Thursday, February 21, 2019
Brant Case Analysis
aspect BRANT FREEZER COMPANY irresolution 1 When comparing exploit during the set-backborn phoebe birdsome months of 2004 with carrying into action in 2003, which wargonho apply shows the most receipts? St. Louis is the only one showing any improvement, using cost per building block shipped as the performance criterion. The cost for the first five months of 2003 was $9. 97 and for the first five months of 2004, it fell to $9. 07. Question 2 When comparing performance during the first five months of 2004 with performance in 2003, which warehouse shows the poorest change in performance?The conquer change is the companys own warehouse (located in Fargo), where be per social unit shipped increased 31%. Among the public warehouses used, capital of Colorado was the worst in terms of cost per unit handled. It is also the most pricey public warehouse that Brant uses. Question 3 When comparisons are do among all eight warehouses, which one do you think does the best assembly l ine for the Brant Company? What criteria did you use? Why? Using the cost per unit handled criterion, St.Louis does the best job, closely followed by dinero. Question 4 J. Q. is aggressive and is loss to recommend that his father cancel the contract with one of the warehouses and give that business organisation to a competing warehouse in the same city. J. Q. feels that when word of this gets around, the other warehouses they use will shape up. Which of the seven should J. Q. recommend be dropped? Why? capital of Colorado has the lowest volume and highest unit costs among all the public warehouses used.In addition, it had been unopen by a strike which must have inconvenienced the Brant Company. It may be that the warehouse formers unions are strong in the Denver area. J. Q. should likely check out rates and productivity measures of other Denver warehouses in the beginning deciding to drop its current warehouse there. Question 5 The category 2004 is nearly half over. J. Q. i s told to determine how ofttimes the firm is likely to deteriorate for warehousing at from each one of the eight warehouses for the remnant cardinal months of 2004.Do his work for him. There is not enough breeding to do a precise precise forecast. J. Q. assumes that the proportion of costs occurring during the first five months of 2003 should be in the same proportion in 2004. (1) (2) (3) (4) Warehouse location % 2003 costs occurring in first five months Actual costs for first five months of 2004 ($) project total costs in 2004 ($) intercommunicate costs in the exit sextette months of 2004 ($) Atlanta 22. 88 40,228 175,822 116,204Boston 44. 00 29,416 66,885 32,085 Chicago 53. 43 141,222 264,312 105,556 Denver 35. 00 14,900 42,571 23,714 Fargo 54. 00 9,605 17,787 7,012 Los Angeles 72. 20 93,280 129,197 30,781 Portland 49. 30 42,616 86,442 37,559 St. Louis 44. 80 19,191 42,837 20,265 The communicate costs in 2004 (column 3) are calculated by dividing the actual costs for the first five months of 2004 (column 2) by the percent of 2003 costs that occurred in the first five months (column 1).For example, Atlantas actual 2004 costs of $40,228 divided by 2003s 22. 88% yields projected 2004 costs of approximately $175,822. The projected costs in the last six months of 2004 (column 4) are calculated by subtracting the actual costs for the first five months of 2004 (column 2) from 2004s projected total costs (column 3). This gives us the projected costs for the last seven months of 2004. However, we are only interested in the last six months of 2004, so this number is multiplied by 6/7, or . 857.Continuing with Atlanta, 2004s projected total costs of $175,822 minus the first five months actual costs of $40,228 equals $135,394. Multiplying this by 6/7 yields projected six months costs of approximately $116,204. Question 6 When comparing 2003 figures with the 2004 figures shown in border 13-A, the amount budgeted for each warehouse in 2004 was greater than a ctual 2003 costs. How much of the increase is caused by increased volume of business (units shipped) and how much by pompousness? There are several ways to approach this question.One involves conniving the volume difference and inflation difference for each warehouse, as follows great deal difference = 2003 unit costs x (2004 units shipped 2003 units shipped) Inflation difference = 2004 units shipped x (2004 unit costs 2003 unit costs) For example, Atlantas volume and inflation differences are Volume difference $8. 99 x (18,000 17,431) = $8. 99 x 569 = $5,115 Inflation difference 18,000 x ($9. 97 $8. 99) = 18,000 x $. 98 = $17,640 Question 7 Prepare the firms 2005 warehousing budget, showing for each warehouse the anticipated number of units to be shipped and the costs.Again, this can be through with(p) in several ways. One is to assume that the 2004 to 2005 increases will be on the button the same amount as the 2003 to 2004 increases (with units shipped travel to the near est hundred, and costs rounded to the nearest $500). This would yield the following results Warehouse location Differences in units shipped b/w 2003 and 2004 Units shippedin 2004 Projected units shipped in 2005 Difference in warehouse costs b/w 2003 and 2004 ($) Warehouse costs in 2004 ($) Projected warehouse costs in 2005 ($) Atlanta 600 18,000 18,600 21,000 178,000 199,000 Boston 300 7,200 7,500 9,500 73,000 82,500Chicago 1,900 30,000 31,900 38,500 285,000 323,500 Denver 100 3,100 3,200 3,000 31,000 34,000 Fargo 0 2,000 2,000 500 17,000 17,500 Los Angeles 500 17,000 17,500 24,000 176,000 200,000 Portland 700 9,000 9,700 12,000 85,000 97,000 St. Louis 2,100 8,000 10,100 4,000 56,000 60,000 Another mode would use percentage changes. Question 8 While attending classes at the university, J.Q. had learned of logistics alliances. Should Brant Freezer Company attempt to enter into a partnership relationship with these warehouses? If so, what approach should it use? Assuming that a partn ership approach was to be used, Brant would have to think of some carve up of sharing of potential risks and profits. Offhand, the case does not provide much information to go on, other than cost containment or reduction is an issue.