Moong Kawasaki Aggregate Planning 5 Years Planning Horizon Annual re-planning cycle.

Estimate based on communication with customers (anticipated orders) lanning Horizon 3 Month re-planning cycle. Based on forecast models Master Production Schedule (MPS) Schedule prepared based on anticipated o rders from customers taking into consideration the lead time. Levelled product ion planning (building inventory ahead of demand). So, master schedule had to ju st take care of change of model. Otherwise it daily produced around 200 motor cy cles- of any model. Material Requirement Planning (MRP) Material purchased in bulk and stocked f or few weeks. Based on MPS, the order schedule prepared. Material require ment for next 2-3 months handed over to the suppliers with release schedules. Ma terial ordered for immediate use. Frequency of delivery at the plant was twice a week or more. Capacity Planning This was based on both anticipated order (from communica tion with customers) as well as forecasted orders (not based on any communicatio n but past experience). Rough cut planning exploded into work centre capacity re quirements twice a year. Based on historical standards. As there are few standard products, aggregate planning is easily converted into capacity planning by record of hours for parts in fabrication shop and record of hours for models in assembly shop. Shop Floor Control As a lot of scheduling was done based on anticipations a nd forecasts before actual receipt of orders, main aim of control was prioritizi ng and keeping track of possible completion dates. As they were following K anban and maintaining low inventory, the main aim of control was to keep track o f whether raw materials are received as per scheduled from vendors. Q. 1) Compare and Contrast the various Operations Management functions at Moong Inc and Kawasaki. 1 Year P

Q. 2) Explaining the reasons for the difference in the MPC of the two firms. 1. Product: Moong Inc had a very large variety of end products and so there MRP and Capacity planning were very difficult. Hence, they had repetitive check on capacity plan ning. Also, as they had large number of parts to be maintained and each of them not in bulk quantities, they had to stock them for weeks. They can t order their vendors t o provide 50 SKUs in small numbers daily whereas Kawasaki could ask its vendor t o give 1 SKU daily in large quantity. This was basic difference in their MRP, or dering and inventory policy.

2. Customer: Moong Inc operated with few customers of large size who themselves didn t have a ver y well forecasted demand. They could just give some guidelines and possible orde r scenario in next few months. Also, they are more demanding in terms of deliver y promise. This affected their aggregate planning and MPS significantly. They ha d to plan on very rough estimates and had to keep on producing based on anticipa ted orders and prioritize the received orders. Kawasaki was dealing with large number of small customers. So, their buying beha vior could be well defined using past trends and statistics. This made their agg regate planning easier and MPS quite stable. Based on these two important factors, they had different processes in place and different scheduling, controlling, ordering and inventory systems.