Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

DIAS Technology Review

The Institute has a unique distinction of publishing a bi-annual International journal DIAS Technology Review – The International Journal for Business and IT. The Editorial Board comprises of...

ISSN: 2231-2498 Quarterly English Since 2011
Current Issue

Vol. 17 No. 2 (2021)

Articles 34th Edition of DTR Oct 2020 – Mar 2021
DOI 10.65301/dias.2021.17.2.1023

Efficiency of Operations: Case Study of UnitedTechnologies Corporation

Authors

Director, IUP India Programme , Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Professor of Finance, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA 

Professor of Accounting, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

27 Views
17 Downloads
Published 2021-03-31
Pages 32-36
Abstract

In this paper, efficiency of operations was examined for United Technologies which is a leading U.S.-based multinational corporation. Using both Johansen's cointegration and Granger's causality tests it is evident that efficient management of cost of goods sold is more important and if these expenses are managed well it could provide greater flexibility to United Technologies to bring about superior operating performance. For instance, if United Technologies deliberately increase SGA and RD expenses it would lead to higher future operating profitability.

Keywords
Operating and financial efficiency; Cointegration; Granger's causality
References
  1. Anderson, M., R. Banker, R Huang and S. Jankiraman (2007). Cost Behavior and
  2. Fundamental Analysis of SG&A Costs, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and
  3. Finance, 22, 1, 1-28.
  4. ii. Anderson, M., R. Banker, R Huang and S. Jankiraman (2003). Are Selling, General
  5. and Administrative Costs “Sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 1, 47-63.
  6. iii. Akaike, H. (1973). Information Theory and the Extension of the Maximum
  7. Likelihood Principle, 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, B.N.
  8. Petrov and E Csaki, eds., Budapest.
  9. iv. Banker, R., R. Huang and R. Natarajan (2006). Does SG&A Expenditure Creates a
  10. Long Lived Asset? Working Paper.
  11. v. Banker, R., R. Huang and R. Natarajan (2011). Equity Incentives and Long-Term
  12. Value Created by SG&A Expenditure. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28, 3,
  13. 794-830.
  14. vi. Bharadwaj, P. (2015), “The Success of Global Supply Chains: An Exploratory
  15. Analysis,” Competition Forum.
  16. vii. Brenner, R. J.and K.E Kroner. (1995). Arbitrage, Cointegration, And Testing
  17. TheUnbiasedness Hypothesis In Financial Markets.Journal of Financial and
  18. Quantitative Analysis, v30(1), 23-42.
  19. viii. Cuthbertson, R. and Piotrowicz, W. (2011). “Performance Measurement Systems
  20. in Supply Chains.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
  21. Management Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 583-602.
  22. ix. Doukas, J. and A. Rahman. (1987). Unit Roots Tests: Evidence From The Foreign
  23. Exchange Futures Market. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, v22(1),
  24. 101-108.
  25. x. Ellinger, A., Shin, H., Magnus Northington, W., Adams, E, Hofman, D. and
  26. O’Marah, K. (2012), “The influence of supply chain management competency on
  27. customer satisfaction and shareholder value’, Supply Chain Management, Vol.17
  28. No.3, pp. 249-262.
  29. xi. Engle, R.E, and C. W. J. Granger. (1987). Co-integration and Error Correction:
  30. Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica, 55, 251-276.
  31. xii. Friis, O., Holmgren, J. and Eskildsen, J. (2016), “A strategy model — better
  32. performance through improved strategy work’, Journal of Modelling in
  33. Management, Vol.11 No.3, pp. 742-762.
  34. xiii. Hussein, J. and Davis, M. (2018). Improving Operational and Financial Efficiency
  35. with Product ID Rationalization—Cisco’s Experience. Journal of Business
  36. Forecasting. Spring, v37 (1), 4-10.
  37. xiv. Johansen, S. and K. Juselius. (1992). Testing Structural Hypotheses In A
  38. Multivariate Cointegration Analysis Of The PPP And The UIP For UK. Journal of
  39. Econometrics, v53(1/2/3), 211-244.
  40. xv. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business
  41. School Press, Boston, MA.
  42. xvi. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), The Strategy-focused Organization,
  43. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
  44. xvii. MarketLine (2019). United Technologies Corporation: SWOT Analysis, Retrieved
  45. from www.marketline.com, 9/23/2019.
  46. xviii. McPhee, W.and Wheeler, D. (2006), “Making the case for the added value chain’,
  47. Strategy &Leadership, Vol.34 No. 4, pp. 39-46
  48. xix. Perron. (1988). Testing for a Unit Rootin Time Series Regression. Biometrica, ,
  49. 75: 335-46.
  50. xx. Porter, M. (1985), “Technology and Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Business
  51. Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp.
  52. xxi. Sakuramoto, C., Di Serio, L. and Bittar, A. (2019), “Impact of supply chain on the
  53. competitiveness of the automotive industry,” RAUSP Management Journal, Vol.
  54. 54 No. 2, pp. 205-225.
  55. xxii. Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (2020). Retrieved from https://
  56. www.apics.org/apics-for-business/frameworks/scor on 3/21/2020.
  57. xxiii. Wisner, J.D., Tan, K. and Leong, G.K. (2019), “Principles of Supply Chain
  58. Management: A Balanced Approach,’ | 5th Edition, Independence, KY: Cengage.
✓ Citation copied to clipboard