Print of Opm
1
THREE JAYS CORPORATION CASE DATA ANALY Group Number: __________________________________ Group Name: COMPARISON OF OLD AND NEW EOQ (WITH UPDATED COSTS) PRODUCT (12 OZ) 3JS MARRAN KERRY DOM AAA * 2010 Annual demand/52 SALES/WK 58 45 29 17 12 S=SETUP COST 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 D=ANNUAL DEMAND (CASES) 2993 2335 1492 886 625 COST*0.09 I=CARRYING COST 9% 2.7468 2.4174 2.6109 1.647 cost/ ANNUAL DEMAND C=FULL COST/CASE 28.34 0.013071 0.018003 0.032743 0.042112 2(d*s)/ic*1/2 EOQ (OLD) 387 2878 2090 1149 1071 3/52*AD ROP (3 WEEKS) 173 135 86 51 36 PRODUCT (12 OZ) 3JS MARRAN KERRY DOM AAA * 2012 Annual demand/52 SALES/WK 74 58 38 23 16 SAME S=SETUP COST 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 EX 5 D=ANNUAL DEMAND (CASES) 3869 3006 1970 1211 832 UNIT COST*0.0.9 I=CARRYING COST 9% 2.75 2.42 2.61 1.65 C=FULL COST/CASE 28.34 0.01015 0.01465 0.02396 0.03163 2(d*s)/ic*1/2 EOQ (OLD) 440 3706 2662 1571 1426 3/52*AD ROP (3 WEEKS) 223 173 114 70 48 (NEW-OLD)/OLD % INCREASE IN SALES 29.27 28.74 32.04 36.68 33.12 *(2012-2010 Eoq/2010)*101 % INCREASE IN EOQ 13.70 28.74 27.38 36.68 33.12 PRODUCT (12 OZ) 3JS MARRAN KERRY DOM AAA * 2012 Annual demand/52 SALES/WK 74 58 38 23 16 Exclude cleaning S=SETUP COST 67.52 37.27 37.27 37.27 37.27 D=ANNUAL DEMAND (CASES) 3869 3006 1970 1211 832 I=CARRYING COST 14% 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 C=FULL COST/CASE 30.0 27.97 24.31 24.46 23.77 EOQ (OLD) 352 187 162 127 107 ROP (3 WEEKS) 223 173 114 70 48 % INCREASE IN SALES 29% 29% 32% 37% 33% % INCREASE IN EOQ -43.00% -43.00% -42.00% -41.00% -42.00% ROP (4 WEEKS) 298 231 152 93 64 WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF SETUP COSTS AND CARRYING COSTS ON EOQ? MENTION IN 1 LINE SETUP COSTS AND CARRYING COSTS have Inverse Relationship with EOQ as SETUP COSTS AND CARRYING COSTS increase EOQ would decrease EOQ USING EXISTING METHOD (USING 2010 SALES DATA AND DATA GIVEN IN EXHIBIT 2) EOQ USING EXISTING METHOD (USING 2012 SALES DATA AND DATA GIVEN IN EXHIBIT 2) EOQ USING RECOMMENDED COSTS AND 2012 SALES DATA
-
Upload
humna-amna -
Category
Documents
-
view
6 -
download
1
description
k
Transcript of Print of Opm
Sheet1THREE JAYS CORPORATIONCASE DATA ANALYSIS
Group Number:__________________________________Group Name:
COMPARISON OF OLD AND NEW EOQ (WITH UPDATED COSTS)TABLE 1:EOQ USING EXISTING METHOD (USING 2010 SALES DATA AND DATA GIVEN IN EXHIBIT 2)
PRODUCT (12 OZ)3JSMARRANKERRYDOMAAA
* 2010 Annual demand/52SALES/WK5845291712S=SETUP COST63.763.763.763.763.7D=ANNUAL DEMAND (CASES)299323351492886625COST*0.09I=CARRYING COST9%2.74682.41742.61091.647cost/ ANNUAL DEMANDC=FULL COST/CASE28.340.01307066380.0180026810.03274266370.0421122(d*s)/ic*1/2EOQ (OLD)38728782090114910713/52*ADROP (3 WEEKS)173135865136
TABLE 2:EOQ USING EXISTING METHOD (USING 2012 SALES DATA AND DATA GIVEN IN EXHIBIT 2)
PRODUCT (12 OZ)3JSMARRANKERRYDOMAAA
* 2012 Annual demand/52SALES/WK7458382316SAMES=SETUP COST63.763.763.763.763.7EX 5D=ANNUAL DEMAND (CASES)3869300619701211832UNIT COST*0.0.9I=CARRYING COST9%2.752.422.611.65C=FULL COST/CASE28.340.010150.014650.023960.031632(d*s)/ic*1/2EOQ (OLD)44037062662157114263/52*ADROP (3 WEEKS)2231731147048(NEW-OLD)/OLD% INCREASE IN SALES29.2728.7432.0436.6833.12*(2012-2010 Eoq/2010)*101% INCREASE IN EOQ13.7028.7427.3836.6833.12
TABLE 2:EOQ USING RECOMMENDED COSTS AND 2012 SALES DATA PRODUCT (12 OZ)3JSMARRANKERRYDOMAAA * 2012 Annual demand/52SALES/WK7458382316Exclude cleaningS=SETUP COST67.5237.2737.2737.2737.27D=ANNUAL DEMAND (CASES)3869300619701211832I=CARRYING COST14%0.230.230.230.23C=FULL COST/CASE30.027.9724.3124.4623.77EOQ (OLD)352187162127107ROP (3 WEEKS)2231731147048% INCREASE IN SALES29%29%32%37%33%% INCREASE IN EOQ-43.00%-43.00%-42.00%-41.00%-42.00%ROP (4 WEEKS)2982311529364
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF SETUP COSTS AND CARRYING COSTS ON EOQ? MENTION IN 1 LINESETUP COSTS AND CARRYING COSTS have Inverse Relationship with EOQ as SETUP COSTS AND CARRYING COSTS increase EOQ would decrease
Sheet2
Sheet3
