管理会计蓝皮书讲解

管理会计与财务会计的联系 ：1、同属于现代会计。管理会计与财务会计源于同一母体，共同构成了现代企业会计系统的有机整体。两者相互依存、相互制约、相互补充。2、最终目标相同。管理会计与财务会计所处的工作环境相同。。。。。。

解释「传统核算法」与「作业成本法核算法」,那一种方法较好,试举出理由

可以选择由中国总会计师协会颁发的管理会计师PCMA证书，该证书的含金量可以说是在会计类证书总数一数二的。同时小编看到一些水军认为中国总会计师协会脱离了财政部，变成社会组织，这是否会对管理会计师MAT证书有影响呢？

小编先简单介绍一下管理会计的热门证书，管理会计师PCMA证书是在财政部的指导下，中国总会计师协会颁发的能力水平评价证书，那么这本证书的含金量如何？国务院出台的取消水平评价类技能人员职业资格证书进入国家职业资格目录会有怎样的影响？一、管理会计师PCMA证书含金量如何？中国总会计师协会是由全国企业、行政事业单位总会计师组成的全国性会计专业组织，是总会计师与政府、社会联系沟通的桥梁，其下的管理会计师分会，更是管理会计从业者与政府沟通的桥梁。作为前财政部作为业务指导单位的一家协会，中国总会计师协会可以说是最早参与由财政部牵头推广管理会计在中国的发展的组织。同时作为助手的角色很好的辅助财政部对管理会计的推广。

而由这样一家组织颁发的管理会计师PCMA证书，其含金量肯定很高，容易受到社会各界的认可。二、国务院取消职业资格目录中的能力水平评价证书对管理会计师PCMA证书是否有影响呢？

答案是不会，管理会计师PCMA证书未进入国家职业资格目录，所以不会产生影响，新闻内容如下：国务院总理李克强12月30日主持召开国务院常务会议，决定分步取消水平评价类技能人员职业资格，推行社会化职业技能等级认定；确定促进社会服务领域商业保险发展的措施，更好满足群众需求；部署推进步行街改造提升，优化商业环境促进消费扩大。

该文章中明确指出，政府将不再颁发水平评价证书，除与公共安全、人身监控等密切相关的消防员、安全员等7个公众依法调整为准入类资格证书，其他水平评价证书证书将会全部退出国家资格目录。由相关社会组织或用人单位按政府标准依照规范开展职业技能等级评价、颁发证书。

以后的能力水平评价证书都将由相应的社会组织颁发，由市场认可。而作为会计领头羊-总会计师们组建的中国总会计师协会颁发的管理会计水平评价证书，含金量肯定很高。会计从业人员超过2000万人，竞争压力可以说是非常的大，而管理会计师的从业缺口却还有300多万人，那么管理会计则必将成为新的会计转职方向。

三、中国管理管理会计师蓝皮书的出台。中国财经出版传媒出版的中国管理会计蓝皮书（BLUE BOOK OF CHINA MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING）则代表管理会计助力新时代中国经济高质量发展

而中国管理会计蓝皮书是一本由中国总会计师协会编写的关于2014年~2018年，管理会计在中国的发展。

1、政。产、学、研专家编写的中国管理会计蓝皮书本书的专家来自政、产、学、研各界的三十多位知名专家、学者组成了指导委员会和编委会，共同完成了本书的编写。

蓝皮书详细回顾了管理会计在中国的五年大发展，突出“政一产一学一研”紧密配合的中国管理会计发展所特有的模式，不仅是信息和数据的梳理，更是对整个中国管理会计的脉络和特征的清晰把握。中国管理会计蓝皮书的出台可以确定了管理会计师PCMA证书在管理会计行业的核心地位，含金量是值得我们肯定的。小编最后想说的是政府在决定让协会脱钩的同时，更让除安全外的证书也将不在由政府单位背书，转而由如中国总会计师协会管理会计师分会对管理会计师进行能力水平评价，让去行政化的协会在市场经济中发挥更好的协会职能。2020年可以说是考证党不平凡的一年，你手中的证书含金量是否会有变化？小编将向粉丝持续关注推送脱离国家职业资格目录的水平评价证书。

专业级MAP的还可以的，管理会计师考试认证根据不同考试群体百分为三个不同级别，分别是管理会度计师（基础级MAA）、管理会计师（专业级MAP）及管理会计师（资深级MAS）。APMI三个级别的管理会计师国际资格采用中文方式考试，学员考取相应级内别的管理会计师资格证书后，荷兰欧洲商学院还将同时颁发管理会计师国际容研修证书并为学员注册永久学籍。

To support compliance with financial reportingrequirements, a company’s traditional cost-accountingsystem is often articulated with its general ledgersystem. In essence, this linkage is grounded in costallocation. Typically, costs are allocated for either valuationpurposes (i.e., financial statements for externaluses) or decision-making purposes (i.e., internal uses)or both. However, in certain instances costs also areallocated for cost-reimbursement purposes (e.g., hospitalsand defense contractors).The traditional approach to cost-allocation consistsof three basic steps: accumulate costs within aproduction or nonproduction department; allocatenonproduction department costs to production departments;and allocate the resulting (revised) productiondepartment costs to various products, services, or customers.Costs derived from this traditional allocationapproach suffer from several defects that can result indistorted costs for decision-making purposes. Forexample, the traditional approach allocates the cost ofidle capacity to products. Accordingly, such productsare charged for resources that they did not use.Seeking to remedy such distortions, many companieshave adopted a different cost-allocation approachcalled activity-based costing (ABC).WHAT IS ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING?In contrast to traditional cost-accounting systems,ABC systems first accumulate overhead costs for eachorganizational activity, and then assign the costs of theactivities to the products, services, or customers (costobjects) causing that activity. As one might expect, themost critical aspect of ABC is activity analysis.Activity analysis is the processes of identifying appropriateoutput measures of activities and resources (costdrivers) and their effects on the costs of making aproduct or providing a service. Significantly, as discussedin the next section, activity analysis providesthe foundation for remedying the distortions inherentin traditional cost-accounting systems.TRADITIONAL COST-ACCOUNTINGSYSTEMS VERSUS ABCGeared toward compliance with financial reportingrequirements, traditional cost-accounting systemsoften allocate costs based on single-volume measuressuch as direct-labor hours, direct-labor costs, ormachine hours. While using a single volume measureas an overall cost driver seldom meets the cause-andeffectcriterion desired in cost allocation, it provides arelatively cheap and convenient means of complyingwith financial reporting requirements.In contrast to traditional cost-accounting systems,ABC systems are not inherently constrained by thetenets of financial reporting requirements. Rather,ABC systems have the inherent flexibility to providespecial reports to facilitate management decisionsregarding the costs of activities undertaken to design,produce, sell, and deliver a company’s products orservices. At the heart of this flexibility is the fact thatABC systems focus on accumulating costs via several key activities, whereas traditional cost allocationfocuses on accumulating costs via organizationalunits. By focusing on specific activities, ABC systemsprovide superior cost allocation information—especiallywhen costs are caused by non-volume-basedcost drivers. Even so, traditional cost-accounting systemswill continue to be used to satisfy conventionalfinancial reporting requirements. ABC systems willcontinue to supplement, rather than replace, traditionalcost-accounting systems.Activity-based costing (ABC) is a costing model that identifies activities in an organization and assigns the cost of each activity resource to all products and services according to the actual consumption by each: it assigns more indirect costs (overhead) into direct costs.In this way an organization can precisely estimate the cost of its individual products and services for the purposes of identifying and eliminating those which are unprofitable and lowering the prices of those which are overpriced.In a business organization, the ABC methodology assigns an organization's resource costs through activities to the products and services provided to its customers. It is generally used as a tool for understanding product and customer cost and profitability. As such, ABC has predominantly been used to support strategic decisions such as pricing, outsourcing and identification and measurement of process improvement initiatives.Activity-Based Costing (ABC) arose in the 1980s from the increasing lack of relevance of traditional cost accounting methods. The traditional cost accounting methods were designed around 1870 - 1920 and in those days industry was labor intensive, there was no automation, the product variety was small and the overhead costs in companies were generally very low compared to today. However, from the 1960s - particularly 1980s - this changed rapidly. For these reasons, and more, traditional cost accounting has been called everything from 'number 1 enemy of production' and questions whether it is 'an asset or a liability' have been raised.The question of course is whether ABC has overcome these deficiencies or not? It has. In fact, ABC has been called one of the most important management innovations the last hundred years. So what is really the difference between ABC and traditional cost accounting methods? Despite the enormous difference in performance, there is three major differences:In traditional cost accounting it is assumed that cost objects consume resources whereas in ABC it is assumed that cost objects consume activities. Traditional cost accounting mostly utilizes volume related allocation bases while ABC uses drivers at various levels. Traditional cost accounting is structure-oriented whereas ABC is process-oriented. This is discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections and illustrated below. But first, the direction of the arrows are different because ABC brings detailed information from the processes up to assess costs and manage capacity on many levels whereas traditional cost accounting methods simply allocate costs, or capacity to be correct, down onto the cost objects without considering any 'cause and effect' relations.Consumption of resources versus consumption of activitiesABC acknowledges that you cannot manage costs, you can only managed what is being done and then costs will change as a consequence. In traditional cost accounting, however, the underlying assumption is that costs can be managed, but as most managers have found out the hard way - managing costs is almost impossible. The benefit of the ABC mindset is that it opens up for a much wider array of measures when it comes to improving productivity. By investigating systematically what is being done, i.e. the activities, one will not only be able to identify surplus capacity if it occurs, but also lack of capacity and misallocation of capacity. A result of this might be that costs are cut the traditional way, but it might as well lead to a reallocation of capacity to where it is most needed which will yield high productivity more effectively than the traditional way.Volume related allocation bases versus drivers at many levelsDue to the historic background of traditional cost accounting methods, they tend to use direct labor - or other volume related allocation bases - for cost assignment purposes. But as overhead has grown and new technologies have come, it goes without saying that assigning costs based on only 5 - 15% (in most companies) of total costs is highly risky. In fact, the incurred errors are up to several hundred percent!In ABC, however, costs are assigned according to the 'cause and effect' relationship between activities (the actual process) and cost objects, which is captured using drivers. The drivers are therefore not allocation bases in the traditional sense, although they work the same way mathematically - drivers are estimates of actual cost behavior and can therefore also be used to identify, or they are themselves, the critical cost factors. Because the drivers are related to the actual processes, they occur on several levels. The four most common levels are;Unit level. Unit level drivers are triggered for every unit that is being produced. For example, for a man and a machine that produces one unit at a time, the associated direct labor will be a unit level cost driver. This is therefore a volume related driver similar to the traditional allocation bases. Batch level. Batch level drivers are triggered for every batch produced. A good example of that is production planning, because the planning is done for each and every batch regardless of the size of the batch. Here, number of batches can be a good driver. Product level. Product level drivers are triggered for every product regardless of the number of units and batches produced. These drivers occur by the sole existence of a product. A good example of a driver is the number of product development hours per product so that the more product development hours a product triggers, the more product development costs should be assigned to that product. Costing systems are information systems. They require a specific type of information such as direct labour hours and units produced, to be of value. It is from the input data that product costs and other information are determined according to the specific costing system defined methodology. The results obtained would depend on the costing system used, since the same input data could be used in different ways. In this case the traditional costing system or an activity based costing system.A costing system should provide information to help minimise waste, but should not be wasteful in itself. In other words, the resources required to design, implement and maintain a costing system should be less than the benefit derived from the use of the system.In order to compare the two systems it is necessary to understand the working of both system.The Traditional Costing SystemIt is a well-known fact that the traditional costing systems utilise a single, volume-based cost driver. This is the reason why the traditional product costing system distorts the cost of products. In most cases this type of costing system assigns the overhead costs to products on the basis of their relative usage of direct labour. For this reason traditional cost systems often report inaccurate product costs. The problem is in the underlying methodology of the traditional costing systems. They adhere to the assumption that products cause cost. Each time a unit of product is manufactured, it is assumed that cost is incurred. This assumption makes sense for certain direct costs. The assumption does not work for activities that are not performed directly on the product units. The problem with this approach is that for most overhead activities, the proportions of the activity actually consumed by a specific product, does not universally correspond with a single cost driver. This holds true for most modern companies where products are produced by a combination of manpower and technology. The traditional cost accounting model employs a volume-based driver, such as direct labour hours or machine hours for the assignment of all manufacturing overhead costs. The conventional cost accounting model ends up with a cost of goods sold based on absorption costing and includes only product costs as defined in financial accounting.Fundamentally, traditional costing systems try to assign cost directly to products, rather than to activities first and then from the activities to product units. The typical cost report gives information on what is spent, but not why it is spent. When overhead costs are cut in order to reduce total costs it is the symptoms that are treated and not the cause. In many cases the cutting of overheads is more likely to lead to a reduction in the quality of the products than to the long term reduction of the cost.The separation of traceable and fixed cost is crucial when doing segmented reporting of costs. This is important, since traceable fixed costs are booked to departments while common fixed costs are pooled in the traditional costing system approach. The guidelines suggested for using the traditional approach is to use a broad, general guideline in determining which costs are traceable. This approach has obvious inherent inaccuracies.The traditional costing systems only have one or a few indirect cost pools for each department or whole plant. The application of costs in the traditional costing system is normally based on an indirect cost driver and that the indirect cost applications are often financially based.The traditional approach to costing of products fundamentally utilises a system whereby the total costs to produce a number of products are divided amongst the various products. By making use of the traditional costing system, it thus means that all the costs incurred have to be allocated to one or other product.Activity Based Costing (ABC)The underlying assumption of activity based costing is entirely different from that of conventional costing systems. The conventional costing system assumes that products cause costs. Activity based costing systems have activities as the fundamental cost objects. Activity based costing systems also assumes that activities cause costs and that cost objects create the demand for activities. Activity based costing is a different approach and improves control of overheads by a cost/cause relationship, that are activity and cost. The system is flexible enough to relate costs to customers, processors, management responsibility and not just products.As the name suggests, activity based costing is a system that focuses on activities as the basic cost objects and uses the costs of these activities as building blocks for compiling the costs of other cost objects. The use of an activity based costing system can also help a company to develop a way to analyse and justify manufacturing cycle-time improvements.The use of activity based costing according evolved over the last few years from a more accurate method of product costing, to a more scientific method of cost reduction, to an all-embracing advanced planning, monitoring and control system, encompassing:Activity based costingActivity based cost managementActivity-based budgetingActivity reportingPerformance measurement and benchmarkingContinuous improvementProduct/customer and sector profitabilityBusiness process re-engineering.It is therefore important to note that in activity based costing, costs are assigned to activities. The assignment is based on the consumption of resources utilised.In utilising activity based costing, costs are collected for each activity as an independent cost object. These costs are then applied to commodities as they undergo the different activities. The final product cost is built up from the costs of the specific activities that each product line has undergone. In other words activity based costing assigns activity costs to cost objects based on activity drivers that accurately measures consumption of the activity.When utilizing the activity based costing system managers attempt to assign the costs of significant activities to the products that causes those costs to be incurred. This results in activity based costing providing sufficient information to allow managers to know which activities cause the use of resources.The most common approaches to activity based costing start with some kind of activity analysis, followed by activity based costing which is then used to create performance improvement ideas. Activity based costing is thus the tracking of activity costs to cost objects. These cost objects can be products, services, projects, customers or distribution channels.When applied correctly activity based costing will diminish the issue of cost distortion by forming a cost pool for each activity that can be isolated as a cost driver. Performance improvement techniques should also include cost driver analysis, activity grouping, performance evaluation and activity based costing. A cost driver is defined as the root cause or reason for an activity to occur. It is important to note that a cost driver should not be misinterpreted as an output measure. An output measure is a magnitude measure measuring how many outputs an activity produces. It is the output measure that should be followed to the cost object.In an activity based costing system, overhead costs are assigned to a large number of cost pools that represent the most significant activities involved in the production process. It is also true that activity based costing systems utilises several indirect cost pools because of the many activity areas.After allocating costs to the activity cost pools, cost drivers are identified that are suitable for each cost pool. Then the overhead costs are assigned from each activity cost pool to each production job in proportion to the amount of activity used up by the job. In other words, activity based costing assigns activity costs to cost objects based on activity drivers that accurately measures consumption of the activity.The improved product costing accuracy in activity based costing comes from the identification of a large number of activity cost pools and the isolation of a suitable cost driver for each activity.When using activity based costing the focal point is on resources and the activities that cause them. There should therefore no longer be a division between product and period costs as defined by financial accounting.The importance of the correct activity classification is underlined in that activity classification should always include some kind of value-added / non value-added analysis and more importantly all staff involved in classifying activities should understand these definitions. The popular definition of a non-value added activity is anything that can be eliminated without detriment to the final product. Although activity classification is subjective, it is only a tool to help with performance improvement.ConclusionWhilst activity based costing is not a perfect science it does offer a sense of financial pragmatism to the wider management process. The initial premise that activity analysis can highlight waste (non-value adding) and bureaucracy (secondary or support activities), activity based techniques have been used for straightforward cost reduction, process improvement and re-engineering, benchmarking, performance measurement and a variety of related exercises including activity or priority based budgeting.The three generations of activity based costing supplement and complement each other and one system should not be considered the replacement of either of the other two. The first generation focuses on product costing, the second generation on process costing or performance evaluation, and the third generation on value chain costing to be used in strategic analysis. All three use the same activities database; differences lie in types of linkage and the extent to which data on activities are to be gathered.Activity based costing forces the manager to investigate fixed costs very closely. It therefore helps management to identify areas of inefficiency as well as recognise costs which we could have been conceived fixed but, which are in fact, variable or semi-variable to specific products.这里有个详细的课程讲解：

国内的管理会计师是中国总会计师协会的，教材是四本，考试费用1300元，7月1日考试，你说的这个应该是美国注册管理会计师，这个教材比较多些。你英语如何，是打算进外企的话可以考虑看看。专业会员：两门1030美元学生会员：两门712.5美元教师会员：两门515美元