« An implementation of the AIM and DRIVE method Table of Contents Executive Summary Based on industry benchmarks, Bob's Farm Stores is spending more than it ...» Document abstract
$9.95
31 word format
Language : english
logistics
presentation
date published
22/11/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 20 times
SummaryBased on industry benchmarks, Bob’s Farm Stores is spending more than it needs to on its purchasing process. We believe that they could save a total of $1,065,462 by implementing three strategies, namely 1) implementing a mid-tier ERP system, 2) consolidating the number of annual purchase orders through the use of blanket purchase orders, and 3) standardizing their vendor authorization process and increasing the number of authorized vendors.
Implementing a mid-tier ERP system
Our company deals with 650 different suppliers, having each hundreds to thousands of SKU’s. The current manual ordering process is overwhelmed by the complexity of the supplier base which has resulted in severely inaccurate forecasts, redundant process and data entry, and increased lead time. With the implementation of a fairly off-the-shelf, mid-tier ERP system we believe that we can 1) Increase forecast accuracy, 2) Eliminate redundant processes, 3) Decrease the amount of labor required to generate and process each PO, and 4) Decrease the lead time by 4 days. Total net expected savings are $624,462.
PO consolidation through the use of BPO’s
By using blanket PO’s we believe that we can conservatively achieve at least a 0.5% reduction in annual materials spending per year. The risks associated with this strategy include exposing ourselves to price fluctuations (market price could drop during life of contract) and increased dependency on our forecasted demand (we may overbuy). Total net expected savings are $240,000.
Standardization of vendor authorization process
Standardization of the vendor authorization process and increasing the number of authorized vendors will decrease the negotiation and order processing time which will decrease the lead time. We expect to reduce the lead time of non-authorized vendor orders (NAVO’s) by 25% resulting in a net expected savings of $240,000.
Implementing a mid-tier ERP system
Our company deals with 650 different suppliers, having each hundreds to thousands of SKU’s. The current manual ordering process is overwhelmed by the complexity of the supplier base which has resulted in severely inaccurate forecasts, redundant process and data entry, and increased lead time. With the implementation of a fairly off-the-shelf, mid-tier ERP system we believe that we can 1) Increase forecast accuracy, 2) Eliminate redundant processes, 3) Decrease the amount of labor required to generate and process each PO, and 4) Decrease the lead time by 4 days. Total net expected savings are $624,462.
PO consolidation through the use of BPO’s
By using blanket PO’s we believe that we can conservatively achieve at least a 0.5% reduction in annual materials spending per year. The risks associated with this strategy include exposing ourselves to price fluctuations (market price could drop during life of contract) and increased dependency on our forecasted demand (we may overbuy). Total net expected savings are $240,000.
Standardization of vendor authorization process
Standardization of the vendor authorization process and increasing the number of authorized vendors will decrease the negotiation and order processing time which will decrease the lead time. We expect to reduce the lead time of non-authorized vendor orders (NAVO’s) by 25% resulting in a net expected savings of $240,000.
Table of Contents- Executive summary
- Background
- Bob’s farm stores
- Description of commodity/service to analyze
- Why this particular project
- Agreeing on a primary cost
- Identifying critical costs in the supply chain
- Process maps
- Secondary and tertiary costs
- Measuring secondary and tertiary costs
- Defining the key cost drivers and developing strategic options
- Cost drivers and functions
- Po rate
- Navo rate
- Lead time
- Reducing, changing or eliminating activities that cause costs: the strategy
- Constraints
- Strategic option: implement mid-tier erp system
- Strategic option: po consolidation through blanket po’s
- Strategic option: standardize authorization process and increase # of authorized vendor base
- Implementing
- Mid-tier erp
- Po consolidation through blanket po’s
- Standardize authorization process and increase number of authorized vendor base
« and altruism is no longer a drive for philanthropy it is stressed that this implementation of resources, or and Kramer (2002) mention, the aim for convergence ...» Document abstract
$9.95
36 word format
Language : english
business strategy
presentation
date published
27/07/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 34 times
SummaryCorporate philanthropy has been common for the last 50 years. After the mid 1990’s companies started to align their philanthropy programs with the business interests. This results in a convergence of social and economic objectives: strategic corporate philanthropy. But what is the return on the contributions companies make in philanthropy? This thesis investigates the return on corporate philanthropy for companies, and how this return can be maximized. The literature on corporate philanthropy is discussed. In chapter 5 this theory is compared with the philanthropy program of Shell. It can be concluded that the philanthropy program of Shell corresponds to strategic corporate philanthropy as discussed in the theory. Return on philanthropy can be maximized when consumer loyalty, reputation and employee commitment are enhanced. Besides, cooperation with other organizations, international character and duration of the program influence the return on corporate philanthropy.
Table of Contents- What is corporate philanthropy?
- Introduction
- Definition
- Philanthropic contributions
- Philanthropy and Strategy
- Strategic corporate philanthropy and marketing
- Philanthropy as investment
- What is the return on corporate philanthropy?
- Introduction
- Intangible and tangible returns
- How to maximize the return on corporate philanthropy
- Theoretical framework
- Shell and corporate philanthropy
- Introduction
- Research Method
- Shell and corporate philanthropy
- Do theory and practice match?
« the senders and receivers measured using a patent-based method (see also the microfoundation for the particular spillover function that drive the results of ...» Document abstract
$9.95
260 word format
Language : english
economics
theses
date published
27/07/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 33 times
SummaryFor several reasons, knowledge cannot be treated like any other commodity. One of these reasons is the nonrivalrous nature of knowledge, which means that one person’s use of certain knowledge does not diminish another person’s use of the same knowledge (at the same time). This important property of knowledge is used in several early models of R&D-based growth1,
e.g. Romer (1990), Grossman and Helpman (1991), and Aghion and Howitt (1992). In these models this property leads to a scale effect, which boils down to larger economies growing faster than smaller economies (with the measure of size suitably defined (cf. Backus, Kehoe and Kehoe 1992)).
In an influential paper, Jones (1995a) pointed out that growth with scale effects, as predicted
by the early models of R&D-based growth, is inconsistent with empirical facts. Over the last
40 years the OECD countries have experienced a tremendous rise in the number of people involved in R&D activities whereas the growth rates of per-capita income have shown no corresponding increase. This is a puzzling observation and has led to new models of R&D- based growth that did not incorporate scale effects e.g. Jones (1995b), Smulders and van de Klundert (1995), Young (1998), Li (2000), and Peretto and Smulders (2002).
Generally, however, these models suffer from the ‘Solow critique’; Solow (1994) criticizes
(some) growth theorists because they “… often just insert favorable assumptions in an unearned way; and then when they put in their thumb and pull out the vary plum they have inserted, there is a tendency to think that something has been proved.” (p. 53). In the models
of growth without scale effects the prediction of a scale effects in growth of the early models
of R&D-based growth is removed by limiting the extent of the spillovers associated with knowledge’s nonrivalrousness, but often the much-needed (micro-)economic foundation for
the crucial assumption in these models regarding the extent of knowledge spillovers - and the
mechanism limiting their extent - is lacking. Assuming that knowledge is rivalrous (not nonrivalrous) to limit spillovers and dispose of the scale effects prediction of the early models
of R&D-based growth simply does not shed much light on the issue of growth without scale effects however.
provide background information regarding, amongst others, work discussed in the main text, data used in figures, etc.
e.g. Romer (1990), Grossman and Helpman (1991), and Aghion and Howitt (1992). In these models this property leads to a scale effect, which boils down to larger economies growing faster than smaller economies (with the measure of size suitably defined (cf. Backus, Kehoe and Kehoe 1992)).
In an influential paper, Jones (1995a) pointed out that growth with scale effects, as predicted
by the early models of R&D-based growth, is inconsistent with empirical facts. Over the last
40 years the OECD countries have experienced a tremendous rise in the number of people involved in R&D activities whereas the growth rates of per-capita income have shown no corresponding increase. This is a puzzling observation and has led to new models of R&D- based growth that did not incorporate scale effects e.g. Jones (1995b), Smulders and van de Klundert (1995), Young (1998), Li (2000), and Peretto and Smulders (2002).
Generally, however, these models suffer from the ‘Solow critique’; Solow (1994) criticizes
(some) growth theorists because they “… often just insert favorable assumptions in an unearned way; and then when they put in their thumb and pull out the vary plum they have inserted, there is a tendency to think that something has been proved.” (p. 53). In the models
of growth without scale effects the prediction of a scale effects in growth of the early models
of R&D-based growth is removed by limiting the extent of the spillovers associated with knowledge’s nonrivalrousness, but often the much-needed (micro-)economic foundation for
the crucial assumption in these models regarding the extent of knowledge spillovers - and the
mechanism limiting their extent - is lacking. Assuming that knowledge is rivalrous (not nonrivalrous) to limit spillovers and dispose of the scale effects prediction of the early models
of R&D-based growth simply does not shed much light on the issue of growth without scale effects however.
provide background information regarding, amongst others, work discussed in the main text, data used in figures, etc.
Table of Contents- Grouth and scale effects
- Knowledge, R&D and spilovers, at the firm
- Grouth without scale effects and structural
- Measurement issues in the study of R&D-based
- The product life cycle, demand
1
knowledge network
Sort by
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :