'Control Systems – Rendell Company Report\r'

'T6Rendell Comp either * disagreemental restrainers report to general managers from 1985 onwards * 7 manifest business units with their own profits, sales * 1980 embodied controllers answerable for 1) financial accounting 2) internal auditing 3) analysis of bang-up budget * Reports went directly to top management from divisions * Mr.Hodgkin cherished to play a more(prenominal) active determination in establishing budgets and analyasing performance (would personally review budgets and playing area divisional performance and hired analysts to help) * Divisional managers discussed their budget with top management with divisional controller extradite * Divisional controllers primary responsibility was to divisional managers as contend to unified controllers so Bevins thought he wasn’t getting enough clear data on performance of units * Harrigan: Divisional controllers shouldn’t be â€Å"front office spies” if they want to have practised loping family relationships with managers and help them with the control functions * Corporate controllers shouldn’t put divisional controllers in awkward positions regarding more data/opinions on financials. Questions: 1. What is the memorial tabletal philosophy of Martex with detect to the controller function? What do you think of it? Should Rendell consume this philosophy? * Divisional controllers report to integrated controllers trusty for establishing cost and profit standards and ensure follow through with(predicate) * Not intended to take initiative forth from DMs * More courtly line relationships as controllers work physically separate from division managers * Set of formal policies, goals, practices that employees (managers) are aware of before beginning in the orgnization * Accounting system controlled by controller division so systems are not tailored to from each one BU * Divisional managers at Martex like this system because it gives them an unprejudiced partner with relevant information, controller can do better analysis and there is little account about cost reports I think this place works for Martex because of the existing culture that has been developed rough this model.People in the organization are comfortable with this font of hierarchy. At Rendell the firm culture gives more supply to divisional managers and gives them dedicated staff working low them. The feelings towards corporate are more adversarial so any change in the controller function leave alone feel like a corporate recognise as opposed to better communication. This philosophy willing not work with Rendell’s culture. It will ladder to more reliance on informal organization and poorer communication with corporate. 2. Who should the divisional controllers report to in the Rendell association? Divisional controllers should report to both management and corporate controllers while ensuring DM are aware of this responsibility. 3.What should the relationship be b etween the corporate controller and the divisional controllers. DC should report to CC to the extent that it ensures corporate directives are implemented properly without harming DCs and DMs. DCs should communicate that corporate initiatives are being followed/met within their divisions. 4. Would you recommend major changes in the basic responsibilities of either the corporate controller or the divisional controller? Divisional controllers subscribe to play a stronger role as opposed to being a staff like appurtenant to DMs. However, having them as a direct report to CCs would engagement with the existing culture between DMs and DCs.\r\n'