Krajewski download

Krajewski really liked it 4. Krajewski liked it 3. Operations Management by Lee J. Krajewski , Manoj K. Malhotra , Larry P. Ritzman it was ok 2. Ritzman , Microsoft Corporation liked it 3. Krajewski , Howard E.

Thompson it was amazing 5. Krajewski it was amazing 5. Malhotra it was amazing 5. Malhotra 2. Ritzman really liked it 4. Ritzman did not like it 1. Krajewski , Manoj Malhotra , Larry P. Please try again. The work is protected by local and international copyright laws and is provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching their courses and assessing student learning.

You have successfully signed out and will be required to sign back in should you need to download more resources. Lee J. Ritzman, Boston College Manoj K. Malhotra, University of South Carolina. These data clearly show that although the number of orders received over the three-year period for molds has remained constant, the total number of molds fabricated has shown a declining trend: in , in , and in At a current demand rate of , only 12 master machinists are required.

As an aside, note that the regular-time capacity of molds per year was actually insufficient to handle the demand in and Presumably overtime was used in these earlier years to make up the shortfall, although not stated in the case.

At this point the changing sales mix not only alleviated any earlier capacity shortage, but created enough excess capacity now that Tom Miller reassigned one of the master machinists to an expediting function. Parts manufacturing, however, shows the opposite trend. The number of orders has actually declined a bit but the total of parts processed has risen drastically over three years: 47, in , 67, in , and , in Although data are not provided on the processing times of individual parts, we can see that the order sizes are getting much larger.

This trend has most likely caused bottlenecks at the injection molding operation, because the operations both before and after the injection machine take only one or two days to complete. Therefore, the late deliveries that customers are complaining about are probably due to molds being delayed or orders waiting for the injection machines.

Delays and time pressures may also be contributing to quality problems as operators hurry to process orders. The analysis should then determine the process flow in diagrams of each step. This will enable students to see where time and resources are being consumed.

These flows can be compared to the layout block plan in Figure 3. In the final phase of the analysis, students should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each process and relate these to the different competitive priorities needed to compete in each market. Quality is also very important in meeting demanding specifications. Short delivery times are less critical, as the design phase, working closely with the customer, can be lengthy. Custom Molds, Inc. Parts manufacturing is a higher-volume, cost-sensitive market.

Parts are needed in a timely manner to keep customer production processes running. Volume flexibility becomes more important than product flexibility.

So students should be able to see that the company has exposed itself to a different set of competitive priorities.

Recommendations At this stage, early in an operations management course, specific recommendations will be difficult for students and should not be the primary focus. The instructor should look for general recommendations concerning: 1 capacity decisions and the allocation of production resources; 2 the possible orientation toward either molds fabrication or parts manufacturing; and 3 the physical separation and focusing of each distinct process.

A sample student response to the discussion questions that follow will give Exhibit TN. Teaching Strategy This case is designed to be used early in the course. A primary focus is to expose the students to the concept of flowcharting processes covered more fully in Chapter 4 and using the flowcharts to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the processes.

A second focus is to show the students the impact that process choice decisions have on the ability of the company to compete on different competitive priorities.

For best results the instructor should assign this case as a homework assignment. Students should come to class prepared to share their process flow diagrams. The discussion then can pretty much follow the discussion questions at the end of the case. First make sure the students realize the company faces capacity issues brought about by the expansion into parts manufacturing. Then move to the analysis of the flowcharts. As students begin to see the strengths and limitations of each process, you can then move on to a discussion of the interaction between market-required competitive priorities and differing process characteristics.

This, however, is a good exercise for students to be involved in, as they learn that flowcharts for even seemingly simple processes may be more difficult to develop than they thought. Student Responses Question 1 The Millers face a changing market environment for their two product lines—molds and plastic parts—a problem that they must address.

The mold market is in the mature phase. Though the number of mold orders is constant, the average number of molds per orders is decreasing. This information may imply that customers are letting Custom Molds prototype the mold design, but they are then fabricating the molds in-house once they validate the design.

The plastic parts market shows a sizable increase in average order size. Question 2 The market shift from molds to plastic parts impacts Custom Molds because of the different production process required for each product. Mold production is a job process environment with only a limited number of molds manufactured per order. This process requires highly trained and skilled workers to manufacture the molds.

Plastic parts production is primarily a batch process, with characteristics of a line process, which produces small runs of similar products. Unlike mold production, the skill level of the labor is not as high. However, both products are made to order, so there are similarities between the two, especially in terms of production scheduling.

Quality, product design, and flexibility are important competitive priorities for the molds. Price and delivery are competitive factors but only as order qualifiers, not order winners. For the plastic parts, delivery and price are more important; quality and flexibility become order qualifiers. The importance of maintaining the delivery schedule has caused many of the problems with Custom Molds production. Both production processes at Custom Molds have a great deal of slack time.

For example, the company schedules two to four weeks for fabrication of molds although it takes only three to five days to make the mold. For molds, these delays are not a major factor. With assembly, the parts require an additional three days. Generally the company waits one week for the compounds to arrive and one week lead time before producing the molds. This provides a tight schedule for the company to meet the three-week lead time for plastic parts order promising. Question 3 Alternatives for the Millers are as follows: 1.

They can shift their focus to plastic parts production. This will require increasing the space dedicated to plastic parts production or adding additional space. This will also require a move away from the expediting mentality. The use of skilled machinists to expedite parts is a waste of resources.

It is likely that the delays are due to a combination of expedited orders that slow regular orders and limited capacity. This choice will require commitment to expand resources and maintain delivery reliability. In addition, the company will need to recognize the increased importance of price competition.

They can move back to the focus on molds. However, this requires moving against the apparent trend in the industry. Price competition may become the primary factor in industry competition. However, it is unlikely they can profitably increase their business if they follow this strategy.

Ivan, the waiter, has noticed a significant reduction in the size of tips, leading him to concerns about the quality of the food and service. The characteristics of the restaurant and the process that takes place in the restaurant are described following. Students are asked to think of the characteristics of this environment that define quality to the various players, identify the implied costs of quality, and apply some of the analysis tools provided in the text.

Purpose This case provides a scenario to which students can relate. Nearly every student has eaten at a small ethnic restaurant, and you can count on their collective experience to flesh out the unspoken issues presented in the case. The students need to develop definitions and measures of quality from several perspectives and then think of how to integrate these different views.

Discussion 1. The first question, asking how quality is defined, is designed to get students to think of defining quality from the perspective of the various players. At a minimum, the students should be able to describe the external customers as the patrons diners and the internal customer chain as the cook and wait staff. Other expansions may be offered as well hostess, management, busboys, other kitchen staff, suppliers, community, etc.

A partial list of factors is presented below. No doubt, your students will come up with many more characteristics that can be used to define quality. To the external customers the diners , quality is defined by their expectations. The case does not explicitly describe all of the following but much may be inferred by the students based on their experiences with restaurants.

The customers can expect any or all of the following: 1. Location and access to be in a reasonably safe, aesthetically acceptable location, to be within walking distance, have adequate parking, be served by public or other transportation. The appearance of the facility should fit its place and purpose. Appropriate recognition on arrival greeted by the hostess, apprised of any wait, seated in an acceptable location.

Larry Meile, Boston College, as a basis for classroom discussion. Of course, determining the specific desires of each party is a particular challenge that must be met by the waiter. Do they want to speedily complete the meal and be on their way? Or, do they prefer a leisurely paced repast? Is the party in the mood for some light banter from the waiter or do they prefer to be left alone? This may be the quality characteristic over which Ivan has the most control.

Good-tasting food served in an appealing fashion taste, temperature, portion, presentation. This characteristic, if held constant, is probably most important for first-time patrons.

Repeat patrons already know what they are in for. Conformance to regulatory agency guidelines. If the restaurant is open, it is assumed that it has been inspected and passed by the appropriate regulatory agencies.

The combination of all the preceding when price is factored in. To the cook, an internal customer, quality is largely related to the work environment.

The raw materials are available when needed, are fresh and tasty, have good appearance, are easy to prepare perhaps even have some of the nasty tasks already completed—like prepeeled potatoes , and are consistent from purchase to purchase.

The equipment is properly suited for the task, performs reliably e. The environment is satisfactory; it is well lit and temperature controlled, coworkers and management offer respect, work load is reasonably level ideally there is no mealtime rush to contend with , working hours are acceptable, wages and benefits are competitive, salary is paid on time.

To Ivan also an internal customer , quality also relates to the workplace environment. The quality of the finished goods the meals. The meal is the one described in the menu, it is of adequate portion, it is produced in a timely fashion, it tastes good, and it has a pleasant appearance. The serving equipment is appropriate, functional, and clean. The dishes, cups, glasses, tableware are clean and appropriate for the purpose.

The tablecloth and seating area are clean and orderly. The waitstation has the appropriate equipment coffeemaker, ice and water dispenser, etc. The environment provides a place in which it is pleasant to work many of the same issues as the cook, listed earlier. Dietary concerns are met low fat, low sodium, etc.

Question two asks the students to list some of the costs of poor quality. Although specific values cannot be placed on them, conceptual sources of costs can be identified.

A short list of possible actions and costs is provided following: A. Prevention: Restaurant: Purchase better food stock dollars. Reject and reorder sub par supplies time Set and meet food preparation standards time Ivan: Cull out poorly prepared meals; ask for replacements time B.

Internal failure: Restaurant: Replace or rework rejected meals time, dollars Ivan: Help the cook get an order out faster time D. Four of the quality tools are appropriate for Question Three. Checklists are already done. Results of the customer satisfaction survey are shown in the case. From this list a histogram or bar chart of the customer complaints can be made see Exhibit TN. The concept of nonresponse bias can be brought forth. Maybe long-time satisfied customers figure if nothing is wrong, no reply is needed.

They will simply vote with their feet and not return. Also note that the data collected clusters the results from both first-time and returning customers. Point out to the students that a great deal of information may be lost by not reporting these results separately.