Cost, Profit, and Investment Centers

45 Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1 Cost Center Practices in Germany and the United States: Impact of Country Differences on Managerial Accounting Practices Kris Portz, St. Cloud State University John C. Lere, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Abstract As business becomes increasingly global, it is important for managers to appreci- ate that practices that work well in one country may not work as well in other countries. This article compares cost center practices under Grenzplankostenrech- nung (GPK), a common approach to cost accounting in Germany, and typical cost center practices in the United States. Differences between Germany and the United States on Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension and in workforce and management education provide possible explanations for differences in the responsibility assigned to cost center managers between Germany and the United States. Differences in cost center practices concerning classification of costs, mea- sures to use when considering changes in costs, and the size and scope of the cost center between Germany and the United States all support these differences in cost center manager responsibility.

Keywords: cost centers, German cost accounting, Hofstede, responsibility accounting Introduction Although business is global, differ- ences in countries may mean that the practice of business is not universal.

Certain country differences can impact the effectiveness of managerial account- ing practices and, as a consequence, af- fect the appropriateness of the practices.

These country differences include dif- ferences in culture, defined using Hofst- ede’s taxonomy (2001), and workforce and management education, which are discussed in the present paper. Failure to recognize the impact of country differ- ences on the appropriateness of mana- gerial accounting practices may lead to a number of dysfunctional actions. A company may benchmark against the wrong set of companies. Managers and accountants may accept “one size fits all” solutions which do not fit all situations.

Companies may implement home- country practices in subsidiaries located in countries where the home-country practices will be ineffective. The last de- cade’s growth in international manageri- al accounting research (Haka and Heit- ger 2004, 21) is a sign of the potential importance of recognizing the impact of country differences on differences in managerial accounting practices.

This article considers the impact of country differences on differences in cost center practices between Germa- ny and the United States. The goals of the article are to 1. describe cost center practices that are an important part of Grenzplankostenrechnung (GPK), a common approach to cost accounting in Germany, 2. contrast these practices with cost center practices commonly employed in the United States, and 3.

offer possible empirically testable ex- planations for these major differences in practices based on country differences. The remainder of the article is divid- ed into four sections. The next section provides an analysis of previous research and indicates where the present article fits within the literature. This section is followed by a section that describes dif- ferences between cost center practices common in Germany and cost center practices common in the United States.

Section three describes important dif- ferences in culture and education be- tween Germany and the United States.

It also discusses how the differences be- tween Germany and the United States provide possible explanations for the differences in cost center practices. The article ends with a discussion of impli- cations for managers and suggestions for future research. Analysis of Previous Research Because three recent articles re- view the literature on international management accounting (Harrison and McKinnon 1999; Chenhall 2003; 46 Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1 Portz and Lere Haka and Heitger 2004), this article does not include a detailed review. A common thread to these articles is that the dominant approach to distinguish- ing countries is based on culture differ- ences and that Hofstede’s taxonomy is the most common approach to distin- guishing culture (Harrison and McK- innon, 1999; Chenhall 2003, 152-3; Haka and Heitger 2004, 32). Haka and Heitger (2004) do, however, consider environmental factors that can have an impact on how managerial account- ing systems are designed in addition to culture. They divide these factors into four categories: (1) organization of economic activity (2) political and legal processes (3) culture (4) infrastructure sophistication.The present article considers envi- ronmental factors that fall into two of these categories: culture as defined us- ing Hofstede’s taxonomy (culture) and workforce and management education (inf rastructure sophistication). The present article is unique in that it considers managerial account- ing practices in Germany. Germany has not been included in prior work on the impact of country differences on managerial accounting practice differences. Unlike most previous work, this article bases its analysis on data f rom secondary sources. This approach permits a more general de- scription of practices that is not sub- ject to company specific differences and the perceptions of respondents.

This does, of course, mean that the practices compared may not reflect the precise practices of any specific company. Being more general, how- ever, the description of practices may be more indicative of the impact of country differences on the practices. A Review of German and U.S. Cost Center Practices Although cost center practices vary somewhat f rom firm to firm in the United States, there is enough similar- ity across firms that it is reasonable to speak of common cost center practices for the United States. Germany pro- vides a unique opportunity for com- parison. The Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) has recently con- ducted a number of studies of Gren- zplankostenrechnung (GPK), a very common approach to cost account- ing in Germany (Kilger, Pampel, and Vikas 2002, 15). Because cost center practices are a very significant part of GPK, the IMA studies provide a ba- sis for describing common cost center practices in Germany. Differences in cost center practices between Germany and the United States can be divided into four cat- egories: differences in the definition of a cost center, differences in output and activity measures used in the cost centers, differences in the way in which costs are classified in cost centers, and differences in the responsibilities as- signed to the heads of cost centers. Cost Center Definition In order for a subunit of a company to be a cost center under GPK, it is necessary that a single output measure can be identified for that subunit. This single output measure is intended to describe the operations of the cost cen- ter (Sharman 2003, 32). In the United States, the only limitation imposed on a cost center is that the decisions made by the head of the cost center are primarily ones that have an impact on cost (Horngren, Datar, and Foster 2006, 197). Therefore, the limitations placed on a United States cost center are much less restrictive than the limi- tations imposed under GPK. This al- lows for cost centers that encompass much broader operations.

Achieving the goal that operations of the cost center can be represented by a single output measure tends to result in cost centers in Germany that are more narrowly focused than are cost centers in United States firms. For example, a cost center in the United States that drills parts might be divided into at least two cost centers in Germany. One cost cen- ter would set up the drilling machines; the second cost center would operate the machines to perform the drilling operation. Such a division would per- mit the firm to describe the operations of each cost center by a single measure.

The output of the machine setup cost center might be machine setups while the output of the drilling cost center might be parts drilled. Achieving a narrow focus in GPK cost centers tends to yield small cost centers. Friedl, Küpper, and Pedell in- dicate that a GPK cost center is typi- cally composed of ten workers or less (2005, 57). Because the less restric- tive United States definition of a cost center tends to yield cost centers with broader operations than does the GPK definition, cost centers in the United States tend to be larger. The difference in the definition of a cost center also means that a com- pany with a GPK system will typi- cally have many more cost centers than will a company following traditional United States practices. An example of this difference in number of cost centers is provided by Sick Kids (a To- ronto children’s hospital). At Sick Kids, implementation of GPK resulted in a dramatic increase in cost centers. For example, in pilot departments, imple- mentation raised the number of cost centers f rom 29 to 97 (Mackie 2006, 35-6). Another example of the large number of cost centers under GPK is provided by DeutscheTelekom, DT (German Telecom). The Inte- “... a company with a GPK system will typically have many more cost centers than will a company following traditional United States practices.” 47 Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1 Portz and Lere grated Cost and Accounting Sys- tem (IKE), an extension of GPK, at DeutscheTelekom, DT, “captures cost information about the efforts of ap- proximately 120,000 people working in 40,000 cost centers.” (Sharman and Vikas 2004, 34).

Output and Activity Measures The importance of an output mea- sure in defining a cost center under GPK results in differences between Germany and the United States in the measures used in cost centers. Measures used in a GPK cost center are intended 1. to represent the output of the cost center, not the output of the firm and 2.

to relate to the usage of resources. This emphasis on measures of cost center output is so basic to GPK that, according to Krumwiede (2005, 34), CIBA Specialty Chemicals doesn’t use “GPK per se because of its complexity and because, in chemical manufactur- ing, it’s difficult to predict the output quantity as some batches produce more or less product than expected.

GPK requires that you are able to predict outcomes fairly well, as in the auto industry.” In the United States, measures used often do not represent the output of the cost center. Under activity-based costing (ABC), the measures selected represent cost drivers for activities performed in the cost center. Such a measure may or may not represent the output of the cost center (Horngren, Datar, and Fos- ter 2006, 144-5). Other measures com- monly used in the United States, such as direct material cost, direct labor cost, and direct labor hours represent mea- sures with which a particular portion of the cost center’s cost varies rather than cost center output (Horngren, Datar, and Foster 2006, 32). Because GPK measures are also se- lected to relate to resource usage, some measures that represent the output of a cost center might not be as appropriate for use in GPK. For example, a measure such as number of setups might not be an appropriate GPK output measure.

While it may represent the output of a cost center, it may not be as closely tied to resource usage as are other measures.

If there are differences in the setups performed by the cost center such that some setups take longer, a measure such as setup hours might better relate to use of resources. In such a case, setup hours would be preferred to number of setups as an output measure for the cost center (Keys and van der Merwe 1999, 3).

The emphasis on resource usage means that many measures commonly used in the United States may not be appropriate output measures under GPK. While the relationship between cost and some measures used in the United States is one of cause and effect, the relationship is often only a statisti- cal one. As discussed below, measures only having a statistical relationship with cost may not provide GPK man- agers with the information appropriate to their responsibilities. The GPK focus on defining cost centers with one measure of output that is related to resource usage leads to cost classification under GPK that is narrower than is typical in the United States. A fundamental feature of GPK is that cost center’s costs are divided into those that are (1) propor- tional and (2) fixed. Classifications of Costs in a Cost Center Classification of costs in a cost cen- ter into proportional costs and fixed costs is a third important way in which GPK cost center practices differ from those of the United States. For that portion of the center’s cost deemed to be proportional, an increase (decrease) in the output measure for the cost cen- ter is accompanied by a proportional increase (decrease) in cost. The remain- ing costs of the cost center are classi- fied as fixed. Traditionally, costs in the United States are divided into variable costs and fixed costs. As used in the United States, the term “variable cost” is a more general term. It is typically applied to costs whose total change in proportion to change in some measure of activity or volume which may or may not be a measure of output (Horngren, Datar, and Foster 2006, 30).

The very precise meaning of “pro- portional costs” under GPK can eas- ily cause confusion. As used in the United States, “variable costs” as well as activity-based costing costs that vary with unit-level, batch-level, and prod- uct-level activities are typically propor- tional costs to the measure with which they vary. Therefore, a United States cost center may include many costs that vary proportionately with some measure. As used in GPK, however, “proportional costs” are limited to only those costs that are proportional to changes in cost center output. Because a GPK cost center is defined so that its operations can be represented by one output measure, its proportional costs all vary with the same measure. The importance of the proportion- al/fixed cost dichotomy to GPK firms is illustrated by Krumwiede’s (2005, 32-3) discussion of Magna Steyer, a supplier of original equipment to auto manufacturers. “Magna accountants told me they don’t use ABC … because ABC doesn’t separate fixed and [pro- portional] costs.” Responsibilities of Cost Center Managers The final area in which GPK cost center practices differ f rom United States cost center practices relates to the assignment of responsibilities to cost center managers. There are two important aspects of this assignment: “Measures used in a GPK cost center are intended (1) to represent the output of the cost center, not the output of the firm and (2) to relate to the usage of resources.” 48 Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1 Portz and Lere The manager is responsible for see- • ing that costs adjust in response to changes in output of the cost center.

A manager may be responsible for • more than one cost center.

A major distinction between Ger- man and United States cost center practices relates to the primary respon- sibility of cost center managers. GPK considers the cost center manager’s prime responsibility to be seeing that costs adjust in response to changes in the output of the cost center. This link between the objective of manag- ers and GPK is clearly indicated in the definition of GPK translated from the introduction to the preeminent Ger- man cost accounting textbook. GPK is “a comprehensive and sophisticated method of planning and monitoring costs based on resource drivers. Select- ing the resource drivers and separating the costs into fixed and proportional components ensures that cost fluctua- tions caused by changes in operating levels, as defined by marginal analysis, are accurately predicted as changes in authorized costs and incorporated into variance analysis.” (Kilger, Pampel, and Vikas 2002, 7). “Authorized” is used in the translation for a word that conveys the meaning of target or allowed costs.

Therefore, this definition underscores the emphasis on assuring that costs adjust in response to changes in cost center output. This emphasis on cost adjustment focuses the manager’s effort and at- tention on one thing, responding to changes in the output of the cost cen- ter. As a result, GPK is likely to lead to greater responsiveness of costs to changes in cost center output than do systems common in the United States in which the manager has broader re- sponsibilities. Because the primary responsibility of a cost center manager in the United States is typically more broadly defined as to control all costs incurred within the cost center (Horngren, Datar, and Foster 2006, 197), opportunities for cost reduction such as by reducing cost center output and by tradeoffs that reduce one cost while increasing another cost by a smaller amount are more likely to be identified and imple- mented by cost center managers in the United States than by cost center man- agers in Germany (Friedl, Küpper, and Pedell 2005, 61).

A second difference between Ger- many and the United States in assign- ment of responsibilities to cost center managers relates to the number of cost centers managed. Although only one manager is typically in charge of each cost center in both Germany and the United States, a GPK cost center manager is often responsible for more than one cost center while cost cen- ter managers in the United States are typically responsible for only one cost center. When GPK was implemented at Sick Kids, managers who had previ- ously been responsible for a single cost center were now responsible for four or five GPK cost centers (Mackie 2006, 36).

Table 1 summarizes these impor- tant differences between cost centers under GPK and cost centers typical in the United States. Influences on Cost Center Design In developing a link between coun- try differences and cost center practice differences, this article considers the difference between the major respon- sibilities assigned to cost center man- agers under GPK and in the United States to be the one directly related to differences in country culture and edu- cation. Differences between Germany and the United States in: (1) classifi- cation of costs (2) measures used (3) limitations used in defining a cost cen- Table 1 Summary of Cost Center Practices in Germany (Grenzplankostenrechnung) and in the United States Germany United State Definition of a cost center Limited so that a single measure can represent cost center outputLimited such that decisions made by head primarily affect cost Size of cost center Fairly small Larger Number of cost centers in firm Large number Relatively few Output or activity measures One measure that represents output of the cost center as opposed to output of the firm; relates to resources used by centerMultiple measures are com- mon and often represent something with which costs of the center vary; relation- ship between cost and mea- sure may result from resource use or because of statistical association Classification of costs in a cost center Fixed and proportional; proportional costs change in proportion to changes in cost center outputFixed and variable; variable costs change directly with some measure, which may or may not be a measure of cost center output Primary responsibility of cost center managers To control costs such that the proportional costs change in proportion to the changes in cost center outputTo control all costs incurred within the cost center Typical number of cost cen- ters controlled by manager Several One 49 Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1 Portz and Lere ter all support this difference in assign- ment of responsibilities.The section begins by discussing cross-country culture and education differences as possible explanations for the differences in major responsibilities assigned to cost center managers.

Culture Influence on Major Responsibilities A number of social researchers (Kluckholn and Strodtbeck 1961, Hall 1977, Hofstede 2001, and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998) have de- signed theoretical f rameworks to ex- plain why people f rom different coun- tries do things in different ways. This article uses Hofstede’s taxonomy, which distinguishes a country’s culture based on its position on five dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculine/ feminine, and Confucian dynamism. Although they differ somewhat on each dimension, Germany and the United States differ most significantly on the uncertainty avoidance dimen- sion (Hofstede 2001, 87, 151, 215, 286, 356). Germany is considered a strong uncertainty avoidance country while the United States is considered a weak uncertainty avoidance country.

According to Hofstede: “Many read- ers of my earlier work have interpreted ‘uncertainty avoidance’ as ‘risk avoid- ance’… . But uncertainty avoidance does not equal risk avoidance.” “More than an escape f rom risk, uncertainty avoidance leads to an escape f rom am- biguity.” (Hofstede 2001, 148). Based on Hofstede’s discussion of strong and weak uncertainty avoidance cultures, one would expect systems in which managers are faced with rela- tively little ambiguity in strong uncer- tainty avoidance cultures. Managers in weak uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to function in systems pre- senting them with greater ambiguity. Assignment of cost center manager responsibility under GPK is consistent with the strong uncertainty avoid- ance culture found in Germany. Un- der GPK, a firm has narrowly defined cost centers where a manager who is responsible for the cost center focuses on controlling proportional costs. As a result, cost center managers are able to become very competent at manag- ing narrowly focused operations with a repetitive output. Such a structure tends to reduce the ambiguity that a manager faces.

Strong uncertainty avoidance also results in a preference for focusing on accomplishing a set of tasks. Once workers know their duties, their pri- mary goal is to complete their assigned tasks (Schmidt 2007, 47). Because of the focus on managing costs so that they respond to changes in output, managers have well-defined roles with- in cost centers and can focus on their designated repetitive, consistent, pre- dictable tasks. This too tends to reduce the ambiguity faced by managers. Because of its weak uncertainty avoidance culture, managers in the United States generally prefer less structure and more flexibility. Manag- ers are often encouraged to work inter- departmentally to improve productiv- ity and efficiency. The strict cost-center criteria of GPK is inconsistent with a desire for flexibility by United States managers. Small cost centers focus- ing on narrow tasks may make United States managers feel too confined or even constrained f rom being creative.

As a result, the prevalent United States culture may make it difficult for man- agers to accept the structure and rigid- ity of GPK. Education Influence on Major Responsibilities Significant differences also exist be- tween workforce and management ed- ucation in Germany and in the United States. In Germany, young people are trained as skilled workers for specific jobs through apprenticeships. Practi- cal work with on the job training al- ternates with classroom courses over an apprenticeship period. At the end of the apprenticeship, workers receive a certificate, which is highly valued and instills a sense of occupational pride.

Therefore, German managers over- see highly qualified individuals who are specially trained for their positions (Schmidt 2007, 52). The United States workforce generally lacks such specific training. Workers are often considered “jack of all trades” with little formal training for specific jobs other than what may be acquired on the job.

Most German managers are edu- cated as technical experts. In fact, over 60 percent of German manufacturing companies are run by engineers with Ph.D. degrees. Any management skills are usually learned on the shop floor.

Managers in the United States, on the other hand, tend to be educated as MBAs rather than as technical experts.

An effective manager in the United States leads or guides a group. A man- ager usually does not produce person- ally but is good at making others in the group produce through “motivation” (Schmidt 2007, 53). Because German workers are in- nately self-motivated and often work hard for the good of the group, efforts to “motivate” them would be seen as unnecessary hand-holding and an in- sult to their professional pride. There- fore, German managers see little rea- son to learn about motivating or even supervising personnel. They assume work will be done well without any prodding (Schmidt 2007, 53). Overall, United States firms give management authority to make strategic decisions whereas German businesses see man- agers as less of a key factor to success. Differences between workforce education in Germany and the United States are consistent with the differ- ence in assignment of responsibility between GPK and United States cost center practices. A narrow focus in cost center manager responsibility in Germany facilitates well-defined spe- cific jobs for which young people can be trained. Because the United States workforce generally lacks such specific training, such well-defined jobs are not necessary to facilitate education. 50 Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1 Portz and Lere The difference in education between German managers and United States managers is also consistent with differ- ences in the assignment of responsibil- ities between GPK and United States cost practices. United States managers tend to be educated to manage which implies a broader range of responsibili- ties including motivating while man- agement education tends to be very in- formal in Germany and therefore may not support as broad responsibilities. Cost Classification, Measures Used, and Cost Center Definition In order for managers under GPK to fulfill the responsibility of ensur- ing that changes in output levels are reflected in changes in costs, the man- agers must know which costs are ex- pected to respond to changes in output levels. Therefore, the GPK emphasis on classifying costs into proportional versus fixed identifies the costs that the managers can and are expected to con- trol, the proportional costs. Identifying proportional costs, those that change in proportion with cost center output, as opposed to vari- able costs, those that vary with some measure, also enhances the ability of GPK managers to fulfill their respon- sibility. Because the output measure for a cost center is chosen to relate to resource usage, the GPK concept of a proportional cost is more strongly tied to cause and effect than is the concept of a variable cost. While there may be a cause and effect relationship between a variable cost and cost center output, variable costs often have only a statisti- cal association with some measure that is often not cost center output. There- fore, the identification of proportional costs provides a GPK cost center man- ager with information on costs that he or she should be able to control as cost center output changes while identifi- cation of variable costs may or may not provide such information. The United States cost center man- ager, however, is typically responsible for managing the costs of a cost center in ways that include, but are not lim- ited to, the cost control responsibility of a GPK cost center manager. Iden- tification of variable costs as well as those costs identified under activity- based costing as changing with chang- es in the amount of unit-level activity, batch-level activity, or product-level activity is appropriate to support the broader responsibilities of a United States cost center manager. Because a cost center manager in the United States is responsible for controlling costs in a much wider variety of ways, he or she can potentially make use of a much broader set of measures. In addi- tion, the broader focus of a cost center in the United States may mean that the cost center does not have a single output measure. Therefore, multiple output measures may be appropriate in the United States.

Cost centers with a narrow focus are necessary in order to assign responsibil- ity for ensuring that proportional costs change in response to changes in cost center output to GPK cost center man- agers. Only with a very narrow focus can a cost center’s operations be described using one output measure. This narrow focus explains the relatively small size of cost centers under GPK and their rela- tively large number per firm. The GPK practice of assigning mul- tiple cost centers to a manager likely arises because the GPK definition of a cost center leads to many, fairly small cost centers. If a unique manager was assigned to each cost center, a company would have an extremely large number of cost center managers, each with a fairly limited set of responsibilities.

This would not seem to be an efficient use of resources. In the United States, the respon- sibilities of a cost center manager are typically broader than those under GPK. In order to make the types of decision typically made by a United States cost center manager, the cost center must be more broadly defined to allow for cost trade offs. This is con- sistent with the larger size of a typi- cal United States cost center and with the smaller number of cost centers in a typical United States firm. Discussion This section discusses cross-country differences in culture and education as potential explanations for cost center practice differences and offers impli- cations of these explanations. These implications are divided into ones of interest to managers considering im- plementing GPK and ones of interest to those considering future research. Implications for Managers When considering potential imple- mentation of GPK, it is important to consider both the types of decisions that a company wishes its managers to make and the possibility that culture and education differences between the United States and Germany may make GPK less effective in a United States company than in a German company. GPK cost center practices focus managers’ decisions primarily on cost reduction as a response to changes in cost center output. Therefore, it is im- portant for a company to consider the extent to which it wants managers to look for ways to reduce cost center cost 1. by reducing the cost center out- put, 2. by looking for tradeoffs among costs and 3. by considering other ways to reduce costs that are not related to changes in cost center output. Typical United States cost center practices are better designed to support decisions related to these types of cost reduction than are GPK practices. In addition, because culture and education differences imply different preferences and preparation for respon- sibilities, it is also important for firms considering implementing GPK cost center practices to consider if firm managers will be effective 1 .

with the narrower job focus and lim- ited ability to be involved in strategic or interdepartmental decision mak- ing under GPK and if the focus on narrow tasks will make 2 . 51 Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1 Portz and Lere managers feel too confined or even constrained f rom being creative. Suggestions for Future Research This article uses differences in cost center practices between the United States and Germany to explore pos- sible relationships between (1) culture and (2) education of the workforce and managers and managerial accounting practices. In doing so, it suggests sev- eral directions for further research. One direction for future research is to determine if the differences in cost center practices are related to differ- ences in culture, education, or both.

An approach to answering this ques- tion would involve identifying Ger - man companies whose employees (1) are German, but have been educated in the United States, (2) are German and have been educated in Germany or (3) have been educated in Ger- many, but have spent substantial time in the United States. Comparisons of the cost center practices among com- panies whose employees fit in these three categories may shed light on the impact of each factor. Differences between German workforce and management education and workforce and management edu- cation in the United States are con- sistent with culture differences related to uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede 2001, 170). Therefore, another ques- tion of interest is whether differences in both cost center practices and edu- cation arise because of differences in country culture. Culture may be the main factor behind cost center practice differences directly and also indirectly through differences in the workforce and management education. References Chenhall, R. H. 2003. Management con- trol systems design within its organi- zational context: findings f rom con- tingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28:127-168. Friedl, G., H. Küpper, and B. Pedell. 2005.

Relevance added: combining ABC with German cost accounting. Strategic Finance 86(12):56-61.

Haka, S. F. and D. L. Heitger. 2004. In- ternational managerial accounting re- search: a contracting framework and opportunities. The International Journal of Accounting 39:21 - 69.

Hall, E. T. 1977. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Harrison, G. and J. McKinnon. 1999. Cross-cultural design in management control systems design: a review of the current state. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24:483-506.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences:

Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institu- tions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2d edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Horngren, C., S. Datar and G. Foster. 2006. Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Keys, D.E. and A. van der Merwe. 1999. German vs. United States cost manage- ment. Management Accounting Quar- terly (Fall):1-8.

Kilger, W., J. Pampel and K. Vikas. 2002. 0. Introduction: Marginal Costing as a Management Accounting Tool, Flexible Plankostenrechnung und Deckungbeitrag- srechnung, 11th edition. Wiesbaden:

Gabler. Translation by S. Offenbacker published in Management Accounting Quarterly 5 (2) ( Winter 2004): 15.

7-28.

Kluckholn, F.R. and F.L. Strodtbeck. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Evan- ston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Krumwiede, K.R. 2005. Rewards and reali- ties of German cost accounting. Strate- gic Finance 86 (10):26-34.

Mackie, B. 2006. Merging GPK and ABC on the Road to RCA. Strategic Finance 87 (5):35-6.

Schmidt, P.S. 2007. Understanding Ameri- can and German Business Cultures. M o n - treal, Canada: Meridian World Press.

Sharman, P.A. 2003. Bring on German cost accounting. Strategic Finance (De- cember):30-8.

Sharman, P.A. and K. Vikas. 2004. Lessons f rom German cost accounting. Strategic Finance 86(6):28-35.

Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner. 1998. Riding the Waves of Culture: Un- derstanding Diversity in Global Business, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. About the Authors Kris Portz, CPA, Inactive (PhD - Uni- versity of Nebraska at Lincoln) is profes - sor of accounting at St. Cloud State Uni- versity in St. Cloud, Minnesota. During fall 2005, she served as faculty director of a study abroad program in Ingolstadt, Germany where she lived for four months and taught at the Fachhochschule - Ingol- stadt. John C. Lere (PhD - University of Wisconsin-Madison) is professor emeritus at St. Cloud State University and visiting professor at the University of Wisconsin— Milwaukee. He served as visiting profes - sor at the Norwegian School of Econom- ics and Business Administration during fall 2003. He is the author of two books and numerous articles Copyright of American Journal of Business is the property of American Journal of Business and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.