Hi,

I did 1) Franchise 2) Second Warehouse (or were these the other way round, can't remember now!!) 3) Supplier Y 4) Designers.

Priority :-

1 - Second warehouse

2 - franchise

3- designer

4- supplier Y

1. franchise

2. second distribution centre

3. designer

4. Y

Ethics?

1. carbon emissions

2. treatment of supplier Y?

 Priorities

1. Franchise - Do it ? faster access to emerging market, greater profit margins & 50 store opening capital savings for investment elsewhere..

2. 2nd Distribution Centre - Open it? +ve NPV (9.8?) Adds capacity, Risk reduction, Emissions reduction, possible base for Asia distribution

3. Designer brand - Pursue, payment dependant on no. of designs, extra work/promotions Ben carrys out etc? Positive cash flow, product development, in line with market trend, payment to designer could be upto approx 22% margin CC can create on its own

4. Supplier - Stop ordering immediately but offer to reinstate contract once issues resolved? something like only 1.4% of supply, stated in case there were many other suppliers to use

 CSR

Carbon reduction/Redundancies at Distribution centre/CC being sole customer of Supplier with IT issues

Thoughts?....

Priority :-

1 - Second warehouse

2 - franchise

3- designer

4- supplier Y

Calcs took me too long, and 5 hours would've been about right! Did anyone come up with a fee to offer the designer?

 Was running out of time so said just ask him what he wants ! lol

Guys I think there was a trap my priorities were -

1. franchise - high growth

2. Ben eastwood - 180 mill over 3 years

3. Y supplier - even through they are small the problem is now and it could lead to unsold stock or even no stock

4. New centre -  no impact till 2011 and there is very small saving. there is no opertaion issues at present.

For the supplier Y, the contract is 20 million Euro and the director want to have the decision with 2 weeks.  So, why most of you have such low priority?

For the second distribution centre, there is an existing one which can fulfill the service while the implementation of second distribution centre need time and will increase the lead time by 1 day.  As a result, why it also have high priority?

1. Y - 20 million Euro contract, may have legal penality if terminate it in advance, IT director given 2 weeks time for decision, may affect the Eastern Europe supply chain and so need contingency plan in order to fulfil customer needs.  One of CeeCee's competitive advantage is excellent customer service.

2. Franchise - Huge finanical impact, can save 220 million Euro as capital expenditure for new shop openning, have more OP generated if adopted, faster grow in Asia and new markets 

3. Designer - 180 million over 3 years with only 75 million OP for 3 years, Ansoff's strategy for new product development --> enhance current competitive advantage, however, the Marketing director is in the process of negotiation and no rival for similar discussion with him, so, should not be so urgent, given more time or delay the negotation a little bit is beneficial to us.

4. Second Distribution Centre - as mentioned above and similar comment with Naeem.

"For the supplier Y, the contract is 20 million Euro and the director want to have the decision with 2 weeks.  So, why most of you have such low priority? "

But that about the decision being required in 2 weeks isn't true. What it said was that she gave them two weeks before cutting them off. The decision had already been made. There wasn't much more for the MA to do so I put it at priority 3.

 The other thing about Supplier Y was that it said something about Y being a European supplier of knitwear, with the majority of knitwear coming from Asia so not only was it 1 of 350 suppliers but it also supplying a product that CC could get from somewhere else quite easily.

In terms of it being suggested that the Supplier Y issue was the first priority, I'd disagree on the basis that using the prioritisation method suggested by the Official CIMA study book for the T4 exam, issues would be ranked according to the following factors:

1. Impact (most important);

2. Timing/Urgency;

3. Likelihood (least important).

On this basis, I'd suggest that the Franchising proposal and the Distribution Centre were of much more importance than the Supplier Y issue (given their impact on CeeCee and its stakeholders), and that people who put Supplier Y as their 1st priority on the basis of urgency would be incorrect.

Or at least that's what I'm hoping, otherwise I'm probably not getting very good marks for putting Franchising as No.1 and the Distribution Centre as No.2!

My prioritization were as follows:

1 - Supplier Y becuase its an operational issue and need immediate attention. As the supplier was based in Eastern Europe and the distribution centre was in Northern europe. Most of the stores in eastern europe would have directly been supplied from this supplier. Since Y was not able to fulfill many of his orders this may create stock unavailibility at store in Eastern europe which indirectly may hamper Market reputation of Cee cee. Immediate steps need to be taken to address the issue. The steps may include ask other suppliers to supplied to the affected stores. Most of u are correct that the impact is not high but as regard to other issues, this need immediate attention. Distribution centre and franchise are all proposals that though are significant but not that urgent.

2- Distribution centre. Due to the impact and urgency. Most of us agrred to that. This has priority above franchise issuee because of the cost saving perspective and also that by 2011 we have to reduce our carbon footprint.

3 - Franchise proposal. this is before designer brand due to higher impact.

4- Designer

Well i think there are no one right or wrong answer. We just have to justify what we have written. Hope we all were  able to communicate ourselves effectively in exams. Bst of luck to all

It's good to hear most of us have chosen similar priorities. It's not even been a week and i've almost forgotten the whole day already. Oh well!

 Priorities:

1. Franchise - immediate expansion to gain market presence in Asia, experienced store mgt to make franchise a success, increase in sales turnover, saving of €220m capex in case of capital rationing due to renewal of loans, refurbs and all the other capex stuff like new shops in Asia. Made sense to have this one as no1.

2. Second Distribution centre - reduces bottle necks, saves on distribution costs in light of rising fuel prices and helps achieve CSR objectives by reduction of road carbon footprint. The extra days on inventory will need to be reduced over time but the smooth running of the distribution/supply chain must be protected 1st.

3. Brand designer - brings in healthy turnover, increases OP by €75m gives competitive advantages and enhances core competence, gives brand name more exclusivity by iconic endorsement helping its differentiation strategy.

4. Y supplier - €20m sales turnover at risk but CC should give 30 days grace period and support Y's IT issue since CC itself should understand the need for its IT to help in the LT. Due to CC helping Y they will have leverage to negotiate better prices from Y and Y will oblige due their initial support and LT running relationship.

 Given all the above blahs i bet the Y supplier issue should have been No1 due to its urgency (14days) damn it!

Did anyone else think the relationship between Paulo and EU representative was bordering on illegal?

These are my real life examples used;

1. McDonald's franchises in Legal battles; so loss of brand control and constistency is a risk for CeeCee;

2. Zara's successful expansion into Asia via a Joint Ventre (raising middle class and passionate franchisees);

3. ASOS and Primark warehouse fires, which had a damaging effect on operations because of singular warehouses (reduced risk in having 2 distribution centres)

4. George at ASDA being a successful example of a independant design integriting into a larger retailer.

5. Cardon reduction committee (CRC) is a powerful way of CeeCee to get transparent and active in cardon reduction (instead of illegal EU "mates"). 

My Operational priorties were;

1. Franchising,

2. 2nd Distribution Centre (interlinked with Franchising),

3. Supplier Y (linked with Ethical Issues),

4. Desginer.

Ethical Priorities;

1. EU relationship,

2. Reduncies in Distribution Centre,

3. Supplier Y termination.

Business Models used;

1. SWOT,

2. Ansoff,

3. Mendelow Matrix,

4. Porter's Generic Stratgies

Distribution centre

Franchising proposal

Supplier issue

Designer proposal (as no immediate decision was required)

Ethical issue:

Insider information from EU representative

Ill treatment with long standing Supplier Y

I am just glad it is over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I did my best and my prioritisation is very similar to those above. For technical I used:

SWOT, SAF, Porters generic strategies and Mendelows

FOr diversity I used:

George at Asda fo the designer issue, Zara for successful franchising in some countries, Primark for the burnt down ditribution centre and some industry statistics in the introduction.

I didn't finish though I only wrote down one ethical issue which was the Carbon reduction requirement. I ran out of time to mention any others.

All in all I think I did okay and I am hoping for teh best. Now we just sit and wait till the results come out!!

Good luck to you all and hope to hear positive reviews come July!!!