A k a d e m i k A r a ç t i r m a l a r Dergisi 2009, S a y i 42.

S a y f a l a r 113-130

AN EVALUATION OF BUDGETING
APPROACHES: TRADITIONAL
BUDGETING, BETTER BUDGETING, AND
BEYOND BUDGETING
Ali

Introduction

There seems to be nobody who can not say a few words alxjut budget
and budgeting. Despite this, there is point in providing the definitions of these
two tenns not t<ï cause terminology confusion. Horngren et at.^ defines budget
as the quantitative expression of a proposed plan of action by management for a
specified i>eriod and an aid to coordinating what needs to be done to implement
that plan. Budgeting is defined as the process of allocating an organization's fi-
nancial resources to its units, activities and investments."

Survey studies provide enough evidence that budgets are one of the
most commonly used accounting tools for planning and control of organiza-
tions. The survey conducted by Ahmad et al^ in Malaysia proved that compa-
nies use budgets, to a large extent, as part of their planning and control mecha-
nisms. Joshi et al.^ found in their research on 146 listed and non-listed compa-
nies in Bahrain that the usage of operating budget is 100 percent. A survey of
12 banks revealed that the budget usage is I Oí) percent among banks.^ Austra-
lian and Japanese companies perceive budgets as the most important and the
second most important management accounting ttxils respectively.'' A study
about management accounting practices conducted in Poland revealed thai most
of the surveyed companies, mainly large manufacturing and service enterprises
{80% of the respondents), prepare annual operating financial budgels for the
whole enterprise.' The remaining 12 enterprises (20 percent) which do not pre-
pare annual budgets includes noainly small and medium commercial and service

113
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches; Traditional Budgeting. Better Budgeting, And
Beyond Budgeting

companies, siate-owned manufacturing companies. Another survey conducted

in Singapore demonstrated that the budget usage is 97 percent among respond-
ing enterprises."

However, there is an ongoing debate about usefulness of traditional

budgeting. Proponents state that it is well in place and therefore, should be con-
tinued to be utilized, but opponents say that it should be eliminated altogether
or transformed to new models. The purpose of this study is to provide in-depth
analysis about both traditional budgeting model and the new approaches in
budgeting so that decision-makers evaluate both approaches in a more healthy
way. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides
literature review about traditional budgeting. Section 3 cites new approaches in
budgeting. Section 4 presents the beyond budgeting model which was devel-
oped in recent years. Finally, section 5 eonciudes the paper.

1. TRADITIONAL BUDGETING

The budgeting process emerged in the 1920s as a tool for managing

costs and cash tlows in large industrial organizations such as Dupont. General
Motors, and Siemens. Since then companies u.se budgets as one of the most in-
evitable management accounting too! to plan and control organizations. But. in
the last decades this traditional tool has been the center of dispute as to whether
it meets the organizations' needs, and is worrh being utilized. Some say "it is
well alive, some say it is outdated and should be abandoned, others say it
should be improved taking new developments and changing conditions into
consideration. Libby and Lindsay'" define the traditional budgeting process as
it operates within the top-down (hierarchical) "command and control" model in
which decisions, resources, and rewards tlow down, while information flows
back up as in Figure 1. They say thai the role of line management is simply to
operate the established facilities, systems, and personnel according to senior
management's rules, regulations and pre-determined targets.

114
Journal
of Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yil: 11. Say(:42 Aôustos 2009 - Ekim 2009

Figure 1: The traditional control process

Tup-iliiwn
• PtiunñiK ancH
•nwl nnani.'i*l
implkiukia*

• Atttbat%m ntouÊÊCc
avalladltwv
• Cnordinotc wiMs

CaMR>l
(»••iiitnirttWl

'

incenitve«
(venu.« budget)

Source: Libby and Lindsay

Organizations use budgets for several reasons. Among the most nota-
ble ones are forecasting the future, assisting in profit maximization, means oí
management communication, peribrmancc evaluation, vi'ay to calculate re-
wards, employee motivation, controlling performance by investigating vari-
ances, pricing decisions and control. "

In a management accounting practices survey conducted in India .

budget-related six practices were ranked high in adoption rates (greater than 90
perceni) among 45 management accounting practices. Moreover, respondents
stated that all budget-related practices provide high or moderate benefits, and
they will retain their importance in ihe future also {Table T).

Table I: Budget-related practices

Practice Adoption rate

Budgeting to plan day-to-day operations 100%

Perfomiance evaluation: budget variance analysis 100%

115
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches: Traditional Budgeting. Better Budgeting. And
Beyond Budgeting

Budgeting for planning cash flows •

95%

Budgeting for coordinating activities across business units „^^

95%

Budgeting for controlling costs

Budgeting for planning financial position

Practice Benefits derived

Budgeting for controlling costs

High Benefils

Budgeting for planning cash flow

^ High Benefits

Budgeting for coordinating activities across business units .. .

Moderate BeneíJts

Budgeting for planning financial position Moderate Benefits

Budgeting to plan day-to-day operations Moderate Benefits

Peribrmance evaluation: budget variance analysis Moderate Benefits

Practice Future emphasis

Budgeting for planning cash fiows High Emphasis

Budgeting for planning financial position High Emphasis

Budgeting for controlling costs High Emphasis

Performance evaluation: budget variance analysis High Emphasis

Budgeting to plan day-to-day operations High Emphasis

Budgeting for coordinating activities across business units Moderate Emphasis

Source: Adapicd Irom Ju^hi"'

116
Journal
of Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yil: 11. Sayi: 42 Adustos 2009 - Ekim 2009

1.1, Limitations of Traditional Budgeting

Among the typical limitations of traditional budgets are that they

quickly become out-of-date; the budgeting process is extremely time-
consuming, and thus highly wasteful: a process meant to provide insight into
operational requirements ends up focusing exclusively on financial output.s; de-
cision-making becomes subservient to the budget rather than lo the demand of
customers and the long-range financial well-being of the organization.'^ More
detailed di.scussion about limitations and weaknesses of traditional budgeting
can be found in the works of Hansen et «/."*. and Neely et ü/.'*^

Besides preparing annual budget, a shoner time span is needed for

control and performance evaluation purposes. Therefore, companies divide
budget period into sub-peri(Kls such as month, quarter etc. In a survey con-
ducted in Bahrain proved that most of the surveyed companies (74.1 percent)
prepare quarterly budgets.""

One of the mosi prominent weaknesses of traditional budgeting is the

time consumed by budget process. In providing concrete tiieasure how much
source consumes traditional budgeting, some estimates suggest that planning
and budgeting processes use up to 20 percent of all management time, and
25.000 person days are used per billion dollars of sales on pianning and budget-
ing.'' Libby and Lindsay" support this view its well saying budgets take around
four to five months to complete, and occupy up to 20 to M}% of senior execu-
tives' and financial managers' time. According to a survey of CFOs and finance
executives conducted by Centage Corp. and the Institute of Management &
Administration (lOMA). most companies devote four to eight weeks for the an-
nual budgeting cycle.'^ Another study conducted by ALG Software about re-
forecasting practices amongst the UK's top 1.0ÍK) organizations by revenue.
The following findings this survey reitilorce the length of time spent for budget-
ing. On average, the surveyed sample in 2003 took 14.1 weeks to produce and
sign off their annual budgets. By 2005 this has dropped to 12.9 weeks - a re-
duction of 1.2 weeks. Empirical results from a survey of the Horvath & Part-
ners CFO-panel proved that more than half the enterprises represented on the
panel need between four and six months for tbeir operational planning and
budgeting."* Figure 2 shows the detailed answers of survey of the Horvath &
Partners CFO-pane!.

117
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches: Traditional Budgeting, Better Budgeting, And
Beyond Budgeting

Figure 2: Time required for budgel preparation

4'i 0%
39,1%
40,0%

30.0%
25 .O*».

15.(1^

5,0%
0.0%
n 1.6% 1,6% 0.0%

tJplo5 6-1(1 11-15 16-30 21-25 2&-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 Longer
calendar I h an 45
-Aceks calendar
ueeks

Source: Adapted from Leyk et al.^^

Furthermore, traditional budgets are also said to be loo unresponsive

to today's conipetiti\e and turbulent environment and counterproductive in that
they are usually affected by gaming, corporate politics/'^' Budgets ofien serve
as a commitment or "pertbmiance contract" between a subordinate and a supe-
rior that may lead to the following budgetary gaming actions while striving to
make target and to be deemed successful;"

• Providing lowhall estimates for sales and/or building fat into the
budget for expenses to make the budget target easier to attain;

• Spending the entire budget at the end of the budgetary period so as

not to lose your "entitlement" when the next budget is set:

• Undertaking behaviour that leads to attaining the budget at the ex-

pense of long-term goals - e.g., reducing discretionary expenses such
as advertising, R&D, and employee training;

• Getting customers to take delivery of goods before the current period

expires by offering discounts in order to make the budget.

• Holding profits back when you know that you aren't going to make
the budgel (essentially incurring next year's expenses in ihis year's

118
Journal
of Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yil: 11. Sayi: 42 Agustos 2009 - Ekim 2009

budget or deferring next year's revenues by getting customers to delay

delivery);

• Holding back profits when you are going to exeeed the target so that
it'll be easier to make next year's budget.

In explaining why traditional budgets fail. Babbini''* states that tradi-

tional budgets fail to measure the critical things that make organizations suc-
cessful in today's fast paced, global economy. Those critical things that tradi-
tional budgets fail to measure, and that create shareholder value arc customer
loyalty, development of intellectual properties, speed to meet customer expecta-
tions, employee development, and product/service quality.

However, among the significant findings of a survey undertaken by tbe

Institute of Managements and Ernst & Young, two findings were about imple-
mentation of new and traditional management accounting tools."' Those are
•'adopting new cost management totils is not a priority in the current economic
environment", and "traditional management accounting tools are still widely
used". Among those traditional management accounting tools, operational
budgeting is one of the most widely used tools (75 percent of 2.000 survey par-
ticipant.s).

Dugdale and Lyne's"' recently conducted survey on financial and non-

fmancial managers of 40 companies proved that all of them used budgets, and
so budgeting is alive and well. Funhcrmore. financial and non-flnaneial manag-
ers thought budgets are important for planning, control, performance measure-
ment, and coordination and communication, while their usage for motivation
was less supported.

A survey conducted to find out the answer of the question "are the
budgetary practices in successful finns different from those in unsuccessful
tlrms?". proved that successful firms do indeed adopt certain practices that
make their budgets effective. Those practices are generating commiiment to
budgets, building linkages to connect the firm"s long-, medium, and short-term
plans, adopting detailed and comprehensive procedures to prepare budgets,
analyzing budget variances and taking corrective action.

2. NEW APPROACHES IN BUDGETING

Due to limitations of traditional budgeting, both academicians and

practitioners search for new budgeting methods that can aid to improve plan-
ning and budgeting processes. The literature mainly provides "better budget-
ing" and "beyond budgeting" approaches as alternative. The former involves
incremental improvements in traditional budgeting, while tbe latter calls for
radical changes that would do away with budgets altogether.^'

119
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches: Traditional Budgeting, Better Budgeting, And
Beyond Budgeting

2.1. Better Budgeting

One of the better budgeting methods is "rolling forecasts" as alternative

to traditional budgeting. Advwates of this method prefer revising the budgeting
rather than abandon it. Barret defines "Rolling forecasts" as the regular
monthly or quarterly re-forecasts looking fifteen months or more into the future.
He adds saying "with the annual budgeting cycle typically taking weeks if not
months to complete, most organizations ask the business to update re-forecasts
every month". Hence, the budgeting will take more time and resource consum-
ing formal. As a solution to this problem, some studies point out the need for
software packages for budgeting. *^'^'^'^' Another rea.son that makes budgeting
process cumbersome is using different spreadsheets in different departments to
pull together their part of the budget information. The budgeting process also is
\ prolonged because the tlnance department must account for any time lag to
compile all these spreadsheets from remote-user participants.' The study con-
ducted by Barrett and Hope^"^ showed that spreadsheet usage for budgeting
process is still dominant despiie the amount of manual manipulation involved
and the lack o{ control they provide. They say that software vendors are now
offering sophisticated models to enable organizations to prepare forecasts
quickly and automatically consolidate reports, and to as.sess and compare alter-
native business scenarios rapidly. To overcome the difficulties caused by
spreadsheets, Homyak^' proposes web-based budgeting program that is "e-
budgcting". Significant benefits e-budgeting offers an organization include: re-
ducing administrative costs and tasks, increasing service levels to employees,
andfireeingthe finance department to focus on strategy, not spreadsheets.'"'

Another better budgeting technique is zero-base budgeting. Rather

than use the current budget as starting point when budgeting for next year, start-
ing from scratch is called "zero-base budgeting (ZBB)"."" Peter A. Pyhrr"*" de-
veloped the technique while he was at Texas Instruments, and then it gained
popularity in the I97()s and 1980s. With it, managers can reassess their opera-
tions from the ground up and justify every dollar spent in terms of current cor-
porate "^

Neely et al.^ provides the following five principal better budgeting

approaches and techniques contained in Ihe literature:

1. Activity ba.sed budgeting

2. Zero base budgeting

3. Value based management

4. Profit planning

120
Joumai
of Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yil: 11, Sayi: 42 Adustos 2009 - Ekim 2009

5. Rolling budgets and forecasts

Table II explains above five better budgeting techniques briefly.

Table II: Better budgeting approaches

Activity based budgeting • similar to activity-hascd costing (ABC) and ac-

tivity-based management (ABM)

• involves planning and controlling along the

lines of value adding activities and processes

• resource and capital allocation decisions are

consistent with ABM analysis, which involves
structuring the organization's activities and
business processes so that they better meet cus-
tomers and external needs

Zero base budgeting • expenditures must be re-justified during each

budgeting cycle, rather than basing budgets on
previous years or periods

• avoids building on the inefficiencies and inac-

curacies of previous history

• value of this approach depends on stability of

operating environment

Value based management • formal and systeinatic approach for managing

the creation of shareholder value over time

• all expenditure plans evaluated as project ap-

praisals and assessed in terms of the share-
holder value they will create

• helps to link strategy and shareholder value to

planning and budgeting

Profit planning • "profit wheel' method for planning future fi-

nancial cash fiows of profit centers

• assesses whether an organization or unit gener-

ates sufficient cash, creates economic value and
attracts sufficient financial resources tor in-

121
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaiuation of Budgeting Approaches: Tradilionai Budgeting, Better Budgeting, And
Beyond Budgeting

vestment

• ensures consideration of an organization's short

and long term prospects when preparing its fi-
nancial plans

Rolling budgets and fore- • solves problems associated with infrequent

budgeting and hence result in more accurate
forecasts

more responsive to changing circumstances,

but requires permanent resource to administer

also overcomes problems linked lo budgeting

to a fixed point in tlme-i.e. the year-end and tbe
often dubious practices that such cut-offs en-
courage

45
Source: Nelly et al.

bi a study^*' conducted in British food and drinks industry, respondents

were asked to indicate the frequency of use of 38 management accounting prac-
tices using a five point Likerl-type scale (I indicating "never" and 5 indicating
"very often"). They were also asked to rate the importance of each tech-
nique/practice using either "not important", "moderately important'" or "impor-
tant". Among those 38 management accounting practices, 7 were about budget-
ing. Tbe results of this survey demonstrated that budgeting is either "often"* or
"very often" used for planning and for controlling costs by an impressive 84 per
cent and 73 per cent respectively. Taken together, budgeting for planning and
control was considered either "important" or "moderately important" by more
than 90 per cent of respondents. Furthermore, 27 per cent of respondents con-
sider flexible budgeting "unimportant" and 29 per cent never use it. The rest of
the respondents use flexible budgeting at least rarely. "What if" analysis is
clearly very important, but is only applied from time to time Activity-based
budgeting is considered either "moderately importatit" or "important" by the
majority of respondents (63 per cent). However, only 19 per cent of respon-
dents were using it "often" or "very often"". Zero-based budgeting is seen to be
unimportant and never used by 58 per cent 52 per cent of respondents respec-
tively. Finally. 83 per cent considers budgeting as an important pjut of their
long-term strategic planning, they use it from lime to time (Table III).

122
Joumal
of Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yil: 11, Sayi: 42 Aâustos 2009 • Ekim 2009

Table 111: Budgeting practices

How important? How often usi^

M Ml n St S2 S3 S4 SS
(%; ^i
118 S 15 120 2 3 13 2» Í6
Budgetiae foi plimiing
Hudgcting foi controltin^ coïts 119 S 19 71
n 120 3 5 19 25 41
Activity-hosed budgetint^ 113 37 44 19 116 35 25 21 1 11
Bud^cùnti HÎih "whai irunalysIs" 117 19 47 M 118 17 16 Î6 23 II
Fkxibic budgciing 117 27 40 32 117 29 16 23 19 13
/^cnv-based budfetin^i 116 5t )0 12 117 52 19 14 9 7
Budgeting for long-tem 114 17 33 50 117 14 21 26 26 14

Piolii^ n tMjftibcf ui ru^KifiocB ii^ NI ad impnuni- 1. M):moi kmr \j impôt M t - 1; 1. inpMtBBl ' 3;St:

Source: Abdel-Kader and Luther**^

2.2. Beyond Budgeting

The Beyond Budgeting Round Table (BBRT) was set up in response to

growing dissatisfaction, indeed fnistration. with traditional budgeting, in late
1997. Since (hen over sixty companies in total have joined the BBRT and
funded the research- Although the BBRT's origins are in the United Kingdom,
members have joined from many countries, including Belgium. France. Ger-
many. Holland. Norway, South Africa. Sweden. Switzerland, the United King-
dom, and the United States.'^'*

BBRT detlnes "beyond budgeting"' in the following way:

"Beyond Budgeting is about rethinking how we manage organizations

in a post-industrial world whcie innovative management models represent the
only sustainable eonipetitive advantage. It is also about releasing people from
the burdens of stifling bureaucracy and suffocating control systems, trusting
them with information and giving them lime to think, reflect, share, learn and
improve. Above all it is about learning how to change from many leaders who
have built and managed "beyond budgeting" organizations"'.''''

After conducting research at several organizations that fully or partly

abandoned their budget, the BBRT developed a generic model that is ba.sed on
12 principles which have been fully implemented in the "ideal" beyond-
budgeting organizations. The first six of ihcse principles concern creating a
flexible organizational structure in which authority is devolved to employees,
and principles seven to 12 deal with designing an adaptive management process
for a Hexible organizational structure.^" The works of Hope and Fraser''', and
De Waal • cover those 12 principles in depth. As depicted in Figure 3, the Be-

123
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches: Traditional Budgeting, Better Budgeting, And
Beyond Budgeting

yond Budgeting Model is a decentralized model rather than top-down. It sets

relative targets rather than fixed, and evaluates performance based on relative
targets rather than fixed. This is the way to break organizations free from the
annual fixed performance trap. Moreover, it makes planning a continuous proc-
ess, gives autonomy and responsibility to the teams and units, and does not al-
locate resources based on annual static budget, but based on the needs of sub-
units. The benefits that organizations obtain from going beyond budgeting and
breaking free from the annual performance trap include:

• Millions of dollars saved from not having to go through the budgeting

process;

• Eradication of much of the "gaming" that occurs in companies that

budge (there is little point in gaming if there is no fixed target to
meet);

• Faster response time that results from using more adaptive processes;

• Better strategic alignment between goals, plans, measures, and behav-

ior; and

• More value-adding work from the finance team.

Furthermore, if leaders make a successful transition to adaptive proc-

esses and conduct radical decentralization, beyond budgeting promises more
benefits such as permanent reductions in the eost structure, more capable peo-
ple, more innovation, more loyal customers, more ethical reporting, and the re-
lease of the full potential of management systems and tools.^

124
Journal
of Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yil: 11, Sayi:42 Aäustos 2009 - Ekim 2009

Figure 3: The comparison of traditional budgeting model and the beyond

budgeting model

TiH BMlftftat Modd

Annual budget

RoUmg IbnKUQ
FiniHc MrattgKi
iMenul mat«
Dtiaitniwl connl»
Relative rvtvards

lOMMtve*
(vt budt«!

Oril«nt "CaMract, OUtwt

•BdeoatnT ••tcrprtoe. an

Source: Hope and Fraser^

2.2.1, Best "Beyond Budgeting" Practices

Introduction of a new management tool or replacing an existing tool,

like budgeting, with a new one may not be an easy task at times, especially if
the replaced tool is one that has survived ten years and is perceived as indispen-
sable by organizations. However, growing dissatisfaction among managers, as
some studies show, with the budgeting makes the task a little bit simpler. In ad-
dition, the role of live examples thai have been successful in implementing a
new tool or a nevy method can not lie minimized in making it accept in the eyes
of the practitioners. Neely et al.^'' state that some companies have already
abandoned traditional budgeting altogether, and some companies such as Shell,
BP, AstraZeneca. and the Ford Motor Company are said to be moving away
from traditional budgeting and review processes. In the following paragraphs,
some of the notable implemcnters of "beyond budgeting" is presented.

125
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches: Traditional Budgeting, Better Budgeting. And
Beyond Budgeting

Svenska Handelsbanken, the largest bank in Sweden, eliminated budg-

ets in the 197()s. It has had a better return on equity iban any of its direct com-
petitors against whom it benchmarks its performance, for 29 consecutive years.
It also claims to be the most cost-efficient universal bank in Europe in terms of
both expenses as a percentage of total assets ;ind its cost/income ratio (i.e. mar-
gin). It delegales responsibility for all corporate and private cu.stomers to its
520 branch office operations and ten regional banks in Nordic region. Perform-
ance of branch offices are benchmarked. encouraging them to compete each
otJier, while central support operations are benchmarked against alternative ex-
ternal resources.'^

Denmark-based Borealis A/S. one of the vt-orld's largest polyolcfm

plastics producer, created its last budget in 1995. Instead of budgeting, it uses
rolling forecasts on a quarterly basis, to manage the future and a balanced
scorecard to keep track of its performance and motivate staff through target set-
ting. External benchmarks are used for target setting, especially in relation to
controlling fixed costs and non-financial indicators.***

Park Nicoliet Health Services is also among those that eliminated tra-
ditional budgeting. It undcrvv'ent a management transformât I on in which it cm-
braced the Lean thinking and practices exemplified by the Toyota Production
System. As part of this transformation. Park Nicoliet eliminated its traditional
budgeting process and moved "beyond budgeting"."*'* McVay and Cnoke*'" state
thai because beyond budgeting has allowed Park Nicoliet to focus on improving
current and future financial performance rather than on retrospectively review-
ing budget performance, managers and physician leaders have stopped arguing
about deficiencies in their budgets and have begun to look to the future. Con-
tinuous financial improvement and improving cost per unit performance are the
ibcus of financial discussions and planning, and organizational goals.

These are not the only companies that have abandoned budgets. Scan-
dia, the 7.(KK) employee Swedish financial services organization, and AB VDIVO
arc among the most notable ones thiH abandoned budgct.s.''' Rickards''" report
that Unilever. Rbodia (a French chemical company). UBS AG, BASF-IT Ser-
vices, and German Railways (Deutsche Bahn) are also among companies that
are dissatisfied with traditional budgeting process, and therefore, attempting to
integrate "beyond budgeting" propositions into their management processes.

Furthermore, two organisations from New Zealand are said to be try-

ing out "beyond budgeting" techniques in search of better reporting, more
fiexiblo management and more meaningful signals to managers. One is Tele-
com and the other is ihe Electronics and Telecommunications Industry Training
Organisation (Bishop, 2004)."

126
Joumal
o) Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yii: 11, Sayi; 42 Adustos 2009 • Ekim 2009

Conclusion

With rising or fluctuating input (i.e. energy) prices, severe and turbu-
lent financial crises, and rapid technological changes, economic environment
has become very turbulent in recent years. Under such circumstance, organiza-
tions have to renew ihem.sclves from all aspects. Otherwise, they can not keep
pace with the developments, and therefore, may fall behind competitors result-
ing in difficulty in financial terms. In other were words, organizations need
more sophisticated management tools rather than traditional ones which are not
enough in replying changing conditions. In managing an organization, planning
and controlling operations, and evaluating results which are the subject of
budgeting play an important role. This article provides a literature review about
past, present, and future of budgeting process in the light of published studies.
Empirical studies demonstrate that budgeting appears to continue to be one of
the most important planning and control tool for organizations. However,
budgeting is criticized for several reasons mildly or severely as explained ex-
plicitly in tbe article. Therefore, there seems to be two ways: revising or aban-
doning it. Because, most researchers state thai traditional, static one year budg-
ets seem to be far away from meeting the requirements of new conditions. Re-
vising the budgeting process will make it more reflective to the rapidly occur-
ring developments and improvements in the marketplace so that it overcomes
the limitations it cited in the article. Second way is, as some researchers state,
abandoning it totally and going "beyond budgeting'". Sine there is no absolute
true way, this dispute will likely to continue at least for some time more.

To capture the pulse of U.S. managers in terms of tbeir views of budg-

eting. Libby and Lindsay'^ surveyed the Institute of Management Accountants
members in 2(K)5. The remarkable findings were as follows. On average, the
complete budgeting cycle took 10.3 weeks to complete in the responding or-
ganizations. Many organizations use budgets as a basis for performance evalua-
tion, but only 15':Í indicate actual performance is compared rigidly to pre-
established budget targets as the only basis for evaluating managers" perform-
ance. All of these budget games occur at least occasionally in many of the or-
ganizations surveyed, but deferring necessary expenditures and sandbagging
occur most frequently. When asked whether gaming impaired long-run organ-
izational performance, 61% indicated eitber not at all or a little, 22% indicated
long-run performance was moderately impaired, and 17% indicated it was im-
paired considerably or to a very high extent. Due to the findings above, the re-
searchers llrstiy concluded that while many criticisms levied against budgets
are valid, lhey"re far from universal. Secondly, respondents indicate over-
whelmingly that they couldn"t manage witbout budgets. To them, budgets are
indispensable. Thirdly, instead of going beyond budgeting, they've chosen to
improve the budgeting process and cany on.

127
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergisi
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches: Traditional Budgeting, Better Budgeting, And
Beyond Budgeting

* Ali Uyar is Assistant Professor at Fatih University in Lstanbul, Turkey,

aliuyar@hotmail.com
CT. Horngren - S.M. Datar - G. Foster. Cost Accounting: A Managerial
Emphasis. PeatTion Education. 12th ed.. 2006. p. 181
" Tim Blumcntriti, "Integrating strategic management and budgeting", Jounial
ofBu.siness Strategy. Vol. 27/ No, 6. 2006. p. 73
' N.N.N. Ahmad - N. Suleiman - N.M. Alwi. "Are budgets useful} A survey of
Malaysian companies", Managerial Auditing Joumal, Vol, 18/ No.9, 2003, pp. 717-
724
P.L. Joshi - J. Al-Mudhaki - W.G. Bremser, "Corporate budget planning,
control, and perfomiance evaluation in Bahrain"'. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol.
I8/No.9.2t)03,pp. 737-750
P.L. Joshi • M. Com, "Budgetary' practices in the banking sector in Bahrain:
empirical research findings". Journal of iinancial Management & Analysis. Vol. 10/
No.2, 1997, pp.44-51
H. Wijewardena - A.D. Zoysa, "A comparative analysis of management
accounting practices in Australia and Japan: An empirical investigation". The
IntemationalJournal of Accountinfi. Vol. 34/No. 1. 1999, pp. 49-70
A. Szychta. "The scope of application of management accounting methods in
Polish enterprises". Management Accounting Research. Vol 1 8, 2002, pp. 401-418
B.C. Ghosh - Y,-K.Chan. "Management accounting in Singapore - well in
p]ace. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol,12/No.l. 1997, pp. 16-18
J. Hope - R. Fraser, "Who needs budgets?". Harxard Business Review,
February, 2003. p. 11.3
T. Libby - R.M, Lindsay. R.M., "Budgeting: an unnecessary evil". CMA
Management. March 2(K)3, pp. 30-31
" Libby - Lindsay, 2003. p. 31
'^ Joshi - Com, "Budgetary practices,..". 1997, pp.44-51
'^ Joshi et al., "Corporate budget. ..•. 2003. pp. 737-750
'•* Ahmad et al.. "Are budgets... ", 2003, pp. 717-724
P.L. Joshi, "The international diffusion of new management accounting
practices: the ease of India". Journal of ¡niernational Accounting. Auditing <fi Taxation.
Vol, 10, 2001, pp. 85-109
"• Joshi. "The international diffusion..,", 2001. pp. 85-109
" G,J. McVay - D,J. Cooke. "Beyond budgeting in an IDS: the Park Nicollet
experience", Heolilicare Einaiuial Management. October, 2006. p. 101
"* S.C. Hansen - D.T. Otiey - W.A. Van Der Stede, "Practice developments in
budgeting: an overview and research perspective". Joumal of Management Accounting
Research. Vol. 15. 2003. pp. 95-116
'"* A. Neely - M. Bourne - C. Adams. "Better budgeting or beyond budgeting?".
Measuring Business Excellence. Vol. 7/ No, 3. 2lK)3, pp, 22-28
"" Joshi cía/., "Corporate budget...", 2003, p. 744
'' Neely p/o/., "Better butlgcling...", 2003, p. 22
" Libby - Lindsay, "Budgeting,..", 2003, p, 32
^' K. Williams, "What are your budget headaches?". Strategic Finance, Jantiary,
2008, p. 19

128
Journal
of Academic
Studies
Ali Uyar Yil: 11, Sayi: 42 Agustos 2009 - Ekim 2009

^* R.C. Rickards, "An endless debate: the sense and nonsense of budgeting".
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol, 57/ No. 7,
2008. pp. ^69-592
^^ J. Lcyk - M. Müller - D. Grunebiium. "Eter Ansatz des Advanced Budgeting
in der Untcmehmenspriixis: Empirische brgebnissc des HorviUh & Partners CFO-Panel
zum aktuellen Anwendungssland", Der Controlling-Berater, Vol. 4, 2006.
•''Neely et al.. "Betterhudgenng.. \ 21H)3, p. 22
-' Libhy - Lindsay. "Budgeling...". 2003. p. 32
•*' C. Babbini. "Is iradiiional budgeting under siege?". CMA Managettient. Vol.
73 Issue 9, 1999.
-" A. Garg - D. Ghosh - J. Hudick - C. Nnwacki. "Roles and practices in
management accounting today". Strategic Finance, Vol. 85/ No. 1, 2{K)3. pp. 33 34
"' D. Dugdale - S. Lync, "Budgeting". Financial Management, November.
2006. p. 32
'' S. Umapathy, "How suceessful firms budget?". Management Accounting.
Vol. 68/No. 8. 1987, p. 25
" Rickards. "An endless debate...". 2008. p. 571
^' R. Barrett. "How incorporating drivers can revolutionize budgeting and re-
forecasting". The Journal of Bank O m i& Management Accounting. Vol. 16/ No. 1,
2003. p. 17
^ Barrett. "How ineorporating...". 2003. pp. 16-24
" Anonymous. "Spreadsheets just don't eut it". Management Accounting, Vol.
79/No. 7, 199H.PP.56-57
"* R. Barrett - J. Hope, "Re-forecast ing practice in the UK", Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 10/ No. 2. 2006, pp. 28-40
" S. Homyak, "Budgeting made easy". Management Accounting, Vol. 80/ No.
4. 1998. p. 18
Barrett and Hope. "Re-forecasting...". 2006, p. 37
'^ Homyak. "Budpeiing made easy". 1998. pp. 18-23
•"' Homyak. "Budgeting made easy". 1998, p. 18
•" P.A. Pyhrr. "Zeru-base budgeting: where to use it and how lo begin", S.A.M.
Advanced Management Joumal. Summer 1976, p, 4
"*• Pyhrr, "Zero-hase budgeting...". 1976, p. 5
''-' Pyhrr. "Zero-base budgeting...", l')76. p. 5
'" Neely el al.. "Better budgeting...", 2003. pp. 23-24
•*' Neely el al., "Better budgeting...". 2003, p. 24
•"• M. Abdel-Kader - R. Luther. "Management accounting practices in the
British food and drinks industry". British Food Joumal, Vol. 108/ No. 5. 2006, pp.
336-357
•"^ Abdel-Kader and Luther. "Management accounting...", 2006. pp. 336-357
'"* BBRT. hitp://www.hbrt.ora (accessed 30 November. 2008),
•'"' BBRT, http://www.bbn.ort! (accessed 30 November. 2008).
™ A.A. De Waal, "la your organisation ready tor beyond budgeting?".
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 9/ No. 2. 2005, pp. 56-67
'^' J. Hope - R. Fraser, Beyond Budgeting: How Managers Can Break Free from
die Annual Performance Trap, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003.
" De Waal, "Is your organization...". 2005. pp. 56-67

129
Akademik
Araçtirmalar
Dergist
 An Evaluation of Budgeting Approaches: Traditional Budgeting, Better Budgeting. And
Beyond Budgeting

S- Player, "Why some organizations go beyond budgeling". The Journal of

Corporale Accounting and Einanie. March-April 2O()3. p. 5
^ Player. "Why some organizations...". 200.^. p. 5
" J. Hope - R, Praser. "Beyond budgeting". Strategic Finance. Vol 82 No 4
2000, p. 34
** Neely er at., "BeUer budgeting...", 2003, p. 26
"Neely et ai. "Better budgeting...". 2003. p. 25
'"Neely et at.. "Better budgeting..."•, 2OÜ3.p. 25
''McVay - Cooke. "Beyond budgeting...". 2()O6. p. 100
* McVay - Cooke. "Beyond budgeling...". 2006. p. 110
*•' Neely eral.. "Beiicr budgeling...". 2003. p. 26
R.C. Rickards, "Beyond Budgeting: Boon or Boondoggle?", ¡nvesiment
Management and Financial Innovations. Vol. 3, Iss. 2, 2006. pp. 62-76
J. Bishop, J., "Beyond budgeting in practice". Cluirtered Accountants
Journal. December 2004. p. 29
T. Libby and R.M. Lindsay, "Beyond Budgeting or Better Budgeting?".
Strategic Finance. August 2007. pp. 47-51

BiTCKLEME YAKLA^ilMLARININ BIR D E G K R L E N D I R M E S Í :

GELENEKSEL BÜTCELEME. DAHA ÍVÍ BÜTCELEME VE BÜTCELEME
ÖTESi

Bu {ahorna, geleneksel hiiiçeleme ile lniti,-e¡etm-dc yeni yakla^unktr olan "dalm iyi hüt-
{cleme" ve 'hüiceleme ütesi" yakla^imlarmiii hir degerlcndinitesini sunmakladir. Bu
amadla kapsamh bir Uieraiur laram¡m yapilmi^tir. Bulgular, gelenek.<iel hülcelemenin
ifleimeler tarafmdan hala çok yaygin olarak hiüanildigmi ve kullamcilar tarafmdan
çok önemli algilandigmi gtislerse de hazi noksanhlarmni oldugu .mptanmi^tir. Gele-
neksel hülcelemenin linemlinoksanhklun arasinda. {:ok zaman aluí olmasi. ¡¡erive dö-
nük ohna.st. hazi 'hüicelenu- oyunkin " olarak tjade edilen gelir ve aider manipülasyim-
lanmi iminiz kahna.M suyi/ahilir. Bu nvksimltlurdim dolavi. gcleneksel buí^elemeve
eleiürel yakla^aiilar ikiye aynlmif hulunniaklaiíir Bir ki.stm koríir f-örii^lii arapirmaci-
lar. gelenek.\e¡hiit^elemenin eLsikhklerinin niücrílerek i>eliítirilme.ii konusunda -daha
iyi hiU^eleme " oUirak ifade enikieri yaklafunlar sunarkcn. daha radikal yakla^imda bu-
lunanlar da f^eleneksel hülcelemenin tamumvn lerk edilmesi gerektigini ífelinerek "hül-
çeleme niesi " yaklaifimini änermckledirler. .Sonuç olarak. sözü editen yeni vakla^imlar
ileri sürülse de uygidayicilarin geleneksel hütceleme yakla^imini terk ederek hu yeni
yaklafcmlan kabullenmeye ve kulUmmaya çok da hazir olmadtklan siixienehüir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Bütce, Bi'itçeleme, Gelenek.\el Biïtçeleme, Daha /yi Bütceleme. Biit-
céleme Ötesi

130
Journal
of Academic
Studies