Indian Institute of Management,

Sambalpur
Masters in Business
Administration
(MBA: 2023-2025 Batch) Term: III (Jan-
March 2024)

Operations Management II
Team
Submission Deadline: 28-02-2024 Weightage: 4%
Assignment

MBA 2023-2025

Team No- 39

Littlefield Simulation
Report-Part 1

Name of Group Members

(In Ascending ID)

(2023MBA174
1 Ashrut Sharma
)

(2023MBA177
2 Debarati Dutta
)

(2023MBA180
3 Prajakta Dhas
)

(2023MBA209
4 Priya Arya
)

(2023MBA233
5 Vagisha Srivastava
)
Decisions, Strategy and Analysis:

● We started our simulation on day 51.

● As the things were nice and lead time was below 1, we decide to change the contract type at
contract 2.
● On day 57, we noticed the lead time was increasing more than 2 so we shifted the contract
type back to contract 1.
● On day , we noticed a huge queue on station 1

● We wanted to have Queue in Customer Orders because Already We were not able to
fulfill previous orders and we can deliver contract 1 in 7 days. And as we were
delivering in 2.65 days so we wanted to focus on reducing queue from Station 1.
● This Queue also helped us to understand actual utilization/ capacity of Station 1
machine so that we can go ahead and decide how much more capacity we need to add
to move from Contract 1 to Contract 2 & 3.
● We prioritized step 2 in station 2.

● We waited for increase in cash balance and bought a machine on station 1 on day .

● The queue on station 1 reduced slowly.

● We reduced the order quantity and the reorder point so that we don’t lose a lot of cash a t
once.

● On day , as we saw that the cash balance was sufficient we purchased a machine on station 3.

● Our lead time started to decrease.

● As there was no queue in station 1 and a queue on station 3; we changed the priority of station
2 at station 3.

● As we saw our lead time reduced and no to very less queue, we changed the contract to
contract 2 and then to contract 3.

● On day , we increased our order quantity to.

● For the whole time we tried to change lot sizes based on queue and lead time.

● When the queue was high on station 1, we kept the lot size at 1*60.

● We experimented with lot size.

1
 ● At last we changed our lot size to 2*30 as we realized it was most optimum for lead time and
queue.

● We again changed our lot size to 1*60 when we started to have a queue at station1.

● On day , we sold 1 machine from station 1 and station 3 each.

We did not prioritize FIFO as we did not find it very significant. The lead time was important for us.

● This overall strategy helped us to get consistent revenue of 1000, kept the lead time below
0.5, and utilization below 80%.
●

● On Day 218, we decided to sell two machines at station 1, and one machine from station 3. As
the job counts were not increasing extremely, we did not feel its need and decided to increase
our cash balance before the simulation ended.
● At last we had two machines at each station. We did not want to risk revenue and increase in
queue and lead time in case job counts increased.

What went wrong?

● .

What went right?

● We focused on alternating between steps 2 and 4 and did not prioritize FIFO.