Advantages Of Bottom-Up Budgeting

Budget management analysis is used by mangers as a tool and helps determine that all resources available are being used efficiently. The budgets are determined yearly and are based upon the previous year’s budget and variances. This paper will discuss specific strategies to manage budgets within forecast, compare five to seven expense results with budget expectations, describe possible reasons for variances, give strategies to keep results aligned with expectations, recommend three benchmarking techniques, and identify those that might improve budget accuracy, and justify the choices made.

This research paper is a brief discussion of budget management analysis. Budgeting is the key to financial management, and is the key to translates an organization goals or plan into money. Budgeting is a rough estimate of how much a company will need to get their work done, and provides the basis for evaluating performance, a source of motivation, coordinating business activities, a tool for management communication and instructions to employees. Without a budget an organization would be like a driver, driving blinded without instructions or any sense of direction, that’s how important a budget is to every organization and individual likewise (Clark, 2005).

Budgets should not be a managers task only. The whole organization should be involved in the budgeting process.

Ineffective practices in creating and monitoring a budget include failure of management to integrate the operating budget with other planning efforts (Academic Writing Tips, 2011). Organizational leaders should ensure that the long term and intermediate goals correlate with the operating budget. Failure to align the operating budget with various assumptions such as size, scope, and nature of future operations can pose a problem (Academic Writing Tips, 2011). According to Finkler and Ward (2006), upper management and financial officers usually create the operating budget omitting frontline and unit managers. This process can lead to failure in the financial management practices

Budgeting systems turn managers’ perspectives forward and by looking to the future and planning, managers are able to anticipate and correct potential problems before they arise (Horngren, Foster & Datar, 2000). Through budgeting, management can plan ahead and maintain enough cash to pay creditors, to have adequate raw materials to meet production requirements, and to have sufficient finished goods to meet expected sales (Kieso, 2002).

A budget is an instrument used to help managers ensure that the resources used effectively and proficiently toward the goals of an organization. A budget projection can be made on a yearly base depending on previous year or existing one. They can further be broken down quarterly or monthly depending on it use. Generating a budget is complex undertaking, and for a budget to be effective the organization ought to follow it strictly. However, no matter how closely a business follows their guidelines there will always be some form of variances. The organization should expect a few variances and be able to work these discrepancies in any budget

A company's budget serves as a guideline in planning and committing costs in order to meet tactical and strategic goals. Tactical goals such as providing budgetary costs for daily operations, and strategic objectives that include R&D, production, marketing, and distribution are all part of the budgeting process. Serving as a guideline rather than being set in stone, the budget is a snapshot of manager's "best thinking at the time it is prepared." (Marshall, 2003, p.496) The budget is a method in which to reign-in discretionary spending, and will likely show variances between what costs have been anticipated and what costs are actually incurred.

Budgets serve five main purposes; planning, facilitating communication and coordination, allocating resources, controlling profits and operations and evaluating performance and providing incentives. The budgeting process requires both technical and interpersonal leadership skills to achieve each of these purposes effectively. The director’s memo demonstrates several short comings in the budgeting process. The director instituted the “responsibility accounting system” as a means of evaluating performance. However, the DPW director has not consulted Sam in the budget process. Sam understands that his total expenditures are impacted by relatively unpredictable events that contribute to an uncontrollable element of his cost. The

A budget can be disadvantageous also. There is judgment and subjectivity in the budgeting process. It does not consider quality and customer service. Budgets can be seen as pressure devices imposed by management, thus resulting in: bad labour relations. Budget could results departmental conflict arises due to disputes over resource allocation, and departments blaming each other if targets are not attained. It is difficult to reconcile personal and corporate goals

Budget formulation and use are tools that guide many decision making strategies in business. The measures that are least effective could create an avalanche of catastrophic events that can negatively impact the decision making strategies. It is in the best interest of the pertinent parties to draft an operating budget based on a collective set of information relating to organizational vision and mission. Ineffective measures can be catastrophic based on the foundation for measures used in creating the budget. Among the many issues organizations face that relates to creating an effective operating budget results from poor

Budgeting is crucial in the well-being of a company especially the financial health status of a company. In fact, no professionally managed firm would fail to budget, since the budget establishes what is authorized, how to plan for purchasing contracts and hiring, and indicates how much financing is needed to support planned activity. It is routine for a company to budget for its expenses. Expense budgets act as a guideline of how much revenue a company would require keeping the activities running. It is used to set the company’s targets for a certain period.

The 20’s century saw the use of budget involve due to a change in the environment. Indeed the control of output used to be obtained by the dissemination of tasks and so traditional budgets were very much highlighted, with a significant top-down influence. As an example of the importance of budget in the 1970’s IBM had about 3,000 people involved in their budgetary process. During the same period, the oil crisis brought concerns about rising in costs and led to the introduction of zero-based budgeting (ZBB), which can lower cost by avoiding blanket increases or decreases to a prior period’s budget. The increase in business uncertainties was in discrepancy with the stifling effect of fixed plans, promoting the use of rolling budgets. The 1990’s saw the growing influence of shareholders and steered the focus on a budget that included a wider view of organisation results, answering the investment community for quarterly updates on results and expectations (Bill Ryan, 2005). Budgets then started being used as a communication tool between the financial community and the organisation, allowing the corporation to be integrated in the capital market. Moreover companies started using flexible budgets rather than static budgets as nowadays various levels of activities can be observed in most organisations. The use of flexible budgets then enables firms to be consistent with their new environment and the market.

In developing an annual budget accompanies may choose to adopt either top down budgeting approach or bottom up budgeting approach. In the finance ministry bottom down budgeting was a traditional way used in budget formulation. Top down budgeting came in the 1990s as a motivation to curb the fiscal deficits in which it lead to fiscal crisis in other countries. Top down budgeting was found that it helps and manages well the fiscal deficit efficiently unlike bottom up budgeting approach. Countries like Denmark, Korea Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, and Chile etc actively use top down budgeting because it helps in getting information for the evaluation of new initiatives and also in reviewing of programs for monitoring purposes. Sweden adopted top down budgeting approach because of the series of huge fiscal deficits it used to incur and it came to be that top down budgeting saved them. Top down budgeting is advantageous since it is done multiyear unlike bottom down budgeting which is annually. Top down Budgeting saves on time since it has delegated authority to take care of the budgeting process unlike Bottom down approach which is time consuming. Bottom up approach ignores economic forecast since it involves ministry by ministry analysis unlike top down approach which focuses on economic forecast as it is bases more in fiscal analysis. In top down budgeting there is ownership of proposal whereby the ownership is joint unlike bottom up approach where the ownership proposal is specific. We are able to see that top down budgeting is more advantageous to use in budgeting approach. Countries like Netherlands, Chile and Canada have independent bodies for economic forecast. Since Top down budgeting successes is seen in the office

Budget and budgetary control practices though very essential to meeting organizational goals, are mostly hastily and improperly prepared. This eventually leads to unfulfilled budget and budgetary control practices.

Many businesses expect employees to achieve budget targets as part of their overall performance. While the specifics requirements of each employee differ with the position and nature of the company, it is common for employees to be expected to sell a certain number of items, control costs versus a budgeted amount or reduce waste compared with a benchmark. A potential downfall of using budget information for performance evaluation is that employees may be so concerned with making budget targets that they may do so at the cost of other parts of the business.