Day 50 Decision Making

: We changed lot size for 3 times. On Day 58, we changed to 2 lots/job in order to take Contract number 2 to make earn more money. On Day 64, we changed to 3 lots/job and hope the lead time would decrease. This was a big mistake we made. After this change, we noticed the queue for station #3 is very high, station #3 became bottleneck and our

The average lead time of a corporation is 15 weeks from production to consumption. Benchmark firms have a lead time of 8 weeks which is the goal for the supply chain (Heizer & Render 2010). The 8 week number will be achieved by analyzing opportunities to streamline the process thereby creating efficiencies and driving down the amount of time it takes to produce and ship products. Setting a goal for an 8 week lead time will give the firm an opportunity to assess their forecasting and production capabilities presenting a way to identify and address inefficiencies.

Based on this, we then decided to look at the utilization and queue figures on, leading up to, and after day 31 at each station, so we could attempt to identify any potential bottlenecks. The first thing that jumped out at us

In the beginning of the simulation, I focused on acquiring all my workers within the first few turns. I hired five employees who had three-star ratings

Capacity is the maximum amount capable of producing. Another why to expand the capacity is to consider outsourcing. Outsourcing would come into play when they cannot set up the equipment and they need to produce product to satisfy an order. Some things to consider are the cost of making the product, such as labor, raw materials, and overhead.

currently was operating its plant at about 75% of a one-shift capacity. Thus, the added volume from

“How much to increase capacity depends on (1) the volume and certainty of anticipated demand; (2) strategic objectives in terms of growth, customer service, and competition; and (3) the costs of expansion and operation” (Russell & Taylor, 2011, p. 259).

In order to find the capacity system, we are able to take the lowest number in units, of course after the reject rate, which for this case is produced by the grinding with 2,128 units. Therefore, because we are unable to produce more units due to reaching the capacity mark, or for no more product to be allowed through in the completed cycle. Thus, the capacity system turns out to be 2,128 units. “Capacity utilization and machine scheduling also reflect tactical

During phase two of the simulation, SNC was presented with three different opportunities and those opportunities include:

It’s difficult find success in this report, but easier to show this a performance measurement failure. To begin, the 14 day goal was too ambitious when the previous goal of 30 day wait time was hardly being met. Setting the goal without fully understanding if the current goal is being met or not was a clearly a mistake. Not only was the goal ambitious, is was a single goal in which it seems everything was tied back to.

Our primary goal is to create free cash flow with a large growth rate, this objective will be accomplished via executives working together and strategic planning throughout the simulation. Our team has decided to start the product launch at quality 1 features 2. We have forecasted sales at the beginning of quarter 2 at quantity 370; doing so will provide us with a unit profit of $1.00 at a 9.8% margin. Our intention is to keep the WACC under 11%. Majority of the product will be produced on the current line inclusively maximizing overtime; in chorus 2 new employees will be hired to open a second shift with two new lines.

In the calculation it can be said that they only 7 stations are needed. With this number of workstations one could achieve the highest efficiency at this moment. But the company will grow rapidly. Therefore they had to add new stations every year.

This report provides a clear recommendation for average daily production capacity for the next 12 months. The analysis and various decision rules will assist management to provide a direction that will enable the best outcome when faced with uncertainty when combined with the risk tolerance.

Have you made a good decision today? Ever since we were born we are blessed with making decisions. Whether to do something or not or to obey or disobey. To do the bad or the good, whether to buy organic or not. In most cases once we make a decision we come to the outcome of the choice that was made. Some of which are good or others, not so good. Since we are bombarded with different choices we tend to choose the easy, cheapest, option then the hard, expensive, option instead. Both organic and non-organic grapes were appealing but once I ate both I began to realize we pay for the quality of grapes we eat.

It is a common desire to have a balanced plant, but this cannot be reached if there are problems with the levels of capacity in the plant. If there is not enough capacity in the plant, it almost seems as if the possibility of having throughput is being lost and if there is an excessive amount of capacity there is money that is being wasted, which would be a problem when trying to reduce the operating expenses. However, in reality the closer that a plant comes to being balanced, the closer they get to losing money. “ Look at this obsession with trimming capacity in terms of the goal,