外文文献翻译--作为战略管理工具的作业成本法和经济-增加值的整合研究-学位论文.doc

外文文献翻译

2010 届

译文一：作为战略管理工具的作业成本法和经济增加值的整合研究
译文二：运用作业成本法和经济增加值的具体应用：小制造企业

学生姓名 缪金钗
学 号 06111123
院 系 经济与管理学院
专 业 会计
指导教师 赵秀芳
完成日期 2009年11月30日

14

THE RESEARCH OF INTEGRATED ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING AND ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED SYSTEM AS A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT TOOL
Narcyz Roztocki
State University of New York
ABSTRACT

This paper describes a field study which examines the implementation of an integrated Activity-Based Costing and Economic Value Added System in two small manufacturing firms. The results of this study suggest that this integrated approach outperforms both traditional cost accounting and standard Activity-Based Costing methods. Furthermore, the findings from two small companies show that there liability of cost information obtained by this integrated system increases substantially when differences in capital usage exist. Factors that could create these differences in capital usage and lead to distorted cost information are discussed. Using actual data from the field study, possible distortions to product cost as a result of a homogenous capital cost allocation are also examined. Finally, the impact of this integrated approach on the decision-making、strategic planning and long-term business performance of the two participating companies is discussed.

KEYWORDS Activity-Based Costing; Economic Value Added; strategic management
Introduction
In today’s business environment, many manufacturing companies are facing a fierce competition in domestic and global markets implementing strategic management tools, in order to increase their competitiveness. Activity-Based Costing (ABC) and Economic Value Added（EVA）are two such examples of these strategic management tools.
Traditionally, ABC and Economic Value Added methods have been used separately. ABC has been used as a costing system, mainly to improve operating efficiency; while Economic Value Added has been used as a financial performance measure, mainly to improve financial efficiency. In recent years, some researchers have proposed that ABC should be combined with Economic Value Added to create an integrated costing and performance system(Hubbell, 1996a; Hubbell, 1996b; Cooper & Slagmulder, 1999; Roztocki & Needy, 1999c). The ABC component of this integrated system would focus on operating expenses while the Economic Value Added component would focus on capital costs, however, this integrated strategic management system would be able to account for all costs incurred in the process of generating products、jobs or services.
This paper describes a field study at two small manufacturing companies where three different costing systems (Traditional Cost Accounting, ABC, and the Integrated ABC-EVA System) were used to obtain product cost information. The results they yielded were compared. The main focus of this analysis was to identify factors that lead to distortions in product cost information in both the Traditional Cost Accounting (TCA) and common ABC systems and to demonstrate the reliability of product cost information in the Integrated ABC-EVA System.
Methodology
A field study was chosen as the main research methodology. The field study was carried
out in four major phases: system design、system implementation、data collection, and data analysis. The Managers were able to actively participate in each phase of the study.
In preparation for the design phase, managers were familiarized with the Integrated ABC and EVA System. Presentations on combining ABC with Economic Value Added and examples of successful implementation in companies were given. Then, in the first phase, an Integrated ABC and EVA System was designed for each participating company.
In the second phase, the individually tailored Integrated ABC-EVA Systems were implemented, alongside existing costing and accounting systems. During these initial phases, methodology developed by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and the State University of New York at New Paltz was applied. (For more details about this methodology, which was developed in order to more efficiently implement the Integrated ABC-EVA System in a small business environment, an interested reader may refer to the cited articles.)
In the third phase, data drawn from each costing system was collected from all participants and brought together with the researchers’ ongoing calculations.
In the fourth phase, the collected data was analyzed. Using the step-by-step implementation methodology to perform their own calculations, the managers were able to verify the figures which we had recorded independently and to observe the agreement between our calculations and theirs. This “hands on” approach enabled the managers to better understand and appreciate the consistency of the system.
The data analysis yielded individual findings for each company. These findings were then compared in order to reach a conclusion about the value of the Integrated ABC-EVA System for manufacturing companies in general. The more specific objective of the data analysis was to investigate which factors may distort information provided by the TCA or ABC system when capital costs are not allocated or are allocated arbitrarily. Because factors such as diversity in production volume、product size、product complexity、 material and setups often tend to distort cost information (Cooper, 1988), these factors are examined closely for possible capital allocation distortions.
By tracing operating costs to cost objects, the ABC system has the ability to eliminate many of these distortions by using multiple (operating) cost drivers. However, because the ABC system does not take into account capital costs, it can be assumed that an arbitrary capital costs allocation may allow other distortions to occur. In addition, it can be assumed that since the standard ABC cost analysis only considers direct and operating costs, the managers who are forced to make their decisions based on operating profits alone, or who try to somehow arbitrarily allocate capital charges to cost objects will sometimes make wrong decisions.
A FIELD STUDY:SMALL MANUFACTURING COMPANIES
In this section, the implementation of the proposed Integrated ABC-EVA System at two small manufacturing companies is presented. The managers of the companies wished for their company names to remain anonymous. Therefore, they will be referred to as “Company X” and “Company Y” from here on.
Prior to the field study, both companies were using traditional costing systems. The overhead was allocated to product lines based on direct labor hours. In both companies, managers felt that their traditional costing systems were not able to provide reliable cost information.
1 Company X
Company X, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was a small manufacturing company with approximately 30 employees. Company X’s main products lines were Overlays、Membranes、 Laser、Roll Labels and N’Caps. In the mid 1990’s, a group of investors purchased the company from the previous owner-manager who had retired. At the time of the study, the company was managed by its former vice-president, who was supported by a three-person management group. Investors were primarily concerned with financial performance rather than daily decision-making. The management group was very eager to participate in the field study for two reasons. First, the management was under pressure from their new investors who were not satisfied with the current return from existing product lines; Second, management was trying to identify the most lucrative product line in order to initiate a marketing campaign with the biggest impact on overall profits.
2 Company Y
Company Y, also located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was owned and managed by three owner-managers who bought the company from a large corporation in the mid 1990’s, Company Y employed approximately 40 people. The majority of this company’s business was in the area of manufacturing electrical devices and their main product lines were Motors and Motor Parts、Breakers、 and Control Parts. Company Y sold its products in the domestic market as well as abroad. A portion of the company’s output was sold directly to end-users, while the remainder was sold with the help of independent distributors. The management of Company Y was interested in using the Integrated ABC-EVA System for the purpose of cost control and profit planning.
3 Comparison of the costing systems
During the field study, three costing systems (TCA, ABC and the Integrated ABC-EVA System) were used to obtain cost information for each company in order to identify factors which may lead to distortions through arbitrary allocation of capital costs. In a comparison, capital costs were only able to be traced by the Integrated ABC-EVA System. The nature of the TCA and ABC systems resulted in arbitrary allocations of capital costs.
4 RESULTS
The main objective of the data analysis presented in this section is to investigate which factors most often distort information provided by the ABC system. As mentioned in the methodology section, factors such as diversity in production volume、product size、product complexity、 material consumption, and setups often distort cost information. These factors are examined closely for possible allocation errors.
4.1 Data Analysis for Company X
The data analysis for Company X began with an examination of its cost structure. Company X’s overall costs for 1998 were evaluated by comparing the percentages of direct costs (direct labor and direct material)、operating costs (overhead) and capital costs as shown in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1. Cost Analysis for Company X in Thousands of Dollars
Direct Cost
Operating Cost
Capital Cost
Total Cost
1664
829
326
2819
59.0%
29.4%
11.6%
100.0%
Capital costs, at 11.6 percent, represented a notable portion of Company X’s total costs. This relatively high capital costs could be explained by high investments in special equipment and fixed assets. In addition, Company X required a relatively large amount of working capital to support its wide variety of products.
The next step was to calculate product cost information and examine changes across six product lines and three costing systems. Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 present the results.
Exhibit 2. Product Cost Information in Thousands of Dollars
Product Line
TCA
ABC
ABC-EVA
Overlays
Membrane
Laser
1201
621
438
1043
681
415
1216
747
482
Roll Labels
N’Caps
Miscellaneous Parts
134
52
47
179
103
72
189
108
77
Total
2493
2493
2819
Exhibit 3. Changes in Product Cost Information after Including Capital Costs
Product Line
TCA to ABC-and-EVA
ABC to ABC-EVA
Overlays
Membrane
Laser
+ 1.2 %
+ 20.3 %
+ 10.5 %
+ 16.6 %
+ 9.7 %
+ 16.1 %
Roll Labels
N’Caps
Miscellaneous Parts
+ 41.0 %
+ 107.7 %
+ 63.8 %
+ 5.6 %
+ 4.9 %
+ 6.9 %
Total
+ 13.1 %
+ 13.1 %
The Integrated ABC-EVA System, taking into account capital costs, revealed that the overall product cost was actually 13.1 percent higher than either TCA or ABC estimated. The difference in product cost, however, was not uniform across all product lines. After adding capital costs to the product cost obtained from the ABC system, the greatest difference in product cost was observed in the Overlays product line (+ 16.6 %) while the least difference was registered in the N’Caps product line (+ 4.9 %). From this, it can be concluded that an arbitrary allocation of capital costs to the product cost obtained by using the ABC system would produce inexact product cost information. For example, adding 13.1 percent to all product lines would distort the product costs for Company X.
Company X’s management was surprised when presented with the results of using the Integrated ABC-EVA System. Familiarized with the calculations used, the managers agreed that the results were correct. Knowing that the Overlays product line was the only product line which created economic value, they considered extending marketing efforts for this product line. In contrast, for the Laser product line (considered to be profitable according to the TCA and ABC systems, but revealed to be destructive to shareholder value by the Integrated ABC-EVA System), the managers announced changes in their pricing policies, as well as additional cost reduction efforts. Furthermore, they considered new outsourcing policies for unprofitable low volume product lines (such as N’Caps and Miscellaneous Parts).
4.2 Data Analysis for Company Y
The data analysis for Company Y also began with an examination of its cost structure. As in Company X’s analysis, Company Y’s costs for 1998 were evaluated by comparing the percentages of direct costs (direct labor and direct material)、operating costs (overhead) and capital costs as shown in Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 4. Cost Analysis for Company Y in Thousands of Dollars
Direct Cost
Operating Cost
Capital Cost
Total Cost
2866
2334
396
5596
51.2%
41.7%
7.1%
100.0%
Operating costs, at approximately 42 percent, represented a notable portion of Company Y’s total costs. Company Y’s business, with its customized products (such as motors and generators) required a relatively high amount of effort in engineering design、 product specification and supervision. Therefore, a highly qualified work force was essential. The high salaries paid to these employees were the reason for Company Y’s relatively high operating costs.
Next, as in Company X, product cost information for four product lines, obtained by the three costing systems, was investigated and presented to the managers. Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 present results of this analysis.

Exhibit 5. Product Cost Information in Thousands of Dollars
Product Line
TCA
ABC
ABC-EVA
Motors and Motor Parts
Breakers
1839
1261
2348
1324
2528
1437
Control Parts
Miscellaneous Parts
655
1445
554
974
590
1041
Total
5200
5200
5596
Exhibit 6. Changes in Product Cost Information after IncludingCapital Costs
Product Line
TCA to ABC-EVA
ABC to ABC-EVA
Motors and Motor Parts
Breakers
+ 37.5 %
+ 14.0 %
+ 7.7 %
+ 8.5 %
Control Parts
Miscellaneous Parts
-9.9 %
-28.0 %
+ 6.5 %
+ 6.9 %
Total
+ 7.6 %
+ 7.6 %
Again, the Integrated ABC-EVA System taking into account capital costs, revealed that the overall product cost was higher than TCA or ABC estimated, this time by 7.6 percent. This difference in product cost, once again, was not uniform across product lines. The greatest difference (compared to ABC) was registered in the Breakers product line (+ 8.5 %), while the least difference was registered in the Control Parts product line (+ 6.5 %). Once again, it can be concluded that an arbitrary allocation of capital costs to