The general scenario is that you are working for the company (Light-Up-My-Light, Inc). And need to do certain analytic or managerial work. Obviously (?), the major topics addressed will be the course topics; and more specifically usually the material from the current chapters!
Please remember to:
.a. put your last name in the file name;
Example for a student named Jones: 5061-FA22-A06-Jones
.b. include your last name in the running heading; and
.c. number the pages.
I usually print out your answers and these items help me to identify whose work I am looking at, grading, etc.
Unless other arrangements are made (e.g., you “invoked” an extension), your answers are due according to the class schedule.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Basic Copyright 2022 Dr. Paul Battaglia and Florida Institute of Technology. For use ONLY by students enrolled in MGT5061 for the FA22 term. Any other use requires explicit written permission.
-=–=
Light Up My Light, Inc.
LUML is well along working on a new fixture model. This working designation is the FX2 (fixture experimental model 2). This is quite a bit different from the current main models produced.
The design team is scheduled to give a virtual briefing to the CEO and senior managers at 4 PM today.
You are sitting at your desk (at home of course) looking over some production figures. Your phone rings.
Ring. Ring,
YOU: Hello. {name} How can I help you?
TOM : Hi. This is Tom (your boss). I am working with the design team for the FX2. We are scheduled to give a briefing to the CEO at 4 PM today and we have run into a snag. Jim Smith prepared the briefing and has been the go-to-person. But he called in sick today and is not available for the meeting.
In reviewing the briefing we came up with two questions that we heed to have hip-pocket answers for since they are may come up at the briefing.
Rhetorical question. Can you take a look at this and prepare answers for us? Thanks. We will send them over right away.
A competitor has a similar model and so it was pretty easy to get a benchmark for a competing system.
Of course, the current technical data for the FX2 is known.
Marketing invited a number of our customers in for a session in which they discussed and assessed the importance to the customers of a number of features.
The results are displayed in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – Results of design and a customer focus group meeting on the FX2
TPM Direction of improvement if applicable
(note 1) Importance to the customer % Proposed FX2 Benchmark of competing system
Uses standard voltage (110 or 240)
===== 3 110 or 240 autoselect 110 or 240 with manual select during install
Wattage
2 Depends on bulb. 100, 500, or 750 Either 100 or 500.
Illuminance
(note 2)
15 Typically
> 60 fc Typically >70 fc
Initial installed cost (note 3)
10 $250/unit $300//unit
Expected life of fixture (not bulb)
(min 5 years)
10 7 years 8 years
Weight ====== 1 50 lbs. 48 lbs.
Standard mounting base ====== 2 yes Yes, as an option
MTBF for system
10 450 hrs 475 hrs
MTBF for part C (improved bulb burnout)
9 9,090 hrs 8,600 hrs
Cost of replacement bulbs
6 $22 $20
Customer payback period (cost to savings) 20 mos. 28 mos.
Note 1: == indicates no real preference or direction for improvements or not a big deal. These items typically are already pretty standard in LUML’s usual markets and even world-wide (e.g., operating voltage). Or not a big factor (e.g., fixture weight once installed since these tend to be long-term or permanent).
Note 2. Illuminance is the light level at the task measured in foot-candles (fc). For medium bench or machine work. IES RP7-01 recommends a minimum of 50 fc. That type of work seems to apply to most of our customer base.
Note 3. Installed cost includes the cost of the FX2 and 2 hours of labor for what seems to be a typical installation. Two hours is a time agreed by the customers and the design team. Standard rate of $30 per labor hour was also agreed upon.
The team looked over the briefing and decided that it needed some additional information to have readily available in case questions come up. Copies of what you prepare will be in waiting in the team’s “virtual hip-pocket” (i.e., ready to distribute to those online if needed). So it needs a concise handout, easily followed, not wordy, etc.
In answering these questions
** references are “always in style”. Check APA. Brief references (roughly the equivalent of an in-text) can usually be at the bottom of the page as a “source” or similar. Final slide/page can be the reference list.
** Reminder — given the purpose, long narrative explanations are not appropriate.
Q#1. (100 points) As you can see some of the paperwork is unusable. Coffee spilled on the sheet. So, the team cannot read some of the answers that were recorded. And due to a lack of “documenting and recording” no one quite remembers what the figures were.
Q#1a. (20) For the customer payback period, is an arrow appropriate? In what direction would we expect the arrow to show for an “improvement”? Briefly explain your answer.
Q#1b. (20) For the payback period, we cannot read the numerical value for the importance to the customer. What value should we expect the value to be? Briefly explain.
Q#1c. (60) Based on available information what is your assessment of the planned FX2 as currently designed? Explain. Be sure to include any assumptions that you need to make.
Q#2. (100 points). The fixture (the total assembly or system) has three main parts (ABC) that operate in series. The parts themselves are standard and test models have not shown any problem as might indicate an “infant” product.
One of the slides in the briefing set shows the following MTBF for the system & these three parts.
System
MTBF – 450 hrs
Part A
MTBF = 4,050 hrs Part B
MTBF = 536 hrs Part C
MTBF = 9,090 hrs
The team is concerned that at least some in the audience will have a reaction along the lines of:
** Q#2a. (100 points) How can the three MTBF’s for the parts be so different? For example, MTBF for Part A is 4,050 hours; Part B is only 536 hours; and Part C is a whopping 9,090 hours. Part A’s MTBF is about 9 times the system MTBF!
** Q#2b. (100 points) Given that wide range, how can the MTBF’s “add up” to give a system MTBF of 450 hours? The system MTBF is lower than any of the 3 parts! Does that even make sense?
** Q#2c (50 points) any assumptions you used; or additional explanation that might be useful.
[HINT: We might need to assess which part of the bathtub curve the fixture is in?]