Case study:jet copies case problem

Assignment #1: JET Copies Case Problem, taken from Taylor, B. M. (2010). Introduction to management science (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Read the “JET Copies” Case Problem on pages 678-679 of the text. Using simulation estimate the loss of revenue due to copier breakdown for one year, as follows: In Excel, use a suitable method for generating the number of days needed to repair the copier, when it is out of service, according to the discrete distribution shown. In Excel, use a suitable method for simulating the interval between successive breakdowns, according to the continuous distribution shown. In Excel, use a suitable method for simulating the lost revenue for each day the copier is out of service. Put all of this together to simulate the lost revenue due to copier breakdowns over 1 year to answer the question asked in the case study. In a word processing program, write a brief description/explanation of how you implemented each component of the model. Write 1-2 paragraphs for each component of the model (days-to-repair; interval between breakdowns; lost revenue; putting it together). Answer the question posed in the case study. How confident are you that this answer is a good one? What are the limits of the study? Write at least one paragraph. There are two deliverables for this Case Problem, the Excel spreadsheet and the written description/explanation. Please submit both of them electronically via the dropbox. The assignment will be graded using the associated rubric. Outcome Assessed: Create statistical analysis of simulation results. Communicate issues in management science Grading Rubric for JET Copies Case Problem There are 12 possible points in each of the five criteria for a total of 60 points possible. Criteria 0Unacceptable(0 points) 1Developing(6 points) 2Competent(9 points) 3Exemplary(12 points) 1. Model number of days to repair Did not submit or did not model this component in an appropriate manner This component was modeled, but the method and/or implementation had mistakes that affected the validity of the model Used a method that is recognizably appropriate, but the implementation had minor mistakes Used an appropriate method and correctly implemented it 2. Model number of weeks between breakdowns Did not submit or did not model this component in an appropriate manner This component was modeled, but the method and/or implementation had mistakes that affected the validity of the model Used a method that is recognizably appropriate, but the implementation had minor mistakes Used an appropriate method and correctly implemented it 3. Model lost revenue due to breakdowns Did not submit or did not model this component in an appropriate manner This component was modeled, but the method and/or implementation had mistakes that affected the validity of the model Used a method that is recognizably appropriate, but the implementation had minor mistakes Used an appropriate method and correctly implemented it 4. Provide written description and explanation of the simulation Did not submit or described insufficiently. Omitted key points. Provided partially developed written description that matches the method 70 – 79% accuracy. Provided sufficiently developed written description that matches the method 80 – 89% accuracy. Provided fully developed written description that is correct and matches the method used with 90 – 100% accuracy. 5. Combine model components to produce a coherent answer to the question posed in the case study. (a) Answer the question posed in the case study. (b) How confident are you that this answer is a good one? (c) What are the limits of the study? Did not submit or result not provided, and/or discussed insufficiently. Provided partially correct result. Omitted discussion of confidence. Discussed limitations partially with 70 – 79% accuracy, logic, and clarity. Provided sufficiently correct result. Identified confidence and discussed limitations sufficiently with 80 – 89% accuracy, accuracy, logic, and clarity. Provided fully correct result. Identified confidence and discussed limitations fully with 90 – 100% accuracy, logic, and clarity.