Answer:
The map of the current process is found in the attached
The minimum cycle time is 1 min 40 seconds
The longest cycle time is 2 min 35 seconds
The new minimum cycle is 1 min 15 seconds
The new longest cycle time is 2 mins
The potential problem that could surface from splitting the process is that once the customer has finished paying the customer has to wait for about 30 to 55 seconds before the second attendant finishes with packaging,hence ,a queue would likely be formed awaiting the second attendant.
The problem could be solved by ensuring the taking money and packaging takes the same time.
Explanation:
Minimum cycle time=20+55+25=100 seconds=1 minute 40 seconds
The longest cycle time=30+90+35=155 seconds=2 min 35 seconds
The new minimum cycle time=20+55=75 seconds=1 min 15 seconds
Taking customer's money also happened in the first 35 seconds of the 55 seconds above.
The new longest cycle time=30+90=120 seconds=2 mins
Answer
The answer and procedures of the exercise are attached in the following archives.
Explanation
You will find the procedures, formulas or necessary explanations in the archive attached below. If you have any question ask and I will aclare your doubts kindly.
False because the
objective of <span>Trade Promotions can offer several benefits to
businesses. Moreover, companies use Trade Promotions to improve distribution of
their product at retailers and strengthen relationships with retailers. Most
importantly trade Promotions can be advantage to introduce new product dispatch
into retail stores </span>
Answer:
rate variance $ 72,000.00 F
efficiency variance $ 75,000.00 U
Total Variance: 3,000.00 U
Explanation:
DIRECT LABOR VARIANCES
std rate $ 15.00
actual rate $ 12.60 (378,000 labor cost / 30,000 labor hours)
actual hours 30,000
difference $2.40
rate variance $72,000.00
As the company wages were lower than expected, it saved rate-related cost
std hours 25000.00 (5,000 units x 5hours each = 25,000)
actual hours 30000.00
std rate $15.00
difference -5000.00
As the company use more hours the cost were higher than standard
efficiency variance $(75,000.00)