Kostenmanagement in der Schweiz

Schiller, Ulf; Keimer, Imke; Egle, U. T.; Keune, Hugo

doi:10.15358/0935-0381-2007-6-301

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, prior studies of SMA practices indicate that firms adopt differing levels of LCC and target costing. Surveys conducted in Australia reported a high adoption rate of LCC and a low adoption rate of target costing (Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 1998); conflicting results were reported in Germany (Franz and Kajüter, 2002) and Switzerland (Brede, 1994; Schiller et al , 2007); and similar adoption rates for both instruments were reported in Greece (Angelakis et al , 2010).…”

Section: Theory and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the 1990s, competitive pressures have increased the importance of modern cost-management tools (Himme, 2009). Life cycle costing (LCC) is a modern cost-management tool that is well known in practice (Franz and Kajüter, 2002; Schiller et al , 2007)[1]. LCC is distinctive because it focuses on a long-term, life-cycle perspective in cost accounting practices and counteracts management tendencies to focus on the short term (Greenwood, 2002; Guilding et al , 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The adoption and benefits of life cycle costing

Knauer

Möslang

2018

JAOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Although life cycle costing (LCC) is well established in theory and practice, little is known about the conditions of its adoption and its impact on the achievement of cost-management goals. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the adoption and benefits of LCC. Design/methodology/approach The analyses are based on questionnaires collected from a survey of German firms. Findings The results demonstrate that the extent of LCC adoption is positively associated with the extent of guarantee and warranty costs, voluntary upfront and follow-up costs for ecological sustainability and the extent of target costing adoption. In contrast, the extent of LCC adoption is negatively associated with the amount of precursors and/or intermediates that are purchased. The results also demonstrate that firms perceive LCC to be beneficial for various aspects of cost management. Firms report that the greatest benefit of LCC is related to the identification of cost drivers. Research limitations/implications This investigation provides a starting point for future studies of the conditions of LCC adoption and the benefits of LCC. This study is subject to limitations, particularly with respect to the operationalization of our independent variables, the number of contextual variables and the general limitations of survey research. Practical implications The results inform practitioners of the situations in which it is most appropriate to adopt LCC. In addition, this study identifies various cost-management goals that are supported by the use of LCC. Originality/value This study provides the first comprehensive analysis of the conditions of LCC adoption and advances the literature regarding the impact of LCC on the achievement of cost-management goals. Furthermore, this study provides a starting point for future research into the implementation of LCC and the effects of LCC on management accounting practices.

show abstract

Section: Theory and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The adoption and benefits of life cycle costing

Knauer

Möslang

2018

JAOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dieser Beitrag ergänzt damit frühere Untersuchungen, die sich auf den Bekanntheits-und Verbreitungsgrad von Target Costing (vgl. Brede, 1994;Franz/Kajüter, 1997und 2002Schiller et al 2007) oder auf die Ausgestaltung des Instrumentes in der Praxis (vgl. z.…”

unclassified