Homework SourseMercury Inc produces cell phones at its plant in Texas In re
Mercury, Inc., produces cell phones at its plant in Texas. In recent years, the company’s market share has been eroded by stiff competition from overseas. Price and product quality are the two key areas in which companies compete in this market.
A year ago, the company’s cell phones had been ranked low in product quality in a consumer survey. Shocked by this result, Jorge Gomez, Mercury’s president, initiated an intense effort to improve product quality. Gomez set up a task force to implement a formal quality improvement program. Included on this task force were representatives from the Engineering, Marketing, Customer Service, Production, and Accounting departments. The broad representation was needed because Gomez believed that this was a companywide program and that all employees should share the responsibility for its success.
After the first meeting of the task force, Holly Elsoe, manager of the Marketing Department, asked John Tran, production manager, what he thought of the proposed program. Tran replied, “I have reservations. Quality is too abstract to be attaching costs to it and then to be holding you and me responsible for cost improvements. I like to work with goals that I can see and count! I’m nervous about having my annual bonus based on a decrease in quality costs; there are too many variables that we have no control over.”
Mercury’s quality improvement program has now been in operation for one year. The company’s most recent quality cost report is shown below.
As they were reviewing the report, Elsoe asked Tran what he now thought of the quality improvement program. Tran replied. “I’m relieved that the new quality improvement program hasn’t hurt our bonuses, but the program has increased the workload in the Production Department. It is true that customer returns are way down, but the cell phones that were returned by customers to retail outlets were rarely sent back to us for rework.”
Required:
1. Expand the company’s quality cost report by showing the costs in both years as percentages of both total production cost and total quality cost. (Round your percentage answers to 1 decimal place (i.e 0.1234 should be entered as 12.3).)
| Mercury, Inc. | ||||
| Quality Cost Report | ||||
| (in thousands) | ||||
| Last Year | This Year | |||
| Prevention costs: | ||||
| Machine maintenance | $ | 270 | $ | 140 |
| Training suppliers | 5 | 12 | ||
| Quality circles | 25 | 90 | ||
| Total prevention cost | 300 | 242 | ||
| Appraisal costs: | ||||
| Incoming inspection | 40 | 20 | ||
| Final testing | 185 | 90 | ||
| Total appraisal cost | 225 | 110 | ||
| Internal failure costs: | ||||
| Rework | 110 | 62 | ||
| Scrap | 74 | 50 | ||
| Total internal failure cost | 184 | 112 | ||
| External failure costs: | ||||
| Warranty repairs | 68 | 36 | ||
| Customer returns | 264 | 92 | ||
| Total external failure cost | 332 | 128 | ||
| Total quality cost | $ | 1,041 | $ | 592 |
| Total production cost | $ | 4,170 | $ | 4,570 |
Solution
Answer
· % of total production cost is calculated by dividing respective figures by Total production cost
· % of total quality cost is calculated by dividing respective figures by Total Quality cost concerned.
· Requirement of question answered
Quality Cost Report
(in thousands)
Last Year
This Year
Amount
Percentage of Total Production Cost
Percentage of Total Quality Cost
Amount
Percentage of Total Production Cost
Percentage of Total Quality Cost
Prevention costs:
Machine maintenance
270
6.5%
25.9%
140
3.1%
23.6%
Training suppliers
5
0.1%
0.5%
12
0.3%
2.0%
Quality circles
25
0.6%
2.4%
90
2.0%
15.2%
Total prevention costs
300
7.2%
28.8%
242
5.3%
40.9%
Appraisal costs:
Incoming inspection
40
1.0%
3.8%
20
0.4%
3.4%
Final testing
185
4.4%
17.8%
90
2.0%
15.2%
Total appraisal costs
225
5.4%
21.6%
110
2.4%
18.6%
Internal failure costs:
Rework
110
2.6%
10.6%
62
1.4%
10.5%
Scrap
74
1.8%
7.1%
50
1.1%
8.4%
Total internal failure costs
184
4.4%
17.7%
112
2.5%
18.9%
External failure costs:
Warranty repairs
68
1.6%
6.5%
36
0.8%
6.1%
Customer returns
264
6.3%
25.4%
92
2.0%
15.5%
Total external failure costs
332
8.0%
31.9%
128
2.8%
21.6%
Total quality cost
1041
25.0%
100.0%
592
13.0%
100.0%
Total production cost
4170
100.0%
4570
100.0%
| Quality Cost Report | |||||||
| (in thousands) | |||||||
| Last Year | This Year | ||||||
| Amount | Percentage of Total Production Cost | Percentage of Total Quality Cost | Amount | Percentage of Total Production Cost | Percentage of Total Quality Cost | ||
| Prevention costs: | |||||||
| Machine maintenance | 270 | 6.5% | 25.9% | 140 | 3.1% | 23.6% | |
| Training suppliers | 5 | 0.1% | 0.5% | 12 | 0.3% | 2.0% | |
| Quality circles | 25 | 0.6% | 2.4% | 90 | 2.0% | 15.2% | |
| Total prevention costs | 300 | 7.2% | 28.8% | 242 | 5.3% | 40.9% | |
| Appraisal costs: | |||||||
| Incoming inspection | 40 | 1.0% | 3.8% | 20 | 0.4% | 3.4% | |
| Final testing | 185 | 4.4% | 17.8% | 90 | 2.0% | 15.2% | |
| Total appraisal costs | 225 | 5.4% | 21.6% | 110 | 2.4% | 18.6% | |
| Internal failure costs: | |||||||
| Rework | 110 | 2.6% | 10.6% | 62 | 1.4% | 10.5% | |
| Scrap | 74 | 1.8% | 7.1% | 50 | 1.1% | 8.4% | |
| Total internal failure costs | 184 | 4.4% | 17.7% | 112 | 2.5% | 18.9% | |
| External failure costs: | |||||||
| Warranty repairs | 68 | 1.6% | 6.5% | 36 | 0.8% | 6.1% | |
| Customer returns | 264 | 6.3% | 25.4% | 92 | 2.0% | 15.5% | |
| Total external failure costs | 332 | 8.0% | 31.9% | 128 | 2.8% | 21.6% | |
| Total quality cost | 1041 | 25.0% | 100.0% | 592 | 13.0% | 100.0% | |
| Total production cost | 4170 | 100.0% | 4570 | 100.0% |
