Standard Costs And Standard Cost

The main reason behind it is that the variance analysis of materials, labor, and overhead indicates the difference between original budget and actual sales/amount. It explains that the management should make changes in the budgets in order to diminish the chances of failure (Epstein & Jermakowicz, 2010). Moreover, the company should make changes in its all budgets like production budget, sales budget, manufacturing budget, selling budget and general & administrative. These changes would be helpful to reduce the difference between the actual and projected sales of the firm.

Assuming that the company’s goal is to maximize profits, the current cost system is not an appropriate tool for strategic planning. The ambiguity of the overhead costs per product makes it difficult to accurately analyze the cause and effect relationships of changes and/or improvements to specific product line.

are costs that have already been incurred and cannot be changed by any decision made

According to Investopedia, “Full costing is an accounting method used to determine the complete end-to-end cost of producing products or services.” Full costing is also called "full costs" or "absorption costing."

Standardizing the cost management system companywide is an important step in improving the link between cost management and

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.

Companies will have set guidelines to trigger the need for a variance report such as variances over a specific percentage or dollar amount. (Cleverly, Song, & Cleverly, 2011, Pg. 381) In an analysis of revenues, a negative variation is unfavorable; in an analysis of costs, a negative variation is favorable. (Dove & Forthman, 1995) Variation is calculated by subtracting the expected or budgeted figure from the actual figure for each variable. The variable figure is then divided by the expected figure in order to establish a percentage of the variance. Wages that are over the budgeted amount would be an unfavorable variance and would be an indication that there is a need for a variance report. (Dove & Forthman, 1995) Supply costs being less than the budgeted amount would be a favorable variance, however it could result in the supplies budget being reduced if there is not a reasonable explanation as to the cause for the variance. Therefore, a variable department manager would ask for a variance report detailing the reason for the variance to be completed, otherwise it appears as if the budget is overstated and needs to be reduced.

with a number of strategic issues facing a capital-intensive, mature industry. Their product costing system was

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

The purpose of this paper is to answer a few important questions: Why do companies allocate costs? How do companies allocate costs? And how this cost allocation can affect the decision making of the company. It is important for the companies to find the proper method to allocate the costs. Cost allocation is an important issue in many companies because many of the costs associated with designing, producing and distributing products and services are not easily identified with the products and services that are created. It would have been easier for companies to allocate cost if costs were directly traceable with the products and the cost allocation would have been minor issue for the company. The decision-making

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.

The goal of traditional accounting practices is to achieve the lowest possible cost per unit by maximizing employee and equipment productivity. However, the goal of the plant’s

Under the new cost system, two broad sources of costs were identified: manufacturing and SM&A. All costs within these categories were reclassified as either volume driven or order driven. Hence, four cost pools were set up.

During the 1980s the limitations of traditional product costing systems began to be widely publicised. These systems were designed decades ago when most companies manufactured a narrow range of products, and direct labour and materials were the dominant factory costs. Overhead costs were relatively small, and the distortions arising from inappropriate overhead allocations were not significant. Information processing costs were high, and it was therefore difficult to justify more sophisticated overhead allocation methods.