Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14-9
Reading 14-5: Larry Grasso, “Are ABC and RCA Accounting Systems Compatible with Lean
Management?,” Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Fall 2005), pp. 12-27.
This paper provides a critical analysis of several alternative cost systems to traditional cost accounting
systems. It then evaluates these alternatives in terms of how they might support, or not, companies that
adopt a lean philosophy. An example of nonfinancial performance indicators that support a lean
philosophy is offered in Tables 1 and 2. This discussion in the article of the historical development of
management accounting systems reinforces in the minds of students the evolving nature of cost system
design: as the environment changes, so should management accounting systems. (Note: this reading could
also be used in conjunction with Chapter 15 of the text.)
Discussion Questions:
1. Describe what is meant by the term lean manufacturing.
Lean manufacturing or lean production, often shortened more simply to “lean,” is a production
practice that considers the expenditure of resources for any goal other than the creation of value of the
end customer to be wasteful, and thus a target for elimination. Working from the perspective of the
customer who consumes a product or service, “value” is defined as any action or process that a
customer would be willing to pay for. Lean is centered around creating more value with less work.
manufacturing is sometimes seen as a more refined version of earlier efficiency efforts, building upon
the work of earlier leaders such as Taylor or Ford and learning from their mistakes.
2. According to the author of this article, what are the primary uses (or roles) of management
accounting data within organizations today?
According to the author, cost accounting information—and, more generally, accounting
information—has three basic roles in organizations:
3. According to the author of this article, what are the primary implications of adopting a lean
philosophy in terms of the design of management accounting systems?
Overall, one might refer to these accounting-related implications as “lean accounting.” The author
points out that “lean accounting” carries two dimensions: (1) accounting for lean—what information
Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14–10
4. Explain the importance of the examples provided in Tables 1 and 2 of this article.
As an example of the lean approach, the performance measures used at the corporate level and at the
factory floor level of The Wiremold Company are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The
Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14–11
Reading 14-6: Attiea Marie, Walid Cheffi, Rosmy Jean Louis, and Anath Rao, “Is Standard
Costing Still Relevant? Evidence from Dubai,” Management Accounting Quarterly (Winter
2010), pp. 1-10.
Reports of the death of standard costing are greatly exaggerated, say the results of our study of
companies based in Dubai. Because of its simplicity, flexibility, and affordability, standard costing
remains a favorite cost accounting method among accounting and finance professionals in both
industrial and service sectors in this rapidly expanding part of the globe.
Discussion Questions
1. In the introductory section, Global Acceptance of Standard Costing, the authors of this article
cite various studies to support the authors’ claim that, particularly outside the U.S., standard
costing is not “dead.” What principal counterargument might you raise in response to the authors’
contention?
The principal counterargument might be the dated nature of the studies cited by the authors. Most of
the citations are from the 1990s. Globalization and competitive pressures have combined to motivate
2. Provide an overview of the research study (case study: Dubai) conducted by the authors.
As stated on page 2 of the article, the basic purpose of the study was to “shed light on the level of use
of standard costing tools in Dubai.” Information in this regard was obtained via survey administered to
a random sample of Dubai companies (see footnote 9), segregated into two major business sectors:
responses from the service sector = 43.
3. Summarize the major findings reported in the paper.
Primary findings are reported in Tables 4 – 10 of the article.
1. Table 4 reveals that 77% of respondent manufacturing companies and 39% of respondent service
companies in Dubai report the use of standard costing. (Table 4 also includes comparative data from
Malaysia, New Zealand, and the U.K, as reported by Sulaiman et al. (2004).)
2. Table 5 reports Likert-scale results for various functions of standard costing. Results for Dubai
companies show that for industrial companies, standard costing is used principally (in decreasing
order of perceived importance) for: costing inventories; cost control/performance evaluation; and,
computing product cost information for decision-making. For the sample of non-manufacturing
firms in Dubai, all functions were rated lower in importance than they were for the manufacturing
firm sample. In decreasing order of perceived importance, service-sector companies in Dubai report
the use of standard costs: as an aid to budgeting, and for cost control/performance evaluation.
3. Table 6 presents information regarding the mechanism by which labor and material standards are
set by respondent companies in Dubai (along with comparison data from Malaysia and from the U.
K.). By far, manufacturing firms report that such standards are set on the basis of
Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14–12
“design/engineering studies.” Service-sector firms, on the other hand, report that standards are set
principally on the basis of “average of historic usage” (i.e., past actual results).
4. Table 7 presents information regarding the performance level embodied in standard costs for
respondent companies in Dubai, along with comparison data for Japanese firms. In this regard,
Figure 7 shows that among both manufacturing-firm respondents and nonmanufacturing-firm
respondents, standard costs are principally based on the average of past performance (compared to,
for example, ideal/perfection performance).
5. Table 8 reports information regarding the frequency with which standard costs are revised, both for
respondent companies from Dubai and a comparison of Malaysian and U.K. firms. The majority of
sampled firms report that standards are revised semiannually. Next in terms of frequency was annual
revision of standards. It is interesting that few respondents indicated that standards were revised
“when the variances imply that the standards have changed.”
6. Table 9 contains information regarding decision rules used to investigate reported standard cost
variances. What seems interesting in these data is the fact that while a majority of respondent firms
(both from Dubai and Malaysia) investigate based on either the absolute dollar amount or the
relative dollar amount (i.e., percentage deviation), a significant minority of respondent companies
indicate that “no formal method is used” (i.e., the investigation decision is based on ‘managerial
judgment’).
7. Table 10 reports on the importance of particular standard cost variances “for control purposes.” As
indicated on page 7: “Some 95% of industrial companies in Dubai were extremely sensitive to
variances in sales volume, 90% to variances in materials prices, and 87% to variances in sales price.
These responses were similar to those in the Malaysian studies. Also, the service sector in Dubai
emphasized monitoring variances in sales volume but with wage rates and labor efficiency
considered very important as well.” (Note to the instructor: these results might be used to motivate
the topics covered in Chapters15 and 16 of the text.)
4. What are some limitations associated with the survey-based study summarized in this article?
As indicated in the paper (p. 7), the study is subject to two primary limitations:
1. Respondent sample (relatively few large companies responded to the survey); thus, the reported
results may reflect a company-size bias.
2. Sampling frame—data were obtained from only a single country (actually, one of the “states” in the
United Arab Emirates)
Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14–13
Reading 14-7: Marc J. Epstein and F. Warren McFarlan, “Measuring Efficiency-Based
Effectiveness of a Nonprofit’s Performance,” Strategic Finance (October 2011), pp. 27-34.
The true measure of a nonprofit’s performance has to include its overall mission, no matter how difficult
that is to evaluate. The metrics to consider are the organization’s inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and
impacts. The authors show how a Causal Linkage Map can provide a comprehensive view of these
otherwise separate measures.
Discussion Questions
1. What is the principal connection between this article and the material covered in Chapter 14 of
the text?
Chapter 14 begins a discussion of “operational performance measures.” In the chapter, we discuss
various dimensions of control, including operational control systems. The chapter makes the point that
whatever measures are chosen and used as the financial control system, those measures should be
and the effectiveness of the organization in meeting its stated goals (hence the title of the article).
2. Conceptually, what does the article provide in the way of guidance for developing performance
metrics for nonprofit organizations?
The authors offer a model or framework for developing appropriate performance metrics for a
nonprofit organization. This framework consists of grouping resource-related activities of such
organizations into the following subgroups:
a. Inputs
indicators in each of the above-five subgroups, for two broad types of nonprofit organizations: social–
impact-focused organizations, and member-focused organizations). As the authors indicated (p. 30),
“These (performance) measures provide a quantitative analysis of how the organization is doing in
fulfilling its mission.
3. Provide a synopsis of the two “best practice” examples offered in the article.
The two best-practice examples reported in the article are: Opportunity International and AARP.
Opportunity International (OI): OI is a large and growing microfinance network, whose mission is “to
provide opportunities for people in chronic poverty to transform their lives.” Its comprehensive
Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14–14
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
spiritual life.” (For further information, go to: http://www.opportunity.org/.) Table 2 contains a listing
of performance metrics for Operation International.
AARP: AARP is the largest not-for-profit membership organization in the U.S. for individuals 50 and
older. Its stated mission is “enhancing the quality of life for all as we age.” (For further information on
AARP, go to: www.aarp.org/.) Mission-linked performance measures used by the AARP Foundation
are presented in the right-hand portion of Table 2.
4. What do the authors propose as relevant financial-performance indicators for non-profit
organizations?
The authors suggest that free cash flow and revenue growth are financial-performance indicators that
should be relevant to a wide variety of not-for-profit organizations. In addition, philanthropy in its
various forms (annual giving, capital campaigns, and planned giving) is an important metric for most
organizations to measure and evaluate financial performance.
Students (and the instructor) may want to consult Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org/), an
organization that provides various financial-performance metrics for non-profit organizations.
Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14–15
Reading 14-8: Jason Porter and Teresa Stephanson “Calculating Operating Variances:
Completing a Benchmarking Analysis with Your Excel-Based Master Budget,” Strategic
Finance (September 2011), pp. 45-51.
This is the third article in a series that describes how you can use an Excel-based Master Budget for
making managerial decisions. Following the “Flexible Budget” created in part two, the authors now focus
on the final statement to calculate the company’s operating variances. They build a third budget in the
Contribution Margin Income Statement format and compare the original budget and flexible version to
determine variances.
This assignment is an extension of the Master Budgeting extended example by Porter & Stephanson, as
reported in the following issues of Strategic Finance: February-March-April-May-June-July, 2010. A
student handout containing information needed to prepare the master budget is available for students (pdf
file), as is an Excel template (“Student Template [Master Budgeting Example]”).
Discussion Questions
1. Explain the information contained in the CM IS tab (i.e., explain the difference between each of
the three forms of the Contribution Margin Income Statement).
See Figure 1 of the article. The left-most Contribution Margin (CM) Income Statement (IS) is the
original (i.e., master or static) budget for the period. The actual results for year are presented in the
right-most column of Figure 1. The middle column in Figure 1 is the Flexible Budget (based on
2. Use the information from the three CM Income Statements to calculate and interpret the direct
labor variances for the year.
Actual labor hours worked (viz., 77,559) are provided in Figure 2 of the article. Figure 3 of the article
shows that the total flexible-budget variance for direct labor during the period was an Unfavorable
Formulas for calculating the component variances for direct labor cost are provided in Figure 4 of the
article.
3. Calculate and interpret the total direct materials flexible budget variance for the year. Show the
breakdown of the flexible budget variance for steel and expanded shift component, into price and
quantity components.
The total flexible budget variance for all direct materials combined is given in Figure 5 of the article.
$144,395 unfavorable.
Figure 6 of the article uses two flexible budgets (the one on the right-hand side based on output, the
one in the middle of the figure based on inputs, i.e., on actual units of raw material consumed). For
Chapter 14 – Operational Performance Measurement: Sales, Direct-Cost Variances, and the Role of Nonfinancial
Performance Measures
14–16
steel, the flexible budget variance is $51,862 Unfavorable, consisting of a $46,274 Unfavorable price
budget. (Note: completion of the assignment associated with Reading 14-7 assumes that students have
gone through the construction of the Master Budget for Bob’s Bicycle. For this reason, we supply
below both the background information needed to construct the budget, as well as an Excel file
containing both a worked-out master budget and the analyses referred to in Reading 14-7.)
Bob’s Bicycles –
Master Budget and Va
Master Budget
Example–Assumption