Digitalization and user satisfaction with corporate budgeting methods: A contingency theory perspective

• Authors: Piosik Andrzej , Karmańska Anna

Title variants

PL

Digitalizacja a satysfakcja użytkowników z metod budżetowania: perspektywa teorii uwarunkowań sytuacyjnych

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: This study explores how digital tools used in corporate budgeting relate to user satisfaction with conventional (CBM) and modern (MBM) methods. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and contingency theory, it also assesses the direct and moderating effects of internal and external contextual factors. Finally, the paper examines how satisfaction with CBM and MBM aligns with organizational performance. Methodology/approach: The research is based on survey data from 399 budgeting professionals across diverse industries and countries. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to examine the relationships between variables. Findings: The findings indicate that digitalization positively relates to user satisfaction, with a stronger association for MBM. Only a few internal factors significantly influence satisfaction. External contingencies show no meaningful effect. Satisfaction with both groups of methods is strongly associated with benefits, including budgeting effectiveness, financial results, and sustainability alignment. Research limitations/implications: The study relies on cross-sectional, self-reported data and assumes linear relationships, which may limit generalizability. Future research should explore sector-specific contexts and non-linear dynamics. Originality/value: This study refines contingency theory by showing how selected internal factors and digitalization shape user satisfaction with CBM and MBM. It highlights satisfaction as a meaningful outcome and offers insights into aligning digital tools with organizational conditions to enhance budgeting and performance.

PL

Cel: Celem artykułu jest zbadanie, w jaki sposób intensywność wykorzystania cyfryzacji w budżetowaniu korporacyjnym wiąże się z satysfakcją użytkowników z zastosowania zarówno konwencjonalnych (CBM), jak i nowoczesnych (MBM) metod budżetowania. Odwołując się do modelu akceptacji technologii i teorii uwarunkowań sytuacyjnych, przeanalizowano również bezpośredni oraz moderujący wpływ wewnętrznych i zewnętrznych uwarunkowań kontekstowych. Oceniono, w jakim stopniu satysfakcja z CBM i MBM koreluje z dokonaniami organizacyjnymi. Metodologia/podejście badawcze: Badanie oparto na danych ankietowych zebranych od 399 specjalistów ds. budżetowania, reprezentujących różne branże i kraje. Do analizy zależności zastosowano metodę modelowania równań strukturalnych PLS-SEM. Wyniki: Wyniki wskazują, że intensywność digitalizacji jest pozytywnie skorelowana z satysfakcją użytkowników zarówno z CBM, jak i MBM, przy czym związek ten jest silniejszy w przypadku MBM. Tylko wybrane czynniki wewnętrzne wykazały istotny wpływ na poziom satysfakcji. Zewnętrzne uwarunkowania nie miały istotnego znaczenia, podobnie jak ich potencjalny wpływ moderujący na zależność między digitalizacją a satysfakcją. Satysfakcja z obu grup metod jest silnie powiązana z postrzeganymi dokonaniami, takimi jak skuteczność budżetowania, dokonania finansowe i spójność z celami zrównoważonego rozwoju. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: Badanie opiera się na danych przekrojowych, wynikających z samooceny oraz zakłada liniowość zależności, co może ograniczać możliwość uogólnienia wyników. Przyszłe badania mogą uwzględniać specyfikę sektorową i nieliniowe zależności. Oryginalność/wartość: W artykule rozwija się teorię uwarunkowań sytuacyjnych, pokazując, w jaki sposób wybrane czynniki wewnętrzne oraz digitalizacja kształtują satysfakcję użytkowników z CBM i MBM. Podkreśla się znaczenie satysfakcji oraz wskazuje praktyczne kierunki dopasowania narzędzi cyfrowych do warunków organizacyjnych w celu zwiększenia efektywności budżetowania i dokonań organizacyjnych.

Keywords

EN

corporate budgeting; budgeting methods; digitalization; user satisfaction; management accounting; contingency theory

PL

budżetowanie korporacyjne; metody budżetowania; cyfryzacja; satysfakcja użytkownika; rachunkowość zarządcza; teoria uwarunkowań sytuacyjnych

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2025
• Issue: 49(3)
• Pages: 147-164

Contributors

author

Piosik Andrzej

• University of Economics in Katowice, Faculty of Finance, Department of Accounting

author

Karmańska Anna

• University of Economics in Katowice, Faculty of Finance, Department of Accounting

References

• Alddin A.E.M.S., Dali N.R.S.B.M. (2021), The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Zero Based Budgeting System: Future Agenda, Proceeding of the Seminar Antarabangsa Islam dan Sains 2021 (SAIS 2021), pp. 873–890.
• Al-Okaily M., Al-Okaily A. (2022), An empirical assessment of enterprise information systems success in a developing country: the Jordanian experience, “TQM Journal”, 34 (6), pp. 1958–1975; https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-09-2021-0267.
• Askarany D., Smith M., Yazdifar H. (2007), Technological Innovations, Activity Based Costing and Satisfaction, “Journal of Accounting-Business and Management”, 14, pp. 54–63; http://ssrn.com/abstract=1370755.
• Astuty W., Habibie A., Pasaribu F., Pratama I., Rahayu S. (2022), Utilization of Accounting Information and Budget Participation As Antecedents of Managerial Performance: Exploring the Moderating Role of Organizational Commitment, Leadership Style, Environmental Uncertainty and Business Strategy in Indonesia, “Journal of Modern Project Management”, 10 (1), pp. 189–201; https://doi.org/10.19255/JMPM029012.
• Bergmann M., Brück C., Knauer T., Schwering A. (2020), Digitization of the budgeting process: determinants of the use of business analytics and its effect on satisfaction with the budgeting process, “Journal of Management Control”, 31 (1–2), pp. 25–54; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-019-00291-y.
• Bhimani A., Sivabalan P., Soonawalla K. (2018), A study of the linkages between rolling budget forms, uncertainty and strategy, “British Accounting Review”, 50(3), pp. 306–323; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.11.002.
• Bruns W.J., Waterhouse J. H. (1975), Budgetary Control and Organization Structure, “Journal of Accounting Research”, 13 (2), 177–203; https://doi.org/10.2307/2490360.
• Bukh P.N., Ringgaard A., Sandalgaard N. (2024), Moving beyond Beyond Budgeting: A case study of the dynamic interrelationships between budgets and forecasts, “European Accounting Review”, 34 (3), pp. 1221–1247; https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2024.2362681.
• 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), pp. 127–168; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7.
• Ebhota O.S., Hongxing Y., Sampene A.K. (2024), Investigating the influence of digital transformation, budgeting and budgetary control on the financial performance of SMEs, “Scientific African”, 26, e02429.
• Effendi M. I., Kusmantini T. (2015), The moderating effect of contingency variables on the relationship between formal strategic planning and company performance, “Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences”, 211, pp. 1132–1141.
• Ekholm B.G., Wallin J. (2011), The impact of uncertainty and strategy on the perceived usefulness of fixed and flexible budgets, “Journal of Business Finance & Accounting”, 38 (1–2), pp.145–164.
• Fähndrich J., Pedell B. (2025), Evaluating the influencing factors and effects of the digitalization of management control, “Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change”, 21 (2), pp. 278–311.
• Faizal A. (2021), The influential factors in the modified unified theory of the acceptance and use of technology on customer satisfaction for adopting BJB digi, Proceedings of the 5th Global Conference on Business, Management and Entrepreneurship (GCBME 2020), Atlantis Press, Dordrecht, pp. 429–433.
• Fernández-Portillo A., Ramos-Vecino N., Ramos-Mariño A., Cachón-Rodríguez G. (2024), How the digital business ecosystem affects stakeholder satisfaction: its impact on business performance, “Review of Managerial Science”, 18 (9), pp. 2643–2662.
• Goddard A. (1997), Organisational culture and budgetary control in a UK local government organisation, “Accounting and Business Research”, 27 (2), pp. 111–123; https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1997.9729538.
• Govindarajan J.K., Shank V. (1993), Strategic cost management – The new tool for competitive advantage, Free Press, New York.
• Hair J.F., Hult G.T.M., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M., Danks N.P., Ray S. (2021), Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R., Springer, Cham.
• He L., Ismail K. (2023), Do staff capacity and performance-based budgeting improve organisational performance? Empirical evidence from Chinese public universities, “Humanities and social sciences communications”, 10 (1), pp. 1–16; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01523-2.
• Hentati H., Jardak M.K., Boulila N. (2025), The impact of contingency factors on the degree of digitization and the operational performance in accounting firms, “Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change”; https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-06-2024-0188.
• Hope J., Fraser R. (1998), Measuring performance in the new organisational model, “Management Accounting”, 76 (7), pp. 22–23.
• Irfan M., Malik M.S., Fatima S. (2021), Budgeting Techniques on Community Development & Business Digitalization through Qualitative Analysis Approaching, Budgeting Techniques on Community Development and Business Digitalization through Qualitative Analysis Approaching, “Indian Journal of Economics and Business”, 20 (3), pp. 1781–
• 1797; http://www.ashwinanokha.com/IJEB.php.
• Kyj L., Parker R.J. (2008), Antecedents of budget participation: Leadership style, information asymmetry, and evaluative use of budget, “Abacus”, 44 (4), pp. 423–442; https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2008.00270.x.
• Lim J.S., Zhang J. (2022), Adoption of AI-driven personalization in digital news platforms:
• An integrative model of technology acceptance and perceived contingency, “Technology in Society”, 69, 101965.
• Lamsarbi B., Bouaziz S.M., Mamoudou A. (2025), The impact of digitalization on management control and performance: A systematic literature review, “Revue Française d’Économie et de Gestion”, 6 (1), pp. 694–740.
• Luthans F., Stewart T.I. (1977), A General Contingency Theory of Management, “The Academy of Management Review”, 2 (2), 181–195; https://doi.org/10.2307/257902.
• Mah’d O. (2020), Bottom-up rather than top-down: evidence from Middle Eastern and North African educational institutions, “Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management”, 32 (4), pp. 671–690; https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-02-2020-0008.
• Majeed A. H., Kosov M., Fiume R., Kuznetsov N., Vasyunina M., Semin A. (2023), Improving the Efficiency of Budgeting in Industrial Enterprise: The case of Russia, Italy, and the Middle East, “Emerging Science Journal”, 7 (1), pp. 177–189; https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2023-07-01-013.
• Martínez-Falcó J., Sánchez-García E., Marco-Lajara B., Millan-Tudela L.A. (2024), Do organizational commitment and consumer satisfaction mediate the relationship corporate social responsibility-sustainable performance? Assessing happiness management in Spanish wineries, “Management Decision”, 62 (2), pp. 643–664; https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/md-02-2023-0217/full/html.
• Niemand T., Rigtering J.C., Kallmünzer A., Kraus S., Maalaoui A. (2021), Digitalization in the financial industry: A contingency approach of entrepreneurial orientation and strategic vision on digitalization, “European Management Journal”, 39 (3), pp. 317–326.
• Otley D. (2016), The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980-2014, “Management Accounting Research”, 31, pp. 45–62; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.02.001.
• Oyadomari J.C.T., Afonso P.S.L.P., Dultra-de-Lima R.G., Mendonça Neto O.R.R.,Righetti M.C.G. (2018), Flexible budgeting influence on organizational inertia and flexibility, “International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management”, 67(9), pp. 1640–1656; https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2017-0153.
• Romero-Silva R., Santos J. Hurtado M. (2018), A note on defining organisational systems for contingency theory in OM, “Production Planning and Control”, 29 (16), pp. 1343–1348; https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1535146.
• Sandalgaard N., Nielsen C. (2018), Budget emphasis in small and medium-sized enterprises: evidence from Denmark, “Journal of Applied Accounting Research”, 19 (3), pp. 351–364; https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-08-2016-0087.
• Shields J.F., Shields M.D. (1998), Antecedents of participative budgeting, “Accounting, Organizations and Society”, 23 (1), pp. 49–76.
• Smith A., Brown P., Johnson M. (2022), User-centered metrics in financial systems: A behavioral approach to satisfaction in budgeting, “Information Systems Journal”, 32 (1), pp. 95–118.
• Suwarno S., Fitria F., Azhar R. (2023), Optimizing Budget Allocation: A Strategic Framework for Aligning Human Resource Investments with Financial Objectives and Business Goals, “Atestasi: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi”, 6 (2), pp. 835–855;
• https://jurnal.feb-umi.id/index.php/ATESTASI/article/view/880.
• Zonatto V.C., da S., Nascimento J.C., Lunardi M.A., Degenhart L. (2020), Effects of Budgetary Participation on Managerial Attitudes, Satisfaction, and Managerial Performance, “Revista de Administracao Contemporanea”, 24 (6), pp. 532–549; https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020200047.