LITTLEFIELD SIMULATION REPORT

To be able to give right decision and be successful in the simulation, we tried to

understand the rules in a right way and analyzed yearly forecasts to provide necessary products
to the customers on time (lead time) for maximizing our profit.
We realized that demand was not stable, thus buying new machine and increasing
production capacity was necessary to meet the demand during the peak season. Therefore; we
decided to buy new machines to be ready for the peak season. We learned how to move on
correctly and make appropriate decisions by trying and making mistakes. By saving all sales
numbers, profits and lead times day by day enabled us to make more accurate calculations in
our success story.
Executive Summary
To be successful in the simulation, we tried to develop a strategic plan that will be more
profitable. Depending on the plan, it was decided to play on $1.500 model. Moreover, we were
aware that it was crucial to invest in machines. It is clearly observed in the demand graph, there
was an increasing trend of demand till around day 180. If we could had supplied the goods
during this period, after the calculations we had made, it was obvious that we would had
covered the initial investment of the machine. In this way, we would had enjoyed the high
profits.
Until Wednesday, most of the time we ranked either in the middle of the list or lower than
the middle position. Sometimes we ranked even under the donothing position and dropped to
last position. However, we were investing during that period and everything was done according
to our strategy. In addition, we also followed our competitors day by day. Please kindly refer to
day over day growth opsmsteam1.xlss and see the analysis we had done during the game.
We were noting down the each teams growth in dollar amounts and comparing them
with us before we give our final decision about what to do. The gap was decreasing enormously;
by this comparison, we already knew which team had how many machines, which contract they
are using, how much they are growing and when they bought or sold the machine. Thereby, we
had a broad range of understanding about themselves. For instance, let's assume even we had
consensus that we need to invest in station 3, we observed our rivals (Exhibit 3) prior to making
the investment and execute the decision at the right time. Being proactive rather than reactive
helped us a lot during the simulation especially after we took the leadership position early
Wednesday. Due to unstable demand arrivals, we preferred to analyze our rivals and made our
steps accordingly in align with our own strategy. During the simulation, we suffered from random
demands a lot! It affected our machines queue therefore; costed us as missed opportunities.
On the other hand; focusing on the demand graph in details helped us to observe current
situation and make predictions that led us to give right decisions prior to our leadership position.
Once we took the leadership, we kept eye on growing rates more often. Good news was that we
were always growing more than second team most of the times. After the second half of the
steady demand period, we were quite sure that we would win the game because the gap was
still there and getting slightly greater. Also, our capacity and operational strategy were capable

of meeting the demand. After that time, we enjoyed the game more. Finally, we were able to win
the game as we expected earlier during the game.

Days between 50-100

We could not make any changes in the simulation for the first 50 days. However;
accumulated data in the first 50 days were very insightful for us. When we analyzed the first 50
days, we figured out that the company could not able to deliver orders in some days. Therefore;
increase in the production capacity was an requirement and according to our calculations we
found out that second contract option (1500 USD per order) was much more profitable than the
first contract (1000 USD per order), if the factory delivers the orders within 6 hours as lead time.
By analyzing the data in the first 50 days, we decided to increase the production
capacity and move to the second contract. Before increasing the production capacity, there
were other actions that could be taken to optimize production line as changing the priority of
machine 2 and changing order lot. We decided to take actions one by one in order to have
enough time to analyze results of our actions.
To sum up, we double the capacity of the 1st machine by increasing machine number in
the first station to decrease the queue in front of first machine. In order to utilize 2 machines in
the first station, we changed lots per order to 2 to be prepared when orders arrive. This time, we
entered the second contract, but we have seen that we were not able to meet the requirements
of contract 2. Based on this fact, we decided to buy the second machine for station 2 and after
that we changed our contract and we chose the second option.
We found out that the FIFO model in machine 2 increased the total time spent in the
production line. If the step 2 products arrive before to the step 4, step 4 waits and creates a
queue. Therefore; we prioritized the step 4. At that time we have seen an improvement in the
queue in front of the machine 2. From the data given to us, what we understood was step2 was
a very fast step and did not create queue however; tuning machine took a lot of time and it
created a bottleneck. Step 4 took longer time compared to step 2 but it was less than the step 3.
As it can be seen in exhibit 1, in the day 67 we have earned $1,020.13 per job in
average. This was an initial signal that we would not be able to earn $1,500 in the future if the
demand increased. So, we figured out that 2 machines in each station would not be sufficient to
meet future demands. Than we decided to buy 1 more machine to the station 1 and changed
lots per order to 3. In 2 days, we found that lots per order 3 didnt work since there was 2
machines in station 3. At that point, we have corrected our mistake and took one step back by
changing lots per order to 2.

Days between 100-200

We figured out that with the lots per order 2 method we could not able to utilize the
maximum number of receivers that can be in production line (Work in Process - WIP) which is
100. With this method, the maximum number of receivers that can be in the system is 90. It
means that while the first order is in the factory the maximum that can be accepted could be 30.
However; in lots per order option there can be 100 receivers in the production line because
while first order of 60 receivers are in the line additional 40 receivers can be processed. It
indicates that full capacity usage of 100 receivers is possible. Depending on that, we decided to
move lots per order 3 model but as we tried previously we have seen that it didnt work with
the machines on hand. Therefore; we decided to buy one more machine to the station 3 and
switch to lots per order 3. However as it is mentioned in the manual of the simulations at least
one station is independent of lot size. Because of this we couldnt get as much as efficiency as
we thought by switching to lots per order 3 model. Weve figure out this effect later on as we
explained in Days Between 200-268 part of this report.
After buying the 3rd machine to the station 3, weve achieved $1,500 for several months
but on day 122 weve seen that weve earned $1,300.02. On that day factory completed 14
orders however; in the expected demand curve there were at least 20 more days or equal 14
orders. Because of that we wouldnt able to meet the order if we go forward with existing
capacity. Thus, we decided to buy the 3rd machine to the station 2 and we achieved having 3
machines per each station.
Days between 200-268
During the peak days, we had 6 days that we achieved less than $1000 in average per
order. We could buy one extra machine to the station 3 to decrease the queue but according to
our calculation we figured out that other teams were not able to catch us in the remaining days.
So, we decided not to make any more investment.
On day 217, (very last day to make change) we sold the extra machine in the station 2 to
earn $10.000 extra because according to our analysis that machine couldnt be utilized between
the days 217 and 268. We could have sold more machines but we didnt want to take random
order risk. The difference between us and the second team was more than $45.000. It means
that at least extra 4 machines that can be saved (4 X $10.000) so, we wanted to be on the safe
side.

Appendix:
Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3