Capacity Report, Lab Report Example

The overall team standing was 16 with an ending cash position of $46,600. To ensure that maximal profit would be earned, we focused on acquiring more machines during the last 100 days of production and then selling them once the demand for blood testing began to drop. However, we found that this method was not the most profitable way to run the laboratory; our final cash position was significantly less than our starting cash of $1,000,000.

At the beginning of the operation, Littlefield’s lab had been equipped with one sample preparing machine, one tester, and one centrifuge machine. These were the idea settings for this point in time because it was not possible to determine the growth of the need for blood testing service. At this step, it was therefore more profitable to only have one machine for each laboratory function, while considering that the quantity of each machine should increase if the need for the service grew to a point beyond what the current equipment would be able to handle in a reasonable amount of time. At day 155, we recommended that the Littlefield lab acquire additional machines for sample preparing, testing, and centrifuging. After the acquisition, there were two of each machine. The 155^th day marks the point in which blood sample influx started to plateau. The additional machines were acquired because we noticed that this quantity was needed to ensure productivity at this point in time; since the sample influx was remaining flat and it was essential to test the samples at a lead time of 24 hours and a maximum lead time of 72 hours, having two of each machine ensured a lead time that was closer to 24 hours.

Originally, the Littlefield lab technicians were following a first in, first out policy for machine 2, which is the actual testing of the blood samples. We left this machine at this setting because we believed that this would be the best way to ensure that testing of all samples are completed in a timely manner. A second machine 2 was added to increase productivity, which was believed to be more effective then altering its scheduling policy.

We believed that the last 50 days that were uncontrolled would allow us to gain profit and reimburse the funds spent on additional machinery for the laboratory. However, we found that this was not the case because our inventory costs were very high compared to the profit we made. Unfortunately, the modifications we made to the system weren’t nearly enough to allow the lab to make money. Therefore, there are several things we would need to do differently if this scenario were to be repeated.

One decision that should have been altered is the time when we bought the additional machines for the company. This should have been done right away at day 100 when the number of blood samples Littlefield was receiving was still increasing exponentially. When the plateau was reached, we should have then determined whether these additional machines are truly necessary because there is a set number of blood samples than can be used for calculations. Lastly, it may have been more beneficial to alter machine 2 so that it would give priority to longer final tasks. In doing so, it would be easier for the company to budget for the time that it takes for each sample to go through the process. This may also lessen the need for a second centrifuge (machine 3), because this machine operates at a set time.