外文翻譯--為什么作業(yè)成本法在中國的銀行應用失??？

1、<p><b>　　中文3400字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設計）</p><p>　　外 文 原 文</p><p>　　外文題目 Why Did ABC Fail at the Bank of China? </p><p>　　外文出處 《Bank

2、Accounting & Finance 》Public Money&Manegement, 2006（3）:39－42 </p><p>　　外文作者 杰弗里.懷特 / 羅納德W.希爾頓 </p><p><b>　　原文：</b><

3、;/p><p>　　Why Did ABC Fail at the Bank of China?</p><p>　　EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Few authors have explored the implementation of activity-based costing (ABC) in East Asian companies. This study investig

4、ates factors that led to the failure of an ABC implementation at a major Chinese financial institution—the Bank of China. Interviews with 18 employees at one branch revealed six factors that blocked the implementation: t

5、he lack of clear business purpose, a lack of education about ABC, poor model design, a lack of participants, individual and organizational re</p><p>　　The key purpose of the Bank of China’s strategic plan is

6、 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 cost

7、s 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 managemen

8、t (A</p><p>　　Our interviews with 18 of the branch employees</p><p>　　revealed six factors that blocked the implementation of</p><p>　　ABC. These are:</p><p>　　Lack of

9、a clear business purpose about the</p><p>　　implementation,</p><p>　　1.Lack of education about ABC,</p><p>　　2.Poor ABC model design,</p><p>　　3.Lack of participants,&l

10、t;/p><p>　　4.Individual and organizational resistance to change,</p><p>　　5.Few outsourcers available.</p><p>　　Although some or all of these factors have been mentioned in previous st

11、udies, 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.</p><p>　　Today，Chinese banks are facing strong competition，e

12、specially 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 grab

13、bed 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 People’s Bank of China, Nanjing Branch in eastern Jiangsu p

14、rovince. </p><p>　　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 advan

15、tage. Furthermore，the government of the People’s 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 con

16、ditions in a timely and effective manner.</p><p>　　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 mana

17、ge its costs. The implementation of such management accounting techniques in China is difficult, however，because of the varied economic, institutional, and cultural settings.</p><p>　　An interview with the g

18、eneral 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 b

19、y 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

20、the organization’s capabilities.</p><p>　　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 A

21、sian companies, especially financial institutions.</p><p>　　ABC VS. TRADITIONAL COSTING SYSTEMS</p><p>　　Before we describe the results of our study, let’s look at the conflicting views about AB

22、C. 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,

23、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 “c</p><p>　　Tradit

24、ional cost systems are always employee payroll related, which hinders a manager’s ability to judge and improve employees’ activities and performance. Furthermore, the payroll-related costs do not indicate the interaction

25、 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 organization’s

26、activity costs could be the most controllable part tha</p><p>　　In contrast, ABC concentrates on activities involved in the work process that help managers operate a business or an organization. “ABC/M is wo

27、rk-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 informa

28、tion obtained could be too raw to be analyzed. ABC solves that problem but is expensive and very time-consuming.</p><p>　　FACTORS LEADING TO THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT ABC</p><p>　　Desp

29、ite 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/o

30、r failure of addressing ABC. Michael Shields identified six “behavioral and organizational” factors that make ABC successful. They are:</p><p>　　1. The support of top management;</p><p>　　2. Int

31、egration between ABC and competitive strategies</p><p>　　such as total quality management (TQM) and</p><p>　　Just-in-Time (JIT);</p><p>　　3. ABC’s relation to performance evaluation

32、s and</p><p>　　managers’ compensation;</p><p>　　4. Adequate training during design, implementation,</p><p><b>　　and use;</b></p><p>　　5. “Non accounting own

33、ership”; and</p><p>　　6. The availability of adequate resources.</p><p>　　Annie S. McGowan and Thomas P. Klammer, as well as George Foster and Dan G. Swenson, confirmed factors 1, 3, 4, and 6.11

34、 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 man

35、agement 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 inter</p><p>　　Different researchers see different f

36、actors 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:</p><p>　　1. Lack of clear business purpose,&

37、lt;/p><p>　　2. Lack of senior management commitment,</p><p>　　3. Delegating the project to consultants,</p><p>　　4. Individual and organizational resistance to change,</p><p

38、><b>　　and</b></p><p>　　5. Poor ABC model design</p><p>　　WHY IMPLEMENTATION FAILED</p><p>　　Here is a closer look at the six factors that interviewers identified as o

39、bstacles to ABC implementation.</p><p>　　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 fro

40、m 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 a

41、bout ABC. They did not know its purpose, and some guessed that it was a tool to limit their daily spending. Others</p><p>　　“The purpose of implementing ABC was to introduce a more effective costing system t

42、o 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 i

43、n ABC. We then felt bored when no one looked at our work; the project stopped at this point.”</p><p>　　Lack of education/knowledge. The interviews revealed that few employees understood ABC. Despite the acco

44、unting department’s 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 o

45、f 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 </p><p>　　Poor ABC model. An ac

46、curately 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” an

47、d “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 abo

48、ut ABC, however, employees could not pr</p><p>　　Lack of participants. A pitfall arose when the accounting department undertook the project without gaining senior management support. The rest of the Bank saw

49、 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 ha

50、d a limited knowledge about other departments’ functions, no actions were followed to improve the project.</p><p>　　Respondents in the accounting department said, “We knew the general process in a department

51、, but that’s not enough for us. We require more details from senior and line managers, who could provide operational information and valuable suggestions.”</p><p>　　Respondents from the corporate banking dep

52、artment 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

53、 to them.”</p><p>　　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 n

54、ew 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

55、 ABC, especially fearing the new system could reveal unprofitable processes and problems in t</p><p>　　Few outsourcers available. Poor outsourcing was another factor that limited the development of ABC. When

56、 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 retaini

57、ng 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</p><p>　　SOME ADVICE</p>

58、<p>　　The 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

59、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 te

60、st be run on a small scale, such as in a department or a subunit, to exam</p><p>　　By reflecting the view of employees of one of the biggest Chinese financial institutions, Bank of China, this study contribu

61、tes 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.</p><p>　　Source: Witherite, Jef

62、frey; Kim, Il-woon. “Bank Accounting & Finance”, Apr2006, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p29-34.</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　為什么作業(yè)成本法在中國的銀行應用失??？</p><p>　　摘要：很少有作者探討作業(yè)成本法在東方亞洲國家的執(zhí)

63、行情況，這項研究調(diào)查了導致作業(yè)成本法在大部分中國金融機構(gòu)執(zhí)行失敗的因素——在中國銀行的應用，通過對在分支機構(gòu)工作的18位雇傭者的調(diào)查，揭露了阻礙作業(yè)成本執(zhí)行的六個因素：缺乏商業(yè)目的；缺乏關(guān)于作業(yè)成本法的知識；模型設計不良；缺乏參與者；個人和組織機構(gòu)對變革的抵制和很少可以提供服務的外包服務商。這項研究代表了一個真實的關(guān)于作業(yè)成本法為什么在組織實施失敗的例子。</p><p>　　中國銀行策略計劃的主要目的是在中國金

64、融市場上占主導地位，作為計劃的一部分，這銀行旨在它所提供服務的區(qū)域引進作業(yè)成本法為了減少成本和提高管理控制，然而，作業(yè)成本法實施失敗以及傳統(tǒng)成本系統(tǒng)仍然被使用。</p><p>　　我們對十八個銀行分支機構(gòu)雇傭者進行調(diào)查揭示了限制作業(yè)成本法實施的六個因素，它們是：（一）缺乏關(guān)于執(zhí)行的明確商業(yè)目的；（二）缺乏關(guān)于作業(yè)成本法的有關(guān)知識；（三）作業(yè)成本法設計不良；（四）個人和機構(gòu)對變革的抵制；（五）缺乏可以提供服務的外

65、包服務商。</p><p>　　今天，中國的銀行正面臨激烈的競爭，特別是來自已經(jīng)進入中國金融市場的外國銀行，早期在上海成立的外國銀行已經(jīng)將它的業(yè)務拓展到江蘇省和浙江省，他們爭取到了他們同行的許多大型客戶，引起當?shù)劂y行貸款的減少，根據(jù)江蘇省南京中國人民銀行分支機構(gòu)公布出來的信息所得。</p><p>　　為了應付這些問題和防止情況惡化，中國銀行需要推行更加有效率的管理措施和技術(shù)來提高它們的競

66、爭優(yōu)勢。而且，中華人民共和國政府決定將國有銀行轉(zhuǎn)變成上市公司，提升銀行的自我控制力和靈活性以幫助它們以更及時和更有效的方式對市場情形做出反應。</p><p>　　作為四大國有銀行之一，中國銀行已經(jīng)開始重新改組自己的機構(gòu)和嘗試執(zhí)行管理會計以管理它的成本。管理會計技術(shù)在中國的執(zhí)行很困難，這是由變化的經(jīng)濟形勢、制度和一系列文化因素造成的。</p><p>　　對這銀行分支機構(gòu)的總經(jīng)理的調(diào)查研究

67、揭示了它們在三年前已經(jīng)嘗試實施作業(yè)成本法，但是沒有取得成效。執(zhí)行作業(yè)成本法的失敗花費了阻止資金，并且有必要通過識別和分析阻礙作業(yè)成本法執(zhí)行的因素來削減這些成本。如果這些障礙無法解決，它會繼續(xù)管理會計技術(shù)的應用并且進一步會影響組織的生存能力。</p><p>　　作業(yè)成本法與傳統(tǒng)作業(yè)成本法的區(qū)別</p><p>　　在我們描述我們研究結(jié)果以前，讓我們看看關(guān)于ABC的沖突性觀點。希爾頓.<

68、;/p><p>　　羅納德以及相關(guān)學者將ABC定義為一個兩階段模型。在第一階段，日常開支費用根據(jù)他們的分類分配到不同的作業(yè)成本庫；在第二階段，用一系列作業(yè)成本分配率，成本庫中的費用被分配到不同產(chǎn)品類型中，加里.格斯認為，傳統(tǒng)成本系統(tǒng)像像一個“支票庫”，在這個“支票庫”中你可以閱讀全部開支，但是，你無法知道該支票的來龍去脈。</p><p>　　傳統(tǒng)成本核算系統(tǒng)總是與職工工資相關(guān)，阻礙了管理者判

69、斷雇員工作活動和表現(xiàn)的能力，從而提高員工的績效。而且，與工資掛鉤的成本費用無法表明一項作業(yè)與另一項作業(yè)，產(chǎn)品與顧客服務的關(guān)系。管理人員將無法識別哪些事件能引起作業(yè)活動成本?；诮?jīng)理的觀點，然而，組織的作業(yè)活動成本成為受管理者影響的能被高度控制的部分。然而不知道成本的驅(qū)動因素，管理者實際上無法有效率地組織公司的成本。</p><p>　　相反，作業(yè)成本法關(guān)注在工作流程中的各項活動來幫助管理者經(jīng)營業(yè)務和管理組織，作業(yè)

70、成本法關(guān)注工作中心，然而，傳統(tǒng)作業(yè)成本法則是業(yè)務中心。然而，兩種成本核算都有他們自己的特點，傳統(tǒng)作業(yè)成本系統(tǒng)容易執(zhí)行且執(zhí)行成本較低，但是獲取的信息較少而無法進行有效的分析，作業(yè)成本法解決了這個問題但是非常耗時。</p><p>　　導致執(zhí)行作業(yè)成本法成功和失敗的因素</p><p>　　盡管作業(yè)成本法的日益普及，一定數(shù)量公司在實施作業(yè)成本法開始遇到困難，使其無法更進一步實施，一系列因素導致

71、了實施作業(yè)成本法的成功與失敗，</p><p>　　邁克.謝爾德識別出導致作業(yè)成本法成功實施的六個因素:它們是(1)高層管理者的支持；（二）如全面質(zhì)量管理的競爭策略和作業(yè)成本法的結(jié)合使用；（三）作業(yè)成本法的績效評估以及管理者賠償?shù)年P(guān)系；（四）設計、實施和使用的充分培訓；（五）非賬戶所有權(quán)；（六）可利用的充足資源。</p><p>　　安妮麥.高恩和托馬斯，以及喬治.福斯特和丹斯.文森確認因

72、素1、3、4、6比較重要。據(jù)英尼斯，米切爾，辛克萊爾，這些與美國作業(yè)成本法的實踐研究發(fā)現(xiàn)相一致，根據(jù)它們2004年到2009年的調(diào)查結(jié)果，然而，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)高層管理者的支持與企業(yè)成功實施作業(yè)成本法緊密相關(guān)。另一方面，伊恩科布，約翰英尼斯和米切爾認為，內(nèi)部缺乏足夠的資源，特別是職工時間和計算機資源是主要資源，而且克里斯.阿吉里斯和鮑勃.卡普蘭通過提供行為模型員工為什么和怎樣抵制作業(yè)成本法來解釋作業(yè)成本法的實施失敗. 克里斯.阿吉里斯變革的阻力

73、來自于參與者引起的防御程序以使他們免受新觀點的尷尬和威脅。鮑勃.卡普蘭進一步指出對于在政治和組織能力方面，對新系統(tǒng)的抵制是可以理解的。</p><p>　　不同的研究者認為有不同的因素影響作業(yè)成本法的實施，總之，英尼斯，米切爾，辛克萊爾，安妮麥.高恩和托馬斯，以及喬治.福斯特和丹斯.文森有五個因素來討論他們：（一）缺乏明確的商業(yè)目的；（二）缺乏高層管理者的承諾；（三）委派咨詢師參與項目；（四）個人和組織對變革的抵

74、制；（5）不良的作業(yè)成本法模型設計。</p><p>　　作業(yè)成本法在中國的銀行應用失敗的六個因素：</p><p>　?。ㄒ唬┤狈﹃P(guān)于執(zhí)行的明確商業(yè)目的；</p><p>　　作業(yè)成本法項目最初有會計部門發(fā)起，基本的模式已經(jīng)設計出來但無論來自管理部門，還是來自個別部門的員工在工作中都沒有表現(xiàn)出對該成本模式的興趣，會計部門人員因此很失望并失去了動機。另一方面，來自個

75、別部門的員工對作業(yè)成本法感到困惑，不知道實施作業(yè)成本法的目的何在，以及一些人認為這是一個限制他們?nèi)粘ｉ_支的的工具，又有人認為它有助于重新設計工作流程，同時，一些人相信其有助于重新設計當前的部門結(jié)構(gòu)，根據(jù)總經(jīng)理的觀點，作業(yè)成本法是提高管理控制透明度的工具，然而沒有明確的業(yè)務目的在設計執(zhí)行時提出來。</p><p>　　執(zhí)行作業(yè)成本法的的目的在于引進更加有效的成本核算系統(tǒng)對于會計人員，“作業(yè)成本法”這個詞過于籠統(tǒng)了。

76、其他員工都對作業(yè)成本法持有不同的觀點， 感到困惑并且沒有興趣，項目實施也因此中斷了。</p><p>　?。ǘ┤狈﹃P(guān)于作業(yè)成本法的有關(guān)知識；</p><p>　　這個采訪揭示了，盡管會計部門的努力，很少員工理解作業(yè)成本法。一位來自會計部門的員工揭露他曾經(jīng)聽說過作業(yè)成本法，但他不知道它的要點；兩位管理人員提到過他們知道作業(yè)成本法，但只有一位才清楚其核算的詳細細節(jié)。在會計部門，會計人員

77、也只是在書本上而不是在實踐中學習作業(yè)成本法。換句話說，沒有人對建立作業(yè)成本法模型并應用于機構(gòu)充滿信心，這次采訪進一步表明員工有必要進行相關(guān)知識的培訓，十八個被采訪者中有八個同意如果有條件的話就會學習作業(yè)成本法。</p><p>　?。ㄈ┰O計不夠良好的模型</p><p>　　根據(jù)采訪者的反饋，認為該模型太復雜而且很難建立和維護，管理者也很難理解和執(zhí)行，而且該模型不完善而且進一步重新設計。

78、由于相關(guān)知識的缺乏，員工也無法提出有價值的相關(guān)建議，這模型的應用也很快就失敗了。</p><p>　　（四）缺乏參與者的配合</p><p>　　當會計部門沒有征得高級管理部門的同意下從事這個項目，未預期的風險也隨之而生，銀行的其余部門這是會計部門的事而沒有關(guān)注它。結(jié)果，會計部門不能對業(yè)務流程作出決定，同時用不了解其他部門的職能，所以沒有采取進一步行動來推動這個項目。</p>

79、<p><b>　?。ㄎ澹ψ兏锏牡种?lt;/b></p><p>　　這次采訪的結(jié)果也揭示了管理者歡迎新的技術(shù)成本系統(tǒng)，但是員工普遍表示抵制。管理者相信新的成本系統(tǒng)將會提高對運營成本的控制，因此，他們通過陳述作業(yè)成本法對利潤的影響來推行這個系統(tǒng)，這可以允許他們以任何方式使用部門盈余的資金，而不用作為利潤的一部分返還到公司的賬戶中。</p><p><b

80、>　　一些相關(guān)建議</b></p><p>　　將作業(yè)成本法系統(tǒng)框架應用到銀行的分支機構(gòu)為其他中國商業(yè)銀行提供了寶貴的經(jīng)驗，我們建議公司可以就作業(yè)成本法相關(guān)的知識對員工進行相關(guān)的培訓，從內(nèi)部獲取持續(xù)的資源，積極鼓勵員工參與，同時在應用作業(yè)成本法時考慮員工對其的抵制，我們推薦一個小規(guī)模的試驗以檢驗執(zhí)行的結(jié)果。因為作業(yè)成本法的執(zhí)行成本高而且耗時，我們建議組織一步一步來執(zhí)行以使所有員工能了解新系統(tǒng)，并

81、提供有價值的反饋來提高組織的業(yè)務流程。</p><p>　　為了保證準確性，然而，作業(yè)成本法模型需要不斷地被檢驗和完善。在中國金融機構(gòu)執(zhí)行作業(yè)成本法的長期效果還不明確，需要未來進一步的調(diào)查作業(yè)成本法的可執(zhí)行性。</p><p>　　通過反映中國的大型金融機構(gòu)員工的觀點，這項研究提供了作業(yè)成本法的執(zhí)行情況，陳述了作業(yè)成本法執(zhí)行失敗的原因，希望能夠?qū)σ恍嵺`者和學者提供一定的幫助。</p