\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Determinants of the Adoption of Dashboards in SMEs}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2021-03-15 (revised: 15 March 2021)} \def\TheID{10.34257/GJMBRBVOL21IS4PG33\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2021-03-15} \title{Determinants of the Adoption of Dashboards in SMEs} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Alain Takoudjou Nimpa} \author[2]{Camille Kamga Wendji} \author[3]{Adriana Burlea Schiopoiu} \author[4]{Francine Yimga Ngassam} \affil[1]{ University of Buea} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 7 February 2021 Accepted: 2 March 2021 Published: 15 March 2021} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The objective of this research is to highlight the factors driving the structural and behavioural contingencies to the adoption of dashboards by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Cameroonian context. Using data collected from 314 SMEs, we conducted an exploratory analysis, in order to investigate the factors that could have an influence on the use of dashboards and a multiple correspondence factorial analysis in order to identify the characteristics of SMEs using dashboards. On the other hand, a binary logistic regression was done to unveil the factors that stand behind the usage of dashboards in Cameroonian SMEs. Our findings indicate that the formal nature of the SME, the power delegation, the presence of an experienced leader, the pressure of foreign competition, the age of the company, the use of follow-up software in organizational processes and the implementation of a system to reward the employees when they achieve positive results, are the factors that enable the adoption of the dashboard. \end{abstract} \keywords{dashboard; econometric model; manage-ment control; financial performance; Cameroon.} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{10cm}(1.05cm,3cm) {{\textit{CrossRef DOI of original article:}} \underline{10.34257/GJMBRBVOL21IS4PG33}} \end{textblock*}\let\tabcellsep& \section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par he adoption of management performance tools is presented in analysis as an enabling factor for SMEs to face the current challenges of an increasingly complex environment \hyperref[b31]{(Julien 2000)}, and also to help their own personal growth. Therefore, if the instrumentation of management constitutes a strategic issue for the viability of SMEs, the fact remains that there is still an unfavourable echo of the prescriptions of management tools. Part of the unfavourable echo however can be explained by criticisms made about management tools \hyperref[b6]{(Berry 1983;}\hyperref[b49]{Moisdon 1997}), but most especially the particularities of SMEs in relation to its organizational style and the profile of its leader given the central role he plays \hyperref[b69]{(Schmitt et al. 2002)}. In fact, the introduction of management measures will lead to resistance tendencies that must be taken into account because they condition the success or failure of the approach.\par Since the second half of the 1980s, many studies have proven that traditional tools are inefficient. \hyperref[b29]{(Johnson and Kaplan 1987)}. They are primarily based on financial situations, with historical information, and not enough openness to the external world. The clarification they bring to managers is ultimately less relevant to help them make strategic decisions. Today, the cycle of management control has been completely enriched. The strategy and choice of management tools (balanced dashboard, ABC method, cost target, etc.) condition the process of management control and it is interesting to know the factors that predispose SMEs to adopt management tools, among which the best known is the dashboard.\par Both in the field and as a research topic, one can see the legitimacy of the SME. In Cameroon, the National Institute of Statistics (INS) through its report on the 2016 RGE -2 revealed a strong increase of companies in the national territory, of the order of 123\% compared to 2009 (between 2009 and 2016, we went from 93969 units to 209482 units). There is a predominance of Very Small Enterprises (SMEs) and Small Businesses (SB) with 98.5\% units followed by Medium Enterprises (ME) with 1.3\% and finally LE (Large Enterprises) with 0.2\%. This enables us to confirm that SMEs constitute the major economic force of our country and therefore represent an undeniable factor of job creation. However, this legitimacy suffers due to the context in which it evolves. In fact, it faces the same challenges as large companies with different of resources and organization. Cameroonian SMEs are mostly family businesses with a high concentration of capital. Shares are constituted by family, tribal or friendly affinities, with a strong propensity of the shareholders' borrowed name \hyperref[b74]{(Wamba, 2001;} {\ref Sangué-Fotso, 2011)}. The management style of a very small company is not very different from that of the medium seize company. In fact, the family greatly influences decision-making process, staff recruitment, and so on. The proprietor concentrates almost all power himself regardless of the type business. He relies on experience, or even empiricism to organize and manage his company. The results of the last general census of enterprises (GCE-2, 2016) suggest that Cameroonian SMEs suffer from a structural and organizational weakness that does not permit them to do effective bookkeeping in order to produce reliable financial statements, summary and give readability of the activity.\par The management control tools, first and foremost, the dashboard was originally set up in large companies to cope with the complexity of management situations and to drive the overall performance of the company \hyperref[b35]{(Kaplan and Norton 1996)}. However, some authors (Epstein and Manzoni 1998; \hyperref[b43]{Mendoza and Bescos, 1999;}\hyperref[b44]{Mendoza et al., 2002;}\hyperref[b16]{Germain 2001}\hyperref[b17]{Germain , 2004}\hyperref[b18]{Germain and 2005))}, stated that the use of the dashboard should be contingent, depending on the specificities of each company and not following a standard model. \hyperref[b8]{Chapellier (1994)} proposes taking into account structural contingencies such as size, age, the degree of computerization of management and the nature of the activity; or the profile of the leader.\par Given the particularities of SME and the more or less rational and standardized nature dashboards, including the BSC, a question emerges: \section[{What are the determinants of the adoption of dashboards in the Cameroonian SMEs?}]{What are the determinants of the adoption of dashboards in the Cameroonian SMEs?}\par Our goal is twofold. On the one hand, determine the structural contingencies to the adoption of DB and on the other hand, behavioural contingencies. This article is structured around three axes. The theoretical framework and research hypotheses are first discussed. The methodological framework is then presented. Finally, the results are exposed and discussed. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Theoretical Framework and}]{Theoretical Framework and}\par Research Hypotheses a) Psycho-cognitive logic in the adoption of management tools Contingent vision \hyperref[b39]{(Lawrence and Lorsch 1973;}\hyperref[b48]{Mintzberg 1982}) is undoubtedly important in identifying the determinants of adoption of DB. It introduces the notion of contextualization of management tools. An instrument would have different consequences for management decisions depending on the type of organization in which it is introduced \hyperref[b49]{(Moisdon 1997}). However, in the context of SME and the central role played by its leader, it seems useful to address the theoretical anchoring by a cognitive logic.\par Here we review the work of \hyperref[b40]{Lorino (2002)} which shows that the management tool, as an instrument, has a practical impact only by its insertion in human activity. Two elements are generally involved in the mechanisms of psycho-cognitive appropriation of management tools. First, we rely on the work of \hyperref[b32]{Justin (2004)}, which puts forward the said "behavioural" approach of management tools. It shows that the tool is dependent on the actor and three types of intentions: strategic (conscious willingness to generate organizational performance), influence (the tool is chosen according to its persuasiveness or stakeholder orientation) and manipulation (acting on one's own interests or personal values) Secondly, the appropriation and use of a management tool will depend on the intrinsic characteristics of the individual and behavioural \hyperref[b62]{(Piaget 1998;}\hyperref[b19]{Goffman 1991;}\hyperref[b63]{Piaget and Inhelder 1998)}.\par b) The management tools used by SMEs: the place of the dashboards Studies have shown that the management of SMEs is not totally intuitive. Thus, Fernandez, Picory and Rowe, (1994), through their study of 102 SMEs, have shown that there are a large number of management tools. They classify them into three groups: forecasting tools (plans and budgets), monitoring tools (dashboards) and analysis tools (management and financial accounting). According to \hyperref[b58]{Nobre (2001b)}, while carrying on a study on a sample 86 companies between 50-500 employees, points out that management tools such as the dashboard, budgets and gap calculation are widely used by the SMEs.\par In the Cameroonian context, several studies (Djoutsa, Takoudjou and Simo 2013; \hyperref[b52]{Ngongang 2006}\hyperref[b53]{Ngongang , 2010}; Nyengue and Edimo 2003; Nimpa, Wendji and Wendji 2019), conclude that the most common CDG tools in SMEs are traditional (cost approach).\par The place reserved for the dashboard in the management of companies remains quite controversial. Tool designers and many other authors (Epstein and Manzoni 1997; \hyperref[b36]{Kaplan and Norton 2001;}\hyperref[b12]{Fernandez 2003)}, regard the dashboard as being a central tool, an alternative to the traditional budget system. Contrarily, authors such as \hyperref[b45]{Mendoza and Zrihen (1999)}consider that the reporting cannot replace dashboard.Zecri (2000) adds to the debate and stated that it is impossible to run a business without budgets. \hyperref[b21]{Gray and Pesqueux (1993)} adopt a compromising position, and put forward the idea that if the dashboard serves to follow the general objectives at the level of the head office, then it can be one tool among others, if it serves to monitor the day-to-day activities at the operational level, then it must be a central tool. \section[{c) The factors influencing the adoption of DBs}]{c) The factors influencing the adoption of DBs}\par Several studies have examined the link between the use of the dashboard and some contingent factors \hyperref[b77]{(Zian 2013}). These factors can be classified in several groups such as structural, organizational and managerial or individual. \section[{i. Structural factors of influence}]{i. Structural factors of influence}\par Regarding the defining elements of the company, Nobre (2001a) conducted a study in France and concluded that the size of the company constitutes a contingency factor and reason for the use of the dashboard (DB). Several other authors in different contexts confirmed this insight, notably \hyperref[b38]{Lavigne (2002)} on 282 Québec manufacturing SMEs and Van Caillie (2002) in an exploratory research conducted among 100 medium-sized manufacturing SME in Belgium; Hoque and James (2000), using a sample of 66 Australian companies. Larger organizations therefore have the performance measurement practices that are closest to those of the balanced dashboard \hyperref[b30]{(Jorissen et al. 1997}\hyperref[b17]{, Germain 2004}, Elhamma 2013, Ngongang 2013). The age of the firm represents also a contingency to management instrumentation \hyperref[b48]{(Mintzberg 1982)}. The ownership structure of the company or the family nature of the company can also constitute a significant contingency factor of the use of the dashboard \hyperref[b37]{(Lavigne, 1999)} or a blockage to the establishment of the CDG {\ref (Meyssonnier and Zawadwki 2007)}.\par With respect to environmental and contextual factors, several studies (Choffel and Meyssonnier2005; Chapman 1997 {\ref ;}\hyperref[b14]{Fisher 1998;}\hyperref[b22]{Hartmann 2000)} suggest that uncertainty as well competitive environment will force organic structures that favour the search for external and non-financial information (Condor and Rebut 2008) to conclude that a company operating in a highly competitive industry will be more motivated to use management tools than one operating in a less competitive industry. \section[{ii. Organizational and managerial factors}]{ii. Organizational and managerial factors}\par In addition to the environmental factors, SME are subject to the organization and managerial practices of their companies. The strategy adopted by the company (differentiation, cost control, internationalization) generally forces it to implement more or less sophisticated tools \hyperref[b5]{(Bergeron 2000;}\hyperref[b41]{Lorino 2003)}. This management instrumentation is also dependent on certain practices such as the promotion of research and development activities \hyperref[b70]{(Simons 1995)} \section[{Methodology a) Source of data and characteristics of the sample}]{Methodology a) Source of data and characteristics of the sample}\par The data used in this study resulted from a survey as part of the international project on the analysis of the determinants of business performance in Frenchspeaking sub-Saharan Africa, funded by IDRC (International Development Research Center). As part of its "Growth for All" Program. This data was collected from 642 companies in the three main cities of Cameroon (Yaoundé, Douala and Bafoussam), based on the data from the World Bank's Regional Program on Enterprise Development Cameroon-2009 (RPED). We finally selected 314 SMEs with 6 and 100 employees, thus constituting our sample. The characteristics are presented in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{1} below. \section[{b) Operationalization of variables}]{b) Operationalization of variables}\par We have identified in the write up that the table that summarizes these factors is the following table. \section[{Source: The authors c) Econometric model of dashboard}]{Source: The authors c) Econometric model of dashboard}\par The general form of the econometric model is as follows:Tablobord = ?0 + ?1FCS + ?2FCC + ?\par With Tablobord, the dependent variable indicating the adoption or not of dashboards in Cameroonian SME.\par FCS and FCC are respectively the vectors of independent variables in relation to the structural and behavioural contingency factors, likely to determine the adoption or not of dashboards by SME. ?0 = the constant; and the others ? ranging from 1 to 2 = regression coefficients and i = individuals or SME At the end of the Factorial Analysis of Multiple Correspondences (AFCM) which followed the review of the literature of this research, and given the general model above, we can have the following specific model: Tablobord = ?0 + ?1Age10etplu + ?2Measurement + ?3Formality + ?4Presccret + ?5Delpridec + ?6Gratspe + ?7logicsuiproc + ?8ExpManager + ?9BacEtPlus + ?10 FormetierEse + ?i With ?0 being the constant, the others ? ranging from 1 to 10, the regression coefficients. As determinants of the use of the dashboards in the SMEs selected at the end of the phase of multidimensional exploratory analysis (MCA), we have: the age of the company above 10 years (Age10etplu); the size of the company (Moytaille); the formal or informal character of the SME (Formalite), the pressure of foreign competition or the external environment (Presccrétr); delegation of decision-making (Delpridec), the use of special bonuses in case of positive employee results (Gratspe); process \section[{d) Choice of tools and methods of data analysis}]{d) Choice of tools and methods of data analysis}\par Data collected from a secondary source was coded and processed using Spad5.5 and Stata 13 software. These data were processed in two phases. The first phase is subdivided into two stages. In the first step, we started from the existing work on contingency factors to select those factors that served as a basis for exploration in Cameroonian SMEs. In the second step, we have developed an ACM of the factors found in the previous exploratory phase to draw the most important factors likely to have an influence on the adoption of the dashboard in Cameroonian SMEs. In the second phase, a logistic regression made it possible to establish the link between these contingency factors and the use of the dashboard.\par IV. \section[{Results and Discussion}]{Results and Discussion}\par The discussion of the results of this study is based on both exploratory analysis and binary logistic regression. \section[{B}]{B}\par By observing the figure above indicating the relationships between the determining variables in the use of the dashboards and the non-use of the said dashboards, it is easy to notice that the characteristics that best define the use of the dashboards modalities are:\par formality, delegation of decision-making (decentralization), age of SME greater than or equal to 10 years, average company, special bonuses offered to employees in case of positive results, the experience of the principal manager, the level of education higher or equal to GCE Advanced level, the basic training of the main manager of the company (in relation to the business or non-business professions), software for monitoring procedures, pressure from the external competition. These modalities are selected on the basis of the principle according to which each modality or each variable is positioned in the graph at the centre of gravity of the individuals who possess it, or modalities and variables which are close to it. \section[{b) Interpretation and discussion of the results of the correlation matrix}]{b) Interpretation and discussion of the results of the correlation matrix}\par The following table summarizes the results from the correlation matrix. \section[{Table 3: Summary of the correlation matrix between variables at the 1\% threshold}]{Table 3: Summary of the correlation matrix between variables at the 1\% threshold} \section[{Source: Data Analysis in Stata 13}]{Source: Data Analysis in Stata 13}\par *Significant influence at 1\%.\par Since the logistic regression can interpret only the signs of the coefficients, it is very often recommended to calculate the marginal effects in order to deepen the interpretation in terms of the level of influence of one variable on another. The marginal effects in a censored regression model correspond to the deformation of the predictions on the dependent variable caused by a variation of one unit of one of the explanatory variables \hyperref[b7]{(Cameron and Trivedi 2005)}. Thus, the following table presents the marginal effects of logistic regression. \section[{Source: Data Analysis in Stata 13}]{Source: Data Analysis in Stata 13}\par Referring to the data in Table \hyperref[tab_3]{4} and Table \hyperref[tab_4]{5}, it appears that the adoption or use of DBs by Cameroonian SMEs is significantly and positively influenced by four groups of variables.\par First, the use of DBs is dependent on the characteristics of the SME (its formal character and its age greater than 10 years). In fact, \hyperref[b23]{Hernandez (1997)} and \hyperref[b33]{Kamdem (2000)} consider that the management style of African companies depends on the specificities of their context. For them, the strong presence of the informal sector in African economies would justify the weak management instrument. In addition, the older the SME is, the more it is structured, which requires more tools in the same direction of management; however, this idea is not shared by \hyperref[b24]{Holmes and Nicholls (1988)}, for whom the detailed acquisition of management information decreases as the age of the enterprises increases, and more precisely that SMEs with less than five years of business operations have more often more detailed information than SMEs with more than 10 years of market activity.\par Secondly, foreign competitive pressure also has a positive influence on the use of the dashboards. In a context of higher globalization and intense level of competitiveness, the use of management tools in SMEs determines, initially, the operational performance, and then the financial performance \hyperref[b61]{(Pettersen et al., 2011)}.\par Thirdly, the organizational and managerial factors influence the use of DBs in SMEs. In fact, some business managers still showreluctance in letting someone else manage their organizations (usually family businesses), and at some point in the life of a business, this decentralization is necessary in order to change the company, especially when the company is expanding. In the current digital environment, SMEs should also consider the use of ERP (Enterprise Resources Planning) or specific software to improve the day-to-day management.\par Fourth, the individual factors related to the key leader of the SME (his professional background and expertise). In fact, the use of dashboards in companies depends partly on the experience that the manager has acquired from his previous profession or simply during the exercise of his profession. These results are in line with those of many other authors \hyperref[b42]{(Marchesnay 1985;}\hyperref[b51]{Nelson 1987;}\hyperref[b5]{Bergeron 2000)}, while some authors find different results including \hyperref[b64]{Reix (1981)}. The variable regarding the manager training in relation to enterprise related fields as we noticed above proved to be negative and not significant. This means that the training of the manager in relation to enterprise related fields is not related to the use of dashboards in SMEs in Cameroon. This result is conflicting with the one obtained by Djongoue (2007). The baccalaureate level and above, was found to have no influence on the use of dashboards in Cameroonian SMEs. Indeed, there is a negative and significant relationship between the level of higher education or equal to the baccalaureate and the use of dashboards. Such a result may be justified by the fact that the vast majority of SME managers in Cameroon generally have a lower level of education or equivalent to GCE Advanced level.\par V. \section[{Conclusions}]{Conclusions}\par The objective of this research was to highlight the contingency factors likely to foster the use of dashboards in Cameroonian SMEs. Our results suggest two major directions.\par First, the proportion of Cameroonian SMEs using DBs remains very low (27\% of SMEs in the sample). According to some authors {\ref (Hudson et} Secondly, the factors that influence the adoption of the dashboards are those related to the characteristics of the SME (formal character, size and age), the environmental context linked to foreign competition, and organizational and managerial factors (delegation responsibility, special reward systems, use of software) and individual factors related to the SME manager (professional experience). The research insights resulted from this study incorporate both theoretical and practical contributions.\par On one hand, our research provides theoretical support to the question of management instrumentation in SMEs. The results already noted in the existing body of literature are enriched by others making it easy to give a content to this question in a context marked by the exponential growth of SMEs. It is a confirmation of the complex nature of this concept. Furthermore, this research has found that the adoption of a management tool is strongly correlated to the cognitive resources and managerial skills of the main manager of the SME.\par On the other hand, at a managerial level, beyond the growing criticism of management tools, particularly the increased rationalization and standardization of tools \hyperref[b6]{(Berry, 1983)}, or consistency with the organization \hyperref[b49]{(Moisdon, 1997)}, the use of DBs is advantageous because it is a tool that changes the perception of the performance of the SME, considering both internal and external stakeholders. Then we also noticed that SMEs often caricatured in write ups as a category of companies with a simple structure and intuitive management are capable of controlling their structure with DBs. Finally, it also provides policy makers with a new research direction on the parameters that require the management attention in order to improve the assessment of the performance of SMEs seeking external funding. It gives the leaders of SMEs, of course, some elements that can help them in the process of implementation of DB in their management.\par These results also challenge us about the need to question the priorities in the management instrumentation of SMEs. The lower rate of usage of DBs by Cameroonian SMEs (27\%) suggest the hypothesis according to which these tools are not well known among SMEs or that they do not match their business needs. 10. Chapman, CS {\ref (1997)} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}B}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{51}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png} \caption{\label{fig_1}5 Figure 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} III.\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.3322946175637394\textwidth}P{0.07825779036827195\textwidth}P{0.2564447592067989\textwidth}P{0.009631728045325779\textwidth}P{0.004815864022662889\textwidth}P{0.008427762039660057\textwidth}P{0.04815864022662889\textwidth}P{0.11196883852691217\textwidth}} \multicolumn{5}{l}{Determinants of the Adoption of Dashboards in SMEs}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2021\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Volume XXI Issue IV Version I\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ( ) B\\ Criteria Limited liability companies Legal Status Unique owner Unlimited liability companies Turnover in (FrsCFA) 1 [15 -50 million] [51 -100 million] [101 -500 million]\tabcellsep \% 38,1\% 50\% 11,9\% 40,48\% 23,81\% 28,57\%\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Criteria Basic training of the leader Leader Status Owner Non owner Basic training in relation with enterprise related fields. No basic training in enterprise related fields.}\tabcellsep \% 71,65\% 28,35\% 55,73\%\tabcellsep Global Journal of Management and Business Research\\ {}[501millions -1bilion]\tabcellsep 7,14\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 44,27\%\\ Age of SME\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Leader's experience}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ {}[1 -5 years]\tabcellsep 33,33\%\tabcellsep Experience\tabcellsep acquired\tabcellsep from\tabcellsep another\tabcellsep 53,18\%\\ {}[6 -10 years]\tabcellsep 19,05\%\tabcellsep enterprise\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.0036956521739130435\textwidth}P{0.012318840579710146\textwidth}P{0.035314009661835746\textwidth}P{0.1991545893719807\textwidth}P{0.4028260869565217\textwidth}P{0.19669082125603865\textwidth}} \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep The variables\tabcellsep Description of the variable\tabcellsep Authors\\ \tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 5\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Kaplan and Norton\\ Dependent\tabcellsep variable\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Adoption of the Dashboard in SME (DB)\tabcellsep Dichotomous variable that takes the value of 1 if the SME uses dashboard (DB) and 0 value if not\tabcellsep 1992, 1996; Simons 1995; Elhamma 2012; Said et al. 2003; Takoudjou and Teulon\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2018; Nimpa \& al 2019.\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Dichotomous variable that\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Age of SME 10 years and above\tabcellsep takes the value of 1 if the SME\tabcellsep Mintzberg, 1982;\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep (AgGreater than10)\tabcellsep is 10 years or more than 10\tabcellsep Chapellier, 1994\\ \tabcellsep Independent variables\tabcellsep Characteristics of the SME Environmental and contextual factors\tabcellsep Medium Seize Enterprise (Meseize) Formal SME (Formalite) Ownership structure (STRUCAPI\textunderscore SA) Competition/Competition of the foreign companies / Environment (presccrétra) Competition/Competition of the of national enterprises/ Environment (presccrnat)\tabcellsep years and 0 if not. Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the enterprise is a medium seize enterprise and if 0 if not. Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the SME is formal and 0 if not. Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the SME is an unlimited liability company and 0 if. competition and 0 if not. Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the SME is undergoing a strong foreign competition and 0 if not Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the SME is undergoing a strong national\tabcellsep Nobre 2001a, 2001b; Lavigne 2002; Van Caillie 2002; Hoque and James 2000; Elhamma 2013; Ngongang 2013. Hernandez, 1997; Kamdem, 2000. Ngongang 2006; Ngongang and NoumouenNjoyo 2018. Dimaggio and Powel 1983 Pettersen at al. 2011\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep factors Organizational\tabcellsep The vision/goals targeted by the main manager (infvisObjEls) Encouraged research activities for the past 2 years (redev2ane)\tabcellsep Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the main manager has a training in an enterprise related fields and 0 if not. Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the SME has for the pass and 2 years 0 if carried out research activities\tabcellsep Chapellier 1994, 1997; Pettersen at al. 2011; Ndjambou and Sassine 2014 Simons 1995; Katia 2016\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{4} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.2801675977653631\textwidth}P{0.06078212290502793\textwidth}P{0.06932960893854748\textwidth}P{0.07740223463687151\textwidth}P{0.059832402234636865\textwidth}P{0.004273743016759777\textwidth}P{0.04463687150837989\textwidth}P{0.03988826815642458\textwidth}P{0.0356145251396648\textwidth}P{0.023268156424581004\textwidth}P{0.0356145251396648\textwidth}P{0.015195530726256982\textwidth}P{0.059357541899441334\textwidth}P{0.04463687150837989\textwidth}} \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{8}{l}{Determinants of the Adoption of Dashboards in SMEs}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Pres ccrétr\tabcellsep Gratspe\tabcellsep Logics uiproc\tabcellsep Ag10et Plus\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Moytai lle}\tabcellsep Forma lite\tabcellsep BacEt Plus\tabcellsep Del pridec\tabcellsep Forme tierElse\tabcellsep Exp Manag er\tabcellsep Tablo bord\tabcellsep Variables\tabcellsep Year 2021\\ 0.1236 0.0285 -.0426 0.4520 -.0601 0.2886 0.1663* 0.0031 0.0145 0.7985 0.1331 0.0183 0.1285 0.0228\tabcellsep 0.2575* 0.0000 0.1619* 0.0040 0.2233* 0.0001 0.1039 0.0660 0.2002* 0.0004 0.2951* 0.0000 0.2349* 0.0000\tabcellsep 0.2277* 0.0000 0.0752 0.1840 0.0370 0.5132 0.1373 0.0149 0.1328 0.0185 0.4844* 0.0000 0.4580* 0.0000\tabcellsep 0.2450* 0.0000 0.0375 0.5079 -.1074 0.0572 0.2512* 0.0000 0.2053* 0.0002 0.3496* 0.0000 0.3161* 0.0000\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{0.2667 * 0.0000 0.1017 0.0718 0.1023 0.0701 0.2349 * 0.0000 0.3169 * 0.0000 0.7414 * 0.0000 1.0000}\tabcellsep 0.3796 * 0.0000 0.1776 * 0.0016 0.1211 0.0320 0.2435 * 0.0000 0.4218 * 0.0000 1.0000\tabcellsep 0.1594* 0.0046 -.0046 0.9348 -0.0057 0.9192 0.1871* 0.0009 1.0000\tabcellsep 0.3005* 0.0000 0.0723 0.2014 -0.0210 0.7114 1.0000\tabcellsep 0.0154 0.7860 0.2817* 0.0000 1.0000\tabcellsep 0.2614* 0.0000 1.0000\tabcellsep 1.0000\tabcellsep Tablobord ExpManager FormetierElse Delpridec BacEtPlus Formalite Moytaille\tabcellsep Volume XXI Issue IV Version I ( ) B\\ \multicolumn{11}{l}{Iteration 0: logpseudolikelihood = -184.34473 Iteration 1: logpseudolikelihood = -144.957 Iteration 2: logpseudolikelihood = -142.96356 Iteration 3: logpseudolikelihood = -142.95689 Iteration 4: logpseudolikelihood = -142.95689 Log pseudolikelihood = Logisticregression Number of observations = 314 Wald chi2(8) = 61.35 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Pseudo R2 = 0.2245 0.1035 0.0670 0.1013 0.0732 0.1352 0.0165 1.0000 0.1708* 0.0024 0.1373 0.0149 1.0000 -0.0026 0.9640 1.0000 1.0000}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Ag10etPlus Logicsuiproc Gratspe Presccrétr\tabcellsep Global Journal of Management and Business Research\\ \tabcellsep Tablobord\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Robust Coefficient}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Std. Err.}\tabcellsep Z\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{P>|z|}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{95\% Confidence Interval}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{ExpManager}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.063099}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{0.3110853}\tabcellsep 3.42\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{0.001}\tabcellsep 0.4533832\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.672815}\\ \tabcellsep Delpridec\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.10571}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{0.3275424}\tabcellsep 3.38\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{0.001}\tabcellsep 0.4637385\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.747681}\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{5} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.2363981762917933\textwidth}P{0.09946808510638298\textwidth}P{0.08396656534954407\textwidth}P{0.09688449848024316\textwidth}P{0.058130699088145894\textwidth}P{0.11496960486322189\textwidth}P{0.07750759878419453\textwidth}P{0.08267477203647416\textwidth}} \multicolumn{2}{l}{Marginal effects after logit}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{y = Pr (Tablobord) (predict) = 0.22091718}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ variable\tabcellsep dy/dx\tabcellsep Std. Err.\tabcellsep z\tabcellsep P>|z|\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{95\% Confidence Interval}\tabcellsep X\\ ExpManager*\tabcellsep 0.1793271\tabcellsep 0.04988\tabcellsep 3.60\tabcellsep 0.000\tabcellsep 0.081567\tabcellsep 0.277087\tabcellsep 0.531847\\ Delpridec*\tabcellsep 0.1860001\tabcellsep 0.05164\tabcellsep 3.60\tabcellsep 0.000\tabcellsep 0.08478\tabcellsep 0.28722\tabcellsep 0.535032\\ BacEtPlus\tabcellsep -0.0167554\tabcellsep 0.05625\tabcellsep -0.30\tabcellsep 0.766\tabcellsep -0.127011\tabcellsep 0.0935\tabcellsep 0.38535\\ Formalite *\tabcellsep 0.2001043\tabcellsep 0.10602\tabcellsep 1.89\tabcellsep 0.059\tabcellsep -0.0077\tabcellsep 0.407909\tabcellsep 0.165605\\ Ag10etPlus*\tabcellsep 0.1021438\tabcellsep 0.06457\tabcellsep 1.58\tabcellsep 0.114\tabcellsep -0.02441\tabcellsep 0.228698\tabcellsep 0.324841\\ logicsuiproc*\tabcellsep 0.0979191\tabcellsep 0.09748\tabcellsep 1.00\tabcellsep 0.315\tabcellsep -0.093132\tabcellsep 0.288971\tabcellsep 0.098726\\ Gratspe *\tabcellsep 0.1317673\tabcellsep 0.05391\tabcellsep 2.44\tabcellsep 0.015\tabcellsep 0.026102\tabcellsep 0.237432\tabcellsep 0.535032\\ Presccrétr*\tabcellsep 0.086267\tabcellsep 0.09525\tabcellsep 0.91\tabcellsep 0.365\tabcellsep -0.100416\tabcellsep 0.27295\tabcellsep 0.101911\\ \multicolumn{4}{l}{(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{} \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.6446308724832215\textwidth}P{0.04563758389261745\textwidth}P{0.005704697986577181\textwidth}P{0.031375838926174494\textwidth}P{0.03993288590604027\textwidth}P{0.07416107382550335\textwidth}P{0.00855704697986577\textwidth}} Congrès\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{international}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{francophone}\tabcellsep sur\\ \multicolumn{4}{l}{l'entrepreneuriat et les PME, 57-77.}\tabcellsep \\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{22. Elhamma A (2012) Contrôle de gestion et}\\ performance:\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{cas}\tabcellsep des\tabcellsep PME\tabcellsep marocaines,\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Communication}\tabcellsep au\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{colloque}\tabcellsep internationale,\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{Management des PME et compétitivité territoriale,}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{ENCG Fès, Mars.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{23. Elhamma A (2013) Performance de la Comptabilité}\end{longtable} \par {\small\itshape [Note: par Activités: Perceptions des responsables d'entreprises, La Revue Science de Gestion, 5-6 (No 263-264), pp. 227-232.]} \caption{\label{tab_6}}\end{figure} \footnote{1euro=655,957 francs CFA © 2021 Global Journals} \footnote{( ) B © 2021 Global Journals Determinants of the Adoption of Dashboards in SMEs} \footnote{© 2021 Global Journals} \footnote{© 2021 Global JournalsDeterminants of the Adoption of Dashboards in SMEs} \footnote{( ) BDeterminants of the Adoption of Dashboards in SMEs} \backmatter \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[« L']{b3}\label{b3} \textit{}, « L' . La Revue Recherches en Sciences de Gestion-Management Sciences-Ciencias de Gestión, Iseor 5 (92) p. . (instrumentation du contrôle de gestion dans les entreprises au Sénégal) \bibitem[Bampoky and Meyssonnier ()]{b2}\label{b2} \textit{}, B Bampoky , F Meyssonnier . 2012. \bibitem[ INS ()]{b28}\label{b28} \textit{}, \textit{INS} 2016. Institut National de la Statistique (INS (Recensement Général des Entreprises de 2016 (RGE-2. Rapport préliminaire de l) \bibitem[Lawrence and Lorsch ()]{b39}\label{b39} \textit{Adapter les structures de l'entreprise: intégration ou différenciation. Editions d'Organisation}, P R Lawrence , J W Lorsch . 1973. Paris. \bibitem[Holmes and Nicholls ()]{b24}\label{b24} ‘An analysis of the use of accounting information by Australian small business’. S Holmes , D Nicholls . \textit{Journal of Small Business Management} 1988. 26 (2) p. . \bibitem[Said et al. ()]{b66}\label{b66} ‘An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonfinancial measures’. A A Said , Hassab Elnaby , H R Wier , B . \textit{Journal of Management Accounting Research} 2003. 15 p. . \bibitem[Ngongang ()]{b53}\label{b53} ‘Analyse de la pratique des coûts dans les PMI camerounaises’. D Ngongang . \textit{Revue libanaise de gestion et d'économie}, 2010. 3 p. . \bibitem[Cameron and Trivedi ()]{b7}\label{b7} A C Cameron , P K Trivedi . \textit{Microeconometrics: methods and applications}, 2005. Cambridge University Press. \bibitem[Julien ()]{b31}\label{b31} ‘Comment gérer l'improvisation de façon cohérente’. P A Julien . \textit{Compte rendu du 5e congrès international de la petite entreprise}, (Lille) 2000. p. . (Les PME à forte croissance) \bibitem[Kaplan and Norton ()]{b36}\label{b36} \textit{Comment utiliser le tableau de bord prospectif. Les Editions d'Organisation}, R S Kaplan , D P Norton . 2001. Paris. \bibitem[Chapellier ()]{b8}\label{b8} \textit{Comptabilité et système d'information du dirigeant de PME-Essai d'observation et d'interprétation des pratiques}, P Chapellier . 1994. France. Université de Montpellier II (Thèse de Doctorat Sciences de Gestion) \bibitem[Fisher ()]{b14}\label{b14} ‘Contingency theory, management control systems and firm outcomes: past results and future directions’. J G Fisher . \textit{Behavioral Research in Accounting} 1998. 10 p. . (Supplement) \bibitem[Lavigne ()]{b38}\label{b38} \textit{Contribution à l'étude de la genèse des systèmes d'information comptable des PME: une approche empirique, Actes du XXIIIe Congrès de l'Association française de comptabilité}, B Lavigne . 2002. Toulouse. \bibitem[Lavigne ()]{b37}\label{b37} \textit{Contribution à l'étude de la genèse des états financiers des PME, Thèse de Sciences de Gestion}, B Lavigne . 1999. Paris IX-Dauphine. Université de Montpellier \bibitem[Zian ()]{b77}\label{b77} \textit{Contribution à l'étude des tableaux de bord dans l'aide à la décision des PME en quête de performance}, H Zian . 2013. Bordeaux IV. Université Montesquieu (Thèse de Doctorat en Gestion) \bibitem[Mendoza and Bescos ()]{b43}\label{b43} ‘Contrôle de gestion, qualité des informations pour la prise de décision et facteurs de contingence’. C Mendoza , P-L Bescos . \textit{Actes du 20e Congrès de l'Association Française de Comptabilité}, (s du 20e Congrès de l'Association Française de ComptabilitéBordeaux, Mai) 1999. p. . \bibitem[Piaget ()]{b62}\label{b62} \textit{De la pédagogie}, J Piaget . 1998. Odile Jacob, Paris. \bibitem[Fernandez et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘Diversité, cohérence et pertinence des outils de gestion: le cas des PME d'Île-de-France’. V Fernandez , C Picory , F Rowe . \textit{Communication présentée au 39e International Council on Small Business World Conférence}, (Strasbourg) 1994. p. . \bibitem[Gottesman and Morey ()]{b20}\label{b20} \textit{Does a Better Education Make for Better Managers? An Empirical Examination of CEO Educational Quality and Firm Performance}, A A Gottesman , M R Morey . \url{https://ssrn.com/abstract=564443Accessed12December} 2004. 2004/03. 2018. Pace University Finance Research Paper \bibitem[Moisdon ()]{b49}\label{b49} \textit{Du mode d'existence des outils de gestion}, J C Moisdon . 1997. Paris: Arslan. \bibitem[Van Caillie ()]{b73}\label{b73} \textit{Enquête sur les pratiques et les besoins en matière de contrôle de gestion dans les PME wallones}, D Van Caillie . 2002. Cahier de recherche, Université de Liège \bibitem[Ndjambou and Sassine ()]{b50}\label{b50} ‘Etude de la relation entre profile du dirigeant, culture et performance des PME gabonaises: clarification des compétences et de la vision’. R Ndjambou , M Sassine . \textit{Revue Gestion et Organization} 2014. 6 (1) p. . \bibitem[Ngongang and Njoyo ()]{b55}\label{b55} ‘Facteurs de contingence et nature du contrôle de gestion dans les PME camerounaises’. D Ngongang , Noumouen Njoyo , JG . \textit{Revue Africaine de Management} 2018. 3 (2) p. . \bibitem[Gray and Pesqueux ()]{b21}\label{b21} J Gray , Y Pesqueux . \textit{Evolutions actuelles des systèmes de tableaux de bord: comparaison des pratiques de quelques multinationales américaines et françaises, Revue Française de Comptabilité, n°243}, 1993. p. . \bibitem[D'souza et al. ()]{b71}\label{b71} \textit{Green products and corporate strategy: an empirical investigation, Society and business review}, C D'souza , M Taghian , P Lamb , R Peretiatkos . 2006. 1 p. . \bibitem[Epstein and Manzoni ()]{b10}\label{b10} ‘Implementing Corporate Strategy: From Tableaux de Bord to Balanced Scorecards’. M Epstein , J F Manzoni . \textit{European Management Journal} 1998. 16 (2) p. . \bibitem[Woodward ()]{b75}\label{b75} \textit{Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice}, J Woodward . 1965. London: Oxford University Press. \bibitem[Kamdem ()]{b33}\label{b33} ‘L'analyse des Organisations en Afrique: un Champ émergent’. E Kamdem . \textit{Revue Africaine de Sociologie} 2000. 4 (2) p. . \bibitem[L'efficacité de la structure de contrôle des entreprises camerounaises. Gestion et management Sangue Fotso R ()]{b67}\label{b67} ‘L'efficacité de la structure de contrôle des entreprises camerounaises. Gestion et management’. \textit{Sangue Fotso R} 2011. Université de Franche-Comté (Thèse de doctorat) \bibitem[Meyssonnier and Zawadzk (2007)]{b47}\label{b47} ‘L'introduction du contrôle de gestion en PME étude d'un cas de structuration tardive de la gestion d'une entreprise familiale en forte croissance’. F Meyssonnier , C Zawadzk . \textit{Comptabilité et environnement} 2007. May. p. . \bibitem[Hernandez ()]{b23}\label{b23} ‘L'état de l'entrepreneur informel en Afrique’. E M Hernandez . \textit{Revue Internationale PME} 1997. 10 (1) p. . \bibitem[Germain ()]{b17}\label{b17} ‘La Contingence des systèmes de mesure de la performance : les résultats d'une recherche empirique sur le secteur des PME’. C Germain . \textit{Finance Contrôle Stratégie} 2004. 7 p. . \bibitem[Aizicovici (2007)]{b1}\label{b1} ‘La délégation de pouvoir, un outil délicat à manier’. F Aizicovici . \url{https://www.lemonde.fr/talents-fr/article/2007/01/15/la-delegation-de-pouvoir-un-outil-delicat-a-manier\textunderscore 855400\textunderscore 3504.html-Accessed} \textit{Journal le monde} 2007. 15 March 2019. \bibitem[Oumy ()]{b60}\label{b60} \textit{La délégation de pouvoirs dans les sociétés commerciales de droit OHADA}, D Oumy . 2018. Université de Bordeaux et Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (Thèse de Doctorat) \bibitem[Reix ()]{b64}\label{b64} \textit{La flexibilité dans l'entreprise, Revue économique}, R Reix . 1981. 32 p. . \bibitem[Wamba ()]{b74}\label{b74} ‘La gestion bancaire en Afrique centrale à l'heure des grandes mutations: bilan et perspectives’. H Wamba . \textit{Gestion} 2001. 2000. 18 p. . \bibitem[Piaget and Inhelder ()]{b63}\label{b63} \textit{La psychologie de l'enfant, Que sais-je}, J Piaget , B Inhelder . 1998. 1966. Paris: PUF. (1ère edition en) \bibitem[Nobre ()]{b57}\label{b57} ‘Le contrôleur de gestion de la PME’. T Nobre . \textit{Comptabilité-contrôle-Audit} 2001a. 7 p. . \bibitem[Santin and Van Caillie ()]{b68}\label{b68} \textit{Le design du système de contrôle de gestion des PME : une quête de stabilité adaptative, 29ème Congrès annuel de l'Association Francophone de Comptabilité}, S Santin , D Van Caillie . 2008. Paris. \bibitem[Germain ()]{b16}\label{b16} \textit{Le pilotage de la performance dans les petites et moyennes entreprises: les résultats d'une recherche empirique}, C Germain . 2001. Mai, France. (22ème congrès de l'AFC) \bibitem[Mendoza and Zrihen ()]{b45}\label{b45} \textit{Le tableau de bord: en V.O. ou en version américaine ? Comparaison entre tableau de bord et le balanced scorecard, Revue Française de Comptabilité}, C Mendoza , R Zrihen . 1999. Mars. 309 p. . \bibitem[Goffman ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Les Cadres de l'expérience’. E Goffman . \textit{Collections Le sens commun} 1991. 35 (1) p. . \bibitem[Bergeron ()]{b5}\label{b5} \textit{Les indicateurs de performance en contexte PME, quel modèle à appliquer?}, H Bergeron . 2000. Angers. (21 ème Congrès de l'Association Française de Comptabilité) \bibitem[Fernandez ()]{b12}\label{b12} \textit{Les nouveaux tableaux de bord des managers, Editions d'Organisation}, A Fernandez . 2003. \bibitem[Azar ()]{b0}\label{b0} \textit{Les outils de contrôle de gestion dans le contexte des PME: cas des PMI au Liban}, Abi Azar , J . 2005. Tunis. Congrès de l'Association Francophone de Comptabilité \bibitem[Simons ()]{b70}\label{b70} \textit{Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal}, R Simons . 1995. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. \bibitem[Hoque and James ()]{b26}\label{b26} ‘Linking Balanced Scorecard Measures to Size and Market Factors: Impact on Organizational Performance’. Z Hoque , W James . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.1}{10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.1}. \url{https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.1} \textit{Journal of Management Accounting Research} 2000. 12 p. . \bibitem[Nimpa et al. ()]{b56}\label{b56} ‘Management control instruments in SMEs : types and their effects on performance’. A Nimpa , M C Wendji , K C Wendji . \textit{Int. J. of citical Accounting} 2019. 11 (1) p. . \bibitem[Mendoza et al. ()]{b44}\label{b44} C Mendoza , M H Delmond , F Giraud , H Löning . \textit{Tableaux de bord et balanced scorecards, Edition Revue Fiduciaire}, (Paris) 2002. \bibitem[Mintzberg ()]{b48}\label{b48} H Mintzberg . \textit{Structure et dynamique des organisations. Paris: Editions d'Organisations}, 1982. \bibitem[Holmes and Nicholls ()]{b25}\label{b25} ‘Modelling the accounting information requirements of small businesses’. S Holmes , D Nicholls . \textit{Accounting and Business Research} 1989. 19 (74) p. . \bibitem[Lorino ()]{b41}\label{b41} \textit{Méthodes et pratiques de la performance}, P Lorino . 2003. \bibitem[Ngongang ()]{b52}\label{b52} D Ngongang . \textit{Contrôle, Audit Et Institution (s)}, Profil du dirigeant et facteurs déterminants du système d'information comptable et des pratiques comptables des entreprises tchadiennes. Comptabilité 2006. \bibitem[Nobre ()]{b58}\label{b58} T Nobre . \textit{Méthodes et outils de contrôle de gestion dans les PME}, 2001b. 4 p. . \bibitem[Nelson ()]{b51}\label{b51} ‘Organizational socialization: A stress perspective’. D N Nelson . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030080404}{10.1002/job.4030080404}. \url{https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030080404} \textit{Journal of Occupational Behaviour} 1987. 8 (31) p. . \bibitem[Garengo et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Performance Measurement Systems in SMEs: A Review for a Research Agenda’. P Garengo , S Biazzo , U S Bititci . DOI: 10.1111/j. 1468-2370.2005.00105.x. \textit{International Journal of Management Reviews} 2005. 7 (1) . \bibitem[Jorissen et al. ()]{b30}\label{b30} \textit{Planning and Control: Are These Necessary Tools for Success? Empirical Results of Survey and Case Research on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Compared with Research on Large Enterprises, International Congress of the Association for Accounting Education and Research}, A Jorissen , S Devinck , A Vanstraelen . 1997. Paris. \bibitem[Takoudjou and Teulon ()]{b72}\label{b72} ‘Point de vue: une étude exploratoire de l'applicabilité du Balanced Scoracard dans les PME d'Afrique subsaharienne francophone’. N A Takoudjou , F Teulon . \textit{Gestion} 2018. 2000. 35 (3) p. . \bibitem[Schmitt et al. ()]{b69}\label{b69} ‘Pour une lecture des problèmes complexes en PME: approche conceptuelle et experimentation’. C Schmitt , P-A Julien , R Lachance . \textit{Revue Internationale PME} 2002. 15 (2) p. . \bibitem[Zécri ()]{b76}\label{b76} ‘Processus budgétaire: motifs d'insatisfaction, 21ème congrès l'Association Française de Comptabilité’. J L Zécri . \textit{Angers} 2000. \bibitem[Chapellier ()]{b9}\label{b9} ‘Profil de dirigeants et données comptables de gestion en PME’. P Chapellier . \textit{Revue Internationale PME} 1997. 10 (1) p. . \bibitem[Justin ()]{b32}\label{b32} ‘Proposition d'un cadre conceptuel d'analyse des jeux d'acteurs cristallisés dans et par les outils de contrôle’. J Justin . \textit{Comptabilité Contrôle Audit} 2004. p. . (Numéro thématique) \bibitem[Meyssonnier ()]{b46}\label{b46} ‘Quel contrôle de gestion pour les start-up?’. F Meyssonnier . \textit{Comptabilité, Contrôle Audit}, 2015. 2 p. . \bibitem[Marchesnay ()]{b42}\label{b42} \textit{Quelques propositions méthodologiques appropriées aux sciences de gestion}, M Marchesnay . 1985. p. . (Communication au colloque FNEGE-ISEOR des 13 et 14 novembre à Lyon, Actes publiés par l'ISEOR, 285 pages) \bibitem[Recensement Général des Entreprises du Cameroun. Document de synthèse de l ()]{b65}\label{b65} \textit{Recensement Général des Entreprises du Cameroun. Document de synthèse de l}, RGE-2. 2016. p. 2. Institut National de la Statistique (INS \bibitem[Pettersen et al. ()]{b61}\label{b61} ‘Relation entre les compétences du dirigeant de PME et la performance de son entreprise : apport d'un instrument de mesure multisource’. N Pettersen , J St-Pierre , S Brutus . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1012555ar}{10.7202/1012555ar}. \url{https://doi.org/10.7202/1012555ar} \textit{Revue Internationale PME} 2011. 24 (1) p. . \bibitem[Berry ()]{b6}\label{b6} ‘Relationship Marketing’. L L Berry . \textit{Emerging perspectives on service marketing}, L L Berry, G L Shostack, G D Upah (ed.) 1983. \bibitem[Johnson and Kaplan ()]{b29}\label{b29} \textit{Relevance lost -The rise and fall of management accounting}, T Johnson , R Kaplan . 1987. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. \bibitem[Ngongang ()]{b54}\label{b54} ‘Système d'information comptable et contrôle de gestion dans les entreprises camerounaises’. D Ngongang . \textit{La Revue Gestion et Organisation} 2013. 5 p. . \bibitem[Edimo ()]{b59}\label{b59} \textit{Système d'information comptable et modes de contrôle de gestion: cas des entreprises camerounaises}, Nyengue Edimo , P . 2003. Actes Séminaires RAMEGE. p. . \bibitem[Hartmann ()]{b22}\label{b22} ‘The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory. Accounting’. Fgh Hartmann . \textit{Organizations and Society} 2000. 2000. 25 p. . \bibitem[Kaplan and Norton ()]{b35}\label{b35} \textit{The balanced scorecard}, R S Kaplan , D P Norton . 1996. The Harvard Business School Press. \bibitem[Epstein and Manzoni (1997)]{b11}\label{b11} ‘The Balanced Scorecard and Tableau de bord, Translating strategy into action’. M Epstein , F Manzoni . \textit{Management Accounting} 1997. August. p. . \bibitem[Kaplan and Norton ()]{b34}\label{b34} ‘The balanced scorecard, measure that drive performance’. R S Kaplan , D P Norton . \textit{Harvard Business Review} 1992. \bibitem[Hudson et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} ‘Theory and Practice in SME Performance Measurement System’. S M Hudson , P A Smart , M Bourne . \textit{International Journal of Operations \& Production Management} 2001. 21 (8) p. . \bibitem[Germain ()]{b18}\label{b18} ‘Une typologie des tableaux de bord implantés dans les petites et moyennes entreprises’. C Germain . \textit{Finance Contrôle Stratégie} 2005. 8 (3) p. . \bibitem[Lorino ()]{b40}\label{b40} \textit{Vers une théorie pragmatique et sémiotique des outils appliquée aux instruments de gestion}, P Lorino . 2002. Essec Research Center, DR02015. (juillet 02) \bibitem[Bayad et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} \textit{Vision du propriétaire-dirigeant de PME et processus décisionnel: de l'image à l'action}, M Bayad , Garand , Dj . 1998. Metz. (4e Congrès International Francophone sur la PME (CIFPME), du 22 au 24 Octobre) \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}