Loading…
The value of an IT chargeback system (parts one and two)
Results of a survey of IT Financial Management Association membership companies on IT chargeback systems are presented. Two companies of the 18 companies that do not have an IT cost allocation or chargeback system said that it was too expensive. Chargeback is typically the responsibility of a financ...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of performance management 2002-01, Vol.15 (3), p.16 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 16 |
container_title | Journal of performance management |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Quinlan, Terence |
description | Results of a survey of IT Financial Management Association membership companies on IT chargeback systems are presented. Two companies of the 18 companies that do not have an IT cost allocation or chargeback system said that it was too expensive. Chargeback is typically the responsibility of a financial unit rather than a non-financial unit. Of the 67 companies participating in the survey, 25% have cost allocation systems and 75% have usage billing systems. Corporate financial management was frequently among the original requestors to implement chargeback. One-third (34%) of the companies have strongly recommended downsizing or eliminating chargeback in the past. The major reason is that chargeback is too expensive. However, that criticism has been supported by very little hard dollar evidence. Two-thirds of the companies have attempted to demonstrate the value of chargeback to management, and over 84% of them have been successful. There is significantly higher degree of perceived value from the chargeback of most IT functional areas among usage billing companies compared to cost allocation companies. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_214031465</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>291128131</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_2140314653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0tDSx1LU0N4zgYOAqLs4yMDAzMjUz4mSwCMlIVShLzClNVchPU0jMU_AMUUjOSCxKT01KTM5WKK4sLknNVdAoSCwqKVbIz0sFKklRKCnP1-RhYE1LzClO5YXS3AxKbq4hzh66BUX5haWpxSXxWfmlRXlAqXgjQxMDY0MTM1NjohQBAPOhM9U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214031465</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The value of an IT chargeback system (parts one and two)</title><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><creator>Quinlan, Terence</creator><creatorcontrib>Quinlan, Terence</creatorcontrib><description>Results of a survey of IT Financial Management Association membership companies on IT chargeback systems are presented. Two companies of the 18 companies that do not have an IT cost allocation or chargeback system said that it was too expensive. Chargeback is typically the responsibility of a financial unit rather than a non-financial unit. Of the 67 companies participating in the survey, 25% have cost allocation systems and 75% have usage billing systems. Corporate financial management was frequently among the original requestors to implement chargeback. One-third (34%) of the companies have strongly recommended downsizing or eliminating chargeback in the past. The major reason is that chargeback is too expensive. However, that criticism has been supported by very little hard dollar evidence. Two-thirds of the companies have attempted to demonstrate the value of chargeback to management, and over 84% of them have been successful. There is significantly higher degree of perceived value from the chargeback of most IT functional areas among usage billing companies compared to cost allocation companies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1949-971X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: National Association for Bank Cost & Management Accounting</publisher><subject>Billings ; Budgets ; Chargebacks ; Cost allocation ; Financial management ; Information technology ; Polls & surveys ; Responsibility accounting ; Statistical data ; Transfer pricing</subject><ispartof>Journal of performance management, 2002-01, Vol.15 (3), p.16</ispartof><rights>Copyright National Association for Bank Cost & Management Accounting 2002</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/214031465?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,36060,44363</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Quinlan, Terence</creatorcontrib><title>The value of an IT chargeback system (parts one and two)</title><title>Journal of performance management</title><description>Results of a survey of IT Financial Management Association membership companies on IT chargeback systems are presented. Two companies of the 18 companies that do not have an IT cost allocation or chargeback system said that it was too expensive. Chargeback is typically the responsibility of a financial unit rather than a non-financial unit. Of the 67 companies participating in the survey, 25% have cost allocation systems and 75% have usage billing systems. Corporate financial management was frequently among the original requestors to implement chargeback. One-third (34%) of the companies have strongly recommended downsizing or eliminating chargeback in the past. The major reason is that chargeback is too expensive. However, that criticism has been supported by very little hard dollar evidence. Two-thirds of the companies have attempted to demonstrate the value of chargeback to management, and over 84% of them have been successful. There is significantly higher degree of perceived value from the chargeback of most IT functional areas among usage billing companies compared to cost allocation companies.</description><subject>Billings</subject><subject>Budgets</subject><subject>Chargebacks</subject><subject>Cost allocation</subject><subject>Financial management</subject><subject>Information technology</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Responsibility accounting</subject><subject>Statistical data</subject><subject>Transfer pricing</subject><issn>1949-971X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0tDSx1LU0N4zgYOAqLs4yMDAzMjUz4mSwCMlIVShLzClNVchPU0jMU_AMUUjOSCxKT01KTM5WKK4sLknNVdAoSCwqKVbIz0sFKklRKCnP1-RhYE1LzClO5YXS3AxKbq4hzh66BUX5haWpxSXxWfmlRXlAqXgjQxMDY0MTM1NjohQBAPOhM9U</recordid><startdate>20020101</startdate><enddate>20020101</enddate><creator>Quinlan, Terence</creator><general>National Association for Bank Cost & Management Accounting</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4S-</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>885</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1F</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020101</creationdate><title>The value of an IT chargeback system (parts one and two)</title><author>Quinlan, Terence</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2140314653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Billings</topic><topic>Budgets</topic><topic>Chargebacks</topic><topic>Cost allocation</topic><topic>Financial management</topic><topic>Information technology</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Responsibility accounting</topic><topic>Statistical data</topic><topic>Transfer pricing</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Quinlan, Terence</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>BPIR.com Limited</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Banking Information Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Banking Information Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of performance management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Quinlan, Terence</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The value of an IT chargeback system (parts one and two)</atitle><jtitle>Journal of performance management</jtitle><date>2002-01-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>16</spage><pages>16-</pages><issn>1949-971X</issn><abstract>Results of a survey of IT Financial Management Association membership companies on IT chargeback systems are presented. Two companies of the 18 companies that do not have an IT cost allocation or chargeback system said that it was too expensive. Chargeback is typically the responsibility of a financial unit rather than a non-financial unit. Of the 67 companies participating in the survey, 25% have cost allocation systems and 75% have usage billing systems. Corporate financial management was frequently among the original requestors to implement chargeback. One-third (34%) of the companies have strongly recommended downsizing or eliminating chargeback in the past. The major reason is that chargeback is too expensive. However, that criticism has been supported by very little hard dollar evidence. Two-thirds of the companies have attempted to demonstrate the value of chargeback to management, and over 84% of them have been successful. There is significantly higher degree of perceived value from the chargeback of most IT functional areas among usage billing companies compared to cost allocation companies.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>National Association for Bank Cost & Management Accounting</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1949-971X |
ispartof | Journal of performance management, 2002-01, Vol.15 (3), p.16 |
issn | 1949-971X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_214031465 |
source | ABI/INFORM Global |
subjects | Billings Budgets Chargebacks Cost allocation Financial management Information technology Polls & surveys Responsibility accounting Statistical data Transfer pricing |
title | The value of an IT chargeback system (parts one and two) |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T18%3A00%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20value%20of%20an%20IT%20chargeback%20system%20(parts%20one%20and%20two)&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20performance%20management&rft.au=Quinlan,%20Terence&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=16&rft.pages=16-&rft.issn=1949-971X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E291128131%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2140314653%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214031465&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |