But this reasoning fi of problems or questions

To grow, you need to know the opportunities that arise and innovate. Management control devices are often considered brakes responsiveness and innovation. Thus, in the 1980s, planning tools have been criticized for not helping companies to pass the oil shocks. It is now the turn of the budget to be in the spotlight to be cumbersome, rigidity and segregation and, ultimately, prevent innovation. These criticisms are irrelevant and the observation of the limits of budgetary procedures is shared. The more recent proposals in response to these criticisms, termed "beyond budgeting", are aimed squarely at the suppression of the budget. They are representative of the multiplication of offers of new instruments of management (Modulaire, ABC, BSC...) supported by a marketing more active on the part of some Council business, who challenge existing management systems. This article is intended to analyse these proposals, but also to consider from this example on the limits of standardized bid and "marketées" of cockpit instruments to meet the challenges of growth.

Based on the findings the budget limits, the gurus of the suppression of the budget offer:

the implementation of objectives, that is set to either internal references, but external ("benchmarking" to competitors, including). For example, the goal is more to a return of 12, but in the first quartile of a reference group;

the use of slippery forecasts ("rolling forecasts"): is more forecasts for one calendar year (from 31/12/n to 31/12/n 1), but done regularly, for example, all the quarters of the forecast at 12 months (successively to 31/12/n to 31/12/n 1, and then to the 31/03/n to the 31/03/n 1...).

These proposals are summarized in an article () published by the "Harvard Business Review", preferred the diffusion of innovations in management, media and supported by two examples of "success stories" of companies that have put in place. Responses to criticism of the budget and put examples highlight show their relevance. Thus, the fixing of objectives would avoid that the negotiation of objectives decisive on the research of plans of action to improve the performance and thus respond to the objections in innovation. On the slippery forecasts, whose purpose is to facilitate responsiveness, they constitute a response to criticism on the rigidity of the traditional procedures.

However, these proposals are not relocated within a framework of global analysis. In assessing the relevance and the possibility of generalizing these examples, it would be desirable to analyse current practices and proposals with a theoretical grid. One possibility is to consider the responses to the issues to which the budget should respond. Among them: the alignment of local decisions with the overall strategy, coordination of actions, the motivation of employees, organizational learning and innovation.

If the traditional budgetary procedures meet imperfectly to these issues, they do provide, inter alia, that reviews local action plans in the course of year while that of global revisions are necessary the suppression of the budget proposals are also imperfect. These provide, in particular, no alternative coordination or learning issues. In both cases cited as an example, the procedure was put in place between a centre and very independent entities between which there is therefore no problem of coordination.

Contrary to what say their proponents, these proposals of the beyond budgeting are therefore not universal. They apply in situations of cockpit of entities that have a high autonomy and independent from each other, which may be the case of branches of large groups (privileged clients of companies Council). In all other cases, rather than delete plutôt que de supprimer the budget, with the risk of "throw the baby with the bath water", the suggestion is to renew it, which is obviously much less "vendor" to the challenge, as we invite current modes.

The objective is not to develop possible modalities of this renewal. However, these developments show through the example of the beyond budgeting that the marketing of "success stories"-based speech accompanying innovations managerial in cockpit is not sufficiently based on theoretical analysis grids and does not promote the adaptation of these innovations in the particular context of each organization.

Proponents of these innovations may argue that they are effectively adopted by companies to demonstrate the relevance. But, recent theoretical developments on the dissemination of the managerial innovations show that many firms say adopt these innovations because it strengthens the legitimacy of their leaders, but without the practices on the ground are actually modified. In the end, very few companies removed their budget in practice. Must learn the lessons and instead of buying a product "on catalogue", do not hesitate to get an idea of these tools by oneself, experimenting with innovative practices locally and drawing lessons from these experiences before, if any of them. This extension already long implementation times, and therefore requires a management renewed the Directorates-General involved in this type of project. But this is certainly the price to pay to avoid local practices completely disconnected the managerial intentions.

Moreover, it is best to see that the proposals of the beyond budgeting based on the dissemination of objective incentives through rankings. It is a new avatar of attempts at dissemination of market mechanisms in organizations with the idea that the internal competition foster organizations and promote such learning and creativity (as would also be the case in the sport of high level, more and more used in the economic world metaphor). But this reasoning fi of problems or questions. First, why create organizations rather than the markets if it is to try to mimic the market organizations However, the competition if it can facilitate learning when the stakes are simple, is harmful for him when they are complex especially when it comes to innovation. The generalization of the rankings is in fact representative of current management that aims to strengthen the incentives and the illusory hypothesis that if incentives are well-designed, good strategies will be naturally implemented by the stakeholders of the organization.

This orientation towards a pilotage by incentives is based by construction on a management remotely. It is more likely that innovation was born of the dialogue. That is why one has to go beyond the solutions which are based on a single device (assumed to allow him only to find growth and performance as the first chapter many books with managerial innovations, for example the BSC or EVA, claim without eyebrows) and consider steering systems that combine devices dialogue and other more oriented towards the economy of time and therefore management remotely. But this track is more complex and less conducive to marketing efforts.

For cockpit instruments for growth, it seems essential to adapt to increasing marketing of the management instruments in designing heavy instruments adaptation devices when it was decided to adopt and by not giving the sirens of simplicity notably through the illusion of flying by the "good" incentives.