[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]預(yù)算外文翻譯-預(yù)算編制實(shí)踐進(jìn)展--綜述與研究視角

1、7000 英文單詞， 英文單詞，4 萬(wàn)英文字符，中文 萬(wàn)英文字符，中文 12500 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Hansen S C, Otley D T, Van der Stede W A. Practice developments in budgeting: an overview and research perspective[J]. Journal of management accounting research, 2003

2、, 15(1): 95-116.Practice Developments in Budgeting: An Overview and Research PerspectiveStephen C. Hansen,David T. Otley,Wim A. Van der StedeAbstract Practitioners in Europe and the U.S. recently have proposed two distin

3、ct approaches to address what they believe are shortcomings of traditional budgeting practices. One approach advocates improving the budgeting process and primarily focuses on the planning problems with budgeting. The ot

4、her advocates abandoning the budget and primarily focuses on the performance evaluation problems with budgeting. This paper provides an overview and research perspective on these two recent developments. We discuss why p

5、ractitioners have become dissatisfied with budgets, describe the two distinct approaches, place them in a research context, suggest insights that may aid the practitioners, and use the practitioner perspectives to identi

6、fy fruitful areas for research.INTRODUCTIONBudgeting is the cornerstone of the management control process in nearly all organizations, but despite its widespread use, it is far from perfect.1 Practitioners express concer

7、ns about using budgets for planning and performance evaluation. The practitioners argue that budgets impede the allocation of organizational resources to their best uses and encourage myopic decision making and other dys

8、functional budget games. They attribute these problems, in part, to traditional budgeting’s financial, top-down, command- and-control orientation as embedded in annual budget planning and performance evaluation processes

9、 (e.g., Schmidt 1992; Bunce et al. 1995; Hope and Fraser 1997, 2000, 2003;Wallander 1999; Ekholm and Wallin 2000; Marcino 2000; Jensen 2001).We demonstrate practitioners’ concerns with budgets by describing two practice

10、-led developments: one advocating improving the budgeting process, the other abandoning it. These developments illustrate two points. First, they show practitioners’ concerns with budgeting problems that the scholarly li

11、terature has largely ignored while focusing instead on more traditional issues like participative budgeting.2 Second, the two conflicting developments illustrate that firms face a critical decision regarding budgeting: m

12、aintain it, improve it, or abandon it?Our discussion has two objectives. First, we demonstrate the level of concern with budgeting in practice, suggesting its potential for continued scholarly research. Second, we wish t

13、o raise academics’ awareness of apparent disconnects between budgeting practice and research. We identify areas where prior research may aid the practitioners and, conversely, use the practitioners’ insights to sugges

14、t areas for research.In the second section, we review some of the most common criticisms of budgets in practice. The third section describes and analyzes the main thrust of two recent practice- led developments in budg

15、eting. In the fourth section, we place these two practice developments in a research context and suggest research that may be relevant to the practitioners. The fifth section turns the tables by causes a mismatch with op

16、erational and strategic decisions that emphasize nonfinancial goals and cut across the annual planning cycle, leading to budget games involving skillful timing of revenues, expenditures, and investments (Merchant 1985a).

17、Finally, claims 7, 11, and 12 reflect organizational and people-related budgeting issues. The critics argue that vertical, command-and-control, responsibility center-focused budgetary controls are incompatible with flat,

18、 network, or value chain-based organizational designs and impede empowered employees from making the best decisions (Hope and Fraser 2003).Given such a long list of problems and many calls for improvement, it seems odd t

19、hat the vast majority of U.S. firms retain a formal budgeting process (97 percent of the respondents in Umapathy [1987]). One reason that budgets may be retained in most firms is because they are so deeply ingrained in a

20、n organization’s fabric (Scapens and Roberts 1993). ‘‘They remain a centrally coordinated activity (often the only one) within the business’’ (Neely et al. 2001, 9) and constitute ‘‘the only process that covers all areas

21、 of organizational activity’’ (Otley 1999). However, a more recent survey of Finnish firms found that although 25 percent are retaining their traditional budgeting system, 61 percent are actively upgrading their system,

22、and 14 percent are either abandoning budgets or at least considering it (Ekholm and Wallin 2000). We discuss two practice-led developments that illustrate proposals to improve budgeting or to abandon it.Although the two

23、developments reach different conclusions, both originated in the same organization, the Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing-International (CAM-I); one in the U.S. and the other in Europe. The U.S.-based CAM-I Activity-

24、Based Budgeting (ABB) group advocates improving the budgeting system by marrying a more complete, activity- based operational model with a detailed financial model. Its focus is on improving budgeting’s support of operat

25、ional planning. The European-based CAM-I Beyond Budgeting (BB) group takes a more radical view and recommends a two-stage approach. The first stage addresses the problems with budgeting when they are used for performance

26、 evaluation. It suggests that traditional budgetary controls that combine planning and performance evaluation lead to both poor planning and dysfunctional behavior. Therefore, the BB-group recommends either radically cha

27、nging traditional budget-based performance evaluations or completely eliminating the budget process. The second stage of the BB-approach is to radically decentralize the organization and empower lower-level managers and

28、employees. Although the ABB-group has more of a planning focus and the BB-group more of a performance evaluation focus, they share a common belief that traditional budgeting is fundamentally mismatched to today’s rapidly

29、 changing and uncertain environments.PRACTICE DEVELOPMENTS IN BUDGETINGAlthough the ABB and BB practice-led budgeting developments are significant efforts supported by prominent firms,6 we make no claim that the CAM-I ef

30、forts represent the complete picture of all new budgeting practice developments. Instead, their conflicting positions provide valuable illustrations of how current practice views budgeting at an important decision point:

31、 Should organizations retain, improve, or abandon their budgeting processes? We also make no claims about the practitioner-stated benefits of their proposals. Instead, we review and analyze the proposals and their purpor

32、ted benefits from a research perspective in the later sections of the paper. We first discuss the ABB’s more moderate approach to improve the budget and then describe the BB’s more drastic approach to abandon the budget.