The importance of mutual understanding between external accountants and owner-managers of SMEs

This study investigates the perspective of the owner–manager of a small or medium‐sized enterprise (SME) on the importance of mutual understanding with an external accountant. Mutual understanding means that the owner–manager understands what the accountant is saying and feels understood by the accountant. The results, based on 310 completed surveys of Belgian owner–managers, show that owner–managers who have a high level of mutual understanding use the advice of their external accountant more extensively. This is in turn positively linked to the financial health of an SME. Furthermore, several drivers that enable the establishment of a high level of mutual understanding are explored. Owner–managers with a high level of mutual understanding consider their accountant as a strategic partner, experience a high level of proactive behaviour with them, have a higher frequency of formal contact, and perceive informal contact as important. External accountants should consider these opportunities in their client management and training of internal staff. Education of clients and openness also seem very important, as the level of a client's accounting knowledge, the number of accounting topics owner–managers deal with, and transparency towards the accountant are significantly positively related to mutual understanding

Incommensurability and Multi-paradigm Grounding in Design Science Research: Implications for Creating Knowledge

International audienceThe problem identification-design-build-evaluate-theorize structure of design science research has been proposed as an approach to creating knowledge in information systems and in broader organizational and social domains. Although the approach has merit, the philosophical foundations of two specific components warrant attention. First, the grounding of design theory on potentially incommensurate kernel theories may produce incoherent design theory. In addition, design theory has no strong logical connection to kernel theories, and so cannot be used to test or validate the contributing kernel theories. Second, the philosophical grounding of evaluation may inadvertently shift from functionally based measures of utility and efficiency, to evaluation based on the pragmatic fulfillment of multidimensional human actions as people encounter information systems, resulting in evaluation errors. Although design and evaluation from a single paradigm is not desirable, sufficient, or representative of design science research, multi-paradigm grounding of design and evaluation must be realized and used consciously by the research community if the design science approach is to remain a legitimate approach to knowledge creation