* Al-Dahiyat, M. A. (2003). Towards an effective design of management control systems: A contingency approach. University of Huddersfield. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
* Al-Omiri, M., & Drury, C. (2007). A survey of factors influencing the choice of product costing systems in UK organizations. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 18, 399-424.
* AmirAtashani,M., Moshdeei, M. & MahmoudZadeh, A. (2015). Prioritization of management accounting techniques on National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, Journal of Farayandno, 9 (4), 79-92. (in Persian)
* Askarany, D. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in organisations. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (Vol. 5). USA: IDEA Group Publishing.
* Ax, C., & Bjørnenak, T. (2005). Bundling and diffusion of management accounting innovations-the case of the balanced scorecard in Sweden. Management Accounting Research, 16(1), 1-20.
* Baird, K. M., Harrison, G. L., & Reeve, R. C. (2004). Adoption of activity management practices: a note on the extent of adoption and the influence of organizational and cultural factors. Management Accounting Research, 15(4), 383-399.
* Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33, 825-845.
* Bjørnenak, T., & Mitchell, F. (2002). The development of activity based costing journal literature, 1987-2000. European Accounting Review, 11, 481-508.
* Booth, P., & Giacobbe, F. (1998). The impact of demand and supply factors in the diffusion of accounting innovations: the adoption of activity-based costing in Australian manufacturing firms. In Sixth Biennial Management Accounting Research Conference. Sydney: University of NSW.
* Brierley, J. A. (2008). An examination of the factors influencing the level of consideration for activity-based costing. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 58-67.
* Brierley, J. A. (2011). Why the proper definition of the ABC matters: a note. Advances in Management Accounting, 19, 225-249.
* Brown, D. A., Booth, P., & Giacobbe, F. (2004). Technological and organizational influences on the adoption of activity- based costing in Australia. Accounting and Finance, 44, 329-356.
* Chenhall, R. H. (2007). Theorizing contingencies in management control research. In C. S. Chapman.
* Clarke, P. J., Hill, N. T., & Stevens, K. (1999). Activity-based costing in Ireland: barriers to and opportunities for change. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10(4), 443-468.
* Cooper, R. (1988). The rise of activity-based costing - part two: when do I need an activity-based cost system? Journal of Cost Management, 41-48 (Fall).
* Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36, 123-139.
* Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Initiation, adoption, and implementation of innovation: effects of context, organization, and leaders. British Journal of Management, 17, 215-236.
* Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: assessing the role of management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495-522.
* Damanpour, F., & Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006). Research on organizational innovation: distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23, 269-291.
* Dunk, A. S. (1989). Management accounting Lag. Abacus, 149-155.
* Fichman, R. G. (2000). The diffusion and assimilation of information technology innovations. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the future through the past (pp. 105-128). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Press.
* Foster, B. P., & Ward, T. J. (1994). Theory of perpetual management accounting innovation Lag in hierarchical organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(4-5), 401-411.
* Giwa, M. (2009). Activity based costing e Is it still relevant? Bristol University. Unpublished MSc. Dissertation.
* Gosselin, M. (1997). The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption and implementation of activity based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 105-122.
* Govindarajan, V. (1984). Appropriateness of accounting data in performance valuation: an empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9, 125-135.
* Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., Macfarlane, F., & Peacock, R. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations: A systematic literture review. Oxford: Blackwell.
* Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581-629.
* Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK's largest companies. Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 137-153.
* Johnson, H. T. (1992). Relevance regained: From top-down control to bottom-up empowerment. New York: The Free Press.
* Jones, T. C., & Dugdale, D. (2002). The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 121-163.
* Kaplan, R. S., & Anderson, S. R. (2007). Time-driven activity-based costing: A simpler and more powerful path to higher profits. Harvard Business School Press.
* Kaplan, R. S., & Cooper, R. (1998). Cost and effect: Using integrated cost systems to drive profitability and performance. Harvard Business School Press.
* Krumwiede, K. R. (1998). The implementation stages of activity-based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 239-277.
* Kwon, T., & Zmud, R. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systems Implementation. In R. Boland, & R. Hirscheim (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research (pp. 227-251). New York: John Wiley.
* Liu, L. Y. J., & Pan, F. (2007). The implementation of activity-based costing in China: an innovation action research approach. The British Accounting Review, 39, 249-264.
* Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2003). Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2/3), 169-249.
* Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: state, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143.
* Noreen, E. (1991). Conditions under which activity-based cost systems provide relevant costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 159-168 (Fall).
* Pike, R. H., Tayles, M. E., & Abu Mansor, N. N. (2011). Activity-based costing user satisfaction and type of system: a research note. The British Accounting Review, 43, 65-72.
* Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
* Schoute, M. (2011). The relationship between product diversity, usage of advanced manufacturing technologies and activity-based costing adoption. The British Accounting Review, 43(2), 120-134.
* Taylor, J., & McAdam, R. (2004). Innovation adoption and implementation in organizations: a review and critique. Journal of General Management, 30(1), 17-38.
* Zawawi, N. H. M., & Hoque, Z. (2010). Research in management accounting innovations: an overview of its recent development. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(4), 505-568.