Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 23 Issue 1

It is precisely at times of uncertainty that the management of a company must be based, instead of improvisation, on a set of cognitive elements that allow managers to develop the decision-making process in full awareness of the income, financial and asset consequences of such decisions. Undoubtedly, the information that can be drawn from the financial reporting for the year cannot be considered exhaustive, since the conciseness, the precision implemented to the detriment of timeliness and the inclusion of only actual values, make this document insufficient for the information needs of business managers to be fulfilled. This information - which must guarantee timeliness even at the expense of a specific (limited!) degree of accuracy - must also allow for evaluating managerial performance. This information is a critical element in ensuring that promotions, bonuses in the broadest sense and sanctions are allocated to managers fairly and transparently. In this regard, it should be emphasised that the responsibility assigned to the various managers must always be accompanied by decision-making levers on which they must act freely. The assignment of duties and the related attribution of management levers implicitly require that the accounting elements on which individual managers can work are fully known. Secondly, these values are correctly attributed to the subjects directly responsible. We can only achieve these objectives if the information support can provide, on time, analytical information concerning the individual areas of competence. The achievement of management effectiveness and efficiency requires that the system orients its structure towards objectives aligned with the medium- long term strategy. Short-term planning must therefore be constantly and in all its parts univocally interrelated with medium-term planning. In general, it is stressed that management control is a system to support decision-making and not a set of procedures whose primary objective is the inspection and verification of managers' performance. In reality, this statement is only partially true. A "complete" control system (and, later on, we will understand the reason for the use of this term) is, in fact, always characterised by the phase of comparison between expected and achieved results. From such a comparison, an assessment of the management's performance inevitably arises. Therefore, if on the one hand it is true that the control system should not be seen as a means of inspection, on the other hand it is equally true that the phase of identification of the variations between the objectives set and the results achieved, inevitably involves a moment of verification. Concerning the problem of correlation between the concept of control and the support and inspection activity, it is About the problem of correlation between the concept of control and the support and inspection activities, it is essential to emphasise how the implementation of the integrated analysis/programming system can be successful and, consequently, only succeed in ensuring that the objectives of efficiency and management effectiveness can be achieved if the entire management shares the aims of the project and perceives information as the whole system as a tool that does not punish but helps company management. In this sense, it can certainly be said that the integrated analysis/programming/control system does not identify a set of inspection and verification procedures. This, however, does not mean that, inevitably, in the context of an information structure such as the system proposed here, a phase should be envisaged in which the expected results and the objectives achieved are compared without, of course, all this being implemented in a spirit of "criminalisation" of the activities carried out by individual managers. As can be seen from what has been said so far, it has been considered appropriate to go beyond the position Theoretical doctrine characterised by the interpretation of management control as a system "partially detached" from the set of information, accounting and not, connected to the analysis of the company considered in its entirety and unity. Many authors, facing the problem of control, raise a virtual "wall" between the study of financial reporting and the information structure connected to individual analytical objects such as products, departments, etc... This position is not reflected in the company's reality since the management of a company perceives the need to count on a series of information that can provide helpful tools to improve the decision-making process. In this sense, interpreting management control as "something separate" from the set of all other information means at the corporate level and, as such, difficult to integrate with them, means laying the groundwork for: 1) The creation of information duplication; 2) The lack of information concerning specific sectors not explicitly covered by the individual parts of the broader information system, which is also fragmented in organisational terms; 3) The creation of an information over-structure that feeds on itself, in terms of the production of data, both accounting and non-accounting, which are often useless and therefore misleading; 4) The formation of organisational figures that may come into conflict due to the different roles they play within the company organisation. From this, the system supporting managerial decisions cannot be limited to the so-called management control. Still, it is appropriate, or better, indispensable, to be interpreted as an integrated analysis and planning system. This vision does not The Implementation of an Integrated Information System in the Company: From Option to Obligation for Efficient and Effective Management 10 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue I Version I Year 2023 ( ) A © 2023 Global Journals