This RU-vid Channel is a library of video tutorials, concept reviews, and classroom demonstrations for a number of business courses including Financial Accounting, Managerial Accounting, Operations Management, Supply Chain Management, and more created by Dr. Mark T. Morpurgo.
Thanks for the explanation, very clear! My question is how would we calculate more than one center of gravity at once (e.g., adding two Distribution Centers to the network)?
Hi Armando, That's a good question, but the centre of gravity model is not intended to be used for more than one centre of gravity (which would be like having two suns in the solar system!). If you're looking to add two distribution centres to a network, presumably each is intended to support a specific geographic region so I think you would want to look at the entire network and decide which ones to group together (such as northern region and southern region) and then use the model to find the centre of gravity for those regions separately. Each DC could conceivably act as a backup for the other region incase something happens to one (say it blows up or something), but it won't be in an optical location. Mark
also if you group the second tasks into two stations each equaling a total time of 23 minutes meaning idle time of 2 mins wouldnt that equal more efficiency? Or is that not the correct answer to the sum. Is there supposed to be a fixed method to grouping different tasks? Because I as I see it if everyones groups them differently they will have different total times taken and there overall different answers for the effiency percentage
Hi! Why didnt you just group sections G, AND E together because they = 12 minutes and wouldnt that have made the overall problem simpler and more efficient?
Based on the textbooks I have used, cycle time is "the maximum time allowed at each workstation to complete its set of tasks on a unit." (Stevenson & Hojati, 2011; Heizer, Render, Munson, & Griffin, 2020). This problem gives us tasks which have yet to be organized into workstations and the cycle time represents the maximum amount of time that a unit can spend in a workstation in a given cycle. The total sum of all the tasks (process if you like) to complete a product is the task duration time and we divide the duration time by the cycle time to determine the optimal number of workstations. So in this case, if the task duration time (in seconds for an entire hour) is 3600 seconds to produce a unit through all the tasks and the cycle time is a maximum of 20 seconds per unit, that means we need to try to organize the tasks into 3 workstations to allow the unit to be produced. It could be that different textbooks and sources may interpret the cycle time slightly differently. Here was have a WORKSTATION cycle time of 20 seconds per unit and a total (ideal) PRODUCTION cycle time of 60 seconds (which is what I think you're trying to get at). However, sometimes the theoretical number of workstations cannot be achieved because of the precedence relationships and times of the tasks, so you might need 4 workstations. In this case the actual PRODUCTION cycle time would be greater than the WORKSTATION cycle time. I guess it depends on the source you're referring to.
Hi, I'm a lawyer looking for an online education in Accounting (equivalent to what I would get in University). Could you recommend a program that is cheap but thorough and comprehensive? Thanks in advance.
Hi there. Funny you mention that. I don't know of any of I was actually thinking about putting together a course for lawyers! I know trust accounting would be a key element but would have to consult with some lawyers that I know to determine what appropriate content should be. Also, by "cheap" what do you mean? What do you think a reasonable price point is for a program that would cover what you're looking for? You are welcome to email me direct at mark@strategema.ca
@@The_Business_Doctor To be honest, I haven't seen an online accounting course that isn't associated with a University. And all of those programs are very, very expensive. So, a quarter of the price point would be very attractive.
Hi there. Absolutely you can -- it involves working backwards using roots. For example, if you have two components in series, each with a reliably of 95%, the reliability of the system is 0.95 x 0.95 = 0.9025 So if you know the system reliability, and there are 2 components, you would take the square root of 0.9025 and get 0.95! If there are 3 components in series and the reliability of the system is 0.8574, then you would take the third root of 0.8574, or if you have a calculator that is not capable of anything higher than a square root, you would take 0.8574^(1/3) (i.e. to the exponent of 1/3) and you'll get 0.95. Proof: 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 = 0.8574. For 4 components each with a 95% reliability: System reliability = 0..95^4 = 0.8145 (using the yx button on a calculator) If you know the system, then each component is 0.8145^(1/4)( also using the yx button) For parallel and more complicated systems, this can be more difficult and requires a lot of careful working backwards. Hope this helps. Mark
Hi urgently need help with the worker aspect of the table. Months July- August Demand 400 500 550 400 800 700 respectively Holding cost =$8/widgets/month Subcontracting cost =$80/widgets Regular labour cost= $12/widgets Hiring =$40/worker Firing=$80/worker Beginning workforce level (June)= 8workers Labour hrs/widgets =4hrs/widgets Workday/month=20days Hrs worked per day=8hrs/day Initial inventory level=150 widgets Could you work out the amount of workers needed for each month including Hiring and firing showing the calculations for each month?
Sorry, but I don't have the time to solve extra problems and these requests are often from students asking for help with homework or assignment problems, which I don't provide.
thx god u are my hero I started my research about 1 month ago and I was stuck about how to calculate with this method now u solved my problem in 5.12 minute.
Hi Adrienne. The company would have to add 8 machines in year 1 to make up for the capacity shortage, then 1 more in years 2 through 5. Hope this helps. Mark
Good question. From the MAPE you can sort of really assess if the forecasting is “good” or bad per se. The it’s the average absolute percentage error which means that the forecast is “off” by the MAPE and that could mean over or under relative to the actual demand. It’s the size of the MAPE that’s important. For example if the MAPE is 5% then we can say the forecasts differ from actual demand by an average of 5% which is not very much in many cases since you would expect some differences. If, however, the MAPE is 15% that might not be acceptable because the higher the MAPE the less reliable the forecast is. Hope this helps.
@@The_Business_Doctor understand your point. One more thing to ask- how we can increase our projection accuracy, is there another technique or methods?
Hi sir, may i ask - how do we get the Crash Time Values (in column 2) ? Also must the Duration Unit be standardized to weeks? or can it be any other time unit (i.e. man-days)?
Hi there. The crash time values are provided, so there are no calculations required. You can use any unit you like: days, weeks, months, etc.. Hope this helps. Mark
Dont get how you get the 0.577 in chart like how does 0.0115 relate to that? Should've explained. Like why are you just taking a sample size of 5 when there is 12 total? Half assed explanation in this video get better.
Yes, you're right, that video isn't clear that the 0.577 comes from the A2 factor in a table. However, the formula does specify A2 and, presumably, students taking an OM course where a problem like this appears would be familiar with the formula and what A2 relates to. Still, I should have included a snip of the tables. As for the sample size, I believe you're confusing the number of samples (12) with the sample SIZE (5) and that's clarified at the beginning of the problem.
I presume you're referring to the averge production in Plan C. The solution table shows Production (Avg Demand), so that would be the avergae of all the demands given in the problem data. Add them all up and divide by 12 and you end up with 1,775.
Good question! This is because when the production starts, they have too many staff (to produce 1500 units). It's after the first period where there is a single round of layoffs that results in stable employment to meet the production of 1,350 for every period. Hope this helps. Mark
This is the ISBN for the current version of the textbook: 9780137319084, 0137319088 Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management (Canadian Edition) 4th Edition by Jay Heizer; Barry Render; Chuck Munson; Paul Griffin
Hi, thanks so much for the video! I am just conufsed with one thing for part a why isnt the input 400x12.50.... in some textbook they would multiple inputs together, sometimes input would just be number of workers and other just hours.. HOW do i know when to do what, pleaseee help
Hi Sara, Sorry for the late reply to this. In part A we want the single-factor productivity in tires per HOUR. If we wanted the single-factor productivity per LABOUR DOLLAR, we would then take 1000 tires per day and divide by (400 x $12.50) and end up with 0.20 tires per labour dollar. That's a different single-factor metric. In part B we DO multiply that to get the total labour cost of $5,000 which is added to the other costs for multi-factor productivity on per-dollar basis. The key is to know what you want to calculate: productivity per hour, per dollar, etc. Hope this helps. Mark
The Committee noted that amortised cost accounting, including interest revenue calculated using the effective interest method and credit losses calculated using the expected credit loss impairment model, is applied only to financial assets that are subsequently measured at amortised cost or fair value through other comprehensive income. In contrast, amortised cost accounting is not applied to financial assets that are subsequently measured at fair value through profit or loss.
It seems there is a small error in the calculations for November 30, 2021 in the amortization table. 40% of 629.206 should be 251.683, not 251.298. Am I missing something?
Sorry for the delay in responding. The Value in Use is based on the present value of the future cash flows and demonstrated starting at 5:00 in the video.
