作业成本法英文翻译

重庆理工大学文献翻译二级学院应用技术学院班级 112216101 学生姓名陈语宣学号 11221610117译文要求1、译文内容必须与课题（或专业）内容相关，并需注明详细出处。

2、外文翻译译文不少于2000字；外文参考资料阅读量至少3篇（相当于10万外文字符以上）。

3、译文原文（或复印件）应附在译文后备查。

译文评阅导师评语（应根据学校“译文要求”，对学生外文翻译的准确性、翻译数量以及译文的文字表述情况等作具体的评价）指导教师：年月日外文翻译译文作业成本法：仍然有用吗？资料来源：管理会计季刊，2011年春季作者：William Stratton, Denis Desroches, Raef Lawson, Toby Hatch在过去的几年里，顾问、从业者和学术研究者已经注意到，作业成本法（ABC）已经发展到提高决策支持以及成本与利润核算系统的精度，但是预期结果往往不是很理想。

Robert S. Kaplan 和Steven R. Anderson 指出，许多公司丢弃了作业成本法，因为它没有抓住公司经营的复杂性，花费了很长时间去实施，建立和维护又太昂贵。

作业成本法在其他地方出现进一步的批评：在理论上作业成本法简单易懂，但是在实践中运用却是非常困难的。

它涉及“作业”定义，并试图判断每年需要使用多少费用，而且它必须定期进行检查。

很多公司有些厌倦了，所以放弃运用作业成本法。

在2001年的年度调查报告中，作业成本法在最广泛使用的管理工具中排行第11位，而到2008年已经下跌至22位。

作业成本法的应用研究反映了技术的不完善。

在Bain公司2005年和2007年度的调查报告中显示，作业成本管理（ABM）的使用率为50%和52%，其使用效果满意度低于其他方法。

类似的研究结果刊登在SUNY-Albany大学，Hyperion和Pepperdine Study的研究（SHAPS调查）指出：在同一时期，他们发现作业成本法的使用价值与其使用率一样处于下降趋势。

尽管这些研究得出很多负面结果，但是也有很多案例研究和报告中可以发现许多公司已经采用作业成本法，并报告了对其使用价值的满意度。

这些公司将运用作业成本法视为一种投资，他们认为值得花时间和资源。

进行这项研究的一个动机是为了寻求一个问题的答案：“成功实施作业成本法与没有实施这种方法的结果有什么区别？”贯穿整个价值链的成本与利润的测量方法成本分配到产品、客户或其他成本对象一直是一个棘手的问题。

在利润表的对外报告中，生产成本必须被分配到产品。

但是对于运营成本控制、战略决策和绩效评估的目的来说，许多公司在内部价值链还分配的其他功能费用。

用什么方法来衡量成本和整个价值链的利润，以及不同方法的使用功能有何区别？目前已确定的方法中最常用的类型为：（1）实际成本核算（2）定额成本核算（3）标准成本核算（4）作业成本核算成本核算方法的类型与操作系统一样多种多样，但是大多数公司都是从上面四种方法中选择核算方法的。

事实上，那些公司中大部分是使用以上这些方法中的一种。

通过调查，各种成本核算方法在整个价值链中的使用情况，我们可以得出以下结论：（1）除了与生产有直接关系的费用外，很大一部分的成本是没有被分配到成本对象中的。

（2）对于产品成本，标准成本核算方法仍然占有“最高使用率”，占42%。

（3）与一般观点相反，作业成本法是贯穿整个价值链的，与标准成本法具有几乎相同的使用率。

作业成本法并不是核算产品生产成本的特殊方法。

至于作业成本法的整体满意度，我们的调查结果驳斥了作业成本法正越来越多地被遗弃的说法。

我们调研了141个公司使用或未使用作业成本法的情况。

其中，只有4个公司（占总数2.8%）先前使用过后来不再使用；22个公司（15.6%）考虑过运用作业成本法但没有执行。

为了探索更详细的情况，我们看看效益和对成本与利润核算系统的关注度。

效益和对成本与利润核算系统的关注度判断作业成本法的使用价值，有助于确定成本与利润的核算系统，同时利于作业成本法在企业运用的普及。

最常见的正面作用包括：（1）有利于产品决策，例如价格的制定，产品设计和包装决策。

（2）有助于对产品/服务盈利能力的分析。

（3）有利于企业进行经营决策。

（4）有利于执行预算、规划和绩效评估。

调查还显示，经理人都认为作业成本法为公司的成本与利润核算系统提供了各种各样的好处。

最起码的两个有利之处是：作业成本信息的及时获取和间接费用（间接成本）的准确分配。

更多的争论是设计作业成本法能否准确地跟踪作业的成本，并分配到最终的成本对象，还有是否能够准确地跟踪管理费用，并将其分配到最终成本对象。

总成本分配和作业成本计量显然是经理们最关心的。

通过对作业成本法能否解决这两个问题的调查研究发现，只有四分之一的人认为作业成本法不能准确地追踪到产品或服务，而几乎70%使用作业成本法的企业同意作业成本法实现了这样的好处。

类似的结果适用于间接成本跟踪。

最后，近40%的企业认为作业成本法能够准确地跟踪管理费用，同样超过70%的用户从作业成本法思想中获益。

在成本核算系统中采用作业成本法，经理人最担心的是什么？运用作业成本法是否有助于缓解这些问题？下面是主要的情况，包括：（1）是否还有更好的方式来分配成本。

（2）这种方法不能反映资源是如何被消耗的（不能反映动因成本）。

（3）信息流通不及时。

（4）系统更新困难。

企业运用作业成本法能够分担这些问题，它的使用方法也在某种程度上有助于缓解他们的成本核算系统管理人员的担忧。

作业成本法和成本分配：间接费用是如何被分配到成本对象的？作业成本法不仅仅是一种分配方法，与其他方法的主要区别在于如何积累和分配资源成本。

对受访者的调查发现，他们大多认为这种方法是用于分配间接费用的方法。

以下是目前使用的三种主要成本分配方法：（1）平均分配：资源成本平均分配给所有消耗对象。

（2）基于产出的分配：资源成本依据相关产出进行分配。

（3）作业成本分配：首先确认耗用企业辅助资源的所有作业，资源成本累计形成作业成本库，这些成本被依据作业成本对象耗用的多少进行分配。

在受访者中，最流行的方法是基于产出的分配，其中60%的企业将这种方法作为他们企业成本分配的一部分。

第二个最常用的方法是作业成本法，使用率约为50%。

作业成本法被视为具有的价值的成本核算方法，当被问到什么样的组合分配方式是企业理想的分配制度时，受访的管理人员明显青睐于作业成本法，理想的成本核算系统需要运用作业成本思想。

目前，50%的受访企业认为作业成本法是理想的成本分配系统的组成部分。

在未来，这种比例还会增加。

决策支持与作业成本法决策支持系统主要是财务、运营和战略的成本与利润核算系统，。

如何运用作业成本法支持这三方面的决策？在比较了作业成本法和非作业成本法对决策支持的有用性之后发现，特定类型的成本计算方法支持特定类型的决策系统。

在一般情况下，作业成本法比非作业成本法提供了更高的决策支持水平。

这种支持水平涉及整个财务、运营和战略领域的决策范围。

此外，作业成本法能够更好地整合预算编制和规划过程。

这一切都表明，公司运用作业成本法能够更好地提供管理决策支持（作业成本管理）。

产品与客户盈利能力的度量标准从战略角度看，任何一个决策支持系统的基本标准是产品与客户盈利能力的精确测量。

比如产品价格的制定，产品和客户结构，产品和客户合理化的战略决策是最至关重要的市场竞争力。

虽然多年来，产品的盈利能力一直是管理层主要的关注焦点。

无论采用哪种成本核算方法（作业成本法与非作业成本法），几乎所有公司都认为，应对产品与客户盈利情况同时加以衡量。

尽管大多数使用作业成本法的公司（近60%）认为作业成本法支持产品和客户的盈利能力决策，而大部分非作业成本法的使用公司（约60%）认为作业成本法不支持产品和客户的盈利能力决策。

ABC的支持在最近，作业成本法这种成本计算方法的价值及使用率已经成为从业人员和学者争论的主题。

在此之前的调查表明，作业成本法的使用率比过去几年已经提高了，并趋于稳定。

主要探讨的问题是，作业成本法的使用所创造的价值与其实施成本。

通过对作业成本法的使用率和作为成本与利润核算系统的相关问题的研究之后，得出的结果归纳如下：（1）作业成本法运用于整个内部价值链，绝大多数的公司将继续使用这种方法。

（2）接受调查的管理人员认为，在非作业成本法中缺乏准确的成本费用分配和作业成本信息流通不及时。

（3）作业成本法可以减轻管理人员对成本分摊准确性，在分配和资源消耗之间的因果关系，获取成本/利润信息的及时性，以及更新系统的能力等方面的忧虑。

（4）目前作业成本法的使用率和在理想制度下的使用优势预示着越来越多的公司将使用这种成本核算方法。

（5）作业成本法能提供更大的财务、运营和战略决策支持。

（6）作业成本法可以被更好地纳入预算和规划过程中。

（7）作业成本法提供比非作业成本法更好的战略性产品/客户决策支持。

作业成本法在理论上几乎适用于任何行业，因为它能适应不同的管理水平。

然而，作业成本法在管理相对复杂的非服务性公司运用最有效。

管理复杂的公司容易发现到底哪种类型的成本核算方法更有利，因为在信息完全开放的时候，成本很难被用来理解和评价最大利益。

服务行业可能不适用作业成本法，因为这些行业的成本很难分配，没有一个可以识别的因果关系。

公司可以将作业成本法视为一种管理工具。

作业成本法的运用可能要付出昂贵的代价，它并不总是符合公认的会计原则，所以如果使用作业成本管理，公司不得不保留一个独立的系统进行跟踪成本是否符合一般公认会计原则。

在当今复杂的商业世界，作业成本法作为一种成本核算系统，可更精确地将成本分配到产品和部门。

我们的研究结果提供了充足的结论支持：作业成本法的确给管理者提供了更有意义的价值。

我们相信，使用作业成本法为公司提供了更优越的成本和盈利能力核算系统，现在是时候让更多的公司采用作业成本核算方法了。

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(2)Normal costing(3)Standard costing(4)Activity-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:(1)With 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%.(3)Contrary 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:(1)Useful 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:(1)Need to find a better way to allocate costs.(2)Allocations do not reflect how resources are used (lack of cause-effect).(3)Information is not timely.(4)Updating 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:(1)Equal allocation: Resource cost is allocated equally to all objects that consume the resources.(2)Output-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 organization's 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 ABCThe 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 decisionmaking 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 MetricsFrom 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 ABCThe 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:(1)ABC methods are deployed across the internal value chain, and the vast majority of organizations continue to use them.(2)Managers surveyed believe that accurate overhead allocation and activity cost information is lacking in non-ABC methods, while ABC methods address these needs.(3)ABC 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.(4)The substantial gap between current usage rates of ABC methods and their desirability in ideal systems may portend increased use.(5)ABC methods provide greater support for financial, operational, and strategic decisions.(6)ABC methods are better integrated into budget and planning processes.(7)ABC methods support strategic product/customer emphasis decisions better than non-ABC methods.When Is Activity-Based Costing Appropriate?Activity-based costing can theoretically be used in almost any industry, because it can be adapted to determine costs at so many different levels. However, ABC is used most effectively in complex companies that are not entirely service-based. Complex companies may see the most benefit from this type of costing because it is most helpful when the costing information is difficult to understand or evaluate. Service industries may not benefit as much from activity-based costing as other industries because their costs can be difficult to assign as they may not have an identifiable cause and effect relationship.Companies considering using ABC should also keep in mind that while it can be a very powerful management tool, it can be very expensive to start and it does not always conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) so if using an ABC system a company may have to keep a separate system to track costs in a manner that does conform to GAAP.Activity-based costing is a type of costing system that can be used to assign costs more accurately to products and departments in today's complex business world. Our results provide ample support for the conclusion that ABC methods do indeed provide significant value to managers. We believe the use of ABC provides companies with superior cost-profitability-measurement systems. Perhaps it is time for more organizations to take another look at adopting activity-based costing methods.。