Objectives On successful completion of this assignment, students should be able to: develop an ability to identify and assume an assigned role, identify and rank the importance of explicit issues, illustrate the importance of hidden (undirected) issues that arise from a detailed analysis, identify accounting issues (GAAP/IFRS compliance issues), assess their implications, generate alternatives, and provide recommendations within the bounds of GAAP/IFRS to meet the clients needs, examine how accounting standards impact financial measures (ratios, covenants, etc.), and prepare a coherent report and integrated analysis that meets specific user needs.

Brief Description In order to complete your case analysis successfully, you should consider identify the role you are playing assess the financial reporting landscape considering the user needs, constraints, and business environment, identify the issues, analyze the issues (qualitatively and quantitatively), and provide a recommendation and conclusion. An average grade will result from answering all questions with basic coverage and accuracy, showing all your work. Additional points come from including greater detail, astute, informed commentary where appropriate and connections to readings and other content. Respond in a single Word doc, PDF or Excel file. Submission Instructions Determine the manufacturing overhead cost per unit of each of the company's two products under the traditional costing system. Determine the manufacturing overhead cost per unit of each of the company's two products under activity-based costing system. Compare the results in part a and b under both costing systems and specify the differences in both systems. What is the significance of the Activity Costing System that Mike is referring to? How is ABC system different from traditional costing system? The use of which activity level, budgeted (same as expected) or maximum capacity, is consistent with ABC? Explain. How might the use of ABC based on maximum capacity activity level enhance a firm's ability to compete on price? Explain. If you were to recommend one of the costing systems for Wolseley Inc., which one would you pick and why? Late Submission Policy This assessment is subject to the Late Submission penalty policy, namely 5% per day for three days. This page will close and will not allow further submissions after this Late Submission period has expired. In the event of an emergency preventing you from submitting within this time frame, special permission must be obtained from your instructor. Documentation substantiating emergency is required. In such a circumstance, if the extension is granted, the professor will reopen the submission function for you on an individual basis. Please do not email your submissions to your professor, either before or after the due date; all coursework should be submitted through the online course (Moodle). For time management purposes, students are strongly advised to submit their assignments by the due date above, relative to their local time zone. Late penalties will not be applied until after 8:00 a.m. Atlantic Time the following day.

Mini-Case Analysis 1 Weight 5% of the final grade Due no later than 11:00 p.m. on Sunday of Unit 3 Objectives [ULO 1.1 to ULO 3.5] Case Analysis 1 - Option A Wolseleys dilemma of Traditional Costing versus Activity Based Costing Wolseley Manufacturing Corporation manufactures various electronics products and follows a traditional (job-order) costing system in which it applies manufacturing overhead to its products using a predetermined overhead rate based on direct labour-hours (DLHs). The company has two products, C18R and G19R, about which it has provided the following data:

C18R G19R

Direct materials per unit $10.20 $50.50

Direct labour per unit $8.40 $25.20

Direct labour hours per unit 0.40 1.20

Annual production 30,000 10,000

The company's estimated total manufacturing overhead for the year is $1,464,480 and the company's estimated total direct labour-hours for the year is 24,000. The company is considering using a variation of activity-based costing to determine its unit product costs for external reports. Data for this proposed activity-based costing system appear below:

Activities and Activity Measures Estimated Overhead Cost

Supporting direct labour (DLHs) $552,000

Setting up machines (setups) 132,480

Parts administration (part types) 780,000

Total $1,464,480

Activities C18R G19R Total

Supporting direct labour 12,000 12,000 24,000

Setting up machines 864 240 1,104

Part administration 600 960 1,560

Mike, who is the controller of the Company, is currently overseeing the project to switch from traditional costing to Activity-Based costing. He is in a meeting with the Cost Accountant of the company. The Controller goes over the data and makes the following comments: Activity-Based Costing is a revelation in the modern-day world of manufacturing Industry. If we are correctly able to categorize the various nature of work into essential levels, then we can dramatically trace the precise nature of the overheard activity. Jacob, the Cost Accountant, quips, how can we classify those levels of activities? Do we have some mechanism to identify them? Mike responds, Yes! We do. Jacob then laments the pitfalls of the job order costing system, The production report will be out soon and usually, the allocation bases (including overhead allocations in job-order costing systems) are not entirely accurate. Mike, with a pause, That is exactly why we may eventually need to switch to the Activity-Based costing though it is comparatively difficult to implement with the cost and operations limitations involved in it. Jacob adds, Another consideration to evaluate is the relationship between the cost of maximum (budgeted) capacity and idle capacity, since the company is likely to operate at maximum capacities during the time of peak demand. Moreover, our long-term goals of stable cost predictions and waste minimizations should also be kept in mind.

Alright! Let us calculate and analyze the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the data and other factors we have discussed in the meeting today and prepare the preliminary report for the CEO by this weekend. Mike with the final comments!