Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (2008) 1–19 www.elsevier.com/locate/aos
The role of manufacturing practices in mediating the impact of activity-based costing on plant performance Rajiv D. Banker a, Indranil R. Bardhan
a Fox School of Business, Temple University, 1810 N. 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA The University of Texas at Dallas, School of Management, SM 41, 2601 N. Floyd Road, Richardson, TX 75083-0688, USA c School of Business and Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clearwater Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
Abstract We study the impact of activity-based costing (ABC) on adoption of world-class manufacturing (WCM) practices and plant performance. In contrast to earlier research that estimates the direct impact of ABC on plant performance, we develop an alternative research model to study the role of world-class manufacturing practices as a mediator of the impact of ABC. Analysis of data from a large cross-sectional sample of US manufacturing plants indicates that ABC has no signiﬁcant direct impact on plant performance, as measured by improvements in unit manufacturing costs, cycle time, and product quality. We ﬁnd, however, that WCM practices completely mediate the positive impact of ABC on plant performance, and thus advanced manufacturing capabilities represent a critical missing link in understanding the overall impact of ABC. Our results provide a diﬀerent conceptual lens to evaluate the relationship between ABC adoption and plant performance, and suggest that ABC adoption by itself does not improve plant performance. Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Activity-based costing (ABC) was designed with the objective of providing managers with accurate activity-based cost information by using cost drivers to assign activity costs to products * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 972 883 2736; fax: +1 972 883 6811. E-mail addresses: firstname.lastname@example.org (R.D. Banker), email@example.com (I.R. Bardhan), firstname.lastname@example.org (T.-Y. Chen).
and services. Proponents of ABC argue that it provides accurate cost data needed to make appropriate strategic decisions in terms of product mix, sourcing, pricing, process improvement, and evaluation of business process performance (Cooper & Kaplan, 1992; Swenson, 1995). These claims may have led many ﬁrms to adopt ABC systems. A survey of the 1000 largest ﬁrms in the United Kingdom showed that 19.5% of these companies have adopted ABC (Innes & Mitchell, 1995). Another survey released by the Cost Management
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2006.12.001
R.D. Banker et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (2008) 1–19
Group (1998) of the Institute of Management Accountants indicated that 39% of organizations have approved ABC adoption.1 Assessing the impact of ABC on manufacturing plant performance is recognized as an important research question. Prior research has typically focused on the direct impact of ABC while ignoring its indirect impact in supporting other organizational capabilities. While past studies have reported moderate levels of beneﬁts from ABC adoption (Foster & Swenson, 1997; Ittner & Larcker, 2001), few have extended this work to evaluate the linkages between ‘‘beliefs’’ that represent successful outcomes and the operational measures of plant performance. Furthermore, the deﬁnition of ABC success has often been vaguely deﬁned in terms of subjective beliefs regarding ‘‘ﬁnancial beneﬁt’’, ‘‘satisfaction with ABC’’, or ‘‘use of ABC system for decision making’’. In light of these methodological deﬁciencies, we argue that a more rigorous approach is needed to measure the impact of ABC. It is also important to focus on process-level performance measures, instead of ﬁrm-level ﬁnancial metrics, since the potential impact of ABC implementation may be...
References: Anderson, S. W. (1995). A framework for assessing cost management system changes: the case of activity based costing implementation at General Motors, 1986–1993. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 1–51. Anderson, S. W., Hesford, J., & Young, S. M. (2002). Factors inﬂuencing the performance of activity-based costing teams: a ﬁeld study of ABC model development time in the automobile industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 195–211. Anderson, S. W., & Young, S. M. (1999). The impact of contextual and process factors on the evaluation of activity based costing systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 525–559. Argyris, C., & Kaplan, R. (1994). Implementing new knowledge: the case of activity-based costing. Accounting Horizons, 8(3), 83–105.
We combined the ﬁrst two categories into one. Therefore, 0 = no ABC implementation, while 1 = extensive implementation. 14 For ease of analyses, we combined the second and third categories into one. Hence, 0 = none or some implementation, while 1 = extensive implementation. 15 To facilitate analyses, we grouped the plant performance categories in the original survey into a ﬁve- or seven-point Likert scale.
R.D. Banker et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (2008) 1–19 Cooper, R., Kaplan, R. S., Maisel, L. S., Morrissey, E., & Oehm, R. M. (1992). Implementing activity based cost management: moving from action to analysis. Montvale, NJ: Institute of Management Accountants. Cost Management Group of the Institute of Management Accountants (1998). Cost Management Update 81. Datar, S. M., & Gupta, M. (1994). Aggregation, speciﬁcation, and measurement errors in product costing. The Accounting Review(October), 567–591. Dechow, P. M. (1994). Accounting earnings and cash ﬂows as measures of ﬁrm performance: the role of accounting accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 3–42. Elnathan, D., Lin, T., & Young, S. M. (1996). Benchmarking and management accounting: a framework for research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 8, 37–54. Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Flynn, E. J. (1999). World class manufacturing: an investigation of Hayes and Wheelwright’s foundation. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 249–269. Foster, G., & Swenson, D. W. (1997). Measuring the success of activity-based cost management and its determinants. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 109–141. Fullerton, R. R., & McWatters, C. S. (2002). The role of performance measures and incentive systems in relation to the degree of JIT implementation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 711–735. Gordon, L. A., & Silvester, K. J. (1999). Stockmarket reactions to activity-based costing adoptions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18, 229–251. Hendricks, K., & Singhal, V. (1997). Does implementing an eﬀective TQM program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from ﬁrms that have won quality awards. Management Science, 43(9), 1258–1274. Henri, J.-F. (2006). Management controls systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 529–558. Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK’s largest companies. Management Accounting Research, 6, 137–153. Ittner, C. D. (1999). Activity-based costing concepts for quality improvement. European Management Journal, 17(5), 492–500. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1995). Total quality management and the choice of information and reward systems. Journal of Accounting Research, (33), 1–34. Ittner, C. D., Lanen, W. N., & Larcker, D. F. (2002). The association between activity-based costing and manufacturing performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 40, 711–726. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997a). The performance eﬀects of process management techniques. Management Science, 43(4), 522–534. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997b). Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(3/4), 293–314. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2001). Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based
Atkinson, A. A., Banker, R. D., Kaplan, R., & Young, S. M. (2001). Management accounting (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Balakrishnan, R., Linsmeier, T., & Venkatachalam, M. (1996). Financial beneﬁts from JIT adoption: eﬀects of customer concentration and cost structure. The Accounting Review, 71, 183–205. Banker, R. D., Bardhan, I. R., Chang, H., & Lin, S. (2006). Plant information systems, manufacturing capabilities, and plant performance. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 315–337. Banker, R. D., Field, J. M., & Sinha, K. K. (2001). Work-team implementation and trajectories of manufacturing quality: a longitudinal ﬁeld study. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 3(1), 25–42. Banker, R. D., & Potter, G. (1993). Economic implications of single cost driver systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5(Fall), 15–31. Banker, R. D., Potter, G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1995). An empirical analysis of manufacturing overhead cost drivers. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(1), 115–138. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator– mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Cagowin, D., & Bouwman, M. J. (2002). The association between activity-based costing and improvement in ﬁnancial performance. Management Accounting Research, 12, 1–39. Carolﬁ, I. A. (1996). ABM can improve quality and control costs. Cost and Management(May), 12–16. Chenhall, R., & Langﬁeld-Smith, K. (1998). The relationship between strategic priorities, management techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using a systems approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 243–264. Christensen, J., & Demski, J. S. (1997). Product costing in the presence of endogenous subcost functions. Review of Accounting Studies, 65–87. Cooper, R. (1988). The rise of activity-based costing – part two: when do I need an activity-based costing system? Journal of Cost Management(Fall) 41–48. Cooper, R. (1989). The rise of activity-based costing – part four: what do activity-based systems look like? Journal of Cost Management(Spring), 38–49. Cooper, R. (1994). The role of activity-based systems in supporting the transition to the lean enterprise. Advances in Management Accounting, 1–23. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. (1988). How cost accounting distorts product costs? Management Accounting(April), 20–27. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. (1991). Proﬁt priorities from activitybased costing. Harvard Business Review, 130–135. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. (1992). From ABC to ABM. Management Accounting, 74, 54–57. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (1999). The design of cost management systems—text, cases and readings. Englewood Cliﬀs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
R.D. Banker et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (2008) 1–19 management perspective. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32, 349–410. Kaplan, R. S. (1983). Measuring manufacturing performance: a new challenge for managerial accounting research. Accounting Review, 58(4), 686–705. Kaplan, R. S. (1992). In defense of activity-based costing management. Management Accounting, 58–63. Kaplan, R. S. (1993). Research opportunities in management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research (Fall), 1–14. Krumwiede, K. R. (1998). The implementation stages of activity-based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 239–277. Loh, L., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). An empirical study of information technology outsourcing: beneﬁts, risks, and performance implications. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems, Amsterdam, pp. 277–288. Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2003). Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2/3), 169–250. McGowan, A. S., & Klammer, T. P. (1997). Satisfaction with activity-based cost management implementation. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 217–237. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and ﬁt: strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 179–208. Miltenburg, J. (1995). Manufacturing strategy. Portland, Oregon: Productivity Press. Noreen, E. (1991). Conditions under which activity-based cost systems provide relevant costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research(Fall), 159–168.
Roth, A. V., & van der Velde, M. (1991). Operations as marketing: a competitive service strategy. Journal of Operations Management, 10(3), 303–313. Sakakibara, S., Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Morris, W. T. (1997). The impact of just-in-time manufacturing and its infrastructure on manufacturing performance. Management Science, 43(9), 1246–1257. Schroeder, R. G., & Flynn, B. B. (2001). High performance manufacturing – global perspectives. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Shields, M. D. (1995). An empirical analysis of ﬁrms’ implementation experiences with activity-based costing. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 1–28. Shields, M. D., & Young, S. M. (1989). A behavioral model for implementing cost management systems. Journal of Cost Management, 17–27. Sim, K. L., & Killough, L. N. (1998). The performance eﬀects of complementarities between manufacturing practices and management accounting systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 325–346. Srinivasan, K., Kekre, S., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (1994). Impact of electronic data interchange technology on JIT shipments. Management Science, 40(10), 1291–1304. Stock, G. N., Greis, N. P., & Kasarda, J. D. (2000). Enterprise logistics and supply chain structure. Journal of Operations Management, 18(5), 531–547. Swenson, D. (1995). The beneﬁts of activity-based cost management to the manufacturing industry. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 167–180. United States Census Bureau (2000). Statistical Abstract of the United States, Washington, DC. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document