The aim of this study is to critically discuss
the “Beyond Budgeting” concept which is considered to be one of the solution
alternatives to criticism directed at traditional budgeting. In the study, the
approach is evaluated conceptually with the literature review related to the
beyond budgeting and the case in practice is tried to be put forward. The study
also includes comparison of other approaches (rolling budgeting, better
budgeting and advanced budgeting, etc.) developed in relation to the budget
issue with the beyond budgeting. Although the beyond budgeting advocates a
radical change as an approach, traditional budgeting tools are still widely
used according to the traditional budget and the beyond budgeting literature
review; and the use of the beyond budgeting is very limited. Businesses in
place to eliminate traditional budgets, they prefer to use to develop them.
Bu çalışmanın amacı geleneksel bütçelemeye
yöneltilen eleştirilere çözüm alternatiflerinden birisi olarak değerlendirilen “Bütçe
Ötesi Yönetim” (Beyond Budgeting) yaklaşımını eleştirel bir bakışla ele
almaktır. Çalışmada bütçe ötesi yönetime ilişkin literatür taramasıyla yaklaşım
kavramsal olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Ayrıca çalışmada bütçe konusuna ilişkin
olarak geliştirilen sürekli bütçeleme, daha iyi bütçeleme ve ileri bütçeleme
gibi yaklaşımlarla da bütçe ötesi yönetimin kıyaslamasına yer verilmektedir. Bütçe
ötesi yönetim, yaklaşım olarak radikal bir değişimi savunuyor olsa da, geleneksel
bütçeleme araçları hala yaygın bir biçimde kullanılmaktadır. Literatür taraması
sonucuna göre bütçe ötesi yönetimin kullanımının oldukça sınırlı bir düzeyde
olduğu ve işletmelerin geleneksel bütçeleri ortadan kaldırmak yerine onları
geliştirerek kullanmayı tercih ettikleri görülmektedir.
Primary Language | Turkish |
---|---|
Subjects | Business Administration |
Journal Section | MAIN SECTION |
Authors | |
Publication Date | September 30, 2019 |
Submission Date | January 31, 2019 |
Published in Issue | Year 2019 Volume: 21 Issue: 3 |
Authorship
MBDD follows the guidelines in COPE Authorship Guideline to ensure fair recognition of contributions to a research paper (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/authorship ). Authorship carries both credit and responsibility, and it is essential that all listed authors have made significant contributions to the research.
For multi-author studies, the Contributions of Authors must be declared after the conclusion and before the bibliography of the paper. The authors' initials and last names should be used to indicate which author contributed to which part of the manuscript. Details can be found by clicking the “Article Submission Checklist” button. The authors can acknowledge contributions that do not merit authorship.
The author(s) should disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools in design and implementation of the research. Such use need to be disclosed within the methodology section of the manuscript. Use of AI does not preclude the manuscript from publication, rather provides a transparent picture of the research.