0% found this document useful (0 votes)
41 views11 pages

Activity-Based Costing Explained

The document provides lecture notes on Activity-Based Costing (ABC), detailing its differences from traditional costing methods and the implications of using various cost drivers. It includes examples and calculations for determining costs per unit for different products using both traditional and ABC methods. The notes emphasize the importance of accurate cost allocation in modern manufacturing environments with diverse product lines and significant overhead costs.

Uploaded by

2581457
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
41 views11 pages

Activity-Based Costing Explained

The document provides lecture notes on Activity-Based Costing (ABC), detailing its differences from traditional costing methods and the implications of using various cost drivers. It includes examples and calculations for determining costs per unit for different products using both traditional and ABC methods. The notes emphasize the importance of accurate cost allocation in modern manufacturing environments with diverse product lines and significant overhead costs.

Uploaded by

2581457
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

ACTIVITY-BASED

COSTING
LECTURE NOTES & EXAMPLES
Prepared by Sara du Toit CA (SA)

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright © CA Campus

These notes enjoy copyright under the Berne Convention. In terms of the Copyright Act, no 98 of 1978, no part
of this material may be reprinted or reproduced, in any form whatsoever, either in whole or in part or by any
electronic or other means including the making of photocopies thereof, without the express prior written
consent of the proprietor, CA Campus.

No individual may share any CA Campus content or material with any other person.

The proprietor will not hesitate to prosecute any such offenders to the fullest extent of the law and to report
their details to:
• UNISA
• The South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) for purposes of barring such persons from
registering as chartered accountants (SA), as such actions constitute a gross transgression of ethical
principles, which is a violation of the code of professional conduct of SAICA
• South African Police Service
• Any other relevant professional body / organisation, including any employer
1 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING (ABC)


The difference between the various costing methods (i.e. variable costing, absorption costing
and activity-based costing) is in the treatment of the fixed overheads.

Variable costing
Traditional
Costing Methods
volume-based measures
Absorption costing

Activity-based costing

VARIABLE COSTING
Using variable costing fixed manufacturing costs are treated as period costs and expensed in
the period that they are incurred.

ABSORPTION COSTING: TRADITIONAL VOLUME-BASED


MEASURES
Using traditional absorption costing fixed manufacturing costs are allocated to products using
a single overhead rate for the organisation as a whole (blanket overhead rate).

Overheads are allocated to products on an arbitrary basis. This means that no cause-and-
effect relationship exists to assign costs to products.

Fixed manufacturing costs are allocated to products using volume-based measures (using
machine hours or labour hours or number of units manufactured):
• Volume-based cost drivers are appropriate when activities are performed each time a
unit is produced e.g. machine hours is an appropriate cost driver for depreciation
based on machine usage because as more units are produced machine time will
increase resulting in the machine to depreciate.
• In contrast, non-volume-related activities are not performed each time a unit is
produced e.g. setting up of a machine only happens when the machine is changed
from one product to another. Using machine hours as a cost driver for machine set up
costs would not be appropriate. Instead, the cost should be allocated based on the
number of machine setups.
• In modern manufacturing systems overheads include a lot of non-volume related
support activities, such as: product design, quality control, production planning,
ordering, production set-ups, despatching and customer services. Therefore allocating
overheads using volume-based cost drivers is inappropriate.

© CA Campus
2 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

EXAMPLE 1:

Jasmine (Pty) Ltd has the following information concerning its two product lines:

Product A Product B
Machine hours per unit 4 6
Total number of machine setups per annum 5 2
Production units per annum 2 000 3 000

Budgeted machine setup cost for the year: R200 000

REQUIRED

Calculate the machine setup cost per unit for Product A and Product B if Jasmine (Pty) Ltd:
(a) Uses a traditional cost allocation system based on machine hours.
(b) Uses activity-based costing (ABC).

SUGGESTED SOLUTION

(a) Traditional costing based on machine hours

Total machine hours for the year:


Product A = 4 hours per unit x 2 000 units = 8 000 machine hours
Product B = 6 hours per unit x 3 000 units = 18 000 machine hours
Total machine hours = 8 000 + 18 000 = 26 000

Machine setup cost per machine hour = R200 000 / 26 000 = R7.69 per machine hour

Cost allocation:
Product A = R7.69 per hour x 8 000 hours = R61 538
Product B = R7.69 per hour x 18 000 hours = R138 462

Does the allocation of setup costs above seem fair?


???

Cost per unit:


Product A = R61 538 / 2 000 units = R30.80 per unit
Product B = R138 462 / 3 000 units = R46.15 per unit

© CA Campus
3 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

(b) Activity-based costing

Total machine setups for the year:


Product A = 5 setups
Product B = 2 setups
Total machine set ups = 5 + 2 = 7 set ups

Machine setup cost per setup = R200 000 / 7 = R28 571.43 per setup

Cost allocation:
Product A = R28 571.43 per setup x 5 setups = R142 857
Product B = R28 571.43 per setup x 2 setups = R57 143

Cost per unit:


Product A = R142 857 / 2 000 units = R71.43 per unit
Product B = R57 143 / 3 000 units = R19.05 per unit

SUMMARY:

Product A Product B
Traditional costing R30.80 per unit R46.15 per unit
Activity-based costing R71.43 per unit R19.05 per unit

Discussion:
• Traditional costing allocates more setup costs per unit to Product B. This is because
the traditional method uses machine hours as a base and Product B requires more
machine hours per unit than Product A.
• Traditional costing is less accurate in the costing of products because cost drivers are
used where no cause-and-effect relationship exists to assign costs to products.
• Activity-based costing allocates more setup costs per unit to Product A. This is because
the ABC method uses activities (number of set ups) as an allocation base and Product
A requires more setups.
• Activity-based costing ensures that the product which caused the cost is allocated
more of the cost.

When ABC is used instead of traditional costing:


??? • Does the total overhead change?

• Does prime cost change?

© CA Campus
4 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

ABSORPTION COSTING: ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING


Traditional volume-based measures were appropriate decades ago when most companies
manufactured a narrow range of products and direct material and labour were the dominant
factory costs. Overhead costs were relatively small and distortions arising from inappropriate
overhead allocations were not significant.

Nowadays, companies produce a wide range of products and direct costs often represent only
a small fraction of total costs. Overhead costs are of considerable importance and simplistic
overhead allocations cannot be justified. Today’s intense global competition has made
decision errors due to poor cost information more costly.

Using activity-based costing fixed manufacturing costs are allocated to products using many
allocation bases/cost drivers (factors which cause a change in the cost of an activity). These
cost drivers are both volume and non-volume based.

ABC recognises that many indirect costs vary in proportion to changes other than production
volume. Cost drivers are identified and costs are assigned to products on the basis of cost
driver usage. The cause-and-effect relationship results in a fairer allocation of overhead costs
to products and provides a superior way of costing products.

Cost versus benefit considerations:

An organisation should implement and operate an ABC system when the cost of expected
errors (from using an overly simplified system) exceeds the additional costs of implementing
and operating the system.

A sophisticated ABC system is optimal for an organisation with the following characteristics:
• Intensive competition
• Non-volume-related overheads that are a high proportion of total overhead costs
• A diverse range of products with high product diversity

What is product diversity?


• Product diversity applies where different products consume organisational resources
in different proportions.
• If all products consume organisational resources in similar proportions product
diversity will be low and products will consume non-volume-related activities in the
same proportion as volume-related activities. In this case product cost distortion will
not occur.

© CA Campus
5 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

EXAMPLE 2:

Jasmine (Pty) Ltd has the following information concerning its two product lines:

Product A Product B
Machine hours per unit 4 4
Total number of machine setups per annum 2 3
Production units per annum 2 000 3 000

Budgeted machine setup cost for the year: R200 000

REQUIRED

Calculate the machine setup cost per unit for Product A and Product B if Jasmine (Pty) Ltd:
(a) Uses a traditional cost allocation system based on machine hours.
(b) Uses activity-based costing (ABC).

SUGGESTED SOLUTION

(a) Traditional costing based on machine hours

Total machine hours for the year:


Product A = 4 hours per unit x 2 000 units = 8 000 machine hours
Product B = 4 hours per unit x 3 000 units = 12 000 machine hours
Total machine hours = 8 000 + 12 000 = 20 000

Machine setup cost per machine hour = R200 000 / 20 000 = R10 per machine hour

Cost allocation:
Product A = R10 per hour x 8 000 hours = R80 000
Product B = R10 per hour x 12 000 hours = R120 000

Cost per unit:


Product A = R80 000 / 2 000 units = R40 per unit
Product B = R120 000 / 3 000 units = R40 per unit

© CA Campus
6 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

(b) Activity-based costing

Total machine setups for the year:


Product A = 2 setups
Product B = 3 setups
Total machine set ups = 2 + 3 = 5 setups

Machine setup cost per setup = R200 000 / 5 = R40 000 per setup

Cost allocation:
Product A = R40 000 per setup x 2 setups = R80 000
Product B = R40 000 per setup x 3 setups = R120 000

Cost per unit:


Product A = R80 000 / 2 000 units = R40 per unit
Product B = R120 000 / 3 000 units = R40 per unit

Why does the method of allocation make no difference?


???

© CA Campus
7 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

WRAP UP EXAMPLE:

Wellington (Pty) Ltd manufactures two kinds of shoes, namely running shoes and hiking
boots, using an automated manufacturing process.

Wellington budgets to manufacture and sell 75 000 pairs of running shoes and 55 000 pairs
of hiking boots. Running shoes are manufactured in batches of 1 000 pairs and hiking boots
in batches of 500 pairs.

Wellington currently allocates all manufacturing overheads to products according to machine


hours. It takes 4 machine hours to manufacture a batch of running shoes and 6 machine hours
to manufacture a batch of hiking boots. The budgeted fixed manufacturing overhead for the
year is R17 400 000.

The management accountant of Wellington (Pty) Ltd is investigating alternative ways of


allocating the fixed manufacturing overheads to products. She has analysed the budgeted
fixed manufacturing overheads and found the following:

Activity Percentage Cost driver


of cost
Material purchase and storage 10% Number of orders placed: 75 orders for
running shoes and 50 orders for hiking
boots per year.
Setting up of machines 25% Set-up hours: Set-ups are done for every
batch and each set-up takes 24 minutes
for running shoes and 15 minutes for
hiking boots.
Production 55% Machine hours
Maintenance 10% Inspection hours: An inspection is done
(routine inspection of machines) after every 10 hours of machine time
and takes 12 minutes for running shoes
and 36 minutes for hiking boots.

REQUIRED:

Calculate the budgeted fixed overhead cost per pair of running shoes and hiking boots if
Wellington (Pty) Ltd:
(c) Uses a traditional cost allocation system based on machine hours.
(d) Uses activity-based costing (ABC).

© CA Campus
8 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

SUGGESTED SOLUTION:

Calculations:

C1: Number of batches:


Running shoes: 75 000 / 1 000 = 75 batches
Hiking boots: 55 000 / 500 = 110 batches
= 185 batches

C2: Total machine hours:


Running shoes: 75 x 4 = 300 machine hours
Hiking boots: 110 x 6 = 660 machine hours
= 960 machine hours

C3: Number of orders:


Running shoes: 75 orders
Hiking boots: 50 orders
125 orders

C4: Set-up hours:


Running shoes: 75 x 24/60 = 30 set-up hours
Hiking boots: 110 x 15/60 = 27.5 set-up hours
= 57.5 set-up hours
C5: Inspection hours:
Running shoes: 300/10 = 30 inspections x 12/60 = 6 inspection hours
Hiking boots: 660/10 = 66 inspections x 36/60 = 39.6 inspection hours
= 45.6 inspection hours

(a) Traditional costing (based on machine hours):

STEP 1: CALCULATE THE OVERHEAD ALLOCATION RATE

Allocation rate = Budgeted overhead / normal capacity


= R17 400 000 / 960 hours (C2)
= R18 125 per machine hour

STEP 2: ALLOCATE THE COST

Running Shoes Hiking Boots Total


Total allocated overhead R18 125 x 300 R18 125 x 660 R17 400 000
(machine hours) = R5 437 500 = R11 962 500
Overhead cost per unit R5 437 500/ 75 000 R11 962 500 / 55 000
= R72.50 per unit = R217.50 per unit

© CA Campus
9 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

(b) Activity-based costing:

STEP 1: CALCULATE THE ACTIVITY RATE


Activity Annual Cost Cost Annual cost Activity Rate
driver driver volume
Material purchase R1 740 000 Number of 125 orders R13 920
and storage (10%) orders (C3) per order
Setting up of R4 350 000 Set-up 57.5 set-up R75 652.17 per
machines (25%) hours hours (C4) set-up hour
Production R9 570 000 Machine 960 machine R9 968.75 per
(55%) hours hours (C2) machine hour
Maintenance R1 740 000 Inspection 45.6 R38 157.89 per
(10%) hours inspection inspection hour
hours (C5)
R17 400 000

STEP 2: ALLOCATE THE COST


Running Shoes Hiking Boots
Material purchase and R13 920 x 75 R13 920 x 50
storage = R1 044 000 = R696 000
Setting up of machines R75 652.17 x 30 R75 652.17 x 27.5
= R2 269 565 = R2 080 435
Production R9 968.75 x 300 R9 968.75 x 660
= R2 990 625 = R6 579 375
Maintenance R38 157.89 x 6 R38 157.89 x 39.6
= R228 947 = R1 511 053
Total R6 533 137 R10 866 863
Fixed overhead cost per pair R6 533 137 / 75 000 R10 866 863 / 55 000
= R87.11 per pair = R197.58 per pair

The total allocated overhead will not always tie back!


NB!! Where only selected products of the company are evaluated and not all the
products then the overhead will not tie back.

NOTE: It is possible to take a shortcut and combine steps 1 and 2. Let’s look
at the calculation for “Material purchase and storage” as an example:
• Running shoes = R1 740 000 / 125 x 75 = R1 044 000.
• Hiking boots = R1 740 000 / 125 x 50 = R696 000.
BE CAREFUL: Sometimes there are marks in the solution for calculating the activity rate first
and if you don’t perform the calculation in two separate steps you will forfeit these marks.
If you have time I recommend always splitting the calculation into 2 steps. However, if you
are short of time then rather take a chance with the shortcut.

© CA Campus
10 FOR USE BY CA CAMPUS STUDENTS ONLY

SUMMARY:

Running Shoes Hiking Boots


Traditional costing R72.50 per unit R217.50 per unit
Activity-based costing R87.11 per unit R197.58 per unit

Discussion:
• Traditional costing allocates more overhead costs per unit to the Hiking Boots. This is
because the traditional method uses machine hours as a base and the Hiking Boots
require more machine hours per unit than the Running Shoes.
• Using traditional costing the Hiking Boots are over-costed and the Running Shoes are
under-costed. This is because cost drivers are used where no cause-and-effect
relationship exists to assign costs to products. Traditional costing is therefore less
accurate in the costing of products.
• Activity-based costing ensures that the product which caused the cost is allocated
more of the cost.

Sometimes it is not possible to calculate the activity rate!!


For example:
NB!! You are told that the total maintenance cost is: R1 740 000.
But you are not given the number of inspection hours OR it is not possible
to calculate the number of inspection hours. Instead you are told that the
cost should be split as follows:
• Running Shoes: 60%
• Hiking Boots: 40%
It is then not possible to calculate the activity rate and instead you need to
go directly into the allocation of the overhead cost to products:
• Running Shoes: R1 740 000 x 60% = R1 044 000
• Hiking Boot: R1 740 000 x 40% = R696 000

© CA Campus

Common questions

Powered by AI

In Jasmine (Pty) Ltd, when allocating machine setup costs, traditional costing based on machine hours is unfair as it does not reflect the actual activities that drive setup costs, resulting in more costs being assigned to Product B because it uses more machine hours. This misrepresentation happens despite Product A requiring more setups. In contrast, activity-based costing (ABC) allocates costs based on the number of setups, aligning the cost allocation with the actual activity causing the expense. Consequently, ABC assigns a higher cost per unit to Product A, which mirrors its higher setup requirements, ensuring a more accurate and fair distribution of overhead costs .

In a modern manufacturing environment with diverse product ranges, using traditional costing methods can lead to inaccurate product costing and potential mispricing. As traditional systems often use a single volume-based cost driver like machine hours, they fail to consider that different products consume resources disproportionally. This can result in over-costing some products and under-costing others due to the lack of alignment between the cost driver used and the actual activities driving costs. Consequently, businesses might make erroneous strategic decisions, such as misallocating resources or mispricing products, negatively impacting competitiveness and profitability .

An organization might choose to implement an activity-based costing system despite its complexity and costs because it offers a superior way to cost products accurately. ABC is particularly beneficial in environments with high competition, diverse product ranges, and significant non-volume-related overheads. By accurately identifying and using multiple cost drivers, ABC provides more precise product cost information, leading to better pricing decisions, enhanced competitiveness, and reduced resource waste. The benefits of improved decision-making and reduced cost allocation errors can outweigh the implementation costs, especially when these errors have significant financial implications .

Not employing a sophisticated activity-based costing system in a competitive market can result in several downsides, including inaccurate product costing, resource misallocation, and strategic errors. Without ABC, businesses may inaccurately allocate overhead costs, often over-costing some products while under-costing others due to failure to recognize non-volume-related cost drivers. This can lead to suboptimal pricing strategies, loss of competitiveness, and diminished profitability. Furthermore, without precise cost information, companies might misdirect resources, overspend on certain products, or miss opportunities to streamline operations and reduce waste, ultimately impacting their market position and financial performance .

Activity-based costing (ABC) improves overhead cost allocation by using a wide range of cost drivers that reflect the actual consumption of resources, ensuring a more accurate and fair assignment of costs based on actual activities. Unlike traditional methods that rely on a single cost driver, such as machine hours, ABC recognizes the diversity of operations and their respective costs, leading to a better cause-and-effect relationship between activities and overhead costs. This becomes critically important in environments with high product diversity or significant non-volume-related overheads, where simplistic overhead assignments could result in substantial distortions and poor decision-making .

Modern companies producing a wide range of products find traditional volume-based costing increasingly inappropriate because these methods often lead to cost distortions. Traditional systems typically allocate overhead based on a single volume-based measure like machine hours, which may not reflect the diverse ways products consume resources. In contemporary settings, direct costs are often a small portion of total costs, while overheads driven by various non-volume-related activities have grown in significance. The use of simplistic allocation bases can misrepresent the actual resource usage, leading to errors in product costing that could affect competitive strategy and profitability .

Activity-based costing ensures a fairer allocation of overhead costs by identifying various cost drivers that reflect the actual consumption of resources necessary for different activities. Unlike traditional methods that often use a single, volume-based cost driver, ABC allocates costs based on actual activities measured, such as the number of setups or inspection hours, which cause expenses. This method facilitates a cause-and-effect relationship between costs and activities, thus aligning overhead cost assignment with the actual cost-incurring activities, leading to more accurate product cost information .

In Wellington (Pty) Ltd, traditional costing allocates overhead costs based on machine hours, resulting in a higher per-unit cost for hiking boots since they require more machine hours per batch than running shoes. This results in a per-unit cost of R217.50 for hiking boots, compared to R72.50 for running shoes. However, this method may overstate the costs associated with hiking boots as it ignores the different resource consumption rates. Conversely, activity-based costing (ABC) uses multiple cost drivers reflecting actual resource usage, such as setup hours and inspection hours. This provides a per-unit cost closer to actual consumption: R87.11 for running shoes and R197.58 for hiking boots. ABC thus offers a refined cost allocation that reduces distortions by recognizing the distinct activities influencing cost .

Implementing activity-based costing is necessary for companies operating in highly competitive environments, producing a diverse range of products, and where non-volume-related overheads constitute a significant portion of total costs. In such scenarios, traditional costing may lead to significant inaccuracies in cost allocations due to inappropriate use of volume-based cost drivers. ABC offers a more refined cost allocation by tracking multiple activities and the resources they consume. This approach ensures a true reflection of the costs incurred by different products, aiding in accurate pricing, cost control, and strategic decision-making, thus enhancing competitiveness and profitability .

In some scenarios, ABC and traditional costing yield identical cost allocations per unit when the activities and their corresponding resource consumption rates are proportionally the same across products. For instance, if the number of setups, machine hours, or any other activity measure aligns in such a way that the cost drivers under ABC mirror the volume-based measures used in traditional costing, both systems can generate the same unit cost. This typically happens when there is low product diversity, and the consumption of resources is similar across different products .

You might also like