دانلود مقاله ترجمه شده ارزش افزوده اقتصادی در هزینه یابی هدف – مجله الزویر

elsevier

 

دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی
عنوان فارسی مقاله: الکترونیک: مطالعه موردی ارزش افزوده اقتصادی در هزینه یابی هدف
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: Electronics: A case study of economic value added in target costing
دانلود مقاله انگلیسی: برای دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی با فرمت pdf اینجا کلیک نمائید
خرید ترجمه آماده: برای خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد اینجا کلیک نمائید

 

مشخصات مقاله انگلیسی (PDF) و ترجمه مقاله (Word)
سال انتشار مقاله  ۲۰۱۲
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی  ۱۷ صفحه با فرمت pdf
تعداد صفحات ترجمه مقاله ۴۵ صفحه با فرمت ورد
رشته های مرتبط  مدیریت مالی، حسابداری و اقتصاد
مجله  تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت (Management Accounting Research)
دانشگاه  دانشگاه استون، بیرمنگام، انگلستان (Aston University, Birmingham, England)
کلمات کلیدی  هزینه یابی هدف، مدیریت کارائی، EVA، مطالعه ی موردی
شناسه شاپا یا ISSN ISSN ۱۰۴۴-۵۰۰۵
لینک مقاله در سایت مرجع لینک این مقاله در سایت ساینس دایرکت
نشریه الزویر Untitled

 

 

 


بخشی از ترجمه:

 

با توجه اینکه مسئله ی هزینه یابی هدف و حسابداری مدیریت استراتژیک (SMA) در سطح قابل ملاحظه ای مورد توجه حسابداران قرار گرفته است، ولی پژوهش های تجربی انگشت شماری در رابطه با این مسائل از سوی محققین صورت گرفته است. علاوه بر این، مسئله ی ارزش افزوده نیز در سطح شرکتی مورد توجه پژوهش های بسیار کمی قرار گرفته است.
هدف این مقاله این بوده که با استفاده از تحلیلِ چگونگی بکار گیری EVA (یا همان ارزش افزوده اقتصادی) در سیستم هزینه یابی هدف، مسئله ی حسابداری مدیریت و مدیریت مبتنی بر ارزش را مورد بررسی قرار دهیم. این مسئله، سؤالات مهمی در خصوص امکان نمایش آبشاری EVA از سطح پایین تا سطح محصول، و همچنین سازگاری در مواجهه با مشتری و سهام دار و البته با تمرکز بر روی مدیریت کارائی را به همراه دارد. از این رو شواهد و مدارکی را فراهم نموده ایم مبنی بر اینکه هزینه یابی هدف میتواند به منظور تعدیل و تنظیم این دیدگاه ها استفاده شده و در زمانی که آنرا با سایر تکنیک های SMA ترکیب می¬سازیم.، میتواند آنرا به عنوان یک پلی که فرمولاسیون استراتژی را به اجرای استراتژی و تولید سود متصل می سازد، در نظر گرفت.


بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

 

a b s t r a c t Whilst target costing and strategic management accounting (SMA) continue to be of considerable interest to academic accountants, both suffer from a relative dearth of empirically based research. Simultaneously, the subject of economic value added (EVA) has also been the subject of little research at the level of the individual firm. The aim ofthis paper is to contribute to both the management accounting and value based management literatures by analysing how one major European based MNC introduced EVA into its target costing system. The case raises important questions about both the feasibility of cascading EVA down to product level and the compatibility of customer facing versus shareholder focused systems of performance management. We provide preliminary evidence that target costing can be used to align both of these perspectives, and when combined withother SMAtechniques it canserve as “the bridge connecting strategy formulation with strategy execution and profit generation” (Ansari et al., 2007, p. 512). © ۲۰۱۲ Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Strategic management accounting (SMA) has received considerable attention in recent years (see for example, Langfield-Smith, 2008; Cadez and Guilding, 2008; Anderson, 2007; Gosselin, 2007; Shank, 2007), yet there remains a relative dearth of empirically based research (Cadez and Guilding, 2008) and limited evidence on the use of SMA techniques (Langfield-Smith, 2008), particularly target costing (Ansari et al., 2007). Simultaneously, Otley (2001) highlights economic value added1 as a performance measure worthy of further research in the context of a wider organisational control system, and Gleadle and ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1212045282. E-mail addresses: m.woods@aston.ac.uk (M. Woods), Lynda.Taylor@nottingham.ac.uk (L. Taylor). 1 EVA is used throughout the paper in recognition of the fact that this is the terminology used within the case study company. It is clear, however, that their model is very different from EVA® as marketed by Stern Stewart. Section 2 includes discussion of residual income and alternative approaches to EVA. Cornelius (2008) note that EVA has been little researched at the level of the individual firm. These calls for empirical researchprovide the broadmotivationfor this paper, which uses a case study to illustrate how EVA can be integrated into a target costing system. The case study analyses how a European multinational pilots a refinement of its target costing system from one framed around profit (NOPAT) targets to one based upon product level EVA targets within one of its strategic business units (SBUs). The new target costing system applies solely to modifications to an existing, highly profitable and strategically significant product line. The paper is a direct response to Ansari et al.’s (2007) observation that there is little research addressing the determination of the target rate of return in target costing and their question as to whether the use of ROA or a variant of EVA might be a preferable metric to the commonly used return on sales. Hartman (2000) and Shrieves and Wachowicz (2001) provide a theoretical justification for pushing EVA from corporate down to product level, by demonstrating that a product’s value added, when based primarily on its accounting income rather than cash flows, 1044-5005/$ – see front matter © ۲۰۱۲ Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.09.002 262 M. Woods et al. / Management Accounting Research 23 (2012) 261–۲۷۷ can be used to measure its NPV. Our case evidence indicates, however, that whilst using EVA at product level is theoretically attractive, it remains highly problematic in practice. Zimmerman (1997) highlights both the financial costs and the problems of dealing with shared costs and benefits when using EVA for divisional performance measurement, and his criticisms are reiterated by Francis and Minchington (2002) in their study of the introduction of EVA into a UK water company. Our paper extends their comments on joint costs and synergies from divisional down to product level, and also details the additional complexities introduced by calculating multi-period EVA over a product’s life cycle. We find that where a company reports EVA externally to the market and also uses it as the primary performance metric for internal control and decision making, then it is useful in providing a common language to translate corporate strategy into operational practice. This finding indicates that Otley’s (2001, p. 245) suggestion that “EVA® pays no explicit attention to strategy” does not always hold true. The case study demonstrates how the introduction of value added measures at product level changes the way that cost reduction strategies are evaluated in target costing by drawing attention to capital costs. We show that EVA based target costs encourage more careful evaluation of make versus buy decisions, and direct management attention to working capital control at product level, especially via the introduction of vendor management systems. This evidence complements Kee and Lane’s (2005) observation that when capital costs are excluded from product cost,there is a risk of sub optimal allocation of capital. The study also builds on the broader SMA literature by exploring the interface between cost management and performance management. Ansari et al. (2007) noted that target costing and performance management systems such as the balanced scorecard are very similar as they both start with the voice of the customer and the shareholder and refine organisational processes to meet the needs of both parties. In practice, however, Dodd and Johns (1999) found that the adoption of EVA can cause companies to move away from customer related performance measures. Our case provides initial evidence of how target costing can be used to align customer and shareholder interests in practice. We conclude that customer value and shareholder value are not necessarily conflicting and that Schonberger (1996) is consequently incorrect in his contention that management accounting is irrelevant for controlling the processes underlying enhanced customer value. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the interface between target costing and performance management and presents the theoretical case for using economic based profit measures instead of return on sales in the target costing process. Section 3 details the methodology and Section 4 describes the case study in detail. The concluding discussion addresses the lessons to be gleaned from the case, and the ongoing challenges for management accounting research and practice. 2. Target costing and performance management 2.1. Target costing literature Target costing has been used in Japan since the 1960s, although it was not mentioned in the literature until the late 1970s (Feil et al., 2004). The literature has since evolved to include descriptions oftarget costing principles and process (Ansari et al., 2005; Cooper and Slagmulder, 1999), descriptions and case studies of target costing use and best practice within companies (Hiromoto, 1988; Sakurai, 1990; Monden and Hamada, 1991; Kato, 1993; Yoshikawa et al., 1995; Cooper and Chew, 1996; Ansari and Bell, 1997; Mouritsen et al., 2001; Swenson et al., 2003; Ellram, 2006; Ibusuki and Kaminski, 2007), and surveys of the technique’s adoption in various countries (Tani et al., 1994; Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 1998; Dekker and Smidt, 2003; Rattray et al., 2007). The above studies address a range ofissues including the use of market information in price setting, methods used to identify and meet customer requirements and examples of the initiatives used to reduce costs. There is very little discussion in the literature, however, of the way in which target costing links into corporate level decisions on performance management. In this section we debate these issues by addressing two distinct questions. Firstly, which stakeholder interest groups are served by target costing and to what extent can shareholder and customer interests be seen as complementary? Secondly, what are the pros and cons of alternative performance measures for the target rate of return (return on sales, RI or EVA) that can be used in target costing? 2.2. Stakeholder interests Ansari et al. (2007) describe target costing as a market oriented tool used for profit planning and cost management. Product target cost, calculated as the expected sale price less target profit, using expected sales price as the starting point, reflects the market orientation ofthe costing process (Hiromoto, 1988). The target profit for a product is typically based on the strategic plan for the business which forms the foundation for a corporate profit plan (Kato, 1993). The profit plans incorporate a return on capital measure because capital investment is viewed as integral to product development. Target costing therefore appears to explicitly take account of both shareholder (profit) and customer (price and functionality) needs. This raises questions about how these potentially conflicting demands can be simultaneously met, even within a broad based performance management system such as the balanced scorecard (BSC). Bourguignon (2005) notes that Kaplan and Norton’s thinking about the BSC has shifted from a position which emphasised customer value (Kaplan and Norton, 1992), to one which proclaims the need to also integrate shareholder value management (Kaplan and Norton, 2001). She quotes Kaplan and Norton as stating that “organisations will get the greatest benefit” (KaplanandNorton, 2001,p. 156)from combining the BSC with activity based costing and shareholder value management.


 

 

دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی
عنوان فارسی مقاله: الکترونیک: مطالعه موردی ارزش افزوده اقتصادی در هزینه یابی هدف
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: Electronics: A case study of economic value added in target costing
دانلود مقاله انگلیسی: برای دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی با فرمت pdf اینجا کلیک نمائید
خرید ترجمه آماده: برای خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد اینجا کلیک نمائید

 

 

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *