Features of population genetics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Features of population genetics - Essay Example Consequently, the species is more likely to become extinct if environmental conditions change, even minimally. One such virus that can induce genetic changes is the West Nile virus (WNv), and it has the capacity to change the genetic sequencing of animal species, predominantly birds. WNv can be passed to humans and other mammals via mosquitoes and causes mild to severe illness, and in some cases death. The investigators presented data that supported a phylogenetic conclusion that the MNv epidemic of North America already reached an epidemiological plateau. The conclusion that peak prevalence has been passed was based on the decline in the population growth of WNv in recent months. Snapinn et al.'s method of trying to quantify the emergence of MNv in the USA contrasts with that of previous research, such as Hull et al. (2006) and Naugle et al. (2004) who observed antibody rates of birds to identify the prevalence of WNv infection. The results for Hull's study showed that antibodies to WNv were found across all raptor groups across two geographical regions. This supports the conclusion that many of the wild raptors had survived a WNv infection. In contrast, Naugle and colleagues observed that their sage-grouse sample did not exhibit WNv antibodies, suggesting that the species lacks resistance to infection. For both studies it appears that the summer months are times of increased infections, perhaps due to the increase in mosquito populations. These conclusions were drawn from evidence of statically different antibody rates across summer and winter regions used in each sample. Method Statistical methods were used to track the WNv population, estimating a set of parameters; rate of evolutionary change; sequences divergence time; and rate of viral population growth. These factors were based on the changes observed in gene sequence data. This method of modeling estimates the level of new infections across all species that can be host to WNv. This is a reasonable conclusion given that a virus leaves an epidemiological 'history' on gene sequences.The limitation of this study was that the statistical estimates used a viral sample from only one species - birds (corvids and raptors), and from only one geographical region - northeastern USA. It may be that species differences affect the lifespan of the virus, and that such a narrow geographical sample does not reflect random sampling of the entire population (which exists across the entire nation), and so is not representative. There may be confounding variables such as climate, pesticides, food availability or predators that impact on the health of the birds in this region that make them more resistant to MNv. Such a case would be of interest in developing a vaccine to the virus, but does not illuminate the true state of affairs with regard to the population growth, stagnation or decrease of MNv.Hull's study drew plasma specimens from Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Red-shouldered Hawks (B. lineatus), and Cooper's Hawks (Accipiter cooperii) was Whilst Naugle and colleagues collected the serum of 112 radio-marked sage grouse (Centrocercus

Commercialization Of Indian Premier League

Commercialization Of Indian Premier League Cricket is just one of those many sports which was conceived by the English and perfected by the world; the Indian Premier League is just an extension of this phenomenon. The Twenty 20 format was invented in England in 2003 but it really took off when the master strategist that is Lalit Modi took it upon himself to take this format a step higher into crickets first franchise based sports event. In late June 2007 Lalit Modi who was then Vice-President of the Board of Cricket Control for India spoke to Andrew Wildblood of the International Management Group (IMG), a company with a vast experience in the whole area of sports management. IMG and Lalit Modi then sat down to discuss this model and finally came up with the idea that is the IPL in its current format. The idea behind creating city based teams was based on the model present in sports in US and UK. IMG designed the IPL after an intensive study of the primary sporting leagues around the world such as the NHL, NBA, NFL and EPL. They examined the theoretical models and also the result and impact of each of these leagues before arriving at the final blueprint. As in most other areas, there were at least as many learnings from the shortcomings and weaknesses as there were in the strengths and benefits mapped to the individual market contexts. What has finally emerged as the IPL design is one that has been meticulously refined to work for cricket.The league structure has been modeled so as to flourish in the uniquely Indian context, and drive the development of grassroots talent in Indian cricket. The idea had all the ingredients to be a success as it had the best cricket players of the world, fans from around the world and a dollop of glamour due to the presence of Bollywood celebrities, corporates and Indian politicos. The IPL was the first of its kind sports extravaganza of its kind, prior to this India has been fed a steady diet of 50 overs and test cricket. This kind of model which is common in the west but a first of its kind in India provided many new avenues for all the stakeholders. The grand old game of Cricket has undergone several makeovers in its history. Test cricket was followed by 60 over one day matches which later became 50 overs. The all white strip of the 70s gave way to the colored clothing and day-night matches of the Kerry Packer era. The Twenty 20 format which originated in England was devised to bring back the crowds in English County Cricket. The game in England was going through a major crisis and the introduction of T20 was instrumental in bringing a much needed dose of excitement in the game. Once again English were left to marvel as the sport they had created in their own backyard was spun into the Great Indian Tamasha by Lalit Modi and his comrades. Commercialization of IPL: Indian Premier League (IPL) has defined a new set of paradigm to do business in the Indian landscape. This was bound to happen someday, looking at the craze for the cricket in this country. IPL is not a yet another cricket extravaganza but an event where money is spun around with many different angles and huge stakes are involved in it. IPL has corporatized cricket in a unique way. It has added a new dimension of marketing and branding the sport in India. IPL is a business which has big economy of scale. India has seen the success of different businesses and the organizations or entrepreneurs running them and now it is the turn of IPL. Overall IPL itself has become a big brand under the leadership of Top management and it is a matter of interest that how it has been done as compared to the failure of its rival league ICL. The Value Positioning of IPL is Fast and Quick Entertainment Which has its own pros and cons according to the test and 50-50 Over Cricket Fraternity. The Making of the Franchises: The biggest USP of the Indian Premier League is that, here the teams are run and managed by various corporate houses or Bollywood celebrities. The owners of the teams went through a bidding procedure to buy the teams and after that, the cricketers were also put up forauction. The managements of the teams took part in the auction and bid for their desired cricketers, with a view to make their team the strongest one among all others. Cricketers from around the world, including the Indian cricketers were put up for auction. The BCCI actually followed the format of England`s most popular football event, the Barclays English Premier League (EPL) for governing the rules and regulations of the Indian Premier League (IPL). Right from the ownership of the franchises to the games themselves, IPL saw an exciting cocktail of Cricket, Bollywood and Business Barons. The people involved in buying these franchises were the whos who of Bollywood and Indian Business Houses.The winning bidders for the eight franchises were declared on 24 January 2008. The total base price for the auction was US $400 million but the auction went on to fetch US $723.59 million.On March 21, 2010, Pune and Kochi were unveiled as the two new franchises for the fourth edition of the Indian Premier League. The base price this time around was $225 million. While Pune was bought by Sahara Adventure Sports Group for $370 million, the Kochi franchise was bought by Rendezvous Sports World Limited for $333.3 million. The process was to have been completed on March 7 but was postponed by two weeks after many bidders and the BCCI objected to stiff financial clauses. The second franchise auction fetched total $703 million. This auction brought a lot of attention towards the IPL for the alleged involvement of Union Cabinet Minister ShashiTharoor . His involvement in trying to tip the scales in the favor of a particular consortium created much furore in the media Open Auction for Individual Players: Highest bidder becomes the buyer. Each player has a base annual fee which is on a pro-rata basis depending on his availability. Each IPL franchise has a max limit to spend on bidding for players. Television rights and sponsorships: The IPL is predicted to bring the BCCI income of approximately US$1.6 billion, over a period of five to ten years. All of these revenues are directed to a central pool, 40% of which will go to IPL itself, 54% to franchisees and 6% as prize money. The money will be distributed in these proportions until 2017, after which the share of IPL will be 50%, franchisees 45% and prize money 5%. The IPL signed up Kingfisher Airlines as the official umpire partner for the series in a Rs. 106 crore (1.06 billion) deal. This deal sees the Kingfisher Airlines brand on all umpires uniforms and also on the giant screens during third umpire decisions Television rights: On 15 January 2008 it was announced that a consortium consisting of Indias Sony Entertainment Television network and Singapore-based World Sport Group secured the global broadcasting rights of the Indian Premier League. The record deal has duration of ten years at a cost of US $1.026 billion. As part of the deal, the consortium will pay the BCCI US $918 million for the television broadcast rights and US $108 million for the promotion of the tournament. This deal was challenged in the Bombay High Court by IPL, and got the ruling on its side. After losing the battle in court, Sony Entertainment Television signed a new contract with BCCI with Sony Entertainment Television paying a staggering Rs. 8700 crores for 10 years. Sony-WSG then re-sold parts of the broadcasting rights geographically to other companies. Below is a summary of the broadcasting rights around the world. On 4 March 2010 ITV announced it had secured the United Kingdom television rights for the 2010 Indian Premier League. ITV will televise 59 of the 60 IPL matches on its ITV4 free to air channel. Sony charges Rs 4-5 lakh per 10 seconds, (top soaps charge Rs 1.5 lakh per 10 seconds). According to Television Audience Measurement (TAM), the average Television Rating Points (TRP) of the first 14 matches in Season 1 was 4.97; in Season 2 it was 4.52, and in Season 3 its grown to 4.69. If IPL-1 reached 77 million people in the first 14 matches, IPL-2 went to 96 million and IPL-3 is at 108 million. The ratings have also raised team earnings. Winning Bidder Sponsorships: Indias biggest property developer DLF Group paid US$50 million to be the title sponsor of the tournament for 5 years from 2008 to 2013.Other five-year sponsorship agreements include a deal with motorcycle maker Hero Honda worth $22.5-million, one with PepsiCo worth $12.5-million, and a deal with beer and airline conglomerate Kingfisher at $26.5-million. Revenue and Profits: The UK-based brand consultancy, Brand Finance, has valued the IPL at $4.13 billion in 2010. It was valued at U$2.01 billion in 2009 by the same consultancy. There are disputed figures for the profitability of the teams. One analyst said that four teams out of the eight made a profit in 2009.]While the London Times said that all but Kings XI Punjab made a profit. In 2010, the IPL expects to have 80 official merchandising deals. It has signed a deal with Swiss watchmaker Bandelier to make official watches for the IPL. Official IPL applications: DCI Mobile Studios (A division of Dot Com Infoway Limited), in conjunction with Sigma Ventures of Singapore, have jointly acquired the rights to be the exclusive Mobile Application partner and rights holder for the Indian Premier League cricket matches worldwide for the next 8 years (including the 2017 season). Recently, they have released the IPL T20 Mobile applications for iPhone, Nokia Smartphonesand Blackberry devices. Soon it will be made available across all other major Mobile platforms including the Android, Windows Mobile, Palm others. How Does IPL make Money? Auction of broadcasting rights. Title sponsorship and corporate sponsorship. Sale of Tickets (20% allocated to IPL). Auction of Franchisee rights. Official Umpires sponsorships. How is the Income Distributed? Share of the broadcasting money with franchisees. Share of the sponsorship money with franchisees. Share of ticket money with franchisees. Inauguration expenses. Prize Money. Sources of Income for an IPL Franchise (ROI) Share in revenue from the broadcasting rights. Share in the sponsorship money. Share in revenue from the sale of tickets. Revenue from In-stadium Advertising. Sale of Players to other franchise. Revenue from own sponsorship and corporate sponsorship. How is the franchise income distributed? Franchisee fees: 10% of the total franchisee costs every year to IPL. Players cost. Match fees and Inauguration expenses. Rent of Stadium. Marketing and promotional cost. Fees for coaches, physiotherapists and other members. Administrative cost. Franchisees can earn profit in IPL as Team owners get 80% of broadcast revenues, 60% of sponsorship revenues, 100% of team sponsorship revenues, 80% of ticket revenues, 87.5% of all merchandising revenues, and 100% of all hospitality revenues. Brand Finance, which came out with IPL brands latest valuation at $ 4.13 billion, said that the brand alone has risen significantly, providing tremendous economic value to its owner, BCCI. Although the English Premier League is valued much higher at $12 billion, the IPLs valuation has risen above $4 billion in just three years, Brand Finance pointed out. Indian Premier League would generate revenue of $1 billion this season, thanks to huge fan following across the globe, attracting a large number of advertisers. Indian Premier Leagues brand value has more than doubled to $4.13 billion (over Rs 18,000 crores), while Chennai Super Kings has emerged the most valued franchise this year, says a study. Ranked fourth last year, Chennai Super Kings led by MS Dhoni has moved to number one with a valuation of $48.4 million, followed by Shahrukh Khan-owned Kolkata Knight Riders ($46 million) and Shilpa Shettys Rajasthan Royals ($45.2 million). The valuation of teams pale in comparison to the IPL brand itself, which has more than doubled from last years $2.01 billion. The individual franchisees have also seen a fair amount of uplift in value since last year. Vijay Mallya-promoted Royal Challengers Bangalore is ranked fourth this year with a valuation of $41.9 million and is followed by Nita Ambani-owned Mumbai Indians ($40.8 million), Delhi Daredevils ($40.5 million), Kings XI Punjab ($36.1 million) and Hyderabad Deccan Chargers at the bottom with a valuation of $34.4 million. Consider this. Chelsea, one of the wealthiest, most powerful football clubs in Europe the Premiership giants, who were bought by Russian oligarch Roman Abrahmovic for  £140 million (Rs 966 crores) in one of the most high-profile takeovers in international sport in 2003, would appear a mid-table struggler if compared to the  £246.35 million (Rs 1,702 crores) Sahara splashed out to buy the Pune team. While it is almost certain that Rendezvous Sports pumping in money for a Kochi-based T20 franchise sounds the death knell for Keralas traditional favorite, football, at Rs 1,533 crores, the cricketing venture heads both Chelsea and Liverpool, which was taken over by US ice-hockey team owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks for  £219m (Rs 1,511 crores) in February 2007. It should be noted that seven seasons ago, the Russian oligarch was paying the amount he did for an established brand, one that was almost a century old, while the Indians paid these astronomical sums merely to gain entry into what is still a fledgling venture, which recently began only its third season. IPL SWOT Strengths The IPL is set up upon the T20 cricket game which should be completed in 2.5 hours. That means that is fast-paced and exciting, and moreover it can be played on a weekday evening or weekend afternoon. That makes it very appealing as a mass sport, just like American Football, Basketball and Soccer. It is appealing as a spectator sport, as well to TV audiences. The IPL has employed economists to structure its lead so that revenue is maximized. The more unified the sport, the more successful it is. Weaknesses Twenty20 has been so popular that it could replace other forms of cricket i.e. damage the game that generated it. Some fans will also have to pay for travel to the ground. There may be large queues for the most popular games. There may be some distance between where the fan lives and the cricket ground. Stakes are very high! Some teams may not weather short-term failures and may be too quick to get rid of key managers and players if things dont go well quickly. Famously, Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) sacked their CEO Charu Sharma for watching his team lose 6 from their first 8 games. Some teams have overpriced their advertising/sponsorship in order to gain some short-term returns (e.g. Royal Challengers), and some sponsors and are moving their investment the more reasonably priced teams. Opportunities Since it has a large potential mass audience, IPL is very attractive as a marketing communications opportunity, especially for advertisers and sponsors. The league functions under a number of franchises. Each franchisee is responsible for marketing its team to gain as large a fan-base as possible. The long-term success of all of the franchises lies in the generation of a solid fan-base. The fan-base will generate large TV revenues. Different fans will pay different amounts to watch their sport. There will be corporate hospitality, season tickets, away tickets, TV pay-per-view and other ways to segment the market for the IPL. There is a huge opportunity for merchandising e.g. sales of shirts, credit cards and other fan memorabilia. Grounds can also sell refreshments and other services during the games. Marketers believe that the teenage segments need to be targeted so that they become the long-term fan-base. Their parents and older cricket fans may prefer the longer, more traditional game. The youth market may also impress on their parents that they want them to buy their clubs merchandise on their behalf as a differentiator or status symbol. Franchise fees will remain fixed for the up until 2017-18, which means that the investment is safe against inflation which is traditionally relatively high in India. Threats The level of competition that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) can generate determines long-term viability of the league. If the level of competition drops, then revenue will fall. For example, if the top names in cricket cannot be attracted to India, the appeal of the game will fall. Often getting hold of the big names is a problem Australian domestic cricket runs concurrent with the IPL and if players move from Australia to India to follow the money then their domestic game will be hit. This is known as Free Agency. If the franchisees fan-base does not generate income then they may not have the cash to pay the salaries of the best players. However, if you invest in the best players and they do not win the trophies, then you may not see a return on your investment. It wont be a quick return on investment so owners need to be in it for the long-term. The most highly priced teams may not be those that have the early success. Revenues will come from the most highly supported teams. Marketing Strategy: IPL The DLF Indian premier league is a concept sell. It is clearly observed that IPL is a perfect example of controversy marketing Strategies: Auctioning the franchisees. Auctioning the players participating in the IPL tournament. Advertisements on various TV and radio channels. Cheerleaders were one of the most important things that is talked about, foreign girls attracted huge crowd. Worldwide telecast. Locations: the venue chosen for the cricket matches was a strategic choice of places which are named after franchisees, which helped attract people. Conflicts with some media partners and some other cricket boards again demanded the attention of people. Timing: IPL has shown its strategic application of intellect by choosing the evening time for the matches, which made people watch game comfortably. ICL: the rival ICL had been one of the reasons for the publicity and emergence of IPL. People started comparing the IPL ICL that caused the huge publicity for the IPL Opening ceremony gala, Live Concerts. Franchises taken by film stars like Shahrukh Khan, Pretty Zinta and Juhi Chawla etc are the center for attraction, which made some Bollywood stars come for the game. Use of models and Bollywood stars for anchoring and promotion of teams like Akshay Kumar for Delhi daredevils, Shahrukh khan for Kolkata Knight Riders. The commentators were not less than PROs, use of phrases that pleased sponsors and made them pay more. Example: for every six it was a DLF Maximum, for every special moment it was city moment of success. Advantages and Disadvantages Players: Advantages Disadvantages Earn at least Rs 80 Lakhs ($200000) or more per season on average. Due to the tight schedule of international cricket, Chances of injury lowers the tenure of career. Bonuses and Prize Money from Team owners. Neglecting other forms of cricket A great stage to show case skills and compete with the best in the world. Fast game. Stamina and patience to build an innings and bowl tirelessly to get wickets is lost. The top 4 highest earning international cricketers are Indians, with the captain, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, leading the way with annual earnings estimated at US$10m, Tendulkar at US$8m, Yuvraj and Dravid earning in excess of US$5m. Franchise: Advantages Disadvantages Using the cricket property to promote other businesses. Financial Loss if the IPL fails to take off. Prize money if the team wins. Franchises Pays the team and financial costs i.e. Cost of acquisition. They earn from the share in revenue from IPL. Promotional expenses have to be paid by franchises. They also pay the franchisee fee e.g. RCB has to pay $11.16m p.a. for 10 years. Sponsors: Advantages Disadvantages Spot rate charged from advertisers of IPL. Spot Rate may go down if any IPL season is not a blockbuster. Improves customer base. Too much reputation at stake tied to the fortunes of the franchise teams as a whole. Sponsors get branding and recognition. BCCI: Advantages Disadvantages The BCCI makes good money solely from the sale of TV rights, promotion and franchises. May forget to put efforts to promote other forms of cricket Domestic and Test Cricket. Got a great source of revenue. Viewers: Advantages Disadvantages Unlimited Masti and entertainment. Chances of family fights over Channel viewer ship. A great arsenal to make the case strong against the Saas Bahu fans in the family. Capital costs in terms of additional investment in television sets. A very good reason to increase productivity in office Return home by 8 pm. A to Z of IPL Controversies A for Australia Anyone remember that the Aussies had the biggest problems at the beginning of IPL? There were issues regarding the protection of Baggy Green sponsors and availability of the players with certain tours. Our relations with Cricket Australia were at an all-time low. A is also for Andrew Symonds who got a record price in the first auction raising a lot of eyebrows and people wondered how he would fare in the IPL. Now Symmo is on his way to becoming a desi and no-one will bat an eyelid if any Aussies takes Indian citizenship. B for Betting When cricket is played in India, can rumours of betting be far behind? After the Modi-Tharoor spat, everyone is talking about it again. A recent Forbes report puts the illegal cricket-related betting annually at a whopping Rs 160,000 crores. How much of that is IPL related? The Karnataka Home Minister called the shifting of the semis from Bangalore to Mumbai a result of the powerful betting lobby. Even the I-T raids that are taking place on the premises of BCCI and IPL have a betting angle to them. One hopes that nothing comes out of all this for a Betting Scandal has the potential to be the biggest game-killer of them all. C for Cheerleaders They have been controversial right from the beginning, but they continue to charm the crowds. The all-white cheerleaders have raised many an eyebrows in a past edition of IPL. A row was kicked up over two coloured ones being sent home. No case was filed. Various groups at various times have protested against them while there have been uproars in political assemblies too. Bans have been demanded. But Indian or not, they are here to stay. D for Dada Was Sourav Ganguly a victim of the KKR management? Was John Buchanan a villain in wanting to show him the door? Was Shah Rukh Khan foolish in getting into a conflict with him? Did SRK interfere too much with the strategy of KKR? Did Dada refuse SRKs request to talk to the government for tax favours? Did the troika of Dada-Buchanan-SRK fight all the time? One thing is for sure. Theres never a dull moment when Dada is around. E for ECB The ECB was the other board apart from CA that had a lot of issues with the IPL. Player concerns resulted in Dimitri Mascarenhas being the only signed player in 2008. In order to break free of the IPL, the ECB attempted the Stanford 20/20 with the WICB. That ended in a disaster when Texas billionaire Allen Stanford was charged with fraud. Things are finally okay and English players like Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collinwood have done pretty well in IPL3. F for Fake IPL Player Is there anything the IPL doesnt have? As if Twitter wasnt good enough, you had a blogging controversy to boot. A player claiming to be part of KKR started baring all the details of dressing room talk, strategies gone wrong, all the backbiting and salacious gossip in 2009. Was he real? Was he telling the truth? It didnt matter. He got lakhs of visitors and also came out with a book called The Gamechangers. Fake or real, this is the most famous anonymous dude around. G for Glass of Beer In IPL2, a spectator offered a glass of beer to Shane Warne and the Aussie actually crossed the boundary and drank it! Critics cried foul. Others defended him. It was the strategy break! It was technically outside the cricket field. Its just IPL, good pure entertainment! Out of all of Warnes controversies, the spinner will probably rank it at its lightest. Vijay Mallya must have been sniggering somewhere in the background. H for Harbhajan Some people draw controversies like a magnet. Call it the Passion of Harbhajan Singh, but you just cant keep him quiet on the cricket field (or off it, for that matter). The ICC had rules on what to do if a player slapped a player on the field. That dead clause came to life when Harbhajan slapped mercurial S Sreesanth at the end of a match. A sobbing Sreesanth was all over the TV screens and some even said he got what was coming to him! But still it was a grave act for technically Harbhajan could have been handed a life ban. Ouch! I for Icons They were announced with great fanfare and the IPL and the franchisees clung on to them in the hope of drawing popularity and brand recall. But as the IPL progressed they were slowly dispensed with. Rahul Dravid was given the boot from the captaincy and VVS Laxman from the team. Yuvraj Singh hurtled from one disaster to another and was also stripped of his captaincy. Virender Sehwag gave up his mantle on his own. Sachin Tendulkar looked the tired man in the first two seasons and only came on his own in IPL3 when the whole concept of Icons was shelved. J for Joint Ventures While some teams were owned outright by single company, most of them were owned by a group of people. Who owned what percentage and paid how much money? While all this was swept under the carpet in the first two seasons, it suddenly became a hot topic in IPL3 when Modi put up the holding details of the Kochi franchisee. In the beginning was a Modi Tweet Kochi shareholders are: Rendezvous 25% free, Rendezvous 1%,Anchor 27%, Parinee 26%, Film waves combine 12%,Anand Shyam 8%,Vivek venugopal 1% K for Kochi and that directly brings us to the Mother of All Controversies. It encompassed Shashi Tharoor, Lalit Modi, Twitter, North-South Politics, Lok Sabha, I-T Raids, NCP Phew! Who would have thought that something from Kerala would have brought down the whole IPL pack of cards in one huge sweeping stroke! Sunanda Pushkar washed her hands off Kochi and Shashi Tharoor finally had to bid goodbye to his ministry before his first anniversary. And the can of worms has just been opened. They keep coming out one after another. L for Lalit Modi Mr. Lalit Modi. Some time back you could have easily have said IPL = Modi and Modi = IPL. This man is no stranger to trouble. In fact, now controversy has become his middle name. Charged in a US court, in trouble with the authorities with the way he ran the RCA, Modi has been hurtling from one disaster to another in the IPL. And getting away with all of them to boot! He famously declared in a TV channel that he swatted controversies like flies. But such is life where even the greatest of grandmasters can be checkmated! M for Media In season one, the IPL tried to impose all sorts of media restrictions related to images and were faced with a boycott. The IPL backed off and the Indian Newspaper Society played ball. In season three, it was the turn of the broadcasters. A controversy erupted over the amount of footage TV channels could use and another boycott loomed and that too was sorted out at the eleventh hour. N for Ness Wadia While all the KXIP action has been around Preity Zinta and Yuvraj Singh and all that hugging, Mr Wadia is also an owner and has been part of the behind the scenes action. He came in th

The Rough Sea :: Creative Writing Sailing Essays

The Rough Sea The small whitecaps lapped against the starboard side and then retreated. It had been rough since the start and would be until they reached the breakwater in the harbor. Bob, finishing pulling on the ropes to raise the masts, turned towards the wheel and slowly turned around the rocks. He moved to the back of the boat and sat on the place where the lifejackets were kept. Near the masts Frank rocked up and down and up with the waves. It was a feeling like no other to him; the fact that the gentle movements could turn rough at any time gave him so much pleasure from the start of the ride to the finish. He loved to sail out as far as he could go before he got tired from the rocking motion and had to stop going farther. He loved trying to venture farther and farther out each time before he had to turn back; his favorite part was the rough sea where the waves were rougher and rougher as he kept going. A sudden gust made him think about turning back, but he knew that they had gone too far to turn back, and he knew he had to keep going until the waves had reached their peaks. Then they passed a part of the water where the waves suddenly stopped and quickly gave way to a very calm feeling inside of him so that he could relax and recollect the ride so far º. "That was a real surprise, wasn't it, Rob?" Frank said. "It got me, too. I wasn't ready for it, and it jumped me." "Yep. Almost fell over when we hit it," Bob called back to his friend, now near the bow of the boat. "How's the water look over there?" "Pretty good, but it looks like there're some rough caps ahead." They braced themselves as they passed over the rough caps, slowly moving around the biggest ones so that the craft wouldn't capsize. Bob kept a strong hold on the wheel and made sure that they would stand the waves. On the horizon they could see the buildings of the town. The sky had started to get dark. Both of them hoped it would not start to rain until they were in the harbor. They could see the light starting to come from the breakwater lighthouse. "Great day for sailing," Bob said to Frank.

Spoilage, Rework, and Scrap

Managers have found that improved quality and intolerance for high spoilage have lowered overall costs and increased sales. 18-2Spoilage—units of production that do not meet the standards required by customers for good units and that are discarded or sold at reduced prices. Rework—units of production that do not meet the specifications required by customers but which are subsequently repaired and sold as good finished units. Scrap—residual material that results from manufacturing a product. It has low total sales value compared to the total sales value of the product. 8-3Yes. Normal spoilage is spoilage inherent in a particular production process that arises even under efficient operating conditions. Management decides the spoilage rate it considers normal depending on the production process. 18-4Abnormal spoilage is spoilage that is not inherent in a particular production process and would not arise under efficient operating conditions. Costs of abnormal spoilag e are â€Å"lost costs,† measures of inefficiency that should be written off directly as losses for the accounting period. 18-5Management effort can affect the spoilage rate.Many companies are relentlessly reducing their rates of normal spoilage, spurred on by competitors who, likewise, are continuously reducing costs. 18-6Normal spoilage typically is expressed as a percentage of good units passing the inspection point. Given actual spoiled units, we infer abnormal spoilage as follows: Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage 18-7Accounting for spoiled goods deals with cost assignment, rather than with cost incurrence, because the existence of spoiled goods does not involve any additional cost beyond the amount already incurred. 18-8Yes.Normal spoilage rates should be computed from the good output or from the normal input, not the total input. Normal spoilage is a given percentage of a certain output base. This base should never include abnormal spoilage, which is included in total input. Abnormal spoilage does not vary in direct proportion to units produced, and to include it would cause the normal spoilage count to fluctuate irregularly and not vary in direct proportion to the output base. 18-9Yes, the point of inspection is the key to the assignment of spoilage costs. Normal spoilage costs do not attach solely to units transferred out.Thus, if units in ending work in process have passed inspection, they should have normal spoilage costs added to them. 18-10No. If abnormal spoilage is detected at a different point in the production cycle than normal spoilage, then unit costs would differ. If, however normal and abnormal spoilage are detected at the same point in the production cycle, their unit costs would be the same. 18-11No. Spoilage may be considered a normal characteristic of a given production cycle. The costs of normal spoilage caused by a random malfunction of a machine would be charged as a part of the manufacturing overhe ad allocated to all jobs.Normal spoilage attributable to a specific job is charged to that job. 18-12 No. Unless there are special reasons for charging normal rework to jobs that contained the bad units, the costs of extra materials, labor, and so on are usually charged to manufacturing overhead and allocated to all jobs. 18-13Yes. Abnormal rework is a loss just like abnormal spoilage. By charging it to manufacturing overhead, the abnormal rework costs are spread over other jobs and also included in inventory to the extent a job is not complete. Abnormal rework is rework over and above what is expected during a period, and is recognized as a loss for that period. 8-14A company is justified in inventorying scrap when its estimated net realizable value is significant and the time between storing it and selling or reusing it is quite long. 18-15Company managements measure scrap to measure efficiency and to also control a tempting source of theft. Managements of companies that report hi gh levels of scrap focus attention on ways to reduce scrap and to use the scrap the company generates more profitably. Some companies, for example, might redesign products and processes to reduce scrap. Others may also examine if the scrap can be reused to save substantial input costs. 8-16(5–10 min. ) Normal and abnormal spoilage in units. 1. Total spoiled units12,000 Normal spoilage in units, 5% ( 132,000 6,600 Abnormal spoilage in units 5,400 2. Abnormal spoilage, 5,400 ( $10$ 54,000 Normal spoilage, 6,600 ( $10 66,000 Potential savings, 12,000 ( $10$120,000 Regardless of the targeted normal spoilage, abnormal spoilage is non-recurring and avoidable. The targeted normal spoilage rate is subject to change. Many companies have reduced their spoilage to almost zero, which would realize all potential savings.Of course, zero spoilage usually means higher-quality products, more customer satisfaction, more employee satisfaction, and various beneficial effects on nonmanufacturing (for example, purchasing) costs of direct materials. 18-17(20 min. )Weighted-average method, spoilage, equivalent units. Solution Exhibit 18-17 calculates equivalent units of work done to date for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-17 Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Gray Manufacturing Company for November 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period |10,150a | | | |To account for |11,150 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |9,000 |9,000 |9,000 | |Normal spoilage* |100 | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |50 | | | |50 ( 100%; 50 (100% | |50 |50 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |2,000 | | | |2,000 ( 100%; 2,000 ( 30% | |2,000 |600 | |Accounted for 11,150 | | | |Work done to date | |11,150 |9,750 | a From below, 11,150 total units are accounted for. Therefore, units started during current period must be = 11,150 – 1,000 = 10,150. *Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. 18-18(20(25 min. Weighted-average method, assigning costs (continuation of 18-17). Solution Exhibit 18-18 calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-18 Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summari ze Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Gray Manufacturing Company, November 2006. |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 2,533 |$ 1,423 |$ 1,110 | |Costs added in current period (given) |39,930 |12,180 |27,750 | |Costs incurred to date | |13,603 |28,860 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(11,150 |( 9,750 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$ 1. 22 |$ 2. 6 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$42,463 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$37,620 | (9,000# ( $1. 22) + (9,000# ( $2. 96) | |Normal spoilage (100 units) |418 |(100# ( $1. 22) + (100# ( $2. 96) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed & transf. out |38,038 | | |(B) Abnormal spoil age (50 units) |209 |(50# ( $1. 22) + (50# ( $2. 96) | |(C) Work in process, ending (2,000 units) |4,216 |(2,000# ( $1. 22) + (600# ( $2. 6) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$42,463 | | #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-17. 18-19(15 min. )FIFO method, spoilage, equivalent units. Solution Exhibit 18-19 calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-19 Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Gray Manufacturing Company for November 2006. | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period |10,150a | | | |To account for |11,150 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out duri ng current period: | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |1,000 | | | |1,000 ( (100% (100%); 1,000 ( (100% ( 50%) | |0 |500 | |Started and completed |8,000# | | | |8,000 ( 100%; 8,000 ( 100% | |8,000 |8,000 | |Normal spoilage* |100 | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |50 | | | |50 ( 100%; 50 ( 100% | |50 |50 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |2,000 | | | |2,000 ( 100%; 2,000 ( 30% | |2,000 |600 | |Accounted for |11,150 | | | |Work done in current period only | |10,150 |9,250 | a From below, 11,150 total units are accounted for.Therefore, units started during current period must be 11,150 – 1,000 = 10,150. ||Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. #9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 1,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. *Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion co sts, 100%. † Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. 18-20(20(25 min. )FIFO method, assigning costs (continuation of 18-19).Solution Exhibit 18-20 calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-20 Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit Costs, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; FIFO Method of Process Costing, Gray Manufacturing Company, November 2006. | |Total | | | | Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given: $1 ,423 + $1,110) |$ 2,533 | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |39,930 |$12,180 |$27,750 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in current period | |(10,150 |( 9,250 | |Cost per equivalent unit |______ |$ 1. 0 |$ 3 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$42,463 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (1,000 units) |$ 2,533 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in current period |1,500 |(0a ( $1. 0) + (500a ( $3) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage (8,000 units) |4,033 | | |Normal spoilage (100 units) |33,600 |(8,000a ( $1. 20) + (8,000a ( $3) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and transferred out |420 |(100a ( $1. 20) + (100a ( $3) | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (50 units) |38,053 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (2,000 units) |210 |(50a ( $1. 0) + (50a ( $3) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |4,200 |(2,000a ( $1. 20) + (60a ( $3) | | |$42,463 | | a Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-19. 18-21(30 min. )Weighted-average method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-21A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-21A Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units|Direct |Conversion | | | |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) |10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and tsfd. out during current period: | 9,000 | 9,000 | 9,000 | |Normal spoilagea | 900 | | | | (900 [pic]100%; 900 [pic]100%) | | 900| 900 | |Abnormal spoilageb 300 | | | | (3 00 [pic]100%; 300 [pic]100%) | | 300| 300 | |Work in process, endingc (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 [pic] 100%; 1,800 [pic] 75%) |______ | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 | | | |Work done to date | | 12,000 | 11,550 | | | | | | | aNormal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | | |bTotal spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. out – Ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200; | | Abnormal spoilage = Total spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 – 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | |cDegree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | | | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-21B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials a nd conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-21B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 28,600 | $17,700 |$ 10,900 | | |Costs added in current period (given) | 174,300 | 81,300 | 93,000 | | |Costs incurred to date | | $99,000 |$103,900 | | |Divide by equivalent units of work done to date | |[pic]12,000 |[pic]11,550 | | |Cost per equivalent unit | _______ | $ 8. 250 |$ 8. 957 | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$20 2,900 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Costs before adding normal spoilage |$155,211 |(9,000d [pic]$8. 25) + (9,000 d | | | | |[pic]$8. 957) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,521 |(900d [pic]$8. 25) + (900d [pic]$8. 9957) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 170,732 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,174 |(300d [pic] $8. 25) + (300d [pic] $8. 9957) | |(C) |Work in process, ending (1,800 units): | 26,994 |(1,800d [pic]$8. 25) + (1,350d | | | | |[pic]$8. 957) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$202,900 | | | | | | | | | |dEquivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 of Solution Exhibit 18-21A. | 18-22 (30 min. )FIFO method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-22A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-22A Summarize Output in Physi cal Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; FIFO Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion Costs | | | |Materials | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process a | 2,000 | | | | [2,000 ? (100% – 100%); 2,000 ? 100% – 50%)] | | 0 | 1,000 | | Started and completed | 7,000b | | | | (7,000 ? 100%; 7,000 ? 100%) | | 7,000 | 7,000 | |Normal spoilagec | 900 | | | | (900 ? 100%; 900 ? 100%) | | 900 | 900 | |Abnormal spoilaged | 300 | | | | (300 ? 100%; 300 ? 00%) | | 300 | 300 | |Work in process, endinge (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 ? 100%; 1,800 ? 75%) | | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 |_____ | | |Work done in current period only | | 10,000 | 10,550 | | | | | | | a Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. | b 9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 2,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning | | work-in-process inventory. | | c Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this | | department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | d Total spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. Out – ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200 | | Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 – 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | e Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-22B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-22B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; FIFO Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Work in process, beginning (given) ($17,700 + $10,900) |$ 28,600 | | | | |Costs added in current period (given) | 174,300 |$ 81,300 | $93,000 | | |Divide by equivalent units of work done in current period | |[pic]10,000 |[pic]10,550 | | |Cost per equivalent unit | | $ 8. 130 | $ 8. 152 | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$202,900 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Work in process, beginning (2,000 units) |$ 28,600 | | | | | Costs added to beg. work in process in current period | 8,815 |(0f ? $8. 13) | + (1,000f ? $8. 152) | | | Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | 37,415 | | | | | Started and completed before normal spoilage (7,000 units) | 118,616 |(7,000f ? $8. 13) | + (7,000f ? $8. 8152) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,521 |(900f ? $8. 13) | + (900f ? $8. 8152) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 171,282 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,084 |(300f ? $8. 13) | + (300f ? $8. 8152) | |(C) |Work in process, ending (1,800 units): | 26,534 |(1,800f ? $8. 13) | + (1,350f ? $8. 152) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$202,900 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |fEquivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-22A. | 18-2 3 (30 min. ) Standard-costing method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-23A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. (It is the same as Solution Exhibit 18-22A. ) SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-23A Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Standard Costing Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion Costs | | | |Materials | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process a | 2,000 | | | | [2,000 ? (100% – 100%); 2,000 ? 100% – 50%)] | | 0| 1,000 | | Started and completed | 7,000b | | | | (7,000 ? 100%; 7,000 ? 100%) | | 7,000 | 7,000 | |Normal spoilagec | 900 | | | | (900 ? 100%; 900 ? 100%) | | 900 | 900 | |Abnormal spoilaged | 300 | | | | (300 ? 100%; 300 ? 00%) | | 300 | 300 | |Work in process, endinge (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 ? 100%; 1,800 ? 75%) | | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 | | | |Work done in current period only | | 10,000 | 10,550 | | | | | | | a Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. | b 9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 2,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning | | work-in-process inventory. | | c Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this | | department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | d Total spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. Out – ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200 | | Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 â€⠀œ 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | e Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-23B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using standard costing. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-23B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Standard Costing Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Standard cost per equivalent unit (given) | $ 17. 50 | $8. 00 | $9. 50 | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | $ 25,500 | (2,000 ? $8. 00) |+ (1,000 ? $9. 50) | | |Costs added in current period at standard prices | 180,225 | (10,000 ? $8. 00) |+ (10,550 ? $9. 0) | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$205,725 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs at standard costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Work in process, beginning (2,000 units) |$ 25,500 | | | | | Costs added to beg. work in process in current period | 9,500 |(0f ? $8. 00) |+ (1,000f ? $9. 50) | | | Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | 35,000 | | | | | Started and completed before normal spoilage (7,000 units) | 122,500 |(7,000f ? $8. 00) |+ (7,000f ? $9. 50) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,750 |(900f ? $8. 00) |+ (900f ? $9. 0) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 173,250 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,250|(300f ? $8. 00) |+ (300f ? $9. 50) | |(C) |Work in proce ss, ending (1,800 units): | 27,225 |(1,800f ? $8. 00) |+ (1,350f ? $9. 50) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$205,725 | | | |f Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-23A. | 18-24(25 min. ) Weighted-average method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-24, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category in September 2006. 2. & 3.Solution Exhibit 18-24, Panel B, calculates the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-24 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Un its | | Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |400 | | | |Started during current period (given) |1,700 | | | |To account for |2,100 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |1,400 |1,400 |1,400 | |Normal spoilage* |210 | | | |210 ( 100%; 210 ( 100% | |210 |210 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |190 | | | |190 ( 100%; 190 ( 100% | |190 |190 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |300 | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 40% | |300 |120 | |Accounted for |2,100 | | | |Work done to date | |2,100 |1,920 | *Normal spoilage is 15% of good units transferred out: 15% ? 1,400 = 210 units.Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 400 + 1,700 – 1,400 – 300 = 400 units; Abnormal spoilage = Total spoilage ( Normal spoilage = 400 ( 210 = 190 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 40%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-24 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 74,200 |$ 64,000 |$ 10,200 | |Costs added in current period (given) |531,600 |378,000 |153,600 | |Costs incurred to date | |$442,000 |$163,800 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |( 2,100 |( 1,920 | |Cost per equivalent unit costs of work done to date | |$210. 476 |$85. 125 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$605,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (1,400 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$414,104 |(1,400#( $210. 476) + (1,400#( $85. 3125) | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |62,116 |(210# ( $210. 476) + (210# ( $85. 125) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed and transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |476,220 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |56,199 |(190# ( $210. 476) + (190# ( $85. 3125) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |73,381 |(300# ( $210. 476) + (120# ( $85. 3125) | | |$605,800 | | # Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 8-25 (25 min. ) FIFO method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done in the current period for each cost category in September 2006. 2. & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel B, calculates the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes the total Microchip Department costs for September 2006, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abno rmal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-25 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006.PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in rocess, beginning (given) |400 | | | |Started during current period (given) |1,700 | | | |To account for |2,100 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |400 | | | |400 ( (100% (100%); 400 ( (100% ( 30%) | |0 |280 | |Started and completed |1,000# | | | |1,000 ( 100%; 1,000 ( 100% | |1,000 |1,000 | |Normal spoilage* |210 | | | |210 ( 100%; 210 ( 100% | |210 |210 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |190 | | | |190 ( 100%; 190 ( 100% | |190 |190 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |300 | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 40% | |300 |120 | |Accounted for |2,100 | | | |Work done in current period only | |1,700 |1,800 | ||Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. #1,400 physical units completed and transferred out minus 400 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work in process inventory. Normal spoilage is 15% of good units transferred out: 15% ( 1,400 = 210 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage ( Normal spoilage = 400 ( 210 = 190 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 40%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-25 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4 and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning, $64,000 + $70,200 (given) |$ 74,200 | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |531,600 |378,000 |153,600 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in | | | | |current period | |( 1,700 |( 1,800 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$222. 353 |$ 85. 33 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$605,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (1,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (400 units) |$ 74,200 | | |Costs added beg. work in process in current period |23,893 |(0 § ( $222. 353) + (280 § ( $85. 33) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage |98,093 | | |(1,000 units) | | | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |307,686 |(1,000 §($222. 353) + (1,000 §($85. 333) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and |64,614 |(210 §($222. 353) + (210 §($85. 333) | |transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |470,393 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |58,461 |(190 §($222. 353) + (190 §($85. 33) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |76,946 |(300 §($222. 353) + (120 §( $85. 333) | | |$605,800 | |  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-26 (30 min. ) Standard costing method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A, shows the computation of the equivalent units of work done in September 2006 for direct materials (1,700 units) and conversion costs (1,800 units). (This computation is the same for FIFO and standard-costing. ) 2.The direct materials cost per equivalent unit of beginning work in process and of work done in September 2006 is the standard cost of $210 given in the problem. The conversion cost per equivalent unit of beginning work in process and of work done in Se ptember 2006 is the standard cost of $80 given in the problem. 3. Solution Exhibit 18-26 summarizes the total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the standard costing method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-26 Standard Costing Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006.Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Standard costs per equivalent unit (given) |$ 290 | $ 210 | $ 80 | |Work in process, beginning* |93,600 |(400 ( $210) + |(120 ( $80) | |Costs added in current period at standard prices |501,000 |(1,700 ( $210) + |(1,800 ( $80) | |(Step 4) Costs to account for $594,600 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of cost s at standard costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |(1,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (400 units) |$ 93,600 | | |Costs added beg. ork in process in current period |22,400 |(0 § ( $210) + (280 § ( $80) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal | | | |spoilage |116,000 | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage | | | |(1,000 units) |290,000 |(1,000 § ( $210) + (1,000 § ( $80) | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |60,900 |(210 § ( $210) + (210 § ( $80) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and | | | |transferred out |466,900 | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |55,100 |(190 § ( $210) + (190 § ( $80) | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |72,600 |(300 § ( $210) + (120 § ( $80) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$594,600 | | *Work in process, beginning has 400 equivalent units (400 physical units (100%) of direct materials and 120 equivalent units (400 physical units ( 30%) of conversion costs.  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A. 18-27(20–30 min. )Spoilage and job costing. 1. Cash 200 Loss from Abnormal Spoilage1,000 Work-in-Process Control1,200 Loss = ($6. 00 ( 200) – $200 = $1,000 Remaining cases cost = $6. 00 per case.The cost of these cases is unaffected by the loss from abnormal spoilage. 2. a. Cash 400 Work-in-Process Control 400 The cost of the remaining good cases = [($6. 00 ( 2,500) – $400] = $14,600 The unit cost of a good case now becomes $14,600 ( 2,300 = $6. 3478 b. Cash 400 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control800 Work-in-Process Control1,200 The unit cost of a good case remains at $6. 00. c. The unit costs in 2a and 2b are different because in 2a the normal spoilage cost is charged as a cost of the job which has exacting job specifications. In 2b however, normal spoilage is due to the production process, not the particular attributes of this specific job. These costs are, therefore, charged as part of manufacturing overhead and the manufacturing overhead cost of $1 per case already includes a provision for normal spoilage. 3. a. Work-in-Process Control 200 Materials Control, Wages Payable Control, Manufacturing Overhead Allocated 200 The cost of the good cases = [($6. 00 ( 2,500) + $200] = $15,200 The unit cost of a good case is $15,200 ( 2,500 = $6. 08 b. Manufacturing Department Overhead Control 200 Materials Control, Wages Payable Control, Manufacturing Overhead Allocated200 The unit cost of a good case = $6. 00 per case c. The unit costs in 3a and 3b are different because in 3a the normal rework cost is charged as a cost of the job which has exacting job specifications.In 3b however, normal rework is due to the production process, not the particular attributes of this specific job. These costs are, therefore, charged as part of manufacturing overhead and the manufacturing overhead cost of $1 per case already includes a provision for this normal rework. 18-28(15 min. ) Reworked units, costs of rework. 1. The two alternative approaches to account for the materials costs of reworked units are: a. To charge the costs of rework to the current period as a separate expense item as abnormal rework. This approach would highlight to White Goods the costs of the supplier problem. b. To charge the costs of the rework to manufacturing overhead as normal rework. 2.The $50 tumbler cost is the cost of the actual tumblers included in the washing machines. The $44 tumbler units from the new supplier were eventually never used in any washing machine and that supplier is now bankrupt. The units must now be disposed of at zero disposal value. 3. The total costs of rework due to the defective tumbler units include the following: a. the labor and other conversion costs spent on substituting the new tumbler units; b. the costs of any extra negotiations to obtain the replacement tumbler units; c. any higher price the existing suppl ier may have charged to do a rush order for the replacement tumbler units; and d. rdering costs for the replacement tumbler units. 18-29(25 min. )Scrap, job costing. 1. Journal entry to record scrap generated by a specific job and accounted for at the time scrap is sold is: Cash or Accounts Receivable490 Work-in-Process Control490 To recognize asset from sale of scrap. A memo posting is also made to the specific job record. 2. Scrap common to various jobs and accounted for at the time of its sale can be accounted for in two ways: a. Regard scrap sales as a separate line item of revenues (the method generally used when the dollar amount of scrap is immaterial): Cash or Accounts Receivable4,000 Sale of Scrap4,000 To recognize revenue from sale of scrap. b.Regard scrap sales as offsets against manufacturing overhead (the method generally used when the dollar amount of scrap is material): Cash or Accounts Receivable4,000 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control4,000 To record cash rais ed from sale of scrap. 3. Journal entry to record scrap common to various jobs at the time scrap is returned to storeroom: Materials Control4,000 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control4,000 To record value of scrap returned to storeroom. When the scrap is reused as direct material on a subsequent job, the journal entry is: Work-in-Process Control4,000 Materials Control4,000 To record reuse of scrap on a job. Explanations of journal entries are provided here but are not required. 18-30 (30 min. Weighted-average method, spoilage. Solution Exhibit 18-30 calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category, presents computations of the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-30 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spo ilage; Cleaning Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production | |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period given) |9,000 | | | |To account for |10,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |7,400 |7,400 |7,400 | |Normal spoilage* | | | | |740 ( 100%; 740 ( 100% |740 |740 |740 | |Abnormal spoilage†  | | | | |260 ( 100%; 260 (100% |260 |260 |260 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) | | | | |1,600 ( 100%; 1,600 ( 25% |1,600 |1,600 |400 | |Accounted for | | | | |Work done to date |10,000 |10,000 |8,800 | *Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? ,400 = 740 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion co sts, 100%. † Total spoilage = 1,000 + 9,000 – 7,400 – 1,600 = 1,000 units; Abnormal spoilage = 1,000 – 740 = 260 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-30 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 1,800 |$ 1,000 |$ 800 | |Costs added in current period (given) |17,000 |9,000 |8,000 | |Costs incurred to date | |10,000 |8,800 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(10,000 |( 8,800 | |Cost per equivalent unit |______ |$ 1 |$ 1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$18, 800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (7,400 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$14,800 | (7,400# ( $1) + | (7,400# ( $1) | |Normal spoilage (740 units) |1,480 |(740# ( $1) + |(740# ( $1) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and | | | | |transferred out |16,280 | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (260 units) |520 |(260# ( $1) + |(260# ( $1) | |(C) Work in process, ending (1,600 units) |2,000 |(1,600# ( $1) + |(400# ( $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$18,800 | | | | | | | | #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A above. 18-31(25 min. )FIFO method, spoilage.For the Cleaning Department, Solution Exhibit 18-31 calculates the equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs, presents the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes the total costs for May, and assigns these cost s to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-31 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Cleaning Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 9,000 | | | |To account for 10,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process|| |1,000 | | | | 1,000 ( (100% (100%); 1,000 ( (100% ( 80%) | |0 |200 | | Started and completed |6,400# | | | | 6,400 ( 100%; 6,400 ( 100% | |6,400 |6,400 | |Normal spoilage* |740 | | | | 740 ( 100%; 740% ( 100% | |740 |740 | |Abnorm al spoilage†  |260 | | | | 260 ( 100%; 260 ( 100% | |260 |260 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |1,600 | | | | 1,600 ( 100%; 1,600 ( 25% |______ |1,600 |400 | |Accounted for |10,000 |_____ |_____ | |Work done in current period only | |9,000 |8,000 | || Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 80%. #7,400 physical units completed and transferred out minus 1,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ( 7,400 = 740 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 1,000 + 9,000 – 7,400 – 1,600 = 1,000 units Abnormal spoilage = 1,000 – 740 = 260 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100 %; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-31 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 1,800 |$1,000 |$ 800 | |Costs added in current period (given) |17,000 |9,000 |8,000 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in current period | |(9,000 |(8,000 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |1 |1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$18,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (7,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (1,000 units) |$ 1,800 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in current period |200 |(0 § ( $1) + (200 § ( $1) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage |2,000 | | |Started and ompleted before normal spoilage (6,400 units) |12,800 |(6,400 § ( $1) + (6,400 § ( $1) | |Normal spoilage (740 units) |1,480 |(740 § ( $1) + (740 § ( $1) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and transferred out |16,280 | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (260 units) |520 |(260 § ( $1) + (260 § ( $1) | |(C) Work in process, ending (1,600 units) |2,000 |(1,600 § ( $1) + (400 § ( $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$18,800 | |  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-32 (35 min. Weighted-average method, Milling Department (continuation of 18-30). For the Milling Department, Solution Exhibit 18-32 calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category, presents computations of the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-a verage method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-32 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Milling Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical Units |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production | |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |3,000 | | | | |Started during current period (given) |7,400 | | | | |To account for |10,400 | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | | |during current period: |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 | |Normal spoilage* |300 | | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 100%; 300 ( 100% | |300 |300 |300 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |100 | | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 (100%, 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 |100 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |4,000 | | | | |4,000 ( 100%; 4,000 ( 0%; 4,000 ( 25% | |4,000 |0 |1,000 | |Accounted for |10,400 | | | | |Work done to date | |10,40 0 |6,400 |7,400 | *Normal spoilage is 5% of good units transferred out: 5% ? 6,000 = 300 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 3,000 + 7,400 – 6,000 – 4,000 = 400 units. Abnormal spoilage = 400 – 300 = 100 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-32PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | | |Production |Transferred-in |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |costs |Materials |Costs | | | | | | | |(Step 3) Work in process, beg inning (given) |$ 8,900 |$ 6,450 |$ 0 |$2,450 | |Costs added in current period (given) |21,870 |16,280* |640 |4,950 | |Costs incurred to date | |22,730 |640 |7,400 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(10,400 |( 6,400 |(7,400 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$2. 1856 |$ 0. 0 |$ 1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$30,770 | | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (6,000 units) | | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$19,713 |6,000# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 10 + $1) | |Normal spoilage (300 units) |986 |300# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 0 + $1) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed and transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (100 units) |20,699 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (4,000 units) |329 |100# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 10 + $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |9,742 |(4,000# ( $2. 1856)+(0# ( $0. 10)+(1,000# ( $1) | | |$30,770 | | *Total costs of good units completed and transferred out in Step 5 Panel B of S olution Exhibit 18-30. #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A above. 18-33(25 min. )FIFO method, Milling Department (continuation of 18-31).Solution Exhibit 18-33 shows the equivalent units of work done in the Milling Department in the current period for transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs, presents the costs per equivalent unit for transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs, summarizes the total Milling Department costs for May, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work-in-process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-33 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Milling Department of the Alston Company for May.PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |3,000 | | | | |Started during current period (given) |7,400 | | | | |To account for |10,400 | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during | | | | | |current period: | | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |3,000 | | | | |3,000 ( (100% ( 100%); 3,000 ( | | | | | |(100% ( 0%); 3,000 ( (100% ( 80%) | |0 |3,000 |600 | |Started and completed |3,000# | | | | |3,000 ( 100%; 3,000 ( 100%; 3,000 ( 100% | |3,000 |3,000 |3,000 | |Normal spoilage* |300 | | | | |300 ( 100%; 300% ( 100%; 300 ( 100% | |300 |300 |300 | |Abnormal spoilage†  100 | | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 |100 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |4,000 | | | | |4,000 ( 100%; 4,000 ( 0%; 4,000 ( 25% | |4,000 |0 |1,000 | |Accounted for |10,400 | | | | |Work done in current period only | |7,400 |6,400 |5,000 | ||Degree of completion in this department : transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 80%. 6,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 3,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. *Normal spoilage is 5% of good units transferred out: 5% ( 6,000 = 300 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 3,000 + 7,400 – 6,000 – 4,000 = 400 units. Abnormal spoilage = 400 – 300 = 100 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-33PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Complete d, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | | |Production |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, begin. given) | | | | | |($6,450 + $0 + $2,450) |$ 8,900 | | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |21,870 |16,280* |640 |4,950 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in | | | | | |current period | |( 7,400 |( 6,400 |( 5,000 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$ 2. 20 |$ 0. 10 |$ 0. 9 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$30,770 | | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (6,000 units) | | | | | |Work in process, beginning (3,000 units) |$ 8,900 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in | | | |current period |894 |(0 ( $2. 20)+(3,000 §( 0. 10)+( 600 § ( $0. 9) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage (3,000 units) |9,794 | | |Normal spoilage (300 units) | | | |(A) To tal costs of good units completed and |9,870 |3,000 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 99) | |transferred out |987 |300 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 9) | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (100 units) | | | |(C) Work in process, ending (4,000 units) |20,651 | | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |329 |100 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 99) | | |9,790 |(4,000 §( $2. 20)+( 0 §($0. 10)+(1,000 §($0. 99) | | |$30,770 | | *Total costs of good units completed and transferred out in Step 5 Panel B of Solution Exhibit 18-31.  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-34 (20(25 min. ) Job-costing spoilage and scrap. 1. a.Materials Control 600 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control800 Work-in-Process Control1,400 (650 + 500 + 250 = 1,400) b. Accounts Receivable1,250 Work-in-Process Control1,250 2. a. The clause does not specify whether the 1% calculation is to be based on the input cost ($26,951 + $15,076 + $7,538) or the cost of the good output before the â€Å"1% normal spoilage† is added. b. If the inputs are used to determine the 1%: $26,951 + $15,076 + $7,538 = $49,565 1% of $49,565 = $495. 65 or $496, rounded. Then, the entry to leave the $496 â€Å"normal spoilage† cost on the job, remove the salvageable material, and charge manufacturing overhead would be: Materials Control 600Manufacturing Department Overhead Control304 Work-in-Process Control 904 ($800 spoilage minus $496 = $304 spoilage cost that is taken out of the job; $600 salvage value plus $304 = $904; or $1,400 minus $496 = $904) If the outputs are used to determine the 1%: $26,951 – $650 = $26,301 15,076 – 500 =14,576 7,538 – 250 = 7,288 $49,565$48,165 Then, $48,165 ( 1% = $481. 65 or $482, rounded. The journal entry would be: Materials Control 600 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control318 Work-in-Process Control918 18-35(30 min. ) Job costing, rework. 1. Work-in-Process Control (SM-5 motors) ($550 ( 80)44,000 Material s Control ($300 ( 80)24,000 Wages Payable ($60 ( 80)4,800Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($190 ( 80)15,200 Total costs assigned to 80 spoiled units of SM-5 Motors before considering rework costs. Manufacturing Department Overhead Control (rework)9,000 Materials Control ($60 ( 50)3,000 Wages Payable ($45 ( 50)2,250 Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($75 ( 50)3,750 Normal rework on 50 units, but not attributable specifically to the SM-5 motor batches or jobs. Loss from Abnormal Rework ($180 ( 30)5,400 Materials Control ($60 ( 30)1,800 Wages Payable ($45 ( 30)1,350 Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($75 ( 30)2,250 Total costs of abnormal rework on 30 units (Abnormal rework = Actual rework – Normal rework = 80 – 50 = 30 units) of SM-5 Motors. Work-in-Process Control (SM-5 motors)6,000 Work-in-Process Control (RW-8 motors)3,000Manufacturing Department Overhead Allocated (rework)9,000 (Allocating manufacturing department rework costs to SM-5 and RW-8 in the proportion 1,000:5 00 since each motor requires the same number of machine-hours. ) 2. Total rework costs for SM-5 motors in February 2004 are as follows: Normal rework costs allocated to SM-5$ 6,000 Abnormal rework costs for SM-5 5,400 Total rework costs$11,400 We emphasize two points: a. Only $6,000 of the normal rework costs are allocated to SM-5 even though the normal rework costs of the 50 SM-5 motors reworked equal $9,000. The reason is that the normal rework costs are not specifically attributable to SM-5.For example, the machines happened to malfunction when SM-5 was being made, but the rework was not caused by the specific requirements of SM-5. If it were, then all $9,000 would be charged to SM-5. b. Abnormal rework costs of $5,400 are linked to SM-5 in the management control system even though for financial reporting purposes the abnormal rework costs are written off to the income statement. 18-36(30 min. )Job costing, scrap. 1. Materials Control10,000 Manufacturing Overhead Control10,000 (T o record scrap common to all jobs at the time it is returned to the storeroom) 2. Cash or Accounts Receivable10,000 Materials Control10,000 (To record sale of scrap from the storeroom) 3. A summary of the manufacturing costs for HM3 and JB4 before considering the value of scrap are as follows: |HM3 |JB4 |Total Costs | |Direct materials |$200,000 |$150,000 |$350,000 | |Direct manufacturing labor |60,000 |40,000 |100,000 | |Manufacturing overhead | | | | |(200% of direct manufacturing labor) |120,000 |80,000 |200,000 | |Total manufacturing costs |$380,000 |$270,000 |$650,000 | |Manufacturing cost per unit |$19 |$27 | | |($380,000[pic]20,000; $270,000[pic]10,000) | | | | The value of scrap of $10,000 generated during March will reduce manufacturing overhead costs by $10,000 from $200,000 to $190,000. Manufacturing overhead will then be allocated at 190% of direct manufacturing labor costs ($190,000 ? $100,000 = 190%) The revised manufacturing cost per unit would then be: |HM3 |JB4 |Tot al Costs | |Direct materials |$200,000 |$150,000 |$350,000 | |Direct manufacturing labor |60,000 |40,000 |100,000 | |Manufacturing overhead | | | | |(190% of direct manufacturing labor) |114,000 |76,000 |190,000 | |Total manufacturing costs |$374,000 |$266,000 |$640,000 | |Manufacturing cost per unit | $18. 70 | $26. 60 | | |($374,000[pic]20,000; $266,000[pic]10,000) | | | | 18-37(15(20 min. ) Physical units, inspection at various stages of completion (chapter appendix). |Inspection |Inspection |Inspection | | |at 15% |at 40% |at 100% | |Work in process, beginning (20%)* |14,000 |14,000 |14,000 | |Started during March |120,000 |120,000 |120,000 | |To account for |134,000 |134,000 |134,000 | |Good units completed and transferred out |113,000a |113,000a |113,000a | |Normal spoilage |6,600b |7,440c |6,780d | |Abnormal spoilage (10,000 – normal spoilage) |3,400 |2,560 |3,220 | |Work in process, ending (70%)* |11,000 |11,000 |11,000 | |Accounted for |134,000 |134,000 |134,000 | *D egree of completion for conversion costs of the forging process at the dates of the work-in-process inventories a14,000 beginning inventory +120,000 –10,000 spoiled – 11,000 ending inventory = 113,000 b6% ( (113,000 – 14,000 + 11,000) = 6% ( 110,000 = 6,600 c6% ( (113,000 + 11,000 ) = 6% ( 124,000 = 7,440 d6% ( 113,000 = 6,780 18-38(25(35 min. Weighted-average method, inspection at 80% completion (chapter appendix).The computation and allocation of spoilage is the most difficult part of this problem. The units in the ending inventory have passed inspection. Therefore, of the 80,000 units to account for (10,000 beginning + 70,000 started), 10,000 must have been spoiled in June [80,000 – (50,000 completed + 20,000 ending inventory)]. Normal spoilage is 7,000 [0. 10 ( (50,000 + 20,000)]. The 3,000 remainder is abnormal spoilage (10,000 – 7,000). Solution Exhibit 18-38, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done for each cost category. We co mment on several points in this calculation: Ending work in process includes an element of normal spoilage since all the ending WIP have passed the point of inspection––inspection occurs when production is 80% complete, while the units in ending WIP are 95% complete. †¢ Spoilage includes no direct materials units because spoiled units are detected and removed from the finishing activity when inspection occurs at the time production is 80% complete. Direct materials are added only later when production is 90% complete. †¢ Direct materials units are included for ending work in process, which is 95% complete, but not for beginning work in process, which is 25% complete. The reason is that direct materials are added when production is 90% complete. The ending work in process, therefore, contains direct materials units; the beginning work in process does not.

Management challenges for the 21st Century

What Are Three 21st Century Challenges in Strategic Management? Answer Many challenges face a manager in the 21st century. A looming challenge in strategic management right now is globalization. Another is a volatile world economy. A third challenge in 21st century strategic management is the ever changing environment of government regulations, both domestically and internationally. Globalization Globalization is the international integration of intercultural ideas, perspectives, products/services, culture, and technology.Ethics and GovernanceEthics is at the core of corporate governance, and management must reflect accountability for their actions on global community scale. Diversity Globalization demands a diverse work force, and assimilating varying cultures, genders, ages, and dispositions is of high value. Career Success and Personal Fulfillment Career success and fulfillment hinges on effective human resource management, the practice of empowering employees with the necessary t ools and skills. Technology Technology management is crucial in offsetting the risks of new technology while acquiring the operational benefits the technology provides.Competition Managers must understand a company's competitive advantage, and translate this into a strategy that incorporates the competitive landscape. A Framework for Considering Challenges: PESTEL The PESTEL framework highlights six critical factors for management to consider when approaching the general business environment. A Look at the Managers of Tomorrow Posted on August 25, 2009by greatworkplace Randstad recently published an excellent report on the Managers of Tomorrow, including some fascinating statistics and observations on what our managerial landscape might look like in the future.In his book, â€Å"The Future of Management,† Gary Hamel argues that the secret to long-term business success is â€Å"not operational excellence, technology breakthroughs, or new business models, but management innova tion–new ways of mobilizing talent, allocating resources, and formulating strategies. † We’ll take a look at some predictions for the future and how we might be able to influence them. Who wants to be a supervisor? According to Randstad’s report, current employees have mixed feelings about the quality of managers currently, but their outlook of future supervisors looks somewhat bleak.The report goes on to suggest that â€Å"It’s clear that finding and preparing the next generation of managers is rapidly becoming one of the most critical business needs in the modern workplace. † The problem: future generations of employees aren’t embracing the role of a manager. â€Å"Employees watch their managers and see long hours, loads of new responsibilities and not much more money. Increased stress is the number one reason employees don’t want to become managers. † What attracts employees to a manager role?We’ve established t hat future generations might not currently embrace the role of a manager, but Ranstad’s report does provide some insight on what employees do find attractive about being a manager. So what makes management more attractive? â€Å"Maybe it begins with rethinking management. When we asked employees to list the reasons why they would want to be a manager, the answers were surprising. Power, status and money didn’t even make the list. The number one reason was being able to share my knowledge with others. Number two was being responsible for the success of an organization. And, number three was being able to influence decisions.†Some Goals for the Future In February, the Harvard Business Journal published an article featuring 25 Stretch Goals for Management in the 21st Century. Here are a couple interesting points from the article: Redefine the work of leadership. The notion of the leader as a heroic decision maker is untenable. Leaders must be recast as social-syste ms architects who enable innovation and collaboration. Create internal markets for ideas, talent, and resources. Markets are better than hierarchies at allocating resources, and companies’ resource allocation processes need to reflect this fact.Depoliticize decision-making. Decision processes must be free of positional biases and should exploit the collective wisdom of the entire organization. Retrain managerial minds. Managers’ traditional deductive and analytical skills must be complemented by conceptual and systems-thinking skills. (Source: â€Å"25 Stretch Goals for Managementâ€Å", Harvard Business Journal) Supervisory Training for Tomorrow’s Supervisor Today’s work environment demands highly skilled frontline supervisors different from the command-and-control leaders of the past.People are not interested in working for someone who just gives orders daily and conducts evaluations annually. Today’s employees are looking for leaders who devel op, support and coach them and keep them engaged. In ERC’s popular Supervisory Series I, beginning September 8, participants learn the managerial and interpersonal skills necessary to handle all leadership interactions—including those that are emotionally charged—along with the ability to apply both of these skill sets in any leadership setting or interaction. Organizational Promotions – The Managers of TomorrowSEPTEMBER 1, 2010 BY JORRIAN GELINK 1 COMMENT The people decision process is the control an organization has in whether its vision is being executed as well as achieving high performance. Having mission statements and core values posted across the walls is irrelevant unless the actions towards the people align with the organization’s core vision. Delivering a message emphasizing the importance of attaining new markets falls short when the company promotes an associate that is focused on retaining older clients but moves up due to â€Å"long tenure†.Every decision that is made in regards to people movement up, down or sideways is viewed on carefully not only by those within the department or division; but as well with others that do a â€Å"temperature check† of what it takes to stay/move up within the organization. The management of today need to follow two core steps in order to promote the management of tomorrow. Integrity of character. The start of any promotion should be on an individual’s integrity; for without that the organization is compromised. Integrity is not something learned in an organization, it is a trait brought into the organization and is easily judged by others.Integrity is always worn on a manager and is the fabric that can never come off; whether the integrity is strong or weak, all can see it and will respond to it accordingly. Lack of management integrity will show up in less than one month, but be rest assured the damage will show up the same time that integrity of characte r is breached. Many examples plague a manager’s strength of integrity: favoritism, fear of dealing with strong subordinates, placing blame on others, fear of performance communication, and promoting others â€Å"like me† are some of the main issues that plague poor management today.The people of the organization will forgive upper management promoting someone new to role, but they will never forgive a promotion of one with a lack of integrity. Organizational Performance. The organization has to promote based on performance: clear results achieved by executing tangible goals of the organization. Behavior leading to results needs to be looked at, any manager promoting one based on performing the right behaviors but not achieving results shows a lack of ignorance to the organization’s goals. Others will look upon this type of poor promotion it as â€Å"as long as I do what my manager tells me, who cares if I need to perform†.Not only will you damage your bus iness, you also shun others from wanting to move up the organizational ladder. Another result of poor promotion planning are the â€Å"opinions† of whether one can be handle a new role: what needs to be there is factual evidence of performance. The worst damage that can be done is not only average performance of a candidate, but under-performance, as any objectives and goals leading to results will not be taken seriously by co-workers and upper management will be looked upon as â€Å"the promoter of friends†.Continuous poor promotions with this method result in sub-ordinates leaving the organization due to favoritism or even worse, destroy the organizations objectives by trying to be-friend their superior in place of achieving results. The managers of tomorrow require high integrity of character as well of results of organizational performance. Focusing on these two requirements helps the organization be fair and accountable to what it needs from its teams. Missing eve n one of these requirements not only threatens the performance of the organization, but also detracts others from looking to be promoted.This is the true control of the organization: moving the right people into the right places for the right reasons. Jorrian Gelink Management Architect 5 Key Roles for HR Managers of Tomorrow What wlll the HR directors of tomorrow look like and what will their roles be? If we listen to theorists and academics, they might not look like much at all — in fact, they might already be extinct. This isn’t news: mandates for change in the profession have been prolific since the ’90s. Remember Fast Company’s 2005 article â€Å"Why We Hate HRâ€Å"? That certainly got our attention: attacking HR’s intelligence and value.Still today, noted practitioners like Jacques Fitz-Enz advocate breaking up HR, suggesting that the competencies needed for each area of the HR practice be allocated to other capable departments within a co mpany. I, naturally, wholeheartedly disagree with Fitz-Enz and other HR-killing proponents. Why? There is absolutely nothing in any organization that does not require people. People are an organization’s greatest asset — they are the human capital. So why should there not be a talented team of professionals focused on all things people?I think there is hope for HR, but it will require a dramatic paradigm shift and a deliberate refocus on what’s important to an organization in order to drive the performance and development of the workforce. If HR is to survive, it must think and act as if the organization was paying for its services — and could pull the plug at any time. Here are five roles that the HR Leader of tomorrow will have to play in order to shift the paradigm and add true value to an organization: Strategic Investor Today’s HR team is overwhelmed, overly busy and stretched beyond capacity.With multiple customers having exponential number o f needs, run from one project to the next, without stopping to understand why we are doing it, what the end result should be and whether or not we met the end results. Think about that. If HR were a business with services and products for an organization, would we not have to think about our business as a strategic investor, providing the right products and services for a cost that the customer will pay? We cannot be everything, and do everything. We need to learn to deliver our work where it adds value, and continuously measure that delivery.Relationship Facilitator Sticking with the concept of Human Resources as â€Å"all things people† for a minute, it goes without saying that a huge element of that role is facilitating relationships throughout (and outside) the organization. I see â€Å"building relationships† as being part of this, but not all. Yes, HR needs trusted relationships with executives, peers, the HR team, and the employees. But Human Resources cannot st op there; they must facilitate relationship building up and down levels, across business units, and with the community at large.Relationships are the biggest derailers of organizational success, and HR is poised to be the trusted facilitator bring people, teams and the organization together to drive business success. Developer of People Human Resources tends to be the â€Å"cobbler’s children†, going without shoes while the cobbler provides shoes to everyone else. Developing the skill and talent of the workforce goes without saying on the HR job description (at least in my mind), but we cannot forget our own team. How can we expect to influence and facilitate if our own team is in disarray?How can we facilitate trust, if our HR team is not trusted? Risk Manager There is no getting around it; there are tremendous risks related to people in an organization, and it is the role of HR to manage those risks. That doesn’t mean providing policies and procedures to ensur e no one steps out of line, but building capability in the leadership team and engagement and commitment in the workforce. Technology Geek The Human Resources Director of Tomorrow cannot survive on inference and buzzwords; they must provide credible business intelligence.Anyone stepping into HR leadership must have broad knowledge of technology systems, data integrity, process improvement and analytics. We must be able to critically analyze our processes to ensure that the business intelligence that we provide to our customers is credible. With the complexity of today’s HR systems, HR has to have to â€Å"geek-y curiosity,† asking, â€Å"how can we do this better and more efficiently using technology? † Can We Shift the Paradigm? Not only can we, but we must, not only for our survival, but for the organizations we serve.The people of the organization make it or break it, and need the talent and skills to make it. That’s where HR can shine. A Word from the Associate Dean: VUCA and the managers of tomorrow Posted on July 4, 2013 by GMBA Community Change is occurring faster than ever before, the world is more and more unpredictable. More players, more issues, and more voices means chaos and complexity and the â€Å"realities† of doing business are not so hard and fast as we may have once assumed it to be. Organizations operating under these forces face unique challenges and opportunities in decision-making, problem-solving, and planning.VUCA, an acronym standing for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity is a term derived from military vocabulary that is increasingly relevant for describing how managers should take into account the external environment. Being aware, being prepared, and anticipating the complications arising from VUCA are essential characteristics of a global manager today. As companies understand (or more likely, fail to understand) this operational chaos, they seek a new kind of leader, a talent tha t is prepared, aware, and capable of foreseeable strategy and informed action.These are the kinds of leaders the Global MBA seeks to train, to help provide companies with the talent they need to stay ahead of the trends. The companies that fail to perform today are the ones that are still operating under the talent acquisition, talent management, and workforce planning processes of yesterday. But this chaos is here to stay, so businesses and business leaders not only need to get up to speed but to start finding the relevant talent that can perform and remain agile in this environment.Agility is a term we stress in our program. In the age of innovation, disruption, and globalization, sticking with the tried and true won’t necessarily cut it. Unique challenges require unique solutions, and the demands placed on business leaders in this setting are diverse, varied, and in constant flux. As new markets emerge, new opportunities and obstacles arise. At a faster pace, the future is upon us before we can anticipate it. And with disruptive innovation the rule rather than the exception, competition is breakneck.Traditional leadership styles don’t work in this sort of dynamism. The leadership must mirror the environment and focus on VUCA preparedness, anticipation and evolution. And that doesn’t mean that there’s a one size fits all model for management; complex problems require complex solutions and equally complex strategies. Tomorrow’s leaders must be able to thrive in multiple, multi-faceted environments, keeping a finger on the pulse of emerging markets, mature markets, entrepreneurship and innovation, and efficiency and optimization.Embracing chaos, taking risks, being capable of rapid strategy changes in response to changing markets: all of these characteristics must also be balanced by pragmatism and commitment and underscored by a passion to bring employees along on the adventure. The skills gained through interacting with a d iverse cohort, traveling and working internationally, exposure to emerging markets, studying in a mature market, learning from the best professors from around the world are all hardwired into the design of the Global MBA to respond to these needs.Studying a variety of cases of multiple situations and from diverse industries helps students examine strategy and learn from failure. Extensive teamwork helps them learn to collaborate, share strengths and compensate weaknesses, and adapt collectively in response to the VUCA microcosm of a rigorous, 12-month MBA. How should companies respond to these complex external environment? In kind. Agile leadership means harvesting the best of skills, styles, and experience to meet specific, unique needs.In July, the Global MBA students will take off around the world for their International Immersion Projects. Each team consists of students of different nationalities, with different linguistic capabilities, with different professional expertise and different academic strengths. They would be working in for a Lifestyle brand in China, agri-business in Bolivia, energy and bottom-of-the-pyramid issues in India, eco-tourism in Morocco, small and medium size sector development in Djibouti and wine industry in S.Africa. To tackle these diverse projects in challenging external environment requires diversified skill set. The teams will work in environments ranging from -20 degree C to +50 degree C! It also means that the teams are uniquely equipped to respond to the shifts and demands of their different projects in different locations through practiced collaboration and constructive conflict. The successful companies of the future will harness resources like these and use them to become leaders in a VUCA-fueled world.