disabled costs and productivity - · pdf filedisabled after studying this chapter, ... and...

Path: K:/CHE-HANSEN_COST-10-0808/Application/CHE-HANSEN_COST-10-0808-001.3dDate: 27th September 2010 Time: 19:25 User ID: narayanansa 1BlackLiningDisabled

After studying this chapter,you should be able to:

•1 Identify and describe thefour types of quality costs.

•2 Prepare a quality costreport, and differentiatebetween the conventionalview of acceptable qualitylevel and the viewespoused by total qualitycontrol.

•3 Tell why quality costinformation is needed, andshow how it is used.

•4 Explain what productivityis, and calculate theimpact of productivitychanges on profits.

Costs and Productivity

ªN

OA

MA

RMO

NN

/IS

TOC

KPH

OTO

.CO

M


E X P E R I E N C E M A N A G E R I A L D E C I S I O N Swith Ladd Lighting Corporation

Russell Walsh, president of Ladd Lighting Corporation,

had just returned from a quality and productivity seminar,

excited and encouraged by what he had heard. He imme-

diately called a meeting with Sarah Burke, the company’s

production quality manager, and Dennis Schmitt, the com-

pany’s controller and financial vice president. At the be-

ginning of the meeting, he passed out the following notes

that he had taken during the quality and productivity semi-

nar (the notes included some comments about actions Rus-

sell felt that Ladd needed to take):

Notes and Comments:Quality and Productivity Seminar

Orlando, Florida

• Competitive advantage. A company can become more com-petitive by increasing productivity and improving quality(something that Ladd needs desperately given the trend inprofits over the past several years).

• Quality and Cost Relationships. Fundamental principle: Improv-ing quality decreases quality costs. Most quality-related costsare incurred because of poor quality. It costs us when we dothings wrong, in terms of rework, scrap, repairs, and so on. Bycontrolling quality costs, profitability can be improved, and wecan become more competitive.

• Examples of Success.• Heartland Health (St. Joseph, MO), a winner of the 2009

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in the healthcare category, applied Six Sigma methods within its pro-cess improvement model. Cost savings from this qualityimprovement initiative increased from approximately $8million in fiscal year 2005 to more than $25 million byfiscal year 2009.1

• Tennant Company, a manufacturer of industrial floormaintenance products, had some remarkable success at-tributable to its quality-improvement efforts. When its qual-ity-improvement program began, Tennant estimated that itscost of doing things wrong was as high as 17 percent ofsales. Within a six-year period, this cost had dropped to8 percent of sales. Based on annual sales of $136 million,savings from improved quality totaled $12.24 million.2

• Phillip Crosby’s Four Absolutes of Quality Management:3

• The Definition of Quality is Conformance to Requirements,Not Goodness

• The System for Causing Quality is Prevention, NotAppraisal

• The Performance Standard is Zero Defects, Not CloseEnough

• The Measurement of Quality is the Price of Nonconform-ance, Not Indexes

• Cost of Quality System (COQ). Measuring and reportingquality costs allows managers to identify potential areas forimprovement and to assess results of improvement activities.Quality costs must be visible to encourage managers to usequality information in their decision-making processes. Laddneeds a solid, reliable quality cost reporting system for itsdevelopment and operation and to help our managers makequality-improvement decisions. We also need to monitor andcontrol the programs that we implement. Following the modelof other companies, the controller’s office will be responsiblefor collecting and reporting quality costs. The quality depart-ment should be responsible for analyzing and controlling thesecosts.

Questions to Think About1. Why has measurement of productivity and quality

become so important?

2. What are quality costs?

3. How can improving quality reduce quality costs?

4. What kinds of quality cost reports should be prepared

by the accounting department?

5. What is meant by ‘‘productivity’’?

6. How is productivity measured?

1 Michael E. Newman, ‘‘Five U.S. Organizations Honored for Innovation and Performance Excellence with the National Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award,’’ National Instituteof Standards and Technology (December 7, 2009), http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/heartland_profile.cfm.

2 Lawrence Carr and Thomas Tyson, ‘‘Planning Quality Cost Expenditures,’’ Management Accounting (October 1992): pp. 52–56.3 Phillip B. Crosby, ‘‘Quality Management: The Real Thing,’’ online article, http://www.wppl.org/wphistory/PhilipCrosby/grant.htm, accessed March 31, 2006.


MEASURING THE COSTS OF QUALITYBy attending a productivity seminar, Russell Walsh discovered that paying more atten-tion to quality can increase profitability. Quality improvement can increase profitabilityin two ways: (1) by increasing customer demand and (2) by decreasing costs. In a tightlycompetitive market, increased demand and cost savings can mean the difference betweensurviving and thriving. The U.S. government has recognized the importance of qualityin today’s economy. One indication is the creation in 1987 of the Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Award.4 The Baldrige award was created to recognize U.S. companiesthat excel in quality management and achievement. The award categories include manu-facturing, small business, service, educational, and health entities. Since no more thantwo awards are given per category, they are difficult to achieve and highly sought after.For example, winners in 2009 include Honeywell Federal Manufacturing andTechnologies (manufacturing category), Midway USA (small business), AtlantiCare(health care category), Heartland Health (health care category), and VA CooperativeStudies Program Clinical Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center, Albuquerque,New Mexico.5

The costs of quality can be substantial and a source of significant savings. Studies indi-cate that costs of quality for American companies are typically 20 to 30 percent of sales.6

Yet quality experts maintain that the optimal quality level should be about 2 to 3 percentof sales.7 This difference between actual and optimal figures represents a veritable goldmine of opportunity. Improving quality can produce significant improvements in profit-ability and overall efficiency. For example, Xerox’s quality improvement program producedsavings of $53 million, $77 million, $60 million, and $20 million over a four-year period.8

Quality has become an important competitive dimension for both service and manufac-turing organizations as well as large and small businesses. Quality is an integrating theme forall organizations. Foreign firms’ ability to sell higher-quality products at lower prices has costseveral U.S. firms their market share. In an effort to combat this stiff competition, manyU.S. firms have increasingly paid more attention to quality and productivity, especially giventhe potential to reduce costs and improve product quality simultaneously. The emphasis onquality has been in process for such a sufficient period of time that some now believe thatquality has shifted from a source of strategic advantage to a competitive necessity.9

As companies implement quality-improvement programs, a need arises to monitorand report on the progress of these programs. Managers need to know what quality costsare and how they are changing over time. Reporting and measuring quality performanceis absolutely essential to the success of an ongoing quality-improvement program. A fun-damental prerequisite for this reporting is measuring the costs of quality. But to measurethose costs, an operational definition of quality is needed.

Quality DefinedThe typical dictionary definition of quality refers to the ‘‘degree or grade of excellence’’;in this sense, quality is a relative measure of goodness. Defining quality as goodness is sogeneral that it offers no operational content. How do we build an operational definition?The answer is, ‘‘Adopt a customer focus.’’ Operationally, a quality product or serviceis one that meets or exceeds customer expectations. In effect, quality is customer satisfac-tion. But what is meant by ‘‘customer expectations’’? Customer expectations can bedescribed by quality attributes or by what are often referred to as ‘‘dimensions of qual-ity.’’10 Thus, a quality product or service is one that meets or exceeds customer expecta-tions on the following eight dimensions:

O B J E C T I V E•1Identify and describe the four types ofquality costs.

4 The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award was created by Public Law 100–107 in 1987. The first awards were given in 1988.5 Michael E. Newman, ‘‘Five U.S. Organizations Honored for Innovation and Performance Excellence with the National Malcolm

Baldrige National Quality Award,’’ National Institute of Standards and Technology (December 7, 2009), http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/heartland_profile.cfm.

6 Michael R. Ostrenga, ‘‘Return on Investment Through the Costs of Quality,’’ Journal of Cost Management (Summer 1991):pp. 37–44.

7 Crosby, P. B. Quality is Free (New York: A Mentor Book, 1980).8 Ibid.9 Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 1996): pp. 87–88.10 These dimensions are based on Edwin S. Schecter, Managing for World Class Quality (Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press,

1992); and Leonard L. Berry and A. Parasurman, Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality (New York: The Free Press,Macmillan, 1991): p. 16.

4 Costs and Productivity


1. Performance2. Aesthetics3. Serviceability4. Features5. Reliability6. Durability7. Quality of conformance8. Fitness for use

The first four dimensions describe important quality attributes but are difficult tomeasure. Performance refers to how consistently and how well a product functions. Forservices, the inseparability principle means that the service is performed in the presenceof the customer. Thus, the performance dimension for services can be further defined bythe attributes of responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Responsiveness is simply thewillingness to help customers and provide prompt, consistent service. Assurance refersto the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and con-fidence. Empathy means providing caring, individualized attention to customers.Aesthetics is concerned with the appearance of tangible products (for example, style andbeauty) as well as the appearance of the facilities, equipment, personnel, and communi-cation materials associated with services. Serviceability measures the ease of maintainingand/or repairing the product. Features (quality of design) refer to characteristics of aproduct that differentiate between functionally similar products. For example, the func-tion of automobiles is to provide transportation. Yet, one auto may have a four-cylinderengine, a manual transmission, vinyl seats, room to seat four passengers comfortably, andfront disk brakes; another may have a six-cylinder engine, an automatic transmission,leather seats, room to seat six passengers comfortably, and antilock brakes. Similarly, first-class air travel and economy air travel reflect different design qualities. First-class air travel,for example, offers more leg room and more luxurious seats. Obviously, in both cases, theproduct features are different. Higher design quality is usually reflected in higher manufac-turing costs and in higher selling prices. Quality of design helps a company determine itsmarket. A market exists for both the four-cylinder and the six-cylinder cars as well as econ-omy air travel and first-class air travel.

Reliability is the probability that the product or service will perform its intendedfunction for a specified length of time. Durability is defined as the length of time aproduct functions. Quality of conformance is a measure of how a product meets itsspecifications. For example, the specifications for a machined part may be a drilled holethat is three inches in diameter, plus or minus 1/8 inch. Parts falling within this rangeare defined as conforming parts. Fitness of use is the suitability of the product for carry-ing out its advertised functions. If there is a fundamental design flaw, the product mayfail in the field even if it conforms to its specifications. Product recalls are frequently theresult of fitness-of-use failures.

Improving quality, then, means improving one or more of the eight quality dimensionswhile maintaining performance on the remaining dimensions. Providing a higher-qualityproduct than a competitor means outperforming the competitor on at least one dimensionwhile matching performance on the remaining dimensions. Although all eight dimensionsare important and can affect customer satisfaction, the quality attributes that are measurabletend to receive more emphasis. Conformance, in particular, is strongly emphasized. In fact,many quality experts believe that ‘‘quality is conformance’’ is the best operational defini-tion. There is some logic to this position. Product specifications should explicitly considersuch things as reliability, durability, fitness for use, and performance. Implicitly, a conform-ing product is reliable, durable, fit for use, and performs well. The product should be pro-duced as the design specifies it; specifications should be met. Conformance is the basis fordefining what is meant by a nonconforming, or defective, product.

A defective product is one that does not conform to specifications. Zero defectsmeans that all products conform to specifications. But what is meant by ‘‘conforming tospecifications’’? The traditional view of conformance assumes that there is an acceptablerange of values for each specification or quality characteristic. A target value is defined,

Costs and Productivity 5


and upper and lower limits are set that describe acceptable product variation for a givenquality characteristic. Any unit that falls within the limits is deemed nondefective. Forexample, losing or gaining zero minutes per month may be the target value for a watch,and any watch that keeps time correctly within a range of plus or minus two minutes permonth is judged acceptable. On the other hand, the robust quality view of conformanceemphasizes fitness of use. Robustness means hitting the target value every time. There isno range in which variation is acceptable. A nondefective watch in the robust settingwould be one that does not gain or lose any minutes during the month. Since evidenceexists that product variation can be costly, the robust quality definition of conformanceis superior to the traditional definition.

Costs of Quality DefinedQuality-linked activities are those activities performed because poor quality may or doesexist. The costs of performing these activities are referred to as costs of quality. Thus, thecosts of quality are the costs that exist because poor quality may or does exist. This defi-nition implies that quality costs are associated with two subcategories of quality-relatedactivities: control activities and failure activities. Control activities are performed by anorganization to prevent or detect poor quality (because poor quality may exist). Thus,control activities are made up of prevention and appraisal activities. Control costs arethe costs of performing control activities. Failure activities are performed by an organi-zation or its customers in response to poor quality (poor quality does exist). If theresponse to poor quality occurs before delivery of a bad (nonconforming, unreliable, notdurable, and so on) product to a customer, the activities are classified as internal failureactivities; otherwise, they are classified as external failure activities. Failure costs are thecosts incurred by an organization because failure activities are performed. Notice thatthe definitions of failure activities and failure costs imply that customer response to poorquality can impose costs on an organization. The definitions of quality-related activitiesalso imply four categories of quality costs: (1) prevention costs, (2) appraisal costs,(3) internal failure costs, and (4) external failure costs.

Prevention costs are incurred to prevent poor quality in the products or servicesbeing produced. As prevention costs increase, we would expect the costs of failure todecrease. Examples of prevention costs are quality engineering, quality training pro-grams, quality planning, quality reporting, supplier evaluation and selection, qualityaudits, quality circles, field trials, and design reviews.

Appraisal costs are incurred to determine whether products and services are con-forming to their requirements or customer needs. Examples include inspecting and test-ing materials, packaging inspection, supervising appraisal activities, product acceptance,process acceptance, measurement (inspection and test) equipment, and outside endorse-ments. Two of these terms require further explanation.

Product acceptance involves sampling from batches of finished goods to determinewhether they meet an acceptable quality level; if so, the goods are accepted. Processacceptance involves sampling goods while in process to see if the process is in control andproducing nondefective goods; if not, the process is shut down until corrective actioncan be taken. The main objective of the appraisal function is to prevent nonconforminggoods from being shipped to customers.

Internal failure costs are incurred when products and services do not conform tospecifications or customer needs. This nonconformance is detected prior to beingshipped or delivered to outside parties. These are the failures detected by appraisal activ-ities. Examples of internal failure costs are scrap, rework, downtime (due to defects),reinspection, retesting, and design changes. These costs disappear if no defects exist.

External failure costs are incurred when products and services fail to conform torequirements or satisfy customer needs after being delivered to customers. Of all thecosts of quality, this category can be the most devastating. Costs of recalls, for exam-ple, can run into the hundreds of millions. Other examples include lost sales becauseof poor product performance and returns and allowances because of poor quality, war-ranties, repairs, product liability, customer dissatisfaction, lost market share, and com-plaint adjustment. External failure costs, like internal failure costs, disappear if nodefects exist.



Measuring Quality CostsQuality costs can also be classified as observable or hidden. Observable quality costs arethose that are available from an organization’s accounting records. Hidden quality costsare opportunity costs resulting from poor quality. (Opportunity costs are not usually rec-ognized in accounting records.) Consider, for example, all the examples of quality costslisted in the prior section. With the exception of lost sales, customer dissatisfaction, and lostmarket share, all the quality costs are observable and should be available from the account-ing records. Note also that the hidden costs are all in the external failure category. Thesehidden quality costs can be significant and should be estimated. Although estimating hid-den quality costs is not easy, three methods have been suggested: (1) the multipliermethod, (2) the market research method, and (3) the Taguchi quality loss function.

The Multiplier Method The multiplier method assumes that the total failure cost issimply some multiple of measured failure costs:

Total external failure cost ¼ k(Measured external failure costs)

where k is the multiplier effect. The value of k is based on experience. For example,Westinghouse Electric reports a value of k between 3 and 4.11 Thus, if the measuredexternal failure costs are $2 million, the actual external failure costs are between $6 mil-lion and $8 million. Including hidden costs in assessing the amount of external failurecosts allows management to determine more accurately the level of resource spendingfor prevention and appraisal activities. Specifically, with an increase in failure costs, wewould expect management to increase its investment in control costs.

The Market Research Method Formal market research methods are used to assessthe effect poor quality has on sales and market share. Customer surveys and interviewswith members of a company’s sales force can provide significant insight into the magni-tude of a company’s hidden costs. Market research results can be used to project futureprofit losses attributable to poor quality.

The Taguchi Quality Loss Function The traditional zero defects definition assumesthat hidden quality costs exist only for units that fall outside the upper and lower specifi-cation limits. The Taguchi loss function assumes that any variation from the target valueof a quality characteristic causes hidden quality costs. Furthermore, the hidden qualitycosts increase quadratically as the actual value deviates from the target value. The Taguchiquality loss function, illustrated in Exhibit 1, can be described by the following equation:

L(y) ¼ k(y � T)2 (1)

where

k ¼ A proportionality constant dependent upon the organization’s external failurecost structure

y ¼ Actual value of quality characteristicT ¼ Target value of quality characteristicL ¼ Quality loss

Exhibit 1 (p. 8) demonstrates that the quality cost is zero at the target value andincreases symmetrically, at an increasing rate, as the actual value varies from the targetvalue. Assume, for example, that k ¼ $400 and T ¼ 10 inches in diameter. Exhibit 2(p. 8) illustrates the computation of the quality loss for four units. Notice that the costquadruples when the deviation from the target doubles (from units 2 to 3). Notice alsothe average deviation squared and the average loss per unit can be computed. Theseaverages can be used to compute the total expected hidden quality costs for a product.If, for example, the total units produced are 2,000 and the average squared deviation is0.025, then the expected cost per unit is $10 (0.025 3 $400), and the total expectedloss for the 2,000 units would be $20,000 ($10 3 2,000).

11 T. L. Albright and P. R. Roth, ‘‘The Measurement of Quality Costs: An Alternative Paradigm,’’ Accounting Horizons (June 1992):pp. 15–27.



To apply the Taguchi loss function, k must be estimated. The value for k is com-puted by dividing the estimated cost at one of the specification limits by the squareddeviation of the limit from the target value:

k ¼ c

d2

where

c ¼ Loss at the lower or upper specification limitd ¼ Distance of limit from target value

This means that we still must estimate the loss for a given deviation from the target value.Either of the first two methods, the multiplier method or the market research method,may be used to help in this estimation (a one-time assessment need). Once k is known,the hidden quality costs can be estimated for any level of variation from the target value.

REPORTING QUALITY COST INFORMATIONA quality cost reporting system is essential to an organization serious about improvingand controlling quality costs. The first and simplest step in creating such a system isassessing current actual quality costs. A detailed listing of actual quality costs by categorycan provide two important insights. First, it reveals the magnitude of the quality costs ineach category, allowing managers to assess their financial impact. Second, it shows thedistribution of quality costs by category, allowing managers to assess the relative impor-tance of each category.

Exhibit 2Quality Loss Computation Illustrated

Unit Actual Diameter (y) y � T (y � T)2 k(y � T)2

1 9.9 20.10 0.010 $ 4.002 10.1 0.10 0.010 4.003 10.2 0.20 0.040 16.004 9.8 20.20 0.040 16.00

Total 0.100 $40.00Average 0.025 $10.00

Exhibit 1The Taguchi Quality Loss Function

$Cost

TargetValue

UpperSpecification

Limit

LowerSpecification

Limit

O B J E C T I V E•2Prepare a quality cost report, anddifferentiate between the conventionalview of acceptable quality level and theview espoused by total quality control.



Quality Cost ReportsThe financial significance of quality costs can be assessed more easily by expressing thesecosts as a percentage of actual sales. Exhibit 3, for example, reports Ladd Lighting Cor-poration’s quality costs as representing almost 12 percent of sales for fiscal 2011.12 Giventhe rule of thumb that quality costs should be no more than about 2.5 percent, LaddLighting has ample opportunity to improve profits by decreasing quality costs. Under-stand, however, that reduction in costs should come through improvement of quality.Reduction of quality costs without any effort to improve quality could prove to be a dis-astrous strategy.

Additional insight concerning the relative distribution of quality costs can be real-ized by constructing a pie chart. Exhibit 4 provides such a chart, using the quality costs

Exhibit 3Quality Cost Report

Ladd Lighting CorporationQuality Cost Report for the Year Ended March 31, 2011

Quality CostsPercentage (%)

of Salesa

Prevention costs:Quality training $350,000Reliability engineering 800,000 $1,150,000 5.18%

Appraisal costs:Materials inspection $200,000Product acceptance 100,000Process acceptance 380,000 680,000 3.06

Internal failure costs:Scrap $500,000Rework 350,000 850,000 3.82

External failure costs:Customer complaints $250,000Warranty 250,000Repair 150,000 650,000 2.93

Total quality costs $3,330,000 14.99%b

aActual sales of $22,200,000.b$3,330,000/$22,200,000 ¼ 15 percent; difference is rounding error.

Exhibit 4Relative Distribution of Quality Costs

Prevention(34.5%)

Appraisal(20.4%)

InternalFailure(25.6%)

ExternalFailure(19.5%)

12 The quality cost report given in Exhibit 3 parallels the format used by ITT except for several minor differences. First, the ITT reportcombines the internal and external categories into one failure category. Second, the ITT report has a third column allowing thereporting unit to express quality costs as a percentage of a measure other than sales.



reported in Exhibit 3. Notice that failure costs account for about 45 percent of the totalquality costs. When quality costs are reduced to about 2.5 percent of sales, failure costsrepresent about 15 to 20 percent of the total costs, or about 0.5 percent of sales. Manag-ers, of course, have the responsibility of assessing the optimal level of quality and deter-mining the relative amount that should be spent in each category. There are two viewsconcerning optimal quality costs: the traditional view, calling for an acceptable qualitylevel, and the contemporary view, referred to as total quality control. Each view offersmanagers insights about how quality costs ought to be managed.

Quality Cost Function: Acceptable Quality ViewThe acceptable quality view assumes that there is a trade-off between control costs andfailure costs. As control costs increase, failure costs should decrease. As long as thedecrease in failure costs is greater than the corresponding increase in control costs, acompany should continue increasing its efforts to prevent or detect nonconformingunits. Eventually, a point is reached at which any additional increase in this effort costsmore than the corresponding reduction in failure costs. This point represents the mini-mum level of total quality costs. It is the optimal balance between control costs and fail-ure costs and defines what is known as the acceptable quality level (AQL). Thistheoretical relationship is illustrated in Exhibit 5.

In Exhibit 5, two cost functions are assumed: one for control costs and one for fail-ure costs. It is also assumed that the percentage of defective units increases as theamount spent on prevention and appraisal activities decreases; failure costs, on the otherhand, increase as the number of defective units increases. From the total quality costfunction, we see that total quality costs decrease as quality improves up to a point. Afterthat, no further improvement is possible. An optimal level of defective units is identified,and the company works to achieve this level. This level of allowable defective units is theacceptable quality level.

Quality Cost Function: Zero-Defects ViewThe AQL viewpoint is based on a traditional defective product definition. In the classicsense, a product is defective if it falls outside the tolerance limits for a quality characteris-tic. Under this view, failure costs are incurred only if the product fails to conform tospecifications and an optimal trade-off exists between failure and control costs. The AQLview permitted and, in fact, encouraged the production of a given number of defectiveunits. This model prevailed in the quality control world until the late 1970s, when theAQL model was challenged by the zero-defects model. Essentially, the zero-defectsmodel made the claim that it was cost-beneficial to reduce nonconforming units to zero.Firms producing increasingly fewer nonconforming units became more competitive rela-tive to firms that continued the traditional AQL model. In the mid-1980s, the zero-defects model was taken one step further by the robust quality model, which challengedthe definition of a defective unit. According to the robust view, a loss is experienced

Exhibit 5AQL Quality Cost Graph

Cost

Failure Costs

TotalQualityCosts

Control Costs

0 AQLPercent Defects

100%



from producing products that vary from a target value, and the greater the distance fromthe target value, the greater the loss. Furthermore, the loss is incurred even if the devia-tion is within the specification limits. In other words, variation from the ideal is costly,and specification limits serve no useful purpose and, in fact, may be deceptive. The zero-defects model understates the quality costs and likewise the potential for savings fromeven greater efforts to improve quality (remember the multiplication factor of Westing-house Electric). Thus, the robust quality model tightened the definition of a defectiveunit, refined our view of quality costs, and intensified the quality race.

For firms operating in an intensely competitive environment, quality can offer animportant competitive advantage. If the robust quality view is correct, then firms cancapitalize on it, decreasing the number of defective units (robustly defined) while simul-taneously decreasing their total quality costs. This is what appears to be happening forthose firms that are striving to achieve a robust zero-defect state (or, a state with zerotolerance) for their products. The optimal level for quality costs is where products areproduced that meet their target values. The quest to find ways to achieve the target valuecreates a dynamic quality world, as opposed to the static quality world of AQL.

Dynamic Nature of Quality Costs The discovery that trade-offs among qualitycost categories can be managed differently from what is implied by the relationships por-trayed in Exhibit 5 is analogous to the discovery that inventory cost trade-offs can bemanaged differently from what the traditional inventory model (EOQ) implied. Essen-tially, what happens is that as firms increase their prevention and appraisal costs andreduce their failure costs, they discover that they can then cut back on the preventionand appraisal costs. What initially appeared to be a trade-off turns out to be a permanentreduction in costs for all quality cost categories. Exhibit 6 displays the changes in qualitycost relationships. Though it shows a total quality cost function consistent with the qual-ity cost relationships described, there are some key differences. First, control costs donot increase without limit as a robust zero-defect state is approached. Second, controlcosts may increase and then decrease as the robust state is approached. Third, failurecosts can be driven to zero.

Suppose, for example, that a firm has decided to improve the quality of its materialinputs through the implementation of a supplier selection program. The objective is toidentify and use suppliers who are willing to meet certain quality standards. As the firmworks to implement this program, additional costs may be incurred (for example, reviewof suppliers, communication with suppliers, contract negotiations, and so on). And, ini-tially, other prevention and appraisal costs may continue at their current levels. However,once the program is fully implemented and evidence surfaces that the failure costs arebeing reduced (for example, less rework, fewer customer complaints, and fewer repairs),then the company may decide to cut back on inspections of incoming materials, reducethe level of product acceptance activities, and so on. The net effect is a reduction in allquality cost categories. And quality has increased!

Exhibit 6Contemporary Quality Cost Graph

Cost

Failure Costs

TotalQuality

Costs

Control Costs

0Percent Defects

100%



This example is consistent with the strategy to reduce quality costs recommendedby the American Society for Quality Control:

The strategy for reducing quality costs is quite simple: (1) take direct attack on failurecosts in an attempt to drive them to zero; (2) invest in the ‘‘right’’ prevention activitiesto bring about improvement; (3) reduce appraisal costs according to results achieved;and (4) continuously evaluate and redirect prevention efforts to gain further improve-ment. This strategy is based on the premise that:

• For each failure there is a root cause.• Causes are preventable.• Prevention is always cheaper.13

This ability to reduce total quality costs dramatically in all categories is borne outby real-world experiences. Tennant, for example, over an eight-year period, reducedits costs of quality from 17 percent of sales to 2.5 percent of sales and, at the sametime, significantly altered the relative distribution of the quality cost categories. At thevery beginning, failure costs accounted for 50 percent of the total costs of quality(8.5 percent of sales) and control costs of 50 percent (8.5 percent of sales). When the2.5 percent level was achieved, failure costs accounted for only 15 percent of the totalcosts of quality (0.375 percent of sales), and control costs had increased to 85 percentof the total (2.125 percent of sales). Tennant increased quality, reduced quality costsin every category and in total, and shifted the distribution of quality costs to the con-trol categories, with the greatest emphasis on prevention. This outcome arguesstrongly against the traditional quality cost model portrayed in Exhibit 5. According tothis model, total quality costs can be decreased only by trading off control and failurecosts (increasing one while decreasing the other). Further support for the total qualitycontrol model is provided by Westinghouse Electric. Similar to Tennant, Westing-house Electric found that its profits continued to improve until its control costsaccounted for about 70 to 80 percent of total quality costs.14 Based on these twocompanies’ experiences, we know that it is possible to reduce total quality costs signifi-cantly—in all categories—and that the process radically alters the relative distributionof the quality cost categories.

Activity-Based Management and Optimal Quality CostsActivity-based management classifies activities as value-added and nonvalue-added andkeeps only those that add value. This principle can be applied to quality-related activities.Appraisal and failure activities and their associated costs are nonvalue-added and shouldbe eliminated. Prevention activities—performed efficiently—can be classified as value-added and should be retained. Initially, however, prevention activities may not be per-formed efficiently, and activity reduction and activity selection (and perhaps even activitysharing) can be used to achieve the desired value-added state. Grede Foundries Inc. ofMilwaukee, the world’s largest foundry company, has been tracking all four categories ofquality costs for more than 15 years. However, it does not report prevention costs as partof its final cost-of-quality figures because it does not want its managers reducing qualitycosts by cutting prevention activities. It feels strongly that spending money on preven-tion activities pays off. For example, it has found that a 1 percent reduction in scrapreduces external defects by about 5 percent.15

Once the activities are identified for each category, resource drivers can be used toimprove cost assignments to the individual activities. Root (cost) drivers can also beidentified, especially for failure activities, and used to help managers understand what iscausing the costs of the activities. This information can then be used to select ways ofreducing quality costs to the level demonstrated in Exhibit 6. In effect, activity-basedmanagement supports the robust zero-defect view of quality costs. There is no optimal

13 Jack Campanellam, ed., Principles of Quality Costs (Milwaukee ASQC Quality Press, 1990): p. 12.14 These factual observations are based on those reported by Lawrence P. Carr and Thomas Tyson, ‘‘Planning Quality Cost Expen-

ditures,’’ Management Accounting (October 1992): pp. 52–56.15 Nancy Chase, ‘‘Counting Costs, Reaping Returns,’’ Quality Magazine (October 1998).



trade-off between control and failure costs; the latter are nonvalue-added costs andshould be reduced to zero. Some control activities are nonvalue-added and should beeliminated. Other control activities are value-added but may be performed inefficiently,and the costs caused by the inefficiency are nonvalue-added. Thus, costs for these cate-gories may also be reduced to lower levels.

Trend AnalysisQuality cost reports reveal the magnitude of quality costs and their distribution amongthe four categories, thus revealing opportunities for improvement. Once qualityimprovement measures are undertaken, it is important to determine whether qualitycosts are being reduced as planned. Quality cost reports will not reveal whether or notimprovement has occurred. It would be useful to have a picture of how the quality-improvement program has been doing since its inception. Is the multiple-period trend—the overall change in quality costs—moving in the right direction? Are significant qualitygains being made each period? Answers to these questions can be given by providing atrend chart or graph that tracks the change in quality costs through time. Such a graph iscalled a multiple-period quality trend report. By plotting quality costs as a percentageof sales against time, the overall trend in the quality program can be assessed. The firstyear plotted is the year prior to the implementation of the quality-improvement pro-gram. Assume that one of Ladd’s plants has experienced the following:

Quality Costs Actual SalesCosts as a Percentage

(%) of Sales

2010 $440,000 $2,200,000 20.0%2011 423,000 2,350,000 18.02012 412,500 2,750,000 15.02013 392,000 2,800,000 14.02014 280,000 2,800,000 10.0

Letting 2010 be year 0, 2011 be year 1, and so on, the trend graph is shown inExhibit 7. Years of time are plotted on the horizontal axis and percentages of sales onthe vertical axis. The ultimate quality cost objective of 3 percent, the target percentage,is represented as a horizontal line on the graph.

The graph reveals that there has been a steady downward trend in quality costsexpressed as a percentage of sales. The graph also reveals that there is still ample roomfor improvement toward the long-run target percentage.

Additional insight can be provided by plotting the trend for each individual qualitycategory. Assume that each category is expressed as a percentage of sales for the sameperiod of time.

Exhibit 7Multiple-Period Trend Graph: Total Quality Costs

1 2 3 4Year

20

15

10

5

0

Percentageof Sales



Prevention Appraisal Internal Failure External Failure

2010 2.0% 2.0% 6.0% 10.0%2011 3.0 2.4 4.0 8.62012 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.02013 4.0 3.0 2.5 4.52014 4.1 2.4 2.0 1.5

The graph showing the trend for each category is displayed in Exhibit 8. We can seethat the company has had dramatic success in reducing external and internal failures.More money is being spent on prevention (the amount has doubled as a percentage).Appraisal costs have increased and then decreased. Note also that the relative distributionof costs has changed. In 2010, failure costs were 80 percent of the total quality costs(0.16/0.20). In 2014, they are 35 percent of the total (0.035/0.10). The potential toreduce quality costs also affects the way decisions are made. The usefulness of qualitycost information for decision making and planning should not be underestimated.

USING QUALITY COST INFORMATIONThe principal objective of reporting quality costs is to improve and facilitate managerialplanning, control, and decision making. For example, in deciding to implement a sup-plier selection program to improve the quality of material inputs, a manager will need anassessment of current quality costs by item and by category, an assessment of the addi-tional costs associated with the program, and an assessment of the projected savings byitem and by category. When the costs and savings will occur must also be projected.Once these cash effects are projected, a capital budgeting analysis can be done to assessthe merits of the proposed program. If the outcome is favorable and the program is initi-ated, then it becomes important to monitor the program through fairly standard per-formance reporting.

Using quality cost information for quality program implementation decisions andfor evaluating the effectiveness of these programs, once implemented, is just one poten-tial use of a quality cost system. Other important uses can also be identified. The follow-ing scenarios illustrate the utility of quality cost information for a strategic pricingdecision and profitability analysis of a new product design.

Scenario A: Strategic PricingLeola Wise, the marketing manager, muttered to herself as she reviewed the latest mar-ket share data for the company’s low-priced electronic measurement instruments. Onceagain the share had dropped! The Japanese firms were continuing to put pressure on thisproduct line. Anticipating this outcome, Leola had begun preparing a brief to support asignificant price decrease for this line of products. A price decrease of $3 was needed to

Exhibit 8Multiple-Period Trend Graph: Individual Quality Cost Categories

Percentageof Sales

1 2 3 4Year

0

109876543210

Prevention

AppraisalInternal Failure

External Failure

O B J E C T I V E•3Tell why quality cost information isneeded, and show how it is used.



recapture the lost market share. The new price less the desired profit per unit produced atarget cost that was less than the current actual cost of producing and selling the lower-level instruments. To continue producing this line, cost reductions would need to bemade. A cost reduction strategy was needed to reestablish its competitive position.

In the last executive meeting, the discussion focused on how to achieve cost reduc-tions. Ben Blackburn, the chief engineer, indicated that process redesign could offerabout half the needed cost reduction. Leola suggested that the company adopt a totalquality control position and work to reduce the cost of the lower-level instruments bydecreasing quality costs. To determine the potential magnitude of the cost reductions,she asked Earl Simpson, the controller, what the quality costs were for the lower-levelinstruments. Earl admitted that the costs were not tracked separately. For example, thecost of scrap was buried in the work-in-process account. He did promise, however, tohave some estimates of the costs—perhaps not complete—by the end of the month.The report for the lower-level instruments (in the form of a memo from Earl Simpson)follows.

MEMOTo: Leola WiseFrom: Earl SimpsonSubject: Quality Costs

Leola, I have assembled some data that may be useful to you. As requested, I have provided someestimates of the quality costs associated with this line. I have not included any costs of lost salesdue to nonconforming products, as you are probably in a better position to assess this effect.

Quality costs (estimated):Inspection of raw materials $ 200,000Scrap 800,000Rejects 500,000Rework 400,000Product inspection 300,000Warranty work 1,000,000

Total estimate $3,200,000

Upon receiving the memo, Leola immediately called the Quality Control Depart-ment and arranged a meeting with the manager, Art Smith. Art indicated that imple-menting total quality initiatives would reduce quality costs by 50 percent within 18months. He had already begun planning the implementation of a new quality program.With this information and using a volume of 1,000,000 units, Leola calculated that a 50percent reduction in the quality costs associated with the lower-level instruments wouldreduce costs by about $1.60 per unit ($1,600,000/1,000,000). This would make upslightly more than half of the $3 reduction in selling price that would be needed (thereduction is 15 percent of $20). Based on this outcome, Leola decided to implement theprice reduction in three phases: a $1 reduction immediately, a $1 reduction in sixmonths, and the final reduction of $1 in 12 months. This phased reduction would likelyprevent any further erosion of market share and would start increasing it sometime intothe second phase. By phasing in the price reductions, it would give the Quality ControlDepartment time to reduce costs so that any big losses could be avoided.

Scenario A illustrates that both quality cost information and the implementation of atotal quality control program contributed to a significant strategic decision. It also showsthat improving quality is not a panacea. The reductions are not large enough to bear thefull price reduction. Other productivity gains, such as those promised by engineering,will be needed to ensure the long-range viability of the product line.

Scenario B: New Product AnalysisTara Anderson, the marketing manager, and Brittany Fox, the design engineer, wereboth unhappy. They had been certain that their proposal for a new product was going tobe approved. Instead, they received the following report from the controller’s office.



Report: New Product Analysis, Project #675Estimated product life cycle: 2 yearsProjected sales potential: 50,000 units (life cycle)Projected life-cycle income statement:

Sales (50,000 @ $60) $3,000,000Cost of inputs:

Materials 800,000Labor 400,000Scrap 150,000Inspection 350,000Repair work 200,000Product development 500,000Selling 300,000Life-cycle income $ 300,000

Decision: RejectReason(s): Life-cycle income is less than the company-required 18 percent return on sales.

‘‘You know,’’ Tara remarked, ‘‘I can’t quite believe this report. Why don’t we askBob how he came up with these figures.’’

‘‘I agree,’’ responded Brittany. ‘‘I’ll arrange a meeting for tomorrow. I’ll ask him toprovide more detail than just the aggregate figures shown on the report.’’

The next day, the following conversation was recorded. Tara and Brittany had justcompleted a review of the detailed cost projections supplied by Bob Brown, the assistantcontroller.

Brittany: ‘‘Bob, I would like to know why there is a $3-per-unit scrap cost. And theinspection costs—they seem high. Can you explain these costs?’’

Bob: ‘‘Sure. It’s based on the scrap cost that we track for existing, similar products.Also, as you know, we have a 10 percent destructive-sampling requirement for thesetypes of products.’’

Brittany: ‘‘Well, I think you have overlooked the new design features of this newproduct. Its design virtually eliminates any waste—especially when you consider that theproduct will be made on a numerically controlled machine.’’

Tara: ‘‘Also, this $2-per-unit charge for repair work should be eliminated. The newdesign that Brittany is proposing solves the failure problems we have had with relatedproducts. It also means that the $100,000 of fixed costs associated with the repair activ-ity can be eliminated. Furthermore, because of the new design, destructive sampling isnot required and we need one less inspector than you have budgeted.’’

Bob: ‘‘Brittany, how certain are you that this new design will eliminate some ofthese quality problems?’’

Brittany: ‘‘I’m absolutely positive. The early prototypes did exactly as we expected.The results of those tests are included in the proposal. You must not have read the pro-totype results.’’

Bob: ‘‘Right. I didn’t. Eliminating scrap reduces the unit-level variable cost by $3per unit. I also see where the repair and inspection activities are overcosted. We needonly one inspector costing $50,000. And eliminating the repair activity saves $200,000.That means the projected life-cycle profits are $650,000 more than I have projected,which in turn means the return on sales is more than 30 percent.’’

Scenario B illustrates the importance of further classifying quality costs by behavior.The scenario also reinforces the importance of identifying and reporting quality costsseparately. The new product was designed to reduce its quality costs, and only by know-ing the quality costs assigned could Brittany and Tara have discovered the error in thelife-cycle income analysis.



Reporting quality costs so that they can be used for decision making is just one objec-tive of a good quality-costing system. Another objective is controlling quality costs—afactor critical in helping expected outcomes of decisions come to fruition. The pricingdecision of Scenario A, for example, depended on the plan to reduce quality costs.

PRODUCTIVITY: MEASUREMENTAND CONTROLProductivity is concerned with producing output efficiently, and it specifically addressesthe relationship of output and the inputs used to produce the output. Usually, differentcombinations or mixes of inputs can be used to produce a given level of output. Totalproductive efficiency is the point at which two conditions are satisfied: (1) for any mixof inputs that will produce a given output, no more of any one input is used than neces-sary to produce the output and (2) given the mixes that satisfy the first condition, theleast costly mix is chosen. The first condition is driven by technical relationships and,therefore, is referred to as technical efficiency. Viewing activities as inputs, the firstcondition requires eliminating all nonvalue-added activities and performing value-addedactivities with the minimal quantities needed to produce the given output. The secondcondition is driven by relative input price relationships and, therefore, is referred to asinput trade-off efficiency. Input prices determine the relative proportions of eachinput that should be used. Deviation from these fixed proportions creates input trade-off inefficiency.

Productivity improvement programs attempt to move toward a state of total pro-ductive efficiency. Technical improvements in productivity can be achieved by using lessinput to produce the same output or by producing more output using the same inputsor more output with relatively fewer inputs. Exhibit 9 illustrates the three ways toachieve an improvement in technical efficiency. The output is tons of steel, and theinputs are labor (number of workers) and capital (dollars invested in automated equip-ment). Notice that the relative proportions of the inputs are held constant so that all pro-ductivity improvement is attributable to improving technical efficiency.

Productivity improvement can also be achieved by trading off more costly inputs forless costly inputs. Exhibit 10 illustrates the possibility of improving productivity byincreasing input trade-off efficiency. Although improving technical efficiency is whatmost people think of when improving productivity is mentioned, input trade-off

Exhibit 9Technical Efficiency

$

Same Output, Fewer InputsInputs:

Labor

Capital $$

Output:

$

$

Current ProductivityInputs:

Labor

Capital $ $$

Output:

More Outputs, Same InputsInputs:

Labor

Capital $ $$

Output:

$

More Outputs, Fewer InputsInputs:

Labor

Capital $$

Output:

Exhibit 10Input Trade-off Efficiency

$

Technically Efficient Combination I:Total Cost of Inputs � $20,000,000

Labor

Capital $$ $

Technically Efficient Combination II:Total Cost of Inputs � $25,000,000

Labor

Capital $$ $

O B J E C T I V E•4Explain what productivity is, and calculatethe impact of productivity changes onprofits.



efficiency can offer significant opportunities for increasing overall economic efficiency.Choosing the right combination of inputs can be as critical as choosing the right quan-tity of inputs. Notice in Exhibit 10 that input Combination I produces the same outputas input Combination II—but that the cost is $5 million less. Total measures of produc-tivity are usually a combination of changes in technical and input trade-off efficiency.

Partial Productivity MeasurementProductivity measurement is simply a quantitative assessment of productivity changes.The objective is to assess whether productive efficiency has increased or decreased. Pro-ductivity measurement can be actual or prospective. Actual productivity measurementallows managers to assess, monitor, and control changes. Prospective measurement isforward looking, and it serves as an input for strategic decision making. Specifically,prospective measurement allows managers to compare relative benefits of differentinput combinations, choosing the inputs and input mix that provide the greatest bene-fit. Productivity measures can be developed for each input separately or for all inputsjointly. Measuring productivity for one input at a time is called partial productivitymeasurement.

Partial Productivity Measurement Defined Productivity of a single input is typi-cally measured by calculating the ratio of the output to the input:

Productivity ratio ¼ OutputInput

Because the productivity of only one input is being measured, the measure is calleda partial productivity measure. If both output and input are measured in physical quanti-ties, then we have an operational productivity measure. If output or input is expressedin dollars, then we have a financial productivity measure. Assume, for example, that in2010, one of Ladd Lighting’s plants produced 120,000 dinning room chandeliers forbuilding wholesalers and used 40,000 hours of labor. The labor productivity ratio isthree chandeliers per hour (120,000/40,000). This is an operational measure becausethe units are expressed in physical terms. If the selling price of each unit is $50 and thecost of labor is $12 per hour, then output and input can be expressed in dollars. Thelabor productivity ratio, expressed in financial terms, is $12.50 of revenue per dollar oflabor cost ($6,000,000/$480,000).

Partial Measures and Measuring Changes in Productive Efficiency Thelabor productivity ratio of three chandeliers per hour measures the 2010 productivity ex-perience of Ladd Lighting. By itself, the ratio conveys little information about productiveefficiency or whether the company’s productivity has improved or declined. It is possible,however, to make a statement about increasing or decreasing productivity efficiency bymeasuring changes in productivity. To do so, the actual current productivity measure iscompared with the productivity measure of a prior period. This prior period is referredto as the base period and sets the benchmark, or standard, for measuring changes inproductive efficiency. The prior period can be any period desired. It could, for example,be the preceding year, the preceding week, or even the period during which the lastbatch of products was produced. For strategic evaluations, the base period usually cho-sen is an earlier year. For operational control, the base period tends to be close to thecurrent period—such as the preceding batch of products or the preceding week.

To illustrate, assume that 2010 is the base period, and the labor productivity stan-dard, therefore, is three chandeliers per hour. Further assume that late in 2010, Ladddecided to try a new procedure for producing and assembling the motors with the ex-pectation that the new procedure would use less labor. In 2011, there were 150,000chandeliers produced, using 37,500 hours of labor. The labor productivity ratio for2011 is four units per hour (150,000/37,500). The change in productivity is a one-unitper hour increase in productivity (from three units per hour in 2010 to four units perhour in 2011). The change is a significant improvement in labor productivity and pro-vides evidence supporting the efficacy of the new process.



Advantages of Partial Measures Partial measures allow managers to focus on theuse of a particular input. Operating partial measures have the advantage of being easilyinterpreted by all within the organization and are therefore easy to use for assessing theproductivity performance of operating personnel. Laborers, for instance, can relate to unitsproduced per hour or units produced per pound of material. Thus, partial operationalmeasures provide feedback that operating personnel can relate to and understand—measures that deal with the specific inputs over which they have control. This increasesthe likelihood that they will be accepted by operating personnel. Furthermore, foroperational control, the standards for performance are often very short term. For exam-ple, standards can be the productivity ratios of prior batches of goods. Using this stand-ard, productivity trends within the year can be tracked.

Disadvantages of Partial Measures Partial measures, used in isolation, can bemisleading. A decline in the productivity of one input may be necessary to increase theproductivity of another. Such a trade-off is desirable if overall costs decline, but the effectwould be missed by using either partial measure. For example, changing a process so thatdirect laborers take less time to assemble a product may increase scrap and waste whileleaving total output unchanged. Labor productivity has increased, but productive use ofmaterials has declined. If the increase in the cost of waste and scrap outweighs the sav-ings of the decreased labor, overall productivity has declined.

Two important conclusions can be drawn from this example. First, the possibleexistence of trade-offs mandates a total measure of productivity for assessing the mer-its of productivity decisions. Only by looking at the total productivity effect of allinputs can managers accurately draw any conclusions about overall productivity per-formance. Second, because of the possibility of trade-offs, a total measure of produc-tivity must assess the aggregate financial consequences and, therefore, should be afinancial measure.

Total Productivity MeasurementMeasuring productivity for all inputs at once is called total productivity measurement.In practice, it may not be necessary to measure the effect of all inputs. Many firms mea-sure the productivity of only those factors that are thought to be relevant indicators oforganizational performance and success. Thus, in practical terms, total productivity mea-surement can be defined as focusing on a limited number of inputs, which, in total, indi-cate organizational success. In either case, total productivity measurement requires thedevelopment of a multifactor measurement approach. A common multifactor approachsuggested in the productivity literature (but rarely found in practice) is the use of aggre-gate productivity indices. Aggregate indices are complex and difficult to interpret andhave not been generally accepted. Two approaches that have gained some acceptanceare profile measurement and profit-linked productivity measurement.

Profile Productivity Measurement Producing a product involves numerous criticalinputs such as labor, materials, capital, and energy. Profile measurement provides aseries or a vector of separate and distinct partial operational measures. Profiles can becompared over time to provide information about productivity changes. To illustrate theprofile approach, we will use only two inputs: labor and materials. Let’s return to theLadd Lighting example. As before, Ladd implements a new production and assemblyprocess in 2011. Only now let’s assume that the new process affects both labor andmaterials. Initially, let’s look at the case for which the productivity of both inputs movesin the same direction. The following data for 2010 and 2011 are available:

2010 2011

Number of chandeliers produced 120,000 150,000Labor hours used 40,000 37,500Materials used (lbs.) 1,200,000 1,428,571

Exhibit 11 (p. 20) provides productivity ratio profiles for each year. The 2010 profileis (3, 0.100), and the 2011 profile is (4, 0.105). Comparing profiles for the two years,



we can see that productivity increased for both labor and materials (from 3 to 4 for laborand from 0.100 to 0.105 for materials). The profile comparison provides enough infor-mation so that a manager can conclude that the new assembly process has definitelyimproved overall productivity. The value of this improvement, however, is not revealedby the ratios.

As just shown, profile analysis can provide managers with useful insights aboutchanges in productivity. However, comparing productivity profiles will not always revealthe nature of the overall change in productive efficiency. In some cases, profile analysiswill not provide any clear indication of whether a productivity change is good or bad.

To illustrate this, let’s revise the Ladd Lighting data to allow for trade-offs amongthe two inputs. Assume that all the data are the same except for materials used in2011. Let the materials used in 2011 be 1,700,000 pounds. Using this revised number,the productivity profiles for 2010 and 2011 are presented in Exhibit 12. The produc-tivity profile for 2010 is still (3, 0.100), but the profile for 2011 has changed to(4, 0.088). Comparing productivity profiles now provides a mixed signal. Productivityfor labor has increased from 3 to 4, but productivity for materials has decreased from0.100 to 0.088. The new process has caused a trade-off in the productivity in the twomeasures. Furthermore, while a profile analysis reveals that the trade-off exists, it doesnot reveal whether it is good or bad. If the economic effect of the productivity changesis positive, then the trade-off is good; otherwise, it must be viewed as bad. Valuing thetrade-offs would allow us to assess the economic effect of the decision to change theassembly process. Furthermore, by valuing the productivity changes, we obtain a totalmeasure of productivity.

Profit-Linked Productivity Measurement Assessing the effects of productivitychanges on current profits is one way to value productivity changes. Profits change fromthe base period to the current period. Some of that profit change is attributable to pro-ductivity changes. Measuring the amount of profit change attributable to productivitychange is defined as profit-linked productivity measurement.

Exhibit 11Productivity Measurement: Profile Analysis with No Trade-offs LaddLighting Corporation

Partial Productivity Ratios

2010 Profilea 2011 Profileb

Labor productivity ratio 3.000 4.000Materials productivity ratio 0.100 0.105aLabor: 120,000/40,000; materials: 120,000/1,200,000bLabor: 150,000/37,500; materials: 150,000/1,428,571

Exhibit 12Productivity Measurement: Profile Analysis with Trade-offs LaddLighting Corporation

Productivity Profile

2010a 2011b

Labor productivity ratio 3.000 4.000Materials productivity ratio 0.100 0.088aLabor: 120,000/40,000; materials: 120,000/1,200,000bLabor: 150,000/37,500; materials: 150,000/1,700,000



Assessing the effect of productivity changes on current-period profits will help man-agers understand the economic importance of productivity changes. Linking productivitychanges to profits is described by the following rule:

Profit-Linkage Rule: For the current period, calculate the cost of the inputs that wouldhave been used in the absence of any productivity change, and compare this cost withthe cost of the inputs actually used. The difference in costs is the amount by which profitschanged due to productivity changes.

To apply the linkage rule, the inputs that would have been used for the current pe-riod in the absence of a productivity change must be calculated. Let PQ represent thisproductivity-neutral quantity of input. To determine PQ for a particular input, dividethe current-period output by the input’s base-period productivity ratio:

PQ ¼ Current outputBase-period productivity ratio

To illustrate the application of the profit-linked rule, let’s return to the Ladd exam-ple with input trade-offs. To these data, we must add some cost information. Theexpanded Ladd data follow:

2010 2011

Number of motors produced 120,000 150,000Labor hours used 40,000 37,500Materials used (lbs.) 1,200,000 1,700,000Unit selling price (motors) $50 $48Wages per labor hour $11 $12Cost per pound of material $2 $3

Current output (2011) is 150,000 motors. From Exhibit 12, we know that thebase-period productivity ratios are 3 and 0.100 for labor and materials, respectively.Using this information, the productivity-neutral quantity for each input is computed asfollows:

PQ (labor) ¼ 150,0003

= 50,000 hrs.

PQ (materials) =150,000

0:100= 1,500,000 lbs.

For our example, PQ gives labor and materials inputs that would have been used in2011, assuming no productivity change. What the cost would have been is computed bymultiplying each individual input quantity (PQ) by its current price (P) and totaling:

Cost of labor (50,000 3 $12) $ 600,000Cost of materials (1,500,000 3 $3) 4,500,000

Total PQ cost $5,100,000

The actual cost of inputs is obtained by multiplying the actual quantity (AQ) by cur-rent input price (P) for each input and totaling:

Cost of labor (37,500 3 $12) $ 450,000Cost of materials (1,700,000 3 $3) 5,100,000

Total current cost $5,550,000

Finally, the productivity effect on profits is computed by subtracting the total cur-rent cost from the total PQ cost.

Profit-linked effect ¼ Total PQ cost� Total current cost¼ $5,100,000� $5,550,000¼ $450,000 decrease in profits



The calculation of the profit-linked effect is summarized in Exhibit 13. The sum-mary in Exhibit 13 reveals that the net effect of the process change was unfavorable.Profits declined by $450,000 because of the productivity changes. Notice also thatprofit-linked productivity effects can be assigned to individual inputs. The increase inlabor productivity creates a $150,000 increase in profits; however, the drop in materialsproductivity caused a $600,000 decrease in profits. Most of the profit decrease camefrom an increase in materials usage—apparently, waste, scrap, and spoiled units aremuch greater with the new process. Thus, the profit-linked measure provides partialmeasurement effects as well as a total measurement effect. The total profit-linked pro-ductivity measure is the sum of the individual partial measures. This property makesthe profit-linked measure ideal for assessing trade-offs. A much clearer picture of theeffects of the changes in productivity emerges. Unless waste and scrap can be broughtunder better control, the company ought to return to the old assembly process. Ofcourse, it is possible that the learning effects of the new process are not yet fully cap-tured and further improvements in labor productivity might be observed. As laborbecomes more proficient at the new process, it is possible that the material usage couldalso decrease.

Price-Recovery ComponentThe profit-linked measure computes the amount of profit change from the base periodto the current period attributable to productivity changes. This generally will not beequal to the total profit change between the two periods. The difference between thetotal profit change and the profit-linked productivity change is called the price-recoverycomponent. This component is the change in revenue less a change in the cost ofinputs, assuming no productivity changes. Therefore, it measures the ability of revenuechanges to cover changes in the cost of inputs, assuming no productivity change. To cal-culate the price-recovery component, we first need to compute the change in profits foreach period:

2011 2010 Difference

Revenuesa $7,200,000 $6,000,000 $ 1,200,000Less cost of inputsb 5,550,000 2,840,000 2,710,000

Profit $1,650,000 $3,160,000 $(1,510,000)

a$48 3 150,000; $50 3 120,000b($12 3 37,500) þ ($3 3 1,700,000); ($11 3 40,000) þ ($2 3 1,200,000)

Price recovery ¼ Profit change� Profit-linked productivity change¼ ð$1,510,000Þ � ð$450,000Þ¼ ð$1,060,000Þ

The increase in revenues would not have been sufficient to recover the increase in thecost of the inputs. The decrease in productivity simply aggravated the price-recovery prob-lem. Note, however, that increases in productivity can be used to offset price-recovery losses.

Exhibit 13Profit-Linked Productivity Measurement Ladd Lighting Corporation

(1) (2) (3) (4) (2) � (4)

Input PQ* PQ 3 P AQ AQ 3 P (PQ 3 P) � (AQ 3 P)Labor 50,000 $ 600,000 37,500 $ 450,000 $ 150,000Materials 1,500,000 4,500,000 1,700,000 5,100,000 (600,000)

Total $5,100,000 $5,550,000 $(450,000)

*Labor: 150,000/3; materials: 150,000/0.10



Quality and ProductivityImproving quality may improve productivity, and vice versa. For example, if rework isreduced by producing fewer defective units, less labor and fewer materials are used toproduce the same output. Reducing the number of defective units improves quality;reducing the amount of inputs used improves productivity.

Since most quality improvements reduce the amount of resources used to produceand sell an organization’s output, they will improve productivity. Thus, quality improve-ments generally will be reflected in productivity measures. However, there are otherways to improve productivity. A firm may produce a good with little or no defects butstill have an inefficient process.

For example, consider a good that passes through two 5-minute processes. (Assumethe good is produced free of defects.) One unit, then, requires 10 minutes to pass throughboth processes. Currently, units are produced in batches of 1,200. Process 1 produces1,200 units; then, the batch is conveyed by forklift to another location, where the unitspass through Process 2. For each process, a total of 6,000 minutes, or 100 hours, isneeded to produce a batch. The 1,200 finished units, then, require a total of 200 hours(100 hours for each process) plus conveyance time; assume that to be 15 minutes.

By redesigning the manufacturing process, efficiency can be improved. Suppose thatthe second process is located close enough to the first process so that as soon as a unit iscompleted by the first process, it is passed to the second process. In this way, the firstand second processes can be working at the same time. The second process no longerhas to wait for the production of 1,200 units plus conveyance time before it can beginoperation. The total time to produce 1,200 units now is 6,000 minutes plus the waitingtime for the first unit (five minutes). Thus, production of 1,200 units has been reducedfrom 200 hours and 15 minutes to 100 hours and 5 minutes. More output can be pro-duced with fewer inputs (time).

GainsharingGainsharing is providing to a company’s entire workforce cash incentives that are keyedto quality and productivity gains. For example, suppose a company has a target of reduc-ing the number of defective units by 10 percent during the next quarter for a particularplant. If the goal is achieved, the company estimates that $1,000,000 will be saved(through avoiding such things as reworks and warranty repairs). Gainsharing provides anincentive by offering a bonus to the employees equal to a percentage of the cost savings,say 20 percent. Pay-for-performance plans allowing employees to share in the benefitsseem to create additional interest and commitment. Interestingly, these gainsharingplans are entirely complementary, and perhaps even essential, to an integrated measure-ment system such as the balanced scorecard.

SUMMARY OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES

LO1. Identify and describe the four types of quality costs.To understand quality costs, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by quality.There are two types of quality: quality of design and quality of conformance. Quality ofdesign concerns quality differences that arise for products with the same function butdifferent specifications. Quality of conformance, on the other hand, concerns meetingthe specifications required by the product. Quality costs are incurred when products failto meet design specifications (and are, therefore, associated with quality of conform-ance). Quality costs are divided into four categories: prevention, appraisal, internal fail-ure, and external failure. Prevention costs are those incurred to prevent poor quality.Appraisal costs are those incurred to detect poor quality. Internal failure costs are thoseincurred when products fail to conform to requirements and this lack of conformity isdiscovered before an external sale. External failure costs are those incurred when prod-ucts fail to conform to requirements after an external sale is made.



LO2. Prepare a quality cost report, and differentiate between the conventional view ofacceptable quality level and the view espoused by total quality control.A quality cost report is prepared by listing costs for each item within each of the fourmajor quality cost categories (see Exhibit 3). There are two views concerning the optimaldistribution of quality costs: the AQL view and the zero-defects view. The AQL viewholds that there is a trade-off between costs of failure and prevention and appraisal costs.This trade-off produces an optimal level of performance called the acceptable quality level.AQL is the level at which the number of defects allowed minimizes total quality costs.The zero-defects view, on the other hand, espouses total quality control. Total qualitycontrol maintains that the conflict between failure and appraisal and prevention costs ismore conjecture than real. The actual optimal level of defects is the zero-defect level; com-panies should be striving to achieve this level of quality. Although quality costs do not van-ish at this level, they are much lower than the optimal level envisioned by the AQL view.

LO3. Tell why quality cost information is needed, and show how it is used.Quality cost information is needed to help managers control quality performance and toserve as input for decision making. It can be used to evaluate the overall performance ofquality-improvement programs and to help improve a variety of managerial decisions,for example, strategic pricing and new product analysis. Perhaps the most importantobservation is that quality cost information is fundamental to a company’s pursuit ofcontinuous improvement. Quality is one of the major competitive dimensions forworld-class competitors.

LO4. Explain what productivity is, and calculate the impact of productivity changes on profits.Productivity concerns how efficiently inputs are used to produce the output. Partial mea-sures of productivity evaluate the efficient use of single inputs. Total measures of produc-tivity assess efficiency for all inputs. Profit-linked productivity effects are calculated byusing the linkage rule. Essentially, the profit effect is computed by taking the differencebetween the cost of the inputs that would have been used without any productivitychange and the cost of the actual inputs used. Because of the possibility of input trade-offs, it is essential to value productivity changes. Only in this way can the effect of produc-tivity changes be properly assessed. Finally, gainsharing can be used as an incentive formanagers and workers to look for ways to increase quality and productivity.

KEY TERMS

Acceptable quality level (AQL) (p. 10)Aesthetics (p. 5)Appraisal costs (p. 6)Base period (p. 18)Control activities (p. 6)Control costs (p. 6)Costs of quality (p. 6)Defective product (p. 5)Durability (p. 5)External failure costs (p. 6)Failure activities (p. 6)Failure costs (p. 6)Features (quality of design) (p. 5)Financial productivity measure (p. 18)Fitness of use (p. 5)Gainsharing (p. 23)Hidden quality costs (p. 7)Input trade-off efficiency (p. 17)Internal failure costs (p. 6)Multiple-period quality trend report (p. 13)

Observable quality costs (p. 7)Operational productivity measure (p. 18)Partial productivity measurement (p. 18)Performance (p. 5)Prevention costs (p. 6)Price-recovery component (p. 22)Productivity measurement (p. 18)Productivity (p. 17)Profile measurement (p. 19)Profit-linked productivity

measurement (p. 20)Quality of conformance (p. 5)Quality product or service (p. 4)Reliability (p. 5)Serviceability (p. 5)Taguchi loss function (p. 7)Technical efficiency (p. 17)Total productive efficiency (p. 17)Total productivity measurement (p. 19)Zero defects (p. 5)



REVIEW PROBLEMS

I. QualityAt the beginning of 2011, Kare Company initiated a quality-improvement program. Consider-able effort was expended to reduce the number of defective units produced. By the end of theyear, reports from the production manager revealed that scrap and rework had both decreased.The president of the company was pleased to hear of the success but wanted some assessment ofthe financial impact of the improvements. To make this assessment, the following financial datawere collected for the preceding and current years:

2010 2011

Sales $10,000,000 $10,000,000Scrap 400,000 300,000Rework 600,000 400,000Product inspection 100,000 125,000Product warranty 800,000 600,000Quality training 40,000 80,000Materials inspection 60,000 40,000

Required:1. Classify the costs as prevention, appraisal, internal failure, or external failure.

2. Compute quality cost as a percentage of sales for each of the two years. By how much hasprofit increased because of quality improvements? Assuming that quality costs can be reducedto 2.5 percent of sales, how much additional profit is available through quality improve-ments? (Note: Assume that sales revenues will remain the same.)

3. Prepare a quality cost report for 2011.

Solution:1. Appraisal costs: product inspection and materials inspection; prevention costs: quality train-

ing; internal failure costs: scrap and rework; external failure costs: product warranty.

2. For 2010—total quality costs: $2,000,000; percentage of sales: 20 percent ($2,000,000/$10,000,000). For 2011—total quality costs: $1,545,000; percentage of sales: 15.45 percent($1,545,000/$10,000,000). Profit has increased by $455,000. If quality costs drop to 2.5percent of sales, another $1,295,000 of profit improvement is possible ($1,545,000 �$250,000).

3. Kare CompanyQuality Cost Report

For the Year Ended 2011

Quality CostsPercentage (%)

of Sales

Prevention costs:Quality training $ 80,000 $ 80,000 0.80%

Appraisal costs:Product inspection $125,000Materials inspection 40,000 165,000 1.65

Internal failure costs:Scrap $300,000Rework 400,000 700,000 7.00

External failure costs:Product warranty $600,000 600,000 6.00

Total quality costs $1,545,000 15.45%



II. ProductivityBearing Company made some changes at the end of 2010 that it hoped would favorably affect theefficiency of its input usage. Now, at the end of 2011, the president of the company wants an assess-ment of the changes in the company’s productivity. The data needed for the assessment follow:

2010 2011

Output 5,000 6,000Output prices $10 $10Materials (lbs.) 4,000 4,200Materials unit price $3 $4Labor (hrs.) 2,500 2,400Labor rate per hour $8 $8Power (kwh) 1,000 1,500Price per kwh $2 $3

Required:1. Compute the partial operational measures for each input for both 2010 and 2011. What can

be said about productivity improvement?

2. Prepare an income statement for each year, and calculate the total change in profits.

3. Calculate the profit-linked productivity measure for 2011. What can be said about the pro-ductivity program?

4. Calculate the price-recovery component. What does this tell you?

Solution:1. Partial measures:

2010 2011

Materials 5,000/4,000 ¼ 1.25 6,000/4,200 ¼ 1.43*Labor 5,000/2,500 ¼ 2.00 6,000/2,400 ¼ 2.50Power 5,000/1,000 ¼ 5.00 6,000/1,500 ¼ 4.00

*Rounded.

Productive efficiency has increased for materials and labor and decreased for power. Theoutcome is mixed, and no statement about overall productivity improvement can be madewithout valuing the trade-off.

2. Income statements:

2010 2011

Sales $50,000 $60,000Cost of inputs 34,000 40,500Income $16,000 $19,500

Total change in profits: $19,500 � $16,000 ¼ $3,500 increase

3. Profit-linked measurement:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (2) � (4)

Input PQ* PQ 3 P AQ AQ 3 P (PQ 3 P) � (AQ 3 P)Materials 4,800 $19,200 4,200 $16,800 $2,400Labor 3,000 24,000 2,400 19,200 4,800Power 1,200 3,600 1,500 4,500 (900)

$46,800 $40,500 $6,300

*Materials: 6,000/1.25; labor: 6,000/2; power: 6,000/5

The value of the increases in efficiency for materials and labor more than offsets the increasedusage of power. Thus, the productivity program should be labeled successful.



DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Explain what is meant by ‘‘quality.’’2. What is reliability? Durability?3. What is quality of conformance?4. Explain the difference between the traditional view of conformance and the robust view.5. Why are quality costs the costs of doing things wrong?6. Identify and discuss the four kinds of quality costs.7. Explain why external failure costs can be more devastating to a firm than internal failure

costs.8. What are hidden quality costs? Provide an example.9. What are the three methods for estimating hidden quality costs?

10. Discuss the value of a quality cost report.11. What is the difference between the AQL model and the zero-defects model?12. What are the differences between the zero-defects model and the robust quality model?13. Explain the purpose of multiple-period trend analysis for quality costs.14. Define total productive efficiency.15. Explain the difference between partial and total measures of productivity.16. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of partial measures of productivity.17. How can a manager measure productivity improvement?18. What is profit-linked productivity measurement?19. Explain why profit-linked productivity measurement is important.20. What is the price-recovery component?21. Can productivity improvements be achieved without improving quality? Explain.22. Why is it important for managers to be concerned with both productivity and quality?23. What are the differences between quality and productivity? Similarities?24. What is gainsharing?

MULTIPLE-CHOICE EXERCISES

1 A quality product is one that meets or exceeds customer expectations by:

a. consistently functioning well.b. functioning for an acceptable length of

time.c. meeting its specifications.

d. being easy to maintain and repair.e. All of the above.

2 Conforming to specifications means that the specifications of a product:

a. fall within an acceptable range of values.b. exactly meet their targeted values.c. include all essential aspects except service-

ability.

d. are strictly controlled by quality audits.e. Both a and b, depending on whether the

traditional view or the robust view of con-formance is being emphasized.

4. Price recovery:

Price-recovery component ¼ Profit change� Profit-linked productivity change¼ $3,500� $6,300¼ ð$2,800Þ

This says that without the productivity improvement, profits would have declined by $2,800.The $10,000 increase in revenues would not have offset the increase in the cost of inputs. Fromthe solution to Requirement 3, the cost of inputs without a productivity increase would havebeen $46,800 (column 2). The increase in the input cost without productivity would have been$46,800 - $34,000 ¼ $12,800. This is $2,800 more than the increase in revenues. Onlybecause of the productivity increase did the firm show an increase in profitability.



3 Control costs are:

a. costs incurred after bad products are sent to customers.b. costs incurred to prevent/detect defective products.c. costs incurred to correct defective units before they are sent to customers.d. costs incurred to control product liability suits.e. All of the above.

4 The costs associated with quality reporting are:

a. prevention costs.b. appraisal costs.c. internal failure costs.

d. external failure costs.e. None of the above.

5 The costs associated with retesting are:



6 The costs associated with packaging inspection are:



7 The costs associated with complaint adjustment are:



8 Quality costs that are opportunity costs and do not appear in a company’s accounting records are:

a. not possible.b. hidden quality costs.c. total external failure costs.

d. observable quality costs.e. only external failure costs.

9 If the total external failure cost is $1,200,000 and the multiplier effect is 4, then the qualitycosts found in the firm’s accounting records would be:

a. impossible to assess.b. $1,200,000.c. $4,800,000.

d. $300,000.e. None of the above.

10 Identify which of the following is a quality prevention cost:

a. Quality planningb. Supplier evaluation and selectionc. Quality audits

d. Field trialse. All of the above

11 Identify which of the following is an appraisal cost (quality):

a. Design reviewsb. Quality reportingc. Manager of a packaging inspection team

d. Warrantiese. Retesting

12 Identify which of the following is an internal failure cost (quality):

a. Supplier evaluation and selectionb. Scrapped unitsc. Packaging inspection

d. Product liabilitye. Complaint adjustment



13 Identify which of the following is an external failure cost (quality):

a. Lost market shareb. Retestingc. Rework

d. Design reviewse. All of the above

14 For the Taguchi Loss function, k ¼ $500 and the average squared deviation is 0.05. If 1,000untis are produced, the total expected loss (hidden cost) would be:

a. $500.b. $500,000.c. $50.

d. $25,000.e. $25.

EXERCISES

Exercise 15 Quality Cost ClassificationClassify the following quality activities as prevention costs, appraisal costs, internal failure costs,or external failure costs.1. Customers do not want second-class products. However, if they are sent slightly defective

products, they may be willing to keep them provided they are given a price reduction.2. Components from suppliers are carefully inspected.3. Workers sand and stain a piece of wood, and then it warps. The piece of wood is then dis-

carded as useless.4. An automobile company recalls a model to repair a defective transmission.5. A tire manufacturer is sued for deaths caused by a defective tire.6. Design verification and review are used to evaluate the quality of new products.7. New personnel are trained in quality circle methods.8. Work stoppage to correct process malfunction (discovered using statistical process control

procedures).9. Packaging and shipping for returned products.

10. Reinspection of rework.11. A defective product is replaced with a good one.12. An internal audit is done to ensure that quality policies are being followed.13. A product is redesigned to reduce the number of worker mistakes leading to a defective

product.14. Purchase orders are corrected to reflect the correct items and quantities.15. Adjustments are made to accounts receivable to compensate for returned goods and price

concessions.16. New products are tested to ensure they function as intended.17. Field service personnel are sent to repair products on site.18. Software is corrected for defects.19. Suppliers are evaluated to assess their capability of providing nondefective components.20. Subassemblies are inspected.21. Processing of customer complaints.22. Prototype inspection and testing.23. A worker accidentally drills a hole in a steel plate, and it must be welded shut for the plate

to be useful.

Exercise 16 Estimating Hidden Quality CostsPacker Company has developed the following information:

Measured external failure cost $15,000,000Multiplier effect (from the Multiplier Method) 3Multiplier effect (Taguchi parameter) $100Average squared deviation (Taguchi) 10Units produced 50,000

OBJECTIVE•1

OBJECTIVE•1



Required:1. Estimate the total hidden quality costs using the multiplier method.2. Estimate the total hidden quality costs using the Taguchi quality loss function.

Exercise 17 Quality Cost ReportDuring 2010 and 2011, Kellman Company reported sales of $6,000,000 (for each year). Kell-man listed the following quality costs for the past two years. Assume that all changes in the qual-ity costs are due to a quality-improvement program.

2010 2011

Design review $ 150,000 $ 300,000Recalls 200,000 100,000Reinspection 100,000 50,000Materials inspection 60,000 40,000Quality training 40,000 100,000Process acceptance — 50,000Scrap 145,000 35,000Lost sales (estimated) 300,000 200,000Product inspection 50,000 30,000Returned goods 155,000 95,000

Total $1,200,000 $1,000,000

Required:1. Prepare a quality cost report for each year (2010 and 2011). What does this report tell man-

agement?2. Calculate the relative distribution of quality costs by category for each year. What message

does this communicate to management?

Exercise 18 Quality Cost Improvement and Profitability; Quality Cost ReportDuring 2010 and 2011, Diviney Company reported sales of $18,000,000 (for each year).Diviney listed the following quality costs for the past two years. Assume that all changes in thequality costs are due to a quality-improvement program.

2010 2011

Field trials $ 450,000 $ 900,000Recalls 600,000 300,000Reinspection 300,000 150,000Packaging inspection 180,000 120,000Quality training 120,000 300,000Process acceptance — 150,000Retesting 435,000 105,000Lost sales (estimated) 900,000 600,000Product inspection 150,000 90,000Complaint adjustment 465,000 285,000

Total $3,600,000 $3,000,000

Required:1. Prepare a quality cost report for each year (2010 and 2011).2. How much were the additional resources invested in prevention and appraisal activities (con-

trol costs) from one year to the next? What return did this investment generate? (Whatreduction in failure costs was achieved?)

3. The management of Diviney believes that it is possible to reduce quality costs to 2.5 percentof sales. Assuming sales continue at the $18,000,000 level, calculate the additional profitpotential facing Diviney. Is the expectation of improving quality and reducing quality coststo 2.5 percent of sales realistic? Explain.

Exercise 19 Quality Costs; Distribution Across Categories; GainsharingMilton Company had sales of $72 million in 2004. In 2011, sales had increased to $90 million.A quality-improvement program was implemented in 2004. Overall conformance quality was

OBJECTIVE•2

OBJECTIVE•1•2•3

OBJECTIVE•1•2•3•4



targeted for improvement. The quality costs for 2004 and 2011 follow. Assume any changes inquality costs are attributable to improvements in quality.

2004 2011

Internal failure costs $ 5,400,000 $ 270,000External failure costs 7,200,000 180,000Appraisal costs 3,240,000 675,000Prevention costs 2,160,000 1,125,000

Total quality costs $18,000,000 $2,250,000

Required:1. Compute the quality costs/sales ratio for each year. Is this type of improvement possible?2. Calculate the relative distribution of quality costs by category for 2004 (quality costs by cate-

gory/total quality costs). What do you think of the relative cost distribution? How do youthink quality costs will be distributed as the company approaches a zero-defects state?

3. Calculate the relative distribution of costs by category for 2011. What do you think of thelevel and distribution of quality costs? Do you think further reductions are possible?

4. Suppose that the CEO of Milton received a bonus equal to 10 percent of the quality costsavings each year. Do you think gainsharing is a good or bad idea? What risks are there, ifany, to gainsharing?

Exercise 20 Trade-offs Among Quality Cost Categories; GainsharingCondon Company has sales of $10 million and quality costs of $1,200,000. The company isembarking on a major quality-improvement program. During the next three years, Condonintends to attack failure costs by increasing its appraisal and prevention costs. The ‘‘right’’ pre-vention activities will be selected, and appraisal costs will be reduced according to the resultsachieved. For the coming year, management is considering six specific activities: quality training,process control, product inspection, supplier evaluation, redesign of two major products, andprototype testing. To encourage managers to focus on reducing nonvalue-added quality costsand select the right activities, a bonus pool is established relating to reduction of quality costs.The bonus pool is equal to 10 percent of the total reduction in quality costs.

Current quality costs and the costs of these six activities are given in the following table. Eachactivity is added sequentially so that its effect on the cost categories can be assessed. For example,after quality training is added, the control costs increase to $400,000 and the failure costs dropto $1,300,000. Even though the activities are presented sequentially, they are totally independentof each other. Thus, only beneficial activities need be selected.

Control Costs Failure Costs

Current quality costs* $ 200,000 $1,800,000Quality training 400,000 1,300,000Process control 650,000 900,000Product inspection 750,000 820,000Supplier evaluation 900,000 250,000Prototype testing 1,200,000 150,000Engineering redesign 1,250,000 50,000

*All current control costs are appraisal costs.

Required:1. Identify the control activities that should be implemented, and calculate the total quality

costs associated with this selection. Assume that an activity is selected only if it increases thebonus pool.

2. Given the activities selected in Requirement 1, calculate the following:a. The reduction in total quality costs.b. The percentage distribution for control and failure costs.c. The amount for this year’s bonus pool.

3. Suppose that a quality engineer complained about the gainsharing incentive system. Basically,he argued that the bonus should be based only on reductions of failure and appraisal costs.In this way, investment in prevention activities would be encouraged, and failure and

OBJECTIVE•2•4



appraisal costs would eventually be eliminated. After eliminating the nonvalue-added costs,focus could then be placed on the level of prevention costs. If this approach were adopted,what activities would be selected? Do you agree with this approach? Explain.

Exercise 21 Quality Cost Report; Taguchi Quality Loss FunctionAt the end of 2011, Carbon Manufacturing began to focus on its quality costs. As a first step, itidentified the following costs in its accounting records as being quality related:

2011

Sales (100,000 units @ $60) $6,000,000Scrap 180,000Rework 240,000Training program 72,000Consumer complaints 120,000Warranty 240,000Test labor 180,000Inspection labor 150,000Supplier evaluation 18,000

Required:1. Prepare a quality cost report by quality cost category.2. Calculate the relative distribution percentages for each quality cost category. Comment on

the distribution.3. Using the Taguchi quality loss function, an average loss per unit is computed at $5. What are

the hidden costs of external failure? How does this affect the relative distribution? What effectwill the hidden-cost information have on a quality-improvement program?

Exercise 22 Taguchi Quality Loss FunctionHart Company manufactures a product that has a target value of 32 ounces. Specification limitsare 32 ounces plus or minus 0.75 ounce. The value of k is $120. A sample of five units producedthe following measures:

Unit Measured Weight

1 32.302 32.753 32.454 31.755 31.90

During May, a total of 50,000 units was produced.

Required:1. Calculate the loss for each unit. Calculate the average loss for the sample of five.2. Using the average loss, calculate the hidden quality costs for April.

Exercise 23 Multiple-Year Trend ReportsThe controller of Doble Company has computed quality costs as a percentage of sales for the pastfive years (2010 was the first year the company implemented a quality-improvement program).This information follows:

Prevention AppraisalInternalFailure

ExternalFailure Total

2010 3% 4% 9% 13% 29%2011 4 5 8 11 282012 5 6 6 8 252013 6 5 4 6 212014 7 2 1 2 12

Required:1. Prepare a trend graph for total quality costs. Comment on what the graph has to say about

the success of the quality-improvement program.

OBJECTIVE•1•2

OBJECTIVE•1

OBJECTIVE•2



2. Prepare a graph that shows the trend for each quality cost category. What does the graphindicate about the success of the quality-improvement program? Does this graph supplymore insight than the total cost trend graph? What does the graph reveal about the distribu-tion of quality costs in 2010? In 2014?

Exercise 24 Productivity MeasurementAnderson Company produces a product that uses two inputs, materials and labor. The outputand inputs for the last two years are:

2010 2011

Output 14,000 14,000Inputs:

Materials (lbs.) 3,500 2,800Labor (hrs.) 11,200 7,000

Materials are purchased for $8 per pound and labor is paid $10 per hour.

Required:1. Calculate the partial productivity ratios for each year. Did productivity improve from 2010

to 2011?2. Now suppose that the labor hours for 2011 were 14,000 instead of 7,000. Using partial pro-

ductivity ratios, what can you say about productivity change from 2010 to 2011? Is thereany way to evaluate the change from 2010 to 2011? Explain.

Exercise 25 Productivity Measurement; Partial MeasureLetonen Company produces a product that uses two inputs, energy and labor. During the pastmonth, 400 units of the product were produced, requiring 320 units of energy and 1,280 hoursof labor. An engineering study revealed that Letonen can produce the same output of 400 unitsusing either of the following two combinations of inputs:

Energy Labor

Combination A 200 800Combination B 320 500

Energy costs $18 per unit used; the cost of labor is $15 per hour.

Required:1. Calculate the output/input ratio for each input of Combination A. Does this represent a pro-

ductivity improvement over the current use of inputs? What is the total dollar value of theimprovement? Classify this as technical or price efficiency improvement.

2. Calculate output/input ratios for each input of Combination B. Does this represent a pro-ductivity improvement over the current use of inputs? Now compare these ratios to those ofCombination A. What has happened?

3. Compute the cost of producing the 400 units of output using Combination B. Compare thisto the cost using Combination A. Does moving from Combination A to Combination B rep-resent a productivity improvement? Explain.

Exercise 26 Interperiod Measure of Productivity; Basic ComputationsKehn, Inc., gathered the following data for its last two years of operation:

2010 2011

Output 96,000 120,000Power (quantity used) 12,000 12,000Materials (quantity used) 24,000 35,000Unit price (power) $1.00 $2.00Unit price (materials) $4.00 $5.00Unit selling price $2.00 $2.50

Required:1. Compute the partial operational productivity ratios for each year. Did productivity improve?

Explain.

OBJECTIVE•4

OBJECTIVE•4

OBJECTIVE•4



2. Compute the profit-linked productivity measure. By how much did profits increase due toproductivity?

3. Calculate the price-recovery component for 2011. Explain its meaning.

Exercise 27 Productivity Measurement; Trade-offsCarr Company decided to install an automated manufacturing system. The decision to automatewas made because of the promise to reduce the use of material and labor inputs. After one yearof operation, management wants to evaluate the productivity change. The president is particu-larly interested in knowing whether the trade-off between labor, materials, and capital was favor-able. Data concerning output, labor, materials, and capital are provided for the year beforeimplementation and the year after.

Year Before Year After

Output 200,000 240,000Input quantities:

Materials (lbs.) 50,000 40,000Labor (hrs.) 10,000 4,000Capital $10,000 $600,000

Input prices:Materials $2 $2Labor $5 $5Capital 15% 15%

Required:1. Compute the partial measures for materials, labor, and capital for each year. What caused the

change in labor and materials productivity?2. Calculate the change in profits attributable to the change in productivity of the three inputs.

Assuming that these are the only three inputs, evaluate the decision to automate.

Exercise 28 Productivity Measurement; Technical and Price Efficiency IllustratedThe manager of Muller Company was reviewing two competing proposals for the MachiningDepartment. The fiscal year was coming to a close, and the manager wanted to make a decisionconcerning the proposed process changes so that they could be used, if beneficial, during thecoming year. The process changes would affect the department’s input usage. For the year justended, the Accounting Department provided the following information about the inputs used toproduce 250,000 units of output:

Quantity Unit Prices

Materials 450,000 lbs. $8Labor 200,000 hrs. 10Energy 100,000 kwhs. 2

Each proposal offers a process design different from the one currently used. Neither proposalwould cost anything to implement. Both proposals project input usage for producing 300,000units (the expected output for the coming year).

Proposal A Proposal B

Materials 450,000 lbs. 500,000 lbs.Labor 200,000 hrs. 150,000 hrs.Energy 100,000 kwhs. 100,000 kwhs.

Input prices are expected to remain the same for the coming year.

Required:1. Compute the partial operational productivity measures for the most recently completed year

and each proposal. Does either proposal improve technical efficiency? Explain. Can you makea recommendation about either proposal using only the physical measures?

2. Calculate the profit-linked productivity measure for each proposal. Which proposal offers the bestoutcome for the company? How does this relate to the concept of price efficiency? Explain.

OBJECTIVE•4

OBJECTIVE•4



Exercise 29 Productivity and QualityGrigsby Company is considering the acquisition of an automated system that would decrease thenumber of units scrapped because of poor quality. (This proposal is part of an ongoing effort toimprove quality.) The production manager is pushing for the acquisition because he believes thatproductivity will be greatly enhanced—particularly when it comes to labor and material inputs.Output and input data follow. The after-acquisition data are projections.

Current After Acquisition

Output (units) 10,000 10,000Output selling price $40 $40Input quantities:

Materials (lbs.) 40,000 35,000Labor (hrs.) 20,000 15,000Capital $20,000 $100,000Energy (kwhs.) 10,000 25,000

Input prices:Materials $4.00 $4.00Labor $9.00 $9.00Capital 10.00% 10.00%Energy $2.50 $2.50

Required:1. Compute the partial operational productivity ratios for materials and labor under each alter-

native. Is the production manager right in thinking that materials and labor productivity willincrease with the automated system?

2. Compute the partial operational productivity ratios for all four inputs. Does the systemimprove productivity?

3. Determine the amount by which profits will change if the system is adopted. Are the trade-offs among the inputs favorable? Comment on the system’s ability to improve productivity.

Exercise 30 Basics of Productivity MeasurementCooper Company gathered the following data for the past two years:

Base Year Current Year

Output 150,000 180,000Output prices $20 $20Input quantities:

Materials (lbs.) 200,000 180,000Labor (hrs.) 50,000 90,000

Input prices:Materials $5 $6Labor $8 $8

Required:1. Calculate the partial operational productivity measures for each year.2. Prepare income statements for each year. Calculate the total change in income.3. Calculate the change in profits attributable to productivity changes.4. Calculate the price-recovery component. Explain its meaning.

PROBLEMS

Problem 31 Classification of Quality CostsClassify the following quality costs as prevention, appraisal, internal failure, or external failure.1. Design verification and review to evaluate the quality of new products.2. Scrapping defective units.3. Downtime (defect-related).4. Customer complaint department.5. Prototype inspection and testing.

OBJECTIVE•4

OBJECTIVE•4

OBJECTIVE•1



6. Maintenance of inspection equipment.7. Grinding bumps off a poorly welded steel plate.8. Design and development of quality equipment.9. Quality circles.

10. Correcting an improperly filled-out purchase order.11. The cost of repairing a product under warranty.12. Internal audit assessing the effectiveness of the quality system.13. Replacing a component improperly inserted and damaged.14. Machine jammed and damaged because of an incorrectly sized subassembly.15. Packaging inspection.16. Quality audits.17. Complaint adjustment.18. Setup for testing.19. Lending engineers to help improve processes and products of suppliers.20. Vendor certification.21. Extra overhead costs incurred due to returned products.22. Supervision of in-process inspection.23. Inspection of parts purchased from suppliers.24. Packaging and shipping repaired goods.25. Outside laboratory evaluation of product quality.

Problem 32 Various Quality and Productivity ConceptsMatch the following:

1. Appraisal costs2. Financial productivity measure3. Profile measurement4. Durability5. Input trade-off efficiency6. External failure costs7. Base period8. Zero defects9. Operational productivity measure

10. Failure activities11. Profit-linked productivity12. Fitness of use13. Gainsharing14. Hidden quality costs15. Technical efficiency

a. Activities performed because poor quality existsb. Length of time a product functionsc. Lost sales because of poor qualityd. Vector of partial productivity measurese. Costs of detecting poor qualityf. Revenue/labor costg. Lowest cost technically efficient inputsh. Units produced/pounds of material usedi. No nonconforming productsj. Product does intended functionsk. Standard for productivity measurementl. Profit change due to productivity change

m. No more input used than necessaryn. Costs not recorded in accounting recordso. Bonus paid for productivity/quality improvements

Problem 33 Quality Cost Summary; GainsharingDanna Lummus, the president of Karlene Company, has recently returned from a conferenceon quality and productivity. At the conference, she learned that many American firms havemade significant progress in improving quality and reducing quality costs. Many of these firmshave been able to reduce quality costs from 20 to 30 percent of sales to 2 to 3 percent of sales.She was skeptical, however, about this statistic. Even if the quality gurus were right, she wassure that her company’s quality costs were much lower—probably less than 5 percent. On theother hand, if she was wrong, she would be passing up an opportunity to improve profits signif-icantly and simultaneously strengthen her competitive position. In fact, she reflected on thecomment of one of the quality experts: ‘‘Quality has become a condition of entrance to themarket. If the product is not good, you will quickly go out of business.’’ The quality issue wasat least worth exploring. Moreover, she decided that it may be too risky not to assess her com-pany’s quality performance. She knew that her company produced most of the informationneeded for quality cost reporting—but there never had been a need to bother with any formalquality data gathering and analysis.





This conference, however, had convinced her that a firm’s profitability can increase signifi-cantly by improving quality—provided the potential for improvement exists. Thus, before com-mitting the company to a quality-improvement program, Danna contacted her controller andrequested a preliminary estimate of the total quality costs currently being incurred. She alsoinstructed the controller to classify quality costs into four categories: prevention, appraisal, inter-nal failure, and external failure costs. The controller has gathered the following information fromthe past year, 2011:

a. Sales revenue is $30,000,000; net income is $6,000,000.b. During the year, customers returned 90,000 units needing repair. Repair cost averages $7

per unit.c. Ten inspectors are employed, each earning an annual salary of $45,000. These 10 inspectors

are involved only with final inspection (product acceptance).d. Total scrap is 90,000 units. All scrap is quality related. The cost of scrap is about $15 per

unit.e. Each year, approximately 450,000 units are rejected in final inspection. Of these units, 80

percent can be recovered through rework. The cost of rework is $3 per unit.f. A customer canceled an order that would have increased profits by $750,000. The custom-

er’s reason for cancellation was poor product performance. The Accounting and MarketingDepartments agree that the company loses at least this much each year for the same reason.

g. The company employs eight full-time employees in its Complaint Department. Each earns$37,500 a year.

h. The company gave sales allowances totaling $375,000 due to substandard products beingsent to the customer.

i. The company requires all new employees to take its three-hour quality training program.The estimated annual cost of the program is $240,000.

j. Inspection of the final product requires testing equipment. The annual cost of operating andmaintaining this equipment is $360,000.

Required:1. Prepare a simple quality cost report, classifying costs by category. Comment on the quality

costs/sales ratio.2. Discuss the distribution of quality costs among the four categories. Are they properly distrib-

uted? Explain.3. Discuss how the company can improve its overall quality and at the same time reduce total

quality costs. Consider specifically the strategy advocated by the American Society for QualityControl.

4. Suppose Karlene Company decides that a five-year program will reduce quality costs to 2.5percent of sales and that control costs will be 80 percent of total quality costs. Calculate theincome increase that will occur if sales remain at $30,000,000. Also, calculate the totalamount spent on control and failure costs.

5. Refer to Requirements 1 and 4. Suppose that Karlene decides to create a bonus pool to allowemployees to share in the benefits from quality improvements. The bonus pool is 20 percentof quality cost reductions. How much will be put in the bonus pool for the five-year period?Why establish such a pool? Suppose that Karlene’s quality manager suggests that the bonusbe based only on reductions of appraisal and failure costs. Explain why he might suggest thismodification. Do you agree?

6. For Karlene Company, hidden quality costs are estimated by using a multiplier of three.What are the actual external failure costs? What methods are available for estimating hiddenquality costs? What effect does this estimation have on a quality-improvement strategy?Finally, should reductions of these costs be included in the bonus pool mentioned inRequirement 5? If included, what would be the effect on the bonus pool?

Problem 34 Quality Costs; Pricing Decisions; Market ShareTannert Company manufactures furniture. One of its product lines is an economy-line kitchentable. During the last year, Tannert produced and sold 100,000 units for $100 per unit. Sales of

OBJECTIVE•3



the table are on a bid basis, but Tannert has always been able to win sufficient bids using the$100 price. This year, however, Tannert was losing more than its share of bids. Concerned, LarryFranklin, owner and president of the company, called a meeting of his executive committee(Megan Johnson, marketing manager; Fred Davis, quality manager; Kevin Jones, productionmanager; and Helen Jackson, controller).

Larry: ‘‘I don’t understand why we’re losing bids. Megan, do you have an explanation?’’

Megan: ‘‘Yes, as a matter of fact. Two competitors have lowered their price to $92 per unit.That’s too big a difference for most of our buyers to ignore. If we want to keep selling our100,000 units per year, we will need to lower our price to $92. Otherwise, our sales will drop tobetween 20,000 and 25,000 per year.’’

Helen: ‘‘The unit contribution margin on the table is $10. Lowering the price to $92 willcost us $8 per unit. Based on a sales volume of 100,000, we’d make $200,000 in contributionmargin. If we keep the price at $100, our contribution margin would be $200,000 to $250,000.If we have to lose, let’s just take the lower market share. It’s better than lowering our prices.’’

Megan: ‘‘Perhaps. But the same thing could happen to some of our other product lines.My sources tell me that these two companies are on the tail end of a major quality-improvementprogram—one that allows them significant savings. We need to rethink our whole competitivestrategy—at least if we want to stay in business. Ideally, we should match the price reduction andwork to reduce the costs to recapture the lost contribution margin.’’

Fred: ‘‘I think I have something to offer. We are about to embark on a new quality-improvement program of our own. I have brought the following estimates of the current qualitycosts for this economy line. As you can see on the overhead, these costs run about 16 percent ofcurrent sales. That’s excessive, and we believe that they can be reduced to about 4 percent of salesover time.’’

Scrap $ 700,000Rework 300,000Rejects (sold as seconds to discount houses) 250,000Returns (due to poor workmanship) 350,000

$1,600,000

Larry: ‘‘This sounds good. Fred, how long will it take you to achieve this reduction?’’

Fred: ‘‘Because all these costs vary with sales level, I’ll express their reduction rate in thoseterms. Our best guess is that we can reduce these costs by about 1 percent of sales per quarter.So it should take about 12 quarters, or three years, to achieve the full benefit. Keep in mind thatthis is with an improvement in quality.’’

Megan: ‘‘This offers us some hope. If we meet the price immediately, we can maintain ourmarket share. Furthermore, if we can ever reach the point of reducing the price beyond the $92level, then we can increase our market share. I estimate that we can increase sales by about10,000 units for every $1 of price reduction beyond the $92 level. Kevin, how much extracapacity for this line do we have?’’

Kevin: ‘‘We can handle an extra 30,000 or 40,000 tables per year.’’

Required:1. Assume that Tannert immediately reduces the bid price to $92. How long will it be before

the unit contribution margin is restored to $10, assuming that quality costs are reduced asexpected and sales are maintained at 100,000 units per year (25,000 per quarter)?

2. Assume that Tannert holds the price at $92 until the 4 percent target is achieved. At thisnew level of quality costs, should the price be reduced? If so, by how much should the pricebe reduced, and what is the increase in contribution margin? Assume that the price can bereduced only in $1 increments.



3. Assume that Tannert immediately reduces the price to $92 and begins the quality-improve-ment program. Now, suppose that Tannert does not wait until the end of the three-year pe-riod before reducing prices. Instead, prices will be reduced when profitable to do so. Assumethat prices can be reduced only by $1 increments. Identify when the first future price changeshould occur (if any).

4. Discuss the differences in viewpoints concerning the decision to decrease prices and theshort-run contribution margin analysis done by Helen, the controller. Did quality cost infor-mation play an important role in the strategic decision making illustrated by the problem?

Problem 35 Quality Costs; Cost-Volume-Profit AnalysisAt the end of 2010, Graylevy Machining hired Mary Lou Morris to manage one of its troubleddivisions. Mary Lou had the reputation of turning around businesses that were having difficulty.In 2011, the division had sales of $300 million, a unit-level variable cost ratio of 0.8, and totalfixed costs of $72 million. The division produced only one product, and all sales were to externalcustomers. Seeking to solve the division’s problems, Mary Lou asked for a report on quality costsfor 2011 and received the following report:

Fixed Variable (unit-level)

Prevention $ 2,400,000 —Appraisal 3,600,000 $12,000,000Internal failure 6,000,000 24,000,000External failure 12,000,000 60,000,000

Total $24,000,000 $96,000,000

Mary Lou was astounded at the level of expenditure on quality costs. Although she had heard ofcompanies with quality costs that had reached as high as 60 percent of sales, she had never per-sonally seen any greater than 20 to 30 percent of sales. This division’s level of 40 percent wasclearly excessive. She immediately implemented a program to improve conformance quality. Bythe end of 2012, the following quality costs were reported:


Prevention $12,000,000 —Appraisal 12,000,000 $12,000,000Internal failure 6,000,000 12,000,000External failure 12,000,000 42,000,000

Total $42,000,000 $66,000,000

Revenues and other costs were unchanged for 2012.Mary Lou projects that by 2016 the defective rate will be 0.1 percent, compared to the rate

of 2 percent for 2011. She also projects that quality costs will be reduced to $6 million, distrib-uted as follows:


Prevention $2,400,000 —Appraisal 2,400,000 —Internal failure — $ 240,000External failure — 960,000

Total $4,800,000 $1,200,000

Required:1. Calculate the break-even point in revenues for 2011. How much was the division losing?2. Calculate the break-even point in 2012. Explain the change.3. Calculate the break-even point in 2016, assuming that revenues and other costs have

remained the same. Is it possible to reduce quality costs as dramatically as portrayed?4. Assume that from 2011 to 2016, the division was forced to cut selling prices so that total rev-

enues dropped to $180 million. Calculate the income (loss) that would be reported under a2011 cost structure. Now, calculate the income (loss) that would be reported under the2016 quality cost structure (assuming all other costs remain unchanged). Discuss the strate-gic significance of quality cost management.

OBJECTIVE•2•3



Problem 36 Quality Cost Report; Quality Cost CategoriesIn September 2010, Olson Company received a report from an external consulting group on itsquality costs. The consultants reported that the company’s quality costs total about 25 percent ofits sales revenues. Somewhat shocked by the magnitude of the costs, Frank Roosevelt, presidentof Olson Company, decided to launch a major quality-improvement program. This program wasscheduled for implementation in January 2011. The program’s goal was to reduce quality coststo 2.5 percent by the end of 2011 by improving overall quality.

In 2011, it was decided to reduce quality costs to 22 percent of sales revenues. Managementfelt that the amount of reduction was reasonable and that the goal could be realized. To improvethe monitoring of the quality-improvement program, Frank directed Pamela Golding, the con-troller, to prepare quarterly performance reports comparing budgeted and actual quality costs.He told Pamela that improving quality should reduce quality costs by 1 percent of sales for eachof the first three quarters and 2 percent in the last quarter. Sales are projected at $5 million perquarter. Based on the consulting report and the targeted reductions, Pamela prepared the budg-ets for the first two quarters of the year:

Quarter 1 Quarter 2

Sales $5,000,000 $5,000,000Quality costs:

Warranty $ 300,000 $ 250,000Scrap 150,000 125,000Incoming materials inspection 25,000 50,000Product acceptance 125,000 150,000Quality planning 40,000 60,000Field inspection 30,000 0Retesting 50,000 40,000Allowances 65,000 50,000New product review 10,000 10,000Rework 130,000 100,000Complaint adjustment 60,000 20,000Downtime (defective parts) 50,000 40,000Repairs 50,000 35,000Product liability 85,000 60,000Quality training 30,000 70,000Quality engineering 0 40,000Design verification 0 20,000Process control measurement 0 30,000

Total budgeted costs $1,200,000 $1,150,000Quality costs/sales ratio 24% 23%

Required:1. Assume that Olson Company reduces quality costs as indicated. What will quality costs be as

a percentage of sales for the entire year? For the end of the fourth quarter? Will the companyachieve its goal of reducing quality costs to 22 percent of sales?

2. Reorganize the quarterly budgets so that quality costs are grouped in one of four categories:prevention, appraisal, internal failure, or external failure (effectively, prepare a budgeted costof quality report). Also, identify each cost as variable or fixed. (Assume that none are mixedcosts.)

3. Compare the two quarterly budgets. What do they reveal about the quality-improvementplans of Olson Company?

Problem 37 Distribution of Quality CostsPaper Products Division produces disposable diapers, napkins, and paper towels. The divisionalmanager has decided that quality costs can be minimized by distributing quality costs evenlyamong the four quality categories and reducing them to no more than 5 percent of sales. He hasjust received the following quality cost report:

OBJECTIVE•1•2

OBJECTIVE•2



Paper Products DivisionQuality Cost Report

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Diapers Napkins Towels Total

Prevention:Quality training $ 3,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,000 $ 7,500Quality engineering 3,500 1,000 2,500 7,000Quality audits — 500 1,000 1,500Quality reporting 2,500 2,000 1,000 5,500

Total $ 9,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,500 $ 21,500Appraisal:

Inspection, materials $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 8,000Process acceptance 4,000 2,800 1,200 8,000Product acceptance 2,000 1,200 2,300 5,500

Total $ 8,000 $ 7,000 $ 6,500 $ 21,500Internal failure:

Scrap $10,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,500 $ 15,500Disposal costs 7,000 2,000 1,500 10,500Downtime 1,000 1,500 2,500 5,000

Total $18,000 $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 31,000External failure:

Allowances $10,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,750 $ 15,750Customer complaints 4,000 1,500 3,750 9,250Product liability 1,000 — — 1,000

Total $15,000 $ 4,500 $ 6,500 $ 26,000Total quality costs $50,000 $24,000 $26,000 $100,000

Assume that all prevention costs are fixed and that the remaining quality costs are variable.

Required:1. Assume that the sales revenue for the year totaled $2 million, with sales for each product as

follows: diapers, $1 million; napkins, $600,000; and towels, $400,000. Evaluate the distribu-tion of costs for the division as a whole and for each product line. What recommendationsdo you have for the divisional manager?

2. Now, assume a different scenario, where total sales of $1 million have this breakdown: dia-pers, $500,000; napkins, $300,000; and towels, $200,000. Evaluate the distribution of costsfor the division as a whole and for each product line in this case. Do you think it is possibleto reduce the quality costs to 5 percent of sales for each product line and for the division as awhole and, simultaneously, achieve an equal distribution of the quality costs? What recom-mendations do you have?

3. Assume total sales of $1 million with this breakdown: diapers, $500,000; napkins, $180,000;and towels, $320,000. Evaluate the distribution of quality costs. What recommendations forthe divisional manager do you have?

4. Discuss the value of having quality costs reported by segment.

Problem 38 Trend Analysis; Quality CostsIn 2010, Don Blackburn, president of Sunnydance Enterprises, received a report indicating thatquality costs were 21 percent of sales. Faced with increasing pressures from imported goods, Donresolved to take measures to improve the overall quality of the company’s products. After hiringa consultant, the company began, in 2008, an aggressive program of total quality control. At theend of 2014, Don requested an analysis of the progress the company had made in reducing andcontrolling quality costs. The Accounting Department assembled the following data:

Sales Prevention Appraisal Internal Failure External Failure

2010 $1,000,000 $10,000 $20,000 $ 80,000 $100,0002011 1,200,000 30,000 40,000 100,000 120,0002012 1,400,000 60,000 50,000 60,000 80,0002013 1,200,000 70,000 70,000 40,000 50,0002014 1,000,000 70,000 30,000 16,000 24,000

OBJECTIVE•2



Required:1. Compute the quality costs as a percentage of sales by category and in total for each year.2. Explain why quality costs increased in total and as a percentage of sales in 2011, the first year

of the quality-improvement program.3. Prepare a multiple-year trend graph for quality costs, both by total costs and by category.

Using the graph, assess the progress made in reducing and controlling quality costs. Doesthe graph provide evidence that quality has improved? Explain.

Problem 39 Profit-Linked Measurement; Price Recovery; GainsharingHillock Company produces handcrafted wool ponchos. Virtually all the manufacturing cost con-sists of materials and labor. Over the past several years, profits have been declining because thecost of the two major inputs has been increasing. David Hillock, the president of the company,has indicated that the price of the sweaters cannot be increased; thus, the only way to improve orat least stabilize profits is to increase overall productivity. At the beginning of 2011, he imple-mented a new productivity program. To encourage greater attention to productivity, Davidestablished a bonus pool, equal to 10 percent of the productivity gains. David now wants toknow how much profits have increased from the prior year because of the productivity program.In order to provide this information to the president, the following data have been gathered:

2010 2011

Unit selling price $80 $80Output produced and sold 300,000 360,000Materials used (lbs.) 600,000 600,000Labor used (hrs.) 150,000 150,000Unit price of materials $20 $22Unit price of labor $13 $15

Required:1. Compute the partial productivity ratios for each year. Comment on the effectiveness of the

productivity improvement program.2. Compute the increase in profits attributable to increased productivity, net of gainsharing.3. Calculate the price-recovery component, and comment on its meaning. Ignore the bonus

cost in this calculation.

Problem 40 Productivity MeasurementIn 2010, Hepworth Products, Inc., used the following input combination to produce 8,000 unitsof output:

Materials 17,600 lbs.Labor 16,000 hrs.

The following combination is optimal for an output of 8,000 units (but unknown to HepworthProducts):


The cost of materials is $40 per pound, and the cost of labor is $10 per hour. These input priceshold for 2010 and 2011. In 2011, Hepworth Products again produced 8,000 units, with the fol-lowing input combination:


Required:1. Compute the partial productivity ratios for each of the following:

a. The actual inputs used in 2010.b. The actual inputs used in 2011.c. The optimal input combination.

Did productivity increase in 2011—as measured by the partial ratios?2. Compute the cost of 2010’s productive inefficiency relative to the optimal input combination.3. By how much did profits increase because of improvements in productive efficiency from

2010 to 2011?

OBJECTIVE•4

OBJECTIVE•4



4. How much additional improvement in profits is possible after 2011 (assuming input costsremain the same and output doesn’t change)?

Problem 41 Productivity Measurement; Partial and Total Measures; Price RecoveryThe battery division of Chalmur Company has recently engaged in a vigorous effort to increaseproductivity. Over the past several years, competition had intensified, indicating to the divisionalmanager that a significant price decrease for Chalmur’s batteries was in order. Otherwise, thedivision would lose at least 50 percent of its market share.

To maintain its market share, Chalmur had to decrease its per-unit price by $2.50 by the end of2012. Decreasing the price by $2.50, however, necessitated a similar increase in cost efficiency. Ifdivisional profits dropped by $2.50 per unit, the division’s continued existence would be in question.To assess the outcome of the productivity improvement program, the following data were gathered:

2010 2011

Output 400,000 500,000Input quantities:

Materials (lbs.) 100,000 100,000Labor (hrs.) 400,000 200,000Capital $4,000,000 $10,000,000Energy (kwhs.) 100,000 300,000

Input prices:Materials $2.00 $3.00Labor $8.00 $10.00Capital 15% 10%Energy $2.00 $2.00

Required:1. Calculate the partial productivity ratios for each year. Can you say that productivity has

improved? Explain.2. Calculate the profit change attributable to productivity changes.3. Calculate the cost per unit for 2010 and 2011. Was the division able to decrease its per-unit

cost by at least $2.50? Comment on the relationship between competitive advantage andproductive efficiency.

Problem 42 Quality and Productivity; Interaction; Use of Operational MeasuresAndy Confer, production-line manager, had arranged a visit with Will Keating, plant manager.He had some questions about the new operational measures that were being used.

Andy: ‘‘Will, my questions are more to satisfy my curiosity than anything else. At the begin-ning of the year, we began some new procedures that required us to work toward increasing ouroutput per pound of material and decreasing our output per labor hour. As instructed, I’ve beentracking these operational measures for each batch we’ve produced so far this year. Here’s a copyof a trend report for the first five batches of the year. Each batch had 10,000 units in it.’’

BatchesMaterials Usage

(lbs.) RatioLabor Usage

(hrs.) Ratio

1 4,000 2.50 2,000 5.002 3,900 2.56 2,020 4.953 3,750 2.67 2,150 4.654 3,700 2.70 2,200 4.555 3,600 2.78 2,250 4.44

Will: ‘‘Andy, this report is very encouraging. The trend is exactly what we hoped for. I’ll betwe meet our goal of reaching the batch productivity measures. Let’s see, the goals for this yearwere 3 units per pound for materials and 4 units per hour for labor. Last year’s figures were 2.5for materials and 5 for labor. Things are looking good. I guess tying bonuses and raises toimproving these productivity stats was a good idea.’’

Andy: ‘‘Maybe so, but I don’t understand why you want to make these trade-offs betweenmaterials and labor. The materials cost only $5 per pound, and labor costs $10 per hour. It seemslike you’re simply increasing the cost of making this product.’’

OBJECTIVE•4

OBJECTIVE•4



Will: ‘‘Actually, it may seem that way, but it’s not so. There are other factors to consider. Youknow we’ve been talking quality improvement. Well, the new procedures that you are implement-ing are producing products that conform to the product’s specification. More labor time is neededto achieve this, and as we take more time, we do waste fewer materials. But the real benefit is thereduction in our external failure costs. Every defect in a batch of 10,000 units costs us $1,000—warranty work, lost sales, a Customer Service Department, and so on. If we can reach the materialsand labor productivity goals, our defects will drop from 20 per batch to 5 per batch.’’

Required:1. Discuss the advantages of using only operational measures of productivity for controlling

shop-level activities.2. Assume that the batch productivity statistics are met by the end of the year. Calculate the

change in a batch’s profits from the beginning of the year to the end attributable to changesin materials and labor productivity.

3. Now, assume that three inputs are to be evaluated: materials, labor, and quality. Quality ismeasured by the number of defects per batch. Calculate the change in a batch’s profits fromthe beginning of the year to the end attributable to changes in productivity of all threeinputs. Do you agree that quality is an input? Explain.

Problem 43 Productivity; Trade-offsConnie Baker, president of Fleming Chemicals, has just concluded a meeting with two of herplant managers. She told each that their product was going to have a 50 percent increase indemand next year over this year’s output (which is expected to be 10,000 gallons). A major for-eign source of the material had been shut down because of civil war. It would be years before thesource would be available again. The result was twofold. First, the price of the material wasexpected to quadruple. Second, many of the less efficient competitors would leave the business,creating more demand and higher output prices—in fact, output prices would double.

In discussing the situation with her plant managers, Connie reminded them that the auto-mated process now allowed them to increase the productivity of the material. By using moremachine hours, evaporation could be decreased significantly (this was a recent development andwould be operational by the beginning of the new fiscal year). There were, however, only twoother feasible settings beyond the current setting. The current usage of inputs for the 10,000 gal-lon output (current setting) and the input usage for the other two settings follow. The inputusage for the remaining two settings is for an output of 15,000 gallons. Inputs are measured ingallons for the material and in machine hours for the equipment.

Current Setting Setting A Setting B

Input quantities:Materials (gals.) 25,000 15,000 30,000Equipment (hrs.) 6,000 15,000 7,500

The current prices for this year’s inputs are $3 per gallon for materials and $12 per machine hourfor the equipment. The materials price will change for next year as explained, but the $12 rate formachine hours will remain the same. The chemical is currently selling for $20 per gallon. Based onseparate productivity analyses, one plant manager chose Setting A, and the other chose Setting B.

The manager who chose Setting B justified his decision by noting that it was the only settingthat clearly signaled an increase in both partial measures of productivity. The other manageragreed that Setting B was an improvement but that Setting A was even better.

Required:1. Calculate the partial measures of productivity for the current year and for the two settings.

Which of the two settings signals an increase in productivity for both inputs?2. Calculate the profits that will be realized under each setting for the coming year. Which set-

ting provides the greatest profit increase?3. Calculate the profit change for each setting attributable to productivity changes. Which

setting offers the greatest productivity improvement? By how much? Explain why thishappened. (Hint: Look at trade-offs.)

OBJECTIVE•4



CASES

Case 44 Quality Cost Performance ReportsNickles Company, a large printer, is in its fourth year of a five-year quality-improvement pro-gram. The program began in 2010 with an internal study that revealed the quality costs beingincurred. In that year, a plan was developed to lower quality costs to 10 percent of sales by theend of 2014. Sales and quality costs for each year are as follows:

Sales Revenues Quality Costs

2010 $10,000,000 $2,000,0002011 10,000,000 1,800,0002012 11,000,000 1,815,0002013 12,000,000 1,680,0002014* 12,000,000 1,320,000

*Budgeted figures

Quality costs by category are expressed as a percentage of sales as follows:

Prevention Appraisal Internal Failure External Failure

2010 1.0% 3.0% 7.0% 9.0%2011 2.0 4.0 6.0 6.02012 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.02013 3.0 3.5 4.5 3.02014 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0

The detail of the 2014 budget for quality costs is also provided.

Prevention costs:Quality planning $ 150,000Quality training 20,000Quality improvement (special project) 80,000Quality reporting 10,000

Appraisal costs:Proofreading 500,000Other inspection 50,000

Failure costs:Correction of typos 150,000Rework (because of customer complaints) 75,000Plate revisions 55,000Press downtime 100,000Waste (because of poor work) 130,000

Total quality costs $1,320,000

All prevention costs are fixed; all other quality costs are variable.During 2014, the company had $12 million in sales. Actual quality costs for 2013 and 2014

are as follows:

2013 2014

Quality planning $140,000 $150,000Quality training 20,000 20,000Special project 120,000 100,000Quality reporting 12,000 12,000Proofreading 580,000 520,000Other inspection 80,000 60,000Correction of typos 200,000 165,000Rework 131,000 76,000Plate revisions 83,000 58,000Press downtime 123,000 102,000Waste 191,000 136,000

OBJECTIVE•2



Required:1. Prepare a quality cost performance report for 2014 that compares actual 2014 quality costs

with budgeted quality costs. Comment on the firm’s ability to achieve its quality goals forthe year.

2. Prepare a one-period quality performance report for 2014 that compares the actual costs of2013 with the actual costs of 2014. How much did profits change because of improved quality?

3. Prepare a graph that shows the trend in total quality costs as a percentage of sales since theinception of the quality-improvement program.

4. Prepare a graph that shows the trend for all four quality cost categories for 2010 through2014. How does this graph show management that the reduction in total quality costs isattributable to quality improvements?

Case 45 Quality Performance and Ethical BehaviorReece Manufacturing rewards its plant managers for their ability to meet budgeted quality costreductions. The bonus is increased if the productivity goal is met or exceeded. The productivitygoal is computed by multiplying the units produced by the prevailing market price and dividingthis measure of output by the total cost of the inputs used. Additionally, if the plant as a wholemeets the budgeted targets, the production supervisors and workers receive salary and wageincreases. Matt Rasmussen, the manager of a plant in Nebraska, feels obligated to do everythinghe can to provide this increase to his employees. Accordingly, he has decided to take the follow-ing actions during the last quarter of the year to meet the plant’s budgeted targets and increasethe productivity ratio:

a. Decrease inspections of the process and final product by 50 percent and transfer inspectorstemporarily to quality training programs. Matt believes this move will increase the inspectors’awareness of the importance of quality; also, decreasing inspection will produce significantlyless downtime and less rework. By increasing the output and decreasing the costs of internalfailure, the plant can meet the budgeted reductions for internal failure costs and, simultane-ously, increase its productivity measure. Also, by showing an increase in the costs of qualitytraining, the budgeted level for prevention costs can be met.

b. Delay replacing and repairing defective products until the beginning of the following year.While this may increase customer dissatisfaction somewhat, Matt believes that most custom-ers expect some inconvenience. Besides, the policy of promptly dealing with dissatisfied cus-tomers could be reinstated in three months. In the meantime, the action would significantlyreduce the costs of external failure, allowing the plant to meet its budgeted target.

Required:1. Evaluate Matt’s ethical behavior, taking into account his concern for his employees. Is he jus-

tified in pursuing the actions described in the problem? If not, what should he do instead?2. Assume that the company views Matt’s behavior as undesirable. What can it do to discourage it?3. Assume that Matt is a CMA and a member of the IMA (Institute of Management). Review

the Institute of Management Accountants ‘‘Statement of Ethical Professional Practice’’found at http://www.imanet.org/PDFs/Statement%20of%20Ethics_web.pdf. Are any ofthese ethical standards violated?

OBJECTIVE•1•4


disabled costs and productivity - · pdf filedisabled after studying this chapter, ... and...

Documents