Rules and Routines in Burns and Scapens (2000)

The conceptual framework proposed by B&S depicts a process of how management accounting practices can become taken-for-granted. Their concepts are now briefly described to set a context for remainder of this paper. The B&S framework portrays management accounting as a routine and potentially institutionalised organisational practice (2000, p. 5). Hamilton defined an institution as a way of thought or action of some prevalence and permanence, which is embedded in the habits of a group or the customs of a people (1932, p. 34, as cited in B&S). Premised on this definition, an organisation could be said to exhibit characteristics of an institutional nature. That is, organisational behaviour (such as management accounting) generally portrays some consistency, and in some instances behaviour can become a permanent feature. A starting assumption of the B&S framework is that management accounting can be interpreted drawing on concepts such as rules and routines. B&S defined routines as the way things are done (2000, p. 5), which can be contrasted with rules, the ways things should be done (2000, p. 6). They also recognise a link between institutions and actors, proposing that institutions define relations between social groups and group members. This explains the two realms of institution and action encompassed by B&S. These realms represent an on-going cumulative process of change through time (2000, p.9). The B&S framework somewhat arbitrarily starts at the point of encoding new ideals in rules and routines. This is typically influenced by existing routines as these incorporate existing institutional values. Actors act out rules and routines over time, which eventually may become institutionalised practices. The B&S framework outlines in particular the importance of existing institutional factors such as rules and routines. The B&S framework also suggests routines can become institutionalised. Such institutionalised routines may, or may not, be in line with rules (see Lukka (2007) for an example). Institutionalised routines imply a deeply embedded set of assumptions on how things are done and are a potential source of inertia, continuity and inflexibility (Becker, 2004; Feldman and Pentland, 2003).

Thus, in summary the B&S framework proposes that a study of management accounting change requires an understanding of, first, the historical and institutional context of existing rules and routines and, second, the processes by which new rules and routines can become embedded and taken-for-granted. This paper by and large supports the general process as proposed by B&S. That is to say, the interaction of rules and routines is important to interpret 1

how management accounting practices can remain stable, or how these same practices, although taken-for-granted, can also change. Where this paper differs is in both the conceptualisation of rules and routines and the interactions between them. The next section explores, proposes and justifies alternative conceptualisation of rules, stemming from the Oliveira (2010) RuleCo case. Then, Section Four takes similar steps as regards conceptualisations of routines, drawing from the Quinn (2010) RoutineCo case. Finally, Section Five brings together our conceptualisations of both phenomena, proposing a more detailed framework of their interactions in the potential institutionalisation of management accounting practices.