Abstract
This study makes a comparative analysis of the discussion points brought up by Hope and Fraser in questioning what they call the “traditional” company budget format, with a view to identifying aspects that offer more adequate and effective company management opportunities to organizations. In this sense, the confrontation between both authors and the traditional ones leads to the conclusion that, once again, this discussion deals with a new cycle that tries to recover classic qualitative budget aspects that, once complied with, do not need a new label for the sake of effective company management. Although the approach recommends the possibility of not having an annual budget, strictly speaking, it proposes to emphasize a more strategic discussion, front line participation, greater confidence in managers, periodic result forecasting and elimination of the “fixed contract”, among other elements. The critical analysis was divided into two groups so as to distinguish between criticism in relation to budget limitations and that resulting from its inadequate usage. Finally, the authors do not solve some problems that may be caused by the nonexistence of a budget, besides creating other problems that would not exist without the proposal.
Highlights
Examples can be found of concepts presented to the community which clearly result much more from refined existing concepts, methods and models than from a significant rupture or novelty properly speaking, such as EVA, ABM, BSC, among others. This means saying that significant changes in activity management can be demanded or even offered on the basis of changed resources, assuming the form of people’s behavior in organizations and even models and tools
The combination between some researchers’ skepticism and, in some cases, lack of good will in terms of changes and new views collides with the willingness of eager consumers, who frequently accept novelties instantaneously, without questioning or even considering the adequacy of the cost-benefit relation
· Analysis of proposed benefits and new distortions created bythe new view; and · Conclusions drawn from the analysis
Summary
R saying that, after a while, a concept needs to be reconsidered, revised, sometimes broadened and, in some cases, forgotten. Examples can be found of concepts presented to the community which clearly result much more from refined existing concepts, methods and models than from a significant rupture or novelty properly speaking, such as EVA, ABM, BSC, among others This means saying that significant changes in activity management can be demanded or even offered on the basis of changed resources ( information technology), assuming the form of people’s behavior in organizations (in the sense of participation and empowerment) and even models and tools. The combination between some researchers’ skepticism and, in some cases, lack of good will in terms of changes and new views collides with the willingness of eager consumers, who frequently accept novelties instantaneously, without questioning or even considering the adequacy of the cost-benefit relation Both attitudes are dangerous for knowledge progress. · Analysis of proposed benefits and new distortions created bythe new view; and · Conclusions drawn from the analysis
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
