The article reviews the terminological distinctions (e.g. action and result control, interactive and diagnostic control) used for control in twenty-five empirical studies on management control in the context of innovation. The terminological distinctions are classed in three categorizations. These are (a) the types of managerial control, (b) the design and use mode of managerial control instruments and (c) the enabling and constraining character of managerial control instruments. By analyzing the categorizations, it becomes evident that there are two, almost independent ontological streams shaping the empirical field: the determinist perspective and the voluntarist perspective of management control with different understandings of contingency. The 'ideal fit' approach to contingency of the determinist perspective adds little cumulative knowledge to the field of management control in the context of innovation. Therefore, the article suggests to strengthen the voluntarist perspective and to develop a 'quasi fit' interpretation of contingency. The agenda for prospective research in management control in the context of innovation includes to investigate deviant and repair behavior related to management control systems (MCS) in innovating activities, to understand MCS as dependent as well as independent variable and to explore the role of MCS in economizing innovative activities.All papers listed in the references which are marked with * belong to the remaining study sample (see also "Appendix 2") after the systematic literature search.

No abstract

In recent years, the fight against healthcare corruption has intensified. Estimates from the European Healthcare Fraud and Corruption Network calculate an approximate €56 billion annual loss to Europe as a result of corruption. To promote understanding of the complexity and interconnection of corrupt activities, we aim to present healthcare-related corruption typologies of the European Union and European Healthcare Fraud and Corruption Network. We subsequently link them to the typology of individual and institutional corruption introduced by Dennis Thompson in the context of investigating misconduct of US Congressional members. According to Thompson, individual corruption is the personal gain of individuals performing duties within an institution in exchange for nurturing private interests, while institutional corruption pertains to the failure of the institution in directing the individual’s behaviour towards the achievement of the institution’s primary purpose because the institutional design promotes the pursuit of individual goals. Effective anti-corruption activities not only require the enactment of anti-corruption laws but also the monitoring and, where appropriate, revision of institutional frameworks to prevent the undermining of the primary purposes of health systems or institutions. To gain further understanding of the similarities and differences of the three typologies, prime examples of corrupt activities in the health sector in the European Union and USA (along with their potential remedies) are provided. Linking corruption cases to Thompson’s typology revealed that many corrupt activities may show elements of both individual and institutional corruption because they are intertwined, partly overlap and may occur jointly. Hence, sanctioning individual actors only does not target the problem.

The paper explores process management standards in software development organisations. It centres on the question how organisations manage the compliance with process standards as well as the need for ongoing technical innovation at the same time. It refers to former studies where it was concluded that process management standards tend to crowd out technical innovations in organisations. By reconsidering the coupling approach of Orton and Weick (1990) we show based on four case studies that it does not apply to those organisations which allow innovating activities being loosely coupled or decoupled from the reigning standard script. These organisations sustain their chances for incremental and fundamental technical innovations. Dealing with loosely coupled or decoupled innovating activities implies a dialectical standard management. It means that potentially contradictory and conflict-ridden activities like standardised practices and innovating activities are manageable by specific institutional, temporarily limited and formal/informal solutions. Furthermore, we scrutinise in this paper the decoupling discussion of some parts of the standard management literature. Standard decoupling is often seen as an unfortunate, but necessary solution to cope with external pressure for internal standardisation. In contrast to this, we develop an understanding where standard decoupling is not defined as a set of activities without affecting the 'technical core' of an organisation. (Brunsson and Jacobsson, 2000b; Meyer and Rowan, 1967). Rather, decoupling is seen as a temporary and locally limited situation of an innovating subsystem within an organisation where it is allowed to detach from reigning standardised practices and to test and develop innovative ideas under less formalised conditions.