Summary by Jodi Corcoran
Master of Accountancy Program
University of South Florida, Fall 2004
This is the second article in a two part sequence1. In this article, Baggaley and Maskell promote value stream costing as a more appropriate costing method for lean companies than standard costing. The paper includes a brief discussion of the shortcomings of standard costing from the lean enterprise perspective, a description of value stream costing, an explanation of how value streams are managed with reference to two types of reports created with value stream costing information, and a discussion of the environment needed for value stream costing to work effectively.
Shortcomings of Standard Costing
costing allocates all overhead to products and relates the overhead to
direct labor hours.
Standard costing encourages non lean behavior by focusing on utilization of resources, people’s individual efficiencies, and overhead allocations.
Standard costing calls for elaborate and wasteful data collection systems; the opposite of lean thinking.
Standard costing does not provide the data needed to support and encourage lean manufacturing.
Value Stream Costing
Value stream cost are typically calculated weekly.
No distinction is made between direct or indirect costs. All costs of the value stream are considered direct costs.
Costs included in the value stream are production labor, production materials, production support, machines and equipment, operation support, facilities and maintenance, and all other value stream costs. (See the adaptation of Exhibit 1 below).
Value stream costing includes a simpler cost collection method and reduces the number of cost centers.
Value stream costing provides a “real” Income Statement due to the elimination of unnecessary costs outside the control of value stream managers.
Costs outside of the value stream are referred to as “sustaining costs” of the business and are not allocated to the value stream.
Emphasis is placed on maximizing the flow of product through the value stream, not on production.
P & Ls and Scorecards
Two types of reports generated using value stream costing information for value stream managers are P & Ls and performance measuring scorecards. Value stream managers are responsible for increasing the value created by the value streams, removing waste from the value streams, and increasing profits of the value streams. Inventory changes are not taken into account in the P & L report when calculating profits of the value stream to ensure the value stream teams keep the right focus, i.e., the flow of product through the value stream.
The scorecard includes but is not limited to performance measurements of the value stream (e.g., units per person, on-time shipment %, dock-to-dock days, first time through %, average product cost, AR days, productive %, non-productive %, available capacity), the current capacity usage, a simplified value stream P & L, the scorecard history, and the goals of the value stream team.
Standard costing is typically used in considering pricing, profit margins, performance measurement, process improvement, make/buy, product and customer rationalization, and inventory valuation. However, in most cases, standard costing yields misleading information and leads managers to make wrong decisions. Value stream costing provides better data and these decisions can be made based on the overall profitability of the value stream rather than the individual product cost. For example, outsourcing decisions are based on the profitability of the value stream as a whole, not the profitability of individual products. Pricing is not based on specific product cost, but instead on customer value which has no relation to product cost.
Baggaley and Maskell describe when value stream costing actually becomes the best way to collect costs and report the value stream profitability. The authors note that the following must be in place:
Reporting is not done by departments but is done by value stream.
With little or no overlap, employees are assigned to those value streams.
There are few shared service departments and few monuments.
Production processes are controlled with low variability.
“Out-of-control” situations and exceptions (i.e., scrap or rework) must be thoroughly tracked.
Inventory is controlled, consistent, and relatively low.
Other related summaries:
Borthick, A. F., P. L. Bowen, and M. C. Sullivan. 1998. Controlling JIT II: Making the system monitor itself. Journal of Cost Management (July/August): 33-41. (Summary).
Carr, L. P. and C. D. Ittner. 1992. Measuring the cost of ownership. Journal of Cost Management (Fall): 42-51. (Summary).
Carr, L. P., W. C. Lawler and J. K. Shank. 2002. Reconfiguring the value chain: Levi's personal pair. Journal of Cost Management (November/December): 9-17. (Summary).
Castellano, J. F. and R. Burrows. 2011. Relevance lost: The practice/classroom gap. Management Accounting Quarterly (Winter): 41-48. (Summary).
Clinton, B. D., and H. Ko-Cheng. 1997. JIT and the balanced scorecard: Linking manufacturing control to management control. Management Accounting (September): 18-24. (Summary).
Crusoe, J., G. Schmelzle, and T. E. Buttross. 1999. The hidden costs of adopting JIT manufacturing. Journal of Cost Management (December): 23-26. (Summary).
Davenport, T. H. and J. Glaser. 2002. Just-in-time delivery comes to knowledge management. Harvard Business Review (July): 107-111. (Summary).
Deluzio, M. C. 1993. Management accounting in a just-in-time environment. Journal of Cost Management (Winter): 6-15. (Summary).
Deluzio, M. C. 1993. The tools of just-in-time. Journal of Cost Management (Summer): 13-20. (Summary).
Foster, G. and C. T. Horngren. 1987. Cost accounting and cost management in a JIT environment. Management Accounting (June): 19-25. (Summary).
Fullerton, R. R. 2003. Performance measurement and reward systems in JIT and non-JIT firms. Cost Management (November/December): 40-47. (Summary).
Fullerton, R. R. and C. S. McWatters. 2002. The role of performance measures and incentive systems in relation to the degree of JIT implementation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27(8): 711-735. (Summary).
Goodson, R. E. 2002. Read a plant - fast. Harvard Business Review (May): 105-113. (How the rapid plant assessment (RPA) process can tell you if a factory is truly lean in as little as 30 minutes. The process includes two tools: The RPA rating sheet includes 11 categories for assessing leanness, and the RPA questionnaire includes 20 yes or no questions). (Summary).
Kalagnanam, S. S. and R. M. Lindsay. 1998. The use of organic models of control in JIT firms: Generalising Woodward's findings to modern manufacturing practices. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24(1): 1-30. (Summary).
Lee, J. Y. and J. K. Winch. 1998. From push to pull: Management's control system modification for manufacturing change. Advances in Management Accounting (6): 75-92. (Summary).
Lessner, J. 1989. Performance measurement in a just-in-time environment: Can traditional performance measurements still be used? Journal of Cost Management (Fall): 23-28. (Summary).
Martin, J. R. Not dated. Lean concepts and terms. Management And Accounting Web. http://maaw.info/LeanConceptsandTermsSummary.htm
Martin, J. R. Not dated. Profit Beyond Measure graphics and notes. Management And Accounting Web. http://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumJohnsonBromsGraphicsNotes.htm
Martin, J. R. Not dated. What is lean accounting? Management And Accounting Web. http://maaw.info/LeanAccounting.htm
McIlhattan, R. D. 1987. How cost management systems can support the JIT philosophy. Management Accounting (September): 20-26. (Summary).
O'Brien, J. and K. Sivaramakrishnan. 1994. Accounting for JIT: A cycle time-based approach. Journal of Cost Management (Fall): 63-70. (Summary).
Patell, J. M. 1987. Adapting a Cost accounting system to just-in-time manufacturing: The Hewlett-Packard Personal Office Computer Division. Accounting & Management Field Study Perspectives, edited by William J. Bruns, Jr. and R. S. Kaplan. Harvard Business School Press: 229-267. (Summary).
Swenson, D. W. and J. Cassidy. 1993. The effect of JIT on management accounting. Journal of Cost Management (Spring): 39-47. (Summary).
Vollmann, T. 1990. Changing manufacturing performance measurements. Proceedings of the Third Annual Management Accounting Symposium. Sarasota: American Accounting Association: 53-62. (Summary).