need a response to 3 post

DF

Case Study: The Lear Seating Plant

Question 2: What are the risks associated with direct shipping? What contingency elements are required to overcome these risks?

Direct shipping can lead to the potential for mishandling of material but also lead to potential transportation delays. Lear has an exceptional history but the fact that there is no finished product warehouse does not allow for them to build finish product to deal with the busiest times of the year and does not allow them to manage delivery schedules as efficient as it could be. There are obvious traffic patter and accident concerns. The naming of alternate routes should be well established, and a consistent delivery schedule should be well established and well in advance. There is a time consideration when dealing with a production facility. Any kind of delay in the production process will create more delays further downstream. I would want to build a buffer into the production/delivery sequence. The direct shipment method can also put massive pressure on quality assurance. If there is any quality issue you could lose an entire production line and you take the potential of losing complete delivery hours/days. In the end I would mitigate most of this with a warehousing operation for completed/ready to ship items. Organizing the out-ship area would help to organize total deliverables and avoid delays on the backend.

 

Question 3: Can direct shipping be achieved without collaboration with customers and/or suppliers? What does it take to make this happen?

Direct shipping to the customer could be pulled off with some potential of risk. Suppliers however need to understand the direct ship methodology. There is risk that if suppliers can perform the direct ship to the end customer that they could become a form of competition to the main line. Collaboration within the supply chain ensures there is a steady flow of material and a steady programming of end product to the consumer. The scheduling process should involve all stakeholders so that improvements can be made through the entire supply chain. When stakeholders are invested in the process there can be improved communications of needs and these needs can be met. In addition, there are way to help mitigate supply issues and the reassurance that problems will be handled.

 

Case: Supply Chain Management at Bose Corporation

Question 15: Why has Bose developed its supplier performance measurement system?

Bose has developed this system to establish consistency and to ensure it can mitigate issues as soon as they arise. The fact that they do not let their suppliers slip, allows them to maintain a good reliable source of supply. It helps to hold their suppliers accountable to the overall scope of their deliveries and their products. This is a best practice to ensure they maintain qualified, quality vendors. The endgame for Bose is meeting the consumers want for quality. If the product that is received is not to standards it is ultimately hard to put out a quality product.

Question 16: Do you think the performance measurement systems at Bose are computerized or manual? Why?

In my opinion this is most likely mainly computerized. This allows for speed and accuracy. Computerized systems allow for the freeing up of workforce to take on other tasks that computer may not be able to perform. There is the potential to have some human manual processes in this system as the eyes on performance measurements give a human interaction to validate any computer information. It may also help to fix computer modeling when it comes to specific qualities that Bose is looking for. Overall computers speed up processes and make for a more cost-effective end state. This will increase the profitability of the company but also improves items for consumers and helps suppliers to ensure they get the right items to Bose and on time.