POLITECNICO DI MILANO

Master of Science in

Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering

Management Control Systems

Prof. Paolo Maccarrone

Second Assignment: Analysis

Group

Ferrario Andrea

Rognoni Susanna

Taiana Marco

Trifonov Angel
 A.Y. 2007/2008

Q1.Based on the 2004 statement of profit and loss data (Exhibits 1 and 2),
do you agree with Water’s decision to keep product 103?

In order to support an opinion on the side we decided to analyze all the probable scenarios.

If the company management decided that it is better to stop the production of product 103, they
could do this in one of the following manners:
1. Stop production and any business related to product 103.
2. Stop production but outsource it to another company and continue the distribution.
3. Stop production and use the available production capacity in order to produce product 101
or 102.

If the company management decided that it is better to continue the production of product 103,
they could do this in one of the following manners:
1. Maintain the same volume of production.
2. Increase the volume of production.
3. Lower the volume of production.
4. Substitute 102 production capacity with 103 if the 103 facility has not sufficient capacity to
exploit economies of scale

Analysis of the P&L statement of 31 December 2004

If we have a look at the P&L statement for the 2004 it is obvious that product 103 is bringing
substantial losses. The calculations show that there is a loss of 2.16$ per unit sold which overall totals
for the amount sold to at about 2.209 million $.

A closer look at the costs attributed to product 103 shows the following.

Costs division: Direct/Indirect (000)

Direct   Indirect  
Direct Labor(v) $ 25.921,00 Rent(non v) $ 5.324,00
Materials(v) $ 17.208,00 Property Taxes(almost non v.) $ 1.525,00
Supplies(v) $ 1.360,00 Property Insurance(non v) $ 1.463,00
Repairs(v) $ 438,00 Indirect Labor $ 8.846,00
Compensation Insurance(v) $ 1.296,05 Light & Heat(almost non v,fuel dep.) $ 394,00
Power(v) $ 773,00 Building Sevice(non v) $ 266,00
    Compensation Insurance(non v.) $ 442,30
Total: 46996,05 Total: $ 18.260,30

Percentage of the total cost: 72% 28%

Total Cost   $ 65.256,35
The size of the indirect non variable costs is quite high. It amounts for 28% of all the costs. If we keep
in mind this information and reason on the statement of the management that the production facility
is normally working under its full capacity we could suggest that there is a possibility of benefitting
from economies of scale.

If we assume this possibility and plot the change in price related to the change in production volume
we get the following:

Compen Ins(v) Direct Labor(v) Power(v) Materials(v) Supplies(v) Repairs(v) volume

$ 209,09 $ 4.181,87 $ 183,59 $ 2.949,01 $ 212,77 $ 63,22 600
$ 226,52 $ 4.530,36 $ 198,89 $ 3.194,77 $ 230,50 $ 68,49 650
$ 243,94 $ 4.878,85 $ 214,19 $ 3.440,52 $ 248,23 $ 73,76 700
$ 261,37 $ 5.227,34 $ 229,49 $ 3.686,27 $ 265,96 $ 79,03 750
$ 278,79 $ 5.575,83 $ 244,79 $ 3.932,02 $ 283,70 $ 84,30 800
$ 296,22 $ 5.924,32 $ 260,09 $ 4.177,77 $ 301,43 $ 89,57 850
$ 313,64 $ 6.272,81 $ 275,39 $ 4.423,52 $ 319,16 $ 94,84 900
$ 331,06 $ 6.621,30 $ 290,69 $ 4.669,27 $ 336,89 $ 100,10 950
$ 348,49 $ 6.969,79 $ 305,99 $ 4.915,02 $ 354,62 $ 105,37 1000
$ 365,91 $ 7.318,28 $ 321,29 $ 5.160,77 $ 372,35 $ 110,64 1050
$ 383,34 $ 7.666,77 $ 336,58 $ 5.406,53 $ 390,08 $ 115,91 1100
$ 400,76 $ 8.015,26 $ 351,88 $ 5.652,28 $ 407,81 $ 121,18 1150
$ 418,19 $ 8.363,75 $ 367,18 $ 5.898,03 $ 425,54 $ 126,45 1200
$ 435,61 $ 8.712,24 $ 382,48 $ 6.143,78 $ 443,27 $ 131,72 1250
$ 453,04 $ 9.060,73 $ 397,78 $ 6.389,53 $ 461,01 $ 136,98 1300

Other Income Fixed Costs SGDI

$ 51,00 $ 5.423,44 $ 10.681,00

volume unit price Sales Profit(Loss) p. unit Profit(Loss) total

600 $ 39,76 $ 16.212,90 $ -12,73 $ -7.640,11
650 $ 37,70 $ 17.563,98 $ -10,68 $ -6.939,00
700 $ 35,93 $ 18.915,05 $ -8,91 $ -6.237,88
750 $ 34,40 $ 20.266,13 $ -7,38 $ -5.536,77
800 $ 33,07 $ 21.617,20 $ -6,04 $ -4.835,66
850 $ 31,89 $ 22.968,28 $ -4,86 $ -4.134,55
900 $ 30,84 $ 24.319,35 $ -3,81 $ -3.433,44
950 $ 29,90 $ 25.670,43 $ -2,88 $ -2.732,33
1000 $ 29,05 $ 27.021,50 $ -2,03 $ -2.031,22
1050 $ 28,29 $ 28.372,58 $ -1,27 $ -1.330,11
1100 $ 27,59 $ 29.723,65 $ -0,57 $ -629,00
1150 $ 26,96 $ 31.074,73 $ 0,06 $ 72,11
1200 $ 26,38 $ 32.425,80 $ 0,64 $ 773,23
1250 $ 25,84 $ 33.776,88 $ 1,18 $ 1.474,34
1300 $ 25,35 $ 35.127,95 $ 1,67 $ 2.175,45
It is obvious that for volumes higher than 1 150 000 product 103 is actually profitable. These
calculations are made without taking into consideration the expected 5% diminishment of the prices
of materials and supplies in 2006.

(did not take into consideration the change of price of sales, admin, indirect labor…)

Sensitivity analysis
In order to make recommendations for a possible strategic course of actions we need to take in
consideration the variance of some key indicators.

These are:

1. The operating capacity of the facility and the level at which it operates now.
2. Possible changes on the market volume and company’s market share(expected reactions
from the competitors)
3. Potential savings
4. Inventory costs

Strategic scenarios
Having in mind the analysis of the current situation we could offer some scenarios for strategic
actions to the management of Superior Manufacturing.

Referring back to the first paragraph we can explore the following options:

Stop the production of product 103:

1. Stop production and any business related to product 103.

2. Stop production but outsource it to another company and continue the distribution.
3. Stop production and use the available production capacity in order to produce product 101
or 102.

1. Stopping the production of product 103 in the current situation would mean that the
company will no longer produce a non profitable product. This will bring to avoiding a
possible potential loss of at about 2.2 million $ assuming expected sales of 1million units.

On the other hand it will bring as a loss all the non variable, fixed expenses, missed sales
profit, restructure of the workforce etc. To calculate these we assume that in short term, i.e.
for the next operating cycle (year 2005) the company will:
a. continue to pay all the fixed expenses
b. not sell the machinery
c. totally reduce the directly occupied working force
d. still need at about 10% of the indirectly occupied workforce and general
administration in order to secure and maintain the operations still related to the
rented and possessed property.

Rent(non v) $ 1882.00 $ 1882.00

Property Taxes(almost non v.) $ 401.00 $ 401.00
Property Insurance(non v) $ 534.00 $ 534.00
Compensation Insurance(v) $ 458.0 $ 458.00
Direct Labor(v) $ - $ 6879.00
Indirect Labor $ 2309.0 $ 2309.00
Power(v) $ - $ 302.00
Light & Heat(almost non v,fuel dep.) $ - $ 106.00
Building Sevice(non v) $ - $ 75.00
Materials(v) $ - $ 4851.00
Supplies(v) $ - $ 350.00
Repairs(v) $ - $ 104.00
Total $ 3093.70 $ 18251.00
Selling expenses(non v,changeable) $ - $ 4701.00
General Administrative(non v,changeable) $ 1783.0 $ 1783.00
Depreciation(non v,changeable) $ 365800 $ 3658.00
Intereset(non v,changeable) $ 53900 $ 539.00
Total Cost $ 7469.00 $ 28932.00
Less:Other Income(non v,changeable) $ - $ 51.00
  $ 28881.00
Sales (Net) $ - $ 26,670,00
Total loss $ 7469.00 $ 2,211,00

It is obvious that at least in short and mid-term period stopping the production would bring much
bigger losses than continuing it. Therefore we can’t recommend this as a good solution of the
situation

2. Knowing the current state and especially how specific is the industry it is highly unlikely that
outsourcing can be an option.
3. Using the existing production capacity in order to produce one of the other products that are
known to make money for the company (product 101) or at least not such big losses (product
102) is also not a solution. We know that the market is very rigid and it is pretty much
impossible to double the market share without any substantial price changes.

Taking into consideration all of the above said continuing the production of product 103 is the viable
option. When exploring however this option we need to take into consideration the production
capacity of the facility and the level to which it is exploited. For instance in the document it is
mentioned that the factory is working under capacity, but this could mean that it is working as well
as on 40% of capacity as well as on 90%. Another consideration would be the financial health of the
organization. This is necessary as any of the scenarios would require a period of losses or increased
expenses. We need to know how much of these the company could support financially from a
strategic point of view.

1. Lowering the volume of production is obviously not the worst solution but it is a bad
solution. Strategically it could serve as to soften the period of transition towards stopping the
product 103. From table xxx and yyyy(to number the tables and graphics) is obvious that
lowering the production level to less than 700 000 units is economically a worse decision
than stopping the production immediately
2. Maintaining the same level of production can be again a good mid-term approach serving as
a transitional period towards increasing the level of production. We say this because as we
know the market is quite rigid. This means that it will take quite some time for the company
to increase its market share. Probably this could happen if some of the other players on the
market vanish or the company takes an aggressive price policy. In this case increasing the
production volume would bring to building of inventory in the amount of 200 000 to 500 000
or more units. For the scale of the company this is a huge inventory. That is why as a short or
even mid-term solution it would be better to maintain the same volume of production. This
of course requires calculating and comparing the current losses of sales to the expenses for
inventory or a very aggressive pricing policy.
Another key factor needs to be taken into consideration here as well. This is the production
capacity of the factory. We know that the factory is working under capacity but if this means
that it is currently exploiting 85% or 90% of it, then the factory’s production capacity is not
higher than 1, 1.1 million units. In this case obviously the best long-term solution is
maintaining the pretty much same level of production as it will spare us from incurring a loss
of 7 million $.
3. Increasing the production volume is obviously the best solution. This is possible only if the
factory is working on a grave under capacity regime. For example if it is exploiting only 40%-
50% of the machine productivity. In this case the full economies of scale potential could be
exploited. A good prediction could be that producing 1,4 or eventually even 1,5 million units
annually could give the company the price flexibility in order to take aggressive price
positions and eventually gain an additional 5%-6% market share. With this market positions it
will sell all of its production and be making at about 2-2.5 million of profit from product 103.
Q2. Should Superior lower as of January 1, 2006 its price of product 101? To
what price?

Analyzing the future scenario of the company and of the whole market on the basis of the price
variations applied by the competitors on the product 101, Waters made two forecasts of the
company sales of first semester 2006. The first one was done maintaining the original price of 24,5 $
while the second one was realised lowering the price to 22,5 $ as the competitors planned to do.

Maintaining the previous price Waters forecasted to reach 750.000 units sales, while reducing the
price as Samra has planned to do, he forecasted 1.000.000 units sales.

First of all the forecasted balance sheet for the first semester 2006 has been calculated reallocating
the costs using the given allocation basis, starting from the total costs to the total department costs,
then to the unitary costs.

The assumptions made in order to calculate the budget for the first semester of the year 2006 were:

 The amount of unit sales of products 102 and 103 will remain the same unless the decreasing
trend of the market described in the case, thanks to the company cash discounts which will
remain the same.
 The unitary costs of direct labour and repairs will remain the same.
 The unitary cost of materials and supplies will be lowered of 5% as described in the case.
 The total non variable costs having a fixed allocation basis will remain the same (rent,
property taxes, property insurance, power, light and heat, building service, depreciation,
interests).
 The total non variable costs depending on a variable allocation basis have been recalculated
and reallocated (compensation insurance, indirect labour, selling expense, general
administrative, other income).
Setting a price of 24,5 $ corresponding to a sales of 750.000 the calculated loss reaches 2.207.000 $
as show in the following table :

PRICE = 24,50

Prod 101 Prod 102 Prod 103

std. per 100 total std. per total std. per 100 total TOTAL STD NON
lbs. std. 100 lbs. std. lbs. std. Var.

rent 1,25 936 1,10 785 1,88 941 2.662 2.660

property taxes 0,42 314 0,36 254 0,40 202 770 770

property insurance 0,35 262 0,28 203 0,53 267 732 732

compensation 0,41 310 0,40 288 0,48 239 837 917

insurance

direct labor 6,06 4.545 5,92 4.216 6,97 3.494 12.255 DIRECT

indirect labor 2,22 1.663 2,17 1.543 2,55 1.279 4.485 4.485

power 0,16 123 0,20 140 0,34 169 432 432

 light and heat 0,11 80 0,09 66 0,11 54 200 200

building service 0,06 44 0,05 33 0,06 30 107 107

materials 3,41 2.558 4,35 3.098 4,66 2.338 7.994 DIRECT

supplies 0,24 178 0,44 311 0,34 171 661 DIRECT

repairs 0,08 60 0,15 107 0,10 50 217 DIRECT

TOTAL 14,76 11.07 15,51 11.044 18,42 9.234 31.352

4

selling expense 4,79 3.595 4,99 3.556 5,34 2.679 9.830 9.830

general administrative 1,60 1.203 1,67 1.190 1,79 896 3.289 3.289

depreciation 3,78 2.838 3,01 2.144 3,66 1.835 6.817 6.817

interest 0,35 260 0,28 203 0,53 267 730 730

TOTAL cost 25,29 18.97 25,47 18.136 29,75 14.912 52.018

0

less: other income 0,05 40 0,06 40 0,06 30 110 110

25,24 18.93 25,41 18.096 29,69 14.882 51.908

0

actual sales (net) 24,24 18.17 25,25 17.979 27,02 13.545 49.701  
7

profit (loss) -1,00 -753 -0,16 -117 -2,67 -1.337 -2.207  

unit sales (100 lbs.) 750.000 712.102 501.276

Considering the second forecast the setting price was 22,50 $ corresponding to 1.000.000 unit sales;
also in this case there is a loss but lower than before: 649.000 $. The following table listed the losses
of each product:

PRICE = 22,50

Prod 101 Prod 102 Prod 103

std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. TOTAL STD NON Var.

Rent 0,94 936 1,10 785 1,88 941 2.662 2.660

property taxes 0,31 314 0,36 254 0,40 202 770 770

property insurance 0,26 262 0,28 203 0,53 267 732 732

compensation insurance 0,40 402 0,39 279 0,46 232 913 917

direct labor 6,06 6.060 5,92 4.216 6,97 3.494 13.770 DIRECT

indirect labor 1,97 1.974 1,93 1.373 2,27 1.138 4.485 4.485

Power 0,12 123 0,20 140 0,34 169 432 432

light and heat 0,08 80 0,09 66 0,11 54 200 200

building service 0,04 44 0,05 33 0,06 30 107 107

Materials 3,41 3.411 4,35 3.098 4,66 2.338 8.847 DIRECT

Supplies 0,24 238 0,44 311 0,34 171 720 DIRECT

Repairs 0,08 80 0,15 107 0,10 50 237 DIRECT

TOTAL 13,92 13.922 15,26 10.865 18,13 9.087 33.874

selling expense 4,07 4.068 4,61 3.286 4,94 2.476 9.830 9.830

general administrative 1,36 1.361 1,54 1.100 1,65 828 3.289 3.289

depreciation 2,84 2.838 3,01 2.144 3,66 1.835 6.817 6.817

Interest 0,26 260 0,28 203 0,53 267 730 730

TOTAL cost 22,45 22.450 24,71 17.598 28,91 14.493 54.540

less: other income 0,05 46 0,05 37 0,06 28 110 110

22,40 22.404 24,66 17.561 28,86 14.465 54.430

actual sales (net) 22,26 22.257 25,25 17.979 27,02 13.545 53.781  

profit (loss) -0,15 -147 0,59 418 -1,84 -920 -649  

unit sales (100 lbs.) 1.000.000 712.102 501.276

The sales of the product 102 enable the company to have profits, anyway in the second semester
there will be a huge loss due to the allocation of costs; during the first semester in fact there is the
production of the main part of the yearly sales unit so the costs could be spread on a large number
of product while in the second one they will be divided on few units (these calculations were done
assuming that the demand of 2006 will be closer to the demand of the previous year).

The difference between the forecasted profits in these two solutions highlights a loss in both the
cases; for sure, the best solution is the second one which guarantee a lower loss (1.558 $ difference).

Considering the huge losses related to these two alternatives, merged the need to identify a function
describing the relation between the demand and the price in order to find if there are any
intermediate solutions which allow to have reduce the losses.

In order to evaluate the dependence between demand and price, it's necessary to make an
assumption regarding the nature of this dependence. Two different assumptions were been made: a
linear trend of the function (constant elasticity) and a non linear one.

In the first case the linear trend of the function has been identified starting from the two points
forecasted by Mr. Waters, that allowed to trace a straight line representing the function. The best
demand/price combination calculated in order to maximize the profit has a price of 20,36 $ with a
related demand of 1.267.367 units. This solution, which is the best one, generates a loss of 148 $ and
this result highlights the fact that in the first semester of 2006, for sure, it will not be a positive profit.

This solution is not applicable because the company can't make a price lower than the price maker's
one, so the best solution with the linear dependence is to set the price at 22,50 $.
In the second case (non linear dependence), a function has been created by increasing the demand
of a variable value. This alternative has been analyzed only in the price interval between 22,50 $ and
24,50 $, which are the two forecasted prices, and generated this result:

Price Units Profit

$24,50 750 -$2.207

$24,40 772 -$1.972 Non linear dependence

$24,30 793 -$1.755
25
$24,20 813 -$1.557 24,5
$24,10 832 -$1.376 24

Price
23,5
$24,00 850 -$1.213
23
$23,90 867 -$1.066
22,5
$23,80 883 -$937 22
650 750 850 950 1050
$23,70 898 -$824
Units
$23,60 912 -$727

$23,50 925 -$674

$23,40 937 -$581

$23,30 948 -$532

$23,20 958 -$497

$23,10 967 -$477

$23,00 975 -$471

$22,90 982 -$480

$22,80 988 -$502

$22,70 993 -$538

$22,60 997 -$587

$22,50 1000 -$649

The best solution found with the assumption of non linear trend in order to maximize the profit is a
23,00 $ price with a demand of 975.000 units; the result of this alternative is a loss of 471 $.
Q3. Why did Superior improve profitability during the period January 1 to
June 30, 2005? How useful was the data in exhibit 4 for the purpose of this
analysis?
We are convinced that the costing system Superior Manufacturing used to register the results of the
first semester of 2005 was very imprecise further than useless to check the performances of the
different units.

To demonstrate this we are going to compare it with the system we suggest, showing how the first
semester was really quite profitable even if it would have been followed by a worst second semester
that would bring at the end of the year losses comparable to those of 2004. In fact, without making
any calculations it seemed so strange that with the same period costs (that are in large part non-
variable or fixed), the same direct costs for products, the same annual sold quantities, and the same
prices, the company was able to significantly improve its performances.

So from the beginning we looked with suspicion at the results of the first semester, immediately
finding out that if product 101 and product 102 sold respectively the 46,75% and the 50,79% of the
annual quantity, it is almost clear how non balanced are the sales of product 102; after only 6 months
the 69,26% of 102 sales were already registered.

In the following paragraphs we are going to make some hypotheses, trying to explain the reasons for
all the significant variances we found. Since it is a problem of profitability, we first look at revenues
and costs nature and then we show where the data reported in exhibit 4 are misleading.

Revenues

From an only superficial external analysis, that’s to say how was it allowed by the small number of
data we have, in 2005 the market was not growing; so the good results in term of quantity sold seem
to show a very good semester for sales but this is probably due to the natural cyclic proceeding of
the sales of an industrial good, such as the percentage showed before confirms; probably owing to
economies in the reordering process and the issues related to the dimensions of lots of delivery
impacting on logistics costs, customers are likely to buy a larger amount of product 102 at the
beginning of a new year, while at the end they try to minimize values of finished goods and
components stocks. This is a common way of behaving in B2B markets, with different solutions that
fit different goals, like the minimization of inventory value or the lowering of net profit to avoid a
huge expense in taxes.

Larger quantities of products already sold at the end of June mean fixed costs spread on a larger
number of products and so an improvement in profitability; however this appreciable gain is only
temporary, because it will be balanced by results of the second semester and that’s why Waters
expects a new worsening of the situation (that is in reality physiological, such as we will show later
differently allocating the period costs). Even if we have no data about the actual sales of the second
semester of 2005, since the market is expected to be stable or even decreasing, larger quantities in
the first semester should correspond to very low sales in the second one, with product 102 that will
have to cover the fixed expenses of the second semester of its factory with only the 30,84% of the
total annual sales.
Interesting would be to know something more about stock values that at the beginning of the year
should have been very high values, since customers buy larger quantities in the first semester. If the
way to account the stock is the same of finished goods, stock can account for a considerable amount
of money.

Costs

We already anticipated the main reason that stands behind the large part of positive variances that
the exhibit 4 shows between actual and expected results. What is evident is that variable direct costs
(Direct Labor, Materials, Supplies, Repairs) were allocated by Superior in a correct way, calculating
the unitary costs and then multiplying it times the actual sales. No variances are reported on the cost
of components or raw materials, so that we can retain as reliable the actual costing system, that, we
have to remember it, uses the unitary costs of the previous year. However exactly this feature of the
costing system lets happen some things: fixed or non-variable costs are allocated on the basis of the
past years results but also on a period shorter than the annual time horizon. This means for example
that if this year the company produces more than in the past, it will spend more for the rent than the
same contracted cost: this is an absurd because it is a fixed cost for the following 12 years. In the
2005 first semester documents we can see lots of these “deviations”, all the time that a cost fixed on
the annual time horizon is allocated on a semester sold quantity. We can say that the principle of
competence cost is totally violated. And this is the reason by which actual registered costs are, for all
those kind of costs but two voices, so lower:

 Rent (fixed – allocated on cubic space)which is lower of 259 k$

 Property taxes (almost non-variable – allocated on the area): -69 k$

 Property insurance (non-variable – allocated on the value of equipment): -61 k$

 Indirect labor (almost non-variable – allocated on the direct labor): -213 k$

 Building services (non-variable – allocated on the area): -40 k$

 General administrative (almost non-variable – allocated on the value of sales): -125 k$

 Depreciation (non-variable – allocated on the value of equipment): -642 k$

 Interests (almost non variable – value of equipment): -63 only to semester

All these costs were expected to be higher because the unitary costs of the previous year were
multiplied times the actual sales but they don’t depend on the quantity sold.

A different explication has to be made for the other voices: the compensation insurance remains
practically indifferent because direct costs increased (owing to increased quantities) while indirect
ones are better distributed on the increased quantities (obviously not according to the costing
system used by Superior). Power (variable cost, allocated on the machine horsepower and thus on
the level of activity) doesn’t significantly change because on 4148819 units totally produced in 2004,
the 2210237 units made in the first semester of 2005 represent the 53% of total production and thus
a little change in total activity level. Light and heat costs (almost non variable, allocated on the area)
were a little bit higher than standard one probably because in the considered semester there are
more days of winter (valid explication only if the factories are located in the north hemisphere). Last
but not least, there was the role of selling expense that increased considerably both considering the
standard costs and the period costs of competence.

In the tables below there are all the costs recalculated in two different ways: in the column “our
suggestion” there is a sort of budget, in which all the fixed or non-variable costs are attributed to the
production of the semester taking the annual result of the previous year (divided by two, to assess
the quota of the cost for the semester) and the direct costs are calculated with the unitary costs of
previous years and the actual sales. In the “hybrid” column, we use the same method but with actual
sales and costs. The unitary costs relative to this second column are those shown in the other
columns; only direct variable costs present the same unitary costs of previous year.
first semester 2005 Prod 101 Prod 102 Prod 103
std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. Hybrid Our suggestion
rent 0,94 936 1,10 785 1,88 941 2.662 2662
property taxes 0,31 314 0,36 254 0,40 202 770 762,5
property insurance 0,23 230 0,36 257 0,49 246 732 731,5
compensation insurance 0,40 401 0,39 280 0,46 232 912 909
direct labor 6,06 6.041 5,92 4.216 6,97 3.494 13.751 13.751
indirect labor 1,98 1.970 1,93 1.375 2,27 1.140 4.485 4423
power 0,12 123 0,20 140 0,31 154 417 432
light and heat 0,08 80 0,09 66 0,16 78 224 197
building service 0,04 44 0,05 33 0,06 30 107 133
materials 3,59 3.579 4,58 3.261 4,91 2.461 9.301 9.301
supplies 0,25 249 0,46 328 0,36 180 757 757
repairs 0,08 80 0,15 107 0,10 50 237 237
TOTAL 14,09 14.046 15,59 11.101 18,37 9.208 34.355 34296
selling expense 4,28 4.265 4,46 3.174 4,77 2.391 9.830 9191,5
general administrative 1,43 1.427 1,49 1.062 1,60 800 3.289 3267
depreciation 2,85 2.838 3,01 2.144 3,66 1.835 6.817 6795,5
interest 0,26 260 0,28 203 0,53 267 730 736
TOTAL cost 22,91 22.836 24,83 17.683 28,93 14.502 55.021 54286
less: other income 0,05 48 0,05 36 0,05 27 110 102,5
22,86 22.788 24,78 17.648 28,88 14.475 54.911 54183
actual sales (net) 24,24 24.159 25,25 17.979 27,02 13.545 55.684 55.684
profit (loss) 1,38 1.371 0,47 331 -1,85 -930 772 1.501
unit sales (100 lbs.) 996.859 712.102 501.276

The difference between the final profit of our suggested method and the “hybrid” one is mainly due
to the increased cost of selling expenses: they had an unexpected increase in costs so that we can
think that the general bad and worsening conditions of the market caused a more difficult costs
management by sales that had to increase their effort even only to maintain the same sales levels.

The situation of the second semester shows how was right our hypothesis about the unexpected
profitability of the first semester of 2005.
Second semester 2005 Prod 101 Prod 102 Prod 103
std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. Hybrid Our suggestion
rent 0,82 936 2,47 785 1,94 941 2.662 2.662
property taxes 0,28 314 0,80 254 0,42 202 770 763
property insurance 0,20 230 0,81 257 0,51 246 732 732
compensation insurance 0,41 471 0,41 129 0,48 232 832 828
direct labor 6,06 6.880 5,92 1.880 6,97 3.385 12.145 12.145
indirect labor 2,24 2.541 2,19 694 2,57 1.250 4.485 4.423
power 0,11 123 0,44 140 0,32 154 417 330
light and heat 0,07 80 0,21 66 0,16 78 224 197
building service 0,04 44 0,10 33 0,06 30 107 133
materials 3,59 4.076 4,58 1.454 4,91 2.385 7.915 7.915
supplies 0,25 284 0,46 146 0,36 175 605 605
repairs 0,08 91 0,15 48 0,10 49 187 187
TOTAL 14,15 16.069 18,53 5.886 18,79 9.127 31.081 30.920
selling expense 4,90 5.559 5,10 1.620 5,46 2.651 9.830 9.192
general administrative 1,64 1.860 1,71 542 1,83 887 3.289 3.267
depreciation 2,50 2.838 6,75 2.144 3,78 1.835 6.817 6.796
interest 0,23 260 0,64 203 0,55 267 730 736
TOTAL cost 23,42 26.586 32,73 10.394 30,40 14.767 51.747 50.910
less: other income 0,05 62 0,06 18 0,06 30 110 103
23,36 26.524 32,67 10.376 30,34 14.738 51.637 50.807
actual sales (net) 24,24 27.515 25,25 8.018 27,02 13.124 48.657 48.657
profit (loss) 0,87 992 -7,43 -2.358 -3,32 -1.613 -2.980 -2.150
unit sales (100 lbs.) 1.135.332 317.552 485.698

In the end, this is the situation for 2005; as we can see the losses are very similar to those of 2004,
with the difference mainly due to the previous underlined costs of sales.
2005 - annual Prod 101 Prod 102 Prod 103
std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. std. per 100 lbs. total std. Hybrid Our suggestion
rent 0,44 936 0,76 785 0,95 941 2.662 5.324
property taxes 0,15 314 0,25 254 0,21 202 770 1.525
property insurance 0,11 230 0,25 257 0,25 246 732 1.463
compensation insurance 0,36 758 0,35 358 0,41 404 1.519 1.733
direct labor 6,06 12.921 5,92 6.096 6,97 6.879 25.896 25.896
indirect labor 1,05 2.238 1,03 1.056 1,21 1.191 4.485 8.846
power 0,06 123 0,14 140 0,16 154 417 773
light and heat 0,04 80 0,06 66 0,08 78 224 394
building service 0,02 44 0,03 33 0,03 30 107 266
materials 3,59 7.655 4,58 4.716 4,91 4.846 17.216 17.216
supplies 0,25 533 0,46 474 0,36 355 1.362 1.362
repairs 0,08 171 0,15 154 0,10 99 424 424
TOTAL 12,19 26.001 13,97 14.388 15,63 15.425 55.815 65.222
selling expense 2,28 4.868 2,38 2.449 2,55 2.513 9.830 18.383
general administrative 0,76 1.629 0,80 819 0,85 841 3.289 6.534
depreciation 1,33 2.838 2,08 2.144 1,86 1.835 6.817 13.591
interest 0,12 260 0,20 203 0,27 267 730 1.472
TOTAL cost 16,70 35.597 19,43 20.003 21,16 20.881 76.481 105.202
less: other income 0,03 54 0,03 27 0,03 28 110 103
16,67 35.542 19,40 19.975 21,13 20.853 76.371 105.099
actual sales (net) 24,24 51.675 25,25 25.997 27,02 26.670 104.341 104.341
profit (loss) 7,57 16.132 5,85 6.021 5,89 5.817 27.970 -759
unit sales (100 lbs.) 2.132.191 1.029.654 986.974

As regarding the usefulness of data from the exhibit 4, we will explain how inaccurate it was in detail
in the answer to the fourth question. Anyway, we already said that, even considering the highly
timeliness of this system that allows to have results of the semester only one week later, the way to
consider full costs and allocate them on products was totally wrong and it doesn’t seem that can give
some useful advice to the top management, except for the evidence that a better use of the total
capacity can’t do nothing but improving the total profitability of the company. In fact, higher
quantities obviously would help to cover the fixed costs, increasing the profitability of the single
products. This would be possible whether the logics of production are totally untied by those of
sales: if it is not possible to quickly improve sales results, it is useless to produce at the maximum
capacity, even if the benefits would be unquestionable.
Q4.Why is it important that Superior has an effective cost system? What is
your overall appraisal of the company’s cost system and its use in report to
management? List the strengths and weaknesses of the system and its
related reports for the purpose management uses the system’s output.
What recommendations, if any, would you make to Waters regarding the
company’s cost accounting system and its related reports?

Why is it important that Superior has an effective cost system?

An effective costing system makes it possible for the management to follow their processes/products
and have a realistic understanding about the difference between what was planned and how it is
actually happening. It can help plan further activities and course of action.

In the case of “Superior Manufacturing Co” it is critical for some reasons.

First of all there’s been a recent change of management. In two consecutive years two different
managers take the lead of the company. It is understandable that they more or less are unfamiliar
with the exact way company operations are lead. On the other hand the market situation is getting
more complicated every day and as well because of the major shift in management, the morale and
support of the employees drops drastically. In a case like this a good cost system could be of great
help as it can show to the new management the way operations are lead historically and the position
the company has benchmarked to its competitors and on the market nowadays. It also can indicate
the flaws and point out a clear course of action for the new management to follow. Having an
effective costing system also shortens drastically the period of adaptation of the new management.

Secondly the company operates in a really rigid, non growing market. It has heavy competition, some
of which is superior in terms of scale of operations and therefore financially. Obviously in a situation
like this the only flexibility in terms of margin and strategic actions could come from lowering the
cost of production. Because of this it is critical that an exact and meaningful cost and expenses
control system is established. It should be used to identify the possibilities for lowering costs,
choosing alternative scenarios or different balance and distribution of costs.

What is your overall appraisal of the company’s cost system and its use in report to management?

Overall we can conclude that the company’s costing system is highly insufficient for the managerial
purposes it is intended to serve.

We know from the data provided that each from the dedicated factories has the process horizontally
integrated and therefore include raw material storage, product-process facilities, finished-product
inventories and shipping. The information provided by the current costing system is quite brief,
aggregated and unpunctual to describe these in debt. More over the company is currently using this
system in order to do its strategic planning, product-line decisions, identifying manufacturing
process-improvement opportunities, to conduct profitability analysis, performance evaluation, cost
control, and inventory valuation purposes.

As it appears the Superior Manufacturing Company is using the same costing system in order to:
  Perform planning & controlling activities and processes, like identifying manufacturing
process-improvement opportunities, performance evaluation, cost control

 Take short-term strategic decisions, like product-line decisions, conduct profitability

analysis, inventory valuation, cost control

 Take long term strategic decisions, like strategic planning

This is obviously impossible as the different audiences require different information in order to make
the decisions corresponding to their level. With some assumptions (ex. If the system is applied in a
correct way regarding the period costs etc. ) we can say that the present system is fit in order to
support short-term decisions for marketing, product, business and senior managers. In no way it can
support planning and control, not to say about long-term strategic decisions. If we go back to the
previous analysis we can state that overall the company has problems mostly on these levels.

Probably one of the things the new management noticed was the insufficiency of the system and that
is why from the beginning 2005 a new system was introduced. This system was supposed to help
focus on valuation of inventories, budget preparation, performance analysis. It had a different model
of cost allocation but still could not support the necessary scale of managerial decisions.

List the strengths and weaknesses of the system and its related reports for the purpose
management uses the system’s output.
Regarding to the previous paragraph we obviously can not evaluate the costing system in absolute
terms. IF we should speak about its strengths and weaknesses it should be related to the purposes it
was supposed to serve, served and could serve.

Strengths: No matter that the costing system seems to have a lot of imperfections it obviously
served some purpose to the management and was not a random casual one. If we take into
consideration the current company state and the continuously increasing complexity of the market
environment we could list some points that support the relevance of such reporting system. These
are:
 Timeliness – in the paper is mentioned that the preliminary semestrial statement for 2005
was issued at the end of the first week of July. Of course the timeliness is a compensation for
non punctualities on the costing model but still when information is needed quickly it is
better to have some than none.

 Low Cost – obviously both the 2004 and the new 2005 systems does not require a lot to
prepare. They use mostly information that is available from previous years and the sales
force. Also because of its nature it is prepared annually and only if explicitly ordered on the
half year. In extreme cases it might be prepared even quarterly (although it might not be
very indicative for short and long-term purposes) but in any case the price of this report
would on the scale of a simple bookkeeping report.

 Simplicity – another benefit of this costing system and its derivative reports is the simplicity.
The data is quite aggregated and straightforward. For many purposes this would be
inefficient but it might serve a new manager to get the basic picture of the state of the
company and give a reference point for further actions.
Weaknesses: If w should take into consideration the purposes the system was intended to serve as
noted above we found it quite weak as a managerial tool.
 Incorrect allocation of costs on non full operating cycle, by which serves more to confuse than
to inform

 Only straightforward data, which limits the possibilities of its use by the superior
management

 Not enough detail in the data, which gives no possibility for low level analysis on the real
causes by mid level (product, marketing, sales) and superior management. No possibilities for
evaluation on cost control.

What recommendations, if any, would you make to Waters regarding the company’s cost
accounting system and its related reports?

We would recommend a couple of things listed from the most tactical to most strategic.

First and most urgent, the management should correct its current costing systems to indicate the
correct mid-term results and to make the relevant conclusions. If they believe it might be more
efficient (as they might decide to implement a new costing system from the next year) they could
disregard them and consider the annual result which should be relatively correct.

In a mid-term (at about 1-3 year plan) we recommend to them to apply a set of cost accounting
systems that are to serve the respective audiences (low, mid, top level managers) with the relevant
for them information. Why would this be necessary?

 At planning & controlling activities and processes level we know that the management is
not being trusted and lacks support. Also we know that it is critical that the company be as
cost effective as possible. A system that establish a process coherence with top management
strategic planning (which is financial and non comprehensible for the lowest levels of the
company) and a framework of specific goals, objectives and procedures for control would
give understanding about the mission and the direction of the company. If applied with the
correct system of control (evaluation, feedback and coaching) this would raise morale and
regain trust for the management. Also is going to help the management perform the
necessary changes in an effective way.

 At the level of short-term strategic decisions we could see that these require much more
information that is currently being provided. Not only for the superior management but also
for the sales, marketing, operations and business managers, disaggregated, financial and
non-financial information should be provided. For instance if a lifecycle of a product is
regarded using the principles of activity based costing or JIT this could serve to a totally
different approach to determining the production process and therefore the price.

 At a long-term strategic level we need a more complicated approach as none of the so far
suggested cost accounting systems support forecast of scenarios and future cash flow. These
however could serve as a basis for a future analysis using elements of capital budgeting and
investment management.
Last we suggest that the company not only integrates the set of costing systems recommended but
continuously monitor the effectiveness of these systems, in order to prevent extra and repetitive or
useless reporting which would only add another cost.