Year 2019, Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 89 - 120 2019-03-28

MALİYET YAPISI, YÖNETİM MUHASEBESİ VE ÜRETİM PERFORMANSI İLİŞKİSİ
The Relation Among The Cost Structure, Management Accounting, and Production Performance

Metin UYAR [1]

52 104

Bu araştırmada, yönetim muhasebesi uygulamalarının ve maliyet yapısının üretim performansına olan direkt ve ortak etkilerinin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yönetim muhasebesi uygulamaları planlama ve kontrol, maliyet yönetimi, performans ölçme ve değerlendirme işlevleri vasıtasıyla üretimin kalitesini, süresini ve maliyetini değiştiren bir faktördür. Maliyet yapısı içerisinde direkt ve endirekt giderlerin büyüklüğü üretimin başta maliyeti olmak üzere kalitesine ve süresine tesir etmektedir. Metal eşya ve makine üreticisi firmalara yönelik yapılan uygulama sonucunda elde edilen verilere göre, işletmede yönetim muhasebesi uygulamalarının adaptasyonu ve yaygınlığı arttıkça planlama ve kontrol işlevi artmakta, maliyet yönetimi etkin hale gelmekte ve performans ölçümü ve değerlendirmesi kararlara daha fazla katkı yaparak üretim performansının süresini, kalitesini ve maliyetini değiştirmektedir. Maliyet yapısında ise endirekt giderlerin direkt giderlere oranla üretim performansı üzerinde daha etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Araştırmadan sağlanan veriler doğrultusunda uygulamacılara ve araştırmacılara yönelik çıkarımlar ve öneriler yapılmıştır. 

In this research, it is aimed to determine direct and joint effects of management accounting practices and cost structure on production performance. Management accounting practices are a factor that change the quality, duration and cost of production through planning and control, cost management, performance measurement and evaluation functions. The size of the direct and indirect costs within the cost structure affects the quality and time of the production, especially the cost. According to the results obtained from the research made to the metal goods and machine manufacturer firms, the adaptation and the spread of the management accounting practices in the business increases the planning and control functions, the cost management becomes more effective and the more the contribution to the performance measurement and appraisal decisions, changing the cost. In terms of cost structure, it is determined that indirect costs have an effect on production performance compared to direct costs. Evaluations and proposals for practitioners and researchers were made in the direction of data provided in research.

  • Ahmad, K. 2017. “The implementation of management accounting practices and its relationship with performance in small and medium enterprises”, International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(1), 342-353.
  • Anderson, S.W. ve Lanen, W.N. 1999. “Economic transition, strategy and the evolution of management accounting practices: the case of India”. Accounting Organizations and Society, 24(5–6), 379–412.
  • Angelakis, G., Theriou, N.ve Floropoulos, I. 2010. “Adoption and benefits of management accounting practices: Evidence from Greece and Finland”, Advances in Accounting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting, 26, 87–96.
  • Atkinson, A. A., Kaplan, R.S., Matsumura, Ella Mae, Young, S.M. ve Mukherjee, A.K. 2012. Management accounting: information for decision‑making and strategy execution. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.
  • Banker, R. D., Bardhan, I. R. ve Chen, T. Y., 2008. “The role of manufacturing practices in mediating the impact of activity-based costing on plant performance”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 1-19.
  • Brierley, J.A. 2011. “A comparison of the product costing practices of large and small to medium-sized enterprises: A survey of British manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Management, 28(4), 184-193.
  • Chenhall, R. H. ve Langfield-Smith, K. 1998. “Adoption and benefits of management accounting practices: an Australian study”, Management Accounting Research, 9, 1-19.
  • Choe, J. 2004. “The relationships among management accounting information, organizational learning and production performance”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(1), 61-85.
  • Cooper, R. ve Kaplan, R.S. 1991. “Profit priorities from activity-based costing”. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 130–135.
  • Duh, R. -R., Xiao, J. Z., ve Chow, C.W. 2009. “Chinese firms' use of management accounting and controls: Facilitators, impediments, and performance effects”, Journal of International Accounting Research, 8(1), 1–30.
  • Drury, C. ve Tayles, M. 2005. “Explicating the design of overhead absorption procedures in UK organizations”, The British Accounting Review, 37, 47-84.
  • Ersoy, A., Utku Demirel, B., Dönmez, A. ve Berberoğlu, B. 2006. “Üretim işletmelerinde yönetim muhasebesi konularının uygulanmasına ilişkin bir araştırma”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 32, 1-12.
  • Granlund, M. ve Lukka, K. 1998. “It’s a small world of management accounting practices”. Journal of Management Accounting Research; 10, 153-179.
  • https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesm/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf[Erişim Tarihi 3 Şubat 2018]
  • https://www.hazine.gov.tr/File/Index?id=3D459789-815C-41C7-ACEA-8B4525ECBC81 [Erişim Tarihi: 11 Ekim 2018].
  • Ismail, T.H. ve Mahmoud, N.M. 2012. “The influence of organizational and environmental factors on cost systems design in Egypt”, British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 4 (2), 31-51.
  • Ittner, C. D., Lanen, W. N. ve Larcker, D. F. 2002. “The association between activity-based costing and manufacturing performance”, Journal of Accounting Research. 40(3) 711-726.
  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J.veVolberda, H. W. 2006. “Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators”, Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
  • Johnson, H. ve Kaplan, R. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Harvard Business School Press Books, Boston.Krumwiede, K. R. 1998. “The implementation stages of activity-based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors”, Journal of Management Accounting Research. 10, 239-277.
  • O’Regan, N.ve Sims, M.A. 2008, “Leaders, loungers, laggards: The strategic-planning-environment performance relationship re-visited in manufacturing SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(1), 6-21.
  • Pavlatos, O. ve Kostakis, H. 2015. “Management accounting practices before and during economic crisis: Evidence from Greece”. Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International Accounting, 31(1), 150-164.
  • Perera, S., Harrison, G. ve Poole, M. 1997. “Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-financial performance measures: A research note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(6), 557-572.
  • Soobaroyen, T., ve Poorundersing, B. 2008. “The effectiveness of management accounting systems: Evidence from functional managers in a developing country”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(2), 187–219.
  • Widener, S. K. 2007. “An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework”, Accounting Organizations and Society, 32(7- 8), 757-788.
  • www3.kalkinma.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/3088/oik676.pdf.[Erişim Tarihi: 4 Şubat 2018].
Primary Language tr
Subjects Management
Journal Section ANABOLUM
Authors

Author: Metin UYAR (Primary Author)
Institution: İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


APA UYAR, M . (2019). MALİYET YAPISI, YÖNETİM MUHASEBESİ VE ÜRETİM PERFORMANSI İLİŞKİSİ. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 21 (1), 89-120. DOI: 10.31460/mbdd.489040