Purpose - This study aims to answer the research question of how a calculative regime for public universities is implemented, how and under which conditions its symbolic use emerges and what kind of unintended consequences occur over time.

Design/methodology/approach - The empirical material presented in the paper derives methodically from a longitudinal qualitative research approach analyzing higher education systems (HES)-reforms in Austria. To better understand the consequences of the organizational changes in line with the new legal framework, 2 series of qualitative interviews in 2011/2012 and 2016/2017 on the field level and the organizational level were conducted.

Findings - Identifying two enabling consequences from the tactical behaviors of resistance and symbolic use, i.e. new processes of communication and horizontal network building, allows for theory-building with a focus on the dynamics how accounting begins, then next becomes an established infrastructure, is then destabilized and re-elaborated before it becomes, again, an infrastructure which is different from before.

Research limitations/implications - Although the findings are based on a national empirical context, they are linked to the international discourse on HES in transition and the role of calculative regimes including performance measurement and management attitudes and instruments. They are relevant for an international research community open-minded toward differentiated case studies in a longitudinal perspective on HES-reforms.

Practical implications - When reflecting on their own specific settings governing bodies and practitioners managing the transition of HES may find insights from longitudinal case studies inspiring. The dynamics initiated by new calculative regimes installed need a sensitive framework to handle dissent, resistance, tactical behaviors and changes in power relations between the field level and the organizational level.

Originality/value - This is a unique longitudinal case study of the Austrian HES and its public universities in transition.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to synthesize insights from previous accounting, performance measurement (PM) and accountability research into the rapidly emerging field of knowledge-intensive public organizations (KIPOs). In so doing, it draws upon insights from previous literature and other papers included in this special issue of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews academic analysis and insights provided in the academic literature on accounting, PM and accountability changes in KIPOs, such as universities and healthcare organizations, and paves the way for future research in this area. Findings The literature review shows that a growing number of studies are focusing on the hybridization of different KIPOs, not only in terms of accounting tools (e.g. performance indicators, budgeting and reporting) but also in relation to individual actors (e.g. professionals and managers) that may have divergent values and thus act according to multiple logics. It highlights many areas in which further robust academic research is needed to guide developments of hybrid organizations in policy and practice. Originality/value The paper provides the growing number of academic researchers in this emerging area with a literature review and agenda upon which they can build their research.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of how a mandatory external (mostly) non-financial reporting process, labelled Knowledge Balance Sheets (KBS), is interpreted and used by different stakeholders in the Austrian university system. We are also interested in how the content and structure of the report transforms over time, how the possible link to the internal management control agenda is made, and how it reshapes organizational routines. The paper applies a critical approach where mostly non-financial, intellectual capital-related measurement, management, and reporting processes and structures are being questioned and discussed from different perspectives. This study is based on a qualitative case study approach where a number of semistructured interviews have been conducted in various Austrian universities at different management levels over a period of approximately one year. In addition, interviews have been held with other stakeholders of universities (e.g., representatives from the ministry) and with members of the working group dealing with the KBS at the supra-university level. An inductively oriented methodology was chosen to obtain a deeper understanding of the current (management) interpretation and use of the KBS, both externally and internally. This paper aims to investigate the practice of KBS in order to build new knowledge relating to both externally oriented reporting and internally oriented management control. The findings indicate that as a reporting-tool, the KBS is embedded in a broader framework of governance and accountability regarding public universities, and interlinks the following different reporting-formats: (1) the KBS itself, (2) the performance report, and (3) the financial statement of accounts. Rectors, deans, and management accountants have highlighted different parts of the framework as important and problematic. However, it is obvious that governing via externally oriented reports and rules of accountability also has relevance to internal management decision and control agendas. Furthermore, there is an on-going debate about measuring, benchmarking, and standardizing qualities within and between universities. Scientific professionals generally question the viability of only one standardized reporting format for scientific outcomes, while the administrative staff usually promotes the necessity of such a report – for example, with respect to benchmarking routines. By analysing the practices triggered by KBS reporting, we contribute to the discussion of how performance (measures and targets) can be represented, interpreted, and acted upon within public organizations in general and within public universities in particular.

Purpose – This paper aims to present an empirical case where fundamental changes in the environment have forced an organization to re‐evaluate its management control systems and possibly search for destabilizing supporting routines in order to unlearn the established ways of measuring and controlling within the organization. The problem, however, is that organizational technologies often work in the other direction, i.e. they promote stability in organizational routines. The paper seeks to increase understanding regarding the importance of destabilizing, or, as the authors like to call them, sensebreaking activities within organizations that are present in rapidly changing environments.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors used multiple sources and multiple techniques to collect data; interviews with managers, participation in meetings, and document analysis such as annual reports, pamphlets, speeches and Swedish Armed Forces's (SAF's) web site.

Findings – The study is clearly presented in a design‐oriented way. The benefits, however, are that it illustrates that the available models take for granted that the organization has a mission that is accepted. When the mission is debated, the focus and practice of management control falls into pieces. Also, when the ontology of the organization is debated, flexibility does not suffice. The proposition is that it is through sensebreaking that a reflective position may be held. That is, a position where everything may be questioned and that this questioning never stops.

Originality/value – The study of the SAF could probably be labeled a study of an extreme case. Extreme cases facilitate theory building because the dynamics being examined tend to be more visible than they might be in other contexts. The caveat, however, is that this particular case study risks becoming anecdotal since the SAF is, per definition, one of a kind. The paper's argument, however, is that the SAF acts as an illustration of the limits (and possibilities) of management control theory and how it is framed as a technology in a milieu that is neither relatively stable nor stable, but rather under extraordinary pressure for change.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight how, and why, some small and medium-sized high-tech Japanese firms apply and assess the “intellectual asset-based management” (IAbM) guidelines issued by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in October 2005.Design/methodology/approach – This is an interpretive case study linking semi-structured interview and document data from four Japanese firms that have issued IAbM reports containing ideas about the processes of creating knowledge and routines in their organizations.Findings – The findings indicate that the firms studied essentially follow the guidelines, although pinpointing how this affects their internal management is difficult. The IAbM report is primarily used for external communication, with the capital market and with existing and potential customers.Practical implications – The practical implications found in this paper relate mainly to the four challenges found already in research by Johanson, i.e. uniqueness versus comparability, confidentiality versus accountability, market communication and management control.Originality/value – The unique features of this paper are found mainly in the empirical parts, where the guidelines and the sample of small and medium-sized Japanese firms form an interesting and seldom used empirical point of departure. The findings concerning actual use and interpretation of a guideline could also, of course, be regarded as a distinctive aspect of this paper.