Budgeting.
A budget is defined as a comprehensive and coordinated
plan, expressed in financial terms for operations and resources of an
enterprise for some period in the future. Khan & Jain (2007)
According to Rajasekaran (2010), the process of preparing,
implementing and the operating of budgets can also be referred to as
budgeting. It is a method of planning ahead for a specified time and it tries to
provide an action plan to problems that may possibly arise. The main
objective of budgeting is to fix and attain goals for different levels of business
organizations.
Many start-up business owners begin their operation with a wave of
optimism and enthusiasm. But without a well thought out budget, it may be
difficult for them to create a successful action plan. When running a business,
managers are easily affected with day to day problems and miss the bigger
picture. To be successful in a business venture, managers should allocate
time to create and manage budgets, prepare and review business plans and
regularly monitor their financial situation and business performance.
As per Rajasekaran (2010), budgeting identifies current available
capital, provides an estimate of expenditure and anticipates incoming
revenue. With proper budgeting, businesses can measure performance in
contrast to expenditure and ensure that resources are available and are used
efficiently to support business growth and development. Budgeting enables
the business owner to concentrate on cash flow, reducing costs, improving
profits and increasing returns on investment.
As stated by Karen Banks (2018), running a business without a proper
budget may leave an individual just running around in circles and not meeting
their long-term goals. Making time in setting up a budget will provide the best
chance of attaining the rewards of hard work.
Some research suggests that control systems such as budgets
become more important in economic crises (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1988;
Colignon & Covaleski, 1988). Extant research shows that budgeting can play
an essential role in forecasting economic crises, because “the organization’s
accounting control system (including budgeting processes) facilitates
adaptation to these externalities by mediating between external threats and
opportunities, and the organizational functioning” (Collins, et al., 1997 and
Colignon & Covaleski, 1988, 576). Samuelson (1986), looking at the Swedish
economic crisis, reports that budgeting became more important. Also drawing
on Swedish data, Czarniawska-Joerges (1988) presents the case of a
company that had previously only loosely coordinated its different business
units but because of the economic crisis switched to using central guidelines,
goals set by headquarters, and formalized planning procedures. She thereby
confirms studies that find theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that
the “almost reflexive response of management to a decline situation is one of
tightening control”.
However, other evidence refutes that and claims that budgeting
becomes less important (Collins, Holzmann, & Mendoza, 1997) or that
companies survive crises better without budgeting (Lindsay & Libby, 2007).
the higher unpredictability that exists in economic crises (Plaschke, Roghé, &
Günther, 2011) renders budgets inadequate because budgeted numbers are
fixed and do not allow organizations to be responsive (Arwidi & Samuelson,
1993). Also Collins et al. (1997), in their survey of the relationship between
strategy and budgetary usage in political and economic crisis situations in
Latin America, find a reduced importance of budget use, noting that in general
a “high crisis reduces the usefulness of the budgetary system” ( Kattan, Pike,
& Tayles, 2007, Shih & Yong, 2001). Taken to the extreme, the views
presented by these studies would suggest ignoring budgets in crisis situations
(Hopwood, 2009; Van der Stede, 2011) or even abandoning budgeting
entirely, as advocated by proponents of Beyond Budgeting (Hope & Fraser,
2003).
In 2015, Shauffer et al. identifies several function of budgeting. The first
one is the planning. This function is associated budgets being “a concerted
plan of action”, integrating all actors in the organization, and may serve to give
a realistic “picture of a likely and desired future” to internal and/or external
stakeholders (Parker, 2002, 309; see also Epstein & Manzoni, 2002).
The second factor is Resource allocation. It is the combination of the
two budgeting functions of resource allocation itself and the authorization of
spending. These gives emphasis in the need for an a priori identification of
resources to achieve operational goals, analyzing different suggestions
regarding resource consumption, and the authorization of spending based
upon criteria such as suitability and feasibility (for similar arguments, see
Parker, 2002 and Drury, 2009).
Lastly, the third factor is Performance evaluation. It combines the two
budgeting functions of performance evaluation and rewards. These functions
aim to evaluate performance based on the attainment of budget targets and to
motivate managers through budgeting, respectively (Samuelson, 1986;
GignonMarconnet, 2003).
Four stages of budgeting process have been identified: 1)
identification, 2) development, 3) selection, and 4) control. The identification
stage comprises the overall process of project idea generation including
sources and submission procedures and the incentives/reward system. The
development stage involves the initial screening process relying primarily
upon cash flow estimation and early screening criteria. Suggested areas of
study within this stage include the extent of screening of project ideas, how
ideas get turned into proposals, the level of review, the screening criteria, and
the role of project size and organizational structure. Perhaps more
importantly, this stage also focuses on firm data-gathering efforts, viz., the
extent to which companies use accounting vs. cash flow data, the details of
how the data is estimated, the responsible personnel, and the decision
support system. The selection stage includes the detailed project analysis that
results in acceptance or rejection of the project for funding. selection stage is
arguably the most involved since it includes the choices of analytical
methods/techniques used, how the cost of capital is determined, how
adjustments for projects risks are assessed and reflected, and how, if
relevant, capital rationing affects project choice. The selection stage has also
been the most investigated by survey researchers, particularly in the area of
selection techniques, resulting in a relative neglect of the other stages. Finally,
the control stage involves the evaluation of project performance for both
control purposes and continuous improvement for future decisions. Suggested
areas of study within this stage include research into: how project
performance is evaluated, by whom, how it is done, what happens when
expected and actual results differ, whether there is an expenditure control
procedure, whether management is rewarded or punished for such
discrepancies, and if so, how? The control stage received some significant
attention, particularly in the early part of the review period
References
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. 1988. Dynamics of organizational control:
The case of Berol Kemi AB. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (4):
415-430.
Czarniawska, B., and B. Hedberg. 1985. Control cycle responses to
decline. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies 2 (1): 19-39.
Colignon, R., and M. A. Covaleski. 1988. An examination of managerial
accounting practices as a process of mutual adjustment. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 13 (6): 559-579.
Hope, J., and R. Fraser. 2003. Beyond Budgeting: How managers can
break free from the annual performance trap. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Hopwood, A. G. 2009. The economic crisis and accounting:
Implications for the research community. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 34 (6-7): 797-802.
Parker, L. D. 2002. Twentieth-century textbook budgetary discourse:
Formalization, normalization and rebuttal in an Anglo-Saxon environment.
European Accounting Review 11 (2): 305-327.
Epstein, M. J., and J.-F. Manzoni. (2002). Reconciling conflicting roles
of budgets: Review and survey of corporate practices. Working paper, Rice
University and INSEAD.
Drury, C. 2009. Management accounting for business (4th ed.).
London: Cengage Learning.
Samuelson, L. A. 1986. Discrepancies between the roles of budgeting.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 11 (1): 35-45.
Collins, F., O. Holzmann, and R. Mendoza. 1997. Strategy, budgeting, and
crisis in Latin America. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (7): 669-
689.
Lindsay, R. M., and T. Libby. 2007. Svenska Handelsbanken: Controlling a
radically decentralized organization without budgets. Issues in Accounting
Education 22 (4): 625-640.
Plaschke, F., F. Roghé, and F. Günther. 2011. The art of planning. Boston,
MA: Boston Consulting Group (BCG) – Perspectives
Arwidi, O., and L. A. Samuelson. 1993. The development of budgetary control
in Sweden: A research note. Management Accounting Research 4 (2): 93-
107.
Kattan, F., R. Pike, and M. Tayles. 2007. Reliance on management
accounting under environmental uncertainty. Journal of Accounting &
Organizational Change 3 (3): 227-249.
Shih, M. S. H., and L.-C. Yong. 2001. Relationship of planning and control
systems with strategic choices: A closer look. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management 18 (4): 481- 501.
Van der Stede, W. A. 2011. Management accounting research in the wake of
the crisis: Some reflections. European Accounting Review 20 (4): 605-623.