Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610

26th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering

26th International Conference on Knowledge-Based
Systems (KES 2022)
and Intelligent Information & Engineering
Systems (KES 2022)
The intensity of the use of management accounting systems
The intensity
under of the
Industry 4.0 use of management
conditions. accounting
Confirmation from systems
Poland
under Industry 4.0 conditions. Confirmation from Poland
Andrzej Piosika*
Andrzej Piosika*
a
Department of Accounting, University of Economics in Katowice, ul. 1 Maja 50; 40-287 Katowice, Poland
a
Department of Accounting, University of Economics in Katowice, ul. 1 Maja 50; 40-287 Katowice, Poland

Abstract
Abstract
The objective of the paper is to find out whether companies belonging to Industry 4.0 use management accounting systems more
intensively.
The objectiveWeofused three is
the paper main statistical
to find methods
out whether in the analysis
companies of the
belonging to surveys:
Industry Spearman’s rank correlation
4.0 use management coefficient,
accounting systems the U
more
Mann-Whitney
intensively. We test,
usedand themain
three H Kruskal-Wallis test. in
statistical methods Thetheconclusion
analysis ofofthethesurveys:
study isSpearman’s
that companiesrank belonging
correlationtocoefficient,
Industry 4.0
theuse
U
selected management
Mann-Whitney accounting
test, and systems more test.
the H Kruskal-Wallis intensively, both conventional
The conclusion of the studyones
is as
thatwell as those belonging
companies consideredto to Industry
be modern.
4.0 The
use
study also
selected showed that
management the combined
accounting effect
systems of intensively,
more belonging tobothIndustry 4.0 and ones
conventional intensive useasof
as well selected
those management
considered accounting
to be modern. The
systems
study differentiates
also showed thatthetheperceived
combined performance of companies.
effect of belonging to Industry 4.0 and intensive use of selected management accounting
systems differentiates the perceived performance of companies.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
This is an
© 2022 Theopen accessPublished
Authors. article under
byofthe CC BY-NC-ND
ELSEVIER license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
B.V.committee
Peer-review under responsibility the scientific of the 26th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and
Peer-review
This is an under
open responsibility
access article of
under the scientific
CC committee
BY-NC-ND
Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems (KES 2022) of KES
license International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Keywords:
Peer-reviewIndustry
under4.0; managementof
responsibility accounting; contingency
the scientific theory;
committee of financial performance; technology;
KES International
Keywords: Industry 4.0; management accounting; contingency theory; financial performance; technology;

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Industry is changing its face through the broad applications of cyber-physical, system-enabled manufacturing and
service innovation,
Industry in which
is changing its facemore software,
through inserted
the broad intelligence
applications and predictivesystem-enabled
of cyber-physical, technologies are incorporatedand
manufacturing in
production
service systems, which
innovation, in whichis known
more as Industryinserted
software, 4.0 or theintelligence
fourth industrial revolutiontechnologies
and predictive [1]. The research results indicate
are incorporated in
that the implementation
production systems, whichof the industry
is known 4.0 concept
as Industry 4.0 influences
or the fourth theindustrial
management systems
revolution [1].and
Themethods
researchapplied
results[2, 3, 4].
indicate
In scientific
that research, mainly
the implementation of the within
industrycontingency
4.0 concepttheory, it isthe
influences stated that the development
management of technology
systems and methods appliedaffects
[2, 3, the
4].
information
In scientific needs of managers,
research, including
mainly within the management
contingency theory, itaccounting systems
is stated that used [5, 6, 7,
the development of8,technology
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, the
affects 14,
15, 16, 17, 18,
information 19].of
needs What is more,
managers, extendedthe
including usemanagement
of information from management
accounting accounting
systems used [5, 6, 7, systems
8, 9, 10, strengthens
11, 12, 13, the
14,
performance
15, 16, 17, 18,of19].
these enterprises
What is more,[20, 21, 22,use
extended 23,of24, 25, 26]. from management accounting systems strengthens the
information
performance of these enterprises [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48322577732; fax: +48321577730.

* Corresponding andrzej.piosik@uekat.pl
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +48322577732; fax: +48321577730.
E-mail address: andrzej.piosik@uekat.pl
1877-0509 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open
1877-0509 access
© 2022 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published by ELSEVIER license
B.V.(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under
This is an open responsibility
access of the
article under the scientific
CC BY-NC-NDcommittee of KES
license International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of KES International
1877-0509 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 26th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent
Information & Engineering Systems (KES 2022)
10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.217
 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610 1599
2 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

A relationship can be expected between the implementation of Industry 4.0 components and the intensity of use of
management accounting systems for at least three reasons. The first is the general regularity that confirms that with
the development of technology, the demand for the use of management accounting systems increases. The second
reason is that in Industry 4.0 environments (cyber-physical systems, artificial intelligence, big data, internet of things,
cloud computing) it is easier to identify transactions that reflect the flow of costs, which greatly facilitates the
implementation of management accounting systems [27]. The third reason is the cost-consumption and the investment-
consumption of Industry 4.0 components implementations, which causes the demand for management information. In
the literature, research was undertaken on the application of individual management accounting systems under
conditions of advanced technology and Industry 4.0 components, in terms of activity-based costing (ABC) [27, 28,
29], for lean accounting (LA) [30, 31, 32, 33], with regard to target costing (TC) [34, 35, 36], life-cycle costing (LCC)
[37, 38, 39, 40], and balanced scorecard (BSC) [41, 42, 43, 44, 45]. Other authors emphasized the function of
management accounting in Industry 4.0 [46, 47, 48]. However, the literature still lacks a more systemic answer to the
research question of whether enterprises that employ Industry 4.0 components actually use management accounting
systems more intensively, and what specific systems these are. Therefore, a research gap was identified regarding the
intensity of the application of selected management accounting systems in Industry 4.0. No less important is the
question relating to the correlation between the intensity of using management accounting systems in Industry 4.0 and
the financial performance of enterprises.
The study was conducted on the basis of an analysis of questionnaires sent to enterprises operating in Poland. For
this purpose, e-mail addresses from the Bisnode database were used (https://www.dnb.com/pl-pl/). The questionnaire
was sent to just over three thousand companies, and 101 full responses were obtained. It was no coincidence that
entities operating in Poland were selected as the research setting. As stated in the report: The Digital Economy and
Society Index - under country 'performance in digitization Poland ranks 24th of 27 EU Member States in the 2021
edition of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)’, although it was noted that during 2020, 'Poland made
progress in many indicators' [49]. It can therefore be concluded that in terms of using the components of Industry 4.0,
Poland is an emerging country.
The research design consisted of three stages. In the first stage, the correlation between the perceived level of
knowledge / usage of Industry 4.0 components and the intensity of employing selected management accounting
systems was tested using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. In the second stage, using the Mann-Whitney U
test, it was verified whether enterprises belonging to Industry 4.0 employ management accounting systems more
intensively than units that are not categorised to Industry 4.0. In the third stage, the H Kruskal-Wallis test was used to
examine whether the combined effect of the intensity of using management accounting systems and the employment
of Industry 4.0 components is significant in the perceived financial performance of the company.
The paper includes an Introduction (Section 1), Prior Research (Section 2), Data and Methodology (Section 3),
Results (Section 4), Discussion and conclusions (Section 5), and References.
The objective of the paper is to discover whether companies employing components of Industry 4.0 increase their
intensity of using management accounting systems (conventional ones and those considered contemporary), and
whether the degree of the intensity of employing management accounting systems in these circumstances affects the
financial performance of enterprises. The conclusion of the study is that companies belonging to Industry 4.0 use
selected management accounting systems more intensively. The study also showed that the combined effect of
belonging to Industry 4.0 and intensive use of selected management accounting systems differentiates the perceived
performance of companies.

2. Prior Research and hypothesis development

2.1. Industry 4.0 - its components, technologies and impact on management
Modern industry is undergoing a conversion toward the 4th Generation Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0),
founded on cyber-physical, system-enabled manufacturing and service innovation, in which more software, inserted
intelligence and predictive technologies are incorporated in production systems [1]. Industry 4.0 should be viewed as
a new industrial stage in the development of civilisation [50]. It is emphasized that the basic assumption of the Industry
4.0 concept is the implementation of more intelligent and adaptive processes in modern industry, while expecting a
more efficient use of resources [51]. According to Türkes et al. [52], Industry 4.0 is a production solution that integrates
inventive components and technologies (Big Data & Analytics, Simulation of Things), as well as various applications
1600 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 3

(Cyber Physical Systems - CPS, Internet of Things, cloud computing) in coordinating many functional aspects treated
as services, thus ensuring constant communication and relationships between business activities.
The research results indicate that implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept influences the management systems
and methods applied [2, 3, 4]. The changes in managements methods are also correlated with the organizational effects
of implementing the Industry 4.0 concept [53, 54, 55].

2.2. Application of management accounting methods under Industry 4.0 conditions

In accordance with contingency theory in management, the performance of an organization is, in particular, a
function of the primary set of environmental variables, to which technology especially belongs, as well as managerial
and resource variables [56]. By concentrating on the control prerequisites of alternative solutions, conceivable
correlations between organizational structure and the capable pattern of management accounting systems are described
[57]. This study is developed from the contingency theory as it considers relevant contingent variables: the use of
management accounting systems (managerial variables) in the conditions high technology (Industry 4.0 – technology
variables) and their performance implications. As reported by research publications, the application of new technology
requires changes not only in cost structures, but also in the information needed for management, including extending
the utilization of management accounting systems and methods [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 58, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19].
Granlund and Taipaleenmäki [59] noted that technological development is accompanied by the priority of planning
applications over control systems. What is more, the extended use of information from the management accounting
system strengthens the performance of these enterprises [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. However, it was indicated that
not all companies have to increase this intensity of using management accounting systems. This is especially needed
by the change-oriented companies [60]. The results of research by many authors indicate that conventional
management accounting solutions are more commonly used than methods considered to be modern [61, 62, 63, 15].
For the most part, management accounting systems and methods considered to be modern are developed gradually
and constitute a supplement rather than an alternative to conventional methods [64, 65]. Even the development of IT
in management did not change this principle, as demonstrated by Granlund and Malmi [66] on the example of ERP
systems.
Okan Gökten [46] postulated that cost and management accounting systems will have to undergo transformation
due to the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept. The literature indicates the growing role of management
accounting competences in risk management in the context of functioning in Industry 4.0 [47], and points to awareness
of the servitization strategy [48]. The literature assesses the impact of the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept
on applied management accounting methods, including the improvement of budgeting processes [67].
Summing up, in the literature in question we do not find comprehensive and deeper conclusions and regularities in
the field of the application of management accounting systems in Industry 4.0. Consequently, it can and should be
investigated whether there are any references to the application of particular management accounting solutions
considered as modern.
In the ABC system, the costs of activities are identified and then such costs are assigned to cost objects [68]. It was
the development of technology that had a great impact on the development of ABC [69]. It is shown in the literature
that the integration of cyber-physical production systems with ABC is not only possible, but brings measurable benefits
[27]. The broadly understood analysis of economic processes is also of interest to Industry 4.0 units [28, 29, 70].
Lean manufacturing is an extension of the just-in-time concept, and is focused on reducing waste [71]. Ismail et al.
[72], Sobańska et al. [31], Ofileanu [30] and Oliveira [32] showed that the correlation between lean manufacturing
and the management accounting system is positive. In the literature, we find interesting proposals for the development
of management accounting systems in lean management conditions [33, 73].
It is emphasized in the literature that TC supports cost reduction processes in the development phase and design of
new product models [74]. It is highlighted in the research that TC brings added value through the integration of control
processes with innovation [34, 35]. Initially, the applications of TC in assembly-oriented industries was stressed, but
later the scope of other applications increased [36].
LCC analyses costs throughout the product life cycle [37, 38, 39]. Adu-Amankwa et al. [40] presented a predictive
maintenance cost model for computer numerically controlled SMEs using LCC in particular.
An interesting example is the proposal to measure achievements in the Industry 4.0 value chain using BSC
methodology [41]. Another example is the proposal for a sustainable BSC under Internet of Things conditions [42].
 4 Andrzej
Author Piosik
name et al. / Procedia
/ Procedia ComputerComputer Science
Science 00 (2022)207 (2022) 1598–1610
000–000 1601

In the literature on the subject, enhanced proposals for a balanced approach to performance measurement for Industry
4.0 companies have been developed [75, 76]. Empirical research also confirms that BSC is one of the management
systems used by Industry 4.0 enterprises [43, 44, 45].

2.3 Hypothesis development

The results of research by other authors show that in conditions of change and technological development, the scope
and intensity of the use of management accounting systems and methods in enterprise management increase.
Therefore, a similar trend is expected under Industry 4.0 conditions, although it should entail an increase in the use of
both conventional management accounting solutions and systems considered as modern, such as ABC, LA, TC, LCC,
and BSC. Therefore, I propose the following hypotheses:
H1: Belonging to Industry 4.0 and use by enterprises of individual Industry 4.0 components and technologies are
accompanied by a greater degree (higher intensity) of employing both conventional systems of management
accounting as well as those considered to be modern in the management of these enterprises.
H2: Perceived company financial performance is differentiated in the combined effect of two criteria: belonging to
industry 4.0/use of Industry 4.0 components and the intensity of employing management accounting systems.

3. Data and methodology

3.1. Variables used in research
This study is based on an analysis of questionnaires. In particular, the respondents were asked about the perceived
intensity of using selected management accounting systems, about their familiarity with and usage of Industry 4.0
elements, as well as the company's perceived financial situation, using a 5-point Likert scale. The following question
was asked regarding the use of management accounting systems: Please rate the intensity of using the following
methods and management accounting instruments in managing the activities in your company (on a scale from 1 - are
not used, to 5 - often and systematically used). The intensity of the use of the following systems of management
accounting (MA with variable symbols) was also asked about (MA variables): ABC Activity-based costing; LCC
Life-cycle costing; TC Target costing; LA Lean accounting; TB Traditional budgeting and budgetary control; BSC
Balanced Scorecard; TFC Traditional functional costing; TR Costs according to types of resources used.
In terms of the application of Industry 4.0 components, the following question was asked: Please indicate the level
to which you are familiar with and utilize the following elements of Industry 4.0 (variable I4.0) (rate with 1 - never
heard about it; 2 - have heard about it but never used it; 3 - have heard about it and plan to use it; 4 - have heard about
it and use it occasionally; 5 - have heard about it and use it in everyday business operations). The question related to
the assessment of the following elements of Industry 4.0 – I4.0 variables (with the variable symbols): CCS Cloud
computing services; BDA Big data analysis; 3DR 3D printing and robotics; IoT Internet of Things; VR Virtual reality;
AR Augmented reality; AI Artificial intelligence.
The respondents were also asked about the company's financial situation. The question was as follows: What is
your assessment of the current financial performance of your company? (from 1 - bad - to 5 - very good). The symbol
FC was used for the variable.

3.2. Research design

The research project consisted of three main stages. The first stage was to examine the significance of the correlation
between the perceived degree of usage of selected management accounting systems, and the degree of knowledge and
use of selected elements of Industry 4.0. This correlation was measured using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient,
for the whole sample and across sectors of activity (manufacturing, services and trade).
In the second stage of the research, the significance of the differences between the perceived intensity of the use of
selected management accounting systems was checked between two groups of enterprises, i.e. enterprises that actually
used selected elements of Industry 4.0, and those not yet employing them in their business activities. The second
research stage used the qualitative characteristics of questions relating to Industry 4.0 components. In practice, only
answers ranked 4 and 5 indicate that particular components of Industry 4.0 are actually used in the company. Therefore,
the entities could be divided into two groups: respondents who selected 4 or 5 for questions about the components of
Industry 4.0 (i.e. companies actually using Industry 4.0 elements to some extent – variables I4.0 >3), and the second
group including companies that do not (yet) apply these solutions in business – I4.0 ≤ 3. In addition to examining
1602 Andrzej Piosik/ Procedia
Author name et al. / Procedia Computer
Computer Science Science 207000–000
00 (2019) (2022) 1598–1610 5

selected individual Industry 4.0 components, a synthetic variable was also introduced to describe the general affiliation
of a company to Industry 4.0 - the dummy variable I4.0_SYNT. This variable took the value 1, when at least one
element of Industry 4.0 had a score of at least 4, and 0 otherwise. Thanks to this procedure, it was possible to divide
the enterprises into two groups: those belonging to Industry 4.0 and those that do not belong to it. The significance of
differences between the perceived intensity of the use of selected management accounting systems in the two groups
of companies was verified with the Mann-Whitney U significance of differences test. The two stages of the study
described above fulfil the requirements of hypothesis H1.
The third stage of the research covers analysis of the differences between the perceived financial situation due to
the combined effect of two criteria: the use of Industry 4.0 components (or generally belonging to Industry 4.0) and
the intensity of employing particular management accounting systems. For this purpose, in terms of the perceived
intensity of employment of selected management accounting systems, the responses were divided into two groups: a
lower / medium intensity of use (covering responses 1, 2 and 3 in the questionnaire) and a higher intensity of use of
individual management accounting systems (responses 4 and 5). We also took into account two groups of responses
regarding the use of Industry 4.0 components as given in the description of the second stage of the study. As a
consequence, the significance of differences in the perceived financial situation was analysed across four groups of
enterprises:
• enterprises characterized by a low / medium intensity of using a specific management accounting system and
no application of a specific element of Industry 4.0 - group 1;
• enterprises characterized by a high intensity of employing a specific management accounting system and no
utilization of an individual component of Industry 4.0 - group 2;
• enterprises characterized by a low / medium intensity of use of an individual management accounting system
and application of a specific component of Industry 4.0 - group 3;
• enterprises distinguished by a high intensity of use of a specific management accounting system and
utilization of a specific component of Industry 4.0 - group 4.
Moreover, in order to recognize the synthetic affiliation of a company to Industry 4.0, the variable I4.0_SYNT,
described in the second stage, was also used. As a consequence, the significance of differences between the perceived
financial situation was analysed across four groups of enterprises, separated analogically to the above. We focused
mainly on the differences between group 1 and 4.
The significance of differences between the intensity of the use of individual management accounting systems
across these four groups of enterprises was tested using the H Kruskal-Wallis test.

4. Results
4.1. Sample choice and descriptive statistics
The study is based on a survey. The main scope of the questionnaire was developed under the project ‘Possibilities
and barriers for Industry 4.0 implementation in SMEs in V4 countries and Serbia’ financed by the International
Visegrad Fund (https://www.visegradfund.org/), and was sent to respondents in a few countries. However, regarding
the application of management accounting systems, it was sent only to enterprises operating in Poland. For this
purpose, e-mail addresses from the Bisnode database were used (https://www.dnb.com/pl-pl/). The questionnaire was
sent to just over three thousand companies, and 101 full responses were obtained by October 2021. Table 1 presents
the basic descriptive statistics for the variables used in the study.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics; N = 101

Mean Median Mode Number of mode Q1 Q3 SD IQR
Variable
FC - Financial Condition 3.7426 4.00 4.00 36 3.00 4.00 0.9763 1.00
I4.0 variables:
CCS 2.4356 2.00 2.00 39 1.00 3.00 1.3070 2.00
DBA 2.0297 2.00 1.00 42 1.00 3.00 1.1786 2.00
3DR 2.5446 2.00 2.00 47 2.00 3.00 1.2126 1.00
 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610 1603
6 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

IoT 2.2079 2.00 1.00 38 1.00 3.00 1.2986 2.00

VR 2.4158 2.00 2.00 47 2.00 3.00 1.1512 1.00
AR 2.0198 2.00 Multiple 1.00 2.00 1.0861 1.00
AI 2.6436 2.00 2.00 43 2.00 3.00 1.1881 1.00
I4.0_SYNT 0.3960 0.00 0.00 61 0.00 1.00 0.4915 1.00
MA variables:
MA_ABC 3.1584 3.00 4.00 27 2.00 4.00 1.4264 2.00
MA_LCC 2.4752 2.00 1.00 35 1.00 3.00 1.3608 2.00
MA_TC 2.7921 3.00 3.00 32 2.00 4.00 1.3139 2.00
MA_LA 2.4257 2.00 1.00 36 1.00 3.00 1.2988 2.00
MA_TB 3.5446 4.00 5.00 31 3.00 5.00 1.3455 2.00
MA_BSC 2.1683 2.00 1.00 45 1.00 3.00 1.2575 2.00
MA_TFC 3.4257 4.00 5.00 32 3.00 5.00 1.4584 2.00
MA_TR 3.6535 4.00 5.00 37 3.00 5.00 1.3523 2.00

Belonging to Industry 4.0 is around average in the sample and is shown for 39.6% of observations (I4.0_SYNT
variable). However, the data in Table 1 shows that the scope of familiarity with and application of individual Industry
4.0 components in Poland is not high. This is evidenced by the value of the median of the I4.0 variables, which for all
components of Industry 4.0 is 2. The value of the third quartile also proves that less than 25% of the entities studied
use Industry 4.0 solutions in practice. There are also significant differences in the perceived knowledge and application
of Industry 4.0 elements (Friedman's ANOVA chi2 test; χ2 = 90.25 p = 0.000, not tabulated). Higher values were found
for the SCM, AI, and 3DR variables, while lower values were found for the BDA and AR variables.
Assessment of the perceived intensity of the use of selected management accounting systems is reasonably elevated.
The median is relatively high for TB, TFC, and TR, and is equal to 4. The intensity of ABC and TC is perceived as
average, with a median of 3. The use of LCC, LA, and BSC is relatively low, with a median of 2. The diversity of
assessments for the perceived intensity of use of selected management accounting systems was confirmed by the
Friedman ANOVA test (χ2 = 169.82 p =0.0000, not tabulated).

4.2. Analysis of the perceived intensity of the use of selected management accounting systems versus the degree of
knowledge and usage of Industry 4.0 elements.
We tested the statistical significance of Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the perceived intensity of
the use of selected management accounting systems and the degree of familiarity with and usage of the Industry 4.0
components studied. Correlation coefficients significantly different from zero at p < 0.05 were taken into account. The
results are not tabulated.
The results of testing the correlation shows that the perceived intensity of usage of selected management accounting
systems is significantly and positively correlated with the degree of familiarity with and usage of the Industry 4.0
components studied. This correlation is positive for all the elements of Industry 4.0 analysed in the case of ABC, LCC,
TB and TFC. It is also significant for most elements of Industry 4.0 in the case of the following management accounting
solutions: TC, LA, BSC and TR.

4.3. Intensity of using management accounting systems and Industry 4.0

In Table 2 we present the significance of differences between the perceived intensity of the use of selected
management accounting systems, which was tested between two groups of enterprises, i.e. enterprises that actually
utilized selected elements of Industry 4.0, and those not yet employing them in their business activities (Table 2,
columns 2 to 8), as well as between companies belonging to Industry 4.0 and those not belonging to Industry 4.0
(variable I4.0_SYNT, Table 2, column 9).
1604 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Table 2. Intensity of using management accounting system and actual usage of Industry 4.0 constituents: N = 101
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Industry 4.0 constituents/Cost accounting CCS BDA 3DR IoT VR AR AI I4.0_SYNT
system:

- N for I4.0 > 3 21 12 21 18 17 10 25 40

- N for I4.0 ≤3 80 89 80 83 84 91 76 61
MA_ABC - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.009* 0.015* 0.0950 0.028* 0.009* 0.018* 0.001* 0.009*
- Median MA_ABC for I.4 >3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
- Median MA_ABCfor I4.0 ≤3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
MA_LCC - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.0959 0.1708 0.0450* 0.0035* 0.0087* 0.0059* 0.0010* 0.0026*
- Median MA_LCC for I.4 >3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
- Median MA_LCCfor I4.0 ≤3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
MA_TC - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.4743 0.4041 0.4074 0.0080* 0.4761 0.0454* 0.0340* 0.1283
- Median MA_TC for I.4 >3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.00
- Median MA_TC for I4.0 ≤3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
MA_LA - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.4464 0.3062 0.1081 0.0499* 0.0532 0.0041* 0.0326* 0.2139
- Median MA_LA for I.4 >3 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
- Median MA_LA for I4.0 ≤3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
MA_TB - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.0034* 0.0358* 0.8147 0.0017* 0.1677 0.0175* 0.0218* 0.0022*
- Median MA_TB for I.4 >3 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00
- Median MA_TB for I4.0 ≤3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.00
MA_BSC - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.3841 0.3238 0.4291 0.2327 0.0783 0.0132* 0.0290* 0.2992
- Median MA_BSC for I.4 >3 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50
- Median MA_BSC for I4.0 ≤3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00
MA_TFC - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.0081* 0.0158* 0.5779 0.0988 0.1072 0.0689 0.0753 0.0107*
- Median MA_TFC for I.4 >3 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
- Median MA_TFC for I4.0 ≤3 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00
MA_TR - p value for U Mann-Whitney test 0.1267 0.0479* 0.5836 0.0355* 0.3203 0.6249 0.3889 0.0265*
- Median MA_TR for I.4 >3 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.50
- Median MA_TR for I4.0 ≤3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
* statistically significant at p < 0.05

The data in Table 2 shows the significance of differences between the perceived intensity of the use of selected
management accounting systems across groups of enterprises that use individual Industry 4.0 components, and
companies which do not use at least half of Industry 4.0 components, in the case of the following management
accounting solutions: ABC, TB and LCC. In the case of TC and LA, significant differences related to only three
elements of Industry 4.0 (IoT, AR and AI). In the case of three management accounting systems (TFC, BSC and TR),
the significance of the differences concerned only two elements of Industry 4.0 (Table 2, columns 2-8). Taking into
account enterprises belonging to Industry 4.0 (variable I4.0_SYNT, Table 2, column 9), a higher intensity of the use
of the following management accounting systems was observed for ABC, LCC, TB, TFC and TR. The significance of
the differences was measured with the U Mann-Whitney test at p < 0.05. In the case of significant differences between
these groups of enterprises in the perceived intensity of the use of the analysed management accounting systems, the
medians of the intensity assessment were higher for enterprises that belong to Industry 4.0, compared to those for
 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610 1605
8 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

enterprises that do not belong to Industry 4.0. This proves that Industry 4.0 has a significant impact on the intensity of
using the above-mentioned management accounting solutions (ABC, TB, LCC, TFC and TR). Across the individual
components of Industry 4.0, the significance of differences in the perceived intensity of usage of the analysed
management accounting solutions applies in particular to the following individual elements of Industry 4.0: IoT, AR
and AI.

4.4. Analysis of the differences between the perceived financial situation as the combined effect of two criteria: the
utilization of Industry 4.0 components/belonging to Industry 4.0, and the intensity of use of particular management
accounting systems.
In accordance with the third stage of the research design, verification was conducted of whether there were
significant differences in the assessments of the perceived financial situation of enterprises in two dimensions, i.e. the
usage of Industry 4.0 elements/belonging to Industry 4.0 and the intensity of use of selected management accounting
systems. The significance of these differences was checked using the Kruskal-Wallis H test at p < 0.05. The test results
are listed in simplified version in Table 3.

Table 3. Financial condition of company and Industry 4.0 constituents/management accounting systems
N = 101
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Industry 4.0 constituents/Cost CCS BDA 3DR IoT VR AR AI I4.0_SYNT
accounting system:

MA_ABC - p value for K-W test 0.0003* 0.0449* 0.0212* 0.0084* 0.0367* 0.0137* 0.0151* 0.0047*
- mean rank - group 1 40.36 43.52 41.69 43.76 42.66 43.23 41.40 38.36
- mean rank - group 4 69.56 63.50 65.38 73.50 60.15 73.75 59.32 62.83
- difference between 1 and 4 Yes no on verge yes no yes no Yes
MA_LCC - p value for K-W test 0.0002* 0.0333* 0.0205* 0.0254* 0.0518 0.0171* 0.004* 0.0207*
- mean rank - group 1 41.97 45.62 45.34 45.51 45.92 45.65 43.27 44.93
- mean rank - group 4 73.75 70.70 75.93 71.72 64.94 73.75 57.68 63.72
- difference between 1 and 4 Yes no on verge on verge no no no on verge
MA_TC - p value for K-W test 0.0004* 0.0961 0.0547 0.0611 0.2683 0.0333* 0.0537 0.0073*
- mean rank - group 1 41.83 45.77 44.41 46.16 49.26 45.61 44.12 40.14
- mean rank - group 4 69.94 64.60 70.10 71.72 64.94 70.70 60.95 62.50
- difference between 1 and 4 on verge no no on verge no no no on verge
MA_LA - p value for K-W test 0.001* 0.1512 0.1483 0.1053 0.1776 0.0936 0.1327 0.0207*
- mean rank - group 1 43.31 48.17 47.20 46.50 48.10 47.69 46.70 44.93
- mean rank - group 4 76.80 76.80 71.14 66.79 73.75 73.75 69.56 63.72
- difference between 1 and 4 on verge no no no no no no on verge
MA_TB - p value for K-W test 0.0006* 0.0314* 0.0114* 0.028* 0.0313* 0.0142* 0.0315* 0.0073*
- mean rank - group 1 39.87 42.27 40.99 42.29 40.65 41.86 41.07 37.98
- mean rank - group 4 72.68 67.35 70.71 67.00 60.15 72.06 62.33 62.38
- difference between 1 and 4 Yes on verge yes yes no yes on verge Yes
MA_BSC - p value for K-W test 0.0005* 0.1855 0.1051 0.0842 0.2196 0.0771 0.1064 0.0103*
- mean rank - group 1 43.09 47.67 46.86 46.80 47.99 47.62 46.05 41.79
- mean rank - group 4 68.67 68.67 78.83 73.75 73.75 73.75 64.00 64.00
- difference between 1 and 4 No No no no no no no No
1606 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 9

MA_TFC - p value for K-W test 0.0028* 0.1852 0.19 0.1009 0.4562 0.0851 0.1938 0.0221*
- mean rank - group 1 44.74 47.92 44.25 44.74 46.78 46.53 44.62 40.33
- mean rank - group 4 71.66 66.55 60.29 61.27 60.54 68.67 59.59 58.13
- difference between 1 and 4 Yes No no no no no no No
MA_TR - p value for K-W test 0.0007* 0.2742 0.1501 0.0617 0.1879 0.0672 0.0622 0.0098*
- mean rank - group 1 41.57 45.65 43.03 43.23 43.31 44.43 41.03 37.55
- mean rank - group 4 70.50 64.30 62.83 60.86 57.68 71.57 57.56 58.04
- difference between 1 and 4 yes No No no no no no on verge
* statistically significant at p < 0.05
on verge - the result was on the bound of the statistical trend: p ϵ [0.05; 0.1)

Table 3 shows that the most statistically significant differences in assessments of the perceived financial situation
of enterprises in terms of the use of individual Industry 4.0 components, and the intensity of using management
accounting solutions occurred for the following three management accounting systems: ABC, LCC and TB (Table 3,
columns 2 to 8). For these management accounting solutions, we notice lower mean ranks in the sample for the first
group of companies, slightly higher results for groups 2 and 3 (not tabulated), and the highest for the fourth group.
The statistical significance of the pairwise differences concerns some elements of Industry 4.0 between the groups of
companies 1 and 4. We observed that there were financial synergies in the case of using selected elements of Industry
4.0 and more intensive use of management accounting systems and tools such as ABC, LCC and TB. Taking into
account the general participation of enterprises in Industry 4.0 (variable I4.0_SYNT, Table 3, column 9), it was
observed that belonging to Industry 4.0 and the intensity of using management accounting systems significantly
differentiate the assessment of the perceived financial situation of enterprises. To some extent, this is confirmed by
the differences in significance between pairs, in particular between enterprises from group 1 and group 4. These
pairwise differences are statistically significant for the following management accounting systems: ABC and TB, or
are on the boundary of statistical significance for: LCC, TC, LA, TR. However, the conclusions of this analysis are
limited for two reasons. Firstly, we have not identified differences between groups 3 and group 4 (not tabulated) -
perhaps due to the limited sample. Secondly, for management accounting systems BSC and TR, significant differences
in assessing the perceived financial position are found between groups 1 and 3 (not tabulated). This means that for a
certain group of enterprises, belonging to Industry 4.0 without intensive usage of management accounting systems
results in higher assessments of the perceived financial situation. This regularity should be further investigated in
research.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study has shown that the perceived intensity of the use of the analysed management accounting systems is
significantly and positively correlated with the degree of familiarity with and usage of selected elements of Industry
4.0. The study has also provided evidence for the significance of differences between the perceived intensity of
utilizing selected management accounting systems across groups of enterprises that belong to Industry 4.0 and
companies which do not belong to Industry 4.0 in the case of the following management accounting solutions: ABC
(confirming evidence provided by Nota et al. [27] and Czvetkó et al. [28]), traditional budgeting (consistent with the
postulates of Kaya et al. [67]), and life-cycle costing (in line with Dunk [38]; Graessler and Yang [38]). For target
costing and lean accounting, no higher intensity of management accounting systems was found in companies belonging
to Industry 4.0 (variable I4.0_SYNT), but this significance was observed for the usage of three individual Industry 4.0
components (IoT, AR, and AI). Therefore, the hypotheses relating to the use of these management accounting systems
in Industry 4.0 conditions were only partially confirmed (for target costing, in accordance with Berhausen and Thrane
[34] and Hint and Șandru [35] and for lean accounting, consistent with Ofileanu [30]; and Oliveira [32]), specifying
the conditions of their use. In fact, the study did not confirm more intensive use of BSC, apart from two elements of
Industry 4.0: AR and AI. The results are therefore partly consistent with the postulates relating to usage of BSC in
Industry 4.0, indicating the circumstances of their use [41, 43, 44, 45]. The results of the research confirm a more
 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610 1607
10 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

comprehensive thesis that the development of technology increases the intensity of the use of selected management
accounting systems and, in this sense, the results are consistent with the research findings of other authors: [6, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. The first contribution of this study to scientific knowledge is that an increase in the
intensity of the use of selected management accounting systems was identified in the context of the application of
specific elements of Industry 4.0 and belonging to Industry 4.0. This indicates the usefulness of conventional and
considered modern management accounting systems in terms of technology development (Industry 4.0) and the
existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the technological environment and management accounting
systems.
The study has also shown that statistically significant differences in the assessments of the perceived financial
performance of companies in terms of the use of Industry 4.0 components and the intensity of using management
accounting solutions occurred for the following three management accounting systems: ABC, life-cycle costing and
traditional budgeting. If we take into account the general affiliation of enterprises to Industry 4.0, the combined effect
resulting from belonging to Industry 4.0 and the intensity of employment of management accounting systems
differentiated the assessment of the perceived financial situation of enterprises in the case of all management
accounting systems. The research results confirmed that there are financial synergy effects of using developments in
technology and more intensive use of management accounting systems, which is in accordance with other research
results [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. The contribution of this study to scientific knowledge is the identification of
management accounting systems that significantly influence the financial performance of enterprises, taking into
account the combined effect of enterprises in terms of their usage of elements of Industry 4.0/belonging to Industry
4.0 and the intensity of using management accounting systems.
The third contribution of the study to scientific knowledge is assessment of the application of conventional
management accounting systems and those considered to be modern, in the context of belonging to Industry 4.0/the
use of Industry 4.0 elements. The study confirms that enterprises belonging to Industry 4.0 expand the use of some
management accounting systems considered to be modern (ABC, LCC). Also, companies that use some individual
components of Industry 4.0 (IoT, AR, and AI) intensively employ target costing and lean accounting, but also use
conventional methods more intensively (functional costing, traditional budgeting, costs according to types of
resources). The results of the study confirm the findings of other authors that conventional management accounting
systems are used more commonly [61, 62, 63, 15] and that management accounting systems and methods considered
modern are developed gradually and constitute a supplement rather than an alternative to conventional methods [64,
65]. This is particularly evidenced by the role of traditional budgeting, and the research results are therefore consistent
with the postulates of Kaya et al. [67].
The findings of the study are significant for science, practice, and policy makers. For science, they develop
contingency theory, with a special focus on employing management accounting systems in the Industry 4.0 framework,
and on financial consequences due to the combined effect of the use of management accounting and Industry 4.0
components. The findings are also material for use in practice. According to the conclusions, companies belonging to
Industry 4.0 or which use elements of Industry 4.0 employ management accounting systems more intensively, both
those considered modern and conventional, and this is reflected in the financial performance of these companies. For
policy makers, the article proves the greater intensity of the use of management accounting systems in Industry 4.0,
which is closely related to issues and regulations regarding the possibilities of developing integrated company reports.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations to this study. The sample was not large and limited to the Polish setting.
Moreover, univariate analyses were carried out, which means that some potential control variables weren’t considered
in the study. The issue not analysed in the study is in particular the importance of the size of the company. Less than
20% of companies employing more than 250 people were included in the sample. These limitations may also shape
the directions of future research. They may include a multivariate approach to analysing the intensity of use of
management accounting systems in the units of Industry 4.0. Another possible research direction may be to examine
what causes that some companies belonging to Industry 4.0 that do not use management accounting systems
intensively, but have high financial performance.

References
[1] Lee J., Kao H.-A., Yang S. (2014) “Service Innovation and Smart Analytics for Industry 4.0 and Big Data Environment”. Procedia CIRP. 16
(3-8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.001
1608 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 11

[2] Nota, G; Peluso, D; Lazo, A Toro. (2021) “The contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies to facility management”. International Journal of
Engineering Business Management. 6/14/2021: 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790211024131
[3] Rosin, F.; Forget, P.; Lamouri, S.; Pellerin, R. (2020) “Impacts of Industry 4.0 technologies on Lean principles”. International Journal of
Production Research. 58 (6): 1644-1661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1672902
[4] Derigent, W.; Cardin, O.; Trentesaux, D. (2021) “Industry 4.0: contributions of holonic manufacturing control architectures and future
challenges”. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 32 (7): 1797-1818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01532-x
[5] Gosse, D. I. (1993) “Cost Accounting's Role in Computer- Integrated Manufacturing An Empirical Field Study”. Journal of Management
Accounting Research. 5: 159-179.
[6] Shields, M. (1998) “Management accounting practices in Europe: A perspective from the States”. Management Accounting Research, 9: 501-
513. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mare.1998.0081
[7] Seal, W. (2001) “Management accounting and the challenge of strategic focus”. Management Accounting Research. 12 (4): 487-506.
10.1006/mare.2001.0167
[8] Haldma, T.; Lääts, K. (2002) “Contingencies influencing the management accounting practices of Estonian manufacturing companies”.
Management Accounting Research. 13 (4): p379. DOI: 10.1006/mare.2002.0197
[9] 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: 127–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7
[10] Isa, C.R. and Foong S.Y. (2005) “Adoption of advanced manufacturing technology and management accounting practices: the case of
manufacturing firms in Malaysia”. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 2(1): 35-48.
https://doi.org/10.1504/WRSTSD.2005.006726
[11] Chenhall, R.H. (2007): “Theorizing contingencies in management control systems research”. In Chapman, C., A. Hopwood, and M. Shields,
(Ed.), Handbook of Management Accounting Research (Vol. 2), Elsevier.
[12] Ajibolade, S. (2013): “Management accounting systems design and company performance in Nigerian manufacturing companies: A
contingency theory perspective”. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 14 (2): 228-244
[13] Bogale, E. (2013) “Advanced management accounting techniques in manufacturing firms in Ethiopia”. Research Journal of Finance and
Accounting. 4 (16): 9-17
[14] Mat, T., & Smith, M. (2014) “The impact of changes in environment and AMT on management accounting practices and organizational
strategy, structure and performance”. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 12 (1): 55-82.
[15] Leite, A. A.; Fernandes, P. O.; Leite, J. M. (2016) “Contingent factors that influence the use of management accounting practices in the
Portuguese textile and clothing sector”. International Journal of Management Science & Technology Information. Special Issue, 19: 59-77.
[16] Ern, S. Y.; Abdullah, A.; Foong S. Y. (2016) “Contingency Factors Influencing MAS Design of Manufacturing Firms in Malaysia”. Asian
Journal of Accounting & Governance. 7: p1-9.
[17] Azudin, Afirah; Mansor, Noorhayati (2018) “Management accounting practices of SMEs: The impact of organizational DNA, business
potential and operational technology”. Asia Pacific Management Review. 23 (3): 222-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.07.014
[18] Godil, D. I.; Shabib-ul-Hasan, S. (2018) “Implementation of Advanced Manufacturing Technology in Manufacturing Businesses of Pakistan:
A Contingency Approach”. Journal of Independent Studies & Research: Management & Social Sciences & Economics. 16 (1): p85-98.
[19] Sharma, G. (2019) “The relationship of management accounting system with change in market competition and advanced technology”.
Annamalai International Journal of Business Studies & Research. 11 (1): 6-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51705/AIJBSR.2019.v11i01.002
[20] Chenhall, R.H. and D. Morris (1995) “Organic decision and communication processes and management accounting systems in entrepreneurial
and conservative business organizations”. Omega, 23(5): 485-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(95)00033-K
[21] Sim, K. and L. Killough (1998) “The performance effects of complementarities between manufacturing practices and management accounting
systems”. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10: 325–346.
[22] Mia, L. and B. Clarke (1999) “Market competition, management accounting systems and business unit performance”. Management Accounting
Research, 10: 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1006/MARE.1998.0097
[23] Mia, L. (2000) “Just-in-time manufacturing, management accounting systems and profitability”. Accounting and Business Research, 30(2):
137–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2000.9728931
[24] Mia, L. and L. Winata (2008) “Manufacturing strategy, broad scope MAS information and information and communication technology”. The
British Accounting Review, 40: 182–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-10-2011-0048
[25] Patiar, A. and L. Mia (2008) “The interactive effect of market competition and use of MAS information on performance: Evidence from the
upscale hotels”. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 32(2): 209-234. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1096348007313264
[26] Ismail K.; Isa C.R. (2011) “The role of Management Accounting System in Advanced Manufacturing Environment”. Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(9): 2196-2209.
[27] Nota, G.; Matonti, G.; Bisogno, M.; Nastasia, S. (2020) “The contribution of cyber-physical production systems to activity-based costing in
manufacturing. An interventionist research approach”. International Journal of Engineering Business Management. 12: 1-14. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979020962301
[28] Czvetkó T.; Kummer A; Ruppert T.; Abonyi J. (2022) “Data-driven business process management-based development of Industry 4.0
solutions”. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 36: 117-132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.12.002
 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610 1609
12 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

[29] Alami, D.; ElMaraghy, W. (2021) “A cost benefit analysis for industry 4.0 in a job shop environment using a mixed integer linear programming
model”. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 59: 81-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.01.014
[30] Ofileanu, D. (2015) “Value Stream Cost Analysis in the Romanian footwear industry”. SEA: Practical Application of Science. 3 (2): 45-52.
[31] Sobańska, I.; Kalinowski, J. (2015) „Podejście lean jako kierunek zmian w zarządzaniu i rachunkowości zarządczej w podmiotach usług
medycznych - wyniki badań literaturowych”. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości. 85 (141): 103-116. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5604/16414381.1185450
[32] Oliveira F., A.; Sagawa, J. K. (2021) “The alignment between management accounting and lean manufacturing: rhetoric and reality”. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing. 36 (8): 1322-1343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-04-2020-0216
[33] Myrelid, A.; Olhager, J. (2019) “Hybrid manufacturing accounting in mixed process environments: A methodology and a case study”.
International Journal of Production Economics. 210: 137-144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.024
[34] Berhausen, N. P.; Thrane, S. (2018) “Control and Coordination of Design-Driven Innovation Processes: Case Evidence from the Automotive
Industry”. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 30 (3): 75-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52025
[35] Hint, M. (Ș.); Șandru, F. L. (2017) “Considerations regarding target costing method application within the electrical lighting industry”. Annals
of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series. 26 (2): 85-94.
[36] Cengiz, E.; Ersoy, A. (2010) “A literature review of target costing in SSCI and SCI&SCI-expanded indexes”. Journal of Yasar University. 5
(19): 3131-3154
[37] Keys, L. K., (1990): “System life cycle engineering and DF `X’”. IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids and Manufacturing Technology,
13 (1): 83-93.
[38] Dunk, A.S. (2004) “Product life cycle cost analysis: the impact of customer profiling, competitive advantage, and quality of IS information”.
Management Accounting Research, 15(4): 401-414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2004.04.001
[39] Graessler, I.; Yang, X (2019) “Product life cycle cost approach for modular lightweight design”, Procedia CIRP, (84): 1048-1053,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.199
[40] Adu-Amankwa, K.; Attia, A.K.A.; Janardhanan, M. N.; Patel, I. (2019) “A predictive maintenance cost model for CNC SMEs in the era of
industry 4.0”. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 104 (9-12): 3567-3587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
019-04094-2
[41] Frederico, G. F.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, V. (2021) “Performance measurement for supply chains in the Industry 4.0 era: a
balanced scorecard approach”. International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management. 70 (4): 789-807. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2019-0400
[42] Keivanpour, S. (2021) “Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Approach to Internet of Things Enabled Logistics Systems”. Engineering
Management Journal. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2021.1946320
[43] Črešnar, R.; Potočan, V.; Nedelko, Z. (2020) “Speeding Up the Implementation of Industry 4.0 with Management Tools: Empirical
Investigations in Manufacturing Organizations”. Sensors (14248220). 20 (12): 3469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s20123469
[44] Schmidt, D.; Villalba D. J.; Ordieres-Meré, J.; Gevers, R.; Schwiep, J.; Molina, M. (2020) “Industry 4.0 Lean Shopfloor Management
Characterization Using EEG Sensors and Deep Learning”. Sensors (14248220). 20 (10): 2860-2860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s20102860
[45] Psárska, M.; Hašková, S; Machová, cV. (2019) “Performance management in small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises operating in
automotive in the context of future changes and challenges in SR”. Ad Alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. 9 (2): 281-287
[46] Okan Gökten, P. (2018) “Manufacturing in the dark: scope of the cost in the new age”. World of Accounting Science. 20 (4): 880-897. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.460897
[47] Köse, T.; Ağdeniz, Ş. (2019) “The Role of Management Accounting in Risk Management”. Journal of Accounting & Finance. Special Issue:
509-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.607200
[48] Leotta A.; Rizza C.; Ruggeri D. (2020) “Servitization strategy as a roadmap for the accounting
machine”. Journal of Management and Governance 24:587–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9444-6
[49] European Commission (2021) “The Digital Economy and Society Index — Countries' performance in digitisation”. https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/countries-digitisation-performance
[50] Frączkiewicz-Wronka, A., Ziemba E. (2022) „Rozwój koncepcji Healthcare 4.0 i jej wpływ na digitalizacje sektora usług zdrowotnych”, in:
J. Waśniewski, J. Strumiłło (ed.), Uwarunkowania digitalizacji usług zdrowotnych, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
[51] Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., A. Saniuk, and T. Nowicki (2017) “The Maintenance Management in the Macro-Ergonomics Context. Advances
in Intelligent Systems and Computing”. 487 : 35 – 46. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41688-5_4
[52] Türkes, M. C., I. Oncioiu, H. D. Aslam, A. Marin-Pantelescu, D. I. Topor, and S. Căpusneanu (2019) “Drivers and Barriers in Using Industry
4.0: A Perspective of SMEs in Romania”. Processes 7 (3): 1 – 20. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7030153
[53] Miśkiewicz, R., Rzepka, A., Borowiecki, R. & Olesińki, Z. (2021) „Energy Efficiency in the Industry 4.0 Era: Attributes of Teal Organisations”.
Energies (19961073), 14(20): 6776-6776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206776
[54] Jacobs, J.; Pretorius, M.W. (2020) “The major challenges facing organisations to create technology-enabled value in the fourth industrial
revolution: a dynamic capabilities perspective in South Africa”. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering. 31 (2): 40-61. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7166/31-2-2345
[55] Rane, S. B.; Narvel, Y. A. M. (2021) “Re-designing the business organization using disruptive innovations based on blockchain-IoT integrated
architecture for improving agility in future Industry 4.0”. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 28 (5): 1883-1908. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0445
1610 Andrzej Piosik et al. / Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022) 1598–1610
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 13

[56] Luthans F. and Steward T. I. (1977) “A General Contingency Theory of Management”. Academy of Management Review, 2: 181–195,
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409038
[57] Waterhouse, J. H.; Tiessen, P. (1978) “A contingency framework for management accounting systems research”. Accounting, Organizations
& Society. 3 (1): 65-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(78)90007-7
[58] Gong, M. Z.; Tse, M. S. C. (2009) “Pick, Mix or Match? A Discussion of Theories for Management Accounting Research”. Journal of
Accounting, Business & Management. 16 (2): 54-66.
[59] Granlund, M.; Taipaleenmäki, J. (2005) “Management control and controllership in new economy firms--a life cycle perspective”.
Management Accounting Research. 16 (1): 21-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.mar.2004.09.003
[60] Laitinen, E. K. (2001) “Management accounting change in small technology companies: towards a mathematical model of the technology
firm”. Management Accounting Research. 12 (4): 507-541. DOI: 10.1006/mare.2001.0177
[61] Frezatti, F. (2007) “The economic paradigm in management accounting: return on equity and the use of various management-accounting
artifacts in Brazilian context”. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22 (5): 514-532. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686900710750784
[62] Askarany, D. (2012) “An exploratory study into the implementation of management accounting changes in Australia”. Journal of Modern
Accounting and Auditing, 8 (5): 628-640.
[63] Sunarni, C. (2013) “Management accounting practices and the role of management accountant: evidence from manufacturing companies
through Yogyakarta, Indonesia”. Review of Integrative Business & Economics Research, 2 (2): 616-626. http://e-
journal.uajy.ac.id/id/eprint/18131
[64] Adler, R., Everett, A., & Waldron, M. (2000) “Advanced management accounting techniques in manufacturing: utilization, benefits, and
barriers to implementation”. Accounting Forum, 24 (2): 131-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.00032
[65] Hyvonën, J. (2005) “Adoption and benefits of management accounting systems: evidence from Finland and Australia”. Advances in
International Accounting, 18: 97-120. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0897-3660(05)18005-2
[66] Granlund, M.; Malmi, T. (2002) “Moderate impact of ERPS on management accounting: a lag or permanent outcome?” Management
Accounting Research. 13 (3): 299-321. DOI: 10.1006/mare.2002.0189
[67] Kaya, C. T.; Turkyilmaz, M.; Birol, B. (2019) “Impact of RPA Technologies on Accounting Systems”. Journal of Accounting & Finance.
Issue 82: 235-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.536083
[68] Cooper, R.; Kaplan, R.S. (1988) “Measure Costs Right: Make the Right Decision”. Harvard Business Review. 66 (5): 96-103.
[69] Anderson, S. W. (1995) “A Framework for Assessing Cost Management System Changes: The Case of Activity Based Costing Implementation
at General Motors, 1986-1993”. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 7: 1-51.
[70] Tsai, W.-H. (2018) “Green Production Planning and Control for the Textile Industry by Using Mathematical Programming and Industry 4.0
Techniques”. Energies (19961073). 11 (8): 2072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en11082072
[71] Sugimori, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F. and Uchikawa, S. (1977), “Toyota production system and Kanban system: materialization of just-in-time
and respect-for-human system”, International Journal of Production Research, 15 (6): 553-564. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207547708943149
[72] Ismail, K.; Isa, C. R.; Mia, L. (2018) “Market Competition, Lean Manufacturing Practices and The Role of Management Accounting Systems
(MAS) Information”. In Jurnal Pengurusan Persaingan Pasaran, Amalan Pengilangan "Lean" dan Peranan Sistem Maklumat Perakaunan
Pengurusan (MAS) Issue 52, preceding 1-20.
[73] Ruiz-de-Arbulo-Lopez, P.; Fortuny-Santos, J.; Cuatrecasas-Arbós, L. (2013) “Lean manufacturing: costing the value stream”. Industrial
Management & Data Systems. 113 (6): 647-668. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571311324124
[74] Monden, Y.; Hamada, K. (1991) “Target costing and kaizen costing in Japanese automobile companies”. Journal of Management Accounting
Research. 3: 16-34. [74]
[75] Shin, W. S.; Dahlgaard, J.J.; Dahlgaard-Park, S. M.; Kim, M. G. (2018) “A Quality Scorecard for the era of Industry 4.0”. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence. 29 (9/10): 959-976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1486536
[76] Patalas-Maliszewska, J.; Topczak, M. (2021) “A new management approach based on Additive Manufacturing technologies and Industry 4.0
requirements”. Advances in Production Engineering & Management. 16 (1): 125-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2021.1.389