Milk business is quite a big business in New Zealand, and it makes up the most significant export earner for the country with Fonterra company being responsible for about 30% of all the dairy export in the world.
Dairy farming started from small beginnings after the colonization by the Europeans. It has now grown to be among the significant part of New Zealand economy. In 2010, NZ$11 billion was recorded from the dairy farming industry (Bansal, and Chen, 2006).
New Zealand is the eight largest milk producers in the world. The total milk production from New Zealand is about 2.2% of the worlds total milk production. Fonterra company is the largest milk processor company in the country producing about 98% of all milk solids. Other competing companies include tatua cooperative, Westland milk products and synlait (Jay, 2007).
Focusing on Fonterra co-operative, the company has been facing competition from dairy companies. The competition has led to Fonterra making a considerable loss in last year financial year. The loss has led to very many questions among the shareholders. They have started to question the management of the company. This has further led to the stepping down of the interim chief executive at Fonterra Mr. Theo Spiering’s, and he was replaced by Mr miles Hurrell who was the chief operating officer at the company.
Fonterra’s loss is affecting the whole industry in that the milk processing and exports has reduced drastically. The company’s loss has been an industrial loss; therefore, its immediate restoration will have a significant impact on the total performance of the industry (Jay, and Morad, 2007). The company, therefore, has decided to change the management by first changing the chief executive. The chairman further argues that they would have asked the CEO to step down too, but they could not have two managerial positions changing at the same time. This would have a negative impact on the business
Organizational Background:
For some time now, milk production and milk processing have been reducing for Fonterra cooperative limited. The company has made its most significant loss of $196 million last year. This has also reduced the total returns of the company. The result makes the company shares lose value. The company’s shareholders tend to complain that they have lost money rather than making money this year. Their significant interest is in the management of the business.
Mr miles Hurrell was appointed chief executive after Theo exited the company. At this point, the company had made its most significant loss and therefore needed a change in the management. The changes made were to ensure that the company’s management will lead it towards generating profits rather than making losses. Mr miles was the chief operating officer in the company for the past 18 years. Therefore, his experience in the dairy business fits his current position.
Appointment of the new company chief executive aims at improving the current status of the company. At a shareholders meeting Mr miles Hurrell told the shareholders that his primary aim is to turn around the financial performance of the company and not to increase milk production. He intends to make more money and reduce the losses.
The company did not just change the chief executive; they decide that he will earn much less than his predecessor Mr. Theo Spiering’s. The company’s chairman decides that Mr miles starting salary will be substantially less than that of their He argues that this is fair according to what the company is experiencing at the moment. The chairman further said that this was the right for Mr. Spiering’s to step down but he would work together with Mr. Hurrell to walk him over the leadership.
The company is further looking into resource integration techniques that they would implement to increase the profits of the company. This would make sure that the company maintains its shareholders by increasing the value of their shares and increase trust in their customers that they can make deliveries to them (Pawson, and Perkins, 2017).
One way of making sure that a strategy works to the best interest of the company is the development of strategies that turn components of the goal into methods. Building up a goal of becoming a method ensures that the chances of a strategy failing are less than they were there before (Albo, 2013). For example, in a nonviolence situation, the approach of making a goal the strategy, the strategy is to solve conflicts n a society using nonviolent means. To achieve the goal, a nonviolent method has to be implemented which will help overcome the reliance of violent methods. In coming up with the nonviolence strategy which has to be against capitalism, the process of turning goals to methods means that there has to be a nonviolent economic alternative put in place. The method is highly effective.
A significant economic alternative is the promotion of cooperatives. In New Zealand, milk cooperatives have been a significant contribution to the economic progress f the country. Cooperatives usually have the workers and the users in control rather than their bosses. This will ensure that the decisions made are to the best interest of the company. Cooperatives tend to have shareholders contributing to the running of the company. Fonterra co-operative group limited is itself a cooperative. Therefore, they only need to establish the strategic goals of a cooperative.
Another important economic alternative is improving the productivity of the current structure or entirely establishing a new system. Following the principles in action, a company might want to entirely change how they do things and see if this would bring better results as opposed to the previous results (Hubka, 2015). The company has to analyze how the cost related to the changes made will affect performance.
The next economic alternative is the development of standard performance measurement criteria, establishing an evaluation criterion and consideration of all the monetary and non-monetary criteria. This would ensure that all the workers are working towards the success of the organization which is what we nee at the moment. The performance measurements will determine which employees should be let go and which should be promoted (Katsamunska, 2012). All this in the name of improving the business’s financial performance.
In this case study, we shall apply the resource integration technique in improving their productivity by making changes in the production line in Fonterra co-operative group limited. In this case, we shall reduce the idle time of the machines in the company. By using this method, we shall increase the profits of the company by reduction of the production times of the machines through the optimization of the available resources. In the production of goods at Fonterra company, various machines are suitable for the production of specific goods. Therefore, the scheduling/ the sequencing technique is used in the arrangement of different machines to fit the particular jobs to use the available time in completion of all the tasks at the company (Onwubolu, 2002). In this example we shall consider three machines;
The machines are used to make the three different types of dairy products;
The time used by each machine is assumed in hours. Based on the time taken to process milk in the company
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
|
|
X |
6 |
13 |
14 |
7 |
12 |
|
Y |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
|
Z |
8 |
12 |
13 |
10 |
14 |
To find the optimum solution using the sequencing method, the method should satisfy each of the following conditions. The method can either satisfy one or both methods. The first condition is, the time used in processing for machine X should be at least as great as the time used by machine Y, that is;
min t1j ≥ max t2j j = 1, 2,.,n
The second condition is that the minimum time used in processing for machine Z should be as great as the time used in processing for machine Y, i.e.
min t3j ≥ max t2j j = 1, 2,….,n (Herrmann, 2006)
From the above table,
the minimum time on machine X, i.e., 7 hrs. is greater than the maximum time used for machine Y which is 8 hours so first condition is satisfied
Also, from the table, the minimum time used on machine Y, i.e. 8 hrs. is the same as the maximum time used for machine Z that is 8 hours and this also satisfies the second condition
Let’s now generate two fictional machines. The first machine we shall add the processing time used for machine Y and X and the second machine N we shall add the processing times for machine Y and Z
The following table is developed;
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
|
|
M |
9 |
17 |
18 |
12 |
20 |
|
N |
11 |
16 |
17 |
15 |
22 |
The sequence obtained from the two fictional machines Mand N is A, D, E, C, B
We now calculate the minimum time elapsed for the first three machines, X, Y and Z
|
JOBS |
Machine X |
Machine Y |
Machine Z |
|||
|
Time in |
Timeout |
Time in |
Timeout |
Time in |
Timeout |
|
|
A |
0 |
6 |
6 |
9 |
9 |
17 |
|
D |
6 |
13 |
13 |
18 |
18 |
28 |
|
E |
13 |
25 |
25 |
33 |
33 |
47 |
|
C |
25 |
39 |
39 |
43 |
43 |
56 |
|
B |
39 |
52 |
52 |
56 |
56 |
68 |
From the table, the total time elapsed from the three machines is 68 hours
The idle time for the different machines can be calculated as follows
X = (56-52) + (68-56) =16 hours
Y=6+(13-9) +(25-18) +(39-33) +(52-43) +(68-56) =44 hours
Z=9+(18-17) +(33-28) +(43-47) +(56-56) =11 hours
End of Sub-Section
A scheduling technique can be applied in Fonterra company to achieve the optimal job sequence that will result in the highest productivity of the different products from the dairy company. The sequence will reduce the total time elapsed for the whole production line. Fonterra can apply this technique in their production line to reduce the total amount of time used in the production of ice cream, butter, cheese, fresh milk, and yogurt. Use of the scheduling technique will, therefore, ensure that they have achieved efficiency and effectiveness in the production of the various goods (Tuncel, and Bayhan, 2007). This technique aims to reduce the total amount of time elapsed basically.
After application of the scheduling technique in the Fonterra production line, the total time elapsed and the idle time for all the machines at work is deduced under the optimal condition as well as the original job done. The total time elapsed is 68 hours through the use of the optimal sequence while the original sequence total time elapsed is 74 hours.
The idle times for the three machines
|
Machine X |
Machine Y |
Machine 2 |
|
|
Optimal sequence |
16 |
44 |
11 |
|
Original sequence |
22 |
50 |
17 |
After making a clear comparison, the total time elapsed using the optimal sequence is considerably lower than the total time elapsed while using the original sequence. This applies to the idle time as well.
Limitations
This technique has its limitations one of them is that conditions used are ideal whereas real conditions such as machine breakdown and labor are not taken into account. Other factors such as failure of power are also not considered and reduced performance of the machines. All these factors can change the total time used by the machines (Dauzère–Pérès, and Lasserre, 2002).
The above calculation Cleary details that if Fonterra company applies the scheduling technique in their production line, they will achieve the optimal production capacity. They can use this method to increase their productivity and in turn, reduce the costs of operating the machines since the idle time for each machine is reduced. This way the company will achieve their overall goal which is increasing their profits.
The primary purpose of this technique is to achieve the optimal quantity to be purchased at each particular time. The method determines the number of orders to be made to minimize the cost of holding inventory in a company. Fonterra company wants to determine the orders that they need to make at each reorder time to minimize the holding cost of bottles. The overall goal objective is to reduce the total cost of production which in turn will ensure they have increased their profits.
However, the formula only applies whenever there is a constant demand for raw materials at each reorder time whenever inventory has elapsed. To determine the total cost of purchase, storage, and delivery, we first have to determine the required amount of bottles that should be ordered at a given time. Fonterra’s primary aim is to determine how they can optimize their order quantity that determines the amount to be ordered and minimize the total cost of inventory, in this case, the holding cost of bottles. The company needs to hold a certain number of bottles are determined using the formula below.
The economic order quantity can be expressed using the formula,
EOQ= √2*RU*OC/UC*CC%
Whereby is the total number of required units
OC is the ordering cost for one order
UC is the inventory unit cost
CC is the carrying cost which is expressed as a percentage of the unit cost
The formula is based on the following assumptions
Let’s assume:
The annual consumption of bottles is 80,000 bottles
The cost to place an order is $1200
Cost per bottle is $50
And the carrying cost is 6%
Therefore, applying the formula above
EOQ= √ (2*80000*1200)/ (50*6%)
EOQ=8,000
As mentioned earlier, the formula assumes that there are no changes in the price of goods. And that the consumption is regular.
Let’s compare different order quantities assuming that the annual consumption remains a constant. We shall first determine the total cost of the bottles which comprises the carrying cost and the ordering costs
Total ordering cost
The total cost of ordering is determined by multiplying the total cost per order by the number of orders. To define the number of orders, we shall divide the annual order requirements by the order quantity (Taleizadeh, Stojkovska, and Pentico, 2015).
Total carrying cost
This can be determined by multiplying the average ordering quantity with the total carrying cost per order. We can calculate the average ordering quantity by dividing the ordering quantity twice.
We can, therefore, develop the following table.
|
Order quantity |
Required bottles |
Total number of orders |
Total carrying and ordering cost |
cost |
Total cost |
|
20000 |
80000 |
4 |
4800 |
30000 |
34800 |
|
10000 |
80000 |
8 |
9600 |
15000 |
24600 |
|
8000 |
80000 |
10 |
12000 |
12000 |
24000 |
|
5000 |
80000 |
16 |
19200 |
7500 |
26700 |
|
4000 |
80000 |
20 |
24000 |
6000 |
30000 |
From the table above, we can develop the EOQ graph. This is also another alternative method of deriving EOQ. We can use the above information to plot the graph — the point whereby the total ordering cost intersects with the total carrying cost id the EOQ.
From the formula, the economic order quantity can be derived and determined. In this example, the economic order quantity is 8000. This is the number of bottles that should be ordered at each reorder point to minimize the total cost of bottles.
From the table, 8000 is the economic order quantity since it is the point whereby the total cost is minimum. At this point, the total cost of ordering bottles will be equal to the total cost of carrying. Increasing the order quantity results to a reduced cost of order which increases the cost of carrying. Reducing the order quantity reduces the carrying cost whereas the ordering costs increase since more orders will be made.
From the graph, the point where the total carrying cost intersects with the total ordering cost is the economic order quantity. This point gives the minimum cost of the production of bottles which is 24000. Another important note from the graph is that a reduced or increased order quantity increases the total cost which is higher than the economic order quantity
Limitations
The major limitation from the use of this method is that the assumptions may not be very ideal. The prices of goods keep changing every year due to economic factors. The model further assumes that the cost of ordering is constant. Another assumption is that the demand is known throughout the year. It also assumes that the lead time is the same for all periods and no discounts or cash settlements are available. Also, the model assumes that the optimal plan is only for a single product, in this case, the bottles. Finally, there is no delay in the reordering of the stocks (Nia, Far, and Niki, 2014).
Using the EOQ to determine the number of goods to be ordered at each particular time is efficient and could help the management at Fonterra company greatly. The technique will help in reduction of the total cost of goods which is its primary aim. The company wants to decrease the total amount of money used to maximize the profits.
The Vogel approximation method is also known as the transportation algorithm. It’s used to calculate the route that will lead to the use of the minimum cost of transportation. It is used to calculate the initial feasible solution for a given transportation problem. It works with the same concept as the least cost method, but then again VAM is more accurate.
The method follows a series of steps to establish the initial feasible solution. The first step is to determine the penalty cost for each row and column. The penalty cost is given by the difference of the least and the next least value in the row or column. After calculation of the penalty costs, we determine the row or column with the highest penalty cost. This means that we shall determine the rows or column with the highest difference and break the arbitrary ties. The next step is to determine the row or column with the least transport cost from the identified row or column. When it is below the table, make the maximum allotment to the row or column with the least cost of transportation. The next step is to break the arbitrary tie. When penalties are the same for two or more rows or columns, choose the row or column with the least transport cost. Repeat the above steps until all the restrictions are fully satisfied.
Let’s take an example of the following problem in Fonterra co-operative group limited.
|
Origin |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
supply |
|
1 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
60 |
|
2 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
50 |
|
3 |
9 |
2 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
50 |
|
4 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
50 |
|
5 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
60 |
|
Demand |
50 |
40 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
270 |
First, we are going to determine if the problem is feasible by determining if the total supply is equal to the total demand
Supply=270
Demand =270
Therefore, this problem is feasible
After calculation of the penalties, the following table is developed
|
Origin |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
60 |
2 |
|
2 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
50 |
1 |
|
3 |
9 |
2 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
50 |
3 |
|
4 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
50 |
2 |
|
5 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
60 |
1 |
|
Demand |
50 |
40 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
270 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
After this, we can see that 3 is the most significant difference. Therefore, we identify the least cost from the third row which is 2, after allocating the demand with the supply, we see that demand of 40 is satisfied in column 2 and a supply of 10 is still available. we therefore strict the second column and the following table is generated
|
Origin |
1 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
60 |
2 |
|
2 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
50 |
1 |
|
3 |
9 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
1 |
|
4 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
50 |
2 |
|
5 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
60 |
1 |
|
Demand |
50 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
230 |
|
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
We can repeat the procedure from the first table, after getting the penalties, identify the highest penalty, in this case, it is 2. Using the first row, we can identify the least cost to be 3. Therefore, we cancel out the demand and supply from the first column and the first row. We satisfy the demand, but we still have ten available units. Therefore, we cancel out the first column. The following table is generated
|
Origin |
3 |
4 |
5 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
10 |
1 |
|
2 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
50 |
2 |
|
3 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
1 |
|
4 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
50 |
2 |
|
5 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
60 |
1 |
|
Demand |
60 |
60 |
60 |
180 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
We can also determine the penalties from the table. From this table, we can see that row 2 and row 4 have a tie in the penalties. Therefore, we determine the row with the least cost. It is row 4. From this, we can see that a supply of 50 is satisfied, but a demand of 10 is not. Therefore, we eliminate row 4. The following table is generated
|
Origin |
3 |
4 |
5 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
10 |
1 |
|
2 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
50 |
2 |
|
3 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
1 |
|
5 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
60 |
1 |
|
Demand |
60 |
10 |
60 |
130 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
From the table, we can also determine the penalties. The highest penalty is seen in row 2. The least cost from row 2 is 4. It satisfies a demand of 10, and a supply of 40 is not satisfied. Therefore, we eliminate column 4. The following table is generated
|
Origin |
3 |
5 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
5 |
6 |
10 |
1 |
|
2 |
6 |
8 |
40 |
2 |
|
3 |
8 |
5 |
10 |
3 |
|
5 |
4 |
7 |
60 |
3 |
|
Demand |
60 |
60 |
120 |
|
|
1 |
0 |
We can identify that the most significant penalty is three from row three and five. We, therefore, determine the least cost from the two which is 4. The cost satisfies a demand of 60 and a supply of 60 as well. Therefore, we cancel row 5 and column 3. The following table is generated
|
Origin |
3 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
5 |
10 |
5 |
|
2 |
6 |
40 |
6 |
|
3 |
8 |
10 |
8 |
|
Demand |
60 |
60 |
|
|
1 |
The table has only one column left and three rows. We can still determine the penalties. The highest penalty is 8. It satisfies a supply of 10, and we are left with a demand of 50. Therefore, we cancel out row 3. The following table is generated
|
Origin |
3 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
5 |
10 |
5 |
|
2 |
6 |
40 |
6 |
|
Demand |
50 |
50 |
|
|
1 |
From the table, the highest penalty is 6. The least cost from row 2 satisfies a supply of 40, but we still have a demand of 10 left. Therefore, we only cancel row 2. The following table is generated
|
Origin |
3 |
supply |
penalties |
|
1 |
5 |
10 |
5 |
|
Demand |
10 |
10 |
|
|
1 |
From this table, we can identify the highest penalty to be five and the least cost to be five as well. The cost satisfies the demand and the supply of 10 units.
From the tables we can calculate the initial feasible solution which is given by
(2*40) +(3*50) +(3*50) +(4*10) +(4*60) +(8*10) +(6*40) +(5*10) =1030
This method is also referring to as the penalty method because it is it calculates the difference between the costs and ends up choosing the least costly routes. Calculation using the Vogel approximation method gives a better solution than the other methods since it gives the route that will use the least amount accurately (Kaur, and Kumar, 2012). This, in turn, will reduce the total cost of production for the company’s products which will also ensure increased profits. The general idea behind reducing the transportation cost is to reduce the total cost of production (Vogel, 2002). This can be achieved through calculation of the problem using the Vogel approximation method.
From the transportation problem given above, the least cost result is 1030. The method eliminates the possible combinations that give the highest penalty. This further means that the higher the penalty, the higher the transportation cost. We, therefore, need to choose the combination with the least difference making this the least cost of transportation (Campi, and Garatti, 2011). Reducing the cost of transportation reduces the cost of goods which acts to the advantage of the frim in that they will be able to maximize their profits.
The problem above contains combinations that would result in different differences between the columns and the rows. Fonterra primary aim at the moment is to maximize their returns to recover the losses made, use of the Vogel approximation method will be an added advantage towards this. The reduced amount of transportation cost will ensure that the company realizes its profits in higher amounts.
Limitations
One of the significant limitations is that the method does not take into account the cost of shipping. Furthermore, the initial solution generated by use of this method needs further improvement (Luedtke, and Ahmed, 2008).
A recommendation towards increasing the profits is to ensure that the Vogel method is applied in solving all transportation problems in Fonterra. They will realize higher returns by use of the Vogel approximation method when they have identified the least costly route to satisfy all their demands using the available supplies.
The technique usually has more than one goal. Its primary goal though is to minimize the deviational variables between the different set goals in an organization which is efficient in solving decision problems in a firm which could have multiple goals. The technique has a similarity to the linear programming the only difference is that linear programming has an ingle objective whereas goal programming involves multiple objectives. To use this technique, the basic idea is to minimize the total objectives and at the same time minimizing the devastation for the respective goals (Jadidi, Cavalieri, and Zolfaghari, 2015).
The basic idea in using linear programming is to analyses the production schedules and ensure that it aligns with the budgets set and the available amount of resources, as well as time factor, is put into consideration. The technique is used to determine the total amount of products that should be purchased, in this case, the raw materials that need to be purchased. The amount of inventory to be held at each particular time to ensure that the company’s operations are running smoothly. The amounts of each product to be produced. The technique is widely used by managers in an organization to plan and make possible decisions with regards to the available resources. The process seeks to minimize the cost of operations and increase the profits which are the primary aim of establishing a business, that is making profits. The idea in linear programming is to maximize or minimize the quantity; this is the objective function which is subject to the limited resources which are also known as the constraints (Campi, Garatti, 2011).
This technique is usually used to determine the time value for money, the amount of cash estimated to be used and the selected measure of worth. The method is calculated whereby the present and the future values that are invested in a company for purchasing the different machines and process in the firm. After calculation, the expected result gives an economic comparison of the most favorable production line to invest in. Furthermore, the technique uses cash flows from the different operations to make the decisions. In making the decisions, analysis on the cash flows is done. This is important since conclusions can be made based on the technical details of the operations (Brown, 2016).
Ergonomics can merely be defined as the science of the workplace of course identifying the limitations and capabilities of the workers. Having poorly designed workplaces will lead to reduced work performance which in the same way reduces the number of end products. Fatigued and hurting employees cannot be able to deliver the same amount of work as satisfied and happy employees. To make a worker more productive, the ergonomics principles have to apply. Seeing an organizations workplace from an ergonomic view ensures that the possible risks of injuries and disorders are avoided.
To increase productivity in Fonterra company, the management needs to see the ergonomic principles from an ergo eye. This will ensure that the workplace design accommodates and serves the employees right to make the highest amounts of products per day. Eight fundamental principles will ensure safety records are maintained.
Principle number one is to maintain the neutral posture. The posture is whereby the body is aligned and balanced whether standing or sitting. The posture aims at placing minimal stress on the body and keeping the joints aligned. The posture further reduces the stress on the tendons, bones, muscles, and nerves, therefore, allowing for maximum control of the body. This ensures that the employees will be relaxed at all times and they can handle their tasks accordingly.
The second principle is working in one’s comfort zone. In other words, working in power. There is a similarity with the neutral posture but its more expounded. The power zone is the point where the arm and the back can lift most weight using the least amount of energy. The principle further states that minimizing the excessive reach you will maintain a neutral posture and further working in your comfort zone.
The third principle is allowing movements and stretching. The skeleton and muscle combination are designed for body movements. This means that working for long periods of time while in the same position will cause the body to be fatigued and therefore reducing its productivity. The position is also known as the static load. Examples of such position are standing for 8 hours, raising your arm above the head for 30 mins among others. After finishing tasks that causes static load, one should stretch their back, hands, and legs to reduce the fatigue. It will also increase the muscle balance and improve the coordination of muscles. Periodic stretch breaks help reduce the fatigue after a long workday. It will allow blood to circulate the body and therefore restore energy within the system.
The fourth principle is reducing excessive force. Excess force is a major ergonomic risk factor. Most of the works done require high forces on the human body. The muscle efforts further increase from the increase in the amount of force required. This will result in increased fatigue among the workers, and the risk of MSD is increased. To reduce the excessive force, on needs to identify ways that would reduce the force. This will, in turn, reduce fatigue among the employees. Some ways that would reduce the force requirements include; increasing the height of tables and other workstations, using mechanical assistance when possible, use of powered equipment and counterbalance systems among others (Taylor, and Hopkin, 1975).
Reducing excessive motion is the fifth principle. Fatigue can also be caused by repetitive motion. Many tasks performed by different workers are repetitive which means that the same force is exerted on the same body part repetitively. The will cause fatigue. Repetition of the same motion should be reduced or avoided if possible. Some of the control methods in a workplace are of rotation, stretch breaks, and job enlargement.
Minimization of contact stress is another important principle. Contact stress can be developed by continuous rubbing or contact between sharp or hard objects with a sensitive body part. The continuous contact creates a localized pressure to the part of the body which may inhibit blood movements, movement of tendons and muscles and normal nerve functioning (Attaianese, and Duca, 2012). Reducing activities that will cause increase contact stress will ensure productivity.
The seventh principle is a reduction of excessive vibration. Research shows that exposure to vibration can cause adverse health effects vibration can cause pain, numbness and turn pale. It also affects the circulatory and the nervous system, therefore, reducing productivity.
The last principle is the provision of adequate lighting. Light is an essential element is a workplace. Workers should have enough light which is not too bright or too dim to do their jobs. To reduce the lighting problems, adjustable lighting should be maintained on workplaces. This will ensure the workers are comfortable enough when carrying out the different tasks assigned to them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Fonterra co-operative group limited is currently facing a problem. The organization has faced a considerable amount of loss for the past one year which raises the alarm. It is recorded to be among the largest dairy cooperative serving in New Zealand and other export markets. Therefore, its contribution to the economy is highly noticeable. There are other upcoming dairy cooperatives which are competing with Fonterra towards having a more significant market share.
Therefore, Fonterra is seeking to establish ways in which they would increase their profits through implementation of the various resource integration techniques. Some of the major techniques include the scheduling technique. The technique aims at establishing the production schedules for the company to maximize the returns, reduce wastes and save on time. Another important technique that Fonterra should uphold is the economic order quantity. The use of this technique ensures that there are reduced holding costs through optimization of the order quantity. Maintain a given number of products and determination of the reorder level at reduced costs ensures that the company reduces the total cost of production and at the same time reducing annual holding costs. Another important technique that Fonterra needs to take up is the Vogel approximation method. The method helps solve transportation problems through determination of the optimal timing of supply and demand.
Furthermore, the report analyses the different ergonomic principles that will ensure increased productivity in the workplace. The ergonomic principles are a dull day to day activities that would help identify the risk factors in a workplace. The risk can further be measured and the different ways to reduce the risks identified. Reduction of the ergonomic risk factors acts as a significant way of increasing the productivity in an organization. The more fatigued the workers are, the less productive they will be. Therefore, to increase the worker’s productivity, the risk factors have to be identified and reduced accordingly.
References
Attaianese, E., & Duca, G. (2012). Human factors and ergonomic principles in building design for life and work activities: an applied methodology. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(2), 187-202.
Albo, G. (2013). The crisis and economic alternatives. Socialist Register, 49(49).
Bansal, B., & Chen, X. D. (2006). A critical review of milk fouling in heat exchangers. Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 5(2), 27-33.
Brown, T. (2016). Engineering economics and industrial design for process engineers. CRC Press.
Caridi, M., & Sianesi, A. (2000). Multi-agent systems in production planning and control: An application to the scheduling of mixed-model assembly lines. International Journal of production economics, 68(1), 29-42.
Campi, M. C., & Garatti, S. (2011). A sampling-and-discarding approach to chance-constrained optimization: feasibility and optimality. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 148(2), 257-280.
Dauzère–Pérès, S., & Lasserre, J. B. (2002). On the importance of sequencing decisions in production planning and scheduling. International transactions in operational research, 9(6), 779-793.
Gray, S., & Le Heron, R. (2010). Globalising New Zealand: Fonterra Co?operative Group, and shaping the future. New Zealand Geographer, 66(1), 1-13.
Hubka, V. (2015). Principles of engineering design. Elsevier
Herrmann, J. W. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of production scheduling (Vol. 89). Springer Science & Business Media.
Jadidi, O., Cavalieri, S., & Zolfaghari, S. (2015). An improved multi-choice goal programming approach for supplier selection problems. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(14), 4213-4222.
Jay, M. (2007). The political economy of productivism agriculture: New Zealand dairy discourses. Food Policy, 32(2), 266-279.
Jay, M., & Murad, M. (2007). Crying over spilled milk: A critical assessment of the ecological modernization of New Zealand’s dairy industry. Society and Natural Resources, 20(5), 469-478.
Karnowski, W. (Ed.). (2001). International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (Vol. 3). Croc Press.
Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2005). Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance. Omega, 33(2), 153-162.
Kayak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of operations management, 21(4), 405-435.
Kumar, S. A., & Suresh, N. (2006). Production and operations management. New Age International.
Kaur, A., & Kumar, A. (2012). A new approach for solving fuzzy transportation problems using generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Applied soft computing, 12(3), 1201-1213.
Katsambis, P. (2012). Classical and modern approaches to public administration. Economic Alternatives, 1, 74-81.
Luedtke, J., & Ahmed, S. (2008). A sample approximation approach for optimization with probabilistic constraints. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 19(2), 674-699.
Malik, R., Knap man, R., Mann, R., & Director, C. O. E. R. (2018). RAPID BENCHMARKING AT FONTERRA USING THE TRADE BEST PRACTICE BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY.
Metabiotic, K. S., Astounds, D., & Psara’s, J. (2002). Expert systems in production planning and scheduling: A state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13(4), 253-260.
Nia, A. R., Far, M. H., & Niki, S. T. A. (2014). A fuzzy vendor managed inventory of multi-item economic order quantity model under shortage: An ant colony optimization algorithm — International Journal of Production Economics, 155, 259-271.
Opperman, R. (2017). Adaptive user support: ergonomic design of manually and automatically adaptable software. Routledge.
Onwubolu, G. C. (2002). Emerging optimization techniques in production planning and control.
Peterson, J. E. (2009). Life after oil: economic alternatives for the Arab Gulf States. Mediterranean Quarterly, 20(3), 1-18.
Pawson, E., & Perkins, H. C. (2017). New Zealand going global: The emerging relationships economy. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 58(3), 257-272.
Taylor, R. M., & Hopkin, V. D. (1975). Ergonomic principles and map design. Applied Ergonomics, 6(4), 196-204.
Stringer, C., Tamásy, C., Le Heron, R., & Gray, S. (2008). Growing a global resource-based company from New Zealand: The case of dairy giant Fonterra. Agri-food commodity chains and globalizing networks, 189-199.
Taleizadeh, A. A., Stojkovska, I., & Pentico, D. W. (2015). An economic order quantity model with partial back ordering and incremental discount. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 82, 21-32.
Tuncel, G., & Bayhan, G. M. (2007). Applications of Petri nets in production scheduling: a review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 34(7-8), 762-773.
Vogel, C. R. (2002). Computational methods for inverse problems (Vol. 23). Siam.
Welsh, M. J., & Marshall, S. E. (2017). Modeling New Zealand Dairy Production: The Impact of Traceability Between the Farm and the Factory. Prevention, 2, 9.
Zeidler, E. (2013). Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications: III: variational methods and optimization. Springer Science & Business Media.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download