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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of performance management 2002-01, Vol.15 (3), p.16
Main Author: Quinlan, Terence
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 &amp; Management Accounting</publisher><subject>Billings ; Budgets ; Chargebacks ; Cost allocation ; Financial management ; Information technology ; Polls &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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