To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Engaging in a week-long simulation game revolving around inventory management in the production stage of the supply chain proved to be an enlightening and immersive experience. The primary objective, as outlined at the game's onset, was crystal clear - our team was tasked with producing and delivering goods within a 3-day lead time. This essay delves into the intricacies of our team's strategic decisions, the challenges faced, and the invaluable lessons gleaned from navigating the dynamics of this simulated supply chain scenario.
The game unfolded with a meticulous focus on monitoring production numbers and making agile adjustments to machine numbers, all with the overarching goal of maximizing revenue.
Our journey began with a keen awareness of the importance of analyzing production data and devising strategies to meet the constantly shifting demand landscape. The game mechanics demanded not just theoretical knowledge but the practical application of supply chain principles in a dynamic, ever-changing environment.
Our overarching strategy revolved around achieving a stable utilization rate across all machines to mitigate the risk of incurring late penalties.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Business
4.7 (346)
“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”
Anticipating potential bottlenecks, our proactive decision to purchase an additional machine at the onset allowed for seamless processing, preventing revenue losses that could have arisen from delays. For instance, anticipating a bottleneck at machine 1 on Day 50, we made a strategic purchase, ensuring continuous processing and revenue optimization. This foresightedness set the tone for our strategic approach throughout the game.
Our strategic decisions were informed by meticulous observations.
Machine 1, with 100% utilization, raised concerns, prompting the early purchase of an additional machine. Caution guided our approach, refraining from unnecessary machine purchases to capitalize on interest earnings. When machine 1 hit 100% utilization for 4 consecutive days on Day 88, we opted not to buy more machines, a decision validated by stable revenue despite high utilization. This demonstrated the necessity of not just reacting to immediate challenges but adopting a discerning approach to maximize long-term gains.
However, as challenges intensified and revenue began dropping severely on Day 120, we recognized the need for an additional machine at station 1. Unfortunately, the purchase didn't salvage the situation, and a large queue at station 1 resulted in significant income loss due to production delays. Our revenue only stabilized on Day 130 for a brief period before dipping again, prompting further strategic adjustments. This rollercoaster of challenges underscored the dynamic nature of the simulation and the need for adaptive strategies.
Amidst unforeseen challenges, we strategically navigated the transfer of the bottleneck to station 3. Recognizing the need for another machine, we made the purchase, finally stabilizing revenue at Day 139. Our strategy involved continuous monitoring of revenue, station utilization, and queue size, dictating our decisions on further machine acquisitions. This adaptability proved to be a linchpin in our ability to weather the storms of unexpected challenges and changes in demand patterns.
As demand dwindled towards the end, a shift in strategy saw us selling off under-utilized machines. This not only increased revenue through sales but also augmented interest earnings, elevating our team's ranking before the game concluded. The final machine configuration left us with 3 Machine 1s, 1 Machine 2, and 2 Machine 3s. This endgame strategy showcased the importance of agility in decision-making, seamlessly transitioning from expansion to consolidation as the dynamics of the game evolved.
Station 2 introduced complexities with the option to toggle between FIFO, step 2, or step 4 policies. Early in the game, station 2's utilization remained relatively safe. However, a surge in average demand around Day 120 pushed utilization to 100%. Recognizing the impact on jobs at station 3, we purchased an additional machine at Day 150, but delays had already significantly impacted our revenue. This highlighted the interconnectedness of different stages in the production process and the ripple effects of decisions made at one point on the overall outcome.
Reflecting on our performance, we acknowledge the setback during the Day 120 period due to unexpected demand spikes and decision-making challenges. Despite the hurdles, we salvaged our situation, securing a commendable 7th place. This experience underscored the importance of preparedness for demand fluctuations and the absence of a one-size-fits-all policy. It emphasized the real-world applicability of adaptability, strategic foresight, and the need to balance short-term gains with long-term stability.
Moreover, the game's simulation, while beneficial, lacks alignment with certain real-life supply chain conditions such as taxes and fixed overheads. These factors, beyond our control in the simulation, would undoubtedly introduce more complexities and considerations into decision-making processes. This disjuncture between simulation and reality highlighted the nuanced nature of actual supply chain decision-making, where unforeseen external factors can significantly impact outcomes.
The disparities between the simulated scenario and real-world supply chain conditions became evident. The omission of factors like taxes and fixed overheads in the simulation highlighted the nuanced nature of actual supply chain decision-making. While the strategies employed in the game helped maximize revenue, the deviations from reality underscored the need for adaptability in the face of unforeseen challenges. This insight beyond the game's confines is crucial, emphasizing that the best-laid plans in a controlled environment may not always translate seamlessly to the unpredictable complexities of the real world.
Supply Chain Simulation: Challenges and Insights. (2016, Sep 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/littlefield-technology-game-capacity-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
