外文翻译--第三方物流企业的作业成本法
经济与管理专业外文翻译--运用作业成本法和经济增加值的具体应用

A FIELD STUDY:SMALL MANUFACTURINGCOMPANIESIn 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. T herefore, 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 XCompany X, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was a small manufacturing company with approximately 30 employees. Company X’s main products l ines 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 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’s, Company 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 to end-users, while the remainder was sold with the help of independent distributors. The management of Company Y wasinterested 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 are examined closely for possible allocation errors.4.1 Data Analysis for Company XThe 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 DollarsCapital 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 DollarsThe 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 arbit rary 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 managemen t 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 Miscellaneou s Parts).4.2 Data Analysis for Company YThe 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 DollarsOperating 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 DollarsAgain, 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 greatestdifference (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 the product cost obtained by the ABC system will distort, though not substantially, the product cost.Company Y’s management 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 contradicted by the Integrated ABC-and-EVA System. Because the Economic Value Added for Motors and Motor Parts product line was only slightly negative, the managers believed a slight increase in price would make the Motors and Motor Parts product line a value creator. In their opinion, this price increase was feasible since the company had an especially strong market position in this particular product line.4.3 Summary of the ResultsThis analysis shows that the ability of the Integrated ABC-EVA System to provide reliable cost information increases especially in cases where products are dissimilar、manufacturing technologies and equipment are diverse and capital cost is high. Of the companies 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 productionvolume, technology, setups, materials or product complexity, for example), the ABC system is no longer a reliable strategic management tool for successful decision–making.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 changes included 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运用作业成本法和经济增加值的具体应用:小制造企业本部分将阐述两家小制造企业中,被建议使用的ABC-EVA整合系统的实施情况。
第三方物流成本中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文对照外文翻译The application of third party logistics to implement theJust-In-Time system with minimum cost under a global environmentAbstractThe integration of the Just-In-Time (JIT) system with supply chain management has been attracting more and more attention recently. Within the processes of the JIT system, the upstream manufacturer is required to deliver products using smaller delivery lot sizes, at a higher delivery frequency. For the upstream manufacturer who adopts sea transportation to deliver products, a collaborative third party logistics (3PL) can act as an interface between the upstream manufacturer and the downstream partner so that the products can be delivered globally at a lower cost to meet the JIT needs of the downstream partner. In this study, a quantitative JIT cost modelassociated with the application of third party logistics is developed to investigate the optimal production lot size and delivery lot size at the minimum total cost. Finally, a Taiwanese optical drive manufacturer is used as an illustrative case study to demonstrate the feasibility and rationality of the model.1. IntroductionWith the globalization of businesses, the on-time delivery of products through the support of a logistics system has become more and more important. Global corporations must constantly investigate their production systems, distribution systems, and logistics strategies to provide the best customer service at the lowest possible cost.Goetschalckx, Vidal, and Dogan (2002) stated that long-range survival for international corporations will be very difficult without a highly optimized, strategic, and tactical global logistics plan. Stadtler (2005) mentions that the activities and processes should be coordinated along a supply chain to capture decisions in procurement, transportation, production and distribution adequately, and many applications of supplychain management can be found in the literature (e.g. Ha and Krishnan, 2008, Li and Kuo, 2008 and Wang and Sang, 2005). Recently, the study of the Just-In-Time (JIT) system under a global environment has attracted more attention in the Personal Computer (PC) related industries because of the tendency towards vertical disintegration. The JIT system can be implemented to achieve numerous goals such as cost reduction, lead-time reduction, quality assurance, and respect for humanity (Monden, 2002). Owing to the short product life cycle of the personal computer industry, downstream companies usually ask their upstream suppliers to execute the JIT system, so that the benefits, like the risk reduction of price loss incurred from inventory, lead times reduction, on-time delivery, delivery reliability, quality improvement, and lowered cost could be obtained (Shin, Collier, & Wilson, 2000). According to the JIT policy, the manufacturer must deliver the right amount of components, at the right time, and to the right place (Kim & Kim, 2002). The downstream assembler usually asks for higher delivery frequency and smaller delivery lot sizes so as to reduce his inventory cost in the JIT system (Kelle, khateeb, & Miller, 2003). However, large volume products are conveyed using sea transportation, using larger delivery lotsizes to reduce transportation cost during transnational transportation. In these circumstances, corporations often choose specialized service providers to outsource their logistics activities for productivity achievement and/or service enhancements (La Londe & Maltz, 1992). The collaboration of third party logistics (3PL) which is globally connected to the upstream manufacturer and the downstream assembler will be a feasible alternative when the products have to be delivered to the downstream assembler through the JIT system. In this study, the interaction between the manufacturer and the 3PL will be discussed to figure out the related decisions such as the optimal production lot size of the manufacturer and the delivery lot size from the manufacturer to the 3PL, based on its contribution towards obtaining the minimum total cost. In addition, the related assumptions and restrictions are deliberated as well so that the proposed model is implemented successfully. Finally, a Taiwanese PC-related company which practices the JIT system under a global environment is used to illustrate the optimal production lot size and delivery lot size of the proposed cost model.2. Literature reviewThe globalization of the network economy has resulted in a whole new perspective of the traditional JIT system with the fixed quantity-period delivery policy (Khan & Sarker, 2002). The fixed quantity-period delivery policy with smaller quantities and shorter periods is suitable to be executed among those companies that are close to each other. However, it would be hard for the manufacturer to implement the JIT system under a global environment, especially when its products are conveyed by transnational sea transportation globally. Therefore, many corporations are trying to outsource their global logistics activities strategically in order to obtain the numerous benefits such as cost reduction and service improvement. Hertz and Alfredsson (2003) have stated that the 3PL, which involves a firm acting as a middleman not taking title to the products, but to whom logistics activities are outsourced, has been playing a very important role in the global distribution network. Wang and Sang (2005) also mention that a 3PL firm is a professional logistics company profiting by taking charge of a part or the total logistics in the supply chain of a focal enterprise. 3PL also connects the suppliers, manufacturers, and the distributors in supply chains and provide substance movement andlogistics information flow. The core competitive advantage of a 3PL firm comes from its ability to integrate services to help its customers optimize their logistics management strategies, build up and operate their logistics systems, and even manage their whole distribution systems (Wang & Sang, 2005). Zimmer (2001) states that production depends deeply on the on-time delivery of components, which can drastically reduce buffer inventories, when JIT purchasing is implemented. When the manufacturer has to comply with the assembler under the JIT system, the inventories of the manufacturer will be increased to offset the reduction of the assembler’s inventories (David and Chaime, 2003, Khan and Sarker, 2002 and Sarker and Parija, 1996).The Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) model is widely used to calculate the optimal lot size to reduce the total cost, which is composed of ordering cost, setup cost, and inventory holding cost for raw materials and manufactured products (David and Chaime, 2003, Kelle et al., 2003, Khan and Sarker, 2002 and Sarker and Parija, 1996). However, some issues such as the integration of collaborative 3PL and the restrictions on the delivery lot size by sea transportation are not discussedfurther in their studies. For the above involved costs, David and Chaime (2003) further discuss a vendor–buyer relationship to include two-sided transportation costs in the JIT system. Koulamas, 1995 and Otake et al., 1999 describe that the annual setup cost is equal to the individual setup cost times the total number of orders in a year. McCann, 1996 and Tyworth and Zeng, 1998 both state that the transportation cost can be affected by freight rate, annual demand, and the products’ weight. Compared to the above studies which assume that the transportation rate is constant per unit, Swenseth and Godfrey (2002) assumed that the transportation rate is constant per shipment, which will result in economies of scale for transportation. Besides, McCann (1996) presented that the total logistics costs are the sum of ordering costs, holding costs, and transportation costs. A Syarif, Yun, and Gen (2002) mention that the cost incurred from a distribution center includes transportation cost and operation cost. Taniguchi, Noritake, Yamada, and Izumitani (1999) states that the costs of pickup/delivery and land-haul trucks should be included in the cost of the distribution center as well. The numerous costs involved will be formulated in different ways when the manufacturer operates the JIT system associatedwith a collaborative 3PL under a global environment. Kreng and Wang (2005) presented a cost model, which can be implemented in the JIT system under a global environment, to investigate the most appropriate mode of product delivery strategy. They discussed the adaptability of different transportation means for different kinds of products. In this study, the implementation of sea transportation from the manufacturer to the 3PL provider will be particularized, and the corresponding cost model will also be presented to obtain the minimum total cost, the optimal production lot size, and the optimal delivery lot size from the manufacturer to the 3PL provider. Finally, a Taiwanese company is used for the case study to illustrate and explore the feasibility of the model.3. The formulation of a JIT cost model associated with the 3PL Before developing the JIT cost model, the symbols and notations used throughout this study are defined below:B3PL’s pickup cost per unit product (amount per unit)Cj3PL’s cost of the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3,…,n (amount per year)DP annual demand rate of the product (units per year)Dr annual demand of raw materials (units per year)D customers’ demand at a specific interval (units per shipment)E annual inventory holding cost of 3PL (amount per year)F transportation cost of the j th transportation containertype from the manufacturer to the 3PL, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, n (amount per lot)F freight rate from the 3PL provider to the assembler (amount per kilogram)Hp inventory holding cost of a unit of the product (amount per year)Hr inventory holding cost of raw materials per unit (amount per year)Ij average product inventory of the j th transportation container type in the manufacturer, where j= 1, 2,3, …, n (amount per year)I annual profit margin of 3PL (%)K ordering cost (amount per order)Kj number of shipments from the 3PL provider to the assembler when the delivery lot size from the manufacturer to the 3PL provider is Qj with the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, n(kj=Qj/d)M∗ optimal number of shipments that manufacturer delivers with the optimal total costactual number of shipments of the j th transportation container type with the minimum total cost, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, nMj number of shipments of the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, nnumber of shipments of the j th transportation container type with the minimum total cost, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, nN∗ optimal production lot size of the manufacturer (units per lot)optimal production lot size of the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, n(units per lot)Nj production lot size of the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, n (units per lot)Nr ordering quantity of raw material (units per order)P production rate of product (units per year)maximum delivery lot size of the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …, n(units per lot)q∗ optimal delivery lot size of the manufacturer (units per lot)qj actual delivery lot size of the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …,n (units per lot)Rj loading percentage of the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …,n(Rj=qj/Qj)Rj real number of shipments from the 3PL provider to the assembler when the delivery lot size from the manufacturer to the 3PL provider is qj with the j th transportation container type, where j= 1, 2, 3, …,n(rj=qj/d)S setup cost (amount per setup)W weight of product (kilogram per unit)Λ quantity of raw materials required in producing one unit of a product (units)Tomas and Griffin (1996) considered that a complete supply chain should consist of five participants, including the raw materials supplier, the manufacturer, the assembler, the warehouse operator, and the consumer. This study mainly focuses on the relationships among the manufacturer, the 3PL provider and the assembler within the JIT system under a global environment. In order to achieve the fixed quantity-period JIT delivery policy, which implies that the actual delivery lot size has to be determined by identifying the downstream assembler’s needs instead of the upstream manufacture’s economical delivery lot size, higher transportation costs with higher delivery frequency are necessary. Since the JIT system are more appropriately executed among those companies that are close to each other, a collaborative 3PL connected the upstream manufacture with the downstream assembler is necessary when the products have to be delivered from the upstream manufacture to the downstream assembler by sea transportation over a long distance. This study proposes a JIT cost model to obtain the optimal production lot size, the actual delivery lot size, the most suitable transportation container type, and the exact number of shipments from the manufacturer to the 3PL provider at the minimum total cost.This study makes assumptions of the JIT system as follows: (1) There is only one assembler and only one manufacturer for each product.(2) The production rate of the manufacturer is uniform,finite, and higher than the demand rate of the assembler.(3) There is no shortage and the quality is consistent in both raw materials and products.(4) The demand for products that the assembler receives is fixed and is at regular intervals.(5) Qj is much greater than demand at a regular interval,d.(6) The transportation rates from the manufacturer to the 3PL and from the 3PL to the assembler are computed by the number of shipments and the product’s weight, respectively, and, (7) The space of the manufacturer’s warehouse is sufficient for keeping all inventories of products that the manufacturer produces.According to the above assumptions from (1), (2), (3) and (4), Fig. 1 illustrates the relationships among the manufacturer, the 3PL provider, and the assembler, where the Fig. 1 represents the inventory of manufacturer’s raw materials, the inventoryof products inside the manufacturer, the inventory of the 3PL provider, and the inventory of the assembler from top to bottom (Kreng & Wang, 2005). This study also adopts the Fig. 1 to demonstrate the collaboration of the 3PL provider which will be an interface connecting the manufacturer and the assembler. During the period T1, the inventory of products with the manufacturer will be increased gradually because the production quantity is larger than the demand quantity. However, during the period T2, the inventory of products will be decreased because the production has been stopped.中文翻译:在全球环境下第三方物流以最小的成本实现了Just-In-Time系统的应用摘要:JUST-IN-TIME(JIT)系统,供应链管理的整合,最近已经吸引了越来越多的关注。
基于作业成本法的第三方物流企业成本核算及决策研究

作业成本法是一 种基于作业的成 本核算方法,通 过确认和计量企 业所有作业活动, 将成本分配到作 业中,再由作业 分配到产品或服 务中。
作业成本法的基 本原理是“作业 消耗资源,产品 消耗作业”,通 过建立作业成本 库,归集资源成 本到作业中心, 再从作业中心分 配到产品或服务 中。
作业成本法能够 更准确地反映产 品或服务的真实 成本,帮助企业 识别非增值作业 和低效作业,优 化资源配置和提 高经营决策水平。
单击此处添加标题
虽然作业成本法能够更准确地核算第三方物流企业的成本,但在实际应用中 仍存在一些局限性,例如数据收集的难度和成本核算的复杂性。
单击此处添加标题
当前研究主要关注作业成本法在第三方物流企业成本核算中的应用,但未来 可以进一步探讨如何将其应用于决策制定和其他管理领域。
单击此处添加标题
未来研究可以进一步优化作业成本法,提高其准确性和可操作性,以更好地 服务于第三方物流企业的成本核算和决策制定。
,a click to unlimited possibilities
汇报人:
01 02 03 04 05
06
Part One
Part Two
作业成本法是一种基于作业的成本核算方法,通过确认和计量企业生产经营过程中所发生的所有作业,将成本分 配到作业中,再根据作业动因将作业成本追溯到产品或服务中,从而得出最终的产品或服务成本。
作业成本法在第三 方物流企业成本核 算中的应用,有助 于提高成本核算的 准确性和决策的科 学性。
第三方物流企业应 关注作业成本法的 实施细节,结合企 业实际情况进行合 理调整,以实现最 佳的成本核算效果。
案例分析中提到的 第三方物流企业在 成本核算方面的成 功经验,可以为其 他企业提供有益的 参考和借鉴。
作业成本法的概念

作业成本法的概念(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年月西方管理睬计进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掌握相结合的全面成本管理理念。
作业成本计算方法依据“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,先依据作业所消耗的资源费用进行安排,再将作业成本安排给产品,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分。
作业成本法对于成本的确认和归集特别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安排,对于形成产品成本的全部相关费用均纳入成本归集、安排范畴,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,同时采纳多样化的安排标准(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,是肯定期间内为了生产产品或供应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,不肯定都被消耗,即便被消耗也不肯定对最终产出有所贡献。
企业要区分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安排到作业中去。
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,材料运输是选购部门的一项作业,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、帮助材料、燃料、动力、工资、折旧、办公费、修理费以及运输费等。
浅析作业成本法在第三方物流企业的应用_毕业论文

浅析作业成本法在第三方物流企业的应用毕业论文诚信声明本人郑重声明:所呈交的毕业论文《浅析作业成本法在第三方物流企业的应用》是本人在指导老师的指导下,独立研究、写作的成果。
论文中所引用是他人的无论以何种方式发布的文字、研究成果,均在论文中以明确方式标明。
本声明的法律结果由本人独自承担。
毕业论文作者签名:年月日摘要我国经济的高速发展给第三方物流企业带来很大的发展空间,随着我国第三方物流的高速发展,竞争也愈发激烈,要想在激烈的竞争中获得竞争优势的一个强有力的策略就是获取成本优势。
成本信息是企业管理和决策的关键要素和先决条件。
但由于我国当前会计制度的局限性,使得大量的物流成本没有得到真实的反映,从而造成了“物流冰山”效应。
而作业成本法的出现使得获得较精确的成本信息成为可能。
本文在对第三方物流企业和作业成本法进行系统分析的基础上,将作业成本法应用于第三方物流企业中,推导出第三方物流企业的成本核算模型,建立以作业为基础的物流成本控制模型,利用模型研究第三方物流企业的产品定价决策、进行成本控制和顾客盈利性分析。
本文在应用研究的基础上针对某第三方物流企业的发展状况进行实践研究,对该物流企业应用本文提出的实用成本性态核算模型计算不同方案的物流作业成本,并应用作业成本法建立成本控制模型,确定作业成本标准,对作业成本差异进行分析,然后对建立的作业成本核算和控制模型进行评价。
最后,对作业成本法在第三方物流企业中的应用方法进行了总结,并指出了此方法中存在的难点,以后需要解决的问题,并提出了改进的建议。
关键字:第三方物流企业;物流成本管理;作业成本法AbstractChina's rapid economic development to a third party logistics enterprises a great deal of room for development, with the rapid development of China's third-party logistics, increasingly fierce competition, is a powerful strategy in order to gain a competitive advantage in the fierce competition in the competitive cost. The cost information is a key element of business management and decision-making and prerequisites. However, due to the limitations of our current accounting system, making a lot of logistics costs is not to be a true reflection, resulting in the logistics iceberg "effect. Costing makes it more accurate cost information as possible.In this paper, based on a systematic analysis of third-party logistics companies and activity-based costing, activity-based costing applied to third-party logistics enterprises to derive the costing model for third-party logistics enterprises, the establishment of job-based logistics cost control model, the model of third-party logistics company's products and pricing decisions, cost control and customer profitability analysis.In this paper the application research based on for a third party logistics development status of practice research, on the logistics enterprise application this paper presents practical cost behavior accounting model calculation of different schemes of logistics operation cost, and the application of activity-based costing to establish cost control model, determine the cost of operation standards, analyzes the difference of cost of operation, then based on activity-based cost accounting and control model for evaluation.Finally, the third-party logistics companies in the activity-based costing methods are summarized, and pointed out the difficulty of this method, after the problem to be solved, and put forward suggestions for improvement.Keywords:Third-party logistics enterprises;Logistics Cost Management;Activity Based Costing;目录第一章前言 (1)1.1研究背景 (1)1.2研究意义 (1)1.3写作思路和研究方法 (2)第二章第三方物流企业物流成本及作业成本法相关知识 (4)2.1第三方物流的概念及特点 (4)2.1.1第三方物流的概念 (4)2.1.2第三方物流企业的特点 (4)2.1.3第三方物流企业的成本构成 (5)2.1.4第三方物流企业成本的特点 (6)2.2作业成本法的知识基础 (6)2.2.1作业成本法和作业成本管理的概念 (6)2.2.2作业成本法的内涵 (7)2.2.3作业成本法的基本原理 (8)2.2.4作业成本法的计算步骤 (9)第三章物流企业成本管理现状及作业成本法在物流企业的应用性分析 (12)3.1我国物流业的发展现状 (12)3.2物流企业成本控制中存在的问题 (12)3.3作业成本法在我国物流企业的应用分析 (14)3.3.1作业成本法应用于我国物流企业的必要性分析 (14)3.3.2作业成本法应用于我国物流企业的可行性分析 (16)第四章作业成本法在第三方物流企业的应用 (18)4.1第三方物流企业作业成本核算模型的建立 (18)4.1.1.建立作业中心 (18)4.1.2归集作业中心成本库费用 (18)4.1.3计算成本动因率 (18)4.1.4.计算各服务产品作业成本 (18)4.1.5.计算各服务产品的营运间接费用 (19)4.1.6.计算服务产品的成本 (19)4.2作业成本法在物流企业实施的案例分析 (20)4.2.1确认和计量各种资源耗费 (20)4.2.2确认主要作业,建立作业中心 (20)4.2.3确认资源动因,根据资源动因分配资源耗费至各个作业成本库214.2.4确认作业动因,根据作业动因计算各作业中心成本分配率 (22)4.2.5将各作业成本分配到甲、乙物流服务合同中去 (23)4.2.6与传统成本计算方法对比,对结果进行分析 (24)第五章总结与建议 (26)5.1作业成本法的应用总结 (26)5.2对第三方物流企业实施物流作业成本核算的建议 (26)结束语.......................................... 错误!未定义书签。
作业成本法在第三方物流企业成本核算中应用

三、作业成本法在第三方物流成本核算中 的应用
步骤:(1) 界定企业物流系统涉及的各项作业,归集同类作 业到作业中心。 (2) 确认物流系统涉及的资源。 (3) 确认资源动因,将资源分配到作业。 (4) 确认成本动因,计算作业成本动因率,将作业成本分配 到成本对象(产品或服务)中。 (5) 计算成本对象的总成本。
五、基于作业成本核算的作业成本管理
作业成本管理可运用在企业的以下几个层面: (1) 企业的作业链-价值链优化 作业成本管理深入到作业水平,以作业为核心,进行作业分析。通过作 业分析,消除不增值的作业,把企业有限的资源用于能为企业最终产品增 加价值的作业上,提高作业效率与效益,从而促进企业价值链的优化。 (2) 企业作业成本控制 物流企业在获得准确成本信息基础上,通过界定作业的增值性,保留增 值性作业并提高其效率,根据作业的增值性高低分配资源,成本控制只能 最大限度地
分配成本
作业动 因数
分配成本
运输次数
报关次数
装卸货物 数量
1 1
30000
3750 500
6000
3 3
30000
11250 1500
6000
仓储货物 数量
配送次数 合同数 合计
1000
10 1
15000
9500 1500 36250
1000
30 1
15000
28500 1500 63750
表1 作业成本法与传统成本法核算结果比较
基于作业成本法的第三方物流企业成 本核算与管理研究
杨兵
10076120203
主要内容
➢ 一、引言 ➢ 二、作业成本法的基本原理 ➢ 三、作业成本法在第三方物流成本核算中的应用 ➢ 四、应用实例 ➢ 五、基于作业成本核算的作业成本管理 ➢ 六、结论
作业成本法外文文献.

The Journal of Applied Business Research – Second Quarter 2008 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. Volume 24, Number 2 Kaplan, S. R. (1983 Measuring Manufacturing Performance: A New Challenge for Managerial Accounting Research, The Accounting Review, Vol. LVIII, No 4, October, pp. 686-705. Koltai, T., Lozano S., Guerrero F. and Onieva L. (2000 A flexible costing system for flexible manufacturing systems using activity based costing, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 38, No7, pp. 1615-1630. Lukka, K. and Granlund, M. (1996 Cost Accounting in Finland: Current Practice and Trends of Development, The European Accounting Review, Vol. 5/1, pp. 1-28. Malmi, T. (1997 Towards explaining activity-based costing failure: accounting and control, in a decentralised organisation, Management Accounting Research, 8, pp. 459–480. Malmi, T. (1999 Activity- based costing diffusion across organizations: an explanatory empirical analysis of Finnish firms, Accounting Organizations and Society, 24, pp. 649-672. McGowan, A. S. and Klammer, T. P. (1997 Satisfaction with activity-based costing cost management implementation, Management Accounting Research, 9, pp. 217–237. Nicholls, B. (1992 ABC in the U.K -a status report, Management Accounting, May, pp 22-23. Saez-Torrecilla, A., Fernandez – Fernandez, A., Texeira – Quiros, J. and Vaquera-Mosquero, M., (1996 Management accounting in Spain: trends in thought and practice, in Bhimani, A. (ed. Management Accounting: European Perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p.p. 180-190. Scherrer, G. (1996 Management Accounting: a German perspective, in Bhimani, A. (ed. Management Accounting: European Perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p.p. 100-122. Sethi, A.K. and Sethi S. P. (1990 Flexibility in manufacturing: A survey International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 2, pp. 289-328. Shields, M. (1995 An empirical analysis of firms‘ implementation experiences with activity -based costing, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, pp. 148–166. Shim, E. and Sudit, E. (1995 How manufactures price products, Management Accounting (U.K, February, pp. 37-39. Suarez, F. F., Cusumano, M. A. and Fine, C. H. (1995 An Empirical Study of Flexibility in Manufacturing, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 25-32. Upton, D.M. (1995 Flexibility as process mobility: the management of plant capabilities for quick response manufacturing, Journal of Operations Management, 13, (3-4 , pp. 205–224. Vokurka, R. J. and O‘Leary-Kelly S. W. (2000 A review of empirical research on manufacturing flexibility, Journal of Operations Management, 18, pp. 485–501 96。
中英文采购专业术语大全

采购专业术语大全(中英文对照)2018-07-02在工作场景中,采购经常会接触到各种英文和英文缩写,涉及的客户需求、采购需求、计划、订单、合同、物流包装、结算......等等,对很多采购与供应链朋友来说还是有点困难。
第一部分custom made: 需指定制造的产品first priority: 最高的优先级别PPR( Premium price request): 高于标准价格采购请求RFQ(request for quote): 报价请求,询盘ESI(Early supplier involvement): 供应商早期介入cost modeling:成本模型STD price: 标准价格Stock-out cost: 缺货成本awarded supplier: 指定供应商escalate to higher level: 提交上级处理cut hard order: 手动下订单customer demand pull-in: 客户需求提前或增加Distributor:分销商;Manufacturing:厂商;Broker:经纪商。
(紧急情况下启用,价格较高。
)EAU (Estimated annual usage): 预估每年需求量line down: 停产APQP(advanced product quality planning): 指产品在量产前对如何实现产品以及如何进行质量控制看展的策划活动。
PPAP(production part approval process):生产件批准程序,是指第一次生产样件时向客户提交一系列文件记录清单,如样品检测报告,FMEA,工艺流程图,控制计划,图纸等等,要提交的资料根据客户要求进行,提交后客户将确认OK后方可进行试生产阶段。
EOQ(economic ordering quantity): 经济订购数量,EOQ=(A:单位时间净需求 S:每次订购费用 U:商品单位成本 C:储存成本)EDI(electronic data interchange): 电子数据交换。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
外文翻译--第三方物流企业的作业成本法本科毕业论文(设计)外文翻译外文出处 International Advances in Economic Research, 2001,7 1 : 133-146.外文作者 Carles Gríful-Miquela原文:Activity-Based Costing Methodology for Third-Party Logistics CompaniesThis paper will analyze the main costs that third-party logistics companies are facing and develops an activity-based costing methodology useful for this kind of company. It will examine the most important activities carried out by third-party distributors in both warehousing and transporting activities. However, the focus is mainly on the activity of distributing the product to the final receiver when this final receiver is not the customer of the third-party logistics company.IntroductionIn the last decade, development of third-party logistics companies has been very important. There are several reasons for such development, the most important being the trend to concentrate in the core businessby manufacturing companies and new technological advances, In this context, conventional approaches to costing might generate distorted information, This can result in making wrong decisions. When companies realize this potential danger, the use of activity-based costing ABC methodologies increases within third-party logistics.Costing Methodology: Definition of the Cost Model and Critique of the Conventional ApproachDefinition of the Cost ModelIt is first necessary to define what a cost model is. This can be done through analysis of the main functions that any cost model should perform [Kaplan and Cooper, 1998]:1 valuation of inventory and measurement of the cost of goods and services sold for financial purposes;2 estimation of the cost of activities, products, services, and customers; and3 provide economic feedback to managers and staff in general about process efficiency.From this definition, a cost model might be analyzed as the tool that companies use in order to have a proper understanding about the cost to run their businesses. One of the purposes of a cost model is to gather and analyze data generated in the company in order to gain useful information for making decisions. Therefore, the usefulness of a costmodel may be evaluated depending on its capacity to generate the right information to make the right managerial decisions.Evolution of Cost ModelsThe evolution of cost systems has not been a linear and continuous process [Johnson and Kaplan, 1987]. Indeed, by the 1920s, companies had developed almost all the management accounting procedures that have been used up to the present day. Furthermore, between 1925 and 1980, virtually no new ideas have affected the design and use of cost management systems. The same concepts always appear: break-even analysis, cost-volume-profit analysis, direct costing, and fixed and variable cost estimates. The idea that conventional accounts are only finance oriented and simply describe historical inputs is shared among other authors of costing methodology [Bellis- Jones and Develin, 1995].Problems with Conventional ApproachesAs a result of the described evolution of cost models, the situation at the beginning of the 1980s was that the actual management accounting systems provided few benefits to organizations. Normally, the reported information not only inhibited good decision making by managers, but actually encouraged bad decisions [Johnson and Kaplan, 1987]. The main reason was the use of an obsolete tool in an extremely different and more complex and competitive environment.The main problem that conventional cost models faced was theallocation of overhead by products on the basis of either direct labor or machine hour content in the manufacturing environment. This problem was growing at the same time that direct labor and machine hour contents of many products and services fell, while overhead costs increased. Conventional costing ignores important differences between products and services, markets and customers, which incur different overhead costs. This was the starting point in carefully analyzing the conventional cost models and in criticizing them because of their uselessness in accurately explaining the cost of products. Lately, the fact that the same issues apply to the service sector has been noticed.Traditional methods of cost accounting showed some other weaknesses [Bellis-Jones and Develin, 1995]. That is, companies do not know whether their products or services are profitable and they cannot distinguish profitable from unprofitable customers. In addition, traditional methods focus on the short term at the expense of the long term.A Description of ABC MethodologyThe problems that conventional costing methodologies raised were the main reason for developing a new theoretical approach to this subject. Johnson and Kaplan are considered the inventors of ABC, although they do not use this terminology at the beginning of their studies [Johnson and Kaplan, 1987]. The first time the concept of ABC appears is in a later article [Cooper and Kaplan, 1988]. The analysis of cost and profitabilityof individual products, services, and customers represents a critical issue that companies were concerned with and one where ABC tries to help. The primary focus was to ask what is important for the organization, and what information is needed for management planning and control functions. Finally, useful information for managerial purposes should not be extracted only from a system designed primarily to satisfy external reporting and auditing requirements financial information . It is necessary to design systems consistent with the technology of the organization, its product strategy, and its organizational structure.Definition of ABCIn literature there are several definitions of ABC. The definition here shows the ABC philosophy [Hicks, 1992] briefly and clearly: "Activity-based costing is a cost accounting concept based on the premise that products and/or services require an organization to perform activities and that those activities require an organization to incur costs. In activity-based costing, systems are designed so that any costs that cannot be attributed directly to a product, flow into the activities that make them necessary. The cost of each activity then flows to the product s that make the activity necessary based on their respective consumption of that activity."Main Differences Between Conventional Cost Models and ABCThe most important difference between conventional cost models andABC is the treatment of non-volume-related overhead costs. The use of direct labor-based overhead allocation methods were appropriate in the past when direct labor was the principal component of manufacturing cost, but not today. In the ABC approach, many overheads are related to specific activities to avoid distortions in product and service costs.Another difference is the treatment of unused capacity. ABC describes resources that are used by activities, but conventional accounts describe resources that are supplied. The difference between the two is excess capacity. If excess capacity is allocated to products, services, or customers, there is risk of a "dead spiral," as defined by Bellis-Jones and Develin [1995]. This means that the company should be aware of which costs their customers really generate and not allocate the excess of capacity to avoid the risk of overpricing its products or services.Advantages and Benefits of the ABC ApproachSeveral authors have described the main advantages and benefits of using ABC [Innes and Mitchell, 1990; Bellis-Jones and Develin, 1995; Malmi, 1997]. The most important are as follows:1 ABC provides more accurate product and service costing, particularly where non- volume-related overheads are significant.2 By using ABC, it is possible to analyze costs by areas of managerial responsibility and customers. ABC helps to recognize the way in which customers directly affect the cost structure of the business and thereforehelps to analyze customer profitability.3 ABC provides a better understanding of cost behavior as well as identifying the costs of complexity, variety, and change inherent in both the kind of service offered and customer-specific requirements.4 ABC focuses on the activities that add value, which are those activities that create value from the customer's point of view. On the other hand, the company should focus on those non-value-added activities and try to eliminate them, although some of the non-value-added activities are necessary to enable value-adding activities to occur.5 ABC is useful in performing capacity analysis. ABC measures the costs of resources used rather than the costs of resources supplied, the difference being excess capacity. It would be wrong to allocate unused capacity to the customers. To perform this analysis, the use of practical capacity is suggested, which means the capacity reflecting the imum level at which the organization can operate efficiently.6 ABC reduces uncertainty and provides a more solid basis for strategic decisions. Therefore, the success of ABC might not depend only on the results of the analysis, but on its ability to provide a correct diagnosis of the company's situation.Disadvantages and Problems of the ABC ApproachThe disadvantages extracted from a study based on the answers of several companies after one year of using ABC [Cobb et al., 1992] regardedthe amount of work involved, difficulties in collecting accurate data, and the fact that cost management was difficult because several activities cross department boundaries. Additionally, implementation is very time consuming, requiring not only gathering and processing of data, but also interpreting the results. Even though all of the former problems have been overcome with the development of ABC methodology and the increase in using ABC models by companies in different manufacturing and service industries, it is always necessary to be aware of these problems when developing such a model.ABC for LogisticsEven though literature mentions that ABC applies to all types of business organizations in the service industry, including warehousing and distribution providers [Hicks, 1992], the author could not specifically find the case of a third-party logistics provider as far as the transport operations are concerned. The main issue is to properly allocate the transport operations costs to the consignors, which are the real customers of the company.4 Furthermore, in the literature about transportation costs [Sussams, 1992], the customer is always the final consignee, and the costs are always an external variable.In recent years and because of the increasing importance of logistics costs within companies, the first studies analyzing the utility of the activity-based approach on logistics were undertaken [Pohlen and LaLonde,1994; LaLonde and Ginter, 1996; LaLonde and Pohlen, 1996]. The main benefits and difficulties related to the implementation of ABC for logistics departments are almost the same as those described earlier.Analysis of OverheadsThe analysis of overheads is the least obvious and the most complicated to perform. Normally, overheads are related to several activities or nonactivities , and it is necessary to carry out in-depth studies during long periods of time in order to find out the right links between overheads and products, services, or customers. For this reason, the recommendation is to be as accurate as possible in order to link overheads with consignors, avoiding the traditional approach to link, in the first instance, overheads with activities. This is very important when there is an important lack of time for developing such a costing methodology, despite the fact that this is not a pure ABC approach. The need to cope with overheads appears on both the warehouse and transport side of the model.ConclusionIt is very difficult and not always recommended to develop a pure ABC model because the particular characteristics of a single third-party logistics company entailed the use of slightly different ways to allocate several costs in some instances, which a purely ABC approach would not be able to do. Despite this fact, the final model for both sides of thethird-party company operations warehouse and transport operations has been mainly described by taking ABC analysis into account. Only when ABC does not present an answer to a specific problem should another way be considered to allocate the costs.It is recommended that such a model should be developed by using a spreadsheet because it fulfills the needs of the company, it is a very powerful tool, and it is also very user-friendly. Furthermore, the model developed may be capable of performing what-if analysis in order to simulate actual or potential situations the third-party company might face. These what-if analyses may be used in different ways such as in the analysis of potential consignors, in the requirement of different service levels by the current consignors, and to perform the analysis of structural changes in the third-party logistics company.Finally, note that the costs of the model should not exceed its benefits. In other words, it is necessary to cope with the trade-off between a model that is so simple that it fails toprovide enough information to support the company's decisions and a model that is excessively costly to design, implement, and operate [Brimson, 1991]. This should always be taken into account, trying to achieve a happy medium between simplicity and excessive sophistication.Source: Carles Gríful-Miquela.Activity-based costing methodology for third-party logistics companies[J].International Advances inEconomic Research, 2001,7 1 : 133-146.译文:第三方物流作业成本法本文将分析第三方物流面临并。