Back Bay Battery Simulation Paper

After closely reviewing the financial and production data, our accounting team has found that your traditional cost allocation is faulty and misleading. The costs of products A and C were over allocated and products B and D were under allocated causing deceptive information on the true profits of the company. Also, product B appears to be

The company started off producing 20,000 units of mountain bikes. We did not change the production quantity. Last year our forecast sales were 24,000 when we only sold 19,866; therefore we thought it would be best to leave production at 20,000 bikes. Having excess inventory, we concluded that 20,000 units should be enough considering our quality has not changed and our advertising will not increase the sales dramatically. Although we had the choice to produce as much as 30,000 units, we felt as though we did not have sufficient money to increase production. We were interested in allocating the money towards marketing as opposed to production. We realized that without awareness, no matter how many units we make, sales would be inefficient.

Nash also failed to consider the additional loss of consumer confidence and capital if the sale went through and Fledgling sued DAC for fraudulent misstatement about the condition of the property. Nash also failed to consider his social responsibility to the rest of the environment by not addressing the issue as soon as it was brought to his attention. Similarly the CEO failed to consider his responsibilities to the passengers that were flying on planes that could have lost power due to the malfunctioning product. I would have included these issues in a cost benefit analysis which would support my decision to management.

The results of my decisions that were made in 2015 Q2 turned out to be better than last quarter results. Existing customers increased by 9% and sales from new customers increased by 6%, while the distributors, on average, are attempting to achieve a 5% profit margin; overall not a bad turnover from prior quarters. These decisions led to segment A as being very satisfied reflecting how the motors’ high power to size ratio allowed them to pick up some new business from some loyal customers. Segment B was satisfied in this quarter like they have been in previous quarters, however they expressed their concern on future orders that they would like to receive more insight into the market trends by our staff. Segment C increased their overall satisfaction from prior quarters of being satisfied to very satisfied in this quarter. By getting the motors that they ordered to them in a rush, allowed them to land a contract from another GPO. However as the saying goes, “you can’t win them

Our team operated and managed the Littlefield Technologies facility over the span of 1268 simulated days. Our team finished the simulation in 3rd place, posting $2,234,639 in cash at the end of the game. We did intuitive analysis initially and came up the strategy at the beginning of the game. And then we applied the knowledge we learned in the class, did process analysis and modified our strategies according to the performance results dynamically. We have reinforced many of the concepts and lessons learned in class and had a better understanding of the operation of the Littlefield Technologies facility and how certain modifications would affect the throughput and lead time.

In Year 1 while in the Design room, I chose the Wifi and Stylish options. My intuitive thoughts were consumer based and not supplier driven. However, these combined options offered an estimated favorable profit for the company. While forecasting I chose to forecast below average for Model A and above average for Model B. Again, my decision making was consumer driven and I as a consumer would prefer a stylish mobile device over a base model, therefore estimated demand at a higher level. In choosing suppliers in Year 1, key drivers were lead times, setup and unit carrying costs, and capacity. The decision were also based off of my forecast for each model. I learned quickly as each month passed, I was out of inventory therefore, making a costly $2.0MM adjustment with one of my suppliers. In this scenario, if running the simulation again I would better match the supplier with the forecasted demand.

Once the exercise was over and as the individual points were displayed a lot of things became clearer. Having experienced the system and then debriefing later on, helped in filling a lot of gaps in information that seemed to exist during the simulation. With a better understanding of ‘the rules of the game’ and some of the strategies that did work, it is difficult to introspect now without a bias. As the saying goes – “Hindsight is wonderful. It's always very easy to second guess after the fact. “– Helen Reddy

If given the opportunity to re-do the simulation, our top priorities would be to manage the allotted time more efficiently in order to improve decision quality, provide resolution certitude and ensure that each team member is adequately informed and prepared prior to meeting. During the simulation, we were given a finite timeline in which to analyze and input decisions; however, we failed to create a sense of urgency within our group, which encumbered the decision-making process and consequently, led to rushed decisions as time ran out. A team member should have been appointed as a designated timekeeper for time monitoring purposes.

Initially, our firm’s business position was at a healthy position. In the beginning of the simulation, our overall market share for the automobile industry was 28.2%; the highest in the market. We realized that our primary strength from product contribution came from our economy car Alec with 63.5% market share for economy cars, and from our utility car, awesome with a 48.5% market share for its vehicle class. Thus, it was evident what we needed to do; maintain high market share of our leading cars while conforming our least profitable vehicle class sustainably to coordinate to customer demand.

Since quarter one was the first quarter of this simulation, I was unaware of how difficult it was going to be to make all the different decisions. Firstly, I had to choose a Company name. Because I was selling computers, I thought that the name “Dev-Tech” was a perfect fit being that this simulation was about development and technology. Next, I had to choose a target segment. I knew going into this simulation that it would be better to invest in the more expensive goods as it would benefit me in the end. The segment that didn’t care about price was Mercedes, so that is the segment that I made my first priority.

These market conditions continued for an extended period of time, causing me to start losing money for the firm for the first time since I started. Having been in the markets

My strategy seemed to work well for the first two years but then it became evident that I was losing market share in the NiMH business. I decided to cut down R&D in that division too early and that caused me to miss my sales targets. As I lost market share in my core business, the volume effect from my decision to lower NiMH prices did not compensate enough to allow that division to remain profitable. Suddenly, I had a very tight R&D budget to work with (as it was based on sales projections) and limited cash could be allocated to the improvement of the ultracapacitors business. I also reacted too late to the shift in customers’ demand for Power Packs products from Power Tools products, which caused late and lower-than-needed investments in other products’ features such as self-discharge (high priority for both NiMH and ultracapacitors).

After seeing what choices my assistant, Sarah, would have made I continued the simulation when I encountered my first obstacle. Harvey, my choice for Assessor and Advisor was running into a conflict with the other team members because he was not available to them as much as they would have liked. I met with the team members and explained that Harvey had been given the technological tools necessary so that web conferencing would be able to take place whenever

My answers were not decisive which reflect my weak critical thinking skill. For example, when it comes to medication administration, in instances where things are not clear, it should always be referred to the doctor which in this case I belatedly remembered. Nurses should also make sure that they knew how to use all the equipment that is used in the nursing care. In a medical emergency situation, every second counts. In the simulation, epinephrine administration was delayed since the nurse did not know how to use the automatic injection. Over-all the simulation had a significant impact to my learning process.

My assessment of the performance of our team (ACC-Baldwin) in Phase One is that we performed decently in terms of strategy, but we have a lot of room for improvement in terms of implementation of strategy in the simulation exercise.