外文翻译--为什么作业成本法的银行应用失败？

中文3400字本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 原 文外文题目 Why Did ABC Fail at the Bank of China? 外文出处 Bank Accounting & FinancePublic Money&Manegement, 2006（3）:3942 外文作者 杰弗里.怀特 / 罗纳德W.希尔顿 原文：Why Did ABC Fail at the Bank of China?EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Few authors have explored the implementation of activity-based costing (ABC) in East Asian companies. This study investigates factors that led to the failure of an ABC implementation at a major Chinese financial institutionthe Bank of China. Interviews with 18 employees at one branch revealed six factors that blocked the implementation: the lack of clear business purpose, a lack of education about ABC, poor model design, a lack of participants, individual and organizational resistance to change, and the fact that few outsourcers were available. The study represents a real example of why ABC implementation might fail in an organization.The key purpose of the Bank of Chinas strategic plan is to generate, process, track, and close its leads in the Chinese financial market. As part of the plan, the bank aimed to introduce an activity-based costing (ABC) system across all of its regions in order to reduce costs and increase management control. The implementation failed, however, and the traditional costing system is still employed. We investigated factors that blocked the implementation of activity-based costing and management (ABC/M) in one provisional bank branch, the name and location of which are not disclosed for confidentiality reasons.Our interviews with 18 of the branch employeesrevealed six factors that blocked the implementation ofABC. These are:Lack of a clear business purpose about theimplementation,1.Lack of education about ABC,2.Poor ABC model design,3.Lack of participants,4.Individual and organizational resistance to change,5.Few outsourcers available.Although some or all of these factors have been mentioned in previous studies, our work is new in terms of its application to the bank sector in China, which allows us to contribute to the knowledge of ABC in practice.Today，Chinese banks are facing strong competition，especially from foreign banks that have entered the Chinese financial market. Those foreign banks, which had opened in Shanghai earlier have started to expand their business into Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces. They grabbed a large number of giant clients from their Chinese counterparts, causing a decrease in bank loans in the provinces, according to a 2002 press release by the Peoples Bank of China, Nanjing Branch in eastern Jiangsu province. To eradicate such problems and prevent the situation from getting worse, Chinese banks needed to apply more effective management methods and technologies to improve their competitive advantage. Furthermore，the government of the Peoples Republic of China decided to turn state-owned banks into publicly listed ones to enhance the banks self-controllability and flexibility that help them react to market conditions in a timely and effective manner. As one of the big four state-owned banks, Bank of China Ltd. had started to restructure itself and tried to implement management accounting in order to manage its costs. The implementation of such management accounting techniques in China is difficult, however，because of the varied economic, institutional, and cultural settings.An interview with the general manager of the branch revealed that it tried to implement ABC three years ago， but the effort was unsuccessful. The failure to implement ABC cost the organization money, and there is a need to reduce these costs by identifying and analyzing factors that blocked the ABC implementation. If those barriers cannot be resolved, this may continue to obstruct the application of new management accounting techniques and further influence the organizations capabilities.Although most of the existing literature extols the benefits of ABC and, in particular, the benefits of ABC/M, few authors have explored its implementation in East Asian companies, especially financial institutions.ABC VS. TRADITIONAL COSTING SYSTEMSBefore we describe the results of our study, lets look at the conflicting views about ABC. Ronald W. Hilton, among others, defined ABC as a two-stage model.1 In the first stage, overhead costs are allocated into different activity-based cost pools with respect to their classifications. In the second stage, using a series of cost driver-based rates, the pooled costs are allocated to product lines. Gary Cokins argued that, compared to the two-stage model, a traditional costing system is like a “checkbook” where one can read the total amount spent but can never know the purpose and results of each check.Traditional cost systems are always employee payroll related, which hinders a managers ability to judge and improve employees activities and performance. Furthermore, the payroll-related costs do not indicate the interaction and relationships between one activity and others or products and customer services. Managers will not be able to identify which events cause activity costs to vary. Based on managers views, however, an organizations activity costs could be the most controllable part that managers can influence. Nonetheless, without knowing the costs drivers, managers are virtually unable to organize a companys production costs efficiently.In contrast, ABC concentrates on activities involved in the work process that help managers operate a business or an organization. “ABC/M is work-centric, whereas the general ledger (traditional costing system) is transaction-centric.”3 Nonetheless, both systems have their points: The traditional cost system is easy and inexpensive to implement, but the information obtained could be too raw to be analyzed. ABC solves that problem but is expensive and very time-consuming.FACTORS LEADING TO THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT ABCDespite its growing popularity, a number of companies started to experience difficulties with ABC implementation that blocked them from taking it further. A series of factors has been found to be related to the success and/or failure of addressing ABC. Michael Shields identified six “behavioral and organizational” factors that make ABC successful. They are:1. The support of top management;2. Integration between ABC and competitive strategiessuch as total quality management (TQM) andJust-in-Time (JIT);3. ABCs relation to performance evaluations andmanagers compensation;4. Adequate training during design, implementation,and use;5. “Non accounting ownership”; and6. The availability of adequate resources.Annie S. McGowan and Thomas P. Klammer, as well as George Foster and Dan G. Swenson, confirmed factors 1, 3, 4, and 6.11 According to Innes, Mitchell, and Sinclair, this is consistent with the findings of U.S. studies of ABC in practice.12 Based on the results of their 1994 and 1999 surveys, however, they found that the support of top management is strongly associated with the success of ABC. On the other hand, Ian Cobb, John Innes, and Falconer Mitchell suggested that the lack of adequate internal resources, particularly staff time and computer resources, are major factors.13 Furthermore, Chris Argyris and Bob Kaplan explained ABC failure by providing a “behavioral model of why and how employees resist ABC.”14 The origin of this model came from Argyris, who pointed out that “barriers to change arise from the defensive routines that participants trigger to protect themselves from experiencing embarrassment and threat from the new ideas.”15 Robin Cooper, Bob Kaplan, Lawrence Maisel, Eileen Morrissey, Ronald Oehm, and M. Lynne Markus further argued that resistance to new information systems can be understood in terms of organizational power and politics.Different researchers see different factors that strongly affect ABC implementation. All in all, Anthony Atkinson, Rajiv Banker, Bob Kaplan, and S. Mark Young discussed them in terms of five factors:1. Lack of clear business purpose,2. Lack of senior management commitment,3. Delegating the project to consultants,4. Individual and organizational resistance to change,and5. Poor ABC model designWHY IMPLEMENTATION FAILEDHere is a closer look at the six factors that interviewers identified as obstacles to ABC implementation.No clear business purpose. The ABC project was initiated by the accounting department, and a basic ABC model was designed, but no one from the management level or from each individual department showed an interest in the work. People from the accounting department were disappointed and lost their motivation. On the other hand, employees from each individual department felt confused about ABC. They did not know its purpose, and some guessed that it was a tool to limit their daily spending. Others thought it might help to redesign the work process, while a few believed it would redesign their current department structure. From the view of the general manager, ABC should be an instrument that would increase the transparency in management control. Therefore, no clear business purpose was initially designed for the implementation.“The purpose of implementing ABC was to introduce a more effective costing system to BOC,” respondents from the accounting department said. “However, the term effective costing system was too general to be followed. All employees had different ideas about ABC. People felt confused and lost interest in ABC. We then felt bored when no one looked at our work; the project stopped at this point.”Lack of education/knowledge. The interviews revealed that few employees understood ABC. Despite the accounting departments efforts, one respondent from the corporate banking department revealed that he had heard about ABC but did not understand its key points. Two managers mentioned that they knew about ABC，but only one of them could provide details about the system. In the accounting department, accountants learned about ABC from books rather than real experiences. In other words, none showed confidence in building an ABC model that could apply to that branch. The interviews further indicated that employees required systematic education about ABC. Fourteen out of 18 respondents agreed to study ABC if they were offered a chance.Poor ABC model. An accurately designed model is important for ABC implementation. No one could find the original file of the ABC model, but, according to feedback from respondents, it was considered “too complicated to build and maintain” and “too complex (for managers) to understand and act upon.” Furthermore, the initial model designed by the accounting department was rough and needed further redesigning. Because of the lack of education and knowledge about ABC, however, employees could not provide valuable suggestions about the initial model. One line manager described the situation when people were introduced to the ABC model: “The system seemed very complicated， and I could not understand it. My colleagues had the same feeling. Therefore， we all stayed there but had no comments. Without corresponding benefits， the model soon collapsed.”Lack of participants. A pitfall arose when the accounting department undertook the project without gaining senior management support. The rest of the Bank saw the project as one done by and for the accounting department, so no one outside the department paid attention to it. As a result, because the accounting department was not able to make decisions about the process and had a limited knowledge about other departments functions, no actions were followed to improve the project.Respondents in the accounting department said, “We knew the general process in a department, but thats not enough for us. We require more details from senior and line managers, who could provide operational information and valuable suggestions.”Respondents from the corporate banking department said, “We thought the system should be taken by the accounting department rather than us. We were asked to give suggestions, but everyone was so busy, and no one had time to analyze a project which did not belong to them.”Resistance to change. The interview results also revealed that managers welcomed a new technical costing system, but individuals resisted new ideas and changes. Managers believed that a new system would increase their control over operating costs. Thus, they encouraged it through an ABC presentation about profitability, but they continued to behave just as they had in the past. Individuals were afraid of ABC, especially fearing the new system could reveal unprofitable processes and problems in their daily work. Furthermore, individuals preferred the current system, which allowed them to use the surplus money available in their department in any way instead of returning it to the general account in order to be counted as part of the Banks annual profit.Few outsourcers available. Poor outsourcing was another factor that limited the development of ABC. When the implementation was called off, the Bank tried to look for other solutions from outside. Contacts were made with other banks, but none had relevant experience with ABC implementation. Some employees suggested retaining consulting companies who might have the rich experience to design the system, but the local management consulting companies did not show a sufficient capacity to accept such a project. The developing business support institutions still cannot satisfy the demand of financial sections.SOME ADVICEThe framework for implementing an ABC system into a provisional branch provides a valuable experience for the other branches within the Bank of China system or other Chinese banks. We suggest that a company teach its employees about ABC, provide sustainable resources from both internal and external sources, encourage employees to participate, and consider employees resistance when applying ABC. We recommend that a pilot test be run on a small scale, such as in a department or a subunit, to examine the effects of the implementation. The implementation is costly and time-consuming, and an organization is advised to take it step by step in order to allow employees to understand the new system and, hence, offer valuable feedback to enhance the process. To ensure its accuracy, however, an ABC model needs to be tested and continually improved. The long term effects of implementing ABC in Chinese financial institutions are still not clear, and further investigation is still required in the near future to see if ABC implementations are feasible.By reflecting the view of employees of one of the biggest Chinese financial institutions, Bank of China, this study contributes to the existing knowledge about ABC in practice. It represents a real example of why ABC implementations might fail, which should benefit both academics and practitioners.Source: Witherite, Jeffrey; Kim, Il-woon. “Bank Accounting & Finance”, Apr2006, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p29-34.译文：为什么作业成本法在中国的银行应用失败？摘要：很少有作者探讨作业成本法在东方亚洲国家的执行情况，这项研究调查了导致作业成本法在大部分中国金融机构执行失败的因素在中国银行的应用，通过对在分支机构工作的18位雇佣者的调查，揭露了阻碍作业成本执行的六个因素：缺乏商业目的；缺乏关于作业成本法的知识；模型设计不良；缺乏参与者；个人和组织机构对变革的抵制和很少可以提供服务的外包服务商。这项研究代表了一个真实的关于作业成本法为什么在组织实施失败的例子。中国银行策略计划的主要目的是在中国金融市场上占主导地位，作为计划的一部分，这银行旨在它所提供服务的区域引进作业成本法为了减少成本和提高管理控制，然而，作业成本法实施失败以及传统成本系统仍然被使用。我们对十八个银行分支机构雇佣者进行调查揭示了限制作业成本法实施的六个因素，它们是：（一）缺乏关于执行的明确商业目的；（二）缺乏关于作业成本法的有关知识；（三）作业成本法设计不良；（四）个人和机构对变革的抵制；（五）缺乏可以提供服务的外包服务商。今天，中国的银行正面临激烈的竞争，特别是来自已经进入中国金融市场的外国银行，早期在上海成立的外国银行已经将它的业务拓展到江苏省和浙江省，他们争取到了他们同行的许多大型客户，引起当地银行贷款的减少，根据江苏省南京中国人民银行分支机构公布出来的信息所得。为了应付这些问题和防止情况恶化，中国银行需要推行更加有效率的管理措施和技术来提高它们的竞争优势。而且，中华人民共和国政府决定将国有银行转变成上市公司，提升银行的自我控制力和灵活性以帮助它们以更及时和更有效的方式对市场情形做出反应。作为四大国有银行之一，中国银行已经开始重新改组自己的机构和尝试执行管理会计以管理它的成本。管理会计技术在中国的执行很困难，这是由变化的经济形势、制度和一系列文化因素造成的。对这银行分支机构的总经理的调查研究揭示了它们在三年前已经尝试实施作业成本法，但是没有取得成效。执行作业成本法的失败花费了阻止资金，并且有必要通过识别和分析阻碍作业成本法执行的因素来削减这些成本。如果这些障碍无法解决，它会继续管理会计技术的应用并且进一步会影响组织的生存能力。作业成本法与传统作业成本法的区别在我们描述我们研究结果以前，让我们看看关于ABC的冲突性观点。希尔顿.罗纳德以及相关学者将ABC定义为一个两阶段模型。在第一阶段，日常开支费用根据他们的分类分配到不同的作业成本库；在第二阶段，用一系列作业成本分配率，成本库中的费用被分配到不同产品类型中，加里.格斯认为，传统成本系统像像一个“支票库”，在这个“支票库”中你可以阅读全部开支，但是，你无法知道该支票的来龙去脉。传统成本核算系统总是与职工工资相关，阻碍了管理者判断雇员工作活动和表现的能力，从而提高员工的绩效。而且，与工资挂钩的成本费用无法表明一项作业与另一项作业，产品与顾客服务的关系。管理人员将无法识别哪些事件能引起作业活动成本。基于经理的观点，然而，组织的作业活动成本成为受管理者影响的能被高度控制的部分。然而不知道成本的驱动因素，管理者实际上无法有效率地组织公司的成本。相反，作业成本法关注在工作流程中的各项活动来帮助管理者经营业务和管理组织，作业成本法关注工作中心，然而，传统作业成本法则是业务中心。然而，两种成本核算都有他们自己的特点，传统作业成本系统容易执行且执行成本较低，但是获取的信息较少而无法进行有效的分析，作业成本法解决了这个问题但是非常耗时。导致执行作业成本法成功和失败的因素尽管作业成本法的日益普及，一定数量公司在实施作业成本法开始遇到困难，使其无法更进一步实施，一系列因素导致了实施作业成本法的成功与失败，迈克.谢尔德识别出导致作业成本法成功实施的六个因素:它们是(1)高层管理者的支持；（二）如全面质量管理的竞争策略和作业成本法的结合使用；（三）作业成本法的绩效评估以及管理者赔偿的关系；（四）设计、实施和使用的充分培训；（五）非账户所有权；（六）可利用的充足资源。安妮麦.高恩和托马斯，以及乔治.福斯特和丹斯.文森确认因素1、3、4、6比较重要。据英尼斯，米切尔，辛克莱尔，这些与美国作业成本法的实践研究发现相一致，根据它们2004年到2009年的调查结果，然而，他们发现高层管理者的支持与企业成功实施作业成本法紧密相关。另一方面，伊恩科布，约翰英尼斯和米切尔认为，内部缺乏足够的资源，特别是职工时间和计算机资源是主要资源，而且克里斯.阿吉里斯和鲍勃.卡普兰通过提供行为模型员工为什么和怎样抵制作业成本法来解释作业成本法的实施失败. 克里斯.阿吉里斯变革的阻力来自于参与者引起的防御程序以使他们免受新观点的尴尬和威胁。鲍勃.卡普兰进一步指出对于在政治和组织能力方面，对新系统的抵制是可以理解的。不同的研究者认为有不同的因素影响作业成本法的实施，总之，英尼斯，米切尔，辛克莱尔，安妮麦.高恩和托马斯，以及乔治.福斯特和丹斯.文森有五个因素来讨论他们：（一）缺乏明确的商业目的；（二）缺乏高层管理者的承诺；（三）委派咨询师参与项目；（四）个人和组织对变革的抵制；（5）不良的作业成本法模型设计。作业成本法在中国的银行应用失败的六个因素：（一）缺乏关于执行的明确商业目的；作业成本法项目最初有会计部门发起，基本的模式已经设计出来但无论来自管理部门，还是来自个别部门的员工在工作中都没有表现出对该成本模式的兴趣，会计部门人员因此很失望并失去了动机。另一方面，来自个别部门的员工对作业成本法感到困惑，不知道实施作业成本法的目的何在，以及一些人认为这是一个限制他们日常开支的的工具，又有人认为它有助于重新设计工作流程，同时，一些人相信其有助于重新设计当前的部门结构，根据总经理的观点，作业成本法是提高管理控制透明度的工具，然而没有明确的业务目的在设计执行时提出来。执行作业成本法的的目的在于引进更加有效的成本核算系统对于会计人员，“作业成本法”这个词过于笼统了。其他员工都对作业成本法持有不同的观点， 感到困惑并且没有兴趣，项目实施也因此中断了。 （二）缺乏关于作业成本法的有关知识；这个采访揭示了，尽管会计部门的努力，很少员工理解作业成本法。一位来自会计部门的员工揭露他曾经听说过作业成本法，但他不知道它的要点；两位管理人员提到过他们知道作业成本法，但只有一位才清楚其核算的详细细节。在会计部门，会计人员也只是在书本上而不是在实践中学习作业成本法。换句话说，没有人对建立作业成本法模型并应用于机构充满信心，这次采访进一步表明员工有必要进行相关知识的培训，十八个被采访者中有八个同意如果有条件的话就会学习作业成本法。（三）设计不够良好的模型根据采访者的反馈，认为该模型太复杂而且很难建立和维护，管理者也很难理解和执行，而且该模型不完善而且进一步重新设计。由于相关知识的缺乏，员工也无法提出有价值的相关建议，这模型的应用也很快就失败了。（四）缺乏参与者的配合当会计部门没有征得高级管理部门的同意下从事这个项目，未预期的风险也随之而生，银行的其余部门这是会计部门的事而没有关注它。结果，会计部门不能对业务流程作出决定，同时用不了解其他部门的职能，所以没有采取进一步行动来推动这个项目。（五）对变革的抵制这次采访的结果也揭示了管理者欢迎新的技术成本系统，但是员工普遍表示抵制。管理者相信新的成本系统将会提高对运营成本的控制，因此，他们通过陈述作业成本法对利润的影响来推行这个系统，这可以允许他们以任何方式使用部门盈余的资金，而不用作为利润的一部分返还到公司的账户中。一些相关建议将作业成本法系统框架应用到银行的分支机构为其他中国商业银行提供了宝贵的经验，我们建议公司可以就作业成本法相关的知识对员工进行相关的培训，从内部获取持续的资源，积极鼓励员工参与，同时在应用作业成本法时考虑员工对其的抵制，我们推荐一个小规模的试验以检验执行的结果。因为作业成本法的执行成本高而且耗时，我们建议组织一步一步来执行以使所有员工能了解新系统，并提供有价值的反馈来提高组织的业务流程。为了保证准确性，然而，作业成本法模型需要不断地被检验和完善。在中国金融机构执行作业成本法的长期效果还不明确，需要未来进一步的调查作业成本法的可执行性。通过反映中国的大型金融机构员工的观点，这项研究提供了作业成本法的执行情况，陈述了作业成本法执行失败的原因，希望能够对一些实践者和学者提供一定的帮助。出处: 罗纳德W.希尔顿 ，为什么作业成本法在中国的银行应用失败？J. 银行会计和金融，2006（3）:3942