A case study of activity-based costing in allocating rebar fabrication costs to projects

Kim, Y W; Han, S; Shin, S and Choi, K (2011) A case study of activity-based costing in allocating rebar fabrication costs to projects. Construction Management and Economics, 29(5), pp. 449-461. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

How to improve cost allocation for reinforced steel bar (rebar) is an ongoing topic of debate among construction manufacturers and contractors. Traditionally, many fabrication shops have used a single overhead-cost pool accounting system. However, a new costing method, activity-based costing (ABC), may provide more advantages than the traditional system. In this case study, a single overhead-cost pool system is compared with the ABC method to demonstrate how ABC improves cost allocation and provides other benefits. The case study findings indicate that ABC provides such benefits as (1) accurate manufacturing costs; (2) cost information on processes; and (3) information on cost drivers. This paper also bridges the construction and cost accounting literature. Our study contributes to the construction management literature by offering a different cost allocation method to refine fabrication costs assigned to projects. The findings are expected to serve as a reference for industry professionals who recognize the shortcomings of a traditional single overheadcost pool system and are in need of a more accurate costing system.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: activity-based costing; overhead cost allocation; rebar fabrication
Index terms: costing, fabrication, rebar, cost information, case study, accounting, manufacturer
Subjects: manufacturing engineering, accounting and finance, practitioner, data collection methods, economic analysis, building materials
Topics: Construction Materials, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 3 PCE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here