Electronic Testing Operations (ETO)‚ a division of Seligram‚ Inc.‚ provided centralized electronic components throughout the 1980s. This centralization was estimated to save Seligram over $20 million in testing equipment investment over the next five years. ETO primarily tested for divisions within Seligram; however‚ was allowed to devote up to 10% of its testing capabilities to outside resources. Component testing is important for two main reasons. Firstly‚ if defective components are detected
Premium Cost accounting Costs Cost
ETO Case Study Analysis Seligram Incorporation‚ Electric Testing Operations (ETO) previously measured two components of cost: direct labor and manufacturing overhead. The existing cost system is very simple. Burden was grouped into a single cost pool that was combined with each of the testing rooms as well as the engineering burden costs related to software and tooling development and the administrating costs of the department. The total burden costs was then divided by the sum of testing and
Premium Depreciation Costs Cost
At the beginning‚ the Electronic Testing Operations (ETO) measured two components of cost: direct labor and burden‚ but the burden is grouped into a single cost pool that includes all costs and divided by direct labor dollars to obtain the burden rate. (Q2) ETO’s manager picked up 5 components to evaluate the impact of different accounting system. The reported costs from existing system can be computed as follows‚ given the burden rate 145%: Product Direct Labor Burden Total Costs ICA 917 1
Premium Costs
explain why it failed The current cost system is based on two components: a direct and indirect cost measurement. There are only two types of cost: direct labor and burden. Burden is grouped into a single cost pool and represents the cost of both testing rooms‚ engineering burden costs (software and tooling development)‚ plus the administrative costs of the division. Burden was then calculated for each lot‚ with a burden rate of 145% The lot’s total cost is the sum of the direct labor cost added
Premium Costs Variable cost
Seligram Inc. 1. The existing system at ETO began to fail because direct labor hours per lot began to decrease due to vendor certification. Vendors would do the primary testing and ETO would only be required to test a small sample of each lot to verify the results were valid. In the marketplace‚ ETO’s prices were lower than outside competition for testing complex parts‚ yet the prices were higher for elementary testing. Another important factor to consider is that engineering support increased
Premium Depreciation Cost Price
Seligram‚ Inc. 1. What caused the existing system at ETO to fail? As we learned in chapter 7 initially‚”… cost systems designs were simple…“(Brewster et.al‚ p. 236). The goal of the allocation process is to assign overhead in a manner that most appropriately reflects the cause /effect relationship of incurred costs. These cost systems were based on belief that there was a high correlation between direct labor hours and units produced (Brewster et. al‚ p. 237). ETO’s current cost
Premium Costs
component of JIT delivery. Number of tests being done by ETO reduces because the suppliers did the testing by themselves. Second‚ there is a shift from simple inspection services to broader-based test technology. Although ETO provides engineering supports on complex parts‚ outside testing services are even cheaper‚ esp. on large lots when only elementary testing is required. Lastly‚ the existing testing equipment is getting out-dated and is unable to cope with the pace with new developments in high-technology
Premium Cost accounting Costs
Seligram‚ INC The Seligram‚ INC. has provided electronic testing of various components since 1983. One of 11 divisions of the company‚ Electronic Testing Operations (ETO)‚ has played a central role in the testing operations. However‚ technological advancement of testing and outdated machines have challenged the company’s prospect in the industry. The main issue‚ in the introduction of the new equipment‚ Seligram needs to find optimal system to control overhead cost. Q2 (a) Single burden pool
Premium Costs Cost Variable cost
The overview of the case Arrow Electronics is a broad-line distributor of electronic parts‚ including semiconductors and passive components. It was founded in 1935 and grown to the number two position by 1980. When Stephen Kaufman‚ who became president in 1982 and CEO in 1986‚ Arrow once more began to climb‚ reaching the number one position among electronics distributors by 1992. Arrow/Schweber‚ one of Arrow’s five operating groups and the largest one‚ which sells semiconductors to different customer
Premium Marketing Harvard Business School Business school
same proportion for all product testing. However‚ this is not the case and therefore the system failed. For example‚ due to the implementation of the vendor certification and the just-in-time delivery‚ some products are already tested and do not need any further tests‚ and ETO faces a decreasing number of the tests performed. On the other hand‚ new components require more high technology tests. They consume highly automated equipment and require different testing procedures compared to other products
Premium Depreciation