Maritime and Coastguard Agency 12
by Student’s Name
Table of Contents
Cost Volume Profit of MCA 4
Formula View 6
Case study 7
Sensitivity Analysis 8
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Merchant navy is the aquatic register of the United Kingdom and explains the seagoing business interests of UK-registered ships and their crews (MCA, par). This paper will be looking at one of the shipping companies under the merchant navy. It`s main aim and objective is to analyze the company`s model, its advantages and disadvantages and the formula view of the company. This paper will be exploring the
The company “Maritime and Coastguard Agency” (MCA) is a UK administrative firm that works to safeguard people who live near the coast as well as it is accountable for carrying out British and international aquatic law and safety procedure (Ronald, 1990). This entails harmonizing `search and rescue` (SAR) at sea via “Her Majesty`s Coastguard” (HMCG), making sure that ships meet worldwide and UK safety principles, checking and blocking pollution of water at the coast as well as training and giving “Merchant Navy Certificate of Competency” (licenses) for ships` directors and crew to STCW requisites (Blackmore, 2008). The firm is in control of “Sir Alan Massey”, the company`s administrative that assumed office in July 2010.
This agency has three different “outward facing” aspect plan of save and search and stop action via “Her Majesty`s Coastguard”, habour as well as emblem government authority of shipping through a structure of aquatic managers and the growth of global standards and policy for shipping through the International Maritime Authority. The MCA has now entrenched an “Automatic Identification System” (AIS) chain everywhere in the UK for actual-time tracking and checking of freight activities from the seaboard. In the next paragraphs, I shall define the Cost Volume Profit (CVP) of the merchant navy company “Maritime and Coastguard Agency” (MCA), the benefits and the demerits of the same.
Total amount gained enlarges the use of data given by break-even assessment. A crucial point of this assessment is the unit where all income is equivalent to all sales in both non-current and various prices. During this moment, the firm will not have revenues or even loss. This break-even part is the first test that overcomes total amount gained. This assessment makes use of the identical important acceptance such like break-even evaluation. The presumptions of amount of goods gain evaluation are:
1. The action of both purchases as well as sales is constant in all the important mode of activities. This theory creates token discounts on both goods sold and commodities bought.
2. Prices may be grouped correctly as either steady or else fluctuating.
3. Adjustments in enterprise are the exclusive aspects influencing prices.
4. Each and every item created is purchased (The store never remains empty).
5. The time a firm markets various commodities, the demand blend (the amount of every commodity and all purchases) won’t change at all.
Cost Volume Profit of MCA
The factors denoting total amount gain assessment can be
* Balance or either enterprise size
* Fluctuating charge for every entity
* Sum of steady prices
Total amount gained, (CVP) is a form of cost accounting used in administrative finances. Cost volume profit is examined upon deciding the break-even count of volume and cost of cargo. It is of great use for administrators preparing short-term financial resolutions, and also for common academic reasons. This study creates different hypothesis in order to be appropriate. The analysis normally appropriates that the cost of sales, nun current amounts as well as changing rates for each crew are consistent. Operating this analysis includes the use of various comparisons using price, cost and other assets and sketching them on a financial chart (Bragg, 2001)
Cost Volume Profit analysis equips executives with the advantage of being able to answer definite practical problems required in firm scrutiny. Queries such as what the organization`s balance books` point is assist directors design the way that future expenditure and management will subsidize to the growth or collapse of the company. For example, when a manager realizes the break-even point, he can adjust consumption and raise manufacturing attempts to boost company`s efficiency. Since Cost total amount gained assessment is based on analytical figures, resolutions can be broken down into possibilities that aid with the managerial practice (Vanderbeck, 2002).
Another very important merit of Cost Volume Profit investigation is this it provides a thorough picture of the firm`s enterprises (Vanderbeck, 2002). This involves entirely from the prices that are needed to make merchandise to the cost of the goods produced. It helps managers decide, so categorically, what the future will have in store if variables are changed. Transportation costs, for example, as well as goods` expenses can alter. These changing expenses can have an impact on the indispensable content. Amount Total gain assessment lets the manager to bring in various costs to organize a concept of imminent accomplishment, in a sphere of capabilities.
This, nevertheless, can be a challenge to managers who are not detail-oriented and accurate with the information they document. Projections shown on cost approximates, instead of exact numbers, can result in erroneous outcome (Vanderbeck, 2002).
Despite the fact that the Amount Total Gain evaluation is established on particular information and needs immense concentration to everything, the best that CVP can do is give estimate solutions to questions, instead of the accurate ones. It explains assumed questions well more than it gives real solutions for answering complicated issues. It makes the executive officer to determine the way to perform on the cost volume profit analysis data he has at the moment. Due to this purpose, the executive officer has to adhere to very great vigilance when coming up with resolutions over changes to company`s activity and finance. Decisions must be reached after vigorous scrutiny and concentration but not just be relied entirely on figures reached after an investigation. Analysis can include, for example, getting feedbacks from employees and cautiously looking into their day to day actions, instead of just considering them as part of a statistical data (Vanderbeck, 2002).
As noted by Horngren et al (2006), the manner in which CVP accesses to analysis is advantageous. However, it is limited in the quantity of data it can supply in an operation of multi-products. Most of the analysis done by chief executives that adopt this path is carried out according to one commodity. Northern Arizona University notes that `multi-product businesses, such as restaurants, can have a difficult time with CVP analysis because menu items, for instance, are likely to have many variable cost ratios` which makes the limit of CVP analysis much more disadvantageous because it has to be done for every particular product (Shim & Siegel, 2000)
Formula View 1 Case study
Marine coastguard agency expects to keep the same inventories at the end of the year as it was when the year began. The estimated costs of the year are as follows:
Total operating cost is 13,618,000
Net operating cost is 134,103,000
Staff cost and other costs are 44,567,000 and 68,084,000 simultaneously.
Fixed costs are 10,582,000
cost per unit is 25
It is expected that 1,052,000 units will be sold at the price of 30 per unit.
Evaluating crew requirements is a complicated and vital procedure. Mechanization balance, class of freight, plus nature of business course combine to affect crew requirements in a complicated manner. In the past, relatively simple rules and standards, such as those in the Marine Safety Manual, have successfully identified crew requirements. However, scientific advancement as well as commercial tension is prompting changes that may make the traditional methods for evaluating crew requirements obsolete. These changes make it necessary to examine the fundamental contributions to crew requirements: the jobs and tasks that must be performed to safely sail a ship. This report examines how an analysis of shipboard tasks can provide a sound technical basis for assessing crew requirements.
Over the last several years, Battelle has worked with the Coast Guard to develop a method to evaluate crew requirements based on shipboard tasks. This work began with a feasibility study of a task-based method for evaluating crew requirements (MCA, 2003). Following this study, a task-based method called the “Crew Size Evaluation Model”, (this is company amount assessment type) was developed. CSEM evaluates crew requirements by simulating the activities that occur on a typical voyage. The model imitates ship actions through designating at the time every assignment appears as well as which crew members perform it. Just as on actual ships, crew members generally perform tasks during their scheduled watch or work period, but they may also be called upon to undertake tasks during overtime periods. High priority tasks, such as docking, might even interrupt their normal sleep period. Simulating shipboard tasks produces a timeline that shows when crew members stand watch, perform maintenance, and complete any other shipboard task. The simulation output identifies the hours that crew members work each day of the simulated voyage and any instances where tasks were delayed because crew members were not available. If tasks were not performed in a timely manner or crew members worked excessively long hours, then the crew is considered inadequate. A comprehensive validation confirms CSEM`s ability to provide a firm technical basis for crew size evaluation. CSEM meets or exceeds the initial requirements, suggesting that it can be used to examine a variety of operating procedures, new crew structures, watch-keeping schedules, the impact of new statutes, and emergency conditions (MCA, 1998). A critical input to CSEM is task data. These data were validated through comparison of interviews with crew members, examination of scheduled maintenance logs, and shipboard observations. A comparison of work hour estimates, logs of mariners` work and sleep time, and patterns of work and rest shows that CSEM can capture differences between ship types and watch types to accurately predict work hours of mariners. These findings provide converging evidence that validates the ability of CSEM to evaluate crew requirements (Harding & Riding, 2007).
More research can be conducted on this case study since this is not a concise conclusion. The MCA needs to ensure its survey budget, to maintain nautical charts, is spent in the most efficient and effective way. The tenders for survey information may require multiple weather and sea condition models, using varying measurement technologies, resulting in dramatically varied quotes from different contractors. On this study the MCA needs an answer to assist in faster validation of contractors` bids in an informed, consistent and partial way.
Blackmore, E. 2008, The British Mercantile Marine. Charles Griffin and Company, London.
Bragg, S. M. 2001, Cost accounting a comprehensive guide. John Wiley, New York.
Harding, S., & Riding, J. 2007, Research to determine the regulatory approaches to recreational vessels within the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Marico Marine Group, Southampton.
Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Foster, G. 2006, Cost accounting: a managerial emphasis (12th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). About Us. Retrieved From, http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/aboutus.htm
Maritime and Coastguard Agency. 1998, Oil spill contingency plan guidelines for ports, harbours & oil handling facilities. Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Southampton.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency. 2003, The Maritime and Coastguard Agency framework document. Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Southampton.
Ronald, H. (1990). A New History of British Shipping. John Murray, London.
Shim, J. K., & Siegel, J. G. 2000, Modern cost management & analysis (2nd ed.). Barron`s Educational Series, Hauppauge, N.Y.
Vanderbeck, E. J. 2002, Principles of cost accounting (12th ed.). South-Western/Thomson Learning, Cincinnati, Ohio.