CHAPTER 12
TACTICAL DECISION MAKING
QUESTIONS FOR WRITING AND DISCUSSION
1. A tactical decision is short-run in nature; it
involves choosing among alternatives with
an immediate or limited end in view. A stra-
tegic decision involves selecting strategies
that yield a long-term competitive advan-
tage.
2. Depreciation is an allocation of a sunk cost.
This cost is a past cost and will never differ
across alternatives.
3. The salary of a supervisor in an accept or
reject decision is an example of an irrelevant
future cost.
4. If one alternative is to be judged superior to
another alternative on the basis of cash-flow
comparisons, then cash flows must be ex-
pressed as an annual amount (or periodic
amount); otherwise, consideration must be
given to the time value of the nonperiodic
cash flows.
5. Disagree. Qualitative factors also have an
important bearing on the decision and may,
at times, overrule the quantitative evidence
from a relevant costing analysis.
6. The purchase of equipment needed to pro-
duce a special order is an example of a fixed
cost that is relevant.
7. Relevant costs are those costs that differ
across alternatives. Differential costs are the
differences between the costs of two alter-
natives.
8. Depreciation is a relevant cost whenever it is
a future cost that differs across alternatives.
Thus, it must involve a capital asset not yet
acquired.
9. Past costs can be used as information to
help predict future costs.
10. Yes. Suppose, for example, that sufficient
materials are on hand for producing a part
for two years. After two years, the part will
be replaced by a newly engineered part. If
there is no alternative use of the materials,
then the cost of the materials is a sunk cost
and not relevant in a make-or-buy decision.
391
11. Complementary effects may make it more
expensive to drop a product, as the dropped
product has a negative impact on other
products.
12. A manager can identify alternatives by using
his or her own knowledge and experience
and by obtaining input from others who are
familiar with the problem.
13. No. Joint costs are irrelevant. They occur
regardless of whether the product is sold at
the split-off point or processed further.
14. Yes. The incremental revenue is $1,400,
and the incremental cost is only $1,000,
creating a net benefit of $400.
15. Regardless of how many units are pro-
duced, fixed costs remain the same. Thus,
fixed costs do not change as product mix
changes.
16. No. If a scarce resource is used in producing
the two products, then the product providing
the greatest contribution per unit of scarce
resource should be selected. For more than
one scarce resource, linear programming
may be used to select the optimal mix.
17. If a firm is operating below capacity, then a
price that is above variable costs will in-
crease profits. A firm may sell a product be-
low cost as a loss leader, hoping that many
customers will purchase additional items
with greater contribution margins. Grocery
stores often use this strategy.
18. Different prices can be quoted to customers
in markets not normally served, to noncom-
peting customers, and in a competitive bid-
ding setting.
19. Linear programming is used to select the
optimal product mix whenever there are mul-
tiple constrained scarce resources.
20. An objective function is the one to be max-
imized (or minimized) subject to a set of
constraints. A constraint restricts the possi-
ble values of variables appearing in the ob-
jective function. Usually, a constraint is con-
 cerned with a scarce resource. A constraint
set is the collection of all constraints for a
given problem.
21. A feasible solution is a solution to a linear
programming problem that satisfies the
problem’s constraints. The feasible set of
solutions is the collection of all feasible solu-
tions.
392
22. To solve a linear programming problem
graphically, use the following four steps: (1)
graph each constraint, (2) identify the feasi-
ble set of solutions, (3) identify all corner
points in the feasible set, and (4) select the
corner point that yields the optimal value for
the objective function. Typically, when a li-
near programming problem has more than
two or three products, the simplex method
must be used.
 EXERCISES

12–1

The correct order is: D, E, B, F, C, A.

12–2

Situation Flexible Resource Committed Resource Committed Resource

Short Term Multiple Periods
A Forms & supplies Purchasing agents
Telephone/internet
fees
Office equipment
B Counter staff Paper supplies Building and parking lot
Food Advertising lease
Utilities
C Substitute help Lawn mower oil Power mower
Gasoline Weed eater
Pickup truck

12–3

1. The two alternatives are to make the component in house or to buy it from the
outside supplier.

2. Alternatives Differential
Make Buy Cost to Make
Direct materials $ 2.95 — $ 2.95
Direct labor 0.40 — 0.40
Variable overhead 1.80 — 1.80
Purchase cost — $6.50 (6.50)
Total relevant cost $ 5.15 $6.50 $ (1.35)
Chesbrough should make the component in house because operating income
will decrease by $27,000 ($1.35 × 20,000) if it is purchased from Berham Elec-
tronics.

393
12–4

1. Alternatives Differential
Make Buy Cost to Make
Direct materials $ 2.95 — $ 2.95
Direct labor 0.40 — 0.40
Variable overhead 1.80 — 1.80
Avoidable fixed overhead 1.85 — 1.85
Purchase cost — $6.50 (6.50)
Total relevant cost $ 7.00 $6.50 $ (0.50)

2. Chesbrough should purchase the component from Berham Electronics be-

cause operating income will increase by $10,000 ($0.50 × 20,000).

12–5

1. Regulars Seasonals Total

Sales revenue $135,000 $15,000 $150,000
Less: Variable expenses 50,000 8,600 58,600
Contribution margin $85,000 $6,400 $91,400
Less: Direct fixed expenses 3,000 1,200 4,200
Segment margin $82,000 $5,200 $ 87,200
Less: Common fixed expenses 60,000
Operating income $ 27,200

2. Dropping the seasonals line will reduce operating income by $5,200.

394
12–6

1. If Product C is dropped, profit will decrease by $15,000 since the avoidable

direct fixed costs are only $55,000 ($80,000 – $25,000). Depreciation is not re-
levant.

2. A new income statement, assuming that C is dropped and demand for B de-
creases by 10 percent, is given below (amounts are in thousands).
A B Total
Sales revenue $1,800 $1,440 $3,240
Less: Variable expenses 1,350 900 2,250
Contribution margin $450 $ 540 $990
Less: Direct fixed expenses 150 300 450
Segment margin $300 $ 240 $ 540
Less: Common fixed expenses 340
Operating income $ 200
Operating income will decrease by $50,000 ($250,000 – $200,000).

12–7

1. Direct materials $ 8.00

Direct labor 10.00
Variable overhead 4.00
Relevant cost per unit $22.00

Yes, Thomson should accept the special order, because operating income
will increase by $68,000 [($24 − $22) × 34,000].

395
12–7 Concluded

2. Additional revenue ($24 × 34,000) $816,000

Less:
Direct materials ($8 × 34,000) 272,000
Direct labor ($10 × 34,000) 340,000
Variable overhead ($4 × 34,000) 136,000
Contribution margin $68,000
Additional packing cost ($6,000 × 7)* 42,000
Increase in income $26,000

* 34,000/5,000 = 6.8, which is rounded up to 7 to reflect the lumpy nature of

the packing capacity (since additional capacity is purchased in 5,000 unit in-
crements)

Yes, the special order should be accepted because income will increase by
$26,000.

12–8

1. Direct materials $ 9.00

Direct labor 6.50
Variable overhead 2.00
Sales commission 1.75
Relevant cost per unit $19.25

No, Melton should not accept the special order, because operating income
will decrease by $8,750 [($19.25 − $18) × 7,000].

2. Direct materials $ 9.00

Direct labor 6.50
Variable overhead 2.00
Relevant cost per unit $17.50

Yes, Melton should accept the special order, because operating income will
increase by $3,500 [($18.00 − $17.50) × 7,000].

396
12–9

1. Sales $ 293,000
Costs 264,000
Operating profit $ 29,000

2. Sell Process Further Difference

Revenues $40,000 $73,700 $33,700
Further processing cost 0 23,900 23,900
Operating income $40,000 $49,800 $ 9,800
The company should process Delta further, because operating profit would
increase by $9,800 if it were processed further. (Note: Joint costs are irrele-
vant to this decision, because the company will incur them whether or not
Delta is processed further.)

12–10

1. ($30 × 2,000) + ($60 × 4,000) = $300,000

2. Juno Hera
Contribution margin $30 $60
÷ Pounds of material ÷ 2 ÷ 5
Contribution margin/pound $15 $12
Norton should make the 2,000 units of Juno, then make Hera.
2,000 units of Juno × 2 = 4,000 pounds
16,000 pounds – 4,000 pounds = 12,000 pounds for Hera
Hera production = 12,000/5 = 2,400 units
Product mix is 2,000 Juno and 2,400 Hera.
Total contribution margin = (2,000 × $30) + (2,400 × $60)
= $204,000

397
12–11

1. Basic Standard Deluxe

Price $ 9.00 $30.00 $35.00
Variable cost 6.00 20.00 10.00
Contribution margin $ 3.00 $10.00 $25.00
÷ Machine hours ÷ 0.10 ÷ 0.50 ÷ 0.75
Contribution margin/MHr. $30.00 $20.00 $33.33
The company should sell only the deluxe unit with contribution margin per
machine hour of $33.33. Sealing can produce 20,000 (15,000/0.75) deluxe units
per year. These 20,000 units, multiplied by the $25 contribution margin per
unit, would yield total contribution margin of $500,000.

2. Produce and sell 12,000 deluxe units, which would use 9,000 machine hours.
Then, produce and sell 50,000 basic units, which would use 5,000 machine
hours. Then produce and sell 2,000 standard units, which would use the re-
maining 1,000 machine hours.
Total contribution margin = ($25 × 12,000) + ($3 × 50,000) + ($10 × 2,000)
= $470,000

12–12

1. COGS + Markup(COGS) = Sales

$144,300 + Markup($144,300) = $206,349
Markup($144,300) = $206,349 – $144,300
Markup = $62,049/$144,300
Markup = 0.43, or 43%

2. Direct materials $ 800

Direct labor 1,600
Overhead 3,200
Total cost $ 5,600
Add: Markup 2,408
Initial bid $ 8,008

398
12–13

1. COGS + Markup(COGS) = Sales

$1,000,000 + Markup($1,000,000) = $1,250,000
Markup($1,000,000) = $1,250,000 – $1,000,000
Markup = $250,000/$1,000,000
Markup = 0.25, or 25%

2. Price = $43,000 + (0.25 × $43,000) = $53,750

12–14

1. Model A-4 Model M-3

Contribution margin $24 $ 15
÷ Hours on lathe ÷ 6 ÷ 3
Contribution margin/hours on lathe $ 4 $ 5
Model M-3 has the higher contribution margin per hour of drilling machine
use, so all 12,000 hours should be spent producing it. If that is done, 4,000
(12,000 hours/3 hours per unit) units of Model M-3 should be produced. Zero
units of Model A-4 should be produced.

2. If only 2,500 units of Model M-3 can be sold, then 2,500 units should be pro-
duced. This will take 7,500 hours of drilling machine time. The remaining
4,500 hours should be spent producing 750 (4,500/6) units of Model A-4.

399
12–15

1. Model 14-D Model 33-P

Contribution margin $ 12 $ 10
÷ Hours on lathe ÷ 4 ÷ 2
Contribution margin/hours on lathe $ 3 $ 5
Model 33-P has the higher contribution margin per hour of lathe use, so all
12,000 hours should be spent producing it. If that is done, 6,000 (12,000
hours/2 hours per unit) units of Model 33-P should be produced. Zero units of
Model 14-D should be produced.

2. If only 5,000 units of Model 33-P can be sold, then 5,000 units should be pro-
duced. This will take 10,000 hours of lathe time. The remaining 2,000 hours
should be spent producing 500 (2,000/4) units of Model 14-D.

12–16

1. Let X = Number of Model 14-D produced

Let Y = Number of Model 33-P produced
Maximize Z = $12X + $10Y (objective function)
4X + 2Y ≤ 12,000 (lathe constraint)
X ≤ 2,000 (demand constraint)
Y ≤ 5,000 (demand constraint)
X≥0
Y≥0

400
12–16 Continued

2.
Y

6,000

5,000 C
B

4,000

3,000

2,000 D

1,000

A E X
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Solution: The corner points are points A, B, C, D, and E. The point of intersec-
tion of the linear constraints is obtained by solving the two equations simul-
taneously.

Corner Point X-Value Y-Value Z = $12X + $10Y

A 0 0 $ 0
B 0 5,000 50,000
C 500 5,000 56,000
D 2,000 2,000 44,000
E 2,000 0 24,000
*The intersection values for X and Y can be found by solving the simultane-
ous equations:

401
12–16 Concluded

Corner Point C:
Y = 5,000
4X + 2Y = 12,000
4X + 2(5,000) = 12,000
4X = 2,000
X = 500
Z = $12(500) + $10(5,000) = $56,000

Corner Point D:
X = 2,000
4X + 2Y = 12,000
4(2,000) + 2Y = 12,000
2Y = 4,000
Y = 2,000
Z = $12(2,000) + $10(2,000) = $44,000
Optimal solution is Point C, where X = 500 units and Y = 5,000 units.

3. At the optimal level, the contribution margin is $56,000.

12–17

1. Let X = Number of Product A produced

Let Y = Number of Product B produced
Maximize Z = $30X + $60Y (objective function)
2X + 5Y ≤ 6,000 (direct material constraint)
3X + 2Y ≤ 6,000 (direct labor constraint)
X ≤ 1,000
Y ≤ 2,000
X≥0
Y≥0

402
12–17 Concluded

2.
Y

3,000

2,000

1,000 D
C

A B X
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Solution: The corner points are the origin, the points where X = 0, Y = 0, and
where two linear constraints intersect. The point of intersection of the two li-
near constraints is obtained by solving the two equations simultaneously.
Corner Point X-Value Y-Value Z = $30X + $60Y
A 0 0 $ 0
B 1,000 0 30,000
C 1,000 800 78,000*
D 0 1,200 72,000
*The values for X and Y are found by solving the simultaneous equations:
X = 1,000
2X + 5Y = 6,000
2(1,000) + 5Y = 6,000
Y = 800
Z = $30(1,000) + $60(800) = $78,000
Optimal solution: X = 1,000 units and Y = 800 units

3. At the optimal level, the contribution margin is $78,000.

403
12–18

1. The amounts Heath has spent on purchasing and improving the Silverado are
irrelevant because these are sunk costs.

2. Alternatives
Cost Item Restore Silverado Buy Dodge Ram
Transmission $2,400
Water pump 400
Master cylinder 1,700
Sell Silverado — $(9,400)
Cost of new car — 12,300
Total $4,500 $ 2,900
Heath should sell the Silverado and buy the Dodge Ram because it provides a
net savings of $1,600.
Note: Heath should consider the qualitative factors. If he restored the Silvera-
do, how much longer would it last? What about increased license fees and in-
surance on the newer car? Could he remove the stereo and put it in the
Dodge Ram without decreasing the Silverado’s resale value by much?

12–19

1. Make Buy
Direct materials $360,000 —
Direct labor 120,000 —
Variable overhead 100,000 —
Fixed overhead 88,000 —
Purchase cost — $640,000 ($16 × 40,000)
Total relevant costs $668,000 $640,000
Sherwood should purchase the part.

2. Maximum price = $668,000/40,000 = $16.70 per unit

3. Income would increase by $28,000 ($668,000 – $640,000).

404
12–20

1. Make Buy
Direct materials $360,000 —
Direct labor 120,000 —
Variable overhead 100,000 —
Purchase cost — $640,000 ($16 × 40,000)
Total relevant costs $580,000 $640,000
Sherwood should continue manufacturing the part.

2. Maximum price = $580,000/40,000 = $14.50 per unit

3. Income would decrease by $60,000 ($640,000 – $580,000).

405
 PROBLEMS

12–21

Steps in Austin’s decision:

Step 1: Define the problem. The problem is whether to continue studying at his
present university, or to study at a university with a nationally recog-
nized engineering program.

Step 2: Identify the alternatives. Events A and B. (Students may want to include
event I—possible study for a graduate degree. However, future events
indicate that Austin still defined his problem as in Step 1 above.)

Step 3: Identify costs and benefits associated with each feasible alternative.
Events C, E, F, and I. (Students may also list E and F in Step 5—they are
included here because they may help Austin estimate future income
benefits.)

Step 4: Total relevant costs and benefits for each feasible alternative. No specif-
ic event is listed for this step, although we can intuit that it was done,
and that three schools were selected as feasible since event J mentions
that two of three applications met with success.

Step 5: Assess qualitative factors. Events D, E, F, G, and H.

Step 6: Make the decision. Event J is certainly relevant to this. (What did Austin
ultimately decide? He decided that a qualitative factor, his possible fu-
ture with his long-time girl friend was most important and stayed at his
current school. After graduation, he was hired by a major aeronautical
engineering firm. By the way, he and his girl friend broke up shortly af-
ter his decision to stay was made. )

406
12–22

1. Cost Item Make Buy

Direct materialsa $372,000 —
Direct laborb 102,600 —
Variable overheadc 30,400 —
Fixed overheadd 58,000 —
Purchase coste — $550,000
Total $563,000 $550,000
a
($80 × 3,000) + ($165 × 800)
b
$27 × 3,800
c
$8 × 3,800
d
$26,000 + $32,000
e
($130 × 3,000) + ($200 × 800)
Net savings by purchasing: $13,000. Powell should purchase the crowns ra-
ther than make them.

2. Qualitative factors that Powell should consider include quality of crowns, re-
liability and promptness of producer, and reduction of workforce.

3. It reduces the cost of making the crowns to 531,000, which is less than the
cost of buying. (563,000 – 32,000)

4. Cost Item Make Buy

Direct materials $419,000 —
Direct labor 124,200 —
Variable overhead 36,800 —
Fixed overhead 58,000 —
Purchase cost — $640,000
Total $638,000 $640,000
Powell should produce its own crowns if demand increases to this level be-
cause the fixed overhead is spread over more units.

407
12–23

1. @ 600 lbs. Process Further Sell Difference

Revenuesa $30,000 $9,000 $21,000
Bagsb — (39) 39
Shippingc (408) (90) (318)
Grindingd (1,500) — (1,500)
Bottlese (3,000) — (3,000)
Total $25,092 $8,871 $16,221
a
600 × 10 × $5 = $30,000; $15 × 600 = $9,000
b
$1.30 × (600/20)
c
[(10 × 600)/25] × $1.70 = $408; $0.15 × 600 = $90
d
$2.50 × 600
e
10 × 600 × $0.50
Primack should process rhinime further.

2. $16,221/600 = $27.035 additional income per pound

$27.035 × 265,000 = $7,164,275

12–24

1. System A System B Headset Total

Sales $45,000 $ 32,500 $8,000 $ 85,500
Less: Variable expenses 20,000 25,500 3,200 48,700
Contribution margin $25,000 $ 7,000 $4,800 $ 36,800
Less: Direct fixed costs* 526 11,158 1,016 12,700
Segment margin (loss) $24,474 $ (4,158) $3,784 $ 24,100
Less: Common fixed costs 18,000
Operating income $ 6,100
*$45,000/$85,500 × $18,000 = $9,474; $10,000 – $9,474 = $526
$32,500/$85,500 × $18,000 = $6,842; $18,000 – $6,842 = $11,158
$8,000/$85,500 × $18,000 = $1,684; $2,700 – $1,684 = $1,016

408
12–24 Concluded

2. System A Headset Total

Sales $58,500 $6,000 $64,500
Less: Variable expenses 26,000 2,400 28,400
Contribution margin $32,500 $3,600 $36,100
Less: Direct fixed costs 526 1,016 1,542
Segment margin $31,974 $2,584 $34,558
Less: Common fixed costs 18,000
Operating income $16,558
System B should be dropped.

3. System A System C Headset Total

Sales $45,000 $ 26,000 $7,200 $78,200
Less: Variable expenses 20,000 13,000 2,880 35,880
Contribution margin $25,000 $ 13,000 $4,320 $42,320
Less: Direct fixed costs 526 11,158 1,016 12,700
Segment margin $24,474 $ 1,842 $3,304 $29,620
Less: Common fixed costs 18,000
Operating income $11,620
Replacing B with C is better than keeping B, but not as good as dropping B
without replacement with C.

409
12–25

1. Steve should consider selling the part for $1.85 because his division’s profits
would increase by $12,800:
Accept Reject
Revenues (2 × $1.85 × 8,000) $29,600 $0
Variable expenses 16,800 0
Total $12,800 $0
Pat’s divisional profits would increase by $18,400:
Accept Reject
Revenues ($32 × 8,000) $ 256,000 $0
Variable expenses:
Direct materials ($17 × 8,000) (136,000) 0
Direct labor ($7 × 8,000) (56,000) 0
Variable overhead ($2 × 8,000) (16,000) 0
Component (2 × $1.85 × 8,000) (29,600) 0
Total relevant benefits $ 18,400 $0

2. Pat should accept the $2 price. This price will increase the cost of the com-
ponent from $29,600 to $32,000 (2 × $2 × 8,000) and yield an incremental bene-
fit of $16,000 ($18,400 – $2,400).
Steve’s division will see an increase in profit of $15,200 (8,000 units × 2 com-
ponents per unit × $0.95 contribution margin per component).

3. Yes. At full price, the total cost of the component is $36,800 (2 × $2.30 ×
8,000), an increase of $7,200 (= 2 × 8,000 × 0.45) over the original offer. This
still leaves an increase in profits of $11,200 ($18,400 – $7,200). (See the an-
swer to Requirement 1.)

410
12–26

1. Salesa $ 3,751,500
Less: Variable expensesb 2,004,900
Contribution margin $ 1,746,600
Less: Direct fixed expensesc 1,518,250
Divisional margin $ 228,350
Less: Common fixed expensesc 299,250
Operating (loss) $ (70,900)
a
Based on sales of 41,000 units
Let X = Units sold
$83X/2 + $100X/2 = $3,751,500
$183X = $7,503,000
X = 41,000 units
b
$83/1.25 = $66.40 Manufacturing cost
20.00 Fixed overhead
$46.40 Per internal unit variable cost
5.00 Selling
$51.40 Per external unit variable cost
Variable costs = ($46.40 × 20,500) + ($51.40 × 20,500)
= $2,004,900
c
Fixed selling and admin: $1,100,000 – $5(20,500) = $997,500
Direct fixed selling and admin: 0.7 × $997,500 = $698,250
Direct fixed overhead: $20 × 41,000 = $820,000
Total direct fixed expenses = $698,250 + $820,000 = $1,518,250
Common fixed expenses = 0.3 × $997,500 = $299,250

2. Keep Drop
Sales $ 3,751,500 $ —
Variable costs (2,004,900) (2,050,000)*
Direct fixed expenses (1,518,250) —
Annuity — 100,000
Total $ 228,350 $(1,950,000)
*$100 × 20,500 (The units transferred internally must be purchased externally.)

The company should keep the division.

411
12–27

1. Napkins: CM/machine hour = ($2.50 – $1.50)/1 = $1.00

Tissues: CM/machine hour = ($3.00 – $2.25)/0.5 = $1.50

Tissues provide the greatest contribution per machine hour, so the company
should produce 400,000 packages of tissues (200,000 machine hours times 2
packages per hour) and zero napkins.

2. Let X = Boxes of napkins; Y = Boxes of tissues

a. Z = $1.00X + $0.75Y (objective function)
X + 0.5Y ≤ 200,000 (machine constraint)
X ≤ 150,000 (demand constraint)
Y ≤ 300,000 (demand constraint)
X ≥0
Y ≥0

412
12–27 Concluded

b. and c.
(in thousands)
Y

400

D
300
E

200

100 C

A B X
0 100 200 300 400

Corner Point X-Value Y-Value Z = $1.00X + $0.75Y

A 0 0 0
B 150,000 0 150,000
C* 150,000 100,000 225,000
D* 50,000 300,000 275,000*
E 0 300,000 225,000
*Point C: Point D:
X = 150,000 Y = 300,000
X + 0.5Y = 200,000 X + 0.5Y = 200,000
150,000 + 0.5Y = 200,000 X + 0.5(300,000) = 200,000
Y = 100,000 X = 50,000
The optimal mix is D: 50,000 packages of napkins and 300,000 boxes of
tissues. The maximum profit is $275,000.

413
12–28

1. Dept. 1 Dept. 2 Dept. 3 Total

Product 401 (500 units):
Labor hoursa 1,000 1,500 1,500 4,000
Machine hoursb 500 500 1,000 2,000
Product 402 (400 units):
Labor hoursc 400 800 — 1,200
Machine hoursd 400 400 — 800
Product 403 (1,000 units):
Labor hourse 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000
Machine hoursf 2,000 2,000 1,000 5,000
Total labor hours 3,400 4,300 3,500 11,200
Total machine hours 2,900 2,900 2,000 7,800
a d
2 × 500; 3 × 500; 3 × 500 1 × 400; 1 × 400
b e
1 × 500; 1 × 500; 2 × 500 2 × 1,000; 2 × 1,000; 2 × 1,000
c f
1 × 400; 2 × 400 2 × 1,000; 2 × 1,000; 1 × 1,000
The demand can be met in all departments except for Department 3. Produc-
tion requires 3,500 labor hours in Department 3, but only 2,750 hours are
available.

414
12–28 Continued

2. Product 401: CM/unit = $196 – $103 = $93

CM/DLH = $93/3 = $31
Direct labor hours needed (Dept. 3): 3 × 500 = 1,500
Product 402: CM/unit = $123 – $73 = $50
Requires no hours in Department 3.
Product 403: CM/unit = $167 – $97 = $70
CM/DLH = $70/2 = $35
Direct labor hours needed (Dept. 3): 2 × 1,000 = 2,000
Production should be equal to demand for Product 403 because it has the
highest contribution margin per unit of scarce resource. After meeting de-
mand, any additional labor hours in Department 3 should be used to produce
Product 401 (2,750 – 2,000 = 750; 750/3 = 250 units of 401).
Contribution to profits:
Product 401: 250 × $93 = $ 23,250
Product 402: 400 × $50 = 20,000
Product 403: 1,000 × $70 = 70,000
Total contribution margin $113,250

3. Let X = Number of Product 401 produced

Let W = Number of Product 402 produced = 400 units
Let Y = Number of Product 403 produced
Max. Z = $93X + $70Y + $50(400) (objective function)
2X + Y ≤ 1,500 (machine constraint)
3X + 2Y ≤ 2,750 (labor constraint)
X ≤ 500 (demand constraint)
Y ≤ 1,000 (demand constraint)
X≥0
Y≥0

415
12–28 Concluded

Corner Point X Y W Z = $93X + $70Y + $50W

A 0 0 400 $ 20,000
B 500 0 400 66,500
C 500 500 400 101,500
D 250 1,000 400 113,250*
E 0 1,000 400 90,000
*The optimum output is:
Product 401: 250 units
Product 402: 400 units
Product 403: 1,000 units
At this output, the contribution to profits is $113,250.

1,500

D
1,000
E

C
500

A B X
0 500 1,000

416
12–29

1. Cost Item Lease and Make Buy

Purchase cost — $50,000
Variable manufacturing costs $14,000* —
Lease 27,000 —
Supervisor salary 10,000 —
Total relevant costs $51,000 $50,000
*$7 × 2,000

Drop B and Make

Purchase cost —
Variable manufacturing costs $14,000
Lost contribution margin 34,000
Total relevant costs $48,000
Note: The $38,000 of direct fixed expenses is the same across all alternatives.
The most favorable alternative is to drop B and make the subassembly.

2. Analysis with complementary effect:

Make Buy
a
Lost sales for A $ 9,000 —
Cost of making componentb 13,160 —
Reduction of other variable costsc (1,800) —
Lost contribution margin for B 34,000 —
Cost to purchased — $50,000
Total relevant costs $54,360 $50,000
a
0.06 × $150,000
b
0.94 × 2,000 × $7.00
c
0.06($80,000 – $50,000); since sales decrease by 6 percent if the component
is manufactured, the other variable costs (those other than the cost of the
component) will decrease proportionately.
d
If the buy alternative is chosen, there is no reduction in sales and the same
number of components will be needed.
The correct decision now is to keep B and buy the component.

417
12–29 Concluded

3. Lease and Make Buy

Variable manufacturing costs $19,600a —
Lease 27,000 —
Supervisor salary 10,000 —
Purchase cost — $70,000b
Total relevant costs $56,600 $70,000
a
$7 × 2,800
b
$25 × 2,800

Drop B and Make

Lost sales from A $ 9,000
Variable cost of manufacturinga 18,424
Reduction of other variable costsb (600)
Loss in contribution margin for B 34,000
Purchase cost —
Total relevant costs $60,824
a
0.94 × 2,800 × $7.00
b
0.06 × ($80,000 – $70,000)
The correct decision now is to lease and make the component.

418
12–30

1. To maximize the company’s profitability, Sportway should purchase 9,000

tackle boxes from Maple Products, manufacture 17,500 skateboards, and
manufacture 1,000 tackle boxes. This combination of purchased and manu-
factured goods maximizes the contribution per direct labor hour, as calcu-
lated below.
Unit contribution:
Purchased Manufactured
Tackle Boxes Tackle Boxes Skateboards
Selling price $86.00 $ 86.00 $ 45.00
Less:
Direct material (68.00) (17.00) (12.50)
Direct labor — (18.75) (7.50)
Variable overheada — (6.25) (2.50)
Mktg. and admin.b (4.00) (11.00) (3.00)
Contribution margin $14.00 $ 33.00 $ 19.50
DLH/unit none ÷ 1.25 ÷ 0.50
Contribution margin/hour none $ 26.40 $ 39.00
a
Variable overhead per unit
Tackle boxes:
Direct labor hours = $18.75/$15.00 = 1.25 hours
Overhead/DLH = $12.50/1.25 = $10.00
Capacity = 8,000 boxes × 1.25 = 10,000 hours
Total overhead = 10,000 hours × $10 = $100,000
Total variable overhead = $100,000 – $50,000 = $50,000
Variable overhead per hour = $50,000/10,000 = $5.00
Variable overhead per box = $5.00 × 1.25 = $6.25
Skateboards:
Direct labor hours = $7.50/$15.00 = 0.5 hour
Variable overhead per skateboard = $5.00 × 0.5 = $2.50
b
$6 of selling and administrative costs are fixed.

419
12–30 Concluded

Optimal Use of Sportway’s Available Direct Labor

Unit DLH Total Balance Total
Item Quantity Contrib. per Unit DLH of DLH Contrib.
Total hours 10,000
Skateboards 17,500 $19.50 0.50 8,750 1,250 $341,250
Make boxes 1,000 33.00 1.25 1,250 — 33,000
Buy boxes 9,000 14.00 — — — 126,000
Total CM $500,250
Less:
Contribution margin from manufacturing
8,000 boxes (8,000 × $33) 264,000
Improvement in CM $236,250

2. Some qualitative factors to be considered include quality and reliability of

vendor, quality of market data for skateboards, and problems in switching
from tackle boxes to skateboards in the Plastics Department.

420
 MANAGERIAL DECISION CASES

12–31

1. Pamela should not have told Roger about the deliberations concerning the
Power Department. She is obligated by Standard II-1 to “keep information
confidential except when disclosure is authorized or legally required.” She
had been explicitly told to keep the details quiet but deliberately informed the
head of the unit affected by the potential decision. By revealing the informa-
tion, Pamela also initiated an activity that would prejudice her ability to carry
out her duties ethically (III-2).

2. The romantic relationship between Pamela and Roger sets up a conflict of in-
terest for this particular decision, and Pamela should have withdrawn from
any active role in it. However, she should definitely provide the information
she currently has about the cost of eliminating the Power Department. This is
required by standard IV-2, which states that “all relevant information that
could reasonably be expected to influence an intended user’s understanding”
should be disclosed. Moreover, she has the obligation to communicate infor-
mation fairly and objectively (IV-1). These ethical requirements, however, do
not in any way prevent Pamela from discussing the qualitative effects of eli-
minating the Power Department. The effects on workers, community relations,
reliability of external service, and any ethical commitments the company may
have to its workers should all enter into the decision. If I were Pamela, I would
communicate the short-term quantitative effects and express my concerns
about the qualitative factors. I might also project what the costs of operating
internally would be for the next five years and compare that with estimates of
the costs of external acquisition.

421
12–32

MEMO

TO: Central University President

DATE: November 15, 2008
SUBJECT: Decentralization of Continuing Education

In recommending whether to centralize or decentralize continuing education (CE),

I have first focused on the economic implications. The income statements, show-
ing a favorable trend for CE, are misleading, at least in terms of their implications
for centralization. Tuition revenues will be present whether we centralize or de-
centralize and, therefore, are not relevant to the decision. Department heads are
already heavily involved in scheduling and staffing off-campus and evening
courses, and individual faculty are largely responsible for generating our noncre-
dit offerings. Thus, it would be difficult to argue that decentralizing CE would
have any adverse impact on the level of tuition revenues.

In a similar vein, one can argue that the operating costs for evening and noncre-
dit courses and the direct costs for off-campus offerings are also irrelevant.
These costs, which consist of instructional wages, rental of facilities, and sup-
plies, will be incurred regardless of whether CE is centralized or decentralized.

This leaves two categories of costs, indirect costs and administration, which af-
fect the decision. These categories include advertising, secretaries, assistants,
and other support personnel. If we choose to decentralize, all of these costs, with
the exception of the director’s salary and advertising, can be avoided. Further-
more, because the director will be teaching in her department, some of her salary
is avoidable as well ($20,000). The total avoidable costs are outlined as follows.

Administrationa $ 82,000
Indirectb 410,000
Total $492,000
a
[$112,000 – ($50,000 – $20,000)] = $82,000
b
Indirect costs – Advertising = $440,000 – $30,000

422
12–32 Concluded

I have retained the budget for advertising and would recommend that this amount
be allocated to the individual colleges in proportion to the evening and off-
campus revenues generated by each college.

As you can see, the savings from decentralization are significant. This presumes,
of course, that the overhead of the individual units will not increase because of
the added responsibilities. I have discussed this matter with my department
heads and with the deans of the other colleges. They all seem to feel that the ad-
ditional administrative work can be easily absorbed by their existing staff. Thus, it
seems that the promised savings are real.

In choosing to decentralize, however, we do lose some intangible benefits. First,

we no longer have one individual who can be contacted by outside parties. In-
stead, we have numerous individuals involved. This may prove to be frustrating
for some of those whom we serve, and it is possible that they will perceive a drop
in service quality.

There is also a risk that some units will not exert the effort needed to provide
good service. Accountability is more diffuse, and some department heads may
feel that they have more than enough to do without continuing education. This
problem can be alleviated to some extent by localizing the CE responsibility at
the college level, rather than at the departmental level.

I am personally convinced that a decentralized CE will work as well, if not better,

than our current arrangement. Given our current budgetary crisis, I would rather
risk reducing the quality of service for CE than risk reducing the quality of service
for our main programs. Therefore, I strongly recommend that CE be decentralized
and that the savings from this action be used to maintain the quality of our on-
campus programs.

RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS

12–33

Answers will vary.

12–34

Answers will vary.

423
424