David Krause17.1 Direct cost or overhead?
The question decides the whole treatment. Both paths are defensible, but not arbitrary:
| Treatment | When correct | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Direct cost (DL II) | program time recorded per order | cause-based — the order carries what it causes |
| Overhead | no order-based time recording possible | surcharge on all orders — repeat parts subsidize new parts |
If programming is charged as overhead, repeat orders that need no new program pay along — and first orders become too cheap. In a company with many new parts this leads to systematic under-absorption exactly where the effort arises.
17.2 The CAM hour rate
| Component | Calculation | €/h |
|---|---|---|
| Gross salary programmer | €3,800/month × 12 / 1,680 h | 27.14 |
| Employer social security | +21.1 % | +5.73 |
| CAM software license | €12,000/year / 1,680 h | +7.14 |
| Workstation costs | €6,500/year / 1,680 h | +3.87 |
| Training, certification | €1,200/year / 1,680 h | +0.71 |
| CAM hour rate | rounded to | 48.00 |
The license alone accounts for €7.14/h — nearly 15 percent of the rate. With a second workstation this share halves. Whoever is considering acquiring another CAM seat should factor that in: the second seat is considerably cheaper than the first.
17.3 The lot-size effect on work-planning costs
A programming time of 60 minutes spreads over the lot. The effect is more drastic than for setup time, because the CAM rate is higher than the direct wage.
| Lot | CAM per unit | share of €158.93 total cost |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | €48.00 | 30.2 % |
| 10 | €4.80 | 3.0 % |
| 50 | €0.96 | 0.6 % |
| 500 | €0.10 | 0.1 % |
At lot size 1, programming makes up almost a third of total cost. Whoever hides it in overhead costs single parts systematically too cheaply — and wins exactly the orders that carry the least. For prototypes and one-offs, CAM time should therefore always be shown as a direct cost, visible in the quotation.
