200 hrs of Skilled Labour/Labor @ Rs. 20 per hr, 400 hrs of Semi-Skilled Labour/Labor @ Rs. 15/hr and 150 hrs of Unskilled Labour/Labor @ Rs. 10 per hr were planned to be utlised for manufacturing 7,500 units of a product.
240 hrs of skilled labour/labor @ Rs. 22 per hr, 500 hrs of Semi-skilled labour/labor @ Rs. 14/hr and 220 hrs of Unskilled labour/labor @ Rs. 12 per hr were actually used for manufacturing 7,125 units of the product.
16 hrs of Skilled Labour/Labor time, 50 hrs of Semi-Skilled Labour/Labor time and 22 hrs of Unskilled Labour/Labor time were lost due to break down which is abnormal.
The proportion in which the labour/labor types are to be mixed
Standard Proportion :: 200 hrs : 400 hrs : 150 hrs i.e. 4 : 8 : 3
Actual Proportion :: 216 hrs : 450 hrs : 198 hrs i.e. 12 : 25 : 11
What is the variation in total cost on account of variation in the proportion in which the labour/labor types are engaged?
This information is provided by the labour/labor mix or Gang Composition variance.
The problem data arranged in a working table:
|
Standard [Production: 7,500 units] |
Actual [Production: 7,125 units] |
Time (hrs) |
Rate (Rs/hr)
| Cost (Rs) |
Rate (Rs/hr) |
Gross/Total |
Net |
Abnromal |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
| Skilled |
200 |
20 |
4,000 |
22 |
240 |
5,280 |
216 |
4,752 |
24 |
528 |
| Semi Skilled |
400 |
15 |
6,000 |
14 |
500 |
7,000 |
450 |
6,300 |
50 |
700 |
| Un Skilled |
150 |
10 |
1,500 |
12 |
220 |
2,640 |
198 |
2,376 |
22 |
264 |
| Total
| 750 |
|
11,500 |
|
960 |
14,920 |
864 |
13,428 |
96 |
1,492 |
|
|
The Formulae » Labor/Labour Mix/Gang-Composition Variance (LMV/GCV)
|
|
| |
That part of the variance in the total cost of labour/labor on account of a variation between the standard mix (standard proportion in which labour/labor time of various labour/labor types are to be employed) and the proportion of actual mix (proportion in which they are actually used). It is a part of the Labour/Labor Usage/Efficiency Variance or a Sub-Part of the Labour/Labor Cost Variance.
It is the difference between the Standard Cost of Standard Time for Actual Input (Actual Quantity of Mix) and the Standard Cost of Actual Net Time.
⇒ Labour/Labor Mix Variance = Standard Cost of Standard Time for Actual Mix − Standard Cost of Actual Time
For each Labour/Labor type Separately
For all Labour/Labor types together [Total Labour/Labor Mix/Gang-Composition Variance :: TLMV/TGCV]
When two or more types of labour/labor are used for the manufacture of a product, the total Labour/Labor Mix/Gang-Composition Variance is the sum of the variances measured for each labour/labor type separately.
Direct Formula
|
|
LMV/GCV » Formula interpretation
|
|
| |
The above formulae for Labour/Labor Mix/Gang-Composition Variance, can be used in all cases i.e. both when AT Mix = ST Mix as well as when AT Mix ≠ ST Mix. When AT Mix ≠ ST Mix, the ratio AT Mix/ST Mix works as a correction factor to readjust the ST to ST for AI and thereby the SC to SC for AI.
Actual Time ⇒ Net Time
Wherever you find the presence of actual time in the formula, you should interpret it as Actual (Net) Time. Where there abnormal loss of time, the actual time is segregated into two as abnormal loss time and net time. Even in such cases, for the purpose of calculating the Mix/Gang-Composition Variance, the (Net) time should be considered for actual time.
Where ATMix = STMix
ATMix/STMix becomes 1 thus nullifying its effect, in which case the formula would read as:
For each labour/labor type separately
| LMV/GCV |
= |
(ST × SR) − (AT × SR) |
|
= |
(ST − AT) × SR |
Caution:
The formula for Labour/Labor Efficiency/Usage Variance also reads the same [LEV/LUV = (ST × SR) − (AT × SR)] when AO = SO.
In case of Mix Variance the condition to be satisfied is ATMix = STMix.
LMV/GCV = 0
Labour/Labor mix or Gang Composition variance for each labour/labor type would be zero, when the proportion of the actual time of labour/labor types to the total time of actual mix (AT/AT(AM)) is the same as the proportion of the standard time of the labour/labor types to the total time of standard mix (ST/ST(SM)).
LMV/GCV for each labour/labor type would be zero, when the proportion of the labour/labor time of each labour/labor type to the time of mix is the
| same both in the standards as well as actuals. i.e. when |
|
= |
|
Where there is only one labour/labor type being used, there is no meaning in thinking of the Labour/Labor Mix/Gang-Composition Variance.
Where LMV/GCV = 0, the total efficiency/usage variance is nothing but Yield Variance.
|
LEV/LUV
|
= |
LMV/GCV + LYV/LSUV/LSEV |
|
= |
0 + LYV/LSUV/LSEV |
|
= |
LYV/LSUV/LSEV |
TLMV/TGCV = 0
When more than one type of labour/labor is used, the total LMV/GCV may become zero
- when the LMV/GCV on account of each labour/labor type is zero, or
- when the proportion of labour/labor times inter-se between them both as per the standard and the actual is the same. ST1 : ST2 : ... = AT(N)1 : AT(N)2 : ...
- when the unfavourable variance due to one or more labour/labor types is set off by the favourable variance due to one or more other labour/labor types.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to conclude that there is no variance on account of any labour/labor type just because the total LMV/GCV is zero.
|
|
Solution [Using the data as it is]
|
|
| |
For working out problems with the data considered as it has been given without having to do any recalculations, use the above formulae (which are capable of being used in all cases)
Consider the working table above:
|
Standard [Production: 7,500 units] |
Actual [Production: 7,125 units] |
Time (hrs) |
Rate (Rs/hr)
| Cost (Rs) |
Rate (Rs/hr) |
Total |
Normal |
Abnromal |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
| Skilled |
200 |
20 |
4,000 |
22 |
240 |
5,280 |
216 |
4,752 |
24 |
528 |
| Semi Skilled |
400 |
15 |
6,000 |
14 |
500 |
7,000 |
450 |
6,300 |
50 |
700 |
| Un Skilled |
150 |
10 |
1,500 |
12 |
220 |
2,640 |
198 |
2,376 |
22 |
264 |
| Total
| 750 |
|
11,500 |
|
960 |
14,920 |
864 |
13,428 |
96 |
1,492 |
Using,
| LMV/GCV |
= |
| ({ |
|
× STLab} − AT(N)Lab) × SRLab |
|
Labour/Labor Mix or Gang Composition Variance due to labourers/laborers who are
| • Skilled |
= |
| ({ |
|
× 200 hrs} − 216 hrs) × Rs. 20/hr |
|
|
= |
({1.152 × 200 hrs) − 216 hrs) × Rs. 20/hr |
|
= |
(230.4 hrs − 216 hrs) × Rs. 20/hr |
|
= |
(+ 14.4 hrs) × Rs. 20/hr |
|
= |
+ Rs. 288 |
⇒ LMV/GCVSk |
= |
+ Rs. 288 |
[Fav] |
| • Semi-skilled |
= |
| ({ |
|
× 400 hrs} − 450 hrs) × Rs. 15/hr |
|
|
= |
({1.152 × 400 hrs) − 450 hrs) × Rs. 15/hr |
|
= |
(460.8 hrs − 450 hrs) × Rs. 15/hr |
|
= |
(+ 10.8 hrs) × Rs. 15/hr |
|
= |
+ Rs. 162 |
⇒ LMV/GCVSe |
= |
+ Rs. 162 |
[Fav] |
| • Unskilled |
= |
| ({ |
|
× 150 hrs} − 198 hrs) × Rs. 10/hr |
|
|
= |
({1.152 × 150 hrs) − 198 hrs) × Rs. 10/hr |
|
= |
(172.8 hrs − 198 hrs) × Rs. 10/hr |
|
= |
(− 25.2 hrs) × Rs. 10/hr |
|
= |
− Rs. 252 |
⇒ LMV/GCVUn |
= |
− Rs. 252 |
[Adv] |
|
|
Total Labour Mix/Gang-Composition Variance |
|
+ Rs. 198 |
[Fav] |
|
|
Solution [Using recalculated data]
|
|
| |
Where you find that the ST Mix ≠ AT (N)Mix, you may alternatively recalculate the standard to make the ST Mix = AT (N)Mix and use the figures relating to the recalculated standard in the working table. In such a case, the formulae that you use would look simpler (without the adjustment factor AT (N)Mix/ST Mix).
From the data relating to the problem, it is evident that STMix ≠ AT(N)Mix. Thus we recalculate the standard data for Actual Input [Refer to the calculations].
Consider the recalculated standard data and the actual data arranged in a working table.
|
Standard [Production: 8,640 units] |
Actual [Production: 7,125 units] |
Time (hrs) |
Rate (Rs/hr)
| Cost (Rs) |
Rate (Rs/hr) |
Total |
Normal |
Abnromal |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
Time (hrs) |
Cost (Rs) |
| Skilled |
230.4 |
20 |
4,608 |
22 |
240 |
5,280 |
216 |
4,752 |
24 |
528 |
| Semi Skilled |
460.8 |
15 |
6,912 |
14 |
500 |
7,000 |
450 |
6,300 |
50 |
700 |
| Un Skilled |
172.80 |
10 |
1,728 |
12 |
220 |
2,640 |
198 |
2,376 |
22 |
264 |
| Total
| 864 |
|
13,248 |
|
960 |
14,920 |
864 |
13,428 |
96 |
1,492 |
Using LMV/GCV = (ST − AT) SR [Since AT(AM) = ST(SM)]
Labour/Labor Mix or Gang Composition Variance due to labour/labor type which are
| Skilled |
= |
(230.4 hrs − 216 hrs) × Rs. 20/hr |
|
= |
(+ 14.4 hrs) × Rs. 20/hr |
|
= |
+ Rs. 288 |
⇒ LMV/GCVSk |
= |
+ Rs. 288 |
[Fav] |
| Semi-skilled |
= |
(460.8 hrs − 450 hrs) × Rs. 15/hr |
|
= |
(+ 10.8 hrs) × Rs. 15/hr |
|
= |
− Rs. 162 |
⇒ LMV/GCVSe |
= |
− Rs. 162 |
[Adv] |
| Unskilled |
= |
(172.8 hrs − 198 hrs) × Rs. 10/hr |
|
= |
(− 25.2 hrs) × Rs. 10/hr |
|
= |
− Rs. 252 |
⇒ LMV/GCVUn |
= |
− Rs. 252 |
[Adv] |
|
|
Total Labour Mix/Gang-Composition Variance |
|
+ Rs. 198 |
[Fav] |
Note:
This formula can be used only when AT (N)Mix = ST Mix
You don't need to recalculate the standard
The formula with the adjustment factor AT (N)Mix/ST Mix can be used in all cases i.e. both when AT (N)Mix = ST Mix and AT (N)Mix ≠ ST Mix. Therefore, you don't need to rebuild the working table by recalculating the standards for the purpose of finding the variances.
Check:
The same problem was solved in both the cases above. The only difference being that in the second case, the data was considered by recalculating the Standard for Actual Input to make AT (N)Mix = ST Mix.
|
|
Formulae using Inter-relationships among Variances
|
|
| |
These formulae can be used both for each labour/labor type separately as well as for all the labour/labor types together
- LEV/LUVN = LMV/GCV + LYV/LSUV ⇒ (1)
For each Labour/Labor Type Separately
For All Labour/Labor Types Together
- LCV = LRPV + LMV/GCV + LYV/LSUVN + LITV ⇒ (2)
For each Labour/Labor Type Separately
For All Labour/Labor Types Together
|
|
Who is held responsible for the Variance?
|
|
| |
|
Since this variance is on account of the variation in the ratio in which the constituent labour/labor types are mixed i.e. the gang composition being different from the standard ratio, the people or department responsible for authorising the work time usage and mixing of component labourers/laborers for production can be held responsible for this variance.
|
|
|