1、 外文翻译 原 文 Activity-based costing: is it still relevant? Material source: Management Accounting Quarterly, spring, 2009 Author: William Stratton, Denis Desroches, Raef Lawson, Toby Hatch Over the past several years, consultants, practitioners, and academic investigators have noticed that activity-bas
2、ed costing (ABC) methods, developed to improve decision support and the accuracy of cost- and profit-measurement systems, too often have yielded less than the desired results. Robert S. Kaplan and Steven R. Anderson state, “Many companies abandoned activity-based costing because it did not capture t
3、he complexity of their operations, took too long to implement, and was too expensive to build and maintain.”Further criticism of ABC appeared elsewhere. “Straightforward in theory, ABC proved notoriously difficult in practice. It involved defining activities and trying to judge (often subjectively)
4、how much overhead each used. And it had to be done regularly. Companies got fed up, and many abandoned it. From 11th position in the 1995 annual survey of the most widely used management tools (Bain), it fell to 22nd place (in 2002).“ Studies of ABC use have reflected this dissatisfaction with the t
5、echnique. The Bain & Company annual surveys in 2003 and 2005 reported use of activity-based management (ABM) at 50% and 52%, respectively, with associated satisfaction scores below the average for all tools used. Similar results were reported in the SUNY-Albany, Hyperion, and Pepperdine Study (SHAPS
6、 surveys): During the same period, they found a decline in the perceived value of ABC compared to its usage. Despite the negative results of these studies, there are many case studies and anecdotal reports of organizations that have adopted ABC methods and reported satisfaction with the value they p
7、rovide. These companies consider their ABC methods an investment worth the time and resources committed to them. One motive for conducting this research was to seek an answer to the question: “What distinguishes successful implementations of ABC methods from those that have not succeeded?“ In order
8、to study the use of ABC methods (and other issues related to the design and use of costing and profitability methods), we formed the Business Research and Analysis Group and conducted a survey sponsored by the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) and other professional associations. Cost and Pr
9、ofit Measurement Methods Across the Value Chain The assignment of costs to products, customers, or other cost objects has always been a thorny issue. For external reporting, production costs must be assigned to products for both income and asset reporting purposes. For operational cost control, stra
10、tegic decision-making, and performance measurement purposes, however, many organizations also assign costs from the other functions in the internal value chain. What methods are used to measure costs and profits across the value chain, and does their usage vary by function? We identified the most fr
11、equently used types of methods as: (1) Actual costing (2)Normal costing (3)Standard costing (4)Activity-based costing. While the set of costing method types is as diverse as the kinds of operating systems, most organizations in the survey chose from this short list. In fact, most companies used more
12、 than one of these methods. A survey shows the use of these method types across the value chain. We can reach the following conclusions: (1)With the exception of production-related costs, a significant proportion of costs is not assigned to cost objects. (2) For production costs, standard costing is
13、 still “king of the hill“ with a usage rate of 42%. (3)Contrary to common belief, ABC methods are used across the entire value chain at approximately the same rate. ABC is not a production-specific method. As to the overall satisfaction with the ABC method, our survey results refute many of the asse
14、rtions that ABC increasingly is being abandoned. We asked 141 organizations to indicate their use or nonuse of ABC. Of these, only four (2.8%) previously used ABC but no longer use it, and 22 (15.6%) considered ABC but chose not to implement it. To explore the specifics in more detail, we looked at
15、the benefits and concerns that respondents related about cost and profit measurement systems. Benefits and Concerns about Cost-profit-measurement Systems In order to judge the value of ABC, it is helpful to identify commonly reported benefits of cost-profit-measurement systems and their prevalence.
16、The most frequently reported benefits include: (1)Useful for product decisions, such as pricing, design, and outsourcing. (2) Helpful for product/service profitability analysis. (3) Helpful for making operational improvements. (4) Useful for performing budgeting, planning, and performance evaluation
17、. Survey also shows that managers agree that ABC provide a wide variety of benefits for their cost-profit-measurement systems. The three lowest-scoring benefits relate to commonly claimed benefits of the ABC method: activity-cost information and accurate allocation of overhead (indirect) costs. More
18、 disagreed than agreed that their system was able to accurately trace activity costs to final cost objects. In a similar way, more disagreed than agreed with the statement that their system could accurately trace overhead costs to final cost objects. Overhead allocation and activity-cost measurement
19、 are clearly of concern to managers. To investigate whether ABC methods address these issues, we recast the responses into two groups: ABC users and ABC nonusers. Survey makes it abundantly clear that ABC methods address these issues and constitutes strong evidence of the value of ABC methods. Only
20、one in four nonusers agrees that the costs of activities are traced accurately to products or services, whereas almost 70% of ABC method users agree that this benefit is realized. Similar results apply to overhead cost tracing. Finally, less than 40% of ABC nonusers receive accurate costs of activit
21、ies, while more than 70% of ABC users benefit from such cost knowledge. It is not surprising that the two benefits directly related to activities， the focus of ABC are realized to a greater extent in such systems, but overhead allocation to cost objects is important in non-ABC methods as well. The s
22、ubstantial difference in benefits realized from ABC makes it clear that ABC methods warrant serious consideration, especially in organizations with significant overhead costs. What are the main concerns of managers regarding their cost-measurement systems, and do ABC methods help alleviate these con
23、cerns? Survey identifies a variety of possible concerns and tells how users of ABC methods and non-ABC methods view each. The major concerns for both groups include: (1)Need to find a better way to allocate costs. (2)Allocations do not reflect how resources are used (lack of cause-effect). (3)Inform
24、ation is not timely. (4)Updating the system is difficult. While organizations that apply ABC methods share these concerns, the level of concern about these issues, is uniformly less than expressed by those that use non-ABC methods. This finding indicates that use of ABC methods at least somewhat hel
25、ps alleviate managers concerns with their cost-measurement systems. ABC and Cost Allocation: How Are Indirect Costs Being Assigned to Cost Objects? Although ABC is more than an allocation method, the primary attribute differentiating it from other methodologies is how it accumulates and allocates re
26、source costs. Our survey asked respondents to identify the methods used to allocate indirect costs. We presented three major methods of allocation along with the option to specify other methodologies in use. These three methods are: (1)Equal allocation: Resource cost is allocated equally to all obje
27、cts that consume the resources. (2)Output-based allocation: Resource cost is allocated according to an output-related allocation base. (3) ABC allocation: Resource costs are accumulated into activity cost pools. These cost pools are allocated to objects based on how much of the activity is consumed
28、by the objects. Among those surveyed, the most popular method is output-based allocation, with 60% of organizations using this method for part of their allocations. The second most popular method is ABC, with a usage rate of just under 50%. ABC is viewed as having value, even among firms that do not
29、 currently use that methodology. When asked to specify what the mix of allocation methods would be in the organizations ideal allocation system, managers surveyed had a significant bias in favor of ABC: More than 87% of organizations ideal costing systems would include some form of ABC. Given that s
30、uch a high number of respondents envision including ABC as part of their ideal cost allocation system than currently do so (about 50%), adoption of ABC may increase in the future. Decision Support and ABC The major types of decisions that are supported by cost-profit-measurement systems are financia
31、l, operational, and strategic. How do ABC methods support these decisions compared to others? Survey compares the perceived usefulness of ABC and non-ABC methods to support these decisions. It contains the mean response, on a scale of 0 to 6, to the statement that a given type of costing method supp
32、orts a given type of decision making. In general, ABC methods provide greater levels of decision support than do non-ABC methods. This improved level of support spans the spectrum of decision making across financial, operational, and strategic areas. Furthermore, ABC methods are better integrated wi
33、th budgeting and planning processes. All this indicates that companies using ABC feel better equipped to apply their results to management decision support (activity-based management). Product and Customer Profitability Metrics From a strategic perspective, an essential criterion for any decision su
34、pport system is the accurate measurement of product and customer profitability. Strategic decisions such as pricing, product and customer mix, and product and customer rationalization are among the most vital to organizational competitiveness. Although product profitability has been the primary focu
35、s of management attention for many years, the identification of profitable customers has gained prominence recently. Regardless of the type of costing method used (ABC versus non-ABC), almost all companies agree that both product and customer profitability should be measured. Whereas most (nearly 60
36、%) ABC methods support both product and customer profitability decisions, most (approximately 60%) non-ABC methods do not. Support for ABC The value and usage rate of activity-based costing methods have recently been the subjects of debate among practitioners and academics. Prior surveys indicate th
37、at the usage rate of ABC has leveled over the past several years and that questions are being raised as to its value relative to its cost of implementation. In this study we examined the usage rate and relevance of ABC as a cost-profit-measurement system. Our results are summarized as follows: (1)AB
38、C methods are deployed across the internal value chain, and the vast majority of organizations continue to use them. (2)Managers surveyed believe that accurate overhead allocation and activity cost information is lacking in non-ABC methods, while ABC methods address these needs. (3)ABC methods allev
39、iate managers concerns regarding the accuracy of cost allocations, the cause-effect relationship between allocations and resources consumed, the timeliness of cost/profit information, and the capability to update systems. (4)The substantial gap between current usage rates of ABC methods and their de
40、sirability in ideal systems may portend increased use. (5)ABC methods provide greater support for financial, operational, and strategic decisions. (6)ABC methods are better integrated into budget and planning processes. (7)ABC methods support strategic product/customer emphasis decisions better than
41、 non-ABC methods. When Is Activity-Based Costing Appropriate? Activity-based costing can theoretically be used in almost any industry, because it can be adapted to determine costs at so many different levels. However, ABC is used most effectively in complex companies that are not entirely service-ba
42、sed. Complex companies may see the most benefit from this type of costing because it is most helpful when the costing information is difficult to understand or evaluate. Service industries may not benefit as much from activity-based costing as other industries because their costs can be difficult to
43、 assign as they may not have an identifiable cause and effect relationship. Companies considering using ABC should also keep in mind that while it can be a very powerful management tool, it can be very expensive to start and it does not always conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAA
44、P) so if using an ABC system a company may have to keep a separate system to track costs in a manner that does conform to GAAP. Activity-based costing is a type of costing system that can be used to assign costs more accurately to products and departments in todays complex business world. Our result
45、s provide ample support for the conclusion that ABC methods do indeed provide significant value to managers. We believe the use of ABC provides companies with superior cost-profitability-measurement systems. Perhaps it is time for more organizations to take another look at adopting activity-based co
46、sting methods. 译文 作业成本法： 仍然 有用吗？ 资料来源： 管理会计季刊 ， 2009 年春季 作者： 威廉姆 斯特尔顿 ， 丹尼斯 德罗什 ， 瑞夫 劳森 ， 托比 哈奇 在过去的几年里，顾问、从业者和学术研究者已经注意到，作业成本法（ ABC） 已经 发展到提高决策支持以及成本 与 利润 核算 系统的精度， 但是预期结果 往往不是很理想 。罗伯特卡普兰和史蒂芬安德森指出，许多公司放弃了作业成本法，因为它没有捕 捉到 公司经营的 复杂性，而且实施的时间太长，建立和维护又太昂贵。作业成本法在其他地方出现进一步的批评 ： 在理论上作业成本法简单易懂，但是在实践中 运用 却是非常
47、困难的。它涉及“作业”定义 ，并试图判断（通常是主观的） 每年 需要 使用多少 费用， 而且它必须定期进行 检查 。 很多 公司 有些厌倦了，所以放弃运用作业成本法 。 在 1995 年 的 年度调查 报告中，作业成本法在 最广泛使用的管理工具 中排行 第 11 位 ， 而 到 2008 年已经下跌至 22 位。 作业成本法 的应用 研究反映了技术 的不完善 。在贝恩公司 2003 年和 2005年 度 的调查报告 中显示 ， 作业成本 管 理（ ABM） 的使用率为 50%和 52%， 其使用效果满意度低于其他方法 。 类似的 研究 结果刊登在纽约州立奥尔巴尼 分校 ，亥帕瑞恩 和佩珀的研究
48、 （ SHAPS 调查） 指出 ：在同一 时期 ，他们发现 作业成本法 的 使用价值与其使用率一样处于下降趋势。 尽管这些研究 得出 很多负面结果， 但是也有很多 案例研究和 报告中可以发现 许多 公司已经 采用 作业成本 法，并报告 了对其使用价值的满意度 。这些公司将运用作业成本 法 视为 一 种 投资，他们认为值得 花时间和 资源 。进行这项研究的一个动机是为了寻求 一个 问题 的答案 ：“成功 实施作业成本法与没有实施这种方法的结果有什么区 别？” 贯穿 整个价值链 的 成本 与 利润的测量方法 成本分配到产品 、 客户或其他成本对象一直是一个棘手的问题。 在 利润表的 对外报告 中
49、，生产成本必须被分配到 产品 。 但是 对于运营成本控制 、 战略决策 和 绩效评估的目的 来说， 许多 公司在 内部价值链 还分配 的其他功能费用。 用什么方法来衡量成本和整个价值链的利润， 以及不同方法的 使用功能 有何区别？ 目前已 确定的方法中最常用的类型为： （ 1） 实际成本核算 （ 2）定额成本核算 （ 3） 标准成本核算 （ 4）作业 成本核算 成本核算方法的类型与 操作系统 一样多种多样，但是 大多数 公司 都是 从 上面四种方 法中选择核算方法的 。事实上， 那些 公司 中大部分是使用以上这些方法中的一种 。 通过调查，各种成本核算方法在整个价值链中 的 使用情况， 我们可以得出以下结论： （ 1）除了与 生产有 直接关系 的费用外，很大一部分的成本是没有 被 分配到成本对象 中的 。 （ 2）对于产品 成本，标准成本 核算方法 仍然 占有“最高使用率”， 占 42%。 （ 3） 与一般 观点 相反， 作业成本法是贯穿 整个价值链 的，与标准成本法具有几乎相同的使用率 。 作业成本法并 不是 核算 产品生产 成本 的特殊 方法。 至于 作业成本法的 整体满意度，我们
