation and Review Technique – CPM/PERT);
inventory control methods (economic order form, Just-In-Time
system), break-even point, etc.
Changes in the environment, we examine in this paper, are
closely related to changes in controlling. These changes are
linked to the new trends we are researching at in the current
VEGA project. During more than two years of research, we have
so far discovered the following trends in the literature: a)
responding to new business organization, new organizational
structures, higher employee responsibility, and the use of
coordination rather than control; b) increasing the involvement
of employees instead of controlling them; c) using the theory of
targeting or motivation; d) better use of information technology
for control, including international branches; e) adapting control
to cultural differences between international and multinational
companies; f) the need for increased employee monitoring to
prevent productivity, financial and other losses; g) increasing
aggressiveness in the workplace; h) controlling customer
interactions; i) adapted corporate governance. Our own findings
include: a) convergence of Western and Eastern approach to
control; b) continuous monitoring through modern technology;
c) struggle over the term “controlling”; d) flood of data for
controlling purposes; e) excessive accent on quantitative data
in
a world becoming more complex.
2 Materials and Methods
The main goal of the paper is to determinate the relationship
between the perceived changes in business environment and
introducing new methods, tools and procedures into this process
in companies.
The presented research results were obtained through a
questionnaire survey that took place at the end of 2016 and
beginning 2017. The questionnaire was filled in by respondents
who were given URL, i.e. the survey was not accessible to the
wider public. Data was collected via electronic questionnaire on
the Google website (tool Google Forms). The final research
sample had 395 respondents, although for further processing
were used 331. We excluded several respondents, which were
from the same companies and few questionnaires with errors.
Our research sample has following characteristics (n=331):
size of company (according to EU recommendation
2003/361), (employees in 2015): 115 microenterprises, 90
small, 56 medium-large, 70 large companies;
respondent’s management level: 120 top-management, 52
middle, 116 lower management level, 43 informed
employees (although not managers, they have access to
rare business information: accounting officers, economists,
employees responsible for control, without being
managers);
most frequently represented sections according to the SK-
NACE classification: 69 industrial production, 66
wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles, 46
professional scientific and technical activities, 25
information and communication, 21 accommodation and
catering services;
higher territorial unit (TU) of Slovak Republic: 174
Bratislava (capital city and surrounding districts), 33
Trnava, 24 Nitra, 23 Trenčín, 30 Žilina, 17 Banská
Bystrica, 22 Prešov, 8 Košice;
legal form: 222 private limited liability companies, 66
joint-stock companies, 30 self-employed individuals, 5
branches of foreign enterprises, 4 cooperatives, 4 other
legal forms;
economic result in 2015: 254 profit, 52 loss, 20 balanced, 3
companies founded in 2016, 2 n/a;
turnover (according to EU recommendation 2003/361) in
2015: 164 ≤2M Euro, 43 2M≤10M Euro, 60 10M≤50M
Euro, 50
≥50M Euro, 14 n/a.
Besides basic scientific methods, in evaluation of the
questionnaires we used statistical methods and tools such as Phi
Coefficient, Cramers’V and Goodman and Kruskal Lambda.
These methods are used to determine association and
dependence between two variables or statistical test based on
comparison observed variables. In addition to quantitative
responses, we have gained a deeper insight into the issues
through voluntary qualitative responses (justifications).
As this paper focuses only on a small part of the results of the
questionnaire survey, we would like to point out some
interesting facts from our findings: - more than four-fifths of
businesses consider the management function of controlling to
be important, two-fifths to very important; - up to 69 percent of
respondents had to increase their control efforts over the
previous year; - more than 46 percent of respondents
experienced an increase in the intensity with which they are
controlled by another subject. In addition, at the respondent level
(n = 376; from 331 organizations), more than three quarters of
respondents (75.27%) had a positive attitude to controlling when
they were performing it and more than half (51.33%) had a
positive attitude in situations they have been exposed to controls.
3 Results and Discussion
Respondents to our question about changes in the business
environment affecting the control process answered mostly
negatively (174; 52.57%). Although the respondents noticed
changes in the business environment, none of those that would
cause changes in controlling. Nearly half of the respondents (76;
43.68%) used the opportunity to give us also a qualitative
answer. The overwhelming majority of respondents said that
changes in controlling did not happen mainly because of the
effective of controlling, so they do not see the need to change
what works and deliver the desired results. Respondents
considered regular checks with a clearly defined object and
subject to control for a properly set up controlling. One of the
respondents also reported very good economic results because of
which they see no reason to make any changes in controlling
when the current system yields results. Several respondents said
they planned to introduce changes in controlling in the future,
especially because of automation of selected business processes
and increasing external control (especially by the tax office).
Respondents (157; 47.43%) responded positively to this
question. Almost all respondents added a qualitative answer to
this question (153; 97.45%). Both results are shown in Figure 1.
The most frequently mentioned changes in controlling were the
extension of the object and subject of control and the
introduction of new forms of control due to legislative changes,
more frequent inspections from external entities or increasing the
efficiency of individual business processes. An interesting factor
influencing the changes in control was also the increasing
quality and demandingness of customers, which was mentioned
- 204 -