作業(yè)成本法英文翻譯.doc

重慶理工大學(xué)文獻(xiàn)翻譯二級(jí)學(xué)院應(yīng)用技術(shù)學(xué)院班級(jí) 112216101 學(xué)生姓名陳語宣學(xué)號(hào) 11221610117譯文要求1、譯文內(nèi)容必須與課題(或?qū)I(yè)內(nèi)容相關(guān),并需注明詳細(xì)出處。2、外文翻譯譯文不少于2000字;外文參考資料閱讀量至少3篇(相當(dāng)于10萬外文字符以上。3、譯文原文(或復(fù)印件應(yīng)附在譯文后備查。譯文評(píng)閱導(dǎo)師評(píng)語(應(yīng)根據(jù)學(xué)?！白g文要求”,對(duì)學(xué)生外文翻譯的準(zhǔn)確性、翻譯數(shù)量以及譯文的文字表述情況等作具體的評(píng)價(jià)指導(dǎo)教師:年月日外文翻譯譯文作業(yè)成本法:仍然有用嗎?資料來源:管理會(huì)計(jì)季刊,2011年春季作者:William Stratton, Denis Desroches, Raef Lawson, Toby Hatch在過去的幾年里,顧問、從業(yè)者和學(xué)術(shù)研究者已經(jīng)注意到,作業(yè)成本法(ABC已經(jīng)發(fā)展到提高決策支持以及成本與利潤核算系統(tǒng)的精度,但是預(yù)期結(jié)果往往不是很理想。Robert S. Kaplan 和Steven R. Anderson 指出,許多公司丟棄了作業(yè)成本法,因?yàn)樗鼪]有抓住公司經(jīng)營的復(fù)雜性,花費(fèi)了很長時(shí)間去實(shí)施,建立和維護(hù)又太昂貴。作業(yè)成本法在其他地方出現(xiàn)進(jìn)一步的批評(píng):在理論上作業(yè)成本法簡單易懂,但是在實(shí)踐中運(yùn)用卻是非常困難的。它涉及“作業(yè)”定義,并試圖判斷每年需要使用多少費(fèi)用,而且它必須定期進(jìn)行檢查。很多公司有些厭倦了,所以放棄運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本法。在2001年的年度調(diào)查報(bào)告中,作業(yè)成本法在最廣泛使用的管理工具中排行第11位,而到2008年已經(jīng)下跌至22位。作業(yè)成本法的應(yīng)用研究反映了技術(shù)的不完善。在Bain公司2005年和2007年度的調(diào)查報(bào)告中顯示,作業(yè)成本管理(ABM的使用率為50%和52%,其使用效果滿意度低于其他方法。類似的研究結(jié)果刊登在SUNY-Albany大學(xué), Hyperion和Pepperdine Study的研究(SHAPS調(diào)查指出:在同一時(shí)期,他們發(fā)現(xiàn)作業(yè)成本法的使用價(jià)值與其使用率一樣處于下降趨勢。盡管這些研究得出很多負(fù)面結(jié)果,但是也有很多案例研究和報(bào)告中可以發(fā)現(xiàn)許多公司已經(jīng)采用作業(yè)成本法,并報(bào)告了對(duì)其使用價(jià)值的滿意度。這些公司將運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本法視為一種投資,他們認(rèn)為值得花時(shí)間和資源。進(jìn)行這項(xiàng)研究的一個(gè)動(dòng)機(jī)是為了尋求一個(gè)問題的答案:“成功實(shí)施作業(yè)成本法與沒有實(shí)施這種方法的結(jié)果有什么區(qū)別?”貫穿整個(gè)價(jià)值鏈的成本與利潤的測量方法成本分配到產(chǎn)品、客戶或其他成本對(duì)象一直是一個(gè)棘手的問題。在利潤表的對(duì)外報(bào)告中,生產(chǎn)成本必須被分配到產(chǎn)品。但是對(duì)于運(yùn)營成本控制、戰(zhàn)略決策和績效評(píng)估的目的來說,許多公司在內(nèi)部價(jià)值鏈還分配的其他功能費(fèi)用。用什么方法來衡量成本和整個(gè)價(jià)值鏈的利潤,以及不同方法的使用功能有何區(qū)別?目前已確定的方法中最常用的類型為:(1實(shí)際成本核算(2定額成本核算(3標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本核算(4作業(yè)成本核算成本核算方法的類型與操作系統(tǒng)一樣多種多樣,但是大多數(shù)公司都是從上面四種方法中選擇核算方法的。事實(shí)上,那些公司中大部分是使用以上這些方法中的一種。通過調(diào)查,各種成本核算方法在整個(gè)價(jià)值鏈中的使用情況,我們可以得出以下結(jié)論:(1除了與生產(chǎn)有直接關(guān)系的費(fèi)用外,很大一部分的成本是沒有被分配到成本對(duì)象中的。(2對(duì)于產(chǎn)品成本,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本核算方法仍然占有“最高使用率”,占42%。(3與一般觀點(diǎn)相反,作業(yè)成本法是貫穿整個(gè)價(jià)值鏈的,與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法具有幾乎相同的使用率。作業(yè)成本法并不是核算產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)成本的特殊方法。至于作業(yè)成本法的整體滿意度,我們的調(diào)查結(jié)果駁斥了作業(yè)成本法正越來越多地被遺棄的說法。我們調(diào)研了141個(gè)公司使用或未使用作業(yè)成本法的情況。其中,只有4個(gè)公司(占總數(shù)2.8%先前使用過后來不再使用;22個(gè)公司(15.6%考慮過運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本法但沒有執(zhí)行。為了探索更詳細(xì)的情況,我們看看效益和對(duì)成本與利潤核算系統(tǒng)的關(guān)注度。效益和對(duì)成本與利潤核算系統(tǒng)的關(guān)注度判斷作業(yè)成本法的使用價(jià)值,有助于確定成本與利潤的核算系統(tǒng),同時(shí)利于作業(yè)成本法在企業(yè)運(yùn)用的普及。最常見的正面作用包括:(1有利于產(chǎn)品決策,例如價(jià)格的制定,產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)和包裝決策。(2有助于對(duì)產(chǎn)品/服務(wù)盈利能力的分析。(3有利于企業(yè)進(jìn)行經(jīng)營決策。(4有利于執(zhí)行預(yù)算、規(guī)劃和績效評(píng)估。調(diào)查還顯示,經(jīng)理人都認(rèn)為作業(yè)成本法為公司的成本與利潤核算系統(tǒng)提供了各種各樣的好處。最起碼的兩個(gè)有利之處是:作業(yè)成本信息的及時(shí)獲取和間接費(fèi)用(間接成本的準(zhǔn)確分配。更多的爭論是設(shè)計(jì)作業(yè)成本法能否準(zhǔn)確地跟蹤作業(yè)的成本,并分配到最終的成本對(duì)象,還有是否能夠準(zhǔn)確地跟蹤管理費(fèi)用,并將其分配到最終成本對(duì)象?？偝杀痉峙浜妥鳂I(yè)成本計(jì)量顯然是經(jīng)理們最關(guān)心的。通過對(duì)作業(yè)成本法能否解決這兩個(gè)問題的調(diào)查研究發(fā)現(xiàn),只有四分之一的人認(rèn)為作業(yè)成本法不能準(zhǔn)確地追蹤到產(chǎn)品或服務(wù),而幾乎70%使用作業(yè)成本法的企業(yè)同意作業(yè)成本法實(shí)現(xiàn)了這樣的好處。類似的結(jié)果適用于間接成本跟蹤。最后,近40%的企業(yè)認(rèn)為作業(yè)成本法能夠準(zhǔn)確地跟蹤管理費(fèi)用,同樣超過70%的用戶從作業(yè)成本法思想中獲益。在成本核算系統(tǒng)中采用作業(yè)成本法,經(jīng)理人最擔(dān)心的是什么?運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本法是否有助于緩解這些問題?下面是主要的情況,包括:(1是否還有更好的方式來分配成本。(2這種方法不能反映資源是如何被消耗的(不能反映動(dòng)因成本。(3信息流通不及時(shí)。(4系統(tǒng)更新困難。企業(yè)運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本法能夠分擔(dān)這些問題,它的使用方法也在某種程度上有助于緩解他們的成本核算系統(tǒng)管理人員的擔(dān)憂。作業(yè)成本法和成本分配:間接費(fèi)用是如何被分配到成本對(duì)象的?作業(yè)成本法不僅僅是一種分配方法,與其他方法的主要區(qū)別在于如何積累和分配資源成本。對(duì)受訪者的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),他們大多認(rèn)為這種方法是用于分配間接費(fèi)用的方法。以下是目前使用的三種主要成本分配方法:(1平均分配:資源成本平均分配給所有消耗對(duì)象。(2基于產(chǎn)出的分配:資源成本依據(jù)相關(guān)產(chǎn)出進(jìn)行分配。(3作業(yè)成本分配:首先確認(rèn)耗用企業(yè)輔助資源的所有作業(yè),資源成本累計(jì)形成作業(yè)成本庫,這些成本被依據(jù)作業(yè)成本對(duì)象耗用的多少進(jìn)行分配。在受訪者中,最流行的方法是基于產(chǎn)出的分配,其中60%的企業(yè)將這種方法作為他們企業(yè)成本分配的一部分。第二個(gè)最常用的方法是作業(yè)成本法,使用率約為50%。作業(yè)成本法被視為具有的價(jià)值的成本核算方法,當(dāng)被問到什么樣的組合分配方式是企業(yè)理想的分配制度時(shí),受訪的管理人員明顯青睞于作業(yè)成本法,理想的成本核算系統(tǒng)需要運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本思想。目前,50%的受訪企業(yè)認(rèn)為作業(yè)成本法是理想的成本分配系統(tǒng)的組成部分。在未來,這種比例還會(huì)增加。決策支持與作業(yè)成本法決策支持系統(tǒng)主要是財(cái)務(wù)、運(yùn)營和戰(zhàn)略的成本與利潤核算系統(tǒng),。如何運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本法支持這三方面的決策?在比較了作業(yè)成本法和非作業(yè)成本法對(duì)決策支持的有用性之后發(fā)現(xiàn),特定類型的成本計(jì)算方法支持特定類型的決策系統(tǒng)。在一般情況下,作業(yè)成本法比非作業(yè)成本法提供了更高的決策支持水平。這種支持水平涉及整個(gè)財(cái)務(wù)、運(yùn)營和戰(zhàn)略領(lǐng)域的決策范圍。此外,作業(yè)成本法能夠更好地整合預(yù)算編制和規(guī)劃過程。這一切都表明,公司運(yùn)用作業(yè)成本法能夠更好地提供管理決策支持(作業(yè)成本管理。產(chǎn)品與客戶盈利能力的度量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)從戰(zhàn)略角度看,任何一個(gè)決策支持系統(tǒng)的基本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是產(chǎn)品與客戶盈利能力的精確測量。比如產(chǎn)品價(jià)格的制定,產(chǎn)品和客戶結(jié)構(gòu),產(chǎn)品和客戶合理化的戰(zhàn)略決策是最至關(guān)重要的市場競爭力。雖然多年來,產(chǎn)品的盈利能力一直是管理層主要的關(guān)注焦點(diǎn)。無論采用哪種成本核算方法(作業(yè)成本法與非作業(yè)成本法,幾乎所有公司都認(rèn)為,應(yīng)對(duì)產(chǎn)品與客戶盈利情況同時(shí)加以衡量。盡管大多數(shù)使用作業(yè)成本法的公司(近60%認(rèn)為作業(yè)成本法支持產(chǎn)品和客戶的盈利能力決策,而大部分非作業(yè)成本法的使用公司(約60%認(rèn)為作業(yè)成本法不支持產(chǎn)品和客戶的盈利能力決策。ABC的支持在最近,作業(yè)成本法這種成本計(jì)算方法的價(jià)值及使用率已經(jīng)成為從業(yè)人員和學(xué)者爭論的主題。在此之前的調(diào)查表明,作業(yè)成本法的使用率比過去幾年已經(jīng)提高了,并趨于穩(wěn)定。主要探討的問題是,作業(yè)成本法的使用所創(chuàng)造的價(jià)值與其實(shí)施成本。通過對(duì)作業(yè)成本法的使用率和作為成本與利潤核算系統(tǒng)的相關(guān)問題的研究之后,得出的結(jié)果歸納如下:(1作業(yè)成本法運(yùn)用于整個(gè)內(nèi)部價(jià)值鏈,絕大多數(shù)的公司將繼續(xù)使用這種方法。(2接受調(diào)查的管理人員認(rèn)為,在非作業(yè)成本法中缺乏準(zhǔn)確的成本費(fèi)用分配和作業(yè)成本信息流通不及時(shí)。(3作業(yè)成本法可以減輕管理人員對(duì)成本分?jǐn)倻?zhǔn)確性,在分配和資源消耗之間的因果關(guān)系,獲取成本/利潤信息的及時(shí)性,以及更新系統(tǒng)的能力等方面的憂慮。(4目前作業(yè)成本法的使用率和在理想制度下的使用優(yōu)勢預(yù)示著越來越多的公司將使用這種成本核算方法。(5作業(yè)成本法能提供更大的財(cái)務(wù)、運(yùn)營和戰(zhàn)略決策支持。(6作業(yè)成本法可以被更好地納入預(yù)算和規(guī)劃過程中。(7作業(yè)成本法提供比非作業(yè)成本法更好的戰(zhàn)略性產(chǎn)品/客戶決策支持。作業(yè)成本法在理論上幾乎適用于任何行業(yè),因?yàn)樗苓m應(yīng)不同的管理水平。然而,作業(yè)成本法在管理相對(duì)復(fù)雜的非服務(wù)性公司運(yùn)用最有效。管理復(fù)雜的公司容易發(fā)現(xiàn)到底哪種類型的成本核算方法更有利,因?yàn)樵谛畔⑼耆_放的時(shí)候,成本很難被用來理解和評(píng)價(jià)最大利益。服務(wù)行業(yè)可能不適用作業(yè)成本法,因?yàn)檫@些行業(yè)的成本很難分配,沒有一個(gè)可以識(shí)別的因果關(guān)系。公司可以將作業(yè)成本法視為一種管理工具。作業(yè)成本法的運(yùn)用可能要付出昂貴的代價(jià),它并不總是符合公認(rèn)的會(huì)計(jì)原則,所以如果使用作業(yè)成本管理,公司不得不保留一個(gè)獨(dú)立的系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行跟蹤成本是否符合一般公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)原則。在當(dāng)今復(fù)雜的商業(yè)世界,作業(yè)成本法作為一種成本核算系統(tǒng),可更精確地將成本分配到產(chǎn)品和部門。我們的研究結(jié)果提供了充足的結(jié)論支持:作業(yè)成本法的確給管理者提供了更有意義的價(jià)值。我們相信,使用作業(yè)成本法為公司提供了更優(yōu)越的成本和盈利能力核算系統(tǒng),現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候讓更多的公司采用作業(yè)成本核算方法了。原文Activity-based costing: is it still relevant?Material source: Management Accounting Quarterly, spring, 2011Author: William Stratton, Denis Desroches, Raef Lawson, Toby HatchOver the past several years, consultants, practitioners, and academic investigators have noticed that activity-based costing (ABC methods, developed to improve decision support and the accuracy of cost- and profit-measurement systems, too often have yielded less than the desired results. Robert S. Kaplan and Steven R. Anderson state, Many companies abandoned activity-based costing because it did not capture the complexity of their operations, took too long to implement, and was too expensive to build and maintain.”Furthe r criticism of ABC appeared elsewhere. Straightforward in theory, ABC proved notoriously difficult in practice. It involved defining activities and trying to judge (often subjectively how much overhead each used. And it had to be done regularly. Companies got fed up, and many abandoned it. From 11th position in the 2001 annual survey of the most widely used management tools (Bain, it fell to 22nd place (in 2008.Studies of ABC use have reflected this dissatisfaction with the technique. The Bain & Company annual surveys in 2005 and 2007 reported use of activity-based management (ABM at 50% and 52%, respectively, with associated satisfaction scores below the average for all tools used. Similar results were reported in the SUNY-Albany, Hyperion, and Pepperdine Study (SHAPS surveys: During the same period, they found a decline in the perceived value of ABC compared to its usage.Despite the negative results of these studies, there are many case studies and anecdotal reports of organizations that have adopted ABC methods and reported satisfaction with the value they provide. These companies consider their ABC methods an investment worth the time and resources committed to them. One motive for conducting this research was to seek an answer to the question: What distinguishes successful implementations of ABC methods from those that have not succeeded?In order to study the use of ABC methods (and other issues related to the design and use of costing and profitability methods, we formed the Business Research and Analysis Group and conducted a survey sponsored by the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA and other professional associations.Cost and Profit Measurement Methods Across the Value ChainThe assignment of costs to products, customers, or other cost objects has always been a thorny issue. For external reporting, production costs must be assigned to products for both income and asset reporting purposes. For operational cost control, strategic decision-making, and performance measurement purposes, however, many organizations also assign costs from the other functions in the internal value chain.What methods are used to measure costs and profits across the value chain, and does their usage vary by function? We identified the most frequently used types of methods as:(1 Actual costing(2Normal costing(3Standard costing(4Activity-based costing.While the set of costing method types is as diverse as the kinds of operating systems, most organizations in the survey chose from this short list. In fact, most companies used more than one of these methods. A survey shows the use of these method types across the value chain. We can reach the following conclusions:(1With the exception of production-related costs, a significant proportion of costs is not assigned to cost objects.(2 For production costs, standard costing is still king of the hill with a usage rate of 42%.(3Contrary to common belief, ABC methods are used across the entire value chain at approximately the same rate. ABC is not a production-specific method.As to the overall satisfaction with the ABC method, our survey results refute many of the assertions that ABC increasingly is being abandoned. We asked 141 organizations to indicate their use or nonuse of ABC. Of these, only four (2.8% previously used ABC but no longer use it, and 22 (15.6% considered ABC but chose not to implement it. To explore the specifics in more detail, we looked at the benefits and concerns that respondents related about cost and profit measurement systems.Benefits and Concerns about Cost-profit-measurement SystemsIn order to judge the value of ABC, it is helpful to identify commonly reported benefits of cost-profit-measurement systems and their prevalence. The most frequently reported benefits include:(1Useful for product decisions, such as pricing, design, and outsourcing.(2 Helpful for product/service profitability analysis.(3 Helpful for making operational improvements.(4 Useful for performing budgeting, planning, and performance evaluation.Survey also shows that managers agree that ABC provide a wide variety of benefits for their cost-profit-measurement systems. The three lowest-scoring benefits relate to commonly claimed benefits of the ABC method: activity-cost information and accurate allocation of overhead (indirect costs. More disagreed than agreed that their system was able to accurately trace activity costs to final cost objects. In a similar way, more disagreed than agreed with the statement that their system could accurately trace overhead costs to final cost objects. Overhead allocation and activity-cost measurement are clearly of concern to managers. To investigate whether ABC methods address these issues, we recast the responses into two groups: ABC users and ABC nonusers. Survey makes it abundantly clear that ABC methods address these issues and constitutes strong evidence of the value of ABC methods. Only one in four nonusers agrees that the costs of activities are traced accurately to products or services, whereas almost 70% of ABC method users agree that this benefit is realized. Similar results apply to overhead cost tracing. Finally, less than 40% of ABC nonusers receive accurate costs of activities, while more than 70% of ABC users benefit from such cost knowledge.It is not surprising that the two benefits directly related to activities,the focus of ABC are realized to a greater extent in such systems, but overhead allocation to cost objects is important in non-ABC methods as well. The substantial difference in benefits realized from ABC makes it clear that ABC methods warrant serious consideration, especially in organizations with significant overhead costs.What are the main concerns of managers regarding their cost-measurement systems, and do ABC methods help alleviate these concerns? Survey identifies a variety of possible concerns and tells how users of ABC methods and non-ABC methods view each. The major concerns for both groups include:(1Need to find a better way to allocate costs.(2Allocations do not reflect how resources are used (lack of cause-effect.(3Information is not timely.(4Updating the system is difficult.While organizations that apply ABC methods share these concerns, the level of concern about these issues, is uniformly less than expressed by those that use non-ABC methods. This finding indicates that use of ABC methods at least somewhathelps alleviate managers concerns with their cost-measurement systems. ABC and Cost Allocation: How Are Indirect Costs Being Assigned to Cost Objects? Although ABC is more than an allocation method, the primary attribute differentiating it from other methodologies is how it accumulates and allocates resource costs. Our survey asked respondents to identify the methods used to allocate indirect costs. We presented three major methods of allocation along with the option to specify other methodologies in use. These three methods are: (1Equal allocation: Resource cost is allocated equally to all objects that consume the resources. (2Output-based allocation: Resource cost is allocated according to an output-related allocation base. (3 ABC allocation: Resource costs are accumulated into activity cost pools. These cost pools are allocated to objects based on how much of the activity is consumed by the objects. Among those surveyed, the most popular method is output-based allocation, with 60% of organizations using this method for part of their allocations. The second most popular method is ABC, with a usage rate of just under 50%. ABC is viewed as having value, even among firms that do not currently use that methodology. When asked to specify what the mix of allocation methods would be in the organizations ideal allocation system, managers surveyed had a significant bias in favor of ABC: More than 87% of organizations ideal costing systems would include some form of ABC. Given that such a high number of respondents envision including ABC as part of their ideal cost allocation system than currently do so (about 50%, adoption of ABC may increase in the future. Decision Support and ABC The major types of decisions that are supported by cost-profit-measurement systems are financial, operational, and strategic. How do ABC methods support these decisions compared to others? Survey compares the perceived usefulness of ABC and non-ABC methods to support these decisions. It contains the mean response, on a scale of 0 to 6, to the statement that a given type of costing method supports a given type of decision making. In general, ABC methods provide greater levels of decision support than do non-ABC methods. This improved level of support spans the spectrum of decision making across financial, operational, and strategic areas. Furthermore, ABC methods are better integrated with budgeting and planning processes. All this indicates that companies using ABC feel better equipped to apply their results to management decision support (activity-based management. Product and Customer Profitability Metrics From a strategic perspective, an essential criterion for any decision support system is the accurate measurement of product and customer profitability. Strategic decisions such as pricing, product and customer mix, and product and customer rationalization are among the most vital to organizational competitiveness. Although product profitability has been the primary focus of management attention for many years, the identification of profitable customers has gained prominence recently. Regardless of the type of costing method used (ABC versus non-ABC, almost all companies agree that both product and customer profitability should be measured. Whereas most (nearly 60% ABC methods support both product and customer profitability decisions, most (approximately 60% non-ABC methods do not. Support for ABC The value and usage rate of activity-based costing methods have recently been the subjects of debate among practitioners and academics. Prior surveys indicate that the usage rate of ABC has leveled over the past several years and that questions are being raised as to its value relative to its cost of implementation. In this study we examined the usage rate and relevance of ABC as a cost-profit-measurement system. Our results are summarized as follows: (1ABC methods are deployed across the internal value chain, and the vast majority of organizations continue to use them. (2Managers surveyed believe that accurate overhead allocation and activity cost information is lacking in non-ABC methods, while ABC methods address these needs. (3ABC methods alleviate managers concerns regarding the accuracy of cost allocations, the cause-effect relationship between allocations and resources consumed, the timeliness of cost/profit information, and the capability to update systems. (4The substantial gap between current usage rates of ABC methods and their desirability in ideal systems may portend increased use. (5ABC methods