利用作业成本法(ABC)衡量商业贷款组合的盈利能力【外文翻译】

Kaplan和Norton访谈系列(一)【编者按】从本期开始将陆续推出暨南大学丁友刚及姚姿翻译的Kaplan和Norton系列访谈。

本文是1998年12月,Kaplan教授首次访问印度,并在清奈市举办的印度工业联合会的第二届“全面成本管理”国际研讨会上作了关于综合成本系统的主题讲演之后,《今日商业》(BusinessToday)杂志社的R.Sridharan对他进行了一个小时的访问。

这次关于作业成本法和平衡记分卡的独家访谈摘录如下:R.Sridharan:Kaplan先生,成本作为一个管理学的概念,在20世纪里发生了怎样的变化?Kaplan:15年前,那些和成本系统打交道的人都认为成本系统是用来衡量过去的。

现在我们认识到我们需要从未来的角度考察成本。

我们必须要了解我们当前所作所为的结果是什么,以及这些所作所为将对未来成本的影响方式。

作业成本法能帮助我们理解那些影响成本的决策。

因此,成本已经从被动的记录职能转变成一种主动的,并且能够对未来产生影响的职能。

这使得财务人员进一步成为管理团队的成员,成为价值增值过程的一部分,而不仅仅是簿记员。

R.Sridharan:没错。

那成本系统在过去的几十年里是如何发展的呢?Kaplan:从相互脱节的财务报告阶段,也就是我称之为的第一阶段开始,成本系统的发展已经经历了第二和第三阶段,数据和财务报告的质量都得到了改善。

最好的公司是处于第三阶段的。

在这些公司,成本数据都是根据特定目的需要而计算加工的,但成本数据仍然是独立的。

到第四阶段,管理报告和控制系统将得到充分整合,同时为内部报告和外部报告提供所需要的信息。

这套整合的系统不仅能够为经营和战略控制提供业绩信息,同时能够准确衡量产品和顾客盈利能力。

R.Sridharan:作业成本法已经成为新经济时代成本计算系统的基础。

但是大多数公司仍然不是很清楚如何实施作业成本法。

您是怎么做的呢?Kaplan:首先,要明确作业成本法的目标,同时要建立一个团队。

成本管理外文文献及翻译关键词：成本管理管理措施在市场经济条件下，随着全球经济一体化的发展，市场竞争日趋激烈，企业利润空间缩小。

在这种情况下，业务成本的高低水平，直接决定企业的盈利能力和竞争实力的大小。

因此，加强企业成本管理业务已经成为一个生存和发展的必然选择。

从成本管理的目的来看，许多企业局限于降低成本，但较少从成本效益的降低来着手，主要依靠储蓄成效方面来实现的，不能合乎成本效益。

传统的成本管理目的已经减少，以降低成本，节约成本为基本手段。

从成本管理的角度来分析这一目标成本管理，不难发现，成本降低是有条件和限制的，在某些情况下，成本控制可能导致产品质量和企业效益下滑。

此外，绝大多数企业在成本管理也都缺乏整体观念，大多数公司都有一个共同的现象，那就是，依靠财务人员进行管理成本。

在成本管理过程的实施中，一些企业只注重成本核算，一些企业领导只关心财务和成本报表，从而使用报表来管理成本。

这种做法虽然减少了成本的一定作用，但归根结底，成本会计或事后控制，没有做到在成本控制和过程控制发生之前，不可替代成本费用管理。

（三）成本信息严重失真在中国，有相当数量的企业有成本信息不真实的情况下，这种状况正在恶化。

成本信息失真主要是由以下原因引起：首先，成本仅在材料，人工，制造费用的环节成为了一个焦点，现代企业的产品开发正在日益增加，却忽略了测试和中间试验和售后服务上与内容相关的投入成本的小群产品，对这些产品不完整的，不正确的评价，在整个生命周期成本效益过程起着非常重要的作用。

第二是成本核算方法不当造成的失真。

一个高度劳动密集型企业，在过去几年中，简单的假设（即直接人工小时或生产为基础分配间接费用），通常不会严重的引起扭曲产品成本的核算。

但在现代制造业环境中，直接劳动成本所占的比例显著下降，而制造成本的比例大幅增加，因此，使用传统的成本计算方法会产生不合理的行为，利用传统的成本核算，在产品成本信息中将导致严重的扭曲，使企业错误的选择产品的方向。

作业成本法的概念及计算方式作业成本法（Activity-based costing，简称ABC）是一种通过对企业各项作业进行精确配算，以获取更准确的产品与服务成本信息的成本管理方法。

它的核心理念是将企业的活动、作业和成本之间的关系进行解构，从而实现对成本的准确计算与管理。

作业成本法首先识别出企业的各项活动和作业，并将成本分配给这些活动和作业的过程，然后再将这些成本分配给各个产品或服务。

与传统的成本分配方法相比，作业成本法更为准确，能够更好地指导企业进行成本控制和决策。

首先是作业活动分析。

作业活动分析是指对企业的各项活动进行细致的分析，以确定与作业相关的活动。

首先需要确定活动，在ABC中，活动被解构为更小的单位，称为作业。

作业是一项可计量的任务或任务组合，是完成特定产品或服务所必需的一系列活动。

例如，对于汽车制造企业来说，焊接、喷漆、装配等都可以作为作业。

接下来是作业成本分配。

作业成本分配是指将企业产生的成本分配到各个作业上，并通过作业来分配到各个产品或服务上。

具体的步骤如下：1.确定成本驱动因素：成本驱动因素是影响作业成本发生的主要因素，也是作业成本分配的基础。

例如，在汽车制造企业中，焊接作业的成本驱动因素可能是焊接时间或焊接的工件数量。

2.识别成本对象：成本对象是指使该成本发生的原因。

在作业成本法中，成本对象可以是产品、客户、项目等。

确定成本对象是为了将成本更准确地分配给具体的对象。

3.计算活动成本池：活动成本池是指与其中一活动相关的成本总和。

活动成本池主要由直接成本和间接成本构成。

直接成本是与这一活动直接相关的成本，而间接成本则是与多个活动相关的成本。

4.计算作业成本：作业成本是在活动成本池的基础上，根据成本驱动因素将成本分配到各个作业上的过程。

这一过程通常使用成本驱动因素来计算作业成本，例如，在焊接作业中，可以通过焊接时间来计算作业的成本。

5.分配作业成本到成本对象：最后一步是将作业成本分配到具体的成本对象上。

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：_______THE RESEARCH OF INTEGRATED ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING ANDECONOMIC VALUE ADDED SYSTEM AS A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT TOOLNarcyz RoztockiState Un iversity of New YorkABSTRACTThis paper describes a field study which examines the implementation of an integrated Activity-Based Cost ing and Econo mic Value Added System in two small manu facturi ng firms. The results of this study suggest that this in tegrated approach outperforms both traditi onal cost acco un ti ng and sta ndard Activity-Based Costi ng methods. Furthermore, the findings from two small compa nies show that there liability of cost in formatio n obta ined by this in tegrated system in creases substa ntially whe n differe nces 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 allocati on are also exam in ed. Fin ally, the impact of this in tegrated approach on the decisi on-mak ing、strategic pla nning and Ion g-term bus in ess performa nee of the two participat ing compa nies is discussed.KEYWORDS Activity-Based Cost ing; Econ omic Value Added; strategic man ageme ntIn troducti onIn today ' bus in ess en vir onment, many manu facturi ng compa nies are fac ing a fierce competitio n in domestic and global markets impleme nti ng strategic man ageme nt tools, in order to in crease their competitive ness. Activity-Based Costi ng (ABC) and Econo mic 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.MethodologyA 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 implementationmethodology 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 appreciatethe 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. Becausefactors 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 COMPANIESIn this section, the implementation of the proposed Integrated ABC-EVA System at two small manufacturing companies is presented. The managers of the companies wishedfor their company names to remain anonymous. Therefore, they will be referred to as “ Company“ 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 XCompany X, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was a small manufacturing company with approximately 30 employees. Company X ' s main products lines were Ov、erMlaeyms branes、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 groupwas 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 YCompany 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, Company 's Y employed approximately 40 people. The majority of this compa ny' 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 t-ouseenrds, while the remainderwas 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 systemsDuring 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 RESULTSThe 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 areexam ined closely for possible allocati on errors.4.1 Data An alysis for Compa ny XThe data an alysis for Compa ny X bega n with an exam in ati on of its cost structure. Compa ny X' s overall costs for 1998 were evaluated by compari ng the perce ntages of direct costs (direct labor and direct material) operating costs (overhead) and capital costs as shown in Exhibit 1.Capital costs, at 11.6 perce nt, represe nteda no table porti on of Compa ny X' stotal costs. This relatively high capital costs could be expla ined by high in vestme nts in special equipme nt and fixed assets. In additi on, Compa ny X required a relatively large amount of worki ng 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.The In tegrated ABC-EVA System, tak ing in to acco unt capital costs, revealed that theoverall product cost was actually 13.1 percent higher than either TCA or ABC estimated. The differenee in product cost, however, was not uniform across all product lines. After adding capital costs to the productcost 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 anyirbit allocati on of capital costs to the product cost obta ined by using the ABC system would produce in exact product cost in formati on. For example, add ing 13.1 perce nt to all product lines would distort the product costs for Compa ny X.Company X' smanagemert was surprised when presented with the results of using the In tegrated ABC-EVA System. Familiarized with the calculati ons used, the man agers 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 con trast, for the Laser product line (con sidered to be profitable accord ing to the TCA and ABC systems, but revealed to be destructive to shareholder value by the Integrated ABC-EVA System), the managersannounced changes in their pricing policies, as well as additional cost reduct ion efforts. Furthermore, they con sidered new outsourci ng policies for un profitable low volume product lines (such as N ' Caps and Mi s cPaaiseou4.2 Data An alysis for Compa ny YThe data an alysis for Compa ny Y also bega n with an exam in ati on of its cost structure. As in Company X' sanalysis, Company Y' scosts for 1998 were evaluated by comparing the percentagesof direct costs (direct labor and direct material)> operating costs (overhead) and capital costs as show n in Exhibit 4.Operat ing costs, at approximately 42 perce nt, represe nted a no table porti on of Compa ny Y total costs. Compa ny Y ' s bus in ess, with its customized products (such as motors and gen erators) 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 Compa ny X, product cost in formati on for four product lin es, obta ined by the three costi ng systems, was inv estigated and prese nted to the man agers. Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 prese nt results of this an alysis.Aga in, the In tegrated ABC-EVA System tak ing into acco unt capital costs, revealed that the overall product cost was higher than TCA or ABC estimated, this time by 7.6 percent. This differenee 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 con cluded that an arbitrary allocati on of capital costs to the product cost obta ined by the ABC system will distort, though not substa ntially, the product cost.Compa ny Y' s man ageme nt was especially surprised by the fact that the Motors and Motor Parts product line, which was believed to be highly profitable under both the TCA calculation and the ABC, was not actually able to create any economic value. This assumption of profitability was con tradicted by the In tegrated ABC-a nd-EVA System. Because the Econo mic Value Added for Motors and Motor Parts product line was only slightly negative, the managers believed a slight in crease in price would make the Motors and Motor Parts product line a value creator. I n their opinion, this price in creasewas feasible since the compa ny had an especially strong market position in this particular product line.4.3 Summary of the ResultsThis an alysis shows that the ability of the In tegrated ABC-EVA System to provide reliable cost in formatio n in creases especially in cases where products are dissimilar、manu facturi ng tech no logies and equipme nt are diverse and capital cost is high. Of the compa nies studied, Company X had not only the higher capital costs, but also the greatest product diversity, As a result, the analysis showed a relatively high distortion in product cost between the ABC and ABC- EVA systems;The highest distortion in product cost between the TCA and ABC-EVA systems was observed in Company Y, which had the higher operating costs. In the case of Company Y, the ABC component of the Integrated ABC- EVA System was able to trace operating cost accurately, compared to the TCA system which simply allocated operating cost based on direct labor hours.5 CONCLUSIONSThe findings for both companies are highly similar. These findings confirm that traditional accounting systems often provide inaccurate、incomplete and unreliable cost information. Arbitrary allocation of operating and capital costs may often lead to distortions in product cost.Furthermore, the results suggest that the ABC system alone, though able to manage operating expenses and shows deficiencies, especially when capital investments are substantially diverse. When capital investments are substantially diverse (because of variation in production volume, technology, setups, materials or product complexity, for example), the ABC system is no Ion ger a reliable strategic man ageme nt tool for successful decisiomak ing.The managers of each company in the field study expressed great satisfaction with the reliability and completeness of the Integrated ABC-EVA System. They regarded the System as a very useful strategic managerial tool. As a result of this implementation, the managers also changed certain corporate policies. These changesincluded adjustments in product costing、marketing strategies and perception of customer profitability. Overall, this field study demonstrated that the integration of a costing system with a financial performance measure in the form of Integrated ABC-EVA System will help manufacturing companies make an effective long-term business strategy.原文来源:The Integrated Activity-Based Costing and Economic Value Added Systemas a Strategic Management Tool: A Field Study[J]. Engineering Management Journal, 2000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Narcyz Roztocki纽约州立大学摘要本文针对两家小制造公司的作业成本法和经济增加值整合系统的应用进行案例分析。

作业成本法下的产品盈利能力分析王福胜1,王玉婷2,李汉铃1(1.哈尔滨工业大学管理学院,黑龙江哈尔滨150001; 2.宁波大学,浙江宁波315000)摘要:不同的成本计算方法往往导致不同的成本计算结果,从而影响产品盈利能力的评价结果.传统的成本计算方法歪曲了产品盈利能力信息;作业成本计算通过区分间接费用的成本动因,将间接费用依据成本动因追溯于产品成本,避免了成本信息的扭曲,使产品盈利能力评价结果更加可靠.用作业成本法计算产品成本时,长期变动成本是按实际使用的生产能力计入成本对象的,在产品成本中剔除了不应由产品负担的生产能力闲置成本,有助于正确地进行盈利能力评价.通过作业成本计算模型的构建并引入“虚拟产品”的概念,可以方便地计算出“未使用的生产能力成本”,为评估生产能力闲置而产生的浪费提供了可行的方法.关键词:作业成本法;盈利能力;成本动因中图分类号: F234.3文献标识码: A文章编号:0367-6234(2002)02-0261-04 Product profitability analysis using operating cost methodWANG Fu-sheng1, WANG Yu-ting2, LI Han-ling1(1. School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China; 2. Ningbo University, Ningbo 315000, China) Abstract:Different cost accounting methods usually lead to different cost accounting results thereby having their effect on the results of product profitability evaluation. The traditional cost accounting method misrep- resents the product profitability information, and the operating cost accounting method differentates the dy-namic causes for cost as basis for indirect cost and trace them down from the product costs thereby avoidingdistortion of cost information. While the product cost is accounted using the operating cost, the long vary-ing cost is taken into account as the actually used production capability, and the cost resulting from idle pro-duction capability, which should not be borne by the product, is removed from the product cost, and thisfacilitates the correct evaluation of product profitability. The construction of model for operating cost ac-counting and the introduction of”virtual product”make the calculation for”unused production capability cost”easy, and this provides a feasible method for evaluating the waste resulting from idle production capa-bility.Key words:operating cost method; profitability; dynamic cause for cost产品盈利能力分析可以帮助管理者寻找盈利能力最强的产品并集中力量发展这些产品.产品盈利能力分析的结果往往决定了企业的产品组合或品种结构.收稿日期:2002-01-18.作者简介:王福胜(1964-),男,教授产品的盈利能力可以用产品的销售利润率指标加以衡量.但不同的成本计算方法往往导致不同的成本计算结果,从而影响产品盈利能力的评价.传统的制造成本计算法因其对间接制造费用的分配有较大的主观随意性,导致产品成本信息失真,不能客观地揭示产品的盈利能力.90年代兴起的作业成本计算法,正是为了解决传统成本会计和管理会计的缺陷而提出来的.它依据资源耗费的因果关系进行成本计算,按引起间接费用发生的多种“成本动因”进行成本分配,使成本的可归属性大大提高,从而为企业成本控制、管理决策提供更为准确的信息.本文对作业成本法下的产品盈利能力分析方法加以研究,论证传统产品盈利能力分析方法的局限性,并利用作业成本计算模型研究生产能力闲置而产生的浪费的评估方法.1传统成本计算方法的盈利能力分析为了方便讨论,本文从一个实际的机电产品公司(以下简称公司)中抽象出一个简化的案例.对传统成本计算方法和作业成本法下的产品盈利能力分析进行比较.该公司生产甲、乙、丙三种产品;假定产销平衡,其经营过程共归并为八个作业中心.有关的销售情况、成本资料和作业情况见表1、表2.传统成本计算法将间接费用按照全厂统一分配率或部门分配率计入产品成本,本例以机时为分配基础计算全厂统一分配率.详细计算分析结果见表3.表1公司销售及成本资料Table 1Corporate sales and cost information产品单价销量销售收入直接材料直接人工制造费用制造及其他费用分配率甲产品46 800 36800 10 4乙产品38 1000 38000 8 2丙产品55 500 27500 11 554 28954 289/1920=28.275 5表2公司作业成本资料Table 2Corporate operating cost information作业中心成本动因成本动因量甲乙丙合计生产能力作业成本成本动因率设计设计小时250 200 350 800 960 12 000 12.5定单处理定单数量30 40 60 130 200 1 900 9.5调试准备整备次数4 8 8 20 25 1 875 75材料处理部件数量12 8 21 28 100 28 100 5 620 0.2加工机时0.9 0.75 0.9 1 920 1 920 14 208 7.4质量测试测试小时0.6 0.25 0.75 1 105 1 105 3 536 3.2生产监督监督时间70 70 100 240 300 1 950 6.5包装运输发货次数30 30 50 110 200 13 200 66表3传统的盈利能力分析Table 3Traditional profitability analysis单位:元产品直接材料直接人工制造费用及其他单位总成本单价单位产品利润产品利润率/%甲产品10.00 4.00 25.45 39.45 46.00 6.55 14.24乙产品8.00 2.00 21.21 31.21 38.00 6.79 17.87丙产品11.00 5.00 25.45 41.45 55.00 13.55 24.64 表3显示该公司三种产品利润率都较高,按照盈利能力大小排序为丙、乙、甲.其中最有利可图的丙产品销量最小,因此(若不考虑其他因素)应大力投资发展丙产品,扩大其生产规模. 2作业成本法下的盈利能力分析首先划分企业的作业中心,找出相应的成本动因,并确定各项作业的生产能力计量,详见表2.其中,材料处理、加工、质量测试是单位层次作业,其成本动因率按实际使用的生产能力计算;其余作业分属批量层次、产品层次,其成本动因率应按可供使用的生产能力计算.表中未列出设施层次作业,因这类作业成本不宜向产品分配,故本例将之略去.根据表2的资料进行成本计算和盈利能力分析,如表4所示.作业成本法下的盈利能力分析Table 4Profitability analysis using operating cost method单位:元产品单位层次成本(ULC) 直接材料直接人工材料处理加工质量测试ULC小计成本动因率0.2 7.4 3.2甲产品(800件) 8000 3200 1920 5328 1536 19984乙产品(1000件) 8000 2000 1600 5550 800 17950丙产品(500件) 5500 2500 2100 3330 1200 14630产品批量层次成本(BLC) 调试与准备订单处理包装和运输BLC小计成本动因率75 9.5 66甲产品(800件) 300 285 1980 2565乙产品(1000件) 600 380 1980 2960丙产品(500件) 600 570 3300 4470产品产品层次成本(PLC)设计生产监督PLC小计成本动因率12.5 6.5甲产品(800件) 3 125 455 3 580乙产品(1000件) 2 500 455 2 955丙产品(500件) 4375 650 5 025产品盈利能力分析总成本单位总成本单价单位产品利润产品利润率/%甲产品(800件) 26 129 32.66 46 13.34 29.00乙产品(1000件) 23 865 23.87 38 14.13 37.18丙产品(500件) 24 125 48.25 55 6.75 12.27表4反映的三种产品虽然都盈利,但与表3比较,盈利能力大小顺序变为乙>甲>丙.原来盈利能力最强的丙产品盈利水平下降了一倍,甲、乙产品则分别上升了一倍多.经分析不难发现,丙产品所需的设计、监督、测试时间最多,说明其设计复杂、制造难度高,且定单处理、发货次数多,说明该产品是小批量生产.传统的成本计算法把间接费用一律按机器小时或人工小时等数量因素分配到各产品中去,掩盖了间接费用的可变性,结果导致产量高、复杂程度低的产品成本偏高,而产量低、复杂程度高的产品成本偏低这样的成本交互补偿现象[1].在本例中,甲、乙产品共同负担了本应由丙产品负担的成本.作业成本计算则通过区分间接费用的成本动因,将成本分类计入产品成本,从而避免了成本信息的扭曲.不仅如此,在用作业成本法计算产品成本时,长期变动成本是按实际使用的生产能力计入成本对象的,这样各种产品的总成本都有了不同程度的降低,剔除了不应由产品负担的生产能力闲置成本,得出正确的盈利能力分析结果.3讨论根据“产品耗用作业、作业耗用资源”这一作业成本计算原理可知,产品成本是生产产品所需的各个作业的成本之和,而作业成本是作业耗用资源的数量与资源价格的乘积,或者是资源动因的数量与动因价格的乘积.据此,可设计出原始的作业成本计算模型.设某厂生产m种产品,有n种作业.以矩阵C表示产品成本,矩阵D表示产品消耗作业的数量(即成本动因量),矩阵S表示单位作业消耗资源的数量,矩阵P表示资源的单位价格.则根据作业成本计算的原理有C = D×S×P[2].事实上,单位作业消耗资源的数量S与资源的单位价格P的乘积即所谓的成本动因率.设矩阵R表示成本动因率,则原始模型可以改进为C = D×R.即c1c2┇cm=d11d12 (1)d21d22 (2)┇┇┇dm1dm2…dmn×r1r2┇rn(1)当公司生产能力过剩时,有必要正确区分可供使用的生产能力、实际使用的生产能力以及未使用的生产能力[3].其中,未使用的生产能力成本不应归集到成本对象上,而应追踪至一个“未使用的生产能力作业”;否则,产品营销队伍就会承担其竞争者不必负担的不合理的成本.因此长期变动成本应按照可供使用的生产能力计算成本动因率,再按实际使用的生产能力计入成本对象.为了确认未使用的生产能力,并进一步简化成本计算模型,可对式(1)作进一步改进.由于某一作业被哪些产品耗用,耗用的数量和比例是可以知道的,用矩阵A表示m种产品耗用的n种作业的比例,矩阵B表示n种作业消耗资源的成本.则有C=A×B,即c1c2┇cmc0=a11a12 (1)a21a22 (2)┇┇┇am1am2…amna01a02 0×b1b2┇bn. (2)式(2)中用一个“虚拟产品”来负担所有未使用的生产能力成本,其成本用C0表示,耗用的n种作业的比例用a0j表示.当某项作业被充分有效地利用时,a0j=0.另外,aij为第i种产品耗用作业j的比例,bj为作业j所耗资源的成本,且∑mi=1aij+ a0j=1(i =1,2,…,m; j =1,2,…,n.).(3)在本例中应用式(2)不仅可以避免令人眼花缭乱的表上作业,而且可以直观地揭示未使用的生产能力成本.根据表2的作业成本资料,矩阵A和B可以直接得到,各产品的成本计算如下:C甲′C乙′C丙′C0=12×80028 1000.9×8001 9200.6×8001 1054253020030200250960703008×1 00028 1000.75×1 0001 9200.25×1 0001 10582540200302002009607030021×50028 1000.9×5001 9200.75×5001 10582560200502003509601003000 0 0525702009020016096060300×(5 62014 208 3 536 1 875 1 90013 20012 000 1 950)T= (1492913865161259370)T.各产品的单位间接费用为甲产品=14929/800=18.66,乙产品=13865/1000=13.87,丙产品=16125/500=32.25,C甲18.66 10 4 32.66C乙= 13.87 + 8 + 2 = 23.87C丙32.25 11 5 48.25可见,计算结果与表4一致.未使用的生产能力成本一共是9 370元,由此在企业闲置生产能力消除或另作他用的前提下可能降低的成本得到了清楚的确认.此外,为了考察产品补偿各层次成本的能力,可将盈利能力分析扩展到单位贡献、批次贡献、产品贡献.用P代表收入矩阵;Mu、Mb、Mp分别代表单位、批次、产品贡献矩阵;CULC、CBLC、CPLC分别代表单位、批次、产品层次的成本矩阵,其中CULC由各产品耗用单位层次作业的比例矩阵与各单位层次作业消耗资源的成本矩阵相乘得到,CBLC、CPLC也可根据式(2)用相同的方法计算得出.则有如下结果:Mu= P- CULC=36 800 8000 3200 8784 1681638 000 - 8000- 2000 - 7950 = 2005027 500 5500 2500 6630 1287016816 2565Mb= Mu- CBLC= 20050 - 296012870 4470=14 25117 0908 400,Mp= Mb- CPLC=14251170908400-358029555025=10671141353375,13.26-3.212.968.94-4.472.9610.05=13.3414.136.75.计算结果与表4单位产品利润一栏一致.可见,按照成本层次划分观点,根据分类分配间接费用的思想,利用作业成本计算模型,不仅能够揭示产品成本的分步补偿过程,而且得出了明细化的更为准确的盈利能力分析结果[4].4结论(1)传统的制造成本计算法和作业成本计算法对产品盈利能力的评价结果往往会有很大差异,作业成本法所得的评价结果更为可靠;(2)作业成本计算模型的构建和“虚拟产品”概念的引入,为评估生产能力闲置而产生的浪费提供了可行的方法;(3)利用作业成本计算模型,不仅能够揭示产品成本的分步补偿过程,而且可得到更为详细、准确的盈利能力分析结果.参考文献:[1] DRURY C. Management and accounting[M]. NewYork: International Thomson Business Press, 1996.293-310.[2]李秉祥,王玉欣.作业成本计算模型的研究[J].西安理工大学学报,1999,15(2): 69-73.[3]夏鹏编译.怎样增加ABC法在决策中的价值[J].会计研究, 1993(5): 57-63.[4] COOPER R, KAPLAN R. Activity-based systems:measuring the cost of resource usage[J]. Acc Horiz,1992(9): 1-13.(编辑王小唯)·269·第2期宋学军,等:正交优化设计在超网络划分中的应。

外文文献翻译译文原文Activity-Based Costing and Management Solutions to TraditionalShortcomings of Cost AccountingABSTRACT: Traditional cost accounting has been one main, widely-used approach to costing both internally and externally. This general ledger system acts as the company’s thermometer measuring the health and wealth of the overall business.The conventional methodology though can only summarize the business expenses per the chart of accounts (i.e., labor, material and other).As a result, the company lacks the ability to evaluate the internal efficiency, quality and profitability per product or service line.As a result, the company lacks the ability to evaluate the internal efficiency, quality and profitability per product or service line.The ABC/M approach records, summarizes and reports the spending into costs of activities or processes and eventually associated to each product, service and customers.“Unlike traditional accounting reports that make managers react to by being happy or sad, ABC/M data makes them smarter”[3].KEY WORDS: Accounting, budgeting, cost, estimating, forecasting, life-cycle, and planningTraditionally quality cost accounting has been based on allocating a subjective or calculated range of indirect expenses to direct costs.Because of the increase of indirect and overhead expenses in recent decades, the conventional costing method has become ineffective for quality practitioners and managers.To illustrate, one product or service line may require more resources or time than another.But because the cost of indirect costs are based on a fixed percentage of direct costs (i.e., labor and materials), the overhead expenses are misrepresented or recognized correctly to the final products or services.With the conventional means to cost accounting and cost of quality, it is very difficult to identify if such product or servicen is profitable and produced via quality processes or with less wastes [14].The concept of activity-based costing and management (ABC/M) was introduced in the US, initially in the manufacturing sector during 1970s and 1980s. Robin Cooper and Robert Kaplan brought the ABC/M concept to light and published the body of knowledge in the Harvard Business Review in 1988. Cooper and Kaplan defined the ABC/M method as “an approach to solve the problems of traditional cost management systems;” that is,the conventional cost accounting systems are often unable to identify correctly the true costs of processes. Consequently, management and quality professionals are unable to make sound decisions or make decisions based on the misrepresented data [14].On the other hand, the activity-based costing and management approach objectively assigns costs based on the“cost and effect relationships.”The cost of activity is identified and allocated to each product or service if and only if the product or service uses the activity.And in 1987, Robert Kaplan and W. Bruns published in their book,Accounting and Management:Field Study Perspective,the ABC body of knowledge with the initial focus on manufacturing where technology and productivity improvement have reduced the direct costs and increased indirect and overhead expenses [14].Statement of the ProblemIn today’s global competition, quality practitioners and management cannot afford the risk of making decisions based on inaccurate or incomplete data provided by the traditional accounting ledger systems. The introduction and exposure of modern approach to quality and accounting cost is necessary and applicable in both manufacturing products and service delivery.Purpose of the StudyThe thesis work will guide the quality practitioners and decision makers through the unique, more effective approach in defining true costs in the cross-functional processes.This includes the review of the activity-based costing and managementapproach and application within the total quality management framework.Furthermore, ABC/M will be incorporate as the quality solution to conventional cost accounting system via the concepts of lean,cost of quality and forecasting and budgeting.Through the study, the quality professionals and audiences can gain and will be able to expand their perspectives and roles in cost drivers and allocation for process cost control and improvement opportunities.Limitations of the StudyThe thesis effort is limited to the study of both traditional and activity-based approaches to true costs for management and quality professionals to measure existing quality and effectiveness and make sound decisions and for within the company, organization or department.The review and any recommendation of the quality cost approach and system will not displace the conventional cost accounting method in any mean or capacity, as the general ledger system is the sole, standard tool and communication instrument widely accepted among companies.Definition of TermsAACE International is the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International.AACE International is the largest,industry-independent professional society serving the entire spectrum of cost management professionals, including cost estimators,engineers, schedulers, project managers and project controls.AACE International has over 7,000 members from 78 countries around the world.More details and information about AACE International can be obtained via .•Activity is an element of work to be performed to complete a project; it is process or operation requiring time and associated resources.•Activity-based costing (ABC)is a total quality management tool for cost and performance measurement of activities, resources, and cost object (i.e.,products and services).ABC is also known as the “horizontal” or crossfunctional cost view and can provide fact-based insight into the spending and profitability of products, services,customers, districts, distribution lines,and etc.• Activity-based management (ABM)is a total quality management discipline on the management of process improvement activities to lower the cost within an organization. ABM includes such activities as cost driver analysis, performance measurement and process improvement opportunities.• Cost is the amount measured in money in consideration of goods or services. Costs may include cash expended, liability incurred, and resources (i.e. time, human and capital). “Cost is one of the three fundamental attributes associated with performing an activity or the acquisition of an asset. There are price (cost), features (performance), and availability (schedule)” [9].• Cost Estimating is the collection of activities to predict the cost of required resources or quantity to create or deliver a tangible or intangible asset.•Cost Forecasting is very similar to cost estimating process. A key different between cost forecast and cost estimate is that cost estimate is calculated for the future activities while the cost forecast is a prediction of the cost to or at completion of any outstanding cost elements required to create an asset.• Cost of Conformanceis the cost of prevention and appraisal activities to meet pre-set standards or customers’requirements.•Cost of Nonconformance is the cost of internal or external failures. Also,see external and internal failure costs.•Cost trending is estimated based on the historical cost information collected from the experience actual over a predetermined duration. This cost trend information focuses on how budgets and expenditures will be impacted relative to the physical accomplishment or earned value.• Essential Activities refer to either value-adding or nonvalue-adding tasks that are required to be performed in a process (or a collection of activities) to achieve a resulting value (product or service) that customers desired.• External Failure Costs are expenses from products or services failing to conform to pre-set standards or customers’ needs. These costs occur after the product or service delivery to the customer. Examples of external failure costs includewarranty expenses, liabil-ity claims, legal exposure, replacement costs, and complaint and lost of customer loyalty.• Variable Costs are cost elements required in an acquisition of a tangible or intangible asset dependently of the volume of work efforts or outputs. Examples of variable costs include material and production labor costs, production utility expenses and volume- based royalty fees.METHODOLOGYToday’s traditional cost accounting system supports enterprise-wide financial reporting and measure the health of the business. However, this conventional approach to cost is somewhat little value to quality practitioners and decision makers in the areas of cost allocation in a valuestream; cost of quality or poor quality in the enterprise; and forecasting or budgeting for quality.This thesis study will prove the activity- based costing and management is the quality tool and solution to quality cost shortcomings of the standard accounting work in the area of total quality management. This includes the introduction to the concept of ABC/M; its significance in horizontal costing approach in the value stream; ABC/M to identify and reduce cost of quality (COQ); and budgeting and forecasting efforts via activity-based model [10].This article will introduce the quality professionals and decision makers the different approach to defining true costs in the cross-functional processes. This includes the study and the application of the activity-based costing and management approach within the total quality management framework in today’s global competition. In addition, ABC/M will be proven as the quality solution to conventional cost accounting system via the concepts of lean, cost of quality and forecasting and budgeting. The quality practitioners will gain and be able to expand their perspectives and roles in cost drivers and allocation for process cost control and improvement opportunities.Activity-Based Costing and Management and Traditional Cost Accounting SystemOne of the important questions to be explored further in this section is how traditional accounting system that has been widely used as the internal and external cost system is considered inadequate. In addition, why can the activity-based costing and management be a TQM solution of choice to quality cost shortcomings of the conventional costing accounting system? Few key claims shown below will answer the questions posted in details:• Existing cost data is not useless; however, it appears incomplete or unprocessed for internal efficiency, profit or quality analysis and decisionmaking process.• Traditional cost system denies decision makers the visibility of the true costs created along the end-to-end process. And,• Overheads are allocated inappropriately and frequently based on the labor or material expenses via the conventional costing approach.Managers have been posted with operational and cost questions one time or the other, if not periodically. With the traditional cost reporting under the general ledger’s chart of accounts, many of decision makers are not able to explain if their specific production or service areas of responsibilities are effective, productivity or profitable. Tables 1 and 2 provide the insight of the problem at hand; that is, the expenses are allocated based on the chart of account established by the company’s accounting department for both internal and external reporting. With the cost breakdown by the chart of accounts, the recipients (i.e., managers or quality practitioners) of the information can only tell the costs of labor, material and other.In addition, the conventional approach to cost is considered a vertical, organiz ational or “transaction-centric”costing system. To illustrate, all expenses incurred are associated to the costs within the departments or cost centers. This method lacks the ability to report process costs across-functional, limiting managers the visibility of the true end-to-end costs of each process and system. For example, the pre-mixed powder drink packing can be viewed at department levels such as packing, quality control, shipping and handling. On the other hand, the end-to-end packagingprocess can be looked at via the “work-centric” ABC/M as collective efforts and resources to manufacture a final premixed powder drink pouch [5].Activity-Based Cost Allocation and Lean Value Stream MapThe standard costing approach was developed in the mid-20th century to meet the decision-making requirement in the mass production type organizations. As manufacturing and service industries change from mass to lean production, because of the changes of the demands and the complexity of the consumer goods, the conventional way to approach costing has become unsuited for lean initiatives.As the result, B.H. Maskell suggested a unique view of allocating expenses via the value-steam-based methodology; that is, the cost of a process will be composed of the labor, materials and assignable overheadexpenses for solely activities in the value stream and the optimized flow of the process (See figure 1) [8].The reporting of the “value steam profits”was also addressed in the similar manner. With the efforts to identify both cost and profit via the value stream and associated activities, the value stream managers now can understand, measure and become accountable for the expenses, efficiency and value produced by all value-added or essential, related activities in the process[1].Source: David K. Narong. Activity-Based Costing and Management Solutions to Traditional Shortcomings of Cost Accounting [J]. Cost Engineering, 2009( 8)：11-22译文作业成本法弥补传统成本会计的缺陷摘要：传统的成本会计是一种被广泛应用于成本内部及外部的主要方法。

名词解释作业成本法（一）基本概念作业成本法（Activity-Based Costing，简称ABC法），即基于作业的成本计算法，是20世纪80年代西方管理会计发展和应用起来的新型企业管理理论和方法，它提出将成本计算与成本管理和控制相结合的全面成本管理理念。

作业成本计算方法根据“产品消耗作业、作业消耗资源”的指导思想，将着眼点放在作业上，先根据作业所消耗的资源费用进行分配，再将作业成本分配给产品，得出产品最终成本。

由于直接材料、直接人工等直接费用有明确的成本归属对象，所以在直接费用的确认和归集方法上，作业成本法和传统成本计算法并没有区别。

作业成本法对于成本的确认和归集特殊点主要体现在对间接费用的确认和归集上，作业成本法按作业归集间接费用，依据成本动因对成本进行归集和分配，对于形成产品成本的所有相关费用均纳入成本归集、分配范畴，不仅仅局限于生产阶段发生的成本，这使得产品最终成本更加科学、合理，同时采用多样化的分配标准（作业动因、成本动因）归集成本也有利于企业进行业绩评价。

（二）涉及的相关概念1.资源进入企业的人力、物力、财力等都属于资源范畴，包括货币资源、材料资源、人力资源、动力资源等。

资源是指支持作业的成本和费用来源，是一定期间内为了生产产品或提供服务所发生的各类成本、费用项目，或者是作业执行过程中所需要花费的代价。

资源进入企业，不一定都被消耗，即便被消耗也不一定对最终产出有所贡献。

企业要区别有用消耗和无用消耗，把无用消耗价值单独归集到不增值作业价值中去，而将有用耗费的价值分配到作业中去。

作业成本计算以资源作为成本计算对象，是在价值形成的最初形态上反映被最终产出吸纳的有意义的资源消耗价值。

例如，材料运输是采购部门的一项作业，那么相应运输费用、车辆折旧费、搬运人员的职工薪酬、电话费等都是运输作业的资源费用。

制造行业中典型的资源项目一般有原材料、辅助材料、燃料、动力、工资、折旧、办公费、修理费以及运输费等。

第一章绪论1.1选题背景及意义1.1.1选题背景（1）激烈的市场竞争随着时代的发展，我国一些制造业企业迅速发展起来。

如何在激烈的竞争中保持生存发展是企业永恒的主题。

在市场竞争激烈的今天，企业的首要任务就是盈利。

因此企业无论何时都要保持竞争力，做的任何一个决策都要尽可能准确，成本信息就是企业决策最重要的资源之一。

如果企业的成本信息系统不能准确反映资源的消耗，有可能导致成本信息失误而做出错误的决策，导致企业放弃有利可图的产品，或者导致商品定价过高或者过低而丧失顾客。

若企业竞争对手利用管理人员的信息失误而赢得顾客，这对企业是极具破坏性的。

因此在市场竞争激烈的今天，企业很重视成本信息的准确性，因此更倾向于采用核算更加精确的作业成本法。

作业成本法（Activity Based Costing）又叫ABC法，是一种比传统成本核算方法更加精细和准确的成本核算方法，是西方国家于八十年代末开始研究，九十年代以来在先进制造企业首先应用起来的一种的需要投入大量的人力、财力、物力企业管理理论和方法。

（2）科学技术的发展和管理理念的革新随着科学技术的发展，产生了一系列先进的机器设备，如电子计算机、智能机器人、数控机床等，对传统的生产和管理模式产生了巨大的冲击。

企业要顺应时代的发展，就必须，采用先进的科学技术以适应科技革命带来的一系列变化。

及此同时，企业相应地形成了新的企业观。

企业的管理已经渐渐地深入到作业水平，以“作业”为企业的管理和核心，深化了企业的管理层次，标志着企业管理历史上的重大变革，成本计算方法的革新也势在必行。

（3）企业生产模式的转变随着时代的发展，企业从传统的生产大批量模式转变为多品种小批量生产模式。

随着企业生产方式的变化，生产技术、产品的复杂程的变化，许多人工被机器取代，及此同时，机器设备价值越来越高，对应的维护费用、折旧费用越来越高，加上高科技下维护费用等间接费用的增加，使产品成本结构有了较大变化。

直接人工成本的比例大大减少，而间接费用的比例大幅度增加。