MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING • RELEVANT COSTS AND SPECIAL DECISIONS

Make or Buy Decisions

Analyzing relevant costs to determine whether a firm should produce a component internally or purchase it from an external supplier.

Historical Context & Motivation

The question of whether a firm should produce its own inputs or procure them externally is as old as organized commerce itself. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, vertically integrated factories sought to control every stage of production, from raw materials to finished goods. However, as markets matured and specialization became more efficient, managers increasingly confronted the make or buy decision—a systematic evaluation of whether internal production or external procurement yields superior economic outcomes. This decision sits at the intersection of managerial accounting, operations management, and corporate strategy, making it one of the most consequential analyses a business can undertake.

The intellectual foundations for make or buy analysis evolved through several key developments in economic thought and accounting practice. Ronald Coase's seminal work on the nature of the firm provided the theoretical rationale for understanding why firms exist at all—transaction costs determine the boundary between what is organized internally and what is contracted through the market. Concurrently, the evolution of cost accounting from simple cost accumulation to sophisticated relevant cost analysis gave managers rigorous tools for making these decisions based on differential costs rather than full absorption costs.

1911
Scientific Management
Frederick Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management introduced systematic cost analysis to factory operations, laying groundwork for comparing internal production costs against external alternatives.
1937
Coase's Theory of the Firm
Ronald Coase published 'The Nature of the Firm,' arguing that transaction costs determine firm boundaries—providing the economic theory underpinning make or buy decisions.
1960s
Relevant Cost Framework Matures
Managerial accounting textbooks formalized the distinction between relevant and irrelevant costs, establishing the analytical framework still used for make or buy analysis today.
1990s
Outsourcing Revolution
Globalization and advances in supply chain management made outsourcing a dominant strategic trend, elevating the make or buy decision from a tactical accounting exercise to a core strategic concern.
2020s
Supply Chain Resilience
Pandemic-era disruptions prompted firms to re-evaluate outsourcing decisions, incorporating qualitative factors such as supply chain risk, sustainability, and geopolitical exposure into make or buy analyses.

The central question that make or buy analysis addresses is deceptively simple: should a company manufacture a component or service internally, or should it purchase that component from an outside supplier? The answer, however, requires careful identification of which costs are truly relevant to the decision, which costs are sunk or unavoidable regardless of the choice, and what qualitative factors—quality control, supplier reliability, capacity utilization—might tip the balance. In the sections that follow, we will develop a rigorous framework for conducting this analysis.

Core Principles & Definitions

At its core, the make or buy decision is an application of differential (incremental) cost analysis. The decision hinges on comparing only those costs that differ between the two alternatives—making internally versus buying externally. Costs that remain unchanged regardless of the decision, such as allocated corporate overhead that will continue to be incurred whether or not the component is produced in-house, are considered irrelevant costs and must be excluded from the analysis. This principle of focusing exclusively on costs that differ between alternatives is the bedrock upon which all special decision analysis in managerial accounting is constructed.

1

Relevant Costs

Future costs that differ between alternatives. In a make or buy context, these include avoidable manufacturing costs (direct materials, direct labor, variable overhead) and the purchase price from the external supplier.
2

Irrelevant (Sunk) Costs

Costs already incurred or costs that will not change regardless of the decision. Depreciation on existing equipment and unavoidable fixed overhead are classic examples of costs that should be excluded from the analysis.
3

Opportunity Cost

The benefit forgone by choosing one alternative over another. If the freed capacity from buying externally can generate revenue through alternative uses, that contribution margin represents an opportunity cost of the 'make' option.
4

Avoidable vs. Unavoidable Fixed Costs

Fixed costs that can be eliminated if the component is no longer produced internally are avoidable and relevant. Fixed costs that persist regardless—such as a supervisor's salary when no layoff is planned—are unavoidable and irrelevant.
5

Qualitative Factors

Beyond quantitative analysis, managers must consider quality control, supplier dependability, proprietary technology protection, employee morale, and long-term strategic alignment. These factors can override a purely numerical conclusion.
KEY TAKEAWAY
Think of the make or buy decision like deciding whether to cook dinner at home or order takeout. You should not factor in the cost of your stove (you already own it and will keep it either way—that is a sunk cost). Instead, compare the grocery ingredients you would need to buy against the takeout price. If your kitchen is otherwise idle, that is the comparison. But if cooking means you cannot spend that hour on freelance work earning $50, that forgone income becomes an opportunity cost added to the 'make' option. Only by comparing the relevant, differential costs—and including opportunity costs—do you arrive at the economically rational decision.

Decision Framework Diagram

The make or buy decision follows a structured analytical process. The diagram below illustrates the complete decision framework, beginning with cost identification and flowing through quantitative analysis to the incorporation of qualitative considerations. Notice how the process explicitly separates relevant costs from irrelevant costs before any comparison is made, and how opportunity costs are layered onto the analysis as a distinct analytical step.

The decision framework begins by identifying all costs, then filtering out irrelevant (sunk or unavoidable) costs. Relevant make costs (cyan) and buy costs (pink) are computed separately. If the freed capacity has an alternative profitable use, its contribution margin is added as an opportunity cost to the make option. After the quantitative comparison, qualitative factors are evaluated before making the final decision.

The diagram emphasizes a critical point that students frequently overlook: the comparison is never between total (full absorption) manufacturing cost and the purchase price. Instead, only avoidable manufacturing costs—those costs that would genuinely disappear if production ceased—are compared against the external purchase price. Allocated fixed overhead that the company will continue to bear regardless of the decision must be stripped out of the analysis. Additionally, the opportunity cost pathway (shown with a dashed amber line) reminds us that idle capacity has a cost only when it has a viable alternative use; if no alternative use exists, the opportunity cost is zero.

Mathematical Framework

The quantitative analysis of a make or buy decision rests on computing and comparing the total relevant cost of each alternative. The decision rule is straightforward: choose the alternative with the lower total relevant cost. When the analysis is performed on a per-unit basis, we compare the per-unit relevant make cost against the per-unit buy cost, typically multiplied by the required quantity to ensure fixed costs are handled correctly.

TOTAL RELEVANT COST TO MAKE
TC_Make = (DM + DL + VOH + Avoidable FOH) × Q + Opportunity Cost
Where DM = direct materials per unit, DL = direct labor per unit, VOH = variable overhead per unit, Avoidable FOH = avoidable fixed overhead (total), Q = quantity of units, and Opportunity Cost = contribution margin forgone from the best alternative use of freed capacity.
TOTAL RELEVANT COST TO BUY
TC_Buy = P × Q + Additional Costs
Where P = purchase price per unit from the external supplier, Q = quantity of units, and Additional Costs = any incremental costs of buying such as receiving/inspection costs, shipping, or quality testing fees.
DECISION RULE
If TC_Make < TC_Buy → Make; If TC_Buy < TC_Make → Buy
The alternative with the lower total relevant cost is preferred on a purely quantitative basis. When total relevant costs are equal, qualitative factors become the deciding criterion.
⚠️ Common Pitfall: Allocated Fixed Overhead
A frequent error in make or buy analysis is including allocated (unavoidable) fixed overhead in the make cost. If the supervisor's salary, building depreciation, or insurance will continue to be incurred even if the component is purchased externally, these costs are irrelevant. Including them inflates the apparent cost of making and biases the analysis toward buying. Only fixed costs that are truly avoidable—for example, a dedicated machine lease that can be canceled—should be included.

The opportunity cost component deserves special emphasis. If the company has excess capacity with no alternative use, the opportunity cost is zero and can be omitted. However, if the space, equipment, or labor freed by outsourcing could be redeployed to produce another product or provide a service that generates a positive contribution margin, then that forgone contribution margin must be added to the cost of the make option. Formally, the opportunity cost equals the contribution margin per unit of the alternative product multiplied by the number of units that could be produced with the freed resources.

Relevant vs. Irrelevant Cost Classification

The most challenging aspect of make or buy analysis is correctly classifying each cost element as relevant or irrelevant. The classification depends on whether the cost changes between alternatives—a determination that requires careful investigation of the company's specific circumstances rather than rote memorization of rules. The following diagram and table present the typical classification, but students should recognize that context determines relevance: a cost that is unavoidable in one scenario may be avoidable in another.

The left column (green) lists costs that are typically relevant—they change depending on whether the company makes or buys. The right column (red) lists costs that are typically irrelevant—they remain unchanged regardless of the decision. Opportunity cost (amber) is relevant only when freed capacity has a profitable alternative use.
Typical cost classification in a make or buy scenario
Cost ElementMakeBuyRelevant?
Direct Materials ($8/unit)IncurredAvoidedYes
Direct Labor ($5/unit)IncurredAvoidedYes
Variable Overhead ($3/unit)IncurredAvoidedYes
Avoidable Fixed OH ($20,000 total)IncurredAvoidedYes
Unavoidable Fixed OH ($30,000 total)IncurredIncurredNo — same either way
Purchase Price ($22/unit)Not incurredIncurredYes

Worked Example: Precision Parts Inc.

Precision Parts Inc. manufactures 10,000 units of Component X annually for use in its main product line. An external supplier has offered to supply Component X at $24 per unit. The company's current per-unit manufacturing costs for Component X are as follows: Direct Materials $8, Direct Labor $6, Variable Manufacturing Overhead $4, and Fixed Manufacturing Overhead $7 (of which $3 represents the allocated share of unavoidable plant-wide costs and $4 represents costs that could be eliminated if production of Component X ceases, such as a dedicated equipment lease). If Precision Parts stops making Component X, the freed capacity could be rented to another company for $15,000 per year. Should Precision Parts make or buy Component X?

Make or Buy Analysis: Component X
1
Step 1 — Identify Relevant Costs to MakeWe identify the costs that would be avoided if Precision Parts stops making Component X. Direct Materials = $8/unit, Direct Labor = $6/unit, Variable Overhead = $4/unit, and Avoidable Fixed Overhead = $4/unit. The unavoidable fixed overhead of $3/unit ($30,000 total) will continue regardless and is excluded. Total relevant make cost per unit = $8 + $6 + $4 + $4 = $22.
Relevant Make Cost = $22 per unit
2
Step 2 — Identify Relevant Costs to BuyThe purchase price from the external supplier is $24 per unit. There are no additional costs associated with buying (such as inspection or shipping fees) mentioned in this scenario. Therefore, the relevant buy cost is simply the purchase price.
Relevant Buy Cost = $24 per unit
3
Step 3 — Compute Total Relevant Costs (Excluding Opportunity Cost)Total relevant cost to make = $22 × 10,000 = $220,000. Total relevant cost to buy = $24 × 10,000 = $240,000. Before considering opportunity cost, making appears cheaper by $20,000.
Make saves $20,000 before opportunity cost
4
Step 4 — Incorporate Opportunity CostIf Component X is no longer produced, the freed capacity can generate rental income of $15,000 per year. This opportunity cost must be added to the make option, because by choosing to make, Precision Parts forgoes this rental revenue. Adjusted total make cost = $220,000 + $15,000 = $235,000.
Adjusted Make Cost = $235,000 (including $15,000 opportunity cost)
5
Step 5 — Compare and DecideAdjusted total relevant cost to make = $235,000. Total relevant cost to buy = $240,000. The make option is still less expensive by $5,000 ($240,000 − $235,000). Therefore, the quantitative analysis favors making Component X internally. However, management should also weigh qualitative factors: Is the supplier reliable? Would outsourcing free management attention for strategic initiatives? Could the rental income grow in the future? These factors could influence the final decision.
Decision: MAKE — saves $5,000 per year vs. buying
💡 Sensitivity Check
The $5,000 advantage for making is relatively thin. If the supplier reduced its price to $23.50 per unit, the buy option would cost $235,000—exactly equal to the adjusted make cost. This indifference price of $23.50 represents the maximum price Precision Parts should be willing to pay an external supplier. At any price above $23.50, making is preferred; below $23.50, buying becomes optimal.

Strengths, Limitations & Qualitative Factors

While the relevant cost framework provides a rigorous quantitative foundation for make or buy decisions, managers must recognize both its strengths and its inherent limitations. The quantitative analysis offers clarity and objectivity, but it captures only a subset of the factors that should influence the final decision. Qualitative considerations—which are difficult to quantify but critically important—often complement or even override the numerical conclusion.

Qualitative factors influencing the make or buy decision
FactorFavoring MAKEFavoring BUY
Quality ControlDirect oversight of production processes and specifications ensures consistencySpecialized suppliers may achieve higher quality through scale and expertise
Cost CertaintyInternal costs are known and controllableSupplier contracts can lock in prices; but risk of future price increases exists
Capacity UtilizationUses existing idle capacity, reducing unit fixed costs across all productsFrees capacity for higher-margin products or eliminates need for expansion
Proprietary KnowledgeProtects trade secrets, proprietary designs, and core competenciesNon-core components carry little risk of IP leakage
Supply Chain RiskReduces dependence on external parties; insulates against disruptionsMultiple suppliers can diversify risk; single-sourcing internally concentrates it
FlexibilityAbility to adjust production schedules quickly in response to demand changesVariable cost structure—buy only what is needed without fixed cost commitment
KEY TAKEAWAY
The make or buy decision resembles an engineering design trade-off: a bridge designer does not select materials based solely on cost per ton but also considers load-bearing capacity, maintenance requirements, environmental exposure, and lifespan. Similarly, a manager cannot rely exclusively on a differential cost spreadsheet. The quantitative analysis identifies the financially preferred option, but the final decision must integrate qualitative factors such as strategic fit, risk tolerance, and long-term competitive positioning. A decision that saves $5,000 per year but exposes the firm to catastrophic supply chain failure is not necessarily the rational choice.

Connection to Strategic Outsourcing & Activity-Based Costing

The make or buy decision, as presented in introductory managerial accounting, employs a simplified cost structure that assigns costs into neat variable and fixed categories. In practice, more sophisticated costing systems—particularly Activity-Based Costing (ABC)—can substantially improve the accuracy of the analysis. Under ABC, overhead costs are traced to products through cost drivers that reflect actual resource consumption, revealing that some costs traditionally classified as 'fixed' actually vary with activities such as setups, inspections, or material handling. This granular view can shift the conclusion of a make or buy analysis by exposing hidden costs or savings that a traditional volume-based overhead allocation would obscure.

Basic vs. advanced approaches to make or buy decisions
DimensionBasic Make or Buy AnalysisAdvanced / Strategic Approach
Cost SystemTraditional volume-based overhead allocationActivity-Based Costing with multiple cost pools and drivers
Time HorizonShort-run: current capacity and cost structure assumed fixedLong-run: capacity can be adjusted, fixed costs become avoidable
ScopeSingle component or partEntire value chain activities; strategic outsourcing of non-core functions
Risk AnalysisLimited — deterministic cost comparisonScenario analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, real options
Decision FrameworkPurely financial — minimize relevant costsCore competency theory: outsource non-core; invest in core differentiators

As you advance in your study of managerial accounting and strategy, you will encounter frameworks such as Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) and the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm, both of which enrich the make or buy analysis with strategic depth. TCE examines the frequency, specificity, and uncertainty of transactions to predict whether market governance (buying) or hierarchical governance (making) is more efficient. The RBV counsels firms to make components that leverage or build core competencies and to buy commoditized inputs where no competitive advantage resides. These advanced theories transform the make or buy decision from a tactical cost exercise into a strategic boundary-setting tool.

Practice Problems

PROBLEM 1CONCEPTUAL
Apex Manufacturing allocates $12 per unit of fixed factory overhead to Part Z based on machine hours. If Apex stops making Part Z and buys it from a supplier, the factory building lease, plant manager salary, and depreciation on general factory equipment will all continue unchanged. Explain why the $12 per unit fixed overhead allocation should be excluded from the make or buy analysis, and identify the general principle this illustrates.
PROBLEM 2BASIC CALCULATION
Delta Corp produces 5,000 units of Component Y per year. The per-unit costs are: Direct Materials $10, Direct Labor $7, Variable Overhead $5, and Fixed Overhead $6 (all fixed overhead is unavoidable). An outside supplier offers to sell Component Y for $23 per unit. No alternative use of the freed capacity exists. Should Delta make or buy?
PROBLEM 3INTERMEDIATE
Gamma Industries produces 8,000 units of Part P annually. Per-unit costs: Direct Materials $14, Direct Labor $9, Variable Overhead $6, Fixed Overhead $10 (of which $4 is avoidable and $6 is unavoidable). A supplier quotes $30 per unit. If Gamma stops making Part P, the freed capacity can be used to produce Product Q, which would generate a contribution margin of $40,000 per year. Should Gamma make or buy Part P?
PROBLEM 4APPLIED
TechAssembly Corp manufactures 20,000 circuit boards per year for its main product. Current costs: Direct Materials $15, Direct Labor $12, Variable Overhead $8, Avoidable Fixed Overhead $60,000 total, Unavoidable Fixed Overhead $80,000 total. A vendor in an overseas market offers to supply the boards at $36 per unit, but TechAssembly would need to hire an additional quality inspector at $45,000 per year to test incoming boards. No alternative use for freed capacity exists. Compute the indifference price—the maximum per-unit price at which TechAssembly would be willing to buy externally.
PROBLEM 5CRITICAL THINKING
NovaChem produces a specialty chemical compound in-house. The quantitative make or buy analysis shows that making is $8,000 per year cheaper than buying from a qualified external supplier. However, the following qualitative factors are present: (a) The production process uses a hazardous solvent that creates significant environmental liability; (b) The sole internal chemist who oversees production is nearing retirement with no internal successor; (c) The external supplier holds ISO 9001 certification and serves three Fortune 500 clients; (d) The freed lab space could be converted into a research facility for new product development, though the revenue potential is uncertain. Evaluate whether NovaChem should override the quantitative conclusion. Construct and defend your argument.

Lesson Summary

The make or buy decision is a fundamental application of relevant cost analysis in managerial accounting. The analytical framework requires managers to identify only those costs that differ between the make and buy alternatives, excluding sunk costs and unavoidable fixed overhead that persist regardless of the decision. The relevant make costs typically include direct materials, direct labor, variable overhead, and avoidable fixed overhead, while the relevant buy cost centers on the external purchase price plus any incremental procurement costs.

When freed capacity has a profitable alternative use, the opportunity cost of forgoing that alternative must be added to the make option. The decision rule is to select the alternative with the lower total relevant cost. However, the quantitative analysis is only half the story: qualitative factors such as quality control, supplier reliability, proprietary technology protection, and strategic alignment must be weighed alongside the numbers. In more advanced applications, Activity-Based Costing and strategic frameworks like Transaction Cost Economics and the Resource-Based View provide greater analytical precision and strategic depth to the make or buy decision.

Varsity Tutors • Managerial Accounting • Make or Buy Decisions