BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Palowski Henry
Title
Misinterpretation of the Strategic Significance of Cost Driver Analysis: Evidence from Management Accounting Theory and Practice
Source
Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia, 2010, nr 26, s. 181-189, Rys., bibliogr. poz. 12
Keyword
Wynik finansowy, Przedsiębiorstwo
Financial performance, Enterprises
Note
streszcz., summ..
Abstract
This paper traces the development of cost driver theory in the Strategy literature and reflects on misinterpretations of the strategie significance of the theory in related acadcmic disciplines, notably Management Accounting. Management Accounting has largely been rcsponsible for informing costing practice in a wide rangę of organizational settings. The paper considers one such application- i.e. the case of the Higher Education Funding CounciTs (HEFC) costing and pricing initiative for UK universities. 189 The project was completed just under 5 years ago, although dctails of implementation are still ongoing, to a degree. The systems in place incorporate most of the theoretical flaws outlined in this paper. Rather than providing cost driver analysis to aid the strategie management process in universi- ties, the system appears to represent little more than a compliance and reporting framework between university central administrations and the funding provider, HEFC. (original abstract)
Accessibility
The Library of Warsaw School of Economics
The Library of University of Economics in Katowice
The Main Library of Poznań University of Economics and Business
The Main Library of the Wroclaw University of Economics
Szczecin University Main Library
Bibliography
Show
  1. Angluin D., Scapens R.W. (2000): Transparency, Accounting Knowledge and Perceived Fairness in UK Universities Resource AUocation: Resultsfrom a Survey of Accounling and Finance, British Accounting Review, Volume 32 Number 1, March.
  2. Cooper R. (1996): The Changing Practice of Managerment Accounling, Management Accounting, March.
  3. Cooper R. (1990): Cost Classification in Unit-Based and Activity-Based Manufacturing Cost Systems, Journal of Cost Management Fali.
  4. Cooper R., Kapłan R.S. (1998): The Design of Cost Management Systems, Prentice Hall.
  5. Deloitte Consulting (2005): Review of the Joint Costing and Pricing Steering Group: August 2002 to July 2005, HEFC (Higher Education Funding Council).
  6. Ghemawat P. (1999): Strategy and the Business Landscape- Text and Cases, Addison-Wesley Longina n.
  7. Kapłan R.S. (1988): One Cost System Isn't Enough, Harvard Business Review, January-February.
  8. Kaplan R.S., Cooper R. (1998): Cost & Effect - Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive Profitability and Performance, Harvard Business School Press.
  9. Mitchell M. (1996): Activity-Based Costing in UK Universities, Public Money and Management, January-March.
  10. Porter M.E. (1985): Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press.
  11. Scapens R.W., Ormston A.L., Arnold J. (1994): The Development of Overhead Recovery Models at the University of Manchester, ln Management Accounting in Universities, CIMA.
  12. Westbury D. (1997): Management Information for Decision Making: Costing Guidelines for Higher Education Institutions, Higher Education Funding Councils for Scotland, England and Wales, July.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
1640-6818
1733-2842
Language
eng
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu