Kanthal Case

Assuming that the company’s goal is to maximize profits, the current cost system is not an appropriate tool for strategic planning. The ambiguity of the overhead costs per product makes it difficult to accurately analyze the cause and effect relationships of changes and/or improvements to specific product line.

While we are performing our analysis on different aspects of the company, we look at the three main types of cost. When we remain devoted to improving our costs, and the faults related, we show our same devotion to our consumers. This is portrayed by the quality of products we put on the shelves. Prevention costs, appraisal costs and Failure costs are areas

Wilkerson employs a Normal Cost System, which means that they use predetermined overhead rates along with actual costs for direct material and direct labor. Normal costing systems are appropriate when overhead costs are a relatively small percentage of total manufacturing costs and product diversity is limited. For Wilkerson, normal costing does not make sense. Overhead costs make up over 50 percent of total manufacturing costs and their product offering is relatively more diverse. This indicates that the current accounting system in place may be distorting costs significantly. Supporting data:

Under an ABC system, the allocation of costs to products is achieved through at least four analytical steps. Firstly, costs are grouped into activity levels. Secondly, cost drivers are

Almost every single company that is in business faces a serious problem called cost allocation. Every company no matter what they sell or what service they provide faces the problem of allocating costs to defined cost objects. The cost allocation process is a very hard process for most. Cost allocation is a very complex and difficult procedure that requires the application of appropriate accounting procedures. These accounting methods sometimes will not provide objective and fair cost allocation because they have irrational bases that are not always reliable or appropriate. This is why accounting theory and practice steadily try to advance upon methods that are already in place and help develop new ones that could provide objective and fair cost allocation (Perčević & Dražić, 2008).

1. What is the competitive situation faced by Wilkerson? The critical product in term of market competition is the pumps of Wilkerson Company. The pumps are Wilkersons major product line with a production of about 12,500 units per month. Pumps currently have the lowest gross margin among all products, because competitors had been reducing prices on pumps and Wilkerson adopted its prices in order to remain competitive and to maintain the volume. 2. Given some apparent problems with Wilkersons cost system, should executives abandon overhead assignment to products entirely by adopting a contribution margin approach in which manufacturing overhead is treated as a period expense? Our conclusion is, that they should not adopt

To address this imprecision, we offer a refined costing system which reduces the use of generalized averages in the allocation of costs. In general, this is accomplished by first dividing the indirect costs into homogeneous pools so that we can more appropriately distribute them. Second, these cost pools are allocated on the basis of the driver of that cost segment which ensures that costs are more accurately tied to their source. Thus, a refined costing system is preferable as it ultimately delivers a more correct cause-and-effect relationship between costs and their sources.

However, this system was found to be “ineffective for costing and bidding individual parts.” Id. While some machines produced low cost parts at high volume, other machines were producing high cost parts at low volume, which created cost discrepancies between various machines and thus misallocation of

Essentially, with the current cost system, the managerial analysis is highly flawed due to a lack of crucial in-depth cost information, as indicated by:

with a number of strategic issues facing a capital-intensive, mature industry. Their product costing system was

INTRODUCTION Businesses – from manufacturing, merchandising and service industries alike – take careful consideration in the analysis of their costing systems in order to be able to set up competitive prices in the market. Misallocation of costs may lead to incorrect price estimates, continuous production of unprofitable products, and ineffective processing schedules. In this case study, we will discuss the costing methods which Zauner Ornaments have used or is currently using and, in conclusion, be able to distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of each costing method. CASE CONTEXT The case seeks to assist Zauner’s comptroller, Yu Chia-yi, in determining the best costing method for their overhead costs. In addition we also aim to

In 1985 Carl- Erik Ridderstrale became president he developed the Kanthal 90 needed a strategy for the profitable and very high volume customers. Under the current cost system it was assumed that all customers placed the same demand on the resources of Kanthal, when in fact customers differed by service and demand. This lead to orders representing hidden profits. An order that placed fewer demands on the company’s resources would be overcastted and appear to be profitable or less profitable than it was. Or an order would appear to be more profitable than it was; this was considered to be a

Under the original costing system used by Dakota Office Products, Customer A is shown to be slightly less profitable than Customer B. From the calculations above, we see that Customer A is slightly profitable at 0.3% profit as a percent of sales, and Customer B is not profitable, at a loss of (7.1%). We observe that Customer A is a consumer of low-cost services and generally pay their bills within 30 days unlike customer B who took 90 days or more. Timely servicing of debt led to profitability of Customer A.

As corporate cost is the cost associate with Treasury cost, Human resource management cost. Acitivity based costing seeks to identify cost drivers that are directly link all the activities e.g. support activities and production activities to the product manufactured or service provided. The cost of all those activities are assigned to products or services via the activity cost driver, according to the each product relative consumption of these activities. Allocating corporate overheads based on the use of volume related cost driver alone can produce the misleading cost information such as inappropriate allocation can lead to faulty conclusions about the relative product profitability.

During the 1980s the limitations of traditional product costing systems began to be widely publicised. These systems were designed decades ago when most companies manufactured a narrow range of products, and direct labour and materials were the dominant factory costs. Overhead costs were relatively small, and the distortions arising from inappropriate overhead allocations were not significant. Information processing costs were high, and it was therefore difficult to justify more sophisticated overhead allocation methods.