標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法外文翻譯

1、<p>　　中文8400字，5000英文單詞，2.7萬英文字符</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Sulaiman M, Ahmad N N N, Alwi N M. Is standard costing obsolete? Empirical evidence from Malaysia[J]. Managerial Auditing Journal, 2005, 20(2):109-124.</

2、p><p>　　Is standard costing obsolete? Empirical evidence from Malaysia</p><p>　　M Sulaiman， NNN Ahmad ， NM Alwi</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>

3、　　Purpose – Many authors have predicted that the shorter product life cycles, advanced manufacturing technologies, decreasing emphasis on labour in the production process, and global competition may lead to the demise of

4、 standard costing. This exploratory study aims to provide empirical evidence on the extent to which companies in Malaysia use standard costing. It also examines the differences in the use of such techniques between local

5、 Malaysian firms and Japanese affiliates.</p><p>　　Design/methodology/approach – From the industrial and consumer products sectors listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and 21 Japanese affiliates in Mala

6、ysia, 66 companies were surveyed. Findings – Despite its various criticisms, the empirical findings suggest that standard costing is still being used by a large majority of firms in Malaysia. Thus, Malaysian companies (b

7、oth Japanese and local) perceive that the basic principles of standard costing remain sound.</p><p>　　Research limitations/implications – While the empirical results may be interesting, the findings represen

8、t an exploratory area of research which ultimately needs to be grounded in theory. To do this, future studies should undertake detailed case studies on management accounting in practice.</p><p>　　Originality

9、/value – Provides empirical evidence of the extent of use of standard costing in Malaysia.</p><p>　　Keywords Standard costs, Malaysia, Japan, Management accounting, Cost reduction, Budgets</p><p&g

10、t;　　1.Introduction</p><p>　　Standard costing, according to various authors, is inconsistent with today’s manufacturing environment (e.g. Monden and Lee, 1993; Ferrara, 1995; Drury, 1999). Instead, to meet t

11、he intensely, competitive, global business environment, companies should use tools or strategies such as JIT, ABC, TQM, process reengineering, life cycle assessment and target costing. Such tools are said to enhance the

12、ability of corporations to better meet their strategic objectives and also enable these companies to c</p><p>　　Our study contributes to the management accounting literature in various ways. First, there has

13、 been very little published research done to examine the extent to which Malaysian companies use standard costing as an aid in their planning, control and decision making functions. Second, to our knowledge, there has no

14、t been any published study examining the use of standard costing among Japanese firms in Malaysia[1]. Third, while critics denounce the use of traditional tools such as standard costing</p><p>　　The paper is

15、 organized as follows. The following section is a review of the literature. Section 3 describes the research methodology while section 4 discusses the results. Section 5 concludes with the limitations of the study and su

16、ggestions for future research.</p><p>　　2.Literature review</p><p>　　Since the mid-1980 s, standard costing has come under intense criticism. Various authors have suggested that companies in to

17、day’s intensely competitive environment may find standard costing and variance analysis to be less relevant for cost control and performance evaluation (Kaplan and Johnson, 1987; Monden and Lee, 1993; Ferrara, 1995) prim

18、arily because the tool is not able to provide appropriate strategic signals for business enterprises (Fleischman and Tyson, 1998). Some authors also claim t</p><p>　　Contrary to the preceding arguments, stud

19、ies examining the use of standard costing among companies in the developed and the developing countries have shown widespread use of the technique (Puxty and Lyall, 1990; Joshi, 2001; Tho et al., 1998; Bromwich and Wang,

20、 1991). We are not always blessed with recent studies, so have to make the best of those studies that have been undertaken over the past decade or more. For example, a study conducted in the UK by Lyall and Graham (1993)

21、 found that 90 perc</p><p>　　Results of studies conducted in Asian countries (which are generally, developing) mirror those of the developed countries. In India, for example, 68 percent of the 60 firms surve

22、yed still used standard costing (Joshi, 2001). In Singapore, Ghosh et al. (1987) found 47 percent of the companies surveyed used standard costing. A later survey by Ghosh and Chan (1996) found the percentage to be higher

23、 at 56 percent. According to Murshed (1997), in Brunei, standard costing and variance analysis are wid</p><p>　　3.Methodology</p><p>　　The questionnaire was sent to 162 local Malaysian companie

24、s listed on the main board of the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE). Of these, 104 companies were in the industrial products sector while the balance (58) was from the consumer products sector. For the local Japanese co

25、mpanies we sent to 200 firms listed on the Comprehensive Bibliography of Japanese Affiliates Overseas, 2001. A letter accompanying the questionnaire indicated that the questionnaire should be answered by the person most

26、re</p><p>　　The use of a postal questionnaire survey as a method of data collection has been very popular with accounting researchers as it provides numerous advantages. A postal survey enables the collectio

27、n of a sufficiently large and representative sample for analysis. Besides being simple, the postal questionnaire survey method is cost effective and enables respondents to preserve their anonymity.</p><p>　　

28、3.1Questionnaire</p><p>　　The questionnaire, adapted from Drury et al. (1993), is part of a larger survey examining the management accounting practices of Malaysian companies. Using Drury et al. (1993) ques

29、tionnaire enabled us to compare our findings with their study on UK companies. The questionnaire comprises two major parts. Part 1 contains demographic variables while Part 2 focuses on the research questions of interest

30、, namely budgeting[3], standard costing practices and other contemporary management accounting techn</p><p>　　The section on standard costing consists of seven questions. The first question is a general ques

31、tion on whether or not respondents use standard costing. On a scale of “1” (least important) to “5” (most important), Question 2 sought respondents’ views on the various functions of standard costing. The third question

32、lists various methods of setting labour and materials standards followed by the type of standards that they practice (i.e. maximum efficiency standards, achievable but difficult to at</p><p>　　4.Results<

33、/p><p>　　4.1Demographics and test for non-response bias</p><p>　　The response rate of 41 percent (66 companies) for local Malaysian companies may be regarded as satisfactory since surveys conducte

34、d in Malaysia attract very low response rates (see Yap, 1994). The response rate from local Japanese companies was much lower at approximately 11 percent. Only 21 local Japanese companies responded to our survey. These r

35、esponse rates were obtained after we followed up with phone calls for all companies (both local and Japanese) that are located in the Klang Valley. T</p><p>　　The existence of a non-response bias can be stat

36、istically tested by assuming that respondents who sent in their questionnaires very late may be considered as having similar responses to non-respondents. The tests for non-response bias were carried out on this basis us

37、ing the Mann-Whitney U-test (MWU). Mean response scores were computed for each of the items of the last received ten questionnaires and from a random sample of ten from returns of the first three days. No significant dif

38、ferences eme</p><p>　　4.2Use of standard costing</p><p>　　On the use of standard costing, 46 (70 percent) local and 16 (76 percent) Japanese companies reported that they used standard costing (

39、see Table IV). The results appear to be consistent with those of Guilding et al. (1998) and Drury et al. (1993). As reported elsewhere in the paper, the former had a 73 percent adoption rate while the latter, 76 percent.

40、 Thus, the obsolescence of standard costing, as predicted by some authors, is not supported by the findings of this study as well as those of the</p><p>　　4.3Importance of standard costing</p><p&

41、gt;　　It has been claimed that the use of standard costing is less expensive than an actual or normal costing system (Hilton et al., 2003). Accordingly, standard costing has been widely used for both cost control and prod

42、uct costing purposes as well as to evaluate performance. In line with this, our second question asks respondents to rate, on a scale of “1” (Not important) to “5” (Vitally important), the importance of the various functi

43、ons of standard costing in their organizations. The results prese</p><p>　　A Mann-Whitney U-test was also conducted to examine if the differences in responses between local and Japanese companies are signifi

44、cantly different on the importance of standard costing, for the various functions listed. The results are presented in Table VI. As can be observed, significant differences emerged only for “computing product cost” and “

45、as an aid to budgeting”, thus suggesting that Japanese companies use standard costing to a significantly greater extent than local companies for the</p><p>　　4.4Setting labour and material standards</p&g

46、t;<p>　　The results are presented in Tables VII and VIII. The percentages represent those respondents who answered “4” (Often) and “5” (Always). It is interesting to note that local Japanese and UK companies appea

47、r to be more “scientific” in their approach to standard setting as compared to local Malaysian companies. As regards the method used to set labour and materials standards, 51 percent of the UK companies and 81 percent of

48、 local Japanese companies said that these standards are based on design and</p><p>　　Further, as observed in Table VIII, using the Mann-Whitney U-test, the only significant difference that emerged between lo

49、cal and Japanese companies is the “standards based on design/engineering studies”. It appears that local Japanese companies use this particular method to determine their labour and material standards to a significantly g

50、reater extent than the local Malaysian companies.</p><p>　　4.5Type of standards</p><p>　　As to the type of standards employed, 46 percent of the UK companies, 39 percent of local Japanese compa

51、nies and 37 percent of local Malaysian companies reported that they used “average of past performance” (see Table IX). Again, the percentages represent those respondents who answered “4” (Often) and “5” (Always). Interes

52、tingly, a higher percentage (33 percent) of the local Japanese companies as compared to local Malaysian (17 percent) and UK companies (5 percent) reported that they used “maxim</p><p>　　4.6Frequency in revi

53、ewing standards</p><p>　　Shorter product life cycles may render standards to be relevant only for shorter periods of time. As such, one would expect leading edge companies facing increasing global competitio

54、n, will review their standards more frequently. Accordingly, we ask respondents the frequency with which they reviewed their standards. For local Japanese companies, 55 percent of the firms reported that they reviewed th

55、eir standards twice a year while only 18 percent of the local Malaysian companies said they review</p><p>　　4.7Method used to determine if a variance should be investigated</p><p>　　On a scale

56、between “1” (Never) to “5” (Always), respondents were asked to indicate the approach they used to determine if a particular variance should be investigated. The percentages of those who rated “4” (Often) and “5” (Always)

57、 are presented in Table XI and Table XII. While 75 percent of the companies in the UK reported that they did not use any formal method to determine whether or not a particular variance is to be investigated, the practice

58、 among local Japanese and local Malaysian compani</p><p>　　4.8Importance of variances as an aid to control</p><p>　　Finally, on a scale of “1” (Least important) to “5” (Most important), we aske

59、d respondents the importance of particular variances for control purposes. The frequencies (given in percentages) of respondents who answered “4” and “5” are presented in Tables XIII and XIV. As can be observed, all (100

60、 percent) of the local</p><p>　　Japanese companies perceived the sales volume variance to be important for control purposes. The figure for local Malaysian companies at 90 percent (though lower than local Ja

61、panese companies), is comparably high. Of the UK sample, only 70 percent of the companies felt that the sales volume variance is important for control purposes. On the basis of the rankings of the frequencies, local Japa

62、nese companies perceived the three most important variances to be the sales volume (100 percent), the mat</p><p>　　A Mann-Whitney U-test conducted to examine the differences in responses between local and Ja

63、panese companies in Malaysia revealed only one significant difference, that of the labour efficiency variance. Local Japanese companies stress the importance of this variance to a significantly greater extent than local

64、Malaysian companies for control purposes.</p><p>　　5.Conclusion</p><p>　　To summarize, local Japanese companies primarily use standard costing for costing inventories; based their standards on

65、past performances, use design and engineering studies to set labour and material standards, review their standards twice annually and perceived the sales volume and material price variances to be most important for contr

66、ol purposes (see Table XV). On the other hand, local Malaysian companies perceived standard costing as most useful for cost control and performance evaluation; </p><p>　　The results appear to suggest that, a

67、s far as management accounting development in Malaysia is concerned, we are only at stages 1 and 2 of the IFAC-FMAC framework. What this means is that the focus of management accounting here in Malaysia is primarily on c

68、ost determination. Additionally, management accounting information is generally used for management planning and control.</p><p>　　Despite the various criticisms leveled at standard costing, our empirical fi

69、ndings appear to suggest that standard costing is still being used by a large majority of firms here in Malaysia. Prior research in developed and developing countries found similar results. Lyall et al. (1990) provide a

70、plausible reason for this phenomenon. The high adoption rates may well be due to the fact that such companies have modified their standard costing systems to be in line with the current manufacturing envi</p><

71、p>　　Finally, the results obtained here should be interpreted in the light of several limitations. First, the study did not extend to all sectors of the economy. Only two sectors, the industrial and consumer products s

72、ectors were surveyed. Accordingly, the results are not generalisable across all other sectors. Further, a single empirical study such as this could not, in any case, be viewed as conclusive. Consequently, the findings of

73、 this study should be treated as part of a larger body of research </p><p>　　While our empirical results may be interesting, the findings represent an exploratory area of research which ultimately needs to b

74、e grounded in theory. To do this, future studies should undertake detailed case studies on management accounting in practice. Case studies will enable researchers to help explain the reasons why companies are still using

75、 a traditional tool such as standard costing. Further, is the use of standard costing pre-empting the use of contemporary management accounting tools </p><p>　　標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法是否過時(shí)？來自馬來西亞的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)</p><p>　　M S

76、ulaiman ， NNN Ahmad ， NM Alwi</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　目的-許多研究者預(yù)測(cè)，較短的產(chǎn)品生命周期，先進(jìn)的制造技術(shù)，對(duì)生產(chǎn)過程中勞動(dòng)力的重視程度以及全球競(jìng)爭(zhēng)可能導(dǎo)致標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的消失。這項(xiàng)探索性研究旨在提供關(guān)于馬來西亞企業(yè)在多大程度上使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)。另外還要研究當(dāng)?shù)氐鸟R來西亞企業(yè)和日本企業(yè)之間使用

77、這些技術(shù)的差異。</p><p>　　設(shè)計(jì)/方法/結(jié)論-從吉隆坡證券交易所上市的工業(yè)和消費(fèi)品行業(yè)以及馬來西亞的21個(gè)日本企業(yè)，對(duì)66家企業(yè)進(jìn)行了調(diào)查。結(jié)論-盡管有各種各樣的批評(píng)，但實(shí)證研究結(jié)果表明，馬來西亞大多數(shù)企業(yè)仍然使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。因此，馬來西亞企業(yè)（日本和地方）都認(rèn)為，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的基本原則仍然健全。</p><p>　　研究的局限/意義-雖然實(shí)證結(jié)果可能是有趣的，但是這些發(fā)現(xiàn)是一個(gè)探

78、索性研究領(lǐng)域，最終需要以理論為基礎(chǔ)。為此，未來的研究應(yīng)該在實(shí)踐中對(duì)管理會(huì)計(jì)進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的案例研究。</p><p>　　原創(chuàng)性/價(jià)值-提供馬來西亞標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法使用程度的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法，馬來西亞，日本，管理會(huì)計(jì)，成本削減，預(yù)算</p><p><b>　　1.引言</b></p><p>　　

79、很多學(xué)者認(rèn)為，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法不符合當(dāng)今的制造環(huán)境（例如，Monden和Lee，1993；Ferrara，1995；Drury，1999）。相反，為了滿足激烈競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的全球商業(yè)環(huán)境，企業(yè)應(yīng)該使用JIT，ABC，TQM，流程再造，生命周期評(píng)估和目標(biāo)成本核算等工具或策略。據(jù)說這些工具可以使企業(yè)更好地實(shí)現(xiàn)其戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)的能力，并使這些企業(yè)能夠在全球范圍內(nèi)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。此外，許多人預(yù)測(cè)，較短的產(chǎn)品生命周期，先進(jìn)的制造技術(shù)，生產(chǎn)過程中的勞動(dòng)力和全球競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的下降可能導(dǎo)致

80、其倒閉（Kirwan，1986；Hilton，2002）。然而，經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)似乎表明，絕大多數(shù)企業(yè)確實(shí)使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法進(jìn)行決策，控制和績(jī)效評(píng)估（Cornick等人，1985；Ghosh等，1987；Lyall和Graham，1993；Joshi，2001）。因此，管理會(huì)計(jì)課程教學(xué)中不斷強(qiáng)調(diào)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法和差異分析。那么，我們是否教導(dǎo)從業(yè)者長(zhǎng)期以來被視為過時(shí)的工具？因此，在管理會(huì)計(jì)課程綱要中納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法和差異分析的重要性（Lucas，1997）。

81、考慮到這一點(diǎn)，我們的探索性研究考察了馬來西亞企業(yè)正在使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法和方差分析的程度。此外，我們還研究了在馬來西亞的日本企</p><p>　　我們的研究以各種方式對(duì)管理會(huì)計(jì)文獻(xiàn)做出了貢獻(xiàn)。首先，很少有發(fā)表研究，以檢查馬來西亞企業(yè)在多大程度上使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法作為其規(guī)劃，控制和決策功能的輔助。第二，據(jù)我們所知，馬來西亞日本企業(yè)中沒有發(fā)表研究檢查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的使用情況[1]。第三，雖然批評(píng)者譴責(zé)使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本等傳統(tǒng)工具，并推

82、動(dòng)使用當(dāng)代管理會(huì)計(jì)工具（如ABC，JIT，BSC等），實(shí)踐可能不反映民意。因此，對(duì)目前的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本計(jì)算的效用打折扣，可能為時(shí)過早。因此，我們的研究結(jié)果可能提供一些證據(jù)表明目前正在使用諸如標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的傳統(tǒng)工具的程度。此外，我們的結(jié)果還可以提供一些關(guān)于我們的管理會(huì)計(jì)課程是否過時(shí)的指導(dǎo)，特別是在我們的課程綱要中強(qiáng)調(diào)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。最后，我們研究的次要焦點(diǎn)是使用IFAC-FMAC框架來檢查馬來西亞的管理會(huì)計(jì)發(fā)展[2]。鑒于框架，馬來西亞各企業(yè)正在使用

83、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的程度可能就管理會(huì)計(jì)發(fā)展的階段提供了一些跡象。如果結(jié)果指向受訪企業(yè)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法，則可以得出結(jié)論，馬來西亞企業(yè)處于IFAC-FMAC框架的第一或第二階段。這有什么意義呢？知道在哪個(gè)階段是重要的，因?yàn)榭梢蚤_發(fā)適當(dāng)?shù)牟呗詠磉M(jìn)入下一階段。</p><p>　　本文的結(jié)構(gòu)如下。以下部分是文獻(xiàn)綜述。第3節(jié)描述了研究方法，第4節(jié)討論了結(jié)果。第5節(jié)總結(jié)了研究的局限性和未來研究的建議。</p><p&

84、gt;<b>　　2.文獻(xiàn)綜述</b></p><p>　　自20世紀(jì)80年代中期以來，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法受到嚴(yán)厲的批評(píng)。各種研究者認(rèn)為，當(dāng)今競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈的環(huán)境中的企業(yè)可能會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法和方差分析在成本控制和績(jī)效評(píng)估方面不太相關(guān)（KaplanandJohnson，1987；MondenandLee，1993；Ferrara，1995），主要是因?yàn)樵摴ぞ呤遣荒転槠髽I(yè)提供適當(dāng)?shù)膽?zhàn)略信號(hào)（Fleischma

85、n和Tyson，1998）。一些研究者還聲稱，使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法作為操作控制機(jī)制的好處可能在當(dāng)今先進(jìn)的制造環(huán)境中不那么明顯。事實(shí)上，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法可能導(dǎo)致功能失調(diào)行為（Lucas，1997；Hansen和Mowen，2002）。例如，物料價(jià)格差異可能會(huì)鼓勵(lì)大宗采購來利用折扣，從而導(dǎo)致高庫存持有成本。采購經(jīng)理的這種行動(dòng)與JIT的理念不一致。因此，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法對(duì)于希望滿足激烈的全球競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的企業(yè)來說可能不是很好。另外，準(zhǔn)備的定期標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本差異報(bào)告被認(rèn)為對(duì)管

86、理人員來說不太有用，因?yàn)樗峁┑男畔⑹恰皽蟆钡?。特別是在當(dāng)前競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈的制造系統(tǒng)的環(huán)境中，管理者必須使用最新的數(shù)據(jù)，以使他們更有效率的進(jìn)行決策。此外，目前的生產(chǎn)過程不再是勞動(dòng)密集型的事實(shí)意味著旨在監(jiān)測(cè)勞動(dòng)力成本的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法系統(tǒng)</p><p>　　與前述論點(diǎn)相反，研究發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家和發(fā)展中國(guó)家企業(yè)使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的研究已經(jīng)廣泛使用了這種技術(shù)（Puxty和Lyall，1990；Joshi，2001；Thoetal。1998

87、；BromwichandWang，1991）。我們并不總是對(duì)最近的研究表示祝福，所以必須充分發(fā)揮過去十多年來所進(jìn)行的研究。例如，Lyall和Graham（1993）在英國(guó)進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們調(diào)查的231家企業(yè)中有90％使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法作為成本控制機(jī)制。其中35％認(rèn)為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法系統(tǒng)提供的信息是“必不可少的”。此外，63％的企業(yè)采用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的經(jīng)理認(rèn)為該技術(shù)對(duì)決策和控制“非常有用”。然而，該研究中的大多數(shù)管理人員認(rèn)為，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法對(duì)激勵(lì)下屬

88、無益。在另一項(xiàng)調(diào)查（也在英國(guó)）Lyall等人（1990）發(fā)現(xiàn)，在他們調(diào)查的423家企業(yè)中，76％的受訪者表示使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。Drury等人（1993）同樣報(bào)告。在調(diào)查中，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)7??3％的受訪者使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。同樣地，在新西蘭，Guilding等（1998）發(fā)現(xiàn)，73％的受訪企業(yè)使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。在美國(guó)進(jìn)行的調(diào)查顯示，采用率也相似。例如，Cornick等人（1985）報(bào)告了86％的采用率，</p><p>　　在

89、亞洲國(guó)家（通常是發(fā)展中國(guó)家）進(jìn)行的研究結(jié)果反映了發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的研究結(jié)果。例如，在印度，被調(diào)查的60家企業(yè)中有68％仍然使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法（Joshi，2001）。在新加坡，Ghosh等人（1987）發(fā)現(xiàn)有47％的受訪企業(yè)使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。戈斯和陳（1996年）的后來調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，百分比高達(dá)56％。根據(jù)Murshed（1997），在文萊，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法和方差分析被國(guó)際企業(yè)廣泛使用（Murshed，1997）。在韓國(guó)，許多企業(yè)仍然傾向于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法（Ahn和L

90、ee，1994）。在他們調(diào)查的115家電子，電氣和機(jī)械企業(yè)中，44％表示他們使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。在臺(tái)灣，制造業(yè)企業(yè)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本比例高于服務(wù)業(yè)（14％）（蔡，1995）。根據(jù)Diga（1997）的說法，在菲律賓，中型企業(yè)和大型企業(yè)正在使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法程序。在日本，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的采用率為65％（Scarborough等，1991）。因此，如Monden和Lee（1993）等研究者所建議的，在當(dāng)今制造環(huán)境中，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法不太相關(guān)的觀點(diǎn)可能不成立。<

91、/p><p><b>　　3.研究方法</b></p><p>　　調(diào)查問卷已發(fā)送給在吉隆坡證券交易所（KLSE）主板上市的162家當(dāng)?shù)伛R來西亞企業(yè)。其中，104家企業(yè)來自工業(yè)產(chǎn)品行業(yè)，其余（58％）來自消費(fèi)品行業(yè)。對(duì)于本地日本企業(yè)，我們發(fā)送到2001年在海外日語附屬機(jī)構(gòu)綜合參考書目上列出的200家企業(yè)。問卷調(diào)查表明，調(diào)查問卷應(yīng)由企業(yè)管理會(huì)計(jì)職能最負(fù)責(zé)的人員回答。<

92、/p><p>　　使用郵政問卷調(diào)查作為數(shù)據(jù)收集的方法已經(jīng)非常受到會(huì)計(jì)研究人員的歡迎，因?yàn)樗峁┝嗽S多優(yōu)點(diǎn)。郵政調(diào)查使得能夠收集足夠大和有代表性的樣本進(jìn)行分析。除了簡(jiǎn)單外，郵政問卷調(diào)查方法具有成本效益，使受訪者能夠保持匿名性。</p><p><b>　　3.1問卷</b></p><p>　　調(diào)查問卷由Drury等編寫（1993），是對(duì)馬來西亞企業(yè)

93、管理會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)務(wù)的較大調(diào)查的一部分。使用Drury等（1993）問卷使我們能夠?qū)⑽覀兊陌l(fā)現(xiàn)與他們對(duì)英國(guó)企業(yè)的研究進(jìn)行比較。問卷包括兩個(gè)主要部分。第1部分包含人口變量，而第2部分重點(diǎn)關(guān)注感興趣的研究問題，即預(yù)算[3]，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法和其他當(dāng)代管理會(huì)計(jì)技術(shù)。</p><p>　　標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法部分由七個(gè)問題組成。第一個(gè)問題是一個(gè)普遍的問題，即受訪者是否使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。在“1”（最不重要）至“5”（最重要）的規(guī)模上，問題2就標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成

94、本法的各種職能尋求受訪者的意見。第三個(gè)問題列出了制定勞動(dòng)和材料標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的各種方法，其次是他們實(shí)踐的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)類型（即最高效率標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，可實(shí)現(xiàn)但難以達(dá)到標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，平均績(jī)效標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或歷史使用平均水平）。問題5側(cè)重于審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的頻率。問題6向受訪者詢問用于確定是否應(yīng)調(diào)查特定差異的方法（即基于管理判斷;基于計(jì)算出的方差超過特定貨幣金額;基于方差超過給定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)百分比; 或通過使用控制圖。最后一個(gè)問題要求受訪者指出材料價(jià)格，材料使用，材料組合和各種其他差異等特定差異的重要

95、性，以便控制。</p><p><b>　　4.結(jié)果</b></p><p>　　4.1人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)和無響應(yīng)偏差的測(cè)試</p><p>　　馬來西亞當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)的答復(fù)率為41％（66家企業(yè)）可能被認(rèn)為是令人滿意的，因?yàn)樵隈R來西亞進(jìn)行的調(diào)查吸引了非常低的回應(yīng)率（見Yap，1994）。當(dāng)?shù)厝毡酒髽I(yè)的回應(yīng)率大約低于11％。只有21家本地的日本企業(yè)回應(yīng)了我們

96、的調(diào)查。這些答復(fù)率是在我們跟進(jìn)所有位于巴生谷的所有企業(yè)（本地和日本）的電話后獲得的。受訪企業(yè)的情況見表一至三。大部分馬來西亞當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)（57％）的凈資產(chǎn)低于1億令吉（馬來西亞林吉特）。只有七家企業(yè)的資產(chǎn)超過5億馬幣。在本地企業(yè)中，39％或60％的員工人數(shù)低于500人，而三家企業(yè)擁有員工5000余人。所有21家當(dāng)?shù)厝毡酒髽I(yè)對(duì)我們的調(diào)查作出回應(yīng)都在制造業(yè)。其中14（77％）的資產(chǎn)低于1億令吉。只有一家企業(yè)的凈資產(chǎn)超過5億令吉。在員工人數(shù)方面，

97、當(dāng)?shù)厝毡酒髽I(yè)中有18家員工人數(shù)不足1000人。</p><p>　　可以通過假設(shè)在調(diào)查問卷中很晚發(fā)送的受訪者可能被認(rèn)為對(duì)非答復(fù)者有相似的回應(yīng)，可以統(tǒng)計(jì)測(cè)試存在不反應(yīng)偏見。使用Mann-WhitneyU檢驗(yàn)（MWU）在此基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行無反應(yīng)偏差的檢測(cè)。對(duì)最近收到的十份問卷中的每一項(xiàng)進(jìn)行平均回答分?jǐn)?shù)，并從頭三天的回報(bào)中抽取10份隨機(jī)樣本。這兩組早期和晚期的反應(yīng)沒有顯著差異。因此，可以得出結(jié)論，沒有重大的反應(yīng)性偏差。<

98、;/p><p>　　4.2使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法</p><p>　　在使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法方面，46％（70％）的本地企業(yè)和16家（76％）的日本企業(yè)報(bào)告說他們使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法。結(jié)果與Guilding等人相似。（1998）和Drury等人（1993）。如本文其他地方所報(bào)道，前者的采用率為73％，后者為76％。因此，一些研究者所預(yù)測(cè)的，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成本法的淘汰不受本研究結(jié)果以及英國(guó)和新西蘭的研究結(jié)果的支持。詳細(xì)分析如