ECN 253 Case Study Report 1: THREE JAYS CORPORATION (complete solution)

ECN 253 Case Study Report 1: THREE JAYS CORPORATION (complete solution) (Due: 11:55 PM, June 26th) Hi Dihn: Please find this annotated write-up and my Excel spreadsheet. My comments are in RED font below. I suggested them for Q1-Q2 and Q3-Q4 together for better flow of logic. Your final score (now available on Canvas) is shown at the end of this document. As this was the first case analysis of the course, I have graded your write-up based on your ideas and supporting logic, not whether your answers are right or wrong. Make a cover page next time. 1. Using the data in case Exhibit 4 and the 2012 annual demand, calculate the EOQ and ROP quantities for the five SKUs scheduled to be produced in the last week of June. How do these amounts compare with those calculated in 2011? Compare the increases in EOQs with the increases in annual demand. (2.5 points) The 2012 Annual Demand is given as Exhibit 5: Monthly Sales Data Label Type Ja n Fe b Mar Apr Ma y June July Aug Sept Oc t Nov Dec Year Total 3Js Strawberry Ja m 2012 345 301 325 299 344 296 329 334 349 325 289 333 3,869 Marran Markets Raspberry Jelly 2012 229 270 236 279 273 255 236 232 235 276 244 241 3,006 2013 744 737 425 379 571 2,856 Kerry's Marts Peach Jam 2012 156 176 174 144 160 178 155 159 178 166 176 148 1,970 2013 167 146 78 84 117 592 Dom's Food Blueberry Jam Stores 2012 92 109 98 99 102 111 103 99 94 104 107 93 1,211 2013 100 99 80 139 108 526 AAA Grocers Apple/Mint Jelly 2012 66 77 79 69 65 66 68 67 62 74 71 68 832 2013 73 63 110 146 88 480 The EOQ and ROP quantities for the five SKU’s based on 2012 annual demand is given as Total Set up cost (S) Annual Deman d (D) Carryin g Cost (i) % Unit Cost (C) EOQ (cases) ROP (cases) Strawberry Jam 63.7 3869 9% 28.34 440 223 Raspberry Jam 63.7 3006 9% 30.52 373 173 Peach Jam 63.7 1970 9% 26.86 322 114 Blueberry Jam 63.7 1211 9% 29.01 243 70 Apple/Mint Jelly 63.7 832 9% 26.32 212 48 As Demand increased from 2011 to 2012, the EOQ’s also increased Deman d (2010) Deman d (2012) Increase in Demand EOQ (2010) EOQ (2012) Increase in EOQ 2993 3869 29.27% 387 440 13.70% 2335 3006 28.74% 329 373 13.37% 1492 1970 32.04% 280 322 15.00% 886 1211 36.68% 208 243 16.83% 625 832 33.12% 183 212 15.85% So, if Annual Demand doubles, the EOQ will increase by sqrt(2) 2. Brodie is uncertain if the costs presented in case Exhibit 2 are appropriate for determining the EOQs. What changes would you recommend, and why? Should the cost of the three idle part-time workers be included when the production line is down? Using the 2012 annual demand, and your recommendations, recalculate the EOQs for the five SKUs. (2.5 points) In set up costs, the cost of part time workers should also be included, as they are idle at that time. Assuming the salary of each part time worker to be half that of full time worker So, Total salary of 3 part time workers, during idle time of 1 hour = 3*0.5*23.5 = $35.25 So, new set up cost = $63.7 + $35.25 = $98.95 In carrying cost, storage cost was considered as 0%, which should be more because, there is always an opportunity cost of storing one inventory over another. So, considering storage cost as 2%, new carrying cost = 6% + 2% + 3% = 11% Some of the basic assumptions of EOQ are debated • The demand is not uniform throughout the year, which may lead to stock outs • The order of new batch takes time and is not done instantly. For this case, the ROP should be adjusted to include the lead time to place order Total Set up cost (S) Annual Demand (D) Carrying Cost (i) % Unit Cost (C) EOQ (cases) ROP (cases) Strawberry Jam 98.95 3869 11% 28.34 496 223 Raspberry Jam 98.95 3006 11% 30.52 421 173 Peach Jam 98.95 1970 11% 26.86 363 114 Blueberry Jam 98.95 1211 11% 29.01 274 70 Apple/Mint Jelly 98.95 832 11% 26.32 238 48 Brodie’s first assignment in his internship is to update the EOQ and ROP quantities for all 141 SKUs, to reflect the current levels of demand (D), because the original calculations were done in 2011 with sales figures from 2010. This task is simple for the ROP, where: ROP = 3wks (leadtime) D(annual demand) 52(wks/year) Making changes to the EOQ amounts is more complicated, as several logical errors exist in the data that are used as inputs for the EOQ formula. Specifically, these are the setup cost (S), the unit cost (C), and the inventory carrying cost, which is expressed here as a percentage (i). (Note: Sometimes the variables i and C are combined in the EOQ formula. When this occurs, the product of i * C is represented by the symbol H, which is the inventory holding cost in dollars per unit, per year.) Errors in Calculating EOQs Setup cost (S) errors These errors result from incorrectly including an allocation of fixed annual expenses as components of the total setup cost. Setup costs should include only actual, out-of-pocket costs (as should all the costs used in the calculation of the EOQ) that are directly related to setting up the production line to make a specific item (SKU). Jake Evans and Josh Francis — as well as the buyers who purchase the raw ingredients and packaging material for 3Js — are full-time workers who earn a predetermined yearly salary. Consequently, reasonable changes in the number of setups per year will not change the total cost of these individuals. Thus, regardless of whether they are employed by Fremont Jams and Jellies, or 3Js, there are no incremental costs that are incurred with respect to setups. Therefore, the costs of changing the rails on the assembly line to accommodate different jar sizes — as well as the costs of cleaning the equipment and switching out the jar labels between batch sizes — should not be included in the setup cost (S). Similarly, the costs of the two individuals employed in the kitchen should not be included in the setup costs. These costs should be considered only as the maximum capacity f these individuals is approached and additional people and/or equipment are required. At that point, changes could be