Five activity pools reverse the profit ranking of three beer lines in this GB519 Unit 5 activity-based costing comparison, which ends on what management should change and what stays. Searches like "gb 519 unit 5 assignment example", "gb519 unit 5 sample" and "gb519 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished GB519 Unit 5 activity-based costing comparison looks like
Three tables and a decision section. First comes the traditional allocation: 1.2 million dollars of overhead over 10,000 barrels at 120 dollars each, charged to the flagship IPA, the pilsner and the barrel-aged sours in proportion to volume. The second table builds the activity pools, brew batches, lab tests, packaging changeovers, barrel storage and order handling, each with a cost, a driver and a rate. The third charges each line for the activities it consumed and sets both results side by side. The sours move from 120 dollars of overhead per barrel to about 1,460, while the IPA's falls to about 60. A margin row shows the sours swinging from the most profitable line per barrel to a loss of roughly 360 dollars. The decision section weighs price, variety and channel changes before anything is dropped.
How a GB519 Unit 5 example is structured
The traditional allocation is shown first, and fairly, because the comparison persuades only if it starts from the figures managers already use. Activity pools are built next with each driver justified in a phrase, since a grader checks that each driver plausibly causes its cost. The pools are reconciled to the same 1.2 million, which proves the method moved cost rather than created it. The side-by-side table carries the finding, and the margin row turns it into a management problem. The decision section is careful about what the activity figure does not mean: salaried lab staff and the leased barrel room would not vanish if sours were dropped, so the loss overstates what ending the line would save. It recommends fewer sour varieties and taproom releases, and notes that the IPA's lower true cost reopens the grocery price question.
One rate per barrel, shown fairly
The traditional allocation reproduced as management uses it, so the comparison starts from the numbers already on the controller's desk.
Five pools and their drivers
Batches, lab tests, changeovers, barrel storage and orders, each with a cost, a driver that plausibly causes it and a rate.
Same total, different owners
The pools sum to 1.2 million dollars, the figure the traditional method spread, so cost is seen moving between lines rather than growing.
The ranking reverses
Sours rise from 120 dollars of overhead a barrel to about 1,460, the IPA falls to roughly 60, and the margin row flips.
What dropping the sours would not save
Salaried lab staff and the leased barrel room stay whatever happens to the line, so the reported loss overstates any savings from ending it.
Fewer varieties, a different channel
Trimming sour releases, selling them at the taproom and revisiting the IPA's grocery price close the decision section.
Where marks go in GB519 Unit 5
Stopping at the recalculated costs loses most, since the unit asks for a comparison of allocation methods and what the difference means for decisions. Recommending that the sours be dropped because the activity figures show a loss is the next heavy deduction: many activity costs are committed capacity, and a graduate answer is expected to separate what would disappear from what would not. Pools that fail to reconcile to total overhead suggest arithmetic went missing. Drivers chosen for convenience rather than causation, such as barrels for lab costs, undo the point of the method. Ignoring the other side of the reversal, that high-volume lines were overcharged, misses a pricing consequence graders often reward. Rates left unlabeled, and tables with per-barrel figures but no totals, cost small amounts.
Get a GB519 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Case data for Unit 5, overhead pools, drivers and product volumes, should come with the rubric and whatever format is specified. Both allocations are built and reconciled, the reversal is explained, and the recommendation separates costs that would disappear from those that would stay. The first custom sample carries no charge, with delivery in 24-48h.
GB519 Unit 5 questions, answered
Does activity-based costing always make small products look worse?
Often, but not always. Low-volume products tend to consume batch-level and handling activities out of proportion to their volume, so volume-based allocation undercharges them. If a small product runs in large batches with little testing or handling, the activity method may change its cost only slightly. The comparison shows the direction and size for each line rather than assuming the pattern.
Should activity-based figures be used to drop a product line?
Not on their own. They measure the resources a line consumes, but some of those resources, such as salaried staff or a leased space, would remain if the line ended. A drop decision needs the costs that would actually disappear, which is the relevant-cost analysis GB519 usually reaches later. The sample points toward that analysis instead of recommending elimination.
How many activity pools are enough?
Enough to capture the main ways products differ in what they consume, usually four to six in a course problem. More pools add precision but also measurement cost, and a pool whose driver behaves like volume adds nothing. The sample uses five, each chosen because the product lines use it very unequally, which is what makes the comparison informative.