SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 6
Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it”

Case Study                                        Don’t Bother Me, I can’t Cope

Submission Date                                   3-Nov-2009

Class                                             EPGP– 09-10

Subject                                           SOM


Instructor                                        Prof. N. Ravichandran
                                                  Prof. Rohit Kapoor


Submitted by
                                                  Rajendra Inani




                                                  Table of contents


Summary of Analysis and Results...................................................................................................2
Line A – Existing Production 315 Units / Day................................................................................4
Line A –Desired Production 420 Units/ Day...................................................................................5
Line B –Existing Production 140 Units/ Day..................................................................................6
Line B –Desired Production 210 Units/ Day...................................................................................6




                                                          Page 1 of 6
Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it”


                           Summary of Analysis and Results

On analysis of the given case, as described in subsequent sections following is the
recommendations.
Line A: Solution 1 is suitable, if this order has to be continued for more than 91 working
days.

# Units     Per Unit       Per Day        Regular     # of     Regular Over    Wages /      Contribution
Produced    Contribution   Contribution   wages       worker   hours   Time    Day +        / Day /
/ Day       (Rs)           (Rs)           (Rs)        s                Hours   OverTime     Worker
420         30             12600          18          9        8       0       1296         1256
(Desired)
420         30             12600          18          7        8       2       1428         1596
(Desired)
315 (Old)   30             9450           18          7        8       0       1008         1206


Solution 1: This recommendation requires hiring two additional resources, which involves Rs.
12000 training cost and per day wages is Rs. 1296.

Solution 2: This solution has continuing with 7 workers with 2 hours of overtime each day. The
differential wage per day including overtime is Rs. 132 in this case. (12000 / 132 = 90.90)

Line B: Solution 1 is suitable

# Units  Per Unit     Per Day             Regular # of         Regular Over    Wages /      Contribution
Produced Contribution Contribution        wages   worker       hours   Time    Day + OT     / Day /
/ Day    (Rs)         (Rs)                (Rs)    s                    Hours   +Rejection   Worker
                                                                               Expenses
210         30             6300           18          3        8       1       529.2        1923.6
(Desired)
210         30             6300           18          4        8       0       576          1431
(Desired)
140 (Old)   30             4200           18          2        8       0       288          1956

Solution 1: This recommendation requires hiring one additional resource, which involves Rs.
6000 training cost. In this case, the Efficiency of operation is maintained at 100%, but involved
overtime for 1 worker for 1 hour. (Actually making 16 extra unit consuming 36 minutes on 3rd
workbench), considering wages of Overtime and 1% rejection due to fatigue.



                                               Page 2 of 6
Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it”
Solution 2: This recommendation requires hiring two additional resource, which involves Rs.
12000 training cost. But wages exceeds to Rs. 576, more than solution 1.




                                        Page 3 of 6
Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it”
                Line A – Existing Production 315 Units / Day
                      Activity           Activity Time (Sec)   Immediate Predecessor
                  1                   30                       None
                  2                   50                       None
                  3                   40                       1
                  4                   50                       1
                  5                   20                       2
                  6                   10                       3
                  7                   10                       4,5
                  8                   20                       2
                  9                   10                       6
                  10                  40                       9
                  11                  20                       7
                  12                  30                       7
                  13                  50                       9
                  14                  50                       10
                  15                  10                       11
                  16                  40                       8,12
                  Total Lead Time     480

Cycle Time for 315 Units / Day = 420 Mins / 315 Units = 1.33 Minutes/ Unit = 80 Seconds / Unit
Nos of Work Station required = Lead Time x Prod Units / Available Time = 6 Work Stations

Presently, Mr. Sane is using 7 workstations against the needed 6 work Stations as following.

            W/S    Activities      Time (Seconds)      Time (Minutes)      Idle Time (Minutes)
        1          1,3           70                   1.166667           0.163333
        2          2,5           70                   1.166667           0.163333
        3          4,8           70                   1.166667           0.163333
        4          6,9,13        70                   1.166667           0.163333
        5          7,10,11       70                   1.166667           0.163333
        6          14,15         60                   1                  0.33
        7          12,16         70                   1.166667           0.163333


        Available Time (Minutes) = 7 W/S x Cycle Time 1.33 Mins =                   9.31
        Idle time                                                                   1.31
        Efficiency % = 8 Mins / 9.31 Mins =                                         85.93

                                                Page 4 of 6
Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it”
                Line A –Desired Production 420 Units/ Day

Cycle Time for 420 Units / Day = 420 Mins / 420 Units = 1 Minutes/ Unit = 60 Seconds / Unit
Nos of Work Station required = Lead Time x Prod Units / Available Time = 8 Work Stations

                 W/S   Activities    Time (Seconds)       Maximum Production Capacity
                                                               (# of Units / day)
             1         2            50                   504
             2         1,5          50                   504
             3         3,8          60                   420
             4         4,6,7        70                   360
             5         9,13         60                   420
             6         10,11        60                   420
             7         14,15        60                   420
             8         12,16        70                   360


With the given nature of certain tasks, we cannot group them in a way that each Work Station can have
less or equal to 60 Seconds (Cycle Time) of tasks. Thus, Work Stations 4 and 8 would have Bottleneck
capacity of 360 Units / Day, which is less then desired 420 Units/ Day.

With Work Stations = 9, following organization would be suitable.

                 W/S   Activities    Time (Seconds)       Maximum Production Capacity
                                                               (# of Units / day)
             1         1            30                   504
             2         2            50                   504
             3         3,5          60                   420
             4         4,6          60                   360
             5         10           40                   420
             6         7,11,12      60                   420
             7         9,13         60                   420
             8         14,15        60                   360
             9         8,16         60

        Available Time (Minutes) = 9 W/S x 420 Mins each day                       3780
        Utilized time = Lead time 8 Mins x Units Producted 420 Units               3360
        Efficiency % = Utilized Time / Available Time                              88.89



                                              Page 5 of 6
Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it”
         Line B –Existing Production 140 Units/ Day
                              Activity            Activity Time (Sec)      Immediate Predecessor
                          a                     40                         None
                          b                     50                         None
                          c                     70                         a
                          d                     20                         a
                          e                     50                         a
                          f                     40                         b,c
                          g                     60                         e
                          h                     30                         d,f,g
                          Lead Time             360                        6 Minutes

                        W/S     Activities       Time (Seconds)          Maximum Production Capacity
                                                                              (# of Units / day)
                    1           a,b,c,d        180                      140
                    2           e,f,g,h        180                      140

               Available Time (Minutes) = 2 W/S x 420 Mins each day                              840
               Utilized time = Lead time 6 Mins x Units Producted 140 Units                      840
               Efficiency % = Utilized Time / Available Time                                     100.00

         Line B –Desired Production 210 Units/ Day
      Cycle Time for 210 Units / Day = 420 Mins / 210 Units = 2 Minutes/ Unit = 120 Seconds / Unit
      Nos of Work Station required = Lead Time x Prod Units / Available Time = 3 Work Stations

W/S    Activities       Time (Seconds)         Maximum Production             Production Capacity with 1 Hour Overtime
                                             Capacity (# of Units / day)
1     a,b, d        110                      229                            262 (Not used)
2     c,e           120                      210                            240 (Not used)
3     f,g,h         130                      194                            222 (Used for extra 16 Units only – 36 Minutes)

               Available Time (Minutes) = 3 W/S x 420 Mins each day                              1260
               Utilized time = Lead time 6 Mins x Units Producted 210 Units                      1260
               Efficiency % = Utilized Time / Available Time                                     100.00

                                      ************End of assignment *****************


                                                          Page 6 of 6

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Delwarca software remote support unit
Delwarca software  remote support unitDelwarca software  remote support unit
Delwarca software remote support unitSantosh Mishra
 
Boots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case Analysis
Boots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case AnalysisBoots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case Analysis
Boots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case AnalysisMeghana Muddapappu
 
Apex corporation case study
Apex corporation case studyApex corporation case study
Apex corporation case studyUtkarsh Shivam
 
Wal-Mart Stores’ Discount operations
Wal-Mart Stores’ Discount operationsWal-Mart Stores’ Discount operations
Wal-Mart Stores’ Discount operationsAJAL A J
 
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case studyHubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case studyRonak Shah
 
The New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case StudyThe New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case StudyTANUSHREE BOSE
 
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case Analysis
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case AnalysisHarrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case Analysis
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case Analysismbartugs
 
Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9
Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9
Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9Karan Jaidka
 
McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and Learning
McKinsey & Company:  Managing Knowledge and LearningMcKinsey & Company:  Managing Knowledge and Learning
McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and LearningDisha Ghoshal
 
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case Study
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case StudyToyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case Study
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case StudyIshan Parekh
 
Tweeter Electronics: Marketing Case Analysis
Tweeter Electronics: Marketing Case AnalysisTweeter Electronics: Marketing Case Analysis
Tweeter Electronics: Marketing Case AnalysisDipak Senapati
 
Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients
Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients
Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients Vijay Somu
 
Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)
Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)
Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)Aditya Jhunjhunuwala
 

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Delwarca software remote support unit
Delwarca software  remote support unitDelwarca software  remote support unit
Delwarca software remote support unit
 
Boots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case Analysis
Boots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case AnalysisBoots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case Analysis
Boots: Hair-Care Sales Promotion- Case Analysis
 
Nucor Case Anlaysis
Nucor Case AnlaysisNucor Case Anlaysis
Nucor Case Anlaysis
 
Apex corporation case study
Apex corporation case studyApex corporation case study
Apex corporation case study
 
Managing Cultural Differences
Managing Cultural DifferencesManaging Cultural Differences
Managing Cultural Differences
 
Wal-Mart Stores’ Discount operations
Wal-Mart Stores’ Discount operationsWal-Mart Stores’ Discount operations
Wal-Mart Stores’ Discount operations
 
Case study- Newell
Case study- NewellCase study- Newell
Case study- Newell
 
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case studyHubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
 
The New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case StudyThe New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case Study
 
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case Analysis
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case AnalysisHarrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case Analysis
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. Case Analysis
 
Cola wars between Cocacola and Pepsi
Cola wars between Cocacola and PepsiCola wars between Cocacola and Pepsi
Cola wars between Cocacola and Pepsi
 
Ncc case study
Ncc case studyNcc case study
Ncc case study
 
Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9
Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9
Mrs. fields cookies odc section c_group 9
 
Charles schwab
Charles schwabCharles schwab
Charles schwab
 
McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and Learning
McKinsey & Company:  Managing Knowledge and LearningMcKinsey & Company:  Managing Knowledge and Learning
McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and Learning
 
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case Study
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case StudyToyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case Study
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc - Case Study
 
Tweeter Electronics: Marketing Case Analysis
Tweeter Electronics: Marketing Case AnalysisTweeter Electronics: Marketing Case Analysis
Tweeter Electronics: Marketing Case Analysis
 
Dore Dore case study
Dore Dore case studyDore Dore case study
Dore Dore case study
 
Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients
Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients
Dell Computers (A) : Field Service for Corporate Clients
 
Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)
Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)
Wal-Mart Stores in 2003 (HBS Case 9-704-430)
 

Ähnlich wie Som case study - dont bother me i cant cope

Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...
Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...
Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...Md. Shamim Ahmed
 
Worksheet for budgeting 2010
Worksheet for budgeting 2010Worksheet for budgeting 2010
Worksheet for budgeting 2010Dick Lam
 
Au Service Vsm AU Avg Service Vsm
Au Service Vsm AU Avg Service VsmAu Service Vsm AU Avg Service Vsm
Au Service Vsm AU Avg Service VsmJacob Zollinger
 
Assignment 3 group 3
Assignment 3 group 3Assignment 3 group 3
Assignment 3 group 3amanany
 
'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014
'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014
'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014ColomboCampsCommunity
 
Design improvements and costing analysis
Design improvements and costing analysisDesign improvements and costing analysis
Design improvements and costing analysisASHISH MENKUDALE
 
แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...
แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...
แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...Nithimar Or
 
GE4230 Micromirror Project 2
GE4230 Micromirror Project 2GE4230 Micromirror Project 2
GE4230 Micromirror Project 2Jon Zickermann
 
MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)
MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)
MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)LI HE
 
Software metrics
Software metricsSoftware metrics
Software metricsjoehoms
 
Contoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas Manufaktur
Contoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas ManufakturContoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas Manufaktur
Contoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas ManufakturMahros Darsin
 
Group assigment statistic group3
Group assigment statistic group3Group assigment statistic group3
Group assigment statistic group3Narith Por
 
Industrial Engineering Training
Industrial Engineering TrainingIndustrial Engineering Training
Industrial Engineering Trainingbabu947412
 
NCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 Activities
NCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 ActivitiesNCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 Activities
NCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 ActivitiesFuture Managers
 
Qip squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)
Qip  squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)Qip  squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)
Qip squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)priyadarshanams
 
W240 pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1
W240   pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1W240   pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1
W240 pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1confidencial
 
ICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad Cleveland
ICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad ClevelandICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad Cleveland
ICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad ClevelandICMI
 

Ähnlich wie Som case study - dont bother me i cant cope (20)

Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...
Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...
Cost accounting (Hypothetical problems of labor costing and solution of these...
 
Worksheet for budgeting 2010
Worksheet for budgeting 2010Worksheet for budgeting 2010
Worksheet for budgeting 2010
 
Au Service Vsm AU Avg Service Vsm
Au Service Vsm AU Avg Service VsmAu Service Vsm AU Avg Service Vsm
Au Service Vsm AU Avg Service Vsm
 
Assignment 3 group 3
Assignment 3 group 3Assignment 3 group 3
Assignment 3 group 3
 
'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014
'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014
'Scrum Mythbusters': Ilan Goldstein @ Colombo Agile Conference 2014
 
Design improvements and costing analysis
Design improvements and costing analysisDesign improvements and costing analysis
Design improvements and costing analysis
 
Log11 uitwerking opdrachten
Log11 uitwerking opdrachtenLog11 uitwerking opdrachten
Log11 uitwerking opdrachten
 
Lean software process
Lean software processLean software process
Lean software process
 
Learning Curve Sample Problem
Learning Curve Sample ProblemLearning Curve Sample Problem
Learning Curve Sample Problem
 
แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...
แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...
แนวทางการดำเนินงานกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพทางการแพทย์ โดย ดร.ทพ.วิรัตน์ เอื้องพูล...
 
GE4230 Micromirror Project 2
GE4230 Micromirror Project 2GE4230 Micromirror Project 2
GE4230 Micromirror Project 2
 
MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)
MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)
MMAE557 Consulting Project-Li He(A20358122),Xingye Dai(A20365915)
 
Software metrics
Software metricsSoftware metrics
Software metrics
 
Contoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas Manufaktur
Contoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas ManufakturContoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas Manufaktur
Contoh Soal Perhitungan Kapasitas Manufaktur
 
Group assigment statistic group3
Group assigment statistic group3Group assigment statistic group3
Group assigment statistic group3
 
Industrial Engineering Training
Industrial Engineering TrainingIndustrial Engineering Training
Industrial Engineering Training
 
NCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 Activities
NCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 ActivitiesNCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 Activities
NCV 2 Mathematical Literacy Hands-On Training Module 1 Activities
 
Qip squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)
Qip  squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)Qip  squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)
Qip squeegee wrinkle scrap on 2017 may (3)
 
W240 pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1
W240   pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1W240   pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1
W240 pf700 vc sugar centrifuge lab1
 
ICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad Cleveland
ICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad ClevelandICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad Cleveland
ICMI Call Center Ops 101 - ICMI @ Dreamforce 2010 Handout - Brad Cleveland
 

Mehr von Rajendra Inani

Dcv iimiccdvsallocfinal
Dcv   iimiccdvsallocfinalDcv   iimiccdvsallocfinal
Dcv iimiccdvsallocfinalRajendra Inani
 
Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1
Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1
Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1Rajendra Inani
 
Merrimack tractors analysis - final
Merrimack tractors   analysis - finalMerrimack tractors   analysis - final
Merrimack tractors analysis - finalRajendra Inani
 
Maharashtra state road development corporation
Maharashtra state road development corporationMaharashtra state road development corporation
Maharashtra state road development corporationRajendra Inani
 
Group 8 epgp - meeting management - communication presentation
Group 8   epgp - meeting management - communication presentationGroup 8   epgp - meeting management - communication presentation
Group 8 epgp - meeting management - communication presentationRajendra Inani
 
Fra coca - cola case study
Fra   coca - cola case studyFra   coca - cola case study
Fra coca - cola case studyRajendra Inani
 
Explore indore rajendra inani
Explore indore   rajendra inaniExplore indore   rajendra inani
Explore indore rajendra inaniRajendra Inani
 
Epgp bm brand_extensions_ppt
Epgp bm brand_extensions_pptEpgp bm brand_extensions_ppt
Epgp bm brand_extensions_pptRajendra Inani
 
Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09
Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09
Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp term v mos group assignment april 2010
Epgp term v mos  group assignment april 2010Epgp term v mos  group assignment april 2010
Epgp term v mos group assignment april 2010Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10Rajendra Inani
 
Epgp 09 10 -fra term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inani
Epgp 09 10 -fra  term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inaniEpgp 09 10 -fra  term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inani
Epgp 09 10 -fra term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inaniRajendra Inani
 
Epgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viii
Epgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viiiEpgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viii
Epgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viiiRajendra Inani
 

Mehr von Rajendra Inani (20)

Dcv iimiccdvsallocfinal
Dcv   iimiccdvsallocfinalDcv   iimiccdvsallocfinal
Dcv iimiccdvsallocfinal
 
Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1
Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1
Trans share inc - case study submission 12 sep 09 v1.1
 
Msrdc case study
Msrdc case studyMsrdc case study
Msrdc case study
 
Merrimack tractors analysis - final
Merrimack tractors   analysis - finalMerrimack tractors   analysis - final
Merrimack tractors analysis - final
 
Maharashtra state road development corporation
Maharashtra state road development corporationMaharashtra state road development corporation
Maharashtra state road development corporation
 
Group 8 epgp - meeting management - communication presentation
Group 8   epgp - meeting management - communication presentationGroup 8   epgp - meeting management - communication presentation
Group 8 epgp - meeting management - communication presentation
 
Fra coca - cola case study
Fra   coca - cola case studyFra   coca - cola case study
Fra coca - cola case study
 
Explore indore rajendra inani
Explore indore   rajendra inaniExplore indore   rajendra inani
Explore indore rajendra inani
 
Epgp bm brand_extensions_ppt
Epgp bm brand_extensions_pptEpgp bm brand_extensions_ppt
Epgp bm brand_extensions_ppt
 
Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09
Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09
Epgp(one year) 2009-10_fsr_group4_03.12.09
 
Epgp term v mos group assignment april 2010
Epgp term v mos  group assignment april 2010Epgp term v mos  group assignment april 2010
Epgp term v mos group assignment april 2010
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-dell assignment_#1_19jan10
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_18jan10
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_mos_ assignment_#1_5jan10
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cost management_group assignement_case i_25nov09
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#4_19jan10
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#3_14jan10
 
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10
Epgp (one year) 2009-10_cf_ assignment_#2_6jan10
 
Epgp 09 10 -fra term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inani
Epgp 09 10 -fra  term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inaniEpgp 09 10 -fra  term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inani
Epgp 09 10 -fra term 1 - end term submission - rajendra inani
 
Epgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viii
Epgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viiiEpgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viii
Epgp 09 10 -cfl project - term 1 - group viii
 

Som case study - dont bother me i cant cope

  • 1. Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it” Case Study Don’t Bother Me, I can’t Cope Submission Date 3-Nov-2009 Class EPGP– 09-10 Subject SOM Instructor Prof. N. Ravichandran Prof. Rohit Kapoor Submitted by Rajendra Inani Table of contents Summary of Analysis and Results...................................................................................................2 Line A – Existing Production 315 Units / Day................................................................................4 Line A –Desired Production 420 Units/ Day...................................................................................5 Line B –Existing Production 140 Units/ Day..................................................................................6 Line B –Desired Production 210 Units/ Day...................................................................................6 Page 1 of 6
  • 2. Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it” Summary of Analysis and Results On analysis of the given case, as described in subsequent sections following is the recommendations. Line A: Solution 1 is suitable, if this order has to be continued for more than 91 working days. # Units Per Unit Per Day Regular # of Regular Over Wages / Contribution Produced Contribution Contribution wages worker hours Time Day + / Day / / Day (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) s Hours OverTime Worker 420 30 12600 18 9 8 0 1296 1256 (Desired) 420 30 12600 18 7 8 2 1428 1596 (Desired) 315 (Old) 30 9450 18 7 8 0 1008 1206 Solution 1: This recommendation requires hiring two additional resources, which involves Rs. 12000 training cost and per day wages is Rs. 1296. Solution 2: This solution has continuing with 7 workers with 2 hours of overtime each day. The differential wage per day including overtime is Rs. 132 in this case. (12000 / 132 = 90.90) Line B: Solution 1 is suitable # Units Per Unit Per Day Regular # of Regular Over Wages / Contribution Produced Contribution Contribution wages worker hours Time Day + OT / Day / / Day (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) s Hours +Rejection Worker Expenses 210 30 6300 18 3 8 1 529.2 1923.6 (Desired) 210 30 6300 18 4 8 0 576 1431 (Desired) 140 (Old) 30 4200 18 2 8 0 288 1956 Solution 1: This recommendation requires hiring one additional resource, which involves Rs. 6000 training cost. In this case, the Efficiency of operation is maintained at 100%, but involved overtime for 1 worker for 1 hour. (Actually making 16 extra unit consuming 36 minutes on 3rd workbench), considering wages of Overtime and 1% rejection due to fatigue. Page 2 of 6
  • 3. Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it” Solution 2: This recommendation requires hiring two additional resource, which involves Rs. 12000 training cost. But wages exceeds to Rs. 576, more than solution 1. Page 3 of 6
  • 4. Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it” Line A – Existing Production 315 Units / Day Activity Activity Time (Sec) Immediate Predecessor 1 30 None 2 50 None 3 40 1 4 50 1 5 20 2 6 10 3 7 10 4,5 8 20 2 9 10 6 10 40 9 11 20 7 12 30 7 13 50 9 14 50 10 15 10 11 16 40 8,12 Total Lead Time 480 Cycle Time for 315 Units / Day = 420 Mins / 315 Units = 1.33 Minutes/ Unit = 80 Seconds / Unit Nos of Work Station required = Lead Time x Prod Units / Available Time = 6 Work Stations Presently, Mr. Sane is using 7 workstations against the needed 6 work Stations as following. W/S Activities Time (Seconds) Time (Minutes) Idle Time (Minutes) 1 1,3 70 1.166667 0.163333 2 2,5 70 1.166667 0.163333 3 4,8 70 1.166667 0.163333 4 6,9,13 70 1.166667 0.163333 5 7,10,11 70 1.166667 0.163333 6 14,15 60 1 0.33 7 12,16 70 1.166667 0.163333 Available Time (Minutes) = 7 W/S x Cycle Time 1.33 Mins = 9.31 Idle time 1.31 Efficiency % = 8 Mins / 9.31 Mins = 85.93 Page 4 of 6
  • 5. Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it” Line A –Desired Production 420 Units/ Day Cycle Time for 420 Units / Day = 420 Mins / 420 Units = 1 Minutes/ Unit = 60 Seconds / Unit Nos of Work Station required = Lead Time x Prod Units / Available Time = 8 Work Stations W/S Activities Time (Seconds) Maximum Production Capacity (# of Units / day) 1 2 50 504 2 1,5 50 504 3 3,8 60 420 4 4,6,7 70 360 5 9,13 60 420 6 10,11 60 420 7 14,15 60 420 8 12,16 70 360 With the given nature of certain tasks, we cannot group them in a way that each Work Station can have less or equal to 60 Seconds (Cycle Time) of tasks. Thus, Work Stations 4 and 8 would have Bottleneck capacity of 360 Units / Day, which is less then desired 420 Units/ Day. With Work Stations = 9, following organization would be suitable. W/S Activities Time (Seconds) Maximum Production Capacity (# of Units / day) 1 1 30 504 2 2 50 504 3 3,5 60 420 4 4,6 60 360 5 10 40 420 6 7,11,12 60 420 7 9,13 60 420 8 14,15 60 360 9 8,16 60 Available Time (Minutes) = 9 W/S x 420 Mins each day 3780 Utilized time = Lead time 8 Mins x Units Producted 420 Units 3360 Efficiency % = Utilized Time / Available Time 88.89 Page 5 of 6
  • 6. Case Study – “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope it” Line B –Existing Production 140 Units/ Day Activity Activity Time (Sec) Immediate Predecessor a 40 None b 50 None c 70 a d 20 a e 50 a f 40 b,c g 60 e h 30 d,f,g Lead Time 360 6 Minutes W/S Activities Time (Seconds) Maximum Production Capacity (# of Units / day) 1 a,b,c,d 180 140 2 e,f,g,h 180 140 Available Time (Minutes) = 2 W/S x 420 Mins each day 840 Utilized time = Lead time 6 Mins x Units Producted 140 Units 840 Efficiency % = Utilized Time / Available Time 100.00 Line B –Desired Production 210 Units/ Day Cycle Time for 210 Units / Day = 420 Mins / 210 Units = 2 Minutes/ Unit = 120 Seconds / Unit Nos of Work Station required = Lead Time x Prod Units / Available Time = 3 Work Stations W/S Activities Time (Seconds) Maximum Production Production Capacity with 1 Hour Overtime Capacity (# of Units / day) 1 a,b, d 110 229 262 (Not used) 2 c,e 120 210 240 (Not used) 3 f,g,h 130 194 222 (Used for extra 16 Units only – 36 Minutes) Available Time (Minutes) = 3 W/S x 420 Mins each day 1260 Utilized time = Lead time 6 Mins x Units Producted 210 Units 1260 Efficiency % = Utilized Time / Available Time 100.00 ************End of assignment ***************** Page 6 of 6