Home Uncategorized Supply chain management

Uncategorized

Supply chain management

supply chain management

PURES COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

Course Code

Course N

Global Supply Chain Management

Section Code

BU1223

Semester:

Winter 2

Type

Evaluation

Assignment #2

Percentage Weight of

Total Evaluation

Course Instructor

Tony Bejjani

Due Date

Week 9 (

Wed

. March

2021,

:00

)

Total Marks:

Student Name

Student ID #

Team #

Global Supply Chain Management

and Planning

Signed, sealed

and delivered?

Plexet

is a mid

–

sized manufacturing firm located in Auckland, New Zealand. The company

produces a

range of plastic containers that includes

its

flagship product range, Goodseal. The

Goodseal brand

includes a range of plastic food storage containers, design

ed to be sold to retailers

and grocery stores

for home use. The containers are sold in 3 and

packs, in three different sizes:

0.25L, 0.5L

and 1L.

They are typically marketed to consumers for food storage in the refrigerator or

freezer. Currently,

Plexet

has achieved a 9 percent annual sales growth over the past five years.

Within the

manufacturing plant, the company is running three shifts at full capacity, although the

plastic molding

equipment is running at only 58 percent of its optimal production cap

acity.

Production levels fluctuate

frequently, and Plexet adjusts its labour schedule around

its

forecasted sales demands. The sales

manager is concerned about sluggish sales over the past six

months and is aware that manufacturing

targets are based on the

recent sales forecasts. Having

an excess of product is of concern with Plexet

management. Therefore, increasing production is

not a strategy considered to help boost quarterly

sales targets. Instead, Plexet is considering

offering a discount to their supp

liers, as well as adopting a

new marketing strategy that will offer

consumers coupons to buy one Goodseal product and receive a

3 pack of 1L containers free.

Plexet does not receive as many orders for the 1L Goodseal container from its suppliers as they do for other container sizes. As a result, Plexet has decided to discontinue the 1L product and focus on manufacturing efforts on the more popular sizes. This will enable the manufacturing plant to replace the 1L molds with 0.25L and .05L components. This is may help alleviate the low 58 percent rate of production because there will be more equipment to handle the production of the two remaining product lines. Managers believe this will increase their production levels. The coupon strategy is designed to help move some of the obsolete 1L products from their inventory, in addition to retaining consumer loyalty with the smaller-sized products. The manufacturer will implement the sales and production strategies over the next fiscal year.

What is promising for Plexet is a recent order from Chinex, an exporting agent that sells to China. The agreement stipulates that Plexet will ship 25,000 cases of the entire Goodseal line to Chinex. This could not have come at a better time, because the order will be placed in time to meet Plexet’s quarterly sales target. To expedite the sale, Chinex has been offered a significant discount. Chinex has agreed to send payment within seven business days, and pay by letter of credit from a reputable Australian bank.

Meanwhile, back at the retail store, Plexet has a reliable supplier relationship with a large retail chain, KiwiMart (KM). The head of purchasing at KM acquired

000 cases of containers this quarter at a 4 percent discount from Plexet but has sold only 1800 over the last two quarters. She decided that KM’s in regions outside of Auckland would also benefit from the discounted price, and has sold 1800 to them. In addition, she has sold 400 cases to a wholesaler at cost, with a negotiated deal to buy them back at a 3 percent premium within 90 days if KM needed the supply. This has helped the other KM’s throughout the country, as well as solved any inventory issues with the Auckland KM. The plan is for the Auckland KM to discount 1000 cases for a special in-store promotion.

Soon after the deal with Plexet had been negotiated, Chinex contacted the head of KM’s purchasing department. They offered a significant 7 percent discount on 5000 cases of assorted Goodseal products. The deal was far too good to be ignored and KM accepted the deal. The sales department contacted Plexet and cancelled their next three orders. KM received the Chinex products over a month late.

Unfortunately, the purchasing manager was unaware of the situation on the ground in the local KM.

The shelves holding the Goodseal line had an ample supply of the 1L six-packs, but no other size was on the shelf. Worse yet, Plexet’s competitors were stocked next to the Goodseal line and had a full line of product sizes and quantities per pack.

What’s the problem?

Plexet is under the assumption that they have a sales crisis. Forecasted demands are higher than their current rate of sales. They have decided to help resolve this by adjusting their product line and adapting their production line to manufacture more products that sell faster. Offering coupons would help boost sales and consumer loyalty. The purchasing department at KM believes they have addressed a potential inventory crisis, are secure in the amount of supply they have acquired, and have perhaps even boosted their bottom line through the recent acquisition of the cheaper Goodseal product from Chinex.

On a group basis, please discuss the following:

1) Explain how conducting an organized and systematic sourcing process would benefit the purchasing department at KiwiMart (KM). (2.5 Marks)

2) What form of partnership would help improve both KM and Plexet’s supply chains? (2.5 Marks)

3) How would Plexet benefit from adopting a JIT (Just in Time) approach to production? (2.5 Marks)

4) Explain the advantages KM and Plexet would receive from implementing an inventory management system. (2.5 Marks)

Instructions:

a) Complete this assignment with your student name and ID #, using font 11.

b) One and a half-space typed.

c) The team captain/leader should fill the “Group Peer Evaluation Form”, and submit it with the assignment.
No email submission is accepted whatsoever!

d) Provide references on the last page of the assignment using the APA style.

e) Plagiarism: ZERO MARKS.

GROUP PEER EVALUATION FORM

Group Peer Evaluation Rubric (to be completed by the team captain/leader for each assignment/project)	Team Captain/Leader:
Criteria:
Mark	Team Role fulfillment	Communication	Job proficiency
4	Participated in all group meetings, assumed leadership roles as necessary. Did the work that was assigned by the group.	Always listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. Provided effective feedback to other members. Relays a great deal of information – all relate to the topic.	Did more than others – highly productive. Work is complete, well organized, with no errors, and is done on time or early.
3	Participated In most group meetings. Provided leadership when asked. Did most of the work assigned by the group	Usually listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. Provided some effective feedback to others. Relays some basic information – most relates to the topic.	Did their part of the work – cooperative. Work is generally complete, meets the requirements of the task, and is mostly done on time. Works well with others, rarely argues.
2	Participated in some group meetings. Provided some leadership. Did some of the work assigned by the group.	Often listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. Provided little feedback to others. Relays very little information – some relate to the topic.	Could have done more of the work – has difficulty, requires structure, directions, and leadership. Work tends to be disorderly, incomplete, and not accurate and is usually late.
1	Participate in few or no group meetings. Provided no leadership. Did little or no work assigned by the group	Rarely listens to, shares with, or supports the efforts of others. Provided no feedback to others. Does not relay any information to teammates	Minimal work – Minimum contribution, does not work well with others. Work is sloppy and incomplete, excessive errors, and is mostly late or not at all.
					0	Little to no Participation. Did little or no work assigned by the group	Did not listen, share with others, or support the group. Provided no feedback to others.	Did not do any work – does not contribute, does not work well with others. Work is sloppy and incomplete, excessive errors, and is mostly late or not at all.
Evaluate group members (including yourself):
Name	Team Role Fulfillment (Out of 4)	Communication (Out of 4)	Job Proficiency (Out of 4)	Total (Out of 12)
General Comments:

Majority of content generally well covered. Some aspects lack specificity. No insights or depth provided.

Much of the content left uncovered or not referred to specifically. Content too general to obtain full meaning; reference to topics vague, incomplete. Incorrect topics covered.

All content covered, clearly and succinctly. All information refers to specific aspects of the topic. Information is meaningful, significant, and illuminating.

Majority of content generally well covered. Some aspects lack specificity. No insights or depth provided.

Much of the content left uncovered or not referred to specifically. Content too general to obtain full meaning; reference to topics vague, incomplete. Incorrect topics covered.

Inadequate coverage of topics. Reference to content incomplete. Very little effort was put into making the report meaningful.

All content covered, clearly and succinctly. All information refers to specific aspects of the topic. Information is meaningful, significant, and illuminating.

Majority of content generally well covered. Some aspects lack specificity. No insights or depth provided.

Much of the content left uncovered or not referred to specifically. Content too general to obtain full meaning; reference to topics vague, incomplete. Incorrect topics covered.

Inadequate coverage of topics. Reference to content incomplete. Very little effort was put into making the report meaningful.

Majority of content generally well covered. Some aspects lack specificity. No insights or depth provided.

Much of the content left uncovered or not referred to specifically. Content too general to obtain full meaning; reference to topics vague, incomplete. Incorrect topics covered.

Inadequate coverage of topics. Reference to content incomplete. Very little effort was put into making the report meaningful.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now