The Association Between Activity Based Costing and Improvement in Financial Performance 2002 Management Accounting Research

Management Accounting Research, 2002, 13, 139
doi: 10.1006/mare.2001.0175
Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
The association between activity-based costing

and improvement in financial performance
Douglass Cagwin* and Marinus J. Bouwman
This study investigates the improvement in financial performance that is associated

with the use of activity-based costing (ABC), and the conditions under which such
improvement is achieved. Internal auditors furnish information regarding company
financial performance, extent of ABC usage, and enabling conditions that have been
identified in the literature as affecting ABC efficacy. Confirmatory factor analysis and
structural equation modelling are used to investigate the relationship between ABC and
financial performance.
Results show that there indeed is a positive association between ABC and improvement
in ROI when ABC is used concurrently with other strategic initiatives, when implemented
in complex and diverse firms, when used in environments where costs are relatively
important, and when there are limited numbers of intra-company transactions. In
addition, measures of success of ABC used in prior research appear to be predictors of
improvement in financial performance.
c 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words: activity-based costing; new business initiatives; ABC success; structural equation
models.
1. Introduction
Activity-based costing1 (ABC) has been promoted and adopted as a basis for
making strategic decisions and for improving profit performance for over a decade
*Assistant Professor of Accounting, School of Business, University of Texas at Brownsville, Brownsville,
TX 78520, U.S.A. Tel: (956) 983-7300. E-mail: dcagwin@utb1.utb.edu.
Ralph L. McQueen Associate Professor of Accounting, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, U.S.A. Tel: (501) 575-6117. E-mail: rbouwman@walton.uark.edu
Received 28 December 1999; accepted 4 October 2001.
1 The terms activity-based costing (ABC) and activity-based management (ABM) are sometimes used
interchangeably. Strictly speaking, ABC refers only to determining the costs of activities and the outputs
that those activities produce. Some researchers and practitioners prefer to use the term activity-based
management (ABM) when describing how the activity information is used to support operating decisions.
10445005/02/$ - see front matter
c 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman
(Bjornenak and Mitchell, 1999). In addition, ABC information is now also widely used
to assess continuous improvement and to monitor process performance. Although
ABC has found rapid and wide acceptance, there is significant diversity of opinions
regarding the efficacy of ABC (McGowan and Klammer, 1997). Several reservations
have been expressed concerning its usefulness, relevance, and practicality (Innes
et al., 2000). Despite managers insistence that management accounting systems pass
the costbenefit test (Foster and Young, 1997), there still is no significant body of
empirical evidence to validate the alleged benefits of ABC (Shim and Stagliano,
1997; McGowan and Klammer, 1997). Empirical research is needed to document
the (financial) consequences of ABC implementation (Kennedy and Bull, 2000;
McGowan, 1998).
Furthermore, previous research has suggested that the benefits of ABC are
more readily realized under enabling conditions such as sophisticated information
technology, highly competitive environment, complex firm processes, relatively
high importance of costs, and relatively low unused capacity and intra-company
transactions. Variables representing these conditions are appropriately incorporated
into a model testing the efficacy of ABC.
The purpose of this study is to measure the improvement in financial performance
that is associated with ABC use and the conditions under which such improvement
is achieved. The research instrument is a cross-sectional mail survey of 1058 internal
auditors, claimed to be knowledgeable and unbiased in the assessment of cost
systems (Tanju and Helmi, 1991; Ray and Gupta, 1992). Confirmatory factor analysis
and structural equation modelling using LISREL8 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993) are
used to test a model hypothesizing the conditions under which there is a positive
association between time-impacted use of ABC and change in financial performance.
Control is provided for the moderating effects of concurrent use of other strategic
management initiatives (e.g. TQM, JIT) and enabling conditions identified by prior
research. In addition, the study tests the association between improvement in
financial performance and previously used measures of ABC efficacy, as suggested
by Foster and Swenson (1997).
This study enhances previous research on ABC in three ways. One, it employs
internal auditors who constitute an objective and knowledgeable source of ABC
performance. Prior research has used respondents with a personal stake in ABC,
such as controllers or ABC project managers (e.g. Shields, 1995; Swenson, 1995;
Krumwiede, 1996, 1998). Second, this study tests a specific measure of improvement
in financial performance, as opposed to unobservable general constructs such as
perceptions of success, satisfaction, or financial benefit. Finally, it tests a structural
model synthesized from prior theoretical research, describing the conditions under
which ABC should be successful.
Results show that positive synergies are obtained from concurrent use of ABC with
other initiatives. In addition, positive associations between ABC and improvement
in ROI are reported when ABC is implemented in complex and diverse firms, in
environments where costs are relatively important, and when there are limited
numbers of intra-company transactions to constrain benefits. There is also some
indication that other enabling conditions (information technology sophistication,
As in Innes et al. (2000), this study defines ABC broadly to include both activity-based costing and activitybased management.
ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance
absence of excess capacity, and a competitive environment) affect the efficacy of

ABC as expected, and that manufacturing firms may obtain greater benefits than
non-manufacturing firms. Finally, there is some evidence that previously used
measures of ABC success (Shields, 1995; Swenson, 1995; Krumwiede, 1996, 1998) are
predictors of improvement in financial performance.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section relates
background regarding ABC and situates this study in the context of prior research.
Subsequent sections develop hypotheses, describe research methodology including
model specification, discuss data collection procedures, and present the results.
2. Prior research on ABC and financial performance
Activity based costing

ABC has received a great deal of attention as a cost management innovation.
Numerous proponents of ABC argue that its methods are necessary to trace overhead
costs to cost objects, and thus to properly account for batch and product-level
costs (Cooper, 1990). Researchers also argue that ABC is more effective in specific
environmental conditions (enabling conditions) such as manufacturing complexity
(Jones, 1991), environments with specialty product costs (Srinidhi, 1992) and diverse
(multiple different) business environments (Cooper and Kaplan, 1988). Many also
recommend using ABC to support process improvement (Turney, 1991) and to
develop cost-effective product designs (Cooper and Turney, 1989). Although ABC
systems are most often associated with manufacturing companies, they can be
applied in all types of organizations (Rotch, 1990; Tanju and Helmi, 1991).
The theories of diffusion of innovations (Kwon and Zmud, 1987), transaction cost
economics (Roberts and Silvester, 1996), and information technology (Dixon, 1996)
suggest that organizations adopt an innovation such as ABC to obtain benefits that
directly or indirectly impact financial performance measures. Evidence regarding the
benefits of ABC, however, is largely restricted to theoretical models and anecdotal
information obtained from case studies and often related by practitioners (e.g.
Barnes, 1991; Brimson, 1991; Bruns and Kaplan, 1987; Harris, 1990). Empirical
research on the efficacy of ABC has generally concentrated on identifying successful
ABC systems and modelling the factors that lead to this success. Success has been
defined as use for decision-making (e.g. Innes and Mitchell, 1995; Krumwiede, 1996,
1998; Anderson and Young, 1999), satisfaction with the costing system (Shields,
1995; Swenson, 1995; McGowan and Klammer, 1997), perceived financial benefit
a dichotomous measure with no reference to the criteria of benefit (Shields, 1995;
Krumwiede, 1996, 1998), or other non-financial benefits (McGowan, 1998). There
also has been no empirical evidence that demonstrates that ABC improves financial
performance nor has the link between successful ABC systems and improvement in
bottom-line financial performance been tested.
To the contrary, in an experimental setting, Drake et al. (1999) found that innovative
activity can produce a higher or lower level of firm profit when workers have ABC
information. Workers can use the better information for their own gain, i.e. no
information is better than good information used contrary to company goals.
3. Development of hypotheses
Direct association of ABC with change in financial performance
The arguments in support of ABC are generally based on the comparative advantage
that firms can obtain from the superior information generated through ABC.
Although ABC has strong theoretical underpinnings, Kaplan (1993) and other
researchers caution practitioners that not every ABC system will produce these
benefits. In addition, many researchers (e.g. Bjornenak, 1997; Gosselin, 1997b; Malmi,
1997, 1999; Bromwich and Hong, 1999) and practitioners (e.g. Smith, 2000) question
the inherent value of an ABC system. The issue of whether increasing use of ABC
is directly associated with improvement in financial performance, without regard
to firm- and industry-specific environmental conditions, has not been empirically
tested. This leads to the following hypothesis (in alternative form).
H1: There is a positive association between the extent of use of ABC and relative
improvement in financial performance (compared with other firms in the
industry).
Financial performance is measured relative to other firms in the industry while
levels of the variables of interest and other independent variables are tested. The
evaluation of this hypothesis provides a baseline for this research. Confirmation
would be expected only if ABC provided a comparative advantage, on average,
for every firm, regardless of its circumstances. On the other hand, if, as expected,
realization of the benefits of ABC requires the presence of specific firm conditions,
then this hypothesis will not be confirmed and the focus will shift to hypothesis two,
which identifies specific enabling conditions.
Enabling conditions
In an event study, Gordon and Silvester (1999) could not find a significant stock
market reaction to the installation of an ABC system. They note that it is possible that
ABC may have differential impacts across firms depending on certain firm-specific
factors. They conclude that there is strong reason to believe that the benefits of ABC
are contingent upon various behavioural and organizational factors.
Previous research (e.g. Pattison and Arendt, 1994; Estrin et al., 1994; Cooper and
Kaplan, 1991) has identified specific environmental conditions (e.g. complexity and
competition) that affect the potential benefits from the use of ABC. The theory
supports the proposition that under appropriate enabling conditions the improved
costing information provided by ABC leads to improved decision-making, and
therefore should be associated with improved performance. This leads to the
following hypothesis (in alternative form).
H2: The association between the extent of use of ABC and relative improvement in
financial performance is impacted by specific enabling factors.
The specific enabling factors identified in this study (and the predicted
direction of impact) are as follows.
Importance of costs (positive).
Information technology sophistication (positive).

Business unit complexity (positive).
Level of intra-company transactions (negative).
Unused capacity (negative).
Competition (positive).
Measures of ABC success and change in financial performance

Previous researchers have developed and tested theories regarding the determinants
of ABC success. Success has been operationalized by survey items asking whether
respondents believed that the system had been successful (Shields, 1995), whether
they were satisfied with their cost systems (Swenson, 1995), whether ABC had been
worth implementing (Krumwiede, 1996, 1998), or by asking respondents to identify
their level of satisfaction with the implementation of ABC (McGowan and Klammer,
1997). Researchers have implicitly assumed that successful ABC systems lead to improved financial performance. However, this relationship between perceived success
and specific measures of financial performance has not been tested. Moreover, when
examining alternative measures of ABC success, Foster and Swenson (1997) found
that pairwise correlations between alternative success measures were sizably less
than 1.00 (0.45 to 0.75). Consequently, the current study tests the relationship between several reported measures of success with improvement in financial performance through the following hypothesis (in alternative form).
H3: A firms relative improvement in financial performance (compared with other
firms in the industry) is positively associated with the level of success of ABC.
The specific measures of success examined in this study include the following.
Perceived success of the ABC implementation.
Satisfaction with the cost system.
Expressed belief that ABC has been worth implementing.
Rejection of the null hypotheses would support the appropriateness of success
constructs used in prior ABC studies, and would enhance the credibility of both this
study and previous research by providing a tie between ABC success and financial
performance.
4. Model developmentresearch design

The impact of ABC on financial performance is examined using the following model:
1ROI = f (ABC, enabling variables, control variables)
where 1ROI is the change in return on investment measured over the prior three
or five years. The relationships between the variables are presented graphically
in Figure 1. The figure shows that ABC (the extent of ABC use) is a construct
that consists of four components: the organizational functions using ABC, the
applications for which ABC is used, the level of integration of ABC into firm strategic

Survey Questions
(Observable X)
7 F16a-g
9 F17a-l
Applications
(APPLIC)
ns
Dependent
Constructs
Independent Constructs
Functions
Using ABC
(FUNCTION)
Survey Questions
Observable Y
Key
Construct confirmed with factor analysis
Additive index
ABCUse
(ABC)
Observed variable
2 F3, F4
F3,F6,F7
Performance
Evaluation
(EVAL)
Type
(TYPE) 16
Time
(TIME) H1
D1-D6
Direct Effect
Other
Initiatives
(INIT)
8 I12a-j
Number of items and survey question

numbers used to measure variables
--Some questions have multiple parts
(F16, F17, I10, I12)
Moderating Effect (interaction)

+, --, ?
Expected sign of coefficient
Information
Technology
(INFO)
ROI 3Yr
C6
E1-E7
A1-A5
I10a, b
ComplexityDiversity
(COMPLEX)
Enabling
Conditions
(ENABLERS)
Change in
Financial
Performance
ROI 5Yr
C7
(ROI)
Importance of
Costs
(IMPORT)
-?
IntraCompany
Transactions
-?
Unused Capacity
(CAPAC) I11
Competition
(Comp) A6
Size
(SIZE) 18
Figure 1. H1: Association of ABC with improved financial performance.
and performance evaluation systems, and length of time since implementation.

The figure also identifies six specific enabling conditions: information technology,
complexity/diversity, importance of costs, intra-company transactions, unused
capacity, and competition. Control variables include firm size and type. In addition,
the model includes the use of other strategic initiatives, such as JIT and TQM, in order
to capture possible synergies between ABC and those initiatives.
The remainder of this section describes the variables contained in this model.
Variable names are capitalized (see Figure 1). Figure 1 also identifies the specific
questionnaire items measuring each construct. The complete questionnaire is
included in the appendix.
Most constructs are latent constructs composed of two or more manifest variables.
Composite scores of multiple variables have the advantage of capturing more of
a constructs multi-dimensionality than individual questions (Foster and Swenson,
1997). Use of multi-item measures also reduces the effect of random and measurement errors, and structural coefficients obtained are less biased than those obtained
using manifest variables alone (Libby and Tan, 1994).
Dependent variable
Change in return on investment (1ROI). The most common investment centre
performance measure is return on investment (Hilton, 1994). Furthermore, previous
research shows a high correlation between ROI and other profitability measures
(Prescott et al., 1986) and suggests that ROI is more readily available in business units
than other measures (Jacobson, 1987).
Using the change in ROI (1ROI) allows control for the level of ROI prior to the
test period. 1ROI is also industry median adjusted to control for differences between
industries. Table 1 summarizes the definitions of this and subsequent variables.
Self-reported versus archival measures of performance. This study, like most research
attempting to link strategic initiatives to financial performance, relies on a selfreported measure of performance. Govindarajan (1988), Govindarajan and Fisher
(1990), and Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998) all asked respondents to assess their
businesss performance relative to competitors over the last three years. However, as
noted by Young (1996), self-reported performance is not necessarily a valid proxy for
actual performance.2 Management accounting research has been silent on this issue
(Young, 1996).
In order to evaluate the accuracy of self-reported measures, a subset of the
responses in this study was compared with actual financial statement information
retrieved from Compustat. Fifty-four respondents reported company-wide information for firms that were included in the Compustat database. For those companies
with complete information (ranging from 47 to 52 for an individual test), actual
change in ROI, industry adjusted by subtracting the median performance of the
subjects primary three-digit SIC code, was compared with the applicable five-point
Likert scale survey response. As shown in Table 2, the survey responses exhibit a
high degree of reliability. Spearman correlation coefficients range from 0.71 for 5 year
ROI change to 0.78 for 3 year ROI change. When the continuous measures obtained
from Compustat are converted to ranks and assigned values of one to five with the
same frequencies as the survey responses, correlations are 0.76 for 5 year ROI change
and 0.86 for 3 year ROI change. The majority of responses are identical (66.3 per
cent), and 99 per cent of responses are within one value (e.g. report 4 on the survey
and compute 5 from Compustat data).3
Independent variables
ABC use (ABC). Unless a system is used extensively, it seems unlikely that
it can be significantly associated with financial benefit. One would expect the
benefits received from an innovation to depend on the extent to which it becomes
incorporated into organizational subsystems. Shields (1995) found that ABC success
is significantly correlated with several categories of use: performance measurement,
activity analysis, product costing, and reengineering. He also found significant
correlation of success with the percentage of costs processed through ABC.
There is widespread agreement that incentive structures play a critical role in
the success of ABC (Drake et al., 1999). Employees pay more attention to those
measures of performance that affect their personal welfare. Banker and Datar (1987)
2 On the other hand, using archival data sources is not problem free either. For example, there are
significant discrepancies in financial data between the Compustat and Value Line databases (Kern and
Morris, 1994), and in SIC codes between CRSP and Compustat, limiting the ability to compute accurate
industry mean-adjusted variables (Ong and Jensen, 1994).
3 Variances can occur for reasons other than lack of knowledge by the internal auditor. For example,
choosing 4 (agree) versus 5 (strongly agree) requires a value judgement that can vary between subjects.
Also, subjects could be reporting their belief in true unobservable financial performance rather than
reported financial performance. Finally, the lack of complete congruence may have more to do with the
respondents confidence in his/her answer than the strength of the financial performance.
Table 1
Definition of variables
Abbreviation
Name
Definition
1ROI
Change in return in
investment
Industry median-adjusted ROI, measured by the

self-reported five-point Likert responses provided by
company internal auditors to the survey questions
Over the last three (five) years, the ROI of your
business unit has improved relative to other business
units in your industry.
FUNCTION
Breadth of ABC use
Use of ABC by organizational functions (e.g.

manufacturing, engineering, top management). Based
on seven survey items (F16a-g), adapted from Swenson
(1995).
APPLIC
Depth of ABC use
Use of ABC for specific applications, activities and

decisions, such as product costing and pricing decisions
(F17a-i), adapted from Krumwiede (1996).
EVAL
Integration in
evaluation systems
Level of integration of ABC into firm strategic and

performance evaluation systems (F3, F6, and F7),
adapted from Krumwiede (1996) and Shields (1995).
TIME
Length of time since ABC implementation took place.
ABC
Time since
implementation
ABC use
INIT
Use of other initiatives
Use of the practices TQM, JIT, BPR, CIM, JIT, FMS,

theory of constraints (TOC), and Value Chain Analysis
(VCA). Single index developed from binary responses to
survey item I12. (As recommended by Babbie (1990), in
the absence of compelling reasons for differential
weighting, the practices are weighted equally.)
INFO
Information technology
Operationalized through the six items of section D of

the survey instrument. The items were developed based
on Reeve (1996) as modified by Krumwiede (1996, 1998).
COMPLEX
Complexity and
diversity of business
Operationalized through seven items developed by

Estrin et al. (1994) and used by Krumwiede (1996, 1998),
which measure each type of complexity and diversity
(section E of survey).
IMPORT
Importance of costs
Operationalized through the six items of section A,

adapted from Estrin et al. (1994) and used by
Krumwiede (1996, 1998).
INTRA
Intra-company
transactions
Operationalized as the sum of two five-point

quantitative measures of percentage of intra-company
purchases and sales (items I10a and b). Expected to vary
negatively with perceived benefit of ABC.
CAPAC
Unused capacity
A quantitative five-point measure ranging from <50 per

cent to >90 per cent (item I11). Sixteen
non-manufacturers did not complete this survey item;
the overall mean response is used for missing data.
Unused capacity is expected to be negatively associated
with improvement in performance.
COMP
Level of competition
Operationalized through survey item A6, adapted from

Swenson (1995).
The extent and depth of ABC use. Composite of the

variables FUNCTION, APPLIC, EVAL, and TIME.
Table 1
Continued
Abbreviation
Name
Definition
SIZE
Size of business unit
The natural logarithm of the mid-point of an eight-point

self-reported sales category from a survey item adapted
from Krumwiede (1996). Measured as a natural
logarithm because research suggests a curvilinear
relationshipas size increases, innovation increases,
but at a decreasing rate (Ettlie, 1983; Kimberly and
Evanisko, 1981; Moch and Morse, 1977). The sign of the
association is not predicted.
TYPE
Type of company
Binary variable, distinguishing manufacturing from

non- manufacturing firms. No prediction is made as to
the sign of the association.
SUCCESS
Success of ABC
implementation
Survey item H5, from Shields (1995).
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction with the

cost system
Survey item C1, from Swenson (1995).
BENEFIT
Financial benefit
obtained from ABC
Survey item H4, from Krumwiede (1996, 1998).
Table 2
Correlations of self-reported dependent measures with actual reported (Compustat) performance measures adjusted
for industry performance (three-digit SIC)
Likert dependent measure with
Measure
ROI change3 years
ROI change5 years
n
51
47
n
ROI change3 years
ROI change5 years
51
47
98
Continuous measure
Pearson
Spearman
0.77
0.62
0.78
0.71
Ranked measure
Pearson Spearman
0.86
0.75
0.86
0.76
Likert dependent measure with ranked Compustat measure

Ranks
Ranks
Ranks
identical
differ by 1
differ by >1
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
37
28
65
72.5
59.6
66.3
14
18
32
27.5
38.3
32.7
0
1
1
0.0
2.1
1.0
Subject firms actual reported performance is adjusted by the median performance of firms in the subject
firms primary three-digit SIC code. The number of industry firms ranges from four (SICs 376 and 799) to
226 (SIC 131). Compustat firms are ranked 15 by ROI change with ranks assigned in the same
frequencies as the Likert scale dependent variable obtained from the survey.
demonstrated that lack of coordination between incentive systems and performance

measures can wreak havoc on a firms performance. Swenson (1997) confirmed that
use of ABC for both decision-making and performance measurement are typical of
the best practices firms studied.
Therefore, the construct ABC use (ABC) used in this study contains the following
three aspects of use: breadth of use (FUNCTION), depth of use (i.e. applications
for which ABC is used: APPLIC), and the level of integration into strategic and
10
performance evaluation systems (EVAL), as defined in Table 1. These three aspects

capture the extent of ABC use.
Extent of (current) ABC use must be modified by the length of time since
implementation occurred (TIME). Realization of the advantages of an innovation
occurs when it is implemented on a widespread basis. This takes time. Evidence
suggests that plant-level implementation does not move in lock step with corporate
implementation (Swenson, 1995). In addition, accounting data has a historical focus;
the benefits from use of ABC may not be measurable for several years.
According to the theories of diffusion of innovation, diffusion of initiatives like
ABC in an organization is likely to occur in a non-linear manner (Kwon and Zmud,
1987). Rogers (1983) suggests that diffusion of an innovation follows an S-shaped
curve. As an organization moves up the curve, a greater number of individuals and
units adopt the components of the innovation until a saturation point is reached on
the upper plateau of the S.
To determine the change in performance attributable to the ABC initiative over
the measurement period, allowance must be made for the period of time during
which benefits were or were not received. A simple interaction between time since
implementation and current extent of ABC use would imply assumption of a linear,
rather than a more appropriate S-shaped diffusion curve. Transformation of data to
the form of the cumulative probability function of a normal distribution (cdf)4 allows
simulation of the hypothesized S-shaped curve of diffusion. Therefore, the composite
measure of ABC use (ABC) is constructed from the above three aspects capturing
the extent of ABC use, multiplied by the time diffusion percentage as simulated by
the cdf.
Other initiatives (INIT). Researchers have often noted that ABC and other strategic
business initiatives complement and enhance each other, rather than being individually necessary and sufficient conditions for improvement (e.g. Cooper and Kaplan,
1991; Anderson, 1995a; Evans and Ashworth, 1995; Shaw, 1998). Because ABC often
provides more and better information about processes, ABC may be most beneficial
if other initiatives are employed concurrently. This linkage provides direction to the
ABC implementation and a ready application for the ABC information once it becomes available (Swenson, 1998). For example, Carrier Corporation implemented JIT
and other improvement initiatives and used ABC as an enabler to support the development of cost effective product designs and manufacturing processes (Swenson,
1998). Also, many companies have found that ABC fits well with the cost of quality
framework (Anderson and Sedatole, 1998). Krumwiede (1998) provided additional
weight to this argument by reporting that all 15 best practice firms had linked ABC
to another improvement initiative. The variable INIT captures a firms use of other
strategic business initiatives.
Prior research has suggested that the benefits of ABC are
more readily realized under specific environmental conditions. Evidence of ABC
implementation failures (e.g. Anderson, 1995a; Malmi, 1997) has caused researchers
Enabling conditions.
4 1/( 2) R exp[1/2 2 (x )2 ] where x = number of years since beginning of use of an initiative,

= 5 years and = 2 years. Setting the mean of the probability distribution function as 5 years and the
standard deviation as 2 years allows assumption of a strongly sloping S over the 37 year interval and a
plateau exceeding 10 years that is consistent with prior research (Husan and Nanda, 1995).
11
to suggest that achieving the systems objectives depends critically on organizational and technical factors (Anderson and Young, 1999). Malmi (1997) states that
implementation failures are related more to exogenous contextual factors than to the
process of implementationthat even good implementation processes fall on barren
ground. For example, Karmarkar et al. (1990) argued that complexity, importance
of costs and competition require more elaborate costing systems. Chenhall and
Langfield-Smith (1998) recognize the potential moderating effects of environmental
and organizational variables and call for further research that considers the role of
additional relevant firm-specific variables.
The following variables are incorporated into the model testing the efficacy of ABC
(see Table 1 for variable specifications).
Information technology (INFO). Cooper (1988) suggests that ABC becomes more
beneficial as the cost of data collection and processing is reduced, which requires
higher levels of information technology. An information system providing
detailed historical data and easy access to users may provide much of the driver
information needed by ABC. Reeve (1996) suggests that an integrated ABC
system pre-supposes a relatively high level of INFO sophistication with extensive
and flexible information stratification and real-time activity driver information.
SAP, PeopleSoft and Oracle have recently acquired ABC software companies or
partnered to develop ABC modules (Shaw, 1998).
Complexity and diversity (COMPLEX). A companys complexity increases as
the breadth of its product line expands, as each product uses more unique
components, and as more process options are available to manufacture the
product (or provide the service) (Swenson, 1998). Complexity factors are the
biggest single driver of cost (Gonzalves and Eiler, 1996). Product diversity and
production process complexity have been shown to be important determinants of
the need for reexamining cost allocation procedures (Gosselin, 1997a). Previous
studies have confirmed that ABC data are most likely to differ from traditional
cost data in settings with high coordination and control costs, such as those with
diverse products, processes, customer demands, or vendors (Foster and Gupta,
1990; Cooper and Kaplan, 1991; Pattison and Arendt, 1994; Estrin et al., 1994;
Anderson, 1995b; Banker et al., 1995).
Importance of costs (IMPORT). Even if ABC could substantially reduce product cost
distortions, it is not likely to be helpful unless a firm can actually utilize better cost
information in its decision-making process. Besides competitive environment,
other factors affecting the decision usefulness of cost information include the
firms use of cost data in pricing decisions, cost reduction efforts, need for special
cost studies, strategic focus, and average profit margin (Estrin et al., 1994).
Intra-company transactions (INTRA). When companies have a large number of
intra-company transactions, the financial performance of individual business
units may be misleading because of transfer pricing methodology, and constraints
on decision-making regarding source of supply and customer selection (Swenson,
1995).5 Therefore, intra-company transactions are a potentially confounding
variable to this study.
5 Some companies with many intra-company transactions may use ABC costs to set prices, the positive
value of ABC for these companies offsetting the negative effect of having large numbers of intra-company
transactions.
12
Unused capacity (CAPAC). ABC theory predicts that due to improvements in

resource usage or cost-reduction programs, unused capacity will be created,
particularly with respect to batch and product-sustaining activities. If managers
have acted to eliminate these unused capacities, then the effects of ABC would
show up through lower costs. If, however, managers have not eliminated these
unused capacities, possibly because significant joint and indivisible costs are
present, then the non-valued added costs identified by ABC may not translate into
cost reductions or profit improvements (Kaplan, 1993). Maher and Marais (1998)
demonstrated that ABC is likely to give erroneous cost estimates when there is
a discontinuous relation between the demand for and provision of resources.
Therefore the more unused capacity the less helpful is ABC.
Competition (COMP). As early as 1972, Khandwalla found that output market
competition is associated with greater use of management controls. More recently,
Mia and Clarke (1999) argued that management accounting systems (MAS)
can provide information used to identify, evaluate, and implement appropriate
strategies and found that level of competition is a determinant of the use of MAS.
As competition increases, there is a greater chance that a competitor will exploit any
costing errors made. In addition, research has shown that non-competitive situations
such as oligopoly can lead to optimal, strategic costing systems that have more in
common with traditional mark-ups than with ABC (Alles, 1990; Banker and Hughes,
1991; Banker and Potter, 1991). Thus, more reliable cost information may be needed
as competition increases (Cooper, 1988).
Control variables
Business unit size (SIZE). Hicks (1999) argues that ABC works just as well in small
firms as it does in large ones. The literature proposes two conflicting effects for the
interaction of firm size with ABC. Anderson (1995a) concluded that implementation
is most likely to be disruptive if it occurs over a protracted period. Large, vertically
integrated firms are more likely to have lengthy implementation processes that cause
significant organizational disruption. However, Selto and Jasinski (1996) reason that,
other than in large companies that are well staffed and well trained, ABC is not
sufficiently understood to be implemented successfully as a stand-alone system, let
alone being integrated within a companys strategy. The combination of the time and
firm size variables provide control for the organizational disruption anticipated by
Anderson (1995a). The identification of breadth and depth of use of ABC provides
control for the small company resource problems noted by Selto and Jasinski (1996).
Type of company (TYPE). Georgantzas and Shapiro (1993) and Schroeder (1990)
analytically demonstrated that industry type moderates the relationship between
innovation and performance. In this study, macro-economic differences between
industries are controlled through the use of industry-adjusted dependent variables,
eliminating the need to model a direct effect. Firm-specific conditions affecting
ABC are measured through enabling condition variables. However, ABC research
also suggests that the efficacy of initiatives may fundamentally differ between
manufacturing and service companies (Rotch, 1990; Cooper, 1988, 1989). Therefore,
a binary variable differentiates the 106 manufacturing firms from the 98 nonmanufacturing firms and is interacted with ABC.

Survey Questions
(Observable X)
nsH5
C1
Dependent
Constructs
Independent Constructs
13
Survey Questions
Observable Y
Key
Construct confirmed with factor analysis
Additive index
ABC
Success
Observed variable
2 F3, F4
H4
Type
(TYPE) 16

--Some questions have multiple parts
(F16, F17, I10, I12)
Direct Effect
Other
Initiatives
(INIT)
8 I12a-j
D1-D6
Moderating Effect (interaction)

+, --, ?
Expected sign of coefficient
Information
Technology
(INFO)
ROI 3Yr
C6
E1-E7
A1-A5
I10a, b
ComplexityDiversity
(COMPLEX)
Enabling
Conditions
(ENABLERS)
Change in
Financial
Performance
ROI 5Yr
C7
(ROI)
Importance of
Costs
(IMPORT)
--
IntraCompany
Transactions
-?
Unused Capacity
(CAPAC) I11
Competition
(Comp) A6
Size
(SIZE) 18
Figure 2. H2: Association of SUCCESS with improved financial performance.
ABC Success
The variables of interest in testing Hypothesis 3, which associates previously
reported measures of ABC success with improvement in ROI, are those developed
by Shields (1995); Swenson (1995), and Krumwiede (1996, 1998). Figure 2 shows
the changes that need to be made to the ABC model described thus far. The
section that modelled ABC use is replaced by single item measures of SUCCESS,
SATISFACTION, and financial BENEFIT, respectively (Table 1).
5. Sample selection and survey instrument

Subjects
As noted by Shields (1995), one of the limitations of previous research is that
results may have been weakened because of being based on responses provided
by potentially biased subjects, those responsible for design, implementation, and
operation of the innovation.6 For example, McGowan and Klammer (1997) and Foster
and Swenson (1997) found that perceptions of ABC vary depending on the role of
6 As with other studies, because this research relies on self-reported data, it is potentially subject to
reporting biases and measurement error called common-method bias (Johnson et al., 1995). However,
Miller and Roth (1994) suggest that care in the selection of respondents can contribute to overcoming
common-method bias. The selection of unbiased, objective, and knowledgeable internal auditors is
believed to eliminate most, if not all potential effects from common-method bias that may be present
in other research.
14
the individuals involved. Preparers reported more favourable attitudes toward ABC
than users, with project leaders or champions being most favourable.
The current study mitigates this limitation by utilizing internal auditors as subjects.
The Statements of Responsibilities in Internal Auditing (IIA, 1990), and Section 100 of the
Standards of Practice for Internal Auditors (IIA, 1998) require that internal auditors be
independent of the activities they audit. Independence permits internal auditors to
render impartial and unbiased judgments (Standards, Section 100.01). In addition to
their independence and objectivity, internal auditors are appropriate subjects because
they are knowledgeable, possess varied talents and expertise, and have access to
relevant information (Tatikonda and Tatikonda, 1993; Stoner and Werner, 1995).
Population and sampling procedures
The firms studied are for profit firms that employ internal auditors who are
members of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). The sample is drawn from
the population of those practicing members of ten geographically diverse US
chapters of the IIA7 where information was available to the researchers. Auditors
employed in the banking industry were excluded because they often have highly
specialized responsibilities, limiting their exposure to new business initiatives.
Auditors employed by governmental and non-profit organizations were excluded
as well since those organizations do not measure improved financial performance
as improvement in profitability (ROI). Sample size is further limited to five
randomly drawn subjects per organization. A mail survey was used to collect the
information.
To permit generalization to the broader population of firms, the sampling design
included entities with a broad range of applications in ABC ranging from no
implementation to extensive applications. As stated by Chenhall (1997), the sampling
ensured that the study included a proportion of firms that employed varying levels of
use of other strategic business initiatives and varying levels of enabling conditions.
This increased the comprehensiveness of the study, and permitted the identification
of the effects on performance of the amplifying effect of enabling variables across a
range of ABC observations.
In order to investigate the effect of firm characteristics on implementation project
outcomes a large sample of firms is needed (Anderson and Young, 1999). Accordingly, the questionnaire was distributed to 1058 internal auditing professionals.
This sample was reduced by 68 that were returned unopened because of incorrect
address or change of employment with no forwarding address (see Table 3). In
addition, 28 uncompleted or partially completed surveys were returned because the
subjects were not knowledgeable about their companys systems, company policies
against response to surveys, or other reasons, leaving an adjusted sample size of
962. 210 completed responses were received. In six instances, there were multiple
responses from the same business unit. Differences were minor, and responses were
combined into a single observation by averaging scores. Of the remaining 204 usable
responses, 137 are from the first and 67 from the second mailings, yielding a response
7 The IIA serves as the internal auditing professions authority on significant issues affecting internal
auditors, and is the only organization dedicated solely to the advancement of the internal auditor and
the profession on a worldwide basis. The IIA is the worlds leader in research and educational issues for
internal auditors and is the standard-setting body for the profession. It has approximately 70 000 members
in 230 local chapters, national institutes, and audit clubs in more than 120 countries (IIA, 2001).
15
Table 3
Summary of sample
Questionnaires mailed
1058
Less: undeliverable
68
Net questionnaires delivered

Less: incomplete responses:
Company does not use cost allocation methods
Company policy against responding to surveys
Respondent is consultant
Respondent is no longer employed at subject firm
Respondent is not knowledgeable about cost systems
990
12
6
1
7
2
Net responses possible

Responses received
First mailing
Second mailing
28
962
141
69
210
Response rate
Less: responses from same business unit averaged into
single response
Useable responses
Responses reporting
No use of ABC
Implementation stage of ABC
Use of ABC for decision-making
21.8%
6
204
21.2%
139
18
47
204
Generally because the position is extremely specialized such as railroad rate auditor.
rate of 21.2 per cent. Sixty-five responses (31.8 per cent) indicate some use of ABC.
The remaining 139 respondents serve as a non-using control group. The number of
responses is adequate for purposes of statistical analysis.8
8 For effective analysis, the sample covariance matrix must be reasonably stable and approximate the
pattern of covariances in the population. In general, ceteris paribus, the larger the sample size the
more likely this will be the case. Guadagnoli and Velicer (1998) reviewed the literature on sample size
considerations in factor analysis and principal components analysis and conducted an extensive Monte
Carlo study on sample size effects. Consistent with other Monte Carlo studies, they found no support for
often used rules of thumb based on respondents-to-variables criteria (e.g. 5 : 1). As quoted from Jaccard
and Wan (1996),
The most important factors influencing the stability of the sample covariance matrix were the absolute
sample size and the magnitudes of the path coefficients from the latent constructs to the observed
indicators (referred to as saturation). When such standardized path coefficients were low (i.e. near 0.40),
sample size was quite important. At moderate to high saturation levels (e.g. standardized path coefficients
of 0.60 to 0.80), once a certain sample size was achieved, further improvements in stability were small with
increasing N . When saturation was high (standardized path coefficients of 0.80), sample sizes as low as 50
performed well, even when the number of variables in the covariance matrix was large.
Jaccard and Wan then recommend a sample size of 75100 in conditions of high saturation, and 150 for
moderate saturation levels. The saturation levels obtained in this study are high for 76 per cent of the
multi-item variables used to test H1 and H2 and moderate to high or high for 80 per cent of those used
to test H3. These levels are adequate to expect a stable covariance matrix.
As a check, a sensitivity test is performed whereby the 19 ABC manifest variables are reduced to six,
reducing the number of manifest variables to 25 and increasing the sample size/variable ratio to 8 : 1 from
5 : 1. Results are not impacted.
16
There is no test to ensure that the study is free of non-response bias. Two separate
procedures were performed to help assess the possibility of bias. As in (Gosselin,
1997a) and Krumwiede (1998), a reason for non-response section was included at
the bottom of the transmittal letter. In addition, the median responses of the first
mailing were compared with those of the second mailing. Wilcoxon 2-sample signed
rank tests (Hollander and Wolfe, 1973) and Pearson chi-square tests of proportions
(Feinberg, 1983) on both the raw data and the additive indexes revealed significant
differences ( p < 0.05) on five of the 75 variables tested, or 6.7 per cent. This is slightly
more than would be expected by chance. Second mailing respondents tended to
report at a somewhat higher level of aggregation (e.g. company versus division;
median 4.82 versus 4.29 p < 0.0385), have less tendency to be manufacturers
(0.42 versus 0.57 p < 0.044), be less likely to use CIM (0.10 versus 0.22 p < 0.047),
and be less satisfied with their business unit cost (3.20 versus 2.91 p < 0.041) and
performance measurement (3.18 versus 2.87 p < 0.033) systems. It is not suprising
that the test revealed some differences. For example, a possible explanation for slower
responses by internal auditors with company-wide responsibilities is that they tend
to travel more often, and are thus likely to have delayed responses.
Survey instrument
Data were extracted from a 96-item survey instrument. As in Kaynak (1996), Shields
(1995), Swenson (1995), Grandzol and Gershon (1997), McGowan and Klammer
(1997) and Krumwiede (1996, 1998) the instrument was constructed so that analysis
could be conducted at the appropriate level of knowledge of the individual
respondents (plant, division, region, subsidiary, country, or entire company).9 This
reduced measurement error associated with differing levels of ABC use in different
segments of firms. As described in the variable descriptions, most of the survey items
were adapted from previous research.10 The survey instrument is included in the
appendix.
6. Results
Descriptive statistics
As described in Table 3, 204 completed questionnaires were returned. Fifty per cent
of the respondents reported for their entire company, 17.2 per cent reported for their
division, with the remainder spread among plant, group, subsidiary, and country
business units. 46.6 per cent reported that their business unit revenues exceed $1
billion, while, as is not suprising for firms employing internal auditors, only 8.3 per
cent reported for business units with revenues under $50 million. Manufacturing
firms constituted 52 per cent of the responses.
9 Multiple tests were run whereby performance and ABC use were regressed against level of business unit.
In no cases was a business unit significant at conventional levels.
10 Procedures prescribed by Dillman (1999) for maximizing response rates were followed. Specific steps
taken included (1) sending a second mailing, (2) promising confidentiality of responses, (3) including
deadline dates for reply, (4) including personalized cover letters, (5) including a postage-paid, selfaddressed envelope for reply, and (6) promising to send a summary of results on request.
17
As reported in Table 4, all but 45 (22.1 per cent) of the respondents indicated that
their business unit was significantly using at least one business initiative. The median
firm used two practices (range from zero to six) with JIT and TQM the most often
referenced at 46 per cent. Manufacturers had more mean use (2.56 versus 1.32) than
non-manufacturers and companies over $1 billion in revenues had higher use than
smaller companies (2.2 versus 1.5). Discounting the purely manufacturing initiatives
CIM and FMS, the difference in use between manufacturers and non-manufacturers
reduced to 2.06 initiatives versus 1.32 initiatives.
Forty-seven respondents, 23 per cent, reported that they were significant users
of ABC. Another 18 respondents indicated that they were implementing ABC, but
that the system was not yet in significant use. This rate is somewhat lower than
prior research (Shim and Stagliano, 1997; Geishecker, 1996), which reported that 27
to 44 per cent of respondents were using ABC.11 Manufacturers reported higher
use than non-manufacturers (31.1 per cent versus 14.3 per cent). Significant ABC
users generally also used other initiatives (mean of 2.2 other initiatives). Only seven
of 47 ABC firms were using ABC in isolation.
As reported in Table 5, significant users tended to use ABC in several applications,
with, as expected, cost reduction and product costing representing the highest uses
(4.37 and 4.13 out of 5, respectively). The majority, 34, had been using ABC for
over two years. 72 per cent felt that the implementation had been successful, 66 per
cent felt that ABC had been worth implementing, and 64 per cent felt that benefits
exceeded costs. The correlation of SUCCESS with BENEFIT is 0.60, statistically
significant and consistent with that found by Shields (1995) of 0.53.
The correlation matrix portraying the univariate relationships between new
business initiatives is presented as Table 6. For the full sample, 39 per cent of the
relationships are significant at the = 0.05 level, and all significant relationships
are positive except that of business process reengineering (BPR) and the theory
of constraints (TOC). JIT exhibits the strongest relationship with other initiatives,
with significant correlations between it and all other initiatives except TOC. ABC
is significantly correlated with JIT at the = 0.05 level, and BPR at = 0.10.
Somewhat suprisingly, the relationships are qualitatively similar for the partition
including manufacturing firms only.
Content validity and reliability
Confirmatory factor analysis is used to test the unidimensionality of each of the
six multi-item constructs FUNCTION, APPLIC, EVAL, INFO, COMPLEX, and
IMPORT.12 One indicator of fit is the chi-square statistic ( 2 ). A good fitting model
may be indicated when the ratio of 2 to the degrees of freedom is less than two
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). However, this statistic is sensitive to sample size
and violations of assumptions of multivariate normality (Bentler, 1983; Joreskog
and Sorbom, 1989), which can lead to rejections of the model even when the fit is
reasonable. Therefore, it is useful to supplement the 2 with other indicators of fit.
11 Prior research has generally used samples from populations that consisted of manufacturers exclusively.
This is a likely explanation for the lower use of ABC found in this study.
12 To use confirmatory factor analysis for verifying unidimensionality, a measurement model is specified
for each construct. Individual items constituting the construct are examined to see how closely they
represent the same construct.
Mean Number of Initiatives

Median
0
45
14
31
22.1
13.2
31.6
Number of initiatives in use

Responses (total)
Responses (manufacturing)
Responses (non-manufacturing)
%(Total)
%(Manufacturing)
%(Non-manufacturing)
Total
1.96
2
47
94
95
37
79
23
16
9
Activity-based costing (ABC)

Total quality management (TQM)
Just-in-time (JIT)
Computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM)
Business process reengineering (BPR)
Value chain analysis (VCA)
Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS)
Theory of constraints (TOC)
2
34
12
22
16.7
11.3
22.4
(n = 106)
33
65
66
37
42
16
16
6
3
47
30
17
23.0
28.3
17.3
31.1
61.3
62.3
34.9
39.6
15.1
15.1
5.7
5
6
6
0
2.9
5.7
0.0
(n = 98)
14.3
29.6
29.6
0.0
37.8
7.1
0.0
3.1
6
4
4
0
2.0
3.8
0.0
40.4
58.5
56.8
54.1
49.4
43.5
68.8
66.7
Percentage of
users with $1
billion
Omitting purely manufacturing initiatives

Total Manufacturers Non-manufacturers
1.70
2.06
1.32
2
2
1
4
23
21
2
11.3
19.8
2.0
14
29
29
0
37
7
0
3
Manufacturers
Non-manufacturers
Number
Per cent Number
Per cent
All initiatives
Manufacturers Non-manufacturers
2.56
1.32
3
1
1
45
19
26
22.1
17.9
26.5
23.0
46.1
46.6
18.1
38.7
11.3
7.8
4.4
Number Percentage of
using
total
46.6% of responses were from business units over $1 billion. Omitting CIM and FMS.
I12
Survey
item
Business initiative
Table 4
Use of innovative business practices, n = 204
Total
204
106
98
100.0
100.0
100.0
18
31
4
11
1
Strongly agree
Agree
No opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Value
ABC has been successful?
Yes
Will be
Too early to tell
No
66.0
8.5
23.4
2.1
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
25
8
3
2
Number
13
12
4
0
9
8
6
6
2
10
7
2
18
25
11
18
22
22
20
19
24
19.1
53.2
17.0
6.4
4.3
Per cent
7
9
13
4
45
19
19
14
13
8
10
9
6
9
>5
13
17
12
4
1
27.7
36.2
25.5
8.5
2.1
F15 benefit > cost?

Number
Per cent
Number of years
23
34
5
2
12
7
10
8
15
11
6
Extent of use
3
65 respondents indicated some use of ABC. 47 respondents indicated use to a significant extent in decision-making.
H5
H4
Number Per cent
ABC has been worth implementing?
H1b
Value
Implementation of ABC
Use for decision-making
H1a
Time since
Product costing
Cost reduction
Pricing decisions
Product mix decisions
Determine customer profitability
Budgeting
Off-line analytic tool
Outsourcing decisions
Performance measurement
Application
Survey
item
F17
Survey
item
Table 5
Use of ABCSignificant Users, n = 47
4.13
4.37
3.65
3.78
3.70
3.78
3.70
3.46
3.76
Mean
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
37
44
25
31
30
32
29
25
33
78.7
93.6
53.2
66.0
63.8
68.1
61.7
53.2
70.2
Number of responses
Median
4&5
Per cent

19
20
Table 6
Correlation matrix of new business initiatives. Manufacturers, n = 106, to the lower left of the diagonal; all firms,
n = 204, to the upper right (Spearman correlations)
ABC
JIT
CIM
BPR
VCA
FMS
TOC
TQM
Activity-based costing (ABC)

1.000 0.202 0.041 0.125 0.030 0.027 0.059 0.090
Just-in-time (JIT)
0.252 1.000 0.249 0.267 0.164 0.276 0.087 0.340
Computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) 0.058 0.241 1.000 0.018 0.074 0.147 0.023 0.126
Business process reengineering (BPR)
0.126 0.273 0.074 1.000 0.130 0.030 0.171 0.254
Value chain analysis (VCA)
0.056 0.234 0.040 0.052 1.000 0.300 0.301 0.044
Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS)
0.004 0.229 0.129 0.093 0.349 1.000 0.295 0.014
Theory of constraints (TOC)
0.049 0.115 0.002 0.019 0.467 0.428 1.000 0.055
Total quality management (TQM)
0.174 0.313 0.049 0.485 0.081 0.069 0.130 1.000
Bold = significant at the 0.05 level
Underlined = significant at the 0.10 level
Significant at 5%
Significant at 10%
Number significantly using ABC with
Per cent (47 firms)
Total
Possible
28
28
Full sample
Number %
11
39.3
14
50.0
VCA
6
12.8
Manufacturers
Number %
10
35.7
11
39.3
JIT
30
63.8
CIM
7
14.9
BPR
23
48.9
FMS
3
6.4
Mean
2.2
7
14.9
6
12.8
17
36.2
10
21.3
TOC
1
2.1
TQM
25
53.2
Number of initiatives
Number significantly using ABC with
Per cent
4
8.5
2
4.3
1
2.1
A goodness of fit index (GFI) of 0.90 or higher for the model suggests that there is no
evidence of a lack of unidimensionality (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989), and an adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI) of 0.80 and a root-mean-square residual (RMR) under 0.10
are generally regarded as indications of good fit (Libby and Tan, 1994).
The 2 statistics, and GFI, AGFI, and RMR indices for the six constructs, are
reported in Table 7. After deletion of five of 37 survey items, 2 tests that the models
fit the data are not rejected ( p < 0.01). Furthermore, all GFI and AGFI values are
above 0.90 and 0.80, respectively, indicating that there is no evidence of a lack of
uni-dimensionality.
A scale exhibits discriminant validity if its constituent items estimate only one
construct (Bagozzi et al., 1991). Lack of discriminant validity usually results in
an over-estimation of correlation among constructs. To test scales for discriminant
validity a 2 difference test is used (Ahire et al., 1996). A set of confirmatory factor
analyses is run on each multi-item pair of scales, first allowing for correlation
between the two constructs and then fixing the correlation between the two scales
at one. A statistical significant difference in 2 statistics demonstrates that the two
constructs under consideration are distinct (Venkatraman, 1989).
For the six multi-item scales in the instrument, a total of 15 discriminant validity
checks were run. The three ABC scales (FUNCTION, APPLIC, and EVAL) failed
to yield statistically significant 2 differences (the 2 difference is under two).
Description
All ABC variables
7
9
3
6
7
5
37
19
F3, 6, 7
D1D6
E1E7
A1-A5
2
2
5
0
0
0
Number of items
Original Deleted
F16a-g
F17a-i
Instrument
items
131.99/127
1.81/4
10.71/1
3.93/4
2.23/1
2.96/7
16.60/19
0.36
0.77
0.00
0.42
0.14
0.89
0.62
0.94
1.00
0.97
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.95
0.91
0.99
0.80
0.97
0.87
0.95
0.88
0.012
0.012
0.082
0.016
0.027
0.026
0.044
0.98
0.99
0.91
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.96
0.94
0.79
0.54
0.84
0.87
0.90
0.92
Adjusted Root mean BentlerGoodness goodness

square
Bonnett
Cronbach
Chi-square
of fit index of fit index residual coefficient
alpha
degrees of freedom p-value
(GFI)
(AGFI) (RMR) (NFI) (Alpha)
GFI value of 0.90 suggests that there is no lack of unidimensionality (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989); AGFI value of 0.80 indicates a good fitting model
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996); RMR value of under 0.10 indicates a good fitting model (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996); NFI value of 0.90 suggests strong
convergent validity (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996); Alpha value of 0.50 indicates acceptable reliability (Nunnaly, 1978).
ABC
FUNCTION Functions using ABC

APPLIC
Applications ABC used
for
EVAL
Use for performance
evaluation
INFO
Information technology
sophistication
COMPLEX Complexitydiversity
IMPORT
Importance of costs
Construct
Table 7
Construct unidimensionality, convergent validity, and reliability

21
22
Therefore, after confirming unidimensionality, the 19 variables from those constructs

were combined into a single construct for testing.
An NFI value of 0.90 or above demonstrates strong convergent validity (Tabachnick
and Fidell, 1996). The NFI values for all of the constructs are reported in Table 7. All
of the scales had values over 0.90, demonstrating strong convergent validity.
Reliability refers to the degree of dependability, consistency, or stability of a scale
(Gatewood and Field, 1990). Cronbachs coefficient alpha () is a widely used
measure of scale reliability (Cronbach, 1951). The Cronbachs alpha values for each
construct are shown in Table 7. All scales have acceptable reliability.
Preliminary test of efficacy
Prior to formal hypothesis testing a rough approximation of the primary model is
tested. This (regression) model does not include the refinements and advantages
obtained from use of structural equation modelling (as specified in Figure 1).
However, it does yield information regarding the overall efficacy of the enablers that
is not obtained with the LISREL model.
A construct composed of the two ROI variables is regressed against constructs
for ABC use, other initiative use, size, a composite construct composed of the six
enablers, and an interaction variable (composed of ABC, other initiative use, and
enablers). Survey items are weighted equally within constructs and constructs are
weighted equally within composite constructs. The regression model is
1ROI = + 1 ABC + 2 INIT + 3 ENABLE + 4 ABC INIT ENABLE + 5 SIZE
Where
Expected
sign
+
1ROI
the average of five-point measures of

industry-adjusted improvement of ROI
over three and five years
ABC
the average of 19 five-point Likert

measures of ABC use
INIT
the sum of eight binary measures of

significant initiative use
ENABLE
the average of six measures of enabling

variables which in turn are composed of
the average of individual survey items
ABC INIT ENABLE
an interaction term
SIZE
the log of the mid-point of a five-point

Likert sales category
The results of this regression are presented as Table 8. Use of other initiatives is
significant at the = 0.05 level, and the interactive term is significant at 0.081. There
appears to be an overall effect of enabling variables and use of initiatives combined
with ABC. It is noteworthy that this effect is not present when ABC is dropped from
the interaction term. The contrast between effects with and without inclusion of ABC
is an indicator of probable efficacy of the use of ABC under favourable enabling
conditions.
23
Table 8
Exploratory multiple regression analysis of overall effect of enabling conditions on improvement in performance,
n = 204
Model F
Model p-value
R square
Adjusted R square
Variable
Intercept
ABC
Other INITiatives
ENABLErs
ABC INIT ENABLE
SIZE
Parameter
estimate
1.018
0.038
0.152
0.235
0.009
0.049
6.666
0.0001
0.1441
0.1225
Standardized
parameter
estimate
0.000
0.064
0.221
0.096
0.175
0.105
Standard
error
0.950
0.066
0.056
0.171
0.007
0.322
t-statistic
1.072
0.576
2.697
1.372
1.405
1.532
p-value
0.285
0.565
0.004
0.172
0.081
0.127
Bold = significant at the 0.05 level; Underlined = significant at the 0.10 level; Intercept and size tested with
two-tailed test; other variables with one-tailed tests.
Hypothesis testing
The purpose of the first two hypotheses is to test whether ABC is directly associated
with improvement in ROI (H1) and to identify the enabling conditions under which
ABC results in an improvement in ROI (H2). To perform these tests, the conceptual
model presented previously as Figure 1 is modified to that shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 also reports the results of testing.13 Product terms are created for the
interactions between ABC and each of the enabling variables, other initiatives, and
size. Positive significance of the ABC variable would indicate a direct effect on change
in performance, regardless of environmental conditions. Positive significance of a
product term indicates that ABC is positively associated with an improvement in
performance when used in the environment described by the product term.14
The fit of the model is good: 2 (1017 df) = 911, p< 0.99, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.92,
RMR = 0.075. The model explains 36% of the variance of the dependent construct.
Many of the variables have significant direct effects: INFOrmation technology,
IMPORTance of costs, SIZE, and other INITiatives have positive direct effects
at the 0.05 level. Number of INTRA-company transactions and COMPetitive
environment have negative direct effects at the 0.05 level. COMPLEXity (positive)
and unused CAPACity (negative) are not significant at conventional levels. It is
logical that INFO, SIZE, INIT and COMP are significant predictors of change in
13 Factor loadings and structural coefficients are obtained using the maximum likelihood estimation
method. Estimation involves finding the values of the coefficients that produce an estimated covariance
matrix that is as close as possible to the sample covariance structure of the manifest variables (Libby and
Tan, 1994).
14 A potential problem with this approach is that the measurement error for a given product indicator
must be a function of the measurement error of the component parts of the product terms (Jaccard and
Wan, 1996). Joreskog and Yang (1996) developed an approach to address this problem, which requires the
formation of four new matrices and the imposition of nine constraints per product term. The resulting
model requires estimation of a number of parameters that is larger than the sample size, resulting
in unstable parameters. However, the parameters and t-statistics derived are nearly identical to those
previously reported. All variables retain their signs and significance levels are stable within 0.05 and 0.10
boundaries.
24

X VARIABLES
7
DIRECT
INTERACTION
CONSTRUCTS
CONSTRUCTS
F16a-g
ABC
0.05
0.39
(0.348)
INIT
0.30
4.78
(0.000)
INFO
0.35
4.57
(0.000)
0.02 ABC X INFO

0.31
(0.388)
E1-E5
COMPLEX
0.02
0.31
(0.757)
0.12 ABC X COMPLEX

2.26
(0.012)
A1-A4
IMPORT
0.20
2.05
(0.040)
0.07 ABC X IMPORT

1.30
(0.097)
I10a,b
F17a-I
F3, 6,7
I12a-j
D1-D5
Add
0.10
1.89 ABC X INIT
(0.003)
-0.16
Add
INTRA
I11
CAPAC
-0.00
-0.05
(0.960)
-0.09
-1.41 ABC X INTRA
(0.079)
Change in
Financial
Performance
-3.14
(0.002)
-0.02
-0.14 ABC X CAPAC
(0.444)
ROI-3 YR
1
C6
ROI-5 YR
1
A6
COMP
-0.21
-4.66
(0.000)
I6
SIZE
0.22
2.94
(0.003)
I8
TYPE
0.03 ABC X COMP

0.66
(0.255)
C7
-0.10 ABC X SIZE

-1.69
(0.093)
0.04
0.54 ABC X TYPE
(0.295)
Key
Construct
Observed variable
1
0.01
0.08
F3,F4
-0.936
coefficient constrained to 1
Standardized coefficient
t-statistic
p-value

INIT
Bold & Filled = significant at 0.05
Direct Effect
ABC X SIZE
Add
Underlined = significant at 0.10
Construct obtained by summing responses
Figure 3. LISREL models of ABC and financial performance with control for enabling conditions and
other initiatives.
financial performance. The significance of IMPORT may indicate cost awareness,

presumably leading to cost control efforts. The significance of INTRA may indicate a
preponderance of pricing at other than market prices.
The effect of ABC, although positive, is not significant ( p< 0.3483). This means that
there is no direct affect associated with use of ABC. As expected, H1 is not confirmed.
More importantly, however, the interactions of ABC with COMPLEXity ( p< 0.012)
and other INITiatives ( p< 0.003) are positive and significant, which means that H2 is
confirmed for those conditions. The interactions of ABC with IMPORTance of costs,
INTRA-company transactions, and SIZE are significant at 0.10 ( p< 0.097, p< 0.079,
and p< 0.093, respectively). The signs of the other enabling variable interactions are
as expected, although not significant. It is very possible that use of a larger sample
size would have increased statistical power sufficiently to result in significance. Also,
results for ABC CAPAC (unused capacity) may be weakened in two ways: (1) survey
responses indicated that non-manufacturers had difficulty assessing their capacity
utilization, and (2) for some companies, ABC may become less relevant as they
25
approach capacity constraints. Opportunity costs become more important than cost
allocation.
The results of the three tests of H3 are presented in Table 9. As expected with use
of single item variables of interest, model fit is not as good as that of the previous
model. 2 generally approaches three times degrees of freedom rather than the
desired two. GFIs range in the lower 0.80s and AGFIs in the upper 0.70s, although
the RMR for all three models are under 0.08. Variable significance is consistent for
the three models. INFOrmation technology, IMPORTance of costs (except against
SATISFACTION), and other INITiatives are positive and significant at 0.05. INTRAcompany transactions and COMPetitive environment are negative and significant.
SATISFACTION ( p< 0.104), SUCCESS ( p< 0.059), and financial BENEFIT ( p< 0.174)
are positively signed and SUCCESS is marginally significant. Although no firm
statistical conclusions can be reached regarding H3, it appears that the variables are
relatively good proxies for improvement in performance associated with use of ABC.
Sensitivity analysis
As additional checks on the specifications of the models, the analysis was reestimated with (1) limited, and (2) substantial error correlation allowed between
the independent manifest variables, (3) restriction of the error correlation of the
dependent variables, (4) change in ROI over separate 3 and 5 year periods rather
than a construct derived from the combination of the two periods, (5) all correlations
between the latent constructs allowed rather than only those statistically significant
at the 0.10 level, (6) a direct effect of industry TYPE on change in ROI (even though
the ROI variable is industry adjusted), (7) a reduction in the number of manifest
ABC variables from 19 to six (H1 and H2 model only), and (8) for the preceding
exploratory regression analysis, change in ROI measured over separate 3 and 5
year periods. Although there is some change in fit statistics of the models, there is
little change in significance levels of the independent variables, with the following
exceptions.
When correlated errors of the manifest independent variables are estimated,
t-statistics of all variables tend to increase. If a large number of correlations are
estimated, the interaction terms and the SUCCESS and SATISFACTION variables
become significant at = 0.05. However, in the absence of an error theory to explain
these correlations, no inference can be made from these results.
Since correlated errors were expected for the dependent variables ROI3 and ROI5,
the results have been reported with correlated error terms. When the errors between
ROI3 and ROI5 are not allowed to correlate, significance levels of the independent
variables are generally weakened somewhat. Although signs remain as expected,
ABC IMPORTance of costs and ABC SIZE lose their significance ( p< 0.176 and
p< 0.142 versus p< 0.097 and p< 0.093). ABC INIT also loses some significance ( p<
0.054 versus p< 0.030). However, even with this additional restriction, the models
furnish evidence of the efficacy of ABC under specific environmental conditions.
Remaining sensitivity tests yielded little additional information. TYPE is never
significant at conventional levels and modification to the permitted correlations of
the latent construct matrix had minimal effect. For the 3 year change in ROI model,
IMPORTance of costs becomes significant at the 0.05 level when SATISFACTION is
the dependent variable (rather than the p< 0.097 for the reported model).
0.09
0.32
0.27
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.01
0.27
0.12
1.26
5.24
3.08
1.53
0.15
0.01
0.83
4.11
0.12
552
524
517
Satisfaction
Coefficient t-statistic
Chi-square
0.11
0.29
0.27
0.07
0.23
0.16
0.01
0.32
0.11
Coefficient
p-value
0.104
0.000
0.002
0.126
0.136
0.006
0.302
0.001
0.042
0.00
0.00
0.00
p-value
175
173
172
Degrees of
freedom
1.59
4.72
3.24
0.81
2.41
2.76
0.20
4.86
1.84
0.82
0.83
0.83
Success
t-statistic
GFI
0.059
0.000
0.001
0.418
0.016
0.006
0.841
0.000
0.066
p-value
0.76
0.77
0.77
AGFI
0.078
0.078
0.077
RMR
0.06
0.30
0.29
0.08
0.26
0.16
0.01
0.31
0.11
Coefficient
Bold = significant at the 0.05 level; underlined = significant at the 0.10 level; one-tailed test except for SIZE.
ABC
INIT
INFO
COMPLEX
IMPORT
INTRA
CAPAC
COMP
SIZE
Satisfaction
Success
Benefit
ABC construct
Table 9
LISREL models of ABC and success with control for enabling conditions and other initiatives, n = 204
0.94
4.76
3.39
0.95
2.34
2.72
0.23
4.69
1.87
0.174
0.000
0.001
0.166
0.001
0.007
0.826
0.000
0.061
Financial benefit
t-statistic
p-value
0.35
0.35
0.35
R2
26
27
7. Summary and discussion

An important contribution of this study is the synthesis of a model explaining the
condition under which ABC is associated with improvement in a composite measure
of financial performance, ROI. The model is synthesized from the findings and
arguments of previous research, with constructs validated with confirmatory factor
analysis. The model is then tested with structural equation modelling (SEM). Prior
to this research there has been no comprehensive explanation of the firm-specific
conditions under which ABC is associated with positive performance results.
Positive synergies are obtained from concurrent use of other strategic business
initiatives with ABC. When ABC is used concurrently with JIT, TQM, etc., firms
have a net improvement in financial performance greater than that obtained from
use of those strategic business initiatives without ABC. This finding is consistent
with statements by researchers that management accounting systems are meant to be
efficient in supporting firms operational effectiveness (Granlund and Lukka, 1998;
Cooper, 1996; Porter, 1996; Granlund, 1997). A primary purpose of initiatives is to
improve this effectiveness and there is now evidence that ABC is contributing in this
regard. Evidence that the sum of the benefits is greater than the costs incurred has
been argued but not demonstrated.
This research identified an overall positive synergistic effect from concurrent use of
initiatives, but did not address which specific initiatives provide the effect or whether
there may be a causal ordering of initiatives that is important. Further research is
needed to investigate question such as (1) which combinations of initiatives provide a
positive effect when used concurrently with ABC? and (2) is there a specific ordering
of implementation (e.g. JIT before ABC) that provides maximum benefit?
A second important finding provided evidence supporting previous analytical
and theoretical research regarding the conditions favourable to obtaining benefits
from ABC. There is a positive association between ABC and improvement in ROI
when implemented in complex and diverse firms, in environments where costs
are relatively important, and when there are limited numbers of intra-company
transactions to constrain benefits. These positive findings regarding ABC are of
particular interest to practicing and academic accountants because they are often the
primary proponents and administrators of ABC. ABC contributes positive benefit,
but not in all firm-specific circumstances. It is important that the practitioner
community have knowledge of the appropriate conditions for maximizing the
efficacy of ABC.
There also is an indication that other enabling conditions (information technology
sophistication, absence of excess capacity, and a competitive environment) affect
the efficacy of ABC. The signs of the coefficients of these non-significant enabling
variables are as expected, leading one to suspect that statistical power might have
been an issue. Although it is difficult to obtain both large sample sizes and the
volume of information necessary to adequately measure the constructs of interest,
the subject is of significant importance to pursue. Further research is also required to
explain the increased efficacy of ABC in smaller business units.
There is also evidence that previously used measures of ABC success, satisfaction
with ABC, and financial benefit obtained from ABC (Shields, 1995; Swenson, 1995;
Krumwiede, 1996, 1998) are predictors of improvement in financial performance.
This finding is an important step toward completing the link between identification
28
of the conditions affecting the success of ABC implementation, to documentation of

ABCs efficacy as a profit-enhancing tool.
Finally, no cross-sectional study can definitively determine causality. Future
researchers could perform longitudinal studies that investigate the improvement in
performance within firms before and after the implementation of ABC. Care must be
taken to control for the firm-specific conditions identified as important in this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, Lisa Austen, Katherine Barker,
Tommy Carnes, Johnny Deng, Bill Glezen, Tanya Lee, Angela Monroe, Karen Pincus
and participants at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Accounting Association
and Accounting Colloquia at the University of Arkansas and the University of Texas
at Brownsville for their many helpful comments and critiques on earlier drafts of this
paper.
Appendix
Confidential questionnaire for the

STUDY OF ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING
The following questions relate to your business units cost management practices
and the involvement of internal auditing in these practices. I recognize that some of
the information in this survey may be sensitive, but I assure you that the data will
only be used in the aggregate to statistically compare various types of organizations
that have participated in the study. Your responses will be kept confidential. Please
answer the questions based on your business unit. A business unit may be an entire
company, a group, a division, plant, or a country.
When you have completed the questionnaire, please put it in the enclosed postagepaid envelope, and return it to me within ten days.
Please answer the questions below by circling the correct replies or by filling in information.
1. Are you answering this questionnaire in terms of your (Please answer in terms
of the highest level in which you feel confident of your answers):
Plant Division Group Subsidiary Country Whole Company Other
Please indicate (circle) the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
29
A. Regarding the use of cost data

Strongly
No
Strongly
within your business unit:
disagree Disagree opinion Agree agree
1. Product costs must be accurate
to compete in your markets . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
2. Cost data are important because
of your cost reduction efforts . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
3. Cost data are an important factor
in pricing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
4. The business unit performs many
special cost studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
5. Capital expenditures are based on
strategic reasons instead of cost
issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6. Price competition in your
industry is intense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
B. Regarding the use of quality initiatives Strongly
No
Strongly
within your business unit
1. Your business unit is committed
to a quality improvement
programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
2. Management actively supports
your quality programme . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
3. Quality-related training is
provided for all employees . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
4. Your suppliers are required to
maintain minimum quality
standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
C. Regarding the performance of your
Strongly
No
Strongly
cost system and business unit:
1. You are satisfied with your
business units methodology
for calculating product and
service costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
business units performance
measurement systems . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
business units ability to
provide information to aid in
cost reduction efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
4. Over the last three years, the
sales of your business unit have
improved relative to other
business units in your industry.
1
2
3
4
5
5. Over the last five years, the sales
of your business unit have
improved relative to other business
units in your industry . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
30
6. Over the last three years, the ROI

of my business unit has improved
relative to other business units
in your industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Over the last five years, the ROI
of my business unit has improved
relative to other business units
in your industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Regarding your business units
information technology:
1. The business units information
systems (e.g. sales, manufacturing,
etc.) are integrated with each
other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. The information system offers
user-friendly query capability . . . . .
3. The past years detailed sales
and operating data are available . .
4. Many perspectives of cost and
performance data are available . . . .
5. Operating data are updated
real time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. The quality of your cost
management system is excellent . .
E. Regarding the complexity of
operations within your business unit
1. There are major differences in lot
sizes between products . . . . . . . . . . .
2. There are major differences in
volumes between products . . . . . . . .
3. Over time, there are major changes
in volumes within products . . . . . . .
4. Costs of support departments are
similar for each product . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Product lines are diverse . . . . . . . . . .
6. Within product lines, products
require similar processes to design,
manufacture and distribute . . . . . . .
7. There are frequent changes to
your products, services,
and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strongly
No
Strongly
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly
No
Strongly
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
If your business unit is implementing or using activity-based costing (ABC),

please answer Sections F to H; if not, skip to Section I. Activity-Based Costing
(ABC) is defined as assigning indirect costs to individual activities or processes
(rather than departmental) cost pools; then tracing costs to users of activities (products, customers, etc.) based on multiple cost drivers.

F.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
31
Regarding the dynamics and use of

Strongly
No
Strongly
ABC in your business unit:
ABC receives active support from
top management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
Management has provided
adequate resources to ABC efforts.
1
2
3
4
5
ABC is tied to the competitive
strategies of the business unit. . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
Non-accounting depts show
personal ownership of ABC . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
The implementation team was
(is) cross-functional . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
ABC is linked to evaluations of
non-accounting personnel . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
ABC is linked to compensation
of non-accounting personnel . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
There has been consensus about
the objectives of ABC . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
Adequate training was provided
for designing ABC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
for implementing ABC . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
for using ABC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
ABC is integrated into operating
information systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
ABC is integrated into accounting
systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
ABC is strongly linked to our
competitive strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
The benefit of ABC has exceeded
the cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
The following functions routinely
use the ABC information for
decision-making
a. Design engineering . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
b. Manufacturing engineering . .
1
2
3
4
5
c. Production management . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
d. Plant manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
e. Top management . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
f. Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
g. Corporate finance . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
ABC is consistently used for
the following purposes
a. Product costing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
b. Cost management . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
c. Pricing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
d. Product mix decisions . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
32

e. Determine customer
profitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f. Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g. As an off-line analytic tool . .
h. Outsourcing decisions . . . . . .
i. Performance measurement . .
j. Other/Comments
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
G. Regarding Internal Auditings

Strongly
No
Strongly
involvement in ABC:
1. There was significant internal
audit involvement:
a. before ABC, documenting the
advantages/disadvantages or
costs/benefits of ABC
compared to the prior
system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
b. during design of the ABC
system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
c. during implementation
of the ABC system . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
d. auditing the supporting
documentation to
substantiate the
decision-making process
during initial
implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
e. during development
of the performance
evaluation system.
1
2
3
4
5
2. There is a significant ongoing
level of IA involvement in the:
a. audit of cost
drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
b. audit of treatment
of common costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
c. audit of non-financial
performance metrics . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
d. audit of value added
by ABC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
e. audit of tracking
of waste indicators . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
f. identification of
ways to eliminate waste
and reduce costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
g. comparing cost of ABC with
value added in terms of:
1. net cost savings . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
2. customer satisfaction . . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
3. increased productivity . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
33
H. General questions:
1. How long since your business unit began:
a. the implementation of ABC? <1 yr 12 yr 23 yr 34 yr 45 yr >5 yr
b. using ABC to aid in
<1 yr 12 yr 23 yr 34 yr 45 yr >5 yr
decision-making?
c. implementation of quality
<1 yr 12 yr 23 yr 34 yr 45 yr >5 yr
program?
2. What percentage would you estimate your sales have increased or decreased
since you began using ABC?
% increase
% decrease
No change
3. What percentage would you estimate your profits have increased or decreased
since you began using ABC?
% increase
% decrease
No change
4. In your opinion, was ABC worth implementing?
Yes No Will be Too early to tell
Please comment:
Strongly
No
Disagree Disagree opinion Agree
5. Overall your ABC initiative
has been successful . . . . . . . .
Strongly
agree
Please comment:
I. General questions regarding your business unit:

6. Please indicate your type of business:
Manufacturing
Financial services
Wholesale/retail
Transportation
Other services
Government
Utilities
Other
7. Main product(s)/service(s) or SIC industry code(s) of your business

unit:
8. Current annual sales revenue for business unit:
Under $5 million
$101500M
$520M
$501M$1 billion
$2150M
$15 billion
$51100M
$5 billion+
34

9.
How many auditors are employed in your internal audit department?
10. What percentage of the following are to another business unit of your
company?
< 10%
1025%
2550%
> 50%
a. Your sales
b. Your purchases
< 10%
1025%
2550%
> 50%
11. At what percentage of capacity does your business unit usually operate?
< 50%
5065%
6580%
8090%
> 90%
12. Check if the following is used to a significant extent in your business unit:
a. Activity-based costing (ABC)
b. Just-in-time (JIT)
c. Computer-integrated
d. Business process
manufacturing (CIM)
f. Value chain analysis
engineering
g. Flexible manufacturing
h. Theory of constraints (TOC)
systems
i. Total quality management
j. Lean manufacturing techniques
(TQM)
j. Other (describe)
Please comment on any refinements that can be made to the survey (questions
needed, unnecessary, or those that should be changed):
Thank you for participating!

References
Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y. and Waller, M. A., 1996. Development and validation of TQM
implementation constructs, Decision Sciences,Winter, 2356.
Alles, M., 1990. A Strategic Model of Costing, Working Paper, Stanford University.
Anderson, S. W., 1995a. A framework for assessing cost management system changes: the
case of activity-based costing implementation at General Motors, 19861993, Journal of
Management Accounting Research, Fall, 151.
Anderson, S. W., 1995b. Measuring the impact of product mix heterogeneity on manufacturing
overhead cost, The Accounting Review (3rd Qtr) 363388.
Anderson, S. W. and Young, S. M., 1999. The impact of contextual and process factors on
the evaluation of activity-based costing systems, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24,
525559.
35
Anderson, S. W. and Sedatole, K., 1998. Designing quality into products: the use of
accounting data in new product development, Accounting Horizons, September, 12, 213233.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L. W., 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational
research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421458.
Banker, R. D. and Datar, S. M., 1987. Accounting for Labor Productivity in Manufacturing Operations: an Application, in W. Bruns, R. S. Kaplan (eds), Accounting and
ManagementField Study Perspectives, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 169203.
Banker, R. D. and Hughes, J., 1991. Activity-Based Costing and Equilibrium Pricing, Working Paper, University of Minnesota.
Banker, R. D. and Potter, G., 1991. Economic Comparisons of Single Cost Driver and ABC Systems,
Working Paper, University of Minnesota.
Banker, R. D., Potter, G. and Schroeder, R. G., 1995. An empirical analysis of manufacturing
overhead cost drivers, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 115137.
Barnes, F. C., 1991. IES can improve management decisions using activity-based costing,
Industrial Engineering, September, 4450.
Bentler, M., 1983. Some contributions of efficient statistics in structural models: specification
and estimation of moment structures, Psychometrica, 493517.
Bjornenak, T., 1997. Diffusion and accounting: the case of ABC in Norway, Management
Accounting Research, 8, 317.
Bjornenak, T. and Mitchell, F., 1999. A Study of the Development of the Activity-Based Costing journal Literature 19871998, Working Paper, University of Pittsburgh.
Brimson, J. A., 1991. Activity Costing, an Activity-Based Costing Approach, New York, Wiley.
Bromwich, M. and Hong, C., 1999. Activity-based costing systems and incremental costs,
Management Accounting Research, 10, 3960.
Bruns, W. J. and Kaplan, R. S., 1987. Accounting and Management Field Study Perspectives, Boston,
MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Chenhall, R. H., 1997. Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance, Management Accounting Research, June, 8, 187206.
Chenhall, R. H. and Langfield-Smith, K., 1998. The relationship between strategic priorities, management techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using
a systems approach, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 243264.
Cooper, R., 1988. The rise of activity-based costingpart two: when do I need an activity-based
system? Journal of Cost Management, Fall, 4148.
Cooper, R., 1989. You need a new cost system when. . . . Harvard Business Review,
January/February, 7782.
Cooper, R., 1990. Cost classification in unit-based and activity-based manufacturing cost
systems, Journal of Cost Management, Fall, 414.
Cooper, R., 1996. Activity-based costing and the lean enterprise, Journal of Cost Management,
Winter, 614.
Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R. S., 1988. Measure costs right: make the right decisions, Harvard
Business Review, September/October, 96105.
Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R. S., 1991. The Design of Cost Management Systems: Text, Cases,
and Readings, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Cooper, R. and Turney, P. B., 1989. Hewlett-Packard: the Roseville Network Division, Boston, MA,
Harvard Business School, (Case No. 9-189-117).
Cronbach, L., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrica, 16,
297334.
Dillman, D. A., 1999. Mail and Telephone Surveys: the Total Design Method, 2nd edition, New York,
Wiley.
Dixon, J. M., 1996. Total Quality Management in ISO-9000 Registered Organizations: an Empirical Examination of the Critical Characteristics Associated with Levels of Financial Performance, Dissertation, Florida State University.
36
Drake, A. R., Haka, S. F. and Ravenscroft, S. P., 1999. Cost System and Incentive Structure
Effects on Innovation, Efficiency and Profitability in Teams.
Estrin, T. L., Kantor, J. and Albers, D., 1994. Is ABC suitable for your company? Management
Accounting, April, 4045.
Evans, H. and Ashworth, G., 1995. Activity-based management: moving beyond adolescence,
Management AccountingLondon, December, 2630.
Feinberg, S., 1983. The Analysis of Cross-Classified Categorical Data, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Foster, G. and Gupta, M., 1990. Manufacturing overhead cost driver analysis, Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 12, 309337.
Foster, G. and Swenson, D. W., 1997. Measuring the success of activity-based cost management and its determinants, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 109141.
Foster, G. and Young, S. M., 1997. Frontiers of management accounting research, Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 9, 6377.
Gatewood, R. D. and Field, H. S., 1990. Human Resource Selection, 2nd edition, Chicago, IL,
Dryden.
Geishecker, M. L., 1996. New Technologies Support ABC, Management Accounting, March,
4248.
Georgantzas, N. C. and Shapiro, H. J., 1993. Viable theoretical forms of synchronous production
innovation, Journal of Operations Management, 11, 161183.
Gonzalves, F. A. and Eiler, R. G., 1996. Managing complexity through performance measurement, Management Accounting, August, 35.
Gordon, L. A. and Silvester, K. J., 1999. Stock market reactions to activity-based costing adoptions, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, September, 18, 229251.
Gosselin, M., 1997a. The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption and
implementation of activity-based costing, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, 105122.
Gosselin, M., 1997b. Bandwagon Theories: Some Explanations for the Activity-Based Costing
Paradox, paper presented at the EIASM Workshop on Manufacturing Accounting, Edinburgh, 57 June.
Govindarajan, V., 1988. A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the businessunit level integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy, Academy of Management
Journal, 31, 828853.
Govindarajan, V. and Fisher, J., 1990. Strategy, control system, and resource sharing: effects on
business-unit performance, Academy of Management Journal, 33, 259285.
Grandzol, J. R. and Gershon, M., 1997. Which TQM practices really matter: an empirical investigation, Quality Management Journal, 4, 4359.
Granlund, M., 1997. The Challenge of Management Accounting Change. Doctoral Manuscript,
Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.
Granlund, M. and Lukka, K., 1998. Its a small world of management accounting practices,
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 151179.
Guadagnoli, E. and Velicer, W. F., 1998. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265275.
Harris, E., 1990. The impact of JIT production on product costing information systems,
Production and Inventory Management Journal (1st Qtr) 4448.
Hicks, D. T., 1999. Yes, ABC is for small business too, Journal of Accountancy, August, 188, 4143.
Hilton, R. W., 1994. Managerial Accounting, 2nd edition, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D., 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods, New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Husan, M. and Nanda, D., 1995. The impact of just-in-time manufacturing on firm performance, Journal of Operations Management, January, 514.
Innes, J., Mitchell, F. and Sinclair, D., 2000. Activity-based costing in the U.K.s largest
companies: a comparison of 1994 and 1999 survey results, Management Accounting Research,
11, 349362.
37
Innes, J. and Mitchell, F., 1995. A survey of activity-based costing in the U.K.s largest companies, Management Accounting Research, June, 137153.
Institute of Internal Auditors, 1990. Statement of Responsibilities of Internal Auditing, Altamonte
Springs, FL, Institute of Internal Auditors.
Institute of Internal Auditors, 1998. Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing,
Altamonte Springs, FL, Institute of Internal Auditors.
Institute of Internal Auditors, 2001. www.TheIIA.org/ecm/iiacni.cfm?doc_id=256.
Jaccard, J. and Wan, C. K., 1996. LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Jacobson, R., 1987. The validity of ROI as a measure of business performance, The American
Economic Review, 77, 470478.
Johnson, E. N., Walker, K. B. and Westergaard, E., 1995. Supplier concentration and pricing of
audit services in New Zealand, Auditing: a Journal of Practice and Theory, Fall, 7489.
Jones, L. F., 1991. Product costing at Caterpillar, Management Accounting, February, 3442.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D., 1989. LISREL 7: a Guide to the Program and Application, 2nd
edition, Chicago, IL, Scientific Software.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D., 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the
SIMPLIS Command Language, Chicago, IL, Scientific Software.
Joreskog, K. G. and Yang, F., 1996. Non-Linear Structural Equation Models: the KennyJudd Model with Interaction Effects, in G. Marcoulides, R. Schumacker (eds), Advanced
Structural Equation Modeling, Hillside, NJ, Erlbaum, 5788.
Kaplan, R. S., 1993. Research opportunities in management accounting, Journal of Management
Accounting Research, Fall, 114.
Karmarkar, U. S., Lederer, P. J. and Zimmerman, J. L., 1990. Choosing Manufacturing
Production Control and Cost Accounting Systems, in R. S. Kaplan (ed), Measures of
Manufacturing Excellence.
Kaynak, H., 1996. The Relationship between Just-in-Time Purchasing and Total Quality
Management and Their Effects on the Performance of Firms Operating in the U.S.: an
Empirical Investigation, Dissertation, University of North Texas.
Kennedy, T. and Bull, R., 2000. The great debate, Management Accounting, May, 78, 3233.
Kern, B. B. and Morris, M. H., 1994. Differences in the COMPUSTAT and expanded value
line data bases and the potential impact on empirical research, The Accounting Review, 69,
274284.
Khandwalla, P. N., 1972. The effect of different types of competition on the use of management
controls, Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn, 10, 275285.
Krumwiede, K. R., 1996. An Empirical Examination of Factors Affecting the Adoption and
Infusion of Activity-Based Costing, Dissertation, University of Tennessee.
Krumwiede, K. R., 1998. The implementation stages of activity-based costing and the impact
of contextual and organizational factors, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10,
239277.
Kwon, T. H. and Zmud, R. W., 1987. Unifying the Fragmented Models of Information
Systems and Implementation, in R. J. Boland, R. Hirscheim (eds), Critical Issues in Information
Systems Research, New York, Wiley.
Libby, R. and Tan, H., 1994. Modeling the determinants of audit expertise, Accounting.
Organizations and Society, 19, 701716.
Maher, M. W. and Marais, M. L., 1998. A field study on the limitations of activity-based costing
when resources are provided on a joint and indivisible basis, Journal of Accounting Research,
Spring, 36, 129142.
Malmi, T., 1999. Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: an exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish, Accounting, Organizations and Society, November, 24, 649672.
Malmi, T., 1997. Towards explaining activity-based costing failure: accounting and control, in
a decentralised organisation, Management Accounting Research, 8, 459480.
38
McGowan, A. S., 1998. Perceived benefits of ABCM implementation, Accounting Horizons,

March, 3150.
McGowan, A. S. and Klammer, T. P., 1997. Satisfaction with activity-based cost management implementation, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 217237.
Mia, L. and Clarke, B., 1999. Market competition, management accounting systems and business unit performance, Management Accounting Research, June, 10, 137158.
Miller, J. G. and Roth, A. V., 1994. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies, Management
Science, 40, 285304.
Nunnaly, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory, New York, McGraw Hill.
Ong, B. S. and Jensen, T. D., 1994. SICs and industry-level data in marketing: problems
and ramifications, American Business Review, 3746.
Pattison, D. D. and Arendt, C. G., 1994. Activity-based costing: it doesnt work all the time,
Management Accounting, April, 5561.
Porter, M., 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, 6178.
Prescott, J. E., Kohli, A. K. and Venkatraman, N., 1986. The market shareprofitability
relationship: an empirical assessment of major assertions and contradictions, Strategic
Management Journal, 7, 377394.
Ray, M. R. and Gupta, P. P., 1992. Activity-based costing, Internal Auditor, December, 4551.
Reeve, J. M., 1996. Projects, models, and systemswhere is ABM headed? Journal of Cost
Management, 10, 515.
Roberts, M. W. and Silvester, K. J., 1996. Why ABC failed and how it may yet succeed, Journal
of Cost Management, Winter, 2335.
Rogers, E. M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edition, New York, Free Press.
Rotch, W., 1990. Activity-based costing in service industries, Journal of Cost Management,
Summer, 414.
Schroeder, D. M., 1990. A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation upon
competitive strategies, Strategic Management Journal, 11, 2541.
Selto, F. H. and Jasinski, D. W., 1996. A story with a moral, Management Accounting, March,
3740.
Shaw, R., 1998. ABC and ERP: partners at last? Management Accounting, November, 5658.
Shields, M. D., 1995. An empirical analysis of firms implementation experiences with activitybased costing, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Fall, 148166.
Shim, E. and Stagliano, A. J., 1997. A survey of U.S. manufacturers on implementation of ABC,
Journal of Cost Management, March/April, 3941.
Smith, M., 2000. Innovation diffusion, Management Accounting, June, 78, 4041.
Srinidhi, B., 1992. The hidden costs of specialty products, Journal of Management Accounting
Research, Fall, 198208.
Stoner, J. A. F. and Werner, F. M., 1995. Internal Audit and Innovation, Morristown NJ, Financial
Executives Research Foundation.
Swenson, D. W., 1998. Managing costs through complexity reduction at Carrier Corporation,
Management Accounting, April, 2028.
Swenson, D., 1995. The benefits of activity-based cost management to the manufacturing
industry, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Fall, 167180.
Swenson, D., 1997. Best practices in activity-based management, Journal of Cost Management,
November/December, 614.
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S., 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd edition, New York,
HarperCollins.
Tanju, D. W. and Helmi, M., 1991. ABCs for internal auditors, Internal Auditor, December, 3337.
Tatikonda, L. U. and Tatikonda, R. J., 1993. Overhead cost containment, Internal Auditor,
February, 5155.
Turney, P. B. B., 1991. How activity-based costing helps reduce cost, Journal of Cost Management,
Winter, 2935.
39
Venkatraman, N., 1989. Strategic orientation of business enterprises: the construct, dimensionality and measurement, Management Science, 35, 942962.
Young, S. M., 1996. Survey Research in Management Accounting: a Critical Assessment, in
A. J. Richardson (ed), Research Methods in Accounting: Issues and Debates, CGA Canada
Research Foundation.

The Association Between Activity Based Costing and Improvement in Financial Performance 2002 Management Accounting Research

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Association Between Activity Based Costing and Improvement in Financial Performance 2002 Management Accounting Research

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Management Accounting Research, 2002, 13, 139

The association between activity-based costing

This study investigates the improvement in financial performance that is associated

c 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman

ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance

absence of excess capacity, and a competitive environment) affect the efficacy of

2. Prior research on ABC and financial performance

Activity based costing

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman

ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance

Information technology sophistication (positive).

Measures of ABC success and change in financial performance

4. Model developmentresearch design

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman

Number of items and survey question

Moderating Effect (interaction)

Expected sign of coefficient

Figure 1. H1: Association of ABC with improved financial performance.

and performance evaluation systems, and length of time since implementation.

ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman

Industry median-adjusted ROI, measured by the

Breadth of ABC use

Use of ABC by organizational functions (e.g.

Depth of ABC use

Use of ABC for specific applications, activities and

Level of integration of ABC into firm strategic and

Length of time since ABC implementation took place.

Use of other initiatives

Use of the practices TQM, JIT, BPR, CIM, JIT, FMS,

Operationalized through the six items of section D of

Operationalized through seven items developed by

Operationalized through the six items of section A,

Operationalized as the sum of two five-point

A quantitative five-point measure ranging from <50 per

Operationalized through survey item A6, adapted from

The extent and depth of ABC use. Composite of the

ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance

Size of business unit

The natural logarithm of the mid-point of an eight-point

Binary variable, distinguishing manufacturing from

Survey item H5, from Shields (1995).

Satisfaction with the

Survey item C1, from Swenson (1995).

Survey item H4, from Krumwiede (1996, 1998).

Likert dependent measure with ranked Compustat measure

demonstrated that lack of coordination between incentive systems and performance

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman

performance evaluation systems (EVAL), as defined in Table 1. These three aspects

4 1/( 2) R exp[1/2 2 (x )2 ] where x = number of years since beginning of use of an initiative,

ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman

Unused capacity (CAPAC). ABC theory predicts that due to improvements in

ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance

Number of items and survey question

Moderating Effect (interaction)

Expected sign of coefficient

Figure 2. H2: Association of SUCCESS with improved financial performance.

5. Sample selection and survey instrument

D. Cagwin and M. J. Bouwman

ABC and Improvement in Financial Performance

Net questionnaires delivered

Net responses possible