Nicole Foster, Grand Valley State University Master Tag

Nicole Foster Grand Valley State Universitywhen Mastertag Was Founded

Nicole Foster, Grand Valley State University When MasterTag was founded in 1949, its founder, Ludwig Schmidt, set out to be a manufacturer of plastic fishing bobbers. Then, in 1950, Mr. Schmidt was approached by a local greenhouse owner and was asked if he could produce a line of horticultural labels for plants. At the time, these labels were made of wood. Mr. Schmidt adapted his machines to produce these labels and has been manufacturing the plastic “tags” for plants ever since. Over the years, the labels have increased in quality and now feature full-color pictures of the plants along with the name and planting and care instructions. Many of MasterTag’s largest customers are seed companies that sell the seeds to commercial growers. The large seed companies typically place one or two large orders with MasterTag at the beginning of the growing season. The seed companies then sell their seeds and the labels to their customers who grow the plants and sell them to the end consumer.

For various reasons, the seed companies do not like ordering tags, but do so because their customers demand labels with their seeds. However, there are several problems with this ordering process. The main issue stems from the fact that the exact quantities of tags that will be needed is difficult to predict due to possible crop failures and the introduction of new items. To avoid a shortage of tags, seed companies order and ship a large quantity of tags to their customers. Tags are ordered early to allow for the time needed to incorporate the tags with the seeds.

Seed companies usually end up each year with huge numbers of leftover tags. In fact, MasterTag’s largest customers often end up with millions of leftover tags. When MasterTag’s management became aware of all the unused labels and unhappy customers, they decided they must come up with a better solution for achieving a match between supply and demand of the tags. One possible solution would be to make an initial, fairly large batch, which would be produced and shipped directly to the growers instead of the seed companies, as is now being done. Later, when the grower results became available, a second batch would be produced using information from growers on how many additional tags are needed.

Paper For Above instruction

The revised approach proposed by MasterTag aims to optimize the supply chain of horticultural tags by aligning production with actual demand, thereby reducing excess inventory and enhancing customer satisfaction. The core benefit of this approach is the significant reduction in leftover tags, which directly correlates with cost savings and minimized waste. This method is especially relevant in agricultural supply chains where forecasting demand is inherently uncertain due to factors like crop failures, weather variability, and the introduction of new plant varieties.

Traditionally, seed companies place large, upfront orders to ensure that they have enough tags to meet demand during the planting season. This method, while straightforward, results in over-ordering and substantial leftovers, which can be costly for both seed companies and manufacturers like MasterTag. The figure illustrating the before-and-after scenarios underscores the potential efficiency gains through a more dynamic and responsive ordering process.

The proposed change involves producing an initial, moderate batch of tags directly sent to growers. This initial batch is designed to reflect a more realistic demand estimate, based on early feedback or historical data. Once the growing season progresses and actual demand becomes clearer, a second batch is produced tailored to the specific needs identified by the growers. This iterative process ensures that production better matches consumption, leading to less surplus inventory and fewer costs tied to storage or disposal of unused tags.

The key benefit of this revised approach is the improved alignment of supply with actual demand, which provides several advantages:

• Reduction in excess inventory and associated storage costs
• Shortening of the production cycle, enabling faster response to demand fluctuations
• Potential for increased customer satisfaction due to better availability of tags and reduced surplus
• Enhanced flexibility in manufacturing and distribution processes
• Environmental benefits from less waste and resource overuse

The reason for these benefits revolves around the flexibility in production scheduling and the ability to adapt to real-time demand signals. It mitigates the risks and costs associated with overproduction, which is a common challenge in seasonal or demand-variable industries like horticulture.

However, the implementation of this approach involves considerations of several pros and cons. On the positive side, it promotes efficiency, cost savings, and environmental sustainability. Additionally, it can strengthen relationships with customers by providing more accurate fulfillment. Conversely, drawbacks may include increased complexity in planning and logistics, the need for sophisticated demand forecasting, potential delays in production caused by additional approval or feedback cycles, and the risk that the initial batch might still be insufficient if demand outstrips expectations.

Furthermore, this approach may require investment in new technology, data analytics, and flexible manufacturing systems, which might be a barrier for some organizations. The transition from a traditional model to a more adaptive system necessitates careful change management and coordination among different parts of the supply chain.

In conclusion, the revised approach proposed by MasterTag offers promising benefits centered around demand-driven manufacturing, which aligns supply more closely with actual needs. While the strategy involves certain operational and strategic challenges, the potential for cost savings, waste reduction, and improved customer satisfaction make it a compelling option. Organizations considering this shift should weigh the benefits against the logistical adjustments required and plan accordingly to leverage its full potential.

References

• Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & supply chain management (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Christopher, M. (2011). Logistics and supply chain management. Pearson UK.
• Harrison, A., & Van Hoek, R. (2017). Logistics management and strategy: Competing through the supply chain (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Mentzer, J. T. (2004). Fundamentals of supply chain management. Sage Publications.
• Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, E. (2008). Designing and managing the supply chain: Concepts, strategies, and case studies. McGraw-Hill.
• Stevenson, W. J. (2018). Operations management (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Cooper, M. C., & Ellram, L. M. (1993). Characteristics of supply chain management and the implications for purchasing and logistics strategy. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4(2), 13-24.
• Rahman, S. S., & Subramanian, N. (2012). Towards a customer-centric supply chain: Conflicting policies for managing demand variability. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 546-560.
• Lee, H. L., & Billington, C. (1992). Managing supply chain inventory: Pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 65-73.
• Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2019). Supply chain management: Strategy, planning, and operation (7th ed.). Pearson.