Managers Need to Understand Cost Allocation

It is a remarkable reality that the traditional costing systems use a solitary, volume-based cost driver. This is the motivation behind why the traditional product costing system misshapes the expense of items or products. By and large, this kind of costing system appoints the overhead expenses to items on the premise of their relative use of direct work. Thus, traditional cost systems frequently report incorrect product costs. The issue is in the basic technique of the traditional costing systems. They stick to the supposition that items reason cost. Every time a unit of product is produced, it is expected that cost be brought about.

Overhead costs are not in proportion to the production output because of the method they are using. This leads to inaccurate pricing and costing decisions. An Activity Based Costing System would help find the real relationship between the products produced and overhead.

Activity-based costing can be defined as the managers allocate costs depending on the quantity of resources a product or service consumed in the manufacture of goods and services. The activity based

Glaser Health Products manufactures medical items for the health care industry. Production involves machining, assembly and painting. Finished units are then packed and shipped. The financial controller is interested to introduce an activity-based costing (ABC) system to allocate (or distribute) indirect costs to products. Indirect costs, as distinct from direct costs, cannot be unambiguously linked to specific products. The controller would like to calculate product costs based on ABC for planning and control, not inventory valuation.

This paper provides a brief presentation of Activity-Based Costing methodology, how is used as well as its short comings.

Number of skus was considered driver for Technical Support. The product weight was considered driver of resource consumption only for General & Administrative costs. Moreover, materials and direct labor were allocated based on the bill of materials and routings (exactly the way they were allocated in Standard Costing system). Finally, Material Handling & Setup, Order Processing and Production Planning were driven to products using number of orders. Consequently, ABC solves the major issue regarding the Standard Costing system: the assumption that all overhead costs can be included into one cost pool. All the drivers are summarized in exhibit 3. Exhibits 4 and 5 present respectively the ABC drivers and allocation rates.

User friendly- Process costing is relatively easier to use compared to job costing or activity based costing. It collects the overall costs from each department and ignores costs related to specific jobs within a department. This can therefore reduce the volume of data, and makes data collection easy and quick for Nestle. The analysis of data is straightforward, does not requires basic accounting skills and does not waste Nestle’s time and resources. Nestle can allocate business costs according to the number of processes each

A common misconception made by management of a company is that a single definition of cost is ideally suited to all types of manufacturing decision. What a manager’s plan to produce must be well known to him and always taken into account where he fails to realize this, difficulty arises in determining the cost of production. This gives rise to two reasons for the difficulty in determining the cost of products produced. First, the relationship between the cost incurred and output produced is often difficult establish. Secondly, cost may be assembled, combined and reported in different ways.

Process costing is an easier system to use when costing homogenous products compared to other cost allocation methods. Each process applies direct materials, labor and manufacturing overhead to the production cost total. Management accountants take the total number of goods leaving the process and divide the total process cost by this number. This creates a simple average cost for each item produced. Another advantage is that business owners use process costing because it creates a flexible production process. Companies needing to refine their process can simply add or remove a process as necessary. This also allows companies to lower their production cost for each good. Adding a process allows companies to produce slightly different goods or improve product quality. This flexibility ensures companies can produce at the most competitive cost in the economic marketplace. Also process costing provides an approach to allocate costs to

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

Nowadays, we know that activity based costing system assigns overhead costs to products or services products that using a two-stage process, which focuses on activities. ABC is a relatively new and very important topic in managerial accounting. ABC allows us to find a way that we could determine the profitability of every product, profitability of every customer we serve, and the profitability of our process. Contents in brief, first that comparing potential advantages of ABC versus traditional costing methods. The

Activity-Based Costing system will be looked at first. This system, “Refines a costing system by identifying individual activities as the fundamental cost objects” (Horngren., Datar, & Rajan, 2015, pp. 158). Where an activity can be described as, “An event, task, or unit of work with a specific purpose” (pp. 158). In MDE’s case, the different materials being used all serve a specific purpose when it comes to the final product. Whereas process costing is when, “The unit cost of a production or service is obtained by assigning total costs to many identical or similar units of output” (Horngren., Datar, & Rajan, 2015, pp. 665). To better illustrate what process costing is, “Unit costs are calculated by dividing total costs incurred by the number of units of output from the production process” (Horngren., Datar, & Rajan, 2015, pp. 665).

Activity-based management, activity-based costing and continuous improvement, all these help in the improvement of the efficiency in manufacturing, better control of overhead costs and the accurate costing of products. With this in mind, We disagree with the advice that Chuck Davis, the firm’s controller, gave Leonard Bryner. The traditional way of costing produce average costs that severely overstated or understated. Without the accurate costs, the firm would not be able to price properly their products and that would be damaging to the firm. With activity-based costing and management, all costs are accounted for with the help activity-drivers and overhead costs are decreased. In turn, the costs that the firm has for their products are more accurate and pricing is much easier.

At present PC4U apportions its production overheads based on direct labour hours. With a range of products available and opportunity for customising these products individually to meet the retailer’s needs, this report aims to assess the effectiveness of this traditional method of allocating production overheads. It will discuss the drawbacks of the current approach used by PC4U, as well as an alternative approach in the Activity-Based Costing system, which “is intended to overcome the weakness of the traditional method by having various pools of costs and then allocating each pool’s costs on the basis of its root cause.”(Averkamp 2007) As well as comparing the benefits and drawbacks of these costing systems to determine what recommendations should be given regarding the approach PC4U should adopt, the report shall also discuss the impact an activity based management system may have on the company.

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.