benchmarking of contemporary approaches as strategical cost

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 6. No. 5. September, 2014

A. Tazegul, Ceyda Y. Kaygin. benchmarking of contemporary approaches as strategical cost management tools. International Journal of Academic Research Part B; 2014; 6(5), 84-91. DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-5/B.13 Library of Congress Classification: H1-99, HB71-74

BENCHMARKING OF CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES AS STRATEGICAL COST MANAGEMENT TOOLS 1

2

Assist. Prof. Alper Tazegul , Assist. Prof. Ceyda Yerdelen Kaygin 1

Kafkas University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kars 2 Kafkas University, Vocational School of Social Sciences, Kars (TURKEY) E-mails: [email protected], [email protected] DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-5/B.13 Received: 02 Apr, 2014 Accepted: 19 Sept, 2014

ABSTRACT The way of taking root in the market and providing competitive advantage in business life where ten thousands of multi-national enterprises display activity is producing quality and functional products with the lowest possible costs. Moreover, this is only one aspect of their responsibilities. In the environment where expectations/demands of consumers change rapidly, production process has to be completed in a short time in accordance with such pace. Flexible production systems capable of producing quality and functional products at low costs and meeting consumers' demands in a short time are essential elements for enterprises to continue their existence. Many new costing approaches have been developed to meet such expectations. Each of these approaches has its own characteristics, yet the ultimate goal is to produce quality products at the lowest cost. The level of contribution of such approaches to the success of enterprises, which have to be handled separately according to organizational structures of enterprises, is incontrovertibly high. Key words: Traditional Costing, Contemporary Costing Approaches, Change and Transformation in Cost Management 1. INTRODUCTION In today's business world, all enterprises are under the influence of global competition; therefore, enterprises should have a dynamic and flexible organizational structure that is based on continuous change. Moreover, global competition is not the only phenomena/problem that enterprises have confronted with. Enterprises have to handle elements such as continuously changing demand, producing quality and cheap products, etc. as well. Enterprises no longer determine the price of products by simply adding profit to the product cost. Today, price of a product is determined by market conditions. Under these circumstances, enterprises have no option to realize their target profit levels, but producing cost efficient and high quality products. This forces enterprises to have a structure/organization that is demand-aware and capable of producing quality and cheap products and that incorporates flexible production systems, keeps sufficient stocks and reduces losses as far as possible. It seems to be rather difficult for enterprises to maintain such structure with their traditional management and costing consideration. A management and costing system that is continuously in a search of quality improvement, that realizes “information revolution” within its structure, that is able to perform continuous cost control and discontinue unnecessary activities can only be realized through a contemporary management and costing understanding that analyzes the present conditions at all points. Traditional costing management is considered insufficient in today's complex business management and is likely to lead incorrect decisions particularly regarding cost management. Within this context, we benchmarked the traditional costing management against some of the approaches considered as contemporary with regard to cost management, and aimed to contribute to the literature. 2. PROBLEMS/DEFICIENCIES OF TRADITIONAL COSTING APPROACHES Characteristic of technological improvements that affects all parts of enterprises beginning from top management and that necessitates transformation has revealed significant outcomes with regard to accounting, particularly cost accounting. As a result of such transformation, a number of changes have been experienced with regard to cost elements such as reduction in direct labor costs, increase in technology and information costs, change of allocation keys and diminishing importance of approach towards stock evaluation (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002). Therefore, direct labor costs decrease whereas volume and importance of production overheads increase.

84 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

www.ijar.eu



Since traditional cost accounting is based on a direct labor- and direct material-centered concept – in such system, first of all cost elements are collected in cost centers and then such expenses are charged on products –; today, this causes incorrect results with regard to allocation of production overheads for enterprises using advanced production techniques (Gurdal, 2007). Through utilization of technological developments effectively in production, direct labor costs have decreased significantly, hence allocation of production overheads over direct labor rates has become meaningless. 3. CONTEMPORARY COSTING APPROACHES 3.1. Activity Based Costing In enterprises where traditional costing system has been implemented, sometimes less or more cost than required is charged for products. For example, sometimes less cost than required is charged for some products with low production capacity and more cost than required in charged for products with high production capacity (Karcioglu, 1994). Such difference between traditional costing and activity-based costing is shown as follows.

Fig. 1. Traditional Costing and Activity Based Costing Source: (Horngren et. al. 2007, Quoted by: Kargin, 2013).

Activity-based costing has focused on activities as a cost charging unit and emerged as an alternative costing model to eliminate “errors caused by traditional implementation methods during calculation of product costs” (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002). In this model, a system has been created that follows up costs firstly according to activities, then according to products while calculating costs of goods and services. In this system, production overheads are divided in more than one pool and reflected over products to the degree of spent amount. As to activity based cost system, allocation process of production overheads is shown below

Baku, Azerbaijan | 85



Fig. 2. Allocation of Production Overheads in Activity Based Costing System Source: (Abdioglu, 2012).

Activity based costing provides a wide acting area for managers in terms of decision-making. This approach, which allows correct information about activities and costs, provides correct costing of goods and services (Jayson, 1994) as well as competition advantage for enterprises that produce many products all together (Horngren and Foster, 1991). This also strengthens position of financial managers with regard to creating management accounting (Nair, 2002) through driving role of management accounting to strategical decision making (Anand, Sahay and Saha, 2005). In activity based costing system, consumed resources are determined through defining management activities using activity analysis and therefore the success of the enterprise is boosted by means of providing information that enhances effectiveness and efficiency of activities (Ulker and Iskender, 2005). Through this aspect (effective utilization of resources), activity based costing system increases profitability of the enterprise by means of contributing to the management (Kaplan and Anderson, 2004). 3.2. Target Costing It seems difficult for enterprises to determine prices of goods and services they produce as they wish since they are in competition with many enterprises (Civelek and Ozkan, 2006,). Target costing approach has emerged as a strategical management tool in an environment where market conditions are more determinative in pricing goods and services. Target costing begins at the initial stages of the production stage and continues for the entire life of the product. Since enterprises cannot determine price of the product as they wish, they will have to make profit and cost calculations over the price that is formed in the market. Therefore, “market price minus profit” approach is taken as base instead of “cost plus” approach that is used traditionally. The difference between these two approaches is shown in the following table. Table 1. Comparison of Target Costing and Cost Plus Approaches Cost Plus

Target Costing

Market factors are not a part of cost planning

Cost planning is driven by market factors based on competition

The price is determined by costs

The cost is determined by prices

Focus point of cost reduction is losses and inefficiency

The key for cost reduction is design

Cost reduction is not driven by customers

Sellers are dealt with after product design

Customers play a guiding role in cost reduction Groups with multi-functional participation are responsible for cost reduction Sellers are dealt with before product design

The aim is minimizing the price paid by customers

The aim is reducing total ownership costs of customers

Values chain is of little or none concern in cost planning

Values chain is prioritized in cost planning

Cost accounting is responsible for cost reduction

Source: (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002).

Target costing is a strategical profit and cost management system. During this process, enterprises investigate their competitors' costs and determine a competitive unit product cost within the market (Karcioglu, 2000). Target costing considers product and production design as a key in cost management (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002). Therefore, design and development stages are very important in target costing. If costs are not taken under control during such stage, it shall be rather difficult to reduce costs afterwards. Since prices of the opponent firm and payment desire and power of target audience are taken into consideration during determination of product price in target costing (Aksoylu and Dursun, 2001), a consumerfocused approach that provides competitive advantage for the enterprise emerges (Topcu, 2013). In providing


www.ijar.eu



such competitive advantage, contribution of principle of management of costs before they unfold (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002) is quite high. Enterprises that desire to use the target costing approach have to start the production process considering many factors during the production process such as competition conditions, customer portfolio, market conditions and product strategies. Basis of this approach consists of “Price based costing” principle which is based on determining cost targets by subtracting expected profit margin from competitive market price (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002), “Focusing on Customer” principle where development of product characteristics and functions includes only satisfaction of customer expectations (Gurdal, 2007), “Design focused” principle which includes solution of problems and reduction of costs during this process (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002) through spending more time in design process (Kutay and Akkaya, 2000), “Life Cycle Approach” principle which is not only based on purchase of products by customers, but also on the next stage, i.e. reduction of ownership costs (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002), “Value Chain Relationship” principle which aims reducing costs by means of providing coordination between all members of the enterprise (supplier, dealer, service provider etc.) (Gurdal, 2007) and “Comprehensive Participation” principle which is based on achieving the common cost target through “process tools” that consist of enterprise and non-enterprise stakeholders. 3.3. Just in Time Production System and Cost Management Just in time production system is a flexible production system which is based on the approach of “pulling” according to the demand (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002) and that contains production of required products at required amounts (production at an amount that can be sold) and at required times (time available for sale) (Karcioglu, 2000) and that allows reduction of costs through elimination of waste and non-value adding activities (Acar, 1996). In just in time production, it is aimed to reduce product costs, to enhance product quality, to minimize stock levels and to widen distribution facilities of the product (Kucuksavas, 2002, Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002, Gurdal, 2007, Karcioglu, 2000). These aims are among the most important reasons for emergence of just in time production system. Main purpose of this approach is to prevent waste in all stages of the production and to minimize costs. To achieve such target, particularly operation with very low (even no) levels of stock is aimed. Therefore, production process starts according to the demand and products are supplied to the customers rapidly. Since such rapid process operates based on “pulling principle”, delivery uncertainties are eliminated and production process is cleaned from elements such as raw material stocking and semi-products that are considered as waste during production process. Two main purposes of just in time production system are zero stock and zero waste (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002). Elimination of none-value adding activities as well as quality production and continuous improvement operations for this purpose are main elements of this system. In just in time production system, activities (production) are started in accordance with customer demands. (Tutek and Once, 1993). This is also true for the supply of raw materials. That is, raw materials should be purchased only at required amounts and when required. Therefore, in just in time production system, the enterprise has to be selective in choosing suppliers and establish good relationships with them so as to obtain raw materials in time (Heitger, Ogan and Matulich, 1992, Gurdal, 2007). To create a production system in this way, production units should be provided with information flow that specifies when and how much production units should make production (Gurdal, 2007). In contrast with traditional production environment, an important part of production expenses in just in time production system can be charged directly on products. In this system, purchased direct raw materials and materials can be charged directly on production account. (Karcioglu, 2000). The reason for this is the change in organizational structure rather than the accounting system. Basic differences between traditional production system and just in time production system are shown in the following table. Table 2. Comparison of Traditional Production System and Just In Time Production System Traditional Production

Just in Time Production

Pulling system

Pushing system

High stock level

Low or zero stock level

Structure consisting of processes

Production cells

Working with a large number of suppliers

Central assistant and service expense locations

Working with a small number of suppliers Allocation of production overheads through required number of cost pools Non-central assistant and service expense locations

Specialized labor Consideration of stopping and restarting times of production activities as normal Finding normal and abnormal wastages

Versatile labor Minimization of stopping and restarting times of production activities Consideration of all wastage as abnormal

Quality control after finishing production

Continuous quality control

Acceptable quality levels

Total quality control

Complex cost accounting

Simple cost accounting

Allocation of production overheads through one or two cost pools

Source: (Sakrak, 1997).




Basic strategy of just in time production system is to prevent waste in all stages of production and to minimize costs by means of zero or low stock level. In just in time production system, there is no need to allocate resources for stock, continuous improvement is aimed for the entire production process (Savas, 2003) and thus production flow is facilitated, whereas production waste is decreased (Acar, 1996). However, customer orders should be relatively stable to achieve such aims. Besides, there should not be any problems with regard to raw material supply. Required raw materials have to be supplied at required quality and amount and in time. Situations that may cause delays and failures in production process should be reviewed and corrected through timely interventions (Tazegul, 2014). 3.4. Kaizen Costing Kaizen costing, which is basically a management philosophy, is a costing system that was introduced by Japanese firms and that aims continuous improvement. The purpose is to implement activities that shall realize “acceptable costs”. For this purpose, it is aimed to implement kaizen philosophy on production process and eliminate nonvalue adding activities from production processes thus reducing cost through preventing waste (Gurdal, 2007, Altinbay, 2006). In this process, first of all current situation is aimed to be improved (Bozdemir and Orhan, 2011). Development/improvement works contain a structure with small steps, but that reveal continuity (Karcioglu, 2000). Such continuous development philosophy is different from improvement existing in classical methods. Continuous development/improvement in kaizen costing system contains a small, but stable structure. In kaizen costing, by the help of improvement of processes that cause outcomes in order to improve such outcomes, enterprises are provided with competitive advantage (Karcioglu, 2000). As a result of such implementation, production methods of the enterprise shall change thus reducing costs (Monden and Hamada, 1991). Kaizen costing activities included in kaizen costing system can be divided into two groups. The first group contains kaizen costing activities that are implemented when difference between actual cost and target cost after quarterly production of new products is large. The second group contains activities that are implemented during the entire production processes that aim to reduce the possible difference between target profit and estimated profit and by this way to achieve the “acceptable cost” (Altinbay, 2006). The details should be taken into account for success of kaizen costing. Developments/improvements may not be ignored even if they are very small (Karcioglu, 2000). Particularly, non-value adding activities and wastes should be prevented during production process where costs are intensively tried to be minimized. Within scope of implementation of this system, a special project team named “cost kaizen committee” is established and such committee carries out value analysis activities for the product in question (Gurdal, 2007). As this is the case for many methods, it is aimed to control and minimize cost in kaizen costing method. In standard costing, which is one of such methods, the required cost of the product for specific activity volumes under certain conditions is determined before beginning of production (Gurdal, 2007). Therefore, actual costs are compared with standard costs. As to kaizen costing, target costs are compared with actual cost reduction amounts (Karcioglu, 2000). Another approach to which kaizen costing is related is target costing. In target costing, where target production costs are determined according to price of the product that is formed under market conditions and the expected profit (Gurdal, 2007), particularly design and development stages are important, whereas production stage has a priority in kaizen costing. In kaizen costing, the aim is to reduce cost through enhancing the product quality after beginning of the production (Karcioglu, 2000). The relationship between target costing and kaizen costing is shown in the following table. Table 3. Relationship between Target Costing and Kaizen Costing Target Costing

Kaizen Costing

What?

An approach that takes account of known target profit margin and that is oriented to determine maximum acceptable cost for a suggested product.

A power that shall reduce cost, enhance product quality and/or develop production method by means of continuous improvement efforts.

Intended Use

New products

Existing products.

When?

During design and development stages

During production stage

How?

Works better when a specific cost reduction is aimed and is used to determine initial production standards.

Why?

Aim?

It has a big potential to reduce cost since 80-90% of production stage costs are included within production during design and development stages process. All production inputs including production processes and supplier elements (materials, labor and production overheads)

Works better when a specific cost reduction is aimed and integrates within initial production standards that shall support cost reduction improvements and prepare new objections. It has a limited potential for cost reduction of existing products, but it may provide useful information for future target cost efforts. Efforts depend on where they are more effective in reducing cost. Generally, it starts with the most costly item and ends with production overheads.

Source: (Rainborn et. al., Quoted by; Ertas, 1999).

3.5. Quality Costs Quality costs, which are identified as costs that are incurred by enterprises for quality management purpose (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002) can be described as costs arising due to low quality or as cost of


www.ijar.eu



poor quality (Gurdal, 2007). In contrast with traditional costing approaches, quality costs approach suggests that costs decrease when quality increases; in other words, the cost created by poor quality products is more than costs incurred in order to obtain quality products (Schmal et. al., 1997, Quoted by; Demircioglu and Kucuksavas, 2009). Quality costs are divided as compliance costs and non-compliance costs. Compliance costs consist of prevention costs and appraisal costs, whereas non-compliance costs consist of internal failure and external failure costs (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002). Prevention costs consist of costs of all activities made to minimize, prevent or investigate defect and compliance risks such as quality planning, quality education, quality control, supplier guarantee, and revision of quality and design verification (Karcioglu, 2000). Such costs arise in two stages in terms of timing. The first part arises during design and establishment of the quality system stage and the second part arises during routine operations after establishment of the quality assurance system (Gurdal, 2007). Appraisal costs, which are appraisal expenses that are mostly identified as auditing and control costs, are costs that arise for the purpose of minimizing number of defective products offered to the consumers (Demircioglu and Kucuksavas, 2009). Measuring and appraisal costs that contain costs such as recording, field success test, permissions and approvals, inspections and tests are the entire appraisal costs realized to achieve the desired quality level (Karcioglu, 2000). Internal failure costs cover expenses that are incurred due to defective production as well as correction of products or services, which do not comply with customers' needs such as purchasing failure costs and good or service failure costs (Hacirustemoglu and Sakrak, 2002). Internal failure costs arise during the production process before shipment of products are realized or services are offered (Gurdal, 2007). External failure costs are costs that arise after delivery of products to the customer due to reasons such as loss of sale, settlement, complaints, unaccepted and returned products (Karcioglu, 2000). Such costs arise due to distribution of poor quality and defective products to customers (Demircioglu and Kucuksavas, 2009). When distribution of quality costs within total quality costs is examined, the most important part is revealed to be failure costs (Karcioglu, 2000). The figure about the distribution in question is as follows.

Fig. 3. Allocation of Quality Cost Source: (Karcioglu, 2000).

3.6. Value Engineering Value engineering is a product design activity that includes production of products with the same functionality in accordance with customers' expectations, but with lower costs (Yukcu, 2000). In value engineering, the aim is to reduce costs without compromising on quality (Altinbay, 2006). For cost reduction activities where quality and functionality is not considered do not contribute to enterprises particularly with regard to customer satisfaction (Acar and Alkan, 2003). Value engineering process covers effective, creative and value-based decision-making principles (Ornek, 2003). Basic elements of this process are function, quality and cost. Value engineering is not always focused on cost reduction. It is accepted as a service-focused technique that includes works to make the product more functional without changing costs (Gurdal, 2007). The purpose is to enhance value of the product. To this end, functions and quality of the product are enhanced while costs are tried to be reduced. By this way, more value is added to the environment and for the customers (Busch, 2010). In the focus of value engineering lies the “value” concept. This “value” constitutes “habitat” of the product including acceptable costs as well as quality and functionality. In the cycle in question, an organized work is carried out that is focused on analysis and realization of basic functions with the lowest cost in consistent with achievement of basic characteristics of the product (Ayan, 2013). Within this scope, the ultimate goal of value engineering which uses the common mind to eliminate unnecessary costs (Ayan, 2013) and which relies on “team” work is to provide value increase by means of cost, function and quality elements. For this purpose, many tools are utilized such as “process renewal, subversion analysis, quality activity deployment, function analysis, design for concentration, error mode and effect analysis” (Gurdal, 2007). Since the ultimate goal of value engineering is value increase, i.e. obtaining a low cost, but at the same time quality and functional product, removal of functions of which deficiency is not a problem for products does not pose a problem. What is important is to obtain the product without unnecessary functions, but with functions that shall satisfy customers' expectations and with the lowest cost.




4. CONCLUSION In business life where competition is inevitable even for ordinary enterprises, enterprises have to respond to customers' expectations in a short time through realizing technology transfer in a timely manner to continue their existence and obtain an advantageous situation. For this, within the "cost leadership strategy" scope, they have to create more functional products than those of their opponents, but these products should have lower costs as well. Under present conditions where customers' expectations change very quickly, enterprises may keep pace with such changes only by means of flexible production systems. Such production systems shall surely be capable of varying according to elements such as physical structures of enterprises, human resources etc. However, the matter that will not change is the need to keep costs under control continuously in this process and to bring quality and functional products. The ultimate goal of enterprises is to make profit and keep sustainability. For this purpose, it is a must for enterprises to implement cost strategies that shall bring a reasonable amount of profit. For it is no longer possible to determine price of the product simply by adding profit to the cost. Since product price is determined by market conditions, enterprises have to complete the production process with the lowest possible cost for maximum profit. Enterprises have been implementing many new costing approaches for both cost leadership and a product cost that satisfies customers' expectations and that is competitive. Each of such approaches that is implemented within scope of strategical cost management has its own characteristics. For example, in activity based costing system, consumed resources are determined through defining activities and therefore the success of the enterprise is boosted by means of providing information that enhances effectiveness and efficiency of activities. In kaizen costing, which is another approach, the aim is to continuously reduce production costs by means of carrying out activities that shall realize the “acceptable cost” and eliminating non-value adding activities within the continuous improvement scope. Quality costs approach that suggests that costs created by poor quality products are more than incurred costs has added a new dimension to the total quality management concept. Just in time production system, which focuses on reducing costs by means of eliminating waste as well as activities that do not add value to the product, concentrates on creation of a production process with zero stock. Given changes and developments in both management and cost accounting fields, the above-mentioned costing approaches should be individually handled and implemented from the viewpoint of each enterprise. Furthermore, it is understood than implementing such approaches at times in combination may be necessary for the success of the enterprise. REFERENCES 1. Acar D. (1996), “Ileri Uretim Felsefelerinden JIT’le Maliyetlerin Kontrolu ve Verimliligin Arttirilmasi” S.D.Uni. I.I.B.F. Dergisi, No; 1 2. Acar D. and Alkan H. (2003), “Mamul Maliyetlerinin Yonetiminde Etkin Bir Arac: Deger Muhendisligi”, SDU, Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi, Vol; 8, No; 1. 3. Aksoylu S. and Dursun Y. (2001), “Pazarda Rekabetci Ustunluk Araci Olarak Hedef Maliyetleme”, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi No:11 4. Altinbay A. (2006), “Kaizen Maliyetleme Sistemi : Dinamik Bir Maliyet Yonetimi Sistemi” Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi, I.I.B.F. Dergisi, Vol; VIII, No; 1. 5. Anand M., Sahay B.S. and Saha S. (2005), “Activity-Based Cost Management Practices in India: An Empirical Study”, Decision, Vol. 32, No.1. 6. Ayan A. (2013), “Maliyet Liderligi Stratejisi Kapsaminda Deger Muhendisligi Tekniginin Uygulanmasinin Bir Model Vasitasiyla Analiz Edilmesi”, Gumushane Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Elektronik Dergisi, No; 7. 7. Bozdemir E. and Orhan S.M. (2011), “Uretim Maliyetlerinin Dusurulmesinde Kaizen Maliyetleme Yonteminin Rolu Ve Uygulanabilirligine Yonelik Bir Arastirma”, Ataturk Universitesi Journal Of Graduate School Of Social Sciences, 15 (2). 8. Busch K. (2010), “Value Engineering Decorative Surfaces Without Compromise”, Interiors & Sources. http://ssinorthamerica.com/pdf/CEU%20PDFS/Value%20Engineering%20Version.pdfv, (22.08.2014). 9. Civelek M. and Ozkan, A. (2006), Temel ve tekduzen maliyet muhasebesi, Detay Yayincilik. 10. Demircioglu E. and Kucuksavas N. (2009), “Kalite Maliyetleri”, Cukurova Universitesi I.I.B.F. Dergisi, Vol; 13, No; 1. 11. Ertas F.C. (1990), “Isletmelerde Maliyet Dusurme Yaklasimi: Kaizen (Surekli Iyilestirmeye Yonelik) Maliyetleme Yontemi, I.I.B.F. Dergisi, Vol; 13, No;1. 12. Gurdal K. (2007), “Maliyet Yonetiminde Guncel Yaklasimlar”, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara. 13. Hacirustemoglu R.,and Sakrak M. (2002). Maliyet Muhasebesinde Guncel Yaklasimlar, Turkmen Publication, Istanbul. 14. Heitger L., Ogan P., Matulich S.(1992). Cost Accounting, South Western Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio. th 15. Horngren, C., T., Foster, G. (1991). “Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis”, 7 Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc. 16. Jayson, Susan (1994). “Fax survey Results: ABC is Worth the Investment”. Management Accounting, April. 17. Kaplan R., Anderson, S. (2004). “Time-Driven Activity Based Costing”, Harvard Business Review, November.


www.ijar.eu



18. Karcioglu R. (1994), “Yeni Bir Maliyet ve Yonetim Muhasebesi Sistemi Olarak Faaliyet Esasina Dayali Maliyetleme”, Verimlilik Dergisi, pp:77-96. 19. Karcioglu R. (2000). Stratejik Maliyet Yonetimi, Aktif Yayinevi, Erzurum. 20. Kargin S. (2013), “Faaliyet Tabanli Maliyetleme Yonteminin Yukselisi ve Dususu”, Muhasebe Finansman Dergisi, April. 21. Kutay N. and Akkaya G.C.(2000), ”Stratejik Maliyet Yonetimi Araci Olarak Hedef Maliyetleme”, DEU, IIBF Dergisi, Vol;15 No; 2. 22. Kucuksavas N. (2002), Maliyet Muhasebesi, Beta Yayinlari, Istanbul. 23. Monden Y. and Hamada, K. (1991), “Target Costing And Kaizen Costing In Japanese Automobile Companies”, Journal Of Management Accounting Research, V:3, 25. http://host.uniroma3.it/ FACOLTA/economia/db/materiali/insegnamenti/398_6205.pdf,(24.06.2014.) 24. Nair M. (2002), “Helping ensure successful implementations of activity-based management”, Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance. 25. Ornek A.S. (2003), “Bir Yonetim Teknigi Olarak Deger Muhendisligi”, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, Vol; 5, No; 2. 26. Sakrak M. (1997). Maliyet Yonetimi, Yasa Yayinlari, Istanbul. 27. Tazegul A. (2014), “Maliyet Yonetiminde Guncel Yaklasimlar”, Ataturk Universitesi, Acik Ogretim Fakultesi, Erzurum. 28. Topcu M.K. (2013). Guncel Maliyetleme Yaklasimlari: Kavramsal Bir Inceleme, Akademik Bakis Dergisi, No; 34. 29. Tutek H. and Oncu S. (1993) “JIT (Just In Time) Felsefesinin Isletme Fonksiyonlari ve Verimlilik Uzerindeki Etkileri”, Erciyes Universitesi I.I.B.F.Dergisi, Kayseri. 30. Ulker Y. and Iskender H. (2005), “Dogru Maliyet Hesaplamada Guvenilir Bir Sistem: Faaliyet Tabanli Maliyetleme ve John Deere Ornegi” Balikesir Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, Vol; 8 No:13. 31. Yukcu S. (2000). “ Maliyet Dusurmede Sistematik Yaklasimlar”, Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakis, Vol;1, No; 2.
