Alex King Case Alex Should

¶ … Alex King Case Alex should not risk starting a "war" with the production team over this incident; speaking to the other peer directors should be sufficient. Alex was told when he took this job that there was an issue with the general attitude towards quality, and Alex even cites this as one of the reasons he took this position.

He should not expect an instant change in attitude from other workers and directors at the factory, and needs to take the time to explain his position and expectations in a way that makes the other director's responsibilities clear. Heading straight to the boss would only create animosity; approaching other directors with an inclusive "how can we work together to fix this" approach will serve his and the company's interests much better. Likewise, Alex's treatment of Wayne Simmons should err more on the side of cooperative than punitive.

Wayne has obviously been receiving praise, both official and unofficial, for his performance, so time needs to be taken to explain the new expectations regarding quality and their importance to the company's bottom line. Neither reprimand nor approval is really appropriate in this situation; the first would be unfair, as Wayne is behaving in the same way that has received praise and encouragement before, whereas the latter would continue encouraging the behavior that needs to be changed.

A discussion with Wayne praising his former contributions to the company but stressing the new emphasis on quality and the need to follow company procedures would serve both to empower Wayne and to instruct him in the new direction Alex would like to steer the factory's operations. This would help to not alienate a very good worker but actually to improve his contribution to the team. 2.

PEARL The case here is a difficult one; it is not immediately clear whether domestic or foreign production (in China) of these "ladders-in-a-box" will have a more immediate positive impact on the company's cash flow. Though the units can be produced at half the cost in China, the additional cost of shipping and the size requirements of each individual order pose inhibitive up-front costs without promise of profit or even recompense.

Domestic production, though more expensive on a per-unit basis, is cheaper in the short-term due to the smaller requirement of units per production order, and because shipping costs will be basically limited to those involved in distribution. After consideration of these pros and cons, however, China still appears to be the best place of production for the PEARL company in terms of immediate cash flow.

It is doubtful that after a year spent getting this business off the ground that the founders will see a profit before selling three thousand units. Since the Chinese manufacturer is willing to produce in batches of three thousand, the founders will not need to purchase more than one batch of the ladder systems. This means that they can get their first round of units at the markedly reduced per-unit price of $150 that the Chinese are offering.

Even assuming a per-unit packaging and shipping cost of $50 (which is relatively high), the profit margin on industry sales is one-hundred percent, and direct-to-consumer sales brings a margin of two-hundred percent. Once the initial three-thousand units are sold, the company will see a profit of six-hundred thousand dollars at a minimum ($200 profit from industry sales X 3000 units). This number is more than cut in half by shifting production to the United States; if the founders are desperate for profit in the short or long-term, China is their best bet. 4.

Nam Grocery Co. In this problem of centralized distribution, efficiency must be achieved in the number of employees on the loading/unloading crew so as to maximize profits while minimizing wait time for trucks, which is expensive. Right now, long wait times are being reported despite the fact that the crew has the capacity to load and unload twenty trucks a day when they are only dealing with fifteen.

The fact that they could handle sixteen trucks a day with one fewer person illustrates at least on part of the inefficiency right away -- if the team has one more person than they need and they are still not capable of reducing wait times, than trucks' times are not being efficiently coordinated.

If, as can be assumed, there is generally more loading occurring in the early part of the day, then perhaps an extra crew person could be hired for the first four hours of the day, with only three remaining for the last four hours. This would have no effect on the overall cost of employment for the loading crew. With the capacity to load twenty-four trucks in an eight-hour workday, a five-person crew should get through one truck every twenty minutes.

Staggering the arrival of the trucks to fit this pace in the first four hours should be a sufficient and effective measure in improving efficiency. Decreasing randomization should always be the first step in increasing efficiency, almost by definition. If the randomization of truck arrivals is unavoidable, the crew should simply be cut to three people. This crew still has the capacity to handle the average number of trucks that show up in a day, so wait times should not be hugely effected.

If this is the case, however, Nam should seriously reconsider the centralization of his kitchen. Without a little more order imposed, such centralization will only continue to eat into his profits. His stores either need to be able to operate on their own, or as part of a cohesive and well-planned system. 5. Cheng American Masters Furniture Company The contract from Burger King to manufacture new tables for its restaurants is an exciting new way for this company to branch out.

Based on the figures provided, there is no discernible reason why the company should have to pass on this contract, nor why they should feel a.