Introduction

One of the key functions of management accounting (MA) information is supporting managers in decision-making. Depending on the uncertainties and other characteristics related to the decision-making situation, MA information may have different roles, ranging from an answer machine to serving as a source for inspiration (Burchell et al., 1980). As the potential roles of MA information in decision-making vary, so do the requirements for supportive MA information. It is noteworthy that MA often fails to sufficiently support managers: irrelevant or useless information is produced and supplied, or the presentation of information hinders its application (Wouters and Verdaasdonk, 2002; Hall, 2010). To better understand the requirements for supportive MA information, this study investigates (practical) limitations for its utilization in decision-making. The literature distinguishes two different approaches for utilizing MA information in managerial decision-making: analytical and actor-based (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2015). The analytical approach has its roots in calculative, rational decision-making, with the assumption that comprehensive MA information is available or can be made available for decision-making. The approach involves stages in the analytical decisionmaking process from problem definition to data collection and analysis (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2008, p. 88; Nielsen et al., 2015). In the analytical approach, the process stages are defined objectively on the basis of contextual variables. The desired contingency fit between the business context and the decision-making process then ensures the most effective practice (Chapman, 1997). In this approach, MA information should be utilized objectively among decision-makers to analyze alternatives for a given decision (see, e.g. Thyssen et al., 2006). More specifically, the literature on analytical decision-making stresses the importance of cost comparisons and their importance in the final choice (Nielsen et al., 2015). An actor-based approach emphasizes interactions between participants to cover the different managerial viewpoints in the organization (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2008, p. 152). The approach engages decision participants to actively develop alternatives and to produce information to evaluate these alternatives. This approach emphasizes reviewing, discussing and appraising modifications to the information used in the decision-making process (Nielsen et al., 2015). The actor-based approach emphasizes the fact that the majority of decision-making processes involve multiple managers with different intentions (Trenca and Nørreklit, 2017) and ways of reasoning. Each participant’s action is driven by his/her own way of perceiving the decision-making context (topos, as discussed by Nørreklit et al., 2010), and the participants hold unique pieces of information designed to serve different purposes (Ang and Trotman, 2014). Even the analytical MA tools used for decision-making feature value-based choices on what scope and content should be included in the tools. Thus, communication enables collaboration among participants with conflicting values, different preferences (March, 1962) and constrained information provision capabilities (Nielsen et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 1972). Similarly to the analytical approach, the actor-based approach can also involve systematic methodological steps aimed at the best possible choice and a functioning practice (Nielsen et al., 2015 p. 77). However, in the actor-based approach, these steps emphasize interactive and reflective techniques to utilize MA information for decisionmaking.