Essays on To Which Performance Measures Is Kaplan Referring Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "To Which Performance Measures Is Kaplan Referring " is a great example of a finance and accounting assignment.   In his 1984 quote, Kaplan primarily refers to the use of return on investment (ROI) as the primary measure of performance of profit centers and their managers. The profit center concept was first developed by DuPont and General Motors in the United States in the 1920s. This has meant that each division within the organization was treated as if it was a separate “ mini-company” (Kaplan, 1984). The two organizations have used ROI, formal budgeting and incentive plans in their management accounting practices across these profit centers which meant that profit was the key motivator for the companies and performance was also appraised based on purely financial terms where tangible assets and short-term profit targets were central.

As Johnson (1980, p. 97) put it, “ the primary responsibility of top management was to ensure that the company earned the required market return on invested capital” , not the overall economic value of the organization. While these profit center measures seemed to work well at the time, their flaws became increasingly apparent by the 1980s.

Perhaps, the biggest problem of these measures was the focus on short-term economic performance (Kaplan, 1984, What’ s Wrong With Management, 1982). This emphasis brought about two separate difficulties. On the one hand, there was the issue with short-termism. Managers attempted to measure performance over brief periods, which many times led to adverse consequences: while short-range goals were met, they often undermined future operations and the financial health of the business. The importance of short-term profit also led to profit center managers reducing investment and expenditure on intangibles, such as product development or promotions – especially in weaker sales periods – in order to maximize departmental profits (Kaplan, 1984, p. 411). On the other hand, the centrality of finances as performance evaluators was also problematic.

As performance measures were monetary in nature, both senior and profit center managers were incentivized to boost company earnings through financial transactions, such as mergers and acquisitions. While the trades increased earnings in the short-run, they typically did not add long-term value to the firm. (Ittner, & Larcker, 2001 p. 401)

References

Atkinson, H. 2006, "Strategy implementation: a role for the balanced scorecard?",

Management Decision, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1441-1460.

Christensen, J. & Demski, J. (2003) Accounting Theory: An Information

Content Perspective, Chapter 11

Cobbold, I., Lawrie, G. & Issa, K. 2004, "Designing a strategic management

system using the third-generation balanced scorecard: A case study", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 624-633.

Desai, M. & Ferri, F. 2006, Understanding Economic Value Added

Harvard Business School note (number 9-206-016)

Johnson T, 2013 A New Approach to Management Accounting History; Business

and Economics

Gomes, R.C. & Liddle, J. 2009, "The Balanced Scorecard as a

Performance Management Tool for Third Sector Organizations: the Case of the Arthur Bernardes Foundation, Brazil", Brazilian Administration Review, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 354-366.

Kaplan, R. 1984 The evolution of management accounting The

Accounting Review Vol. 59, No. 3: 390-418

Ittner, C., & Larcker, D. 2001 Assessing empirical research in

managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective Journal of Accounting and Economics Vol. 32: 349 410

Merchant, K. & Van de Stede (2007) Management Control Systems 2nd

ed. chapter 11:Combinations of Measures and other remedies to the myopia problem

Meyer, M. & Gupta, V. (1993) The Performance Paradox Research

in Organizational Behaviour Vol. 16 p. 309 369, especially pages 325 353.

Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M., Eckhoff, R.A., Davenport, T.H. & al, e. 2006, "The

tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the innovation economy/Commentary: on Voelpel, Leibold, Eckhoff and Davenport's "The tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the innovation economy"", Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 43-60.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us