Professional Documents
Culture Documents
QUESTIONS
7-1 The throughput contribution is the difference between revenues and direct
materials for the quantity of product sold. Investments equal the materials costs
contained in raw materials, work-in-process, and finished goods inventories.
Operating costs are all other costs, except for direct materials costs, that are
needed to obtain throughput contribution.
7-2 In process layouts, all similar equipment and functions are grouped together.
Process layouts typically occur in organizations in which production is done in
small batches of unique products. In process layouts, products are moved and
processed from one area to another until the product is completed. In contrast,
in product layouts, equipment is organized to accommodate the production of a
specific product. Product layouts are most effective for companies producing
high-volume products. Typically, products move and are processed along an
assembly line.
7-3 Group technology (also called cellular manufacturing) involves the organization
of a plant into a number of cells. Cells are often U-shaped, which allows
workers convenient access to required parts and good visual control of the
workflow. Within each cell, machines that are needed to manufacture a group
of similar products are arranged close to one another. This organization reduces
production cycle time, which is the time from receipt of raw materials from the
supplier to delivery of the finished good to distributors and customers.
– 207 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
7-5 “Cost of nonconformance” refers to the cost an organization incurs when the
quality of products or services does not conform to quality standards.
7-6 Waste, rework and net cost of scrap are examples of internal failure costs.
7-7 Quality engineering, quality training, statistical process control and supplier
certification are examples of prevention costs.
– 208 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
wait while the designated employees process the entire batch before moving all
parts in the batch to the next station. If the rate at which each processing area
handles work is unbalanced—because one area is slower or has stopped
working due to problems with equipment, materials, or people—work piles up
at the slowest processing station, increasing the work-in-process inventory level
at that station. Since supervisors evaluate many processing area managers on
their ability to meet production quotas, processing station managers try to avoid
the risk of having their facility idle. Many managers deliberately maintain large
stocks of incoming work in process so that they can continue to work even if
the processing area that feeds them is shut down. Similarly, to avoid idling the
next processing station and suffering the resulting recriminations, managers
may store finished work that they can forward to supply stations further down
the line when their stations are shut down because of problems. Finally,
inventories may be kept on hand just in case inputs to various stages of the
manufacturing process are defective.
7-11 Production cycle time and the level of work-in-process inventory are positively
related because reduction in time spent waiting for the next stage of production
reduces both production cycle time and work-in-process inventory levels.
7-12 The following three types of costs (only two are required for this question) are
incurred when implementing a group technology (cellular manufacturing)
layout:
– 209 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
7-16 The Kaizen costing system operates outside of the standard costing system
because the standard costing system is oriented to complying with Japanese
financial accounting standards and not internal operations, per se.
7-18 The five stages of benchmarking are: (1) internal study and preliminary
competitive analyses, (2) developing long-term commitment to the
benchmarking project and coalescing the benchmarking team, (3) identifying
benchmarking partners, (4) choosing information gathering and sharing
methods, and (5) taking action to meet or exceed the benchmark.
7-20 The stage of the benchmarking process that is the most important for
benchmarking management accounting methods is stage four, relating to
information gathering and information sharing.
7-21 The two general methods of information gathering and sharing when undertaking a
benchmarking exercise are unilateral and cooperative information.
7-22 The three types of information gathering and sharing under the cooperative
form of benchmarking are database, indirect/third party, and group.
7-24 The additional cost of replacing a rejected unit that must be scrapped includes
all the incremental material and conversion costs already incurred on such a
unit that must be repeated. Furthermore, additional costs such as handling,
storage, etc. corresponding to the material that is lost also are included. From a
managerial perspective, opportunity cost may also be included if relevant.
7-25 Rework costs include direct rework labor, any additional direct materials used,
and if relevant, incremental support. From a managerial perspective,
opportunity cost may also be included if relevant.
7-26 When evaluating the profit impact of an increase in the sales of a product, it is
important to evaluate the contribution margins on the increase in sales for that
product, and on the decrease in sales of other cannibalized products (other
products that lose customers to the product being evaluated). In addition, if
inventory and accounts receivable increase with sales, then the cost of carrying
these additional current assets are also relevant.
– 211 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
EXERCISES
7-27 A grocery store is organized using a process layout—similar foods are grouped
together to make it easier for customers to find what they want. A grocery store
might be reorganized into a modified cell layout. For example, someone
wanting to prepare a certain meal, like lasagna, might find all the required
ingredients in one place. However, this approach is likely to be costly and
impractical and make stock rotation difficult.
7-28 Prevention costs are incurred to ensure that companies produce products
according to quality standards. Prevention costs include quality engineering,
training of employees in methods designed to maintain quality, etc. Appraisal
costs are related to inspecting products to make sure that they meet both internal
and external customers’ requirements. Inspection of purchased parts and
materials and process control monitoring are examples of appraisal costs.
Internal failure cost occurs when the manufacturing process produces a
defective component or product. The cost of downtime in production as a
result of defects is an example of an internal failure cost. External failure costs
are incurred when a customer in the field detects a problem with a product or
the product fails. Examples of external failure costs include warranty costs,
service calls, and product liability recalls.
7-29 Of the four quality costing categories, an external failure cost is the most
damaging to the organization. Customer satisfaction and future sales may be
jeopardized. Moreover, product liability lawsuits can be extremely costly to the
organization not only in dollars, but also in terms of corporate reputation. One
key example of this is the Ford Pinto.
7-30 As shown below, benefits from the switch to JIT operations are estimated to be
$461,600:
– 212 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
7-31 Inventory Costs
Direct material $300 × 60,000 units × 2/12 = $3,000,000
Work in process ([$300 × 100%] + [$400 × 50%]) ×
60,000 units × 2/12 = 5,000,000
Finished goods ($300 + $400) × 60,000 units × 1/12 = 3,500,000
Total $11,500,000
Inventory carrying
cost 10%
Annual inventory
carrying cost $1,150,000
PROBLEMS
7-32 Both the theory of constraints and activity-based costing support aspects of
process improvement and improved profitability, but differ in many other
respects. The theory of constraints emphasizes the short-run optimization of
throughput contribution, and downplays operating costs (except direct
materials) because they are viewed as difficult to alter in the short-run.
Consequently, analyses of activities and cost drivers are not conducted as they
are in activity-based costing. Proponents of activity-based costing take a long-
term perspective in which managers can alter capacity resources. Therefore, it is
viewed as beneficial to produce accurate cost information by tying actual
resources consumed to cost objects, such as products, services, channels, and
customers. The theory of constraints and activity-based costing might
conceivably be used together.
The proposed change in plant layout should not be implemented because its
costs are greater than its benefits, if only one year’s benefits are considered. Net
present value analysis, which is covered in other courses, should be used to
evaluate the benefits over the entire useful life of the machine.
– 213 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
7-34 (a) PCE in minutes under the traditional system equals [120/(120 + 80 + 240
+ 40)] = [120/480] = 0.25. PCE under the JIT system equals [75/(75 + 20
+ 60 + 5)] = [75/160] = 0.47.
(b) Based on the calculations above, Walker Brothers should implement the
JIT system since the processing cycle efficiency is almost double that of
the traditional system (0.47 vs. 0.25).
occurs when the manufacturing cycle efficiency ratio equals 1 that is, when
processing time equals total production time.
Rejected valves are returned to the initial production stage to be melted and
recast. The company recovers the brass but not any finishing materials. Rework
requires DL and TDABC support in Casting; DM, DL, and TDABC support in
Finishing; and DM (= $0), DL, and TDABC support in Inspection. There are no
Packing cost savings on reworked values because all finished valves are
inspected before packing and shipping. Assuming, as stated in the problem, that
the TDABC support costs can be reduced if not needed, the estimated total
savings as a result of the quality improvement are $89,810.
7-37 Before the rearrangement, PCE in minutes for Whisper Voice Systems equals [70/(70
+ 45 + 55 + 30)] = 70/200 = 0.35. After the rearrangement, PCE in minutes equals
[30/(30 + 10 + 20 + 15)] = 30/75 = 0.40. The percentage improvement in PCE after
the rearrangement is [(0.4 – 0.35)/0.35] = .143 or 14.3%. Thus, the change exceeds
Ray Brown’s requirement of a 12% improvement in PCE.
7-38 (a) The approach used at McDonalds in which customers wait in several lines is
consistent with the push or conventional manufacturing approach. As one
– 215 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
comes into McDonalds it is clear that they have been, and are building
inventory in each of the specific bins that they use for, let’s say, Big Macs,
fish sandwiches, regular hamburgers, etc. Having inventory at predefined
levels keeps the production process going. The motivation to use the
traditional production method is to sustain a certain level of inventory to
reduce the time the customer has to wait for an order. Notice in McDonalds
that hot lights are used to keep the sandwiches warm. One goal of this
approach is that customers perceive that they can get their sandwich very
quickly due to the inventory of sandwiches always on hand. On the other
hand, Wendy’s uses more of a pull or JIT system. As you enter into
Wendy’s, notice that you cannot really observe any sandwich inventory
building up. The idea in forming one line is that each person has the
perception (and often the reality) that each sandwich is made on the spot.
This procedure is designed to show customers how fresh the sandwiches are.
The motivation to use a just-in-time approach is to improve the quality of the
food and to reduce waste by eliminating the need to throw out food that has
been sitting too long. As processing time and setup costs drop, the
organization can move closer to just-in-time, reducing the waste and quality
problems that arise with batch production.
(b) From a customer’s perspective, it does depend on what one favors. If a
customer goes to a fast food restaurant, his or her goal is to get food quickly.
On any particular day, the customer may be in a great hurry and wish to run
in and run out of a fast food establishment. Having multiple lines at a place
like McDonalds may be very appealing as far as the perception of the speed
with which one can get a meal (compared to a single line at Wendy’s). On
another day, perhaps having a meal made freshly on the spot, without any
“warming” time under hot lights is more appealing than the speed of getting
the food. Of course, one may simply like the taste of one company’s
hamburgers over another’s.
From management’s perspective, apart from taste, competing in selling
hamburgers may depend on other variables such as the speed with which an
order is filled versus tailoring the production process to individual taste. The
traditional push production process can lead to a lot more waste than the JIT
system, because if a batch of hamburgers is made and demand drops, the
quality of the food deteriorates and often has to be thrown out. However, if
the line at Wendy’s is very long and customers begin to get impatient, the
freshness of the food may begin to lose its appeal.
7-39 (a) The article reports that customer service representatives are commonly
evaluated on time to complete a call or whether they sell a new product to
– 216 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
the customer. The article further states that companies should evaluate
service representatives on the basis of how well they resolve the
customer’s problem. For example, a company can track improvement in
the number of problems that are resolved on the customer’s first call.
– 217 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
7-40 There really is no one “correct way” to allocate the $2 million of quality costs
to the four categories. Clearly, managers hope that they can minimize quality
costs as much as possible. But, in this hypothetical example, we are assuming
that managers, a priori, have much more discretion than they probably do.
Probably the most desirable quality cost trend is to load up costs at the
prevention stage and to incur some costs during the appraisal stage. By
increasing prevention costs, such as extensive training and quality engineering,
and appraisal costs, such as maintenance of test equipment, process control
monitoring and inspection of incoming materials, an organization can reduce
other quality costs, especially those related to internal and external failure.
Regarding the allocation of the $2,000,000, the “correct” trend is a high level of
costs for prevention, followed next by lower costs for appraisal, internal failure
and external failure.
– 218 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
(b) The most obvious problem at Madrigal is the extremely high external-
failure costs of almost 11%. Since as a norm many companies would like
to keep their quality costs below 4% to 5% of sales, Madrigal Company’s
quality costs are out of line. Note in particular that product-liability
lawsuits, warranty claims, and product recalls are the biggest external-
– 219 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
failure costs. Madrigal must find out why its products seem to be failing
in the field.
Madrigal should first turn to an analysis of its other quality costs. Quality
costs are incurred throughout the total life cycle of a product. If Madrigal
does not control quality costs early in the research, development, and
engineering stage by ensuring good product design, then design problems
will lead to increased quality costs later on.
Note that Madrigal’s quality-related costs are very low at the prevention
stage and increase for the appraisal and internal-failure cost categories.
The external failure costs are extremely high. This pattern of quality costs
is what most organizations hope to avoid because the highest category of
quality costs corresponds to poor quality recognized only after products
are in customers’ hands.
Appraisal Costs:
Inspection of and testing of in-coming
Materials $ 300,000 0.40%
Process-control monitoring 350,000 0.47%
Product-quality audits 350,000 0.47%
Total $1,000,000 1.33%
(b) Since as a norm many companies would like to keep their quality costs
below 4% to 5% of sales, Ideal Company’s total quality costs are
relatively high. The highest level of quality costs occur for internal
failure (6.67%) and external failure (2.67%) compared to lower levels for
prevention and appraisal (1.33% each). Therefore, management should
investigate why internal failure costs are so high, especially for scrap and
rework costs. Regarding external failure costs, the two highest are for
product liability lawsuits and warranty claims. Nevertheless, these costs
are relatively low as a percentage of sales. The company should
investigate whether placing more emphasis on prevention and appraisal
would decrease internal failure and external failure costs.
– 221 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
7-43 Exhibit 7-10 illustrates the comparison between Kaizen costing and standard
costing. In contrast to traditional standard costing, Kaizen costing focuses on
cost reduction and continuous improvement as overriding concepts in
manufacturing, revises cost reduction targets monthly, uses cost variance
analysis to compare target costs versus actual costs, and assumes that workers
have the best knowledge to reduce costs.
Standard costing uses a cost control system concept and assumes stability in
current manufacturing processes. Standards are set annually or semiannually
and cost variance analysis is used to compare actual to standard costs. The
assumption is that managers and engineers have the best knowledge to develop
standards as they have the technical expertise.
7-44 According to the Kaizen costing approach, workers have the best knowledge to
reduce costs. The reason is that workers are much closer to the production
process and have far more detailed knowledge and insight than engineers and
managers.
7-45 Kaizen is the Japanese term for making improvements to a process through small,
incremental amounts, rather than through large innovations. Kaizen costing is a
method to reduce costs through small, continuous improvements.
7-46 If the cost of disruptions to production is greater than the savings due to Kaizen
costing, then the cost savings due to Kaizen costing will not be applied.
7-47 (a) The biggest problem with Kaizen costing is similar to the one that faces
target costing, and that is the system places enormous pressure on
employees to reduce every conceivable cost. The results of this pressure
are internal conflicts among various parties and a great deal of employee
burnout. Another concern has been that Kaizen costing leads to
incremental rather than radical process improvements. This can cause
myopia as management tends to focus on the details rather than the
overall system.
(b) To address the first problem, some Japanese automobile companies use a
grace period in manufacturing just before a new model is introduced.
This period, called a cost sustainment period, provides employees with
the opportunity to learn any new procedures before the company imposes
Kaizen and target costs on them. Another solution relates to the kinds of
penalties that employees face as a result of not attaining cost targets. In
Japan, for those employees with lifetime employment, there is virtually
– 222 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
no chance of losing one’s job, however, there are “social penalties” such
as loss of face, letting down the company, etc., associated with not
achieving targets. In the United States the threat of job loss is much more
salient. The last thing that U.S. managers would want to do is to threaten
job loss to those who did not achieve targets. This would simply
exacerbate the problem. In the final analysis, Kaizen costing has to be
understood as a tool for change, but not as a hammer. With respect to the
second problem above, management needs to focus on the overall
production process as well as the details.
7-48 The key factors in identifying benchmarking partners are the size of partners,
the number of partners, the relative position of partners within and across
industries, and the degree of trust among partners. Choices on each of these
variables will change from one benchmarking study to the next. Organizations
will likely want to obtain information about a firm similar in size because of
their comparable situations. It is useful to have a large number of participants in
order to increase the amount of information obtained. Developing trust among
partners is critical to obtaining truthful and timely information. Newcomers to
an industry probably would like to see a wider variety of partners.
7-50 The Kaizen costing system differs from a traditional standard costing system.
Under the traditional standard costing system, the typical goal is to meet the cost
standard while avoiding unfavorable variances. With Kaizen costing, the goal is to
achieve cost reduction targets. Further, variance analysis under a standard cost
system usually compares actual to standard costs, while under Kaizen costing,
variance analysis compares target Kaizen costs with actual cost reduction amounts.
Kaizen costing, then, operates outside of the standard costing system, in part
because standard costing systems in Japan are oriented towards complying with
financial accounting standards.
Another key difference between standard and Kaizen costing has to do with the
assumptions about who has the best knowledge to improve processes and
reduce costs. Traditional standard costing assumes that engineers and managers
know best since they have the technical expertise. Thus they determine
– 223 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
Thus, the standard costing system and the Kaizen costing system are used for
very different purposes. The standard costing system is used for financial
reporting purposes while the Kaizen costing system is used for cost
management. The systems do coexist, although many believe that there is really
no need for both systems, especially if the financial reporting system was
modified to accommodate Kaizen costing.
7-51 (a) The Kaizen costing system differs quite significantly from a traditional
standard costing system and there are few similarities. Under the traditional
standard costing system, the typical goal is to meet the cost standard while
avoiding unfavorable variances. With Kaizen costing, the goal is to achieve
cost reduction targets. Variance analysis under a standard cost system
compares actual to standard costs, while under Kaizen costing, variance
analysis is used to compare target Kaizen costs with actual cost reduction
amounts. Kaizen costing is not really part of the standard costing system
because, in Japan, standard costing systems are used primarily for
compliance with financial accounting standards and financial reporting
purposes.
(b) Kaizen costing can be adapted in the United States in those companies
that (1) see the benefits of the costing method, (2) have a willingness to
change their existing thinking about the role of standard costing versus
Kaizen costing, and (3) will rely more on the input of workers and
managers to improve processes and reduce costs. As in the adoption of
all management innovations, being open to significant cultural change is
what will allow U.S. organizations to embrace and be successful with
– 224 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
7-52 The first thing that the student should do is determine what definition to follow
regarding who the “best” student is. The definition could vary depending on
whether “best” was defined as the one who consistently scores the highest on
exams, or perhaps, the one who seemed to provide the most intelligent answers
to questions in class, etc. The latter definition is the one that may be the most
desirable in the long run (as a good test taker may not always be a successful
decision maker), but also the hardest to try to emulate, as there may be a level
of innate intelligence that cannot be “learned.” In order to do the exercise, let’s
use the definition of best as the one who scores the highest on exams and
assume that the student is trying to benchmark the study habits of the best
student.
The student should ask the best student questions like the following:
3. How do you decide what times of day are most effective for studying?
Implementing some or all of these changes will take time especially if the other
students’ habits are very different from what the student currently does. One
suggestion is to start by implementing one or two suggestions at a time and to
gradually implement more once the initial suggestions have been mastered. The
implementation will probably fail if the student tries to simultaneously change
on all dimensions. Obviously, this exercise is designed to illustrate to the
student how difficult personal change is and this should be a nice lead in how
complex organizational change is.
1. Make sure that students have done their homework on what the
organization that they are going into produces and any other important
background information.
2. Make sure that students have read the material in the text on
benchmarking and understand the five stages of benchmarking, which
are:
Stage 1:
• Internal study and preliminary competitive analyses
• Preliminary internal and external competitive analyses
• Determining key areas for study
• Determining the scope and significance of the study
Stage 2:
• Developing long-term commitment to the benchmarking project
➢ Gaining senior management support
➢ Developing a clear set of objectives
➢ Empowering employees to make change
• Coalescing the benchmarking team
➢ Using an experienced coordinator
➢ Training employees
Stage 3:
• Identifying benchmarking partners
– 226 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
• Size of partners
• Number of partners
• Relative position within and across industries
• Degree of trust among partners
Stage 4:
• Information gathering and sharing methods
• Type of benchmarking information:
➢ Product
➢ Functional (process)
➢ Strategic (includes management accounting methods)
• Method of information collection:
➢ Unilateral
➢ Cooperative:
❑ Database
❑ Indirect/third party
❑ Group
• Determining performance measures
• Determining the benchmarking performance gap in relation to
performance measures
Stage 5:
• Taking action to meet or exceed the benchmark
• Making comparisons of performance measures
4. The instructor might also ask students what criteria they will use to
decide whether benchmarking was successful. For a short exercise like
this, students will probably have to rely on what their interviewees tell
– 227 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
– 228 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
CASES
7-54 (a) In the following diagram, “(v)” indicates activities that add value from
the customer’s perspective, and “(n)” indicates activities that do not.
– 229 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
7-55 (a) Before, producing a Louis Vuitton “Reade” tote bag required 20 to 30
workers who specialized in one skill, working 8 days. Now, producing
the bag requires just one day as 6 to 12 cross-trained employees work in
U-shaped clusters with sewing machines on one side and assembly areas
on the other. Each worker now handles multiple production tasks and the
new system allows workers to detect and correct problems earlier than
before. As a result, returns of faculty merchandise have decreased
dramatically.
(c) Competitors such as Zara sell chic items that are less expensive than
Louis Vuitton’s. Moreover, Zara excels at speed to market; the company
can move from design to stocking the merchandise in stores in as little as
two weeks (Capell 2008). Zara’s approach of manufacturing in small
batches contributes to an aura of exclusivity and helps avoid the need for
slashing prices to sell merchandise. Yet, Zara’s manufacturing flexibility
allows the company to quickly increase the volume of items that are
unexpectedly popular. Capell 2008).
– 230 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
ingredient than specified, and some products may contain tiny metallic
particles left as a residue from the manufacturing process.” Further the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that “bacteria
contaminated raw materials” that are ingredients for children’s Tylenol
products. Problems were traced to the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
plant, and later also to the Las Piedras, Puerto Rico plant (Kimes 2010).
Singer (2010b) and Rockoff and Kamp (2010) report that Johnson &
Johnson (J&J) recalled their hip replacement implants because many of
the implants failed, requiring patients to undergo another hip-replacement
surgery. Rockoff and Kamp (2010) also report that J&J “withdrew about
100,000 boxes of contact lenses sold in Asia and Europe because a
manufacturing problem prompted some customers to complain of pain,
stinging or redness.” The problems with the lenses were traced to a plant
in Ireland.
(b) The external failure costs include lost sales due to loss of reputation and
concerns about quality, and the need to shut down the Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania plant. Singer (2010c) reports that J&J’s, “sales of over-the-
counter drugs and nutritional products in the United States plummeted to
$438 million in the third quarter from $732 million in same time period
last year, a decrease of about 40 percent.” In addition, she reports
projections of a persistent decrease in market share in over-the-counter
drugs.
Other external failure costs include product liability lawsuits, the cost of
returned products, the cost of developing materials for recall web pages
and press releases, providing toll-free phone calls to consumers, and staff
to respond to calls and messages.
(c) According to Singer (2010c), while the Fort Washington plant is closed,
J&J will upgrade it. J&J is also strengthening its manufacturing and
quality controls (Singer 2010a), with a reemphasis on prevention costs
and possibly appraisal costs. Prevention costs include quality
engineering, quality training, statistical process control and supplier
certification. Appraisal costs include costs relating to inspection/testing
of incoming materials, maintenance of test equipment, process control
monitoring and product quality audits.
– 231 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
References
Singer, N. “Johnson & Johnson Recalls Hip Implants,” The New York Times
(August 26, 2010).
Singer, N. “Tylenol Recalls Erode Johnson & Johnson Sales,” The New York
Times (October 19, 2010).
7-57 (a) Costs in the following items are relevant to Polley’s decision: 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 7, 9, 10, and 13. Item 6 is not relevant because it is a sunk cost, and
items 8, 11, and 12 are not relevant because the costs do not differ across
the two options.
(b) Polley is likely to consider the decreased health risks for workers with the
new solvent, decreased risks of violating OSHA regulations and incurring
penalties, and decreased risks of negative media coverage. Polley is also
likely to consider the potential increase in demand for Kwik Clean’s
services if the company markets its environmentally safer process. Polley
may also try to assess whether individual customers are more sensitive to
such marketing than are business customers.
– 232 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
7-58 (a) The company may be monitoring the amount of time spent talking to
customers, and if it is monitoring the content of the calls, the company
may be evaluating how polite the CS representatives are. There are many
other measures that customers would like the company to monitor (see
question (b)), but given the described CS behavior, it seems unlikely that
the company emphasizes speedy problem remediation.
(b) The customer is likely thinking about measures or issues such as the
following:
• Time from the first phone call to CS until the TV is repaired and
returned
• Number of phone calls required
• Time per phone call
• Total time spent on phone calls
• Time between a phone call and the response from CS or WD
authorizing repair
• Time spent writing to the company to report on the unpleasant
experience trying to get the TV repaired
• Politeness of CS reps and supervisor
• Ability to resolve the problem with one phone call
• Wait time to talk to CS rep
(c) Instead of faxing or mailing the receipt, the customer can be allowed to
email the receipt by other electronic means, such as using a scanner to
produce an electronic copy or taking a digital photo. The company could
also think about ways to eliminate the need for CS to forward the
warranty authorization to another department, in order to increase the
likelihood that the customer’s request can be handled with one phone call
– 233 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
and less delay. For example, if a customer knows that the request is for
warranty repair, he or she could be allowed to deal with WD directly
instead of relaying the information back and forth between the customer,
CS, and WD. The company could also develop a better system for
determining which approved repair shops are the closest to the
customer’s address. Furthermore, the company could identify shops with
high customer satisfaction and shops with fast turnaround time. The
company could offer incentives to shops to encourage faster service and
turnaround.
(d) RS3 can clearly learn from RS4’s approach of diagnosing the problem
shortly after the TV arrives in the shop. This allows the shop to order
parts shortly after the TV enters the shop, with the result that the total
time that the TV spends in the shop is likely to much shorter than in RS3.
RS3’s approach introduces unnecessary waiting time, a nonvalue-added
activity from the customer’s perspective. In addition, RS3 needs space to
store all the items waiting for diagnosis or parts. The customer faces
additional waiting time because of RS3’s inability to pick up TVs on a
timely basis.
– 234 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
(b) Rossman should replace its old machine with the new machine because
the penalty of $280,000 for early termination of the lease is more than
offset by the net annual benefit of $301,000 for each of four years with
the new machine.
(c) A manager evaluated on the basis of net income may decide not to
replace the existing machinery if there is considerable uncertainty about
the projections for increased sales or reduced costs, given the relatively
small benefit in the first year based on the stated projections. This benefit
is $301,000 – $280,000 = $21,000. Thus, a manager with a short-term
focus may not lease the new machinery even though it would increase
Rossman’s income over the long-run.
Although the actual case takes place quite some time ago, the need for
improvement in nonmanufacturing processes remains pervasive. We still
encounter firms that take pride in their quality of manufacturing operations
while continuing with poor quality nonmanufacturing processes.
The required questions are designed to acquaint students with some of the
terminology of “cost of quality” and some aspects of conducting a cost of
quality study. Quality costs, defined as those that arise because poor quality
may exist or does exist, have been classified into the following four categories:
1
Source: Institute of Management Accountants, Cases from Management Accounting Practice, Instructor’s Manual,
Volume 12. Adapted with permission.
– 235 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
This case focuses on prevention activities (see question (f)), as well as internal
failure and external failure costs for the order entry department at Precision
Systems, Inc., where internal and external failures are defined with respect to
the order entry department.
(b) There are many possible flows. For example, a sales representative may
contact order entry to request a quote for a system for a customer.
Subsequently, the customer contacts order entry to place the order; and
order entry then generates an order acknowledgement, which is sent to
manufacturing, invoicing, and sales administration. Once the system has
been shipped, an invoice is sent to the customer. Ultimately, collections
will receive the invoice. Customer support will contact the customer to
arrange installation and will be available to answer questions over the
phone.
– 236 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
(c) Items 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, and 12 are internal failures; the remainder are
external failure items. Internal customers affected by external failure
items are listed below.
– 237 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
– 238 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
Incremental Improvements
Empower employees.
Allow sales representatives to correct errors without approval.
Urge order entry to improve communication with manufacturing and
other departments.
Provide feedback to order entry on types of errors, numbers of errors,
and cost impact. Daily feedback (suggestions for improvement) can
be provided via computer.
Educate sales representatives about effects of errors and about the
process.
Provide better training for sales representatives.
Train sales representatives to develop accurate quotes and take on the
order entry function.
Have sales representatives take responsibility for the process.
Track customer purchases to improve service to customers.
Survey customers about problems; use the responses to prioritize
problems.
Stop the double entry of information.
Get input from order entry on development of forms.
Implement checking in order entry to help prevent order
acknowledgement errors.
Develop a reward system that motivates error-free performance of sales
representatives and order entry.
Benchmark.
Breakthrough Improvements
– 239 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
segments.
Develop a system that allows parts customers to get their own quotes
on-line.
Note: Today, customers may add a request for a quote to their shopping
cart but the web page does not provide a quote online.
– 240 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
– 241 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
– 242 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
– 243 –
Atkinson, Solutions Manual t/a Management Accounting, 6E
Order serial #
Is this a new order? Yes I No (If not, please specify —)
Is this an engineering special? Yes / No
Is all information available and clear? Yes I No
Is the quotation # available on the Purchase Order? Yes I No
If not, how did you track down the quotation?
By dollar amount ____ By customer name ____ Called sales rep. ____
Other
Is all relevant information available and clear on the customer’s P.O.? Yes I No Please
provide below details of all the clarifications required.
Serial No. Explanation of problem / clarification How clarification obtained Time spent
How long did it take you to prepare the first draft of the order (including time
spent obtaining clarifications?
How much time did you spend inspecting the quote before finally giving it to your
supervisor for inspection?
Were there any changes as a result of your inspection(s)? Yes / No
Time taken to make changes _____ minutes/hours.
How many drafts of the order were printed including the one you gave to your
supervisor for inspection?
After your supervisor’s inspection, how many drafts of the order were printed in
addition to the final version mailed to the customer?
Date and time order sent out to your internal customer?
Other comments:
– 244 –
Chapter 7: Measuring and Managing Process Performance
– 245 –