Chapter 15 Quality Costs and Productivity : Measurement, Reporting, and Control

550011
CHAPTER 15
QUALITY COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY:
MEASUREMENT, REPORTING, AND CONTROL
QUESTIONS FOR WRITING AND DISCUSSION
1. Quality is meeting or exceeding customer
expectations on such dimensions as perfor-
mance, features, reliability, and confor-
mance.
2. Reliability is the probability that a product or
service will function as intended for a speci-
fied period of time. Durability is how long the
product lasts.
3. Quality of conformance refers to the ability
of a product to meet or exceed its specifica-
tions.
4. The traditional view requires a product to
conform to specifications that allow accept-
able deviations from a target value. The ro-
bust view requires the product to meet the
target value.
5. Quality costs are the costs incurred because
poor quality may exist or poor quality does
exist. Thus, they are incurred because of
doing things wrong.
6. Prevention costs are incurred to prevent
poor quality; appraisal costs are incurred to
determine whether products are conforming
to specifications; internal failure costs are
incurred when nonconforming products are
detected prior to shipment; external failure
costs are incurred because nonconforming
products are delivered to customers.
7. External failure costs can be the most de-
vastating because of the warranty costs,
lawsuits, and damage to the reputation of a
company, all of which may greatly exceed
the costs of rework or scrap incurred from
internal failure costs.
8. Hidden quality costs are opportunity costs
that are not recorded by the organization’s
accounting records. Lost sales due to poor
quality is an example.
9. The three methods for estimating hidden
quality costs are the multiplier method, the
market research method, and the Taguchi
quality loss function.
10. A quality cost report highlights quality costs,
reveals their magnitude and their relative
distribution among categories, and thus re-
veals the potential for improvement.
11. The AQL model assumes that it is cost-
beneficial to produce a certain percentage of
defective products. The zero-defects model
assumes that producing any defective unit is
more costly than preventing its production.
12. There are two key differences. First, the
robust model tightens the definition of what
is meant by a defective product—any prod-
uct not meeting a target value. Second, the
robust model assumes that it is very costly
to vary from the target value, thus providing
additional opportunity to decrease quality
costs by improving quality.
13. Multiple-period trend analysis is used to
track the effects of quality-improvement ef-
forts by assessing the changes that occur
over time.
14. Total productive efficiency is the point where
technical and input trade-off efficiency are
achieved. It is the point where the optimal
quantity of inputs is used to produce a given
output.
15. If the productivity ratio (output/input) has
only one input, then it is a partial measure. If
all inputs are included, then it is a total
measure of productivity.
16. Partial measures can be misleading be-
cause they do not consider possible trade-
offs among inputs. They do, however, allow
some assessment of how well individual fac-
tors are being used and, additionally, often
serve as input to total measures. Total
measures are preferred because they pro-
vide a measure of the overall change in
productivity and allow managers to assess
trade-offs among inputs.

550022
17. Productivity improvement must be measured
with respect to a standard, generally the
productivity of a prior period.
18. Profit-linked productivity measurement is an
assessment of the amount of profit change,
from the base period to the current period,
attributable to productivity changes.
19. Profit-linked productivity measurement al-
lows managers to assess the economic ef-
fects of productivity improvement programs.
It also allows valuation of input trade-offs, a
critical element in planning productivity
changes.
20. The price-recovery component is the differ-
ence between the total profit change and the
change attributable to productivity effects.
21. Yes. Even if there are zero defects, there
are still ways of improving input-usage effi-
ciency, for example, moving from depart-
mental manufacturing to cellular manufactur-
ing.
22. Productivity and quality both offer opportuni-
ties to decrease costs and become more ef-
ficient and thus more competitive.
23. Quality is concerned with ensuring that
products are produced according to specifi-
cations, and productivity is concerned with
producing the output efficiently. Quality can
improve productivity, since improving quality
generally means using less inputs and be-
coming more efficient. Productivity, howev-
er, can be improved without quality im-
provements.
24. Gainsharing is establishing financial incen-
tives for productivity and quality perfor-
mance targets. The idea is to share any
quality and productivity gains with the em-
ployees who create them.

550033
EXERCISES
15–1
1. e 8. b
2. e 9. d
3. b 10. e
4. a 11. c
5. c 12. b
6. b 13. a
7. d 14. d
15–2
1. Internal failure
2. Appraisal
3. Internal failure
4. External failure
5. External failure
6. Prevention
7. Prevention
8. Appraisal
9. External failure
10. Internal failure
11. External failure
12. Appraisal
13. Prevention
16. Appraisal
19. Prevention
20. Appraisal
22. Prevention

550044
15–3
1. Multiplier method: 4 × $10,000,000 = $40,000,000
2. Taguchi: 12.5 × $80 × 45,000 = $45,000,000
15–4
1. Quality Cost Report
Wilmington Company
For the Year Ended December 31, 2007
Percentage of
Quality Costs Sales
Prevention costs:
Design review $150,000
Quality training 40,000 $ 190,000 3.17%
Appraisal costs:
Materials inspection $ 60,000
Process acceptance 0
Product inspection 50,000 110,000 1.83
Internal failure costs:
Reinspection $100,000
Scrap 145,000 245,000 4.08
External failure costs:
Recalls $200,000
Lost sales 300,000
Returned goods 155,000 655,000 10.92
Total quality costs $1,200,000 20.00%

550055
15–4 Concluded
Quality Cost Report
Wilmington Company
Percentage of
Quality Costs Sales
Prevention costs:
Design review $300,000
Appraisal costs:
Materials inspection $ 40,000
Process acceptance 50,000
Reinspection $ 50,000
Scrap 35,000 85,000 1.42
Recalls $100,000
Lost sales 200,000
Returned goods 95,000 395,000 6.58
The quality cost report communicates two major outcomes. First, the total
quality costs as a percentage of sales is quite high (20%), indicating that
there are significant opportunities to improve quality and reduce quality
costs. Second, most of the quality costs are failure costs and more invest-
ment in control costs are needed.
2. (Percentages are rounded to two decimal places)
Percentage of
Total Quality Costs
2007 2008
Prevention 0.16 0.40
Appraisal 0.09 0.12
Internal failure 0.20 0.09
External failure 0.55 0.40
In 2007 the control costs are 25% and the failure costs are 75% of total quality
costs. From 2007 to 2008, the company significantly increased its investment in
control costs.

550066
15–5
Norton Company
Percentage of
Quality Costs Sales
Prevention costs:
Field trials $ 450,000
Appraisal costs:
Packaging inspection $ 180,000
Process acceptance 0
Retesting 435,000 735,000 4.08
Recalls $ 600,000
Lost sales 900,000
Complaint adjustment 465,000 1,965,000 10.92
Total quality costs $ 3,600,000 20.00%

550077
15–5 Concluded
Quality Cost Report
Norton Company
Percentage of
Quality Costs Sales
Prevention costs:
Field trials $ 900,000
Quality training 300,000 $ 1,200,000 6.67%
Appraisal costs:
Packaging inspection $ 120,000
Process acceptance 150,000
Retesting 105,000 255,000 1.42
Recalls $ 300,000
Lost sales 600,000
Complaint adjustment 285,000 1,185,000 6.58
Total quality costs $ 3,000,000 16.67%
2. Additional investment = Increase in control costs
Control costs increase = $1,560,000 – $900,000 = $660,000
Failure costs reduction = $2,700,000 – $1,440,000 = $1,260,000
A $1,260,000 benefit for a $660,000 investment is certainly sound!
3. (0.1667 – 0.025)$18,000,000 = $2,550,600
The 2.5 percent goal is the level many quality experts identify as the one that
companies should strive to obtain. The experiences of real-world companies
such as Tennant Company show that it is an achievable goal. Also, although
most Japanese companies do not track quality costs, some have measured
their costs of quality and they generally tend to be less than 5 percent com-
pared with the U.S. experience of 20 to 30 percent.

550088
15–6
1. 2001: $12,000,000/$48,000,000 = 0.25
2008: $1,500,000/$60,000,000 = 0.025
Over a seven-year period, the quality costs-to-sales ratio improved from 25
percent to 2.5 percent. The 2.5 percent ratio is achievable as evidenced by the
experiences of real-world companies, [for example, Tennant Company re-
duced its costs-to-sales ratio from 17 percent to 2.5 percent over an eight-
year period (1980 to 1988)].
2. Internal failure: $3,600,000/$12,000,000 = 30%
External failure: $4,800,000/$12,000,000 = 40%
Appraisal: $2,160,000/$12,000,000 = 18%
Preventive: $1,440,000/$12,000,000 = 12%
The percentage of quality costs spent on internal and external failures is too
high. If costs are reduced to 2.5 percent, then the company is approaching the
goal of zero defects. As the zero-defect level is approached, failure costs will
approach zero, leaving the bulk of quality costs in the prevention and ap-
praisal categories. Of these two categories, the prevention category would
likely dominate.
3. Internal failure: $180,000/$1,500,000 = 12%
External failure: $120,000/$1,500,000 = 8%
Appraisal: $450,000/$1,500,000 = 30%
Preventive: $750,000/$1,500,000 = 50%
Quality costs are distributed better than in 2001. Control costs account for 80
percent of the total quality costs (versus only 30 percent in 2001). Failure
costs have shrunk from 70 percent of the total in 2001 to only 20 percent in
2008. Moreover, total quality costs have shrunk from 25 percent of sales to
2.5 percent of sales. Costs in every category have been reduced. Failure
costs are now only 0.5 percent of sales, which practice indicates is an empiri-
cal possibility. From an activity-based management perspective, further re-
ductions are possible, at least in the failure categories. These are nonvalue-
added costs and, in theory, can be reduced to zero.

550099
15–6 Concluded
4. Gainsharing provides a strong incentive for managers to improve quality and
reduce quality costs. Gainsharing is a good idea provided the incentive sys-
tem is carefully designed. The bonus must be truly based on quality im-
provements. Quality gains, stemming from quality cost reductions, must flow
from true quality improvements. Thus, there should be operational quality
measures that provide evidence of actual quality improvements. One possibil-
ity is to base bonuses only on reductions in failure and appraisal categories.
This provides an incentive for managers to invest in preventive activities—
actions that should reduce “poor” quality costs.
15–7
1. Only four of the activities should be implemented: quality training, process
control, supplier evaluation, and engineering redesign. Each of these four ac-
tivities reduces failure costs more than it costs to implement the activity (thus
increasing the bonus pool). The cost reduction for failures is less than the
amount spent for product inspection and prototype testing.
Total quality costs:
Current control $ 200,000
Quality training 200,000
Process control 250,000
Supplier evaluation 150,000
Redesign 50,000
Failure costs 230,000*
$1,080,000
*$50,000 + ($900,000 – $820,000) + ($250,000 – $150,000) (adds back cost re-
ductions of two activities not implemented)

551100
15–7 Concluded
2. a. Total quality costs were reduced by $920,000 ($2,000,000 – $1,080,000).
Quality training increased costs by $200,000 but reduced failure costs by
$500,000, for a net gain of $300,000. Process control increased costs by
$250,000 but decreased failure costs by $400,000, for a net gain of
$150,000. Supplier evaluation increased costs by $150,000 but decreased
failure costs by $570,000, for a net gain of $420,000. Engineering redesign
increased costs by $50,000 but decreased failure costs by $100,000, for a
net gain of $50,000.
Total net gain:
$300,000
150,000
420,000
50,000
$920,000
b. Distribution percentage:
Control costs: $850,000/$1,080,000 = 79% (rounded)
Failure costs: $230,000/$1,080,000 = 21% (rounded)
c. Bonus pool = 0.10 × $920,000 = $92,000
3. All of the same activities would be adopted plus prototype testing. Of the ac-
tivities adopted, training, supplier evaluation, engineering redesign, and pro-
totype testing are all prevention activities and so would not be counted in the
cost reduction calculation. Failure costs would now be $130,000 (prototype
addition reduces failure costs by an additional $100,000). The initial failure
and appraisal costs are $2,000,000 ($1,800,000 + $200,000). The ending failure
and appraisal costs are the sum of the current appraisal costs, ending failure
costs, and the cost of adding process control: $200,000 + $130,000 + $250,000
= $580,000. Thus, the cost reductions counted for the bonus pool would be
$1,420,000 ($2,000,000 – $580,000), and the bonus would be $142,000 (0.10 ×
$1,420,000). There is some merit to this approach as it encourages managers
to invest in value-added activities and avoid the temptation of reducing pre-
vention costs prematurely. It is possible, however, that some prevention ac-
tivities are not really worth doing and this approach may lead to an over-
investment in this category.

551111
15–8
Emery Manufacturing
Percentage of
Quality Costs Sales
Prevention costs:
Training program $ 36,000
Supplier evaluation 9,000 $ 45,000 1.5%
Appraisal costs:
Test labor $ 90,000
Inspection labor 75,000 165,000 5.5
Scrap $ 90,000
Rework 120,000 210,000 7.0
Consumer complaints $ 60,000
Warranty 120,000 180,000 6.0
Total quality costs $ 600,000 20.0%
2. Prevention 7.5% (0.015/0.20)
Appraisal 27.5% (0.055/0.20)
Internal failure 35.0% (0.07/0.20)
External failure 30.0% (0.06/0.20)
Only 35 percent of the total costs are control costs. This suggests a need to
push down failure costs by increasing control costs.
3. Hidden costs: $5 × 50,000 = $250,000. This changes the relative distribution to
24.7 percent control costs ($210,000/$850,000) and 75.3 percent failure costs
($640,000/$850,000). Adding the hidden costs to the total provides a greater
incentive to invest in control costs to drive down the failure costs.

551122
15–9
1. L = k(Y – T)2
where k = $120 and T = 32
Unit Measured Weight Y – T (Y – T)2
k(Y – T)2
1 32.30 0.30 0.0900 $ 10.80
2 32.75 0.75 0.5625 67.50
3 32.45 0.45 0.2025 24.30
4 31.75 –0.25 0.0625 7.50
5 31.90 –0.10 0.0100 1.20
0.9275 $111.30
Units ÷ 5 ÷ 5
Average 0.1855 $ 22.26
2. Hidden costs = $22.26 × 50,000 = $1,113,000

551133
15–10
1. There has been a steady downward trend in quality costs expressed as a per-
centage of sales. Costs declined in the last year so it is possible to reduce
costs more. Overall, the percentage has decreased from 29 percent to 12 per-
cent, a significant improvement.
Trend in Total Quality Costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
PercentageofSales

551144
15–10 Concluded
2.
Trend by Quality Cost Category
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
PercentageofSales
Prevention Appraisal Internal Failure External Failure
There have been significant reductions in internal and external failure costs.
Prevention costs have increased, while appraisal costs have remained the
same. The graph reveals the trend for each category of costs. It also reveals
how management is changing the expenditure pattern for each category. In
2004, a greater percentage of sales was spent on external and internal costs
than for appraisal and prevention costs. By contrast, in 2008, the amount
spent on internal and external failures is less than the amount spent on ap-
praisal and prevention. The strategy of shifting more resources to appraisal
and prevention seems to have worked since total quality costs have dropped
from 29 percent to 12 percent.

551155
15–11
1. Output-input ratios:
2007 2008
Materials 10,000/2500 = 4.0 10,000/2,000 = 5.0
Labor 10,000/8,000 =1.25 10,000/5,000 = 2.0
Both materials and labor productivity improved and so overall productivity
improved.
2. For this scenario, the partial productivity ratio for labor is 1.00 (10,000/10,000)
for 2008; thus, productivity went down for labor (from 1.25 to 1.00. In this
case, materials productivity improved while labor productivity declined. The
solution is to value the tradeoffs for the two inputs using the input prices:
Value of materials savings: (2,500 – 2,000)$8 = $4,000
Cost of increased labor: (8,000 – 10,000)$10 = ($20,000)
Thus, the cost of inputs increased by $16,000 signaling an overall decline in
productivity.
15–12
1. Output-input ratios (Combination A):
Energy: 400/200 = 2.00
Labor: 400/800 = 0.50
Yes, there is improvement. Current productivity is as follows:
Energy: 400/320 = 1.25
Labor: 400/1,280 = 0.31*
Since 2 > 1.25 and 0.50 > 0.31, Combination A dominates the current input
combination, and productivity would definitely improve.
Cost of current input combination: ($18 × 320) + ($15 × 1,280) = $24,960
Cost of input Combination A: ($18 × 200) + ($15 × 800) = 15,600
Value of productivity improvement 9,360
This improvement is all attributable to technical efficiency. The same output
is produced with proportionately less inputs (note that the inputs are in the
same ratio, 1:4, and that Combination A reduces each input in the same pro-
portion).
*Rounded

551166
2. Output-input ratios (Combination B):
Energy: 400/320 = 1.25
Labor: 400/500 = 0.80
Compared to the current use, productivity is the same for energy and better
for labor (1.25 = 1.25 and 0.80 > 0.31).
Compared to Combination A, however, Combination B has lower productivity
for energy (1.25 < 2.00) and higher productivity for labor (0.80 > 0.50). Trade-
offs must be considered.
3. Cost of Combination B: ($18 × 320) + ($15 × 500) = $13,260
Cost of Combination A: 15,600
Difference $ (2,340)
Combination B is a less costly input combination than A. Thus, less re-
sources are used by B than A, and moving from A to B would be a productivi-
ty improvement (same output at a lower cost). This is an example of improv-
ing price (input trade-off) efficiency.

551177
15–13
1. Partial operational productivity ratios:
2007 X: 96,000/12,000 = 8
2007 Y: 96,000/24,000 = 4
2008 X: 120,000/12,000 = 10
2008 Y: 120,000/35,000 = 3.43
Productivity improved for X but not for Input Y. We cannot say what hap-
pened to overall productivity using partial ratios because the signals are
mixed.
2. Profit-linked productivity measurement:
PQ* PQ × P AQ AQ × P (PQ × P) – (AQ × P)
Input X 15,000 $30,000 12,000 $24,000 $ 6,000
Input Y 30,000 150,000 35,000 175,000 ( 25,000)
$180,000 $199,000$( 19,000)
*Input X: 120,000/8 = 15,000; Input Y: 120,000/4 = 30,000
Profits decreased by $19,000 due to productivity changes.
3. Price recovery = Total profit change – Productivity-induced change
Total profit change:
[($2.50 × 120,000) – ($2 × 12,000) – ($5 × 35,000)] = $101,000
[($2 × 96,000) – ($1 × 12,000) – ($4 × 24,000)] = 84,000
$17,000
Price recovery = $17,000 + $19,000
= $36,000
Price recovery is the profit change that would have been realized without any
changes in productivity.

551188
15–14
1. Partial ratios:
Base Year Current Year
Materials 200,000/50,000 = 4 240,000/40,000 = 6.0
Labor 200,000/10,000 = 20 240,000/4,000 = 60.0
Capital 200,000/10,000 = 20 240,000/600,000 = 0.4
The increase in labor and materials productivity was caused by reducing la-
bor and material usage by using more capital input.
2. Profit-linked measurement:
Materials 60,000 $120,000 40,000 $ 80,000 $ 40,000
Labor 12,000 60,000 4,000 20,000 40,000
Capital 12,000 1,800 600,000 90,000 (88,200)
$181,800 $190,000 $ (8,200)
*240,000/4; 240,000/20; 240,000/20
Profits decreased by $8,200 due to productivity changes. Assuming that this
outcome will persist, the trade-off was not favorable, and automating was a
poor decision.

551199
15–15
Status Quoa
Proposal Ab
Proposal Bc
Materials 0.56* 0.67* 0.60
Labor 1.25 1.50 2.00
Energy 2.50 3.00 3.00
a
250,000/450,000; 250,000/200,000; 250,000/100,000
b
300,000/450,000; 300,000/200,000; 300,000/100,000
c
300,000/500,000; 300,000/150,000; 300,000/100,000
Both proposals improve technical efficiency because more output is pro-
duced per unit of input for all inputs. A recommendation cannot be made
without valuing trade-offs.
*Rounded
Proposal A:
Materials 535,714 $ 4,285,712 450,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 685,712
Labor 240,000 2,400,000 200,000 2,000,000 400,000
Energy 120,000 240,000 100,000 200,000 40,000
$ 6,925,712 $ 5,800,000 $ 1,125,712
Proposal B:
Materials 535,714 $ 4,285,712 500,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 285,712
Labor 240,000 2,400,000 150,000 1,500,000 900,000
Energy 120,000 240,000 100,000 200,000 40,000
$ 6,925,712 $ 5,700,000 $ 1,225,712
*300,000/0.56; 300,000/1.25; 300,000/2.5
The analysis favors Proposal B. Price efficiency is concerned with valuing
trade-offs. Once these trade-offs were valued, it became clear that Proposal B
was better than Proposal A.

552200
15–16
Without acquisition:
Materials: 10,000/40,000 = 0.25
Labor: 10,000/20,000 = 0.50
With acquisition:
Materials: 10,000/35,000 = 0.29*
Labor: 10,000/15,000 = 0.67*
Materials and labor productivity increase with the acquisition (as claimed by
the production manager).
*Rounded
2. To compare the alternatives, all inputs must be considered:
Partial operational productivity ratios:
With Without
Materials 0.29 0.25
Labor 0.67 0.50
Capital 0.10 0.50
Energy 0.40 1.00
The partial operational productivity ratios indicate a mixed outcome—some
improve and some do not. Trade-offs, therefore, must be valued.
Materials 40,000 $160,000 35,000 $140,000 $ 20,000
Labor 20,000 180,000 15,000 135,000 45,000
Capital 20,000 2,000 100,000 10,000 (8,000)
Energy 10,000 25,000 25,000 62,500 (37,500)
$367,000 $347,500 $ 19,500
*10,000/0.25; 10,000/0.50; 10,000/0.50; 10,000/1.0
The trade-offs are favorable. The system will increase profitability by $19,500.

552211
15–17
1. Partial operational productivity measures:
Base Yeara
Current Yearb
Materials 0.75 1.00
Labor 3.00 2.00
a
150,000/200,000; 150,000/50,000
b
180,000/180,000; 180,000/90,000
2. Income statements:
Base Year Current Year
Sales $ 3,000,000 $ 3,600,000
Materials (1,000,000) (1,080,000)
Labor (400,000) (720,000)
Income $ 1,600,000 $ 1,800,000
Change in income = $1,800,000 – $1,600,000
= $200,000
Materials 240,000 $1,440,000 180,000 $1,080,000 $ 360,000
Labor 60,000 480,000 90,000 720,000 (240,000)
$1,920,000 $1,800,000 $ 120,000
*180,000/0.75; 180,000/3.00
Change attributable to productivity = $120,000
4. Price-recovery component = $200,000 – $120,000
= $80,000
In the absence of productivity changes, input costs would have increased by
$520,000 ($1,920,000 – $1,400,000), and this increase would have been more
than offset by the $600,000 increase in revenues, producing an $80,000 in-
crease in profits. Price recovery is simply the amount by which profits will
change without considering any productivity changes. The productivity im-
provement adds an additional $120,000 so that total profits increased by
$200,000.

552222
PROBLEMS
15–18
1. Prevention
2. Internal failure
3. Internal failure
4. External failure
5. Prevention
6. Appraisal
7. Internal failure
8. Prevention
9. Prevention
12. Appraisal
15. Appraisal
16. Prevention
18. Appraisal
19. Prevention
20. Prevention
22. Appraisal
23. Appraisal
25. Appraisal
15–19
1. e
2. f
3. d
4. b
5. g
6. c
7. k
8. i
9. h
10. a
11. l
12. j
13. o
14. n
15. m

552233
15–20
1. Percentage of
Quality Costs Sales
Prevention costs:
Quality training $ 240,000 0.80%
Appraisal costs:
Product inspection $450,000
Test equipment 360,000 810,000 2.70
Scrap $1,350,000
Rework 1,080,0002,430,000 8.10
Repair $630,000
Order cancellation 750,000
Customer complaints 300,000
Sales allowances 375,000 2,055,000 6.85
The president should be concerned because the quality cost ratio is 18.45
percent, and the quality costs are almost as large as income. Although the ra-
tio is lower than the 20 to 30 percent range many companies apparently have
(or had), there is still ample opportunity for improvement. In fact, if quality is
improved to the point where quality costs are 2.5 percent of sales, total quali-
ty costs would be $750,000. Thus, improving quality offers a profit improve-
ment potential of $4,785,000 ($5,535,000 – $750,000).

552244
15–20 Continued
2. Prevention: $240,000/5,535,000 = 4.4% (rounded up)
Appraisal: $810,000/5,535,000 = 14.6%
Internal failure: $2,430,000/5,535,000 = 43.9%
External failure: $2,055,000/5,535,000 = 37.1%
It seems that 81 percent of the total quality costs are spent on failure costs.
These costs are nonvalue-added costs and should eventually be eliminated
(as eventually should appraisal costs, according to the results achieved).
Prevention and appraisal activities should be given much more emphasis. If
anything, experiences of real-world companies (e.g., Tennant and Westing-
house) indicate that the control costs should be 81 percent and the failure
costs 19 percent. The distribution of quality costs needs to be reversed!
3. The fundamental principle that needs to be understood and emphasized is
that quality is essentially free. Quality costs exist because poor quality either
exists or may exist. The key, therefore, to reducing quality costs is improving
quality. The strategy advocated by the ASQC is directly attacking failure costs
to drive them to zero. This is done by investing in control activities, particu-
larly prevention activities, reducing appraisal costs as appropriate. It as-
sumes that there is a root cause for each failure, that it is preventable, and
that the costs of prevention are always less than failure. Activity management
can play an important role in this effort. For Troy Company, activity selection
and activity reduction are vital elements. More attention needs to be paid to
control activities, especially prevention. More than quality training is needed.
Other prevention activities like quality engineering, quality planning, design
verification, and statistical process control could bring significant benefits.
Initially, more may be spent as these activities are introduced to reduce the
internal and external failure activities.

552255
15–20 Concluded
4. Total costs of quality = 0.025 × $30,000,000 = $750,000
Control costs: 0.80 × $750,000 = $600,000
Failure costs: 0.20 × $750,000 = $150,000
Profit improvement = $4,785,000 ($5,535,000 - $750,000)
5. Bonus pool = 0.20 × $4,785,000 = $957,000. Establishing a bonus pool allows
employees to share in the gains from quality and thus provides an incentive
to improve quality. Pay-for-performance plans, however, must be carefully
designed. Paying for reductions in quality costs is OK provided the cost re-
ductions actually are due to quality improvements. The suggestion by the
quality manager addresses this very issue. By exempting prevention costs
and paying only for reductions in nonvalue-added costs, the incentive is to
invest in prevention activities and to reduce failure and appraisal activities. A
good suggestion, but it carries with it the risk of overinvesting in prevention
activities.
6. Actual external failure costs = 3 × $2,055,000 = $6,165,000. Other methods be-
sides the multiplier approach are market research and the Taguchi quality
loss function. Knowing the hidden failure costs provides additional justifica-
tion for investing in prevention activities. The hidden costs strengthen the
case for a vigorous quality improvement program. Including the costs in the
bonus pool would perhaps strengthen the incentive to improve quality and
also increase the awareness of how important quality is to customers. The
downside is the fact that these costs are not directly observable and must be
estimated each year. If included, total quality costs increase by $4,110,000
(6,165,000 – 2,055,000) (in the initial year). Since quality costs are reduced to
$750,000, this means that the quality cost reductions also increase by
$4,110,000. Thus, the bonus pool for the five-year period would be increased
by $822,000 (0.20 × $4,110,000).

552266
15–21
1. Lost contribution margin = $8 × 100,000
= $800,000 or $200,000 per quarter
Sales revenue per quarter = $92 × 25,000
= $2,300,000
Percent of sales needed to regain lost contribution margin:
$200,000/$2,300,000 = 8.7%*
At 1 percent gain per quarter, approximately 8.7 quarters would be needed, or
a little over two years, to regain former profitability.
*Rounded
2. At the end of three years, quality costs will be reduced to 4 percent of sales, a
reduction equal to 12 percent of sales. The savings are computed as follows:
Savings = 0.12 × $9,200,000
= $1,104,000
Increase in unit contribution margin = $1,104,000/100,000
= $11.04
Projected unit CM = $11.04 + ($92 – $90) = $13.04
Projected total CM at $92 price = $13.04 × 100,000
= $1,304,000
Price decreases:
$1.00: Total CM = $12.04 × 110,000 = $1,324,400
$2.00: Total CM = $11.04 × 120,000 = $1,324,800
$3.00: Total CM = $10.04 × 130,000 = $1,305,200
Recommended decrease is from $92 to $90.
Increase in contribution margin:
$1,324,800
1,304,000
$ 20,800

552277
15–21 Concluded
3. From Requirement 2, we know that prices should be reduced, at least at the
end of three years. To find the point where prices should first be reduced, we
need to find the point where total contribution margin remains unchanged.
Let X = CM/unit.
Current CM = 100,000X
New CM = 110,000(X – $1)
100,000X = 110,000(X – $1)
10,000X = $110,000
X = $11
So, when the unit CM is greater than $11, the price should be reduced by
$1.00. To find this point in time:
Current CM = $92 – $90 = $2
Gain needed = $11 – $2 = $9
Annual CM needed = $900,000 ($9 × 100,000)
Quarterly CM needed = $900,000/4 = $225,000
Quarterly percent of sales needed = $225,000/$2,300,000
= 9.8%*
At 1 percent gain per quarter, it will take 9.8 quarters to gain $9.00 per unit.
Thus, after 9.8 quarters, the price should be decreased by $1.00.
*Rounded
4. The difference is long-run versus short-run thinking. The marketing manager
had a strategic orientation. The problem illustrates the value of cost informa-
tion, and particularly quality cost information, in strategic decision making. In
fact, it was the emphasis on total quality control and the identification of spe-
cific quality costs that drove the decision. It also implicitly emphasizes the
importance of a quality cost control program. Once the decision is made, the
need to reduce the costs as planned is critical. Interim and longer-range re-
ports would be quite useful in controlling quality costs.

552288
15–22
1. Break-even point = Fixed costs/CM ratio
= $72,000,000/0.2
= $360,000,000
Loss: 0.2 × ($360,000,000 – $300,000,000) = ($12,000,000)
2. New fixed costs = $72,000,000 + $18,000,000 = $90,000,000
New variable cost ratio:
Old variable costs = 0.8 × $300,000,000
= $240,000,000
New variable costs = $240,000,000 – $30,000,000
= $210,000,000
New variable cost ratio = $210,000,000/$300,000,000
= 0.7
New break-even point = $90,000,000/0.3
= $300,000,000
Mary Lou chose to spend more fixed costs on appraisal and prevention activi-
ties. This had the effect of reducing variable quality costs (failure costs) and
lowering the variable cost ratio from 0.8 to 0.7. Although the change in one
year was not dramatic, it did produce a break-even outcome for the division.

552299
15–22 Concluded
3. New fixed costs = $72,000,000 – $19,200,000
= $52,800,000
New variable costs = $240,000,000 – $94,800,000
= $145,200,000
New variable cost ratio = $145,200,000/$300,000,000
= 0.484
New break-even point = $52,800,000/0.516
= $102,325,581
Yes, based on the experiences of numerous companies, quality costs can be
reduced dramatically as quality improves. Reducing costs to 2.5 percent of
sales with 80 percent of total quality costs belonging to the control categories
has been done (e.g., consider Tennant and Westinghouse). Quality improve-
ment offers significant opportunities to improve profitability.
4. 2003 cost structure:
Loss = 0.2($180,000,000 – $360,000,000)
= ($36,000,000)
2008 cost structure:
Profit = 0.516($180,000,000 – $102,325,581)
= $40,080,000
By improving quality, quality costs were reduced so that prices could be re-
duced in response to competitive forces—and still maintain profitability. Oth-
erwise, the division might not have survived. Strategic cost analysis is an ef-
fort to use cost information to help companies gain a sustainable competitive
advantage. Quality costing certainly offers this potential use. Managing quali-
ty costs is critical in today’s competitive environment.

553300
15–23
1. Quality cost savings:
Quarter 1: $ 50,000 (0.01 × $5,000,000)
Quarter 2: 100,000 (0.02 × $5,000,000)
Quarter 3: 150,000 (0.03 × $5,000,000)
Quarter 4: 250,000 (0.05 × $5,000,000)
Total $550,000
At the beginning of the year, quality costs were 25 percent of sales. Thus, for
the year, without any reduction, the total quality costs would have been
$5,000,000 (0.25 × $20,000,000). The projected costs for the year 2006 would
then be computed as follows:
Projected quality costs = $5,000,000 – $550,000
= $4,450,000
As a percent of sales: $4,450,000/$20,000,000 = 22.25%
Whether the company achieves its goal depends on the interpretation of the
22 percent benchmark. If it means 22 percent of 2006 sales, then Olson Com-
pany falls just short of that mark (22.25 percent). However, if it means from
the end of 2006 on, then Olson exceeds the goal because quality costs are
reduced to 20 percent of sales by the end of the fourth quarter. The 22.25 per-
cent figure is an average figure for the year and does not represent the actual
state at the end of the year.

553311
15–23 Concluded
2. Quarter 1 Quarter 2
Prevention costs:
Quality planning (F) $ 40,000 $ 60,000
New product review (F) 10,000 10,000
Quality training (F) 30,000 70,000
Quality engineering (F) 0 40,000
Design verification (F) 0 20,000
Total prevention $ 80,000 $ 200,000
Appraisal costs:
Materials inspection (V) $ 25,000 $ 50,000
Product acceptance (F) 125,000 150,000
Field inspection (F) 30,000 0
Process control measurement (F) 0 30,000
Total appraisal $ 180,000 $ 230,000
Scrap (V) $ 150,000 $ 125,000
Retesting (V) 50,000 40,000
Rework (V) 130,000 100,000
Downtime (F) 50,000 40,000
Total internal failure $ 380,000 $ 305,000
Warranty (V) $ 300,000 $ 250,000
Allowances (V) 65,000 50,000
Complaint adjustment (V) 60,000 20,000
Repairs (V) 50,000 35,000
Product liability (F) 85,000 60,000
Total external failure $ 560,000 $ 415,000
Total quality costs $1,200,000 $1,150,000
3. The budget indicates that Olson plans on significantly increasing its empha-
sis on control costs—especially prevention activities. From quarter 1 to quar-
ter 2, prevention costs increase from 6.7* percent of the total to 17.4* percent
of the total. Control costs increase from 21.7* percent of the total to 37.4* per-
cent. Failure costs are expected to decrease from 78.3* percent of the total to
62.6* percent of the total.
*Rounded

553322
15–24
1. Diapers Napkins Towels Total
Prevention 0.9% 1.00% 1.63% 1.08%
Appraisal 0.8 1.17 1.63 1.08
Internal failure 1.8 1.08 1.63 1.55
External failure 1.5 0.75 1.63 1.30
Total 5.0% 4.00% 6.52% 5.01%
The company has achieved its goal as no more than 5 percent of sales was
spent on quality (in total). Looking at individual products, the best outcome
(napkins) seems to be where appraisal and prevention costs are nearly equal
to failure costs, bearing out to some extent the view that the costs should be
evenly distributed. Assuming that this even distribution is optimal, the total
suggests that more should be spent on prevention and appraisal. Opportuni-
ties to do so are present in the diaper and towel lines.
Prevention 1.8% 2.00% 3.25% 2.15%
Appraisal 1.6 2.33 3.25 2.15
Total 10.0% 8.00% 13.00% 10.00%
For this scenario, the goal of 5 percent is far from being reached. If the idea of
balancing costs by category is true, then further reductions can be achieved
by shifting more resources into prevention and appraisal activities. Of the
three lines, the diaper line is one where more resources should be spent on
prevention and appraisal activities. Shifting more resources into these two
activities has the potential to reduce the percentage for the diaper line to 5
percent or below. Shifting more resources into prevention for towels and
napkins would not create balanced categories. It appears difficult to achieve
the overall 5 percent goal by balancing category costs. The above results may
suggest that the even distribution suggestion of the production manager may
not be the optimal combination. Perhaps even more emphasis should be
placed on prevention and appraisal.

553333
15–24 Concluded
Prevention 1.8% 3.33% 2.03% 2.15%
Appraisal 1.6 3.89 2.03 2.15
Total 10.0% 13.33% 8.12% 10.00%
This scenario also suggests that more resources need to be spent on preven-
tion and appraisal activities. However, the resources should be concentrated
on the diaper and towel lines.
4. If quality costs are reported by segment, a manager will know where to con-
centrate efforts for cost reduction.
15–25
1. Internal External
Prevention Appraisal Failure Failure Total
2004 1.00% 2.00% 8.00% 10.00% 21.00%
2005 2.50* 3.33* 8.33* 10.00 24.16*
2006 4.29* 3.57* 4.29* 5.71* 17.86*
2007 5.83* 5.83* 3.33* 4.17* 19.16*
2008 7.00 3.00 1.60 2.40 14.00
*Rounded
2. Prevention and appraisal costs increase when a company implements a quali-
ty program to reduce failure costs. It may take at least a year before failure
costs decline because workers need to be trained, products may need to be
redesigned, and so on.

553344
15-25 Continued
3.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
PercentageofSales

553355
15–25 Concluded
Trend in Quality Costs
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
PercentageofSales
Prevention Appraisal Internal External
Yes, quality costs overall have dropped from 21 percent of sales to 14 percent
of sales, a significant improvement. Real evidence for quality improvement
stems from the fact that internal failure costs have gone from 8 percent to 1.6
percent and external failure costs from 10 percent to 2.4 percent. This reduc-
tion of failure costs has been achieved by putting more resources into pre-
vention (from 1 percent to 7 percent) and appraisal (2 percent to 3 percent).

553366
15–26
1. Materialsa
Laborb
2007 0.50 2.0
2008 0.60 2.4
a
300,000/600,000; 360,000/600,000
b
300,000/150,000; 360,000/150,000
Materials and labor productivity have increased.
2. Profit-linked productivity measurement (dollars in thousands):
Materials 720,000 $15,840 600,000 $ 13,200 $2,640
Labor 180,000 2,700 150,000 2,250 450
$18,540 $15,450 $3,090
*360,000/0.5; 360,000/2
Increase in profits due to productivity = $3,090,000
Net of bonus: $3,090,000 – $309,000 = $2,781,000
3. Price-recovery component:
Total profit change:
2008: Revenues ($80 × 360,000) $28,800,000
Materials ($22 × 600,000) (13,200,000)
Labor ($15 × 150,000) (2,250,000)
Profit $ 13,350,000
2007: Revenues ($80 × 300,000) $24,000,000
Materials ($20 × 600,000) (12,000,000)
Labor ($13 × 150,000) (1,950,000)
Profit $ 10,050,000
Total profit change = $13,350,000 – $10,050,000
= $3,300,000
Price-recovery component = $3,300,000 – $3,090,000
= $210,000
Without the productivity improvement, profits would have increased by
$210,000. The increase in sales would have recovered the increase in the cost
of inputs.

553377
15–27
1. Ratios*
Cost Materials Labor
a. 2007 (17,600 × $40) + (16,000 × $10)= $864,000 0.455 0.50
b. 2008 (9,600 × $40) + (50,000 × $10) = $884,000 0.833 0.16
c. Optimal (8,000 × $40) + (32,000 × $10) = $640,000 1.000 0.25
*Output/Input = 8,000/17,600; 8,000/16,000 for 2007; 8,000/9,600; 8,000/50,000 for
2008; 8,000/8,000; 8,000/32,00 for optimal.
Materials productivity improved, and labor productivity declined. The trade-
Off would need to be valued to assess whether overall productivity improved.
2. $864,000 – $640,000 = $224,000
3. $864,000 – $884,000 = ($20,000)
4. $884,000 – $640,000 = $244,000

553388
15–28
2007a
2008b
Materials 4.00 5.00
Labor 1.00 2.50
Capital 0.10 0.05
Energy 4.00 1.67
a
400,000/100,000; 400,000/400,000; 400,000/4,000,000; 400,000/100,000
b
500,000/100,000; 500,000/200,000; 500,000/10,000,000; 500,000/300,000
Since the ratio changes are mixed, no statement on overall productivity im-
provement can be made. Valuation of the trade-offs is needed.
2. Profit-linked productivity measurement (numbers in thousands):
Materials 125 $ 375 100 $ 300 $ 75
Labor 500 5,000 200 2,000 3,000
Capital 5,000 500 10,000 1,000 (500)
Energy 125 250 300 600 (350)
$6,125 $3,900 $2,225
*500,000/4; 500,000/1; 500,000/0.10; 500,000/4
Productivity-induced profit change: $2,225,000 increase
3. 2007 per-unit input cost = $4,200,000/400,000
= $10.50
2008 per-unit input cost = $3,900,000/500,000
= $7.80
Yes, the per-unit cost has been reduced by $2.70. The division’s continued
existence was brought about by improving productivity. Productive improve-
ments can be used to maintain competitive ability, by reducing the cost of
producing. They also may permit a company to achieve a sustainable compet-
itive advantage and ensure its long-term survival. Thus, productivity is an im-
portant competitive tool—one essential for survival.

553399
15–29
1. Shop-floor workers relate well to operational measures. They are expressed
in terms they can understand. Also, they are easily measured and tracked.
Charts can be visibly posted that track the performance of the measures over
time. Finally, the measures are usually available on a more timely basis—they
can be computed and reported daily.
2. Profit-linked productivity measurement, materials and labor:
PQa
PQ × P AQb
AQ × P (PQ × P) – (AQ × P)
Materials 4,000 $20,000 3,333 $16,665 $ 3,335
Labor 2,000 20,000 2,500 25,000 (5,000)
$40,000 $41,665 $(1,665)
a
Batch size is constant; so, PQ is the inputs used in the first batch.
b
10,000/3; 10,000/4
Profits will drop by $1,665.
3. Profit-linked measurement, three inputs:
PQ PQ × P AQ AQ × P (PQ × P) – (AQ × P)
Materials 4,000 $20,000 3,333 $16,665 $ 3,335
Labor 2,000 20,000 2,500 25,000 (5,000)
Quality 20 20,000 5 5,000 15,000
$60,000 $46,665 $13,335
Profits now increase by $13,335. Operational measures are limited; a firm also
needs a comprehensive, integrated productivity system. Viewing quality as an
input is useful.
15–30
1. Partial operational measures of productivity:
Current Setting Setting A Setting B
Materials 0.40 1.00 0.50
Equipment 1.67 1.00 2.00
Setting B signals a productivity improvement for both inputs.

554400
15–30 Concluded
2. Income statements:
Setting A Setting B
Sales revenues ($40 × 15,000) $ 600,000 $ 600,000
Cost of inputs:
Materials:
($12 × 15,000) (180,000)
($12 × 30,000) (360,000)
Machine hours:
($12 × 15,000) (180,000)
($12 × 7,500) (90,000)
Net income $ 240,000 $ 150,000
Setting A provides the greatest increase.
3. Profit-linked productivity measurement (measured relative to current setting):
Setting A:
Materials 37,500 $450,000 15,000 $180,000 $270,000
Equipment 8,982 107,784 15,000 180,000 (72,216)
$557,784 $360,000 $197,784
Setting B:
Materials 37,500 $450,000 30,000 $360,000 $ 90,000
Equipment 8,982 107,784 7,500 90,000 17,784
$557,784 $450,000 $107,784
*15,000/0.40; 15,000/1.67
Setting A offers the greatest improvement, greater by $90,000. Setting A is
better because the productivity gain for materials offsets the loss for equip-
ment by more than the combined productivity gains of Setting B. This illu-
strates a different kind of trade-off—one that is concerned with the relative
magnitude of productivity gains.

554411
MANAGERIAL DECISION CASES
15–31
1. Performance Report: Quality Costs
Nickles Company
Actual Costs Budgeted Costs Variance
Prevention costs:
Fixed:
Quality planning $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 0
Quality training 20,000 20,000 0
Special project 100,000 80,000 20,000 U
Quality reporting 12,000 10,000 2,000 U
Total prevention $ 282,000 $ 260,000 $22,000 U
Appraisal costs:
Variable:
Proofreading $ 520,000 $ 500,000 $20,000 U
Other inspection 60,000 50,000 10,000 U
Total appraisal $ 580,000 $ 550,000 $30,000 U
Failure costs:
Variable:
Correction of typos $ 165,000 $ 150,000 $15,000 U
Rework 76,000 75,000 1,000 U
Plate revisions 58,000 55,000 3,000 U
Press downtime 102,000 100,000 2,000 U
Waste 136,000 130,000 6,000 U
Total failure $ 537,000 $ 510,000 $27,000 U
Total quality costs $1,399,000 $1,320,000 $79,000 U
The firm failed across the board to meet its budgeted goals for the year. All
categories and each item were greater than the budgeted amounts.

554422
15–31 Continued
2. Performance Report: Quality Costs
One-Year Trend
Nickles Company
Actual Costs Actual Costs
2008 2007 Variance
Prevention costs:
Fixed:
Quality planning $ 150,000 $ 140,000 $ 10,000 U
Quality training 20,000 20,000 0
Special project 100,000 120,000 20,000 F
Quality reporting 12,000 12,000 0
Total prevention $ 282,000 $ 292,000 $ 10,000 F
Appraisal costs:
Variable:
Proofreading $ 520,000 $ 580,000 $ 60,000 F
Other inspection 60,000 80,000 20,000 F
Total appraisal $ 580,000 $ 660,000 $ 80,000 F
Failure costs:
Variable:
Correction of typos $ 165,000 $ 200,000 $ 35,000 F
Rework 76,000 131,000 55,000 F
Plate revisions 58,000 83,000 25,000 F
Press downtime 102,000 123,000 21,000 F
Waste 136,000 191,000 55,000 F
Total failure $ 537,000 $ 728,000 $191,000 F
Total quality costs $1,399,000 $1,680,000 $281,000 F
Profits increased $281,000 because of the reduction in quality costs from
2007 to 2008. Thus, even though the budgeted reductions for the year were
not met, there was still significant improvement. Moreover, most of the im-
provement came from reduction of failure costs, a positive signal indicating
that quality is indeed increasing.

554433
15–31 Continued
3.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
PercentageofSales

554444
15–31 Concluded
4. Increases in prevention and appraisal costs with simultaneous reductions in
failure costs are good signals that overall quality is increasing (decreases in
external failure costs are particularly hard to achieve without quality actually
increasing).
Trend in Quality Costs by Category
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
10.00%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
PercentageofSales
Prevention Appraisal Internal Failure External Failure

554455
15–32
1. Matt should know that the reward is intended for those who legitimately
achieve the budgeted productivity goals. Both actions taken by Matt were
manipulative in nature—their objective simply to massage the performance
statistic so that he could receive his bonus. Since Matt’s bonus is achieved
simultaneously with that of his employees, there is some question whether he
really had their interest in mind or simply his own. The behavior exhibited by
Matt is not ethical. The heart of ethical behavior is sacrificing one’s self-
interest for the well-being of others. By engaging in manipulative behavior,
Matt is damaging the reputation of the company and providing poor services
and products to customers. Matt should have stressed the importance of
achieving the productivity goals by continuing to strive for the current year’s
goal by improving quality. If the goal is not achieved this year, then the lack
of financial reward should be an additional incentive for better performance
for the coming year.
2. First and foremost, the company should attempt to hire individuals with inte-
grity. Second, the company should make sure that the performance and re-
ward system is fair and acceptable to managers and employees. Perhaps the
company could provide a percentage of the savings from quality improve-
ments rather than making it an all-or-nothing bonus based on achieving some
predetermined target. Finally, the company should have in place a good moni-
toring system to discourage the type of behavior Matt is exhibiting (e.g., a
good internal audit program).
3. Matt has violated the ethical code as he has a responsibility to “refrain from
engaging in any activity that would prejudice his abilities to carry out his du-
ties ethically” (III-2) and to “refrain from either actively or passively subvert-
ing the attainment of the organization’s legitimate and ethical objectives”
(III-4).
RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS
15–33
Answers will vary.
15–34
Answers will vary.

Chapter 15 Quality Costs and Productivity : Measurement, Reporting, and Control

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Chapter 15 Quality Costs and Productivity : Measurement, Reporting, and Control (20)

More from Yesica Adicondro (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter 15 Quality Costs and Productivity : Measurement, Reporting, and Control