A comparative study of the adoption and implementation of target costing

in the UK, Australia and New Zealand

Hassan Yazdifar
a,n
, Davood Askarany
b
a
Glasgow University, Business School, West Quadrangle, Main Building, University Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK
b
Auckland University, Auckland, New Zealand
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 November 2009
Accepted 12 August 2011
Available online 27 August 2011
Keywords:
Target costing
Diffusion of innovations
Attributes of innovation
Implementation
Manufacturing
Service
a b s t r a c t
Most of the studies on target costing (TC) only provide insight into the adoption and perceived benets of
TC, and do not address the levels of implementation of the technique. These studies also assume that TC is
only relevant to manufacturing rms and therefore do not investigate the adoption of this technique in
service rms, and consequently exclude service rms from their surveys and analysis. Furthermore, most
studies do not examine factors inuencing the adoption of TC systems. Contributing to these gaps in the
literature, this paper reports the results of a survey among CIMA-qualied management accountants
working in manufacturing and service rms in the UK, Australia and New Zealand on the adoption and
implementation of TC. The study examines the importance of attributes of TC (namely relative advantage,
compatibility, ease of use, result demonstrability, trialability) for decision makers to adopt and
implement such cost and management accounting innovation. The survey indicates that TC is equally
prevalent among manufacturing and service rms while in terms of the levels of implementation there is
a signicant difference between manufacturing and service rms. The study shows that there is a
growing interest in the examination of all cost-reducing strategies at the planning stage and adoption of
value engineering to incorporate customer requirements rather than focusing on the adoption of cost-
cutting strategies at the production stage.
& 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the era of severe international competition, improved tech-
nologies and information systems have directed businesses to
use new management techniques (Baykaso_ glu and Kaplano_ glu,
2006). Severe competition forces companies to become leaner,
more responsive and more agile, with ever-increasing efciency
and effectiveness to satisfy customers (Agrawal and Mehra, 1998).
Market structures of the products and services have forced com-
panies to manage their costs according to business competition
and customer needs. In such a rigorous business environment,
manufacturing and service rms have found it very hard to
maintain satisfactory returns or prots. Consequently, accurate
cost information is critical for every aspect of a business (Gupta
and Galloway, 2003). This is the case not only for manufacturing
companies, but also for service companies (Baykaso_ glu and
Kaplano_ glu, 2007).
In order to restore the relevance of cost and management
control practices, several new (also called modern) techniques,
including activity based costing and management, balanced
scorecard and target costing, have been presented. This develop-
ment has produced extensive research focusing on different
aspects of those techniques (Ax et al., 2008).
Over the last 25 years, researchers in the eld of management
accounting (MA) have attempted to identify factors that may
inuence a rms decisions to adopt modern cost and manage-
ment control practices. However, as Drury and Tayles (2000)
stated, a literature review of the past two decades shows that
almost all of this research has concentrated on studying the
antecedents of the adoption and non-adoption of one of the
modern techniques, namely activity based costing, with the other
techniques receiving less attention (Askarany and Yazdifar,
2007b, Forthcoming; Askarany et al., 2010). The research pre-
sented in this paper contributes to this research stream by
examining the adoption rate and level of implementation of target
costing (TC) in manufacturing and service rms in three countries,
namely the UK, Australia (AU) and New Zealand (NZ). The study also
examines the importance of attributes of TC for decision makers.
The remainder of the paper is organized thus. Section 2 is the
literature review on TC, discusses the theory of TC and Rogers
theory of diffusion of innovation. Section 3 discusses the research
method. Section 4 presents and discusses the research results.
Section 5 concludes the research, identies its limitations and
offers suggestions for future research.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe
Int. J. Production Economics
0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.012
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 1413305666; fax: 44 1413304442.
E-mail addresses: hassan.yazdifar@glasgow.ac.uk (H. Yazdifar),
d.askarany@auckland.ac.nz (D. Askarany).
Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392
2. Literature review
2.1. Studies on the use of TC
A review of the TC literature reveals that TC is often associated
with Japanese rms and empirical research has mainly been
performed by Japanese researchers for the Japanese context (e.g.,
Kato, 1993a, 1993b; Cooper and Yoshikawa, 1994; Tani et al., 1994)
and that most western-based research has concerned the rate of
mapping usage from TC in different countries (Ax et al., 2008).
Surveys on the adoption of TC in Japan report a much higher rate of
adoption than by Western rms.
1
For example, Lorino (1995)
stated that over 80% of large companies in the assembly industries
had already applied TC in Japan. In the US, Ernst & Young and
The Institute of Management Accountants (2003) found that 26% of
IMA member rms had adopted TC. Likewise, Chenhall and
Langeld-Smith (1998) reported that of 78 large Australian man-
ufacturing rms, 38% had employed TC. Israelsen et al. (1996)
found that 50% of Danish rms had adopted TC. In another study,
Dekker and Smidt (2003a, 2003b) reported an even higher adop-
tion rate from a study of Dutch rms listed on the Amsterdam
Stock Exchange, with 59.4% of rms using TC.
Wijewardena and De Zoysa (1999) found that in their sample
of 209 Japanese manufacturing rms that of the 11 studied MA
practices, TC was perceived as the most important practice used.
The authors also found that for the 225 Australian manufacturing
rms they surveyed, TC ranked only tenth in importance among
the 11 MA practices. From a survey in NZ, the UK and the USA,
Gulding et al. (2000) reported that the adoption rate of TC was
moderate. Tani et al. (1994) reported that in 1991, 60.6% of their
sample of 180 listed Japanese manufacturing rms used some
form of TC.
In an extensive review of the TC literature, Ansari et al. (2007)
reported that TC is being increasingly adopted by a number of
leading rms worldwide, even pointing to some diffusion in East
Asia (India and Malaysia). The authors claim that several compa-
nies in the USA, like Chrysler and Caterpillar, attribute their
nancial success in the mid-1990s to the adoption of TC. They
argued that while TC is fairly mature in Japanese assembly
industries, it is fairly young in the USA and Europe. They stated
that many managers underestimate the potential of TC, and this
may be one reason for its low adoption.
Cooper and Slagmulders (2004) study of seven Japanese
manufacturing rms discuss the use of TC in a make-or-buy
(outsourcing) decision. They argue, as suggested in the literature,
TC is an arms-length cost management technique and it does not
actively involve the supplier in the buyers cost management
program. Instead, the buyers TC system identies the purchase
price of the outsourced item, which signals to the suppliers TC
system where cost reduction is necessary. Their study shows
the application of TC in inter-organizational decision making and
the potential for an active involvement of both the buyers and
suppliers design teams in the joint management of costs in the
manufacturing rms.
Most of the studies on TC, however, only provide insight into
the adoption and perceived benets of TC, and do not study the
levels of implementation of the technique (see also Langeld-
Smith, 2008). These studies also assume that TC is only relevant to
manufacturing rms and therefore do not investigate the adop-
tion of this technique in service rms, and consequently exclude
service rms from their surveys and analysis. Furthermore, as
Dekker and Smidt (2003a, 2003b) discuss, most studies do not
address the factors inuencing the adoption of TC systems.
Langeld-Smiths (2008) review of the diffusion of strategic MA
(SMA) techniques (including TC) over the past twenty-ve years
reports that there are only a few surveys of practice and imple-
mentation of the new and modern techniques. Tani et al. (1994)
found that 109 of the corporations surveyed had implemented TC
and Boer and Ettlie (1999), in a survey of 126 US corporations, found
that many corporations estimated costs in the product design phase.
This nding, as Langeld-Smith (2008, p. 218) concludes, could be
interpreted as a very partial or preliminary implementation of TC.
Langeld-Smith (2008) nally suggests that it would be useful to
understand how SMA techniques, including TC, diffuse into more
general practice and into organizational processes.
When examining the factors inuencing the adoption of
innovations, the diffusion of innovation theory suggests that the
attributes of innovations (namely relative advantage, compatibil-
ity, ease of use, result demonstrability, trialability) are crucial to
the adoption of innovations (Rogers, 2003). To the authors
knowledge, no prior research has examined the association
between all of these attributes of innovations and the actual
adoption of TC. This is an important omission because Rogers
(2003) states that between 51 and 87% of the variance in the rate
of adoption of innovations is accounted for by the attributes of
innovations. There is thus a need to investigate whether a large
proportion of the variance in the decision to adopt TC is
accounted for by the attributes of innovations.
The present study aims to add to the literature by examining
the latest adoption and levels of implementation of TC in three
western countries: AU, NZ and the UK. The paper also tests the
levels of association between the diffusion of TC and its attributes.
Furthermore, the study contributes to the literature by reporting
the adoption of such techniques by service rms in the three
countries.
2.2. Fundamentals of TC
Target costing was originally introduced in Japan under the
name of Genkakikaku or Genka Kikaku (Monden and Hamada, 1991;
Nicolini et al., 2000) and became popular in the English-language
literature in the 1990s (Cooper, 1995; Kato, 1993a, 1993b). The
technique also is known as cost planning, cost projection systems
(Kato, 1993a, 1993b), basic net price, manufacturing cost reduc-
tion, pre-calculation, direct cost feasibility study (Dekker and
Smidt, 2003a, 2003b), design to cost (Michaels and Wood, 1989)
and cost management (Cooper and Slagmulder, 1997). TC focuses
on long-term cost management efforts, which is why the MA
literature refers to it as a SMA technique (Dekker and Smidt,
2003a, 2003b; Guilding et al., 2000; Ewert and Ernst, 1999;
Chenhall and Langeld-Smith, 1998; Tani, 1995). The literature is
abundant with articles discussing the advantages of TC approach.
2
These include: proactive approach to cost management; directs
organizations towards customers; removes barriers between depart-
ments; enhances employee awareness and augments their partici-
pation and empowerment; Fosters co-operation and even creates
partnerships with suppliers; reduces non value added activities;
encourages selection of activities with the lowest cost value added;
reduces delivery time to market.
The approach also has some disadvantages or limitations. The
main ones are noted as
3
: effective implementation and use of TC
1
However, it has been reported that no detailed and exhaustive information
is available on the subject, principally because this domain is usually protected by
the greatest secrecy in the majority of companies in Japan (Larino, 1995).
2
See also http://www.accountingformanagement.com/target_costing_pricing_
products_and_services.htm.
3
See also http://www.accountingformanagement.com/target_costing_pricing_pro
ducts_and_services.htm and http://www.bu.edu/mfg/programs/outreach/etseminars/
2002november/documents/sean_williams.pdf.
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 383
requires the development of detailed cost data; other factors are
difcult, if not impossible, to quantify; effective implementation
may result in considerable cost in the early years; implementa-
tion of TC requires willingness to cooperate at several managerial
levels; design team is not the same team that has to live with the
options selected; requires several meetings at different organiza-
tional levels for coordination and may reduce the quality of
products due to the use of cheap components (in order to achieve
the target), which may be of inferior quality.
TC is dened as a systematic process of managing product
costs during the design stage of a new product (Kee, 2010;
Filomena et al., 2009; Iranmanesh and Thomson, 2008; Ax et al.,
2008; Ibusuki and Kaminski, 2007; Ewert and Ernst, 1999; Kato,
1993a, 1993b), establishing market sales prices and target prot
margins, and reducing the overall cost of the products over their
life cycles (while still meeting customer requirements), by exam-
ining all ideas for cost reduction in the product-planning R&D
process (Ax et al., 2008; Cooper and Slagmulder, 1997). In simple
terms, TC has two key stages: the determination of the target cost
and its attainment. Nicolini et al. (2000) argue that a key aspect
of the TC approach is the target-setting process. Monden (1995)
considers two objectives for a TC system: (1) reducing the cost of
newproducts so that the level of required prot could be guaranteed,
simultaneously satisfying the levels of quality, development time and
price demanded by the market, and (2) motivating all the employees
to achieve the target prot during the development of the new
product.
The literature discusses the most common steps to be taken to
implement TC. Table 1 summarizes views discussed in ve articles
(three recent and two earlier articles) about these steps (also
sometimes referred to as the characteristics of TC).
A review of the literature and discussion with four colleagues
and six practitioners helped the authors to develop a survey
instrument to test the adoption stages and implementation levels
(as the rst and second purposes of this study) of TC for the
present study. The adoption levels of TC by rms are examined in
ve general categories: (1) discussions have not taken place
regarding the introduction of this practice; (2) a decision has
been taken not to introduce this practice; (3) some consideration
is being given to the introduction of this practice; (4) this practice
has been introduced on a trial basis; and, (5) this practice has
been implemented and accepted.
Then, for those companies that have implemented TC, the
stages of implementation are examined at four levels. The four
levels, noted below, include two key processes: the determination
of the target cost (level 1) and its attainment (levels 2, 3, 4):
Level 1: Identication of target product cost as the difference
between expected price and required prot.
Level 2: Adoption of cost-cutting strategies at the production
stage to approach the target.
Level 3: Examination of all cost-reducing strategies at the
planning and pre-production stages.
Level 4: Adoption of value engineering to incorporate customer
requirements.
These levels of implementation of TC and sub-levels including
each level will be discussed in detail below.
Level 1: Identication of target product cost as the difference
between expected price and required prot. This level is a
summary of three sub-levels including
Establishment of target sales price: The price level of existing
products/services or the price level of competitors offerings
typically provides an initial starting point (Kato, 1993a, 1993b).
However, there are also other factors when setting the sales
price, such as the level of perceived value of products or services
for customers, the product concept, the characteristics of the
anticipated consumers, the product life cycle, the expected sales
quantity and competitors strategies (Kato, 1993a, 1993b), and
the price level of other consumer products (Cooper, 1994a).
Establishment of target prot: This step involves consideration of
management and business strategies over the life cycle of the
product (or can be derived from the medium-term prot plan,
which might be 35 yr) (Kato, 1993a, 1993b; Monden and
Hamada, 1991). This step is quite difcult given todays environ-
ment but it is imperative (Kato, 1993a, 1993b). Cooper (1994b)
refers to this as critical corporate management activity and reports
how Nissan headquarters in Japan carefully consider information
on the customer, the rms anticipated product mix and its long-
term prot objective prior to arriving at a target prot.
Establishment of target cost: The difference between target
sales price and target prot is called allowable costs. However,
the rm may consider various factors and strategies in setting
the nal target cost. The target cost is determined by adjusting
the allowable cost for already identied cost-reduction oppor-
tunities (e.g., from current products), and for cost-increasing
and cost-decreasing factors.
When the target cost is reached, the rm may use either a top-
down or a bottom-up method to attain it. Everaert et al. (2006) state
that in the top-down method (also called the subtraction deductive
method), the target cost is set at the level of the allowable cost, i.e.,
at the difference between the target sales price and the target prot.
The target cost is more or less imposed on the new product
development team. In contrast, in the bottom-up method, the target
cost starts within the new product development team. Kato (1993a,
1993b) argues that the top-down method is superior to the bottom-
up method. This is because although the bottom-up method is based
on the feasibility test of the proposed value of engineering improve-
ments, it is difcult to provide a logical connection with the prot
and business plans (Everaert et al., 2006, p. 240).
Level 2: Adoption of cost-cutting strategies at the production
stage to approach the target. This level is a summary of two sub-
levels including
Establishment of target cost for different activities and functions,
subassemblies, cost items, designers or suppliers. The target cost
for the target product is decomposed to have specic targets
for production design (internally) and suppliers and subcon-
tractors (externally). Different methods are used to allocate
costs, of which two of the best known are the function-
oriented and the component allocation method. In the func-
tion-oriented method, the target cost is rst allocated to the
different functions of the target product and then to its
components. In the component allocation method, the target
cost is allocated to subassemblies, components and parts.
Establishment of co-operation between different functions. The
execution of TC requires intensive co-operation between many
departments and different functions (Monden and Hamada,
1991). Without such co-operation among all groups involved
in product development, arriving at the right numbers would be
difcult (Everaert et al., 2006). This co-operation may result in
the establishment of a common language among the members
of the TC team in the process of achieving a common goal.
Level 3: Examination of all cost-reducing strategies at the
planning and pre-production stages. This level is a summary of
two sub-levels including
Detailed cost information is required to monitor progress towards cost
reduction target. Designers within rms require detailed cost
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 384
Table 1
Implementation and characteristics of TC discussed in three recent articles and two earlier articles.
Ibusuki and Kaminski (2007) Everaert et al. (2006) Ax et al. (2008) Ewert and Ernst (1999) Laseter et al. (1997)
The implementation of a TC and the
determination of the product target
cost involve the ten steps described
below, which are based on the work of
Crow (1999):
1. Re-orient culture and attitudes
2. Establish a market-driven target price
(L1)
3. Determine the target cost (L1)
4. Balance target cost with
requirements (L1)
5. Establish a TC process and a team
based organization (L2) (L3) (L4)
6. Generate ideas and analyze
alternatives (L2) (L3) (L4)
7. Establish product cost models to
support decision making (L2) (L3)
(L4)
8. Use tools to reduce costs (L2) (L3)
(L4)
9. Reduce indirect cost application (L2)
(L3) (L4)
10. Measure results and maintain
management focus (L1) (L2) (L3) (L4)
Based on what are learnt from prior case
study research in Japan, a set of eight
characteristics of TC are deduced:
1. The target sales price is set during
product planning, in a market-
oriented way (L1) (L3)
2. The target prot margin is
determined during product
planning, based on the strategic
prot plan (L1) (L3)
3. The target cost is set before new
product development really starts
based on either the subtraction or
the addition method (L1)
4. The target cost is subdivided into
target costs for functions,
subassemblies, cost items, designers
or suppliers (L1)
5. TC requires cross-functional co-
operation (L2) (L3) (L4)
6. Detailed cost information is
provided to support cost reduction
(L2) (L3)
7. The cost level of the future product
(drifting cost) is compared with its
target cost at different points during
NPD (L3)
8. Establishing the general rule that
the target cost can never be
exceeded (L2) (L2) (L3)
The characteristics that emerge
as fundamental in the review of
TC literature are as follows:
1. Identifying the desired
product and service
attributes (L1)
2. Establishing the target
price (L1)
3. Determining the target
prot (L1)
4. Determining the target cost
(L1)
5. Decomposing the target
cost (L1) (L2) (L3)
6. Closing the cost gap (L1)
(L2) (L3)
7. Continuous improvements
(L1) (L2) (L3)(L4)
The essence of TC is characterize by three
elements:
1. A market orientation, as the selling
price is the starting point for
determining the TC (L1)
2. A coordination function, as the TC
coordinates the activities of product
designers (L3)
3. Strategic learning, as it, in
interaction with other factors,
inuences the long-term cost
structure. (L3) (L4)
The authors identify the following steps
in the target setting activity:
1. Establish TC for the end product or
services, that is, examine what the
market will bear (L1)
2. Allocate targets to the elements of
functionality valued by the client,
that is, identify and document
functionality that the customers
value in the product or service (L4)
3. Link functionality to key sub-
systems (that is, understand target
cost at the sub-system level) (L4)
4. Compare value based targets with
cost estimates (that is, develop
design against target using
continuously evolving designs and
cost estimates) (L3)
5. Re-aggregate target costs across sub-
systems (that is, aggregate the
results across sub-systems and
suppliers) (L3)
6. Make any needed trade-offs until the
overall target achieved (L3) (L4)
L1, L2, L3 and L4 are Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, and the explanation appears in the text.
H
.
Y
a
z
d
i
f
a
r
,
D
.
A
s
k
a
r
a
n
y
/
I
n
t
.
J
.
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
1
3
5
(
2
0
1
2
)
3
8
2

3
9
2
3
8
5
information to monitor progress towards the cost-reduction
target. The impact of different designs in cost reduction and
change in design type is important. Japanese rms commonly
use cost tables to summarize and compare the effects of different
production designs, functions and resources (materials) on pro-
duct cost. Yoshikawa et al. (1990) reported that different types of
cost tables are used in Japanese rms to serve cost reduction for
each activity in product development, including: design, purchas-
ing and manufacturing activities. Any drift from the TC should be
identied (Everaert et al., 2006) and the cost table data should be
updated continuously (Kato et al., 1995). Yoshikawa et al. (1994)
further commented that accountants participation in the process
of cost analysis, as a teammember, will provide a major input into
the functional analysis of value engineering, and this has been
termed functional cost analysis. There are several examples of
cases where rms implementing TC had also adopted an open-
book accounting policy to oversee a complete breakdown of the
costs of material, packaging and shipping costs, overheads and
prot (Mouritsen et al., 2001; Carr and Ng, 1995).
Continuous comparison of the actual cost with the target cost. The
nal characteristic of target cost achievement process is the
establishment of a strict policy that the target cost does not
exceed. Cooper (1995) named a cardinal rule, which stresses
that the target cost can never be exceeded. Consequently, if
the actual cost exceeds the target cost in any stage of the
product development, an equivalent reduction should be made
elsewhere (Cooper and Slagmulder, 1997).
Level 4: Adoption of value engineering to incorporate customer
requirements.
Value engineering (also known as value analysis) originated from
America (Wang et al., 2009) and aims to realize all necessary
functions for a product at minimum total life cycle cost.
4
The
technique offers quantied bases for product design, trial manufac-
turing and redesign, given that basic function requirements are met,
unnecessary functions and cost can be removed or better substitutes
or solutions can be found to secure the minimum total life cycle cost
(Wang et al., 2009). It offers desired functions at minimum cost at
the right time and location for the demand (Samy, 1998). This
technique is used to quantitatively analyze the relationship between
the factors, such as functions and appearance, that inuence product
performance and the costs-based overall system optimization
(Wang et al., 2009). Iranmanesh and Thomson (2008) commented
that value engineering optimizes value by considering the trade-off
between product functions and their cost. It denes value as Benet/
Cost where benet is determined by a products functions and their
quality (Nagasawa, 1997). Value engineering and TC are seen as
complementary processes, because while one allows the identica-
tion of where cost reduction could be achieved, the other shows the
target to be achieved to guarantee the long-term protability of a
business (Ibusuki and Kaminski, 2007, p. 459).
The above four stages of implementation of TC were tested
using the survey instrument, which will be discussed after a
review of Rogers theory of diffusion of innovations.
2.3. Rogers theory of diffusion of innovation
Traditionally, the literature on the diffusion of innovations has
examined innovations that are diffused fully, meaning that every
potential adopter has adopted them (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf,
1997). The focus has not been on explaining why these innovations
are diffused fully and what factors contribute to the adoption and
implementation, but rather on explaining the rate at which these
innovations are diffused or the order in which they have been
adopted (Rogers, 1995). More recently, scholars have begun to ask
a very different type of question: why, some innovations are diffused
fully and become the de facto standard or dominant design, whereas
other innovations are diffused partially or not at all? (Yazdifar et al.,
2008; Askarany et al., 2007b; Askarany and Yazdifar, 2007b; Rogers,
2003; see also Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1990, 1993; David, 1985,
1991; Granovetter and Soong, 1986, 1988; Granovetter, 1978;
Arthur, 1983). Rogers (2003) contributes to this debate by focusing
on specic factor namely attributes of innovation.
Rogers (2003) denes innovation as an idea, practice, or
object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of
adoption and the diffusion of innovation as a process by which
an innovation is communicated through certain channels over
time among the members of a social system. He argues that the
diffusion (i.e., adoption) of an innovation is usually measured by
its rate of implementation in a population as compared with
those using the old methods.
Rogers (2003, 1995, 1983) argues that among a wide range of
contextual factors that inuence the diffusion of innovations,
attributes of innovations play a major role. He argues that the
diffusion of an innovation is mainly a feature of its ve char-
acteristics, namely the relative advantage of the innovation over
the current practice, compatibility of the innovation with other
aspects of the culture, complexity of understanding, trialability, the
ability to experience the innovation, and observability of the
results of the innovation.
He further explains the above attributes. Relative advantage is the
degree to which an innovation seems to be better than the idea it is
replacing. This attribute includes sub-dimensions such as social
prestige, savings in time and effort, low initial cost, the level of
economic protability, the degree of comfort and the immediacy of
the output. However, it is difcult to demonstrate all potential
relative advantages of an innovation, as some of them might not be
apparent prior to its implementation. The attribute of compatibility
refers to the degree of consistency of an innovation with the needs,
expected values and norms of potential adopters and their social
systems. Complexity is considered as the degree to which an
innovation seems difcult to understand and use. The fourth
attribution is trialability, which is dened as the degree to which
an innovation can be tried on a limited basis before full implemen-
tation. Observability refers to the degree to which the results of an
innovation can be observed by potential adopters.
Askarany and Smiths (2000) study can be considered as an initial
step to explore attributes of innovations as the main contextual
factors inuencing the diffusion of one MA innovation (MAI),
namely Activity Based Costing (ABC), in organizations. Their study
in the plastic and chemicals manufacturing industry in AU suggests
that attributes of innovations are potentially important inuencing
factors affecting the diffusion of MAI. Their ndings indicate that
fromthe users point of view, attributes of innovations are seen to be
the most signicant factors inuencing their decision as to whether
or not to implement cost and MAIs. Their further studies conrmthe
important role of attributes of innovations on the diffusion of MAI
(Askarany and Yazdifar, 2010, 2007a, 2008; Yazdifar and Askarany,
2009; Askarany et al., 2007a, 2007b). They recommended further
investigation of this issue.
To the present authors knowledge, prior research has not
examined the association between the perceived characteristics
of an innovation and the actual adoption of TC. This is an
important omission from prior TC research and needs to be
included for a number of reasons. First, these characteristics have
been included extensively in models in the information systems
(IS) literature (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997), but have not been
included in prior TC research. Second, Rogers (2003) states that
4
Life cycle costing is one of the techniques for systematic analysis and design
management used after the Second World War (Wang et al., 2009).
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 386
between 49 and 87% of the variance in the rate of adoption of
innovations is accounted for the perceived characteristics of an
innovation. Given this, there is a need to conduct research in this
area to investigate whether a large proportion of the variance in
the decision to adopt TC is accounted for by its characteristics as
an innovation. Third, the identication of these characteristics in
the adoption decision is important because it enables companies
to target adoption efforts appropriately and can be practicably
used in implementing these efforts from a managerial perspective
management (Wynekoop et al., 1992). Fourth, understanding
the determinants of adoption behavior is important because the
success of the impact of the innovation is dependent on the
innovation being adopted (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997).
Given the research issues discussed above, the objective
of this research is to use the results of a questionnaire survey of
management accountants in AU, NZ and the UK to investigate
the extent to which the adoption rate of TC is inuenced by
the characteristics of an innovation (the third purpose of this study).
3. Research methods
A postal questionnaire survey was used to gather the data. The
questionnaire was rst tested among a sample of practitioners.
The authors then discussed the instrument with colleagues before
it was sent out to targeted CIMA members. The questionnaire
was mailed to over 2041 (qualied) members of the Chartered
Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) in AU, NZ and the
UK in 2007 (1175 in AU, 366 in NZ and 500 in the UK) who were
working in managerial accounting sections of organizations in
2007 and had the necessary experience. The head ofce of CIMA
in the UK provided authors with a list of names and addresses of
qualied members in the above three countries.
Hard copies of the questionnaires were sent to all targeted
populations and were followed by a general announcement on the
CIMA website (after three weeks) encouraging those members who
had received the hard copies of the questionnaire but had not
completed them to ll in an online version of the questionnaire.
This follow up increased the response rate by 18% on average in the
three surveyed countries.
In all, the number of useable responses (both hard copies and
online replies) was 584 for all three countries. This includes: 310
completed questionnaires plus 88 not completed or not delivered
for AU, 142 completed questionnaires plus 10 not completed or
not delivered for NZ and 132 completed questionnaires plus 45
not completed or not delivered for the UK. The nal completed
questionnaires provided the authors with satisfactory response
rates of 28.5%, 39.5% and 29% for AU, NZ and the UK, respectively.
According to Krumwiede (1998), the normal response rates for
this kind of survey is approximately 20%, though there are many
published surveys with lower response rates.
Non-response bias was examined both by using the aggregated
data provided by CIMA (such as the total number of CIMA members
working in manufacturing and service (non-manufacturing) rms,
the average length of experience of CIMA members and their average
age) and comparing them with the same information gathered by the
surveys, and through a comparison between early and late responses.
The former showed responses to be representative, while the
latter shows that there was no perceived difference between these
responses, suggesting that non-response bias would not inuence the
outcomes.
Examining the adoption of TC, respondents to the survey were
asked to indicate the extent to which TC was used in their organiza-
tions, using a 5-point Likert-type scale as follows:discussions have
not taken place regarding the introduction of TC; a decision has been
taken not to introduce TC; some consideration is being given to the
introduction of TC in the future; TC has been introduced on a trial
basis and TC has been implemented and accepted.
In order to examine the level of implementation of TC,
respondents were asked to indicate the level of implementation
of TC by selecting one of the following levels, as discussed earlier:
Level 1: Identication of target product cost as the difference
between expected price and required prot.
Level 2: Adoption of cost-cutting strategies at the production
stage to approach target.
Level 3: Examination of all cost-reducing strategies at the
planning and pre-production stages.
Level 4: Adoption of value engineering to incorporate customer
requirements.
In order to measure the attributes of innovations, Moore and
Benbasats (1991) instrument was used to develop a questionnaire
to seek information on the level of signicance of the impact of
attributes of cost and MAI on its adoption and implementation and
the level of diffusion of TC (Yazdifar and Askarany, 2009; Askarany
et al., 2007a). Applying the above instrument, the following items
were identied to measure characteristics of TC:
1. Its ability to get the job/service done quicker.
2. Its ability to improve the quality of the job/service.
3. Its ability to do the job/service easier.
4. Its ability to increase the overall effectiveness of the job/
service.
5. Its ability to offer greater control over work processes (job/
service).
6. Being compatible with all aspects of existing processes (job/
service).
7. Fitting well with the way I/organization like to work.
8. Fitting into my/organization work style.
9. Being easy to learn how to operate.
10. Offering clear and understandable interaction with the
technique.
11. Being easy to use/implement.
12. Being easy to get the technique to do what I/organization
want it to do.
13. Having no difculty telling others about the results of using
the technique.
14. Being able to communicate to others the consequence of
using the technique.
15. Being able to see the results of using the technique clearly.
16. Being able to explain why using the technique may or may
not be benecial.
17. Being able to try the technique before deciding to implement
it (or not).
18. Being allowed to use the technique on a trial basis long
enough to see what it could do.
Given the above characteristics, respondents were asked to
determine the level of importance of the inuence of the above
factors on their decision to adopt and implement TC based on
a 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors of 1 very important;
2 important; 3 neutral; 4 not very important and 5 irrelevant.
4. Results: the diffusion of target costing
The latest adoption rates of TC, in AU, NZ and the UK are
presented in Table 2. The ndings suggest that the proportion of
organizations, which have adopted and implemented TC by 2007
are still not more than 18.3% in any of the three countries. If we
add to this the percentage of organizations that have introduced
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 387
TC on a trial basis, the total adoption rates for the countries
surveyed would be around 23.4%.
Interestingly, the survey also indicates that TC is equally
prevalent among manufacturing and service rms. To the authors
knowledge, while the literature discusses the possibility of adop-
tion of TC by service rms, this study is the rst that reveals
quantitative data on this adoption.
Table 3 summarizes the adoption of TC by the surveyed rms
according to the business types: manufacturing and service.
A total of 376 service rms participated in the present survey,
representing 65% of all respondents. Of these service rms, 11.7%
had given some consideration to the introduction of TC, 5.1% had
introduced TC on a trial basis and 18.4% had implemented TC. The
(high) adoption of TC by service rms studied in this survey is
interesting, being the rst observation of its kind. The service
rms in this study were in the following business areas:
Accounting rm and Practicing Accountants, Banking, Financial
Service, Leasing Finance, Wealth Management, Business Advisory &
Consulting Services, Education, Government, Local Government,
Social Care Services, Human Resource Development, Insurance, IT,
Leisure Services: Hospitality, Travel, Gaming, Media, Public Health
Service and Ambulance Service, Research Organizations.
According to Table 3, there is no signicant difference between
manufacturing and service rms in terms of the extent of the
diffusion of TC (adoption versus non-adoption). For example, the
total percentages of adopters (both on a trial basis and imple-
mented and accepted basis) is 23.3% (6.8%16.5%) in manufac-
turing and 23.5% (5.1%18.4%) in service rms, suggesting that
TC is equally important for both manufacturing and service rms.
A further analysis is to examine how manufacturing and
service rms (adopters) proceed with the implementation of TC
after they decide to adopt the technique. In other words, this
analysis aims to investigate whether there is (or not) any
signicant differences between manufacturing and service rms
in terms of the levels of the adoption of TC (after they decided to
adopt the technique). Although the analysis earlier shows no
signicant difference between manufacturing and service rms in
terms of overall adoption rate of TC (adoption versus non-
adoption), according to Table 4, the ndings indicate that there
is a signicant (signicant at .013 based on Pearson Chi-Square)
Table 3
Diffusion of target costing in manufacturing and service sectors.
Business type Discussions have not
taken place regarding
the introduction (%)
A decision has been
taken not to introduce
this practice (%)
Some consideration is
being given to the
introduction of this (%)
This practice has
been introduced on
a trial basis (%)
This practice has
been implemented
and accepted (%)
Manufacturing 52.4 6.8 17.5 6.8 16.5
Service 59.6 5.3 11.7 5.1 18.4
Total 57 5.8 13.7 5.7 17.7
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.886 4 .208
Table 2
Diffusion of target costing in the three countries.
Countries Discussions have not
taken place regarding
the introduction (%)
A decision has been
taken not to introduce
this practice (%)
Some consideration
is being given to the
introduction of this (%)
This practice has
been introduced on
a trial basis (%)
This practice has
been implemented
and accepted (%)
Australia 55.8 6.5 14.3 5.5 17.9
New Zealand 64.8 2.8 11.3 2.8 18.3
UK 51.5 7.6 15.2 9.1 16.7
Total 57 5.8 13.7 5.7 17.7
Table 4
Organizational industry and the levels of implementation of target costing.
Industry type Level of implementation Total (%)
Identication of target product cost
as the difference between expected
price and required prot
Adoption of cost-cutting
strategies at the production
stage to approach target
Examination of all cost reducing
strategies at the planning and
pre-production stages
Adoption of value
engineering to
incorporate customer
requirements
Manufacturing 13.5 16.2 40.5 29.7 100
Service 32.1 14.3 23.2 30.4 100
Total 24.7 15.1 30.1 30.1 100
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.812 3 .013
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 388
difference between manufacturing and service rms in terms
of proceeding with the implementation of TC. For example, as
Table 4 shows, the percentages of adopters of TC which are
exercising the rst level of the adoption (identication of target
product cost as the difference between expected price and
required prot) in service rms is 2.4 times (32.1% versus
13.5%) higher than those of manufacturing rms. On the contrary,
the percentages of adopters of TC, which are exercising the third
level of the adoption (examination of all cost-reducing strategies)
in manufacturing rms is 1.75 times (40% versus 23.2%) higher
than those of service rms.
Table 5 examines the level of signicance of the impact of each
attribute of TC innovation addressed in this study on its diffusion.
Respondents were asked to identify the level of importance of the
attributes of innovation on their decision to implement TC based
on following scale: very important1; important2; neutral3;
not very important4 and irrelevant5. This scale permits the
calculation of mean and standard deviation scores for each
characteristic and the use of t-tests to determine any signicant
variation from neutrality (i.e., a score of 3). Table 5 details each of
the test outcomes.
As Table 5 shows, the mean values of all 18 attributes of cost
and MAIs are signicantly (po.000) inclined towards important
and very important. The ndings suggest that according to these
respondents, the decision to implement (or not) TC is signicantly
inuenced by the attributes of this innovation. So, accepting our
stated proposition, we can conclude that the diffusion of TC is
signicantly associated with all 18 specied attributes (identied
by Moore and Benbasat, 1991) constituting the ve main cate-
gories of characteristics of innovations (addressed by Rogers,
2003). In other words, characteristics of innovations signicantly
inuence the decisions to adopt (or not) a new cost and MAIs
such as TC.
Given the above, Table 6 examines the signicance of attri-
butes of TC from an implementation perspective. For example,
Table 6 reveals that the attributes of an innovation, such as how
easily an innovation can do the job, are signicantly associated
with its diffusion. Table 6 examines the level of association
between such attributes and the diffusion of TC in practice.
According to the ndings, in terms of the diffusion of TC, the
majority of attributes of innovations (16 out of 18) addressed in this
study are signicantly (at po.000.022) associated with the
Table 5
Level of signicance of attributes of cost and MAI on adoption of target costing (95% Condence).
Attributes of innovation t Mean Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean difference Std. deviation
Its ability to get the job/service done quicker 36.197 1.79 .000 1.211 .798
Its ability to improve the quality of the job/service 56.811 1.51 .000 1.488 .625
Its ability to do the job/service easier 32.597 1.94 .000 1.056 .772
Its ability to increase the overall effectiveness of the job/service 50.117 1.61 .000 1.387 .660
Its ability to offer greater control over work processes (job/service) 31.393 1.96 .000 1.042 .791
Being compatible with all aspects of existing processes (job/service) 17.803 2.32 .000 .676 .905
Fitting well with the way I/organization like to work 12.210 2.51 .000 .491 .957
Fitting into my/organization work style 7.278 2.72 .000 .285 .927
Being easy to learn how to operate 16.331 2.39 .000 .608 .885
Offering clear and understandable interaction with the technique 24.077 2.20 .000 .800 .786
Being easy to use/implement 26.295 2.10 .000 .901 .817
Being easy to get the technique to do what I/organization want it to do 31.126 2.03 .000 .968 .740
Having no difculty telling others about the results of using the technique 22.085 2.26 .000 .743 .802
Being able to communicate to others the consequence of using the technique 25.954 2.10 .000 .901 .824
Being able to see the results of using the technique clearly 40.960 1.78 .000 1.218 .709
Being able to explain why using the technique may or may not be benecial 24.936 2.15 .000 .849 .811
Being able to try the technique before deciding to implement it (or not) 21.489 2.24 .000 .761 .844
Being allowed to use the technique on a trial basis long enough to see what it could do 16.891 2.36 .000 .640 .901
Table 6
Signicance of attributes of TC from implementation point of view.
Attributes of innovation Value df Sig.
Its ability to get the job/service done quicker 37.189 16 .002
Its ability to improve the quality of the job/service 34.131 12 .001
Its ability to do the job/service easier 23.715 12 .022
Its ability to increase the overall effectiveness of the job/service 25.598 16 .060
Its ability to offer greater control over work processes (job/service) 18.326 16 .305
Being compatible with all aspects of existing processes (job/service) 42.922 16 .000
Fitting well with the way I/organization like to work 39.334 16 .001
Fitting into my/organization work style 32.778 16 .008
Being easy to learn how to operate 32.163 16 .010
Offering clear and understandable interaction with the technique 45.731 16 .000
Being easy to use/implement 36.462 16 .002
Being easy to get the technique to do what I/organization want it to do 38.006 12 .000
Having no difculty telling others about the results of using the technique 57.265 16 .000
Being able to communicate to others the consequence of using the technique 45.027 16 .000
Being able to see the results of using the technique clearly 28.182 12 .005
Being able to explain why using the technique may or may not be benecial 35.788 16 .003
Being able to try the technique before deciding to implement it (or not) 31.383 16 .012
Being allowed to use the technique on a trial basis long enough to see what it could do 39.349 16 .001
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 389
adoption of TC in practice. Attributes of innovations that do not
seem to be signicant for TC are as follows: its ability to increase
the overall effectiveness of the job/service and its ability to offer
greater control over work processes. On the other hand, the
regression analysis in Table 7 indicates that amongst the attributes
tested above, the three attributes namely its ability to get the job/
service done quicker, offering clear and understandable interaction
with the technique and being able to try the technique before
deciding to implement it (or not) are more signicant and inuen-
tial in adoption of innovations. Overall, these ndings may imply
that TCs benets are not considered signicant in terms of the
above two attributes (out of 18 addressed in this study), but in
terms of the other 16 attributes, TCs benets are seen as signicant
for the adoption of the technique.
5. Conclusion
Most of the literature on TC only provide insight into the
adoption and perceived benets of TC, and do not study the levels
of implementation of the technique. These studies also assume
that TC is only relevant to manufacturing rms and therefore do
not investigate the adoption of this technique in service rms, and
consequently exclude service rms from their surveys and ana-
lysis. Furthermore, most studies do not examine the factors
inuencing the adoption of TC systems. Contributing to these
gaps in the literature, this paper reports the results of a survey
among CIMA-qualied management accountants working in
manufacturing and service rms in the UK, AU and NZ on the
adoption and implementation of TC.
Shedding light on some controversies in the literature regard-
ing mixed results on the level of adoption of TC over the last two
decades, this study examines the recent adoption of TC in three
western countries: AU, NZ and the UK. The study also provides the
rst quantitative data on the adoption of TC by service rms. As
with the overall diffusion rate of TC, the paper also examines the
level of implementation of TC in the three countries. Investigating
the levels of importance of attributes of cost and MAIs on
decisions to adopt (or not) such innovations, this study also tests
the levels of association between the diffusion of TC and its
attributes.
According to the ndings, the extent of adoption of TC in all
three targeted countries in 2007 is relatively low. The ndings
show that only 17.9% of the surveyed rms in AU, 18.3% in NZ and
16.7% in the UK (17.7% on average in the three countries) have
implemented and accepted TC. There are also some rms that
have introduced TC on a trial basis: 5.5% in AU, 2.8% in NZ
and 9.1% in the UK (5.7% on average in the three countries).
However, these ndings conrm that despite the advantages of TC
discussed in the literature, its adoption, even many years after its
introduction, is still low. Interestingly, the adoption rate of TC in
Western and also Asian countries reported in the literature is
much lower than the adoption rate among Japanese rms. This
might be due to several factors, including cultural differences, as
suggested by Joshi (2001), and therefore requires further study.
The survey also reveals that some service rms in various
elds have shown interest in the adoption of TC. To the authors
knowledge, this is the rst study reporting survey ndings on the
adoption of TC by service rms. The ndings show that 18.4% of
service rms (compared with 16.5% of manufacturing rms)
surveyed in this study have implemented and accepted TC and
5.1% of service rms have introduced TC in their organizations on
a trial basis.
The statistical analysis shows no signicant difference between
manufacturing and service rms in terms of overall adoption rate of
TC (adoption versus non-adoption). However, the analysis also
indicates that there is a signicant difference between manufactur-
ing and service rms in terms of proceeding with the implementa-
tion of TC. Given the above, we may conclude that though the
literature lacks quantitative analysis on the adoption of TC by service
rms, TC is equally important for both manufacturing and service
rms, however, the levels of implementation of TC signicantly
varies between industries. In other words, while the overall diffusion
rate of TC is similar for both manufacturing and service rms,
manufacturing rms are more likely to proceed with the higher
level of implementation than service rms. This implies that service
(compared with manufacturing) rms are more likely to use TC for
identication of target product cost rather than for examination of
cost-reducing strategies purposes. We suggest further (case) studies
in service rms to add to our knowledge on the adoption and
implementation processes of TC in service rms.
Despite the importance of attributes of innovations and that
these attributes account for between 51 and 87% of the variance
in the rate of adoption of innovations (Rogers, 2003), no prior
research has examined the association between all of these
attributes of innovations and the actual adoption of TC. Contri-
buting to this gap in the literature and addressing the signicance
of the impact of contextual factors constituting the attributes of
cost and MAIs on their diffusions, the ndings suggest that there
is a signicant association between the diffusion of TC and the
Table 7
Identifying the main attributesregression analysis.
Attributes of innovation Beta P value
Its ability to get the job/service done quicker .332 .003
Its ability to improve the quality of the job/service .064 .652
Its ability to do the job/service easier .122 .308
Its ability to increase the overall effectiveness of the job/service .055 .657
Its ability to offer greater control over work processes (job/service) .053 .599
Being compatible with all aspects of existing processes (job/service) .092 .303
Fitting well with the way I/organization like to work .207 .054
Fitting into my/organization work style .098 .360
Being easy to learn how to operate .087 .400
Offering clear and understandable interaction with the technique .325 .007
Being easy to use/implement .111 .336
Being easy to get the technique to do what I/organization want it to do .038 .738
Having no difculty telling others about the results of using the technique .169 .191
Being able to communicate to others the consequence of using the technique .171 .180
Being able to see the results of using the technique clearly .095 .438
Being able to explain why using the technique may or may not be benecial .102 .357
Being able to try the technique before deciding to implement it (or not) .349 .006
Being allowed to use the technique on a trial basis long enough to see what it could do .149 .199
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 390
majority of its attributes (16 out of 18 attributes addressed in this
study), but not with its ability to increase the overall effectiveness
of the job/service or its ability to offer greater control over work
processes. However, interestingly, the adoption of TC in the UK,
AU and NZ has not been high, despite the fact that respondents
indicate high levels of association between the adoption of TC and
the majority of its attributes. Low adoption of TC across rms may
imply that decision makers remain unconvinced that whether
TCs individual attributes are pursuing enough to encourage them
to implement TC in practice. Further studies are recommended to
examine the levels of association between attributes of cost and
MAIs and the diffusion of other recently developed cost and MAIs
such as balanced scorecard, benchmarking etc. A comparative
study of the association between attributes of TC with the
attributes of other MAIs is a subject for future studies, which will
highlight the common attributes that affect the diffusion of most
of MAIs.
Given the unique features of the approach used in the current
study (e.g. using the same questionnaire, targeting similar respon-
dents and conducting the surveys in the same period of time), it
can be claimed that the ndings of the current study benet from
fewer limitations than previous studies. However, although the
external validity of ndings is enhanced by the survey approach,
survey approaches are normally limited by a lack of contextual
information and verbal exchange to elicit more in-depth informa-
tion. Furthermore, the respondents were mostly controllers and
accounting managers who are members of the CIMA and may thus
exhibit a bias toward reporting TC adoption or implementation.
Thus, the results of this study should be generalized with caution
to all organizations in AU, NZ and the UK.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Research Foundation of the
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) of the UK,
the University of Shefeld and the University of Auckland for
funding and facilitating the research on which this paper is based.
We are also grateful to Professor John Cullen for his constructive
comments.
References
Abrahamson, E., Rosenkopf, L., 1990. When do bandwagon diffusions roll? How far
do they go? and When do they roll backwards?: a computer simulation.
Academy of Managenment Best Papers Proceedings 50, 155159.
Abrahamson, E., Rosenkopf, L., 1993. Institutional and competitive bandwagons.
Academy of Management Review 18, 487517.
Abrahamson, E., Rosenkopf, L., 1997. Social network effects on the extent of
innovation diffusion: a computer simulation. Organization Science 8 (3),
289309.
Aggarwal, R., Prasad, J., 1997. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived
voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences
28, 557582.
Agrawal, S.P., Mehra, S., 1998. Cost management system: an operational overview.
Managerial Finance 24 (1), 6078.
Ansari, S.L., Bell, J.F., Okano, H., 2007. A review of literature of target costing and
cost management. In: Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G., Shields, M.D. (Eds.),
Handbook of MA Research, vol. 2. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 507530.
Arthur, W.B., 1983. Competing technologies and lock-in by historical small events:
the dynamics of allocation under increasing returns, Center for Economic
Policy ResearchStanford University.
Askarany, D., Smith M., 2000. The impact of contextual factors on the diffusion of
accounting innovation: Australian evidence. In: Proceedings of the Sixth
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting (IPA) Conference, Manchester,
UK.
Askarany, D., Smith, M., Yazdifar, H., 2007a. Attributes of innovation and the
implementation of managerial tools: an activity-based management techni-
que. International Journal of Business and Systems Research 1, 98114.
Askarany, D., Smith, M., Yazdifar, H., 2007b. Technological innovations, activity
based costing and satisfaction. JABM: Journal of Accounting, Business &
Management 14, 5363.
Askarany D., Yazdifar H., 2007a. Attributes of innovation and the implementation
of managerial tools: an activity-based management technique International
Conference on Business and Information, Tokyo, Japan, 1113 July.
Askarany, D., Yazdifar, H., 2007b. Why ABC is not widely implemented? Interna-
tional Journal of Business Research (IJBR) 7, 9398.
Askarany, D., Yazdifar, H., 2008. Twenty years after the introduction of ABC,
Business & Economics Society International (B&ESI) 2008 Conference Lugano,
1519 July.
Askarany, D., Yazdifar, H., 2010. An explanation into the mixed adoption rates for
ABC: evidence from Australia, New Zealand and the UK, The 2010 Annual
Conference & Meeting of the American Accounting Association, San Francisco,
29 July-5 August.
Askarany, D., Yazdifar, H. An investigation into the mixed reported adoption rates
for ABC: evidence from Australia, New Zealand and the UK. International
Journal of Production Economics, forthcoming.
Askarany, D., Yazdifar, H., Askary, S., 2010. Supply chain management, activity-
based costing and organisational factors. International Journal of Production
Economics 127, 238248.
Ax, C., Greve, J., Nilsson, U., 2008. The impact of competition and uncertainty on
the adoption of target costing. International Journal of Production Economics
115 (1), 92103.
Baykaso_ glu, A., Kaplano_ glu, V., 2006. Developing service costing system for
logistic companies and an application (in conference CD). In: Proceedings of
the ICAM2006: International Conference on Agile Manufacturing, Old Domin-
ion University, Norfolk, VA, 1920 July 2006.
Baykaso_ glu, A., Kaplano_ glu, V., 2007. A service-costing framework for logistics
companies and a case study. Management Research News 30 (9), 621633.
Boer, G.B., Ettlie, J., 1999. Target costing can boost your bottom line. Strategic
Finance 81 (1), 4953.
Carr, C., Ng, J., 1995. Total cost control: Nissan and its UK supplier partnerships.
Management Accounting Research 6 (4), 346365.
Chenhall, R.H., Langeld-Smith, K., 1998. Adoption and benets of management
accounting practices: an Australian study. Management Accounting Research
9 (1), 119.
Cooper, R., 1994a. Olympus Optical Company, Ltd. (A): cost management for short
life cycle products. Harvard Business School Case 9-195-072, 114.
Cooper, R., 1994b. Nissan Motor Company Ltd.: target costing system. Harvard
Business School Case 9-195-040, 119.
Cooper, R., Yoshikawa, T., 1994. Inter-organizational cost management systems:
the case of the TokyoYokohamaKamakura supplier chain. International
Journal of Production Economics 34, 5162.
Cooper, R., 1995. When Lean Enterprises Collide, Competing Through Confronta-
tion. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Cooper, R., Slagmulder, R., 1997. Target Costing and Value Engineering. Productiv-
ity Press, Portland.
Cooper, R., Slagmulder, R., 2004. Interorganizational cost management and rela-
tional context. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 29, 126.
Crow, K., 1999. Target costing. DRM Associates.
David, P.A., 1985. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review
Proceedings 75, 332337.
David, P.A., 1991. The Hero and the Herd in Technological History: Reections on
Thomas Edison and the Battle of the Systems. in: Higgonnet, P., Landes, D.S.,
Rosovsky, H. (Eds.), Favorites of Fortune: Technology, Growth and Economic
Development Since the Industrial RevolutionHarvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Dekker, H., Smidt, P., 2003a. A survey on the adoption of use of target costing in
Dutch rms. International Journal of Production Economics 84, 293305.
Dekker, H., Smidt, P., 2003b. A survey on the adoption and use in Dutch rms of
target costing. International Journal of Production Economics 84 (3), 293305.
Drury, C., Tayles, M., 2000. Cost System Design and Protability Analysis in UK
Companies. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, London.
Everaert, P., Loosveld, S., Acker, T.V., Schollier, M., Sarens, G., 2006. Characteristics
of target costing: theoretical and eld study perspectives. Qualitative Research
in Accounting and Management 3 (3), 236263.
Ewert, R., Ernst, C., 1999. Target costing, coordination and strategic cost manage-
ment. European Accounting Review 8, 2349.
Filomena, T.P., Neto, F.J.K., Duffey, M.R., 2009. Target costing operationalization
during product development: model and application. International Journal of
Production Economics 118 (2), 398409.
Granovetter, M., 1978. Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal
of Sociology 83, 14201443.
Granovetter, M., Soong, R., 1986. Threshold models of interpersonal effects in
consumer demand. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 7, 8399.
Granovetter, M., Soong, R., 1988. Threshold models of diversity: Chinese restau-
rants, residential segregation, and the spiral of silence. In: Clogg, C.C. (Ed.),
Sociological Methodology, vol. 18. American Sociological Association,
Washington, DC.
Guilding, C., Cravens, K.S., Tayles, M., 2000. An international comparison of
strategic MA practices. Management Accounting Research 11, 113135.
Gupta, M., Galloway, K., 2003. Activity-based costing/management and its impli-
cations for operations management. Technovation 23, 131138.
Ibusuki, U., Kaminski, P.C., 2007. Product development process with focus on value
engineering and target-costing: a case study in an automotive company.
International Journal of Production Economics 105 (2), 459474.
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 391
Iranmanesh, H., Thomson, V., 2008. Competitive advantage by adjusting design
characteristics to satisfy cost targets. International Journal of Production
Economics 115 (1), 6471.
Israelsen, P., Andersen, M., Rohde, C., Srensen, P.E., 1996. MA in Denmark: theory
and practice. in: Bhimani, A. (Ed.), MA: European PerspectivesOxford Uni-
versity Press, Oxford, pp. 3153.
Joshi, P.L., 2001. The international diffusion of new management accounting
practices: the case of India. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing
and Taxation 10 (1), 85109.
Kato, Y., 1993a. Target costing support systems: lessons from leading Japanese
companies. Management Accounting Research 4 (4), 3347.
Kato, Y., 1993b. Target costing support systems: lessons from leading Japanese
companies. Management Accounting Research 4 (4), 3347.
Kato, Y., B oer, G., Chee, C.W., 1995. Target costing: an integrative management
process. Journal of Cost Management 9, 3950.
Kee, R., 2010. The sufciency of target costing for evaluating production-related
decisions. International Journal of Production Economics 126 (2), 204211.
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, 239277.
Langeld-Smith, K., 2008. Strategic MA: how far have we come in 25 years?
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21 (2), 204228.
Laseter, T., Ramachandran, C., Voight, K., 1997. Setting supply cost targets: getting
beyond the basics. Strategy and Business 1, 111.
Lorino, P., 1995. Target Costing Practices and Implementation. International
Federation of Accountants: Articles of Merit. /www.ifac.org/StandardsAndGui
dance/FMC/ArticlesOfMerit95/AOM95 09.htmlS.
Michaels, J.V., Wood, W.P., 1989. Design to CostWiley, New York, NY.
Monden, Y., 1995. Cost Reduction Systems: Target Costing and Kaizen Costing.
Productivity Press, Oregon.
Monden, Y., Hamada, K., 1991. Target costing and kaizen costing in Japanese
automobile companies. Journal of Management Accounting Research Fall,
1634.
Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I., 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information
Systems Research 2, 192222.
Mourtisen, J., Hansen, A., Hansen, C.., 2001. Interorganisational controls and
organisational competencies: episodes around target cost management/
functional analysis and open book accounting. Management Accounting
Research 12, 221244.
Nagasawa, S., 1997. Application of fuzzy theory to value engineering. Computers
and Industrial Engineering 33, 565568.
Nicolini, D., Tomkins, C., Holti, R., Oldman, A., Smalley, M., 2000. Can target costing
and whole life costing be applied in the construction industry? British Journal
of Management 11 (4), 303324.
Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edition Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition The Free Press, New York.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition Free Press, New York, NY.
Samy, E.G.E., 1998. Value engineeringa powerful productivity tool. Computers
and Industrial Engineering 35, 381393.
Tani, T., 1995. Interactive control in target cost management. Management
Accounting Research, 399414.
Tani, T., Okano, H., Shimizu, H., Iwabuchi, Y., Fukyda, J., Cooray, S., 1994. Target
cost management in Japanese companies: current state of the art. Manage-
ment Accounting Research 5 (1), 6781.
Wang, H.S., Che, Z.H., Wang, M.J., 2009. A three-phase integrated model for
product conguration change problem. Expert Systems with Application
36 (3), 54915509 (Part 1, April)_.
Wijewardena, H., De Zoysa, A., 1999. A comparative analysis of MA practices in
Australia and Japan: an empirical investigation. The International Journal of
Accounting 3 (1), 4970.
Wynekoop, J.L., Senn, J.A., Conger, S.A., 1992. The implementation of CASE tools: an
innovation diffusion approach. in: Kendall, K.E., Lyytinen, K., DeGross, J.I.
(Eds.), The Impact of Computer Supported Technology in Information Systems
DevelopmentElsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 2541.
Yazdifar, H., Askarany, D., 2009. A comparative investigation into the diffusion of
management accounting innovations in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Chartered Institute of Management Accountant (CIMA). Research Executive
Summaries Series 5 (9), 111.
Yazdifar, H., Zaman, M., Tsamenyi, M., Askaraky, D., 2008. Management accounting
change in a subsidiary organisation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19,
404430.
Yoshikawa, T., Innes, J., Mitchell, F., 1990. Cost tables: a foundation of Japanese
cost management. Journal of Cost Management 4 (3), 3036.
Yoshikawa, T., Innes, J., Mitchell, F., 1994. Applying functional cost analysis in a
manufacturing environment. International Journal of Production Economics
36 (1), 5364.
H. Yazdifar, D. Askarany / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 382392 392