Recommendation Letter Essay Example for Free

Proposal Letter Essay As I would like to think, I have at no other time composed a proposal letter where the competitor and the open door were such an ideal fit. I have known Janet Lerner for a long time at this point, since she took my early on course in dinosaurs during her sophomore year. In my long showing profession, I have never met an undergrad understudy with such a certified and centered enthusiasm for fossil science, and such a reasonable bent for it. I will show this by addressing Janet’s capacity as a communicator, her particular enthusiasm for dinosaur fossil science, and her development and trustworthiness. Janet advises me that you are looking for a talented communicator to give voyages through your animatronic shows. In any event, during her sophomore year, Janet was a gifted communicator regarding the matter of dinosaur fossil science. In my group, for which she got an A, Janet composed two sytheses: one on the foundations of the revelation and the attributes of Deinonychus; one assessing the protective abilities of Euoplocephalus. Janet substantiated herself not just uncommonly well-spoken and educated regarding the current matter, yet she additionally showed herself fit for using an argumentâ€moving from reason to end dependent on significant proof. Janet likewise did this with style and energy. I refer to portions from her papers: â€Å"Previously observed as merciless, pea-brained reptiles . . .† and â€Å"The toe muscles went about as a spring component to flick the hook around towards the rear of the foot.† For me, such enunciations underscore both Janet’s bona fide interest with dinosaurs and her capacity to impart that fervor and information to other people. As a scholastic guide to the residence where Janet lives, I regularly witness her collaborations with others and know direct of her locale administration. A year ago, Janet was the chosen VP in the residence, and in this job she was liable for various capacities, including staff/understudy snacks and an enlisting phoneathon. Janet is very much regarded in the dormitoryâ€a famous figure known for her genuineness, quiet, and generosity. I have seen her handle fragile circumstances with attentiveness, and she handles herself in all circumstances with balance. At last, Janet has solid feelings tempered by practical insight and reason; she has firm profound roots and a functioning, various, public activity; she is steadfast, dedicated, and discerning. It is an uncommon treat to experience an understudy as great as Janet Lerner, and in the event that you give her the open door I am certain you will discover her similarly amazing. Kindly give her your most astute thought.

Sippican Case

1 SIPPICAN CORPORATION CASE ANALYSYS 20229 Cost Management System 2 Executive Summary ? Organization Overview ? Bookkeeping technique ? Creation process ? Exercises performed ? Q1. Ought to Sippican utilize a commitment edge approach? Clarification ? Q2. Limit cost rates for assets ? Q3. ? a. Amended expenses and benefits ? b. Item expenses and benefit examination with the new designation strategy. Reason for the movements in values. ? Q4. What moves should the administration make to improve Sippican’s benefit? 3 Company diagram †¢ Sippican is an organization fabricating water powered control gadgets: alves, siphons and stream controllers †¢ Recent patterns (March 2006) ? Valves: edge stayed at standard 35% ? Siphons: Sippican’s primary business, net edge tumbled to 5% (underneath anticipate. 35%) ? Stream controllers: cost increment by 10% with no impact on request †¢ Issue Sippican needed to respond to contenders siphons cost decreases to keep up volume s Decline in gainfulness: pre charge edge to under 2% 4 Competitive situation Sippican †¢ High quality †¢ Unique structure †¢ Loyal client base †¢ Major provider †¢ High volumes †¢ Commodities †¢ Major nearness †¢ Customized †¢ Various typesIndustry Able to coordinate Sippican’s quality, however no offers for piece of the overall industry with cost cuts Sippican’sReaction Stable 35% gross edge Valves Pumps Price decrease Price decrease and subsequent decrease in productivity More creation runs and shipments to satisfy need + 10% Price increment w/o influencing request Flow Controllers Much assortment of types in the business 5 Accounting technique †¢ Simple cost bookkeeping framework , full cost strategy: ? DM costs= cost of segments (yearly understanding) ? DL= 32. 5$/h (incidental advantages are incorporated); charged on sexually transmitted disease run times for every item ?OH distributed as % of creation run DL cost (185% flow OH rate) †¢ Variable expenses are just DL and DM Meeting to think about embracing a commitment edge approach 6 Production process Purchase Machine Assembly ? An extraordinary item office ? Same supplies and work for all the 3 product offerings ? Without a moment to spare Valves †¢ 4 segments †¢ Standardized †¢ Large parcels Pumps †¢ 5 segments †¢ Standardized †¢ Products go to modern merchants after get together Flow Controllers †¢ Varied&customized: more parts, more work , more items runs 7 Activities Set up 2x 7. h/d shifts; 20 days out of every month †¢ each time cluster parts is machined in a creation run †¢ 15 laborers for each move (25% creation workforce) †¢ 62 machines Workers at the same time at more machines 45 specialists for every move (production&assembly laborers) 5,400$/month working cost Productivity: 6 for every move Production run Receiving and creation control †¢ Orderind, preparing, r eviewing, moving group componetnts to creation runs †¢ 75’ (in any case kind of creation run and segments cost) †¢ 4 individuals over the 2 movements †¢ 50’ per shipment 8’ air pocket wrap and pack 14 laborers for each move (tot28) 7. h/d move; 30’ preparing; 2ãâ€"15’ breaks *Production& get together specialists: †2x 15’ breaks 30’ preparing 30’ preventive mainteinance Packaging and transportation New item plan and advancement †¢ 9750$/m remuneration †¢ 7. 5h/d move 8 Q1: Should official embrace a commitment edge approach? Indeed Costs-volumeprofits examination No Variable costs:dm&dl huge commitment to goodness Pricing choices No record of all costs identified with items Significant fixed expenses JIT: no compelling reason to fuse inventories NO: organization cost structure huge fixed overhead expenses and critical exercises impacting the estimations of the last items the entire investiga tion will dependent on the commitment edge approach. The outcomes which will be acquired will be affected by the utilization of Time-driven ABC, with the correct cost driver assignment to cost pools. It will have the effect for perfoming a progressively precise examination 9 Q2: Compute limit rates for assets Hrs/month Monthly cost* Production laborers 20 $3. 900 Indirect specialists 20 $3. 900 Engineers 20 $9. 750 Machines 20 $5. 400 x Paid hrs 7,5 Productive hrs 6 6,5 6 12 ? Month to month hrs 120 130 120 240 Cost for every hr $32,50 $30,00 $81,25 $22,50 DL Set up Machines Rec&Prod Pack&Shp Eng units 90 30 62 4 28 8 Monthly hrs 120 240 130 120 Hrs accessible Hrs utilized % Capacity utilized 10800 10700 99,07% 3600 3400 94,44% 14880 14600 98,12% 520 431,25 82,93% 3640 3483,33 95,70% 960 900 93,75% *given by the content Q2 Product information March 2006: 10 Product Lines Valves Pumps Flow Contr. DM units 4 5 10 DM cost 16 20 22 DL h/unit 0,38 0,50 0,4 Machine h/unit 0,5 0,3 Set up h/unit 5 6 12 Production Units Machine hrs (run time) Production runs Setup hrs(labor&machine) #of shipments Hrs designing work Valves Pumps Flow Contr. 7500 12500 4000 3750 6250 1200 20 100 225 100 600 2700 40 100 200 60 240 600Total 24000 11200 345 3400 340 900 Actual amounts for each movement: Activities Set up hrs Machine hrs Receiving& control hrs Packaging and Shipment hrs Engeneering hrs Pr Units x DLhrs Mhrs+set up hrs(machine) 75’/60) x creation runs (50’/60’) x #ship + (8’/60’) x pr. Units Eng hrs Valves 2850 3850 25 1. 033,33 60 Pumps 6250 6850 125 1750 240 Flow contr 1600 3900 281,25 700 600 Total hrs utilized 10700 14600 431,25 3483,33 900 Q3 Valves Pumps Flow Controllers Tot $592. 500,0 $875. 000,0 $380. 000,0 $1. 847. 500,0 $212. 625,0 $453. 125,0 $140. 000,0 $805. 750,0 $120. 000,0 $92. 625,0 $250. 00,0 $203. 125,0 $88. 000,0 $52. 000,0 $458. 000,0 $347. 750,0 11 Q3. a: Revised expenses and benefits for the 3 product offerings Revenues VC DM* DL* Contribution Margin TOH* Machine related costs Setup work Setup Machine R&P Control P&S Engeneering $379. 875,0 $421. 875,0 $126. 499,0 $249. 374,1 $84. 375,0 $3. 250,0 $2. 250,0 $750,0 $30. 999,0 $4. 875,0 $140. 625,0 $19. 500,0 $13. 500,0 $3. 750,0 $52. 499,1 $19. 500,0 $240. 000,0 $253. 687,8 $27. 000,0 $87. 750,0 $60. 750,0 $8. 437,5 $21. 000,3 $48. 750,0 $1. 041. 750,0 $629. 560,9 $252. 000,0 $110. 500,0 $76. 500,0 $12. 937,5 $104. 498,4 $73. 25,0 Gross Margin GS&A Operating Income % Gross Margin * Cost assignment slide 11 $253. 376,0 $172. 500,9 - $13. 687,8 $412. 189,1 $350. 000,0 $62. 189,1 22,31% 42,76% 19,71% - 3,60% 12 Cost Allocation: †¢ DM&DL: SQxSP Valves Prod. Units 7500 DM costs 16 DL costs 12. 35 Pumps 12500 20 16. 25 Flow Contr. 4000 22 13 †¢ OH: Activities Set up hrs Machine hrs Receiving& control hrs Packaging and Shipment hrs Engeneering hrs Pr Units x DLhrs Mhrs+set up hrs(machine) (75’/60) x cr eation runs (50’/60’) x #ship + (8’/60’) x pr. Units Eng hrs Valves 2850 3850 25 1. 033,33 60 Pumps 6250 6850 125 1750 240Flow contr 1600 3900 281,25 700 600 Total hrs utilized 10700 14600 431,25 3483,33 900 Capacity Costs Production laborers 32,5 Indirect specialists 30 Machines 81,25 Engineers 22,5 13 Q3. b Product expenses and productivity with new cost task ? old cost task DL cost DM cost Man OH cost (185%) Std Unit cost Target selling cost Planned gross edge Actual selling cost Actual Gross edge Actual gross margin% Valves Pumps $12,35 $16,25 $16,00 $20,00 $22,85 $30,06 $51,20 $66,31 $78,77 $102,02 35% $79,00 $70,00 $27,80 $3,69 35% 5% Flow C $13,00 $22,00 $24,05 $59,05 $90,85 35% $95,00 $35,95 38% ? new expense assignment:DL cost DM cost Man OH cost Std Unit cost Target selling cost Planned gross edge Actual selling cost Actual Gross edge Actual gross margin% Valves $12,35 $16,00 $16,87 $45,22 $78,77 43% $79,00 $33,78 43% Pumps $16,25 $20,00 $19,95 $56,20 $102,02 45% $70,00 $13,80 20% Flow C $13,00 $22,00 $63,42 $98,42 $90,85 - 8% $95,00 - $3,42 - 4% †¢ †Valves progressively gainful: 35%(old) versus (43%) No adjustments in desires Lower cost dispensed: less exercises devoted to their production(std items, enormous parts) Pumps No meet desires, yet at the same time beneficial 20% Lower cost apportioned: less exercises committed to their creation (sexually transmitted disease items) †Flow controllers No beneficial: - 4% Higher cost: numerous exercises and individuals utilized in their creation Q3. B 14 †¢ The move is brought about when driven ABC technique: †Costs are designated to product offerings which ingest more costs: progressively nitty gritty and long creation process for stream controllers †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 15 Q4. What moves should the administration make to improve Sippican’s benefit? Stream Controllers †¢ Flow controllers not gainful true to form $253. 87,8 $27. 000,0 $87. 750,0 $60 . 750,0 $8. 437,5 $21. 000,3 $48. 750,0 †¢ High arrangement costs (148000) contrasted with different overheads TOH* Machine related costs Setup work Setup Machine R&P Control P&S Engeneering Potential arrangements: †Impose a base amount request to bring down set up costs Gross edge - 3,6 (how to persuade clients to purchase a base amount? ) †Production process improvement, with lower set up times 16 Q&A