Design Room Simulation Paper

Description of Our Strategy

This simulation involved a company, which introduced two types of cell phones to the market. As a group, we acted as the company, and therefore were tasked with deciding how these products were designed, project their demand, in addition to picking between suppliers and how much to produce. Later, at the end of each year of sales, we faced our company’s board where they analyzed our performance and voted based on how well they thought we performed for the year.

For this game, we considered several factors when making each decision. When we first approached the design room decisions, we looked at every feature we could add and how these were projected to affect sales. Of course, the overall, aggregate projections

Every year we learned something new, which helped us amply and gave us more knowledge to reach the goals and have a great performance. The first year we did very well, much better than we thought. We obtained an annual net profit of $ 47,670, which we considered a suitable performance for our first year. There were several keys to our success in the first year of business. First of all, something essential to the success of this round was the feature we chose. Although the members of the forecasting team favored the options of Wi-Fi and color, we decided to go with stylish as the only option. We based our decision on the average demand forecast graphs for model A and model B. We would observe the reaction each feature or combination of features had of the graph when we added the different options. Stylish was the only option that made the standard deviation lower and the average demand to stay relatively close. In terms of demand forecasting, we based our decision on the consensus of the forecasting term and the standard deviation to reach both a realistic and a conservative forecast prediction for the whole year. We decided to choose two suppliers, Far Far Away and Pretty Close. We did this since both offered different benefits that would favor us. We chose Far Far Away because it offered low setup cost with low unit cost. So we decided to risk a long lead-time in exchange for lower cost and higher capacity. Also Pretty

In order to make our demand forecast more accurate for each model we would have liked to have the option to choose different features for each model given that both models had a different target market and unit price that affected their performance in the market. Also, we would have liked to have access to the forecasting veteran’s number analysis to have an in-depth understanding of where their average demand numbers came from. This could have permitted us to take into consideration this information to forecast our own demand and know if we needed to be more conservation or risky when putting our orders with the suppliers. Likewise we would have liked to have a more direct connection with our suppliers in order to collaborate to increase accuracy in demand and unit cost. A better communication with our suppliers would have allowed the company to aggregate demand and make enhanced demand forecasts. Lastly we would have liked to have more information provided to us by the board members. Each board member had particular specifications for which they would give their vote. The fact that we only had small indications of what they wanted at the end of each year restricted our improvements and decision making for the next year. The simulation does give students a well-developed picture of the