UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 12.8 Free with a free account
Budgeting Methods Compared: Top-Down, Bottom-Up, Zero-Based, and Flexible
Principles of Management · Chapter 12: Communication and Financial ControlSection 12.8 · lesson 80 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Charting the Financial Course: The Financial Planning Process →← Keeping the Numbers Honest: Financial Controls in OrganizationsNext lesson: Charting the Financial Course: The Financial Planning Process →
In this lesson
How organizations build a budget, and what each method does to behavior.
- Describe the principal budgeting methods
- Explain the trade-offs between them
- Separate a volume variance from a spending variance
- Select a budgeting method for a described organization
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,655 words). Read along, or search it.
Communication and Financial Control
Budgeting Methods Compared: Top-Down, Bottom-Up, Zero-Based, and Flexible
A budget looks like a spreadsheet. In practice, it behaves more like a negotiation with consequences. This section compares the principal ways organizations build one. We'll start with what a budget actually is, because it's four things at once. Then we'll compare top-down and bottom-up budgeting, and see why managers pad their estimates. We'll look at incremental and zero-based budgeting, and what each does to last year's spending. We'll put the main methods side by side. We'll separate a fixed budget from a flexible one, with a worked example in dollars. And we'll match method to organization, before a manager named Renzo shows what's at stake.
What a Budget Is
A Plan in Financial Terms, and 3 Other Things
A budget is a plan, expressed in financial terms. But it's worth saying directly that a budget is four things at once. That explains much of how budgeting behaves. First, it's a plan. It states what the organization intends to do. Second, it's a control device, in exactly the sense Subchapter twelve point seven established. Third, it's a communication of priority. What gets funded says what an organization actually values. It says so more honestly than any strategy document. Fourth, it's a negotiation. The numbers a budget settles on are rarely handed down by pure calculation. They're worked out between people with genuinely different interests in the outcome. A budgeting method that ignores any of these four functions will behave in surprising ways. At least, surprising to a manager who only had one of them in mind.
Top-Down Budgeting
Targets Set Centrally, Allocated Downward
Top-down budgeting is also called imposed budgeting. Targets are set centrally, then allocated downward to the units expected to operate within them. Its advantages are genuine. The first is speed. There's no lengthy consolidation of input from every unit. The second is strategic coherence. The numbers reflect a single, unified view of organizational priority, rather than many separate local views added together. Its costs are just as real. Commitment drops, because the units executing the target had no hand in setting it. Accuracy drops too. Central planners typically know less about a unit's actual conditions than the unit itself does. And imposed targets invite gaming. Units learn to respond to them strategically, rather than transparently.
Bottom-Up Budgeting
Each Unit Prepares Its Own Estimates
Bottom-up budgeting is also called participative budgeting. Each unit prepares its own estimates, and those are consolidated into the organization-wide budget. Its advantages mirror the weaknesses of top-down budgeting. It uses better local information, because the people closest to a unit's conditions are the ones doing the estimating. And it builds greater commitment. A target a unit helped set carries more genuine buy-in than one imposed on it. That connects directly to the commitment mechanisms for goal-setting in Subchapter eleven point seven. It has two costs. One is time. Consolidating many separate local estimates takes considerably longer than issuing targets centrally. The other is budgetary slack, and it deserves a slide of its own.
Budgetary Slack
A Rational Response, Not a Character Flaw
Budgetary slack means understating revenue and overstating cost when preparing a budget estimate. It deliberately builds in a cushion, so the resulting target is easier to hit than an honest estimate would be. The key point is that slack is a rational response to how budgets are actually used. It isn't a character flaw. Think about the incentive. The budget target becomes the standard a manager is evaluated against. And missing that target carries real consequences. Under those conditions, building in a margin of safety is a predictable, self-protective response. It's a response to the incentive structure itself, not a personal failing of whoever does it. That's exactly why exhortation doesn't remove slack. Asking managers more insistently for honest estimates does nothing to change the incentive that makes slack sensible. Slack will persist for exactly as long as that incentive does.
Incremental Budgeting
Last Year's Figure, Adjusted
Incremental budgeting is the simplest method of all. It takes last year's figure and adjusts it, typically by a modest percentage. There's no deeper analysis behind the new period's budget. Its advantage is low cost. It needs minimal time and analytical effort, compared with the alternatives. Its central defect is that it entrenches existing allocations. Each year's budget starts from the prior year's number. So an allocation that was never well justified in the first place simply continues, year after year. The method never examines the base it's adjusting from. Last year's mistake quietly becomes this year's starting point.
Zero-Based Budgeting
Every Item Justified From Zero
Zero-based budgeting was popularized in the early nineteen seventies. It requires every item to be justified from zero, each budgeting cycle. Nothing is assumed to continue simply because it existed the period before. Its promise is genuine: reallocation. It surfaces spending that incremental budgeting's unexamined base would have let continue indefinitely. Its cost is substantial management time. Justifying every line item from scratch, every cycle, is a far heavier burden than adjusting an existing base. So here's the honest observation. Most organizations that adopt zero-based budgeting eventually revert to a less demanding method. The ongoing time cost is hard to sustain, once the first round of genuine reallocation has been captured. Activity-based budgeting is a variant worth naming. Instead of budgeting by department or line item, it budgets by the activities a unit performs, and the cost driver behind each. The aim is a more precise link between what's actually done, and what it actually costs.
Table 12.8.1
4 Methods Side by Side
Table twelve point eight point one puts four methods side by side. Top-down needs only central strategic priorities, and little management time. It invites gaming of imposed targets. It suits fast-moving, tightly coordinated organizations. Bottom-up needs detailed local knowledge, and a lot of management time. It invites budgetary slack. It suits organizations that value local commitment and accuracy. Incremental needs only last period's figures, and very little time. It invites entrenchment of the unexamined base. It suits stable organizations, with little change from year to year. Zero-based needs full justification for every item, and a great deal of management time. It invites genuine reallocation, at least at first. It suits organizations with a real need to reallocate resources. Notice that no row comes free. Each method buys its advantage with a characteristic behavior.
Fixed and Flexible
Adjust for Volume, Then Compare
A fixed budget sets a single spending or revenue standard, whatever actual volume turns out to be. A flexible budget adjusts the standard for actual volume first, and only then compares it with actual results. That adjustment separates two different kinds of variance. A volume variance is the difference caused simply by producing or selling more, or less, than planned. A spending variance is the difference caused by spending more, or less, per unit than planned. It's independent of volume. Put directly, this separation is the only honest way to assess a unit whose volume differs from plan. Compare actual spending straight against a fixed budget built for a different volume, and two causes get merged. They collapse into a single number. And that number can't tell a manager which of the two actually occurred. Did the unit spend carelessly, or did it simply do more work? The fixed comparison can't say.
Figure 12.8.1
Decomposing a 22,000 Variance
Figure twelve point eight point one works through an example, with illustrative figures. A department at Harborline Manufacturing, a fictional company, had actual volume above plan. Its fixed budget was set at one hundred thousand dollars. Adjusted for the higher actual volume, the flexed budget rises to one hundred fifteen thousand dollars. That's the standard a higher-volume period should honestly be compared against. Actual spending came in at one hundred twenty-two thousand dollars. Compared directly with the fixed budget, that's a twenty-two thousand dollar unfavorable variance. And all of it would be blamed, unfairly, on the department's spending discipline. The honest decomposition is different. Fifteen thousand dollars of the gap is volume variance, produced by higher output. That leaves a much smaller spending variance, of seven thousand dollars. Only that figure reflects how efficiently the department spent, per unit of its higher volume.
Matching Method to Organization
Rolling Horizons and 3 Deciding Factors
The standard annual cycle is rigid, and rolling budgets and forecasts respond to that. They continuously extend the planning horizon forward. Each time the nearest period closes, a new period is added at the far end. So the organization always has a roughly constant-length view ahead of it. A fixed annual budget, by contrast, grows less useful for planning as the year it covers runs out. So which method is right? It follows from three characteristics of the organization. The first is size. The consolidation cost of a fully participative process scales with the number of units. So size decides whether bottom-up budgeting stays manageable. The second is volatility. In a volatile environment, a plan built once a year goes stale much faster. That favors rolling budgets, or a genuinely flexible approach. The third is purpose. Is the budget mainly for tight central control, local commitment, or periodic reallocation? Choose the method built to serve that purpose, not whichever is most familiar, or most common elsewhere.
Case Vignette
Renzo Is Judged Unfairly Against a Fixed Number
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Renzo managed the packaging department at a fictional manufacturer. His budget was one hundred thousand dollars for the quarter, based on an originally planned production volume. Demand rose unexpectedly. His department produced considerably more than planned. Spending for the quarter reached one hundred twenty-two thousand dollars. At the quarterly review, the department was flagged for a significant unfavorable variance against its fixed budget. The conversation focused heavily on why spending discipline had apparently broken down. Renzo pointed out that his department had also produced substantially more output than planned. He asked for the budget to be evaluated on a flexed basis, before anyone drew conclusions. Once flexed, the picture was the one in Figure twelve point eight point one. Most of the apparent overspend was simply volume variance. Only a modest spending variance reflected how efficiently he'd spent. The fixed comparison hadn't been dishonest, exactly. But it had merged two different causes into one number. That number made his department look far worse than an honest, volume-adjusted comparison supported. Next, Subchapter twelve point nine widens the horizon, to financial planning and how money connects to strategy.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Budgeting Methods Compared: Top-Down, Bottom-Up, Zero-Based, and Flexible
What is the difference between top-down and bottom-up budgeting?
What is budgetary slack, and why do managers create it?
What is the difference between incremental budgeting and zero-based budgeting?
What is the difference between a fixed budget and a flexible budget?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →