You are on page 1of 7

Chapter 4: Inventory Management

Case Study: Supply Base


Consolidation
Yang Mulligan, Marish Gnanam, Sagnik Saha, and Robert Tarantino

Mountain Tent Company: Overview


MOUNTAIN TENT COMPANY

Currently buying
primary tent component
part from three different
suppliers
Compare current policy
against single-sourcing
from least expensive
supplier
Considerations:
Annual operating cost
Supply chain risks
Conclusion: singlesourcing saves money
but increases risk of

Mountain Tent Company: Current Policy

Annual Operating Costs of Independent


EOQ Policy with Three Suppliers

Supplier A

Supplier B

Supplier C

Total

Order Quantity per year


(D)

144,000

86,400

12,000

800

800

800

Shipping cost per order

200

60

120

Total Ordering Cost (S)

1000

860

920

Holding Cost (H) (per


unit per year)

30

30

30

$92,951.6

$66,770.1

$25,737.1

$185,458
.80

Fixed Ordering Cost

Minimum Cost
G*(Q ) =

Mountain Tent Company: Consolidation Policy

Annual Operating Costs of Single-Source


Policy

Supplier A

Supplier B

Supplier C

Total

Order Quantity per


year (D)

242,400

Fixed Ordering Cost

800

800

800

Shipping cost per order

200

60

120

Total Ordering Cost (S)

1000

860

920

Holding Cost (H) (per


unit per year)

30

30

30

$111,838.5

$111,838.
50

Minimum Cost
G*(Q ) =

Mountain Tent Company: Comparison

Annual Operating Costs: Comparison

Mountain Tent Company: Summary


Sole
Suppli
er

Supplie
rB
Supplie
rA

Supplie
rC

MTC

Current policy:
Higher costs
Lower risk of disruption
Requires more planning

VS.

MTC

Single-source policy:
Lower costs
Higher risk of disruption
Requires less planning
Contract terms
Location

Recommendations
Recommended for consolidation:
Major product of Mountain tent may be tents for
trekkers and tourists
This is a lean product with stable forecast and
seasonal trend
Low profit margin product so low operating cost is
important
invitation to edit

You might also like