Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
In the year 1981 Simmonds reflected his view on the adoption of strategic management accounting (SMA). There were other writers such as Bromwich (1990) who continued in this culminating in an influential paper. There was a positive response by David Smith and journal referees however according to the different survey which was carried out in the 1990s indicated that in practice SMA was slow. There was a mixed comment on overall adoption saying, if was academic immigration (Lord, 1996) or the account possess enough skills to make SMA a success (Cooper, 1996a, b).
There was no proper definition for SMA, different writer has a different perspective. As per (Roslender and Hart, 2003) it is a tool to make management accounting more strategic. Simmonds defined it as the provision of management accounting data about a business and competitors and have managing and controlling business strategy . In SMA various techniques are been included and commentators defined SMA based on the techniques. The techniques such as activity-based management, life cycle costing and strategic performance measurement systems, activity bases costing etc. There are some commentators who oppose this because as per them activity-based costing is a part of SMA as the focus of ABC is on the accuracy of cost allocation, not strategic support.
The boom in activity-based costing (ABC) and activity-based management (ABM) which was observed by Shank as the pillar of the new idea. Whereby Cooper and Kaplan were the academic writers who encouraged these techniques, which gives an insight into ABC by providing a way for accounting to be relevant strategically. ABC was been seen as more of a solution provider to the problems of irrelevancy by academics and professionals.
The overall paper portrays SMA was as much successful as it should be. In the year 1980s there was tremendous enthusiasm from the professional and academic accounting communities as SMA has greater promises. Overall observation on SMA is the lacks in evidence that it was practice widely as forecasted by Simmons. As the SMA was not widely accepted which made it difficult to determine the success or otherwise of SMA implementations furthermore there was there were many researchers and put to practice which made SMA hard to recognize.
The evidence on the adoption of SMA technique was not strong enough and key evidence was inclined towards the activity based costing (ABC) which was very low and decreased overtime, there were many companies who did not supported implementing ABC in practice. This result was been collected by several surveys of practice (example, Innes et al., 2000).
Target costing, functional analysis and value engineering are the management techniques used by Japanese companies which was success. However there is not clear sign of evidence about the adoption of Japanese-style SMA techniques which it comes western companies and outside the Japan. The reason being SMA was not adopted much as there was an accounting lag and evidence showcase that techniques and tools which was used without the involvement of accounting function.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.