SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 34
Download to read offline
7755
CHAPTER 4
ACTIVITY-BASED PRODUCT COSTING
QUESTIONS FOR WRITING AND DISCUSSION
1. Unit costs provide essential information
needed for inventory valuation and prepara-
tion of income statements. Knowing unit
costs is also critical for many decisions such
as bidding decisions and accept-or-reject
special order decisions.
2. Cost measurement is determining the dollar
amounts associated with resources used in
production. Cost assignment is associating
the dollar amounts, once measured, with
units produced.
3. An actual overhead rate is rarely used be-
cause of problems with accuracy and timeli-
ness. Waiting until the end of the year to en-
sure accuracy is rejected because of the
need to have timely information. Timeliness
of information based on actual overhead
costs runs into difficulty (accuracy problems)
because overhead is incurred nonuniformly
and because production also may be non-
uniform.
4. For plantwide rates, overhead is first col-
lected in a plantwide pool, using direct trac-
ing. Next, an overhead rate is computed and
used to assign overhead to products.
5. First stage: Overhead is assigned to produc-
tion department pools using direct tracing,
driver tracing, and allocation. Second stage:
Individual departmental rates are used to
assign overhead to products as they pass
through the departments.
6. Departmental rates would be chosen over
plantwide rates whenever some depart-
ments are more overhead intensive than
others and if certain products spend more
time in some departments than they do in
others.
7. Plantwide overhead rates assign overhead
to products in proportion to the amount of
the unit-level cost driver used. If the prod-
ucts consume some overhead activities in
different proportions than those assigned
by the unit-level cost driver, then cost dis-
tortions can occur (the product diversity
factor). These distortions can be significant
if the nonunit-level overhead costs
represent a significant proportion of total
overhead costs.
8. Low-volume products may consume non-
unit-level overhead activities in much greater
proportions than indicated by a unit-level
cost driver and vice versa for high-volume
products. If so, then the low-volume prod-
ucts will receive too little overhead and the
high-volume products too much.
9. If some products are undercosted and oth-
ers are overcosted, a firm can make a num-
ber of competitively bad decisions. For ex-
ample, the firm might select the wrong
product mix or submit distorted bids.
10. Nonunit-level overhead activities are those
overhead activities that are not highly corre-
lated with production volume measures. Ex-
amples include setups, material handling,
and inspection. Nonunit-level cost drivers
are causal factors—factors that explain the
consumption of nonunit-level overhead. Ex-
amples include setup hours, number of
moves, and hours of inspection.
11. Product diversity is present whenever prod-
ucts have different consumption ratios for
different overhead activities.
12. An overhead consumption ratio measures
the proportion of an overhead activity con-
sumed by a product.
13. Departmental rates typically use unit-level
cost drivers. If products consume nonunit-
level overhead activities in different propor-
tions than those of unit-level measures, then
it is possible for departmental rates to move
even further away from the true consump-
tion ratios, since the departmental unit-level
ratios usually differ from the one used at the
plant level.
14. Agree. Prime costs can be assigned using
direct tracing and so do not cause cost dis-
tortions. Overhead costs, however, are not
directly attributable and can cause distor-
tions. For example, using unit-level activity
drivers to trace nonunit-level overhead costs
would cause distortions.
7766
15. Activity-based product costing is an over-
head costing approach that first assigns
costs to activities and then to products. The
assignment is made possible through the
identification of activities, their costs, and the
use of cost drivers.
16. An activity dictionary is a list of activities
accompanied by information that describes
each activity (called attributes)
17. A primary activity is consumed by the final
cost objects such as products and custom-
ers, whereas secondary activities are con-
sumed by other activities (ultimately con-
sumed by primary activities).
18. Costs are assigned using direct tracing and
resource drivers.
19. Unit-level activities are those that occur each
time a product is produced. Batch-level activi-
ties are those that are performed each time a
batch of products is produced. Product-level
or sustaining activities are those that are
performed as needed to support the various
products produced by a company. Facility-
level activities are those that sustain a facto-
ry’s general manufacturing process
20. Rates can be reduced by building a system
that approximates the cost assignments of a
fully specified ABC system. One way to do
this is by using only the most expensive ac-
tivities to assign costs. If the most expensive
activities represent a large percentage of the
total costs, then most of the costs are as-
signed using a cause-and-effect relation-
ship, thus creating a good level of accuracy
while reducing the complexity of the ABC
system.
7777
EXERCISES
4–1
1.
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total
Units produced 400,000 160,000 80,000 560,000 1,200,000
Prime costs $8,000,000 $3,200,000 $1,600,000 $11,200,000 $24,000,000
Overhead costs $3,200,000 $2,400,000 $3,600,000 $2,800,000 $12,000,000
Unit cost:
Prime $20 $20 $20 $20 $20
Overhead 8 15 45 5 10
Total $28 $35 $65 $25 $30
2. Actual costing can produce wide swings in the overhead cost per unit. The
cause appears to be nonuniform incurrence of overhead and nonuniform
production (seasonal production is a possibility).
3. First, calculate a predetermined rate:
OH rate = $11,640,000/1,200,000
= $9.70 per unit
This rate is used to assign overhead to the product throughout the year.
Since the driver is units produced, $9.70 would be assigned to each unit. Add-
ing this to the actual prime costs produces a unit cost under normal costing:
Unit cost = $9.70 + $20.00 = $29.70
This cost is close to the actual annual cost of $30.00.
7788
4–2
1. $27,000,000/90,000 = $300 per direct labor hour (DLH)
2. $300 × 91,000 = $27,300,000
3. Applied overhead $27,300,000
Actual overhead 27,200,000
Overrapplied overhead $ 100,000
4. Predetermined rates allow the calculation of unit costs and avoid the prob-
lems of nonuniform overhead incurrence and nonuniform production asso-
ciated with actual overhead rates. Unit cost information is needed throughout
the year for a variety of managerial purposes.
4–3
1. Predetermined overhead rate = $4,500,000/600,000 = $7.50 per DLH
2. Applied overhead = $7.50 × 585,000 = $4,387,500
3. Applied overhead $ 4,387,500
Actual overhead 4,466,250
Underapplied overhead $ (78,750)
4. Unit cost:
Prime costs $ 6,750,000
Overhead costs 4,387,500
Total $ 11,137,500
Units ÷ 750,000
Unit cost $ 14.85
7799
4–4
1. Predetermined overhead rate = $4,500,000/187,500 = $24 per machine hour
(MHr)
2. Applied overhead = $24 × 187,875 = $4,509,000
3. Applied overhead $ 4,509,000
Actual overhead 4,466,250
Overapplied overhead $ 42,750
4. Unit cost:
Prime costs $ 6,750,000
Overhead costs 4,509,000
Total $ 11,259,000
Units ÷ 750,000
Unit cost $ 15.01*
*Rounded
5. Gandars needs to determine what causes its overhead. Is it primarily labor
driven (e.g., composed predominantly of fringe benefits, indirect labor, and
personnel costs), or is it machine oriented (e.g., composed of depreciation on
machinery, utilities, and maintenance)? It is impossible for a decision to be
made on the basis of the information given in this exercise.
8800
4–5
1. Predetermined rates:
Drilling Department: Rate = $600,000/280,000 = $2.14* per MHr
Assembly Department: Rate = $392,000/200,000
= $1.96 per DLH
*Rounded
2. Applied overhead:
Drilling Department: $2.14 × 288,000 = $616,320
Assembly Department: $1.96 × 196,000 = $384,160
Overhead variances:
Drilling Assembly Total
Actual overhead $602,000 $ 412,000 $ 1,014,000
Applied overhead 616,320 384,160 1,000,480
Overhead variance $ (14,320) over $ 27,840 under $13,520 under
3. Unit overhead cost = [($2.14 × 4,000) + ($1.96 × 1,600)]/8,000
= $11,696/8,000
= $1.46*
*Rounded
8811
4–6
1. Activity rates:
Machining = $632,000/300,000
= $2.11* per MHr
Inspection = $360,000/12,000
= $30 per inspection hour
*Rounded
2. Unit overhead cost = [($2.11 × 4,000) + ($30 × 800)]/8,000
= $32,440/8,000
= $4.055
4–7
1.
Scented Cards Regular Cards
Inspection hours 0.20a
0.80a
Setup hours 0.50b
0.50b
Machine hours 0.25c
0.75c
Number of moves 0.75d
0.25d
a. Total inspection hours = 200 (40+160); 40/200 for Scented and 160/200 for Regular
b. Total Setup hours = 100 (50+50); 50/100 for Scented and 50/100 for Regular
c. Total Machine hours = 800 (200+600); 200/800 for Scented and 600/800 for Regular
d. Total Number of moves = 300 (225+75); 225/300 for Scented and 75/300 for Regular
2. The consumption ratios vary significantly from driver to driver. Using, for ex-
ample, only machine hours to assign the overhead may create accuracy prob-
lems. Both setup hours and number of moves have markedly different consump-
tion ratios.
4–8
1. Rates:
Inspecting products: $2,000/200 = $10 per inspection hour
Setting up equipment: $2,500/100 = $25 per setup hour
Machining: $4,000/800 = $5 per machine hour
Moving materials: $900/300 = $3.00 per move
Note: The denominator is the total driver amount (sum of the demand of the two
products).
8822
2.
Rate = Cost/hours
Inspection hours = Cost/Rate = $2,000/$20 = 100 inspection hours
4–9
1.
Normal Intensive
Treating patients:
$4.00 × 5,000 $ 20,000
$4.00 × 20,000 $ 80,000
Providing hygienic care:
$5.00 × 5,000 25,000
$5.00 × 11,000 55,000
Responding to requests:
$2.00 × 30,000 60,000
$2.00 × 50,000 100,000
Monitoring patients:
$0.75 × 20,000 15,000
$0.75 × 180,000 135,000
Cost Assigned $120,000 $370,000
2. Nursing cost per patient day:
Normal Intensive
$120,000/10,000 $12.00
$370,000/8,000 $46.25
4–10
1. Yes. Because direct materials and direct labor are directly traceable to
each product, their cost assignment should be accurate.
2. The consumption ratios for each (using machine hours and setup hours
as the activity drivers) are as follows:
Elegant Fina
Machining 0.10 0.90 (500/5,000 and 4,500/5,000)
Setups 0.50 0.50 (100/200 and 100/200)
3. Elegant: (1.75 × $9,000)/3,000 = $5.25 per briefcase
8833
Fina: (1.75 × $3,000)/3,000 = $1.75 per briefcase
Note: Overhead rate = $21,000/$12,000 = $1.75 per direct labor dollar
(or 175 percent of direct labor cost).
There are more machine and setup costs assigned to Elegant than Fina.
This is clearly a distortion because the production of Fina is automated
and uses the machine resources much more than the handcrafted Ele-
gant. In fact, the consumption ratio for machining is 0.10 and 0.90 (us-
ing machine hours as the measure of usage). Thus, Fina uses 9 times
the machining resources as Elegant. Setup costs are similarly dis-
torted. The products use an equal number of setup hours. Yet if direct
labor dollars are used, then the Elegant briefcase receives three times
more machining costs than the Fina briefcase.
4. Products tend to make different demands on overhead activities and
this should be reflected in overhead cost assignments. Usually this
means the use of both unit and nonunit-level activity drivers. In this ex-
ample, there is a unit-level activity (machining) and a nonunit-level
activity (setting up equipment).
Machine rate: $18,000/5,000 = $3.60 per machine hour
Setup rate: $3,000/200 = $15 per setup hour
Costs assigned to each product:
Machining: Elegant Fina
$3.60 × 500 $ 1,800
$3.60 × 4,500 $16,200
Setups:
$15 × 100 1,500 1,500
Total $ 3,300 $17,700
Units ÷ 3,000 ÷ 3,000
Unit overhead cost $ 1.10 $ 5.90
8844
4-11
1.
Resource Unloading Counting Inspecting
Equipment $12,000 $ 800
Fuel 2,400
Operating 1,000 500
Labor* 48,000 30,000 42,000
Total $63,400 $30,000 $43,300
*(0.40 × $120,000; 0.25 × $120,000; 0.35 × $120,000)
2. Direct tracing and driver tracing are used. When the resource is used only by
one activity, then direct tracing is possible. When the activities are shared, as in
the case of labor, then resource drivers must be used.
4–12
Activity dictionary:
Activity Activity Primary/ Activity
Name Description Secondary Driver
Providing nursing Satisfying patient Primary Nursing hours
care needs
Supervising Coordinating Secondary Number of nurses
nurses nursing activities
Feeding patients Providing meals Primary Number of meals
to patients
Laundering Cleaning and Primary Pounds of laundry
bedding and delivering clothes
clothes and bedding
Providing Therapy treatments Primary Hours of therapy
physical directed by
therapy physician
Monitoring Using equipment to Primary Monitoring hours
patients monitor patient
conditions
8855
4–13
1. Cost of labor (0.40 × $50,000) $20,000
Forklift (direct tracing) 10,000
Total cost of receiving $30,000
2.
Activity rates:
Receiving: $30,000/60,000 = $0.50 per part
Setup: $60,000/300 = $200 per setup
Grinding: $90,000/18,000 = $5 per MHr
Inspecting: $20,000/2,000 = $10 per inspection
Subassembly A Subassembly B
Overhead:
Setup:
$200 × 150 $ 30,000
$200 × 150 $ 30,000
Inspecting:
$10 × 1,500 15,000
$10 × 500 5,000
Grinding:
$5 × 7,200 36,000
$5 × 10,800 54,000
Receiving:
$0.50 × 20,000 10,000
$0.50 × 40,000 20,000
Total costs assigned $91,000 $109,000
3. Setup pool: $60,000 + [($60,000/$150,000) × $50,000] = $80,000
Grinding pool: $90,000 + [($90,000/$150,000) × $50,000] = $120,000
Pool rates:
Setup = $80,000/300
= $266.67/setup
Grinding = $120,000/18,000
= $6.67/ Mhr
8866
Approximating assignment:
Subassembly A Subassembly B
Setup:
$266.67 × 150 $40,000
$266.67 × 150 $ 40,000
Grinding:
$6.67 × 7,200 48,024
$6.67 × 10,800 72,036
Total costs assigned $88,024 $112,036
4. Error (Subassembly A) = ($91,000 - $88,024)/$91,000 = 0.033
Error (Subassembly B) = ($109,000 - $112,036)/$109,000 = - 0.028
The error is small and so the approach may be desirable as it reduces the
complexity and size of the system, making it more likely to be accepted by
management.
4–14
1. Unit-level activities: Machining
Batch-level activities: Setups and packing
Product-level activities: Receiving
Facility-level activities: None
2. Activity rates:
(1) Machining: $80,000/40,000 = $2 per MHr
(2) Setups: $32,000/400 = $80 per setup
(3) Receiving: $18,000/600 = $30 per receiving order
(4) Packing: $48,000/3,200 = $15 per packing order
Overhead assignment:
Infantry
Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $ 40,000
Activity 2: $80 × 300 = 24,000
Activity 3: $30 × 200 = 6,000
Activity 4: $15 × 2,400 = 36,000
Total $106,000
8877
Special forces
Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $40,000
Activity 2: $80 × 100 = 8,000
Activity 3: $30 × 400 = 12,000
Activity 4: $15 × 800 = 12,000
Total $72,000
Combining Activities 2 and 4 produces a new pooled rate:
($32,000 +$48,000)/400 = $ 200 per setup
Overhead assignment:
Infantry
Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $ 40,000
Activity 2*: $200 × 300 = 60,000
Activity 3: $30 × 200 = 6,000
Total $106,000
*Combined activities 2 and 4
Special forces
Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $40,000
Activity 2: $200× 100 = 20,000
Activity 3: $30 × 400 = 12,000
Total $72,000
The assignments are the same and this happens because the consump-
tion ratios of activities 2 and 4 are identical. Thus, rate reduction can
occur by combining all activities with identical rates.
3. The two most expensive activities are the first and the combined 2 and 4
activities. Each has $80,000 of cost. Thus if the cost of activity 3 is allo-
cated in proportion to the cost, each of the expensive activities would
receive 50% of the $18,000 or $9,000. This yields the following pool
rates:
Activity (pool 1) 1: ($80,000 + $9,000)/40,000 = $2.225 per machine hour
Activities 2 and 4 (pool 2): ($80,000 + $9,000)/400 = $222.50 per setup
8888
Overhead assignment:
Infantry
Pool 1: $2.225 × 20,000 = $ 44,500
Pool 2: $222.50 × 300 = 66,750
Total $111,250
Special forces
Pool 1: $2.225 × 20,000 = $44,500
Pool 2: $222.5 × 100 = 22,250
Total $66,750
4. Infantry: ($111,250 - $106,000)/$106,000 = .05 (rounded)
Special forces = ($66,750 - $72,000)/$72,000 = -.07 (rounded)
The error is less than 10% for both products. Using machine hours
would have produce a rate of $178,000/40,000 = $4.45 per Mhr and an
assignment of $89,000 to each product ($4.45 × 20,000). The error for
the plantwide rate would be
Infantry: ($89,000 - $106,000)/106,000 = 0.16 (rounded)
Special forces = ($89,000 - $72,000)/$72,000 = 0.24 (rounded)
Thus, the plantwide rate produces product costing errors that are more
than three times the magnitude of the approximately relevant ABC as-
signments. Clearly, the approximation produces a more reasonable and
useful outcome and is less complex than the full ABC system.
4–15
1. Unit-level: Testing products, inserting dies
2. Batch-level: Setting up batches, handling wafer lots, purchasing
materials, receiving materials
3. Product-level: Developing test programs, making probe cards,
engineering design, paying suppliers
4. Facility-level: Providing utilities, providing space
8899
PROBLEMS
4–16
1. Cost before addition of duffel bags:
$60,000/100,000 = $0.60 per unit
The assignment is accurate because all costs belong to one product.
2. Activity-based cost assignment:
Stage 1:
Activity rate = $120,000/80,000 = $1.50 per transaction
Stage 2:
Overhead applied:
Backpacks: $1.50 × 40,000* = $60,000
Duffel bags: $1.50 × 40,000 = $60,000
*80,000 transactions/2 = 40,000 (number of transactions had
doubled)
Unit cost:
Backpacks: $60,000/100,000 = $0.60 per unit
Duffel bags: $60,000/25,000 = $2.40 per unit
3. Product cost assignment:
Overhead rates:
Patterns: $48,000/10,000 = $4.80 per direct labor hour
Finishing: $72,000/20,000 = $3.60 per direct labor hour
9900
Unit cost computation:
Backpacks Duffel Bags
Patterns:
$4.80 × 0.1 $0.48
$4.80 × 0.4 $1.92
Finishing:
$3.60 × 0.2 0.72
$3.60 × 0.8 2.88
Total per unit $1.20 $4.80
4. This problem allows us to see what the accounting cost per unit should
be by providing the ability to calculate the cost with and without the
duffel bags. With this perspective, it becomes easy to see the benefits
of the activity-based approach over those of the functional-based ap-
proach. The activity-based approach provides the same cost per unit as
the single-product setting. The functional-based approach used trans-
actions to allocate accounting costs to each producing department,
and this allocation probably reflects quite well the consumption of ac-
counting costs by each producing department. The problem is the
second-stage allocation. Direct labor hours do not capture the con-
sumption pattern of the individual products as they pass through the
departments. The distortion occurs, not in using transactions to assign
accounting costs to departments, but in using direct labor hours to as-
sign these costs to the two products.
In a single-product environment, ABC offers no improvement in prod-
uct-costing accuracy. However, even in a single-product environment,
it may be possible to increase the accuracy of cost assignments to oth-
er cost objects such as customers.
4–17
1. Plantwide rate = $1,320,000/440,000 = $3.00 per DLH
Overhead cost per unit:
Model A: $3.00 × 140,000/30,000 = $14.00
Model B: $3.00 × 300,000/300,000 = $3.00
9911
2. Calculation of activity rates:
Activity Driver Activity Rate
Setup Prod. runs $360,000/100 = $3,600 per run
Inspection Insp. hours $280,000/2,000 = $140 per hour
Machining Mach. Hours $320,000/220,000 = $1.454 per hr
Maintenance Maint. hours $360,000/100,000 =$3.60 per hr
Overhead assignment:
Model A Model B
Setups
$3,600 × 40 $ 144,000
$3,600 × 60 $216,000
Inspections
$140 × 800 112,000
$140 × 1,200 168,000
Machining
$1.454 × 20,000 29,080
$1.454 × 200,000 290,800
Maintenance
$3.60 × 10,000 36,000
$3.60 × 90,000 ----- 324,000
Total overhead $321,080 $998,800
Units produced ÷ 30,000 ÷300,000
Overhead per unit $ 10.70 $ 3.33
3. Departmental rates:
Overhead cost per unit:
Model A: [($4.66 × 10,000) + ($1.20 × 130,000)]/30,000 = $6.76
Model B: [($4.66 × 170,000) + ($1.20 × 270,000)]/300,000 = $3.72
4.
A common justification is that of using machine hours for machine-
intensive departments and labor hours for labor-intensive departments.
Using activity-based costs as the standard, we can say that departmen-
tal rates decreased the accuracy of the overhead cost assignment (over
9922
the plantwide rate) for both products. Looking at Department 1, this de-
partment’s costs are assigned at a 17:1 ratio which overcosts B and
undercosts A in a big way. This raises some doubt about the conven-
tional wisdom regarding departmental rates.
4–18
1. Labor and gasoline are driver tracing.
Labor (0.75 × $180,000) $ 135,000 Time = Resource driver
Gasoline ($4.50 × 6,000 moves) 27,000 Moves = Resource driver
Depreciation 18,000 Direct tracing
Total cost $180,000
2. Plantwide rate = $660,000/20,000
= $33 per DLH
Unit cost:
Basic Deluxe
Prime costs $160.00 $320.00
Overhead:
$33 × 10,000/40,000 8.25
$33 × 10,000/20,000 16.50
$168.25 $336.50
3. Activity rates:
Maintenance $114,000/4,000 = $28.50 per maint. hour
Engineering $120,000/6,000 = $20 per eng. hour
Material handling $180,000/6,000 = $30 per move
Setting up $ 96,000/80 = $1,200 per move
Purchasing $ 60,000/300 = $200 per requisition
Receiving $ 40,000/750 = $53.33 per order
Paying suppliers $ 30,000/750 = $40 per invoice
Providing space $ 20,000/10,000 = $2.00 per machine hour
9933
4-18 (continued)
Unit cost:
Basic Deluxe
Prime costs $6,400,000 $6,400,000
Overhead:
Maintenance
$28.50 × 1,000 28,500
$28.50 × 3,000 85,500
Engineering
$20 × 1,500 30,000
$20 × 4,500 90,000
Material Handling
$30 × 1,200 36,000
$30 × 4,800 144,000
Setting up
$1,200 × 16 19,200
$1,200 × 64 76,800
Purchasing
$200 × 100 20,000
$200 × 200 40,000
Receiving
$53.33 × 250 13,333
$53.33 × 500 26,665
Paying Suppliers
$40 × 250 10,000
$40 × 500 20,000
Providing space
$2 × 5,000 10,000
$2 × 5,000 10,000
Total $6,567,033 $6,892,965
Units produced ÷ 40,000 ÷ 20,000
Unit cost (ABC) $ 164.18 $ 344.65
Unit cost (traditional) $ 168.25 $ 336.50
The ABC costs are more accurate (better tracing—closer representa-
tion of actual resource consumption). This shows that the basic model
was overcosted and the deluxe model undercosted when the plantwide
overhead rate was used.
9944
4-18 (continued)
4. Consumption ratios:
Maint. Eng. Mat. H. Setups Purch. Receiving Pay. Sup Space
Basic 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50
Delux 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.50
5. When products consume activities in the same proportion, the activi-
ties with the same proportions can be combined into one pool. This is
so because the pooled costs will be assigned in the same proportion as
the individual activity costs. Using these consumption ratios as a
guide, we create four pools, reducing the number of rates from 8 to 4.
Pool 1:
Maintenance $114,000
Engineering 120,000
Total $234,000
Maintenance hours ÷ 4,000
Pool rate $ 58.50
Note: Engineering hours could also be used as a driver. The activities
are grouped together because they have the same consumption ratios:
(0.25, 0.75).
Pool 2: Material handling $180,000
Setting up 96,000
Total $276,000
Number of moves ÷ 6,000
Pool rate $ 46
Note: Material handling and setups have the same consumption ratios:
(0.20, 0.80). The number of setups could also be used as the pool driv-
er.
9955
4-18 (concluded)
Pool 4: Purchasing $ 60,000
Receiving 40,000
Paying suppliers 30,000
Total $130,000
Orders processed ÷ 750
Pool rate $ 173.33
Note: The three activities are all product-level activities and have the
same consumption ratios: (0.33, 0.67)
Pool 5: Providing space $ 20,000
Machine hours ÷ 10,000
Pool rate $ 2
Note: This is the only facility-level activity.
4–19
1. Unit-level costs ($120 × 20,000) $ 2,400,000
Batch-level costs ($80,000 × 20) 1,600,000
Product-level costs ($80,000 × 10) 800,000
Facility-level ($20 × 20,000) 400,000
Total cost $ 5,200,000
2. Unit-level costs ($120 × 30,000) $ 3,600,000
Batch-level costs ($80,000 × 20) 1,600,000
Product-level costs ($80,000 × 10) 800,000
Facility-level costs 400,000
Total cost $ 6,400,000
The unit-based costs increase because these costs vary with the number of
units produced. Because the batches and engineering orders did not change,
the batch-level costs and product-level costs remain the same, behaving as
fixed costs with respect to the unit-based driver. The facility-level costs are
fixed costs and do not vary with any driver.
3. Unit-level costs ($120 × 30,000) $ 3,600,000
Batch-level costs ($80,000 × 30) 2,400,000
Product-level costs ($80,000 × 12) 960,000
Facility-level costs 400,000
Total cost $ 7,360,000
9966
Batch-level costs increase as the number of batches changes, and the costs
of engineering support change as the number of orders change. Thus,
batches and orders increased, increasing the total cost of the model.
4. Classifying costs by category allows their behavior to be better understood.
This, in turn, creates the ability to better manage costs and make decisions.
4–20
1. The total cost of care is $1,950,000 plus a $50,000 share of the cost of super-
vision [(25/150) × $300,000]. The cost of supervision is computed as follows:
Salary of supervisor (direct) $ 70,000
Salary of secretary (direct) 22,000
Capital costs (direct) 100,000
Assistants (3 × 0.75 × $48,000) 108,000
Total $ 300,000
Thus, the cost per patient day is computed as follows:
$2,000,000/10,000 = $200 per patient day
(The total cost of care divided by patient days.) Notice that every maternity
patient—regardless of type—would pay the daily rate of $200.
2. First, the cost of the secondary activity (supervision) must be assigned to the
primary activities (various nursing care activities) that consume it (the driver
is the number of nurses):
Maternity nursing care assignment:
(25/150) × $300,000 = $50,000
Thus, the total cost of nursing care is $950,000 + $50,000 = $1,000,000.
Next, calculate the activity rates for the two primary activities:
Occupancy and feeding: $1,000,000/10,000 = $100 per patient day
Nursing care: $1,000,000/50,000 = $20 per nursing hour
9977
4–20 Concluded
Finally, the cost per patient day type can be computed:
Patient Daily Rate*
Normal $150
Cesarean 225
Complications 500
*($100 × 7,000) + ($20 × 17,500)/7,000
($100 × 2,000) + ($20 × 12,500)/2,000
($100 × 1,000) + ($20 × 20,000)/1,000
This example illustrates that activity-based costing can produce significant
product costing improvements in service organizations that experience prod-
uct diversity.
3. The Laundry Department cost would increase the total cost of the Maternity
Department by $100,000 [(200,000/1,000,000) × $500,000]. This would increase
the cost per patient day by $10 ($100,000/10,000). The activity approach would
need more detailed information—specifically, the amount of pounds of laun-
dry caused by each patient type. The activity approach will increase the accu-
racy of the cost assignment if patient types produce a disproportionate share
of laundry. For example, if patients with complications produce 40 percent of
the pounds with only 10 percent of the patient days, then the $10 charge per
day is not a fair assignment.
9988
4–21
1. Activity classification:
Unit-level: Machining
Batch-level: Material handling, setups, inspection, and receiving
Product-level: Maintenance and engineering
Facility-level: None
2. Pool 1, consumption ratios: (0.5, 0.5):
Machining $ 90,000
Activity driver ÷ 100,000 MHr
Pool rate $ 0.90 per MHr
Pool 2, consumption ratios: (0.75, 0.25):
Setups $ 96,000
Inspection 60,000
Total $ 156,000
Activity driver ÷ 80 setups*
Pool rate $ 1,950 per setup
*Inspection hours could also be used.
Pool 3, consumption ratios: (0.33, 0.67):
Material handling $ 120,000
Receiving 30,000
Total $ 150,000
Activity driver ÷ 6,000 material moves
Pool rate $ 25 per move
Pool 4, consumption ratios: (0.67, 0.33):
Engineering $ 100,000
Maintenance 80,000
Total $ 180,000
Activity driver ÷ 6,000 maintenance hours*
Pool rate $ 30 per maintenance hour
*Number of engineering hours could also be used.
9999
4–21 Concluded
3. Computation of unit overhead costs:
Small Clock Large Clock
Unit-level activities:
Pool 1:
$0.90 × 50,000 $ 45,000
$0.90 × 50,000 $ 45,000
Batch-level activities:
Pool 2:
$1,950 × 60 117,000
$1,950 × 20 39,000
Pool 3:
$25 × 2,000 50,000
$25 × 4,000 100,000
Product-level activities:
Pool 4:
$30 × 4,000 120,000
$30 × 2,000 60,000
Total overhead costs $ 332,000 $ 244,000
Units produced ÷ 100,000 ÷ 200,000
Overhead cost per unit $ 3.32 $ 1.22
110000
4–22
1. Overhead rate = $6,990,000/272,500 = $25.65 per DLH*
Overhead assignment:
X-12: $25.65 × 250,000/1,000,000 = $6.41*
S-15: $25.65 × 22,500/200,000 = $2.89*
*Rounded numbers used throughout
Unit gross margin:
X-12 S-15
Price $ 15.93 $ 12.00
Cost 10.68* 6.02**
Gross margin $ 5.25 $ 5.98
*Prime costs + Overhead = ($4.27 + $6.41)
**Prime costs + Overhead = ($3.13 + $2.89)
2. Pools Driver Pool Rate
Setup Runs $240,000/300 = $800 per run
Machine Machine hrs. $1,750,000/185,000 = $9.46/per MHr
Receiving Orders $2,100,000/1,400 = $1,500/per order
Engineering Engineering hrs. $2,000,000/10,000 = $200/per eng. hour
Material handling Moves $900,000/900 = $1,000/per move
110011
4–22 Continued
Overhead assignment:
X-12 S-15
Setup costs:
$800 × 100 $ 80,000
$800 × 200 $ 160,000
Machine costs:
$9.46 × 125,000 1,182,500
$9.46 × 60,000 567,600
Receiving costs:
$1,500 × 400 600,000
$1,500 × 1,000 1,500,000
Engineering costs:
$200 × 5,000 1,000,000
$200 × 5,000 1,000,000
Material-handling costs:
$1,000 × 500 500,000
$1,000 × 400 400,000
Total overhead costs $ 3,362,500 $ 3,627,600
Units produced ÷ 1,000,000 ÷ 200,000
Overhead cost per kg $ 3.36 $ 18.14
Prime cost per kg 4.27 3.13
Unit cost $ 7.63 $ 21.27
Selling price $ 15.93 $ 12.00
Less unit cost 7.63 21.27
Unit gross margin $ 8.30 $ (9.27)
110022
4–22 Concluded
3. No. The cost of making X-12 is $7.63, much less than the amount indicated by
functional-based costing. The company can compete by lowering its price on
the high-volume product. The $10 price offered by competitors is not out of
line. The concern about selling below cost is unfounded.
4. The $12 price of compound S-15 is well below its cost of production. This ex-
plains why Pearson has no competition and why customers are willing to pay
$15, a price that is probably still way below competitors’ quotes.
5. The price of X-12 should be lowered to a competitive level and the price of
S-15 increased so that a reasonable return is being earned.
4–23
1. Activity rates:
Testing products = $252,000/300 = $840 per setup
Purchasing materials = $36,000/1,800 = $20 per order
Machining = $252,000/21,000 = $12 per machine hour
Receiving = $60,000/2,500 = $24 per receiving hour
Overhead cost assignment:
Model A Model B
Testing products:
$840 × 200 $168,000
$840 × 100 $ 84,000
Purchasing materials:
$20 × 600 12,000
$20 × 1,200 24,000
Machining:
$12 × 12,000 144,000
$12 × 9,000 108,000
Receiving:
$24 × 750 18,000
$24 × 1,750 42,000
Total OH assigned $342,000 $258,000
110033
2. New cost pools:
Testing products: $252,000 + [($252,000/$504,000) × $96,000] = $300,000
Machining: $252,000 + [($252,000/$504,000) × $96,000] = $300,000
New activity rates:
Testing products: $300,000/300 = $1,000 per setup
Machining: $300,000/21,000 = $14.29 per hour
Model A Model B
Testing products:
$1,000 × 200 $200,000
$1,000 × 100 $100,000
Machining:
$14.29 × 12,000 171,480
$14.29 × 9,000 128,610
Total OH assigned $371,480 $228,610
3. Percentage error:
Model A: ($371,480 – $342,000)/$342,000 = 0.086 (8.6%)
Model B: ($228,610 – $258,000)/$258,000 = –0.114 (11.4%)
The error is not bad and is certainly not in the range that is often seen when
comparing a plantwide rate assignment with the ABC costs. For example, if Model
A is expected to use 30% of the direct labor hours, then it would receive a plant-
wide assignment of $180,000, producing an error of more than 47%—an error al-
most six times greater than the approximately relevant assignment. In this type of
situation, it may be better to go with two drivers to gain acceptance and get rea-
sonably close to the more accurate ABC cost. It also avoids the data collection
costs of the bigger system.
110044
4–24
1.
Welding $2,000,000
Machining 1,000,000
Setups 400,000
Total $3,400,000
Percentage of total activity costs = $3,400,000/$4,000,000= 85%.
2.
Allocation:
($2,000,000/$3,400,000) × $600,000 = $352,941
($1,000,000/$3,400,000) × $600,000 = $176,471
($400,000/$3,400,000) × $600,000 = $70,588
Cost pools:
Welding = $2,000,000 + $352,941 = $2,352,941
Machining = $1,000,000 + $176,471 = $1,176,471
Setups = $400,000 + $70,588 = $470,588
Activity rates:
Rate 1: Welding = $2,352,941/4,000 = $588 per welding hour
Rate 2: Machining = $1,176,471/10,000 = $118 per machine hour
Rate 3: Setups = $470,588/100 = $4,706 per batch
Overhead assignment:
Subassembly A Subassembly B
Rate 1:
$588 × 1,600 welding hours $ 940,800
$588 × 2,400 welding hours $1,411,200
Rate 2:
$118 × 3,000 machine hours 354,000
$118 × 7,000 machine hours 826,000
Rate 3:
110055
$4,706 × 45 batches 211,770
$4,706 × 55 batches 258,830
Total overhead costs $1,506,570 $2,496,030
Units produced ÷ 1,500 ÷ 3,000
Overhead per unit $ 1,004 $ 832
3. Percentage error:
Error (Subassembly A) = ($1,004 – $1,108)/$1,108 = –0.094 (–9.4%)
Error (Subassembly B) = ($832 – $779)/$779 = 0.068 (6.8%)
The error is at most 10%. The simplification is simple and easy to implement.
Most of the costs (85%) are assigned accurately. Only three rates are used to as-
sign the costs, representing a significant reduction in complexity.
110066
MANAGERIAL DECISION CASES
4–25
1. Shipping and warehousing costs are currently assigned using tons of paper
produced, a unit-based measure. Many of these costs, however, are not dri-
ven by quantity produced. Many products have special handling and shipping
requirements involving extra costs. These costs should not be assigned to
those products that are shipped directly to customers.
2. The new method proposes assigning the costs of shipping and warehousing
separately for the low-volume products. To do so requires three cost assign-
ments: receiving, shipping, and carrying. The cost drivers for each cost are
tons processed, items shipped, and tons sold.
Pool rate, receiving costs:
Receiving cost/Tons processed = $1,100,000/56,000 tons
= $19.64 per ton processed*
Pool rate, shipping costs:
Shipping cost per shipping item = $2,300,000/190,000
= $12.11 per shipping item*
Pool rate, carrying cost (an opportunity cost):
Carrying cost per year (LLHC) = 25 × $1,665 × 0.16
= $6,660
Carrying cost per ton sold = $6,660/10 = $666
Shipping and warehousing cost per ton sold:
Receiving $ 19.64
Shipping ($12.11 × 7) 84.77
Carrying 666.00
Total $770.41
*Rounded
110077
4–25 Continued
3. Profit analysis:
Revised profit per ton (LLHC):
Selling price $2,400.00
Less manufacturing cost 1,665.00
Gross profit $ 735.00
Less shipping and warehousing 770.41
Loss $ (35.41)
Original profit per ton:
Selling price $2,400.00
Less manufacturing costs 1,665.00
Gross profit $ 735.00
Less shipping and warehousing 30.00
Profit $ 705.00
The revised profit, reflecting a more accurate assignment of shipping and wa-
rehousing costs, presents a much different picture of LLHC. The product is,
in reality, losing money for the company. Its earlier apparent profitability was
attributable to a subsidy being received from the high-volume products (by
spreading the special shipping and handling costs over all products, using
tons produced as the cost driver). The same effect is also true for the other
low-volume products. Essentially, the system is understating the handling
costs for low-volume products and overstating the cost for high-volume
products.
4. The decision to drop some high-volume products and emphasize low-volume
products could clearly be erroneous. As LLHC has demonstrated, its appar-
ent profitability is attributable to distorted cost assignments. A significant
change in the image of LLHC was achieved by simply improving the accuracy
of shipping and handling costs. Further improvements in accuracy in the
overhead assignments may cause the view of LLHC to deteriorate even more.
Conversely, the profitability of high-volume products may improve signifi-
cantly with increased costing accuracy. This example underscores the impor-
tance of having accurate and reliable accounting information. The accounting
system must bear the responsibility of providing reliable information.
110088
4–25 Concluded
5. Ryan’s strategy changed because his information concerning the individual
products changed. Apparently, the accounting system was undercosting the
low-volume products and overcosting the high-volume products. Once better
information was available, Ryan was able to respond better to competitive
conditions.
4–26
1. Disagree. Chuck is expressing an uninformed opinion. He has not spent the
effort to find out exactly what activity-based management and costing are at-
tempting to do; therefore, he has no real ability to offer any constructive criti-
cism of the possible benefits of these two approaches.
2. and 3.
At first glance, it may seem strange to even ask if Chuck’s behavior is unethi-
cal. After all, what is unethical about expressing an opinion, albeit unin-
formed? While offering uninformed opinions or recommendations may be of
little consequence in many settings, a serious issue arises when a person’s
expertise is relied upon by others to make decisions or take actions that
could be wrong or harmful to themselves or their organizations. This very
well may be the case for Chuck’s setting, and his behavior may be labeled
professionally unethical.
Chuck’s lack of knowledge about activity-based systems is a signal of his
failure to maintain his professional competence. Standard I-1 of the IMA
Statement of Ethical Professional Practice indicates that management ac-
countants have a responsibility to continually develop their knowledge and
skills. Failure to do so is unethical.
RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT
4–27
Answers will vary.

More Related Content

What's hot

Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2
Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2
Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2iyandri tiluk wahyono
 
Chapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning Tool
Chapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning ToolChapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning Tool
Chapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning ToolYesica Adicondro
 
tanggung jawab dan tujuan audit
tanggung jawab dan tujuan audittanggung jawab dan tujuan audit
tanggung jawab dan tujuan auditIndah Dwi Lestari
 
Bab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga Transfer
Bab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga TransferBab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga Transfer
Bab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga TransferFitri Ayu Kusuma Wijayanti
 
Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)
Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)
Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)Hasan Romadon
 
Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer Pricing
Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer PricingSistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer Pricing
Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer PricingFergieta Prahasdhika
 
solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003
solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003
solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003Suzie Lestari
 
Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)
Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)
Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)budi Yulian
 
Kieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesia
Kieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesiaKieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesia
Kieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesiaFina Sari
 
Hubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khusus
Hubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khususHubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khusus
Hubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khususDIAN WAHYU KARTIKA CANIAGO
 
Makalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan beban
Makalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan bebanMakalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan beban
Makalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan bebanFox Broadcasting
 
AUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGI
AUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGIAUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGI
AUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGIEDIS BLOG
 
Akuntansi Biaya Overhead Pabrik
Akuntansi Biaya Overhead PabrikAkuntansi Biaya Overhead Pabrik
Akuntansi Biaya Overhead PabrikRiriany Ririany
 
Akuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatan
Akuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatanAkuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatan
Akuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatanjoni_aprilyanto
 
Harga pokok standar
Harga pokok standarHarga pokok standar
Harga pokok standarEpry Shine
 
Akuntansi untuk operasi cabang
Akuntansi untuk operasi cabangAkuntansi untuk operasi cabang
Akuntansi untuk operasi cabangcikaaarisandi
 

What's hot (20)

Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2
Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2
Revenue ( Pengakuan Pendapatan ) Bag 2
 
Chapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning Tool
Chapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning ToolChapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning Tool
Chapter 11 Cost Volume Profit Analysis : A Managerial Planning Tool
 
tanggung jawab dan tujuan audit
tanggung jawab dan tujuan audittanggung jawab dan tujuan audit
tanggung jawab dan tujuan audit
 
Bab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga Transfer
Bab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga TransferBab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga Transfer
Bab. 10 Pelaporan Segmen, Evaluasi Pusat Informasi dan Penetapan Harga Transfer
 
Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)
Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)
Penjualan Cicilan ( akuntansi keuangan lanjutan)
 
Subsequent events
Subsequent eventsSubsequent events
Subsequent events
 
Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer Pricing
Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer PricingSistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer Pricing
Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen - Bab 6 - Transfer Pricing
 
Akuntansi biaya
Akuntansi biayaAkuntansi biaya
Akuntansi biaya
 
solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003
solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003
solusi manual advanced acc zy Chap003
 
Bab. 7 Alokasi Biaya Departemen Pendukung
Bab. 7 Alokasi Biaya Departemen PendukungBab. 7 Alokasi Biaya Departemen Pendukung
Bab. 7 Alokasi Biaya Departemen Pendukung
 
Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)
Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)
Akuntansi manajemen[7] (1)
 
Kieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesia
Kieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesiaKieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesia
Kieso ifrs ch16 - ifrs (eps) indonesia
 
Hubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khusus
Hubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khususHubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khusus
Hubungan Kantor Pusat dan Cabang Masalah khusus
 
Perbedaan PSAK dan SAK ETAP
Perbedaan PSAK dan SAK ETAPPerbedaan PSAK dan SAK ETAP
Perbedaan PSAK dan SAK ETAP
 
Makalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan beban
Makalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan bebanMakalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan beban
Makalah Bab 4 -pusat pertanggungjawab;pusat pendapatan dan beban
 
AUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGI
AUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGIAUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGI
AUDIT PEMERIKSAAN ATAS PERKIRAAN LABA RUGI
 
Akuntansi Biaya Overhead Pabrik
Akuntansi Biaya Overhead PabrikAkuntansi Biaya Overhead Pabrik
Akuntansi Biaya Overhead Pabrik
 
Akuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatan
Akuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatanAkuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatan
Akuntansi keuangan pengakuan pendapatan
 
Harga pokok standar
Harga pokok standarHarga pokok standar
Harga pokok standar
 
Akuntansi untuk operasi cabang
Akuntansi untuk operasi cabangAkuntansi untuk operasi cabang
Akuntansi untuk operasi cabang
 

Similar to Chapter 4 Activity Based Product Costing

Management AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docx
Management AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docxManagement AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docx
Management AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docxinfantsuk
 
Cost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptx
Cost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptxCost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptx
Cost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptxObsaKamil
 
Activity base costing.pptx presentation
Activity base costing.pptx presentationActivity base costing.pptx presentation
Activity base costing.pptx presentationTanweer Sudhan
 
Activity-Based Costing (ABC
Activity-Based Costing (ABCActivity-Based Costing (ABC
Activity-Based Costing (ABCAngie Miller
 
Chapter 7 Support Department Cost Allocation
Chapter 7 Support Department Cost AllocationChapter 7 Support Department Cost Allocation
Chapter 7 Support Department Cost AllocationYesica Adicondro
 
Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508
Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508
Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508Ali Imran Awan MBA (IT)
 
16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptx
16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptx16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptx
16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptxAqsaJaved52
 
Activity Based costing
Activity Based costingActivity Based costing
Activity Based costingJoseph Mary
 
ch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.ppt
ch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.pptch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.ppt
ch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.pptRagnaNexgen
 
cost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service design
cost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service designcost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service design
cost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service designBeaDelaPenia1
 
Marginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdf
Marginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdfMarginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdf
Marginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdfMonishAswani1
 
Acc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costing
Acc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costingAcc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costing
Acc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costingJudianto Nugroho
 

Similar to Chapter 4 Activity Based Product Costing (20)

Management AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docx
Management AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docxManagement AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docx
Management AccountingActivity Based Costing vs Absorption Cost.docx
 
PPT on PM_Unit 1 .pptx.
PPT                  on PM_Unit 1 .pptx.PPT                  on PM_Unit 1 .pptx.
PPT on PM_Unit 1 .pptx.
 
Cost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptx
Cost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptxCost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptx
Cost and Management Accounting I Chapter 3 (2)(2)-1 (1).pptx
 
Activity base costing.pptx presentation
Activity base costing.pptx presentationActivity base costing.pptx presentation
Activity base costing.pptx presentation
 
Activity-Based Costing (ABC
Activity-Based Costing (ABCActivity-Based Costing (ABC
Activity-Based Costing (ABC
 
Chapter 7 Support Department Cost Allocation
Chapter 7 Support Department Cost AllocationChapter 7 Support Department Cost Allocation
Chapter 7 Support Department Cost Allocation
 
Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508
Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508
Ch14 Managerial accounting aiou mba mcom 8508
 
Activity Based Costing
Activity Based CostingActivity Based Costing
Activity Based Costing
 
ma_ch03_slides.ppt
ma_ch03_slides.pptma_ch03_slides.ppt
ma_ch03_slides.ppt
 
16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptx
16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptx16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptx
16-02-2023 accounting presentation.pptx
 
Activity Based costing
Activity Based costingActivity Based costing
Activity Based costing
 
hjfgds
hjfgdshjfgds
hjfgds
 
ch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.ppt
ch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.pptch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.ppt
ch5- Activity-Based Costing Systems.ppt
 
Abc costing
Abc costingAbc costing
Abc costing
 
Chapter4.ppt
Chapter4.pptChapter4.ppt
Chapter4.ppt
 
Absorption costing
Absorption costingAbsorption costing
Absorption costing
 
cost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service design
cost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service designcost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service design
cost accounting chapter 6, fundamentals of product and service design
 
ABC.ppt
ABC.pptABC.ppt
ABC.ppt
 
Marginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdf
Marginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdfMarginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdf
Marginal-Costing_7dmZZc0.pdf
 
Acc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costing
Acc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costingAcc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costing
Acc mgt noreen03 systems design activity based costing
 

More from Yesica Adicondro

Konsep Balanced Score Card
Konsep Balanced Score Card Konsep Balanced Score Card
Konsep Balanced Score Card Yesica Adicondro
 
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi BakriMakalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi BakriYesica Adicondro
 
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi BakriMakalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi BakriYesica Adicondro
 
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia Yesica Adicondro
 
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia Yesica Adicondro
 
Makalah kelompok 3 gudang garam
Makalah kelompok 3 gudang garamMakalah kelompok 3 gudang garam
Makalah kelompok 3 gudang garamYesica Adicondro
 
Makalah Perusahaan Gudang Garam
Makalah Perusahaan Gudang GaramMakalah Perusahaan Gudang Garam
Makalah Perusahaan Gudang GaramYesica Adicondro
 
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPT
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPTMakalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPT
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPTYesica Adicondro
 
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilinkMakalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilinkYesica Adicondro
 
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT Yesica Adicondro
 
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia
Makalah kinerja operasi IndonesiaMakalah kinerja operasi Indonesia
Makalah kinerja operasi IndonesiaYesica Adicondro
 
Business process reengineering PPT
Business process reengineering PPTBusiness process reengineering PPT
Business process reengineering PPTYesica Adicondro
 
Business process reengineering Makalah
Business process reengineering Makalah Business process reengineering Makalah
Business process reengineering Makalah Yesica Adicondro
 
Makalah Balanced Scorecard
Makalah Balanced Scorecard Makalah Balanced Scorecard
Makalah Balanced Scorecard Yesica Adicondro
 
Analisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilink
Analisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilinkAnalisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilink
Analisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilinkYesica Adicondro
 

More from Yesica Adicondro (20)

Strategi Tata Letak
Strategi Tata LetakStrategi Tata Letak
Strategi Tata Letak
 
Konsep Balanced Score Card
Konsep Balanced Score Card Konsep Balanced Score Card
Konsep Balanced Score Card
 
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi BakriMakalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
 
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi BakriMakalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
Makalah kelompok Analisis Taksi Bakri
 
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
 
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
Makalah Analisis PT Kereta API Indonesia
 
Makalah kelompok 3 gudang garam
Makalah kelompok 3 gudang garamMakalah kelompok 3 gudang garam
Makalah kelompok 3 gudang garam
 
Makalah Perusahaan Gudang Garam
Makalah Perusahaan Gudang GaramMakalah Perusahaan Gudang Garam
Makalah Perusahaan Gudang Garam
 
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPT
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPTMakalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPT
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink PPT
 
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilinkMakalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink
Makalah kelompok 2 garuda citilink
 
Dmfi leaflet indonesian
Dmfi leaflet indonesianDmfi leaflet indonesian
Dmfi leaflet indonesian
 
Dmfi booklet indonesian
Dmfi booklet indonesian Dmfi booklet indonesian
Dmfi booklet indonesian
 
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia PPT
 
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia
Makalah kinerja operasi IndonesiaMakalah kinerja operasi Indonesia
Makalah kinerja operasi Indonesia
 
Business process reengineering PPT
Business process reengineering PPTBusiness process reengineering PPT
Business process reengineering PPT
 
Business process reengineering Makalah
Business process reengineering Makalah Business process reengineering Makalah
Business process reengineering Makalah
 
PPT Balanced Scorecard
PPT Balanced Scorecard PPT Balanced Scorecard
PPT Balanced Scorecard
 
Makalah Balanced Scorecard
Makalah Balanced Scorecard Makalah Balanced Scorecard
Makalah Balanced Scorecard
 
Analisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilink
Analisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilinkAnalisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilink
Analisis Manajemen strategik PT garuda citilink
 
analisis PPT PT Japfa
analisis PPT PT Japfaanalisis PPT PT Japfa
analisis PPT PT Japfa
 

Recently uploaded

Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.Precize Formely Leadoff
 
BPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdf
BPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdfBPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdf
BPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdfHenry Tapper
 
Stock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdfStock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdfMichael Silva
 
原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证
原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证
原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证jdkhjh
 
NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...
NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...
NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...Amil baba
 
《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》
《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》
《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》rnrncn29
 
House of Commons ; CDC schemes overview document
House of Commons ; CDC schemes overview documentHouse of Commons ; CDC schemes overview document
House of Commons ; CDC schemes overview documentHenry Tapper
 
NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...
NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...
NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...Amil baba
 
(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办
(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办
(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办fqiuho152
 
The AES Investment Code - the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...
The AES Investment Code -  the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...The AES Investment Code -  the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...
The AES Investment Code - the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...AES International
 
Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170
Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170
Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170Sonam Pathan
 
Managing Finances in a Small Business (yes).pdf
Managing Finances  in a Small Business (yes).pdfManaging Finances  in a Small Business (yes).pdf
Managing Finances in a Small Business (yes).pdfmar yame
 
PMFBY , Pradhan Mantri Fasal bima yojna
PMFBY , Pradhan Mantri  Fasal bima yojnaPMFBY , Pradhan Mantri  Fasal bima yojna
PMFBY , Pradhan Mantri Fasal bima yojnaDharmendra Kumar
 
Governor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraint
Governor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraintGovernor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraint
Governor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraintSuomen Pankki
 
The Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh Kumar
The Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh KumarThe Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh Kumar
The Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh KumarHarsh Kumar
 
GOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACT
GOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACTGOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACT
GOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACTharshitverma1762
 
212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technology
212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technology212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technology
212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technologyz xss
 
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.pptFinancial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppttadegebreyesus
 
letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...
letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...
letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...Henry Tapper
 
Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...
Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...
Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...amilabibi1
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
 
BPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdf
BPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdfBPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdf
BPPG response - Options for Defined Benefit schemes - 19Apr24.pdf
 
Stock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdfStock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for "this does not happen often".pdf
 
原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证
原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证
原版1:1复刻堪萨斯大学毕业证KU毕业证留信学历认证
 
NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...
NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...
NO1 Certified kala jadu karne wale ka contact number kala jadu karne wale bab...
 
《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》
《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》
《加拿大本地办假证-寻找办理Dalhousie毕业证和达尔豪斯大学毕业证书的中介代理》
 
House of Commons ; CDC schemes overview document
House of Commons ; CDC schemes overview documentHouse of Commons ; CDC schemes overview document
House of Commons ; CDC schemes overview document
 
NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...
NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...
NO1 Certified Amil Baba In Lahore Kala Jadu In Lahore Best Amil In Lahore Ami...
 
(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办
(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办
(办理原版一样)QUT毕业证昆士兰科技大学毕业证学位证留信学历认证成绩单补办
 
The AES Investment Code - the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...
The AES Investment Code -  the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...The AES Investment Code -  the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...
The AES Investment Code - the go-to counsel for the most well-informed, wise...
 
Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170
Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170
Call Girls Near Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, New Delhi 9873777170
 
Managing Finances in a Small Business (yes).pdf
Managing Finances  in a Small Business (yes).pdfManaging Finances  in a Small Business (yes).pdf
Managing Finances in a Small Business (yes).pdf
 
PMFBY , Pradhan Mantri Fasal bima yojna
PMFBY , Pradhan Mantri  Fasal bima yojnaPMFBY , Pradhan Mantri  Fasal bima yojna
PMFBY , Pradhan Mantri Fasal bima yojna
 
Governor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraint
Governor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraintGovernor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraint
Governor Olli Rehn: Dialling back monetary restraint
 
The Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh Kumar
The Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh KumarThe Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh Kumar
The Triple Threat | Article on Global Resession | Harsh Kumar
 
GOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACT
GOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACTGOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACT
GOODSANDSERVICETAX IN INDIAN ECONOMY IMPACT
 
212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technology
212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technology212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technology
212MTAMount Durham University Bachelor's Diploma in Technology
 
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.pptFinancial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
 
letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...
letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...
letter-from-the-chair-to-the-fca-relating-to-british-steel-pensions-scheme-15...
 
Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...
Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...
Amil Baba In Pakistan amil baba in Lahore amil baba in Islamabad amil baba in...
 

Chapter 4 Activity Based Product Costing

  • 1. 7755 CHAPTER 4 ACTIVITY-BASED PRODUCT COSTING QUESTIONS FOR WRITING AND DISCUSSION 1. Unit costs provide essential information needed for inventory valuation and prepara- tion of income statements. Knowing unit costs is also critical for many decisions such as bidding decisions and accept-or-reject special order decisions. 2. Cost measurement is determining the dollar amounts associated with resources used in production. Cost assignment is associating the dollar amounts, once measured, with units produced. 3. An actual overhead rate is rarely used be- cause of problems with accuracy and timeli- ness. Waiting until the end of the year to en- sure accuracy is rejected because of the need to have timely information. Timeliness of information based on actual overhead costs runs into difficulty (accuracy problems) because overhead is incurred nonuniformly and because production also may be non- uniform. 4. For plantwide rates, overhead is first col- lected in a plantwide pool, using direct trac- ing. Next, an overhead rate is computed and used to assign overhead to products. 5. First stage: Overhead is assigned to produc- tion department pools using direct tracing, driver tracing, and allocation. Second stage: Individual departmental rates are used to assign overhead to products as they pass through the departments. 6. Departmental rates would be chosen over plantwide rates whenever some depart- ments are more overhead intensive than others and if certain products spend more time in some departments than they do in others. 7. Plantwide overhead rates assign overhead to products in proportion to the amount of the unit-level cost driver used. If the prod- ucts consume some overhead activities in different proportions than those assigned by the unit-level cost driver, then cost dis- tortions can occur (the product diversity factor). These distortions can be significant if the nonunit-level overhead costs represent a significant proportion of total overhead costs. 8. Low-volume products may consume non- unit-level overhead activities in much greater proportions than indicated by a unit-level cost driver and vice versa for high-volume products. If so, then the low-volume prod- ucts will receive too little overhead and the high-volume products too much. 9. If some products are undercosted and oth- ers are overcosted, a firm can make a num- ber of competitively bad decisions. For ex- ample, the firm might select the wrong product mix or submit distorted bids. 10. Nonunit-level overhead activities are those overhead activities that are not highly corre- lated with production volume measures. Ex- amples include setups, material handling, and inspection. Nonunit-level cost drivers are causal factors—factors that explain the consumption of nonunit-level overhead. Ex- amples include setup hours, number of moves, and hours of inspection. 11. Product diversity is present whenever prod- ucts have different consumption ratios for different overhead activities. 12. An overhead consumption ratio measures the proportion of an overhead activity con- sumed by a product. 13. Departmental rates typically use unit-level cost drivers. If products consume nonunit- level overhead activities in different propor- tions than those of unit-level measures, then it is possible for departmental rates to move even further away from the true consump- tion ratios, since the departmental unit-level ratios usually differ from the one used at the plant level. 14. Agree. Prime costs can be assigned using direct tracing and so do not cause cost dis- tortions. Overhead costs, however, are not directly attributable and can cause distor- tions. For example, using unit-level activity drivers to trace nonunit-level overhead costs would cause distortions.
  • 2. 7766 15. Activity-based product costing is an over- head costing approach that first assigns costs to activities and then to products. The assignment is made possible through the identification of activities, their costs, and the use of cost drivers. 16. An activity dictionary is a list of activities accompanied by information that describes each activity (called attributes) 17. A primary activity is consumed by the final cost objects such as products and custom- ers, whereas secondary activities are con- sumed by other activities (ultimately con- sumed by primary activities). 18. Costs are assigned using direct tracing and resource drivers. 19. Unit-level activities are those that occur each time a product is produced. Batch-level activi- ties are those that are performed each time a batch of products is produced. Product-level or sustaining activities are those that are performed as needed to support the various products produced by a company. Facility- level activities are those that sustain a facto- ry’s general manufacturing process 20. Rates can be reduced by building a system that approximates the cost assignments of a fully specified ABC system. One way to do this is by using only the most expensive ac- tivities to assign costs. If the most expensive activities represent a large percentage of the total costs, then most of the costs are as- signed using a cause-and-effect relation- ship, thus creating a good level of accuracy while reducing the complexity of the ABC system.
  • 3. 7777 EXERCISES 4–1 1. Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total Units produced 400,000 160,000 80,000 560,000 1,200,000 Prime costs $8,000,000 $3,200,000 $1,600,000 $11,200,000 $24,000,000 Overhead costs $3,200,000 $2,400,000 $3,600,000 $2,800,000 $12,000,000 Unit cost: Prime $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 Overhead 8 15 45 5 10 Total $28 $35 $65 $25 $30 2. Actual costing can produce wide swings in the overhead cost per unit. The cause appears to be nonuniform incurrence of overhead and nonuniform production (seasonal production is a possibility). 3. First, calculate a predetermined rate: OH rate = $11,640,000/1,200,000 = $9.70 per unit This rate is used to assign overhead to the product throughout the year. Since the driver is units produced, $9.70 would be assigned to each unit. Add- ing this to the actual prime costs produces a unit cost under normal costing: Unit cost = $9.70 + $20.00 = $29.70 This cost is close to the actual annual cost of $30.00.
  • 4. 7788 4–2 1. $27,000,000/90,000 = $300 per direct labor hour (DLH) 2. $300 × 91,000 = $27,300,000 3. Applied overhead $27,300,000 Actual overhead 27,200,000 Overrapplied overhead $ 100,000 4. Predetermined rates allow the calculation of unit costs and avoid the prob- lems of nonuniform overhead incurrence and nonuniform production asso- ciated with actual overhead rates. Unit cost information is needed throughout the year for a variety of managerial purposes. 4–3 1. Predetermined overhead rate = $4,500,000/600,000 = $7.50 per DLH 2. Applied overhead = $7.50 × 585,000 = $4,387,500 3. Applied overhead $ 4,387,500 Actual overhead 4,466,250 Underapplied overhead $ (78,750) 4. Unit cost: Prime costs $ 6,750,000 Overhead costs 4,387,500 Total $ 11,137,500 Units ÷ 750,000 Unit cost $ 14.85
  • 5. 7799 4–4 1. Predetermined overhead rate = $4,500,000/187,500 = $24 per machine hour (MHr) 2. Applied overhead = $24 × 187,875 = $4,509,000 3. Applied overhead $ 4,509,000 Actual overhead 4,466,250 Overapplied overhead $ 42,750 4. Unit cost: Prime costs $ 6,750,000 Overhead costs 4,509,000 Total $ 11,259,000 Units ÷ 750,000 Unit cost $ 15.01* *Rounded 5. Gandars needs to determine what causes its overhead. Is it primarily labor driven (e.g., composed predominantly of fringe benefits, indirect labor, and personnel costs), or is it machine oriented (e.g., composed of depreciation on machinery, utilities, and maintenance)? It is impossible for a decision to be made on the basis of the information given in this exercise.
  • 6. 8800 4–5 1. Predetermined rates: Drilling Department: Rate = $600,000/280,000 = $2.14* per MHr Assembly Department: Rate = $392,000/200,000 = $1.96 per DLH *Rounded 2. Applied overhead: Drilling Department: $2.14 × 288,000 = $616,320 Assembly Department: $1.96 × 196,000 = $384,160 Overhead variances: Drilling Assembly Total Actual overhead $602,000 $ 412,000 $ 1,014,000 Applied overhead 616,320 384,160 1,000,480 Overhead variance $ (14,320) over $ 27,840 under $13,520 under 3. Unit overhead cost = [($2.14 × 4,000) + ($1.96 × 1,600)]/8,000 = $11,696/8,000 = $1.46* *Rounded
  • 7. 8811 4–6 1. Activity rates: Machining = $632,000/300,000 = $2.11* per MHr Inspection = $360,000/12,000 = $30 per inspection hour *Rounded 2. Unit overhead cost = [($2.11 × 4,000) + ($30 × 800)]/8,000 = $32,440/8,000 = $4.055 4–7 1. Scented Cards Regular Cards Inspection hours 0.20a 0.80a Setup hours 0.50b 0.50b Machine hours 0.25c 0.75c Number of moves 0.75d 0.25d a. Total inspection hours = 200 (40+160); 40/200 for Scented and 160/200 for Regular b. Total Setup hours = 100 (50+50); 50/100 for Scented and 50/100 for Regular c. Total Machine hours = 800 (200+600); 200/800 for Scented and 600/800 for Regular d. Total Number of moves = 300 (225+75); 225/300 for Scented and 75/300 for Regular 2. The consumption ratios vary significantly from driver to driver. Using, for ex- ample, only machine hours to assign the overhead may create accuracy prob- lems. Both setup hours and number of moves have markedly different consump- tion ratios. 4–8 1. Rates: Inspecting products: $2,000/200 = $10 per inspection hour Setting up equipment: $2,500/100 = $25 per setup hour Machining: $4,000/800 = $5 per machine hour Moving materials: $900/300 = $3.00 per move Note: The denominator is the total driver amount (sum of the demand of the two products).
  • 8. 8822 2. Rate = Cost/hours Inspection hours = Cost/Rate = $2,000/$20 = 100 inspection hours 4–9 1. Normal Intensive Treating patients: $4.00 × 5,000 $ 20,000 $4.00 × 20,000 $ 80,000 Providing hygienic care: $5.00 × 5,000 25,000 $5.00 × 11,000 55,000 Responding to requests: $2.00 × 30,000 60,000 $2.00 × 50,000 100,000 Monitoring patients: $0.75 × 20,000 15,000 $0.75 × 180,000 135,000 Cost Assigned $120,000 $370,000 2. Nursing cost per patient day: Normal Intensive $120,000/10,000 $12.00 $370,000/8,000 $46.25 4–10 1. Yes. Because direct materials and direct labor are directly traceable to each product, their cost assignment should be accurate. 2. The consumption ratios for each (using machine hours and setup hours as the activity drivers) are as follows: Elegant Fina Machining 0.10 0.90 (500/5,000 and 4,500/5,000) Setups 0.50 0.50 (100/200 and 100/200) 3. Elegant: (1.75 × $9,000)/3,000 = $5.25 per briefcase
  • 9. 8833 Fina: (1.75 × $3,000)/3,000 = $1.75 per briefcase Note: Overhead rate = $21,000/$12,000 = $1.75 per direct labor dollar (or 175 percent of direct labor cost). There are more machine and setup costs assigned to Elegant than Fina. This is clearly a distortion because the production of Fina is automated and uses the machine resources much more than the handcrafted Ele- gant. In fact, the consumption ratio for machining is 0.10 and 0.90 (us- ing machine hours as the measure of usage). Thus, Fina uses 9 times the machining resources as Elegant. Setup costs are similarly dis- torted. The products use an equal number of setup hours. Yet if direct labor dollars are used, then the Elegant briefcase receives three times more machining costs than the Fina briefcase. 4. Products tend to make different demands on overhead activities and this should be reflected in overhead cost assignments. Usually this means the use of both unit and nonunit-level activity drivers. In this ex- ample, there is a unit-level activity (machining) and a nonunit-level activity (setting up equipment). Machine rate: $18,000/5,000 = $3.60 per machine hour Setup rate: $3,000/200 = $15 per setup hour Costs assigned to each product: Machining: Elegant Fina $3.60 × 500 $ 1,800 $3.60 × 4,500 $16,200 Setups: $15 × 100 1,500 1,500 Total $ 3,300 $17,700 Units ÷ 3,000 ÷ 3,000 Unit overhead cost $ 1.10 $ 5.90
  • 10. 8844 4-11 1. Resource Unloading Counting Inspecting Equipment $12,000 $ 800 Fuel 2,400 Operating 1,000 500 Labor* 48,000 30,000 42,000 Total $63,400 $30,000 $43,300 *(0.40 × $120,000; 0.25 × $120,000; 0.35 × $120,000) 2. Direct tracing and driver tracing are used. When the resource is used only by one activity, then direct tracing is possible. When the activities are shared, as in the case of labor, then resource drivers must be used. 4–12 Activity dictionary: Activity Activity Primary/ Activity Name Description Secondary Driver Providing nursing Satisfying patient Primary Nursing hours care needs Supervising Coordinating Secondary Number of nurses nurses nursing activities Feeding patients Providing meals Primary Number of meals to patients Laundering Cleaning and Primary Pounds of laundry bedding and delivering clothes clothes and bedding Providing Therapy treatments Primary Hours of therapy physical directed by therapy physician Monitoring Using equipment to Primary Monitoring hours patients monitor patient conditions
  • 11. 8855 4–13 1. Cost of labor (0.40 × $50,000) $20,000 Forklift (direct tracing) 10,000 Total cost of receiving $30,000 2. Activity rates: Receiving: $30,000/60,000 = $0.50 per part Setup: $60,000/300 = $200 per setup Grinding: $90,000/18,000 = $5 per MHr Inspecting: $20,000/2,000 = $10 per inspection Subassembly A Subassembly B Overhead: Setup: $200 × 150 $ 30,000 $200 × 150 $ 30,000 Inspecting: $10 × 1,500 15,000 $10 × 500 5,000 Grinding: $5 × 7,200 36,000 $5 × 10,800 54,000 Receiving: $0.50 × 20,000 10,000 $0.50 × 40,000 20,000 Total costs assigned $91,000 $109,000 3. Setup pool: $60,000 + [($60,000/$150,000) × $50,000] = $80,000 Grinding pool: $90,000 + [($90,000/$150,000) × $50,000] = $120,000 Pool rates: Setup = $80,000/300 = $266.67/setup Grinding = $120,000/18,000 = $6.67/ Mhr
  • 12. 8866 Approximating assignment: Subassembly A Subassembly B Setup: $266.67 × 150 $40,000 $266.67 × 150 $ 40,000 Grinding: $6.67 × 7,200 48,024 $6.67 × 10,800 72,036 Total costs assigned $88,024 $112,036 4. Error (Subassembly A) = ($91,000 - $88,024)/$91,000 = 0.033 Error (Subassembly B) = ($109,000 - $112,036)/$109,000 = - 0.028 The error is small and so the approach may be desirable as it reduces the complexity and size of the system, making it more likely to be accepted by management. 4–14 1. Unit-level activities: Machining Batch-level activities: Setups and packing Product-level activities: Receiving Facility-level activities: None 2. Activity rates: (1) Machining: $80,000/40,000 = $2 per MHr (2) Setups: $32,000/400 = $80 per setup (3) Receiving: $18,000/600 = $30 per receiving order (4) Packing: $48,000/3,200 = $15 per packing order Overhead assignment: Infantry Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $ 40,000 Activity 2: $80 × 300 = 24,000 Activity 3: $30 × 200 = 6,000 Activity 4: $15 × 2,400 = 36,000 Total $106,000
  • 13. 8877 Special forces Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $40,000 Activity 2: $80 × 100 = 8,000 Activity 3: $30 × 400 = 12,000 Activity 4: $15 × 800 = 12,000 Total $72,000 Combining Activities 2 and 4 produces a new pooled rate: ($32,000 +$48,000)/400 = $ 200 per setup Overhead assignment: Infantry Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $ 40,000 Activity 2*: $200 × 300 = 60,000 Activity 3: $30 × 200 = 6,000 Total $106,000 *Combined activities 2 and 4 Special forces Activity 1: $2 × 20,000 = $40,000 Activity 2: $200× 100 = 20,000 Activity 3: $30 × 400 = 12,000 Total $72,000 The assignments are the same and this happens because the consump- tion ratios of activities 2 and 4 are identical. Thus, rate reduction can occur by combining all activities with identical rates. 3. The two most expensive activities are the first and the combined 2 and 4 activities. Each has $80,000 of cost. Thus if the cost of activity 3 is allo- cated in proportion to the cost, each of the expensive activities would receive 50% of the $18,000 or $9,000. This yields the following pool rates: Activity (pool 1) 1: ($80,000 + $9,000)/40,000 = $2.225 per machine hour Activities 2 and 4 (pool 2): ($80,000 + $9,000)/400 = $222.50 per setup
  • 14. 8888 Overhead assignment: Infantry Pool 1: $2.225 × 20,000 = $ 44,500 Pool 2: $222.50 × 300 = 66,750 Total $111,250 Special forces Pool 1: $2.225 × 20,000 = $44,500 Pool 2: $222.5 × 100 = 22,250 Total $66,750 4. Infantry: ($111,250 - $106,000)/$106,000 = .05 (rounded) Special forces = ($66,750 - $72,000)/$72,000 = -.07 (rounded) The error is less than 10% for both products. Using machine hours would have produce a rate of $178,000/40,000 = $4.45 per Mhr and an assignment of $89,000 to each product ($4.45 × 20,000). The error for the plantwide rate would be Infantry: ($89,000 - $106,000)/106,000 = 0.16 (rounded) Special forces = ($89,000 - $72,000)/$72,000 = 0.24 (rounded) Thus, the plantwide rate produces product costing errors that are more than three times the magnitude of the approximately relevant ABC as- signments. Clearly, the approximation produces a more reasonable and useful outcome and is less complex than the full ABC system. 4–15 1. Unit-level: Testing products, inserting dies 2. Batch-level: Setting up batches, handling wafer lots, purchasing materials, receiving materials 3. Product-level: Developing test programs, making probe cards, engineering design, paying suppliers 4. Facility-level: Providing utilities, providing space
  • 15. 8899 PROBLEMS 4–16 1. Cost before addition of duffel bags: $60,000/100,000 = $0.60 per unit The assignment is accurate because all costs belong to one product. 2. Activity-based cost assignment: Stage 1: Activity rate = $120,000/80,000 = $1.50 per transaction Stage 2: Overhead applied: Backpacks: $1.50 × 40,000* = $60,000 Duffel bags: $1.50 × 40,000 = $60,000 *80,000 transactions/2 = 40,000 (number of transactions had doubled) Unit cost: Backpacks: $60,000/100,000 = $0.60 per unit Duffel bags: $60,000/25,000 = $2.40 per unit 3. Product cost assignment: Overhead rates: Patterns: $48,000/10,000 = $4.80 per direct labor hour Finishing: $72,000/20,000 = $3.60 per direct labor hour
  • 16. 9900 Unit cost computation: Backpacks Duffel Bags Patterns: $4.80 × 0.1 $0.48 $4.80 × 0.4 $1.92 Finishing: $3.60 × 0.2 0.72 $3.60 × 0.8 2.88 Total per unit $1.20 $4.80 4. This problem allows us to see what the accounting cost per unit should be by providing the ability to calculate the cost with and without the duffel bags. With this perspective, it becomes easy to see the benefits of the activity-based approach over those of the functional-based ap- proach. The activity-based approach provides the same cost per unit as the single-product setting. The functional-based approach used trans- actions to allocate accounting costs to each producing department, and this allocation probably reflects quite well the consumption of ac- counting costs by each producing department. The problem is the second-stage allocation. Direct labor hours do not capture the con- sumption pattern of the individual products as they pass through the departments. The distortion occurs, not in using transactions to assign accounting costs to departments, but in using direct labor hours to as- sign these costs to the two products. In a single-product environment, ABC offers no improvement in prod- uct-costing accuracy. However, even in a single-product environment, it may be possible to increase the accuracy of cost assignments to oth- er cost objects such as customers. 4–17 1. Plantwide rate = $1,320,000/440,000 = $3.00 per DLH Overhead cost per unit: Model A: $3.00 × 140,000/30,000 = $14.00 Model B: $3.00 × 300,000/300,000 = $3.00
  • 17. 9911 2. Calculation of activity rates: Activity Driver Activity Rate Setup Prod. runs $360,000/100 = $3,600 per run Inspection Insp. hours $280,000/2,000 = $140 per hour Machining Mach. Hours $320,000/220,000 = $1.454 per hr Maintenance Maint. hours $360,000/100,000 =$3.60 per hr Overhead assignment: Model A Model B Setups $3,600 × 40 $ 144,000 $3,600 × 60 $216,000 Inspections $140 × 800 112,000 $140 × 1,200 168,000 Machining $1.454 × 20,000 29,080 $1.454 × 200,000 290,800 Maintenance $3.60 × 10,000 36,000 $3.60 × 90,000 ----- 324,000 Total overhead $321,080 $998,800 Units produced ÷ 30,000 ÷300,000 Overhead per unit $ 10.70 $ 3.33 3. Departmental rates: Overhead cost per unit: Model A: [($4.66 × 10,000) + ($1.20 × 130,000)]/30,000 = $6.76 Model B: [($4.66 × 170,000) + ($1.20 × 270,000)]/300,000 = $3.72 4. A common justification is that of using machine hours for machine- intensive departments and labor hours for labor-intensive departments. Using activity-based costs as the standard, we can say that departmen- tal rates decreased the accuracy of the overhead cost assignment (over
  • 18. 9922 the plantwide rate) for both products. Looking at Department 1, this de- partment’s costs are assigned at a 17:1 ratio which overcosts B and undercosts A in a big way. This raises some doubt about the conven- tional wisdom regarding departmental rates. 4–18 1. Labor and gasoline are driver tracing. Labor (0.75 × $180,000) $ 135,000 Time = Resource driver Gasoline ($4.50 × 6,000 moves) 27,000 Moves = Resource driver Depreciation 18,000 Direct tracing Total cost $180,000 2. Plantwide rate = $660,000/20,000 = $33 per DLH Unit cost: Basic Deluxe Prime costs $160.00 $320.00 Overhead: $33 × 10,000/40,000 8.25 $33 × 10,000/20,000 16.50 $168.25 $336.50 3. Activity rates: Maintenance $114,000/4,000 = $28.50 per maint. hour Engineering $120,000/6,000 = $20 per eng. hour Material handling $180,000/6,000 = $30 per move Setting up $ 96,000/80 = $1,200 per move Purchasing $ 60,000/300 = $200 per requisition Receiving $ 40,000/750 = $53.33 per order Paying suppliers $ 30,000/750 = $40 per invoice Providing space $ 20,000/10,000 = $2.00 per machine hour
  • 19. 9933 4-18 (continued) Unit cost: Basic Deluxe Prime costs $6,400,000 $6,400,000 Overhead: Maintenance $28.50 × 1,000 28,500 $28.50 × 3,000 85,500 Engineering $20 × 1,500 30,000 $20 × 4,500 90,000 Material Handling $30 × 1,200 36,000 $30 × 4,800 144,000 Setting up $1,200 × 16 19,200 $1,200 × 64 76,800 Purchasing $200 × 100 20,000 $200 × 200 40,000 Receiving $53.33 × 250 13,333 $53.33 × 500 26,665 Paying Suppliers $40 × 250 10,000 $40 × 500 20,000 Providing space $2 × 5,000 10,000 $2 × 5,000 10,000 Total $6,567,033 $6,892,965 Units produced ÷ 40,000 ÷ 20,000 Unit cost (ABC) $ 164.18 $ 344.65 Unit cost (traditional) $ 168.25 $ 336.50 The ABC costs are more accurate (better tracing—closer representa- tion of actual resource consumption). This shows that the basic model was overcosted and the deluxe model undercosted when the plantwide overhead rate was used.
  • 20. 9944 4-18 (continued) 4. Consumption ratios: Maint. Eng. Mat. H. Setups Purch. Receiving Pay. Sup Space Basic 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50 Delux 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.50 5. When products consume activities in the same proportion, the activi- ties with the same proportions can be combined into one pool. This is so because the pooled costs will be assigned in the same proportion as the individual activity costs. Using these consumption ratios as a guide, we create four pools, reducing the number of rates from 8 to 4. Pool 1: Maintenance $114,000 Engineering 120,000 Total $234,000 Maintenance hours ÷ 4,000 Pool rate $ 58.50 Note: Engineering hours could also be used as a driver. The activities are grouped together because they have the same consumption ratios: (0.25, 0.75). Pool 2: Material handling $180,000 Setting up 96,000 Total $276,000 Number of moves ÷ 6,000 Pool rate $ 46 Note: Material handling and setups have the same consumption ratios: (0.20, 0.80). The number of setups could also be used as the pool driv- er.
  • 21. 9955 4-18 (concluded) Pool 4: Purchasing $ 60,000 Receiving 40,000 Paying suppliers 30,000 Total $130,000 Orders processed ÷ 750 Pool rate $ 173.33 Note: The three activities are all product-level activities and have the same consumption ratios: (0.33, 0.67) Pool 5: Providing space $ 20,000 Machine hours ÷ 10,000 Pool rate $ 2 Note: This is the only facility-level activity. 4–19 1. Unit-level costs ($120 × 20,000) $ 2,400,000 Batch-level costs ($80,000 × 20) 1,600,000 Product-level costs ($80,000 × 10) 800,000 Facility-level ($20 × 20,000) 400,000 Total cost $ 5,200,000 2. Unit-level costs ($120 × 30,000) $ 3,600,000 Batch-level costs ($80,000 × 20) 1,600,000 Product-level costs ($80,000 × 10) 800,000 Facility-level costs 400,000 Total cost $ 6,400,000 The unit-based costs increase because these costs vary with the number of units produced. Because the batches and engineering orders did not change, the batch-level costs and product-level costs remain the same, behaving as fixed costs with respect to the unit-based driver. The facility-level costs are fixed costs and do not vary with any driver. 3. Unit-level costs ($120 × 30,000) $ 3,600,000 Batch-level costs ($80,000 × 30) 2,400,000 Product-level costs ($80,000 × 12) 960,000 Facility-level costs 400,000 Total cost $ 7,360,000
  • 22. 9966 Batch-level costs increase as the number of batches changes, and the costs of engineering support change as the number of orders change. Thus, batches and orders increased, increasing the total cost of the model. 4. Classifying costs by category allows their behavior to be better understood. This, in turn, creates the ability to better manage costs and make decisions. 4–20 1. The total cost of care is $1,950,000 plus a $50,000 share of the cost of super- vision [(25/150) × $300,000]. The cost of supervision is computed as follows: Salary of supervisor (direct) $ 70,000 Salary of secretary (direct) 22,000 Capital costs (direct) 100,000 Assistants (3 × 0.75 × $48,000) 108,000 Total $ 300,000 Thus, the cost per patient day is computed as follows: $2,000,000/10,000 = $200 per patient day (The total cost of care divided by patient days.) Notice that every maternity patient—regardless of type—would pay the daily rate of $200. 2. First, the cost of the secondary activity (supervision) must be assigned to the primary activities (various nursing care activities) that consume it (the driver is the number of nurses): Maternity nursing care assignment: (25/150) × $300,000 = $50,000 Thus, the total cost of nursing care is $950,000 + $50,000 = $1,000,000. Next, calculate the activity rates for the two primary activities: Occupancy and feeding: $1,000,000/10,000 = $100 per patient day Nursing care: $1,000,000/50,000 = $20 per nursing hour
  • 23. 9977 4–20 Concluded Finally, the cost per patient day type can be computed: Patient Daily Rate* Normal $150 Cesarean 225 Complications 500 *($100 × 7,000) + ($20 × 17,500)/7,000 ($100 × 2,000) + ($20 × 12,500)/2,000 ($100 × 1,000) + ($20 × 20,000)/1,000 This example illustrates that activity-based costing can produce significant product costing improvements in service organizations that experience prod- uct diversity. 3. The Laundry Department cost would increase the total cost of the Maternity Department by $100,000 [(200,000/1,000,000) × $500,000]. This would increase the cost per patient day by $10 ($100,000/10,000). The activity approach would need more detailed information—specifically, the amount of pounds of laun- dry caused by each patient type. The activity approach will increase the accu- racy of the cost assignment if patient types produce a disproportionate share of laundry. For example, if patients with complications produce 40 percent of the pounds with only 10 percent of the patient days, then the $10 charge per day is not a fair assignment.
  • 24. 9988 4–21 1. Activity classification: Unit-level: Machining Batch-level: Material handling, setups, inspection, and receiving Product-level: Maintenance and engineering Facility-level: None 2. Pool 1, consumption ratios: (0.5, 0.5): Machining $ 90,000 Activity driver ÷ 100,000 MHr Pool rate $ 0.90 per MHr Pool 2, consumption ratios: (0.75, 0.25): Setups $ 96,000 Inspection 60,000 Total $ 156,000 Activity driver ÷ 80 setups* Pool rate $ 1,950 per setup *Inspection hours could also be used. Pool 3, consumption ratios: (0.33, 0.67): Material handling $ 120,000 Receiving 30,000 Total $ 150,000 Activity driver ÷ 6,000 material moves Pool rate $ 25 per move Pool 4, consumption ratios: (0.67, 0.33): Engineering $ 100,000 Maintenance 80,000 Total $ 180,000 Activity driver ÷ 6,000 maintenance hours* Pool rate $ 30 per maintenance hour *Number of engineering hours could also be used.
  • 25. 9999 4–21 Concluded 3. Computation of unit overhead costs: Small Clock Large Clock Unit-level activities: Pool 1: $0.90 × 50,000 $ 45,000 $0.90 × 50,000 $ 45,000 Batch-level activities: Pool 2: $1,950 × 60 117,000 $1,950 × 20 39,000 Pool 3: $25 × 2,000 50,000 $25 × 4,000 100,000 Product-level activities: Pool 4: $30 × 4,000 120,000 $30 × 2,000 60,000 Total overhead costs $ 332,000 $ 244,000 Units produced ÷ 100,000 ÷ 200,000 Overhead cost per unit $ 3.32 $ 1.22
  • 26. 110000 4–22 1. Overhead rate = $6,990,000/272,500 = $25.65 per DLH* Overhead assignment: X-12: $25.65 × 250,000/1,000,000 = $6.41* S-15: $25.65 × 22,500/200,000 = $2.89* *Rounded numbers used throughout Unit gross margin: X-12 S-15 Price $ 15.93 $ 12.00 Cost 10.68* 6.02** Gross margin $ 5.25 $ 5.98 *Prime costs + Overhead = ($4.27 + $6.41) **Prime costs + Overhead = ($3.13 + $2.89) 2. Pools Driver Pool Rate Setup Runs $240,000/300 = $800 per run Machine Machine hrs. $1,750,000/185,000 = $9.46/per MHr Receiving Orders $2,100,000/1,400 = $1,500/per order Engineering Engineering hrs. $2,000,000/10,000 = $200/per eng. hour Material handling Moves $900,000/900 = $1,000/per move
  • 27. 110011 4–22 Continued Overhead assignment: X-12 S-15 Setup costs: $800 × 100 $ 80,000 $800 × 200 $ 160,000 Machine costs: $9.46 × 125,000 1,182,500 $9.46 × 60,000 567,600 Receiving costs: $1,500 × 400 600,000 $1,500 × 1,000 1,500,000 Engineering costs: $200 × 5,000 1,000,000 $200 × 5,000 1,000,000 Material-handling costs: $1,000 × 500 500,000 $1,000 × 400 400,000 Total overhead costs $ 3,362,500 $ 3,627,600 Units produced ÷ 1,000,000 ÷ 200,000 Overhead cost per kg $ 3.36 $ 18.14 Prime cost per kg 4.27 3.13 Unit cost $ 7.63 $ 21.27 Selling price $ 15.93 $ 12.00 Less unit cost 7.63 21.27 Unit gross margin $ 8.30 $ (9.27)
  • 28. 110022 4–22 Concluded 3. No. The cost of making X-12 is $7.63, much less than the amount indicated by functional-based costing. The company can compete by lowering its price on the high-volume product. The $10 price offered by competitors is not out of line. The concern about selling below cost is unfounded. 4. The $12 price of compound S-15 is well below its cost of production. This ex- plains why Pearson has no competition and why customers are willing to pay $15, a price that is probably still way below competitors’ quotes. 5. The price of X-12 should be lowered to a competitive level and the price of S-15 increased so that a reasonable return is being earned. 4–23 1. Activity rates: Testing products = $252,000/300 = $840 per setup Purchasing materials = $36,000/1,800 = $20 per order Machining = $252,000/21,000 = $12 per machine hour Receiving = $60,000/2,500 = $24 per receiving hour Overhead cost assignment: Model A Model B Testing products: $840 × 200 $168,000 $840 × 100 $ 84,000 Purchasing materials: $20 × 600 12,000 $20 × 1,200 24,000 Machining: $12 × 12,000 144,000 $12 × 9,000 108,000 Receiving: $24 × 750 18,000 $24 × 1,750 42,000 Total OH assigned $342,000 $258,000
  • 29. 110033 2. New cost pools: Testing products: $252,000 + [($252,000/$504,000) × $96,000] = $300,000 Machining: $252,000 + [($252,000/$504,000) × $96,000] = $300,000 New activity rates: Testing products: $300,000/300 = $1,000 per setup Machining: $300,000/21,000 = $14.29 per hour Model A Model B Testing products: $1,000 × 200 $200,000 $1,000 × 100 $100,000 Machining: $14.29 × 12,000 171,480 $14.29 × 9,000 128,610 Total OH assigned $371,480 $228,610 3. Percentage error: Model A: ($371,480 – $342,000)/$342,000 = 0.086 (8.6%) Model B: ($228,610 – $258,000)/$258,000 = –0.114 (11.4%) The error is not bad and is certainly not in the range that is often seen when comparing a plantwide rate assignment with the ABC costs. For example, if Model A is expected to use 30% of the direct labor hours, then it would receive a plant- wide assignment of $180,000, producing an error of more than 47%—an error al- most six times greater than the approximately relevant assignment. In this type of situation, it may be better to go with two drivers to gain acceptance and get rea- sonably close to the more accurate ABC cost. It also avoids the data collection costs of the bigger system.
  • 30. 110044 4–24 1. Welding $2,000,000 Machining 1,000,000 Setups 400,000 Total $3,400,000 Percentage of total activity costs = $3,400,000/$4,000,000= 85%. 2. Allocation: ($2,000,000/$3,400,000) × $600,000 = $352,941 ($1,000,000/$3,400,000) × $600,000 = $176,471 ($400,000/$3,400,000) × $600,000 = $70,588 Cost pools: Welding = $2,000,000 + $352,941 = $2,352,941 Machining = $1,000,000 + $176,471 = $1,176,471 Setups = $400,000 + $70,588 = $470,588 Activity rates: Rate 1: Welding = $2,352,941/4,000 = $588 per welding hour Rate 2: Machining = $1,176,471/10,000 = $118 per machine hour Rate 3: Setups = $470,588/100 = $4,706 per batch Overhead assignment: Subassembly A Subassembly B Rate 1: $588 × 1,600 welding hours $ 940,800 $588 × 2,400 welding hours $1,411,200 Rate 2: $118 × 3,000 machine hours 354,000 $118 × 7,000 machine hours 826,000 Rate 3:
  • 31. 110055 $4,706 × 45 batches 211,770 $4,706 × 55 batches 258,830 Total overhead costs $1,506,570 $2,496,030 Units produced ÷ 1,500 ÷ 3,000 Overhead per unit $ 1,004 $ 832 3. Percentage error: Error (Subassembly A) = ($1,004 – $1,108)/$1,108 = –0.094 (–9.4%) Error (Subassembly B) = ($832 – $779)/$779 = 0.068 (6.8%) The error is at most 10%. The simplification is simple and easy to implement. Most of the costs (85%) are assigned accurately. Only three rates are used to as- sign the costs, representing a significant reduction in complexity.
  • 32. 110066 MANAGERIAL DECISION CASES 4–25 1. Shipping and warehousing costs are currently assigned using tons of paper produced, a unit-based measure. Many of these costs, however, are not dri- ven by quantity produced. Many products have special handling and shipping requirements involving extra costs. These costs should not be assigned to those products that are shipped directly to customers. 2. The new method proposes assigning the costs of shipping and warehousing separately for the low-volume products. To do so requires three cost assign- ments: receiving, shipping, and carrying. The cost drivers for each cost are tons processed, items shipped, and tons sold. Pool rate, receiving costs: Receiving cost/Tons processed = $1,100,000/56,000 tons = $19.64 per ton processed* Pool rate, shipping costs: Shipping cost per shipping item = $2,300,000/190,000 = $12.11 per shipping item* Pool rate, carrying cost (an opportunity cost): Carrying cost per year (LLHC) = 25 × $1,665 × 0.16 = $6,660 Carrying cost per ton sold = $6,660/10 = $666 Shipping and warehousing cost per ton sold: Receiving $ 19.64 Shipping ($12.11 × 7) 84.77 Carrying 666.00 Total $770.41 *Rounded
  • 33. 110077 4–25 Continued 3. Profit analysis: Revised profit per ton (LLHC): Selling price $2,400.00 Less manufacturing cost 1,665.00 Gross profit $ 735.00 Less shipping and warehousing 770.41 Loss $ (35.41) Original profit per ton: Selling price $2,400.00 Less manufacturing costs 1,665.00 Gross profit $ 735.00 Less shipping and warehousing 30.00 Profit $ 705.00 The revised profit, reflecting a more accurate assignment of shipping and wa- rehousing costs, presents a much different picture of LLHC. The product is, in reality, losing money for the company. Its earlier apparent profitability was attributable to a subsidy being received from the high-volume products (by spreading the special shipping and handling costs over all products, using tons produced as the cost driver). The same effect is also true for the other low-volume products. Essentially, the system is understating the handling costs for low-volume products and overstating the cost for high-volume products. 4. The decision to drop some high-volume products and emphasize low-volume products could clearly be erroneous. As LLHC has demonstrated, its appar- ent profitability is attributable to distorted cost assignments. A significant change in the image of LLHC was achieved by simply improving the accuracy of shipping and handling costs. Further improvements in accuracy in the overhead assignments may cause the view of LLHC to deteriorate even more. Conversely, the profitability of high-volume products may improve signifi- cantly with increased costing accuracy. This example underscores the impor- tance of having accurate and reliable accounting information. The accounting system must bear the responsibility of providing reliable information.
  • 34. 110088 4–25 Concluded 5. Ryan’s strategy changed because his information concerning the individual products changed. Apparently, the accounting system was undercosting the low-volume products and overcosting the high-volume products. Once better information was available, Ryan was able to respond better to competitive conditions. 4–26 1. Disagree. Chuck is expressing an uninformed opinion. He has not spent the effort to find out exactly what activity-based management and costing are at- tempting to do; therefore, he has no real ability to offer any constructive criti- cism of the possible benefits of these two approaches. 2. and 3. At first glance, it may seem strange to even ask if Chuck’s behavior is unethi- cal. After all, what is unethical about expressing an opinion, albeit unin- formed? While offering uninformed opinions or recommendations may be of little consequence in many settings, a serious issue arises when a person’s expertise is relied upon by others to make decisions or take actions that could be wrong or harmful to themselves or their organizations. This very well may be the case for Chuck’s setting, and his behavior may be labeled professionally unethical. Chuck’s lack of knowledge about activity-based systems is a signal of his failure to maintain his professional competence. Standard I-1 of the IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice indicates that management ac- countants have a responsibility to continually develop their knowledge and skills. Failure to do so is unethical. RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT 4–27 Answers will vary.