تبیین مفهومی هزینه‌یابی هدف مبتنی بر دیدگاه انتقادی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه حسابداری، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه آموزشی حسابداری، واحد تهران شرق، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

3 گروه آموزشی حسابداری، واحد تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

هدف از این پژوهش، پیشبرد نظریه‌ی مربوط به عوامل تعیین کننده‌ی پذیرش سیستم هزینه‌یابی هدف توسط شرکت‌های تولیدی و صنعتی است. مطالعات منابع علمی موجود در راستای شناسایی عوامل متعدد منجر به مطرح شدن شرایطی شده است که پذیرش هزینه‌یابی هدف منجر به ارزش آفرینی برای شرکت می‌شود. این پژوهش از نوع‌شناسی راهبرد مایلز و اسنو (1978) برای بررسی جهت‌گیری هزینه‌ی پذیرش هزینه‌یابی هدف، بهره می‌‌برد و در راستای پاسخ به این پرسش است که چرا شرکت‌ها حتی زمانی‌که منابع علمی موجود به مزایای پذیرش هزینه‌یابی هدف اشاره دارد را، مورد استفاده قرار نمی‌دهند. استدلال بر این است که مدیران با راهبرد اکتشافی، از مزایای عدم تقارن اطلاعاتی بالا برای اجتناب از پذیرش هزینه‌یابی هدف استفاده می‌کنند، زیرا پاداش بر مبنای سهام آن‌ها با نوسان در سود و بازده سهام ارتباطی مستقیم دارد. در مقابل، مدیران با راهبرد تدافعی با اتخاذ هزینه‌یابی هدف، سبب افزایش سود می‌شوند که موجبات افزایش منافع شرکتی را فرآهم می‌آورند. به عبارتی اتخاذ راهبرد تدافعی توسط مدیران در شرکت‌ها منجر به ارزش آفرینی در راستای کلیه‌ی منافع ذی‌نفعان درون‌سازمانی و برون‌سازمانی می‌گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Conceptual Explanation of Target Costing Based on Critical Perspective

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Namazi 1
  • Zohreh Hajiha 2
  • Hassan Chenari 3
1 Professor, Department of Accounting, Shiraz University.
2 Associate Professor Department of Accounting, East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Accounting, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The aim of this research is to advance the theory belonging to the determinants of adoption of target costing (TC) system by firms. Although the previous studies describes several factors, it clarifies the instances under which TC adoption will add firm value, which refers to b . T M S w’ 1978 evaluate the cost orientation of TC adoption, which responds the question as to why firms do not adopt TC even when the previous studies emphasize to the benefits of adoption. The paper concludes that possess of prospector managers the scope to take advantage of the high information asymmetry to inhibit TC adoption, because their stock-based compensation increases with volatility in earnings and stock returns. In contrast, managers with defending strategy obtain extensive cash-based compensation with the adoption of TC, which helps achieve much firm profits. The paper concludes with specific sources of agency problems and some avenues for future research. In the other words, adoption of a defensive strategy by managers in companies leads to value creation a long with the interests of all stakeholders intra and inter organization.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • target costing adoption
  • prospector strategy
  • defender strategy
  • organizational cost
  • information asymmetry
  • stock-based compensation
  • cash-based compensation

*      حاجیها، زهره؛ چناری، حسن (1392). مطالعه‌ی تأثیر انگیزه‌ی مدیران ارشد بر خلق ثروت (ارزش آفرینی) برای سهام‌داران، دانش سرمایه‌گذاری، سال دوم، شماره‌ی پنجم، ص‌ص: 98 – 81.

*      حاجیها، زهره؛ چناری، حسن (1394). بررسی افزایش ثروت سهام‌داران در طول دوره‌ی تصدی مدیران ارشد شرکت: رویکردی نوین برای آزمون اثربخشی پاداش به مدیران ارشد، پژوهش‌های تجربی حسابداری، سال پنجم، شماره‌ی 18، ص‌ص: 54 – 19.

*      حاجیها، زهره (1396). راهبرد تجاری تدافعی و اکتشافی، عدم تقارن اطلاعاتی و ریسک سقوط قیمت سهام، مهندسی مالی و مدیریت اوراق بهادار، دوره 8، شماره ی 31، ص ص: 94 – 75.

*      حجازی، رضوان؛ البدوی، امیر (1384). هزینه‌یابی بر مبنای هدف، انتشارات سازمان مدیریت صنعتی، تهران، ایران.

*      رضایی، فرزین؛ محسن، رضا؛ رایقی، مریم (1392). مقایسه‌ی عوامل موثر بر نرخ بازده دارایی‌ها با تأکید بر راهبردهای تجاری، حسابداری مدیریت، دوره‌ی  6،  شماره‌ی 17، ص‌ص 17-1.

*      رضایی، فرزین؛ عازم، حامد (1391). تأثیر شدت رقابتی و راهبرد تجاری بر ارتباط بین اهرم مالی و عملکرد شرکت‌ها، حسابداری مدیریت، سال پنجم، شماره‌ی دوازدهم، ص‌ص 115-101.

*      رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون؛ جلیلی، محمد (1388). هزینه‌یابی هدف (مبتنی بر ارزش آفرینی)، انتشارات ترمه، تهران، ایران.

*      نمازی، محمد؛ قدیریان آرانی، محمدحسین؛ فتاحی نافچی، حسن (1395). استراتژی اقیانوس آبی و توسعه‌ی حسابداری مدیریت استراتژیک، دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، سال پنجم، شماره‌ی 18، ص‌ص: 53 – 29.

*      Ansari, S., and J. Bell. 1997. Target Costing: The Next Frontier in Strategic Cost Management. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

*      Ansari, S., J. Bell, and H. Okano. 2006. Target costing: Uncharted research territory. Handbook of Management Accounting Research 2: 507–530.

*      Armstrong, C. S., and R. Vashishtha. 2012. Executive stock options, differential risk-taking incentives, and firm value. Journal of Financial Economics 104 (1): 70–88.

*      Ax, C., J. Greve, and U. Nilsson. 2008. The impact of competition and uncertainty on the adoption of target costing. International Journal of Production Economics 115: 92–103.

*      Baker, G. P., M. C. Jensen, and K. J. Murphy. 1988. Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory. The Journal of Finance 43 (3): 593–616.

*      Bentley, K. A., T. C. Omer, and N. Y. Sharp. 2013. Business strategy, financial reporting irregularities, and audit effort. Contemporary Accounting Research 30 (2): 780–817.

*      Bentley, K. A., N. J. Newton., and A. M. Thompson. 2015. Business Strategy and Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Working Paper. University of New South Wales.

*      Bentley, K. A., T. C. Omer., B. J. Twedt. 2014. Does Business Strategy Impact a Firm’s Information Environment? Working Paper. University of New South Wales.

*      Bower, J. L. 1967. Managing the Resource Allocation Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

*      Brockman, P., T. Ma, and J. Ye. 2015. CEO compensation risk and timely loss recognition. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 42 (1/2): 204–236.

*      Brown, S. L., and K. M. Eisenhardt. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings and future directions. Academy of Management Review 20: 343–378.

*      Bushee, B. J., J. E. Core., W. Guay., and S. J. Hamm. 2010. The role of the business press as an information intermediary. Journal of Accounting Research 48 (1): 1–19.

*      Coles, J. L., N. D. Daniel, and L. Naveen. 2006. Managerial incentives and risk-taking. Journal of Financial Economics 79 (2): 431–468.

*      Cooper, R. 1995. When Lean Enterprises Collide: Competing through Competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

*      Cooper, R., and R. Slagmulder. 1997. Target Costing and Value Engineering. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

*      Cooper, R., and R. Slagmulder. 1999. Develop profitable new products with target costing. Sloan Management Review 40 (4): 23–33.

*      Croci, E., and D. Petmezas. 2015. Do risk-taking incentives induce CEOs to invest? Evidence from acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance 32: 1–23.

*      Danilovic, M., and B. Sandkull. 2005. The use of dependence structure matrix and domain mapping matrix in managing uncertainty in multiple project situations. International Journal of Project Management 23 (3): 193–203.

*      Dekker, H., and P. Smidt. 2003. A survey of the adoption and use of TC in Dutch firms. International Journal of Production Economics 84: 293–305.

*      Eisdorfer, A., C. Giaccotto, and R. White. 2013. Capital structure, executive compensation, and investment efficiency. Journal of Banking & Finance 37 (2): 549–562.

*      Ellram, L. 2006. The implementation of target costing in the United States: Theory versus practice. The Journal of Supply Chain Management (Winter): 13–26.

*      Engwall, M., and A. Jerbrant. 2003. The resource allocation syndrome: The prime challenge of multi-project management. International Journal of Project Management 21 (6): 403–409.

*      Everaert, P., S. Loosveld, T. V. Acker, M. Schollier, and G. Sarens. 2006. Characteristics of target costing: Theoretical and field study perspectives. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management 3 (3): 236–263.

*      Ewert, R., and C. Ernst. 1999. Target costing, coordination and strategic cost management. European Accounting Review 8: 23–49.

*      Fuchs, C., and M. Schreier. 2011. Customer empowerment in new product development. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (1): 17–32.

*      Gagne, M.L., and R. Discenza. 1995. Target costing. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 10 (1): 16–22.

*      Gopalakrishnan, M., J. Samuels, and D. Swenson. 2007. Target costing at a consumer products company. Strategic Finance 89 (6): 36– 41.

*      Griffin, A. 1997. PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14 (6): 429–458.

*      Habib, A., and M. M. Hassan. 2017. Business strategy, overvalued equities, and stock price crash risk, Research in International Business and Finance 39: 389–405.

*      Hambrick, D. C. 1983. High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal 26 (4): 687–707.

*      Hambrick, D. C. 2003. On the Staying Power of Defenders, Analyzers, and Prospectors. Working paper, The Pennsylvania State University.

*      Hart, O., and J. Moore. 1995. Debt and seniority: An analysis of the role of hard claims in constraining management. The American Economic Review 85: 567–585.

*      Hilton, R. 2014. Managerial Accounting: Creating Value in a Dynamic Business Environment. 10th edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.

*      Hiromoto, T. 1991. Restoring the relevance of management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research 3 (3): 1–15.

*      Hirshleifer, D. 1993. Managerial reputation and corporate investment decisions. Financial Management 22 (2): 145–160.

*      Hoskisson, R. E., and M. A. Hitt. 1988. Strategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct firms. Strategic Management Journal 9 (6): 605–621.

*      Ibusuki, U., and P. Kaminski. 2007. Product development process with focus on value engineering and target-costing: A case study in an automotive company. International Journal of Production Economics 105: 459–474.

*      Jensen, M. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review 76: 323–329.

*      Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.

*      Kabanoff, B., and S. Brown. 2008. Knowledge structures of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders: Content, structure, stability, and performance. Strategic Management Journal 29 (2): 149–171.

*      Kahn, K. B. 1996. Interdepartmental integration: A definition with implications for product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13 (2): 137–151.

*      Kato, Y. 1993. TC support systems: Lessons from leading Japanese companies. Management Accounting Research 4: 33–47.

*      Kato, Y., G. Bo¨ er, and C. W. Chow. 1995. TC: An integrative management process. Journal of Cost Management 9: 39–51.

*      Kim, J., and D. Wilemon. 2002. Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R&D Management 32 (4): 269–279.

*      Kuczmarski, T. D. 1992. Managing New Products: The Power of Innovation. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*      Malmendier, U., and G. Tate. 2005. CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The Journal of Finance 60 (6): 2661–2700.

*      Mengu¨c¸, B., and S. Auh. 2008. The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity-firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders. Industrial Marketing Management 37 (4): 455–470.

*      Mihm, J. 2010. Incentives in new product development projects and the role of target costing. Management Science 56 (8): 1324–1344.

*      Miles, R. E., and C. C. Snow. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

*      Miles, R. E., and C. C. Snow, 1986. Organizations: New concepts for new forms. California Management Review 28 (3): 62–73.

*      Miles, R. E., C. C. Snow, A. D. Meyer, and H. J. Coleman, Jr. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review 3 (3): 546–562.

*      Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1995. Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*      Naiker, V., F. Navissi, and VG. Sridharan. 2008. The agency cost effects of unionization on firm value. Journal of Management Accounting Research 20 (1): 133–152.

*      Navissi, F., and VG. Sridharan. 2017. Determinants of Target Costing Adoption: A Research Note. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 29 (1): 67-77.

*      Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, NY: Free Press.

*      Raghuram, S. 2006. Individual effectiveness in outsourcing. Human Systems Management 25 (2): 127–133.

*      Rajagopalan, N. 1997. Strategic orientations, incentive plan adoptions, and firm performance: Evidence from electric utility firms. Strategic Management Journal 18 (10): 761–785.

*      Rajagopalan, N., and S. Finkelstein. 1992. Effects of strategic orientation and environmental change on senior management reward. Strategic Management Journal 13: 127–141.

*      Rajgopal, S., and T. Shevlin. 2002. Empirical evidence on the relation between stock option compensation and risk taking. Journal of Accounting & Economics 33 (2): 145–171.

*      Rego, S. O., and R. Wilson. 2012. Equity risk incentives and corporate tax aggressiveness. Journal of Accounting Research 50 (3): 775–810.

*      Rumelt, R. P. 2005. Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, 11–32. New York, NY: Springer.

*      Singh, P., and N. C. Agarwal. 2002. The effects of firm strategy on the level and structure of executive compensation. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 19 (1): 42–56.

*      Snow, C. C., and D. C. Hrebiniak. 1980. Measuring organizational strategies: Some theoretical and methodological problems. Academy of Management Review 5 (4): 527–538.

*      Takeuchi, H., and I. Nonaka. 1986. The new product development game. Harvard Business Review (January/February): 137–146.

*      Tanaka, T. 1993. Target costing at Toyota. Journal of Cost Management 7 (Spring): 4–11.

*      Tani, T. 1995. Interactive control in target cost management. Management Accounting Research 6: 399–414.

*      Thomas, A. S., and K. Ramaswamy. 1996. Matching managers to strategy: Further tests of the Miles and Snow typology. British Journal of Management 7: 247–261.

*      Veliyath, R., S. P. Ferris, and K. Ramaswamy. 1994. Business strategy and top management compensation: The mediating effects of employment risk, firm performance and size. Journal of Business Research 30 (2): 149–159.

*      von Hippel, E. 1998. Economics of product development by users: The impact of ‘‘sticky’’ local information. Management Science 44: 629–644.

*      von Hippel, E. 2009. Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science 1 (1): 29–40.

*      Wijewardena, H., and A. De Zoysa. 1999. A comparative analysis of management accounting practices in Australia and Japan. The International Journal of Accounting 34 (1): 49–70.

*      Williamson, O. 1996. The Mechanisms of Governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

*      Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Method Series Volume 5. London, U.K.: Sage Publications.

*      Zahra, S. A., and J. A. Pearce. 1990. Research evidence on the Miles-Snow typology. Journal of Management 16 (4): 751–768.