APA Style PaperMUST BE PLAGIARISM FREE- REPORT NEEDEDPages Required- 3 approximate for IntroductionTitle of the Paper would be: Budgeting & Planning in Healthcare Industry Please see the attached article reviews and reference section in it. That will help you to write an introduction section.Please keep in mind that this will relate to Managerial Accounting Course.GUIDELINESFinal Research Paper: Introduction Section:The Introduction section should approximate three (3) pages that includes the following headings/sections:1) Title of paper2) Overview of topic and the accounting problem statement3) Background on the topic and accounting problem4) Purpose of Research and Research QuestionsPlease note that this course requires you to focus your research based on existing research literature from peer-reviewed journal articles. Ideally, the topic you are studying is one that has connections to the dissertation topic you wish to study.The paper must be objectively written in the third person; papers that contain “I, we, our…” will not be evaluated. Students will utilize resources (all of which should be academic research journals).
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running head: Research Paper
In Search of a Theory of Budgeting
Budgeting is utilized all through a broad scope of organizations and is a noteworthy
accounting research topic. To advance the benefits discussion and the budgeting drawbacks,
future research on budgeting will profit from a comprehensive review of theories utilized by
past budgeting researchers. This paper pinpoints the major hypothetical perspectives and
explicit speculations used in the research just as the primary factors used and the
methodologies. Even though we locate no cohesive budgeting theory, we distinguish the
significance of a unified thought process to the budgeting research and offer perceptions for
future work in the region.
Keywords budgeting; Literature review; hypothesis; Management accounting
Research on budgeting has a very long history in management accounting. Regardless
of its permanency, the study comes up short on a comprehensive or cohesive theory (Gibran
& Sekwat; 2009). The research grounded in theory gives opportunities for examining
complex issues while offering a corroborated and detailed explanation for the effects and
causes of empirical results. In other words, a progression of relationships is established by the
theory amongst concepts which might not be appropriately defined, permitting for insights
into practical outcomes and actions. Given the budgeting uses across the organizations and
industries and the multiple needs, the absence of an extensive hypothesis is not astounding.
The primary purpose of this study is to enlighten the researchers’ about the theoretic
advances which are made the budgeting research from different viewing points (Covaleski et
al., 2013). In this research, it also offers an account of the theories that have been adopted and
have been applied in the study of budgeting to date. Reliable with preceding literature, three
major hypothetical perspectives are drawn, sociology, economics, and psychology, as a
starting stage for sorting out these theories
Secondly, it classifies and identifies explicit hypotheses in every perspective. It then
distinguishes studies which deviate from these outdated classifications and those which do
not cite a particular theory in developing expectations and predictions that surround the
relationship amid non-budgeting and budgeting constructs. Lastly, it also classifies studies
which are found to expand on the past models or other writing yet that does not refer to an
explicit theory. In giving both a comprehensive analysis of specific hypothesis, it offers
insights into the studies which examine the budgeting research from both innovative and
traditional perspectives. This study helps researchers to familiarize themselves with the
theory which can direct their research in the future and distinguish domains which have been
understudied in their present disciplines of research.
The researchers acknowledged a list of seventeen journals targeted to help in guiding
the articles selected for inclusion in their review of budgeting hypothesis. These journals
included the commonly documented top 5 journals for accounting and twelve other most
highly tiered peer-reviewed journals for accounting which had published budgeting studies.
In every publication, they searched all ABI fields and databases of ProQuest utilizing the
wildcard search team budget that yielded 651 articles, of which 249 articles were categorized
in the study. A total of 355 articles were used in the broad search term, which researched the
issues of budgeting and not explicit to the research on budgeting.
The remaining part of the article is as follows: the third part describes the
methodology of the research and the framework for the paper analyses this includes the
survey methodology and the experimental methodology. The fourth part the outlines the
summary of the analysis and lastly discusses it concludes the paper.
Quantitative research was used in the methodology. These methodologies include:
Analytical, Archival and Experimental methodologies
Thirty-five papers don’t distinguish a noteworthy hypothetical point of view or explicit
hypothesis and use overview techniques to conduct the budget research (Arnold, 2015).
Numerous papers which utilize the methods of survey depend on extant literature to develop
research expectations or predictions and questions. The paper generally expands on previous
literature of examining variations or considering discrepancies in the findings that are relative
to the existing research. For instance, in the Accounting Review published by Brownell in the
year 1991 analyses how the evaluative styles are influenced by control locus in the setting of
Archival, Analytical, and Experimental Methodologies
In this methodology, seventeen articles were recognized as having no major
hypothetical point of view or explicit hypothesis in the methodologies of experimental,
archival, and analytical (Arnold, 2015). Variables that were introduced were used to examine
characteristics variations of the agent or user budget or context characteristics (for example,
the Machiavellianism and control locus). For instance, the use of an approach that is
literature based to analyze the impacts of a multi-period versus the single-period setting in
participative budgeting (Fisher et al., 2006). A single-period setting was previously studied in
connection to the settings of the negotiated budget. In this study, one does not depend on a
particular hypothesis but cites literature from psychology, and prior research on budgeting in
accounting to help in introducing a multi-period setting to a set of negotiated budget.
Summary of the Literature Review
Given the comprehensive budget literature review that has been performed, the
plethora of the hypothesis applied all through the literature of budgeting has been identified.
(Ahrens & Ferry. 2015). Though most of the hypothesis can be categorized into three major
hypothetical perspectives, the explicit assumption is complex and diverse. As the researchers
apply theories from all the processes, required science field, and backgrounds, a cohesive
budgeting hypothesis still is not in existence. Notwithstanding a lack of a method which is
unifying, the research grounded as per a systematic approach results to study groups, as well
as theoretical perspectives which underpin the major management area of research in
Data analysis proved the research questions. The hypothesis establishes a progression
of relationships amid concepts which might or might not be adequately defined, permitting
for insights into pragmatic outcomes and actions. The theory also limits the range of what has
been studied, introduces incongruent or competing constructs, assumptions, and definitions as
well as research methodologies of constraint. In resolving the limitations of existing
literature, theoretical insights were provided to help the research distinguish the weaknesses
in existing theory and analysis, which might result in enhancements in the study.
Researchers and managers have significantly departed from the original budgeting
concept by, offering a basis to help assign spending to once activity over the other. With this
withdrawal, it is not astounding that they used a variety of hypothesis in explaining the
budgeting role in a firm. The researchers have found that budgeting is utilized for a variety of
purposes which incorporates, controlling behaviors, planning, motivating the managers, and
measuring of failure or success. Analyzing the usual model’s form might offer insights into
how budgeting influences behaviors. Therefore, further theories development is encouraged
to help in explaining numerous budgeting uses.
Ahrens, T., and L. Ferry. 2015. Newcastle city council and the grassroots: Accountability and
Budgeting under austerity. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal 28 (6):
Amans, P., A. Mazars-Chapelon, and F. Villesèque-Dubus. 2015. Budgeting in institutional
complexity: The case of performing arts organizations. Management Accounting
Research 27: 47–66.
Arnold, M. C., 2015. The effect of superiors’ exogenous constraints on budget negotiations.
The Accounting Review 90 (1): 31–57.
Covaleski, M. A., M. W. Dirsmith, and J. M. Weiss. 2013. The social construction, challenge,
and Transformation of a budgetary regime: The endogenization of welfare regulation
by institutional entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 38 (5): 333–
Fisher, J. G., J. R. Frederickson, and S. A. Peffer. 2006. Budget negotiations in multi-period
settings. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 31 (6): 511–28.
Gibran, J. M., and A. Sekwat. 2009. Continuing the search for a theory of public budgeting.
Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management 21 (4): 617–44.
Running head: ACCOUNTING
The process of capital budgeting entails a lot of things that are of relevance to
organizations, private or public. The government, in its position, being the point of focus
regarding its level of accountability, must find a way to overcome the challenges it faces during
capital investment. The focus is also on the significant difference existing between the for-profit
and not-for-profit healthcare organization, with the latter experiencing limited difficulties during
the implementation and evaluation processes. Despite having the edge over other industries, this
discussion urges healthcare organizations to adopt the usage of automated tools that would
promote efficiency and effectiveness while ensuring a better budgetary process.
The topic of capital budgeting seems to be a common concern for both the private and
public sectors. There are steps or stages to follow when addressing this issue, and the two final
levels are the organization development and evaluation, respectively. According to this study, the
healthcare industry seems to be the area of concern to depict areas of improvement and ensure
efficiency as well as effectiveness in capital budgeting. There is a real difference between
healthcare and other industries, which is because its development stage never experiences most
hurdles seen in other sectors. The public sector, however, is far much different from its private
counterpart when it comes to expectations connected to accountability, and they must be robust
in such. Below are some of the research questions to use in this analysis;
Is there preference similarity from executives concerning information relevant to capital
budgeting strategic decisions?
What are the encounters facing the government during capital investment?
What is the efficiency level of capital budgetary in for-profit and not-for-profit
organizations, and how does the healthcare industry compares to other sectors?
All the articles displayed comprehensive discussion concerning literature; however, some
omitted the section, which implies a non-uniform approach on the examined topics. There were
a total of thirty-eight different sources collectively cited under the literature review section for
articles that obeyed the rule. Some of the highlighted sub-topics in this section are ten in total,
and listing them here might not be of significant benefit. Burger and Hawkesworth (2013) used
seven sub-topics to identify various factors that would ensure considerable improvement in the
capital procurement process from the public sector. They also had twenty-five sources to discuss
the above sub-sections. Mukherjee, Al Rahahleh and Lane (2016) used thirteen sources with two
sub-topics to determine the uniqueness of a budgeting process in healthcare systems in
comparison to other sectors. Awoonor-Williams et al. (2016), on the other hand, did settle for
one sub-topic to depict the significance of DiHPART tool towards realizing a robust budgetary
process in financial systems of a nation.
In all the four articles, the authors opted to employ the use of the qualitative approach.
They described the study process in details by explaining the format to gather information. In
one article, the participants had to describe the processes entailed in capital budgeting, and only
factors displaying high potentials were under consideration. It was only specified investment
opportunities that met the requisite criteria. Conversely, subjects had to explain their experiences
with the implementation and utilization of the DiHPART tool whose function was to help
improve the budgeting process in the northern part of Ghana. An interview process followed to
gather relevant information from various public officers occupying different capacities.
Elsewhere, only senior-level managers had their say in analyzing expenditures in the initial
capital, and each had to portray a robust financial background.
Each of the identified articles settled on diverse approaches to analyze their results, and
in the end, a significant conclusion emerged. In the case of Larcker (1981), the study was
significant, and the confirmation came from tested research hypothesis, where the identified
means followed the specified direction. It worked that way since significance was realized from
the characteristics of time horizons, as well as in the selection and alternative development
hypotheses that were also consistent. Mukherjee et al., (2016), in their first section, settled on a
bottom-up approach in the healthcare setting, and the study concluded that the development stage
is never the most difficult task. Under project selection, it is the payback period that carries the
day as most surveys revealed. Upon improvement, the technique of choice inclines towards DCI,
which is the mixed approach. Finally, the study revealed that most healthcare organizations do
not stop at implementation, but they also conduct evaluations as post-audit processes. All these
were in line with the research question and problem of their study. As in the case of AwoonorWilliams et al. (2016), the study revealed that there is a need for a DiHPART-2, which would
enhance the budgeting and implementation processes in healthcare systems. It should be
automated to exhibit efficiency in operation, thus improving the expected outcomes.
The gap of not using the quantitative approach in these studies is a definite limitation
since some topics were under investigation for the first time as identified in the introduction. A
mixed approach would, therefore, be significant in helping the studies stand the test of time.
Some articles also lacked the literature review section, which indicates that they required robust
consultation on the same topic from other scholars. In some instances, the authors confirmed that
their findings would not be sufficient in explaining specific research questions.
All the articles primarily conclude by calling for an improved budgetary system
characterized by robust tools that work towards promoting efficiency and effectiveness in the
specified industry. Acceptance from the receiving end is the most vital, which is a plus to the
development call. It is also evident that there is improved decision-making on capital budgeting
due to multihospital growth, which is a positive index. As such, the best development will follow
in healthcare. On the other hand, since there is much expectation from the not-for-profit
organizations regarding accountability, failure to which the systems might fault. Conversely,
there is a call towards incorporating user experience when improving capital budgetary tools, and
in the end, more established and efficient techniques will result.
Finally, the articles were necessary for helping me identify the uncovered gaps, and
therefore, when working on my selected topic, I would opt for an improved approach. I have to
consider literary works from other scholars concerning my chosen area. The study is relevant
since it has let me know the significance of employing a mixed approach under my methodology.
I would opt for precision when discussing my findings. I would also explain the existing gaps
between my discussion and research questions to provide room for other researchers who are
interested in studying the same topic.
Awoonor-Williams, J. K., Schmitt, M. L., Tiah, J., Ndago, J., Asuru, R., Bawah, A. A., &
Phillips, J. F. (2016). A qualitative appraisal of stakeholder reactions to a tool for burden
of disease–based health system budgeting in Ghana. Global health action, 9(1), 30448.
Burger, P., & Hawkesworth, I. (2013). Capital budgeting and procurement practices. OECD
Journal on Budgeting, 13(1), 57-104.
Larcker, D. F. (1981). The perceived importance of selected information characteristics for
strategic capital budgeting decisions. The Accounting Review, 56(3), 519.
Mukherjee, T., Al Rahahleh, N., & Lane, W. (2016). The capital budgeting process of healthcare
organizations: a review of surveys. Journal of Healthcare Management, 61(1), 58-76.
A Critical Review of Budget System Studies: New Trend in Budgeting – A Literature
Review and A Theoretical Analysis of the Impact of Adopting Rolling Budgets, ActivityBased Budgeting and Beyond Budgeting
Budgeting is a fundamental strategic tool for managers. The budget is a crucial driver to help the
firm achieve its long-term and short-term objectives. Recently, the tool has been under review due
to the changing economic environment in which modern businesses operate. Traditional budget
does not encompass all the performance metrics used to measure the success of a business success
today this making it less useful to managers today. This article is a literature review of budgeting
systems studies done on traditional budgets and the alternative budget systems, including, activitybased budgeting, and beyond budgeting/forecasting. It will highlight how traditional budgets are
becoming inefficient and the pros and cons of alternative budgets.
The articles start by reminding the reader that budgeting is indeed the cornerstone of all
financial operations in every firm (Hansen et al. 2003). The usefulness of a budget to a manager
can not be understated. The budget takes all the plans and targets set by the firm’s management
and turns them into concrete plans to be followed under a semi-rigid financial plan allocating each
strategy a financial metric. For a long time, managers and researchers have been satisfied with the
traditional budget. However, recently, managers have criticized it for being too rigid in its
planning, not allowing managers to play with it in order to match the ever-evolving competitive
market firms operate in today. The response to the criticism was the development of new
budgeting approaches. Rolling forecasts and budgets, activity-based budgets and beyond
budgeting were meant to take over from where traditional budgets stopped.
This research sought to analyze why there is demand for newer, alternative budgeting systems
constructed on the analysis the evolution and progression of current budget needs and systems and
to investigate the methods and alternatives of budgeting systems used by managers all over the
The researcher used literature studies as the primary research methodology in this research.
The literature study was organized under the following topics: (i) the evolution of traditional
budgeting to present a background …
Purchase answer to see full
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more