2 Paragraphs Disscussion for Acct Mgmt

Instructions and Assignment attached. Use APA Citations and References

Budgeting is an important part of an organization’s overall planning. Through budgeting, each part of an organization’s structure can be identified for decision making and control. For example, if the budget shows that one million units are to be sold in the next 3 months, the sales department knows that it must achieve that goal. At the end of the first month, the sales department can determine by looking at the budget if it is on track or not and what decisions it must make to meet the goal. A reasonable budget can allow an organization to allocate resources and provide a plan and direction for the organization. A budget can also help measure performance and ensure that managers are held accountable for their decisions.

**To prepare for this Discussion, “Shared Practice: Evaluating the Budgeting Process,” take a moment to think about your organization or an organization you are familiar with. Consider the importance of the budgeting process, forecasting, and strategic planning for informing how the organization operates with regard to decision making.

**Note:

 If you are not in the position where you are involved in budgeting processes, interview either someone in your organization or a professional outside of your organization who can provide you with this information. Be sure to identify the position held by this person in your post.

**Post the following:

· Provide an evaluation of how forecasting, strategic planning, and budgeting processes impact your organization.

· Provide 2–3 examples from your professional experience in your current or former organization, or from your interview, to support your position. Be sure to include specific budgeting tools used by the organization.

· Identify the key stakeholders in the budgeting process at the organization and explain how they are involved in the processes.

· Explain how knowledge of forecasting, strategic planning, and budgeting processes might impact your decisions in the organization you currently work for or one that you will work for in the future.

Article attached

Reference:

Shastri, K., & Stout, D. E. (2008). Budgeting: Perspectives from the real world. Management Accounting Quarterly, 10(1), 18-25. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/

18M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

T
he value of the budgeting process has been

the subject of intense debate over the past

few years. In their 2003 book, Beyond Budget-

ing, Jeremy Hope and Robin Fraser suggest

that the traditional budgeting process is out-

dated and dysfunctional and, therefore, should be aban-

doned.1 Alternatively, a 2007 survey by Theresa Libby

and R. Murray Lindsay offers evidence that senior

accounting and finance managers find the budgeting

process to be more helpful than harmful overall and

that there is a perception that operating managers could

not function well without budgets.2

The Libby and Lindsay study provides answers to

some important, but general, questions regarding the

budgeting process, including whether accounting and

finance managers’ organizations planned to abandon

budgeting and whether respondents agreed with some

of the major criticisms of the budgeting process.

We conducted a follow-up survey to the Libby and

Lindsay study with the goal of providing answers to

some more-detailed questions:

◆ How are budgets in modern (for-profit) organizations

prepared? That is, what are the descriptive charac-

teristics of the budgeting process as used today?

◆ Does budgeting add value for organizations? If so,

how?

◆ How satisfied are finance and accounting managers

regarding the role that budgets play within an

organization?

◆ What are the primary behavioral consequences, both

positive and negative, of using budgets?

◆ What is the relationship, if any, between budgets

and other management processes—i.e., are they

integrated in any meaningful sense?

Budgeting:
Perspectives from
the Real World

A SURVEY OF SENIOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE MANAGERS EXAMINES THE BUDGETING

PROCESS AT FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES, INCLUDING THE USEFULNESS

AND PERCEIVED VALUE OF THE PROCESS, USERS’ SATISFACTION WITH IT, AND THE

IMPEDIMENTS AND CHALLENGES TO BUDGETING.

B Y K A R E N S H A S T R I , P H . D . , C P A , A N D D A V I D E . S T O U T , P H . D .

19M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

T H E S U R V E Y

In November 2007, questionnaires were sent via e-mail

to 29,501 members of the Institute of Management

Accountants (IMA®) who, based on job title, were like-

ly involved in the budgeting process. These members

included general management, corporate management,

public accounting, general accounting, cost accounting,

and environmental accounting staff members. Partici-

pants were asked to respond to questions based on their

position in the organization (i.e., “company-level” or

“segment-level,” where “segment” was defined vari-

ously as a subsidiary, division, department, or product

line).

A total of 815 members completed the survey.

Because the focus of our study was for-profit entities, as

with the Libby and Lindsay study, we excluded

responses from managers at nonprofit or governmental

entities. This resulted in a final sample of 720 respon-

dents who worked at publicly traded corporations

(52.5%), privately held corporations (42.4%), and part-

nerships (5.1%), mostly in the United States.

Approximately 48% of respondents work at the cor-

porate level, with the remainder at the seg

ment level.

The highest percentage of respondents was in manufa-

cuturing (28.1%), followed by healthcare (9.9%). In

regards to company size, the largest percentage of

respondents (35.7%) reported company revenues

between $1 billion and $50 billion and segment rev-

enues between $50 million and $500 million (34%).

The largest group responding to our survey was con-

trollers (25.5%). On average, our respondents had 13

years of budgeting experience.

Descriptive Characteristics of the Budgeting Process

The initial part of the survey instrument asked for

descriptive information regarding the budgeting process

at the respondent’s organization. Specifically, we want-

ed to know how budgets were developed and how they

were used for planning and control purposes.

According to 69.2% of respondents, the development

of the budget is accomplished via a negotiated process (a

combination of “top down” and “bottom up”). Further,

85% of respondents stated that this process was the

same throughout the entire company, with exceptions

due to merger/acquisition activity or international oper-

ations. These results are roughly consistent across the

two groups of respondents, corporate and segment.

In terms of planning, 69.5% of respondents indicated

that the primary planning tool continues to be the static

budget, defined as a budget valid for only one planned

volume level of activity for the upcoming budget peri-

od. By definition, the static budget provides scant

opportunity to adapt quickly, so it is interesting to learn

that the majority of respondents continue to use the

static budget given the available options for planning

purposes, such as continuous or rolling budgets, flexible

budgets, and zero-based budgets (ZBB).

Regarding feedback/control purposes, most respon-

dents compare actual results to budgeted results on a

monthy basis using both financial (primarily revenues

and expenses) and nonfinancial measures (primarily

customer satisfaction and market share). Moreover, 78%

of respondents reported that managerial compensation

plans, including incentive compensation formulas,

incorporate achievement of specified budget objectives

for financial performance measures, while 62.7% report-

ed the same for nonfinancial measures.

All of these results are generally consistent between

corporate- and segment-level respondents.

T H E U S E F U L N E S S A N D VA L U E O F

B U D G E T I N G SYS T E M S

The next part of the survey asked respondents for their

opinions regarding the usefulness of budgeting systems

in relation to specific business objectives: strategic plan-

ning, resource/operational planning, operational control,

communication, coordination/teamwork across subunits,

coordination/teamwork across functional areas, motiva-

tion, and incentive rewards determination. This list of

objectives parallels what we traditionally teach in man-

agerial and cost accounting courses.

As noted in Table 1, Panel A, the majority of respon-

dents believes that the budget is either “useful” or

“very useful” as it relates to the list of business objec-

tives. In a traditional management accounting setting,

the budget was considered to be important for planning

and control purposes only. The fact that these preparers

indicated that it is also useful for other functions such

as strategic planning, communication, and incentive

rewards suggests that there may be a forward-looking

20M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

movement from relying solely on the annual numbers

as a planning and control mechanism to a perception

that the budget can be part of the strategic manage-

ment process of an organization.

While many respondents indicated the budget is use-

ful for all of the listed objectives, there were some for

which more than 10% of respondents indicated that the

budget process is either “not very useful” or “not at all

useful”: coordination across subunits (21.4%) and func-

tional areas (19.1%), motivation (14.1%), and incentive

rewards determination (11.8%). As such, these areas

represent fruitful topics for additional research or criti-

cal examination into the reasoning behind these

perceptions.

The perceived usefulness of the budgeting process

does not vary much based on whether respondents are at

the corporate or segment level. One difference, as seen

in Table 1, Panel B, is that segment-level respondents

Table 1: Perceived Usefulness of the Budget

Panel A: Aggregate Results

Very Not Very Don’t
Useful/ Somewhat Useful/Not Know/No

Business Objectives Useful Useful Useful Opinion N

Strategic Planning1 60.0% 24.4% 10.5% 5.1% 488

Resource/Operational Planning2 73.5% 18.7% 3.9% 3.9% 487

Operational Control3 84.3% 10.1% 4.1% 1.4% 485

Communication4 69.9% 19.0% 8.7% 2.5% 485

Coordination/Teamwork across Subunits5 51.4% 21.6% 21.4% 5.6% 486

Coordination/Teamwork across Functional Areas6 53.3% 23.5% 19.1% 4.1% 486

Motivation7 58.8% 24.0% 14.1% 3.1% 483

Incentive Rewards Determination8 68.1% 14.9% 11.8% 5.2% 483

Panel B: Corporate and Segment Subgroups

Very Useful/Useful
Corporate Segment

Business Objectives Responses Responses

Strategic Planning 50.7% 54.5%

Resource/Operational Planning 76.1% 73.0%

Operational Control 86.1% 85.5%

Communication 69.1% 70.5%

Coordination/Teamwork across Subunits 52.8% 49.4%

Coordination/Teamwork across Functional Areas 53.3% 54.5%

Motivation 56.6% 56.9%

Incentive Rewards Determination 70.1% 67.9%

NOTES:
1 To support strategic initiatives specified by top management.
2 To estimate resources required for forecasted operations or to anticipate financing needs.
3 To ensure that actual results are consistent with planned results; to provide feedback/assessment regarding operating activities.
4 To provide a road map for employees to deliver output/services as expected by management; to communicate how individual units of

the organization contribute to the overall strategy.
5 To encourage teamwork across business segments (divisions, product lines, etc.).
6 To encourage teamwork across business functions (finance, marketing, systems, etc.).
7 To encourage employees to put forth effort in terms of stated goals and objectives of the organization.
8 To determine bonuses or other benefits based on comparison of actual vs. budget.

21M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

perceive the budget to be more useful as it relates to

strategic planning, yet corporate-level respondents indi-

cate greater usefulness in terms of resource/operational

planning. Corporate-level respondents also perceive the

budget to be more useful for coordinating across

subunits

as well as a tool for incentive rewards determination.

Respondents also were asked to denote their level of

satisfaction with their organization’s budgeting system as

it relates to the list of management objectives. Satisfac-

tion ratings for the full respondent sample are present-

ed in Table 2, Panel A. More than 40% of the

respondents are largely satisfied with the budgeting

process except in relation to coordination/teamwork

across business units. Operational control was cited as

the one objective (or benefit) of budgeting where indi-

viduals are most satisfied. This finding is not surprising

given that operational control is one of the classic pur-

poses for preparing and using budgets.

One other observation from Table 2, Panel A, is that

more than 10% of respondents are not satisfied with the

budgeting process. This disparity between the useful-

ness of budgeting in general compared to increased dis-

satisfaction within a specific organizational context

suggests that some of the respondents feel that the

budgeting process within their respective organization

is not optimal and possibly does not produce the kind

of results they feel are possible.

Table 2, Panel B, shows that segment-level respon-

Table 2: Respondent Satisfaction with the Budgeting Process

Panel A: Aggregate Results

Satisfied/ Dissatisfied/
Very Very Not

Business Objectives Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Applicable N

Strategic Planning 49.2% 27.7% 21.6% 1.5% 459

Resource/Operational Planning 55.8% 24.1% 17.9% 2.2% 457

Operational Control 64.9% 18.3% 15.9% 0.9% 459

Communication 49.5% 27.1% 21.9% 1.5% 457

Coordination/Teamwork across Subunits 35.5% 33.6% 27.2% 3.7% 459

Coordination/Teamwork across Functional Areas 41.8% 31.9% 24.6% 1.8% 455

Motivation 43.0% 32.1% 24.0% 0.9% 458

Determination of Incentive Rewards 45.7% 26.3% 22.8% 5.3% 457

Panel B: Corporate and Segment Subgroups

Satisfied/Very Satisfied
Corporate Segment

Business Objectives Responses Responses

Strategic Planning 43.1% 44.2%

Resource/Operational Planning 53.5% 52.5%

Operational Control 59.2% 62.8%

Communication 41.1% 45.8%

Coordination/Teamwork across Subunits 28.5% 32.2%

Coordination/Teamwork across Functional Areas 37.8% 40.2%

Motivation 33.8% 38.0%

Determination of Incentive Rewards 41.1% 44.0%

22M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

dents are relatively more satisfied with the budgeting

process than are corporate-level respondents, with one

exception: Corporate respondents are more satisfied

with the budget as it relates to resource and operational

planning. The difference for this attribute, however,

does not appear to be substantial.

It is no secret that the accounting/finance function

today is being challenged to provide greater value-

added services to the organization. Consequently, we

asked accounting/finance managers about the value that

was added to the organization as a result of their respec-

tive budgeting process: “Increasingly, the accounting/

finance function is being challenged to provide value-

added services to management. How would you rate

your budgetary process in terms of adding value to your

organization?” Forty percent of respondents feel that

the budgeting process meets this overall goal.3

At the same time, approximately 23% of respondents

believe that the budgeting process adds relatively little

value to the organization. This result is being driven more

by the segment accountants—29% of them held this

view. The difference between these results and the use-

fulness and satisfaction ratings reported in Tables 1 and 2

are somewhat puzzling. One possible explanation is that

respondents were applying a cost-benefit test when judg-

ing “value added.” Another possibility—and possible lim-

itation of the study—is that the term “value added” may

mean different things to different respondents.

A clue to resolving the inconsistency in results is pro-

vided by the open-ended responses to the question:

“What impediments/challenges exist that affect the

ability of an organization’s budgetary process to add

value to the firm?” Responses lend support to concerns

being raised by critics of budgeting and simultaneously

suggest strategies for improving the budgeting process.

While some of our survey respondents indicated there

were no problems associated with the budgeting

process at their organization, a number of common con-

cerns were identified. They are summarized in Table 3.

In particular, challenges and impediments focus on

Table 3: Impediments/Challenges Associated with the
Budgeting Process

● Unrealistic goals set for the budget

●● Problems linking the budget with the strategic plan

● Lack of accountability by some managers

●● Lack of buy-in by nonaccounting managers

●● Amount of “fluff” built into the budgets ostensibly because of the reward system

●● Tendency of some managers to shirk their responsibilities in terms of budget preparation

● Changes in product mix during the budget period

● Changing costs during the budget period

● Accuracy of budget estimates

●● Revenue planning is inadequate

● Lack of resources in terms of time, staff, and a system to create the budget

●● Initial budget time is too time-consuming

●● Rework cycle time is too time-consuming

● Inability to correctly prioritize for planning

● The politics and culture of the firm

●● Silo attitude adopted throughout the firm

●● Lack of communication and information sharing across firm

●● Diverse management and geography

●● Reorganizations that create budgeting conflicts

● Constraints due to economic changes, market conditions, or the regulatory environment

23M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

unrealistic goals, management accountability, lack of or

constrained resources, and the political climate sur-

rounding the firm.

B E H AV I O R A L CO N S E Q U E N C E S

O F B U D G E T I N G

We also sought practitioner perceptions regarding the

behavioral consequences (both positive and negative)

associated with the use of budgets. A listing of putative

negative behavioral effects (e.g., “budgets pressure

employees to achieve results”) and summary response

data from the sample is provided in Figure 1.

Respondents largely believe that budgets do not:

◆ Block employee initiatives,

◆ Unduly pressure managers to make decisions with

a

short-term focus,

◆ Inhibit management responses to change,

◆ Unnecessarily pressure employees to achieve

targets, or

◆ Inappropriately reward those skilled in the negoti-

ating process.

One attribute where the responses might be of con-

cern is the perception that the budgeting process

encourages a myopic planning horizon. Clearly, this senti-

ment suggests that some organizations need to pay

greater attention to linking budgeting to strategy.

In terms of the breakdown between corporate- vs.

segment-level respondents, segment-level respondents

indicated a stronger sentiment with the issues present-

ed in Figure 1. Compared to corporate-level respon-

dents, more segment-level managers either agreed or

strongly agreed that the budget:

◆ Blocks employee initiatives,

◆ Pressures managers to make decisions with a

short-term focus,

◆ Inhibits management response to change,

◆ Pressures employees to achieve targets,

◆ Inappropriately rewards those skilled in the nego-

tiating process, and

◆ Encourages a myopic planning horizon.

In fact, almost twice as many segment-level employ-

ees than corporate-level employees felt that budgets

had negative behavioral consequences in terms of

employee initiatives, motivating short-term decision

Figure 1: Negative Behavioral Consequences of Budgeting
Figure 1

Negative Consequences of

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Block employee
initiatives

Pressure managers
to take short-term

actions

Inhibit managers to
respond to

changing events

Pressure employees
to achieve targets

Reward those
skilled in

negotiating the
budget

Encourage myopic
planning horizon

0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%

Support continuous
improvement

Provide managers
with information to
respond to change

Lead to information
and knowledge
sharing across

subunits

Encourage
appropriate risk

taking

Strongly Disagree/Disagree

Neutral

Agree/Strongly Agree

24M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

making, and pressure to achieve targets.

Figure 2 presents perceived positive behavioral effects

of budgeting. There was general agreement among

respondents that budgets can be used to support con-

tinuous improvement, to provide managers with infor-

mation they need to respond to change, to motivate

information and knowledge sharing across subunits, and

to encourage appropriate risk taking.

For either the “agree” or “strongly agree” responses,

a lower percentage of segment managers (details not

reported here) indicated that budgets can be used to

support continuous improvement and motivate informa-

tion and knowledge sharing across subunits. These sub-

group results, combined with the subgroup results

associated with Figure 1, suggest that there is more

support for the budgeting process as a value-added

proposition at the corporate level compared to the seg-

ment level.

R E L AT I O N S H I P B E T W E E N B U D G E T I N G A N D

OT H E R M A N AG E M E N T P R AC T I C E S

A budget that is a part of a firm’s strategic planning

process would likely be integrated with other manage-

ment practices. To explore these relationships, we

asked respondents whether their company (or subunit,

as appropriate) used any of the following: activity-based

costing (ABC), target costing, supply-chain manage-

ment, or the balanced scorecard (BSC). Respondents

were also asked if those individual practices, if

employed, were integrated into the budgeting process.

The most frequently used practices were supply-

chain management and the balanced scorecard, both of

which are linked to the budgeting process when used.

Approximately one-third of respondents’ organizations

use ABC as a management tool, with approximately

75% integrating it with budgeting. Slightly greater than

one-third of respondents’ organizations reported the use

Figure 2: Positive Behavioral Consequences of BudgetingFigure 2
Positive Behavioral Consequences of Budgeting

0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Support continuous
improvement
Provide managers
with information to
respond to change
Lead to information
and knowledge
sharing across
subunits
Encourage
appropriate risk
taking
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Neutral
Agree/Strongly Agree

NOTES:
1 Jeremy Hope and Robin Fraser, Beyond Budgeting: How Managers Can Break Free from the Annual Performance Trap, HBS Press:

Boston, Mass., 2003.
2 Theresa Libby and R. Murray Lindsay, “Beyond Budgeting or Better Budgeting?” Strategic Finance, August 2007, pp. 46-51.
3 We stress again the point that our respondents work in accounting/finance—i.e., “preparers” of information. Therefore, there may be

some positive response bias because of the nature of the sample.

0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Support continuous
improvement
Provide managers
with information to
respond to change
Lead to information
and knowledge
sharing across
subunits
Encourage
appropriate risk
taking
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Neutral
Agree/Strongly Agree

25M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R L Y F A L L 2 0 0 8 , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 1

of target costing—77% of which link target costing to

the budgeting process. In short, responses indicate

some evidence that managers perceive the budgeting

function as capable of being integrated with modern

management

practices.

F U T U R E R E S E A R C H

Our study provides an up-to-date, real-world look at

budgeting practices at a sample of U.S. profit-seeking

organizations. It updates and extends the recent study

by Libby and Lindsay. In particular, we provide

descriptive information about current practices in bud-

geting as well as the perceptions of seasoned individu-

als as to the behavioral consequences of budgeting and

the value of budgeting vis-à-vis a set of business

objectives.

The research done here can be extended in several

ways. Both our study and that of Libby and Lindsay

obtained survey evidence from accounting/finance man-

agers. An obvious extension to both studies would be to

survey operational managers (i.e., “users”) to determine

the extent to which their views are consistent with the

views of finance/accounting personnel. Another direc-

tion for future research would be to examine the statis-

tical relationship between budgeting practices and

financial performance variables (e.g., stock price or

stock returns). Such a study could provide evidence as

to the market’s perception of different budgeting

practices.

In addition, while the present study focused on

profit-seeking companies, a future research project

could focus on the perceptions of managers (both pre-

parers and users) from the not-for-profit sector, includ-

ing those from healthcare. Further, some level of

dissatisfaction regarding the value added from the bud-

geting process was noted by respondents to our survey.

Thus, future research is needed to determine reasons

for this dissatisfaction, the context in which such dissat-

isfaction occurs, and recommendations for change/

improvement. Finally, there are some firms that have

moved away from the budgeting process as it is com-

monly construed. A study to determine conditions

under which such a move is tenable would contribute

greatly to our knowledge of the budgeting process. ■

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of this

research project by IMA’s Foundation for Applied Research

(FAR).

Karen Shastri, Ph.D., CPA, is an associate professor of

accounting at the Katz Graduate School of Business, Uni-

versity of Pittsburgh. You can reach Karen at (412) 648-

1533 or kshastri@katz.pitt.edu.

David E. Stout, Ph.D., is a professor and holder of the

Andrews Chair in Accounting at the Williamson College of

Business Administration, Youngstown State University. You

can contact him at (330) 941-3509 or destout@ysu.edu.

E N D N OT E S
1 Jeremy Hope and Robin Fraser, Beyond Budgeting: How Managers

Can Break Free from the Annual Performance Trap, HBS Press:
Boston, Mass., 2003.

2 Theresa Libby and R. Murray Lindsay, “Beyond Budgeting or
Better Budgeting?” Strategic Finance, August 2007, pp. 46-51.

3 We stress again the point that our respondents work in
accounting/finance—i.e., are “preparers” of information. There-
fore, there may be some positive response bias because of the
nature of the sample.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.