النتائج (
العربية) 1:
[نسخ]نسخ!
but for the production run of each product model.Product packaging costs: Multiple product units may be packaged in a single package; multiple packages may be filled in a single packaging run.Machine testing and calibration costs: These operations are typically performed regularly and often, but not for each individual product unit.Machine maintenance and cleaning costs: These operations, too, are performed after producing multiple product units. The example below focuses on two product models manufactured and sold by one company, Model A and Model B. Some aspects of A and B compare as shown below in Table 1:Products Compared Product A Product BSelling Price Higher price Lower priceMaterials purchased More materials purchase orders, smaller orders Fewer materials purchase orders, larger ordersProductionRuns More production runs, smaller runs Fewer production runs, larger runsMach.set ups More machine set ups Fewer machine set upsPackaging 1 Unit per package 4 Units per packageDirect labor More direct labor required Less direct labor requiredDirect materials Higher direct materials cost Lower direct materials costTable 1. Product A and Product B compared.Management must estimate the profitability of each product in order to make decisions about which products to produce and sell and how to price them. This, in turn, requires an understanding of the full cost per unit of each product. While the direct costs per unit may be determined easily, the indirect costs are less obvious and will have to be found through a costing methodology—either traditional cost allocation or activity based costing. Direct costs will be treated in the same way under both traditional costing and ABC. For direct costs, accountants measure a cost per product unit for each direct cost category. The two costing methods differ, however, in the way they assign the so-called indirect costs to products. Thus, the two costing approaches can give different pictures of the profitability of individual products. Traditional costing explained with an example In the previous accounting period, the company produced and sold 900,000 units of product A at $3.00 each, and 2,100,000 units of product B at $2.00 each. Table 2 below shows the resulting revenues and direct costs for these sales.Products Compared Product A Product B Total1. Units produced & sold 900,000 2,100,000 3,000,0002. Selling price / unit $3.00 $2.00 3. Direct labor cost / unit $0.50 $0.50 4. Direct materials cost / unit $0.75 $0.50 5. Sales revenues [ = 1 * 2 ] $2,700,000 $4,200,000 $6,900,000Direct costs 6. Direct labor costs [ = 1 * 3 ] $450,000 $1,050,000 $1,500,0007. Direct materials costs [ = 1 * 4 ] $675,000 $1,050,000 $1,725,0008. Total Direct costs [ = 6 + 7 ] $1,125,000 $2,100,000 $3,225,000Table 2. Sales revenues and direct costs for Products A and BThe company's cost accountants will also find cost totals for support activities for the entire period production of products A and B. In traditional cost accounting, these are called "overhead" or "indirect costs," which can be summarized as shown in Table 3 below: Indirect Components Prod. A & B Indirect % of Total IndirectMaterials purchasing $180,000 12.6%Machine setups $375,000 26.4%Product packaging $280,000 19.7%Machine testing & calibration $300,000 21.1%Machine maintenance & cleaning $287,000 20.2%Total Indirect $1,422,500 100.0%Table 3. Indirect cost components for Traditional costingFor the simple form of traditional cost accounting illustrated here, only the total indirect cost line from Table 3 is used. Traditionally, this cost total will be allocated to each of the products, A or B, based on proportional usage of a resource, usually one of the direct cost items. This approach is also called production volume based (PVB) cost allocation, for obvious reasons. In this approach, the total indirect cost could be allocated to Products A and B based on factors such as the proportion of total• Production machine time used by each product.• Direct labor costs used by each product.• Factory floor space used by each product.Other factors may also apply. For this example, company accountants chose to allocate indirect costs based on direct labor costs. The indirect cost total from Table 3 above is $1,422,500. The direct labor total (line 6 from Table 1) is $1,500,000. From these figures, indirect labor will be allocated to each product as a percentage of the product's own direct labor cost:Indirect labor cost / direct labor cost proportion:= $1,422,500 / $1,500,000 = 0.948 = 94.8%• For product A, Direct labor costs are $450,00 (Table 2, line 6). The indirect cost allocation for A is 94.8% of this, or $426,750.• For product B, Direct labor costs are $1,050,000 (Table 2, line 6). The indirect cost allocation for B is 94.8% of this, or $995,750.Table 4, below, shows how this allocation is used to calculate indirect costs per unit, as well as gross profit and gross margin for each product unit.Products Compared Product A Product B Total9. Units produced and sold [Table 2, line 1] 900,000 2,100,000 3,000,00010. Total direct costs[Table 2, line 8] $1,125,000 $2,100,000 $3,225,00011. Total indirect costs[allocation shown above] $426,750 $995,750 $1,422,50012. Revenues per unit[ Table 2, line 2 ] $3.00 $2.00 13. Direct costs / unit[ = 10 / 9 ] $1.25 $1.00 14. Indirect costs / unit[ = 11 / 9 ] $0.47 $0.47 15. Gross profit / unit[ = 12 − 13 − 14 ] $1.28 $0.53 16. Gross profit margin[ = 15 / 12 ] 42.5% 26.3% Table 4. Gross profit and gross margin calculation for each product, usingtraditional cost accounting approaches for indirect costs.Conclusions: Traditional cost allocation (or product volume based allocation) example:• Estimated Indirect cost per unit is the same for both products, $0.47 (Table 4, line 14). This must be the case, because indirect costs for both products use the same allocation rate ( 94.8%) applied to direct labor costs, based on the same direct labor rate ($0.50 / unit).• On a per unit basis, this costing approach finds Product A more profitable than product B: The gross margin rate of 42.5% for A compares with a gross margin of 26.3% for B.Activity based costing explained with an example This section presents an ABC version of the product costing situation illustrated above. The example is meant to show that this method and traditional costing can lead to different cost estimates for indirect costs and thus to different profitability estimates for the same products. The example also shows clearly that this approach requires more data and more detailed analysis than the production volume based allocation approach in the earlier example. ABC costing for the same product A and product B begins with the same summary of units produced and sold, sales revenues, and direct costs from the traditional example, as shown again in another copy of Table 2:Products Compared Product A Product B Total1. Units produced & sold 900,000 2,100,000 3,000,0002. Selling price / unit $3.00 $2.00 3. Direct labor cost / unit $0.50 $0.50 4. Direct materials cost / unit $0.75 $0.50 5. Sales revenues [ = 1 * 2 ] $2,700,000 $4,200,000 $6,900,000Direct costs 6. Direct labor costs [ = 1 * 3 ] $450,000 $1,050,000 $1,500,0007. Direct materials costs [ = 1 * 4 ] $675,000 $1,050,000 $1,725,0008. Total Direct costs [ = 6 + 7 ] $1,125,000 $2,100,000 $3,225,000Table 2. Sales revenues and direct costs for Products A and BIn ABC, the "indirect" or "overhead" cost contributors are viewed as activity pools: an activity pool is the set of all activities required to complete a task, such as (process) "purchase orders" or (perform) "machine set ups."
يجري ترجمتها، يرجى الانتظار ..
