A method for implementation of fuzzy activity-based costing system, case study

Document Type : Applied Science

Authors

1 Industrial engineering MA student of Industrial University of Qom

2 Assistant Professor of Industrial University of Qom

3 National Oil products Distribution Company In QOM Region -Expert of financial Affairs

Abstract

Sample in this paper, is the National Company for distribution of petroleum products in Qom region that calculated the cost per liter of product (gas oil, kerosene, gasoline and super gasoline) in 95 by applying the system of activity-based costing and fuzzy activity based costing. So, three criteria that Experts determined used for sharing costs of activity centers to compare them, identify the most accurate measure of cost sharing. This comparison was performed using the Wilcoxon test. Results show similarities between1and2criteria and there are difference between the third bases whit the1and 2 bases. According to experts, the costing by methods1and 2 is approve. It also using two-way analysis of variance, the influence of the kind of products and cost-sharing methods and interaction between on the costing was measured. The results show that types of products and different criteria does not affect the costing. And the costing can be affected by other factors such as costs, months of investigation and etc.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Roztocki, N., Porter, J. D., Thomas, R. M., & Needy, K. L. (2004). A procedure for smooth implementation of activity-based costing in small companies. Engineering Management Journal, 16 (4), 19-27.
2. Shigaev, A. (2015). Accounting entries for activity-based costing system: The case of a distribution company. Procedia Economics and Finance, 24, 625-633.
3. Mortaji, S. T. H., Bagherpour, M., & Mazdeh, M. M. (2013). Fuzzy time-driven activity-based costing. Engineering Management Journal, 25 (3), 63-73.
4. Cassettari, L., Mosca, M., Mosca, R., Rolando, F., Costa, M., & Pisaturo, V. (2016). IVF cycle cost estimation using Activity Based Costing and Monte Carlo simulation. Health care management science, 19 (1), 20-30.
5. Ríos-Manríquez, M., Colomina, C. I. M., & Pastor, M. L. R.-V. (2014). Is the activity based costing system a viable instrument for small and medium enterprises? The case of Mexico. Estudios Gerenciales, 30 (132), 220-232.
6. لطیفی و همکاران. (1394). ارئه الگوی مناسب برای استقرار سیستم بهایابی بر مبنای فعالیت در شرکت گازاستان اردبیل.
7. Esmalifalak, H., Albin, M. S., & Behzadpoor, M. (2015). A comparative study on the activity based costing systems: Traditional, fuzzy and Monte Carlo approaches. Health Policy and Technology, 4 (1), 58-67.
8. محمدرضاعطارزاده و همکاران (1393). بررسی امکان‌سنجی توسعه و استقرار سیستم هزینه‌یابی بر مبنای فعالیت در شرکت مجتمع گاز پارس جنوبی.
9. Ben-Arieh, D., & Qian, L. (2003). Activity-based cost management for design and development stage. International Journal of Production Economics, 83 (2), 169-183.
10. Özkan, S., & Karaibrahimoğlu, Y. Z. (2013). Activity-based costing approach in the measurement of cost of quality in SMEs: a case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24 (3-4), 420-431.
11. نمازی، محمد. (1391). بررسی تطبیقی مدل هزینه‌یابی بر مبنای فعالیت فازی و مدل هزینه‌یابی بر مبنای فعالیت سنتی در خدمات بیمارستانی.
12. رضوان حجازی وهمکاران. (1392). آیا بین سیستم‎های مختلف بهایابی تفاوت وجود دارد؟
13. Nachtmann H, Needy KLS. Fuzzy activity based costing: a methodology for handling uncertainty in activity based costing systems. Eng Econ 2001; 46 (4): 245–73.
14. Nachtmann H, Needy KL. Methods for handling uncertainty in activity based costing systems. Eng Econ 2003; 48 (3): 259–82.
Farayandno
Volume 14, Issue 66
September 2019
Pages 56-71

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics