Ennis Inc.’s Forms Solutions Group (http://www.ennis.com/) is a Texas-based machine-
intensive printing company that produces business forms. The resources demanded by a
specific job depend on the type and amount of paper used and the composition and the
construction of the business form. All jobs are constrained by the time necessary on a press
and on a collator capable of producing forms at the required size.
Ennis Inc.’s Forms Solutions (EFS) uses job costing for pricing and bidding decisions.
EFS uses a separate factory overhead rate for each machine. Costs of machine operator,
support personnel, and supplies are identified directly with presses and collators. Other factory
overhead costs – including insurance, supervision, and office salaries – are allocated to
machines based on their processing capacity (cost driven is the number of feet of business
form per minute), weighted by the maximum paper width and complexity (the cost driver is
the number of colors and other features) that they are capable of handling.
When EFS receives a request for a bid on a particular job, the company uses computer
software to determine direct material costs based on the type and quantity of paper. Then it
identifies the least expensive press and collator that are capable of handling the specifications
for the business form ordered. The third step is to estimate the total press and collator
processing costs by using specific cost-driver rates per machine time multiplied by the
estimated processing time. The bid price is calculated by adding a standard markup to the total
press, collator, and direct material costs. A higher markup is used for rush jobs and jobs
requiring special features.
Required
Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the EFS costing system and its strategic implications.
This short case is intended as a basis for class discussion that could the following
topics and questions: application of job costing in the printing industry; what are the
factors driving the accuracy of product costing; how does the choice of job costing
method affect pricing; what is the effect of cost allocation methods on management
behavior, performance evaluation, and how does a chosen cost method advance or
hinder the firm’s progress to its strategic goals? Some observations that I would
bring out in this discussion include:
EFS uses a job costing system in which materials and direct labor are traced to the
job, and overhead is traced to each machine and then applied to the jobs based on
machine usage
A strength would be that EFS has put a lot of effort into tracing the printing costs
accurately and using an overhead allocation approach that attempts to trace the
costs of the machinery to the jobs that used that machinery
I would begin a discussion of the EFS approach to allocating other overhead costs –
insurance, supervision, and office salaries – to the jobs based on the capacity of the
machines. That is, machines with more printing capacity (where capacity is the
number of feet of forms produced per minute of machine time) will receive a larger
portion of this portion of overhead. This is very much like a volume based rate,
which is OK, but does not reflect the actual behavior of these costs. Suppose the
total of other overhead is significant. Then small jobs on high capacity (fast)
machines will be charged a relatively high rate. Conversely, large jobs on low-
capacity machines will be charged a relatively low rate. How this would affect
pricing and the allocation of jobs to machines is not easy to predict.
The strategic issue is (as in Problem 4-51above) the (unknown) impact of cost
calculations on competitive pricing, and therefore on the company’s
competitiveness. The success of the company depends on its ability to set a
competitive price, recognizing that the company has unused capacity (in a seasonal
business) in some periods of the year.
Source: Jacci L. Rodgers, S. Mark Comstock and Karl Pritz, “Customize Your
Costing System,” Management Accounting, May 1993, pp. 31-32. See also, Lisa
Cross, “Benefiting from Costing and Pricing Tools,” Graphic Arts Monthly, July
2004, pp 32-34.