Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop a proposal for a new conceptual framework for management control systems (MCS) in R&D units. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is a descriptive study that reviews the control literature and proposes an MCS framework in the light of four key elements: desired ends, actors, control implementation, and control tools. Findings -The study found two sub-elements of desired ends (directional and yardstick) to be complementary in a low level of uncertainty, while directional should be emphasized more in a high level of uncertainty. Five sub-elements of actors are used differently along the levels of uncertainty. The timing and use of formal and informal control types are found to be different regarding the level of uncertainty. Finally, the dimension and the value of control tools are used differently in those two distinctive situations. Research limitations/implications -The paper is limited to a descriptive study that may have further implication for research by using the framework to investigate the MCS applied by R&D units. Practical implications -The four key elements of MCS may be used in practice by developing a detail measure of each element to suit the condition of the unit. Originality/value -The paper is a new way of looking at MCS, broadening the comprehension, and introducing new MCS key elements.

This article explores the changing accountability role that Indonesian local government reporting has played by exploring a Local Government Under Study's (LGUS) accountability report process. The study uses an interpretive (social constructionist) methodology. A case study method (including historical records and interviews, as well as direct observations) is used through an institutional theory lens to interpret local reporting behaviour. Local government currently submits accountability reports to three parties: the central government, the local parliament and the public. However, while the public now receives a report, it contains only a summary of the report submitted to the central government and is often not made available in a timely manner. The authors recommend that a full report (in similar format and detail to that made available to Central Government) be made available to the public. The accountability forum is currently largely ceremonial and symbolic. In order to better meet the requirements of accountability, the authors recommend that this forum allow for questions about the Local Governments' activities to be asked and responded to in a public forum. As with any case study, themes reflected in this study are not necessarily generalizable. AbstractThis article explores the changing accountability role that Indonesian local government reporting has played by exploring a Local Government Under Study's (LGUS) accountability report process. The study uses an interpretive (social constructionist) methodology. A case study method (including historical records and interviews, as well as direct observations) is used through an institutional theory lens to interpret local reporting behaviour. Local government currently submits accountability reports to three parties: the central government, the local parliament and the public. However, while the public now receives a report, it contains only a summary of the report submitted to the central government and is often not made available in a timely manner. The authors recommend that a full report (in similar format and detail to that made available to Central Government) be made available to the public. The accountability forum is currently largely ceremonial and symbolic. In order to better meet the requirements of accountability, the authors recommend that this forum allow for questions about the Local Governments' activities to be asked and responded to in a public forum. As with any case study, themes reflected in this study are not necessarily generalizable.

It is with great sadness that we note the passing of Professor Michael Gaffikin.

The paper investigates performance audit practiced by a government R&D institution in a developing country. The study is undertaken in response to the question by many authorities on how to perform PA and what tools are used in practice (Barzelay, 1996; Leeuw, 1996; Roberts and Pollitt, 1994; Midwinter, 2008; Shand and Anand, 1995; Wynn-Williams, 2005. The study uses a case study to explore the utility of control tools in the performance audit of National Institute of Biological (NIB) by analysing the audit report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. A set of control tools developed by Silaen and Williams (2009) for R& D organisation are applied in this case. The elements of the control tools developed by Silaen and Williams (2009) consist of dimensions and values of representation. Four dimensions of control tools are given as directional, bureaucratic, scientific and financial. Three values of representation are given as external, internal and social value of representation. A matrix of dimensions and value of representation is developed, and applied to the audit report of NIB. It is concluded that CAG used all the four control dimensions across the three values of representation and arrived at a suitable recommendation to the Government of India. With a limitation to a single case, this study contributes to the literature by examining a unique case of a scientific organisation, NIB, and by understanding the way in which performance audit was used to enhance the accountability of public sector scientific institution. With a limitation to a single case study of NIB, this study has its originality to contribute to the literature by examining a unique case of a scientific organisation, National Institute of Biological in India, and by understanding the way in which performance audit was used to enhance the accountability of public sector scientific institution. Keywords INTRODUCTIONThe concept of new public management (NPM) is becoming popular across countries which lead to the need of public sector accountability through Performance Audit (PA). Many countries in the Organisations for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have reformed their public management into New Public Management (NPM), which requires more accountability and need for performance audit (Leeuw, 1996; Politt, 2003.The current literature on Performance Audit (PA) and its utility focuses on a number of aspects of performance audit such as need and scope of performance audit (PA), qualifications of auditors and audit criteria (Smith, Lanier, and Taylor, 1972; Kitindi, 1992), use of PA in the measurement of efficiency and effectiveness (Leeuw, 1996), development of audit expertise in government performance (Gendron, Y., D.J. Cooper, and B. Townley, 2007), trends and choices of PA (Pollitt, 2003).Since many of the implementation of PA uses a comparison process to measure the performance, many of authors question about "what kinds of tools are appropriate to be used for comparison by PA?" (Barzelay, 1996...

The aim of this paper is to provide accounting, marketing, management, finance and legal professionals who are engaged with emerging economies with an introduction to the ' Asian Development Model' and to use the mining reforms in Indonesia as an example of the Model in operation. This will assist those professionals in recognising the challenges faced by businesses in Australia and New Zealand when governments in South East Asian countries attempt to 'catch up' to the developed world and at the same time attempt to spread the benefits of the development to their people.The paper argues that there is an Asian Development Model and that the Indonesian mining reforms, in particular the requirement over time for 51 percent Indonesian Government ownership and the ban on the export of unprocessed resources, represent an attempt by the Indonesian State to speed up industrialisation in their country and to spread more of the benefits from mining to ordinary citizens in the recently democratised and politically decentralised country. In attempting to show strength however, the Indonesian state is exposing some weakness. The impact on jobs, revenue and production has been adverse although Foreign Direct Investment has increased. This latter may be because it is foreign multinational mining companies who are better placed than local mining enterprises to build smelters. The success of developing mining might be at the expense of local capital. In other words state intervention does not always produce all of the desired outcomes. It is not a panacea. AbstractThe aim of this paper is to provide accounting, marketing, management, finance and legal professionals who are engaged with emerging economies with an introduction to the 'Asian Development Model' and to use the mining reforms in Indonesia as an example of the Model in operation. This will assist those professionals in recognising the challenges faced by businesses in Australia and New Zealand when governments in South East Asian countries attempt to 'catch up' to the developed world and at the same time attempt to spread the benefits of the development to their people. The paper argues that there is an Asian Development Model and that the Indonesian mining reforms, in particular the requirement over time for 51 percent Indonesian Government ownership and the ban on the export of unprocessed resources, represent an attempt by the Indonesian State to speed up industrialisation in their country and to spread more of the benefits from mining to ordinary citizens in the recently democratised and politically decentralised country. In attempting to show strength however, the Indonesian state is exposing some weakness. The impact on jobs, revenue and production has been adverse although Foreign Direct Investment has increased. This latter may be because it is foreign multinational mining companies who are better placed than local mining enterprises to build smelters. The success of developing mining might be at the expense of local capital. In other words state inter...