The accounting treatment used in the defense manufacturing plants takes full costing as the major frame, in which the job order costing and process costing are adopted as the basic cost systems, while the normal costing is also used to calculate product costs via budgeted rate. However, since the method uses single basis of allocation to allocate the manufacturing expenses into the cost object, it has its disadvantages like delays in producing cost cross subvention and cost information, unfavorable to operation control. Consequently, when preparing the annual budget for the following year, adjusting the product price, or quoting prices temporarily due to time constraints, the plants can’t provide available information for reference to decision-making units, creating potential risks for the national defense budgets of having very little benefits.
The efficiency of the implemented ABC system can be shown in Cost Control and Analysis of Profit; however, the previous literatures exploring the Military Industries and Services Revolving Fund (MISRF) based on activity based costing fail to consider the framework of financial statements and the manpower structure of individual cases, which only takes the expense of the case plant in the current period as a part of the manufacturing costs but does not include the salaries of military staff. Thus, incorrect results may be obtained by such researches.
By taking an ordnance factory undertaking production as the research subject, this paper not only lists the salaries of military staff into discussion and excludes the expense in the current period, but also introduces the ABC system in line with the actual production processes, so as to compare the differences between the new and old cost systems, and put forward the reviews and suggestions for the case plant and its production.
The main findings of this paper include:
1.While calculating the profits and losses with full costing, the period cost shall be excluded from the scope of activity based costing.
2.The activity based costing doesn’t reflect the complexity of operation.
3.The activity based costing doesn’t reflect the capacity of operations that are idle or not used.
4.Cost cross subsidy will be generated under the existing cost system.
5.The case plant doesn’t provide timely and objective cost information under the existing cost system.