Here is all the information provided with the answers to Q 1 and 2. If someone could please help me with 3 and 4. There is no more information or references provided other than what is above.

3) This question will have you calculating 2 EOQ, ROP and Total Cost values and interpreting the results. For both EOQ and ROP values, give your final answer in full sock sets (ROUND UP to the next whole number). The specific questions to answer are based in parts a-c. Tips to solve the EOQ and ROP are given below in bullet points.

a) Calculate EOQ and ROP for FY2019 based on the FY2019 forecast value, using the forecast method you selected in Q2 (NOTE: This is not the value from Q2)

b) Calculate the EOQ and ROP based upon actual demand for FY2019

c) Using the responses from parts a & b, indicate what the implications are for inventory management costs in FY2019. In other words, compare the total costs for both EOQ values and analyze what it shows you.

See additional tips below:

Use a service level of 95% (z = 1.65) when calculating the ROP

Calculate average weekly demand ( ) by dividing the forecast by 50 weeks

For the variance in weekly demand, use the data provided in the table on page 2 of the case with the FY2019 forecast for all approaches.

Remember that there is a difference between variance and standard deviation and how you apply these values in the ROP formula

Annual Inventory management costs will include the following: Annual Holding Costs, Annual Ordering Costs, and Purchase Cost.

4) Currently, the company is purchasing parts not using an EOQ value. This purchase quantity is given in the case. Using their current order quantity, calculate the current inventory management costs based upon actual demand in FY2019. Compare this cost to the costs to that would have been achieved if the company had used its forecast for FY2019 to calculate EOQ (what you calculated in Question 3a). TIP: When calculating costs based upon the forecasted EOQ, use the actual demand as D in your total cost equation. This will ensure you find the true savings or increase that the company would have seen by using the EOQ value and realizing actual demand.

Overview of the Case Analysis We have discussed many concepts in SCM 301 related to planning, sourcing, making and delivering products and services. The purpose of this case analysis is to integrate the different elements of the course and to apply tools you have learned evaluate the supply chain performance. Consider yourself a consultant assigned to develop a supply chain management strategy for the company Throx. You are tasked with evaluating the company's recent performance and recommending changes (decisions) to improve supply chain management performance. The questions that you are required to answer are found in the Project Deliverables file in Canvas. Company Background Information Throx sells higher-end custom-design socks in three-sock sets (rather than two). The company operates from a small packaging and distribution facility in Richmond, CA from which it ships product to customers. Given the company's location and focus, 97% of sales are in California, primarily in the major urban areas of the San Francisco bay area, Los Angeles, Sacramento (and last but not least) San Diego. The company sells exclusively via online sales, at an average price of $15/three-sock set, plus shipping costs charged to the customer. The company currently orders its product from the Chinese sock manufacturer Zhejiang Datang Hosiery Group Co., Ltd in so-called Sock City. Socks are shipped via truck to the port of Shanghai, from where they are shipped to the port at Los Angeles-Long Beach via ocean freight. Once offloaded in Los Angeles-Long Beach, the socks are shipped via truck to the Richmond facility. On average, shipment from the manufacturer to the Richmond facility takes 4 weeks. In addition to the transit time required for shipment, the lead time from when an order is placed with the manufacturer to when it is shipped from Zhejiang is 3 weeks. So, the total lead time is considered to be 7 weeks from when Throx places an order til it reaches the Richmond facility. Historically, the standard deviation of lead time has been 1 week. Product Orders (Demand) Information The company provides you with the following information for the past two fiscal years: FY 2018 Demand Characteristic Annual demand, units Average weekly demand, units Variance of weekly demand, units 18,000 375 FY 2019 20,000 417 100 90 Product Forecasting Information Throx uses two main forecasting methods based on annual data to predict orders for the following year, a weighted moving average and exponential smoothing. They provide you with the following information about forecasts for FY 2018 and FY 2019: Weighted Moving Exponential Year Demand Average Forecast Forecast 2018 18,000 18,200 18,780 2019 20,000 18,400 18,078 Weighted Moving Average uses Ws = 0.6 and Wt-1=0.4. Exponential Smoothing uses a = 0.9. Inventory Management Information The initial inventory for all sock styles combined at the beginning Text Effects ; 3,500 units. You also have information on current costs, which includes: Order cost to Throx for an order placed with its current supplier, $/order = S = $500 Holding cost per set per per year = H = $5 The company currently pays $4 for each set of socks. =P The company uses a continuous review replenishment policy, and has IT systems in place that allow constant monitoring of key information. Last year, the company used an ROP under this policy of 1,500 units for all sock styles and an order quantity Q of 5,000 units for all sock styles. Potential Alternatives to Current Supply Chain Management The company has asked you to evaluate a number of alternatives to their current SCM practices, including at a minimum their choice of supplier, transportation modes, warehouse capacity, order quantities and safety stock. Alternative Suppliers The company has contacted potential alternative suppliers in China, who have offered the following information relative to the current supplier: Supplier Characteristic Unit Price, $/3-sock set Order cost, $/order Defect Rate Financial condition of the firm Current Supplier A Supplier B $ 4.00 $ 2.50 $ 1.25 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 600.00 3.0% 0.5% Good Poor Fair 1.0% Throx wants to use a single-sourcing strategy, so they want a recommendation about which supplier would be best. Throx has decided to use the following weights in analyzing the suppliers: Supplier Characteristic Weight Unit Price, $/3-sock set 0.4 Order cost, $/order 0.3 Defect Rate 0.2 Financial condition of the firm 0.1 Alternative Transportation An alternative to their current transportation approach available to Throx is shipment by UPS Express Air from Shanghai to Richmond, which averages 3.5 days. The comparison of costs is given as: Transporation Supplier Characteristics Units cost, $/sock set Damage Rate Average Transit time, weeks* Maersk Ocean Freight (current) $ 1.50 $ 2.0% UPS AirExpress (Alternative) 3.00 1.0% 1 4 Similar to their decision about sourcing, Throx, wants to use a single-sourcing strategy for transportation, so they want a recommendation about which mode would be best. Alternative Warehouse Location The company would also like to assess whether its current warehouse location is appropriate based on where customers are located. It provides you the following information about its key markets, and indicates that its orders in each market are roughly proportional to the total population. Y 118 Market LA-Long Beach San Francisco San Diego Sacramento Population 500,000 890,000 1,500,000 510,000 34 37 33 39 122 117 121 1) Calculate measures of forecast accuracy (MFE, MAD and MAPE) using the data from FY2018 and FY2019 for both forecasting methods. Do these forecasts seem adequate for the purposes of decision making? Why or why not? Absolute error 2) Year Demand WMA Error Error Error^2 APE APE 2018 18000 18200 18000-18200 -200 200 40000 (200/18000)*100 1.111111 2019 1600 1600 2560000 (1600/20000)*1008 20000 18400 20000-18400 MEF=(-200+1600)/2=700 MAD=(200+1600)/2=900 MAPE=(1-11+8)/2=4.56' Absolute error Year Demand Exponential Error Error Error^2 APE APE 2018 18000 18780 18000-18780 -780 780 608400 (780/18000)*100 4.333333 2019 1922 1922 3694084 (1922/20000 *100 9.61 20000 18078 20000-18078 MFE=(-780+1922)/2=571 MAD=4780+1922)/2=1351 MAPE=(4.33+9.61)/2=6.97 These forecasts do not provide enough proof as the data points are taken only for 2 years. IN order to have substantial results, we need to have more data for a greater number of years 2) Develop a forecast for FY2020 using the two forecasting methods currently employed by the company. (ROUND UP to the next whole number) Comment on which of the forecasts is likely to be more appropriate to support decisions based on your assessment of forecast accuracy from Q1. Based upon this, identify which forecast method that you will use going forward with the project For weighted moving average: Forecast for 2020=(20000*0.6+18000*0.4)=19200 For exponential smoothening: Forecast for 2020=18078+0.9* (20000-18078) =19807.8 Overview of the Case Analysis We have discussed many concepts in SCM 301 related to planning, sourcing, making and delivering products and services. The purpose of this case analysis is to integrate the different elements of the course and to apply tools you have learned evaluate the supply chain performance. Consider yourself a consultant assigned to develop a supply chain management strategy for the company Throx. You are tasked with evaluating the company's recent performance and recommending changes (decisions) to improve supply chain management performance. The questions that you are required to answer are found in the Project Deliverables file in Canvas. Company Background Information Throx sells higher-end custom-design socks in three-sock sets (rather than two). The company operates from a small packaging and distribution facility in Richmond, CA from which it ships product to customers. Given the company's location and focus, 97% of sales are in California, primarily in the major urban areas of the San Francisco bay area, Los Angeles, Sacramento (and last but not least) San Diego. The company sells exclusively via online sales, at an average price of $15/three-sock set, plus shipping costs charged to the customer. The company currently orders its product from the Chinese sock manufacturer Zhejiang Datang Hosiery Group Co., Ltd in so-called Sock City. Socks are shipped via truck to the port of Shanghai, from where they are shipped to the port at Los Angeles-Long Beach via ocean freight. Once offloaded in Los Angeles-Long Beach, the socks are shipped via truck to the Richmond facility. On average, shipment from the manufacturer to the Richmond facility takes 4 weeks. In addition to the transit time required for shipment, the lead time from when an order is placed with the manufacturer to when it is shipped from Zhejiang is 3 weeks. So, the total lead time is considered to be 7 weeks from when Throx places an order til it reaches the Richmond facility. Historically, the standard deviation of lead time has been 1 week. Product Orders (Demand) Information The company provides you with the following information for the past two fiscal years: FY 2018 Demand Characteristic Annual demand, units Average weekly demand, units Variance of weekly demand, units 18,000 375 FY 2019 20,000 417 100 90 Product Forecasting Information Throx uses two main forecasting methods based on annual data to predict orders for the following year, a weighted moving average and exponential smoothing. They provide you with the following information about forecasts for FY 2018 and FY 2019: Weighted Moving Exponential Year Demand Average Forecast Forecast 2018 18,000 18,200 18,780 2019 20,000 18,400 18,078 Weighted Moving Average uses Ws = 0.6 and Wt-1=0.4. Exponential Smoothing uses a = 0.9. Inventory Management Information The initial inventory for all sock styles combined at the beginning Text Effects ; 3,500 units. You also have information on current costs, which includes: Order cost to Throx for an order placed with its current supplier, $/order = S = $500 Holding cost per set per per year = H = $5 The company currently pays $4 for each set of socks. =P The company uses a continuous review replenishment policy, and has IT systems in place that allow constant monitoring of key information. Last year, the company used an ROP under this policy of 1,500 units for all sock styles and an order quantity Q of 5,000 units for all sock styles. Potential Alternatives to Current Supply Chain Management The company has asked you to evaluate a number of alternatives to their current SCM practices, including at a minimum their choice of supplier, transportation modes, warehouse capacity, order quantities and safety stock. Alternative Suppliers The company has contacted potential alternative suppliers in China, who have offered the following information relative to the current supplier: Supplier Characteristic Unit Price, $/3-sock set Order cost, $/order Defect Rate Financial condition of the firm Current Supplier A Supplier B $ 4.00 $ 2.50 $ 1.25 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 600.00 3.0% 0.5% Good Poor Fair 1.0% Throx wants to use a single-sourcing strategy, so they want a recommendation about which supplier would be best. Throx has decided to use the following weights in analyzing the suppliers: Supplier Characteristic Weight Unit Price, $/3-sock set 0.4 Order cost, $/order 0.3 Defect Rate 0.2 Financial condition of the firm 0.1 Alternative Transportation An alternative to their current transportation approach available to Throx is shipment by UPS Express Air from Shanghai to Richmond, which averages 3.5 days. The comparison of costs is given as: Transporation Supplier Characteristics Units cost, $/sock set Damage Rate Average Transit time, weeks* Maersk Ocean Freight (current) $ 1.50 $ 2.0% UPS AirExpress (Alternative) 3.00 1.0% 1 4 Similar to their decision about sourcing, Throx, wants to use a single-sourcing strategy for transportation, so they want a recommendation about which mode would be best. Alternative Warehouse Location The company would also like to assess whether its current warehouse location is appropriate based on where customers are located. It provides you the following information about its key markets, and indicates that its orders in each market are roughly proportional to the total population. Y 118 Market LA-Long Beach San Francisco San Diego Sacramento Population 500,000 890,000 1,500,000 510,000 34 37 33 39 122 117 121 1) Calculate measures of forecast accuracy (MFE, MAD and MAPE) using the data from FY2018 and FY2019 for both forecasting methods. Do these forecasts seem adequate for the purposes of decision making? Why or why not? Absolute error 2) Year Demand WMA Error Error Error^2 APE APE 2018 18000 18200 18000-18200 -200 200 40000 (200/18000)*100 1.111111 2019 1600 1600 2560000 (1600/20000)*1008 20000 18400 20000-18400 MEF=(-200+1600)/2=700 MAD=(200+1600)/2=900 MAPE=(1-11+8)/2=4.56' Absolute error Year Demand Exponential Error Error Error^2 APE APE 2018 18000 18780 18000-18780 -780 780 608400 (780/18000)*100 4.333333 2019 1922 1922 3694084 (1922/20000 *100 9.61 20000 18078 20000-18078 MFE=(-780+1922)/2=571 MAD=4780+1922)/2=1351 MAPE=(4.33+9.61)/2=6.97 These forecasts do not provide enough proof as the data points are taken only for 2 years. IN order to have substantial results, we need to have more data for a greater number of years 2) Develop a forecast for FY2020 using the two forecasting methods currently employed by the company. (ROUND UP to the next whole number) Comment on which of the forecasts is likely to be more appropriate to support decisions based on your assessment of forecast accuracy from Q1. Based upon this, identify which forecast method that you will use going forward with the project For weighted moving average: Forecast for 2020=(20000*0.6+18000*0.4)=19200 For exponential smoothening: Forecast for 2020=18078+0.9* (20000-18078) =19807.8