Economists and accountants imply that two diverse fields in terms of cost and variance analysis. Therefore, when economists describe cost through variance analysis and standard costing, they include the sacrifice of opportunities and important choices. From an accountant’s perception, standard costing and traditional budgeting are prospective, subjective, and occasionally costs-evaded. The following paper will look into the alleged advantages, and demerits of standard costing, variance analysis and traditional budgeting in management accounting (Callahan, Stetz, and Brooks, 2011, p. 199).
Certain criticisms of traditional budgeting arise from the descriptions of the significant terminologies used by economists and accountants in the government and organizations (Emmanuel, Kominis and Slapnicar, 2008, p. 2). Time management is the establishment of interceding variables that improve the perception of time. A budget is an estimated total cost or income for an operation or activity covering a particular period. This way, accounting managers are able to ease pressure on their behaviors and perceive control over time and operations assumed significant in variance analysis (Emmanuel, Kominis and Slapnicar, 2008, p. 3). A budget can also be an arrangement for the management and control of assets and expenses. Motivation in variance analysis involves control through a set of processes, instruments, performance measures that organizations or governments deploy to lead and inspire all workers to accomplish set goals (Callahan, Stetz, and Brooks, 2011, p. 199). Human relations association forms part of the base for motivation in accounting to enhance an easy repetitive assignment involving financial compensation of all transactions in an organization (Eker, 2007, p. 105). Performance evaluation is the valuable control of the chief tasks from diverse units. These units are normally situated at the very end of the production procedure