When the Budget Rewards the Wrong Decision

At Bel Canto Opera, fewer rehearsals meant more money for one production’s artists and less for another’s. Kiani analyzed the accounting rule behind that incentive, proposing a way to evaluate managers without allowing shared overhead to distort the artistic and financial decisions of a season.

Written case analysis for Intermediate Accounting at New York University, March 10, 2026. Case figures: Trevisan (2024), Tables 4–9.

Bel Canto spread €6.36 million of indirect costs across its productions using rehearsal days. The pool included administration, building expenses, and support across six departments. Rehearsal time provided a convenient denominator, but it could not explain how all those resources were consumed.

Kiani examined what that rule encouraged. Managers controlled budgets containing both direct spending and allocated overhead. A smaller overhead allocation released money for guest artists or scenery, even when building and administrative commitments remained. The accounting method shaped artistic choices as well as financial reports.

The case’s alternative budgets made the conflict visible. Marco, responsible for Simon Boccanegra, considered cutting rehearsals from 20 days to ten. Nadia, responsible for Tosca, kept her rehearsal schedule unchanged. Because the shared cost pool was divided across fewer days, Nadia’s production absorbed more overhead.

Simon’s rehearsal days, and what each production has left for artists:

Tosca keeps all 20 of its days and still ends up with €82,239 less for its artists. Figures from Trevisan (2024), Tables 6–7, rounded to the nearest euro.

Both production budgets stayed fixed. Marco gained spending capacity; Nadia lost it. Her apparent financial position changed because of someone else’s decision. Kiani traced the resulting pressure: other managers could protect their budgets by cutting rehearsals too, raising the allocation rate again. Meanwhile, the case’s artists warned that less time rehearsing together threatened performance quality.

Kiani’s proposed redesign distinguished the cost of sustaining the opera house from the decisions an individual production manager controlled. He applied activity-based costing and responsibility accounting to three connected changes:

The same analysis informed repertory decisions. Kiani supported staging La Traviata, a popular revival with existing scenery and limited rehearsal needs, alongside Simon Boccanegra, an expensive inaugural production with artistic and reputational importance.

Including attributed shares of the state subsidy, La Traviata reported a €1.38 million margin before overhead; Simon Boccanegra reported a €1.34 million loss. He evaluated their different roles within a season that combined financial balance with cultural purpose.

Otello brought the distinction between reporting and decisions into focus. Its reported direct loss of €47,688 included €48,000 allocated from a fixed fee for artists hired across three Verdi productions. Their per-performance fees were assigned separately. Dividing the common fee equally produced tidy accounts, but did not establish what cancelling one opera would save.

Kiani recommended retaining Otello, emphasizing its artistic role and the shared commitments inside its reported loss. His argument challenged the use of an allocated margin as the verdict on a production. The economic decision turns on the revenues and costs that change with the choice; redistributing a common charge does not remove the underlying commitment.

The work connected an accounting rule to the behavior it rewarded, then connected that behavior to the organization’s purpose. That reasoning applies when leaders compare business units, discontinue products, or evaluate managers: understand the resource behind the number, identify who controls it, and distinguish a better report from a better outcome.