What does cost accounting say about paying for precision?
That precision is a purchase, and you should only buy as much as the errors it
prevents are worth. In 1988, Robin Cooper and Robert Kaplan opened a
Harvard Business Review article with a warning to companies selling many
products: their managers were “making important decisions about pricing, product mix,
and process technology based on distorted cost information.” Averaging costs across
things that consume resources differently produces a number that is easy to compute
and wrong for any item that differs from the average. An even split is the same kind of number, produced
the same way.
The other half of the trade-off arrived when companies tried to fix the distortion.
Activity-based costing promised accuracy, and in a 2004 Harvard Business School working
paper Kaplan and Steven Anderson catalogued what it cost to get it. One bank’s
brokerage operation “required 70,000 employees at more than 100 facilities to submit
monthly surveys of their time,” and “had to provide 14 full-time people just to manage
the ABC data collection, processing and reporting.” Their verdict on the whole
approach: collecting the data “has proven to be time-consuming and costly,” and
because updating the model cost so much, “many ABC systems are updated only
infrequently, leading to out-of-date” numbers.
The design principle they draw from this is the one a carpool needs. A cost system can
measure an activity by counting occurrences (a transaction driver) or by
timing them (a duration driver). “While duration drivers are generally
more accurate than transaction drivers, they are also more expensive to measure, so
cost system designers have typically used transaction drivers whenever they reasonably
approximate resource demands.” And on the measurements themselves: “Precision is not
critical; rough accuracy is sufficient.”
Translate it to the car. Counting heads is the carpool’s transaction
driver. Counting miles is its duration driver: not time on a clock, but how much of
the trip each person actually consumed. The rule, carried over, says: use heads whenever they
reasonably approximate who consumed the trip, and switch to miles when they don’t,
provided miles are cheap enough to measure. A carpool with four riders boarding at
four distances is the case where heads stop approximating. A repeating route is the
case where miles become cheap.
One qualification belongs in this frame before the rule touches real money, because
the accounting literature does not let a duration driver off the hook that easily. In
1991, Eric Noreen derived the conditions under which a cost-driver allocation gives
relevant answers and found them “quite stringent”: the cost in each pool must be
“strictly proportional to the level of activity,” which “rules out, at the level of
the cost pool, nonlinear cost functions and linear functions in which there are
nonzero intercepts.” His test case was a factory: “Is factory rent, for example,
strictly proportional to machine hours?” A carpool has the same fault line. Fuel
comes closest to passing it; burn twice the distance, burn roughly twice the gas. The costs of
simply owning the car do not; they accrue whether or not anyone rides.
Honest boundary. A single per-mile rate blends the strictly
proportional cost (fuel) with costs that are not. The IRS builds its standard
rate from “an annual study” of “the fixed and variable costs of operating an
automobile”: for 2026 that study produced 72.5 cents, 35 of them treated as
depreciation. The mid-year bump to 76 cents on July 1 was a fuel adjustment;
the IRS says the change “results from recent increases in the price of fuel.” This
guide borrows the blend for the same reason a tax form does: one rate, not six. A group that wants Noreen’s stricter
standard can split fuel by the mile and split the fixed costs of the car some other
way, evenly or by whoever’s name is on the title. Either is defensible. What is not
defensible is treating the blended rate as more precise than the trade-off it is.
For a published middle option, the IRS medical rate counts only the variable costs
from the same study; the three IRS mileage
rates explains which one fits which cost.
Sources: Measure Costs Right: Make the Right Decisions, Harvard Business Review, 1988; Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing, Harvard Business School working paper 04-045, 2004; Conditions Under Which Activity-Based Cost Systems Provide Relevant Costs, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 1991; Notice 2026-10, IRS (2026 rate of 72.5 cents set from the annual cost study; 35 cents per mile treated as depreciation); Announcement 2026-11, IRS (76 cents per mile from July 1, 2026, “results from recent increases in the price of fuel”)