2022年会计标准成本制度外文翻译

1、重构成本制度：标准成本制度过时了吗？卡罗尔 契坦，里奥契坦 会计瞭望自 1980 年代早期 , 标准成本制度 (SCS)因为不能有效的为先进制造业提供相 关信息而被质疑。但是尽管有批评声在，标准成本制度依旧是大约 86%的美国制 造公司的首选。本篇论文讨论了那些批评标准成本制度的意见，主要有：(1) 它认为差异是不需要考虑的； (2) 它不能够与时俱进； (3) 在责任会计系统下， 差异分析导致了内 部冲突而不是正效应。于是，一个兼容、动态、简约以及能够有效反馈的更新后的标准成本制度被提了出来。基于活动的成本核算系统 （ABC）出炉了， 它能够兼容标准成本制度同时也是它的主要竞争对手。 本篇论

2、文的作者讨论了什么时候该用基于活动的成本核算系 统或者是标准成本制度还是两者兼用。自从艾利高德拉特 （1983）在 1980 年代早期指控说成本会计是生产力的头 号公敌，传统的成本制度被质疑了。 尽管高德拉特后来松动了他的立场说是成本而不是会计是元凶， 但是其他人又一窝蜂的开始谴责成本制度的使用。在被提出来的新制度里最受欢迎的就是基于活动的成本核算系统。尽管标准成本制度备受质疑， 但是在 1988 年度的一份调查显示 86%的美国厂 商依旧使用标准成本制度 (Cornick et al. 1988)。在一份 Schiff 的调查（ 1993）中，其指出 36%的公司使用基于活动的成本核算系统，

3、但是这其中只有 25%的公 司是使用基于活动的成本核算系统来替代传统的成本制度。我们可以看出目前只有大约 9%的公司使用基于活动的成本核算系统作为他们的主要制度而绝大多数 使用的还是标准成本制度。这并不是说传统的标准成本制度不能得益于更新后的制度。但是，工厂（也有学术界）的会计从业人员没有意识到重新设计后的标准成本制度能够提供他们所需要的信息， 同时更新现有的制度比采用新的制度也来的容易得多。标准成本制度是融合管理会计、 金融会计和业务会计的一个工具，制制度当它的替代品只有一些成本积聚制度。而且它可以作为一个控本文里，还述及了一些标准成本制度的缺陷可以在检查过程中得到纠正和改 善，以及在标准成

4、本制度使用过程中适当的使用基于活动的成本核算系统。改进标准成本制度里对差异的考虑就标准成本制度的差异分析而言，大部分质疑集中在标准成本制度过度强调 价格和效率而不考虑品质， 还有些质疑集中在用产量差异来分析资源利用率而忽视了过剩产量和一些财产的不必要增加。作出这些指控的时候， 批评家们没有意识到变量分析没有针对个别变量的固定模式可依。标准只是那些应该做的事情的基准。必要时，个别差异的使用会发生改变。合宜原材料的差异。考虑差异分析旨在它对采购原材料和库存量的影响(Harrell 1992)。订购原材料的差异能够带给我们关于供应商效率的相关信息。它能够对比原材料的采购与交付（购买）。任何差异都可能

5、被考虑的不周到，因为宗旨是按照订单所规定的交付，太多的递送会导致原材料库存过剩，由于产品延时导致递送的太少也是糟糕的。合宜销售分析的差异。有各种方法来分析销售。其中一个方法是运用价格和数量差异， 进一步用其分析市场规模和市场份额的差异。销售差异表明了客户服务以及销售费用。 差异分析使用预算的边际贡献率作为衡量机会成本的手段。制成品差异表明了与机会成本与订单完成量有关而不是发货量。发货推迟造成的损失是因为随后的延迟收款。 销售订单的差异表明了这段期间内不能满足需求量的原因，是资源不足还是时间表制定问题等等。上面的讨论中 , 提出了各种差异没有被传统的标准成本制度所考量。差异可以被单独运用于控制系

6、统也可以被集成在财务会计记录上。该系统不能成为通用制度来满足任何公司的需求。 它的用意是向人们展示 , 通过一点创造力 , 就有可能重 构标准成本制度使其考量差异以满足有着那些特殊需求的企业，在今天这个产业 环境下具有重要的意义。改进标准成本制度使其能够与时俱进 与时俱进对于大多数公司来说都是不言而喻的目标之一，其中一个指责是说标准成本制度不鼓励积极的改变。但是, 基于工程研究或历史数据的静态标准不是标准成本制度的主要部分， 不管使用那种方法， 标准都是可以动态的调整或者 改变。使用先期的结果作为标准。一个获得动态标准的办法是使用最后一期的结果 作为标准， 这个想法被有些小企业采用。 反对者认

7、为以最后一期结果作为标准可 能因最后一期结果由于受到例外因素的影响而不具有代表性导致分析不科学。如 果确实是这样，最后一期的数据就需要被修改。另一个使用上一期绩效作为变量分析方法的是使用一个固定周期。如果愿意，可以参照这个固定周期或者随后的所有时期。波尔描述了一个适用于单位成本容易计量的基于一个固定周期的系统，称作“ 伪弹性预算” 。他说道这个系统“ 促 进成本制度的与时俱进， 同时也暗示了不论采纳哪个结果来作为标准都不可能是 绝对恰当的，不过，它能够鼓励管理层去不断改进。”还有一个基于先期结果作为标准来考量变量的制度是BP（每天都更好）， BP作为一个自我更新的制度是严酷的因为它刺激员工和管

8、理者只许做得比以往更 好。使用标杆管理。虽然过去的业务成本能够为制定动态标准提供各种参照，但 是这些都是内在形成的参数。 标杆管理看起来像是独立于公司和竞争对手之外的 制度，它经常被用作绩效评估而不是作为制定标准的参照，将同行业里优秀企业的业务绩效作为标杆能够鼓励自身向先进企业看齐。使用标杆管理最大的限制当然是缺乏信息。 爱德华s 芬尼 (1990),前施乐公司副总裁兼首席工程师, 列出了以下几个获取信息的渠道： 1) 对外报告和贸易刊物 ;(2) 专业协会 ;(3) 市场研究和调查 ;(4) 行业专家 ;(5) 咨询师的研究 ;(6) 公司参观 ;(7) 实验室。还缺乏硬件信息时，就需要推估

9、行业翘楚的业绩。只要本公司的发展方向是正确的，向着高的标准看齐始终是有好处的。改进权责体系和回馈系统 为了使标准成本制度能够更具有时效性，除了改进标准成本制度在核算变量 和与时俱进这两方面的不足， 还需要改善变量的反馈情况。 旧的反馈系统趋向于 在内部引入竞争机制和争论到底哪个部门该为标准成本超额差异负责。这就需要 一个各个员工、经理和部门之间共同协作的态度。标准成本制度和基于活动的成本核算系统 最后我们要关心的是在更新标准成本制度的时候它与基于活动的成本核算系 统之间的联系。 尽管基于活动的成本核算系统拥有更广的前景，它起初只是被运 用于在制造费用上。当一个公司有大量的间接产品成本时，基于活

10、动的成本核算系统能够更好的 进行产品的成本核算， 因为基于活动的成本核算系统在分配产品各项费用上具有 优势。这使得公司的管理层在产品价格的处理上显得更加明智。但是，基于活动的成本核算系统是一个成本积聚系统而不是成本控制系统。当被运用在过程价值分析和寄语活动的管理时，基于活动的成本核算系统可以有效用于成本管理，但没有日常的监控系统以确保成本是在设置的参数范围内。大多数公司可以得益于标准成本制度和基于活动的成本核算系统的组合使 用。其中一个可行性是把基于活动的成本核算系统运用于间接费用同时将更新后的标准成本制度运用在直接费用上； 另一个可行性的方式是财务记录采用标准成 本制度，主要簿记系统之外的间

11、接费用采用基于活动的成本核算系统。两个系统的共同使用保留了标准成本制度在控制系统上的优势同时也吸收了基于活动的 成本核算系统能够更好的处理一些费用上的特点。结论 标准成本制度不是成本系统里濒临灭绝的恐龙，但是它们可能需要不断地与时俱进。改进动态的标准并纳入变量将极大地促进标准成本制度的使用率。基于活动的成本核算系统能够和标准成本制度和谐共存同时也在间接费用领域带来了一些新的规则。 改进反馈和变量系统有利于公司的管理层更好的评析交易、管理库存以及它们对收益带来的影响。Redesigning Cost Systems: Is Standard Costing Obsolete? Carole B.

12、 Cheatham and Leo R. Cheatham Accounting Horizons Since the early 1980s standard cost systems (SCSs) have been under attack as not providing the information needed for advanced manufacturers. In spite of the its critics, SCSs are still the system of choice in some 86 percent of U.S. manufacturing fi

13、rms. This paper discusses the criticisms of SCSs that (1) the variances are obsolete (2) there is no provision for continuous improvement, and (3) use of the variances for responsibility accounting result in internal conflict rather than cooperation. Updates for SCSs in the form of redesigned varian

14、ces, suggestions for dynamic standards, and refocused responsibility and reporting systems are presented. The compatibility of SCSs and its main competitor as a cost system, activity-based costing (ABC), is examined. The authors discuss when it is appropriate to use ABC or SCS or some combination of

15、 the two. Since Eli Goldratts (1983) charge that cost accounting is the number one enemy of productivity in the early 1980s, traditional cost systems have been under attack. Although Goldratt subsequently softened his stand to say that cost rather accounting was the culprit (Jayson 1987), others wer

16、e quick to jump on the bandwagon to condemn the cost systems in use. New systems were proposed of which the most popular was activity-based costing (ABC). In spite of all the criticism, a 1988 survey shows 86 percent of U.S. manufacturers using standard cost systems (Cornick et al. 1988). A survey b

17、y Schiff (1993) indicates that 36 percent of companies use activity-based costing, but only 25 percent of those use it to replace their traditional cost system. It would seem that only about 9 percent (25 percent of the 36 percent) of companies are using ABC as their main system while the vast major

18、ity use a standard cost system (SCS). This is not to say that traditional SCSs could not benefit from being updated. However, accountants in industry (as well as academia) seem unaware that a redesigned SCS can provide the information they need, and that updating their present system is an easier pr

19、ocess than adopting a new system. The SCS is one vehicle of articulation among managerial, financial and operations accounting, and it is a control system while the candidates for its replacement typically are only cost accumulation systems. In this article the major criticisms of SCSs are examined

20、along with ways that the weaknesses can be remedied or ameliorated. The criticisms relate to the use of specific variances, the lack of provision for continuous improvement, and the fact that administration of the system results in internal competition rather than cooperation. The appropriate use of

21、 ABC systems in conjunction with SCSs is also discussed. UPDATING THE VARIANCES IN AN SCS Concerning the variables analyzed in an SCS, most criticisms center on the over emphasis on price and efficiency to the exclusion of quality. Other criticisms center on the use of the volume variance to measure

22、 utilization of capacity while ignoring over production and unnecessary buildups of inventory. In making such charges, critics fail to realize variance analysis is not locked-in to a particular set of variables. Standards are only benchmarks of what performance should be. The particular variables us

23、ed can be changed as the need arises. Variances Pertaining to Raw Materials The set of variances in figure I centers on the function of raw material ordering and inventory levels (Harrell 1992). The Raw Material Ordering Variance gives information about the effectiveness of suppliers. It contrasts t

24、he raw materials ordered with the raw materials delivered (purchased). Any variation may be considered unfavorable because the goal is to have orders delivered as placed. Too much delivered will result in unnecessary buildups of raw material stocks. Too little delivered is unfavorable because produc

25、tion delays may result. Variances Pertaining to Sales Analysis There are various ways to analyze sales. One method is to use price, mix and volume variances. A further analysis is to break down the volume variance into market size and market share variances. The analysis in figure 4 is presented bec

26、ause it articulates well with the output analysis for production. The sales variances indicate customer service as well as the cost of lost sales. The variances use budgeted contribution margin as a measure of opportunity cost. The Finished Goods Variance indicates the opportunity cost associated wi

27、th orders completed but not shipped. A delay in shipment causes a loss because of subsequent delay in receiving payment. The Sales Order Variance represents the opportunity cost associated with sales orders that could not be filled during the time period for whatever reason-lack of capacity, schedul

28、ing problems, etc. The above discussion presents a variety of variances that are not used in a traditional standard cost system. The variances can be used for control purposes alone or can be integrated into the financial accounting records (Cheatham and Cheatham 1993). The system is not intended to

29、 be a generic solution for any companys needs. It is intended to demonstrate that, with a little creativity, it is possible to redesign SCSs to measure variables that are important to a particular company in todays manufacturing environment. UPDATING THE SCS FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT In a manufactu

30、ring environment in which continuous improvement is a goal of most companies, the charge has been made that SCSs do not encourage positive change. However, static standards based on engineering studies or historical data are not an essential part of an SCS. Standards can be adjusted to be dynamic, o

31、r changing, by any of several methods. Using Prior Periods Results as Standards One way to have dynamic standards is to use last periods results as standards. This idea has been advocated in the past as a way for small business to have the benefits of standards without the expense of engineering stu

32、dies (Lawler and Livingstone 1986; Cheatham 1987). The objection can be made that last periods results may not make very good standards if last period was unrepresentative for whatever reason. If this is the case, last periods results can be modified. Another variation on using past performances as

33、standards is the use of a base period. Comparisons can be made with the base period and all subsequent periods, if desired. Boer (1991) describes a system of using a base year as a pseudo flexible budget from which unit costs are developed. He comments that the system encourages continuous improveme

34、nt and never implies that a level of performance is adequate. Instead, it encourages managers to improve continuously. Still another variation on using prior periods results as standards is the use of best-performance-to-date (BP). BP is a rigorous standard for self-improvement because it motivates

35、workers as well as managers to exceed all past performance. Using Benchmarking Although past performance costs may be used in a variety of ways to formulate dynamic standards, any such system has an inward focus. Benchmarking looks outside the firm to the performance of industry leaders or competito

36、rs. Benchmarking typically is applied to performance measures rather than standard costs. However, using the performance of industry leaders as a standard provides motivation to become world-class in much the same fashion. The primary barrier to use of benchmarking standards is, of course, lack of i

37、nformation. Edward S. Finein (1990), former vice president and chief engineer of Xerox, lists the following sources of information when using benchmarking for performance measures: (1) external reports and trade publications; (2) professional associations; (3) market research and surveys; (4) indust

38、ry experts; (5) consultants studies; (6) company visits; and (7) competitive labs. In the absence of hard information, an approach may be taken to estimate the performance of industry leaders. Trying to meet the supposed standards of industry leaders (or other competitors) can have results that are

39、useful as long as the company is striving toward beneficial goals. UPDATING MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTING Besides revamping the SCS to better reflect todays concerns in terms of variables to be measured and continuous improvement, there needs to be improved reporting of variances. Old repo

40、rting systems tended to foster internal competition and arguments about whose department was to blame for unfavorable variances. There needs to be an attitude of cooperation among workers, managers and departments. STANDARD COST SYSTEMS AND ABC A final consideration in updating SCSs is how an SCS relates to ABC. Although ABC potentially has broader uses, it primarily has been used for manufacturing overhead. When a company has a significant amount of indirect pr