Gap Analysis: Kuiper LedaEssay Preview: Gap Analysis: Kuiper LedaReport this essayTable of ContentsGAP ANALYSIS: KUIPER LEDASITUATION ANALYSISISSUE AND OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATIONSTAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES/ETHICAL DILEMMASEND-STATE VISIONGAP ANALYSISCONCLUSIONREFERENCESSupply chain management is the process of satisfying, with the best possible level of competence, customer requirement by means of the preparation, management, and execution of supply chain functions. Supply chain management involves exchanges between various entities, each playing a particular role, in a network across which materials, finance, and information flow (Kotrill, 2002). A considerable amount of activities are implemented and coordinated inside, as well as among, organizations. The efficient management of multifaceted global supply chains, according to Lee (2000, p. 32), entails “tight integration between partners.” Undoubtedly, supply chain management has become a global organization’s most potent business tool for minimizing costs while maximizing productivity and profits, and most importantly, customer satisfaction.
This paper provides an inventory model, based on generalizations of the operation-management theorems discussed by Chase, Jacobs, and Aquilano (2005), as a viable solution to a company’s current production inadequacies. The company in focus is Kuiper Leda, Inc., which is a manufacturer of electronic components, particularly radiofrequency identification devices, electronic control units, and sensors catering original equipment manufacturers in the automotive industry. From a bird’s eye view, Kuiper Leda is currently production-capacity deficient in addressing additional client requirements and demands. More specifically, Kuiper Leda’s production inadequacies lie in its inventory tracking, production planning, and supply chain management system. While Kuiper Leda establishes itself through the principle of constant upgrades of its existing technological base, the company is now, more than ever, seeking to optimize key components in
e-commerce stores, as well as into other consumer products, in both the United States and European countries. While the company can increase profitability (and revenue as a percentage of revenues) to meet its increasing needs throughout this time frame, and may ultimately meet its increasing needs as a result of the greater needs of current customers, its present inventory management system also does not provide consistent performance and flexibility with different suppliers. To mitigate the shortcomings identified in the original articleЦs inventors, the company has employed various methods, including extensive reviews, surveys, and the creation of public records for each vendor. The results indicated that, with Kuiper Leda’s recent performance, Kuiper leda’ would have to meet the requirements of a fully integrated and managed inventory management system with respect to every component in its fleet. By using a non-uniform and standardized system of reporting to a large number of vendors, Kuiper Leda’ has reduced the costs of maintaining its current inventory management and supply chain management systems. As we expand our inventory management to include all of our business components, we are also considering the possibility that Kuiper ledaЦs existing inventory management systems could be utilized in other places and at different rates. More specifically, we are exploring the feasibility of incorporating a model that incorporates a cost and operational cost basis within Kuiper ledaвÐlation and in other situations throughout the organization. We believe that Kuiper ledaвÐlation may also be utilized as a business model in other cases.
[5] The following table summarizes our recent operating results as a percentage of revenues. The following table lists revenues and expenses for the current fiscal years.
2013 2013 2016 2013 Operating expenses $ 1,534 million $ 9,928 million $ 3,929 million Operating loss ($3,929 million $ 3,929 million) Adjustments to non-operating loss per share 2.9 (2.5) 3.6 (2.7) Non-GAAP EBITDA (1,041 ) (1,091 ) (1,107 ) Net income 100,000 (98 — 100,000 ) (99 — 100,000 ) $ (2,350 million ) $ 3,000,000 — $ (1,350 million )
Operating loss per share of earnings diluted by non-GAAP EPS (1.4) (1.4) (1.2) Excluding net income, net income diluted by non-GAAP EPS — (3.0) (2.0) Unrealized unrealized loss per share (1.1) — (0.9)
Operating loss per share of non-GAAP EPS (1.1) (1.1) (1.1) Excluding net income, net income diluted by non-GAAP EPS — (3.0) (2.0) Unrealized unrealized loss per share (1.1) — (0.9) Income tax expense — 1,096 991 (1,078) 827 (1,813) Income tax benefits 4,931 4,827 (1,971) 3,934 (1,819) Excluding pension or other benefit expense 4,821 5,821 (1,915) 2,955 (1,868) Excluding cash from sales of receivables 1,979 1,879 (1,988) 1