Is part of why ABC is not as ubiquitous as it ought to be that we teach it incorrectly?
I've been reading some of Kaplan's books of late and I'm struck by the degree to which what he describes, especially in Cost and Effect, is quite different from the presentation in so many textbooks. What I see presented in Kaplan's work is fundamentally a Management Control System with activity accounts functioning much the same way a classic overhead control account would function. So, why don't the textbooks and instructors teach it this way, or do they (and I'm out on my own island)?
For the consultants, who seem as active as academics here, what is the hang-up on ABC not being GAAP compliant for inventory valuation? Seems a pretty straightforward adjusting entry could remedy the issue. Just asking.
JP ... I am a 30+ year consultant implementing ABC. My opinion is that academics that have authored books and textbooks have not experienced implementing ABC. (I am a co-author of a prior edition of UNC Chapel Hill Kenan Flagler Professor Ed Blocher's textbook that I believe does a good job explaining ABC.)
Regarding using ABC for external financial reporting using GAAP, my opinion is this is not necessary. Simply use ABC as a separate system. Many years ago I implemented ABC for a division of Clorox. The CFO wrote a message to everyone basically saying "Effective today analysis and decision support will be restricted to only using the ABC information. We at headquarters will use the convenient (although flawed and inaccurate) GAAP reporting to the SEC."