A quantity-based, causal costing method that fuses the rigour of German marginal costing (GPK) with the process view of activity-based costing to give managers decision-grade cost and capacity information.
Ten minutes, fourteen questions, the full result on screen, no email required. If you already trust your margin by customer, you do not need it.
Resource Consumption Accounting (RCA)
Quick answer. A quantity-based, causal costing method that fuses the rigour of German marginal costing (GPK) with the process view of activity-based costing to give managers decision-grade cost and capacity information.
Resource Consumption Accounting (RCA) is a managerial costing method that models an organisation as a network of resources and the quantities they consume from one another. It separates fixed and proportional costs at the level of each resource, assigns cost through cause-and-effect quantity relationships rather than broad percentages, and reports the cost of unused capacity separately instead of burying it in product cost. RCA grew out of German Grenzplankostenrechnung (GPK) and was developed into an international method through CAM-I from 2001 onward.
RCA rests on Grenzplankostenrechnung (GPK), the German flexible-marginal-costing system developed by Hans-Georg Plaut and formalised academically by Wolfgang Kilger from the 1950s. Its intellectual roots also reach back to Gordon Shillinglaw's 1963 concept of attributable cost, which argued that only costs genuinely caused by an object should be charged to it.
The method was named and shaped into an international, English-language approach around 2000. Anton van der Merwe and David E. Keys set out the case for it in a series of articles, most visibly "The case for resource consumption accounting" in Strategic Finance (April 2002), building on their earlier "The case for RCA" series in the Journal of Cost Management (2001) that covered resource interrelationships, decision support and, notably, excess and idle capacity. Development was hosted by the RCA interest group of CAM-I (the Consortium for Advanced Management - International) from December 2001. The Clopay Plastic Products case, documented by Sally Webber and B. Douglas Clinton ("RCA at Clopay," Strategic Finance, October 2004; and "Resource Consumption Accounting Applied: The Clopay Case," Management Accounting Quarterly, Fall 2004), remains the best-known applied illustration. The RCA Institute was established in 2008, and in July 2009 the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) recognised RCA in its guidance on evaluating and improving costing.
RCA builds the cost model from the bottom up, around a few disciplined ideas:
Resources and resource pools. The basic building block is the resource - a machine, a team, a workspace - grouped into homogeneous resource pools with their own output measure (machine-minutes, labour-hours, transactions). Costs are first gathered at the resource, not at a department average.
Quantity-based, causal consumption. Costs flow between resources and on to products, services and customers through measured quantities of consumption, resource-to-resource and resource-to-output. Cause and effect, expressed in operational quantities, replaces broad allocation percentages.
Fixed and proportional costs kept separate. Within each resource pool, RCA distinguishes proportional costs (which change with the quantity of resource used) from fixed costs (which relate to the capacity made available). This split is preserved as costs flow through the model, so a marginal, decision-relevant cost is always recoverable.
The principle of responsiveness. RCA replaces the simple fixed-versus-variable test with responsiveness: a cost is treated according to how the resource that incurs it actually responds to changes in the driving quantity, which can differ at each stage of the value chain.
Unused capacity is isolated, not hidden. Because rates are built on the practical capacity supplied, the cost of idle or excess capacity is measured and reported on its own line rather than loaded onto the units that were produced - the same discipline that makes capacity-based costing so useful for pricing and make-or-buy decisions.
Selective activity drivers and multi-level margins. Where an activity view adds insight, RCA can layer activity-based drivers on top of the resource model. Results are presented as a multi-level, contribution-margin profit-and-loss statement rather than a single fully-absorbed cost.
The method is on this page. What it would find in your numbers is not. The Profit Check scores seven dimensions of your costing in ten minutes and names the gap worth closing first. If you already have your margin by customer and by product in a number you trust, you do not need it.
Take the Profit CheckConsider a machining cell (illustrative figures, not client data). It costs €100,000 a month and has a practical capacity of 10,000 machine-minutes. RCA first splits that cost inside the resource pool: €60,000 is fixed (depreciation, supervision) and €40,000 is proportional (power, consumables, tooling that scale with use). That gives a capacity cost rate of €10.00 per minute - €6.00 fixed and €4.00 proportional.
Suppose output consumes 8,000 minutes (80% of capacity). RCA assigns €4.00 × 8,000 = €32,000 of proportional cost that genuinely responds to output, and €6.00 × 8,000 = €48,000 of fixed cost attributable to the capacity actually used. The remaining €6.00 × 2,000 = €12,000 is the cost of unused capacity, reported separately as a management signal - not smeared across the parts that were made. A traditional absorption system would have divided the whole €100,000 over actual output, quietly inflating unit cost by that idle €12,000 and hiding the capacity decision from view.
| Dimension | RCA | Traditional ABC | GPK | TDABC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary building block | Resource / resource pool | Activity | Cost centre | Resource capacity + time |
| Cost behaviour split | Fixed vs proportional, kept throughout | Usually not preserved | Fixed vs proportional | Single capacity cost rate |
| Assignment basis | Measured quantities (responsiveness) | Activity drivers | Planned quantities | Time equations |
| Unused capacity | Measured and reported separately | Often absorbed | Measured | Measured and reported separately |
| Data intensity | High | High | High | Moderate |
| Best fit | Complex operations wanting causal, marginal cost | Diverse products/overhead | Capital-intensive German-style plants | Fast, scalable customer/process costing |
RCA and TDABC are close cousins: both descend from the same capacity-costing logic and both refuse to hide idle cost. RCA goes deeper into resource interrelationships and the fixed/proportional split; TDABC trades some of that granularity for speed and ease of maintenance, which is why we most often implement TDABC for clients while drawing on RCA's discipline where the operation demands it.
Strengths. RCA produces genuinely decision-relevant marginal costs, makes the cost of unused capacity visible, and models cause and effect in operational quantities that managers recognise. It supports pricing, make-or-buy, and capacity decisions far better than fully-absorbed cost.
Limits. That rigour has a price: RCA is data-intensive, needs reliable quantity measures and an ERP or costing platform that can carry a resource-level model, and asks more of the finance team than a simple overhead rate. For many organisations, a time-driven implementation delivers most of the benefit for a fraction of the effort.
van der Merwe, A. & Keys, D. E. (2002). The case for resource consumption accounting. Strategic Finance, April, 31-36. · Keys, D. E. & van der Merwe, A. (2001). The case for RCA (series: interrelationships; decision support; excess & idle capacity). Journal of Cost Management. · Keys, D. E. & van der Merwe, A. (1999). German vs. U.S. cost management. Management Accounting Quarterly, Fall, 19-26. · Webber, S. & Clinton, B. D. (2004). Resource Consumption Accounting Applied: The Clopay Case. Management Accounting Quarterly, Fall, 1-14. · Clinton, B. D. & Webber, S. A. (2004). RCA at Clopay. Strategic Finance, October, 20-26. · Sharman, P. A. (2003). Bring on German cost accounting. Strategic Finance, December, 30-38. · Krumwiede, K. R. (2005). Rewards and realities of German cost accounting. Strategic Finance, April, 26-34. · Friedl, G., Küpper, H.-U. & Pedell, B. (2005). Relevance added: combining ABC with German cost accounting. Strategic Finance, June, 56-61. · Shillinglaw, G. (1963). The concept of attributable costs. Journal of Accounting Research, 1(Spring), 73-85. · IFAC (2009). Evaluating and Improving Costing in Organizations (International Good Practice Guidance).
Proof
A distributor in New Zealand. €1.335M of cost-to-serve made visible, then halved, and 830 loss-making customers brought down to 295.
Read the case study →Who you would be talking to
Miguel Guimarães, Founding Partner
Cost and profitability practitioner for 25+ years. Presented the Damco cost-to-serve case at Managing for Profit (Amsterdam RAI, December 2009), on the same programme as Robert S. Kaplan.
Call +351 910 313 731
Workshops
One working profitability model, built from real data, that you take home at the end.
Reserve a seat
Reviewed by
Miguel Guimarães
Founding Partner, Cost and Profitability Consulting
More than 150 Time-Driven ABC engagements across 11 sectors since 2010, working within the Kaplan and Anderson framework.
About the author →Published
Done. There is nothing here to refuse. This site retired advertising on 27 August 2026, and no advertising or tracking tag runs on it for anyone. Your remaining choices, session recording and audience measurement, are under “Cookie settings” at the foot of any page.
We are asking again. Your last answer is more than 12 months old, so it has been cleared. Nothing is switched on until you answer.
This notice has changed. Your previous answer was given to different wording, so it has been cleared and we are asking again. Nothing is switched on until you answer.
Say yes and we learn which pages help. Say no and nothing on this site changes.
Session recording. Microsoft Clarity records how this page is used - mouse movement, clicks and scrolling - so we can improve it. Form fields are always hidden from the recording.
Audience measurement. Google Analytics 4 counts your visit and the path you take through the site, so we can see which pages are useful. It stores two cookies of our own domain, _ga and _ga_L5HNZN655T, holding a randomly generated identifier for your browser - so these statistics are not anonymous. Nothing is loaded until you say yes.