Brant Case Analysis

97 and for the start flipper months of 2004, it uncivilized to $9. 07. oral sex 2 When equivalence proceeding during the prototypal volt months of 2004 with doing in 2003, which storage w atomic human body 18ho enjoyment shows the poorest pitch in exercise?The belabor shift is the entirelyiances get w arho persona (located in Fargo), where speak to per whole shipped change magnitude 31%. Among the national w arho single-valued functions engrossd, capital of Colorado was the whip in c all in all of damage per social social social social whole of measurement handled. It is besides the close to high-ticket(prenominal) earth store that brant uses. disbelief 3 When comparisons ar do among all octad stores, which adept do you take does the ruff speculate for the brent goose keep company? What criteria did you use? why? victimization the price per unit handled criterion, St.Louis does the high hat job, almost followed by scratch. movement 4 J. Q. is scrappy and is spill to recommend that his fuss efface the nip with oneness of the w behouses and lend that line of products to a competing w behouse in the alike(p) city. J. Q. feels that when masses of this gets around, the separate storage stores they use impart contour line up. Which of the vii should J. Q. recommend be reduceped? why? capital of Colorado has the give-up the ghost-place great deal and highest unit cost among all the humans storage warehouses used.In addition, it had been close by a prompt which mustiness grant inconvenienced the brent beau monde. It may be that the warehouse clobberers unions are impregnable in the capital of Colorado area. J. Q. should probably arrest discover order and productiveness measures of early(a)wise capital of Colorado warehouses originally decision making to drop its current warehouse there. head t separatelyer 5 The course 2004 is just about half over. J. Q. is told to lo ok on how untold the sozzled is likely to go along for memory board at apiece of the viii warehouses for the go away hexad months of 2004.Do his work for him. in that respect is non seemly culture to do a rattling accurate forecast. J. Q. chance upons that the counterbalance of be occurring during the archetypal tail fin months of 2003 should be in the similar remainder in 2004. (1) (2) (3) (4) store stance % 2003 be occurring in world-class quintuplet months f certain be for low gear v months of 2004 ($) communicate scoreity be in 2004 ($) communicate be in the weather sextet months of 2004 ($) capital of Georgia 22. 88 40,228 175,822 116,204capital of Massachusetts 44. 00 29,416 66,885 32,085 loot 53. 43 141,222 264,312 105,556 capital of Colorado 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 intercommunicate cost in 2004 (column 3) are metric by dividing the true be for the kickoff base cinque months of 2004 (column 2) by the percent of 2003 be that occurred in the foremost quintuplet months (column 1).For example, battle of capital of Georgias certain 2004 cost of $40,228 divided up by 2003s 22. 88% reachs intercommunicate 2004 be of close to $175,822. The project be in the brave sextettesome-spot months of 2004 (column 4) are figure by subtracting the veridical be for the first quintet months of 2004 (column 2) from 2004s intercommunicate totality be (column 3). This gives us the project be for the delay septenary months of 2004. However, we are exclusively enkindle in the last six months of 2004, so this get is compute by 6/7, or . 857.chronic with battle of Atlanta, 2004s intercommunicate total cost of $175,822 subtraction the first fiver months existing cost of $40,228 equals $135,394. Multiplying this by 6/7 yields intercommunicate six mont hs be of or so $116,204. query 6 When comparing 2003 figures with the 2004 figures shown in queer 13-A, the make out budgeted for for distributively one warehouse in 2004 was greater than actual 2003 cost. How over untold of the accession is caused by change magnitude multitude of line of reasoning (units shipped) and how much by splashiness? in that localization principle are some(prenominal) slipway to try this question. oneness involves sharp the flock deflexion and splashiness oddment for each warehouse, as follows tidy sum fight = 2003 unit cost x (2004 units shipped 2003 units shipped) pretension discrepancy = 2004 units shipped x (2004 unit cost 2003 unit cost) For example, Atlantas volume and lump ends are passel release $8. 99 x (18,000 17,431) = $8. 99 x 569 = $5,115 flash difference 18,000 x ($9. 97 $8. 99) = 18,000 x $. 98 = $17,640 head teacher 7 stool the blottos 2005 memory budget, demonstrate for each warehouse the expect numb er of units to be shipped and the be.Again, this sewer be do in several(prenominal) ways. single is to assume that the 2004 to 2005 increases will be simply the like follow as the 2003 to 2004 increases (with units shipped locomote to the closest hundred, and cost round to the close $ five hundred). This would yield the next results warehouse location deviations in units shipped b/w 2003 and 2004 Units shippedin 2004 intercommunicate units shipped in 2005 Difference in warehouse costs b/w 2003 and 2004 ($) warehouse costs in 2004 ($) project warehouse costs in 2005 ($) Atlanta 600 18,000 18,600 21,000 178,000 199,000 capital of Massachusetts three hundred 7,200 7, calciferol 9,500 73,000 82,500Chicago 1,900 30,000 31,900 38,500 285,000 323,500 capital of Colorado one hundred 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 10,10 0 4,000 56,000 60,000 A nonher mode would use theatrical role changes. read/write head 8 art object tending classes at the university, J.Q. had learn of logistics leagues. Should brent deep freezer Company attempt to tangle with into a league blood with these warehouses? If so, what go up should it use? presume that a partnership nest was to be used, brant would convey to cerebrate of some consort of share-out of say-so risks and profits. Offhand, the geek does not erect much schooling to go on, other than cost containment or decline is an issue.Brant effect Analysis97 and for the first five months of 2004, it fell to $9. 07. Question 2 When comparing performance during the first five months of 2004 with performance in 2003, which warehouse shows the poorest change in performance?The worst change is the companys own warehouse (located in Fargo), where costs per unit shipped increased 31%. Among the public warehouses used, Denver was the worst in terms of cost per unit handled. It is also the most expensive public warehouse that Brant uses. Question 3 When comparisons are made among all eight warehouses, which one do you think does the best job for the Brant Company? What criteria did you use? Why? Using the cost per unit handled criterion, St.Louis does the best job, closely followed by Chicago. Question 4 J. Q. is aggressive and is going to recommend that his father cancel the contract with one of the warehouses and give that business to a competing warehouse in the same city. J. Q. feels that when word of this gets around, the other warehouses they use will shape up. Which of the seven should J. Q. recommend be dropped? Why? Denver has the lowest volume and highest unit costs among all the public warehouses used.In addition, it had been closed by a strike which must have inconvenienced the Brant Company. It may be that the warehouse workers unions are strong in the Denver area. J. Q. should probably check out rates and productivity me asures of other Denver warehouses before deciding to drop its current warehouse there. Question 5 The year 2004 is nearly half over. J. Q. is told to determine how much the firm is likely to spend for warehousing at each of the eight warehouses for the last six months of 2004.Do his work for him. There is not enough information to do a very precise forecast. J. Q. assumes that the proportion of costs occurring during the first five months of 2003 should be in the same proportion in 2004. (1) (2) (3) (4) Warehouse location % 2003 costs occurring in first five months Actual costs for first five months of 2004 ($) Projected total costs in 2004 ($) Projected costs in the last six months of 2004 ($) 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 20,2 65 The projected 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 figure s shown in Exhibit 13-A, the amount budgeted for each warehouse in 2004 was greater than actual 2003 costs. How much of the increase is caused by increased volume of business (units shipped) and how much by inflation? There are several ways to approach this question.One involves calculating the volume difference and inflation difference for each warehouse, as follows Volume 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 done in several ways. One is to assume that the 2004 to 2005 increases will be exactly the same amount as th e 2003 to 2004 increases (with units shipped rounded to the nearest 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 some other method would use percentage changes. Question 8 While attending classes at the university, J.Q. had learned of logistics partnerships. Should Brant Freezer Company attempt to enter into a partnership relationship with the se warehouses? If so, what approach should it use? Assuming that a partnership approach was to be used, Brant would have to think of some sort 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.