he new Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Lee Ching Chemical Company, Max Ching, has found that the firm has been dumping its toxic waste into the local river for the last four years and falsifying information to officials about the amounts of alleged cancer-causing materials in the waste. The plant overseer claims there is no evidence that the waste will cause cancer. Besides, within a hundred kilometers downriver, there are only a few fishing villages. If the company had to treat the substance to neutralize its potentially harmful effects and transport it to a legal dumpsite, the operating costs of the company would rise to a level that could render the company uncompetitive. When the organization loses its competitive advantage, five thousand local workers can become unemployed and the economy of that town could collapse. Question: If you were the COO, what would you do? Why?

he new Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Lee Ching Chemical Company, Max Ching, has found that the firm has been dumping its toxic waste into the local river for the last four years and falsifying information to officials about the amounts of alleged cancer-causing materials in the waste. The plant overseer claims there is no evidence that the waste will cause cancer. Besides, within a hundred kilometers downriver, there are only a few fishing villages. If the company had to treat the substance to neutralize its potentially harmful effects and transport it to a legal dumpsite, the operating costs of the company would rise to a level that could render the company uncompetitive. When the organization loses its competitive advantage, five thousand local workers can become unemployed and the economy of that town could collapse. Question: If you were the COO, what would you do? Why?

Purchasing and Supply Chain Management

6th Edition

ISBN:9781285869681

Author:Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson

Publisher:Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson

ChapterC: Cases

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 5.3SD: Scenario 4 Sharon Gillespie, a new buyer at Visionex, Inc., was reviewing quotations for a tooling...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Scenario 4 Sharon Gillespie, a new buyer at Visionex, Inc., was reviewing quotations for a tooling contract submitted by four suppliers. She was evaluating the quotes based on price, target quality levels, and delivery lead time promises. As she was working, her manager, Dave Cox, entered her office. He asked how everything was progressing and if she needed any help. She mentioned she was reviewing quotations from suppliers for a tooling contract. Dave asked who the interested suppliers were and if she had made a decision. Sharon indicated that one supplier, Apex, appeared to fit exactly the requirements Visionex had specified in the proposal. Dave told her to keep up the good work. Later that day Dave again visited Sharons office. He stated that he had done some research on the suppliers and felt that another supplier, Micron, appeared to have the best track record with Visionex. He pointed out that Sharons first choice was a new supplier to Visionex and there was some risk involved with that choice. Dave indicated that it would please him greatly if she selected Micron for the contract. The next day Sharon was having lunch with another buyer, Mark Smith. She mentioned the conversation with Dave and said she honestly felt that Apex was the best choice. When Mark asked Sharon who Dave preferred, she answered, Micron. At that point Mark rolled his eyes and shook his head. Sharon asked what the body language was all about. Mark replied, Look, I know youre new but you should know this. I heard last week that Daves brother-in-law is a new part owner of Micron. I was wondering how soon it would be before he started steering business to that company. He is not the straightest character. Sharon was shocked. After a few moments, she announced that her original choice was still the best selection. At that point Mark reminded Sharon that she was replacing a terminated buyer who did not go along with one of Daves previous preferred suppliers. What should Sharon do in this situation?
Scenario 4 Sharon Gillespie, a new buyer at Visionex, Inc., was reviewing quotations for a tooling contract submitted by four suppliers. She was evaluating the quotes based on price, target quality levels, and delivery lead time promises. As she was working, her manager, Dave Cox, entered her office. He asked how everything was progressing and if she needed any help. She mentioned she was reviewing quotations from suppliers for a tooling contract. Dave asked who the interested suppliers were and if she had made a decision. Sharon indicated that one supplier, Apex, appeared to fit exactly the requirements Visionex had specified in the proposal. Dave told her to keep up the good work. Later that day Dave again visited Sharons office. He stated that he had done some research on the suppliers and felt that another supplier, Micron, appeared to have the best track record with Visionex. He pointed out that Sharons first choice was a new supplier to Visionex and there was some risk involved with that choice. Dave indicated that it would please him greatly if she selected Micron for the contract. The next day Sharon was having lunch with another buyer, Mark Smith. She mentioned the conversation with Dave and said she honestly felt that Apex was the best choice. When Mark asked Sharon who Dave preferred, she answered, Micron. At that point Mark rolled his eyes and shook his head. Sharon asked what the body language was all about. Mark replied, Look, I know youre new but you should know this. I heard last week that Daves brother-in-law is a new part owner of Micron. I was wondering how soon it would be before he started steering business to that company. He is not the straightest character. Sharon was shocked. After a few moments, she announced that her original choice was still the best selection. At that point Mark reminded Sharon that she was replacing a terminated buyer who did not go along with one of Daves previous preferred suppliers. Ethical decisions that affect a buyers ethical perspective usually involve the organizational environment, cultural environment, personal environment, and industry environment. Analyze this scenario using these four variables.
Scenario 4 Sharon Gillespie, a new buyer at Visionex, Inc., was reviewing quotations for a tooling contract submitted by four suppliers. She was evaluating the quotes based on price, target quality levels, and delivery lead time promises. As she was working, her manager, Dave Cox, entered her office. He asked how everything was progressing and if she needed any help. She mentioned she was reviewing quotations from suppliers for a tooling contract. Dave asked who the interested suppliers were and if she had made a decision. Sharon indicated that one supplier, Apex, appeared to fit exactly the requirements Visionex had specified in the proposal. Dave told her to keep up the good work. Later that day Dave again visited Sharons office. He stated that he had done some research on the suppliers and felt that another supplier, Micron, appeared to have the best track record with Visionex. He pointed out that Sharons first choice was a new supplier to Visionex and there was some risk involved with that choice. Dave indicated that it would please him greatly if she selected Micron for the contract. The next day Sharon was having lunch with another buyer, Mark Smith. She mentioned the conversation with Dave and said she honestly felt that Apex was the best choice. When Mark asked Sharon who Dave preferred, she answered, Micron. At that point Mark rolled his eyes and shook his head. Sharon asked what the body language was all about. Mark replied, Look, I know youre new but you should know this. I heard last week that Daves brother-in-law is a new part owner of Micron. I was wondering how soon it would be before he started steering business to that company. He is not the straightest character. Sharon was shocked. After a few moments, she announced that her original choice was still the best selection. At that point Mark reminded Sharon that she was replacing a terminated buyer who did not go along with one of Daves previous preferred suppliers. What does the Institute of Supply Management code of ethics say about financial conflicts of interest?
The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Based on this case, do you think international purchasing is more or less complex than domestic purchasing? Why? Is it worth the additional effort?
The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Calculate the total cost per unit of purchasing from Original Wire.
The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Based on the total cost per unit, which supplier should Sheila recommend?