It will be apparent from the previous comments that the problem of developing
an appropriate logistics-oriented costing system is primarily one of focus. That is,
the ability to focus upon the output of the distribution system, in essence the provision
of customer service, and to identify the unique costs associated with that
output. Traditional accounting methods lack this focus, mainly because they were
designed with something else in mind.
One of the basic principles of logistics costing, it has been argued, is that the
system should mirror the materials flow, i.e. it should be capable of identifying the
costs that result from providing customer service in the marketplace. A second
principle is that it should be capable of enabling separate cost and revenue analyses
to be made by customer type and by market segment or distribution channel.
This latter requirement emerges because of the dangers inherent in dealing solely
with averages, e.g. the average cost per delivery, since they can often conceal
substantial variations either side of the mean.
To operationalise these principles requires an ‘output’ orientation to costing. In
other words, we must first define the desired outputs of the logistics system and
then seek to identify the costs associated with providing those outputs. A useful
concept here is the idea of ‘mission’. In the context of logistics and supply chain
management, a mission is a set of customer service goals to be achieved by the
system within a specific product/market context. Missions can be defined in terms of
the type of market served, by which products and within what constraints of service
and cost. A mission by its very nature cuts across traditional company lines. Figure
3.8 illustrates the concept and demonstrates the difference between an ‘output’ orientation
based upon missions and the ‘input’ orientation based upon functions.