HAMBATAN USAHA KECIL DAN MENENGAH DALAM KEGIATAN 

EKSPOR*)

Abstract

  
  
This research aim to know performance UKM in export activity and resistor SMEs  factors in
export activity. This research is executed by using survey method in 7 province, that is North
Sumatera, West Java, Central Java, Yogyakarta, East Java, Bali, and South Sulawesi. Research
object used in this activity are SMEs doing its business activity at product export. Withdrawal
sample conducted by purposive sampling of pursuant to potential product type developed in each
location. Result of research indicate that : 1) Contribution SMEs in export activity, what is
convergent at product of crafting and artistic goods, garment, and also the food and beverage,
still relative lower compared to the big entity with ratio 1:4; 2) Resistor SMEs factors successively
in export activity from heavy to light degree at the following : (a) access to productive resources
are marketing and defrayal, business network, and technological; (b) the specification of product
are design, tidiness, colour, and form; (c) the capacities of production are capital availability,
machines/equipments availability and technological ownership, raw material availability, and the
skillful labour availability; (d) the document equipment are certification of product, letter of credit,
and the fundamental number of taxpayer; (e) expense of export activities are invisible/dark cost
component, transportation and permit, and also risk/warrantly of product according to order.


Sumber : http://ejournal.narotama.ac.id/files/k_5.pdf

INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA TEACHING OF ACCOUNTING INFORMATION SYSTEM (AIS) CYCLES: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS AND

VIEWS

WORKING PAPER No. 2003-006

Trevor Stanley

School of Accountancy

Queensland University of Technology

Australia

Pam Edwards

Office of Higher Education

Queensland Department of Education

Australia

Please address all further enquiries to:

Trevor Stanley

Queensland University of Technology

School of Accountancy

George St

BRISBANE Q 4000

Australia

Email: t.stanley@qut.edu.au

Phone: 61 7 3864 5291

Fax: 61 7 3864 1812

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance provided by a Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Teaching and Learning Large Grant.

INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA TEACHING OF ACCOUNTING INFORMATION SYSTEM (AIS) CYCLES: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS AND

VIEWS

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the design and development of a CD ROM intended to assist students’ learning by bringing a sense of reality to the concepts studied in relation to Accounting Information Systems cycles. The educational design is underpinned by constructivist theories of learning which espouse the benefits of experiential learning in facilitating effective student learning. Three Australian companies - Warner Brothers Movie World, Golden Circle and Zupps Parts – are featured on the CD ROM to provide virtual ‘experiential learning experiences’ for students. An extensive evaluation of the CD ROM was conducted, involving both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, to ascertain students’ perceived value of the CD ROM to assist their learning. Results indicate that the CD ROM offered students a real life understanding of applicable concepts and that students were receptive to learning in online environments which are appropriately designed and constructed.

Key Words:  Accounting Education, Technology in Education, Accounting CD ROM, Multimedia, Experiential learning

Finally, ascertaining the views of employers and/or business groups with respect to the effectiveness of the CD ROM in developing students’ employability skills and enhancing learning outcomes, in particular developing understanding of key accounting concepts, would be useful given the increased focus on employability skills in Australian higher education.

References

Ballantyne, R., Borthwick, J. and Packer, J. (2000). Beyond Student Evaluation of Teaching: Identifying and Addressing Academic Staff Development Needs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 221-236.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham.

Centra, J.A. (1993). Reflective Faculty Evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Coaldrake, P. & Stedman, L. (1998). On the Brink: Australia’s Universities Confronting their Future. St Lucia: UQP.

Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology (Technical Report No. 6899). BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA.

Herrington, J. and Oliver, R. (2000). An Instructional Design Framework for Authentic Learning Environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.

Holcomb, T., and Michaelsen, R. (1996). A Strategic Plan for Educational

Technology in Accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 14(3), 277-292.

Kirk, D. and McDonald, D. (1998). Situated Learning in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376-397.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh, H. and Dunkin, M. (1992). Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching: A Multidimensional Perspective. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 9, 143-233.

Oliver, R. and Herrington, J. (2000). Using Situated Learning as a Design Strategy for Web-Based Learning. In B. Abbey (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education. Idea Group Publishing: Hershey USA.

Reigeluth, C. (ed) (1983). Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: N.J. USA.

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. McGraw-Hill: New York

Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of Teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4) 203-220.

Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasani, P.N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Applied Social Research Methods Series Vol. 20. Sage Publications: California.

Wachtel, H.K. (1998). Student Evaluation of College Teaching Effectiveness: A Brief Review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-211.

INTANGIBLE ASSETS Measurement, Drivers, Usefulness

Working paper #2003-05 By

Feng Gu and Baruch Lev^*

Boston University School of Management

Accounting

595 Commonwealth Avenue

Boston, MA 02215

gu@bu.edu

Phone: (617) 353-4985

Fax: (617) 353-6667

^* The authors are at Boston University and New York University, respectively. We are grateful to participants at the 4^th Intangibles Conference and the 2002 American Accounting Association annual meeting and workshop participants at Osaka University for their helpful suggestions and comments. Feng Gu acknowledges the financial support provided by Boston University, School of Management. Baruch Lev retains exclusive rights to the measures described in this paper, and has a patent pending for them. The measures should not be used or reproduced without a written permission from the author.

Abstract

The measurement and valuation of intangible assets are a matter of considerable interest to managers, investors, and accounting-standard setters. Important decisions concerning intangibles are hampered by the lack of systematic and comparable measures for these increasingly important assets. In this study, we provide an approach to estimating the value of intangible assets that are not recorded on the firm’s balance sheet. The methodology is based on the economic notion of “production function,” where the firm’s economic performance is stipulated to be generated by physical, financial, and intangible assets. We estimate the contribution of intangible assets by subtracting the normal returns on physical and financial assets from an earnings-based economic performance measure. Capitalizing the expected value of this contribution over future years yields an estimate of intangible capital.

We find compelling evidence that our approach provides economically meaningful estimates of intangible assets. Our results indicate that investments in R&D, advertising, brands, information technology, and human resource practices are important drivers of intangible capital, and in turn corporate value. We find that intangibles measures provide more value-relevant information than conventional performance measures, such as earnings and cash flows. Furthermore, the approach is shown to be useful to investors seeking information on future performance of valuable intangibles. We document extensive evidence that the intangibles-based measures can effectively distinguish between overvalued and undervalued stocks.

We believe the intangibles measures described here can add an essential, and hitherto missing, valuation tool for managers and investors concerned with intangible assets. The results on the value drivers of intangible can also be potentially useful to regulators in identifying candidate disclosure items to be considered in their effort to improve disclosure on intangibles.

Keywords:                 Intangibles, measurement, drivers, usefulness.

Data Availability:     Data are available from sources identified in the text.

References

Barth, M. E., M. B. Clement, G. Foster, and R. Kasznik. 1998. Brand values and capital market valuation. Review of Accounting Studies. 3: 41-68.

Brynjolfsson, E., and S. Yang. 1999. The intangible costs and benefits of computer

investments: Evidence from the financial markets. Working Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management.

Bublitz, B., and M. Ettredge. 1989. The information in discretionary outlays: Advertising, research, and development.” The Accounting Review 64: 108-124.

Chan, L.K.C., J. Lakonishok, and T. Sougiannis. 1999. The stock market valuation of research and development expenditures. Forthcoming, Journal of Finance.

Dechow, P. M., and R. G. Sloan. 1997. Returns to contrarian investment: Tests of the naïve expectations hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics 43: 3-27.

Fama, E. F., and K. R. French. 1992. The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 47: 427-465.

Fama, E. F., and K. R. French. 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics. 33: 3-56.

FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). 2001a. Improving business reporting:

Insights into enhancing voluntary disclosure. Steering committee report, business reporting research project.

FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). 2001b. Proposal for a new agenda project: Disclosure on information about intangible assets not recognized in financial statements.

Frankel, R., and C. M. Lee. 1998. Accounting valuation, market expectation, and cross -sectional stock returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 25: 283-319.

Hall, B. 1993. Industrial research during the 1980s: Did the rate of return fall? BPEA: Microeconomics, 289-393.

Hand, J. 2000. The net present value and returns-to-scale of intangibles and recognized assets for publicly traded U.S. firms, 1980-1998. Working Paper, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Hirschey, M., and J. J. Weygandt. 1989. Amortization policy for advertising and research and development expenditures. Journal of Accounting Research 23: 326-335.

Jegadesch, N., and S. Titman. 1993. Returns to buying winners and selling losers: implications for stock market efficiency. Journal of Finance. 48: 65-91.

Lev, B. 2001. Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1996. The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 21: 107-138.

SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). 2001. Strengthening financial markets: Do investors have the information they need? A report by the SEC special task force, May.

Solow, R. 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 70 (1): 65-94.

Solow, R. 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economic Studies. 39: 321-330.