Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present the use of activity-based costing (ABC) approach as an alternative option to the traditional cost accounting system. The contribution of this study is to demonstrate, through a simple example, the application of that costing system in a service (maintenance) industry, i.e. the paper intended to develop a procedure for a cost model that help in calculating any maintenance job cost, to a reasonable degree of accuracy, based on the actual activities performed.

This research uses a simple example whereby hypothetical activities and cost data of maintaining an injector and a pump, of an internal combustion engine, are used, presented and analyzed based on the use of the developed procedure.

ABC system provides more accurate cost estimates rather than the traditional “order costing” methods that uses unit-level costs which are variable in relation to change in service volume. Traditional cost methods distort the costs by applying overhead uniformly over different jobs of varied complexities and activities scope. On the other hand, ABC is a useful means to distribute the overhead costs in proportion (fairly) to the actual activities performed in a specific job and, hence, enhance the rationality of decision making, i.e. will not distort the accounting information used for cost reduction, pricing, and evaluation matters. The results obtained from the analysis showed that allocating costs to the maintained injector decreased from $83.55 to $71.95 and, finally, to $67.57 when using the workshop-wide, two-stage and ABC overhead allocation methods, respectively; while that of the pump increased from $298.90 to $340.34 and, finally, to $359.48 when using the same three methods, in the same order, respectively. The result is quite fair when considering the complexity of the fuel pump, in terms of design and maintenance, when compared with the injector. Notice that using volume to allocate overhead costs results in over costing high-volume products, e.g. injectors (simple in terms of design and operation) and under costing low-volume products, e.g. pumps (more complex in terms of design and operation). The paper recommends to use ABC as a more accurate and fair method when charging maintenance job orders based on the analysis of costing two maintained items in the same premise while consuming different overhead resources.

This study attempts to analyze different methods to calculate a specific corrective maintenance job order. It strives to remedy the drawbacks of the traditional overhead costing of a job order when using principles related to the size of service, such as the direct labor cost/hours, as an allocation base. Consequently, the study proposed a new costing method, i.e. application of ABC. The traditional costing approach is considered by many firms as the best costing method. Nevertheless, it allocates overhead cost over job performed uniformly (equally) not differentiating between the complexity of the job and variety of the activities performed, e.g. using the same allocation base for “oil change” and “fuel pump adjustment” activities. So, ABC prevents cost distortions (unfairness) that could not be prevented by traditional cost accounting system. The author believes that the method presented in this paper will provide a useful management tool for costing maintenance jobs based on the appropriate selected activity drivers in maintenance workshops. The method could be applied for costing maintenance activities in maintenance of all industrial sectors.

The use of traditional costing method has proven to be distorted by applying overhead uniformly over different jobs of varied complexities and activities scope. In this paper the authors strive to present an effective costing alternative that outperforms the traditional ones with regard to overhead allocation. The paper aims to find reliable and fair maintenance costing method, i.e. to find out the relationships between maintenance activities and cost drivers. Although, ABC is widely used in manufacturing industry, no application or current research has presented an applicable thorough worked-out example, with the exception, to the author’s knowledge, of one in the aeronautical industry, to implement ABC method in maintenance industry. The importance of using this method comes from the fact that it provides, relatively, accurate and fair maintenance bills that provide customer satisfaction and firm good image. Hence, the paper is relevant in this respect and intended to contribute to the practice of maintenance management.

This paper aims to investigate the overhead costs of construction contractors at the Gaza Strip, Palestine, specifically the level of contractors' awareness of the concept of overhead cost, their perception of main components of overhead cost, percentage of overhead to total project cost, method used to manage and control overhead cost, and reasons for increasing overhead cost.

In the research 40 contractors classified under the Palestinian Contractors Union (PCU) and United Nation Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) list were surveyed.

The findings indicate that the majority of contractors are aware of overhead costs in construction projects. The staff wages are the highest overhead costs component. The currency exchange rates, inflation, increase in financial costs among others lead to increase in overhead costs. The findings illustrate that the overhead costs are on average 11.1 percent of the total project cost. Controlling and managing overhead costs are considered the main tools to improve the companies' financial situation.

The trend in most companies is to adopt techniques to manage and control their cost components. Using activity based costing (ABCs) is one of the main techniques which the companies should take into consideration. The contractors' knowledge and awareness of the research finding will increase their chances of winning bids within an acceptable profit margin. Applied training courses are recommended for contractors to improve their awareness regarding the importance of overhead costs.

This study will extend contractors' awareness and knowledge through guidance on how to gear their financial resources carefully, and how to bid correctly in order to remain competitive in the market place.

Previous studies have highlighted that overheads form a critical part of the total project cost. However, despite this knowledge, the precise estimation of overheads is often neglected in construction projects. This paper aims to examine the reasons for the lack of effort in estimation of overheads.

The study is carried out in three stages. In stage one, an introductory survey is carried to understand the importance of overheads in total project cost. In stage two, a detailed survey is carried out to understand the factors that affect the level of accuracy and compromise made in estimation of overheads using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). In the final stage, two cases are examined in form of interviews to validate the findings. The model is tested for its reliability, validity and goodness of fit.

The findings of the study suggest that the time and cost spent is a critical issue. Therefore, if the projects feel that the benefit cost ratio for time and cost spend in the process is positive, they estimate the overheads accurately, whereas if they feel that the cost benefit ratio for time and cost spend is negative, they compromise with accurate estimation. Further, there is a lot of subjectivity in defining and processing overheads that leads to a negative impact on the accuracy level in estimation of overheads. The contract type also influences the compromise in estimation.

First, there is scant work that has been carried out on understanding the behavior of overheads and reasons for lack of effort in its accurate estimation in construction projects. Therefore, there are no recent citations in the study. Further, the study being exploratory in nature draws conclusions based on opinion expressed by respondents on survey and interview. Finally, the study is geographically limited as the entire respondent's work in India.

Projects should give due attention to accurate estimation of overheads. Accurate estimation of overheads can help in better control of project margins, thereby serving the profit-maximizing goals of organizations. A conscious effort by industry experts, academicians and researchers can bring some discipline in overhead estimation rather than leaving the critical domain only to thumb rules or experiential assumptions. The regulatory bodies and the project management bodies are advised to come up with some kind of ready reference that can quickly help estimators to arrive at accurate overhead costs.

To the best of knowledge, it is a rare study to exclusively focus on project overhead cost in construction industry and focus on its estimation efforts. The study also uses a robust research process, which improves the reliability and validity of its findings.

TODAY, Britain, like the whole of the rest of the world, is providing education up to graduate standard to be available to anybody that shows the slightest sign of being able to benefit from it. The position here is rapidly becoming like it was in Germany some 30 years ago when people there insisted on calling everyone “Doctor.” He was an engineer, so of course he must be a D.Ing. or its English equivalent.

The purpose of this project was to compare the cost of transportation engineering design services provided by private contractors versus services provided by state transportation agency staff for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD). Due to shrinking budgets, staff cuts, and a trend toward privatization, state transportation agencies now outsource the majority of the services they provide. The merits of doing so, however, have been difficult to discern for lack of “apples-to-apples” comparisons. For engineering design services, this problem is particularly acute due to the uniqueness of many projects (e.g., a bridge over the Mississippi river). A simulation approach was used in this study to make “apples-to-apples” comparisons for 39 design projects, 22 in-house projects and 17 consultant projects. For each in-house design project, the cost was estimated had the work been done by a consulting firm. Similarly, for each consultant design project, the cost was estimated had the work been done by in-house staff. The result of the study was that in-house design costs were cheaper by an average of 17 to 19 percent.

Regardless of the approach taken to allocating common costs, is cost allocation really necessary? Argues that such an exercise may not make any difference to the final outcome ‐ the company’s final profit or loss figure. Takes as an example the University of Clemson, USA’s system of costing and reporting, and describes the university’s Finance Committee’s challenge to that system.

The purpose of this study is to identify the most frequently found symptoms of obsolete costing systems and to investigate whether these symptoms are associated to the proportion of overhead related to non‐output unit activities in a business environment in which traditional costing systems are prevalent. Since traditional costing systems use output‐unit related cost drivers to allocate overhead, these systems are more likely obsolete when a large proportion of a firm’s overhead is not directly related to its output volume. The results from a survey with a sample of Hong Kong manufacturing companies indicated that the four most frequently encountered symptoms of obsolete costing systems were: competitors’ prices for high‐volume items appear to be unrealistically low; no resistance from customers to higher prices; frequent use of accounting department to conduct special studies; and establishment of department’s cost systems for decision making. It was also found that the proportion of a firm’s overhead related to non‐output unit activities was positively associated with the total frequency rating of all the proposed symptoms of problem costing systems, suggesting that using an outdated overhead allocation method could be a major cause for a costing system to become obsolete. The implications of these results are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to review the principles for valuation and proof of contractor's claims for additional site overheads arising from delays to completion of construction projects.

An overview of prolongation costs and established principles for recovery is provided. Aspects of recent decisions are analysed critically with respect to proof of delay claims, site overheads and claims for winter working losses. Findings are compared with the established principles.

Some statements in the judgment in Costain v. Haswell [2010] TCLR 1 with respect to requirements for proof of delay claims and for recovery of site overheads depart from established principles. Other elements of the judgment confirm existing principles. The need to distinguish between time‐ and volume‐related costs emerges as critical in valuation of delay‐related losses.

The need for a claimant to establish proof of delays to completion, and proof of loss, particularly in professional negligence claims, is emphasised. The consequences of failing to establish proof are noted as extending potentially to loss of the entire claim.

The paper will help construction practitioners, academics and lawyers understand the potentially far‐reaching impact of the principles advocated in recent case law.

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.

Describes an investigation into a university’s expenditure. Identifies a lack of clarity as to what proportion represents direct faculty costs and overhead costs respectively. Puts forward a number of recommendations to improve the clarity of the reporting system.