As A Consultant For Busi 2083 LLP A Detailed Analysis

As A Consultant For Busi 2083 Llp A Detailed Analysis Has Been Made

As a consultant for BUSI 2083 LLP, a detailed analysis has been conducted regarding the costs and revenues associated with two products, R2D2 and BB8. The analysis compares traditional costing methods, which allocate manufacturing overhead based on direct labor hours, with activity-based costing (ABC), which assigns overhead more precisely based on actual activity drivers. The findings reveal significant differences in product profitability under these two systems, with implications for strategic decision-making, including whether to continue or phase out a product line.

The traditional costing analysis uses a predetermined overhead rate based on direct labor hours, with total overhead costs of $2,700,000 allocated across products. The ABC system subdivides overhead into specific activity pools, such as machine setups, quality inspections, purchase orders, soldering, and shipments, assigning costs based on activity drivers like the number of setups, inspections, and solder joints. Under this more nuanced approach, BB8 appears unprofitable, with its costs exceeding sales revenue per unit, indicating a need for managerial consideration about its future.

Paper For Above instruction

The decision-making process in manufacturing firms hinges significantly on how costs are allocated to products. Traditional costing methods, primarily based on direct labor hours, often lead to distorted product costs, especially in environments with diverse activities and overheads. Activity-Based Costing (ABC), on the other hand, offers a more accurate allocation by linking overhead costs to specific activities, providing managers with better insights into true product profitability and strategic options.

Introduction

In the contemporary manufacturing landscape, accurate product costing is crucial for strategic decisions, including pricing, product development, and discontinuation. Traditional costing systems, while simple and historically prevalent, often obscure the true costs of products by uniformly allocating overheads based on a single or limited cost driver. As companies increasingly seek precision, ABC emerges as a vital tool, enabling more informed decisions by reflecting the actual resource consumption of products.

Traditional Costing System Analysis

The traditional costing system examined in this case uses direct labor hours as the basis for overhead absorption. Based on production data, the predetermined overhead rate is computed, and costs are allocated to the R2D2 and BB8 products accordingly. This approach suggests that both products are profitable since their selling prices exceed the per-unit costs, which are computed by summing direct materials, direct labor, and allocated overheads.

Specifically, the company’s total manufacturing overhead is $2,700,000, spread over 30,000 units, with a direct labor hours base of 36 hours per unit. The overhead rate thus indicates the cost assigned per labor hour, which apportions overheads to each product relative to their labor hour consumption. Under this system, the unit costs for R2D2 and BB8 suggest profitability, thereby justifying ongoing production and sales strategies based on this data.

Activity-Based Costing (ABC) Analysis

Transitioning to ABC, overhead costs are assigned more precisely using multiple activity cost pools. For R2D2 and BB8, activities such as machine setups, inspections, purchase orders, soldering, and shipments are identified as significant cost drivers. The estimated overhead costs are allocated based on the actual activity levels driven by the volume and complexity of each product.

The ABC analysis uncovers that BB8 incurs significantly higher costs in activities like soldering and inspections, reflecting its complex production processes. The per-unit product cost under ABC increases for BB8, revealing that it is actually a loss-making product—its selling price is below the true cost when activity-based allocations are considered. This contrasts sharply with the traditional costing outcomes, which indicated profitability.

Strategic Implications and Recommendations

The insights derived from ABC suggest that continuing to produce and sell BB8 may be financially detrimental, as each additional unit sold adds to the company’s losses. The traditional costing system’s inflation of profitability can mislead management into making suboptimal decisions. Therefore, strategic actions should include discontinuing or re-pricing BB8, or perhaps redesigning it to reduce activity complexities and overhead consumption.

Simultaneously, the data suggest that resources could be better allocated toward more profitable products or new product development. Increasing the selling price of BB8, optimizing its production process, or eliminating it altogether would align with maximizing overall profitability.

From a managerial perspective, the ABC system empowers leadership to distinguish between truly profitable products and those that are marginal or loss-making. Managers can use this detailed, activity-based data to streamline operations, focus on high-margin products, and implement targeted process improvements.

Why BB8 'Just Sells Itself' and Strategic Directions

The perception that BB8 'just sells itself' stems from its rapid sales growth, low production costs due to automation, and minimal promotional efforts. While high sales volume and low price points can create an illusion of market dominance, without considering the underlying costs, this picture can be misleading. The ABC analysis reveals that BB8’s costs are underestimated, and it is less profitable than it appears—highlighting the dangers of relying solely on traditional cost data.

For the company's future strategy, the focus should shift to maximizing product profitability through precise cost management and targeted marketing. If BB8 is loss-making when true costs are considered, management should look into options like improving process efficiencies, re-pricing, or discontinuing the product to prevent additional losses.

Additionally, leveraging ABC insights can facilitate better resource allocation, such as investing in more profitable products or exploring new markets and product lines with higher margins. Forward-looking strategies should aim at optimizing operational efficiencies, reducing activities that contribute disproportionately to overheads, and aligning product offerings with profitability data.

Conclusion

The comparison between traditional costing and ABC underscores the importance of accurate cost attribution in strategic decision-making. While traditional costing may suggest profitability, ABC reveals a more nuanced and often less favorable picture for some products like BB8. For Galaxy Incorporated, applying ABC insights ensures more prudent decisions—either improving profitability through product redesigns, better cost control, or strategic discontinuation. Ultimately, adopting ABC can drive smarter resource allocation, enhance competitive positioning, and improve long-term financial performance.

References

• Drury, C. (2018). Management and Cost Accounting (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. (2015). Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis (15th ed.). Pearson.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Anderson, S. R. (2004). Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 131-138.
• Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jordan, B. D. (2019). Fundamentals of Corporate Finance (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (1988). Measure Costs Right: Make the Right Decisions. Harvard Business Review, 66(5), 96-103.
• Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK’s largest manufacturing companies. Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 93-111.
• Blocker, C. P., & White, G. M. (2013). Activity-Based Costing and Managerial Decision-Making. Journal of Business Strategy, 34(4), 45-53.
• Garrison, R. H., Noreen, E. W., & Brewer, P. C. (2020). Managerial Accounting (16th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management Control Systems Design within its Organizational Context: Findings from Contingency-Based Research and Implications for Practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 127-168.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Anderson, S. R. (2007). Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business School Publishing.