## 4 Results and Discussions
### Significant Contribution of MTS to the Final Cost  
To ensure that MTS and TDABC make a substantial contribution to the final cost, a comparison of integration types must be performed, as indicated in Table 7. To have an understanding of the benefits of MTS, the initial comparison was done between integration A and C, where conventional and MTS are compared while ABC was fixed. This demonstrated that the cost through integration C was lower than the cost through integration A because the MTS considers the degree of contribution for each parameter that impacts the increment or decrement to the final cost, whilst the conventional implies all parameters influence the final cost equally. Likewise, integration D was slightly less costly than integration B. To reap the benefits of TDABC, a second comparison was done between integration A and B, in which ABC and TDABC were compared while conventional is fixed. This demonstrated that the cost through integration B was less expensive than the cost through integration A. This is because TDABC develops capacity cost rates from the associated costs of capacity provided and time equations with high flexibility that impacts the increment or decrement to the final cost, whereas ABC only has cost drivers to influence the final cost. Consequently, integration D was less expensive than integration C. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Process**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Labor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Maintenance**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Material**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Consumable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**New Total Cost of Resources Supplied**} \\ \cline{6-7}  & & & & & & & **Resources Supplied** \\ \hline
1. & Drum core winding with epoxy & 6600 & Nil & 583,275.67 & 363.60 & 2,963,886.49 \\
2. & Convection oven \& cooling process & 2200 & Nil & Nil & Nil & 11,047.30 \\
3. & Lead cutting \& lead adjustment & 8800 & Nil & 1274.94 & Nil & 50,591.31 \\
4. & Assemble drum core to shield core & 2200 & Nil & 5150.76 & Nil & 38,624.94 \\
5. & Epoxy application & 2200 & Nil & Nil & 363.6 & 13,272.78 \\
6. & Epoxy inspection & 4400 & Nil & Nil & 158.16 & 23,599.42 \\
7. & IR reflow \& cooling process & 2200 & Nil & Nil & Nil & 11,390.28 \\
8. & Part number marking & 2200 & Nil & Nil & Nil & 11,736.56 \\
9. & Termination \& trimming & 4400 & Nil & Nil & Nil & 25,235.10 \\
10. & Auto-dip soldering & 2200 & 819.76 & Nil & 819.76 & 21,878.35 \\
11. & Ultra-sonic cleaning \& cooling process & 2200 & Nil & Nil & 158.16 & 13,342.71 \\
12. & Final VMI & 11,000 & Nil & Nil & Nil & 34,119.80 \\
13. & Co-planarity check & 4400 & Nil & Nil & Nil & 27,295.84 \\
14. & Inductance test & 2200 & Nil & Nil & Nil & 13,647.92 \\
15. & Tape \& reel & 2200 & Nil & 6361.07 & Nil & 53,109.45 \\
16. & Packaging & 2200 & Nil & 3289.07 & Nil & 34,051.99 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & Total (RM) & & & & 3,346,830.25 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & Cost per unit (RM) & & & & 0.80 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Costing structure under integration D. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Cost per Unit (RM)**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Conventional**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MTS**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **ABC** & **TDABC** & **ABC** & **TDABC** \\ \cline{3-5}  & **Integration A** & **Integration B** & **Integration C** & **Integration D** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Component} & Inductor & 1.70 & 1.67 & 0.80 & 0.76 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Magnetic & 2.50 & - & - & 2.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Cost through multiple integrations. The final comparison was done between integration A and integration D to approach the benefits of MTS and TDABC. Integration A is the electronic company's system, whereas integration D is the recommended solution or the key contribution of this work in the manufacturing environment.