Howard Rockness was worried. His company, Rockness Bottling, showed declining profits over the past several years despite an increase in revenues. With profits declining and revenues increasing, Rockness knew there must be a problem with costs. Rockness sent an e-mail to his executive team under the subject heading, “How do we get Rockness Bottling back on track?” Meeting in Rockness’s spacious office, the team began brainstorming solutions to the declining profits problem. Some members of the team wanted to add products. (These were marketing people.) Some wanted to fire the least efficient workers. (These were finance people.) Some wanted to empower the workers. (These people worked in the human resources department.) And some people wanted to install a new computer system. (It should be obvious who these people were.) Rockness listened patiently. When all participants had made their cases, Rockness said, “We made money when we were a smaller, simpler company. We have grown, added new product lines, and added new products to old product lines. Now we are going downhill. What’s wrong with this picture?” Rockness continued, “Here, look at this report. This is last month’s report on the cola bottling line. What do you see here?” He handed copies of the following report to the people assembled in his office. Monthly Report on Cola Bottling Line diet reg cherry grape total Sales $ 377,000 208,800 73,750 27,450 687,000 Less: Materials 215,000 130,400 48,000 20,550 413,950 Direct labor 34,000 16,000 5,000 1,050 56,050 Fringe benefits on direct labor 13,600 6,400 2,000 420 22,420 Indirect costs (@260% of direct labor) 88,400 41,600 13,000 2,730 145,730 Gross margin $ 26,000 14,400 5,750 2,700 48,850 Return on sales (see note [a]) 6.9 6.9 7.8 9.8 7.1 % Volume 130,000 72,000 25,000 9,000 236,000 Unit price $ 2.90 2.90 2.95 3.05 2.91 Unit cost $ 2.70 2.70 2.72 2.75 2.70 a Return on sales before considering selling, general and administrative expenses. Rocky first learned from production that the process required four activities: (1) setting up production runs, (2) managing production runs, and (3) managing products. The fourth activity did not require labor; it was simply the operation of machinery. Next, he went to the accounting records to get a breakdown of indirect costs. Here is what he found: Indirect labor $ 56,050 Fringe benefits on indirect labor 22,420 Information technology 40,460 Machinery depreciation 16,000 Machinery maintenance 7,200 Energy 3,600 Total $ 145,730 Then, he began a series of interviews with department heads to see how to assign these costs to cost pools. He found that 40 percent of indirect labor was for scheduling or for handling production runs, including purchasing, preparing the production run, releasing materials for the production run, and performing a first-time inspection of the run. Another 50 percent of indirect labor was used to set up machinery to produce a particular product. The remaining 10 percent of indirect labor was spent maintaining records for each of the four products, monitoring the supply of raw materials required for each product, and improving the production processes for each product. This 10 percent of indirect labor was assigned to the cost driver “number of products.” Interviews with people in the information technology department indicated that $40,460 was allocated to the cola bottling line. 80 percent of this $40,460 information technology cost was for scheduling production runs. 20 percent of the cost was for record keeping for each of the four products. Fringe benefits were 40 percent of labor costs. The rest of the overhead was used to supply machine capacity of 47,200 hours of productive time. Rocky then found the following cost driver volumes from interviews with production personnel. Setups: 1,040 labor-hours for setups. Production runs: 510 production runs. Number of products: 4 products. Machine-hour capacity: 47,200 hours. Diet cola used 360 setup hours, 200 production runs, and 13,000 machine-hours to produce 130,000 units. Regular cola used 140 setup hours, 110 production runs, and 7,200 machine-hours to produce 72,000 units. Cherry cola used 400 setup hours, 110 production runs, and 2,500 machine-hours to produce 25,000 units. Grape cola used 140 setup hours, 90 production runs,and 900 machine-hours to produce 9,000 units. Rocky learned that the production people had a difficult time getting the taste just right for the Cherry and Grape colas, so these products required more time per setup than either the Diet or Regular colas. Required: a. Recompute the unit costs for each of the cola products: Diet, Regular, Cherry, and Grape.
Howard Rockness was worried. His company, Rockness Bottling, showed declining profits over the past several years despite an increase in revenues. With profits declining and revenues increasing, Rockness knew there must be a problem with costs.
Rockness sent an e-mail to his executive team under the subject heading, “How do we get Rockness Bottling back on track?” Meeting in Rockness’s spacious office, the team began brainstorming solutions to the declining profits problem. Some members of the team wanted to add products. (These were marketing people.) Some wanted to fire the least efficient workers. (These were finance people.) Some wanted to empower the workers. (These people worked in the human resources department.) And some people wanted to install a new computer system. (It should be obvious who these people were.)
Rockness listened patiently. When all participants had made their cases, Rockness said, “We made money when we were a smaller, simpler company. We have grown, added new product lines, and added new products to old product lines. Now we are going downhill. What’s wrong with this picture?”
Rockness continued, “Here, look at this report. This is last month’s report on the cola bottling line. What do you see here?” He handed copies of the following report to the people assembled in his office.
| Monthly Report on Cola Bottling Line | |||||||
| diet | reg | cherry | grape | total | |||
| Sales | $ | 377,000 | 208,800 | 73,750 | 27,450 | 687,000 | |
| Less: | |||||||
| Materials | 215,000 | 130,400 | 48,000 | 20,550 | 413,950 | ||
| Direct labor | 34,000 | 16,000 | 5,000 | 1,050 | 56,050 | ||
| 13,600 | 6,400 | 2,000 | 420 | 22,420 | |||
| Indirect costs (@260% of direct labor) | 88,400 | 41,600 | 13,000 | 2,730 | 145,730 | ||
| Gross margin | $ | 26,000 | 14,400 | 5,750 | 2,700 | 48,850 | |
| Return on sales (see note [a]) | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.8 | 9.8 | 7.1 | % | |
| Volume | 130,000 | 72,000 | 25,000 | 9,000 | 236,000 | ||
| Unit price | $ | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.95 | 3.05 | 2.91 | |
| Unit cost | $ | 2.70 | 2.70 | 2.72 | 2.75 | 2.70 | |
a Return on sales before considering selling, general and administrative expenses.
Rocky first learned from production that the process required four activities: (1) setting up production runs, (2) managing production runs, and (3) managing products. The fourth activity did not require labor; it was simply the operation of machinery. Next, he went to the accounting records to get a breakdown of indirect costs. Here is what he found:
| Indirect labor | $ | 56,050 |
| Fringe benefits on indirect labor | 22,420 | |
| Information technology | 40,460 | |
| Machinery |
16,000 | |
| Machinery maintenance | 7,200 | |
| Energy | 3,600 | |
| Total | $ | 145,730 |
Then, he began a series of interviews with department heads to see how to assign these costs to cost pools. He found that 40 percent of indirect labor was for scheduling or for handling production runs, including purchasing, preparing the production run, releasing materials for the production run, and performing a first-time inspection of the run. Another 50 percent of indirect labor was used to set up machinery to produce a particular product. The remaining 10 percent of indirect labor was spent maintaining records for each of the four products, monitoring the supply of raw materials required for each product, and improving the production processes for each product. This 10 percent of indirect labor was assigned to the cost driver “number of products.”
Interviews with people in the information technology department indicated that $40,460 was allocated to the cola bottling line. 80 percent of this $40,460 information technology cost was for scheduling production runs. 20 percent of the cost was for record keeping for each of the four products.
Fringe benefits were 40 percent of labor costs. The rest of the overhead was used to supply machine capacity of 47,200 hours of productive time.
Rocky then found the following cost driver volumes from interviews with production personnel.
- Setups: 1,040 labor-hours for setups.
- Production runs: 510 production runs.
- Number of products: 4 products.
- Machine-hour capacity: 47,200 hours.
Diet cola used 360 setup hours, 200 production runs, and 13,000 machine-hours to produce 130,000 units. Regular cola used 140 setup hours, 110 production runs, and 7,200 machine-hours to produce 72,000 units. Cherry cola used 400 setup hours, 110 production runs, and 2,500 machine-hours to produce 25,000 units. Grape cola used 140 setup hours, 90 production runs,and 900 machine-hours to produce 9,000 units. Rocky learned that the production people had a difficult time getting the taste just right for the Cherry and Grape colas, so these products required more time per setup than either the Diet or Regular colas.
Required:
a. Recompute the unit costs for each of the cola products: Diet, Regular, Cherry, and Grape.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps with 2 images
