Entrepreneurship: is it good enough to be social? John F. McVea and Michael J. Naughton Introduction • The term Social Entrepreneurship has experienced a huge growth in influence over that last decade. The literature proposes a number of advantages to social entrepreneurship as a frame of reference: • Promoting innovation within non-profits • Leveraging and focusing scarce philanthropic resources • Faster response to strategic challenges • Infusion of business skills to non-business world • Involvement of non government assets in social problems • Creation of hybrid (blurred) organizations between for profit and non profit worlds. It is widely observed that practice has outpaced theoretical development leading to little agreement on definitions or frameworks for social entrepreneurship. We believe that widespread and unchallenged acceptance of the term Social Entrepreneurship masks some dangers and has contributed to confusion in the field. We believe that if we apply some insights from Catholic Social Teaching to the issue of social entrepreneurship we can move beyond the false dichotomy of Entrepreneurship/ Social Entrepreneurship and identify three specific entrepreneurial strategies which support a more robust discussion of the nature of the work that is entrepreneurship. We believe that the field would benefit from spending less time discussing social entrepreneurship and more time discussion the nature of the good entrepreneur. • • • • • The dangers of naïve acceptance of Social Entrepreneurship • • • The rhetorical risk: • Narrow definition: if S.E. is simply used to rebrand non-profits then much of the value of the new activities, hybrid design, stimulation of new resources and innovation is lost. • Implied dichotomy: if “good” ventures are termed “social” it can imply that other forms of entrepreneurship are “asocial” or “anti social” • Boundarylessness: In contrast, if all business activities are deemed “social”, to some degree or other, then the term loses all meaning focus on the distinctive phenomenon that is S.E. Despite these risks we are more concerned with a risk beyond rhetoric; the risk of undermining the meaning of work, particularly from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching. While this perspective is drawn from the Catholic tradition, accepting the content of CST does not require acceptance of Catholic faith (Guitan, 2009). The three goods of social entrepreneurship • We are concerned by the side-effects of a concentration thesis that suggests that the moral responsibilities of entrepreneurship can be concentrated in a subset of businesses called social enterprises, presumably leaving other enterprise to simply concentrate on serving themselves. • We are concerned by the impact such a concentration thesis could have on the conception of the meaning of work beyond the world of social enterprise. • We are concerned with how such an approach can focus attention solely on the altruistic contributions of entrepreneurial ventures as the sole measure of their contribution to the Common Good • Instead we propose that, rather than trying to determine the difference between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, it would be more productive to focus on the questions “What is Good Entrepreneurship? What action and activities define that goodness?” • We further propose that, by apply the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching, we can identify three specific strategies through which entrepreneurial ventures may contribute to the Common Good thus suggesting that good entrepreneurship requires a focus on: 1. Good Goods. The primary way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is by bringing into existence new products and services which are inherently good and which enrich lives and minimize any unintended harms. This can include what we call the “entrepreneurship of the mundane”, that is, the manufacture of the nuts and bolts and basic necessities of life as well as the creation of life saving treatments. However, inclusion of good goods as a primary moral contribution of entrepreneurship must also require of the entrepreneur analysis of what goods are not good, and what aspects of even good goods should be redesigned or rethought in order to minimize unintended consequences. We find, in our discussions, that this is a much under appreciated dimension of the good of entrepreneurship. 2. Good Work. The second way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is through the nature of the work that is carried out by the venture. This dimension has several aspects both internal and external to the entrepreneur: • The development of good character in the entrepreneur. This aspect of the good is derived from the subjective dimension of work, that is, just as how-we-work ends up changing the world, so working-on-the-world changes us. Most professionals spend the majority of their waking hours at work. As habits, character and wisdom are developed through experience and activity, for the entrepreneur, doing good work is an important opportunity to develop character. Society as a whole is better off for having good, successful entrepreneurial leaders who, through that calling, can become leaders of character. This dimension of the entrepreneurial good is widely unappreciated even by entrepreneurs themselves • Good relations with employees, customers and other stakeholders. Value creation and trade creates opportunities for the building of social relationships. The central question is “Are you in good relation with those with whom you create value?’ Do your employees have opportunity to develop as people? 3. Good Wealth. The third way the good entrepreneur can contribute to the Common Good is through the creation of good wealth. Good wealth requires a balance of reward for labor/ creativity with the provision of a living wage to all. Good wealth is often captured by individual action but has social strings attached. From the CST perspective the creation of good wealth implies a particular solidarity with the poor. One way to contribute to the common good is to donate altruistically to those in need. But even here, altruism is only one of a number of possible strategies. Good entrepreneurs may also contribute by donating their time or their particular skills. Indeed, since the donation of time and work often requires physical interaction with those in need, it often generates a solidarity of far greater integrity. Finally, it must be emphasized that altruism, for the entrepreneur, is always dependent, indeed subsequent to the creation of good wealth in the first place. Literature cited Alvord, Sarah, David L. Brown, and Christine W. Letts, 2004. “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 40:260. Benedict XVI, Caritas et veritate,   Boschee, Jerr. 1998 “What does it take to be a social entrepreneur?” National Centre for Social Entrepreneurs (www.socialentrepreneurs.org/whatdoes/html), 5pp.   Cannon, Carl. 2000. “Charity for profit: how the new social entrepreneurs are creating good by sharing wealth” National Journal, June 16: 1898-1904.   Christie, Michael and Benson Honig. 2006. “Social entrepreneurship: New research findings.” Journal of World Business. 41: 1-5.   Dees, Gregory, J., 1998. “The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship,’” Original Draft: 10/3.   Drucker, P.F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.   Fowler, Alan. “NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation?” Third World Quarterly, 21(4): 637-654.   Gregg, S. and G. Preece: 1999, Christianity and Entrepreneurship (The Centre for Independent Studies Limited, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia).   Hibbert, Sally A., Gillian Hogg and Theresa Quinn. “Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big Issue in Scotland.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 7(3): 288-301.   Johnson, Sherrill, 2000. “Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurship,” Canadian Center for social Entrepreneurship. (http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications/).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Laborem Exercens (On Human Work): 1981, in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern): 1987 in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   Kennedy, R., G, Atkinson, and M. Naughton, (eds.): 1994, Dignity of Work: John Paul II Speaks To Managers and Workers (University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland).   Mair, Johanna and Ernesto Noboa, 2003. “Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Enterprise get Formed,” IESE Business School.   Mair, Johanna and Ignasi Marti, 2006. “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight,” Journal of World Business. 41: 36-44.   Melé, D.:2001, ‘A Challenge for Business Enterprises: Introducing the Primacy of the Subjective Meaning of Work in Work Organization’, (http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/mgmt/le/papers/mele.htm) Conclusions We have argued that, while there is great promise in the contemporary social entrepreneurship movement, there are also a number of important dangers. We propose that, if we confront rather than acquiesce to these dangers, we can use the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching to broaden the scope of entrepreneurial ventures that we study, to enrich the moral dimension of entrepreneurial strategy and to deepen the teaching of entrepreneurship as a whole. We recommend the following to move toward these contributions: • Incorporate social entrepreneurship into entrepreneurship in a way that enhances the three goods of entrepreneurship. Specifically we propose replacing the questions “What is social entrepreneurship?” with the questions “What does it mean to be a Good entrepreneur?” From this perspective we can then apply what we have called the three goods of entrepreneurship as a means of supplying critical challenge and inspiration to all forms of entrepreneurship such that the true moral dimension of this critical force in our lives comes into fruition. • Encourage research within the entrepreneurship discipline that addresses traditional social entrepreneurial issues such as micro lending, fair trade products, etc. • Develop bridge courses such as Theo/Cath 306 which help students understand and experience the meaning of the good entrepreneur as well as connect students to the spiritual and moral principles of a good entrepreneur. • Expose entrepreneurship students to so-called social entrepreneurs as well so-called conventional good entrepreneurs so they can see the spectrum of entrepreneurial activities. © File copyright Colin Purrington. You may use for making your poster, of course, but please do not plagiarize, adapt, or put on your own site. Also, do not upload this file, even if modified, to third-party file-sharing sites such as doctoc.com. If you have insatiable need to post a template onto your own site, search the internet for a different template to steal. File downloaded from http://colinpurrington.com/tips/ academic/posterdesign. Acknowledgments I am indebted to Michael Naughton and Laura Dunham for their reflections and thoughts on this paper.
View full slide show




Diagnosis in Fast-TAD (overlaid on BISTer-1) Ses Ses S1 S1 PLB PLB A A B B C DC TPG ORA TPG ORA CUT TPG b1,b2 CUT TPG b1,b2 CUT CUT c1,c2 c1,c2 b1,b2 D A S3 S3 S4 S4 CUT CUT CUT CUT d1,d2 d1,d2 a1,a2 a1,a2 a1,a2 CUT b1,b2 ORA S1 Theorem: Fast-TAD using BISTer-1 is 1-diagnosable • A f-faulty PLB Q config. as a TPG will have a GS of √ while Q configured as a CUT & performing its oper. functions will have GS of X. In all other cases GS is either a √ or a X a1,a2 CUT • In some cases, faults in A and C ( or B and D) ORA a1,a2 TPG ORA b1,b2 CUT CUT CUT CUT ORA TPG TPG ORA b1,b2 c1,c2 c1,c2 d1,d2 c1,c2 f-faulty PLB S2 S2 • Each PLB is tested in its two operational fn. d1,d2 CUT S3CUTS4 S2 may not be distinguishable – a 2nd test reqd. • Require 10.t1 time versus 16.t1 if both CUTs in a session are config. both their oper fns. Ses. PLB S1 S2 (C/A) (B/D) CUT b1,b2 ORA c1,c2 d1,d2 TPG √√ Xd1,d2 /√ X/√ a1,a2 X X/√ X/√ X A TPG B X √ X/√ X/√ B C X/√ X/√ X X √ √ X/√ X/√ CUT CUT c1,c2 b1,b2 C ORA D X/√ X/√ X √ CUT c1,c2 D ORA TPG Faulty PLB S1 (C/A) A √ B C D S2 (B/D) X X √
View full slide show




Very Simple Weighted SP1 and SP2 K-plex Search on G6 Weighting: 0,1path nbrs of x times 3; 2path nbrs of x times 2; Until all degrees are weighted, then back to actual subgraph degrees H={123456789abc deg999923634438 H={123456789abc deg 999923634438 H={123456789abc deg 99962333886c H={123456789abc deg 996946334434 UNWEIGHTED Degrees H={123456789abc deg 333323334434 SP1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 H=15 H=7 kplex k8 x=1 after cutting x=2 H={123456789abc deg999923634438 2,3,4 H={123456789abc deg999923634438 2,3,4 x=3 H={123456789abc deg 99962333886c H=6 H=4 2plex x=3, after cut 2368 x=1 x=4 H={123456789abc deg 996946334434 H=15 H=7 kplex k8 x=2 after cutting H=3 x=4 H={123456789abc k1 deg999923634438 H={123456789abc k1 deg999923634438 H={123456789abc deg 222623338861 H=6 H=5 kplex x=1, after cut 23468 H=6 H=5 kplex x=2, after cut 23468 H=3 H=3 0plex x=3 after cut 1 (actual subgraph degrees) H=3 0plex after cut 2346 H={123456789abc deg 333669964434 H=10 H=5 5plex x=5 after cut 34 H={123456789abc deg 333669964434 x=5 H={123456789abc deg 333669998834 x=6 H={123456789abc deg 333669998834 x=6 after cut 34 H={123456789abc deg 33312333223 H=3 H=2 1plex x=6 after cut 12 SG degs 211 H={123456789abc deg 333969934434 x=7 H={123456789abc deg 333969998834x=7 after cut 34 H={123456789abc deg 333122232234 H=3 H=3 0plex x=7 after cut 1 SG degs H={123456789abc deg 33334969cc68 x=8 H={123456789abc deg 33334969cc68 x=8 after cut 34 H={123456789abc H=3 H=3 0plex deg 333123314434x=5 after cut 1 from SG degs H={123456789abc deg 333342134433 SP2 1 2 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 a 0 0 1 0 b 0 0 1 0 c 1 1 0 0 H={123456789abc deg 33632639cc9c x=9 5 6 7 8 9 a b c 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 H={123456789abc deg 33632639cc9c x=a H={123456789abc deg 33632639cc9c H=10 H=8 H a kplex k 2 x=a after cut 2,3,6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H={123456789abc deg 33632336cc9c x=b H={123456789abc deg 33632639cc9c H=6 H=6 H a kplex k 0 x=b after cut 2,3,6 SP3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 0 0 a 1 1 0 0 b 1 1 0 0 c 0 0 0 1 H={123456789abc deg 66932336ccpc x=c 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 a b c 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP4 1 2 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 1 b 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 0 5 6 7 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 9 a b c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H={123456789abc deg 33632639cc9c 2,3,6 H={123456789abc deg 66932336cc9c 2plex x=8 after cut12 SG degs H=10 H=8 H a kplex k 2 x=9 after Cutting H=6 H=6 H a kplex k 0 x=c after cut 2,3,6 By weighting the initial round we have gotten nearly perfect information for this example (G6). The weightings, 3 and 2, were arbitrarily chosen but worked here. In general, one should devise a formula to determine them. Also we could weight SP3 and etc. as well? If we have paid the price of constructing SPk k>1, this is a much simpler way to do it, as compared to the Clique Percolation method of Palla (next slide). G6 1 5 4 2 6 7 3 c 9 b 8 a
View full slide show




Our BISTer-1 Architecture TPG A ORA B CUT TPG C CUT Sess  PLB  S1 ORA CUT D S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 Inference √ √ √ √ No faulty PLB X √ √ √ Fault not in PLB √ X √ √ Fault not in PLB √ √ X √ Fault not in PLB √ √ √ X Fault not in PLB X X √ √ Faulty C (CUT) √ X X √ Faulty D (CUT) √ √ X X Faulty A (CUT) X √ √ X Faulty B (CUT) X √ X √ Fault not in PLB √ X √ X Fault not in PLB A TPG ORA CUT CUT B CUT TPG ORA CUT X X X √ Faulty D √ X X X Faulty A C CUT CUT TPG ORA X X √ X Faulty C D ORA CUT CUT TPG X √ X X Faulty B X X X X Fault not in PLB
View full slide show




5- 60 Controllable and Volume Variances Learning Objective P3: Compute overhead spending and efficiency variances. Overhead cost variance (OCV) = Actual overhead incurred (AOI) − Standard overhead applied (SOA) Exhibit 21.15 • Total Overhead Variance: Actual total overhead incurred − Standard total overhead applied – Overhead Controllable Variance: Actual total overhead incurred – Budgeted total overhead. – Overhead Volume Variance: Budgeted fixed overhead – Applied fixed Overhead © McGraw-Hill Education. 21-60
View full slide show




BISTer-2 architecture B CUT A TPG C ORA F ORA 1 2 Y1 Y1 – output of the ORA comparing CUTs Y2 – output of the ORA comparing TPGs Theorem: BISTer-2 is 1-diagnosable Proof: Gross syndrome corresponding to Y1 for each faulty PLB is unique. E.g. Y1 is pass in section 2 only for faulty PLB A and no other PLB. Y2 E D CUT TPG OR1 => ORA 1 (Y1) OR2 => ORA 2 (Y2) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 A TPG OR2 TPG CUT OR1 CUT B CUT TPG OR2 TPG CUT OR1 C OR1 CUT TPG OR2 TPG CUT D CUT OR1 CUT TPG OR2 TPG E TPG CUT OR1 CUT TPG OR2 F OR2 TPG CUT OR1 CUT TPG Gross syndrome corresponding to Y1 Faulty PLB S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 A X √ X X X X B X X √ X X X C X X X √ X X D X X X X √ X E X X X X X √ F √ X X X X X
View full slide show




3-40 Overhead Variance Assume Assume Glass Glass Creations’ Creations’ actual actual overhead overhead for for the the year year was was $370,000 $370,000 for for aa total total of of 13,000 13,000 direct direct labor labor hours. hours. How How much much total total overhead overhead was was applied applied to to jobs jobs during during Overhead is Use overapplied the the year? year? Use Glass Glass Creations’ Creations’ predetermined predetermined for the year by$30.00 overhead rate overhead rate of of $30.00 per per direct direct labor labor hour. hour. $20,000. What will Glass Creations do? SOLUTION SOLUTION Applied Applied Overhead Overhead == POHR POHR ×× Actual Actual Direct Direct Labor Labor Hours Hours Applied Applied Overhead Overhead == $30.00 $30.00 per per DLH DLH ×× 13,000 13,000 DLH DLH == $390,000 $390,000
View full slide show




Overhead Variances Example DR, Inc. provided the following information for overhead: Actual variable overhead = $14,500 Actual fixed overhead = $8,200 Budgeted variable overhead = $14,000 per unit Budgeted fixed overhead = $4 per unit Budgeted units produced = 2,000; Actual units produced = 2,040 DR applies overhead based on the number of units produced. Calculate the overhead rates: Variable overhead rate = Estimated variable overhead Estimated units to produce = $14,000 2,000 = $7.00 per unit Fixed overhead rate = Estimated fixed overhead Estimated units to produce = $8,000 2,000 = $4.00 per unit
View full slide show




Our BISTer-1 Architecture Each PLB is a CUT in 2 unique sessn’s and a TPG in another unique session – this serves to uniquelyis identify the Theorem: BISTer-1 1-diagnosable faulty PLB which will have a X X √ in these sessions. Sess  PLB  S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 Inference √ √ √ √ No faulty PLB X √ √ √ Fault not in PLB √ X √ √ Fault not in PLB √ √ X √ Fault not in PLB √ √ √ X Fault not in PLB X X √ √ Faulty C (CUT) √ X X √ Faulty D (CUT) √ √ X X Faulty A (CUT) X √ √ X Faulty B (CUT) X √ X √ Fault not in PLB √ X √ X Fault not in PLB A TPG ORA CUT CUT B CUT TPG ORA CUT X X X √ Faulty D √ X X X Faulty A C CUT CUT TPG ORA X X √ X Faulty C D ORA CUT CUT TPG X √ X X Faulty B X X X X Fault not in PLB
View full slide show




3-39 Overhead Variance Assume Assume Glass Glass Creations’ Creations’ actual actual overhead overhead for for the the year year was was $370,000 $370,000 for for aa total total of of 13,000 13,000 direct direct labor labor hours. hours. How How much much total total overhead overhead was was applied applied to to jobs jobs during during the the year? year? Use Use Glass Glass Creations’ Creations’ predetermined predetermined overhead overhead rate rate of of $30.00 $30.00 per per direct direct labor labor hour. hour. SOLUTION SOLUTION Applied Applied Overhead Overhead == POHR POHR ×× Actual Actual Direct Direct Labor Labor Hours Hours Applied Applied Overhead Overhead == $30.00 $30.00 per per DLH DLH ×× 13,000 13,000 DLH DLH == $390,000 $390,000
View full slide show




Journal Entries for Multiple Departments     Work in Process – Blanking Work in Process – Forming Work in Process – Finishing Factory Overhead  Work in Process – Blanking Work in Process – Forming Work in Process – Finishing Factory Overhead       xx xx Work in Process – Forming Finished Goods  xx Work in Process – Blanking Work in Process – Finishing  xx Work in Process – Finishing xx xx xx Record Factory Overhead Work in Process – Blanking Work in Process – Forming Work in Process – Finishing     xx Factory Overhead Work in Process – Forming  xx xx xx xx Transfers to Various Departments  xx xx xx xx Payroll   xx xx Various Accounts Factory Overhead – Blanking Factory Overhead – Forming Factory Overhead – Finishing    Record Direct Labor       xx xx xx xx Materials Factory Overhead  Record Direct Materials  Factory Overhead - Blanking Factory Overhead – Forming Factory Overhead – Finishing xx xx xx xx xx xx   BLANKING  FORMING  FINISHING Department Department Department
View full slide show




Route Optimization  Route Caching: Each node caches a new route it learns by any means. For example, when A finds route [A,B,D,E,F] to F, A also learns route [A,B,D,E] to E; D forwards data [A,B,D,E,F], D learns route [D,E,F] to F; So a node usually organizes its cache in the format of a shortest path tree with itself as the root.  Avoid RREP Storm Problem: An intermediate node will delay transmitting the route reply for a random period of d. During this period, cancel the route reply if overhearing any packet containing a better route.  Limit the Propagation of RREQ Packets: First, set TTL = 1 for first route request packet. If no route reply is received after some time period, set TTL = maximum for next RREQ. . CS541 Advanced Networking 15
View full slide show




NEED-TO-KNOW 15-4 A manufacturing company estimates it will incur $240,000 of overhead costs in the next year. The company allocates overhead using machine hours, and estimates it will use 1,600 machine hours in the next year. During the month of June, the company used 80 machine hours on Job 1 and 70 machine hours on Job 2. 1. Compute the predetermined overhead rate to be used to apply overhead during the year. Predetermined Overhead Rate = Estimated Overhead Costs Estimated Activity Base = $150 per machine hour $240,000 1,600 machine hours 2. Determine how much overhead should be applied to Job 1 and to Job 2 for June. Job 1 Job 2 Total Machine Hours Used 80 hours 70 hours 150 hours x Predetermined OH rate x $150 per hour x $150 per hour x $150 per hour = OH Applied = $12,000 OH applied = $10,500 OH applied = $22,500 OH applied 3. Prepare the journal entry to record overhead applied for June. General Journal Work in Process Inventory Factory Overhead Learning Objective P3: Describe and record the flow of overhead costs in job order costing. Debit 22,500 Credit 22,500 © McGraw-Hill Education 26
View full slide show




Applying Overhead 18-78 Question FishCo FishCo had had actual actual manufacturing manufacturing overhead overhead costs costs of of $180,000. $180,000. FishCo FishCo applied applied $192,000 $192,000 of of manufacturing manufacturing overhead overhead to to jobs jobs based based on on aa POHR POHR of of $8.00 $8.00 per per direct direct labor labor hour. hour. FishCo’s FishCo’s manufacturing manufacturing overhead overhead is: is: a. a. b. b. c. c. d. d. $12,000 $12,000 overapplied. overapplied. overhead $12,000 underapplied. $12,000Applied underapplied. Less actual overhead $96,000 $96,000 overapplied. overapplied. Overapplied overhead $96,000 $96,000 underapplied. underapplied. $ 192,000 180,000 $ 12,000
View full slide show




Default Route Propagation Verifying the Propagated Default Route The entry for the EIGRP-learned default route is identified by the following:  D – This route was learned from an EIGRP routing update.  * – The route is a candidate for a default route.  EX – The route is an external EIGRP route; in this case, a static route outside of the EIGRP routing domain.  170 – This is the administrative distance of an external EIGRP route. Presentation_ID © 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential 17
View full slide show




Examples of topics 65 NEU POS NEG breakfast times subway square place street tip close tips quiet new tips comfortable york floor desk excellent amazing square suite tip quiet service hotels lobby walk time little terrible bathroom breakfast place 18-24 NEU POS NEG new night nice lobby central city floor free price time york times square check night time friendly lovely fantastic minutes location bed floor service bathroom breakfast trip nightlife disappointing problem night Dover, Ohio NEU POS NEG ford bronco, make sure, lincoln ls, back seat, air control, fuse box, power loss car club, seat belt, heard good, good deal, wheel base, local ford, heard good interior design Isn’t bad, bad wire, bad wheel, gone bad, go wrong, find bad, negative battery Dover, Ohio NEU POS NEG female male throttle body, position sensor, ignition parts, power steering, fuel system dash light, nice car, back seat, right side, high end, drive truck, engine lights bad wheel, ford thunderbird, started acting, functional bad wheel, components bad wire, engine runs
View full slide show




“Germology Terminology” Infection versus Colonization • Infection: Bad news, bad news, bad news – Bad news: You’ve got it (it = bacteria “X”) – Bad news: It’s making you sick (invading your tissues and cells) – Bad news: It can be spread to others • Colonization: Bad news, good news, bad news – Bad news: You’ve got it (it = bacteria “X”) – Good news: It’s not making you sick – Bad news: It can be spread to others 10
View full slide show




UM Evaluation Form CONFINED SPACE EVALUATION FORM SPACE LOCATION: ___________________________________________________________ SPACE DESCRIPTION: ________________________________________________________ Complete this form for any space which may be considered a confined space. A confined space is defined as having those characteristics listed in #1 through #3 below. YES NO 1. Is the space large enough and shaped so employee can enter and work? YES NO 2. Does the space have a limited or restricted means for entry or exit? YES NO 3. Is the space is NOT designed for continuous employee occupancy? If questions #1 through #3 above are "YES", then the space is a confined space. Continue to questions A through E below to determine if and what type of permit is required to enter. YES NO A. Does the space contain, or have a known potential to contain, a hazardous atmosphere (for example, flammable vapors, toxic gases or dusts, etc.), or pipes, ducts, vents or other entry points for potentially hazardous substances, or will volatile chemicals be used, or will painting or other work that could create a breathing hazard be done? Specify potential or known hazards: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ YES NO B. Does the space contain a material with the potential for engulfment of a worker (for example, grain, sand or water)? Specify potential or known hazards: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ YES NO C. Does the space have an internal shape such that a worker could be trapped or suffocated by inwardly converging walls, floor or ceiling? Specify potential or known hazards: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ YES NO D. Does the space contain other recognized safety or health hazards, such as: (check all that apply) ___ mechanical hazards; ___ exposed or vulnerable electrical wires or energized equipment; ___ restrictive entrance or exit for entrants with their work equipment; ___ special hazards related to elevation or falling; or ___ possible impediments to rescue efforts? Specify potential or known hazards: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ YES NO E. Will welding, cutting, torch work, or other hot work be done? Specify potential or known hazards: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ If you answered NO to all questions A through E, then the space is a Non-Permit Require Confined Space. If you answered Yes to question A, then a Hazardous Entry Permit with on-site rescue is required.* If you answered Yes to question B, then a General Entry Permit with retrieval system is required. If you answered Yes to question C or D, then a General Entry Permit is required. If you answered Yes to question E, then a Hot Work Entry Permit is required. *A General Entry Permit with off-site rescue may be used, if the space is continuously ventilated and monitored. Name: ___________________________ Signature: __________________________________ Department: __________________________________________________________________ Please return this form to OSEH, CSSB, 1239 Kipke, Box 1010. Refer questions to OSEH at 747-1142. cseval2.doc University of Michigan - Flint 4/10/96 1
View full slide show




17-11 Flexible Overhead Budget Illustrated Normal costing Standard costing Manufacturing Overhead Manufacturing Overhead Actual Overhead Actual Overhead Applied Overhead Applied Overhead Actual activity Standard allowed activity × × Predetermined overhead rate Predetermined overhead rate The difference lies in the quantity of hours used
View full slide show




NEED-TO-KNOW 16-4 Tower Mfg. estimates it will incur $200,000 of total overhead costs during the year. Tower allocates overhead based on machine hours; it estimates it will use a total of 10,000 machine hours during the year. During February, the assembly department of Tower Mfg. uses 375 machine hours. In addition, Tower incurred actual overhead costs as follows during February: indirect materials, $1,800; indirect labor, $5,700; depreciation on factory equipment, $8,000; factory utilities, $500. 2. Prepare journal entries to record (a) overhead applied for the assembly department for the month and (b) actual overhead costs used during the month. a) b) General Journal Work in Process Inventory Factory Overhead (375 machine hours x $20 per MH) Factory Overhead Raw Materials Inventory Factory Wages Payable Accumulated Depreciation - Factory Equipment Utilities Payable Debit 7,500 Credit 7,500 16,000 1,800 5,700 8,000 500 Factory Overhead Actual OH Incurred Ind. Materials Ind. Labor Fact. Deprec. Fact. Utilities OH Applied to Production 1,800 5,700 8,000 500 16,000 7,500 Underapplied 8,500 Learning Objective P3: Record the flow of factory overhead costs in process costing. © McGraw-Hill Education 32
View full slide show