目标成本核算外文翻译文献

目标成本核算外文翻译文献 文献信息: 文献标题:Best Practices in Target Costing(目标成本核算的最优) 国外作者:Dan?Swenson，Shahid?Ansari，Jan?Bell，IL-Woon kim 文献 出处:《Management Accounting Quarterly》,2003,4(2):12-17 字数统计:英 文2579单词，14510字符;中文5810汉字 外文文献: Best Practices in Target Costing HERE IS HOW FOUR "MODEL" COMPANIES--THE BOEING COMPANY, CATERPILLAR, DAIMLERCHRYSLER, AND CONTINENTAL TEVES--APPLY THIS COSTING TECHNIQUE. The Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing--International (CAM-I), the American Institute of CPAs, and the University of Akron recently sponsored a major study to benchmark best practices in target costing. This study examined the ways in which target costing has been applied in a variety of industries, the level of success and measurable improvements achieved, and the factors that influenced the success of these applications. The study began with a survey to collect information about target costing practices throughout the United States. After analyzing the survey results, conducting telephone interviews, and reviewing secondary research, the research team selected four companies as having best practices in target costing. The team then conducted site visits at each of the "best practice" companies, namely The Boeing Company, Caterpillar, DaimlerChrysler, and Continental Teves (a supplier of automotive brake systems). The results of the study are discussed here. TARGET-COSTING PRINCIPLES Target costing can best be described as a systematic process of cost management and profit planning. The six key principles of target costing are: 1.Price-led costing. Market prices are used to determine allowable--or target--costs. Target costs are calculated using a formula similar to the following: market price required profit margin = target cost. 2. Focus on customers. Customer requirements for quality, cost, and time are simultaneously incorporated in product and process decisions and guide cost analysis. The value (to the customer) of any features and functionality built into the product must be greater than the cost of providing those features and functionality. 3. Focus on design. Cost control is emphasized at the product and process design stage. Therefore, engineering changes must occur before production begins, resulting in lower costs and reduced "time-to-market" for new products. 4. Cross-functional involvement. Cross-functional product and process teams are responsible for the entire product from initial concept through final production. 5. Value-chain involvement. All members of the value chain--e.g., suppliers, distributors, service providers, and customers--are included in the target costing process. 6. A life-cycle orientation. Total life-cycle costs are minimized for both the producer and the customer. Life-cycle costs include purchase price, operating costs, maintenance, and distribution costs. THE TARGET COSTING PROCESS Essentially, companies use target costing to establish concrete and highly visible cost targets for their new products. To maximize cost control and enhance profit improvement, most companies set relatively aggressive targets. The process begins when top management establishes a target cost for a new product, for example, a Chrysler Neon or a Caterpillar Excavator. A cost estimating group will then decompose the target cost for the product as a whole into cost targets for subassemblies and individual component parts--engine, transmission, seats, and so on. Frequently a "gap" exists between the target cost and cost projections for the new product based on current designs and manufacturing capabilities. Closing the gap through cost reduction is central to the target costing process. This is accomplished through cross-functional target costing teams, which analyze the product's design, raw material requirements, and manufacturing processes to search for cost savings opportunities. The cross-functional teams employ a variety of management tools and initiatives to help them achieve their objectives. The following section describes some of these tools and initiatives and other characteristics of successful target costing companies. TARGET COSTING ENABLERS The best practice companies demonstrated certain commonalities in their operations and the way in which they supported the target costing process. They all had very effective organizational structures, responded to the “voice of the customer,” streamlined their product development process, and actively engaged their supply chain to achieve target costing objectives. To better understand these practices, we visited the four companies that had achieved the most success in each area. Our objective was to document “best practices” in deploying these key elements of target costing. At each best practice company, target costing is supported by a matrix organizational structure where a vertical, functional organization combines with horizontal, cross-functional teams. For example, U.S. Operations for DaimlerChrysler has five platform teams that cover large cars, small cars, mini-vans, trucks, and jeeps. Each team is cross-functional and includes members from design engineering, manufacturing engineering, purchasing, production, and finance. The target costing system determines cost objectives and performance goals for each platform team, and meeting these goals is an important component of team members’ annual performance reviews. The target costing system at DaimlerChrysler makes use of a “toolbox” of management initiatives to improve productivity and reduce costs. The toolbox includes value engineering/value analysis, design for manufacturing assembly, paper kaizen, and lean manufacturing. Each initiative is implemented through workshops composed of multifunctional teams. The teams vary from five to 30 individuals and meet anywhere from one to five days. The workshops are “working” sessions where participants brainstorm, troubleshoot, and generally try to solve problems and improve operations. ?Value Engineering/Analysis is used to increase the value of DaimlerChrysler’s products to consumers through improved designs. Changing a part’s design can be quite expensive because it generally requires new tooling. Therefore, the benefits of the new design to the consumer must more than offset the cost of the new tooling. ?Design for Manufacturing Assembly (DFMA) occurs throughout product design but before the first pilot vehicle is built. Essentially, DFMA evaluates the effectiveness of the design with regard to assembly operations. One benchmark is to minimize the number of vehicle components and to simplify the assembly processes. The result is fewer assembly errors and improved reliability and serviceability of the vehicles. ?Paper Kaizen is the term used to promote the concept of continuous improvement. It is most effective immediately after a new part is designed but before the manufacturing process begins. During this stage in a product’s life cycle, workstation setups, assembly steps, and process flows are simulated and optimized on paper before expenses are incurred. ?Lean Manufacturing occurs after product launch and extends beyond DaimlerChrysler to include its supply chain. Benefits from this “hands-on” workshop include improved material flow and the elimination of unnecessary inventory movement, reduced setup times, and a general optimization of the workforce. VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER The best practice companies actively solicit input from the customer on design issues. While this practice is no different from those of many other companies, these companies take it a step further—they examine whether or not their customers are willing to pay for the design innovations. If the cost of the innovation is greater than its value to the customer, the innovation should be abandoned. We found numerous examples of “value analysis” during the site visits. For example: ?One of Boeing’s customers requested heated floors. Before target costing, The Boeing Company was inclined to provide almost whatever the customer wanted without regard to cost. The company now prices airplane options separately. When this particular customer learned that the price for heated floors was more than $1 million, it reconsidered its request. ?DaimlerChrysler used value analysis to evaluate many of the options that are available for its vehicles. After considering the tradeoff between cost and customer value for several lighting options, one of the platform teams decided to provide lighting for interior controls but forgo under-the-hood lighting. ?Continental Teves went beyond its direct customers to learn from the automobile consumer. It discovered that once vehicle purchasers were educated on the use of anti-lock brake systems (ABS) and the resulting safety benefits, they were more interested in purchasing ABS as an option for their vehicle. To leverage this discovery, Continental built a trailer that serves as a “mobile exhibit” to teach the public about ABS. One section of the trailer has a foot pedal simulator that allows the consumer to feel the “pulsating” motion of the pedal when he or she applies ABS brakes. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT The product development process at The Boeing Company has changed markedly in recent years. The characteristics of new airplanes are dependent upon the size of the market (potential sales volume), the number of seats required, and customer choices with regard to technological requirements. Before target costing was introduced, engineers tended to design “engineering marvels” with little regard to cost. These airplanes had hundreds of customer-specific product features, most of which were not transferable from one customer to the next. Boeing now tries to minimize unique customer requirements and incorporate changes that will provide value to a large customer base. Through target costing, the costs associated with adding new components or changing aircraft configurations, such as moving kitchen galleys to new locations on the airplane, are much more visible. Any changes that are incorporated into a new airplane must satisfy a life-cycle-based business case. In other words, customers must be willing to pay for the incremental, nonrecurring costs of the change. Furthermore, many of the technological advancements are expensive to implement on a “piecemeal” basis. Therefore, as technology improves, some strategic advancements are incorporated into existing models, and others are held “in a drawer” until a new family of airplanes is developed (such as the new Boeing 777). For example, the product development team recently learned that a competitor had developed a common cockpit design for its airplanes. This new design will be evaluated using the above criteria, as it is expected to save money for both the manufacturer (fewer new cockpit components to design and manufacture) and the customer (lower training costs and fewer component parts to inventory). SUPP LY CHAIN In addition to internal operations, each of the best practice companies relies on cost savings opportunities from its supply chain to meet cost targets. At both DaimlerChrysler and Continental Teves, approximately 75% of the value of their products comes from purchased raw materials and components. In this environment, targetcosting goals would be almost impossible to achieve without the participation of their suppliers. In fact, both companies view their supply chains as part of an “extended enterprise” where they share design information, cost information, and establish inter-company teams to meet cost reduction goals. To encourage process improvements among its suppliers, DaimlerChrysler rates the performance of each supplier on a yearly basis. A major component of the rating system is the “SCORE” (Supplier COst Reduction Effort) program. Each supplier is asked to achieve the equivalent of a 5% annual cost reduction based on its total annual sales to DaimlerChrysler. This cost reduction goal includes any supplier suggestions that result in lower costs for DaimlerChrysler. For example, one supplier suggested changing a vehicle’s front rail system from several pieces to one unit. While the new design did not reduce the supplier’s cost, it did improve the unit’s quality and reduce DaimlerChrysler’s assembly costs. Under DaimlerChrysler’s SCORE system, the supplier received credit for this innovation. Continental Teves has developed a cost-modeling tool to determine target costs for the components it outsources. The cost targets are based on material costs, cycle times, labor rates, overhead, and other characteristics. The model is sophisticated, and it adjusts wage and occupancy rates to correspond with the appropriate rates for the region of the country in which the supplier operates. Furthermore, the model’s overhead allocation rates differ based on the type of supplier. Full-service suppliers, responsible for product research and design, are allowed higher overhead allocation rates than suppliers that simply “build to print.” If a supplier is unable to meet its target costs, Continental might ask to send a team there to view its operations. Continental will then analyze the supplier’s manufacturing processes, tolerances, and material content and generally verify the assumptions in its cost-modeling tool. After negotiations, however, if Continental still believes the supplier’s costs are too high, it might consider bids from other suppliers. TARGET COSTING STEPS AT CATERPILLAR Once companies have the tools and systems in place to support target costing, they often develop a standardized approach for achieving their target costing objectives. Caterpillar offers a good illustration to highlight the target costing process for one of its new products. For this particular vehicle, management set the target cost at 94.6% of a comparable model, creating an initial gap of 5.4%. The cost of the comparable model is based on current manufacturing capabilities. Therefore, to achieve the target, costs must be reduced by 5.4%. Current costs for a comparable model 100.0% Target cost for new product Cost gap 5.4% A cost improvement team is then assembled from product design, manufacturing engineering, production, marketing, and purchasing to determine how to close the gap. Initially, the group evaluates component part substitutions that would reduce costs but still provide the product features and benefits necessary to satisfy customer requirements. The group also considers opportunities to reduce costs through efficiency improvements. Table 1 shows that the cost improvement team identified 4.6% in “known” savings through an initial evaluation of cost savings opportunities.Having reduced the gap by 4.6%, the team must find an additional 0.8% in savings to achieve the 5.4% cost reduction target. At this stage, the cost improvement team surveys the operational groups to identify potential cost savings opportunities. The responses to the questionnaire do not recommend specific solutions, but they do identify where improvement opportunities are more likely to be successful (see Table 2). Each “yes” response on the questionnaire indicates an opportunity for cost reduction, and the component part category (cab, engine, hydraulics, etc.) that has the largest number of positive responses is viewed as having the greatest potential for saving money. Table 2 highlights a sample questionnaire, and a tally of the responses indicates the extent to which each part category will be targeted for cost reduction. In this case, hydraulics will be responsible for achieving the highest percentage (50%) of the cost savings that are needed. Therefore, the cost of hydraulics must be reduced by .4% (.50 ? .08). Table 3 illustrates the final step in the process. It takes the adjusted costs column from Table 1 and subtracts the additional savings that are required for each component part category. The right-hand column in Table 3 illustrates the target cost for the new vehicle, broken down to the component level. To recap, Caterpillar began with current costs for a comparable product (100%) and, after deducting known savings based on existing technology (Table 1) and potential savings based on an analysis of the questionnaire (Table 2), established cost targets for each component of the new vehicle. BEST PRACTICE COMPANIES CONSISTENT IN APPROACH Target costing is still relatively new to U.S. companies. Nevertheless, it is being adopted in some key industries, namely the transportation and heavy equipment industries. Intensive competition, extensive supply chains, and relatively long product development cycles characterize these industries. The best practice companies were relatively consistent in the way in which they applied target costing. The other companies follow a similar approach to the target costing steps at Caterpillar that were highlighted in the last section, All of the best practice companies employ a cross-functional organizational structure, listen to the “voice of the customer,” emphasize cost reduction during the new product development cycle, and are very effective at removing costs throughout the supply chain. For these companies, target costing has proven to be a very effective means of cost control and profit enhancement. 中文译文: 目标成本核算的最优方案 本文就波音公司，卡特彼勒公司，戴姆勒-克莱斯勒公司以及大陆特威斯公司的现实案例来展示这种成本核算方法。 这个由国际领先制造业协会,美国注册会计师协会以及美国阿克伦大学所组成的研究小组近来主要致力于研究探讨在目标成本核算过程中最优方案的基准。在本次研究中，在根据一些各类行业的企业公司中正在实施应用的目标管理核算模式(这些都是一些在现实产业中衡量其成功运营以及提高的基准)，这些是企业在现实实践中的得以成功的重要作用因素。 此次研究始于一个在在全美范围内进行的一项关于收集目标成本管理方法的信息收集的调查。在将此次调查的结果进行包括电话采访电话采访,以及回顾次要问题的的研究等分析以后，研究小组筛选了四家在目标成本核算方案 上拥有最佳方案的四家公司。随后这个团队对这四个公司了进行实地考察即“波音公司，卡特彼勒公司，戴姆勒-克莱斯勒公司以及大陆特威斯公司(汽车制动摩擦系统的供应商)。这里我们根据这项研究的结果作了一些讨论。 目标成本的核算准则 目标成本可以说是一个最佳的成本管理和利润规划系统的过程。这六个目标成本的主要原则是: 1.价格主导的成本。市场价格是用来决定在允许范围内或者 是目标成本。目标成本计算公式类似可以列为以下公式:市场价格 - 需要利润率=目标成本。 2.专注于客户。客户对于质量，成本以及时间的要求将同时综合起来 作为产品和工艺成本分析的决策和指导中。该值(给客户的任何功能和内置于产品的功能)必须大于提供这些特性和功能成本。 3.专注于。在产品和工艺设计阶段应当着重于强调成本控制。因此，工程设计变更必须在生产开始之时着手运作，进而能够实现降低成本以及减少新产品投入市场的时间成本。 4.跨职能的参与。跨职能团队的产品以及工艺的整个产品从最初的概念到最终生产负责。 5.价值链的参与。所有的价值链，例如，供应商，经销商，服务供应商会员和客户，都包括在目标成本的核算过程之中。 6.生命周期的方向。对于生产者和消费者而言，全寿命周期成本应当降低到最低的程度。生命周期的成本包括购买价格，经营成本，维护以及配送成本。 目标成本核算的过程 从本质上讲，公司为他们的新产品确定具体的和高度以及可以实现目标成本。为了最大限度地控制成本及提高利润的改善，大多数公司把设立了比较激进的目标成本。这个过程开始时，高层管理人员建立了一个新产品目标成本，例如，克莱斯勒霓虹或卡特彼勒挖掘机。将一个产品的成本进行总体的估算，然后再将这个整体分解为组将作为一个部件并且在此基础之上个人分解转化为零部件，比如发动机，变速箱，座椅这些整个产品细节的成本目标，等等。 在现实的案例中，常常有这样的情况，在目标成本和和当前的设计和制造能力为基础的新产品成本预测之间存在着“差距”。在降低成本过程 中缩减这种的差距是实现目标成本的主要手段。这些是通过跨部门的目标成本小组，来进行分析产品的设计，原材料需求和生产流程，从而来寻找节省成本的机会。跨职能团队使用的一些管理工具和各种有效的倡议，以帮助他们实现自己的目标。以下部分描述了这些工具和举措，耗资公司成功目标的其他一些特征。 可行的目标成本核算方法 实践证明，最好的公司在其业务以及在他们支持的目标成本的过程中都是存在着某些共性的。他们都已经非拥有者非常有效的组织结构，并且对于“客户的声音”有着很深程度的响应从而精简他们的产品的研究发展进程，积极参与他们的供应链，以达到目标成本的目标。为了更进一步地了解这些做法，我们参观了四个已在各个领域取得最成功的公司。我们的目的用文字的方式来在进行目标成本管理过程中部署这些关键要素的最佳做法。 在每一个有着最佳实践经验的公司，目标成本都为着一个具有垂直结构的功 能组织以及结合着横向的跨职能团队的矩阵组织结构提供者数据上以及决策管理上的支持。例如，美国的戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司有五个业务平台团队，包括大型车，小型车，微型面包车，卡车和吉普车。每个团队都是跨职能团队，这其中的成员包括来自设计工程，制造工程，采购，生产和财务的各个方向的管理人员与业务人员。目标成本系统确定成本目标，并为每个平台团队设计提供业绩目标，与此同时，实现这些目标是每一个团队成员的年度绩效评估的重要组成部分和参照因素。 在戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司的目标成本体系中，是通过使用一个称“工具箱的管理措施”的管理工具来提高生产率和降低成本的。该工具箱包括价值工程/价值分析，生产装配，持续改善经营管理模式和精益生产等方式。每项倡议是通过多功能小组组成的讲习班进行分析探讨而得出的。该小组由5至30个不同的个人和满足1至5天的任何地方。该研讨会是“工作”会议，类似于头脑风暴法，参加者灵机一动，提出方案直面问题，并普遍尝试解决问题，从而以改善经营。 ?价值工程/分析方法是通过改进设计来提升戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司的产品价值从而给消费者带去福利。改变一个部件的设计可以说是相当昂贵的，因为它通常需要新的工具。因此，新设计的优越之处就是带给消费者的福利必须大大抵消了新工具的成本。 ?基于制造以及装备的设计(DFMA)是产生于整个产品的设计的过程之中的，但在第一个试点建立之前，运输装备体系应当首先建立起来。从本质上讲，DFMA评估关于大会的筹措的设计退化机制，那些收不到。一个基准是尽量减少汽车组件数量，并且简化了装配过程。其结果是减少装配误差，提高车辆的可靠性和适用性。 ?持续改善经营管理模式是用于促进持续改进的概念术语。这种方法的实施的最佳效用时间是在成产流程的设计完成之后，而设计的部件在投入生产之前的这一段时间。在这一个产品的生命周期中，工作站的设置，装配步骤阶段，流动过程都是在实质产生费用之前进行模拟和优化。 ?精益生产模式是在产品上市以后，例如戴姆勒克莱斯勒的延展包括它的供应链延伸。这个“实践”研讨会所带来的好处，包括改善物质流和 不必要的库存运动，消除减少安装时间，以及对员工的一般优化，更加信任，重视和依靠组织 的职工和顾客。 客户之声 最佳做法公司积极征求客户对于设计问题的意见和建议。虽然这种做法是与许多其他公司比较而言并没有不同之处，但是这些公司是否是可以再进一步的进行分析呢,而最佳公司他们进一步地征求客户与他们交流，不论他们的客户愿意支付的设计创新。如果创新的成本高于它的价值给客户更多的，创新就应该被放弃。我们发现“价值分析在实地考察”的例子。例如: ?波音公司的一位客户要求加热楼层。在目标成本之前，波音公司倾向于提供给几乎任何客户这种想要不考虑成本的态度。然而该公司目前的空中飞机的价格进行了分类选择。当这个特殊的客户了解到，为加热地板价格将会超过100万美元，他会根据这一信息重新考虑其要求。 ?戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司用价值分析评估的诸多选项对于提供的许多车辆来说都是切实可行的。在考虑成本与顾客价值数照明选项之间的权衡，该平台的球队之一决定为内部控制而放弃照明不足的发动机罩照明。 ?大陆特威斯公司超越了向直接客户讨教而延展到学习汽车消费国。它研究发现发现，一旦车辆购买者学习领会到了对防抱死制动系统(ABS)的使用和由此产生的安全效益，他们将会更倾向于将ABS作为他们购买汽车的一个总要追逐选项和参照指标。为了利用这一发现，大陆建立了一个拖车展览作为“流动展览”，以这种形式来以教导ABS的公共服务。其中 一个拖车装有一脚踏模拟器，当消费者适用接受ABS刹车议案时，他或她将会感受到“脉动”的踏板。 产品开发 近几年来，波音公司在产品开发过程中发生着显著的趋于适用于市场的变化。新飞机的特点是根据市场(体积潜在的销售)的大小依赖，所需议席的数目，以及有关有技术要求的客户来进行选择。之前介绍了目标成本，设计工程师往往会很少考虑到“工程奇迹”的成本。这些飞机在以客户为特定产品具有数百项，其中大部分是不能从一个客户转移到下一个客户的。波音公司现在试图尽量减少单个客户的要求，并且结合独特的变化，从而将价值提供给一个拥有大部分相似 需求的客户群体。 通过目标成本的管理核算，不难看出新的物质或改变飞机的配置的切实可行性，相关的成本也更为明显。比如说在飞机上设立移动厨房的地点设计这些创新的设计。任何一个被纳入到一个新的飞机得创意设计都必须满足生命周期为基础的业务情况的变化。换言之，客户必须愿意支付增量，非经常性费用的变化。此外，许多昂贵的先进的科学技术都是在“零敲碎打”的基础上而被贯彻实施的。因此，随着科学技术的提高，一些战略性的进步将会被纳入现有的模型，而另外的一些客户却是“说在抽屉里的奉行者”，直到发展更新产生新的飞机型号的系列，例如新的波音777飞机。比如说，近日来产品开发团队据悉，其竞争对手已经制定一个共同的飞机驾驶舱的设计。这种新的设计将在评估中采用上述的一些准则，因为它将为制造商为节省钱(减少新驾驶舱组件的设计和制造)和客户(降低培训 成本，减少零部件的库存)。 供应链 除了内部运作，每一个公司的最佳实践都是依赖于以符合目标成本控制，由其供应链而得来的节省成本的机会。在戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司和大陆特威斯公司这两个公司中，产品的价值中大约有75,的部分是来自于购买原材料和零部件所花费的成本。在这种情况下，目标成本的目标几乎不可能实现其供应商脱离考虑。事实上，两家公司同时认为，作为一种“扩展型企业”。在这类企业中，他们共享设计信息，成本信息，提高他们的供应链运转效率并建立公司内部团队，从而满足降低成本的目标。 为了鼓励其供应商对于流程的改进，戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司对供应商的年度业务基准进行了比率的总结。一个评级体系的主要部分是“分数”(供应商削减成本的努力程度的百分比)方案。关于这个比率每个供应商均被要求达到5,，相当于每年减少成本，以他对于戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司在其年度销售总额为基础。这个成本削减目标包括任何供应商的建议，这些都是致力于为达到戴姆勒克莱斯勒股份公司降低成本的结果。例如，一个供应商的建议改变几件从汽车的前面的铁路系统转而成为一个单元。虽然新的设计并没有减少供应商的成本，但是它确实提高部队的质量以及降低了戴姆勒克莱斯勒的装配成本。在戴姆勒克莱斯勒公司 的得分系统的使用进程中，供应商也确实是收到的这种创新的所带来的利润。 大陆特威斯公司所开发的成本建模工具，是用以确定它的组件外源的目标成本的。成本目标是以材料成本，周期时间，劳动力费用，管理费用 以及一些其他的因素共同作用为基础的。该模型是复杂的，它调整了工资和占用率，从而可以符合与该国在该地区的供应商经营的适当费率。此外，模型的管理费用分配比率应当根据不同类型的供应商来做一些相应的调整与变更。全方位服务供应商，为了产品研发和设计工作，他们是允许供应商有着较高的间接的开销分配比率，而不是简单地要求“按照固有的模式一成不变地完成进程”。如果一个供应商无法满足其目标成本，大陆可能会要求派遣一个小组，以查看其有没有以此基准来进行生产制造。大陆公司然后再分析供应商的制造工艺，公差以及材料核实的内容，一般情况下是在其成本建模工具的假设下来进行的。然后会再次进行谈判，但是，如果大陆公司仍认为该供应商的成本过高，就会有可能考虑从其他供应商来重新投标。 卡特彼勒公司目标成本的步骤 在一旦发生支持目标成本的核算管理过程的工具和系统，他们经常成为实现其发展目标成本目标的化方法。卡特彼勒公司在这方面提供了一个很好的例证，强调目标成本为它的新产品之一的过程。对于这个特定的车辆，管理定为94.6,，然而可比成本的目标模式却创造了5.4,的初始差距。 该模型的可比成本是根据目前的制造能力得来的。因此，要实现目标，费用必须由5.4,调低。 可比目前的成本模式 100% 新产品目标成本 94.6% 成本差距 5.4% 成本的改善是由一个团队来进行组装，从产品的设计到制造工程再到生产，营销和采购，从而以流程式的方式来决定如何去缩小差距。最初，该集团的评估是从整体逐渐地疏散到组成的各个部件，从而达到减少成本的效果，但是，与此同时，他们仍旧是提供了必要的功能和优势产品，以满足客户的需求。该小组仍旧是认为有机会通过提高效率来降低成本的。表1显示，这个使得成本优化的团 队是通过一个节约成本的机会的初步评估来确保4.6,的百分比的提升在“已知的”存款中。为了减少了这4.6,的差距，车队必须找到一个额外的达到0.8,至5.4,的储蓄从而达到既定的成本降低的目标。 在这个阶段，业务改善小组根据成本调查小队提供的一切数据等，用以确定潜在的成本节约机会。在对问卷调查的答复中不推荐具体的解决办法，但他们却确定能够找出改进的机会使得产品更有可能取得成功(见表2)。每一个对问卷肯定的答复均表示一个成本下降的机会，与此同时，这些组成部分的各个部件类别(驾驶室，发动机，液压系统等)，那些有着积极的反应最多的项目因素是被定为具有最大潜在效果的因子来节省资金。表2突出反映了抽样问卷调查所带来的作用，这种方法是通过对这些反应表明相符合的程度从而实现对每个类别中的一部分运用于达到降低成本的目标。在这种情况下，实现液压比例最高为(50,)的比率改善来对所被需要的节省成本进行负责。所以，水力学的成本必须要减少0.4,(0.50 ? 0.08)。 表3说明了在这个过程中的最后一步。对于每一个组成部分类别而言，采用从表1中得出来的调整成本以及所需的额外节余。在表3的右栏说明 了新车的目标成本，并且逐步分解到各个组件级别。总括来说，卡特彼勒公司开始对类似产品(100,)以及扣除现有技术(表1)，同时根据有调查表所得出的已知的和潜在的储蓄存款(表2)来进行分析，确定了每个成本目标，从而运作目前的费用组成部分新车。 最佳实践公司中的做法相一致 现阶段，目标成本的核算与管理对于美国公司而言仍旧是比较领先的技术。不过，它正在通过在一些重点行业比如说运输行业和重型设备行业中进行试点。这些试点行业的特征是激烈的竞争，广泛的供应链以及产品开发周期相对较长等。 公司的最佳做法相对的方式是他们在生产流程的过程中的使用方式与目标成本的管理方式相一致。其他的一些公司紧密地跟随着卡特彼勒公司来进行目标成本核算的各个步骤流程，这个问题已经于上一节强调过，那些拥有着最好做法的公司都会聘请一个跨职能的组织结构来进行这些步骤类似的方法，倾听客户的 “声音”，强调在新产品开发周期中来降低成本，而且在整个供应链的流程中要非常有效率的来降低减少成本。对于这些公司来说，目标成本法已被证明是成本控制和利润的提高是非常有效的手段。