Unit 9 Management Accounting Solution

Home

Solution

Programme	Diploma in Business
Unit Number and Title	Unit 5 Management Accounting
QFC Level	Level 4
Unit Code	H/508/0489

Introduction

The Management Accounting Solution discuss about cost information which are incurred by the company at both at the current and future level. It also discuss about the various method which are to be followed to record the inventory. In the assignment various cost variance are calculated by comparing with the actual budget to find its effect on the business. The Management Accounting also includes various budget which are helping in comparing these to actual business result. The assignment also contains different costing and budgeting system and the cause of resulting variance. It also discuss various corrective action which will help the business strategy to improve its process.

unit 9 managing Accounting

Task 2

2.1 Prepare and analyses routine costs report by carrying out a variance analysis for ABC Ltd.

Report showing variance
Particular	actual	budgeted	variance in £
production unit variance	3000	2000	1000
sales revenue variance	30000	20000	10000
direct material variance	8500	6000	2500
direct labour variance	8500	4000	4500
maintenance variance	1400	1000	400
depreciation variance	2200	2000	200
rent and rates variance	1600	1500	100
insurance	5000	3600	1400
total cost	27200	18100	9100

Comparison, explanation and implication of variance-

Production unit variance- The ABC LTD. Has produced 1000 extra unit in comparison to those which was set in the budget. The per unit cost of manufacturing the 2000 units was 9.05 which increased to 9.06 per unit. There was not much difference in the per unit cost in comparison but the company may have reduced the per unit cost by having effective control over the cost.
Sales revenue - The sales revenue was increased by 10000 which was due to increase in production unit made by the company. There was not much increase in revenue in comparison to the cost which was incurred in manufacturing the extra unit.
Direct material - The budgeted per unit cost of material which was used during the production was 3 per unit. The actual per unit cost of material was 2.83. So the company has made optimum utilization of raw material (Miao, Xu, Qiu, Qing & Tao, 2015).
Direct labour – The budgeted per unit labour cost was 2 per unit and the actual cost was 2.83 which was much higher than the planned budget. So the company needs to make effort to reduce it’s per unit labour cost.
Maintenance cost- The change in the maintenance cost was 400 which was not much higher in comparison to those which was set in the plan.
Depreciation- The change in depreciation cost was 200 which is also not high in comparison to the planned budget.
Rent and rates – The rent and rates also increased by 100 so it also doesn’t have much changes with the cost which was determined in the budget.
Insurance – The insurance cost was increased by 1400 from which was much higher from those which was set in the plan (Pilleboue, Singh, Coeurjolly, Kazhdan & Ostromoukhov, 2015).

2.2 Use performance indicators to identify potential improvements for ABC Ltd.

Production variance –The production variance was unfavorable as there was not much benefit for the company to manufacture the extra unit.
Sales revenue- There was neutral effect as the revenue per unit was 10 in the budget and actual.
Direct material- There was favorable variance as there was reduction in the per unit cost in comparison to set budget.
Direct labour- Direct labour cost was unfavorable as there was much increase in the cost from the set budget which reduces the revenue of the budget.
Maintenance cost- The variance in the maintenance cost is favorable as there is not much increase from the planned budget.
Depreciation- The variance in the depreciation cost was also favorable as there was not much changes from the planned budget (Ray & Jenamani, 2015).
Rent and rates – there was not much changes in the rent and rates from the planned budget so it is favorable variance.
Insurance- There was unfavorable variance in the insurance cost as the actual cost was much higher from the set budget.

2.3 Suggest improvements to reduce costs; enhance value and quality to the ABC Ltd management accounting information.

Added value – The added value is defined as the difference between the particular product selling price and the direct and indirect input used in making that particular product. The budgeted profit of the ABC ltd. was 1900 and the actual profit was 6800 so the company is earning the higher profit in comparison to those which was set in the budget. To reduce the cost of manufacturing the company needs to make the effort to reduce the labour cost and the cost which is incurred on the insurance (Jena, 2016).
Total quality management- Total quality management requires use of strategy, data and communication to improve the quality of outcome. In TQM all the members of the organization participate in improving the existing process of the company to improve the quality of outcome. The key principle of TQM are

Employee involvement
Customer focused
Process centered
Integrated system
Continuous improvement
Informed Decision making
Communication
Systematic and strategic approach

Contact us

Get assignment help from full time dedicated experts of Locus assignments.
Call us: +44 – 7497 786 317
Email: support@locusassignments.com

Order Now!!

Task 4

4.1 Calculate variances for month 2, identify possible causes and recommend corrective action.

From the data given in the question following variances can be calculated
Material variance

Material variance: standard cost – actual cost

672000-660000 = £12000 (favorable)

Material price variance: standard cost of actual quantity-actual cost

720000-660000=£60000 (favorable)

Material usage variance: Standard cost of standard quantity for actual production- standard cost of actual quantity

(11200-12000) X 60= £48000 (unfavorable)

Causes and recommendation: Favorable material variance shows that the material is used efficiently in the organization. It is shown that the material can be more efficiently used by reducing wastage.
Labour variance

Labor variance : standard cost – actual cost

288000-303360 = £15360 (unfavorable)

Labor rate variance: standard cost of actual time – actual cost

284400-303360 = 18960 (unfavorable)

Labor efficiency variance: standard cost of standard time for actual production – standard cost of actual time

288000-270000= 18000 (favorable)

Labor idle time variance: difference between actual hours paid and actual hours worked at standard rate

284400-270000= 14400 (unfavorable)

Causes and recommendation: Labor variance is unfavorable which can be because of costly labor availability it can be resolved by proper training and efficient use of labor (Roper & Ruckes, 2012).

Variable overhead variance

Variable overhead total variance: Standard variable overhead- actual variable overhead

480000-480000= 0

Variable overhead expenditure variance: actual hours X ( standard rate- actual rate)

15800 X (30-30.38) = 6000 (unfavorable)

Variable overhead efficiency variance: Standard rate X (standard hours – actual hours)

30 X (16000-15800) = 6000 (favorable)

Causes and recommendation: Variable expenses can be controlled by efficiently using the resources.

Fixed overhead

Fixed overhead expenditure variance: budgeted overheads – actual overheads

210000-200000= 10000 (favorable)

Fixed overhead volume variance= absorbed fixed overhead – budgeted fixed overheads

207375-210000= 2625 (unfavorable)

Causes and recommendation
As fixed overhead variance is favorable it can be said that overhead are incurred efficiently
Sales variance

Sales price variance: actual sales – standard sales

1800000- (8000X240) = 120000 (unfavorable)

Sales volume variance: standard sales- budgeted sales

1920000- (8400X240) =96000 (unfavorable)

Causes and recommendation: Unfavorable variance of sales volume depicts that sales target are not achieved from the budgeted sales. It can be improved by proper training of the sales persons and by proper marketing schemes (Jamaludin, Shariffah, Mohammad & Ahmad, 2014).
Sales margin variance:

Sales margin price variance: Actual margin – Standard margin

356640-448000=91360 (unfavorable)

Sales margin volume variance: Standard margin – budgeted margin

448000-504000= 56000 (unfavorable)

Causes and recommendation: Company is not able to cover its margin so it is recommended that the company should try to reduce its direct cost so that margin can be improved.

4.2 Prepare an operating statement reconciling budgeted and actual results.

	Budgeted sales	2016000
less:	Budgeted material	705600
less:	Budgeted labor	302400
less:	Budgeted variable overhead	504000
less:	Budgeted fixed overhead	210000
	Budgeted Profit	294000

	Budgeted Profit	294000
add:	Material Price variance	60000
Less:	Material usage variance	48000
add:	labor efficiency variance	18000
Less:	labor rate variance	18960
Less:	labor idle time variance	14400
add:	variable overhead efficiency variance	6000
Less:	labor overhead expenditure variance	6000
add:	fixed overhead expenditure variance	10000
Less:	Fixed overhead volume variance	2625
Less:	Sales margin price variance	91360
Less:	sales margin volume variance	56000
	actual Profit	150655

4.3 Report findings to management in accordance with identified responsibility centers

From the above calculation it can be concluded that the company is not able to match the budgeted figure with the actual results so it is recommended that they should employ efficient methods to improve their cost structure. Company should employ methods such as efficient labor utilization, efficient material usage by improved machinery for production, removing wastage of time, training of sales personnel (Archibald, Jacobs, Saad, Jevsevar & Shea, 2015).

Conclusion

So it may be concluded from the above study that the cost analyze helps the management accounting to build control over various cost. The budget used by the company help the management to build control over the various cost. It may also be concluded from the above study that the variance analyze helps in identifying the problem and helps in framing the budget for the future year.

References

Archibald-Seiffer, N., Jacobs, J.C., Saad, C., Jevsevar, D.S. & Shea, K.G. 2015, "Review of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Cost Variance Within a Regional Health Care System", The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1408-1412.
Cottrell, T. 2014, "Transferring and teaching budgeting", The Bottom Line: Managing library finances, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 6-10.
Diaz-Ordaz, K., Gomes, M., Grieve, R. & Kenward, M. 2013, "A comparison of multiple imputation methods for bivariate hierarchical data: an application to cost-effectivenessanalyse", Trials, vol. 14 Suppl 1, pp. O98-O98.
Gansemer?Topf, A.M. & Englin, P.D. 2015, "Contemporary Challenges in Student Affairs Budgeting and Finance", New Directions for Student Services, vol. 2015, no. 151, pp. 63-78.
Goldfeld, K.S. 2014, "Twice?weighted multiple intervalestimation of a marginal structural model to analyze cost?effectiveness", Statistics in Medicine, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1222-1241.
Jamaludin, Shariffah Zatil Hidayah Syed, Mohammad, M.F. & Ahmad, K. 2014, "Enhancing the Quality of Construction Environment by Minimizing the Cost Variance", Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 153, pp. 70-78.
Jena, P.R. 2016, "Reform Initiatives in the Budgeting System in India: Budgeting System and Reforms in India", Public Budgeting & Finance, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 106-124.
Li, X., Liu, H., Zhang, S., Mei, J., Xie, G., Yu, Y., Li, J. & Lakshmanan, G.T. 2014, "Automatic variance analysis of multistage care pathways", Studies in health technology and informatics, vol. 205, pp. 715.
Liang, Y. 2013, "Applying the generalized autoregressive conditional Heteroskedastic model to analyze and forecast the field failure data of repairable systems", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 737-750.
Marie Hedlund, O. & Copeland, A. 2013, "Collection management and the budget crunch: are we adequately preparing library students for current practices?", Collection Building, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 128-132.
Martinez-Sanchez, V., Hulgaard, T., Hindsgaul, C., Riber, C., Kamuk, B. & Astrup, T.F. 2016, "Estimation of marginal costs at existing waste treatment facilities", Waste Management, vol. 50, pp. 364-375.
Miao, J., Xu, X., Qiu, S., Qing, C. & Tao, D. 2015, "Temporal Variance Analysis for Action Recognition", IEEE transactions on image processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 5904-5915.
Oikawa, S.M., Moala, F.A., Achcar, J.A., Baba, M.Y. &Piratelli, C.L. 2013, "A useful empirical Bayesian method to analyse industrial data from saturated factorial designs", International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 337-344.
Pan, J., Liu, J. & Zhu, C. 2015, "Budgeting carbon for urbanization in China: Budgeting carbon for urbanization", Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 406-409.
Pilleboue, A., Singh, G., Coeurjolly, D., Kazhdan, M. & Ostromoukhov, V. 2015, "Variance analysis for Monte Carlo integration", ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1-14.
Ray, P. & Jenamani, M. 2015;2016;, "Mean-variance analysis of sourcing decision under disruption risk", European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 250, no. 2, pp. 679.
REKA, C.I., STEFAN, P. & DANIEL, C.V. 2014, "TRADITIONAL BUDGETING VERSUS BEYOND BUDGETING: A LITERATURE REVIEW", Annals of the University of Oradea: Economic Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 573-581.
Roper, A.H. &Ruckes, M.E. 2012, "Intertemporal capital budgeting", Journal of Banking & Finance, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 2543.
Shea, K.G., Archibald-Seiffer, N.M., Jacobs, J., Saad, C., Hooft, L. & Humphreys, B. 2014, "Variation in Health Care Cost: Quality, Utilization, and Efficiency Review for ACL Surgery Cost Variance Within a Health Care System", Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 2, no. 2_suppl.