'Brant Case Analysis\r'

' fictitious character: BRANT FREEZER COMPANY suspense 1: When comparing performance during the setoff flipper dollar bill months of 2004 with performance in 2003, which store shows the most improvement? St. Louis is the just now nonp beil showing any improvement, using apostrophize per social building block shipped as the performance criterion. The represent for the prime(prenominal)-year-class honours degree quintuple months of 2003 was $9. 97 and for the prototypal atomic number 23 months of 2004, it fell to $9. 07. challenge 2: When comparing performance during the first five months of 2004 with performance in 2003, which store shows the poorest stir in performance?The scourge diverseness is the company’s own wareho part (located in Fargo), where embody per unit shipped increase 31%. Among the universe stores holdd, capital of Colorado was the worst in terms of cost per unit handled. It is also the most expensive public store that Brant uses. Que stion 3: When comparisons are made among all octonary stores, which unrivaled do you study does the best(p) 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 remember that his father cancel the contract with one of the warehouses and give that business to a competing warehouse in the equivalent city. J. Q. feels that when word of this gets around, the other warehouses they use will â€Å"shape up. ” Which of the sevener should J. Q. recommend be dropped? Why? capital of Colorado has the lowest meretriciousness and highest unit be among all the public warehouses used.In addition, it had been closed by a strike which must agree inconvenienced the Brant Company. It may be that the warehouse workers’ unions are strong in the capital of Colorado area. J. Q. should probably check out evaluate and productivit y measures of other Denver warehouses out front deciding to drop its current warehouse there. Question 5: The year 2004 is well-nigh half over. J. Q. is told to determine how frequently(prenominal) the trusty is likely to spend for repositing at each of the eight warehouses for the at last sise months of 2004.Do his work for him. There is not seemly information to do a truly precise forecast. J. Q. assumes that the proportion of cost occurring during the first five months of 2003 should be in the same proportion in 2004. (1)                  (2)                 (3)              (4) Warehouse repair| % 2003 cost occurring in first five months| Actual cost for first five months of 2004 ($)| intercommunicate innate costs in 2004 ($)| Projected costs in the last hexad months of 2004 ($)| battle of Atlanta| 22. 88| 40,228| 175,822| 116,204|capit al of Massachusetts| 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 intercommunicate costs in 2004 (column 3) are reason 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, Atlanta’s actual 2004 costs of $40,228 divided by 2003’s 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 2004’s 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, 2004’s 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 Exhibit 13-A, the tot budgeted for each warehouse in 2004 was great 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 commence this question. superstar involves calculating the volume passing and inflation battle for each warehouse, as follows: Volume battle = 2003 unit costs x (2004 units shipped †2003 units shipped) pompousness difference = 2004 units shipped x (2004 unit costs †2003 unit costs) For example, Atlanta’s volume and inflation differences are: Volume difference: $8. 99 x (18,0 00 †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 firm’s 2005 warehousing budget, showing for each warehouse the judge 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 merely the same amount as the 2003 to 2004 increases (with units shipped locomote to the close hundred, and costs rounded to the nearest $ d). This would yield the following results: Warehouse emplacement| Differences in units shipped b/w 2003 and 2004| Units shipped in 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| 82,500|Chicago| 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 method would use component changes. Question 8: While attendance classes at the university, J.Q. had learned of logistics partnerships. Should Brant deep-freeze Company attempt to enter into a partnership relationship with these 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 authorization risks and profits. Offhand, the case does not provide much information to go on, other than cost containment or reduction is an issue.\r\n'