IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/07-486.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Towards explaining cost estimation errors in time equation-based costing

Author

Listed:
  • S. HOOZÉE
  • W. BRUGGEMAN

Abstract

Cost estimations provided by ABC are hardly error free. Datar and Gupta (1994) state that the following three types of errors may occur: specification errors, aggregation errors and measurement errors. Reductions in specification and aggregation errors from more disaggregated and better specified cost systems may increase measurement errors and hence errors in product costs (Datar and Gupta, 1994; Labro and Vanhoucke, 2007). In time equation-based costing it is expected that the problem of aggregation is considerably smaller because resources and costs are pooled on a higher level and used by activities on a time unit basis. Furthermore, lowering specification and aggregation errors no longer causes increased measurement errors because in high complexity environments heterogeneous activities no longer have to be split. However, in complex environments costs calculated through time equations can be distorted by a new type of specification error and a new type of measurement error. Specification errors occur due to incorrect structure of the time equations. Measurement errors occur due to incorrect estimation of the time parameters in the time equations. This study explored the origins of errors in time equation-based costing in a case setting. The case data revealed that measurement errors and specification errors in time equations can be explained both from people’s deficient ability to accurately construct time equations and a lack of willingness to maximize accuracy. Specifically, drawing on cognitive psychology literature, experience, length of the time interval and cognitive style were identified as determinants of accuracy. Next to these competency imperfections, the operational employees in the case company were not always wiling to maximize accuracy of time equations. Institutional theory, agency theory and traditional ABC literature offered an explanation as to why they deliberately misreported activity times. The general implication of this explanatory case study is that it revisits the traditional, rather technical analysis of costing accuracy by adding a cognitive, an institutional and an agency perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Hoozée & W. Bruggeman, 2007. "Towards explaining cost estimation errors in time equation-based costing," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/486, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:07/486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_07_486.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Covaleski, Mark A. & Dirsmith, Mark W., 1986. "The budgetary process of power and politics," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 193-214, May.
    2. Young, Sm, 1985. "Participative Budgeting - The Effects Of Risk-Aversion And Asymmetric Information On Budgetary Slack," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 829-842.
    3. Noreen, Eric & Noreen, Eric & Soderstrom, Naomi, 1994. "Are overhead costs strictly proportional to activity? : Evidence from hospital departments," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 255-278, January.
    4. Malmi, Teemu, 1999. "Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: an exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(8), pages 649-672, November.
    5. Ezzamel, Mahmoud & Willmott, Hugh & Worthington, Frank, 2004. "Accounting and management-labour relations: the politics of production in the 'factory with a problem'," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 269-302.
    6. Tan, Ht, 1995. "Effects Of Expectations, Prior Involvement, And Review Awareness On Memory For Audit Evidence And Judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 113-135.
    7. Irvine Lapsley & Peter Miller & Fabrizio Panozzo, 2010. "Accounting for the city," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(3), pages 305-324, March.
    8. Juster, F Thomas & Stafford, Frank P, 1991. "The Allocation of Time: Empirical Findings, Behavioral Models, and Problems of Measurement," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 29(2), pages 471-522, June.
    9. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    10. Shields, Michael D. & Deng, F. Johnny & Kato, Yutaka, 2000. "The design and effects of control systems: tests of direct- and indirect-effects models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 185-202, February.
    11. Trotman, Kt, 1985. "The Review Process And The Accuracy Of Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 740-752.
    12. Markus, M. Lynne & Pfeffer, Jeffrey, 1983. "Power and the design and implementation of accounting and control systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 8(2-3), pages 205-218, May.
    13. E. Labro & M. Vanhoucke, 2005. "A simulation analysis of interactions between errors in costing system design," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 05/333, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michel Gervais & Yves Levant & Charles Ducrocq, 2010. "Le Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC):un premier bilan à travers une étude de cas longitudinale," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 13(1), pages 123-155., March.
    2. Pashkevich, Natallia & von Schéele, Fabian & Haftor, Darek M., 2023. "Accounting for cognitive time in activity-based costing: A technology for the management of digital economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    3. Ratnatunga, Janek & Waldmann, Erwin, 2010. "Transparent Costing: Has the emperor got clothes?," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 196-210.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    2. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    3. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    4. Christian Daumoser & Bernhard Hirsch & Matthias Sohn, 2018. "Honesty in budgeting: a review of morality and control aspects in the budgetary slack literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 115-159, August.
    5. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F., 2001. "Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 349-410, December.
    6. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    7. Maria-Victòria Sánchez-Rebull & Angels Niñerola & Ana-Beatriz Hernández-Lara, 2023. "After 30 Years, What Has Happened to Activity-Based Costing? A Systematic Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    8. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    9. Cristiano Busco & Ariela Caglio & Robert Scapens, 2015. "Management and accounting innovations: reflecting on what they are and why they are adopted," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(3), pages 495-524, August.
    10. Vassili Joannides, 2011. "La gestion sans budget ou l'alignement de la finance sur la stratégie," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00650532, HAL.
    11. Jermias, Johnny, 2001. "Cognitive dissonance and resistance to change: the influence of commitment confirmation and feedback on judgment usefulness of accounting systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-160, March.
    12. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    13. Bertrand Masquefa & Pierre Teller, 2011. "The effects of uncertainty, trust, structure and resistance to change in the diffusion of management accounting innovations: an agent based modeling approach," Working Papers hal-00583488, HAL.
    14. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can Auditors Be Independent? - Experimental Evidence," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-59, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    15. Jennifer Kunz & Stefan Linder, 2015. "With a view to make things better: individual characteristics and intentions to engage in management innovation," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(3), pages 525-556, August.
    16. Kilfoyle, Eksa & Richardson, Alan J., 2011. "Agency and structure in budgeting: Thesis, antithesis and synthesis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 183-199.
    17. Abdel-Maksoud, Ahmed & Cheffi, Walid & Ghoudi, Kilani, 2016. "The mediating effect of shop-floor involvement on relations between advanced management accounting practices and operational non-financial performance indicators," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 169-184.
    18. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683.
    19. Ricchiute, David N., 1999. "The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 155-171, April.
    20. Markus Glaser & Florencio Lopez-De-Silanes & Zacharias Sautner, 2013. "Opening the Black Box: Internal Capital Markets and Managerial Power," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(4), pages 1577-1631, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:07/486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.