Chapter 12

Cost Allocation and Activity-Based Costing

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
When your students have finished studying this chapter, they should be able to:

1. Explain the major reasons for allocating costs.

2. Allocate the variable and fixed costs of service departments to other organizational
units.

3. Allocate the central costs of an organization.

4. Use the direct and step-down methods to allocate service department costs to user
departments.

5. Describe the traditional approach to allocating costs to products or services.

6. Use activity-based costing to allocate costs in a modern manufacturing environment

to products or services.

7. Use the physical-units and relative-sales-value methods to allocate joint costs to

products.

8. Understand how cost allocation is used in cost planning and control.

229
CHAPTER 12: OVERVIEW
This chapter looks at cost allocation and activity-based costing.

Section One: Provides a general discussion of cost allocation as the linking of costs
with cost objectives. Also, the four major purposes and three types of
allocation are specified.

Section Two: Focuses on the allocation of service departments. General guidelines are
presented with variable costs and fixed costs treated separately. Potential
troubles with the use of lump sum allocations for fixed costs are examined
and some solutions mentioned. Also covered are allocations of central
costs and the use of budgeted sales for allocation purposes. Allocations of
reciprocal services using the direct and step-down methods are illustrated
and discussed. Finally, mention is made of what to do when a single cost
driver is not sufficient to explain the cause of a department's costs.

Section Three: Covers the allocation of costs to outputs. A general approach to allocating
costs to final products or services is provided.

Section Four: Looks at activity-based costing (ABC). The principles of ABC are
discussed, an example of its application provided, and data regarding the
effects on product costs of implementing ABC at one company are given.

Section Five: Examines the allocation of joint costs to joint products and the accounting
for by-products. Both the physical units and relative sales value methods
of allocating joint costs to joint products are presented and illustrated.

230
CHAPTER 12: ASSIGNMENTS
EXERCISES

23 Fixed- and Variable-Cost Pools

24 Sales-Based Allocations
25 Direct and Step-Down Allocations, Activity-Based Allocation and
Process Map
26 Direct and Step-Down Allocations
27 Joint Costs
28 Joint Costs and Process Map
29 By-Product Costing

PROBLEMS

30 Hospital Allocation Base

31 Cost of Passenger Traffic
32 Allocation of Automobile Costs
33 Allocation of Costs
34 Hospital Equipment
35 Direct Method for Service Department Allocation
36 Step-Down Method for Service Department Allocation
37 Direct and Step-Down Methods of Allocation
38 Activity-Based Allocations
39 Activity-Based Allocations at Dell Computer (Business First)
40 Joint Costs and Decisions

CASES

41 Allocation, Department Rates, and Direct-Labor Hours Versus

Machine-Hours
42 Multiple Allocation Bases
43 Allocation of Data Processing Costs

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING EXERCISE

44 Library Research on ABC

45 Internet Exercise - http://www.target.com.

231
CHAPTER 12: OUTLINE
I. Cost Allocation in General

Cost allocation is fundamentally a problem of linking (1) some cost or groups of

costs with (2) one or more cost objectives (e.g., products, departments, and
divisions). Ideally, cost allocation should assign each cost to the cost objective that
caused it. Linking of costs with cost objectives is accomplished by selecting cost
drivers (i.e., activities that cause costs). Cost-Allocation Base - a cost driver when it
is used for allocating costs. Cost Pool - a group of individual costs that is allocated
to cost objectives using a single cost driver. Several terms are used to describe the
process of assigning costs to cost objectives. Terms frequently used include
allocate, apply, absorb, reallocate, trace, assign, distribute, redistribute, load,
burden, apportion, and reapportion.

A. Allocation and Cost Management Decisions {L. O. 1}

1. To predict the economic effects of planning and control
decisions. Managers within an organizational unit should be aware of
all the consequences of their decisions, inside and outside of their unit.

2. To obtain desired motivation. Cost allocations are sometimes made to

influence management behavior and, thus, promote goal congruence
and managerial effort. If management wants to encourage the use of a
service, it may choose not to allocate the costs of providing the
service. If it wants managers to make sure that the benefits of using a
service exceed its costs, costs are allocated.

3. To compute income and asset valuations. Costs are allocated to

projects and products to measure inventory costs and cost of goods
sold for financial reporting purposes, and for use in planning and
performance evaluation.

4. To justify costs or obtain reimbursement. Sometimes prices are

based directly on costs (e.g., government contracts often specify a
price that includes reimbursement of costs plus some profit margin).

232
 Allocating fixed costs usually causes the greatest problems. When all four
purposes cannot be attained simultaneously, the manager and the accountant
should start attacking a cost-allocation problem by trying to identify which of
the four purposes should dominate in the particular situation at hand. Often
inventory-costing purposes dominate by default.

B. Three Types of Allocations

See EXHIBIT 12-1 for the three basic types of allocations.

1. Allocation of costs to the appropriate organizational unit: Direct

costs are physically traced to the unit. However, costs used jointly by
more than one unit are allocated based on cost-driver activity in the
unit.

2. Reallocation of costs from one organizational unit to another: When

one unit provides products or services to another, the costs are
transferred along with the products or services. Service Departments
- exist only to support other departments (e.g., accounting and human
resources), and their costs are totally reallocated.

3. Allocation of costs of a particular organizational unit to products or

services: The costs allocated to products or services include those
allocated to the organizational unit in allocation Types 1 and 2.

II. Allocation of Service Department Costs {L. O. 2}

A. General Guidelines (see EXHIBIT 12-2)

The preferred guidelines for allocating service departments are:

1. Evaluate performance using budgets for each service (staff)

department, just as they are used for each production or operating
(line) department. The performance of a service department is
evaluated by comparing actual costs with a budget, regardless of how
the costs are later allocated. From the budget, variable-cost pools and
fixed-cost pools can be identified for use in allocation.

233
 2. Allocate variable- and fixed-cost pools separately (sometimes called
the dual method of allocation). Note that one service department (e.g.,
a computer department) can contain multiple cost pools if more than
one cost driver causes the department's cost. At a minimum, there
should be a variable-cost pool and a fixed-cost pool.

3. Establish part or all of the details regarding cost allocation in

advance of rendering the service rather than after the fact. This
approach establishes the "rules of the game" so that all departments
can plan appropriately.

B. Variable-Cost Pool

Variable costs should be allocated as follows:

budgeted unit rate x actual hours of cost driver

The use of budgeted cost rates rather than actual cost rates for allocating
variable costs of service departments protects the using departments from
intervening price fluctuations and inefficiencies in the service departments.
When an organization allocates actual total service department costs, it holds
user department managers responsible for costs beyond their control and
provides less incentive for service departments to be efficient.

C. Fixed-Cost Pool

The cost driver for the fixed-cost pool is the amount of capacity required
when the service department was instituted. Therefore, fixed costs should be
allocated as follows

budgeted percent of capacity available for use

x total budgeted fixed costs

The predetermined lump-sum approach is based on the long-run capacity

available to the user, regardless of actual usage from month to month. The
level of fixed costs is affected by long-range planning regarding the overall
level of service and the relative expected usage, not by short-run fluctuations
in service levels and relative actual usage. A major strength is that a user
department's allocation is not affected by the actual usage of other user
departments.

234
D. Troubles with Using Lump Sums

If fixed costs are allocated on the basis of long-range plans, there is a natural
tendency on the part of consumers to underestimate their planned usage and
thus obtain a smaller fraction of the cost allocation. Top management can
counteract these tendencies by monitoring predictions, and by following up
and using feedback to keep future predictions more honest. In addition,
rewards may be given for accurate predictions and penalties set (e.g., through
higher charges) for usage above that predicted.

E. Allocation of Central Costs {L. O. 3}

Whenever possible, the preferred cost driver for central services is usage,
either actual or estimated. For some central services (e.g., data processing,
advertising, and operations research), usage appears to be a reasonable basis
to allocate costs. For others (e.g., public relations, top corporate management
overhead, a real estate department, and a corporate planning department),
usage seems an inappropriate base. For these types of costs, companies
frequently use revenues as the cost driver, which represents an "ability to
bear" philosophy rather than portraying any cause and effect relationship.

F. Use of Budgeted Sales for Allocation

If the costs of central services are to be allocated based on sales, even though
the costs do not vary in proportion to sales, the use of budgeted sales is
preferable to the use of actual sales. At least this method means that the
short-run costs of a given consuming department will not be affected by the
fortunes of other consuming departments.

235
G. Reciprocal Services {L. O. 4}
Service departments often support other service departments in addition to
producing departments. See EXHIBIT 12-3 for relevant data in regard to an
example, which is used to demonstrate two popular methods for allocating
service department costs: the direct method and the step-down method.

1. Direct Method

Direct Method - ignores other service departments when any given

service department's costs are allocated to the revenue-producing
(operating) departments. The costs of operating the service
departments are allocated directly to operating departments with no
intermediate allocations for the services provided to other service
departments.

2. Step-Down Method

Step-Down Method - recognizes that some service departments

support the activities in other service departments as well as those in
production departments. A sequence of allocations is chosen, usually
by starting with the service department that renders the greatest service
(as measured by costs) to the greatest number of other service
departments. The last service department in the sequence is the one
that renders the least service to the least number of other service
departments. Once a department's costs are allocated to other
departments, no subsequent service department costs are allocated
back to it. See EXHIBIT 12-4 for an illustration of the application of
the step-down allocation method for the text example.

H. Comparison of the Methods

See EXHIBIT 12-5 for a comparison of the costs ultimately allocated to the
producing departments. The method of allocation can greatly affect the
amounts distributed to different producing departments. If significant
differences are not generated, companies typically use the direct method is
usually used due to its simplicity.

236
 A third method, the Reciprocal Method, provides the most theoretical
accuracy because it fully realizes reciprocal services by service departments
to each other. With this method, simultaneous equations and linear algebra
are used to solve for the impact of mutually interacting services. Due to the
difficulty managers have in understanding the application of this method, it is
rarely used in practice. This method is not presented in the text. [See the
article by Brown and Killough in the recommended readings for a treatment
of this method using the matrix algebra function in computer spreadsheet
packages.]

I. Costs Not Related to Cost Drivers

The examples used in the text thus far have assumed that the costs in a given
service department were caused by a single cost driver. The costs were then
allocated using this single cost driver. If some costs in the service department
are not related to a single cost driver, three alternative methods of cost
allocation should be considered.

1. Identify additional cost drivers. Divide the costs in the service

department into two or more cost pools and use a different cost driver
to allocate the costs in each pool.

2. Divide the service department costs into two cost pools, one with
costs that vary in proportion to the cost driver (variable costs), and one
with costs not affected by the cost driver (fixed costs). Allocate the
former using the direct or step-down method, but do not allocate the
latter. Costs not allocated are period costs for the organization and are
not regarded as a cost of a particular production department.

3. Allocate all costs by the direct or step-down method using a single

cost driver. This assumption implicitly assumes that, in the long run,
the cost driver causes all of the service department's costs, even if a
short-term causal relationship is not easily identifiable.

237
III. Allocation of Costs to Final Cost Objects {L. O. 5}
So far the chapter has discussed allocations of costs to departments or segments of an
organization. Cost allocation is often carried one step further, to the outputs (e.g.,
products, parts, services) of these departments. Cost Application (or cost
attribution) - the allocation of total departmental costs to the revenue-producing
products or services.

A. Traditional Approach

1. Allocate production-related costs to operating (line), or

production or revenue-producing departments. This includes
allocating service department costs to the production departments
following the guidelines provided earlier.

2. Select one or more cost drivers in each production department.

3. Allocate (apply) the total costs accumulated in Step 1 to products or

services that are the outputs of the operating departments using the
cost drivers specified in Step 2. If only one cost driver is used, two
cost pools should be maintained: one for variable costs and one for
fixed costs. Variable costs should be allocated on the basis of actual
cost-driver activity. Fixed costs should either remain unallocated or be
allocated on the basis of budgeted cost-driver activity.

IV. Activity-Based Costing (ABC) Approach {L. O. 6}

TEACHING TIP: Internet site – see the following for ABC:
http://www.taxsites.com/managerial.htm/
(Activity-Based Costing)

In the past, companies used direct-labor hours to apply the costs of departments to
units of product. However, direct-labor hours are not a very good measure of the
cause of costs in modern, highly automated departments. As a result, companies are
implementing activity-based costing (ABC) to develop measures that better reflect
the consumption of resources and related costs in their environment by accumulating
costs into key activities.

238
Both direct-labor hours and machine hours are volume measures. If many costs are
caused by non-volume-based cost drivers, ABC should be considered. As Chapter
4 states, ABC is a system that first accumulates the costs of each activity of an
organization and then applies the costs of activities to the products, services, or other
cost objects using appropriate cost drivers. The ABC system takes one large
overhead cost pool and breaks it down into several pools, each associated with a key
activity.

The goal of activity-based costing is to trace the costs to products or services instead
of arbitrarily allocating them. While it is relatively easy to trace direct material and
labor to products using physical measures, advocates of ABC maintain that, by using
appropriate cost drivers, many manufacturing overhead costs can also be physically
traced to products or services.

A. Illustration of Activity-Based Costing Approach in Manufacturing

The text provides an illustration of an ABC system for a plastic parts

manufacturer using the four-step procedure that was introduced in Chapter 4
(see EXHIBIT 12-6 for the product cost based on the former costing system).
First the costs objectives are determined to be the three product lines of the
plastic parts manufacturer. The activity centers, cost drivers, and resources
used in the molding department were identified and are presented in
EXHIBIT 12-7. Next, the interrelationships between activities and resources
were determined based on interviews with key personnel, and a process-based
map representing the flow of activities, resources and their interrelationship
was developed. See EXHIBIT 12-8 for the process-based map of the
molding department operations. Using the process map as a guide, the
accountants then collected the required cost and operational data via further
interviews. Finally, EXHIBIT 12-9 presents the key results of the activity
based costing study. These results indicate that Product Line C is indeed
being under-costed, was more complex, produced in small lots and, therefore,
required significantly more setup costs.

B. Effect of Activity-Based Costing

Data from the Schrader Bellows company are presented in EXHIBIT 12-10,
which shows that products with the highest sales volume and fewer setups per
unit showed slight decreases in costs when comparing the activity-based costs
to those generated under the old system.

239
V. Allocation of Joint Costs and By-Product Costs {L. O. 7}
A. Joint Costs

Sometimes inputs are added to the production process before individual

products are separately identifiable (i.e., before the split-off point). The costs
of these inputs (e.g., materials, labor, and overhead costs) are called joint
costs. While allocations of these costs to the products, which emerge from
the joint process, should not affect decisions regarding whether to process the
products further, allocations are routinely made for inventory valuation and
income determination purposes.

Two conventional ways of allocating joint costs to products are widely used:
physical units and relative sales values. They allocate the joint costs to the
joint products in proportion to their number of physical units or sales dollars
generated by the joint products. A twist on the relative-sales-value method is
necessary when a joint product cannot be sold at the split-off point.
Therefore, the sales value is approximated using

Sales value at split-off = Final sales value - Separable costs

B. By-Product Costs

By-Product - a product that, like a joint product, is not individually

identifiable until manufacturing reaches a split-off point. By-products differ
from joint products because they have relatively insignificant total sales
values in comparison with other products emerging at split-off (e.g., glycerin
from soap making and mill ends of cloth and carpets).

If an item is accounted for as a by-product, only separable costs are allocated

to it. All joint costs are allocated to the main products. Any revenues from
by-products, less their separable costs, are deducted from the cost of the main
products.

240
CHAPTER 12: TRANSPARENCY MASTERS

The following exhibits are reproduced as transparency masters at the end of this manual:

Exhibit 12-1 Three Types of Cost Allocations

Exhibit 12-3 Cost Drivers

Exhibit 12-4 Step-Down Allocation

Exhibit 12-5 Direct Versus Step-Down Method

Exhibit 12-7 Activity Centers, Cost Drivers, and Resources

Exhibit 12-9 Key Results of Activity-Based-Costing Study

Exhibit 12-10 Comparison of Costing Systems

241
CHAPTER 12: Quiz/Demonstration Exercises
Learning Objective 1

1. Major purposes for allocating costs are

a. to predict the economic effects of planning and control decisions.

b. to obtain desired motivation.
c. to compute income and asset valuations.
d. to justify costs or obtain reimbursement.
e. all of these.

2. The following purposes of allocation relate to planning and control:

a. obtain desired motivation and compute income and asset valuations

b. obtain desired motivation and predict economic consequences
c. predict economic consequences and justify costs
d. compute income valuations and obtain reimbursement

Learning Objective 2

Use the following information for questions 3 and 4.

The city of Clare leases a photocopy machine, which it uses in its Copy Services
Department for $2,500 per month plus 4¢ per copy made. In addition to the lease
costs, operating costs for toner, paper, operator salaries, and so on are variable at
7¢/copy. All departments of the city combined estimated that they would make a
total of 70,000 copies per month. The Parks and Recreation Department estimated
that they would make 10,000 copies per month on average. In June, the Parks and
Recreation Department made 12,000 copies and the total number of copies made by
Copy Services for the month were 58,000.

3. Following the guidelines of allocating variable- and fixed-costs of service

departments separately, the variable costs of the Copy Services Department that
should be allocated to the Parks and Recreation Department in June are

a. $480 b. $840 c. $1,130 d. $1,320 e. some other amount.

242
4. Following the guidelines of allocating variable- and fixed-costs of service
departments separately, the fixed costs of the Copy Services Department that should
be allocated to the Parks and Recreation Department in June are

a. $0 b. $200 c. $357 d. $2,500 e. some other amount.

Learning Objective 3

5. A method of allocating central costs of an organization to divisions, which clearly

fails to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship, is to

a. allocate on the basis of sales dollars.

b. allocate based on the actual usage of the service.
c. allocate based on the estimated usage of the service.
d. do none of these.

6. Which of the following is an example of a central service?

a. public relations
b. legal services
c. accounting
d. advertising
e. all of the above

243
Learning Objective 4

Use the following information for questions 7 and 8.

The St. Edmond Corporation operates two service and two producing departments in
its production of golf clubs. The budgeted direct costs and other pertinent data for an
upcoming month follow.

Service Departments Production Departments

Maintenance Personnel Fabrication Assembly

Direct costs $144,000 $80,000 $280,000 $320,000

Machine hours - - 30,000 20,000
# of employees 20 16 60 100

Personnel costs are allocated based on the number of employees and maintenance
costs are allocated based on machine hours.

7. The amount of maintenance costs allocated to the Assembly Department using the
direct method of cost allocation would be

a. $32,000 b. $48,000 c. $57,600 d. $86,400.

8. The amount of maintenance costs (to the nearest dollar) allocated to the Fabrication
Department using the step-down method would be

a. $8,888 b. $54,000 c. $86,400 d. $91,733.

Learning Objective 5

9. The traditional approach to allocation of costs to the final cost objects focuses on:

a. accumulating costs within departments and then allocating departmental costs

to producing departments, and finally to products, services, or customers.
b. accumulating costs within producing departments and then allocating
producing department costs to departments, and finally to products, services,
or customers.
c. accumulating costs by products, services, or customers and deriving a cost per
unit.
d. none of the above.

244
10. The general approach to cost allocation:

a. selects one cost driver for all production departments.

b. allows for the same cost driver for both variable and fixed costs.
c. promotes fixed costs to remain unallocated or be allocated on the basis of
actual cost-driver activity.
d. does not allow allocation of service department costs to production
departments.
e. none of the above.

Learning Objective 6

Use the following information for questions 11 and 12.

Cruise Industries has four categories of overhead. The four categories and expected
overhead costs for each category for next year are:

Inspection $ 30,000
Maintenance 60,000
Materials Handling 9,000
Setups 8,000

Currently overhead is applied using a predetermined overhead rate based upon

budgeted direct labor hours, and 20,000 direct labor hours are budgeted for next
year.
The company has been asked to submit a bid for a proposed job. The company bases
its bids on full manufacturing costs. Estimates for the proposed job are as follows:

Direct materials $ 2,000

Direct labor (400 hours) 4,000

Number of material moves 10 Number of inspections 2

Number of setups 5 Number of machine hours 40

In the past, full manufacturing cost has been calculated by allocating overhead using
a volume-based cost driver, direct labor hours. Expected activity for the four
activity-based cost drivers that would be used are:

Machine hours 5,000 Material moves 600

Setups 200 Quality inspections 1,000

245
11. If direct labor hours are used as the cost driver, the total cost of the proposed job
would be

a. $5,140 b. $6,000 c. $8,140 d. $10,280.

12. If the activity-based cost drivers are used to assign overhead, the total cost of the
proposed job would be

a. $890 b. $6,890 c. $8,140 d. $10,280.

Learning Objective 7

Use the following for questions 13 and 14.

S&J produces two products through a single manufacturing process. Each batch of
product results in 400 pounds of product S and 600 pounds of product J. The
process requires materials, labor, and manufacturing overhead costing $50,000 per
batch. S sells for $30 per pound, while J sells for $20 per pound.

13. Using the physical units method of allocating joint production costs would result in
an allocation to product S of

a. $0 b. $20,000 c. $30,000 d. $50,000.

14. Using the relative sales value approach of allocating joint production costs would
result in an allocation to product S of

a. $10,000 b. $25,000 c. $30,000 d. $40,000.

246
CHAPTER 12: Solutions to Quiz/Demonstration Exercises

1. [e] 2. [b]

3. [d] The allocation of variable costs: the variable portion of the lease of 4¢
per copy and the Copying Services variable operating costs of 7¢ per copy.
The actual number of copies made (12,000) is multiplied by the variable cost
of 11¢ per copy to give $1,320 allocated.

4. [c] For fixed costs, the $1,000 monthly lease cost on the copier should be
allocated in proportion to the expected usage. 10,000/50,000 gives 20%,
times $1,000 to give $200 allocated.

5. [a] 6. [e]

7. [c] The $144,000 of maintenance cost is allocated based on machine

hours. Assembly uses 40% [20,000 of 50,000 total machine hours] resulting
in a $57,600 allocation.

8. [d] With the step-down method, Personnel costs are allocated first with
$8,888.88 [$80,000 x (20/(20 + 60 + 100))] allocated to the Maintenance
department. Then, of the $152,888,88 now in Maintenance, $91,733.33
[$152,888.88 x (30,000/(30,000 + 20,000))] would be allocated to the
Fabrication Department.

9. [a] 10. [e]

11. [c] The total cost consists of direct material ($2,000), direct labor ($4,000), and
applied overhead. The overhead rate is $5.35 per labor hour [($30,000 +
$60,000 + $9,000 + $8,000)/20,000 direct labor hours]. Applying the $5.35
rate to 400 direct labor hours for the job gives $2,140 of overhead applied to
this job. Adding this to the $2,000 direct materials and $4,000 direct labor
gives $8,140 total cost.

247
12. [b] Rates are $12/machine hour for maintenance [$60,000/5,000], $15/move for
materials handling [$9,000/600], $40/setup [$8,000/200], and $30/inspection
[$30,000/1,000]:
Maintenance (40 machine hours @ $12) $480
Materials handling (10 moves @ $15) 150
Setups (5 setups @ $40) 200
Inspections (2 @ $30) 60
Total overhead costs applied $890

Adding this to the $6,000 of materials and labor costs gives $6,890.

13. [b] Based on physical units, S would be allocated 40% [400 pounds/(400 pounds
+ 600 pounds)] of the $50,000 of joint processing costs, or $20,000.

14. [b] Each product can be sold for $12,000. Product S has 400 pounds at $30 per
pound, and product J has 600 pounds at $20 per pound. Thus, the total sales
value of the two products is $12,000, and each product would be allocated
$25,000 [50% x $50,000 joint production costs].

248
CHAPTER 12: SUGGESTED READINGS

Abrahams, M. and M. N. Reavely. "Activity-Based Costing: Illustrations from the State of

Iowa", Government Finance Review, April 1998, v.14 i.2, p.15.

Acton, D. D. and W. D. J. Cotton. “Activity-Based Costing in a University Setting,”

Journal of Cost Management, March/April 1997, 32-38.

Adams, S. J. “Quality Dairy Case,” Issues in Accounting Education, Fall 1997, 385-398.

Albright, T. L. and T. Smith. “Software for Activity-Based Costing,” Journal of Cost

Management, Summer 1996, 47-58.

Anderson, S. W. “A Framework for Assessing Cost Management System Changes: The

Case of Activity-Based Costing Implementation at General Motors, 1986-1993,”
The Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, Fall 1995, 1-51.

Baxendale, S. J. "Activity-Based Costing for a Claims Processing Operation", CPCU

Journal, Summer 1999, v.52 i.2, p.84.

Biddle, G. C. and R. Steinberg. "Allocations of Joint and Common Costs," Journal of

Accounting Literature, Spring 1984, 1-46.

Borden, J. P. "Review Of The Literature On Activity-Based Costing," Journal of Cost

Management, Spring 1990, 5-12.

Brandt, M., Levine, S. and J. Gourdoux. "Application of Activity-Based Cost

Management", Professional Safety, January 1999, v.44 i.1, p.22.

Brewer, P., Campbell, R. and R. McClure. "Wilson Electronics (A) and (B): An ABC
Capstone Experience", Issues in Accounting Education, August 2000, v.15 i.3,
p.413.

Brimson, J. A. “Feature Costing: Beyond ABC,” Journal of Cost Management,

January/February 1998, 6-12.

Carter, T. L., A. M. Sedaghat and T. D. Williams. “How ABC Changed the Post
Office,” Management Accounting, February 1998, 28-37.

Cheatham, C. and M. Green. "Teaching Accounting for Byproducts," Management

Accounting, Spring 1988, 14-15.

249
Cooper, R. "The Rise Of Activity-Based Costing: How Many Cost Drivers Do You
Need And How Do You Select Them?" Journal of Cost Management, Winter
1988, 34-45.

Dilley, S. C., F. H. Jacobs and R. M. Marshall. “The Tax Benefits of ABC,” Journal of
Accountancy, March 1997, 34-38.

Eiler, R. G. and J. P. Campi. "Implementing Activity-Based Costing at a Process

Company," Journal of Cost Management, Spring 1991, 43-50.

Ellis-Newman, J. and P. Robinson. "The Cost of Library Services: Activity-Based

Costing in an Australian Academic Library", Journal of Academic Librarianship,
September 1998, v.24 i.5, p.373.

Gearhart, J. "Activity Based Management and Performance Measurement Systems",

Government Finance Review, February 1999, v.15 i.1, p.13.

Gosselin, M. “The Effect of Strategy and Organizational Structure on the Adoption and
Implementation of Activity-Based Costing,” Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 22 No. 2, 1997, 105-122.

Hicks, D. T. "Activity-Based Costing: Making it Work for Small and Mid-Sized

Companies", (New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 1999, Second Edition,
pp.357.

Hyde, A. C. and H. U. Yi. "Everything You ever Really Needed to Know about ABC …
Is on the Web", Public Manager, Spring 1998, v.27 i.1, p.60.

Ingram, R. W., W. C. Parsons and W. A. Robbins. “Instructional Case: Oak City’s Cost
Allocation and Determination,” Issues in Accounting Education, February 1998,
157-171.

Ittner, C. “The Activity-Based Cost Hierarchy: Production Possibilities, Policies and

Firm Profitability,” The Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 9
1997, 143-162.

Kaplan, R. S. "Innovation Action Research: Creating New Management Theory and

Practice", Journal of Management Accounting Research, 1998, v.10, p.89.

Kee, R. “Integrating Activity-Based Costing with the Theory of Constraints to Enhance

Production-Related Decision-Making,” Accounting Horizons, December 1995, 48-
61.

Krumwiede, K. R. “ABC: Why It’s Tried and How It Works,” Management Accounting,

250
 April 1998, 32-38.

Krupnicki, M. and T. Tyson. “Using ABC to Determine the Cost of Servicing

Customers,” Management Accounting, December 1997, 40-46.

Landry, S. P., L. M. Wood and T. M. Lindquist. “Can ABC Bring Mixed Results?”
Management Accounting, March 1997, 28-33.

Lee, J. Y., R. Jacob and M. Ulinski. "Activity-Based Costing and Japanese Cost
Management Techniques: A Comparison," Advances in Management Accounting,
1994, v3(1), 179-196.

McGuire, B. L., M. C. Kocakulah and J. W. Dague. “Using ABC to Identify Cost

Drivers in a Manufacturing Environment,” Journal of Cost Management,
September/October 1997, 22-28.

Norris, G. "User Perceptions of an Application of Activity-Based Costing," Advances in

Management Accounting, 1994, v3(1), 139-178.

Palmer, R. and L. Green. "ITT Automotive North America: A Case Study Requiring Use
of Benchmarking, Activity/Process Analysis", Issues in Accounting Education,
August 1999, v.14 i.3, p.465.

Platt, D. and K. Towry. "Pecos Products: A Project Introducing Complexity into the
Study of Activity-Based Costing", Issues in Accounting Education, February
2001, v.16 i.1, p.99.

Player, R. S. and D. E. Keys. “Lessons from the ABM Battlefield: Getting Off to the
Right Start,” Journal of Cost Management, Spring 1995, 26-38.

Player, R. S. and D. E. Keys. “Lessons from the ABM Battlefield: Developing the
Pilot,” Journal of Cost Management, Summer 1995, 20-35.

251
Player, R. S. and D. E. Keys. “Lessons from the ABM Battlefield: Moving from Pilot to
Mainstream”, Journal of Cost Management, Fall 1995, 31-41.

Radhakrishnan, S. and B. Srinidhi. “Avoiding the Death Spiral: A Case for Activity-
Based Costing,” Journal of Cost Management, Winter 1997, 19-24.

Roberts, M. W. and K. J. Silvester. “Why ABC Failed and How It May Yet Succeed,”
Journal of Cost Management, Winter 1996, 23-35.

Salafatinos, C. “Integrating the Theory of Constraints and Activity-Based Costing,”

Journal of Cost Management, Fall 1995, 58-67.

Shields, M. D. “An Empirical Analysis of Firms’ Implementation Experiences with

Activity-Based Costing,” The Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.
7, Fall 1995, 148-166.

Shields, M. D. and M. A. McEwen. “Implementing Activity-Based Costing Systems

Successfully,” Journal of Cost Management, Winter 1996, 15-22.

Stout, D. and D. Wygal. "Making Byproducts A Main Product Of Discussion: A

Challenge To Accounting Educators," Journal of Accounting Education, 1989,
219-233.

Thorne, H. and B. Gurd. “Some Human Aspects of Implementing Activity-Based

Management,” Journal of Cost Management, Fall 1995, 50-57.

Trenchard, P. M. and R. Dixon. "Total Quality Management in Non-Profit Secondary

Health Care", Total Quality Management, September 1999, v.10 i.7, p.979.

Vieceli, J. "Technology for Activity-Based Costing", Government Finance Review, April

2000, v.16 i.2, p.49.

West, T. D. and D. A. West, “Applying ABC to Healthcare,” Management Accounting,

February 1997, 22-33.

Yennie, H. "ABC: The New Cost-Cutting Tool", Behavioral Health Management,

September/October 1999, v.19 i.5, p.26.

252