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
EVA(经济增加值)在绩效考核中的应用
EVA（经济增加值）在绩效考核中的应用大家好，今天我们来聊一聊关于企业绩效考核中的一种指标，那就是EVA，即经济增加值。
对于很多刚入行的小伙伴来说，这个名词可能还有些陌生，但它在企业管理中的地位却是非同小可的。
让我们一起来揭秘EVA 在绩效考核中的应用吧！什么是EVA？让我们来解释一下EVA是什么。
EVA的全称是EconomicValueAdded，翻译成中文就是经济增加值。
简单来说，EVA是一种衡量企业绩效的财务指标，它通过计算企业实际盈利高于资本成本的部分来评估企业的经济利润。
EVA如何计算？EVA的计算方法其实并不复杂，就是净利润减去资本成本的乘积。
具体公式如下：EVA=净利润-资本成本这里的资本成本包括了企业使用的资本的成本，一般是根据资本成本率乘以资本的成本基数来计算的。
EVA的优势与挑战EVA作为一种绩效考核指标，有着诸多优势。
它能够更客观地反映企业创造的价值，而不仅仅是看盈利额；EVA更加注重长期投资价值，能够促使企业进行长期规划和持续创新。
然而，EVA也面临着一些挑战，比如计算复杂、需要大量准确的数据支持等。
EVA在绩效考核中的应用那么，EVA在绩效考核中究竟扮演着怎样的角色呢？可以说，EVA既是一种绩效考核指标，也是一种激励机制。
通过将EVA纳入绩效考核体系，可以激励员工为企业创造更多的经济增加值，进而实现共赢。
EVA还可以帮助企业更好地评估投资价值，制定科学的激励政策，提高企业整体绩效。
EVA作为一种衡量企业绩效的重要指标，在绩效考核中发挥着至关重要的作用。
通过合理运用EVA，企业可以更加全面地评估自身的经济价值创造能力，并激励员工积极努力，共同实现企业的长期发展目标。
希望通过本文的介绍，大家能对EVA在绩效考核中的应用有所了解，并在实际工作中加以运用，取得更好的绩效成绩！。
管理会计应用指引第602号——经济增加值法
管理会计应用指引第602号——经济增加值法经济增加值（EVA）法是一种衡量企业绩效的管理会计工具，也被认为是衡量企业创造经济价值能力的一个重要指标。
本文将从EVA法的定义、计算方法、优点及应用等方面介绍。
经济增加值（Economic Value Added，简称EVA）是斯特恩斯特曼·A·库珀（SternStewart & Co.）公司于1994年首次提出的概念，是一种测量企业广义经济利润的指标。
EVA法的核心思想是通过对企业净资产的回报率进行评估，以及对资本成本的考虑，从而计算出企业创造的经济价值。
EVA的计算方法如下：EVA =净利润- (净资产×资本成本率)其中，净利润表示企业在特定时期所获得的税后利润；净资产表示企业在特定时期的总资产减去负债；资本成本率表示企业所使用资金的成本，主要由权益资金成本和有息负债资金成本组成。
EVA法的优点在于：1.考虑了资本成本：EVA法通过计算企业对资本的回报率与资本成本之间的差异，加强了企业对资本的有效配置和利用，避免了传统利润指标对投资回报的忽视。
2.长期导向：EVA法注重长期经营，对于企业发展规划和战略部署具有指导意义，可以促使企业形成具有持续竞争优势的核心能力。
3.激励机制：EVA法可以作为激励机制的基础，通过与企业绩效挂钩，激发员工的积极性和创造力，提高企业整体绩效。
EVA法的应用主要包括以下几个方面：1.经营绩效评估：EVA法可以作为衡量企业经营绩效的指标，通过对不同部门、不同项目的EVA进行评估，及时了解业务部门的盈利能力，发现业务短板，并采取相应的改进措施。
2.投资决策支持：EVA法可以提供一个全面的企业盈利能力评估，对于企业内部的投资决策提供决策支持，帮助企业确定投资项目的优先级和可行性。
3.资本投入效益评估：EVA法可以帮助企业评估资本投入的效益，通过计算EVA，可以了解资本投入带来的回报，从而优化资本配置和使用。
经济增加值的三种计算方法
经济增加值的三种计算方法经济增加值（Economic Value Added，EVA）是一个用来衡量企业经济绩效的指标，它可以帮助企业评估自身的经济利润能力，并且可以为企业的经济决策提供重要的参考依据。
在实际应用中，有多种计算方法可以用来计算经济增加值，下面将介绍其中的三种常用方法。
首先，最常见的计算经济增加值的方法是净资产收益率法。
这种方法是通过计算企业净资产的收益率来评估企业的经济增加值。
具体的计算公式是，经济增加值 = 净资产收益率× 净资产。
净资产收益率可以通过净利润除以净资产来计算，而净资产则是企业的总资产减去总负债。
这种方法的优点是简单易懂，能够直观地反映出企业的经济增加值情况。
其次，市场价值加权法也是一种常用的计算经济增加值的方法。
这种方法是通过计算企业市场价值的加权平均收益率来评估企业的经济增加值。
具体的计算公式是，经济增加值 = （市场价值加权平均收益率资本成本率）× 总资本。
市场价值加权平均收益率是指企业市场价值的加权平均收益率，而资本成本率则是企业的资本成本。
这种方法的优点是能够更准确地反映出企业的经济增加值情况，但是需要对市场价值进行加权平均计算，相对复杂一些。
最后，经济价值链法也是一种常用的计算经济增加值的方法。
这种方法是通过对企业经济价值链的各个环节进行分析，从而评估企业的经济增加值。
具体的计算公式是，经济增加值 = 企业销售收入变动成本固定成本资本成本。
这种方法的优点是能够将企业的各个环节都纳入考量范围，更全面地评估企业的经济增加值情况，但是需要对企业的各项成本进行详细的分析计算。
综上所述，经济增加值的计算方法有多种，每种方法都有其特点和适用范围。
企业在选择计算方法时，需要根据自身的情况和需求来进行选择，以便更准确地评估自身的经济绩效，为经济决策提供更有力的支持。
希望以上介绍的三种计算方法能够帮助大家更好地理解和应用经济增加值的概念。
作业成本法在制造业中的运用及利弊外文翻译(可编辑)
作业成本法在制造业中的运用及利弊外文翻译 外文翻译 Utilization of Activity-Based Costing System in Manufacturing Industries ? Methodology, Benefits and Limitations Material Source: International Review of Business Research Papers Author: Boris Popshop Introduction The difficulty inherent in choosing a proper and accurate product costing method for manufacturing enterprises has been widely discussed by academics and practitioners. The important limitation of traditional absorption costing methods had been deeply discussed along with advantages of other costing method as Variable Costing or Activity-Based Costing ABC. Despite the fact that issues relating to ABC have been widely discussed by researchers and practitioners in the past ten years, this modern concept still lacks general rules governing both methodology and cost allocation principles. Looking back, the concept of Activity-Based Costing has been considered a sophisticated method of cost calculation since the early 1980s. The ABC method was originally designed as a solution to the limitations of traditional costing methods. The problems relating to these traditional costing methods had been discussed with the need for improvement in the quality of costing systems actually utilized in practice. However, one challenge faced when carrying out the cost allocation procedure in ABC lies in the manner in which the methodology is applied. When allocating costs in adherence to ABC principles, the user of the system also has to strictly follow the individual steps within the implementation methodology, where clearly defined allocation procedures and other methodical acts are performed. This research study has no ambitions to judge the expediency of the ABC system for recent or future users. In fact, the aim of this paper is to definitively explain the necessary steps to apply ABC, as well as to clarify procedures for activity output measurement and cost assignment. The paper also describes the benefits and limitation of ABC implementation in manufacturing industries. 1. Literature review 1.1 The ABC concept was designed as a method which eliminates the shortages of the traditionally used absorption costing methods. Traditional costing techniques were used for the purposes of overhead cost allocation during the 20th century. These are based on simplified procedures using principles of averages. In recent decades, such conventional concepts have become obsolete due to two major phenomena. The first of these is ever increasing competition in the marketplace, the necessity to reduce costs and the effect of having more detailed information on company costs. Secondly, there has been a change in the cost structure of companies. In terms of the majority of overhead costs, traditional allocation concepts, based as they are on overhead absorption rates, can often provide incorrect information on product costs. Those shortages or limitations had been very closely described in the scientific publications Drury, 2001, Lucas, 1997. The first criticism of traditional costing concept was published by Kaplan and Johnson in 1987. The effect that plays a role in determining an inaccurate overhead cost allocation could be described figure 1 as ‘verbalization’ Popshop, 2008. In other words, the end results of allocating a proportionally average volume of costs of any type to all cost objects. For example, the cost for transporting an item to customer A is the true value of 50 and transport to customer B is 900 If we use traditional absorption costing, the transport costs will become part of the sales or distribution overhead, meaning all the costs of this type will be mixed together and then allocated through the absorption rate to the cost object, in proportion to the specific type of direct cost. All cost objects then will be subject to the principal average volume of transport costs. In the example this means 130for customer A and 110for customer B. Above mentioned problems could be sometimes be solved by application of differentiation absorption costing, which uses several types of overhead with different allocation bases, instead of summing absorption costing with one universal overhead
经济增加值(EVA)评估方法
经济增加值（EVA）评估方法经济增加值（Economic Value Added，简称EVA）是一种用于衡量公司绩效的财务指标。
与传统的会计指标相比，EVA更能反映出公司经营活动对股东利益的贡献，被广泛应用于公司管理和投资决策中。
本文将介绍EVA的概念、计算方法以及应用。
一、EVA的概念EVA是由管理学家斯特恩·斯图尔特（Stern Stewart）提出的，它通过减去资本成本后的盈利来衡量公司是否为股东创造了价值。
简而言之，EVA就是净利润扣除资本成本后的剩余盈余。
公司的EVA为正值，表示公司的盈利高于资本成本，为股东创造了价值；EVA为负值，则表示公司的盈利低于资本成本，未能为股东创造价值。
二、EVA的计算方法EVA的计算方法相对简单，主要包括两个步骤：首先，计算资本成本；其次，计算经济利润。
1. 计算资本成本资本成本是指投资者为了支持公司运营所需支付的成本，它反映了投资的风险和预期回报率。
常用的计算资本成本的方法有权益资本成本和债务资本成本。
权益资本成本通过考虑投资风险和市场回报率来计算，而债务资本成本则取决于债务的利率。
2. 计算经济利润经济利润是指超过资本成本的盈利，也就是净利润扣除资本成本后的剩余盈余。
计算经济利润时，需要将净利润调整为实际经济价值，考虑到公司的市场地位、行业周期等因素。
三、EVA的应用EVA作为一种绩效评估指标，广泛应用于企业的战略规划和绩效管理中。
1. 绩效评估通过EVA，公司可以更准确地评估经营绩效。
相比于传统的会计指标，EVA更能反映出公司真实的盈利能力和价值创造能力。
公司可以通过分析EVA的波动情况，找出影响绩效的关键因素，并采取相应的措施进行改进。
2. 资本配置决策EVA还可以辅助公司进行资本配置决策。
公司可以根据各个业务单位的EVA表现，决定将资金投入到哪些业务中以及投资规模的大小。
优先投资EVA表现好的业务，能够最大限度地提升整体企业的价值。
3. 激励机制设计通过将EVA纳入绩效评估和激励机制中，公司可以激发员工的积极性和创造力。
经济增加值EVA介绍
经济增加值EVA介绍什么是经济增加值（EVA）？经济增加值（Economic Value Added，缩写为EVA）是一种用于评估企业绩效的管理概念。
它被广泛应用于财务分析和投资决策中，旨在衡量企业经营产生的净资产回报率。
EVA的核心理念是衡量企业的真实盈余，而不仅仅关注会计报表中的利润数据。
它通过考虑企业占用的全部资本成本，计算出企业在经营过程中创造的真实价值。
EVA的计算公式EVA的计算公式如下：EVA = 净营业利润 - (资本成本率 * 资本投入)其中，净营业利润指的是企业的净利润，资本成本率则是企业的加权平均资本成本，资本投入则表示企业在经营过程中投入的资本。
公式中的净营业利润部分，与传统会计报表中的净利润不同，EVA 将其作为一个核心指标来衡量企业的经营绩效。
而资本成本率则是企业从资本市场上获取资金所需要支付的利息和股东回报等成本。
EVA的优点EVA相较于传统财务指标有以下几个优点：1. 体现了净资产回报率传统的会计指标如净利润、利润率等只是从盈利能力的角度衡量企业绩效，而EVA考虑了资本成本，在评估企业绩效时更加全面。
它突出了企业为股东创造的经济利益。
2. 对经营决策有指导作用EVA在计算上考虑了资本成本，可以帮助企业管理者更好地进行经营决策。
通过评估EVA将不同项目、部门或业务线进行比较，可以帮助管理者有效分配资源，并优化业务结构，提高企业经济效益。
3. 激励企业管理者EVA能够将企业的绩效与管理者的薪酬直接联结起来。
通过设定EVA目标并与管理者的绩效奖励挂钩，可以激励管理者更加积极地追求企业盈利和价值创造，提高企业整体经营水平。
实施EVA的挑战和解决方案尽管EVA在衡量企业绩效时具有优势，但其实施仍然面临一些挑战。
以下是几个常见的挑战，并提供相应的解决方案：1. 数据的可靠性EVA依赖于准确的财务数据，而企业可能会面临数据不完整或不准确的问题。
为了解决这个挑战，企业应建立健全的财务管理体系，确保数据的准确性和可靠性。
经济增加值(EVA)的作用
EVA（Economic Value Added）即经济增加值。
其理论渊源出自于诺贝尔奖经济学家默顿·米勒和弗兰科·莫迪利亚尼1958年至1961年关于公司价值的经济模型的一系列论文。
从最基本的意义上讲，经济增加值是公司业绩度量指标，与大多数其他度量指标不同之处在于：EVA考虑了带来企业利润的所有资金成本。
经济增加值-作用有：EVA改变了会计报表没有全面考虑资本成本的缺陷，它可以帮助管理者明确了解公司的运营情况，从而向管理者提出了更高的要求。
EVA具有强大的经济功能和实际应用价值，归纳起来，主要表现在以下几个方面:激励性功能:这是EVA的首要功能，也是关健性功能。
以EVA为核心，设计经营者激励机制有利于规范经营者行为，以维护所有者和股东的合法权益。
它与传统的激励机制相比有如下优越性:第一，有利于克服经营者行为短期化。
这是因为从理论上讲，EVA扣除了资本成本，后者是一种预期成本、未来成本，它考虑了资金时间价值和风险因素，这就必然有利于经营者行为长期化。
第二，有利于加强监督力度，减少做假账的可能性。
一方面，对财务报表的调整过程本身就是进一步加强审计和监督的过程，从中便于再次发现问题杜绝假帐。
另一方面，合理调整目的之一在于为经营者提供更有用的决策信息扩考评目标已不再是会计利润，而是EVA,虚瞒伪报的必要性随之下降。
正如开发研制费用的调整并非不利于经营者。
第三，强化风险承担意识，有利于经营者目标与所有者目标趋于一致。
让经营者成为所有者的一部分，两者目标才能趋于一致。
EVA奖励方式给我国上市公司的股权改革留下了巨大的想像空间。
全面性功能EVA理论提出了全面成本管理的理念，成本不仅包括在帐面上已经发生的经营成本，而且还包括极易被忽视的帐面上并未全部反映的资本成本。
忽视权益资本成本就容易忽视股东利益，忽视资本成本就容易忽视资本的使用效率。
当一项营运业务的变革会增加经营成本，但要是它会减少资金占用从而以更大数额降低资本成本时，这一变革会减少会计利润。
作业成本法、平衡记分卡和经济增加值的整合及应用
作业成本法、平衡记分卡和经济增加值的整合及应用
陆建民
【期刊名称】《黄山学院学报》
【年(卷),期】2006(008)006
【摘要】作业成本计算、平衡记分卡和经济增加值是一套帮助企业适应动态和复
杂竞争环境的有力管理工具.ABC正确地计量了作业、产品和客户的成本,揭示了驱动产品和客户成本的动因;平衡记分卡引入财务和非财务计量指标,揭示出企业收入
驱动的动因,有助于企业协调长期目标和短期目标冲突;EVA提供单一的价值计量指标,正确地展示了企业经营活动的成果,促进企业的价值创造.同时,它们又是相互补充、彼此完善的,构成了统一的管理框架体系.对它们综合运筹,协调把握,有利于企业长期业绩的提升和股东财富的最大化.
【总页数】4页(P94-97)
【作者】陆建民
【作者单位】黄山学院,经济管理学院,安徽,黄山,245041
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】F230
【相关文献】
1.企业业绩评价中经济增加值与平衡记分卡的比较及应用 [J], 孙开宝;陈刚;何玉书
2.谈经济增加值(EVA)与平衡记分卡(BSC)的整合 [J], 李睿;刘向伟
3.论作业成本法、平衡记分卡和经济增加值的关系 [J], 向文生;孙旭
4.论作业成本法、平衡记分卡和经济增加值的关系 [J], 向文生;孙旭
5.基于层次分析法的价值管理--"平衡记分卡"和"经济增加值"整合战略管理应用[J], 印猛;李燕萍
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。
作业成本法的实施和适应性【外文翻译】
外文文献翻译译文原文：Activity-Based Costing Implementation and Adaptation AbstractActivity-based costing (ABC) has been much studied and much written about over the last decade. While the topic has received a great deal of coverage from a technical and theoretical standpoint, accounts of actual implementation experiences have received relatively less study. If ABC is to be an important addition 10 management practice, the theory must be translated into successful implementation. This survey reports on the extent of research that applies the theory of organizational change to the topic of ABC implementation. It finds the area under-researched, and makes suggestions for new studies.IntroductionOver the course of the last decade, a management tool called "activity-based costing" (ABC) has become one of the more widely embraced of new management methods. While its core lies in cost accounting, it has attracted the attention of business managers in general, and has been the subject of articles in the Harvard Business Review, Fortune, and elsewhere in the business press. And not only is it a major theme in business, it has been adopted in parts of government, for instance, the IRS and the Department of Defense.What began as essentially an "accounting" matter has spread to the point where it affects nearly every aspect of an organization, from production to marketing. In the early literature about ABC, the focus was on the underlying concepts –essentially "theory development". As the theory began to be implemented, farther-reaching consequences were developed for instance, the need to reshape performance evaluation measures to reflect the new economics revealed by ABC. As these extensions of the basic theory started to affect organizations, academic researchers came to recognize that profound implementation issues were arising. This in turn has given rise to a segment of the ABC literature on organizational change. It is that literature this paper surveys.The focus of the paper is that part of the "organizational change" literature that has some theoretical foundation. I will not attempt to survey comprehensively a large number of teaching cases, nor accounts of ABC installations in the practitioner literature - articles along the line of "In a DoD Environment Hughes Aircraft Sets the Standard for ABC" (Haedicke and Feil 1991). These cases and descriptions have had an important influence on the more "academic" papers by providing a rich field from which to examine successes and failures. The paper is generally restricted to ABC. Although there are surely many common lessons and conclusions that might be extracted from implementations of TQM (Jensen and Wruck 1994) or JIT (Klein 1989), I will not attempt in this paper to make those connections.Finally, I note that this is quite a new, and accordingly rather small, literature. Only in about 1990 did rigorous study of ABC implementation become part of our literature. Moreover, there are those (e.g.. Hopwood 1983) who believe that the whole area of studying accounting in the contexts in which it operates is underdeveloped.The next section gives a description of ABC. The third section is the review, and the final section concludes.DiscussionThis section outlines the basic ideas of ABC and how the basic ideas have spread to other areas of management.An explicit aim of cost accounting has always been to use an accounting system that assigns to products a dollar amount that reasonably reflects the value of resources actually consumed to create that product - whether a good or a service. Some resources are fairly easy to account for, like the paper in a book. The greater challenge lies in allocating resources where the connection between the resource and a unit of the final product is indirect, unobservable, and imprecise, like industrial engineering services.In recent years, the challenge in allocating indirect resources has increased greatly, for several reasons. (1) Indirect cost as a fraction of total cost has increased; e.g.. automation: the substitution of machines (indirect) for direct laborers (easily traced). (2) Increasing proliferation of product models and types, where complex production scheduling, parts inventories, etc. add to indirect costs; e.g., automobile models andoptions. (3) Decreasing reliability of the "base" which has traditionally been used to allocate direct costs; direct labor time. This changing manufacturing world has led to the need for better methods of assigning costs. The key idea of ABC is that activities cause costs; products do not cause costs. The design of an ABC system rests on identifying the relationship between an indirect resource and the "activity" that consumes it. Once that is done, the product cost is simply the cross product of the activities that were incurred to produce that product and the cost per unit of the activity. ABC started out. then, as a solution to a ''product costing" problem. Revised product costs lead directly to marketing implications: when a new, more reliable cost system shows that some products are generating less revenue than their cost, marketing practices should change, for example, re-pricing, abandonment, changing product promotion policies, etc.In the operations realm, the ABC perspective makes clear that production managers do not manage costs, they manage activities (which in turn create costs). This implies that ABC can, and should, be used for more than passively measuring costs; it can be used actively to manage costs. Among other uses, it has been used to improve quality by estimating the costs of "non-value-adding" activities (MacArthur 1992). The extension of ABC to cost management is termed "activity-based management".Activity-based management reaches beyond manufacturing. Returning to the marketing department, it becomes clear that the costs of marketing can be analyzed in terms of the "activities" that cause them, just as is the manufacturing process (Foster et al. 1996). A large Dutch firm Philips NV performed an analysis of one of its business units in which administrative departments that support production - personnel, among others –were examined in terms of the "activities" which drove their costs (Groot 1997). This study resulted in revised methods of allocating the costs to the production departments, and also in personnel reductions in the administrative departments."ABC thinking" calls into question performance measurement. If the new "activity" insights call for different emphasis, then performance measurements should direct managers efforts toward that emphasis. Further, with ABC thinking, traditional budgeting practices become suspect - it makes more sense to start with the number of times an activity is to be performed as the basis for the budget, than to start with last year's budgetand add 5%.ABC thinking also changes the criteria for design: product designers, armed with information about the cost of manufacturing activities, could design a product to minimize manufacturing cost (Berlant et al. 1990).The list goes on. The point is that ABC is a tool that affects behavior throughout an organization. Because it changes established routines and revises performance and compensation standards, it has important behavioral consequences. It is no surprise, then, that not every attempt to capture the benefits of better cost measurement has met with success. It is true that there is a selection bias that makes it harder to learn the failures than the successes, but nevertheless there is abundant evidence of slow, stalled, or abandoned ABC implementations as well as important advances. Before proceeding to the academic study of this implementation process, a description of the scope of ABC is in order.ABC is not universally accepted. There is a substantial population of organizations that believes that the cost exceeds the benefit. It appears that even among organizations that have adopted it. It is most likely done "off line" with spreadsheets and special studies; it has not replaced the traditional accounting system used to create financial statements. Since many of the uses of ABC - product pricing, for example - do not depend on "real time" information, many of the benefits of ABC are available even without the cost of restructuring the accounting system. Despite the absence of a wholesale changeover to ABC systems, the concepts of ABC have been influential, and have certainly affected policies in a wide range of organizations.SurveyBruns (1987) performed an early, detailed field study of a firm that changed its accounting system (though it was not an ABC implementation). Though he did not submit the study to a deep theoretical analysis, he observed what many others reported later: (1) the importance of a top management sponsor - in this case the absence of one, and associated lack of progress;(2) the stimulating role of crisis in developing new information systems: and (3) the difficulty of dislodging an "embedded" cost system (resistance to change). While none of these discoveries were startling, they are the beginning of a fairly consistent picture of ABC implementation that arises in later studies.It is also one of the few studies that peers into a relative "failure".Anderson (1995) performed a very thorough case study of ABC implementation at General Motors. She used interviews, archives, and direct observation to track the implementation over a period of several years. Her approach was to follow the case study methods proposed by Mintzberg (1979) and Eisenhardt (1989), in which she began the study with a "well-defined research focus", using the existing literature on ABC to pick variables. The theoretical framework was based on Kwon and Zmud (1987) and Cooper and Zmud (1990). In this view, the success of implementations depends both on stages of the implementation, as well as on factors that determine progress within each stage. This model is based largely on studies of implementations of information technology projects (which have been studied much more thoroughly than accounting implementations) and on the organizational change literature.The GM story was more "successful" than not. As Anderson left the theater, ABC had become corporate policy and had begun to branch out beyond its initial uses in product costing to "activity-based management", where operational improvements are sought on that basis of the ABC principles. Nevertheless, the system had not yet proceeded beyond the fourth of the six stages, and there were still difficulties that threatened to curb full acceptance and the full scope of possibilities.Anderson found that the "stage" model fitted GM's experience quite well. It seems clear that almost any set of events can be; fitted to this model that identifies, for example, the first stage as the "initiation" stage. Thus the study is not so much a test of a theory as a careful account analyzed according to the organizing principle of a "change model". Similarly, the general category of "factors" in Kwon and Zmud (1987) are broad enough to encompass almost anything: the categories are individual, organizational, technological, task characteristics, and external environment.She draws many conclusions; a few seem particularly important. (1) Individual factors - things like sponsorship -are important in the early stages, but organizational factors - Like "routines to promote efficiency" - become dominant in later stages. Organizational factors are probably even more important at GM, where there were over 100 ABC sites, than in smaller organizations. (2) There were significant technologicalhurdles to be cleared - the challenges at GM extended far beyond the "resistance to change" that might meet a change in, say, a bonus formula. There were two criteria that GM set early on: that the system be broadly applicable to many different processes, and that it result in better decision-making. (3) She found very strong sentiment that the ABC system should reside, not in accounting, but in manufacturing, and that knowledge of the production process is very important to success. In some cases process knowledge was a criterion for team membership; in others, accountants were excluded from teams in the belief that they could not approach the problem with a "clean slate".Source : Frederick WLindahl . Human Resource Planning ,1997, V ol.20 Issue 2, 62-66.二、翻译文章译文：作业成本法的实施和适应性摘要在过去十年里作业成本法进行了深入的研究，与此同时，作业成本法这个题材受到了大量技术和理论角度的关注，而关于实际运用经验的研究却很少。
作业成本法及其应用-
服务成本低的客户 正常定货 大批量生产 老客户 正常送货 自动化 较少的营销成本 适时供应 现金交易
3.顾客分类坐标
高
企盈 业利
A
获
取
的低
盈盈 利利
C
低成本
33
B
D
高成本
服务顾客的成本
4.企业决策
A类顾客: 低成本、高盈利，是企业稳定的利润来源 应用一切办法来争取这类客户，取得优势
B类顾客: 高成本、高盈利 依据收入补偿成本原则，努力争取这类客户
不同的顾客，对产品的需求和销售条款的要求有差异
不同的顾客，对销售折扣的要求有差异
不同的顾客，款项结算有差异
成本方面
不同的顾客，营销方式和成本有差异
不同的顾客，销售渠道有差异
31
不同的顾客，货物配送和物流成本有差异
不同的顾客，售后服务有差异
2.顾客的不同特征
服务成本高的客户 特殊定货 小批量生产 一次性客户 特定送货需求 人工操作 较高的营销成本 要求有存货储备 赊账支付方式
经销商。 小客户: 零散客户
35
三大类客户的经营数据
36
作业成本库和作业动因
37
作业成本的归集和分配
企业所 发生的 间接销 售费用
38
按照
费用
订单次数
明细 订单处理成本
顾
的性 质
发运成本
发运次数
发票处理成本
发票数量
营销费用 推广费用
销售金额
客
销售金额
基于作业成本法对三大类顾客进行的 获利能力分析
研发
产品 设计
生产
营销
分销
客户 服务
28
产品成本
- 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)。
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。