Comparison of Indirect Cost Multipliers for Vehicle Manufacturing Essay

Disclaimer This report was prep argond as an account of rick sponsored by an agency of the unify States Government. Neither the join States Government nor every agency t presentof, nor The University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or as nubblees any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or gain of any cultivation, apparatus, product, or process dis lastd, or represents that its intention would non impinge privately owned rights.Reference herein to any specific moneymaking(prenominal) product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does non necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, o r The University of Chicago. connaturality OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS FOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURING INTRODUCTION In the process of manufacturing and selling vehicles, a manufacturer incurs certain be. Among these make up ar those incurred directly as a part of manufacturing operations and those incurred indirectly in the processes of manufacturing and selling. The indirect make ups may be actionrelated, such as R&D and engineer business-related, such as somatic staff salaries and pensions or retail-sales-related, such as dealer support and marketing. These indirect speak tos are recovered by allocating them to each vehicle.Under a stable, high-volume production process, the allocation of these indirect costs washbasin be approximated as multipliers (or promoters) applied to the direct cost of manufacturing. A manufacturer usually allocates indirect costs to finished vehicles according to a corporation-specific pricing strategy. Because the volumes of sales and productio n vary widely by pretence within a corporation, the internal corporate percent allocation of non-homogeneous accounting categories (such as profit or corporate overhead) can vary widely among psyche models. Approaches too vary across corporations.For our purposes, an average look on is constructed, by means of a generic representative method, for vehicle models produced at high volume. To accomplish this, staff at Argonne National Laboratorys (ANLs) Center for Transportation Research analyzed the conventional vehicle cost structure and developed indirect cost multipliers for passenger vehicles. This memorandum summarizes the results of an grounds to compare and put on a common basis the cost multipliers utilize in ANLs electric and crisscross electric vehicle cost estimation procedures with those resulting from devil other methodologies.One of the two compared methodologies is derived from a 1996 presentation by Dr. Chris Borroni-Bird of Chrysler Corporation, the other is by Energy and Environmental compend, Inc. (EEA), as described in a 1995 report by the Office of applied science Assessment (OTA), Congress of the United States. The cost multipliers are used for scoring the component costs to retail prices. ANL METHODOLOGY The ANL methodological analysis described here is based on an analysis concerned with electric vehicle production and operating costs (Cuenca et al. 2000 Vyas et al. 1998).The analysis evaluated the cost structure for conventional vehicle manufacturing and retailing and assigned shares of the manufacturers suggested retail price (MSRP) to heterogeneous cost contributors. Multipliers developed from the ANL methodology are applied to the manufacturing cost of an individual component in order to scale the component cost to the retail price. Several cost contributors are allow ind in the methodology, as summarized in circuit card 1. Some of the vehicle components for electric and hybrid electric vehicles would be procured from t abuside suppliers.This assumption is applied to electric drive components, excluding the battery the vehicle manufacturer would produce the rest. Thus, two cost multipliers, one for the components manufactured internally and the other for outsourced components, are necessary to estimate the price of electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Outside suppliers would incur some of the costs normally borne by the vehicle manufacturer. In the ANL methodology, we assume that the costs of Warranty, R&D/ technology, and derogation and amortisation are borne by the Page 1 suppliers of outsourced components.The outside suppliers would include these costs in their prices. The following two cost multipliers are encipherd by using exist of even out as the base personify multiplier for components manufactured internally = light speed/50 = 2. 00. Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(50 + 6. 5 + 5. 5 + 5) = 1. 50. put back 1 endorsers to manufacturing businesss Suggested retail set in ANL methodological analysis Cost kinsperson Cost Contributor relative to Share of Cost of fomite MSRP Manufacturing (%) vehicle Manufacturing Cost of Manufacture 1. 00 50. 0 Production strike Warranty 0. 10 5. 0 R&D/Engineering 0.13 6. 5 Depreciation and Amortization 0. 11 5. 5 Corporate knock Corporate smash-up, Retirement and 0. 14 7. 0 wellness sell Distribution, Marketing, dealer 0. 47 23. 5 Support, and corpus ignore affectionateness of be 1. 95 97. 5 Profit Profit 0. 05 2. 5 Total piece to 2. 00 100. 0 MSRP METHODOLOGY DERIVED FROM BORRONI-BIRD PRESENTATION In his presentation, empower self-propelled Fuel Cell Requirements, at the 1996 Automotive Technology discipline Customers Coordination Meeting, Borroni-Bird included charts on the Typical American auto Price/Cost Breakdown. The charts provided a graphical breakdown of vehicle price, showing cost contributors and profit. We used the charts to arrive at percentage shares of vehicle price by assorted co ntributors. Table 2 shows the resulting allocation. Page 2 Table 2 Price/Cost Breakdown Based on Borroni-Bird Presentation Cost syndicate Cost Contributor a Vehicle Manufacturing located Cost Selling warmheartedness of Costs Profit MSRP a satisfying Cost conference Labor and Other Manufacturing a Costs Transportation/Warranty Amortization and Depreciation, Engineering R&D, Pension and Health Care, Advertising, and Overhead Price Discounts Dealer Markup Automobile Profit.Relative to Cost of Vehicle Manufacturing 0. 87 0. 13 0. 09 0. 44 Share of MSRP (%) 42. 5 6. 5 4. 5 21. 5 0. 10 0. 36 1. 99 0. 06 2. 05 5. 0 17. 5 97. 5 2. 5 100. 0 These two contributors are scaled to sum to 1 in the third column, as in Table 1. In his presentation, Borroni-Bird did not evaluate the treatment of in-house or outsourced components. His methodology does not lend itself to easy calculation of cost multipliers equal with those in the ANL methodology, unless we make a few assumptions.We have assume d that Material Cost, taken together with conference Labor and Other Manufacturing Costs, would form the Vehicle Manufacturing base for the in-house components. The costs of Transportation/Warranty, Amortization and Depreciation, and Engineering R&D would be borne by the suppliers of outsourced components. However, Amortization and Depreciation and Engineering R&D costs were merged with Pension and Health Care, Advertising, and Overhead costs by Borroni-Bird. We assumed that half of the costs under this category would be borne by the suppliers of outsourced components.Our assumptions led to the following cost multipliers Cost multiplier for components manufactured internally = 100/(42. 5 + 6. 5) = 2. 05. Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(42. 5 + 6. 5 + 4. 5 + 10. 75) = 1. 56. These cost multipliers are very similar to those computed with the ANL methodology. Comparison of ANL and Borroni-Bird Methodologies The information from Tables 1 and 2 is shown in terms of cost categories in Table 3. Both methodologies use vehicle manufacturing cost as the base and cater other costs to it.The share of MSRP attributable to Vehicle Manufacturing is 50% in the ANL methodology, compared with 49% in the Borroni-Bird methodology. Borroni-Bird united several cost contributors under dogged Cost. These contributors include (see Table 2) Amortization and Depreciation, Engineering R&D, Pension and Health Care, Advertising, and Overhead. Except for the inclusion of Advertising, Production Overhead and Corporate Overhead in the ANL methodology can be combined to form an equivalent category.ANLs total of 24% by production Page 3 and corporate overheads is slightly reduce than the total of 26% by Borroni-Bird. The ANL category of Selling, which includes Distribution, Marketing, Dealer Support, and Dealer Discount, is broader than that of Price Discounts and Dealer Markup specified by BorroniBird, and this categorys contribution is understandably slightly higher i n the ANL methodology. The share of MSRP by Profit is the same in both methodologies. The absolute differences, computed as ANL observe minus Borroni-Bird value, are 1% for Vehicle Manufacturing, 2% for Fixed Cost, and 1% for Selling cost.Table 3 Comparison of Vehicle Price/Cost Allocation by ANL and Borroni-Bird Methodologies ANL methodology Cost Contributor or Category Vehicle Manufacturing Production Overhead Corporate Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP EEA METHODOLOGY The methodology of Energy and Environmental Analysis is summarized in the OTA report OTAETI-638, entitled Advanced Automotive Technology Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car, published in September 1995. The determine of some cost contributors are not listed in the report.Moreover, depreciation, amortization, and tooling expenses are assumed to be case-specific and therefore moldiness be computed for each case. In order to make the EEA and ANL methodologies comparable, some assumptions were necessary. These assumptions are described in the succinct below. The EEA cost equations can be simplify as follows Cost of Manufacture = role Cost ? 1 + Division Overhead producer Cost = Cost of Manufacture + Assembly Labor + Assembly Overhead ? 1 + Manufacturing Overhead + Manufacturing Profit + Engineering Expense + Tooling Expense + Facilities Expense Retail Price Equivalent = Manufacturer Cost ?1 + Dealer Margin Borroni-Bird Methodology Share of Cost Contributor or Category Share of MSRP (%) MSRP (%) 50. 0 Vehicle Manufacturing 49. 0 17. 0 Fixed Cost 26. 0 7. 0 23. 5 Selling 22. 5 97. 5 Sum of Costs 97. 5 2. 5 Automobile Profit 2. 5 100. 0 MSRP 100. 0 Page 4 The report lists the following values for overhead, profit, and dealer margin Division Overhead = Supplier Overhead = 0. 20 (We assume that division and supplier overheads are equal only the supplier overhead is given in the report. ) Manufacturing Overhead = 0. 25 Manufacturing Profit = 0.20 Dealer Margin = 0. 25 Because the docum entation in the OTA report does not provide values for Assembly Labor, Assembly Overhead, Engineering Expense, Tooling Expense, and Facilities Expense, cost multipliers cannot be computed directly from these data. The Assembly Labor and Assembly Overhead share of MSRP is 6. 5% in Borroni-Birds presentation. The engineering, tooling, and facilities expenses can be taken as the sum of R&D/Engineering and Depreciation and Amortization from the ANL methodology, at 12% of the MSRP.In deriving the division cost and price relationship below, we use the term Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) from the OTA report instead of MSRP. The RPE can be computed as follows RPE = = = Division Cost ? 1. 2 + 0. 065 RPE ? 1. 45 + 0. 12 RPE ? 1. 25 Division Cost ? 2. 175 + 0. 268 RPE Division Cost ? 2. 175/(1 0. 268) = Division Cost ? 2. 97 Putting ANL and EEA Methodologies on a Common buttocks As it was described in the OTA report, the EEA methodology did not provide overflowing data to compute the cost mu ltipliers.We assumed some cost shares to be the same among the EEA, Borroni-Bird, and ANL methodologies while developing the above relationship between Division Cost and RPE. The EEA methodology is based on the material and project costs of a division of the vehicle manufacturer, with other costs added on. The ANL methodology evaluates an assembled vehicle, using the vehicle manufacturing cost as the base cost. The ANL methodology also assigns additional costs to the outsourced components, whereas the treatment of such components is not clear in the EEA methodology.We have attempted to develop a common basis for the ANL and EEA methodologies by assigning shares of the final vehicle price, RPE in the EEA methodology, to individual cost categories similar to those listed in Table 1. Table 4 presents such a summary for the EEA methodology. Three cost contributors, Division Cost, Division Overhead, and Assembly Labor and Overhead, are combined under the Vehicle Manufacturing category. Two cost contributors, Manufacturing Overhead and Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses, combine to form the Overhead category.The Dealer Margin in the EEA methodology represents a factor applied to all manufacturer costs and profit. We assumed that this factor represents all costs of selling the vehicle. Although the profit is computed at the manufacturing level by EEA, we moved the profit to the bottom of the table to be consistent with preceding tables. The cost allocation in Table 4 allows us to compute the in-house components cost multiplier as follows Cost multiplier for in-house components = 100/(33. 7 + 6. 7 + 6. 5) = 2. 14 Page 5 To compute the cost multiplier for an outsourced component, one more assumption is necessary.In the ANL methodology, we assumed that the supplier depart bear the costs of Warranty, R&D Engineering, and Depreciation and Amortization. However, the EEA methodology does not identify the warranty cost separately. We assumed it to be half of Manufacturing Overhead at 5. 05%. This, with the earlier assumption related to Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses, led to the following computation Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(33. 7 + 6. 7 + 6. 5 + 5. 05 + 12) = 1. 56.These multipliers, capable from our extension of theE EA information on vehicle costs, are very good to those derived from the ANL and Borroni-Bird methodologies. Table 4 Contributors to Retail Price Equivalent in EEA Methodology Cost Category Cost Contributor a Vehicle Manufacturing Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit Manufacturing Profit Total Contribution to RPE a Division Cost a Division Overhead Assembly Labor and a Overhead Manufacturing Overhead Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses Dealer Margin Relative to Cost of Vehicle Manufacturing 0. 72 0. 14 0. 14 0. 22 0. 26 0. 49 1. 97 0. 17 2. 14 Share of RPE (%) 33. 7 6. 7 6. 5 10. 1 12. 0 22.9 91. 9 8. 1 100. 0 These three cost contributors are scaled to sum to 1 in the thi rd column, as in Table 1. Comparison of ANL and EEA Methodologies The information from Tables 1 and 4 is presented in terms of cost categories in Table 5 for easy comparison. The Vehicle Manufacturing cost share is 46. 9% in the EEA methodology, compared with 50% in the ANL methodology. EEAs RPE share of 22. 1% by overhead is lower than the ANL value of 24%. The cost of selling is 22. 9% in the EEA methodology, which is close to the ANL value of 23. 5%. The largest difference is in the RPE share by profit, which is 8.1% in the EEA methodology, more than three times the ANL value of 2. 5%. fit in to Economic Indicators The Motor Vehicles Role in the U. S. delivery (American Automobile Manufacturers Association 1998), the average net income before taxes for the three domestic help manufacturers was 3. 9% during 1994-1997. Aside from vehicle sales, this value (3. 9%) includes income from spare part sales and vehicle financing. Thus, the profit share appears very high in the EEA met hodology. The absolute differences computed as ANL value minus EEA value are 3. 1% for component/material cost, 1.9% for overhead, 0. 6% for selling, and 5. 6% for profit. Page 6 Table 5 Comparison of Price Allocation by ANL and EEA Methodologies ANL Methodology Cost Contributor or Category Vehicle Manufacturing Production Overhead Corporate Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP digest An attempt to put three methodologies for automobile cost allocation on a common basis is presented in this technological memorandum. This comparison was carried out to verify the reasonableness of the cost multipliers used in ANLs cost models for electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles.When put into a common format, by means of certain assumptions, the three approaches yielded the cost multipliers provided in Table 6. Table 6 Summary of Cost Multipliers Computed on a Common backside Multiplier for In-House Components Outsourced Components ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding for the analysis presen ted here was provided by the supply and Assessment function of the Office of Transportation Technologies of the U. S. part of Energy, managed by Dr. Philip Patterson. This technical memorandum is produced under U. S. Government contract No.W-31-109-Eng-38.REFERENCES American Automobile Manufacturers Association, 1998, Economic Indicators The Motor Vehicles Role in the U. S. Economy, Detroit, Mich. Borroni-Bird, C. , 1996, Automotive Fuel Cell Requirements, Proceedings of the 1996 Automotive Technology Development Customers Coordination Meeting, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Washington, D. C. ANL 2. 00 1. 50 Borroni-Bird 2. 05 1. 56 EEA 2. 14 1. 56 EEA Methodology Share of Cost Contributor or Category MSRP (%) 50. 0 Vehicle Manufacturing 17.0 Overhead 7. 0 23. 5 Selling 97. 5 Sum of Costs 2. 5 Profit 100. 0 RPE Share of RPE (%) 46. 9 22. 1 22. 9 91. 9 8. 1 100. 0 Page 7 Cuenca, R. M. , L. L. Gaines, and A. D. Vyas, 2000, military rank of Electr ic Vehicle Production and Operating Costs, Argonne National Laboratory extend ANL/ESD-41, Argonne, Ill. (to be published). Vyas, A. , R. Cuenca, and L. Gaines, 1998, An Assessment of Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Costs to Consumers, Proceedings of the 1998 Total Life Cycle Conference, SAE International Report P339, Warrendale, Penn. , pp. 161-172.