COMPARING BUDGETING TECHNIQUES(2)

来源: 编辑： 2013/10/25 19:41:49　字体：大小

TIME FOR CHANGE

After World War II, when money was tighter than ever, the problems with incremental budgeting began to give rise to a feeling that change was needed. By the 1960s, something called 'programme budgeting' began to develop in the US, introduced by the then US Secretary of Defence. This budgeting system requires objectives, outputs, expected results and then detailed costs to be given for every activity or program. Only when all of the budgets are then put together for all of the activities is the 'programme budget' then complete. This budgeting system requires a degree of transparency never before seen under incremental budgeting systems and, as you can imagine, it was not welcomed by the public sector at whom it was largely aimed. Therefore, it was closely followed by the development of zero-based budgeting. Zero-based budgeting emerged first in the public sector in the 1960s, but it also gained popularity in the private sector and was adopted by Texas Instruments in 1969. It gained notoriety in the 1970s when US President Jimmy Carter introduced it in the state of Georgia. While I could talk at more length about the history of zero-based budgeting, it's not particularly relevant for the Paper F5 exam, so I won't. Let's face it, you have already got enough to learn, and I don't need to add to it! Zero-based budgeting (ZBB) With zero-based budgeting, the budgeting process starts from a base of zero, with no reference being made to the prior period's budget or actual performance. All of the budget headings, therefore, literally start with a balance of zero, rather than under incremental budgeting, when they all start with a balance at least equal to last year's budget or spend. Every department function is then reviewed. comprehensively, with all expenditure requiring approval, rather than just the incremental expenditure requiring approval.

Zero-based budgeting tries to achieve an optimal allocation of resources to the parts of the business where they are most needed. It does this by forcing managers to justify every activity in their department as they know that, until they do this, the budget for their department is zero. If they are unable to do this, they aren't allocated any resources and their work therefore stops (as does their employment within the organisation, at this point, presumably). In this way, all unjustifiable expenditure theoretically ceases. A questioning attitude is developed by management, who are constantly forced to ask themselves questions such as:

· Is the activity really necessary at all?

· What happens if the activity ceases?

· Is the current level of provision adequate?

· What other ways are there of carrying out the activity?

· How much should the activity cost?

· Do the benefits to be gained from the activity at least match the costs?

All of these questions are largely answered by breaking the budgeting process down into three distinct stages, as detailed below.

STAGES IN ZERO-BASED BUDGETING

1. Activities are identified by managers. Managers are then forced to consider different ways of performing the activities. These activities are then described in what is called a 'decision package', which:

· analyses the cost of the activity

· states its purpose

· identifies alternative methods of achieving the same purpose

· establishes performance measures for the activity

· assesses the consequence of not performing the activity at all or of performing it at different levels.

As regards this last point, the decision package may be prepared at the base level, representing the minimum level of service or support needed to achieve the organisation's objectives. Further incremental packages may then be prepared to reflect a higher level of service or support.

For example, if ZBB was used by our headteacher in our example above, one of the activities that would have to be performed would be the provision or facilitation of school lunches. The school catering manager may consider three options. Option 1: providing an area where students can bring their own cold food to, with some sandwiches and other cold food and drinks being prepared and sold by catering staff. Option 2: providing a self-service cafeteria with hot and cold food and drinks available. Option 3: providing a full, hot food, catered service for pupils. The base level of

service would be option 1, with options 2 and 3 being higher level service options. The school may, on the other hand, consider two mutually exclusive decision packages - providing a service internally or outsourcing the whole catering activity to an external provider.

While some form of cost-benefit analysis may be useful at this stage, a degree of quantitative analysis must also be incorporated. For example, cost-benefit analysis may show that the minimal level of provision for the school (option 1) is the most cost-effective. However, this would present the school in a negative light to parents of potential pupils and would deter some parents from sending their children to that school. Consequently, more able students may be discouraged from applying, thus leading to poorer results which, in turn, could have a negative impact on the school's future funding. Simple cost-benefit analysis would find it difficult to incorporate the financial effect of such considerations.

2. Management will then rank all the packages in the order of decreasing benefits to the organisation. This will help management decide what to spend and where to spend it. This ranking of the decision packages happens at numerous levels of the organisation. For example, in the case of the school, the catering manager will rank the numerous decision packages that he prepares. Then, the headmaster will rank the catering packages amongst all the packages prepared for the rest of the school.

3. The resources are then allocated based on order of priority up to the spending level. Benefits of ZBB The benefits of ZBB are substantial. They would have to be otherwise no organisation would ever go to the lengths detailed above in order to implement it. These benefits are set out below:

· Since ZBB does not assume that last year's allocation of resources is necessarily appropriate for the current year, all of the activities of the organisation are re-evaluated annually from a zero base. Most importantly therefore, inefficient and obsolete activities are removed, and wasteful spending is curbed. This has got to be the biggest benefit of zero-based budgeting compared to incremental budgeting and was the main reason why it was developed in the first place.

· By its nature, it encourages a bottom-up approach to budgeting in order for ZBB to be used in practice. This should encourage motivation of employees.

· It challenges the status quo and encourages a questioning attitude among managers.

· It responds to changes in the business environment from one year to the next.

· Overall, it should result in a more efficient allocation of resources.

Drawbacks of ZBB

· Departmental managers may not have the necessary skills to construct decision packages. They will need training for this and training takes time and money.

· In a large organisation, the number of activities will be so large that the amount of paperwork generated from ZBB will be unmanageable.

· Ranking the packages can be difficult, since many activities cannot be compared on the basis of purely quantitative measures. Qualitative factors need to be incorporated but this is difficult. Top level management may not have the time or knowledge to rank what could be thousands of packages. This problem can be somewhat alleviated by having a hierarchical ranking process, whereby each level of managers rank the packages of the managers who report to them.

· The process of identifying decision packages and determining their purpose, costs and benefits is massively time consuming and costly. One solution to this problem is to use incremental budgeting every year and then use ZBB every three to five years, or when major change occurs. This means that an organisation can benefit from some of the advantages of ZBB without an annual time and cost implication. Another option is to use ZBB for some departments but not for others. Certain costs are essential rather than discretionary and it could be argued that it is pointless to carry out ZBB in relation to these. For example, heating and lighting costs in a school or hospital are expenses that will have to be paid, irrespective of the budget amount allocated to them. Incremental budgeting would seem to be more suitable for costs like these, as with building repair costs.

· Since decisions are made at budget time, managers may feel unable to react to changes that occur during the year. This could have a detrimental effect on the business if it fails to react to emerging opportunities and threats.

· The organisation's management information systems might be unable to provide the necessary information. It could be argued that ZBB is far more suitable for public sector than for private sector organisations. This is because, firstly, it is far easier to put activities into decision packages in organisations which undertake set definable activities. Local government, for example, have set activities including the provision of housing, schools and local transport. Secondly, it is far more suited to costs that are discretionary in nature or for support activities. Such costs can be found mostly in not for profit organisations or the public sector, or in the service department of commercial operations.

CONCLUSION

Since ZBB requires all costs to be justified, it would seem inappropriate to use it for the entire budgeting process in a commercial organisation. Why take so much time and resources justifying costs that must be incurred in order to meet basic production needs? It makes no sense to use such a long-winded process for costs where no discretion can be exercised anyway. Incremental budgeting is, by comparison, quick and easy to do and easily understood. However, the use of incremental budgeting indisputably gives rise to inefficiency, inertia and budgetary slack.

In conclusion, neither budgeting method provides the perfect tool for planning coordination and control. However, each method offers something positive to recommend it and one cannot help but think that the optimal solution lies somewhere between the two.

Written by a member of the Paper F5 examining team

Previous>> See the original artical in PDF>>

【我要纠错】责任编辑：Sarah

上一篇：F5增量预算和零基预算的比较

下一篇：COMPARING BUDGETING TECHNIQUES(1)