The United Motors contract uses only 3% of total machines hours in 2011, yet uses 28%
of CAD design-hours and 19% of engineering hours. The result is that the plantwide rate, based
on machine hours, will greatly underestimate the cost of resources used on the United Motors
contract. This explains the 157% increase in indirect costs assigned to the United Motors contract
when department rates are used. The Leland Auto contract also uses far fewer machine-hours than
engineering-hours and is also undercosted.
In contrast, the Holden Motors contract uses less of design (51%) and engineering (16%)
than of machine-hours (70%). Hence, the use of department rates will report lower indirect costs
for Holden Motors than does a plantwide rate.
Holden Motors was probably complaining under the use of the simple system because its
contract was being overcosted relative to its consumption of MOH resources. United and Leland,
on the other hand, were having their contracts undercosted and underpriced by the simple
system. Assuming that AP is an efficient and competitive supplier, if the new department-based
rates are used to price contracts, United and Leland will be unhappy. AP should explain to United
and Leland how the calculation was done, and point out United’s high use of design and
engineering resources and Leland’s high use of engineering resources relative to production
machine hours. Discuss ways of reducing the consumption of those resources, if possible, and
show willingness to partner with them to do so. If the price rise is going to be steep, perhaps offer
to phase in the new prices.
4. Other than for pricing, AP can also use the information from the department-based system
to examine and streamline its own operations so that there is maximum value-added from all
indirect resources. It might set targets over time to reduce both the consumption of each indirect
resource and the unit costs of the resources. The department-based system gives AP more
opportunities for targeted cost management.
5. It would not be worthwhile to further refine the cost system into an ABC system if (1) a
single activity accounts for a sizable proportion of the department’s costs or (2) significant costs
are incurred on different activities within a department, but each activity has the same cost driver
or (3) there wasn’t much variation among contracts in the consumption of activities within a
department. If, for example, most activities within the design department were, in fact, driven by
CAD-design hours, then the more refined system would be more costly and no more accurate than
the department-based cost system. Even if there was sufficient variation, considering the relative
sizes of the three department cost pools, it may only be cost-effective to further analyze the
engineering cost pool, which consumes 78% ($240,000