The Technical Efficiency Portrayed by Duration-Based and Activity-Based Costing Systems

Abstract

Purpose

This study extends the theoretical analyses of Duration-Based Costing (DBC), an alternative cost measurement system to Activity-Based Costing (ABC). DBC is simpler than ABC and uses the production cycle time to assign costs. This simplicity should allow DBC to be a better costing method for multiproduct firms that exhibit nonconstant returns to scale.

Approach

Data simulations for 1,000 cases and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) are used to analyze the production functions inside DBC and ABC models to determine their relative technical efficiency.

Findings

The results show that, for a given set of simulations, DBC shows more nonconstant returns to scale than does ABC. This corroborates prior research and suggests that a more complex costing system, such as ABC, may not always match the production technology of a multiproduct firm. Thus, DBC may have a higher level of accuracy than does ABC for firms that exhibit nonconstant returns to scale.

Originality

Since DBC has only recently been theoretically developed, this study is the first to analyze the relative technical efficiency of DBC compared to ABC.

Research Limitations/Implications

This study should bring some further awareness of the implications of alternative costing methods. The limitation of DBC is that it does not capture other factors not driven by the production cycle time that could be necessary for management decision making. However, DBC is better for multiproduct firms than a more complicated costing system and does help decision makers determine whether the production process is operating efficiently. It is imperative that firms choose which costing methods fit the firm’s needs and economic structure.

Citation

Lelkes, A.-M.T. (2014), "The Technical Efficiency Portrayed by Duration-Based and Activity-Based Costing Systems", Advances in Management Accounting (Advances in Management Accounting, Vol. 24), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-787120140000024002