Manajemen Ekonomi dan Kerekayasaan

MS3201

Oleh :

Nama : Della Sinthya Gita Ananda

NIM : 13716034

Program Studi Teknik Material

Fakultas Teknik Mesin dan Dirgantara

 Institut Teknologi Bandung

2018

2. HISTORICAL DEMAND

Month Demand

Jan 12

Feb 11

Mar 15

Apr 12

May 16

Jun 15

a. Weighted moving average forecast

Weights are .60, .30, .10

WMAFJuly = .60 * 15 +.3 *16 + .10 * 12 = 15

b. 3-period moving average forecast

 MAFJuly = (15 + 16 + 12)/3 = 43/3 = 14.33

c. Exponential smoothing forecast α = .20, ESFJune = 13

ESFJuly = .20 * 15 + (1-.20) * 13 = 13.4

d. Simple linear regression

Month x y xy x2

Jan 1 12 12 1

Feb 2 11 22 4

Mar 3 15 45 9

Apr 4 12 48 16

May 5 16 80 25

Jun 6 15 90 36

21 81 297 91

e. Regression forecast x = 7

Y7 = 10.8 + .7714 * 7 = 16.2

4. ZEUS COMPUTER CHIPS

Deseasonalize the data

Average
of the
Actual same
Period Demand quarter Seasonal Deseasonalized
Year Quarter (x) (y) each year Factor Demand (Yd) x2 x * Yd

2007 I 1 4800 3833.3 1.23 3902.4 1 3902.4

II 2 3500 2766.7 0.89 3932.6 4 7865.2

III 3 4300 3500.0 1.12 3839.3 9 11517.9

IV 4 3000 2366.7 0.76 3947.4 16 15789.6

2008 I 5 3500 1.23 2845.5 25 14227.5

II 6 2700 0.89 3033.7 36 18202.2

III 7 3500 1.12 3125.0 49 21875

IV 8 2400 0.76 3157.9 64 25263.2

2009 I 9 3200 1.23 2601.6 81 23414.4

II 10 2100 0.89 2359.6 100 23596

III 11 2700 1.12 2410.7 121 26517.7

IV 12 1700 0.76 2236.8 144 26841.6

78 37400 12.00 37392.5 650 219013

Calculate the seasonal factors and then determine the regression trend line
Calculate the forecast for 2010

Y from
Regression Seasonal Forecast (Y *
Year Quarter Period Line Factor seasonal factor)

2010 I 13 2023.4 1.23 2488.78

II 14 1855.3 0.89 1651.22

III 15 1687.2 1.12 1889.66

IV 16 1519.1 0.76 1154.52

5. BI-MONTHLY SALES DATA

a. Plot the data

 b. Fit simple linear regression model to the data

Month x y xy x2

January–February 1 109 109 1

March–April 2 104 208 4

May–June 3 150 450 9

July–August 4 170 680 16

September–October 5 120 600 25

November–December 6 100 600 36

January–February 7 115 805 49

March–April 8 112 896 64

May–June 9 159 1,431 81

July–August 10 182 1,820 100

September–October 11 126 1,386 121

November–December 12 106 1,272 144

78 1,553 10,257 650

c. Determine seasonal factors using the regression model

Seasonal Average
Factor Seasonal
Month y Y (yi/Yi) Factor

January–February 109 123 0.89 0.89

March–April 104 124 0.84 0.85

May–June 150 125 1.2 1.2

July–August 170 127 1.34 1.36

September–October 120 128 0.94 0.94

November–December 100 129 0.78 0.78

January–February 115 130 0.88

March–April 112 131 0.85

 May–June 159 132 1.2

July–August 182 133 1.37

September–October 126 135 0.93

November–December 106 136 0.78

d. Prepare the seasonalized forecast for next year

Seasonal Seasonalized
Month x Y Factor Forecast

January–February 13 2,218 0.89 1,974

March–April 14 2,282 0.85 1,940

May–June 15 2,346 1.2 2,815

July–August 16 2,410 1.36 3,278

September–October 17 2,474 0.94 2,326

November–December 18 2,538 0.78 1,980

6. MAVERICK

a.

Month Demand Forecast Error Absolute

Error

1 20

2 18

3 21

4 25 20 5 5

5 24 21 3 3

6 27 23 4 4

7 22 25 -3 3

8 30 24 6 6

9 23 26 -3 3

10 20 25 -5 5

11 29 24 5 5

12 22 24 -2 2

1 24

SUM 10 36

MEAN 1.11 4

b.
Month Demand Forecast Error Absolute

Error

1 20

2 18

3 21

4 25 20 5 5

5 24 20 4 4

6 27 23 4 4

7 22 25 -3 3

8 30 25 5 5

9 23 26 -3 3

10 20 25 -5 5

11 29 27 2 2

12 22 23 -1 1

1 23

SUM 8 32

MEAN 0.9 3.6

 c. The three month weighted moving average performed better than the three
month moving average on both measures of forecast error. Sometimes
there can be contradictions in these two measures , but in this case the
weighted moving average is the best on both measures.

Bias MAD

3-month moving
1.11 4
avg.

Weighted 3-mo.
0.9 3.6
MA

7. MAVERICK (CONTINUED)

a. .
Month Demand Forecast Error Absolute Forecast Error Absolute Forecast Error Absolute

0.2 Error 0.5 Error 0.8 Error

1 20

2 18

3 21

4 25 20 5 5 20 5 5 20 5 5

5 24 21 3 3 22.5 1.5 1.5 24 0 0

6 27 21.6 5.4 5.4 23.3 3.7 3.7 24 3 3

7 22 22.7 -0.7 0.7 25.2 -3.2 3.2 26.4 -4.4 4.4

8 30 22.6 7.4 7.4 23.6 6.4 6.4 22.9 7.1 7.1

9 23 24.1 -1.1 1.1 26.8 -3.8 3.8 28.6 -5.6 5.6

10 20 23.9 -3.9 3.9 24.9 -4.9 4.9 24.1 -4.1 4.1

11 29 23.1 5.9 5.9 22.5 6.5 6.5 20.8 8.2 8.2

12 22 24.3 -2.3 2.3 25.8 -3.8 3.8 27.4 -5.4 5.4

1 23.8 23.9 23.1

SUM 18.7 34.7 7.4 38.8 3.8 42.8

MEAN 2.08 3.86 0.82 4.31 0.42 4.76

b. The MAD values are very much the same for all three smoothing constants. The
bias, however, decreases as the Alfa increases. When compared to the weighted
average results from problem 6, the MAD values are all about the same. The bias for
the weighted moving average is near the values for the higher smoothing constants.
That gives some credibility to the argument of weighting the current information
more heavily than old information. However, the lowest MAD was created with the
lowest smoothing constant, even though the bias was the highest with that forecast.

11. THANSKAVEL

a. Before the initiatives the average demand per week was 200 units and the standard
deviation is 22 units for Eggsbar. This means the distribution over the
manufacturing lead time had a mean of 1200 (6*200), a variance of 2904 ((222)*6)

and a standard deviation of 53.89 ( ). After the investments, the mean was

800 (4*200), the variance 1936 (4*484) and the standard deviation 44 ( ).

b. With the company policy of holding 2.5 standard deviations of safety stock and a
standard deviation of 53.89, the company was carrying 135 (53.89 * 2.5) units of
safety stock. This amounts to $74.07 (10000/135) per unit. After the investments,
the amount of safety stock inventory was reduced to 110 (44*2.5) units or $8148
(74.07*110). The savings, therefore, was $1852 (10000 – 8148).

12. CUMBERLAND

a. Yearly distribution of each product:

Average = 1,200/ year

   12  10 2  34.64

b. Monthly distribution of all products together:

Average = 500/ month

  5  10 2  22.36

c. Yearly distribution of all products together:

Average = 6,000/year

  5  12  10 2  77.46

14. MACRONALD’S

a.

Forecast Forecast

Family Product Of units $/unit Of sales

Burgers Regular 1200 $1.00 $1,200.00

Super 2700 $1.50 $4,050.00

Super-Duper 2100 $1.80 $3,780.00

Chicken Regular 1800 $2.50 $4,500.00

Cajun 2700 $2.75 $7,425.00

 Hoagies Italian 2250 $3.50 $7,875.00

French 1650 $3.00 $4,950.00

American 1350 $3.25 $4,387.50

Pizza Cheese 750 $1.75 $1,312.50

Pepperoni 1200 $2.25 $2,700.00

$42,180.00

Manager’s Rolled Up Forecast Rolled Down Forecast

Family Forecast

Burgers $10,000.00 $9,030.00 $13,000.00

Chicken $15,000.00 $11,925.00 $19,500.00

Hoagies $20,000.00 $17,212.50 $26,000.00

Pizza $5,000.00 $4,012.50 $6,500.00

$50,000.00 $42,180.00 $65,000.00

Rolled Down Forecast

Family Product $Sales units

Burgers Regular $1,727.57 1727

Super $5,830.56 3887

Super-Duper $5,441.86 3023

Chicken Regular $7,358.49 2943

Cajun $12,141.51 4414

Hoagies Italian $11,895.42 3398

French $7,477.12 2492

American $6,627.45 2039

Pizza Cheese $2,126.17 1215

Pepperoni $4,373.83 1944

$65,000.00 26.077