No abstract

No abstract

Practitioners in Europe and the U.S. recently have proposed two distinct approaches to address what they believe are shortcomings of traditional budgeting practices. One approach advocates improving the budgeting process and primarily focuses on the planning problems with budgeting. The other advocates abandoning the budget and primarily focuses on the performance evaluation problems with budgeting. This paper provides an overview and research perspective on these two recent developments. We discuss why practitioners have become dissatisfied with budgets, describe the two distinct approaches, place them in a research context, suggest insights that may aid the practitioners, and use the practitioner perspectives to identify fruitful areas for research.

Budgeting accomplishes many goals in an organization and evaluating the potential impact of a change is difficult. I investigate the organization-wide effects of three distinct budgeting alternatives (rolling budgets, activity-based budgeting and beyond budgeting) using a model that incorporates three important budgeting functions: forecasting, operational planning and performance evaluation. From the perspective of the whole organization, each budgeting alternative improves profits. I then examine the department preferences for each alternative when each function is under the control of a different department and each department has its own, department-specific performance metric. Forecasting is judged on the variance of the base demand forecast, operational planning on the expected unit capacity costs and performance evaluation on the salesperson's expected action. In my model all departments always favor rolling forecasts, while only one department always favors beyond budgeting (or activity-based budgeting). For beyond budgeting and activity-based budgeting, the preferences of the two other departments vary depending upon the model parameters.

The academic and practitioner literature justifies firms' use of product costs in product pricing and capacity planning decisions as heuristics to address an otherwise intractable problem. However, product costs are the output of a cost reporting system, which itself is the outcome of heuristic design choices. In particular, because of informational limitations, when designing cost systems firms use simple rules of thumb to group resources into cost pools and to select drivers used to allocate the pooled costs to products. Using simulations, we examine how popular choices in costing system design influence the error in reported costs. Taking information needs into account, we offer alternative ways to translate the vague guidance in the literature to implementable methods. Specifically, we compare size-based rules for forming cost pools with more informationally demanding correlation-based rules and develop a blended method that performs well in terms of accuracy. In addition, our analysis suggests that significant gains can be made from using a composite driver rather than selecting a driver based on the consumption pattern for the largest resource only, especially when combined with correlation-based rules to group resources. We vary properties of the underlying cost structure (such as the skewness in resource costs, the traceability of resources to products, the sharing of resources across products, and the variance in resource consumption patterns) to address the generalizability of our findings and to show when different heuristics might be preferred. This paper was accepted by Stefan Reichelstein, accounting.costing, estimation, activity-based costing, cost drivers, cost pools