Assignment 2: Discussion—ABC Analysis Review The Decision Ca

Assignment 2: Discussion—ABC Analysis Review the Decision Case 1 (Harris

Review the Decision Case 1 (Harris Systems) located on page in your textbook. Answer the four case questions in the Requirements section of the case. In addition, address the following in one to two paragraphs: Compare and contrast ABC costing and traditional costing methods, giving examples. In the assigned case, which system provides a more accurate picture of the cost incurred to produce the jobs? Provide examples of manufacturers in your geographic area and explain which system would be best for them.

Respond to each directive or question in 1–2 paragraphs. Apply current APA standards for writing style. By Saturday, June 17, 2017 respond to the discussion questions. Submit your response to the appropriate Discussion Area. Use the same Discussion Area to comment on your classmates' submissions and continue the discussion until Wednesday, June 21, 2017. Comment on how your classmates would address differing views.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of managerial accounting, understanding the nuances between different costing methods is essential for accurate financial analysis and decision-making. Activity-Based Costing (ABC) and traditional costing are two prominent methods used by organizations to allocate costs to products or services, yet they differ significantly in approach, accuracy, and applicability.

Traditional costing methods primarily allocate overhead costs based on a single volume-based measure such as direct labor hours, machine hours, or material costs. This approach assumes a direct correlation between the allocation base and the incurrence of overhead costs. For example, a manufacturing company might allocate factory overhead based solely on direct labor hours, which can be sufficient for companies with uniform overheads and production processes. However, this method often leads to inaccurate cost attribution in complex environments where overheads are driven by multiple factors. For instance, a company producing both high-volume and low-volume products could misallocate overhead costs—assigning too little to high- complexity products and too much to simple ones, thus distorting profitability analysis.

In contrast, ABC costing assigns overhead costs more precisely by identifying multiple cost drivers that cause overhead costs within different activities. This method traces expenses to specific activities such as machine setups, quality inspections, or order processing, and then allocates costs based on the actual consumption of these activities by products or services. For example, in a regional electronics manufacturing firm, ABC can distinguish the costs associated with pre-assembly testing versus final assembly, providing a more accurate picture of profitability for each product line. Consequently, ABC often reveals hidden costs and margins that traditional costing might obscure, enabling more informed strategic decisions.

In the case of Harris Systems, as reviewed in the assigned decision case, the ABC system generally provides a more detailed and accurate representation of costs incurred for specific jobs. The traditional costing method may oversimplify overhead allocation, leading to mispricing or misinterpretation of data. The ABC approach, by considering multiple activity-based cost drivers, can allocate overheads more precisely according to the actual resources consumed by each job—a crucial feature when multiple products or complex operations are involved. Because Harris Systems involves diverse activities and varied job complexities, the ABC system offers a better insight into true costs, supporting strategic pricing, product line evaluation, and resource allocation decisions.

Locally, manufacturers such as aerospace component producers or medical device manufacturers often deal with complex production processes that make ABC costing advantageous. For instance, a medical device company might use ABC to accurately assign costs to the development of different device types, some requiring extensive testing and quality assurance, while others do not. For such manufacturers, ABC enables precise cost tracking and profit analysis, guiding investment and pricing strategies. On the other hand, smaller or more homogenous producers—such as a local bakery—may find traditional costing sufficient due to relatively straightforward production processes. In summary, larger, complex manufacturers tend to benefit more from ABC, whereas simpler operations might prefer traditional methods for their ease and lower implementation costs.

References

• Drury, C. (2018). Management and Cost Accounting (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Anderson, S. R. (2004). Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 131-138.
• Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. (2015). Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis (15th ed.). Pearson.
• Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (1991). Profit priorities from activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 130-135.
• Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (2005). Activity-based costing (ABC): An opportunity for improving management control in small and medium-sized enterprises? Management Accounting Research, 16(2), 127-137.
• Blocher, E. J., Stout, D. E., Cokins, G., & Houlihan, J. (2019). Cost Management: A Strategic Emphasis (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Garrison, R. H., Noreen, E. W., & Brewer, P. C. (2018). Managerial Accounting (16th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Turney, P. B. (1993). Activity-based cost management: Making it work. Cost Management, 7(4), 10-15.
• Foster, G., & Gupta, M. (1994). Activity-based costing systems and manufacturing strategy. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 6, 1-23.
• Blocher, E., Stout, D., Juras, P., & Cokins, G. (2013). Cost Management: Strategies for Business Decisions (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.