Vol. 8 No. 2 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal


Asisst. Prof., Karabük University
Assoc. Prof., Bartın University

Published 2020-06-25


  • Strategic Cost Management Activity Based Costing Economic Value Added Balanced Scorecard
  • Stratejik Maliyet Yöntemi Faaliyet Tabanlı Maliyetleme Ekonomik Katma Değer Kurumsal Karne

How to Cite

VARGÜN, H., & AKBULUT, H. (2020). INTEGRATION OF STRATEGIC COST AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODELS WITH BALANCED SCORECARD MODEL. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(2), 2449-2475. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1533


When a literature research was conducted on the four basic systems to be used within the scope of the study, it was observed that not all of these systems were handled in an integrated manner in previous studies. Anctil at al. (1998) emphasized that using ABC and EVA systems together will be effective in increasing income, while Roztocki and Needy (1999) will be a powerful management tool for businesses. The combination of Ariyawongrat and Needy (2002), ABC and BSC in a lean production environment will create a strong link between business performance management systems and strategies, whereas Liberatore and Miller (1998) will be able to develop distribution channels strategies in businesses by using these two systems together and it will contribute to the determination of performance measures. Kaplan (2001) emphasized that the integration of the EVA and ABC system and the BSC model will provide high benefits to businesses. Stankeviciene and Sviderske (2010) have revealed that the availability of the EVA and BSC model as an integrated performance measurement system in terms of increasing the business value will contribute to determining the value factors and increasing the business value by transferring these factors to the business processes. One of the most important features of the study is that the systems that will be used in the study within the scope of the literature research have not been used in an integrated way in previous studies and that these systems will be applied together in a business environment.

The subject of this study is to evaluate the financial performance of the enterprises together with the non-financial dimensions of the enterprises and to measure the operating performance in a balanced way.

The aim of the study is to determine whether the use of the CC model with other strategic cost and performance management systems will benefit the improvement of business performance and whether it will be effective on the strategic decisions of business managers.

The results obtained through this study will be used to show whether the companies provide sufficient information needed for performance measurement by using cost and performance management systems together, and will make significant contributions to the literature.

The theoretical issues covered in the study are embodied through the data of a sample enterprise and within the framework of the application in the enterprise.

“Case study method”, which is one of the scientific research methods used in the study and the financial and non-financial information of a manufacturing company, has been utilized.

The study is based on two research problems. First, can the information provided by FTM and EKD help manage activities effectively? Secondly, will the preparation of KK dimensions with FTM and EKD information be effective in terms of measuring the operational performance in a more balanced and accurate way?
Information about the balance sheet, income statement, final trial, product production information, flow chart of the activity, reports of the board of directors, annual purpose and target criteria were provided from the application enterprise. In addition, the necessary information about the business was obtained by conducting interviews with the business managers and employees.

Activity and product costs are calculated according to the FTM system. In addition, the weighted average capital cost is calculated according to the EKD system and capital costs are distributed on an operating basis. In addition, financial and non-financial dimensions are determined within the framework of the KK model and the dimensions of KK are designed with both FTM and EKD information.

The model of this study is the KK model integrated with the FTM and EKD system.



Figure 1. Research Model


In addition to the costs associated with the study, it is also possible to calculate the capital costs related to the activities, thereby calculating the opportunity costs of the activities by the enterprise. However, by evaluating the mentioned costs together, evaluating the product costs and feeding KK dimensions through this information leads to a more accurate determination of the targets throughout the enterprise.
According to the findings obtained with the study, the use of the EKD system together with the FTM system has allowed the costs to be determined more accurately. In this sense, although the literature supports the studies carried out in this field, the application results in the beverage sector contribute to the literature. In the same way, providing the financial information required by the dimensions of the CC model of the FTM and EKD system more accurately, paves the way for the CC model to work more effectively. In this sense, it is seen that balanced results are achieved with the implementation of this integration, which is considered theoretically in the literature.


When we consider the results of the application made in the enterprise, it is possible to say that the integration of the KK model with the EKD-FTM system and the FTY model is very beneficial in terms of improving the operational performance. In other words, the application of these methods in an integrated manner will allow the deficiencies resulting from the use of the methods alone to be eliminated, and on the other hand, it will transfer the strategies to the activities and further improve the performance. Obtaining more accurate information about the profitability of the products by using the EKD-FTM system will also contribute to the selection of the right strategies. As can be seen in the application, using the KK model only with the traditional costing or FTM system will lead to the determination of the wrong performance targets. Because it is seen that the products or products evaluated as strategic products according to the traditional costing system and FTM system are not actually strategic products according to the EKDFTM system, but on the contrary they provide negative economic added value. If the performance results produced by the KK model are not at the level that the company targets, feedback is provided from the KK model to the EKD-FTM system and the FTY model. In this way, on the one hand, the activities and processes are reviewed, and on the other hand, the costs are controlled based on performance. In this sense, the bi-directional flow of information between the KK model and the EKD-FTM system and the FTY model will enable businesses to continue their activities effectively and efficiently, and will prepare the ground for strategic superiority. As a result of using the KK model together with the EKD-FTM system and the FTY model, the KK model should not only be viewed as a performance measurement tool, but should be considered as an effective managerial tool as well that affects the performance of the company and supports the creation of value through continuous improvement.

The results obtained by applying the systems in the study indifferent sectors can be compared. In addition, with the implementation of the said-systems in a company in a period of at least 3 years, the target and actual values can be compared, and analysis of deviations can be discussed and management suggestions on what should be done in order to operate the system more effectively.

Within the scope of the study, the most important constraint is that data related to an activity period of the enterprise are provided.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Agrawal, S. (2008). Competency Based Balanced Scorecard Model: An Integrative Perspective, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(1), 24-34.
  2. Ahmadpour, A. & Barzegar, G. (2003). The Approach and Integrated System Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Economic Value Added (EVA), Quarterly Journal of The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(8), 13-33.
  3. Anctil, R. M., Jordan, J. S. & Mukherji, A. (1998). Activity-Based Costing for Economic Value Added, Review of Accounting Studies, 2(3), 231-264.
  4. Anderson, A. M., Bey, R. P. & Weaver, S. C. (2004). Economic Value Added Adjustment: Much to Do About Nothing, A Paper Presented at The Midwest Finance Association Meetings, March 18-20, 1-19.
  5. Ariyawongrat, P. & Needy, K. L. (2002). Development of A Lean Activity-Based Scorecard for Process Improvement, 11th Industrial Engineering Research Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL., http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= type=pdf.
  6. Babuşcu, Ş., Hazar, A., Yenice, S. & Vargün, H. (2011). SPK Kredi Derecelendirme Sınavlarına Hazırlık, Bankacılık Akademisi Yayınları, Ankara.
  7. Binboğa, G. (2009). Stratejik Bir Yönetim Aracı Olarak Faaliyete Dayalı Maliyetleme İle Ekonomik Katma Değer Sistemlerinin Birlikte Kullanılmasına İlişkin Bir Uygulama, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
  8. Briciu, S., Topor, D. L. & Căpuşneanu, S. (2013). Integrated Methods for Performance Measurement in Entities from The Wine Sector in Romania, Annals Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 15(2), 367-383.
  9. Chen, T. L. & Pan, F. C. (2004). Analytic Hierarchy Process in Innovative Integration of Balanced Scorecard and Activity-Based Costing, 17th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), August 6-11, B. C. Kanada, 1-12.
  10. Chodur, M., Pavelkova, D. & Knapkova, A. (2011). Model for Performance Management and Measurement: Using Synergic Effects of Selected Tools, 7th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance, 60-70.
  11. Cuc, S. (2009). Balanced Scorecard and The Management Intruments Complementarity, Fascicle of The Faculty of Economics and Public Administration, 9(2), 119-124.
  12. Çam, M. (2006). Stratejik Bir Yönetim Aracı Olarak Ekonomik Katma Değer (EKD) ve Faaliyet Tabanlı Maliyet Yönteminin (FTMY) Birlikte Kullanımı, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(2), 95- 118.
  13. Çelikçapa, F. O. & Kaygusuz, S. Y. (2010). Teknoloji Yönetimi, Dora Yayınevi, Bursa.
  14. Durant, M. (1999). Economic Value Added: The Invisible Hand at Work, http://www.crfonline.org/orc/pdf/ref8.pdf.
  15. Finkler, S. A., Ward, D. M. & Baker, J. J. (2007). Essentials of Cost Accounting for Health Care Organizations, Third Edition, Jones&Bartlett Learning.
  16. Fletcher, H. D. & Smith, D. B. (2004). Managing For Value: Developing A Performance Measurement System Integrating Economic Value Added and The Balanced Scorecard in Strategic Planning, Journal of Business Strategies, 21(1), 1-17.
  17. Hannabarger, C., Buchman, F. & Economy, P. (2007). Balanced Scorecard Strategy for Dummies, 1. Edition, John Wiley & Sons.
  18. He, X. F. & Yi, J. M. (2006). Integration of Activity-Based Costing and Balanced Scorecard in The Logistics Enterprises of China, International Conference on Management of Logistics and Supply Chain,626-630, http://www.seiofbluemountain.com/upload/product/201002/1265081456047khd83.pdf
  19. Hixon, M. (1995). Activity-Based Management: Its Purpose and Benefits, Management Accounting: Magazine for Chartered Management Account, 73(6), 30-32.
  20. Hopf, R. H., Litman, D. J., Pratsch, L. W., Ustad, I. M., Welch, R. A. Tychan, T. J. & Denett, P. A. (1998). Guide to A Balanced Scorecard Performance Management Methodology:Moving from Performance Measurement to Performance Management, Procurement Executives’ Association, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/maprod/documents/Balanced Scorecard PerfAndMeth.pdf.
  21. Huynh, T., Gong, G. & Nguyen, A. (2013). Integrating Activity-Based Costing with Economic Value Added, Journal of Investment and Management, 2(3), 34-40.
  22. Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Reviee, 70(1), 71-79.
  23. Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). Linking The Balanced Scorecard to Strategy, California Management Review, 39(1), 53-79.
  24. Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming The Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I, Accounting Horizons, 15(2), 87-104.
  25. Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Integrating Shareholder Value and Activity-Based Costing with The Balanced Scorecard, Balanced Scorecard Report, Harvard Business School Press, 3(1), 3-6.
  26. Karcıoğlu, R. (2000). Stratejik Maliyet Yönetimi: Maliyet ve Yönetim Muhasebesinde Yeni Yaklaşımlar, Aktif Yayınevi, Erzurum.
  27. Kirsche, C. (2013). Economic Value Added: A Detailed Walkthrough, Current Issues in Accounting & Finance, Grin Verlag.
  28. Lewis, R. J. (1995). Activity-Based Models for Cost Management Systems, 1. Edition, Greenwood Publishing Group.
  29. Liberatore, M. J. & Miller, T. (1998). A Framework for Integrating Activity- Based Costing and The Balanced Scorecard Into The Logistics Strategy Development and Monitoring Process, Journal of Business Logistics, 19(2), 131-153.
  30. Needles, B. E., Powers, M. & Crosson, S. V. (2010). Financial and Managerial Accounting, 9. Edition, Cengage Learning.
  31. Nouri, F. & Ghasemi, M. (2011). Relation ABC and ABM by Integrating EVA for A New System of Measuring Performances, 2011 International Conference on E-Business, Management and Economics, 25, 146-150.
  32. Okka, O. (2009). Finansal Yönetim Teori ve Çözümlü Problemler, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, 3. Baskı, Ankara.
  33. Oliver, M. S. & Horngren, C. T. (2009). Managerial Accounting, International Edition, Pearson.
  34. Otlu, F & Karaca, S. S. (2006). Faaliyet Temelli Maliyetleme Sistemine Göre Ekonomik Katma Değer Analizi, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 29, 140-151.
  35. Öker, F. (2003). Faaliyet Tabanlı Maliyetleme, Literatür Yayınları, 1. Baskı, İstanbul.
  36. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York.
  37. Roztocki, N. & Needy, K. L. (1999). Integrating Activity – Based Costing and Economic Value Added in Manufacturing, Engineering Management Journal, 11(2), 17-22.
  38. Roztocki, N. (2001). Using The Integrated Activity-Based Costing and Economic Value Added Information System for Project Management, Proceeding of Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 1454-1460.
  39. Savarese, C. (2000). Economic Value Added: The Practitioner’s Guide to a Measurement and Management Framework, Allen&Unwin, Australia.
  40. Sipahi, B. (2005). İşletme Performansının Ölçülmesinde Ekonomik Katma Değer, Öneri Dergisi, 6(23), 107-112.
  41. Stankeviciene, J. & Sviderske, T. (2010). Developing A Performance Measurement System Integrating Economic Value Added and The Balanced Scorecard in Pharmaceutical Company, 6. International Scientific Conference, Business and Management, Vilnius, Lithuania, 239-247.
  42. Swamidass, P. M. (2000) Encyclopedia of Production and Manufacturing Management, Springer.
  43. Tanç, Ş. G. (2012). Yeni Performans Ölçüm Yöntemleri (Faaliyete Dayalı Maliyetleme, Performans Karnesi ve Ekonomik Katma Değer) Entegrasyonu ve Örnek Bir Uygulama, Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(2), 203-230.
  44. Wongrassamee, S., Gardiner, P. D. & Simmons, J. E. L. (2003). Performance Measurement Tools: The Balanced Scorecard and The EFQM Excellence Model, Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1), 14-29.
  45. Young, S. D. & O’Byrne, S. F. (2000), EVA and Value-Based Management A Practical Guide to Implementation, 1. Edition, McGraw Hill Professional.