b) Although the rules between the two weeks were the same for communicating with-in the levels, our communication got better at the same time making our order process flow work more smoothly. The benefit of communication with-in the levels is that the cases of beer would move more smoothly and the shipped orders would get tracked more accurately. These two together would carry over to better communication down the supply chain information flow.
c) From the Factory perspective, we found it was more efficient to communicate from the retailer to the factory using not only auditory communication but visual communication as well. We had the planners from the retail side for the length of each round hold the number of customer orders to assure that everyone along the communication line received the same information. This was a huge benefit because visual communication was a huge improvement and help in a large noisy room.
2. Assuming all rules the same, there are 4 key changes I would make to the structure of the network. I would first remove complexity and repetition within the system, second organize a structure so that there is rhyme and reason to the flow, thirdly I would organize not only the facility location but as well team table placement within the simulation and finally I would change how I perceive and adjust to market demand.
Remove Complexity and Repetition: In the first simulation we had three logistics operators within the factory, this was highly inefficient and not only increased chance of errors occurring but increased confusion as noise build quickly filling the air with static noise. A more efficient solution would be to combine the jobs, from both sides of the table, of these three workers into one single (doable) job, on each side of the level consist of only two people.
Organize Structure: Once we reduced the number of logistics and planners within the system it is even more vital to the system that each person does their job quickly, efficiently, and right the first time. This is where having an organized structure for each team member that is participating to know not only why they are essential to the team but how they can be successful at that job.
Facility Location Placement: There are two parts to the Facility Location Placement, the first is that our group was highly unsure if we could move the order of the factory, warehouse, OEM to retailer chain or not. If possible to change obviously we would reduce as necessary but if not, then obviously not. As for the second part I would, as Kellso mentioned in class, moved the tables into a square or even reduce the tables down to 1-2, flip the papers over and draw a more effective diagram.
Perceiving and adjusting to Market Demand: In the first week my group got a hard lesson in the bull-whip effect, as I felt like an ant sized voice to myself screaming that we are headed into a trap! When increasing order size due to market demand I would adjust in a more reasonable manner , by an increase of a few orders. But not double my order size from last weak because someone said market demand will double soon.
3.a) When faced with a competitor who offers better lead times, the only obvious solution to the situation is to at least match if not improve upon their new lead time. This could be done in several ways, first by removing levels within the system, for instance shipping from the factory to the retailer would take much less time than shipping from the factory to the warehouse to the OEM to the retailer reducing lead time in half from 12 weeks to 6. The second way to reduce lead time is to increase the rate of transportation. Instead of maybe shipping the beer in trucks you could pay the extra money to fly the beer to the retailer (or even pipeline the beer how cool would that be!)
b) When faced with a supplier that offered lower prices again the only obvious solution would be to at least match or beat the competitor’s price. This could be done by increasing inventory holding level efficiency within the system. Avoiding stock-outs and reducing inventory holding costs will amount in savings that could be passed on to the customer. Other than working with your suppliers, this is the only way I can see reducing price within the simulation.
4. To me there were 5 learning objectives that were most prevalent within the beer game and they were lessons in communication, bull-whip effect, inventory levels, lead time and system complexity.
Communication: This game was chaos; we were thrown in a bull pin with 16 other students, given vague instructions, and told to sell beer. In the beginning everyone was talking over one another and it wasn’t until everyone in the team collectively figured out, we don’t have enough time to be inefficient and still finish on time. This is when the communication started to build and channels started to form.
Bull-Whip Effect: Even though we were warned that there was a bullwhip effect, no one necessarily expected us to be off by a magnitude of 20 on cases of beer (Chip) count. This showed our team just how susceptible real markets are to this effect.
Inventory Levels, Lead Time & System Complexity: In order for our beer company to stay in the competitive market we needed to minimize inventory levels, eliminate stock outs, decrease lead time, and reduce system complexity. Overall this will reduce cost, time it takes to get product to customer, and system errors collectively lowering costs and increasing system efficiency.
Cutsnak3
beergame.docx
0
