15 CHAPTER ALLOCATION OF SUPPORT-DEPARTMENT COSTS, COMMON COSTS, AND REVENUES 15-1 The single-rate (cost-allocation) method makes no distinction between fixed costs and variable costs in the cost pool. It allocates costs in each cost pool to cost objects using the same rate per unit of the single allocation base. The dual-rate (cost-allocation) method classifies costs in each cost pool into two poolsa variable-cost pool and a fixed-cost poolwith each pool using a different cost-allocation base. 15-2 The dual-rate method provides information to division managers about cost behavior. Knowing how fixed costs and variable costs behave differently is useful in decision making. 15-3 Budgeted cost rates motivate the manager of the supplier department to improve efficiency because the supplier department bears the risk of any unfavorable cost variances. 15-4 Examples of bases used to allocate support department cost pools to operating departments include the number of employees, square feet of space, number of hours, and machine-hours. 15-5 The use of budgeted indirect cost allocation rates rather than actual indirect rates has several attractive features to the manager of a user department: a. the user knows the costs in advance and can factor them into ongoing operating choices, b. the cost allocated to a particular user department does not depend on the amount of resources used by other user departments, and c. inefficiencies at the department providing the service do not affect the costs allocated to the user department. 15-6 Disagree. Allocating costs on the basis of estimated long-run use by user department managers means department managers can lower their cost allocations by deliberately underestimating their long-run use (assuming all other managers do not similarly underestimate their usage). 15-7 The three methods differ in how they recognize reciprocal services among support departments: a. The direct (allocation) method ignores any services rendered by one support department to another; it allocates each support departments costs directly to the operating departments. b. The step-down (allocation) method allocates support-department costs to other support departments and to operating departments in a sequential manner that partially recognizes the mutual services provided among all support departments. c. The reciprocal (allocation) method allocates support-department costs to operating departments by fully recognizing the mutual services provided among all support departments.
15-1
15-8 The reciprocal method is theoretically the most defensible method because it fully recognizes the mutual services provided among all departments, irrespective of whether those departments are operating or support departments. 15-9 The stand-alone cost-allocation method uses information pertaining to each user of a cost object as a separate entity to determine the cost-allocation weights. The incremental cost-allocation method ranks the individual users of a cost object in the order of users most responsible for the common costs and then uses this ranking to allocate costs among those users. The first-ranked user of the cost object is the primary user and is allocated costs up to the costs of the primary user as a stand-alone user. The second-ranked user is the first incremental user and is allocated the additional cost that arises from two users instead of only the primary user. The third-ranked user is the second incremental user and is allocated the additional cost that arises from three users instead of two users, and so on. The Shapley Value method calculates an average cost based on the costs allocated to each user as first the primary user, the second-ranked user, the third-ranked user, and so on. 15-10 All contracts with U.S. government agencies must comply with cost accounting standards issued by the Cost Accounting Standards Board (CASB). 15-11 Areas of dispute between contracting parties can be reduced by making the rules of the game explicit and in writing at the time the contract is signed. 15-12 Companies increasingly are selling packages of products or services for a single price. Revenue allocation is required when managers in charge of developing or marketing individual products in a bundle are evaluated using product specific revenues. 15-13 The stand-alone revenue-allocation method uses product specific information on the products in the bundle as weights for allocating the bundled revenues to the individual products. The incremental revenue allocation method ranks individual products in a bundle according to criteria determined by managementsuch as the product in the bundle with the most salesand then uses this ranking to allocate bundled revenues to the individual products. The first-ranked product is the primary product in the bundle. The second-ranked product is the first incremental product, the third-ranked product is the second incremental product, and so on. 15-14 Managers typically will argue that their individual product is the prime reason why consumers buy a bundle of products. Evidence on this argument could come from the sales of the products when sold as individual products. Other pieces of evidence include surveys of users of each product and surveys of people who purchase the bundle of products. 15-15 A dispute over allocation of revenues of a bundled product could be resolved by (a) having an agreement that outlines the preferred method in the case of a dispute, or (b) having a third party (such as the company president or an independent arbitrator) make a decision.
15-2
15-16 (20 min.) Single-rate versus dual-rate methods, support department. Bases available (kilowatt hours): Rockford Peoria Practical capacity 10,000 20,000 Expected monthly usage 8,000 9,000 1a.
Hammond Kankakee Total 12,000 8,000 50,000 7,000 6,000 30,000
Single-rate method based on practical capacity: Total costs in pool = $6,000 + $9,000 = $15,000 Practical capacity = 50,000 kilowatt hours Allocation rate = $15,000 50,000 = $0.30 per hour of capacity Rockford Peoria 10,000 20,000 $3,000 $6,000 Hammond Kankakee Total 12,000 8,000 50,000 $3,600 $2,400 $15,000
Practical capacity in hours Costs allocated at $0.30 per hour 1b.
Single-rate method based on expected monthly usage: Total costs in pool = $6,000 + $9,000 = $15,000 Expected usage = 30,000 kilowatt hours Allocation rate = $15,000 30,000 = $0.50 per hour of expected usage Rockford Peoria 8,000 9,000 $4,000 $4,500 = = = = = = Hammond Kankakee Total 7,000 6,000 30,000 $3,500 $3,000 $15,000
Expected monthly usage in hours Costs allocated at $0.50 per hour 2. Variable-Cost Pool: Total costs in pool Expected usage Allocation rate Fixed-Cost Pool: Total costs in pool Practical capacity Allocation rate
$6,000 30,000 kilowatt hours $6,000 30,000 = $0.20 per hour of expected usage $9,000 50,000 kilowatt hours $9,000 50,000 = $0.18 per hour of capacity
Peoria $1,800 3,600 $5,400 Hammond $1,400 2,160 $3,560 Kankakee $1,200 1,440 $2,640 Total $ 6,000 9,000 $15,000
Rockford Variable-cost pool $0.20 8,000; 9,000; 7,000, 6,000 Fixed-cost pool $0.18 10,000; 20,000; 12,000, 8,000 Total $1,600 1,800 $3,400
The dual-rate method permits a more refined allocation of the power department costs; it permits the use of different allocation bases for different cost pools. The fixed costs result from decisions most likely associated with the practical capacity level. The variable costs result from decisions most likely associated with monthly usage.
15-3
15-17
(2025 min.) Single-rate method, budgeted versus actual costs and quantities. rate = Budgeted indirect costs Budgeted trips = $115,000/50 trips =
1. a. Budgeted
$2,300 per round-trip Indirect costs allocated to Dark C. Division = $2,300 per round-trip 30 budgeted round trips = $69,000 = $2,300 per round-trip 20 budgeted round = $46,000
Indirect costs allocated to Milk C. Division trips
b. Budgeted rate = $2,300 per round-trip Indirect costs allocated to Dark C. Division = $2,300 per round-trip 30 actual round trips = $69,000 = $2,300 per round-trip 15 actual round trips = $34,500
Indirect costs allocated to Milk C. Division
c. Actual rate =
Actual indirect costs = $96,750/ 45 trips = $2,150 per round-trip Actual trips = $2,150 per round-trip 30 actual round trips = $64,500 = $2,150 per round-trip 15 actual round trips = $32,250
Indirect costs allocated to Dark C. Division
Indirect costs allocated to Milk C. Division
2. When budgeted rates/budgeted quantities are used, the Dark Chocolate and Milk Chocolate Divisions know at the start of 2009 that they will be charged a total of $69,000 and $46,000 respectively for transportation. In effect, the fleet resource becomes a fixed cost for each division. Then, each may be motivated to over-use the trucking fleet, knowing that their 2009 transportation costs will not change. When budgeted rates/actual quantities are used, the Dark Chocolate and Milk Chocolate Divisions know at the start of 2009 that they will be charged a rate of $2,300 per round trip, i.e., they know the price per unit of this resource. This enables them to make operating decisions knowing the rate they will have to pay for transportation. Each can still control its total transportation costs by minimizing the number of round trips it uses. Assuming that the budgeted rate was based on honest estimates of their annual usage, this method will also provide an estimate of the excess trucking capacity (the portion of fleet costs not charged to either division). In contrast, when 15-4
actual costs/actual quantities are used, the two divisions must wait until year-end to know their transportation charges. The use of actual costs/actual quantities makes the costs allocated to one division a function of the actual demand of other users. In 2009, the actual usage was 45 trips, which is 5 trips below the 50 trips budgeted. The Dark Chocolate Division used all the 30 trips it had budgeted. The Milk Chocolate Division used only 15 of the 20 trips budgeted. When costs are allocated based on actual costs and actual quantities, the same fixed costs are spread over fewer trips resulting in a higher rate than if the Milk Chocolate Division had used its budgeted 20 trips. As a result, the Dark Chocolate Division bears a proportionately higher share of the fixed costs. Using actual costs/actual rates also means then any efficiencies or inefficiencies of the trucking fleet get passed along to the user divisions. In general, this will have the effect of making the truck fleet less careful about its costs, although in 2009, it appears to have managed its costs well, leading to a lower actual cost per roundtrip relative to the budgeted cost per round trip. For the reasons stated above, of the three single-rate methods suggested in this problem, the budgeted rate and actual quantity may be the best one to use. (The management of Chocolat, Inc. would have to ensure that the managers of the Dark Chocolate and Milk Chocolate divisions do not systematically overestimate their budgeted use of the fleet division in an effort to drive down the budgeted rate). 15-18 (20 min.) Dual-rate method, budgeted versus actual costs, and practical capacity versus actual quantities (continuation of 15-17). 1. Charges with dual rate method. Variable indirect cost rate Fixed indirect cost rate = = = $1,500 per trip $40,000 budgeted costs/ 50 round trips budgeted $800 per trip
Dark Chocolate Division Variable indirect costs, $1,500 30 Fixed indirect costs, $800 30 Milk Chocolate Division Variable indirect costs, $1,500 15 Fixed indirect costs, $800 20
$45,000 24,000 $69,000 $22,500 16,000 $38,500
2. The dual rate changes how the fixed indirect cost component is treated. By using budgeted trips made, the Dark Chocolate Division is unaffected by changes from its own budgeted usage or that of other divisions. When budgeted rates and actual trips are used for allocation (see requirement 1.b. of problem 15-17), the Dark Chocolate Division is assigned the same $24,000 for fixed costs as under the dual-rate method because it made the same number of trips as budgeted. However, note that the Milk Chocolate Division is allocated $16,000 in fixed trucking costs under the dual-rate system, compared to $800 15 actual trips = $12,000 when actual trips are used for allocation. As such, the Dark Chocolate Division is not made to appear
15-5
disproportionately more expensive than the Milk Chocolate Division simply because the latter did not make the number of trips it budgeted at the start of the year.
15-6
15-19 (30 min.) 1. a.
Support department cost allocation; direct and step-down methods. AS IS $600,000 $2,400,000 (600,000) (2,400,000) $ 0$ 0 $600,000 $2,400,000 (600,000) 150,000 (2,550,000) $ 0 GOVT CORP
Direct method costs Alloc. of AS costs (40/75, 35/75) Alloc. of IS costs (30/90, 60/90) Step-down (AS first) costs Alloc. of AS costs (0.25, 0.40, 0.35) Alloc. of IS costs (30/90, 60/90) Step-down (IS first) costs Alloc. of IS costs (0.10, 0.30, 0.60) Alloc. of AS costs (40/75, 35/75)
$ 320,000 800,000 $1,120,000
$ 280,000 1,600,000 $1,880,000
b.
$ 240,000 850,000 $1,090,000
$ 210,000 1,700,000 $1,910,000
$ c.
0
$600,000 $2,400,000 240,000 (2,400,000) (840,000) $ 0$ $ 720,000 448,000 $1,168,000 GOVT $1,120,000 1,090,000 1,168,000 $1,440,000 392,000 $1,832,000 CORP $1,880,000 1,910,000 1,832,000
0
2. Direct method Step-down (AS first) Step-down (IS first)
The direct method ignores any services to other support departments. The step-down method partially recognizes services to other support departments. The information systems support group (with total budget of $2,400,000) provides 10% of its services to the AS group. The AS support group (with total budget of $600,000) provides 25% of its services to the information systems support group. When the AS group is allocated first, a total of $2,550,000 is then assigned out from the IS group. Given CORPs disproportionate (2:1) usage of the services of IS, this method then results in the highest overall allocation of costs to CORP. By contrast, GOVTs usage of the AS group exceeds that of CORP (by a ratio of 8:7), and so GOVT is assigned relatively more in support costs when AS costs are assigned second, after they have already been incremented by the AS share of IS costs as well.
15-7
3.
Three criteria that could determine the sequence in the step-down method are: a. Allocate support departments on a ranking of the percentage of their total services provided to other support departments. 1. Administrative Services 25% 2. Information Systems 10% b. Allocate support departments on a ranking of the total dollar amount in the support departments. 1. Information Systems $2,400,000 2. Administrative Services $ 600,000 c. Allocate support departments on a ranking of the dollar amounts of service provided to other support departments 1. Information Systems (0.10 $2,400,000) = $240,000 2. Administrative Services (0.25 $600,000) = $150,000
The approach in (a) above typically better approximates the theoretically preferred reciprocal method. It results in a higher percentage of support-department costs provided to other support departments being incorporated into the step-down process than does (b) or (c), above. 15-20 (50 min.) Support-department cost allocation, reciprocal method (continuation of 15-19). 1a. Support Departments AS Corp. Costs $600,000 Alloc. of AS costs (0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (861,538) Alloc. of IS costs (0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 261,538 $ 0 215,385 (2,615,38 5) $ 0 $2,400,0 00 $ 344,615 $ 301,538 Operating Departments IS
Govt.
784,616 $1,129,231
1,569,231 $1,870,769
Reciprocal Method Computation AS = $600,000 + IS = $2,400,000 IS = $2,400,000 = $2,400,000 0.975IS = $2,550,000
0.10 IS + 0.25AS + 0.25 ($600,000 + 0.10 IS) + $150,000 + 0.025 IS
15-8
IS
= = AS = = =
$2,550,000 0.975 $2,615,385 $600,000 + 0.10 ($2,615,385) $600,000 + $261,538 $861,538
1b. Support Departments AS Corp. $600,000 $2,400,000 Operating Departments IS
Govt. Costs 1st Allocation of AS (600,000) (0.25, 0.40, 0.35)
150,000
$ 240,000
$ 210,000
2,550,000 1st Allocation of IS (0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 2nd Allocation of AS (0.25, 0.40, 0.35) 2nd Allocation of IS (0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 3rd Allocation of AS (0.25, 0.40, 0.35) 3rd Allocation of IS (0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 4th Allocation of AS (0.25, 0.40, 0.35) 4th Allocation of IS (0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 5th Allocation of AS 255,000 (2,550,000) 765,000 1,530,000
(255,000) 63,750 102,000 89,250
6,375
(63,750)
19,125
38,250
(6,375)
1,594
2,550
2,231
160
(1,594)
478
956
(160)
40
64
56
4
(40)
12
24
15-9
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) 5th Allocation of IS (0.10, 0.30, 0.60) Total allocation 2. a. b. c. d. e.
(4)
1
2
1
0 $ 0
(1) $ 0
0
1 $1,870,769
$1,129,231
Direct Step-Down (AS first) Step-Down (IS first) Reciprocal (linear equations) Reciprocal (repeated iterations)
Govt. Consulting $1,120,000 1,090,000 1,168,000 1,129,231 1,129,231
Corp. Consulting $1,880,000 1,910,000 1,832,080 1,870,769 1,870,769
The four methods differ in the level of support department cost allocation across support departments. The level of reciprocal service by support departments is material. Administrative Services supplies 25% of its services to Information Systems. Information Systems supplies 10% of its services to Administrative Services. The Information Department has a budget of $2,400,000 that is 400% higher than Administrative Services. The reciprocal method recognizes all the interactions and is thus the most accurate. This is especially clear from looking at the repeated iterations calculations.
15-21 (40 min.) Direct and step-down allocation. 1.
Support Departments HR Info. Systems $72,700 $234,400 (72,700) (234,400) 0 Operating Departments Corporate Consumer $ 998,270 $489,860 43,620 127,855 $1,169,745 29,080 106,545 $625,485 Total $1,795,230
Costs Incurred Alloc. of HR costs (42/70, 28/70) Alloc. of Info. Syst. costs (1,920/3,520, 1,600/3,520)
$
0
$
$1,795,230
2.
Rank on percentage of services rendered to other support departments.
Step 1: HR provides 23.077% of its services to information systems: 21 21 = = 42 28 21 91 This 23.077% of $72,700 HR department costs is $16,777. 23.077%
15-10
Step 2: Information systems provides 8.333% of its services to HR: 320 = 1,920 1,600 320 320 3,840 = 8.333%
This 8.333% of $234,400 information systems department costs is $19,533.
Support Departments HR Info. Systems $72,700 $234,400 Operating Departments Corporate Consumer $ 998,270 $489,860 Total $1,795,23 0
Costs Incurred Alloc. of HR costs (21/91, 42/91, 28/91) Alloc. of Info. Syst. costs (1,920/3,520, 1,600/3,520)
(72,700) $ 0
16,777 251,177 (251,177) $ 0
33,554
22,369
137,006 $1,168,830
114,171 $626,400
$1,795,23 0
3. An alternative ranking is based on the dollar amount of services rendered to other support departments. Using numbers from requirement 2, this approach would use the following sequence: Step 1: Allocate Information Systems first ($19533 provided to HR). Step 2: Allocate HR second ($16777 provided to Information Systems).
15-11
15-22 (30 min.) Reciprocal cost allocation (continuation of 15-21). 1. The reciprocal allocation method explicitly includes the mutual services provided among all support departments. Interdepartmental relationships are fully incorporated into the support department cost allocations. 2. HR = $72,700 + .08333IS IS = $234,400 + .23077HR HR = $72,700 + [.08333($234,400 + .23077HR)] = $72,700 + [$19,532.55 + 0.01923HR] 0.98077HR = $92,232.55 HR = $92,232.55 0.98077 = $94,041 IS = $234,400 + (0.23077 $94,041) = $256,102
Support Depts. HR Info. Systems Costs Incurred Alloc. of HR costs (21/91, 42/91, 28/91) Alloc. of Info. Syst. costs (320/3,840, 1,920/3,840, 1,600/3,840) $72,700 (94,041) $234,400 21,702 Operating Depts. Corporate Consumer $ 998,270 43,404 $489,860 28,935 Total $1,795,23 0
21,341 $ 0
(256,102) $ 0
128,051 $1,169,725
106,710 $625,505 $1,795,23 0
Solution Exhibit 15-22 presents the reciprocal method using repeated iterations.
15-12
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 15-22 Reciprocal Method of Allocating Support Department Costs for September 2009 at E-books Using Repeated Iterations
Support Departments Operating Departments Information Corporate Consumer Human Resources Systems Sales Sales
Budgeted manufacturing overhead costs before any interdepartmental cost allocation 1st Allocation of HR (21/91, 42/91, 28/91)a 1st Allocation of Information Systems (320/3,840, 1,920/3,840, 1,600/3,840)b 2nd Allocation of HR (21/91, 42/91, 28/91)a 2nd Allocation of Information Systems (320/3,840, 1,920/3,840, 1,600/3,840)b 3rd Allocation of HR (21/91, 42/91, 28/91)a 3rd Allocation of Information Systems (320/3,840, 1,920/3,840, 1,600/3,840)b 4th Allocation of HR (21/91, 42/91, 28/91)a 4th Allocation of Information Systems: (320/3,840, 1,920/3,840, 1,600/3,840)b Total budgeted manufacturing overhead of operating departments $72,700 (72,700) $234,400 16,777 251,177 $ 998,270 33,554 $489,860 22,369
Total
$1,795,230
20,931
(251,177)
125,589
104,657
(20,931)
4,830
9,661
6,440
402
(4,830)
2,415
2,013
(402)
93
185
124
8
(93)
46
39
(8)
2
4
2
0
(2)
1
1
$
0
$
0
$1,169,725
$625,505
$1,795,230
Total accounts allocated and reallocated (the numbers in parentheses in first two columns) HR $72,700 + $20,931 + $402 + $8 = $94,041 Information Systems $251,177 + $4,830 + $93 + $2 = $256,102
aBase bBase
is (21 + 42 + 28) or 91 employees is (320 + 1,920 + 1,600) or 3,840 minutes
3. The reciprocal method is more accurate than the direct and step-down methods when there are reciprocal relationships among support departments. A summary of the alternatives is:
Direct method Step-down method (HR first) Reciprocal method Corporate Sales $1,169,745 1,168,830 1,169,725 Consumer Sales $625,485 626,400 625,505
The reciprocal method is the preferred method, although for September 2009 the numbers do not appear materially different across the alternatives.
15-13
15-23 1.
(2030 min.) Allocation of common costs. Three methods of allocating the $55 are: Stand-alone Incremental (Ed primary) Incremental (Mike primary) Shapley value a. Stand-alone cost allocation method. Mike: $40 $40 + $20 $20 $40 + $20 $55 = 2 3 1 3 $55 = $37 Mike $37 35 40 37.50 Ed $18 20 15 17.50
Ed:
$55
=
$55
= $18
b. Incremental cost allocation method. Assume Ed (the owner) is the primary user and Mike is the incremental user: User Ed Mike Total Costs Allocated $20 35 ($55 $20) $55 Cumulative Costs Allocated $20 $55
This method may generate some dispute over the ranking. Notice that Mike pays only $35 despite his prime interest in the more expensive Internet access package. Ed could make the argument that if Mike were ranked first he would have to pay $40 since he is the major Internet user. Then, Ed would only have to pay $15! Assume Mike is the primary user and Ed is the incremental user: Costs Allocated $40 15 ($55 $40) $55 Cumulative Costs Allocated $40 $55
User Mike Ed Total
c. Shapley value (average over costs allocated as the primary and incremental user). Costs Allocated ($40 + $35) 2 = $37.50 ($20 + $15) 2 = $17.50
User Mike Ed
15-14
2. I would recommend the Shapley value. It is fairer than the incremental method because it avoids considering one user as the primary user and allocating more of the common costs to that user. It also avoids disputes about who is the primary user. It allocates costs in a manner that is close to the costs allocated under the stand-alone method but takes a more comprehensive view of the common cost allocation problem by considering primary and incremental users that the stand-alone method ignores. More generally, other criteria to guide common cost allocations include the following: a. Cause and effect. It is not possible to trace individual causes (either Internet access or phone services) to individual effects (uses by Mike or Ed). The $55 total package is a bundled product. b. Benefits received. There are various ways of operationalizing the benefits received: (i) Monthly service charge for their prime interestInternet access for Mike ($40), and phone services for Ed ($20). This measure captures the services available to each person. (ii) Actual usage by each person. This would involve keeping a record of usage by each person and then allocating the $55 on a percent usage time basis. This measure captures the services actually used by each person, but it may prove burdensome and it would be subject to honest reporting by Ed and Mike. c. Ability to pay. This criterion requires that Mike and Ed agree upon their relative ability to pay. d. Fairness or equity. This criterion is relatively nebulous. A straightforward approach would be to split the $55 equally among the two users.
15-15
15-24 (20 min.) Allocation of common costs. 1. Alternative approaches for the allocation of the $1,800 airfare include the following: a. The stand-alone cost allocation method. This method would allocate the air fare on the basis of each clients percentage of the total of the individual stand-alone costs. Baltimore client Chicago client $1, 400 $1,800 = $1,008 $1, 400 $1,100 $1,100 $1,800 = $1, 400 $1,100 792 $1,800 Advocates of this method often emphasize an equity or fairness rationale. b. The incremental cost allocation method. This requires the choice of a primary party and an incremental party. If the Baltimore client is the primary party, the allocation would be: Baltimore client Chicago client $1,400 400 $1,800
One rationale is that Gunn was planning to make the Baltimore trip, and the Chicago stop was added subsequently. Some students have suggested allocating as much as possible to the Baltimore client since Gunn had decided not to work for them. If the Chicago client is the primary party, the allocation would be: Chicago client Baltimore client $1,100 700 $1,800
One rationale is that the Chicago client is the one who is going to use Gunns services, and presumably receives more benefits from the travel expenditures. c. Gunn could calculate the Shapley value that considers each client in turn as the primary party: The Baltimore client is allocated $1,400 as the primary party and $700 as the incremental party for an average of ($1,400 + $700) 2 = $1,050. The Chicago client is allocated $1,100 as the primary party and $400 as the incremental party for an average of ($1,100 + 400) 2 = $750. The Shapley value approach would allocate $1,050 to the Baltimore client and $750 to the Chicago client.
15-16
2. I would recommend Gunn use the Shapley value. It is fairer than the incremental method because it avoids considering one party as the primary party and allocating more of the common costs to that party. It also avoids disputes about who is the primary party. It allocates costs in a manner that is close to the costs allocated under the stand-alone method but takes a more comprehensive view of the common cost allocation problem by considering primary and incremental users, which the stand-alone method ignores. The Shapley value (or the stand-alone cost allocation method) would be the preferred methods if Gunn was to send the travel expenses to the Baltimore and Chicago clients before deciding which engagement to accept. Other factors as such whether to charge the Chicago client more because Gunn is accepting the Chicago engagement or the Baltimore client more because Gunn is not going to work for them can be considered if Gunn sends in her travel expenses after making her decision. However, each company would not want to be considered as the primary party and so is likely to object to these arguments. 3. A simple approach is to split the $60 equally between the two clients. The limousine costs at the Sacramento end are not a function of distance traveled on the plane. An alternative approach is to add the $60 to the $1,800 and repeat requirement 1: a. Stand-alone cost allocation method. $1, 460 Baltimore client $1,860 = $1,036 $1, 460 $1,160 Chicago client $1,160 $1,860 = $ 824 $1, 460 $1,160
b. Incremental cost allocation method. With Baltimore client as the primary party: Baltimore client $1,460 Chicago client 400 $1,860 With Chicago client as the primary party: Chicago client $1,160 Baltimore client 700 $1,860 c. Shapley value. Baltimore client: Chicago client:
($1,460 + $700) 2 = $1,080 ($400 + $1,160) 2 = $ 780
As discussed in requirement 2, the Shapley value or the stand-alone cost allocation method would probably be the preferred approaches.
Note: If any students in the class have faced this situation when visiting prospective employers, ask them how they handled it.
15-17
15-25 (20 min.) Revenue allocation, bundled products. 1a. Under the stand alone revenue-allocation method based on selling price, Monaco will be allocated 40% of all revenues, or $72 of the bundled selling price, and Innocence will be allocated 60% of all revenues, or $108 of the bundled selling price, as shown below. Stand-alone method, based on selling prices Selling price Selling price as a % of total ($80 $200; $120 $200) Allocation of $180 bundled selling price (40% $180; 60% $180) Monaco Innocence $80 $120 40% $72 60% $108 Total $200 100% $180
1b. Under the incremental revenue-allocation method, with Monaco ranked as the primary product, Monaco will be allocated $80 (its own stand-alone selling price) and Innocence will be allocated $100 of the $180 selling price, as shown below. Incremental Method (Monaco rank 1) Selling price Allocation of $180 bundled selling price ($80; $100 = $180 $80)
Monaco Innocence $80 $120 $80 $100
1c. Under the incremental revenue-allocation method, with Innocence ranked as the primary product, Innocence will be allocated $120 (its own stand-alone selling price) and Monaco will be allocated $60 of the $180 selling price, as shown below. Incremental Method (Innocence rank 1) Selling price Allocation of $180 bundled selling price ($60 = $180 $120; $120)
Monaco Innocence $80 $120 $60 $120
1d. Under the Shapley value method, each product will be allocated the average of its allocations in 1b and 1c, i.e., the average of its allocations when it is the primary product and when it is the secondary product, as shown below. Shapley Value Method Allocation when Monaco = Rank 1; Innocence = Rank 2 (from 1b.) Allocation when Innocence = Rank 1; Monaco = Rank 2 (from 1c.) Average of allocated selling price ($80 + $60) 2; ($100 + $120) 2 Monaco Innocence $80 $60 $70 $100 $120 $110
15-18
2.
A summary of the allocations based on the four methods in requirement 1 is shown below. Stand-alone (Selling Prices) Monaco $ 72 Innocence 108 Total for LAmour $180 Incremental (Monaco first) $ 80 100 $180 Incremental (Innocence first) $ 60 120 $180
Shapley $ 70 110 $180
If there is no clear indication of which product is the more important product, or, if it can be reasonably assumed that the two products are equally important to the company's strategy, the Shapley value method is the fairest of all the methods because it averages the effect of product rank. In this particular case, note that the allocations from the stand-alone method based on selling price are reasonably similar to the allocations from the Shapley value method, so the managers at Yves may well want to use the much simpler stand-alone method. The stand-alone method also does not require ranking the products in the suite, and so it is less likely to cause debates among product managers in the Men's and Women's Fragrance divisions. If, however, one of the products (Monaco or Innocence) is clearly the product that is driving sales of the bundled product, then that product should be considered as the primary product. 15-26 (10-15 min. ) Allocation of Common Costs 1. a. Stand-alone method (costs are in thousands): Separate Cost $2,100 1,400 3,500 $7,000 Joint Cost $5,000 5,000 5,000
City Albany Troy Schenectady
Percentage $2,100 $7,000=0.3 $1,400 $7,000=0.2 $3,500 $7,000=0.5
Allocation $1,500 1,000 2,500 $5,000
1. b. Incremental method (cities ranked in order of most waste to least waste): Allocated Cost $3,500 1,500 0 Cost Remaining to Allocate $1,500 ($5,000 $3,500) 0 ($1,500 $1,500) 0
Schenectady Albany Troy
2. In this situation, the stand-alone method is the better method because the weights it uses for allocation are based on the cost for each user as a separate entity. The citizens of Schenectady would not consider the incremental method fair because they would be subsidizing the other cities (especially Troy). Albany is indifferent across the two methods; its citizens save $600,000 over the stand-alone cost in either case. While the citizens of Troy would clearly prefer the incremental allocation method and might seek to justify it because they generate the least amount of waste, they should understand that citizens of the other cities would believe it is not fair.
15-19
15-27 (20 min.) Single-rate, dual-rate, and practical capacity allocation. Budgeted number of gifts wrapped = 6,750 Budgeted fixed costs = $6,750 Fixed cost per gift based on budgeted volume = $6,750 6,750 = $1.00 Average budgeted variable cost per gift = 0.50 Total cost per gift wrapped $1.50 1.a. Allocation budgeted usage of gift-wrapping services: Womens Face Wash (2,475 $1.50) Mens Face Wash (825 $1.50) Fragrances (1,800 $1.50) Body Wash (450 $1.50) Hair Products (1,200 $1.50) Total $ 3,712.50 1,237.50 2,700.00 675.00 1,800.00 $10,125.00 based on based on
1.b. Allocation actual usage of gift-wrapping services: Womens Face Wash (2,100 $1.50) Mens Face Wash (750 $1.50) Fragrances (1,575 $1.50) Body Wash (525 $1.50) Hair Products (1,050 $1.50) Total $3,150.00 1,125.00 2,362.50 787.50 1,575.00 $9,000.00
1.c. Practical gift-wrapping capacity = 7,500 Budgeted fixed costs = $6,750 Fixed cost per gift based on practical capacity = $6,750 7,500 = $0.90 Average budgeted variable cost per gift = 0.50 Total cost per gift wrapped $1.40 Allocation based on actual usage of gift-wrapping services: Womens Face Wash (2,100 $1.40) Mens Face Wash (750 $1.40) Fragrances (1,575 $1.40) Body Wash (525 $1.40) 735 Hair Products (1,050 $1.40) 1,470 Total $8,400 $2,940 1,050 2,205
15-20
2. Budgeted rate for fixed costs
=
Budgeted fixed costs Practical capacity
=$6,750 7,500 gifts = $0.90 per gift Fixed costs allocated on budgeted usage. Rate for variable costs = $0.50 per item Variable costs based on actual usage. Allocation: Department Womens Face Wash Mens Face Wash Fragrances Body Wash Hair Products Total 3. Variable Costs 2,100 $0.50 =$1,050.00 750 $0.50 = 375.00 1,575 $0.50 = 787.50 525 $0.50 = 262.50 1,050 $0.50 = 525.00 $3,000.00 Fixed Costs 2,475 $0.90 = $2,227.50 825 $0.90 = 742.50 1,800 $0.90 = 1,620.00 450 $0.90 = 405.00 1,200 $0.90 = 1,080.00 $6,075.00 Total $3,277.50 1,117.50 2,407.50 667.50 1,605.00 $9,075.00
The dual-rate method has two major advantages over the single-rate method: a. Fixed costs and variable costs can be allocated differentlyfixed costs based on rates calculated using practical capacity and budgeted usage and variable costs based on budgeted rates and actual usage. b. Fixed costs are allocated proportionately to the departments causing the incurrence of those costs based on the capacity of each department. c. The costs allocated to a department are not affected by the usage by other departments.
Note: If capacity costs are the result of a long-term decision by top management, it may be desirable to allocate to each department the cost of capacity used based on actual usage. The users are then not allocated the costs of unused capacity.
15-21
15-28
(20 min.)
Revenue allocation
1. a. Stand-alone method for the BegM + RCC package Separate Revenue $ 60 40 $100 Joint Percentage Revenue $60 $100=0.6 $90 $40 $100=0.4 90
DVD BegM RCC
Allocation $54 36 $90
1. b. Incremental method i) BegM RCC ii) RCC BegM Allocated Revenue (BegM first) $60 30 Allocated Revenue (RCC first) $40 50 Revenue Remaining To Allocate $30 ($90 $60)
Revenue Remaining To Allocate $50 ($90 $40)
1. c. Shapley method. (assuming each DVD is demanded in equal proportion) i) BegM ii) RCC ($60 + $50) 2 = $55 ($30 + $40) 2 = $35
2. a. Stand-alone method for the ConM + RCC package Separate Revenue $50 40 $90 Joint Percentage Revenue $50 $90=0.556 $72 $40 $90=0.444 72
DVD ConM RCC
Allocation $40 32 $72
2. b. Incremental method i) Allocated Revenue (ConM first) $50 22 Allocated Revenue (RCC first) $40 32 Revenue Remaining To Allocate $22 ($72 $50)
ConM RCC ii)
RCC ConM
Revenue Remaining To Allocate $32 ($72 $40)
15-22
2. c. Shapley method. (assuming each DVD is demanded in equal proportion) i) BegM ii) RCC (50+32) 2 = 41 (22+40) 2 = 31
3.
For each DVD package, the stand-alone method and the Shapley method give approximately the same allocation to each DVD. These methods are fair if the demand for the DVDs are approximately equal. The stand-alone method might be slightly preferable here since it is simpler and easier to explain. The incremental method would be appropriate if one DVD has a higher level of demand than the other DVD. In this situation, the dominant DVD would be sold anyway so it should receive its stand-alone revenue, and the other DVD should receive the remainder.
15-23
15-29 (20 min.) 1.
Fixed cost allocation
i) Allocation using actual usage. Actual Usage 1,500 1,400 1,300 4,200 Percentage of Total Usage 0.357 0.333 0.310 Allocation % 10,000 $ 3,570 3,330 3,100 $10,000
Restaurant A B C Total
ii) Allocation using planned usage. Percentage of Total Planned Usage 0.400 0.325 0.275
Restaurant A B C Total
Planned Usage 1,600 1,300 1,100 4,000
Allocation % 10,000 $ 4,000 3,250 2,750 $10,000
iii) Allocation using practical capacity. Percentage of Total Practical Capacity 0.400 0.300 0.300
Restaurant A B C Total
Practical Capacity 2,000 1,500 1,500 5,000
Allocation % 10,000 $ 4,000 3,000 3,000 $10,000
2. If the practical capacity refers to the number of parking spots that are earmarked or reserved for each of the restaurants, then it would appear to be the most appropriate basis for allocating the $10,000 common cost. This ratio is a stable benchmark and does not fluctuate based on variations in either the actual or planned monthly usage of spots for each of the restaurants, which is an issue with each of the other two methods. Moreover, the practical capacity taken by each restaurant presumably reflects the restaurants expectation of the long-run usage of the parking facility by its patrons. The cost of any unused capacity then highlights the extent to which these expectations are not met, and might lead to the restaurant settling for a smaller parking facility in the future. Of course, if it is ever the case that the expected or actual usage for any restaurant exceeds the practical capacity that it has booked, it would need to suitably compensate the other restaurants for the portion of their parking capacity it has appropriated.
15-24
15-30 (45 min.) Allocating costs of support departments; step-down and direct methods.
Building & Grounds $ 10,000 $(10,000) General Plant Admin. $ 26,090 700 210 $(27,000) Cafeteria Operating Loss $ 1,640 400 60 1,000 $(3,100)
1. Step-down Method: (1) Building & grounds at $0.10/sq.ft. ($10,000 100,000) (2) Personnel at $6/employee ($1,200 200) (3) General plant administration at $1/labor-hour ($27,000 27,000) (4) Cafeteria at $20/empoloyee ($3,100 155) (5) Storeroom at $1.50/requisition ($4,500 3,000) (6) Costs allocated to operating depts. (7) Divide (6) by dir. manuf. labor-hrs. (8) Overhead rate per direct manuf. labor-hour 2. Direct method: (1) Building & grounds, 30,000/80,000; 50,000/80,000 (2) Personnel, 50/150; 100/150 (3) General plant administration, 8,000/25,000; 17,000/25,000 (4) Cafeteria, 50/150; 100/150 (5) Storeroom: 2,000/3,000; 1,000/3,000 (6) Costs allocated to operating depts. (7) Divide (6) by direct manufacturing labor-hours (8) Overhead rate per direct manufacturing labor-hour
Personnel $ 1,000 200 $(1,200)
Storeroom $ 2,670 700 30 1,000 100 $(4,500)
Machining $34,700 3,000 300 8,000 1,000 3,000 $50,000 5,000 $ 10
Assembly $48,900 5,000 600 17,000 2,000 1,500 $75,000 15,000 $ 5
$10,000 (10,000)
$1,000
$26,090
$1,640
$2,670
$34,700 3,750 333
$48,900 6,250 667 17,741 1,093 890 $75,541 15,000 $ 5.036
(1,000) (26,090) (1,640) (2,670)
8,349 547 1,780 $49,459 5,000 $ 9.892
15-25
3.
Comparison of Methods: 18 $10 2$ 5 3 $10 17 $ 5 18 $9.892 2 $5.036 3 $9.892 17 $5.036 $180 10 $ 30 85 $178.06 10.07 $ 29.68 85.61
Step-down method: Job 88: Job 89:
$190.00 115.00
Direct method:
Job 88: Job 89:
$188.13 115.29
4. The manager of Machining Department would prefer the direct method. The direct method results in a lower amount of support departments costs being allocated to the Machining Department than the step-down method. This is clear from a comparison of the overhead rate, per direct manufacturing labor-hour, for the Machining Department under the two methods.
15-26
15-31 (4060 min.) Support-department cost allocations; single-department cost pools; direct, step-down, and reciprocal methods. All the following computations are in dollars. 1. Direct method: To X A 250/400 $100,000 = $62,500 150/400 $100,000 =$37,500 B 100/500 $ 40,000 = 8,000 400/500 $ 40,000 = 32,000 Total $70,500 Step-down method, allocating A first: Costs to be allocated Allocate A: (100; 250; 150 500) Allocate B: (100; 400 500) Total Step-down method, allocating B first: A B X Costs to be allocated $100,000$ 40,000 Allocate B: (500; 100; 400 1,000) 20,000 (40,000) $ 4,000 Allocate A: (250/400, 150/400) (120,000) 75,000 Total $ 0 $ 0 $79,000 Y $16,000 45,000 $61,000 A $100,000 (100,000) $ 0 B $40,000 20,000 (60,000) $ 0 X $50,000 12,000 $62,000 Y $30,000 48,000 $78,000
To Y
$69,500
Note that these methods produce significantly different results, so the choice of method may frequently make a difference in the budgeted department overhead rates. Reciprocal method: Stage 1: Let (1) (2) A B A B = total costs of materials-handling department = total costs of power-generating department = $100,000 + 0.5B = $ 40,000 + 0.2A A A 0.9A A B B = = = = $100,000 + 0.5($40,000 + 0.2A) $100,000 + $20,000 + 0.1A $120,000 $133,333
Stage 2: Substituting in (1):
Substituting in (2):
= $40,000 + 0.2($133,333) = $66,666
Stage 3: A $100,000 B $40,000 X Y
Original amounts
15-27
Allocation of A Allocation of B 26,666(40%) Totals accounted for
(133,333) $66,667(50%) 33,333(50%) $ 0
26,666(20%) $40,000(30%) (66,666) $ 0
6,667(10%) $73,334 $66,666
15-28
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 15-31 Reciprocal Method of Allocating Support Department Costs for Manes Company Using Repeated Iterations.
Operating Departments X Y
Support Departments A B
Budgeted manufacturing overhead costs before any interdepartmental cost allocations 1st Allocation of Dept. A: (2/10, 5/10, 3/10)a 1st Allocation of Dept. B (5/10, 1/10, 4/10)b 2nd Allocation of Dept. A (2/10, 5/10, 3/10)a 2nd Allocation of Dept B: (5/10, 1/10, 4/10)b 3rd Allocation of Dept A: (2/10, 5/10, 3/10)a 3rd Allocation of Dept. B: (5/10, 1/10, 4/10)b 4th Allocation of Dept. A (2/10, 5/10, 3/10)a 4th Allocation of Dept. B (5/10, 1/10, 4/10)b 5th Allocation of Dept A (2/10, 5/10, 3/10) 5th Allocation of Dept B (5/10, 1/10, 4/10) 6th Allocation of Dept A (2/10, 5/10, 3/10) Total budgeted manufacturing overhead of operating departments
$100,000 (100,000)
$40,000 20 ,000 60 ,000 (60,000) 6,000 (6,000) 600 (600) 60 (60) 6 (6) 0 $ 0
$50,000
$30,000
30,000 (30,000) 3,000 (3,000) 300 (300) 30 (30) 3 (3) $ 0
6,000 15,000 600 1,500 60 150 6 15 1 2 $73,334
24,000 9,000 2,400 900 240 90 24 9 2 1 $66,666
Total accounts allocated and reallocated (the numbers in parentheses in first two columns) Dept A; Materials Handling: $100,000 + $30,000 + $3,000 + $300 + $30 + $3 = $133,333 Dept B; Power Generation: $60,000 + $6,000 + $600 + $60 + $6 = $66,666
aBase bBase
is (100 + 250 +150) or 500 labor-hours; 100 500 = 2/10, 250 500 = 5/10, 150 500 = 3/10. is (500 + 100 + 400) or 1,000 kWh ; 500 1,000 = 5/10, 100 1,000 = 1/10, 400 1,000 = 4/10.
Comparison of methods: Method of Allocation Direct method Step-down: A first Step-down: B first Reciprocal method X $70,500 62,000 79,000 73,334 Y $69,500 78,000 61,000 66,666
Note that in this case the direct method produces answers that are the closest to the correct answers (that is, those from the reciprocal method), step-down allocating B first is next, and stepdown allocating A first is least accurate.
15-29
2. At first glance, it appears that the cost of power is $40 per unit plus the material handling costs. If so, Manes would be better off by purchasing from the power company. However, the decision should be influenced by the effects of the interdependencies and the fixed costs. Note that the power needs would be less (students frequently miss this) if they were purchased from the outside: Outside Power Units Needed Needed 100 400
X Y A (500 units minus 20% of 500 units, because there is no need to service the nonexistent power department) Total units Total costs, 900 $40 = $36,000
400 900
In contrast, the total costs that would be saved by not producing the power inside would depend on the effects of the decision on various costs: Avoidable Costs of 1,000 Units of Power Produced Inside Variable indirect labor and indirect material costs Supervision in power department Materials handling, 20% of $70,000* Probable minimum cost savings Possible additional savings: a. Can any supervision in materials handling be saved because of overseeing less volume? Minimum savings is probably zero; the maximum is probably 20% of $10,000 or $2,000. b. Is any depreciation a truly variable, wear-and-tear type of cost? Total savings by not producing 1,000 units of power
* Materials handling costs are higher because the power department uses 20% of materials handling. Therefore, materials-handling costs will decrease by 20%.
$10,000 10,000 14,000 $34,000
?
? ______ $34,000 + ?
In the short run (at least until a capital investment in equipment is necessary), the data suggest continuing to produce internally because the costs eliminated would probably be less than the comparable purchase costs.
15-30
15-32 (25 min.) Common costs. 1. Stand-alone cost-allocation method. Wright, Inc. = (900 $40) (1,500 $32) (900 $40) (600 $40) $36, 000 $48, 000 = $28,800 ($36, 000 $24, 000) (600 $40) (1,500 $32) (900 $40) (600 $40) $24, 000 $48, 000 = $19,200 ($36, 000 $24, 000)
=
Brown, Inc.
=
= 2.
With Wright, Inc. as the primary party: Party Wright Brown Total Costs Allocated $36,000 12,000 ($48,000 $36,000) $48,000 Cumulative Costs Allocated $36,000 $48,000
With Brown, Inc. as the primary party: Party Brown Wright Total Costs Allocated $24,000 24,000 ($48,000 $24,000) $48,000 Cumulative Costs Allocated $24,000 $48,000
15-31
3. To use the Shapley value method, consider each party as first the primary party and then the incremental party. Compute the average of the two to determine the allocation. Wright, Inc.: Allocation as the primary party Allocation as the incremental party Total Allocation ($60,000 2) Brown, Inc.: Allocation as the primary party Allocation as the incremental party Total Allocation ($36,000 2)
$36,000 24,000 $60,000 $30,000
$24,000 12,000 $36,000 $18,000
Using this approach, Wright, Inc. is allocated $30,000 and Brown, Inc. is allocated $18,000 of the total costs of $48,000.
4.
The results of the four cost-allocation methods are shown below. Wright, Inc. $28,800 36,000 24,000 30,000 Brown, Inc. $19,200 12,000 24,000 18,000
Stand-alone method Incremental (Wright primary) Incremental (Brown primary) Shapley value
The allocations are very sensitive to the method used. The stand-alone method is simple and fair since it allocates the common cost of the dyeing machine in proportion to the individual costs of leasing the machine. The Shapley values are also fair. They result in very similar allocations and any one of them can be chosen. In this case, the stand-alone method is likely more acceptable. If they used the incremental cost-allocation method, Wright, Inc. and Brown, Inc. would probably have disputes over who is the primary party because the primary party gets allocated all of the primary partys costs.
15-32
15-33 (20-25 mins.) Stand alone revenue allocation 1. Allocation using ticket sales price Percentage of Total Price 0.333 0.500 0.167 Allocation % $90 $30 45 15 $90
Park Water Superhero Theme Animal Total
Ticket Price $ 40 60 20 $120
2. Allocation using cost per entrant Cost Per Entrant $15 25 10 $50 Percentage of Total Cost 0.300 0.500 0.200 Allocation % $90 $27 45 18 $90
Park Water Superhero Theme Animal Total
3. Allocation using # of tickets received # of Tickets Received 1 1 1 3 Percentage of Total Price 0.333 0.333 0.333 Allocation % $90 $30 30 30 $90
Park Water Superhero Theme Animal Total
4. Sharing on the basis of revenue makes the most sense, especially if the ticket price is somewhat a surrogate for demand. One could argue that since each ticket gives the entrant one full day in each park, then an entrants willingness to pay more for a particular park reflects the additional value placed on that park. Also, it would be hard to justify the Animal park receiving almost its full ticket price using the cost basis and more than its ticket price using the # of tickets basis.
15-33
15-34 (10-15 min.) Effect of demand (continuation of 15-33) 1. If the Water park receives its full ticket price of $40, then the remaining proceeds from the sale of the three day ticket, $90 40 = $50, would be divided between the two remaining parks. Using ticket price as the basis of allocation, each park would receive: Percentage of Total Price 0.750 0.250 Allocation % $50 $37.50 12.50 $50.00
Park Superhero Theme Animal Total
Ticket Price $60 20 $80
The same process would be used for the other two allocation bases. Under the cost basis, the 25 Superhero Theme park receives $50 = $35.71, while Animal park gets the other $14.29. 25+10 If revenue is assigned based on the number of tickets received, then the Superhero Theme and Animal Parks would each receive $25. 2. If the Superhero Theme park also demanded its full ticket price then it would want to receive $60. The two parks, Water and Superhero Theme, would then receive a combined amount of $40 + 60 = $100. Since the three-day ticket sells for only $90, this would not be possible. In addition, the Animal park director would not be pleased because he would incur a $10 cost for each entrant but receive no proceeds from the ticket. 3. If both the Water and the Superhero Theme parks are really operating at capacity then Funland is losing money by selling the three-day ticket for $90. Kent Clark should either raise the price or decide not to sell the three-day ticket. Alternatively, if he wishes to persist with the current arrangement, he should use a more sophisticated arrangement for allocating revenue, such as the Shapley method or even the weighted Shapley method. In the latter case, Kent could assign the number of months each park is considered the primary park as the weighting scheme. For example, while the Water Park may drive sales of the three-day ticket during summer months, customers may be more interested in one of the other parks during cooler periods.
15-34
Collaborative Learning Problem 15-35 (2025 min.) Revenue allocation, bundled products. 1.a. The stand-alone revenues (using unit selling prices) of the three components of the $1,000 package are: Lodging $400.00 2 = $ 800 Recreation $187.50 2 = 375 Food $100.00 2 = 200 $1,375 Lodging $800 $1,000 0.582 $1,000 $582 $1,375 $375 $1,000 0.273 $1,000 $273 $1,375 $200 $1,000 0.145 $1,000 $145 $1,375
Recreation
Food b.
Product Recreation Lodging Food
Revenue Allocated $ 375 625 ($1,000 $375) 0 $1,000
Cumulative Revenue Allocated $ 375 $1,000 $1,000
15-35
2.
The pros of the stand-alone-revenue-allocation method include the following: a. Each item in the bundle receives a positive weight, which means the resulting allocations are more likely to be accepted by all parties than a method allocating zero revenues to one or more products. b. It uses market-based evidence (unit selling prices) to decide the revenue allocationsunit prices are one indicator of benefits received . c. It is simple to implement. The cons of the stand-alone revenue-allocation method include: a. It ignores the relative importance of the individual components in attracting consumers to purchase the bundle. b. It ignores the opportunity cost of the individual components in the bundle. The golf course operates at 100% capacity. Getaway participants must reserve a golf booking one week in advance, or else they are not guaranteed playing time. A getaway participant who does not use the golf option may not displace anyone. Thus, under the stand-alone method, the golf course may be paid twiceonce from the non-getaway person who does play and second from an allocation of the $1,000 package amount for the getaway person who does not play (either did not want to play or wanted to play but made a booking too late, or failed to show). c. The weight can be artificially inflated by individual product managers setting high list unit prices and then being willing to frequently discount these prices. The use of actual unit prices or actual revenues per product in the stand-alone formula will reduce this problem. d. The weights may change frequently if unit prices are constantly changing. This is not so much a criticism as a reflection that the marketplace may be highly competitive. The pros of the incremental method include: a. It has the potential to reflect that some products in the bundle are more highly valued than others. Not all products in the bundle have a similar write-down from unit list prices. Ensuring this potential pro becomes an actual pro requires that the choice of the primary product be guided by reliable evidence on consumer preferences. This is not an easy task. b. Once the sequence is chosen, it is straightforward to implement. The cons of the incremental method include: a. Obtaining the rankings can be highly contentious and place managers in a no-win acrimonious debate. The revenue allocations can be sensitive to the chosen rankings. b. Some products will have zero revenues assigned to them. Consider the Food division. It would incur the costs for the two dinners but receive no revenue.
15-36