作業成本制度：表演藝術產業成本分攤個案

Activity-Based Costing: a Case Study on a Taiwanese Performing Arts Company’s Cost Allocation

10.6342/NTU201701035

陳秉昇

文化創意產業:表演藝術:作業成本制度:成本分攤:個案研究法 ； performing arts:activity-based costing:cost allocation:case study

國立臺灣大學會計學系學位論文

2017年

碩士

王泰昌;劉嘉雯

繁體中文

在知識經濟時代，創新為產業主要發展動力來源，導致各國投入大量資源於教育、文化與研究開發，而文化創意產業為此新經濟型態之代表產業之一，不僅為人力資本軟實力之展現，亦可代表國家對外文化輸出能力之產業發展能力。在文化創意產業鏈當中，表演藝術產業為一重要產業，不僅提供音樂、戲劇與舞蹈等藝術創作產品，同時需要舞台、燈光等硬體表演設施之技術支援，也製作相關文化創意周邊產品。 本研究採用吳巧麗(2017)研究之成本分攤方式，對於國內指標性表演藝術產業公司進行成本分攤，分析各項表演活動與服務之成本結構，取得文化創意產業之經營流程與各項表演活動之實際成本數據，並針對各項產品與服務進行成本效益分析。 本研究採用之成本分攤方式為作業成本制度，首先將間接成本歸屬或分攤至各項作業活動，再將各項作業成本庫以不同之成本動因分攤至產品及服務上，透過多元動因之使用，可避免在傳統成本制度下採用單一分攤率造成之成本扭曲，而提供更為攸關之成本資訊。 研究發現表演藝術之節目產品多無法回收其全部成本，部分節目產品可將直接成本回收。在場租節目部分，大型廳院之獲利表現較小型廳院良好，其原因為多數場地所發生之間接成本為批次層次成本，與表演人數較無關聯，故單場收入較高之大型廳院能夠回收較多所發生之成本。 最後，因為自製節目為個案公司投入最多資源之產品，虧損情形最為嚴重，故需透過其他非表演相關產品與服務之收入來補貼本業之虧損，例如招攬外部企業掛名贊助表演藝術節目與公益募款等，但目前仍無法達成整體損益兩平之狀態，整體經費仍十分仰賴政府部門補助，此為目前國內文化創意產業之常態，推廣藝文活動往往不敷成本，本研究之實證結果可提供此種商業模式下各項資源分配之情形與成本回收率概況。

In the era of knowledge economy, innovation is the main source of development for industries. Every country devotes lots of resource on education, culture and research and development. Cultural and creative industry is one representatives of this new economic model. They are not only for showing the power of human capital, but also on behalf of the industrial strength of cultural output. In the cultural and creative industry chain, the performing arts industry is an important industry, not only to provide artistic creation products, like music, drama and dance, but also the production of cultural and creative peripheral products. 　In this study, we use the cost allocation method for case company (Wu, 2017) to analyze the cost structure of the performing activities and services. Consequently, we can calculate the estimated cost of performing arts activities, and perform cost-benefit analysis of products and services. The cost allocation method used in this paper is activity-based cost system. First, the indirect costs are traced or allocated to activity cost pools, and then allocated the costs of cost pools to products and services with different cost drivers. Through the use of multiple cost drivers, it is possible to avoid cost distortions caused by single-rate cost allocation method under the traditional cost system and to provide more precise cost information. 　The results of the experiment indicated that most performing arts products can not recover their full cost, part of the products can recover their direct cost. In the part of the rental products, the cost-recovery performances of big theatres are better than those of the small theatres. The reason is that most of the indirect costs incurred are batch-level costs and are not related to the number of attendants, so big theatres which operates higher revenue per performance can recover more production costs. 　Since the self-made program costs most resource for the case company, it indicated the most serious loss. Therefore, it is necessary to subsidize the loss of the industry through the income of other non-performing products and services. For example, to attract external enterprises to sponsor performing art programs and charitable funding through performing arts for children in countryside. But it is still unable to achieve the breake-even point currently, the overall funding is still very dependent on public funding, which is the normal state of domestic cultural and creative industries.The empirical results of this study provide the resource allocation and cost benefit performance in this business model.

1. 吳巧麗，2017，表演藝術產業成本分析─以個案公司為例，國立臺灣大學會計研究所碩士論文。
   連結：
2. 李玉綪，2014，表演藝術團體演出售後服務之探索性研究，國立中山大學劇場藝術學系碩士論文。
   連結：
3. 柯佩岑與陳碧涵，2011，臺灣舞蹈表演藝術團體之行銷策略現況探討，臺灣舞蹈研究6：141-179。
   連結：
4. 陳姵吟，2011，臺灣建構「表演藝術交易會」之可行性研究，國立臺灣師範大學表演藝術所碩士論文。
   連結：
5. 楊舜雯，2011，以反應層級模式中之AIDA模式探討整合行銷溝通策略之研究-以表演藝術產業為例，國立中興大學行銷學系所碩士論文。
   連結：
6. 羅淑宜，2006，網路平台行銷文化創意產業之研究？以視覺藝術產業、音樂與表演藝術產業為核心，國立臺灣師範大學美術學系在職進修碩士論文。
   連結：
7. Blaug, M. 1976. The Economics of the Arts. London: Martin Robertson.
   連結：
8. Garnham, N. 2005. From cultural to creative industries: An analysis of the implications of the “creative industries” approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom. International journal of cultural policy 11 (1): 15-29.
   連結：
9. Hansmann, H. 1981. Nonprofit Enterprise in the Performing Arts. Bell Journal of Economics 12: 341-361.
   連結：
10. Sacco, J., and Strait, E. 2004. Using an intranet portal, uniform accounting charts and activity based accounting to assist entrepreneural nonprofit program management. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT) 6 (1): 208-228.
    連結：
11. Throsby, C. D., and G. A. Withers. 1979. The Economics of the Performing Arts. London: Edward Arnold.
    連結：
12. Webb, D. M. 2004. Running Theaters: Best Practices for Leaders and Managers. New York: Allworth Press.
    連結：
13. 文化部，2016，2016文化創意產業發展年報，網址：http://stat.moc.gov.tw/Research.aspx?type=5。
14. 張教煌，2013，表演藝術市場節目類別與觀眾人次之關係探究─以國立中正文化中心為例，國立臺灣師範大學表演藝術所碩士論文。
15. 鄭智偉，2002，文化產業品牌管理模式應用研究初探─以台灣表演藝術產業為例，國立政治大學廣告研究所碩士論文。
16. Baumol, W. J., and W. G. Bowen. 1965. On the performing arts: The anatomy of their economic problems. The American Economic Review 55 (1): 495-502.
17. Baumol, W. J., and W. G. Bowen. 1968. Perfrming Arts: The Economic Dilemma.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
18. Cooper, R., and Kaplan, R. S. 1992. Activity-based systems: Measuring the costs of resource usage. Accounting Horizons 6 (3): 1.
19. Dworkin, R. 1985. Can a liberal state support art?. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20. Florea, D., and Blaga, L. 2014. Considerations regarding financing issues in opera houses: Showcasing the national opera of Bucharest. Proceedings of the International Conference Communication, Context, Interdisciplinarity 3: 787-792.
21. Heilbrun, J., and C. M. Gray. 2001. The Economics of Art and Culture. UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Moore, T. G. 1968. The Economics of American Theater. Durhan, NC: Duke University Press.
23. Rushton, M. 2000. Public Funding of Controversial Art. Journal of Cultural Economics 24 (4): 267-282.