Simon's four levels of control

Abstract

The Levers of Control (hereby LOC) Framework is firstly introduced as a Managemment Control Systems tool in Simons' "Levers of Control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal" (1995). The LOC framework is constituted by four blocks: Belief systems and Interactive Control systems creating positive forces, and Boundary Control Systems and Diagnostic Control Systems creating negative forces. It must be noted that positive/negative forces are not considered as good/bad forces but as different types of forces that must be balanced to achieve proper business strategy. The concept of balance or dynamic tension is central to the proper use of the tool as the later publications took effort on demonstrating (Anne- Marie Kruisa, 2015). Despite the fact that his theory about opposing forces, the number of citations (over 3000 in Google Scholar) gives Simons' LOC framework a consolidated position within Management Control Systems literature. This article intends to give a theoretical basic description of the LOC framework presenting the different blocks of the framework and then to clarify the concept of what Simons understands as balance between innovation and creativity coming from the enablement of the employees, and the the control and set of boundaries that have to be implemented by managers, based on litterature.Then, since the LOC is traditionally a business management tool, a relation with Control Systems in Project Management is proposed taking into account the tool's limitations.

The Levels Of Control Framework

As previously mentionned, the LOC is an analytic tool serving to assess the different functions of Management Conctrol Systems (MCS) within a company or a team. MCS has two main functions: 1) controlling linked with predictability, efficiency and formalitty, and 2)enabling linked with innovation, spontaneity and transparency. Simon distinguishes two different blocks for each one of MCS' functions.

Simons Levers Of Control Framework

Beliefs Systems

The first one of the four blocks is Beliefs Systems, and it is associated to the core values of a company. Such core values are usually stated by the mission and the vision of an enterprise, and set the purpose and the direction in which the objectives should be pointed. Simons himself defines the beliefs as "the explicit set of organizational definitions that senior managers communicate formally and reinforce systematically to provide basic values, purpose and direction for the organization." (Simons 1995) In other words: they create positive forces that inspire.

Boundary Systems

On the other hand, Boundary Systems embody the limitations and constraints within which lower-level employees creativity is to be contained. Boundary Systems can be associated with codes of conduct, risks to be avoided or operational guidelines. Simons describes them as "formally stated rules, limits and proscriptions tied to defined sanctions and credible threat of punishment… to allow individual creativity within defined limits of freedom." (Simons 1995) Therefore, Boundary Systems create negative forces that constraint individuals' imagination.

Diagnostic Control Systems

Another one of the blocks of the LOC framework is Diagnostic Control Systems they are used to monitor specific critical indicators in relation to performance and objectives therefore using them to compare performance to expectations. They allow managers to follow-up operations remotely, while focusing on predicting uncertainties and strategy modifications. According to Simons they are "the formal information systems that managers use to monitor organizational outcomes and correct deviations from preset standards of performance." Consequently, they are seen as negative forces.Examples of these control systems could be budgets, KPI scorecards, project monitoring systms, etc...

Interactive Control Systems

The fourth block of the LOC framework is Interactive control Systems. They allow the flow of innovative ideas to flow bottom-up from lower ranks motivating them to think creatively creating positive forces. According to Simons they are the "formal information systems managers use to involve themselves regularly and personally in the decision activities of subordinates." (Simons 1995) Also, Simons argues that these control systems should generate data that should be regularly discussed to generate learning and stimulation (Simons 1999). Therefore, and in opposition with Diagnostic Control Systems, Interactive Control Systems require much higher managerial implication.They can take the form of budgeting systems, balanced scorecards and project monitoring systems. The difference between diagnostic control systems and interactive control systems resides more on the way managers use them to interact with employees rather than on their techinal design.

The concept of Balance or Dynamic Tensions

The LOC framework's strength as a tool resides in balancing the tensions between positive empowering forces and negative constraints. Litterature is rather vague in describing how to achieve balance and some authors even propose that different systems and different environments can lead to different balance situations according to their approach to strategy^[1]. For instance, a small system in an entrepreneurial environment where the focus is on identifying emerging opportunities can achieve balance more easily emphasizing in interactive control systems, therefore adressing strategy as a pattern. Instead, a big system in a corporate environment concerned about strategy as a plan, is more likely to achieve balance emphasizing in boundary control systems to monitor performance. Some even state^[2] that different states of balance between interactive control systems and diagnostic control systems can be used for different purposes. Simons' idea of balance has some similarities with a stream of organizational research holding that firms have to be "ambidextrous" with exploration to and explotation to control respectively strategic renewal and innovation, and predictable goal achievement. Within this stream of research, some argue that success requires control simultaniously pursuing exploration and explotation with equal weights^[3]. Others propose that ambidexterity can be achieved alternating exploration and explotation phases over time ^[4].

The Levers of Control Framework in Project, Programme and Portfolio Management

The Four levers in Project Management

According to the Project Management Institute, "projects and programs are undertaken to achieve business strategy outcomes, for which many organizations now adopt formal organizational governance.[...] Because the project success may be judged on how well the resultant product or service supports organizational governance, it is important for the project manager to be knowledgeable about corporate/organizational governance policies and procedures pertaining to the subject matter of the product or service..." (PMBOK 5th edition) It can be deduced from such statement that the applicability of the LOC framework in a Project Management context seems pertinent. Still, some nuances have to be made since the elements forming the different blocks might differ because of a higher importanceof stakeholders' and sponsors' influence in Project Management in comparison to Business Management.

Dynamic Tensions in Project Management

Another notable difference between LOC application in Business Management and Project Management is the fact that the optimal state of balance may shift throughout the Project Life Cycle, while it should be more stable in Business Management.

Annotated Bibliography

References

1. ↑ Anne-Marie Kruis, Roland F. Speklé, Sally K. Widener(2015). The Levers of Control Framework: An exploratory analysis of balance. Management Accounting Research 32(2016) 27-44
2. ↑ Henri, J.F., 2006. Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective. Account. Organ. Soc. 31, 529–558.
3. ↑ Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H., 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity:dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ. Sci. 20, 781–796.
4. ↑ Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E., 2006. The interplay between exploration andexploitation. Acad. Manage. J. 49, 693–706.