MA – L2 – Q30 – Budgetary control

APP LIMITED

APP Limited is a well-established book publishing company founded in the early 1950s, following the success of books published by Adio. The company has recently been acquired by Contemporary Publishing Group (CPG) – a multinational company operating across all continents.

Mr. Goodluck of CPG International has been sent from the company’s headquarters to review, among other things, the budgeting and reporting system used by APP.

During his visit to all departments, he discovered that monthly budgets are prepared for each department in the company. Upon request, the last budget statement for the Advanced Education Notebook Production Department (AENP) for period III was presented to him.

The budget statement presented was as shown below:

Budget statement for period III

Department: AENP Department

ACTUAL RESULTS GH₵’000 BUDGET GH₵’000 VARIANCES GH₵’000
Units produced 37,500 36,000
Labour hours 106,050
Sales 2,325 2,232 93 (F)
Material cost 756 720 (36) (A)
Labour cost 369 360 (9) (A)
Variable overhead 237 216 (21) (A)
Fixed overhead 177 168 (9) (A)
Other overhead 123 120 (3) (A)
Administration cost 150 144 (6) (A)
Total cost 1,812 1,728 (84) (A)
Profit 513 504 9 (F)

Mr. N. Kevin

Head of Department

Subsequent interaction with Mr. Kevin – AENP Department Manager, revealed that the budget statement presented was based on 36,000 units with a standard labour content of 2.85 hours per unit.

Mr. Goodluck observed that Kevin was not enthusiastic about the budget system. He saw it as a pressure system imposed by the company to penalize some managers. He pointed out that the system was hurriedly introduced by Sano Consult about twelve months ago. The consultant never took time to provide explanations that could assist users to understand the system. The experienced AENP Manager was doubtful about the competence of the consultant. He was of the opinion that the system introduced in APP Limited was either a ready-made one developed for another company or that the consultant did not understand the system well enough to give him the needed confidence to educate the users. He concluded by stating that he was sure his department made a loss as against the positive figure recorded in the report and there was the possibility of reporting a loss at another period when profit was actually made. The situation reported above cuts across virtually all departments, and so the need to address the situation became very urgent.

The task of making the budgeting system more useful and acceptable in a biased environment like this, no doubt, seems difficult, but your advice to Mr. Goodluck will assist tremendously in resolving the issue.

Required:

(a) Redraft the budget statement in a more informative manner.

(b) State the behavioural problems brought out in this situation.

(c) State the steps you think Mr. Goodluck should take.

(a) Redraft the budget statement in a more informative manner.

Budget statement for Period III

Department: AENP Department

Actual GH₵ Budget GH₵ Variance GH₵
Units produced 37,500 36,000
Labour hours 106,050 102,600
Sales 2,325,000 2,325,000 0
Direct Materials 756,000 750,000 (6,000)
Direct Labour 369,000 372,105 3,105
Variable Overhead 327,000 347,298 (12,702)
Fixed Overhead 177,000 168,000 (9,000)
Other Overhead 123,000 124,800 (1,800)
Administration cost 150,000 149,400 (600)
Total cost 1,812,000 1,781,403 (30,597)
Profit 513,000 543,597 (30,597)

Notes/Workings

Budget Result Basis:

  • Units: 36,000
  • Labour Hrs = 36,000 units × 2.85 = 102,600 hrs

Actual Result Basis:

  • Units: 37,500
  • Labour Hrs: 106,050 units

Direct Materials = (GH₵720,000 / 36,000 units) × 37,500 units = GH₵750,000

Direct Labour = (GH₵360,000 / 102,600 hrs) × 106,050 hrs = GH₵372,105

Variable Overhead:

  • GH₵216,000 + GH₵120,000 = GH₵336,000
  • (GH₵336,000 / 102,600 hrs) × 106,050 hrs = GH₵347,298

Sales value = (GH₵2,232,000 / 36,000 units) × 37,500 = GH₵2,325,000

(b) The behavioural problems brought out in this situation.

The budgetary process here is not participatory. The users were not part of the process. The approach applied here discouraged initiative and that was why users misunderstood the objective of the system. They saw the system as a penny-pinching control activity rather than a positive and beneficial one.

For example, (i) The Budget system was imposed on users. This created resentment and negative reactions. (ii) Users did not understand the system and so system was unacceptable to them. (iii) Users were not involved in the whole process, hence their motivation was stifled. (iv) Users did not see the system as a neutral and objective one. (v) The goals of users were at variance with those of the organisation (goal incongruence).

(c) Steps Mr. Goodluck should take.

Mr. Goodluck is advised to take the following steps: (i) Summon all managers and heads of departments to a meeting where he will disabuse their minds on the acquired negative and contradictory attitude. (ii) Cancel the present system and initiate a new system that involves full participation of the budget holders. (iii) Communicate the objectives of the company and the usefulness of a budget system to all users. All the benefits derivable therefrom should be clearly and distinctly highlighted. (iv) The new process of budget preparation and subsequent performance evaluation should be carried out in such a manner as to motivate managers and staff i.e. it should be participatory and should also encourage initiative and responsibility.