4._perbedaan_cost_center_di_jerman_dan_us.pdf

7/21/2019 4._Perbedaan_Cost_Center_di_Jerman_dan_US.pdf

1/8

45Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

Cost Center Practices in Germany and the United States:Impact of Country Differences on Managerial Accounting Practices

Kris Portz,St. Cloud State UniversityJohn C. Lere,University of WisconsinMilwaukee

AbstractAs business becomes increasingly global, it is important for managers to appreci-ate that practices that work well in one country may not work as well in othercountries. Tis article compares cost center practices under Grenzplankostenrech-nung (GPK), a common approach to cost accounting in Germany, and typicalcost center practices in the United States. Differences between Germany and theUnited States on Hofstedes uncertainty avoidance dimension and in workforce

and management education provide possible explanations for differences in theresponsibility assigned to cost center managers between Germany and the UnitedStates. Differences in cost center practices concerning classification of costs, mea-sures to use when considering changes in costs, and the size and scope of the costcenter between Germany and the United States all support these differences incost center manager responsibility.

Keywords: cost centers, German cost accounting, Hofstede, responsibility accounting

Introduction

Although business is global, differ-ences in countries may mean that thepractice of business is not universal.Certain country differences can impactthe effectiveness of managerial account-ing practices and, as a consequence, af-fect the appropriateness of the practices.

Tese country differences include dif-ferences in culture, defined using Hofst-edes taxonomy (2001), and workforceand management education, which arediscussed in the present paper. Failure torecognize the impact of country differ-

ences on the appropriateness of mana-gerial accounting practices may lead toa number of dysfunctional actions. Acompany may benchmark against the

wrong set of companies. Managers andaccountants may accept one size fits allsolutions which do not fit all situations.Companies may implement home-country practices in subsidiaries locatedin countries where the home-country

practices will be ineffective. Te last de-

cades growth in international manageri-al accounting research (Haka and Heit-ger 2004, 21) is a sign of the potentialimportance of recognizing the impactof country differences on differences inmanagerial accounting practices.

Tis article considers the impact ofcountry differences on differences incost center practices between Germa-ny and the United States. Te goals ofthe article are to 1. describe cost centerpractices that are an important part ofGrenzplankostenrechnung (GPK), a

common approach to cost accountingin Germany, 2. contrast these practiceswith cost center practices commonlyemployed in the United States, and 3.offer possible empirically testable ex-planations for these major differences inpractices based on country differences.

Te remainder of the article is divid-ed into four sections. Te next sectionprovides an analysis of previous research

and indicates where the present articlefits within the literature. Tis section isfollowed by a section that describes dif-ferences between cost center practicescommon in Germany and cost centerpractices common in the United States.Section three describes important dif-ferences in culture and education be-tween Germany and the United States.It also discusses how the differences be-tween Germany and the United Statesprovide possible explanations for thedifferences in cost center practices. Tearticle ends with a discussion of impli-

cations for managers and suggestionsfor future research.

Analysis of PreviousResearch

Because three recent articles re-view the literature on internationalmanagement accounting (Harrisonand McKinnon 1999; Chenhall 2003;


2/8

46Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

Portz and Lere

Haka and Heitger 2004), this articledoes not include a detailed review. Acommon thread to these articles is thatthe dominant approach to distinguish-ing countries is based on culture differ-ences and that Hofstedes taxonomy is

the most common approach to distin-guishing culture (Harrison and McK-innon, 1999; Chenhall 2003, 152-3;Haka and Heitger 2004, 32). Haka andHeitger (2004) do, however, considerenvironmental factors that can have animpact on how managerial account-

ing systems are designed in additionto culture. Tey divide these factorsinto four categories: (1) organization ofeconomic activity (2) political and legalprocesses (3) culture (4) infrastructuresophistication.

Te present article considers envi-ronmental factors that fall into two ofthese categories: culture as defined us-ing Hofstedes taxonomy (culture) and

workforce and management education

(infrastructure sophistication). Te present article is unique in

that it considers managerial account-ing practices in Germany. Germanyhas not been included in prior workon the impact of country differenceson managerial accounting practicedifferences. Unlike most previous

work, this article bases its analysison data from secondary sources. Tisapproach permits a more general de-scription of practices that is not sub-

ject to company specific differencesand the perceptions of respondents.

Tis does, of course, mean that thepractices compared may not reflectthe precise practices of any specificcompany. Being more general, how-ever, the description of practices maybe more indicative of the impact ofcountry differences on the practices.

A Review of Germanand U.S. Cost CenterPractices

Although cost center practices varysomewhat from firm to firm in the

United States, there is enough similar-ity across firms that it is reasonable tospeak of common cost center practicesfor the United States. Germany pro-

vides a unique opportunity for com-parison. Te Institute of Management

Accountants (IMA) has recently con-

ducted a number of studies of Gren-zplankostenrechnung (GPK), a verycommon approach to cost account-ing in Germany (Kilger, Pampel, andVikas 2002, 15). Because cost centerpractices are a very significant part ofGPK, the IMA studies provide a ba-sis for describing common cost centerpractices in Germany.

Differences in cost center practicesbetween Germany and the United

States can be divided into four cat-egories: differences in the definitionof a cost center, differences in outputand activity measures used in the costcenters, differences in the way in whichcosts are classified in cost centers, anddifferences in the responsibilities as-signed to the heads of cost centers.

Cost Center DenitionIn order for a subunit of a company

to be a cost center under GPK, it isnecessary that a single output measurecan be identified for that subunit. Tissingle output measure is intended todescribe the operations of the cost cen-ter (Sharman 2003, 32). In the UnitedStates, the only limitation imposedon a cost center is that the decisionsmade by the head of the cost centerare primarily ones that have an impacton cost (Horngren, Datar, and Foster

2006, 197). Terefore, the limitationsplaced on a United States cost centerare much less restrictive than the limi-tations imposed under GPK. Tis al-lows for cost centers that encompassmuch broader operations.

Achieving the goal that operations ofthe cost center can be represented by asingle output measure tends to result incost centers in Germany that are morenarrowly focused than are cost centers inUnited States firms. For example, a costcenter in the United States that drillsparts might be divided into at least twocost centers in Germany. One cost cen-ter would set up the drilling machines;the second cost center would operatethe machines to perform the drillingoperation. Such a division would per-

mit the firm to describe the operationsof each cost center by a single measure.

Te output of the machine setup costcenter might be machine setups whilethe output of the drilling cost centermight be parts drilled.

Achieving a narrow focus in GPKcost centers tends to yield small costcenters. Friedl, Kpper, and Pedell in-dicate that a GPK cost center is typi-cally composed of ten workers or less(2005, 57). Because the less restric-tive United States definition of a cost

center tends to yield cost centers withbroader operations than does the GPKdefinition, cost centers in the UnitedStates tend to be larger.

Te difference in the definition ofa cost center also means that a com-pany with a GPK system will typi-cally have many more cost centers than

will a company following traditionalUnited States practices. An exampleof this difference in number of costcenters is provided by Sick Kids (a o-ronto childrens hospital). At Sick Kids,implementation of GPK resulted in adramatic increase in cost centers. Forexample, in pilot departments, imple-mentation raised the number of costcenters from 29 to 97 (Mackie 2006,35-6). Another example of the largenumber of cost centers under GPKis provided by Deutscheelekom,D (German elecom). Te Inte-

... a company with a GPK system will typically havemany more cost centers than will a company followingtraditional United States practices.


3/8

47Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

Portz and Lere

grated Cost and Accounting Sys-tem (IKE), an extension of GPK, atDeutscheelekom, D, captures costinformation about the efforts of ap-proximately 120,000 people workingin 40,000 cost centers. (Sharman and

Vikas 2004, 34).

Output and Activity MeasuresTe importance of an output mea-

sure in defining a cost center underGPK results in differences betweenGermany and the United States in themeasures used in cost centers. Measuresused in a GPK cost center are intended1. to represent the output of the costcenter, not the output of the firm and 2.to relate to the usage of resources.

Tis emphasis on measures of cost

center output is so basic to GPK that,according to Krumwiede (2005, 34),CIBA Specialty Chemicals doesnt useGPK per se because of its complexityand because, in chemical manufactur-ing, its difficult to predict the outputquantity as some batches producemore or less product than expected.GPK requires that you are able topredict outcomes fairly well, as in theauto industry.

In the United States, measures used

often do not represent the output of thecost center. Under activity-based costing(ABC), the measures selected representcost drivers for activities performed inthe cost center. Such a measure mayor may not represent the output of thecost center (Horngren, Datar, and Fos-ter 2006, 144-5). Other measures com-monly used in the United States, suchas direct material cost, direct labor cost,and direct labor hours represent mea-sures with which a particular portion ofthe cost centers cost varies rather than

cost center output (Horngren, Datar,and Foster 2006, 32).Because GPK measures are also se-

lected to relate to resource usage, somemeasures that represent the output of acost center might not be as appropriatefor use in GPK. For example, a measuresuch as number of setups might not bean appropriate GPK output measure.

While it may represent the output of a

cost center, it may not be as closely tiedto resource usage as are other measures.If there are differences in the setupsperformed by the cost center such thatsome setups take longer, a measure suchas setup hours might better relate to use

of resources. In such a case, setup hourswould be preferred to number of setupsas an output measure for the cost center(Keys and van der Merwe 1999, 3).

Te emphasis on resource usagemeans that many measures commonly

used in the United States may not beappropriate output measures underGPK. While the relationship betweencost and some measures used in theUnited States is one of cause and effect,the relationship is often only a statisti-cal one. As discussed below, measuresonly having a statistical relationship

with cost may not provide GPK man-agers with the information appropriateto their responsibilities.

Te GPK focus on defining costcenters with one measure of output

that is related to resource usage leadsto cost classification under GPKthat is narrower than is typical in theUnited States. A fundamental featureof GPK is that cost centers costs aredivided into those that are (1) propor-tional and (2) fixed.

Classications of Costs

in a Cost CenterClassification of costs in a cost cen-

ter into proportional costs and fixed

costs is a third important way in whichGPK cost center practices differ fromthose of the United States. For thatportion of the centers cost deemed tobe proportional, an increase (decrease)in the output measure for the cost cen-ter is accompanied by a proportionalincrease (decrease) in cost. Te remain-ing costs of the cost center are classi-fied as fixed. raditionally, costs in the

United States are divided into variablecosts and fixed costs. As used in theUnited States, the term variable costis a more general term. It is typicallyapplied to costs whose total change inproportion to change in some measure

of activity or volume which may or maynot be a measure of output (Horngren,Datar, and Foster 2006, 30).

Te very precise meaning of pro-portional costs under GPK can eas-ily cause confusion. As used in the

United States, variable costs as wellas activity-based costing costs that vary

with unit-level, batch-level, and prod-uct-level activities are typically propor-tional costs to the measure with whichthey vary. Terefore, a United Statescost center may include many coststhat vary proportionately with somemeasure. As used in GPK, however,proportional costs are limited to onlythose costs that are proportional tochanges in cost center output. Becausea GPK cost center is defined so that its

operations can be represented by oneoutput measure, its proportional costsall vary with the same measure.

Te importance of the proportion-al/fixed cost dichotomy to GPK firmsis illustrated by Krumwiedes (2005,32-3) discussion of Magna Steyer, asupplier of original equipment to automanufacturers. Magna accountantstold me they dont use ABC because

ABC doesnt separate fixed and [pro-portional] costs.

Responsibilities of Cost Center

ManagersTe final area in which GPK cost

center practices differ from UnitedStates cost center practices relates tothe assignment of responsibilities tocost center managers. Tere are twoimportant aspects of this assignment:

Measures used in a GPK cost center are intended (1) torepresent the output of the cost center, not the output ofthe rm and (2) to relate to the usage of resources.


4/8

48Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

Portz and Lere

Te manager is responsible for see-ing that costs adjust in response tochanges in output of the cost center.

A manager may be responsible formore than one cost center.

A major distinction between Ger-man and United States cost centerpractices relates to the primary respon-sibility of cost center managers. GPKconsiders the cost center managersprime responsibility to be seeing thatcosts adjust in response to changesin the output of the cost center. Tislink between the objective of manag-ers and GPK is clearly indicated in thedefinition of GPK translated from theintroduction to the preeminent Ger-man cost accounting textbook. GPKis a comprehensive and sophisticatedmethod of planning and monitoringcosts based on resource drivers. Select-ing the resource drivers and separatingthe costs into fixed and proportionalcomponents ensures that cost fluctua-tions caused by changes in operatinglevels, as defined by marginal analysis,are accurately predicted as changes inauthorized costs and incorporated into

variance analysis. (Kilger, Pampel, andVikas 2002, 7). Authorized is used in

the translation for a word that conveysthe meaning of target or allowed costs.Terefore, this definition underscoresthe emphasis on assuring that costsadjust in response to changes in costcenter output.

Tis emphasis on cost adjustmentfocuses the managers effort and at-tention on one thing, responding tochanges in the output of the cost cen-ter. As a result, GPK is likely to leadto greater responsiveness of costs tochanges in cost center output than do

systems common in the United Statesin which the manager has broader re-sponsibilities.

Because the primary responsibilityof a cost center manager in the UnitedStates is typically more broadly definedas to control all costs incurred withinthe cost center (Horngren, Datar, andFoster 2006, 197), opportunities forcost reduction such as by reducing

cost center output and by tradeoffsthat reduce one cost while increasinganother cost by a smaller amount aremore likely to be identified and imple-mented by cost center managers in theUnited States than by cost center man-agers in Germany (Friedl, Kpper, andPedell 2005, 61).

A second difference between Ger-many and the United States in assign-ment of responsibilities to cost centermanagers relates to the number ofcost centers managed. Although only

one manager is typically in charge ofeach cost center in both Germany andthe United States, a GPK cost centermanager is often responsible for morethan one cost center while cost cen-ter managers in the United States aretypically responsible for only one costcenter. When GPK was implementedat Sick Kids, managers who had previ-ously been responsible for a single cost

center were now responsible for four orfive GPK cost centers (Mackie 2006,36).

able 1 summarizes these impor-tant differences between cost centersunder GPK and cost centers typical inthe United States.

Inuences on CostCenter Design

In developing a link between coun-try differences and cost center practice

differences, this article considers thedifference between the major respon-sibilities assigned to cost center man-agers under GPK and in the UnitedStates to be the one directly related todifferences in country culture and edu-cation. Differences between Germanyand the United States in: (1) classifi-cation of costs (2) measures used (3)limitations used in defining a cost cen-

Table 1Summary of Cost Center Practices in Germany

(Grenzplankostenrechnung) and in the United States

Germany United State

Denition of a cost center Limited so that a singlemeasure can represent costcenter output

Limited such that decisionsmade by head primarilyaffect cost

Size of cost center Fairly small Larger

Number of cost centers inrm

Large number Relatively few

Output or activity measures One measure that representsoutput of the cost center asopposed to output of therm; relates to resourcesused by center

Multiple measures are com-mon and often representsomething with which costsof the center vary; relation-ship between cost and mea-sure may result from resourceuse or because of statisticalassociation

Classication of costs in acost center

Fixed and proportional;proportional costs change inproportion to changes in costcenter output

Fixed and variable; variablecosts change directly withsome measure, which may ormay not be a measure of costcenter output

Primary responsibility of costcenter managers

To control costs such that theproportional costs change inproportion to the changes incost center output

To control all costs incurredwithin the cost center

Typical number of cost cen-ters controlled by manager

Several One


5/8

49Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

Portz and Lere

ter all support this difference in assign-ment of responsibilities.

Te section begins by discussingcross-country culture and educationdifferences as possible explanations forthe differences in major responsibilities

assigned to cost center managers.

Culture Inuenceon Major Responsibilities

A number of social researchers(Kluckholn and Strodtbeck 1961, Hall1977, Hofstede 2001, and rompenaarsand Hampden-urner 1998) have de-signed theoretical frameworks to ex-plain why people from different coun-tries do things in different ways. Tisarticle uses Hofstedes taxonomy, which

distinguishes a countrys culture basedon its position on five dimensions:power distance, uncertainty avoidance,individualism/collectivism, masculine/feminine, and Confucian dynamism.

Although they differ somewhat oneach dimension, Germany and theUnited States differ most significantlyon the uncertainty avoidance dimen-sion (Hofstede 2001, 87, 151, 215,286, 356). Germany is considered astrong uncertainty avoidance country

while the United States is considered

a weak uncertainty avoidance country.According to Hofstede: Many read-ers of my earlier work have interpreteduncertainty avoidance as risk avoid-ance . But uncertainty avoidancedoes not equal risk avoidance. Morethan an escape from risk, uncertaintyavoidance leads to an escape from am-biguity. (Hofstede 2001, 148).

Based on Hofstedes discussion ofstrong and weak uncertainty avoidancecultures, one would expect systems in

which managers are faced with rela-tively little ambiguity in strong uncer-tainty avoidance cultures. Managers in

weak uncertainty avoidance cultures aremore likely to function in systems pre-senting them with greater ambiguity.

Assignment of cost center managerresponsibility under GPK is consistent

with the strong uncertainty avoid-ance culture found in Germany. Un-

der GPK, a firm has narrowly definedcost centers where a manager who isresponsible for the cost center focuseson controlling proportional costs. Asa result, cost center managers are ableto become very competent at manag-

ing narrowly focused operations witha repetitive output. Such a structuretends to reduce the ambiguity that amanager faces.

Strong uncertainty avoidance alsoresults in a preference for focusingon accomplishing a set of tasks. Once

workers know their duties, their pri-mary goal is to complete their assignedtasks (Schmidt 2007, 47). Because ofthe focus on managing costs so thatthey respond to changes in output,managers have well-defined roles with-

in cost centers and can focus on theirdesignated repetitive, consistent, pre-dictable tasks. Tis too tends to reducethe ambiguity faced by managers.

Because of its weak uncertaintyavoidance culture, managers in theUnited States generally prefer lessstructure and more flexibility. Manag-ers are often encouraged to work inter-departmentally to improve productiv-ity and efficiency. Te strict cost-centercriteria of GPK is inconsistent with adesire for flexibility by United States

managers. Small cost centers focus-ing on narrow tasks may make UnitedStates managers feel too confined oreven constrained from being creative.

As a result, the prevalent United Statesculture may make it difficult for man-agers to accept the structure and rigid-ity of GPK.

Education Inuenceon Major Responsibilities

Significant differences also exist be-tween workforce and management ed-ucation in Germany and in the UnitedStates. In Germany, young people aretrained as skilled workers for specific

jobs through apprenticeships. Practi-cal work with on the job training al-ternates with classroom courses overan apprenticeship period. At the endof the apprenticeship, workers receive a

certificate, which is highly valued andinstills a sense of occupational pride.

Terefore, German managers over-see highly qualified individuals whoare specially trained for their positions(Schmidt 2007, 52). Te United States

workforce generally lacks such specifictraining. Workers are often consideredjack of all trades with little formaltraining for specific jobs other than

what may be acquired on the job.Most German managers are edu-

cated as technical experts. In fact, over60 percent of German manufacturingcompanies are run by engineers withPh.D. degrees. Any management skillsare usually learned on the shop floor.Managers in the United States, onthe other hand, tend to be educated as

MBAs rather than as technical experts.An effective manager in the UnitedStates leads or guides a group. A man-ager usually does not produce person-ally but is good at making others in thegroup produce through motivation(Schmidt 2007, 53).

Because German workers are in-nately self-motivated and often workhard for the good of the group, effortsto motivate them would be seen asunnecessary hand-holding and an in-sult to their professional pride. Tere-

fore, German managers see little rea-son to learn about motivating or evensupervising personnel. Tey assume

work will be done well without anyprodding (Schmidt 2007, 53). Overall,United States firms give managementauthority to make strategic decisions

whereas German businesses see man-agers as less of a key factor to success.

Differences between workforceeducation in Germany and the UnitedStates are consistent with the differ-ence in assignment of responsibilitybetween GPK and United States costcenter practices. A narrow focus incost center manager responsibility inGermany facilitates well-defined spe-cific jobs for which young people canbe trained. Because the United States

workforce generally lacks such specifictraining, such well-defined jobs arenot necessary to facilitate education.


6/8

50Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

Portz and Lere

Te difference in education betweenGerman managers and United Statesmanagers is also consistent with differ-ences in the assignment of responsibil-ities between GPK and United Statescost practices. United States managers

tend to be educated to manage whichimplies a broader range of responsibili-ties including motivating while man-agement education tends to be very in-formal in Germany and therefore maynot support as broad responsibilities.

Cost Classication,Measures Used, and CostCenter Denition

In order for managers under GPKto fulfill the responsibility of ensur-

ing that changes in output levels arereflected in changes in costs, the man-agers must know which costs are ex-pected to respond to changes in outputlevels. Terefore, the GPK emphasison classifying costs into proportional

versus fixed identifies the costs that themanagers can and are expected to con-trol, the proportional costs.

Identifying proportional costs,those that change in proportion withcost center output, as opposed to vari-able costs, those that vary with some

measure, also enhances the ability ofGPK managers to fulfill their respon-sibility. Because the output measurefor a cost center is chosen to relate toresource usage, the GPK concept of aproportional cost is more strongly tiedto cause and effect than is the conceptof a variable cost. While there may bea cause and effect relationship betweena variable cost and cost center output,

variable costs often have only a statisti-cal association with some measure thatis often not cost center output. Tere-fore, the identification of proportionalcosts provides a GPK cost center man-ager with information on costs that heor she should be able to control as costcenter output changes while identifi-cation of variable costs may or may notprovide such information.

Te United States cost center man-ager, however, is typically responsible

for managing the costs of a cost centerin ways that include, but are not lim-ited to, the cost control responsibilityof a GPK cost center manager. Iden-tification of variable costs as well asthose costs identified under activity-

based costing as changing with chang-es in the amount of unit-level activity,batch-level activity, or product-levelactivity is appropriate to support thebroader responsibilities of a UnitedStates cost center manager. Becausea cost center manager in the UnitedStates is responsible for controllingcosts in a much wider variety of ways,he or she can potentially make use of amuch broader set of measures. In addi-tion, the broader focus of a cost centerin the United States may mean that

the cost center does not have a singleoutput measure. Terefore, multipleoutput measures may be appropriate inthe United States.

Cost centers with a narrow focus arenecessary in order to assign responsibil-ity for ensuring that proportional costschange in response to changes in costcenter output to GPK cost center man-agers. Only with a very narrow focus cana cost centers operations be describedusing one output measure. Tis narrowfocus explains the relatively small size of

cost centers under GPK and their rela-tively large number per firm.

Te GPK practice of assigning mul-tiple cost centers to a manager likelyarises because the GPK definition ofa cost center leads to many, fairly smallcost centers. If a unique manager wasassigned to each cost center, a company

would have an extremely large numberof cost center managers, each with afairly limited set of responsibilities.

Tis would not seem to be an efficientuse of resources.

In the United States, the respon-sibilities of a cost center manager aretypically broader than those underGPK. In order to make the types ofdecision typically made by a UnitedStates cost center manager, the costcenter must be more broadly definedto allow for cost trade offs. Tis is con-sistent with the larger size of a typi-

cal United States cost center and withthe smaller number of cost centers in atypical United States firm.

DiscussionTis section discusses cross-country

differences in culture and education aspotential explanations for cost centerpractice differences and offers impli-cations of these explanations. Teseimplications are divided into ones ofinterest to managers considering im-plementing GPK and ones of interestto those considering future research.

Implications for ManagersWhen considering potential imple-

mentation of GPK, it is important to

consider both the types of decisionsthat a company wishes its managers tomake and the possibility that cultureand education differences between theUnited States and Germany may makeGPK less effective in a United Statescompany than in a German company.

GPK cost center practices focusmanagers decisions primarily on costreduction as a response to changes incost center output. Terefore, it is im-portant for a company to consider theextent to which it wants managers tolook for ways to reduce cost centercost 1. by reducing the cost center out-put, 2. by looking for tradeoffs amongcosts and 3. by considering other waysto reduce costs that are not related tochanges in cost center output.

ypical United States cost centerpractices are better designed to supportdecisions related to these types of costreduction than are GPK practices.

In addition, because culture andeducation differences imply different

preferences and preparation for respon-sibilities, it is also important for firmsconsidering implementing GPK costcenter practices to consider

if firm managers will be effective1.with the narrower job focus and lim-ited ability to be involved in strategicor interdepartmental decision mak-ing under GPK andif the focus on narrow tasks will make2.


7/8

51Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

Portz and Lere

managers feel too confined or evenconstrained from being creative.

Suggestions for FutureResearch

Tis article uses differences in cost

center practices between the UnitedStates and Germany to explore pos-sible relationships between (1) cultureand (2) education of the workforce andmanagers and managerial accountingpractices. In doing so, it suggests sev-eral directions for further research.

One direction for future research isto determine if the differences in costcenter practices are related to differ-ences in culture, education, or both.

An approach to answering this ques-tion would involve identifying Ger-man companies whose employees (1)are German, but have been educatedin the United States, (2) are Germanand have been educated in Germanyor (3) have been educated in Ger-many, but have spent substantial timein the United States. Comparisons ofthe cost center practices among com-panies whose employees fit in thesethree categories may shed light on theimpact of each factor.

Differences between German

workforce and management educationand workforce and management edu-cation in the United States are con-sistent with culture differences relatedto uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede2001, 170). Terefore, another ques-tion of interest is whether differencesin both cost center practices and edu-cation arise because of differences incountry culture. Culture may be themain factor behind cost center practicedifferences directly and also indirectlythrough differences in the workforce

and management education.

ReferencesChenhall, R. H. 2003. Management con-

trol systems design within its organi-zational context: findings from con-tingency-based research and directionsfor the future.Accounting, Organizationsand Society28:127-168.

Friedl, G., H. Kpper, and B. Pedell. 2005.Relevance added: combining ABC

with German cost accounting. StrategicFinance86(12):56-61.

Haka, S. F. and D. L. Heitger. 2004. In-ternational managerial accounting re-

search: a contracting framework andopportunities. Te International Journalof Accounting 39:21 - 69.

Hall, E. . 1977. Beyond Culture.GardenCity, NY: Anchor Press.

Harrison, G. and J. McKinnon. 1999.Cross-cultural design in managementcontrol systems design: a review of thecurrent state. Accounting, Organizationsand Society24:483-506.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures Consequences:Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institu-

tions, and Organizations Across Nations,

2d edition. Tousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Horngren, C., S. Datar and G. Foster. 2006.Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Keys, D.E. and A. van der Merwe. 1999.German vs. United States cost manage-ment. Management Accounting Quar-terly(Fall):1-8.

Kilger, W., J. Pampel and K. Vikas. 2002.0. Introduction: Marginal Costing as aManagement Accounting ool, FlexiblePlankostenrechnung und Deckungbeitrag-

srechnung, 11th edition. Wiesbaden:Gabler. ranslation by S. Offenbackerpublished in Management AccountingQuarterly 5 (2) (Winter 2004): 15.7-28.

Kluckholn, F.R. and F.L. Strodtbeck. 1961.Variations in Value Orientations. Evan-ston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Krumwiede, K.R. 2005. Rewards and reali-ties of German cost accounting. Strate-gic Finance86 (10):26-34.

Mackie, B. 2006. Merging GPK and ABCon the Road to RCA. Strategic Finance87 (5):35-6.

Schmidt, P.S. 2007. Understanding Ameri-can and German Business Cultures.Mon-treal, Canada: Meridian World Press.

Sharman, P.A. 2003. Bring on Germancost accounting. Strategic Finance(De-cember):30-8.

Sharman, P.A. and K. Vikas. 2004. Lessonsfrom German cost accounting. Strategic

Finance86(6):28-35.rompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-urner.

1998. Riding the Waves of Culture: Un-derstanding Diversity in Global Business,2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

About the AuthorsKris Portz, CPA, Inactive(PhD - Uni-versity of Nebraska at Lincoln) is profes-sor of accounting at St. Cloud State Uni-versity in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Duringfall 2005, she served as faculty directorof a study abroad program in Ingolstadt,Germany where she lived for four monthsand taught at the Fachhochschule - Ingol-

stadt.John C. Lere (PhD - University ofWisconsin-Madison) is professor emeritusat St. Cloud State University and visitingprofessor at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee. He served as visiting profes-sor at the Norwegian School of Econom-ics and Business Administration during fall2003. He is the author of two books andnumerous articles


8/8

52 Spring 2010 Vol. 25, No. 1

The United StatesAssociation forSmall Business andEntrepreneurship(USASBE) annualconference is one of the

premier gatherings ofentrepreneurship scholarsand educators worldwide.

SUBMIT PAPERS, CASES AND

WORKSHOPS PERTAINING TO

Entrepreneurship in the arts

Small business growth

Social entrepreneurship

Technology and life sciencesentrepreneurship

Corporate entrepreneurship andinnovation

Entrepreneurship pedagogy andteaching

Family business

International entrepreneurship

Minority and women/ethnicentrepreneurship

Venture planning

Public policy and entrepreneurship

USASBE 2011ANNUAL CONFERENCE

HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINAJANUARY 13-16, 2011

Marriott Hilton Head Resort & SpaHilton Head Island, South Carolina

All papers, cases and workshops must be submitted via an online submissionsystem at www.usasbe.org. Submissions will be accepted from June 15, 2010 untilAugust 27, 2010.

ContactEthne Swartz, Program Chair, Fairleigh Dickinson University973-443-8296 [email protected]

www.usasbe.org

4._perbedaan_cost_center_di_jerman_dan_us.pdf

Documents