CableTech Bell Corporation (CTB) operates in the telecommunications industry. CTB has two divisions: the Phone Division and the Cable Service Division. The Phone Division manufactures telephones in
a large plant in Ohio. The product lines run from relatively inexpensive touch-tone wall and desk phones to expensive, high quality cellular phones. CTB also operates a cable TV service in Ohio.
The Cable Service Division offers three products: a basic package with 25 channels; an enhanced package which is the basic package plus 15 additional channels and two movie channels; and a premium
package which is the basic package plus 25 additional channels and three movie channels.
The Cable Service Division reported the following activity for the month of March:
Basic Enhanced Premium
Sales (units) 50,000 500,000 300,000
Price per unit $16 $30 $40
Unit costs:
Directly attributable $3 $5 $7
Driver traced $2 $4 $6
Allocated $10 $13 $15
The unit costs are divided as follows: 70 percent production and 30 percent marketing and customer service. Direct labor cost is the only driver used for tracing. Typically, the division uses only
production costs to define unit costs. The preceding unit product cost information was provided at the request of the marketing manager and was the result of a special study.
Bryce Youngers, the president of CTB, is reasonably satisfied with the performance of the Cable Service Division. March’s performance is fairly typical of what has been happening over the past two
years. The Phone Division, however, is another matter. Its overall profit performance has been declining. Two years ago, income before income taxes had been about 25 percent of sales. March’s
dismal performance was also typical for what has been happening this year and is expected to continue—unless some action by management is taken to reverse the trend. During March, the phone
division reported the following results:
Inventories:
Materials, March 1 $ 23,000
Materials, March 31 40,000
Work in process, March 1 130,000
Work in process, March 31 45,000
Finished goods, March 1 480,000
Finished goods, March 31 375,000
Costs:
Direct labor $117,000
Plant and equipment depreciation 50,000
Material handling 85,000
Inspections 60,000
Scheduling 30,000
Power 30,000
Plant supervision 12,000
Manufacturing engineering 21,000
Sales commissions 120,000
Salary, sales supervisor 10,000
Supplies 17,000
Warranty work 40,000
Rework 30,000
During March, the Phone Division purchased materials totaling $312,000. There are no significant inventories of supplies (beginning or ending). Supplies are accounted for separately from materials.
CTB’s Phone Division had sales totaling $1,170,000 for March.
Based on March’s results, Bryce decided to meet with three of the Phone Division’s managers; Kim Breashears, divisional manager; Jacob Carder, divisional controller; and Larry Hartley, sales
manager. A transcript of their recorded conversation is given next:
Bryce: “March’s profit performance is down once again, and I think we need to see if we can identify the problem and correct it—before it’s too late. Kim, what’s your assessment of the situation?”
Kim: “Foreign competition is eating us alive. They are coming in with lower-priced phones of comparable or higher quality than our own. I’ve talked with several of the retailers that carry our
lines, and they say the same. They are convinced that we can sell more if we lower our prices.”
Larry: “They’re right. If we could lower our prices by 10 to 15 percent, I think that we’d regain most of our lost market share. But we also need to make sure that the quality of our products meets
that of our competitors. As you know, we are spending a lot of money each month on rework and warranties. That worries me. I’d like to see that warranty cost cut by 70 to 80 percent. If we could do
that, then customers would be more satisfied with our products, and I bet that we would not only regain our market share but increase it.”
Jacob: “Lowering prices without lowering per-unit costs will not help us increase our profitability. I think we need to improve our cost accounting system. I am not confident that we really know
how much each of our product lines is costing us. It may be that we are overpricing some of our units because we are overcosting them. We may be underpricing other units.”
Larry: “This sounds promising—especially if the overcosting is for some of our high-volume lines. A price decrease for these products would make the biggest difference—and if we knew they were
overcosted, then we could offer immediate price reductions.”
Bryce: “Jacob, I need more explanation. We have been using the same cost accounting system for the last 10 years. Why would it be a problem?”
Jacob: “I think that our manufacturing environment has changed. Over the years, we have added a lot of different product lines. Some of these products make very different demands on our
manufacturing overhead resources. We trace—or attempt to trace—overhead costs to the different products using direct labor cost, a unit-based cost driver. We may be doing more allocation than
tracing. If so, then we probably don’t have a very good idea of our actual product costs. Also, as you know, with the way computer technology has changed over time, it is easier and cheaper to
collect and use detailed information—information that will allow us to assign costs more accurately.”
Bryce: “This may be something we should explore. Jacob, what do you suggest?”
Jacob: “If we want more accurate product costs and if we really want to get in the cost reduction business, then we need to understand how costs behave. In particular, we need to understand
activity cost behavior. Knowing what activities we perform, why we perform them, and how well we perform them will help us identify areas for improvement. We also need to know how the different
products consume activity resources. What this boils down to is the need to use an activity-based management system. But before we jump into this, we need some idea of whether nonunit-based drivers
add anything. Activity-based management is not an inexpensive undertaking. So I suggest that we do a preliminary study to see if direct labor cost is adequate for tracing. If not, then maybe some
nonunit-drivers might be needed. In fact, if you would like, I can gather some data that will provide some evidence on the usefulness of the activity-based approach.”
Bryce: “What do you think, Kim? It’s your division.”
Kim: “What Jacob has said sounds promising. I think he should pursue it and do so quickly. I also think that we need to look at improving our quality. It sounds like we have a problem there. If
quality could be improved, then our costs will drop. I’ll talk to our quality people. Jacob, in the meantime, find out for us if moving to an activity-based system is the way to go. How much time
do you need?”
Jacob: “I have already been gathering data. I could probably have a report within two weeks.”
MEMO
TO: Kim Breashears
FROM: Jacob Carder
SUBJECT: Preliminary Analysis
Based on my initial analysis, I am confident that an ABC system will offer significant improvement. I regressed total monthly overhead cost on monthly direct labor cost using the following 15
months of data:
Overhead Direct Labor Cost
$360,000 $110,000
300,000 100,000
350,000 90,000
400,000 100,000
320,000 90,000
380,000 100,000
300,000 90,000
280,000 90,000
340,000 95,000
410,000 115,000
375,000 100,000
360,000 85,000
340,000 85,000
330,000 90,000
300,000 80,000
The results were revealing. Although direct labor cost appears to be a driver of overhead cost, it really doesn’t explain a lot of the variation. I then searched for other drivers—particularly
nonunit drivers—that might offer more insight into overhead cost behavior. Every time a batch is produced, material movement occurs, regardless of the size of the batch. The number of moves seemed
like a more logical driver. I was able to gather only 10 months of data for this. (Our information system doesn’t provide the number of moves, so I had to build the data set by interviewing
production personnel.) This information is provided next:
Material-Handling Cost Number of Moves
$80,000 1,500
60,000 1,000
70,000 1,250
72,000 1,300
65,000 1,100
85,000 1,700
67,000 1,200
73,500 1,350
83,000 1,400
84,000 1,700
The regression results were impressive. There is no question in my mind that the number of moves is a good driver of material-handling costs. Using the number of moves to assign material-handling
costs to products would likely be better than the cost assignment using direct labor cost. Furthermore, since small batches use the same number of moves as large batches, we have some evidence that
we may be overcosting our high-volume products.
I looked at one more overhead activity: inspecting products. We have 15 inspectors who are paid an average of $4,000 per month. Each inspector offers about 160 hours of inspection capacity per
month. However, it appears that they actually work only about 80 percent of those hours. The drop in demand we have experienced explains this idle time. I see no evidence of variable cost behavior
here. I’m not exactly sure how to treat inspection cost, but I think that it is more related to inspection hours than direct labor cost. Some of the other overhead activities seem to be nonunit-
level, as well—enough, in fact, to be concerned about how we assign costs.
Required:

4. Prepare an income statement for the Phone Division for March. Include a supporting cost of goods manufactured statement.
5. The Phone Division has been using the same cost accounting system for over 10 years. Explain why its cost accounting system may be outmoded. What factors determine when a new cost
accounting system is warranted?

6. Using the method of least squares, calculate two cost formulas: one for overhead using direct labor cost as the driver, and one for material-handling cost using number of moves as the
driver. Comment on Jacob Carder’s observations concerning the outcomes.
8. How would you describe the cost behavior of the inspection activity? Assume that the quality control manager implements a program that reduces the number of defective units by 50 percent.
Because of the improved quality, the demand for inspection hours will also drop by 50 percent. What is the potential monthly reduction in inspection costs? How did knowledge of inspection’s cost
behavior help?