Standard Costing Procedure and Cost Variance Analysis of Glaxosmithkline Bangladesh Ltd

The current cost system allocates overhead costs once a year, as a function of direct labor dollars. This allocation strategy results in:

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

3. Post the file from the same page where you accessed this Assignment, using the

- Cost Variance (CV): The Cost Variance indicates a value which is a measure of how much the project is either overspent or underspent at any given point in time. For any given point in time, once the EV and AC are known the CV can easily be calculated. The formula for CV is quite simply: CV = EV – AC. Here a positive value indicates that the project is under spent at the current point in time and a negative value would indicate the opposite that a project is over spent at the current point in time. The Cost Variance at the end of the project is calculated as follows: CV = BAC – AC. The same above rationale is applied to positive and negative numbers to indicate if the project is under spent or over spent respectively.

Under a traditional system, overhead cost is allocated to an activity based on hours or rates for direct labor or machine usage. However, this approach does not clearly indicate how much overhead cost will be needed in order to complete a job through a particular function. ABC methodology is to be used as an alternative to traditional accounting where a business 's overhead costs (indirect costs such as electrical energy consumption for heating or cooling, or indirect cost associated with marketing) are allocated as a proportion of direct costs, to an activity. This approach is unsatisfactory because there can be cases where two activities could absorb the same direct costs

The costing approach should be based on per Transaction Basis rather than on per kit or per pound basis because of the following reasons:

According to this method, every unit of the product is assigned all direct, fixed, and variable costs. This method includes the cost of direct materials and labor as well as a portion of the overhead costs associated with it in the final costing of every unit of the product.

Overhead costs include rent, office staff, depreciation, and other. Once the flexible budget was complete, variances between the actual and flexible budget could be calculated (Exhibit B). The variance for frame assembly was favorable with actual costs being $82,663 less than in the flexible budget. The variances for wheel and final assembly however were both unfavorable. Wheel assembly had an unfavorable variance of $50,650, while final assembly variance was the highest at an unfavorable variance of $231,200. Taking into account these three aspects of direct cost, direct cost has an unfavorable variance $199,187. Although most overhead costs are fixed, 2/3 of other costs are variable and increase with the increased production. As shown in Exhibit B, overhead variance is unfavorable at $60,000. The direct cost variance and overhead variable together lead to a total unfavorable variance of $259,187.

• The system also fails to compute material usage variances, which only further discredits the accuracy of the accounting cost structure. For more accurate measure of material usage, the quality assurance department must include this variance calculation in its weekly report.

We will examine the given data from the case and compare the unit costs from the company’s current costing system (traditional costing) and from activity-based costing. We will also highlight other qualitative data in consideration with the numerical factors that may result to a significant change on our recommendation.

• The system also fails to compute material usage variances, which only further discredits the accuracy of the accounting cost structure. For more accurate measure of material usage, the quality assurance department must include this variance calculation in its weekly report.

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

The current method of apportioning production overheads based on direct labour hours can be described as a traditional approach to product costing. In a manufacturing company’s financial statements, each item produced must be allocated some of the production overheads to make the statements compliant. Sometimes the individual costs of these items can be calculated incorrectly based on overall production overhead and the system of allocating in place, however the overall financial statement can still be accurate. This traditional method of allocating the production

In addition, it wrongly allocated its indirect costs at volume bases. The use of process technology mentioned in the case led to an increase in factory overheads Since direct labor hours was not a cost driver of them, allocating its large proportion of fixed factory overheads and other indirect batch-level costs on the basis of DLHs in this cost system did not accurately measure how resources were being used. As a result, these inaccurate allocations would have significant costs to Elkay. Moreover, it disregarded its cost structure in which most costs were “fixed” that would not vary in the short run and should be allocated based on its practical capacity. By using the “actual sales volume” as the allocation base for allocating its large corporate overheads, this standard costing system in fact over-pricing its products for its actual productivity was lower than the practical capacity under the intense competition. As a consequence of all problem within the standard costing system, PPD urgently needed an accurate costing system.

Process costing is consisting of three ingredients which are direct materials, direct labor and manufacturing overhead. Direct material is the raw material which needs to produce a product, for example rubber for shoes, plastics for straws and etc. direct labor is a person who work and complete the product before it is completely produce. And manufacturing over head is about the indirect materials, indirect labor, and some indirect related to the factory.