Standard Costing vs Activity-Based Costing

Most business owners would agree that accurately calculating production costs is critical for making sound pricing and profitability decisions.

By leveraging activity-based costing (ABC), companies can gain superior visibility into overhead costs and allocate them more precisely to products and services.

In this post, we'll compare ABC to the traditional costing approach, analyzing the advantages and limitations of each methodology. You'll discover why activity-based costing often provides enhanced accuracy and actionable insights, though careful implementation is required to realize the full benefits.

Introduction to Costing Methods in Management Accounting

This section provides a brief background on standard costing and activity-based costing, two pivotal cost accounting methods within management accounting. It highlights the key differences between the two approaches and their respective goals within corporate accounting.

Exploring What is Traditional Costing System

Standard costing assigns average estimated costs to products ahead of production based on historical data and forecasts. It is often used in managerial accounting as a traditional costing system formula.

Some key aspects of traditional costing include:

• Uses predetermined overhead rates to apply manufacturing overhead costs to products
• Based on forecasted volumes and budgets rather than actual costs
• Simpler to implement than activity-based costing
• Less accurate in complex manufacturing environments

For example, a traditional costing system may estimate that total overhead costs for the year will be $1 million. If 5,000 units are budgeted to be produced, it would assign an overhead cost of $200 per unit ($1 million/5,000 units). This predetermined overhead rate gets applied to each unit produced.

Understanding Activity-Based Costing (ABC)

Activity-based costing traces actual costs to products based on the specific activities and resources required to make them, emphasizing the role of cost driver in activity-based costing.

Key aspects of activity-based costing:

• Traces overhead costs to products based on actual usage of activities and resources
• Identifies cost drivers like machine setup hours or material purchases
• More complex but also more accurate way to assign overhead costs
• Useful for companies with diverse product lines and complex manufacturing

For example, an activity-based costing system might track the actual number of production runs and material purchases for each product. Products requiring more setups and material would be assigned higher overhead costs compared to simpler products. This leads to more precise costing.

What is the difference between activity-based costing and normal costing?

Activity-based costing (ABC) and traditional costing are two different methods for allocating overhead costs. Here is a quick overview of the key differences:

Accuracy

• ABC systems trace overhead costs to specific activities and cost objects, resulting in greater accuracy. Traditional systems simply allocate costs using a limited number of allocation bases like machine hours or direct labor which can distort product costs.

Complexity

• ABC systems track numerous cost drivers and activities which makes them more complex to design and maintain. Traditional costing is simpler since it relies on a few allocation bases for assigning overhead.

Implementation Cost

• The complexity of ABC leads to higher implementation costs compared to traditional costing. Additional data collection and analysis is required to track cost drivers.

Insight

• By tracing overhead to activities and cost objects, ABC provides greater visibility into the true costs and profitability of products and services. This helps drive better decision making around pricing, product mix optimization, process improvements and more.

Usage

• Smaller, less complex organizations can often effectively use traditional costing systems. But as complexity increases, ABC becomes necessary to avoid product cost distortions. High overhead intensive industries like manufacturing, healthcare and financial services are more likely to adopt ABC.

So in summary, ABC provides greater accuracy at the cost of higher complexity. It is most useful for larger organizations and those where overhead is a significant portion of total costs.

Why is ABC better than traditional costing?

Activity-based costing (ABC) has several key advantages over traditional costing methods:

More Accurate Cost Data

ABC provides more accurate cost data by tracing overhead costs to specific activities. Rather than arbitrarily allocating overhead, ABC assigns costs based on each activity's actual usage. This avoids over- or under-costing products. For example, a high-volume product may use fewer activities and incur lower overhead costs than a complex, low-volume product. Traditional methods would allocate the same overhead rate to both, skewing the data.

Insight into Cost Drivers

By tracking overhead costs to activities, ABC highlights the underlying factors that trigger costs - the "cost drivers." This helps managers understand why costs occur and how to influence them through operational changes. Traditional methods lack visibility into cost drivers.

Support for Decision Making

The granular cost data from ABC supports better pricing, make vs. buy, and other decisions that impact profits. If product costs don't reflect actual resource usage, managers can't reliably determine the most profitable options. The accuracy of ABC leads to decisions that increase margins.

In summary, ABC's precise tracing of overhead provides superior cost data and insights compared to allocation-based traditional methods. The improved decision making and cost control enabled by ABC lead to reduced expenses and higher profitability over the long term.

What is the difference between activity-based costing and traditional costing?

Activity-based costing (ABC) and traditional costing are two different methods for allocating overhead costs to products. Here are some of the key differences:

Cost Drivers

• Traditional costing uses a single, volume-based cost driver like machine hours or labor hours to allocate overhead costs. All products are assigned the same overhead rate per unit of the cost driver.
• ABC uses multiple cost drivers based on the activities that actually cause overhead costs. Cost drivers can include number of setups, orders processed, inspections performed, and more. Since products use activities differently, ABC assigns costs more accurately.

Overhead Allocation

• Traditional costing tends to over-cost high volume, simple products and under-cost low volume, complex products.
• ABC allocates overhead based on products' actual consumption of activities, leading to more accurate costs.

Product Costing

• Traditional costing cannot accurately determine which products are most profitable.
• ABC provides better visibility into profitability by product line or individual product.

Use of Resources

• Traditional costing assumes that all products consume resources similarly.
• ABC recognizes that different products consume resources differently based on the diversity of activities performed.

In summary, ABC tends to provide more accurate product costs compared to traditional costing, especially when overhead costs are a large portion of total costs or when products vary significantly. However, ABC requires more data collection and analysis to implement.

What is an example of activity-based costing?

Activity-based costing (ABC) is a costing method that assigns overhead and indirect costs to products and services based on the activities that go into producing them. Here is an example of how activity-based costing works in a manufacturing environment:

In a factory, the number of hours a machine runs determines associated costs like electricity for running the machine and maintenance expenses. The machine hours are considered a cost driver - they "drive" costs by directly impacting the consumption of electricity and maintenance needs.

• The factory tracks how many hours each machine has run. This is easy to measure and trace.
• The factory then allocates electricity and maintenance costs to each machine proportional to its run hours.
• If Machine A ran for 200 hours and Machine B ran for 100 hours:
  • Machine A would be allocated 66% of electricity and maintenance costs (200 hours / 300 hours total)
  • Machine B would be allocated 33% of electricity and maintenance costs (100 hours / 300 hours total)
• This way, machines that run longer and consume more electricity and maintenance carry larger portions of those costs, while machines that run less carry smaller portions.
• When production volume on each machine is tracked, the electricity and maintenance costs can further be allocated to each product line running on that machine.

In contrast, traditional costing would have simply spread electricity and maintenance costs equally across all machines or products, regardless of actual usage. Activity-based costing leads to greater accuracy in assigning overhead costs based on activities and cost drivers.

Activity-Based Costing and Traditional Costing Methods: A Comparative Analysis

Difference Between ABC and Traditional Costing in Tabular Form

Factor	Traditional Costing	Activity-Based Costing
Cost Assignment Basis	Estimates future costs and assigns them equally across products	Traces actual costs and assigns them based on cost drivers
Overhead Allocation	Uses broad arbitrary percentages	Uses cost drivers to trace overhead costs
Cost Accuracy	Less accurate since costs are estimates	More accurate since actual costs are traced
Variance Analysis	Compares actual costs to standard costs to identify deviations	Focuses analysis on cost drivers rather than standards

As shown in the table, the key difference between traditional costing and ABC is that traditional costing relies on estimated future costs, while ABC traces actual costs based on cost drivers. This makes ABC more accurate in assigning overhead costs.

Cost Accuracy and Overhead Allocation

Standard costing systems estimate overhead costs at the start of a period and spread them evenly across products using an allocation percentage. This can result in inaccurate unit costs since actual overhead costs may differ. ABC tracing identifies cost drivers to assign actual overhead costs incurred based on usage. For example, the machine setup hours required for a complex custom product would directly assign more overhead through ABC than simpler standard products. This results in ABC providing more accurate overhead assignment and unit costing.

Variance Analysis in Standard Costing

Standard costing performs variance analysis at the end of each period by comparing actual costs incurred to the standard estimated costs. This variance analysis aims to identify deviations from expected costs and determine their underlying causes. For example, if direct material costs were higher than the standard, purchasing managers would be expected to analyze what drove the increased costs - higher waste, price increases, inefficient suppliers etc. The focus is on comparing to the predetermined standards rather than evaluating the process itself.

ABC does not use standards or variance analysis in this form. ABC focuses process analysis on identifying accurate cost drivers. If overhead costs rise, an ABC approach would trace what activities caused more resources to be consumed through the cost drivers, rather than analyze against a variance from a budgeted rate.

sbb-itb-beb59a9

Evaluating Costing Techniques: Advantages and Disadvantages

Pros and Cons of the Traditional Costing System

The traditional costing system, also known as standard costing, has been used in managerial accounting for decades. Its key advantages include:

• Simplicity: Traditional costing is easy to understand and implement. It groups costs into direct materials, direct labor, and overhead. This makes it straightforward to calculate total product costs.

• Efficiency: By using cost standards rather than actual costs, traditional costing eliminates the need for detailed tracking of actual costs. This saves time and resources.

However, traditional costing also has some limitations:

• Inaccurate cost data: By allocating overhead based on a single cost driver such as machine hours or labor hours, it fails to account for the diversity of overhead costs. This can distort product costs.

• Quality issues: The focus on meeting standards can lead to quality issues as workers aim to meet efficiency targets rather than product specifications.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Activity-Based Costing

Activity-based costing (ABC) addresses the limitations of traditional costing by tracing overhead costs to products based on the activities that generate those costs. Key benefits include:

• Accuracy: By using multiple cost drivers, ABC provides more accurate overhead allocation leading to reliable product/service costs.

• Insight: The detailed tracing of costs to activities helps identify high overhead activities. Managers can use this for process improvements.

However, ABC also has some downsides:

• Complexity: Identifying cost drivers for each activity and tracing costs involves extensive data analysis, which is complex. Significant time and resources are needed.

• Implementation issues: Pushing back from managers and staff unaccustomed to detailed tracking can hamper ABC adoption. Software and training costs also add up.

In summary, while traditional costing provides simplicity and efficiency, ABC delivers greater accuracy. Organizations should weigh the pros and cons to determine the best fit for their operations and objectives.

Practical Applications of Costing Methods

Traditional costing and activity-based costing each have their strengths in different business situations. Choosing the right method depends on your production environment and information needs.

Traditional Costing Method Example in Manufacturing

Traditional costing works well for companies with:

• Homogeneous products made in high volumes
• Relatively fixed overhead costs
• Stable production processes over time

For example, a cereal manufacturer would be a good fit for traditional costing. Ingredients and packaging don't change much between production runs. Machines are dedicated to specific products. Overhead costs like equipment maintenance and factory utilities remain steady.

With this consistency, the company can accurately estimate costs per unit based on historical data. Applying overhead based on volume (units produced) provides reasonably accurate full product costs.

Job Order Costing vs Activity-Based Costing in Custom Production

For companies with:

• Low-volume, custom or specialized orders
• Significant overhead costs
• Frequent changes in activity

Activity-based costing works better. For example, a custom machine shop falls in this category. Each client order specifies different materials, operations, production standards, and quality testing. Basing overhead allocation on volume fails to capture complexity differences between orders.

Instead, activity-based costing traces costs to each unique batch and process. Precisely linking resource consumption to each job order or service delivered improves pricing decisions and profitability management.

In summary, the production environment determines the suitability of each costing approach. Apply the method that provides the required cost information accuracy for operating decisions.

Strategies for Implementing Cost Accounting Methods

Implementing effective cost accounting methods like standard costing and activity-based costing (ABC) requires careful planning and execution. Here are some key steps to consider:

Implementing Standard Costing: Steps and Considerations

Standard costing can provide operations efficiency, streamlined reporting, and rapid detection of variances. To implement it effectively:

• Establish standards for costs per unit based on historical data, forecasts, and capacity levels
• Update standards regularly to reflect changes in fixed and variable costs
• Train staff on analyzing and reporting variances from standard
• Use variance analysis to uncover inefficiencies and opportunities for improvement

Rolling Out ABC: A Guide to Effective Implementation

ABC traces overhead to products based on activity usage. To successfully roll out ABC:

• Thoroughly analyze resource usage and key cost drivers at the batch activity level
• Involve operations staff to identify cost drivers like machine hours
• Automate data collection from ERP systems where possible
• Phase in ABC implementation across product lines
• Provide extensive ABC training to ensure understanding across the organization

Careful implementation of standard costing and ABC can strengthen visibility into profitability and uncover savings. The keys are taking the time to understand cost behavior, securing buy-in, and providing the right staff training to leverage these cost accounting methods.

Real-World Case Study: Costing Methods in Action

Company Profile: Woodworks Inc.

Woodworks Inc. is a custom wood furniture manufacturer with a highly diverse product line. There is significant variation in the production activities required across their different furniture models.

Traditional Costing Application: Unit Cost and Depreciation

With traditional costing, Woodworks allocates painting costs based on the number of units produced. This fails to reflect the diversity in painting needs across products. Some furniture requires more preparation work and multiple coats, while other products need less painting activity.

Depreciation expenses are also allocated in the traditional way, spread evenly across all production volume without tying the costs to actual furniture-specific asset usage.

Adopting ABC: Cost Driver Analysis and Product Line Costing

By adopting activity-based costing (ABC), Woodworks can now trace painting costs to specific products based on the required preparation, number of coats, labor hours, and materials utilized. This matches costs more closely to the actual production activities.

ABC enables a focus on cost driver analysis for expenses like painting. Key drivers would include number of coats, paint drying time, surface preparation needs, etc. This contrasts with simply allocating based on units produced.

Product line costing is also improved under ABC, as overhead costs directly reflect the activities and assets associated with manufacturing that product line. Costs no longer need to be spread evenly across all volume.

Target Costing: Integrating ABC and Traditional Methods

Balancing Accuracy and Efficiency in Cost Management

Companies can leverage the strengths of both activity-based costing (ABC) and traditional costing methods to optimize their cost management processes.

ABC provides more accurate cost data by tracing overhead costs to specific activities and cost objects. However, it can be complex and time-consuming to implement. Traditional costing is simpler and faster, but allocates overhead arbitrarily, leading to less precise cost data.

An integrated approach allows businesses to use ABC for high-value products or processes where accuracy is critical, while applying traditional methods for high-volume, low-complexity areas to maintain efficiency. For example:

• Use ABC costing for complex custom manufacturing jobs to accurately price customized offerings.
• Use traditional costing for standard off-the-shelf products where volumes are higher.

This focused application of both techniques balances the need for precision and speed. Companies can then leverage the strengths of each method to enhance decision-making.

Case Examples: Successful Integration of Costing Methods

Several businesses have integrated ABC and traditional costing to improve cost management:

Manufacturer X used ABC to calculate costs for engineered components, as direct labor and overhead were a major portion of total costs. This provided accurate data to set prices and reduce waste. For standard finished goods with predictable costs, they maintained traditional costing to efficiently manage high volumes.

Software Company Y implemented ABC to track costs for custom client implementations. However, they used traditional methods for internal software development costs. This focused approach provided detailed cost analysis where needed while minimizing system overhead.

Accounting Firm Z applied ABC to audit engagements. This helped quantify the costs of customized audit program activities. For standard monthly accounting services, traditional costing was retained to simplify overhead allocation.

In each case, taking a targeted approach to integrating costing methods yielded both accuracy and efficiency gains. Companies can analyze their business to determine where to best apply ABC vs. traditional costing to optimize decision-making.

Conclusion: Synthesizing Cost Accounting Approaches

In summary, standard costing and activity-based costing (ABC) both have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to product costing:

• Standard costing sets predetermined costs for materials, labor, and overhead. It is simpler to implement but less accurate when there is product diversity or complexity. Standard costing focuses on setting efficiency goals and minimizing variances.

• ABC traces overhead costs to products based on the activities that go into production. It provides greater visibility into overhead costs and where process improvements may be needed. However, ABC is more complex and expensive to set up.

The choice between standard and ABC costing depends on the specific needs and situation of the business:

• Standard costing works well for companies with homogenous products and high-volume production. It keeps things simple while encouraging efficiency.

• ABC shines when there is diversity in products, volumes, sizes, production processes, etc. The insights into overhead costs can uncover improvement opportunities.

Many companies take a hybrid approach, using standard costing for some purposes while leveraging ABC to allocate overhead and understand true product costs. Combining them allows balancing simplicity and accuracy to meet cost accounting objectives.

Related posts

• Management Accounting vs Cost Accounting
• What is Variable Costing?
• What is Activity-Based Costing (ABC)?
• Variable Costing vs Absorption Costing