THE FRESH CONNECTION - Web viewWord count: 1,595. 11. October 2016. Table of Content. Table of...

THE FRESH CONNECTION

Final Consultant Report

Client: Dr Gary MortimerThe Fresh Connection

KKLM Consultant

Consultant:Yuen Ki Kevin Chan (n9216120)

Lee-Anne Rice (n91303222)Leonardo Flores Gonzales (n8934860)

Maria Brandt (n8900141)

Researcher ExecutiveTop Research Alliance

Word count: 1,595

11. October 2016

Table of Conten

t

Table of Content....................................................................................................................................2

1. Executive Summary....................................................................................................................4

2. Introduction and Background....................................................................................................5

3. Collaborative Decision-Making.................................................................................................6

3.1. Supply Chain Manager’s Report...........................................................................................6

3.2. Sales Manager’s Report.........................................................................................................7

3.3. Operations Manager’s Report...............................................................................................8

3.4. Purchasing Manager’s Report.............................................................................................10

4. Conclusion and Team Management Considerations..............................................................12

5. Reference list.............................................................................................................................13

6. Appendices................................................................................................................................15

6.1. Reflection Reports................................................................................................................15

6.1.1. Appendix 1: Reflection Report Leo One (Round Three)...............................................15

6.1.2. Appendix 2: Reflection Report Leo Two (Round Four)................................................16

6.1.3. Appendix 3: Reflection Report Leo Three (Round Four).............................................17

6.1.4. Appendix 4: Reflection Report Leo Four (Round Five)................................................18

1.1.1. Appendix 5: Reflection Report Leo Five (Round Six)...................................................19

1.1.2. Appendix 6: Component – Demand per Week...............................................................21

1.1.3. Appendix 7: Bottling Line utilisation rate......................................................................21

1.1.4. Appendix 8: Finance Overview.......................................................................................21

1.1.5. Appendix 9: Reflection Report Kevin One (Round Three)...........................................22

1.1.6. Appendix 10: Reflection Report Kevin Two (Round Four)..........................................23

1.1.7. Appendix 11: Reflection Report Kevin Three (Round Five).........................................24

1.1.8. Appendix 12: Reflection Report Kevin Four (Round Six).............................................25

1.1.9. Appendix 13: Reflection Report Kevin Five (Round Seven).........................................26

1.1.10. Appendix 14: Reflection Report Lee-Anne One (Round Three)...................................27

1.1.11. Appendix 15: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Two (Round Four)....................................28

1.1.12. Appendix 16: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Three (Round Five)...................................29

1.1.13. Appendix 17: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Four (Round Six)......................................30

1.1.14. Appendix 18: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Five (Round Seven)...................................31

1.1.15. Appendix 19: Reflection Report Maria One (Round Three).........................................32

1.1.16. Appendix 20: Reflection Report Maria Two (Round Four)..........................................33

1.1.17. Appendix 21: Reflection Report Maria Three (Round Five)........................................35

1.1.18. Appendix 22: Reflection Report Maria Four (Round Six)............................................36

1.1.19. Appendix 23: Reflection Report Maria Five (Round Seven).........................................37

AMB304 Logistics OperationsThe Fresh Connection - Final Consultant Report KLLM Consultant: Team Four

1.2. Appendix 24: Supplier Delivery Reliability........................................................................39

1.3. Appendix 25: Delivery Reliability and Rejection Rate......................................................40

1.4. Appendix 26: Transport cost overview...............................................................................41

1.5. Weekly Group Meetings.......................................................................................................42

1.5.1. Appendix 27: Weekly Summary Round One.................................................................42

1.5.2. Appendix 28: Weekly Summary Round Two.................................................................44

1.5.3. Appendix 29: Weekly Summary Round Five.................................................................46

1.5.4. Appendix 30: Weekly Summary Round Six...................................................................48

1.5.5. Appendix 31: Weekly Summary Round Seven..............................................................50

3


1. Executive Summary

This final consultant report examines the operational activities, strategies, and tactics

The Fresh Connection Company's managers have adopted for the last periods of the

company. It includes report outcome for each section of the company, including

purchasing, sales, supply chain management, and operations. Initial proposed

strategies and directions for the company and actual results of the objectives and

targets discovered through the simulation rounds. In addition, the report includes

critical reflection explanations for each area of management, which were vital for the

progress leading to our objective goals as a company and as individual managers. A

process which was achieved by descriptive and collaborative decision-making

strategies, implemented between the team managers on a cross-functionally level to

ultimately improve the value chain of the Fresh Connection Company.

4


2. Introduction and Background

The following report will disclose the performance of the Fresh connection company.

The company's supply chain, sales, operating and purchasing department have

undergone a different strategic direction over the phase of eight weeks under new

management.

The initial intended strategic direction of the Fresh Connection Company was to

source high-quality supplies that ensure availability while maintaining cost efficiency

to deliver a premium product. Selecting the right supply source was crucial in order

to ensure the right materials are sourced with timely delivery. The selection of the

supplier had to meet the company's main focus which is quality.

Since the initial phase of the business this strategic direction changed minimally. The

ROI goal was 4% and above as we intended to steadily increase about one to two

percent each round. Sales: Strategic direction was clear throughout the takeover, but

results of sales performance proved it did not reach full potential due to an emphasis

on achieving high levels of 95% in service agreements, the team finished with

93.6%. Operations objective was based on cube utilisation, the production adherence.

Target's set by the operation manager was keeping utilisations at 80%. Operations

finished with cube utilizations of 85.8% in raw materials and 90.6% utilisation in

finished goods warehouses which was higher than the set goal. The purchasing

department has reaches its aim to obtain 95% supplier delivery reliability at least.

5


3. Collaborative Decision-Making

3.1. Supply Chain Manager’s Report

The initial proposal for the supply chain main strategy was to decrease costs,

increase efficiency, keeping high components and product availability, implementing

a cost efficient supply chain strategy. This strategy would utilise maximum capacity,

reducing inventories, based on costs while relying on reliability from the purchasing

department (Fischer, 1997).

The implementation of this strategy can be observed in round 3 (see Appendix 1)

with a positive ROI of 4.82%. Decreasing unused components and finished goods by

calculation of demand and value per week (see Appendix 6); consulting the

operations manager, reducing warehousing and stock costs increasing operating

profit margins. A group planning approach was vital to estimate a healthy amount of

safety stock and lot sizes needed per period; reducing obsoletes and stock costs

where necessary, and increasing overall profit (Lee & Billington, 1992).The

following rounds aimed to increase stock value, reducing indirect costs, keeping a

healthy stock, and maintaining almost the 100% in availability of components in

order use efficiently the production line (See Appendixes 2 to 4).

Following rounds 5, 6, and 7, there was a problem regarding obsoletes that was

turned in the last round 8 (See Appendix 5) by reducing safety stock and increasing

production intervals. Calculating efficient production intervals and stock for the

finished products in the DC Netherlands warehouse for availability and distribution

in the sales department (Meyer & Bishop, 2016)

The initial objective for the supply chain was to manage the costs of keeping the

correct amount of stock, space and interest costs. Aiming to reduce Stock costs

below 150,000€. This was not completely achieved at 250,000€ in stock costs in the

last round, but managed to keep a reliable availability of components through all

rounds and low costs in rounds 3 and 7 (See Appendix 8). Aiming for 95% utilisation

rate on the bottling lines that resulted in 70%. As well as managing frozen period of

production times to have more fixed production plans ensuring deliveries and

production times (See Appendix 7).

6


3.2. Sales Manager’s Report

From the collection of information through critical reflections and weekly reviews, it

was evident that our teams’ strategic approach surrounded joint operational

objectives, especially in providing a premium product to the market. This strategy

was set from the beginning of the takeover. As research suggest (D.A. & & Prioni,

2002), the most effective way of judging premium pricing comes from using service

quality as an index for assessing actual contract performance. Changes in round three

(See Appendix 9) saw an increase in contract indexes due to increased shelf life and

service level agreements. Such actions allowed a higher product quality perception to

the market. In relation, promotional pressure was only used lightly to guide premium

prices. For example, In round three (see Appendix 11) we shifted promotions for our

largest customers Food and Grocers from medium to low.

Researchers find that fresh produce in particular face unexpected spoilages that can

lead to excess waste and thereby economic losses as products are perishable

(Bruckner, Albrecht, Petersen, & Kreyenschmidt, 2013). To make sure our quality

approach was effective, we discussed new agreements with our customers.

Contracted sales revenue remained strong throughout the takeover, but penalties

lured around (see Appendix 9 to 11).

Some decisions that did not work so well for the fresh connection became evident by

the final round; Penalty rates were a sign of over promising in our agreements with

customers, while research (Eriksson et al., 2013) states that penalties are a case of

ineffective management of the customers expectation. In other words, service level

agreements were not altered accordingly to performance. The initial sales objective

of obtaining a service level of 95% was not achieved as we just fell short finishing on

93.3%, but we learnt from round 4 (see Appendix 10) when our service levels were

at 98.6% that our consumers receive most satisfaction from receiving realistic

agreements in areas such as shelf life and on-time delivery. Overall, setting these

high benchmarks allowed The Fresh Connections full potential to be exposed, now

sitting in a profitable position.

7


3.3. Operations Manager’s Report

The following summary of weekly critical reflections is based on decisions made by

the company (See Appendix 16). Initially the facilities and warehouse management

strategies from round one to three focused on increasing capacity usage (See

Appendix 14) as utilisation fluctuated. An overflow of 50% pallet locations in round

one. Thereafter in rounds two and three reducing wastage was the focus (See

Appendix 14 and 15). Additional mixers and bottling lines then became available in

round three. Selecting the most cost-effective strategy became an ongoing issue.

Onwards from rounds four to six managing wastage was the focus in pallet locations

(See Appendix 15 to 17). The decisions made in operations during these rounds

confirmed with joint forecasting gained through meetings with the supply chain and

marketing managers on a constant basis (See Reflection). The company gained good

profit. However, our small efforts to expand saw the team ’s ROI decline. (See

Appendix 16) This lead to more reductions in capacity and exhibited that our wait-

and-see approach in expanding supply chains and operations was not effective.

Round six results proved problematic as our team’s ROI was at a low of 2.56% since

the initial training round ROI of -11.93 (See Appendix 17). This elevated our

attention to more aggressive expansion as the team re-evaluated the wait-and-see

approach we had undertaken. Life cycle and capacity are tightly linked and as our

decisions did not account for the life cycle changes and being limited by time (See

appendix 17) the appraised changes in operations such as new bottling lines and

mixers to reduce costs and improve efficiencies were not feasible.

The strategy for operations was to maintain flexible operations leading to low costs,

high reliability and product availability. Referring to research (Simchi-Levi &

ebrary, 2010), the company aimed to move from a static sourcing strategy to a

dynamic one through optimising production sourcing decisions, taking into account

demand, supply, various costs and the company's constraints. Through lateral

linkages between functional departments flexibility was gained (Mills & Harvard

University. Graduate School of Business, 1985). However, there was a shortfall in

reaching full flexibility due to organisational structure that did not plan to expand.

Flexibility was incorporated in the goal of 80%. This allowed leeway for changes

8


and fluctuations but contributed to wastage. Taking a leaner approach would be

highly recommended for future.

9


3.4. Purchasing Manager’s Report

The procurement primary assist with quality, availability and cost and waste

elimination, low prices and high product component reliability. To ensure this,

supplier reliability of 95% at least is required. As all supplier must be constantly

evaluated to ensure the products fit for use. There are several criteria to consider.

Firstly, the correlation between supplier reliability and contract index must be taken

into account. Supplier reliability developed well since round 6 as three from five

could meet the delivery reliability of 99% and 4 hours’ delivery windows (see

Appendix 24). With the further rounds, the delivery reliability had developed better

and all five suppliers could meet the agreed delivery reliability of 95% and 4 hours’

delivery window. It can be assumed, that the supplier might have been high

pressured to delivery in too high terms as well as other changes such as dual

sourcing, certification or shorter lead time have influenced the excellent performance

in the last round. It can be said that the best contract index is 95% and 4 hours’

delivery, as supplier had the best performance based on the average and median with

the lowest value below 50% and the greatest amount of above 80% (see Appendix

25). The contract index should be considered carefully as it affects sales department.

In round three, the index effects Dominick`s in their performance.

However, the largest cost factor was the dual sourcing. This is commonly applied to

allow supply flexibility and availability of a high demand product. However, it leads

to higher cost and has not improved lead times. Based on the financial figures in

round six, the activity has increased cost in transport and therefore results in

termination of the activity (see Appendix 26). Based on the round figure, dual

sourcing lead to high cost, high wastage and there is no evidence for higher product

component reliability.

The focus on shorter lead time in the supply source can be seen. It has benefited the

company with the flexibility in its order schedule, enhance fewer lost orders and

increases cash flow. As research suggest inventory shortage is less likely to occur if

lead-time is under 7 days (Bandaly, Satir, & Shanker, 2016). It is recommended to

prioritise this as a criterion when evaluating supplier.

10


The implementation of the contract index of 95% and 4 delivery window; shorter

lead time; and elimination of dual sourcing, has help the organisation to lower prices,

eliminate low wastage within the supply source process and enhance high product

component reliability to assist the supply chain department with the availability of

products.

11


4. Conclusion and Team Management Considerations

Today’s organisations are commonly faced with the rapidly changing

environment and constant pressure to deliver quality on time. Good

communication is a key to success to ensure common understanding in the

workplace.

One important aspect of the consultant activity was the focus on communication

in two aspects by emphasising collaborative decision making across the

departments and by creating a common communication platform. Each

department manager had made individual decisions while working closely with

other departments on a cross-functionally level to ensure process efficiency. For

example, the supply chain management collaborates with the sales department by

reducing shelf life while increasing production interval and increase the frozen

period to reduce product obsolete and promote flexibility. This cross-cultural

teamwork should be implied to benefit from varying sources of expertise and

knowledge which promote better decisions making in product development

(Holland, Gaston, & Gomes, 2000). Also, this eliminated common problems

early (Jaber, Marle, & Jankovic, 2015). The communication channel had

encouraged proactive behaviour and the organisation should emphasise this for

future activities.

We will focus on the maintenance of these factors to continue the current leading

position within the simulation to achieve a respective goal in maintaining the

current leading position with an ROI of 7%. We will continue the weekly

meetings and protocol taking as it assist the group to reflect on both individual

and group performance.

12


5. Reference list

Bandaly, D., Satir, A., & Shanker, L. (2016). Impact of lead time variability in supply chain

risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 180, 88-100.

doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.07.014

Bruckner, S., Albrecht, A., Petersen, B., & Kreyenschmidt, J. (2013). A predictive shelf life

model as a tool for the improvement of quality management in pork and poultry

chains. Food Control, 29(2), 451-460. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.05.048

D.A., H., & & Prioni, P. (2002). A Service Quality Index for Area-wide Contract

Performance Assessment. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP),

36(1), 93-113.

Eriksson, D., Hilletofth, P., Hilmola, O.-P., produktion, J. T. H. F. I., Tekniska, H., &

Högskolan i, J. (2013). Creating value through wholesaler and retailer interface.

Industrial management + data systems, 113(8), 1169.

Fischer, M. (1997). What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product? Harvard Business

Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1997/03/what-is-the-right-supply-chain-for-

your-product

Holland, S., Gaston, K., & Gomes, J. (2000). Critical success factors for cross‐functional

teamwork in new product development. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 2(3), 231-259. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00040

Jaber, H., Marle, F., & Jankovic, M. (2015). Improving Collaborative Decision Making in

New Product Development Projects Using Clustering Algorithms. IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(4), 475-483.

doi:10.1109/TEM.2015.2458332

Lee, H. L., & Billington, C. (1992). MANAGING SUPPLY CHAIN INVENTORY -

PITFALLS AND OPPORTUNITIES. SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 33(3), 65-

73.

Meyer, B. C., & Bishop, D. S. (2016). Stock Control: Learning Inventory Concepts by

Beating Levels and Winning Prizes: Stock Control. Decision Sciences Journal of

Innovative Education, 14(3), 315-336. doi:10.1111/dsji.12102

Mills, D. Q., & Harvard University. Graduate School of Business, A. (1985). The new

competitors: a report on American managers from D. Quinn Mills of the Harvard

Business School. New York: Wiley.

13


Schmitz, J., & Platts, K. W. (2004). Supplier logistics performance measurement: Indications

from a study in the automotive industry. International Journal of Production

Economics, 89(2), 231-243. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00469-3

Simchi-Levi, D., & ebrary, I. (2010). Operations rules: delivering customer value through

flexible operations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

The Fresh Connection. (2016). Analysis. Retrieved from

http://game.thefreshconnection.eu/v6tfcgsc/MyCompany/Analysis/Report?role=1

14


6. Appendices

6.1. Reflection Reports

6.1.1. Appendix 1: Reflection Report Leo One (Round Three)

Why I made the decisions I did:

There was a lack of stock for the raw Mango material component and finished product leaving warehouse with unused space. Decrease the Orange component and finished product by little as it is the main product due to a high level of obsoletes compared to the other products and components. In overall, small changes (Except mango components and materials) to reduce costs from warehousing and stock.

This week changes: Components - Increased safety stock and lot sizes for Mango a little as stock was running low , but didn’t want to have too much stock on hand like 1st round

Changed orange, reduced in safety stock and lot sizes.

Finished product – Decreased the orange 1L safety stock by 0.1 Reduced production interval for fressie Orange/Mango 1L by a small amountWhat was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:

Increase in availability of components, reduction of investment in inventory stock for components and finished goods.Who did I consult with on my team:

I spoke with Sales and Operations managers in order to analyse the previous round compared to the recent one, after consulting with one another we decided the changes that needed to be done to improve the company’s performance.What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:

An important link between the operations and sales manager in order to focus on areas of more importance (Sales) and warehousing stock, to ensure our decisions are aiming for the same outcome and that can help one another.How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

Focus on the new tools available (Production interval tool) to try to get the best outcome. Weekly meeting with the team members, aiming to improve KPI’s relating to the other manager’s decisions affecting supply chain management.

15


6.1.2. Appendix 2: Reflection Report Leo Two (Round Four)


Similar to last week, there was a lack of safety stock and lot sizes for the Orange, Mango and Vitamin C components and finished product leaving warehouse with unused space. Increased frozen period of production to have more fixed production plans to ensure deliveries and production times. Increased products safety stock in order to use warehousing space more efficiently.

This week changes: For components: Increase safety stock of Orange, Mango, and Vitamin C as well as lot sizes. For Production changed from 1 week to 3 weeks in Frozen period of production. For Products: Increased safety stock for Orange/Mango and Orange/Vitamin C Liter and Pet.What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:

Overall ROI% increased. Increase in stock value and almost 100% in the availability of components. Keeping Product obsoletes less than 3%.Who did I consult with on my team:

I the meeting everyone spoke with every branch of the organisation. My main relation being the supply chain manager was with purchasing and operation managers. We agreed in the utilisation space and how much I should increase stocks for the warehouses, as well as delivery reliability with the purchasing department.What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:

An important link between the operations and purchasing departments in order to keep reducing costs and increasing space efficiency in the warehouses.How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

Keep focusing on the (Production interval tool) to try to get the best outcome, reducing costs overall. Aim for efficient utilisation rates on the bottling lines. And regular weekly meeting with the team members, aiming to improve KPI’s relating to the other manager's decisions affecting supply chain management.

16


6.1.3. Appendix 3: Reflection Report Leo Three (Round Four)


Similar to previous weeks, there was a lack of safety stock and lot sizes for the Orange, Mango and Vitamin C components and finished product leaving warehouse with unused space and with pallet locations open. Increased frozen period of production from 3 to 4 weeks to have more fixed production plans ensuring deliveries and production times. Increased products safety stock in order to use warehousing space more efficiently.

Changes in the supply chain: For components, increase the safety stock of Pack 1 liter, and Pet packs by 0.4 (weeks). In production increase the frozen period of production from 3 weeks to 4 to ensure delivery rates and quantity for suppliers. In product, production interval (days) changed from 6, 7, 9, 5, 6, 5, to 6, 7, 9, 6, 6 8 respectively. Calculating reduction in total costs of almost 10k maintaining 80% utilization rate in the bottling line. Kpis returned to Availability of components, Stock components, and stock products.What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:

Overall positive ROI% but decreased from 7.3% to 6.7%. Reduction in indirect costs by 15,000 and 99.9% in the availability of components. Keeping Product obsoletes less than 2%Who did I consult with on my team:

Everyone spoke with every branch of the organisation. We agreed on the changes with my most relation being with the operation managers. We agreed in the utilisation space and how much I should increase stocks for the warehouses (an increase from 50% to 70% utilisation rate), as well as delivery reliability with the purchasing department.What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:

Links between the operations and purchasing departments in order to keep reducing costs and increasing space efficiency in the warehouses.How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

Keep focusing on the (Production interval tool) to try to get the best outcome, reducing costs overall. Aim for efficient utilisation rates on the bottling lines. And regular weekly meeting with the team members, aiming to improve KPI’s relating to the other manager's decisions affecting supply chain management.

17


6.1.4. Appendix 4: Reflection Report Leo Four (Round Five)


There was a lack of safety stock and lot sizes for the Orange, Mango and Vitamin C components and finished product leaving warehouse with unused space and with pallet locations open from the previous week to this week, 50% to 70%. Keep frozen period of production at 4 weeks. Increased products safety stock in order to use warehousing space more efficiently, aiming for 80% usage.

Changes in the supply chain: For components, increase the safety stock of Orange, Mango, and Vitamin C by 0.2 (weeks). Production interval (days) changed from 6, 7, 9, 6, 6, 8 to 6, 7, 10, 6, 6, 11 respectively. Calculating reduction in total costs of almost 3k, reducing total time (hours), maintaining 79% utilization rate in the bottling line.What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:

Overall positive ROI% but decreased from 6.7% to 5.27%. Reduction in indirect costs by 3,000 and 100% in the availability of components. Product obsoletes increased a lot specially Freddie Orange/C-power PET at 10%, Fressie Orange 1 liter at 8.3%; Fressie Orange/C-power 1 liter & Fressie Orange PET surrounding 7%. And Fressie Orange/C-power 1 liter has a low level of stock.Who did I consult with on my team:

As every week, everyone spoke with every branch of the organisation. We agreed on the changes, relating supply chain more to operations management. We agreed in the utilisation space and how much I should increase stocks for the warehouses (an increase from 70% to 80% utilisation rate).What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:

Links between the operations and purchasing departments in order to keep reducing costs and increasing space efficiency in the warehouses. This week, there was a problem regarding obsoletes which could have been avoided by increasing sales in the sales department after deciding to increase stock and finished goods (by promotions e.g).How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

For this week result of 5.27% ROI, decreasing over the last 2 weeks will be of concern to the team. I will continue aim for efficient utilisation rates on the bottling lines. Additionally, in order to answer to the high % of obsoletes, optimize planning, demand forecasting and replenishment processes (through stock and order sizes). Increase the safety stock or manufacture the product in larger batches for Fressie Orange/C-Power 1 Liter due to low levels of stock. Continue regular weekly meeting with the team members, aiming to improve KPI’s relating to the other managers decisions affecting supply chain management.

18

http://www.eazystock.com/learn-more/product-overview/features/replenishment-execution/

http://www.eazystock.com/blog/2014/10/13/4-ways-to-stay-on-top-of-your-demand-forecasting-accuracy/


1.1.1. Appendix 5: Reflection Report Leo Five (Round Six)


There was a lack of safety stock for Fressie Orange/C-Power 1 liter and Fressie Orange/Mango 1 liter. Increased safety stock to ensure finished product reliability. Change frozen period of production from 3 to 4 weeks to increase customer levels and flexibility of production.

Changes in the supply chain:

Products:

The finished products Fressie Orange/C-power PET, Fressie Orange 1 liter and Fressie Orange PET have a high obsoletes percentage.

Fressie Orange PET Safety stock (weeks) from 2.3 to 2.1 decreasing safety stock but reducing production interval (days) from 6 to 5 days.

Fressie Orange/C-power PET Safety stock (weeks) from 1.9 to 1.7 decreasing production interval from 10 to 9 (days).

Fressie Orange 1 liter Safety stock (weeks) from 2.2 to 2.0, decreasing production interval as well from 6 to 5 days.

Fressie Orange/C-power 1 liter & Fressie Orange/Mango 1 liter has a low level of stock, Increase the safety stock (weeks) 1.6 to 1.8 & 10 to 8 / 7 to 6 respectively reduction in production intervals.

Frozen period of production (weeks) changed from 3 to 4 weeks to increase customer levels.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:

Overall positive ROI% increased from 2.56% to 3.45%. 100 % in the availability of components. Product reduced and increased stock safety for Orange/Mango 1 liter which had low levels of stock.Who did I consult with on my team:

As every week, everyone spoke with every branch of the organisation. We agreed on the changes, this week relating more with the sales manager. We agreed on the changes needed to be made to reduce high levels of obsoletes products and stock forecasting.What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:

Links between the purchasing department in order to solve the issue regarding obsoletes which could have been avoided by better forecasting in stock and production intervals, as well as self-life of the products.How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

For this week result of 3.45% ROI, finally increasing from three weeks going down.

19


Future possible changes outside the simulation would still aim for efficient utilisation rates on the bottling lines. Additionally, in order to answer to the high % of obsoletes, deeper planning involving the operations manager should be looked at. Continue regular weekly meeting with the team members, aiming to improve KPI’s relating to the other manager’s decisions affecting supply chain management.

20


1.1.2. Appendix 6: Component – Demand per Week

Source: (The Fresh Connection, 2016)

1.1.3. Appendix 7: Bottling Line utilisation rate


1.1.4. Appendix 8: Finance Overview


21


1.1.5. Appendix 9: Reflection Report Kevin One (Round Three)

Why I made the decisions I did:This round I decided to only make slight alterations in the Sales department as I

wanted our incoming profit to remain stable. We focused on other departments that were struggling and needed a bit more attention.

Contract Index was increased for Dominick’s as we negotiated a new deal to extend their order line.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:Contracted sales revenue remained the same for Food and Groceries and Land

Mark but it increased for Dominick’s. The higher Contract Index must have had an impact on the sales of our juices. However, penalties increased and this affected our profits.

Who did I consult with on my team:I consulted with our purchasing manager over facebook, and met up with the

operationsand supply chain manager to work together on making decisions.What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:I must be more aware of the practices in other departments which may affect

salesperformance. Extending an order line till 10PM may be a great option for the

customer,but it may be an issue with getting the stock out on time from the warehouse.How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:Go through and study to performance of other areas of the business, particularly

supplychain, and discuss with group members on how we can push sales revenue back

up.

22


1.1.6. Appendix 10: Reflection Report Kevin Two (Round Four)

Why I made the decisions I did:This week's changes were based on the fact that penalty rates have been increasingand service levels were not flowing as well as previous weeks. I had to not only work on making strategic sales decisions but work with other functional areas.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:The outcome of the changes in promotional pressure from medium to light for food andgroceries which altered contract index proved to be promising and service levels wereback on the rise. Changes made from other department managers had a positive effecton the outcome also. ROI has increased once again.

Who did I consult with on my team:We had a full team meeting, which was vital in making collaborative decisions.

What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:Collaborative decisions in logistic operations are important as decisions flow from onedepartment to another.

How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:Examine how the other areas are performing, and elaborate to the group salesperformance in particularly service levels outbound.

23


1.1.7. Appendix 11: Reflection Report Kevin Three (Round Five)

Why I made the decisions I did:This week’s decisions were based of a team decision, to approach a conservative

approach as we were hitting most targets. We want to maintain the ROI and not fluctuate it by doing any major changes to the business.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:Apart from the group's conservative approach, the decisions I made was to

communicate to operations and supply chain managers that obsolete products were extremely low, so more space production of goods can be produced. The outcome saw that utilization in the warehouse improved but there are still empty spaces around, our service level dropped as well leading to penalties.

Who did I consult with on my team:Every manager was spoken with, met with purchasing and supply chain

managers once, and spoke to operations manager via social media. I mainly discussed the approach we should take with Supply chain manager.

What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:That demand and market movements are continuously changing, it is vital to be

able toadapt to these changes quickly so that the business isn’t harmedHow will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:I will approach my decisions next week with a view on how our business

processes are flowing through each channel and the effect each decision has on sales figures. Data should be looked further into to try and forecast demand for next round.

24


1.1.8. Appendix 12: Reflection Report Kevin Four (Round Six)

Why I made the decisions I did:Based on service levels dropping rapidly and increases in penalties, these issues were looked into. Something had to be altered across our whole supply chain, from our sales strategy to operations through to procurement. We decided to do more changes across every platform this round. Contract indexes had to be increased.What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:The outcome of the decisions I made as sales manager saw increases in obsolete products and contract indexes as expected, also directly increasing the sales revenue. But there was very little improvement in terms of penalties.Who did I consult with on my team:I consulted with every manager on the team this week. We had more of a team approach and were able to discuss every decision in person, making an overall collaborative strategy in our business functions.What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:Small changes in operations have not been helping the penalty rate in recent rounds. We must better utilize our warehouse and forecast accordingly.How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

Look more carefully into the results, find correlations and links across all departments. Penalties need to be reduced and service levels need to increase.

25


1.1.9. Appendix 13: Reflection Report Kevin Five (Round Seven)

Why I made the decisions I did:After analysing the business performance and having discussions with the team, this rounds decisions were made based on utilization in operations, and also to try reducing obsoletes and increasing service levels outbound.What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:Improve in Sales rev, but big increases in penalties.The resulting outcome of my decisions was different for each customer as tailored changes were made.-Land market improved dramatically in Sales revenue (^40,800) after high promotional pressure, however, penalties were also incurred (-19,219).-Food and Grocer improved slightly in sales revenue, but we suffered a dramatic cost increase in penalties.- Dominick’s had little movement in position from last round, although sales revenue figures dropped a little, with penalties also reducing a little.Who did I consult with on my team:I met face to face again this week in order to try and collaborate ideas. Every manager was present for the meeting so we discussed every department.What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:-Although Promotional pressure can have positive results, it can also have costly effects.- The supply chain is underperforming as penalties and operating profit is at an all time low since taking over the business.How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

Before making changes in the next round, careful examination between this rounds figures and round 3’s figures will be compared. Hopefully pointing out obvious areas that need changing.

26


1.1.10. Appendix 14: Reflection Report Lee-Anne One (Round Three)

Why I made the decisions I did:Reduce pallet locations in fixed and raw materials according to results of the previous week. However, changes were kept minimal according to changes the supply chain manager was going to make.

Fixed goods- 1200 to 1000

Raw materials- 1950 to 1500

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:The outcome was a reduction in warehousing expenses and the maximum utility of pallet use. Reducing costs.

Who did I consult with on my team:I consulted with the Sales and Supply chain manager on the decisions. The supply chain manager noted an increase in raw materials hence the minimal

What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:Consulting with one another is vital as different areas have an add-on effect when changes are made.

How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:Make better-informed decision based on results and consultations with team members

27


1.1.11. Appendix 15: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Two (Round Four)

Why I made the decisions I did:The raw materials warehouse was relatively empty, with pallet locations open. Pallet locations in raw materials were at 33.6% utilization. Therefore a reduction of pallet locations was carried out and the number of FTE’s was reduced as well.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:Who did I consult with on my team:Similar to the previous week I mainly consulted with the supply chain manager. Also got input from the purchasing and sale team.

What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:I’ve learnt that communicating with more than just one member of the team is vital because their decision can affect operations in positive or negative ways.

How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:Consult with more than one department of the team and base decisions on

28


1.1.12. Appendix 16: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Three (Round Five)

Why I made the decisions I did:In operations, our main focus for round 7 was in reducing costs.

The quality control measures were reduced by removing all raw material inspections from suppliers due to them being costly, and increasing lead times. Moreover, the purchasing department has decided upon having suppliers that have certification and good quality so there is little need for them either way. Furthermore, from last week decisions; the increase of employees and their intake time were also very costly. So these were reduced in both raw materials and the finished goods warehouse from 4 to 2 full-time employees. Pallet locations were reduced in the finished goods warehouse from 1100 to 800 to reduce wastage as utilization was at 67%.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:The outcome of the decisions made was increased utilisation of cubes in the raw and finished goods warehouse and a 92.7% production adherence. However, noted by the results from the game management that operations in our team has been slipping backwards.


What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:This week the decisions made were still very minimal and new bottling lines and mixing lines will be investigated.

How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:I will look towards adding new bottling lines and mixing lines as these have not been changed or investigated.

29


1.1.13. Appendix 17: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Four (Round Six)

Why I made the decisions I did:Decisions made in operations this week included : added inspections in raw materials (NO8DO Mango and SYI "vitamin C) 1 extra FT employee in raw and finished materials warehouse in response to the new packaging of trade units.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:Utilization in the raw materials warehouse has improved to 85%, however, utilization in the finished goods warehouse it has dropped this week to 67.1%. Therefore this week I will consult with supply chain and purchasing managers on how this surplus has come about.

Who did I consult with on my team:I consulted with the supply chain manager. Also got input from the purchasing and sale team.

What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:The forecasting method is going in the right direction.

How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:Consult with the purchasing and supply chain managers in the empty space and what caused it.

30


1.1.14. Appendix 18: Reflection Report Lee-Anne Five (Round Seven)

Why I made the decisions I did:In operations, our main focus for round 7 was in reducing costs.

The quality control measures were reduced by removing all raw material inspections from suppliers due to them being costly, and increasing lead times. Moreover, the purchasing department has decided upon having suppliers that have certification and good quality so there is little need for them either way. Furthermore, from last week decisions; the increase of employees and their intake time were also very costly. So these were reduced in both raw materials and the finished goods warehouse from 4 to 2 full-time employees. Pallet locations were reduced in the finished goods warehouse from 1100 to 800 to reduce wastage as utilization was at 67%.

What was the outcome (results) of the decisions I made:The outcome of the decisions made was increased utilisation of cubes in the raw and finished goods warehouse and a 92.7% production adherence. However, noted by the results from the game management that operations in our team has been slipping backwards.


What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:This week the decisions made were still very minimal and new bottling lines and mixing lines will be investigated.

How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:I will look towards adding new bottling lines and mixing lines as these have not been changed or investigated.

31


1.1.15. Appendix 19: Reflection Report Maria One (Round Three)


I selected another supplier for the packing supply by changing from our current German supplier, with 10 lead time days, to an English supplier who offers half of the lead time (5 days). The contract had negotiated to the standard of 1-day delivery windows with 98% reliability level and illustrate an excellent contract index (above one).

As we are focusing on bringing high quality to the customer and to keep our cost to a minimum. I made the decision in changing the supplier to take advantage of the shorter lead time so that small lot sizes can be ordered on a more frequent basis to reduce cost in holding inventory. Also, geographical location is an important criterion to consider as it impacts the delivery lead time. England is close to our production location in the Netherlands.


The delivery rate of the English supplier in pack supply is very good and is currently 96.6 under 1-day delivery windows and 98% reliability. Therefore, the supplier is consistent with its delivery within the promised time.

Who did I consult with on my team:

We are emphasising on communication across the organisation to ensure a very clear communication across the operation management, supply chain management, and sales department. This allows us to take advantage of different perspectives.

What did I learn from the decisions and processes in this round:

I have learnt that we are on the right path by focusing in supplier in high-quality products and short lead time. Moreover, the certification for the supplier is important as well. Particular in this round, I have learnt that the constant evaluation of supplier is crucial in order to eliminate early problems within the supply chain, for example, long delivery, as it has an impact on the organisation performance.

How will I address/approach my decisions in the next round:

For the next round, I will continue in the evaluation of each required product that meets our key source requirement and strategy and making the product available in a timely manner. I will also pay more attention to the supplier rejection rate and will calculate transport cost when evaluating supplier to take advantage of cost methods that ensure cost efficiency.

32


1.1.16. Appendix 20: Reflection Report Maria Two (Round Four)


I changed the terms of each supplier contract by delivering within 4-hours delivery windows with a 99% delivery reliability instead of 1-day delivery windows with 95% delivery reliability. Supplier performance has developed well over the last three rounds which show that the supplier is performing well in terms of its quality. In order to benefit from higher product availability, I changed the delivery window to ensure reliability.

Refer to my KPI changes, I change to the raw material COGS while maintaining performance measurement in rejection component and delivery reliability supplier to focus on cost, rejection, and quality.


Each of our suppliers is a meet expectation in delivery reliability by performing above the 98%. Therefore, the supplier is consistent with the delivery within the promised time window and have very low rejection rate. However, I will focus on the PET supplier, which is one of the most ordered amounts as the rejection rate is still very low, but with 3.1% above the average of 1.9% rejection rate. Similar with the supplier of the Pack 1 Litre, which has a rejection rate of 2.9% which is also below the average of 1.9% and is the second most important material we are purchasing. The COGS are at its best score, but having changed much since Round One, currently 48.6%.


We need to emphasise on the important role of selecting the right supplier to ensure availability and quality of our products. We will continue to emphasise the importance of communication across the organisation, for example, I will work closely with the supply chain management in the next week to assess if enough products are available.

33



I have learnt that we are on the right path by focusing in supplier in high-quality products and short lead time. Moreover, the certification for the supplier is important as well. Particular in this round, I have learnt that shorten the delivery window is crucial in order to receive the products in a timely manner. I will do some further research in order to solve the rejection rate of the Pack 1 Litre and PET supply source.


For the next round, I will do some further research in order to solve the rejection rate of the Pack 1 Litre and PET supply source. I will calculate transport cost when evaluating supplier to take advantage of cost methods that ensure cost efficiency.

34


1.1.17. Appendix 21: Reflection Report Maria Three (Round Five)


For this week, I have not made many changes in the procurement department. Supplier performance has been excellent in terms of delivery reliability and low level of rejection rate. In order to benefit from the further price reduction, dual-sourcing is targeted.

Refer to my KPI changes for this week, I have changed in COGS, Handling cost and availability component.


The firm's supplier have performed well. In order to implement further cost reduction, the KPI in handling cost and availability component have been adapted to undertake further analysis. By doing so, I can analyse each supplier and might take advantage of dual-sourcing to benefit from cost reduction.


Cost analysis and preparation will be conducted to take advantage of cost reduction in dual-sourcing.


We are in the right track and past decision in the procurement department has been done well based on excellent supplier performance.


I will calculate handling cost when evaluating supplier to take advantage of cost reduction in the dual-sourcing process.

35


1.1.18. Appendix 22: Reflection Report Maria Four (Round Six)


I selected another supplier for the packing supply by changing from our current German supplier, with 10 lead time days, to an English supplier who offers half of the lead time (5 days). The contract had negotiated to the standard of 1-day delivery windows with 98% reliability level and illustrate an excellent contract index (above one).

As we are focusing on bringing high quality to the customer and to keep our cost to a minimum. I made the decision in changing the supplier to take advantage of the shorter lead time so that small lot sizes can be ordered on a more frequent basis to reduce cost in holding inventory. Also, geographical location is an important criterion to consider as it impacts the delivery lead time. England is close to our production location in the Netherlands.


The delivery rate of the English supplier in pack supply is very good and is currently 96.6 under 1-day delivery windows and 98% reliability. Therefore, the supplier is consistent with its delivery within the promised time.


We are emphasising on communication across the organisation to ensure a very clear communication across the operation management, supply chain management and sales department. This allows us to take advantage of different perspectives.


I have learnt that we are on the right path by focusing in supplier in high-quality products and short lead time. Moreover, the certification for the supplier is important as well. Particular in this round, I have learnt that the constant evaluation of supplier is crucial in order to eliminate early problems within the supply chain, for example, long delivery, as it has an impact on the organisation performance.


For the next round, I will continue in the evaluation of each required product that meets our key source requirement and strategy and making the product available in a timely manner. I will also pay more attention to the supplier rejection rate and will calculate transport cost when evaluating supplier to take advantage of cost methods that ensure cost efficiency.

36


1.1.19. Appendix 23: Reflection Report Maria Five (Round Seven)


Changes in supplier have been made. Pack supplier changes from English supplier to German Supplier. Change has been made based on high rejection rate of English supplier. The German supplier has 10 days’ lead time compare to 5 days’ lead time. By doing this changes, we are hoping to take advantage of making products more available as English supplier has not performed well (see picture below) when comparing reliability performance with the rejection rate.

Vitamin C supplier from the Netherlands changes to a French supplier with certification as the current Dutch supplier has no certification. This change is due as all current supplier are performing under certification and have excellent supplier performance based on the firm's strict policies in 99% delivery rate and 4 hours delivery windows. By choosing a supplier with certification, we can reduce cost in the reduction of quality inspection in the operation section while taking advantage of time reduction for the inspection.

A French supplier in the PET segment has been compared to the current Dutch supplier which has low performance (illustrates in the table above). Comparing both contract index to each other, the Dutch supplier's contract index would indicate a value of 0.988 while the current supplier would perform better with an index of 1.03. Taking this into consideration, no changes in supply has been made. A similar decision has been made in the Vitamin C by changing from the current Dutch supplier to a French competitor in order to take advantage of the certification while reducing cost in the quality inspection cost in the operations sector.

No changes in KPI this week and maintain in COGS, Handling cost and availability component.


The firms supplier have performed well. In order to implement further cost reduction, the KPI in handling cost and availability component have been adapted to undertake further analysis. By doing so, I can analyse each supplier and might take advantage of dual-sourcing to benefit from cost reduction.

Purchase value of orders have increased which might be a result of the dual sourcing and changes in supplier. The PACK supplier was unable to meet services deliveries, therefore the English supplier (Brit Pack) changed to the German merchant (Smurfat Kippa Cartons) which result in increased cost from 108,685 with Brit Pack to 112,999 with Smurfat Kippa. Similar case can be applied to the Vitamin supply changed which result in very small cost increase. Overall, the supplier changed have results in overspendings of $20,000.


37


I spoke to the Operations manager, and will work closely together in the future.


I need to look at purchase value and consider more increase cost. As procurement is an excellent way to provide quality, make the product available and save cost. I do not need to purchase via dual sourcing as current supplier performance is excellent and dual sourcing results in high cost.


We are holding the groups weekly meeting on Thursday to discuss our approach in the upcoming final round. I suggest the procurement department is looking to decrease further cost while focus on quality and high availability to ensure constant product flow. I will suggest that supply chain management and operation management should empathise further qualitative cost reduction by adapting to adequate operations facility and service level.

38


1.2. Appendix 24: Supplier Delivery Reliability

Supplier -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Brit Pack 97.9 99.1 99.1 99.1Mono Packaging Materials 92.6 92.3 92.3 92.5Smurfat Kippa Cartons 97.5 99.2 96.2Philyp Jones Plastics 96.4 96.6 98.8 98.8 98.9 98.9 95.9Trio PET PLC 83.8 84.1 84.1 88.4AIL Vitamins 99.1 96.8Seitan Vitamins 82.1 81.5 81.5 93.1SYI 98.1 98.1 98.7 98.9 99.1NO8DO Mango 93.8 93.7 93.7 92.7 93.5 92.9 98.4 98.4 98.8 98.6 95.6Arancia dÉspana 97.7 97.9 99.1 99.1 97.8 97.7 96.1Miami Oranges 98.3 97.8 97.8 94.8Medina Portogal 100 100

ROI -11.93 3.93 4.82 7.36 6.74 5.27 2.56 3.45Meet Requirements of Contract Index 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 3 5Didn’t meet requirements 5 5 4 5 3 3 2 2 0

Contract Index: 95% and 1 day deliveryContract Index: 98% and 1 day deliveryContract Index: 99% and 4 hours deliveryContract Index: 95% and 4 hours delivery

Delivery Reliability (%)


39


1.3. Appendix 25: Delivery Reliability and Rejection Rate

Brit Pack 2.875 98.8 0 34.37Mono Packaging MaterialsSmurfat Kippa Cartons 2.7 2.7 99.2 96.2 36.74 35.63Philyp Jones Plastics 2.98 2.9 98.4 95.9 33.02 33.07Trio PET PLCAIL Vitamins 0.6 0.6 99.1 96.8 165.17 161.33Seitan VitaminsSYI 2.35 98.7 42.00NO8DO Mango 1.26 0.8 97.42 95.6 77.32 119.50Arancia dÉspana 1.02 0.7 98.32 96.1 96.39 137.29Miami OrangesMedina Portogal 100

Min 33.02 33.07Max 165.17 161.33Below 50 4 2Below 80 5 2Above 100 0 0Average 65.34 77.07Median 42.00 119.50

Supplier 99% Index 1 day

97% Index 4 hours

Delivery Reliability (Average)Rejection Rate (average) Reliability / Rejection99% Index

1 day97% Index

4 hours 99% Index

1 day 97% Index

4 hours


The table below compares the rejection rate to delivery rate by using a 99%

contract index with 1-day delivery windows and 97% contract index with a 4

delivery hours to estimate the best terms of contract to achieve supplier

reliability.

As the tables shows, the 97% contract index and 4 hours’ delivery window has a

best outcome based on better performance figures as outcomes are above 80 and

it has a higher average and median. Research shows that automotive companies

have strict delivery windows and less strict contract index to ensure higher

reliability (Schmitz & Platts, 2004). This is also likely to decrease cost based on

the lower contract index and requirements. In round 6 (see Appendix 22),

changes in several supplier selections have been made based on high rejection

rate and results improved in the upcoming rounds.

40


1.4.Appendix 26: Transport cost overview

Supplier -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Brit Pack 5329 3494 3494 3654Mono Packaging Materials 4616 4552 4552 4658Smurfat Kippa Cartons 5470 5677 5803Philyp Jones Plastics 89483 89122 88730 88493 93640 96050 95535Trio PET PLC 146193 145393 145393 144339AIL Vitamins 1535 1583Seitan Vitamins 1601 1592 1592 1537SYI 1737 1605 1541 1564 1452NO8DO Mango 3357 3314 3314 11823 11772 11715 11735 11732 4049 4078 4181Arancia dÉspana 30437 30583 25189 25161 32612 32170 32660Miami Oranges 35299 35046 35046 167006Medina Portogal 0 0

Total 191066 189897 189897 329363 138899 138354 130689 130444 135407 139510 139762

Transport Cost


41


1.5. Weekly Group Meetings

1.5.1. Appendix 27: Weekly Summary Round One

Thursday 11. August 2016Fresh Connection – Summary Round 1 Our Mission: to delivery qualitative products to our customer

OUTCOME FROM PREVIOUS ROUND

Return on Investment: -11.38%Bonus: $23,155 (from reducing shelf space in the practise round)Overflow raw materials warehousing: 361,794 (previous 42,014)Space: 595,167 (previous 308,676)

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS

Sales have been not developed well based on the ROI; Gross Margin Service Level. Obsolesced level of products is okay.

Based on figures in overflow raw material warehousing, changes within the supply chain are required. Particular procurement section and supplier selection are both requiring careful changes to take advantage of cost reduction.

Purchasing Department Supplier performance is okay. Seitan Vitamins could improve delivery

reliability from previous changes in delivery windows and reliability. We focus on short lead time and high quality, particular for the most popular products orange and PET orange. All of the supplier are required to delivery within one day, 98% agree reliability rate and certification.

Problem zone: PET TRIO PLSPoor Delivery reliability of 88.4% and highest purchased amount of 5,586,742 with 10 days’ lead time.

Solution: Change PET supplier with better performance in reliability, delivery windows and lead time of 5 days. Changes of 1-day delivery windows and 98% reliability.

Other: Overall supplier performance is satisfied and doesn’t require changes at this stage. However, it is recommended to watch this important section of the supply chain to eliminate early problems within the value chain. There is no certification for our Vitamin C supplier.

Current Supplier: Pack (Germany); PET (Netherlands); Orange (Spain); Mango (Spain); Vitamin C (France)

Operations Department

42


Raw materials warehousing is doubled in its usage than it has capacity. Currently 900 pallets location compare to 1826.

Problem zone: Capacity of raw material warehousing pallets Solution:

o 1. Change to larger capacity as utilisation is larger which currently results in an overflow of approximately 50%. Change from 900 to 1950.

o 2. Change employee in raw material warehousing from 3 to 5 to adapt to change in capacity to adapt low level in flexible manpower and taking advantage of casual payment.

o 3. Raw material inspection per supplier to ensure quality in production process. To manage an effective quality inspection while maintaining cost efficiency, the inspection focus on the two major supplier Arancia DÈspana and Phillip Jones Plastics as these are the firms most popular products.

o 4. Change employee in finished goods warehousing from 4 to 3 based on hours per week, which are currently 117. No changes in pallets location.

Other: Changing the order line which is currently 1.

Supply Chain Management High overflow of raw materials is likely to be a result of inefficient safety

stock. Problem zone:

Safety StockPack 1l: 1PET: 1Orange: 1Mango: 1Vitamin C: 1

Lots Size1.52.0 most popular2.01.01.0

Solution: changing the safety stock to make a product available to customer instead of running out.

43


1.5.2. Appendix 28: Weekly Summary Round Two

Fresh Connection – Summary Round 2

Our Mission: to deliver qualitative products to our customer

Supply Chain;Components - Increased safety stock and lot sizes for Mango a little as stock was running low, but didn’t want to have to much stock on hand like 1st roundChanged orange, reduced in safety stock and lot sizes

Finished product – Decreased the orange 1L safety stock by 0.1 Reduced production interval for fressie Orange/Mango 1L by a small amount

Operations; Warehousing – Reduced pallet locations and fixed raw materials according to results from round 2. From 1950 down to 1500 for raw materials, as space was not being fully utilized

Purchasing; Selecting another supplier for pack supply. Changed from German supplier with 10 lead time days to an English supplier with half of the lead time (5days). Contract has a 1 day delivery windows with 98% reliability and excellent contract index.

Sales; Sales was only slightly altered considering that we increased stock for mango, which running low. With Better space utilization of our warehousing, We negotiated a new deal with Dominicks to extend the order deadline, which increased the overall contract index for them. We made the smallest revenue last week through Dominicks so hopefully this change will see an increase in revenue.

44


Fresh Connection – Summary Round 4 Our Mission: to deliver qualitative products to our customerOUTCOME FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDReturn on Investment: 4.82Bonus: - $31,478

PURCHASINGChanged terms of supplier contract by delivering within 4 with 99% reliability instead of 1-day delivery to 95% reliability. Supplier performance has developed well, however, I evaluate supplier constantly to ensure quality and low price of raw material. KPIS are currently: Raw Material cost, rejection component, delivery reliability supplier. Changed from the raw material cost of goods while maintaining performance measurement in rejection component and delivery reliability supplier to focus on cost, rejection, and quality.OPERATIONS

The raw materials warehouse was relatively empty, with pallet locations open. Pallet locations in raw materials were at 33.6% utilization. Therefore, a reduction of pallet locations was carried out and the number of FTE’s (full-time employees) was reduced as well and intake time.

Finished goods pallet locations were left as it is from previous weeks decisions. As it had a and 80% utilization and more stock is expected to be ordered therefore it allows flexibility if more pallets are needed. KPI choices included - Cube utilization - Flexible labor raw materials warehouse - Production plan adherence

No other changes were made in operations.

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENTFor components: Increase safety stock of Orange, Mango, and Vitamin C as well as lot sizes. For Production changed from 1 week to 3 weeks in Frozen period of production. For Products: Increased safety stock for Orange/Mango and Orange/Vitamin C Liter and Pet.SALESAltered promotional pressure from middle to light for Food and Grocers in order to lift Contract Index above 1, we must do so to keep our product premium. No other drastic changes in sales, relying on Operations and Supply chain management to increase service levels through utilization of raw materials and production of finished goods. Changed KPI from gross margin to availability components to see the percentage of components that was available for production when demanded.

45


1.5.3. Appendix 29: Weekly Summary Round Five

Fresh Connection – Summary Round 5Our Mission: to deliver qualitative products to our customerOUTCOME FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDReturn on Investment: 6.74 (from 7.36%)Bonus: -43,910

PURCHASINGDual sourcing in Orange supplier, which is the most popular product. Current supplier is a Spanish supplier (high quality, short lead time of 10 Days and Certification). Dual sourcing would be made from another Spanish supplier, with similar features (15 days lead time, middle quality and certification). Dual-sourcing would be made with US Supplier (high quality, 30 days’ lead time and certification). Dual sourcing will allow the business to take advantage of flexibility in not rely on supplier to handle the current demand and to ensure availability. Dual sourcing is costly is expensive, but provides product to our customer. And when managed adequantly, it can lead to cost savings as well service lea times improvements.KPI in shelf availability (sales) and safety stock of finished product (Supply Chain) is important. KPIs are changed to fit the purpose of dual-sourcing. Current KPIS are distribution cost, handling cost and availability components.Changed terms of supplier contract by delivering within 4 with 99% reliability instead of 1-day delivery to 95% reliability. Supplier performance has developed well, however, I evaluate supplier constantly to ensure quality and low price of raw material. KPIS are currently: Raw Material cost, rejection component, delivery reliability supplier. Changed from the raw material cost of goods while maintaining performance measurement in rejection component and delivery reliability supplier to focus on cost, rejection, and quality.OPERATIONSDecisions made in operations this week included : added inspections in raw materials (NO8DO Mango and SYI "vitamin C) 1 extra FT employee in raw and finished materials warehouse in response to new packaging of trade units.

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENTThere was a lack of safety stock and lot sizes for the Orange, Mango and Vitamin C components and finished product leaving warehouse with unused space and with pallet locations open from previous week to this week, 50% to 70%. Keep frozen period of production at 4 weeks. Increased products safety stock in order to use warehousing space more efficiently, aiming for 80% usage. Changes in the supply chain: For components, increase the safety stock of Orange, Mango, and Vitamin C by 0.2 (weeks). Production interval (days) changed from 6, 7, 9, 6, 6, 8 to 6, 7, 10, 6, 6, 11 respectively. Calculating reduction in total costs of almost

46


3k, reducing total time (hours), maintaining 79% utilization rate in the bottling line.

SALES

Based on service levels dropping and increases in penalties the following changes occurred; Sales; changed shelf life agreement for food and grocers from 75-80%. Closed off order deadline fromm 8pm to 5pm, but gave them the option to have there units in boxes rather then pallet layers, this means they are allowed to order smaller units and more frequently. Contract index agreement is now 1.0421, from 1.014. Changed trade unit pallet layer to pallets, and shelf life agreement up to 80% from 75%. Contract index went from 0.962 to 0.988 Changed shelf life agreement from 75 to 80% for Dominicks. This increased contract index from 1.027 to 1.041.

47


1.5.4. Appendix 30: Weekly Summary Round Six

Fresh Connection – Summary Round 6Our Mission: to deliver qualitative products to our customerOUTCOME FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDReturn on Investment: 5.3Penalties: (-46,344)

PURCHASINGChanges in supplier have been made. Pack supplier changes from English supplier to German Supplier. Change has been made based on high rejection rate of English supplier. The German supplier has 10 days’ lead time compare to 5 days’ lead time. By doing this changes, we are hoping to take advantage of making products more available as English supplier has not performed well (see picture below) when comparing reliability performance with the rejection rate.

Product SupplierAgreed Reliability (%)

Rejection Agreed Reliability / Rejection Rate

Pack Brit 99.1 2.6 38.1Pet Philip 98.9 2.9 34.1Vitamin C Syi 99.1 3.7 26.8Mango Mango 98.8 1.7 58.1Orange Arancia 97.8 1 97.8Orange Medina 100 0 #DIV/0! Vitamin C supplier from the Netherlands changes to a French supplier with certification as the current dutch supplier has no certification. This change is due as all current supplier are performing under certification and have excellent supplier performance based on the firm's strict policies in 99% delivery rate and 4 hours delivery windows. By choosing a supplier with certification, we can reduce cost in the reduction of quality inspection in the operation section while taking advantage of time reduction for the inspection.A French supplier in the PET segment has been compared to the current Dutch supplier which has low performance (illustrates in the table above). Comparing both contract index to each other, the Dutch supplier's contract index would indicate a value of 0.988 while the current supplier would perform better with an index of 1.03. Taking this into consideration, no changes in supply has been made. A similar decision has been made in the Vitamin C by changing from the current Dutch supplier to a French competitor in order to take advantage of the certification while reducing cost in the quality inspection cost in the operations sector.

48


OPERATIONSIn operations, our main focus for round 7 was in reducing costs. The quality control measures were reduced by removing all raw material inspections from suppliers due to them being costly, and increasing lead times. Moreover, the purchasing department has decided upon having suppliers that have certification and good quality so there is little need for them either way. Furthermore, from last week decisions; the increase of employees and their intake time were very costly. So these were reduced in both raw materials and the finished goods warehouse from 4 to 2 full-time employees. Pallet locations were reduced in the finished goods warehouse from 1100 to 800 to reduce wastage as utilization was at 67%.

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Changes in the supply chain: Stock management components: Pack 1 liter, Orange, Vitamin C, Safety stock (weeks) changed from 1.4 to 1.3 / 1.5 to 1.4 / 1.4 to 1.3 respectively to reduce costs in the warehouse from unnecessary inventories for these components.

Products: The finished products Fressie Orange/C-power PET, Fressie Orange 1 liter and Fressie Orange PET have a high obsoletes percentage. Fressie Orange PET Safety stock (weeks) from 2.2 to 2.3 to increase safety stock. Fressie Orange/C-power PET Safety stock (weeks) from 1.8 to 1.9 due to increasing safety stock. Fressie Orange 1 liter Safety stock (weeks) from 2.2 to 2.0 Fressie Orange/C-power 1 liter has a low level of stock, Increase the safety stock (weeks) 1.4 to 1.8. Frozen period of production (weeks) changed from 4 to 3 weeks to increase customer levels.

SALESChanges made in the sales area were made after discussing the strategic approach we should be making to reduce penalties and handling costs (direct and indirect) although revenue has increased. After discussing with the supply chain manager on stock levels and quality management, changes were made in regards to reducing the obsolete costs, trying to achieve better service level agreements. Specific changes in every customer sales category were made to tackle these issues: -Increases in promotional activity was made from medium to high for Land Market, hopefully reducing obsoletes by increasing turnover of products from better sales. -Payment terms for Food and Grocer were extended from 4-5 weeks with an aim to increase service level. Increasing contract index from 1.038 to 1.044. - Pallet Layer has been selected over pallets for Dominick’s In a way to approach better service delivery and meet required orders. The promotion has been changed from Medium back down to light to continue our quality/fresh Brand image. As a result, overall contract indices increased to 1.050.

49


1.5.5. Appendix 31: Weekly Summary Round Seven

Fresh Connection – Summary Round 7Our Mission: to deliver qualitative products to our customer

OUTCOME FROM PREVIOUS ROUND

Return on Investment: 2.56Bonus: -154,302

PURCHASING

- Removed the dual sourcing in the orange product to reduce cost. Due to financial figure, the dual sourcing has led to increased cost and supplier performance nor higher product availability has not been achieved.

- Change the contract index from 99% to 97% as current delivery reliability has an average of 98.3%, with the lowest value of 97.7%. The figures are excellent and have been achieved since the earlier rounds, however in reducing the contract index will allow every supplier to meet current delivery requirements.

OPERATIONS

- For round 7 operations is performing at an optimal level with cube utilization in raw materials warehouse at 86.9%, cube utilization in the finished goods warehouse at 93.1% and 92.7% production plan adherence. The only issue that was raised was the hours for workers in the finished goods warehouse where between two workers there was 115 hours reducing the delivery efficiency of finished goods. Therefore, an additional worker has been added to resolve this issue.

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

- There was a lack of safety stock for Fressie Orange/C-Power 1 liter and Fressie Orange/Mango 1 liter, Increased safety stock to ensure finished product reliability. Change frozen period of production from 3 to 4 weeks to increase customer levels and flexibility of production. Changes in the supply chain: Products: The finished products Fressie Orange/C-power PET, Fressie Orange 1 liter and Fressie Orange PET have a high obsoletes percentage. Fressie Orange PET Safety stock (weeks) from 2.3 to 2.1 decreasing safety stock but reducing production interval (days) from 6 to 5 days. Fressie Orange/C-power PET Safety stock (weeks) from 1.9 to 1.7 decreasing production interval from 10 to 9 (days). Fressie Orange 1 liter Safety stock (weeks) from 2.2 to 2.0, decreasing production inverval as well from 6 to 5 days.

50


- Fressie Orange/C-power 1 liter & Fressie Orange/Mango 1 liter has a low level of stock, Increase the safety stock (weeks) 1.6 to 1.8 & 10 to 8 / 7 to 6 respectively reduction in production intervals. Frozen period of production (weeks) changed from 3 to 4 weeks to increase customer levels.

SALES

- This round we aim to not trigger too many promises that are unrealistic, performances must be inline with agreements and agreements must be inline with our performance. Therefore we will focus on changes in service level and shelf life agreements, whilst keeping obseletes in mind.

- Changes in our Sales:- Food and Groceries - Service level agreement was altered from 95% down to

92%, as this is the level we are performing at for them currently. We do not want to over promise, performance should meet our agreement. Shelf life agreement is currently at 80% but we are performing close to 90%. Therefore shelf life has been changed to 85%. Agreed Contract index therefore dropped from 1.0439 to 1.0034. Although the drop, the index is still above 1 and gives Food and Groceries a perceived premium quality.

- LAND market- Service level was changed from 95 to 92%. Promotional pressure has been changed from Heavy to middle to aim for consistency. Overall agreed Contract index dropped from 0.987 to 0.9523, closer to where land market is performing (0.951)

- Dominick’s – they are performing well within our agreements and it is seen in to be a financially stable investment for TFC. Contract index agreement was at 1.0503 – changed to 1.0188 Closer to the Performance in the market which is 1.036

51

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhcong
View:	217 times
Download:	4 times

THE FRESH CONNECTION - Web viewWord count: 1,595. 11. October 2016. Table of Content. Table of...

Documents