March 2015 And 442 Mcadam: A Woman's Designer Hand

It Wasmarch 2015 And 442 Mcadam Mcadam A Womans Designer Handbag

Evaluate the decision to outsource handbag production either locally in Toronto or internationally, considering qualitative factors, variable costs, contribution margins, sales channels, minimum inventory requirements, and other relevant factors. Make a recommendation based on these considerations to support the growth and profitability of McAdam handbags.

Paper For Above instruction

In the dynamic landscape of luxury fashion accessories, the strategic decision of outsourcing manufacturing plays a crucial role in shaping a brand’s profitability, market reach, and product integrity. For Sarah Shell and her company, 442 McAdam, the choice between local and international manufacturing partners entails a comprehensive analysis of various qualitative and quantitative factors to optimize growth and ensure competitive advantage.

Qualitative Assessment of Manufacturing Options

Locally, manufacturing in Toronto offers benefits such as proximity to the core business operations, easier communication, quality control, and faster turnaround times. These factors can contribute to higher product quality assurance and quicker response to market trends, thereby maintaining the brand’s unique appeal. Moreover, working with local manufacturers might enhance brand image through supporting domestic industry and sustainable practices, which resonate with environmentally conscious consumers.

On the other hand, international manufacturing, primarily in overseas facilities, typically provides substantial cost advantages due to lower labor and material costs. This can enable Shell to lower production costs, increase profit margins, or offer more competitive pricing to the target market. However, these benefits come with potential risks: longer lead times, communication barriers, quality control challenges, and potential reputational concerns if ethical manufacturing practices are not maintained. Additionally, geopolitical issues and import duties can complicate international supply chains.

Variable Costs and Cost Structure Analysis

From a cost perspective, the variable costs directly impact the contribution margins per handbag. Local manufacturers charge approximately $120 per handbag with a minimum order of 10 units per design and color. International manufacturers, however, charge around $80 per handbag with a minimum order of 50 units. Given the pricing at $440 retail and a wholesale discount of 45%, the unit contribution margin can be calculated accordingly:

• Retail price: $440
• Wholesale price (selling price to retailers): 55% of retail = $242

Contribution margin per unit (before considering manufacturing costs): $242 - variable manufacturing cost.

For local manufacturing: $242 - $120 = $122. For international manufacturing: $242 - $80 = $162.

Thus, the contribution margin per unit is higher when using international manufacturers, which can significantly enhance profitability, especially when sales volume is large. The contribution margin ratio—calculated as contribution margin divided by selling price—is approximately 27.7% for local manufacturing and 36.8% for international manufacturing, favoring international options from a profitability standpoint.

Sales Channels and Contribution Margin Analysis

Considering both online and retail sales, the contribution margins remain consistent per unit. However, online sales might entail lower distribution costs, potentially increasing overall contribution margins. The key consideration is the inventory management aligned with sales projections, especially given the minimum order quantities and seasonality.

Inventory Requirements and Sales Projection Analysis

Shell’s sales projections estimate that each boutique will purchase 8 handbags per style season, with 12 boutiques participating initially. This results in:

• 2016: 8 handbags x 12 boutiques x 2 seasons = 192 handbags.
• Sales are projected to increase by 50% in 2017, raising the total to approximately 288 handbags for that year, plus additional online sales (24 handbags annually).

Since the minimum order quantity per design and color is 10 units for local manufacturers and 50 for international manufacturers, Shell faces logistical constraints. To meet initial projections, the minimum orders should align with these quantities, possibly leading to excess inventory if sales are below forecasts. For example, if the minimum order quantity of 50 handbags per design is purchased, but actual sales only reach 192 handbags in 2016, excess inventory could be substantial, risking obsolete stock if unsold before the season’s end.

Conversely, international manufacturing’s higher minimum order quantity of 50 units could provide economies of scale and lower per-unit costs but entails larger inventory risks if sales do not meet forecasts. The local option, with smaller minimum orders (10 units), offers flexibility, reducing excess inventory risks and enabling more precise inventory matching to actual sales. However, higher unit costs might diminish contribution margins, especially if sales volumes are lower than anticipated.

Additional Considerations

Other vital factors include lead times, quality control, brand reputation, and ethical considerations. Local manufacturing typically features shorter lead times, facilitating quicker response to market trends and reducing safety stock needs. This agility benefits Shell’s strategy of frequent design updates and customizations based on boutique feedback.

Quality and craftsmanship are pivotal for maintaining McAdam's distinct appeal. If overseas manufacturers meet quality standards comparable to local suppliers, cost savings could outweigh other concerns. Ensuring transparency and ethical labor practices in international factories are also critical to brand image, especially among target consumers who value authenticity and social responsibility.

Logistics and supply chain reliability are paramount. International suppliers may face delays due to shipping and customs, risking missed market opportunities. Building strong relationships and clear communication channels can mitigate such risks but require diligent oversight.

Financial Implications and Strategic Recommendations

Financially, choosing international manufacturing maximizes contribution margins per handbag, bolstering profitability margins. However, the higher minimum order quantities amplify inventory risk, making it essential to accurately forecast sales and perhaps adopt flexible ordering strategies or just-in-time inventory practices where feasible.

For the initial phase, a hybrid approach might be advantageous—engaging international manufacturers to capitalize on cost savings for high-volume core designs, while utilizing local manufacturers for smaller batches or new designs requiring more agility and quality control oversight. This combination can help balance cost efficiency, inventory management, and brand integrity.

In conclusion, considering the qualitative benefits of proximity and quality control versus the quantitative advantages of lower costs and margins, the international manufacturing option appears more aligned with Shell’s focus on scaling operations efficiently. Nonetheless, a careful analysis of order quantities, lead times, and inventory strategy is vital. Shell should also consider establishing strong supplier relationships and implementing effective inventory management systems to mitigate risks associated with higher minimum orders. Therefore, I recommend proceeding with international manufacturing, supplemented by strategic local partnerships for flexible production and quality assurance, to support McAdam’s growth ambitions and preserve its unique brand identity.

References

• Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2019). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
• Choi, T. M., & Gray, J. V. (2016). Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management. Springer.
• Fisher, M. (2012). Supply Chain Design and Management. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Gibson, B. J. (2019). Fashion Supply Chain Management. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2020). Operations Management. Pearson.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Mentzer, J. T., & Moon, M. A. (2014). Sales Forecasting Management. Sage Publications.
• Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production.
• Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. (2006). Extending green practices across the supply chain: The impact of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
• Zhao, X., Huo, B., Selen, W., & Yeung, J. H. (2013). The impact of relational information technology capabilities on supply chain integration and performance. Journal of Operations Management.