IntroductionTraditional annual budgets belong to the common managerial tools, which are used by majority of organizations for different purposes. These traditional budgets are mostly based on annual accounting periods and are connected with forecasting elementary financial indicators as far as evaluation of performance of decentralized business units and managers. (Drury, 2001; Garrison et al., 2012; Kemp and Dunbar, 2003). Budgeting is often connected with planning activities, which is defined as the design of a desired future and effective ways of bringing it about (Ostergren & Stensaker, 2011; Ackoff, 1981). Alternatively, budgets are considered as detailed plans (Drury, 2001), or as plans transformed into currency units (Kral, 2010). In budgets the strategic ideas are transformed into understandable operative actions (Hanninen, 2013).In literature we can find evidence that traditional budgeting is mostly based on mechanical transformation of a non-financial forecast into financial statements, without focus on real needs of an organization (Doyle, 2003). Doyle (2003) explains the problems with inflexibility of traditional budgets as the important limitation and an inability to take on board changes in a business environment that occur throughout a year. Strong criticism of problems related to the traditional budgeting mechanisms was presented by Hope and Fraser (2003). Their critique primarily focused on the inability of traditional budgeting to reflect the real performance of the organization and utilize the performance as the significant factor of employee evaluation. Other authors complement (Hanninen, 2013; Libby & Murray, 2007) that traditional budgeting is a relic of the past ages and cannot be useful in conditions of changes and requirements of today's business world.Traditional budgeting have been broadly criticised for various reasons and limitations. Stewart (1990) claimed that budgeting is inefficient, ineffective and incomprehensive. Drury (2001) explains how the budgets could get into conflict, if the organization uses general budget for several purposes, such as motivation and planning. Bourne (2005) refers to budgeting and planning as an annual ritual for numerous companies that do not consider adding significant value to the process. The solution proposed by Bourne (2005) is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of budgeting and use additional mechanisms, thereby eradicating such weaknesses. Managers in research generally agree that budgeting is inefficient and ineffective, even though the majority of respondents only estimate the volume of resources defined when budgeting. According to Lidia (2014), budgets represent one of the most controversial managerial tool. Budgets are also very often criticized for being time-consuming (Libby and Lindsay, 2010; Schmidt, 1992). Prendergast (2000) states that the budgeting process requires a lot of guesswork which takes up a lot of managerial time. Indeed, Neely et al. (2003) state that the budgeting process actually consumes up to 20% of all managerial time. Nazli Nik Ahmad et al. (2003) argue that budgets do not take into account the aspects of customers and quality, and prove ineffective in a changing environment. Neely et al. (2003) report on several limitations of traditional budgets, as identified in the analyzed studies. Similar limitations of the traditional budgets and it's linkage to the strategy in East European context had been voiced by Boiko (2013). Intensive discussion about the budget limitations involved, the different types of solutions. Bunce et al. (1995) noted that the alternative to traditional budgets is not budgetary improvement but an advanced management procedure.Wide discussion regarding the limitations of the traditional budgeting practices (Eckholm and Wallin, 2000; Hope and Fraser, 2003; Jensen, 2001; Schmidt, 1992; Luigi et al., 2014) involved the introduction of alternative budgeting methods, such as Activity-Based Budgeting (ABB) (Drury, 2000) and Beyond Budgeting (Hope and Fraser, 2003). …