摘要：AbstractPurpose – Definition of Management Controlling Framework (MCF) had undergone many changes during a short period of time. Definition change mostly reflected a scope transformation during this system development. The aim of this paper is to investigate evolution of Management Controlling Framework, to compare different approaches and discuss outcomes, to propose future development directions based on historical background. It presents a historical revision of different trends of management controlling systems in organisations, according to four indicators: scope, outcome, tools and contradictions. Johnson and Kaplan (1987) suggestion was taken as the starting point of current investigation, as it significantly affected viewpoint change and further behaviour.Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review of publications in public sector, management and accounting journals since 1990 was conducted with the aim to answer the research questions: 1. How Management Controlling Framework are described? 2. What are the main characteristics of MCF? 3. How scope of Management Controlling Framework changed over time. 4. What are the main contradictions? Data analysis was performed using Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS, TRIZ), and a special part of this theory — ‘Laws of (technical) systems evolution’ (LTSE).Findings – Overall, the results confirm that Management Controlling Framework (MCF) can be described and trended through Laws of (technical) systems evolution. These findings provide the following insights for future research such as solve contradictions: 1. Overview, but not overload (detalization problem). 2. Subsidiary independent, but over control (HQ involvement problem) 3.Managing Innovation versus Managing Operations (development problem). 4. Differentiation and unification (culture problem). 5. Leadership versus review (GM problem). 6. Common understanding on the control way and results quantification (Measurement identity problem).Research limitations/implications – Generalisation of research results is limited by three main controlling frameworks and Agency theory as additional lever. Only one aggregation methodology was taken as tool - Theory of Inventive Problem Solving.
