When interactive performance measurement systems matter: innovativeness, technological turbulence, and relative firm performance

Lentera Negeri October 02, 2026 Volume 7, Number 1 4 authors

Abstract

Interactive performance measurement systems may be associated with firm performance by encouraging organizational responses to performance information, while technological turbulence may increase the relevance of such interactive use. Drawing on contingency theory and Organizational Information Processing Theory, this study examines whether organizational innovativeness mediates the association between interactive use of performance measurement systems (IPMS) and relative firm performance and whether technological turbulence conditions that indirect association. A cross-sectional, firm-level survey of 102 screened medium-sized manufacturing establishments in Greater Tangerang, Indonesia, was analyzed using PLS-SEM. The multi-item measures showed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.792-0.905) and convergent and discriminant validity. Sensitivity analysis indicated that, at alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.80, N = 102 could detect an incremental f² of approximately 0.078; the observed interaction f² was 0.109. IPMS was positively associated with organizational innovativeness (β = 0.476, p < .001), which was positively associated with relative firm performance (β = 0.456, p < .001). The indirect effect was significant (β = 0.217, 95% CI [0.122, 0.329]). Technological turbulence moderated the IPMS-to-innovativeness association (β = 0.246, p < .001), and the index of moderated mediation excluded zero (index = 0.112, 95% CI [0.048, 0.182]). Within this cross-sectional sample, the estimated innovation-mediated association was stronger at higher levels of technological turbulence; the findings identify a context-dependent association rather than establishing a universal or causal effect of interactive control.

Authors

  1. Rr. Dian Anggraeni

    Universitas Buddhi Dharma

  2. Tubagus Ismail

    Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa

  3. Tri Lestari

    Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa

  4. Elvin Bastian

    Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa

Keywords

Interactive controlPerformance measurement systemsOrganizational innovativenessTechnological turbulenceRelative firm performance

References

  1. Baird, K., Su, S., & Munir, R. (2019). Levers of control, management innovation and organisational performance. Pacific Accounting Review, 31(3), 358-375. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-03-2018-0027
  2. Barros, R. S., & Ferreira, A. M. D. S. C. (2023). Management control systems and innovation: A case study grounded in institutional theory. Journal of Management Control, 34, 109-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-023-00351-4
  3. Bedford, D. S. (2015). Management control systems across different modes of innovation: Implications for firm performance. Management Accounting Research, 28, 12-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.04.003
  4. Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(8), 709-737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2003.10.010
  5. BPS-Statistics Indonesia. (2025). Detail metadata kegiatan statistik: Skala perusahaan berdasarkan jumlah tenaga kerja (SDS 23020047). Sistem Informasi Rujukan Statistik (SIRUSA). https://sirusa.web.bps.go.id/metadata/kegiatan/89893
  6. BPS-Statistics of Tangerang Municipality. (2025). Gross regional domestic product of Tangerang Municipality by industry 2020-2024. https://tangerangkota.bps.go.id/en/publication/2025/04/11/fbaf6783773a6aff1128ab5a/produk-domestik-regional-bruto-kota-tangerang-menurut-lapangan-usaha-2020-2024.html
  7. BPS-Statistics of Tangerang Regency. (2025). Gross regional domestic product of Tangerang Regency by industry 2020-2024. https://tangerangkab.bps.go.id/en/publication/2025/04/11/f7ebf77dc5fbce927ea601e1/gross-regional-domestic-product-of-tangerang-regency-by-industry-2020-2024.html
  8. BPS-Statistics of South Tangerang Municipality. (2025). Gross regional domestic product of South Tangerang Municipality by industry 2020-2024. https://tangselkota.bps.go.id/en/publication/2025/04/11/f8aadd1b130c1335567a81ca/produk-domestik-regional-bruto-kota-tangerang-selatan-menurut-lapangan-usaha-2020-2024.html
  9. Brüggemann, E. R., Monteiro, J. J., & Lunkes, R. J. (2022). The influence of performance measurement systems on organizational agility and open innovation. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações, 16, e193897. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2022.193897
  10. Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 127-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7
  11. Chenhall, R. H., & Moers, F. (2015). The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.10.002
  12. Detzen, N., & Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2025). Performance measure use and product innovation in R&D teams: The role of leadership style. Management Accounting Research, 66, 100932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2025.100932
  13. dos Santos, V., Beuren, I. M., Bernd, D. C., & Fey, N. (2023). Use of management controls and product innovation in startups: Intervention of knowledge sharing and technological turbulence. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(2), 264-284. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2021-0629
  14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  15. Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003
  16. Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.28
  17. Gerschewski, S., & Xiao, S. S. (2015). Beyond financial indicators: An assessment of the measurement of performance for international new ventures. International Business Review, 24(4), 615-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.11.003
  18. Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.014
  19. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
  20. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  21. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683
  22. Henri, J.-F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), 529-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.07.001
  23. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  24. Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015
  25. Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303
  26. Islam, M. T., Polonsky, M. J., & Khan, Z. (2026). Upgrading to escape the low value-added trap in global value chains: The mediating role of strategic learning capability. Management International Review, 66(1), 181-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-025-00602-7
  27. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304
  28. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJeC.2015100101
  29. Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633-1651. https://doi.org/10.2307/256824
  30. Le, H. M., & Hoang, T. C. (2024). The performance implications of management control systems and dynamic capabilities: Evidence from Vietnam. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 33-64. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2024.29.2.2
  31. Le, H. M., Nguyen, T. T., & Hoang, T. C. (2023). Performance implications of exploratory and exploitative innovation: The role of management control systems. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3), 2211152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2023.2211152
  32. Lewis, R. L., Sutton, N., & Brown, D. A. (2024). How senior managers use interactive control to manage strategic uncertainties: An attention-based view. Management Accounting Research, 62, 100864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2023.100864
  33. Ludji, T. R. (2025). Contingency relationship between perceived environmental uncertainty and management control systems: Implications for innovation and performance. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-10-2024-0322
  34. Luiz, T. T., & Beuren, I. M. (2023). Does environmental uncertainty drive the use of management control systems and innovation? Business Process Management Journal, 29(3), 671-689. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2022-0491
  35. Mura, M., Micheli, P., & Longo, M. (2021). The effects of performance measurement system uses on organizational ambidexterity and firm performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(13), 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2021-0101
  36. Müller-Stewens, B., Widener, S. K., Möller, K., & Steinmann, J.-C. (2020). The role of diagnostic and interactive control uses in innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 80, 101078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2019.101078
  37. Nitzl, C., Roldán, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849-1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302
  38. Nuhu, N. A., Baird, K., & Su, S. (2022). The association between the interactive and diagnostic use of financial and non-financial performance measures with individual creativity: The mediating role of perceived fairness. Journal of Management Control, 33, 371-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-022-00339-6
  39. Phan, T., Baird, K., Bhuyan, M., & Tung, A. (2023). The associations between management control systems, organisational capabilities and performance. Journal of Management Control, 34(4), 435-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-024-00365-6
  40. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  41. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
  42. Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Harvard Business School Press.
  43. Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00031-X
  44. Szukits, A. (2022). The illusion of data-driven decision making: The mediating effect of digital orientation and controllers' added value in explaining organizational implications of advanced analytics. Journal of Management Control, 33, 403-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-022-00343-w
  45. Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613-624. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1978.4305791
  46. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060410565056
  47. Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 757-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.01.001
  48. Zeng, X., Zhang, R., & Zhang, T. (2025). Interactive control and innovation performance: From the supply chain resilience perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 32(3), 965-990. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2024-0998
  49. Zhou, K. Z., Brown, J. R., Dev, C. S., & Agarwal, S. (2007). The effects of customer and competitor orientations on performance in global markets: A contingency analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400259