Case 9: Performance Control At Happy Chips Inc Wendell Worth

Case 9performance Control At Happy Chips Incwendell Worthmann Manag

Analyze the difference between activity-based costing and segment profitability analysis. Determine the profitability for each of Happy Chips’ business segments based on relevant costs. Assess whether Happy Chips should consider the changes desired by Buy 4 Less, and whether any segments should be eliminated. Discuss how a 20% price increase to mass merchandise stores would influence these decisions. Consider other factors beyond segment profitability that might impact strategic choices.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary managerial accounting, understanding the distinctions between activity-based costing (ABC) and segment profitability analysis is fundamental to evaluating a company’s performance across various operational units. ABC is a costing methodology that allocates overhead costs more precisely by tracing expenses to specific activities, which in turn, are linked to products or services. This approach enables managers to identify the true cost drivers and assess profitability at a granular level, often revealing insights that traditional costing methods might obscure. Conversely, segment profitability analysis involves evaluating the financial performance of individual business segments, such as product lines or customer groups, by isolating segment-specific revenues and costs.

While ABC focuses on accurately allocating indirect costs to determine the precise cost of activities, segment profitability analysis aggregates relevant revenues and expenses to assess the profit attributable to each segment. The primary difference rests on scope and granularity: ABC is a detailed costing system that supports precise cost allocation, which can serve as a foundation for segment analysis, but they are not identical. Segment profitability is generally a higher-level analysis that uses ABC data or other cost assumptions to determine which parts of the business are most profitable and where strategic adjustments might be necessary.

In the context of Happy Chips, the argument by managers about which segments are most attractive hinges on their perspectives: sales volume, profitability, strategic importance, or growth potential. For example, Bill Smith emphasizes the grocery segment’s massive sales, implying its strategic importance, while Steve Brown questioned whether additional manufacturing costs for Buy 4 Less’s special requirements are justified financially. It is essential to counter these viewpoints with a data-driven analysis rooted in the company's profitability by segment, considering both direct and indirect costs. For instance, the grocery segment generates a significant portion of revenue, but it also incurs substantial costs; thus, profit margins can vary considerably when evaluated under ABC.

To determine the profitability per segment, relevant costs—including direct materials, direct labor, activity-based allocated overhead, and specific logistics costs—must be considered. Using the provided data, we analyze each segment: grocery, drug, and mass merchandise. For example, the grocery segment has a trade price of $2.30 per unit, with revenue of $6,900,000 based on 3,000,000 units sold. The COGS per unit is $1.26, and the total COGS for the segment would be $3,780,000. Labeling costs, stocking, and delivery costs are allocated based on the number of locations and delivery frequency.

Calculations for the drug segment reveal a revenue of $365,000 from 140,000 units at $2.10 per unit, with a COGS of $1.26 per unit totaling $177,900. Additional logistical expenses—stocking and delivery—must be calculated from the cost per delivery and the number of deliveries per week, considering 52 weeks in a year. For mass merchandise, with 6 locations and 400,000 units sold at $1.40, revenue is $560,000, with COGS of $1.26 per unit amounting to $504,000. The labeling costs for the mass segment are based on the number of units and the leasing cost of the machinery, which applies to all units processed.

Evaluating the profitability of each segment involves deducting these relevant costs from segment revenues. Initial findings suggest that, excluding fixed costs, the grocery segment is highly profitable, with net margins around $2 million or more, while the drug and mass segments also contribute positively but with lower margins. However, the logistics costs, especially delivery and stocking, are significant and should be scrutinized using activity-based cost data to ensure accuracy.

Applying this detailed cost analysis, Happy Chips must determine whether the proposed changes—such as increasing delivery frequency, installing automated inquiry systems, or reducing prices—will improve overall profitability. For example, increasing delivery frequency to Buy 4 Less will raise logistics costs, which need to be weighed against the potential reduction of stockouts and improved customer satisfaction. Given the data, if the incremental costs of additional deliveries and the $300,000 investment in automation outweigh the incremental revenues or increased margins, the company should be cautious about endorsing these changes.

From a strategic perspective, the decision to accept Buy 4 Less's demands hinges on whether the incremental profit margins justify the additional logistics and operating costs. Since the profit margins for the mass segment are relatively thin due to lower unit prices and higher logistical costs, the overall profitability could decline if the changes significantly elevate costs. Conversely, maintaining strong relationships with large customers could provide long-term benefits, especially given the competitive landscape and the company's goal to expand in the mass market.

In conclusion, the detailed profitability analysis indicates that while the grocery segment remains highly profitable, the mass and drug segments generate smaller margins that could be adversely affected by the proposed modifications. Therefore, Happy Chips should carefully evaluate each change’s financial implications. For example, increasing delivery frequency and automating inquiries may be justified if they substantially improve customer retention and sales, but only if the incremental costs do not erode the segment margins.

Beyond immediate financial considerations, other strategic factors should influence management decisions. Such factors include the potential impact on customer relationships, brand reputation, and competitive positioning. For instance, maintaining excellent customer service and responsiveness might foster loyalty that offsets higher logistical costs. Additionally, evaluating third-party logistics providers could offer cost-saving opportunities, improving overall profitability. Thus, while segment profitability analysis provides crucial insights, comprehensive strategic planning must incorporate these broader considerations to make balanced and sustainable decisions.

References

• Kaplan, R. S., & Cooper, R. (1998). Cost & Effect: Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive Profitability and Performance. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (1988). Measure Costs Right: Make the Right Decisions. Harvard Business Review, 66(5), 96-103.
• Garrison, R. H., Noreen, E. W., & Brewer, P. C. (2020). Managerial Accounting (16th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• 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 Education.
• Hansen, D. R., & Mowen, M. M. (2018). Management Accounting (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (2007). Management Control Systems (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Simons, R. (1995). Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal. Harvard Business School Press.
• Johnson, H. T., & Kaplan, R. S. (1987). Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Harvard Business School Press.
• Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management Control Systems Design within its Organizational Context: Findings from Contingency-Based Research and Directions for the Future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 127-168.