Management Decision Making Assessment 1 Information Brief 2024-25 | UoSM

MDM Assessment Task Details and Instructions    

Based on the narrative of the following case study, this assignment requires you to discuss and provide informed answers to all questions listed at the end of this case study.

UK Manufacturing, Plc.
Activity-Based Costing (ABC)
 
Please read the UKM ABC case at the end of this assignment, then report your discussion of the following issues

Discussion Issues

In reviewing Smith's assessments and conclusions, has he proposed the optimal recommendations? Specifically:

1. The UK Manufacturing UK LTD is facing an array of issues that require a sound understanding of cost behaviour, process manufacturing, capacity utilisation, and market pricing pressures. Identify both internal and external issues that the UKM Senior management must consider their impact on their planning for 2023 and beyond.

2. A few reasons in the cost calculation caused the 2023 SPx512 product cost to drop by £227 after reflecting the ABC review and the new costing approach. Did spending decrease or just shift? List those costs with supporting numbers.

3. What are the drivers of manufacturing cost? Of product cost?

4. Was it practical or plausible to reduce direct wafer fabrication by 34 per cent or £23m?

5. Should Smith have looked at areas other than wafer fabrication to identify further cost reductions?

6. Why is there still underutilised manufacturing capacity when the SPx256 is being manufactured? Is the pricing model too aggressive?

7. What pricing advantages does UKM's competitor, Top Telecommunicating Plc, have, knowing their TT256 has 33 per cent more die/wafer than the SPx256? (Assume the same wafer, probe, assembly and test costs and yields as the SPx256)

MDM Assessment Criteria    

Explain how students can find information about assessment criteria.

You should look at the assessment criteria to find out what we are specifically looking at during the assessment.

Assessed Intended Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:

Knowledge and Understanding

1. Evaluate management accounting techniques
2. Critically evaluate and recommend different models of management accounting decisions
3. Prepare a management decision report for a multinational company

Practical, Professional or Subject Specific Skills

1. Analyse management decisions in response to market behaviour
2. Practice numeracy & critical thinking
3. Work with an individual intuitive

Transferable Skills and Other Attributes

1. Engage in problem-solving
2. Effective use of written communications
3. Location of information
4. Construction of references/ bibliography using Harvard referencing

Development of presentational skills

Employability Skills Developed\Demonstrated

Communication YES
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving YES 
Data Literacy NO
Digital Literacy NO 
Industry Awareness YES
Innovation and Creativity YES 
Proactive Leadership YES
Reflection and Life-Long Learning YES 
Self-management and Organisation YES 
Team Working NO

Assessment Information and Support    

Support for this Assessment

You can obtain support for this assessment by …..
[Explain how students should obtain help, e.g. Frequently Asked Questions page in Blackboard, tutor office hours, tutorials, email. Also state how long replies may take.]

You can find more information about understanding your assessment brief and assessment tips for success here.

Assessment Rules and Processes

You can find information about assessment rules and processes in Blackboard in the Assessment Support module.

Develop your Academic and Digital Skills

Find resources to help you develop your skills here.

Concerns about Studies or Progress

If you have any concerns about your studies, contact your
Academic Progress Review Tutor/Personal Tutor or your Student Progression Administrator (SPA).

askUS Services

The University offers a range of support services for students through askUS, including Disability and Learner Support, Wellbeing and Counselling Services.

Personal Mitigating Circumstances (PMCs)

If personal mitigating circumstances (e.g. illness or other personal circumstances) may have affected your ability to complete this assessment, you can find more information about the Personal Mitigating Circumstances Procedure here. Independent advice is available from the Students’ Union Advice Centre about this process.

Reassessment

If you fail your assessment and are eligible for reassessment, you will need to resubmit on or before xxxxx. For students with
accepted personal mitigating circumstances for absence/non-submission, this will be your replacement assessment attempt.

Explain what happens if a student needs to be reassessed. Will the reassessment be the same? What is the submission date?
[Note for staff: the reassessment task should normally be the same as the original task unless there is a good academic reason to offer a different task]

We know that having to undergo a reassessment can be challenging; however, support is available. Have a look at all the sources of support outlined earlier in this brief and refer to the Personal Effectiveness resources.

Case for Discussion and Reporting

UK Manufacturing, Plc. Activity-Based Costing (ABC)

Before the annual budget review, Simon Smith, UK Manufacturing’s (UKM) Director of Operations, was confident. While he waited for the latest financial estimates, he thought of the plan he and his staff had methodically prepared, which successfully addressed all the crises this new business unit was facing: developing competitive pricing on an ageing product, developing and marketing new products to external customers against an established market leader, reducing manufacturing costs, improving manufacturing utilisation and improving its slim levels of profitability.

When Adam White, UKM’s controller, solemnly delivered the requested pro forma income statements, Simon’s mood changed dramatically. Instead of sustained profit, Simon was shocked to see significant projected operating losses. He wondered why his extensive planning had not improved UKM’s 2021 and 2022 financial results. With less than 24 hours before he was to offer senior management a viable business plan, he felt abandoned and hopeless.

Background

UKM, a semiconductor design and manufacturing company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Advanced Hardware Systems, Inc. (AHS), a leading manufacturer of client/server systems, workstations and personal computers. During 2021 and 2022, UKM manufactured and sold to AHS a single product - the Server Processor (SPx512), a 512 MHz, 10-nanosecond microprocessor. The SPx512 is a 75-micron device packaged in a 339-pin grid array (PGA) and is used in AHS’s servers and workstations. UKM has sold AHS 150,000 units of the SP in each of the past two years.

Although UKM sells entirely to its corporate parent, the company was required to establish competitive prices for its devices by Q3 2023. Previously, the SPx512 had been sold to AHS at full cost. Establishing competitive prices was one of many changes AHS required UKM to make. In 2023, AHS planned to change all its major business units into profit centres. UKM management felt each business unit needed flexibility and independence to react to rapidly changing market conditions. UKM believed that if its business units were profit centres, they would be more accountable for their financial success. Their strategies and annual performance would be more visible and measurable as well. This change meant they could sell their devices to external customers using available manufacturing capacity. UKM could also recover the large development costs for future products and control its destiny.

UKM established the competitive market-selling price of the SPx512 at £850, based on industry price/performance comparisons. AHS approved of this market-based method of establishing transfer prices, which ensured that AHS could purchase internally at a competitive price while placing the burden of cost management appropriately on UKM. Adam White, UKM’s controller, prepared revised financial statements applying the £850 transfer price to UKM’s 2021 and 2022 shipments (see Table 4). John English, UKM’s vice-president and general manager, was pleased to see UKM had generated profits of £4.9m and £1.9m for 2021 and 2022, respectively, on annual revenues of £127.5m, after applying the newly established transfer price. The profit decline in 2022 reflected the establishment and staffing of UKM’s new marketing department. This department was created to identify and open external market opportunities for new products currently under development.
 
As FY2023 approaches, UKM management is faced with a few pressures. AHS is under severe competitive pressures in their server and workstation product lines and is already demanding a price reduction on the SP. They also insist UKM remain profitable.

Sarah Ahmad, head of UKM’s new marketing department, determined from industry studies that the price / performance for microprocessors halves every 18 months. To remain competitive, merchant semiconductor companies consistently were offering some combination of price reductions and/or performance improvements, so that their products' price / performance (price per unit of speed) halved every 1.5 years. Thus, for the SPx512 and for every CPU UKM developed and manufactured, Sarah believed the market would require similarly timed price / performance offerings. Sarah knew any price reductions would require offsetting cost reductions if UKM was to remain profitable and wondered what the manufacturing organisation was thinking.

As product development was no longer working on any SPx512 performance improvements, Sarah computed the essential price reductions on the SPx512 following the industry model. The SPx512 would continue at the £850 price through Q1 2023, then drop to £637.50 at the start of Q2 2023, drop to £425.00 at the start of Q1 2024 and to £318.75 at the start of Q4 2024. Sarah was troubled by these prices, as she knew AHS was requesting 150,000 units in FY2023, but only 75,000 in FY2024. AHS indicated it expected a customer shift away from workstations and into AHS's new personal computer line.

Appendix One presents an overview of the semiconductor manufacturing process typically found in a microprocessor supplier such as UKM. Appendix Two presents an overview of the product costing process used by UKM.

Product cost for the SPx512 had remained constant during FY2021 and FY2022 at approximately £665 (see Table 5). Sarah computed cost reductions of approximately £166.25 per year (to £498.75 in FY2023 and £332.50 in 2024) would be necessary to maintain the SPx512's current gross margin of -22%. She wondered if manufacturing could achieve a cost reduction that steep.

Concurrent with the SPx512 pricing activities, Dr Khan, head of product development, sent an urgent request to English, Ahmad, Smith and White for £3m in funding. This funding would accelerate the completion of an integer-only microprocessor, the SPx256 and the follow-on CPU, the SPx384. The SPx256, a new product already under development, could be completed with £lm of the additional funding and made available for volume shipment by the beginning of FY2023. The remaining £2m would be spent during FY2023 and FY2024 to complete development and ready the SPx384 for volume shipment by the beginning of FY2024.

The SPx256 is a 256 MHz, 20-nanosecond CPU, manufactured like the SPx512, using the present 384-micron technology, but unlike the SPx512, the SPx256 does not have a floating-point processor. The elimination of the floating-point processor reduces the size and power requirements of the CPU. The SPx256 and SPx384 can be packaged in a 168-pin grid array (PGA) that costs £15, which is £35 less than the 339 PGA used by the SPx512. However, the testing parameters of the SPx256 and SPx384 are significantly different from those for the SPx512 and require a Bonn tester, which MM&M does not currently own. This £2m tester, if purchased, will add £1.2m in annual depreciation and other direct operating costs, and £800,000 in incremental annual support costs to the present level of manufacturing spending.

The SPx256 and SPx384 are targeted as entry devices for AHS's personal computer business. Top Telecommunication (TT) Plc is the market leader in the 384-micron integer-only microprocessors. Their TT256 CPU (also 256 MHz, 20 nanoseconds) sells for £500. The TT256 has just been announced with volume shipments to coincide with the beginning of UKM’s FY2023. UKM’s new marketing department estimates the demand for the SPx256 from AHS and potential new external customers could easily exceed 1,000 units per year. To break into this market, Sarah recommended heavy market promotion and a price/performance two times the competition's. Estimates for unit sales potential from advertising are 100,000 for the first £1,000, up to 500,000 for the second £1,000 and over I000000 for a third million-£ advertising expenditure.

With these increased pricing pressures from both AHS and the external marketplace, product cost reduction became critical. This fact, coupled with the request from product development for additional funding, had John English very concerned. He knew it was important to bring out the SPx256 and SPx384 quickly, but the pricing pressures for their market entrance and the pricing pressures from AHS on the SPx512 seemed almost impossible to meet and still achieve a profit in FY2023 and 2024. He knew, however, if he didn't maintain a profitable operation, his tenure would be short.

Reduced product costs leading to competitive manufacturing, appeared to be the critical factor necessary to sustain UKM’s slim profit levels. English asked Smith, the director of operations, to formulate a series of recommendations for developing and manufacturing an expanded CPU product line in FY2023 and FY2024. He asked that the recommendations be completed by the annual two-year budget review, scheduled to commence in a month. English knew that soon after the budget review, he would have to present a credible business plan to UKM management. He worried about how he could develop a viable plan in light of the obstacles.

The Smiths’ plan

Simon Smith started his preparation by reviewing the detailed SPx512 product cost (see TABLES below 1, 2 and 3). He immediately assembled a team comprising White from finance, T.Q. Marcel from quality and Dian Ruby from training. The team, led by Mark Spencer, manager of wafer fabrication, conducted a cost review by activity. Simon, like John English, believed significant cost reductions would be necessary to maintain profitability. He had recently taken an executive development course in activity-based costing and knew it was a proven method for better understanding cost structures and cost drivers, and highlighting non-value-added work. Smith was excited, given the size of the assignment and his belief that there were both cost reduction opportunities in manufacturing and necessary improvements in the current standard cost system. He felt the current standard cost system did not properly capture the complexity of UKM’s production process. He felt an ABC analysis could provide the insight necessary to reduce the SPx512 product cost by the £166 marketing had requested. The team mapped the processes of the entire operation and then reassigned costs to the newly defined activities. The manufacturing support organisations were also better understood. Their key activities were costed, and then each was aligned to the manufacturing operation it supported. UKM’s ABC team reset the SPx512 product cost in line with the true practical capacity of the manufacturing process. The team saw capacity utilisation as a major driver of product cost. The old product costing methodology was based on the planned utilisation of each manufacturing process with underutilised manufacturing costs absorbed into product costs.
 
The revised SPx512 product cost was pleasing, but not very surprising to Smith. It confirmed his belief in the inaccuracies of the old costing method. The new SPx512 product cost of £437.50 was £227.61 lower than the £665.11 original cost shown by the old system. It did not make sense to charge the SPx512 for the costs of resources it did not consume. Smith felt he could commit immediately to Sarah's 2023 product cost reduction request of £166.

To achieve the 2024 product cost goal of £332.50, Smith and his team looked further into the activity-based costing results. The study clearly showed that wafer fabrication was the largest area of manufacturing cost. Smith computed that if the SPx512 wafer cost was reduced from the 2023 level of £3,000/wafer to £1,866/wafer, the SPx512 total product cost would be lowered by £105, achieving the desired £332.50. To obtain a wafer cost of £1,866, spending reductions of -£25.5m or 38 per cent in wafer fabrication would have to be achieved (see Table 1). Smith again asked Spencer to review the fabrication area for further cost reduction opportunities. He asked Spencer to formulate a plan that could reduce direct wafer fabrication spending by -£25.5m (from £67.4m to £41.9m).

Table 1

SPx512 2023 target product cost analysis 

(SPx512 gross die/wafer = 512)

Spencer returned in two weeks with an alternative plan (see Table 2). His team found nominal spending opportunities by:

(l) Reducing monitor wafer usage,
(2) Redesigning wafer lot handling procedures and
(3) Better placement of inspection stations.
 
Spencer's most significant discovery was the 64 per cent increase in capacity attained by increasing equipment uptime (the time equipment is not undergoing repair or preventive maintenance).

Higher uptime, however, required an annual investment of £1.8m in additional equipment and engineers. While this investment would increase wafer fabrication spending to £69.2m, wafer fabrication capacity would increase from 26,000 to 42,700 in annual wafer starts. The increased capacity decreased the cost/wafer to £1,845, which was £21 lower than Pound had requested.

Table 2

Spencer's alternative capacity and spending plan

Simon Smith dismissed Spencer's alternative plan outright. 'Spending needed to decrease, not increase!' Smith exclaimed and reiterated his request to reduce fabrication spending by 38 per cent. Smith then focused his team's cost reduction efforts on packaging costs, another major cost component of the SPx512. (UKM had spent close to £8.8m annually on chip packages.) He asked UKM’s purchasing manager, Zoe, to pressure UKM’s 339 PGA supplier to lower their £50 price. Zoe told Smith she had already made this request and was reminded by the vendor that the 339 PGA was a unique design, used only by UKM for the SPx512. With order volumes declining by 50 per cent in a year, Zoe said it would be difficult to keep the £50 package price from increasing.

The final area of review was the SPx256 proposal. Smith and the team reviewed its product cost, necessary manufacturing process and spending requirements (see TABLES 14 & 15 below). Smith compared the SPx256 product cost (computed assuming all production capacity was used to manufacture the SPx256) with the product cost of the SPx512 and noted a few significant cost differences.

The reduced size of the SPx256 (no floating-point processor) increased the number of dies able to be placed on each wafer, thus reducing the fabrication cost/die 67 per cent from the SPx512 (£61.00 for the SPx512; £20.33 for the SPx256). The increase in the number of dies on each wafer increased the probe time, however, and increased the probe cost per wafer by 25 per cent (£500 for the SPx512; £625 for the SPx256). He was pleased with the doubling of assembly capacity resulting from the smaller package required by the SPx256 (202,500 annual assembly starts for the SPx512 405,000 for the SPx256). The increase in assembly throughput reduced the SPx256 assembly costs by 50 per cent. Smith was pleasantly surprised at the SPx256's lower test costs. Even though the SPx256 required a new tester, the lower annual operating costs versus the SPx512, along with the reduced testing time from the elimination of the floating-point unit, resulted in a per unit test cost of only £5 versus £40 for the SPx512.

With the SPx256's cost structure now soundly understood, Smith could better appreciate the high but achievable profit margins of the SPx256. The margins ranged from 75 per cent during Q1-Q3 2023 to -67 per cent in Q4 2024 when the marketing- required price reduction took effect (see Table 3). If Spencer could achieve the £1,866 wafer cost by the start of 2023, the SPx256 could obtain a very respectable margin of 59 per cent in the second half of 2023 at the required price of £125. Using the capacity available in 2023 and 2024 to produce 50,000 and 215,000 units, respectively, easily convinced Smith to fund the SPx256 development effort and purchase the new tester. While the product specifications for the SPx384 were not yet available, he also agreed to fund its development effort. He felt the SPx384 would achieve the same product margins the SPx256 demonstrated.

Table 3

Just as Smith was completing his SPx256 product development meeting, Zoe called and suggested outsourcing and then disinvesting UKM's assembly operations. She had found an assembly house that could assemble the SPx256 in its required 168 PGA for £5 per device (in volume levels of 500,000) with equivalent yields to those UKM projected; Smith thought this idea had merit until he compared the £5 external assembly cost/device to the internal cost estimate of £4. He quickly concluded outsourcing would only increase the overall product cost and therefore was not a viable option.

A week before the budget review, Smith asked Janus to prepare new pro forma income statements for FY2022, FY2023 and FY2024. He wanted to reflect all his cost reduction targets and product-funding levels. He was curious to see the levels of profit he would generate in 2023 and 2024 from:

(1) The revised SPx512 product cost,
(2) The 2024-cost reduction targets in wafer fabrication and their effect on the
SPx512 and SPx256,
(3) the funding of the SPx256 and SPx384,
(4) The purchase of the Bonn tester the SPx256 required,
(5) The utilisation of 2023 and 2024 capacity for manufacturing the SPx256,
(6) The additional advertising expense necessary to promote the SPx256 fully in the marketplace and
(7) The selling of the SPx512 and SPx256 using the marketing department pricing model. Smith was confident his decisions would prove sound and keep UKM profitable in 2023 and 2024.
 
Now, after a second review of Janus's pro forma income statements. Smith had become very anxious. He had to present a viable set of UKM's senior management the following day. He thought he and his team had explored and included all viable options in Janus's statements. Finally, Smith concluded the cause of the projected FY2023 and FY2024 losses was the overly aggressive pricing model. He decided he would present Janus's projections, highlight the losses in spite of the cost reductions reflected and suggest keeping the SPx512 price at £850 for all of 2023 and at £637.50 for all of 2024. The £23.9m increase in FY2023 revenue would turn the £ (15.2m) loss into an £8.7m profit. However, the £17.9m increase in FY2024 revenue would only improve the loss of £ (40.5m) to -£ (22.6m). Smith was convinced Scott would also agree Sarah's pricing model was too aggressive. He was certain Scott would approve a revised SPx512 price and be receptive to a higher price for the SPx256, which could offset the remaining projected 2024 loss. Smith felt it would take a combination of his cost reduction efforts and higher prices to maintain UKM's profitability and thus demonstrate to AHS UKM's ability to transform itself into a competitive business unit.