【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 le for the payingbills activity indicates an overall improvement in activity efficiency (all partial ratios improved). Since this is a valueadded activity, this means that activity performance has improved. The movingmaterials activity indicates a drop in activity productivity. Less output and less inputs were used to perform the activity. This is a nonvalueadded positive effect. The productivity ratios fail to reveal this, though—unless it can be shown that reduction of nonvalueadded activities always leads to a decline in productivity ratios (which seems unlikely). Thus, changes in profiles for nonvalueadded activities are difficult to interpret. The best way to deal with nonvalueadded activities is to include them as part of the productivity analysis of the process to which they belong. 2. Profitlinked measure (P = $25,000, $5,000, and $1, respectively): PQ* PQ ? P AQ AQ ? P (PQ ? P) – (AQ ? P) Clerks ........ 16 $ 400,000 5 $ 125,000 $ 275,000 PCs ............ 16 80,000 5 25,000 55,000 Supplies ... 160,000 160,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 $ 640,000 $ 190,000 $ 450,000 *320,000/20,000。 320,000/20,000。 320,000/2. Significant savings have e from process innovation. 357 PROBLEMS 15–9 1. Profitlinked measure, purchasing (expressed in thousands, where P = $2, $40,000, and 10%, respectively): PQ* PQ ? P AQ AQ ? P (PQ ? P) – (AQ ? P) Supplies ... 60 $ 120 60 $ 120 $ 0 Clerks ........ 1,200 1,000 200 Capital ....... 1,200 120 1,200 120 0 $ 1,440 $ 1,240 $200 *120/2。 120/4,000。 120/ (where the partial ratios for purchasing for 2020 are 2 = 100,000/50,000。 4,000 = 100,000/25。 and = 100,000/1,000,000). Profitlinked measure, receiving (in thousands, where P = $2, $40,000, and 10%, respectively): PQ* PQ ? P AQ AQ ? P (PQ ? P) – (AQ ? P) Supplies ... 48 $ 96 30 $ 60 $ 36 Clerks ........ 2,400 2,000 400 Capital ....... 960 96 3,000 300 (204) $ 2,592 $ 2,360 $ 232 *180/。 180/3,000。 180/ (where the 2020 ratios are = 150,000/ 40,000。 3,000 = 150,000/50。 and = 150,000/800,000). Profitlinked measure, paying bills (in thousands, where P = $2, $40,000, and 10%, respectively): PQ* PQ ? P AQ AQ ? P (PQ ? P) – (AQ ? P) Supplies ... 90 $ 180 5 $ 10 $ 170 Clerks ........ 4,800 400 4,400 Capital ....... 600 60 1,000 100 (40) $ 5,040 $ 510 $ 4,530 *180/2。 180/1,500。 180/ (where the 2020 partial ratios are 2 = 150,000/ 75,000。 1,500 = 150,000/100。 and = 150,000/500,000). 358 15–9 Concluded 2. Activity output efficiency (in thousands, where P = $, $, and $, respectively): PQ* PQ ? P AQ AQ ? P (PQ ? P) – (AQ ? P) Purchasing .... 120 $1,440 120 $1,440 $0 Receiving ....... 180 2,592 180 2,592 0 Paying bills .... 180 5,040 180 5,040 0 $ 9,072 $ 9,072 $ 0 *3,600,000/30。 3,600,000/20。 3,600,000/20 (where the partial ratios are 30 = 3,000,000/100,000 and 20 = 3,000,000/150,000). 3. Sum of the two ponents: Resource efficiency ponent: ...............................................Purchasing $ 200,000 ..................................................Receiving 232,000 ...............................................Paying bills 4,530,000 $ 4,962,000 ...................... Activity output efficiency 0 Total process productivity change .......... $ 4,962,000 The sum of the two ponents gives the change in profits attributable to changes in process productivity. This shows that even though the procurement output’s demands for the output of the three activities remains unchanged, significant improvements in activity resource efficiency have increased the overall efficiency of the procurement process. Notice that the biggest increase came from the paying bills subprocess. This can be explained in large part by the elimination of the nonvalueadded activity of resolving discrepancies. 359 15–10 1. Productivity profile: Current system: Materials: 50,000/200,000 = Labor: 50,000/100,000 = Computerized system: Materials: 50,000/175,000 = Labor: 50,000/75,000 = Materials and labor productivity increase with the acquisition (as claimed by the production manager). 2. To pare the alternatives, all inputs must be considered: Productivity profiles: Current Computerized Materials Labor Capital Energy The productivity profiles indicate a mixed oute—some ratios improve and some do not. Tradeoffs, therefore, must be valued. 3. Profitlinked measurement (where P = $4, $9, 10%, and $ respectively): PQ* PQ ? P AQ AQ ? P (PQ ? P) – (AQ ? P) Materials 200,000 $ 800,000 175,000 $ 700,000 $ 100,000 Labor 100,000 900,000 75,000 675,000 225,000 Capital 100,000 10,000 500,000 50,000 (40,000) Energy 50,000 125,000 125,000 312,500 (187,500) $1,835,000 $1,737,500 $ 97,500 *Since output is the same, PQ equals the inputs for the current system. The tradeoffs are favorable. The puterized system will increase profits by $97,500. 360 15–11 1. Productivity profile: Materialsa Laborb 2020 ............. 2020 ............. a18,000/36,000。 24,000/40,000. b18,000/9,000。 24,000/10,000. The profiles indicate an overall productivity increase and thus support the effectiveness of the new process. 2. Profitlinked measurement (where P = $ and $10, respectively): PQ* PQ ? P AQ AQ ? P (PQ ? P) – (AQ ? P) Materials ..... 48,000 $ 216,000 40,000 $180,000 $ 36,000 Labor ........... 12,000 120,000 10,000 100,000 20,000 $ 336,000 $ 280,000 $ 56,000 *24,000/。 24,000/2. Increase in profits due to productivity = $56,000 3. Pricerecovery ponent: