Saving the Planet One Aisle at a Time: Tesco’s Sustainability Movement

Many companies want to promote sustainability within their markets since it attracts more customers, however competition and living within specific limits are stopping them from achieving this goal. Sustainability, which includes sustainable design, building and operations, is the collection of strategies and policies employed by companies in order to reduce their overall impact on the future generations. By taking waste from one part of the production process and using that waste to generate new product is a great way to minimize the consumption of limited natural resources and maintain their availability for the future.

800px-Bradley_Stoke_Tesco_2It is very important for management to set goals and develop a strategy when searching for improvement opportunities in order to implement a sustainability program within their company. I think it is much easier being sustainable than going green and many other companies are following in such footsteps.

For instance, Tesco, a British multinational grocery store and third-largest general merchandise retailer in the world measured by revenues and second-largest measured by profits, has recently planned out new business strategies and goals in three various areas, one of which is to reduce food waste globally and become a more sustainable company.

Tesco-1024x468

Research by Tesco shows that about one third of the world’s food is never eaten and instead it is thrown out or left to rot. Therefore, Tesco is planning to pursue this food waste issue in three crucial areas which are: its own operations, the supply chain and agriculture, as well as the customers. The company has the ability to track down waste and find where it happens as it leaves the farmer’s field and reaches the customers’ home, and everything that happens in between.

According to the article, Tesco claims that around 32 percent of food is wasted across its value chain, of which 16 percent comes from the supply chain and agriculture, the other 16 percent coming from customers and less than 1 percent is from the retailer.

Because of the large amount of food waste across all markets, the company is working to develop an advanced measurement for the amount of food ruined in its operations. This will permit Tesco to track progress through a period of time which can significantly minimize the waste as well as achieve its goal of sustainability. Since the food waste is much lower in the UK than in other markets, it plans to follow in their specific operational practices and more precise forecasting so that food does not rot or is thrown out with the high supply rate.

Being more transparent and sustainable for a company with a global marketplace is tough, however, Tesco hopes that by keeping a strong track record of its waste management will lead to a decrease in the food waste levels throughout its value chain, attract more customers, and keep increasing its profits.

Do you think the tracking record will achieve greater sustainability for Tesco or should they examine other ways to manage their inventory and to minimize the overall food waste?

Source: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/05/29/tesco-announces-goal-to-reduce-food-waste-globally/

Beer Can Fan

Have you noticed over the past couple years all the innovation that has been swirling around beer cans? It all started with Coor’s Light and their vented can and their mountains that turned blue when they were just chilled enough to get consumed. At first, Coor’s Light caught some flack for introducing such innovations to their beer can, but it seems that competing companies such as Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Co. are also trying to get in on the mix.

Coor’s Light started this innovation craze by introducing their “vented” and “cold activated” can. Recently they have introduced their new double vented can which is quite hilarious. It seems that Coor’s Light is even aware of this hilarity as they put out commercials that are seemingly mocking their new innovations. Not to be left behind, Budweiser is introducing the latest innovation with their “Bow tie” can. It is designed with a kink in the middle of the opening to allow for easier drinking. The interesting thing about this can is that it actually holds less beer than their traditional can. Another smaller competitor, the Boston Beer Company ,which brews Samuel Adams, reportedly spent over a million dollars in trying to design their own innovative can.

It is interesting to see all these brewing companies investing so much into providing so many innovations when in reality it does not change the actual product that is being consumed. Beer seems to be a product that is defined simply by consumers choosing it for its user-based and value-based aspects of quality. There is no secret to why people buy beer. Top executives at Anheuser-Busch are claiming that with their innovations they are trying to target consumers who are “trend-setters” and like to be ahead of the curve. Surely the companies realize they they are not changing the product, but instead trying to differentiate it by adding to the experience of drinking. By adding certain innovative features to the can, companies are trying to add quantities to their product attributes. In reality, the actual beer is the primary product and its primary characteristics are not being changed or altered by the changes being made to all these different beer cans. If anything, the changes to the beer cans appeal to the dimension aspect of quality since they are creating additional secondary characteristics for a simple can. Adding features that supposedly allow for easier, faster, and colder drinking does not change what the end result will be from consuming beer out of these innovative cans.

Next time you find yourself ordering a beer, keep in mind that the new can you might have in your hand has been designed to help you with your beer drinking experience.

 

 

http://business.time.com/2013/05/11/my-beer-can-is-better-than-yours-aluminum-can-ovations-for-better-beer-drinking/

Elimination of Enrollment Bottleneck: Graduates Who Don’t Do Science.

Bottleneck
Source: xda-developers.com

In class, we learned that a bottleneck is the longest activity that is the limiting factor in operations management. Managers want to match capacity and design while still maintaining the greatest efficiency possible.

Education is no different as it follows basic business rules. Schools increasingly want students to graduate, get jobs, and eventually donate back as alumni. Universities across the country have a problem with so called “bottleneck courses,” which prevent students from graduating. California State University (CSU) reports about 30 such courses that have a high rate of failure, including math, science, and history. Those courses distract students from their major studies and often cause failing or withdrawing, if not dropping out of college altogether.

science-lab
Source: brightlandcollege.in/

CSU wants to address the bottleneck courses by providing science labs online and moving away from traditional in-person classes, especially for students who do not major in science. CSU does not have sufficient capacity to match demand for bottleneck classes due to limited lab space. Virtual labs are a way of offering more lab sections and thus increasing enrollment and moving more students through the system (increasing the rate of graduation).

Low cost of such classes coupled with high demand means more money the school will earn and able to re-invest. However, CSU’s solution to bottleneck science courses raises concerns over the quality of education given. In-person classes are especially important for science labs; a biology department chair at CSU, Jeffrey Bell, says, “my biggest concern, especially with freshman classes is you don’t want students seeing reality as a video game—a key thing in science is we investigate reality.”

Before we can argue about the quality of such courses, let’s ask ourselves: “what is the real value of education?” The content that is learned in science classes is available online. Therefore, the content is not the sole value of education, but rather a college experience: the ability to interact with the professor and peers on one-to-one basis. But just how important is the experience for non-science majors who just want to pass the class to graduate?

mc900439404
Source: biofluff.files.wordpress.com

CSU’s demand far exceeds school’s effective capacity, mainly due to struggling students repeating the class. School’s solution to increase the capacity through online sections to match enrollment demand is one way of managing the problem. School could also manage demand by increasing capacity—building new science labs and hiring more professors. This long-term solution would ensure that struggling students are offered adequate in-person help, rather than let them pass without a sufficient knowledge of science.

CSU’s tactic for managing bottleneck science lab courses is rather new, thus raises concerns about its quality, especially in the time when U.S. students lag behind in science and math compared to other countries. Is removing this bottleneck sacrificing or improving the quality of science lab courses? Will this decision eventually lead to graduates who do not have sufficient knowledge of science or scientific thinking? Can you think of other solution to tackle the bottleneck course problem?

58870_606bb1756b940db53526cf1cf5e601e8_039b4649313e59bc6022e2e4761c0d94
Source: www.scpr.org
Sources:

Is The “Dreamliner” Still a Dream?

Finally, “after months of headaches brought on by its 787 Dreamliner jet, Boeing Company is now back on track and even speeding up the production rate of the new airliner.”

This is fantastic news for the Dreamliner program being that starting from January 16th until late April of this year, all of the Boeing 787s had been grounded due to some safety concerns with the plane’s lithium-ion battery system. The influential aerospace company has stated that they have since increased the jet production rate to seven airplanes per month at one of its factories in Everett, Washington, and claims that the Dreamliner program is set to reach a further increase to ten per month by the end of the year.

Before the grounding, Boeing had delivered fifty of the Dreamliner planes to eight different airlines worldwide, including United Airlines, which is the only U.S. carrier that operates 787s currently. Today the Dreamliner program has more than 800 unfulfilled orders to 58 customers worldwide. Hence, the immediate need for Boeing to fix the jet’s design flaws and production challenges they were facing. The Federal Aviation Administration grounded Boeing’s newest and most technologically advanced jetliner until the risk of battery fires was resolved. During the time of the grounding order, Boeing had not been allowed to deliver any new 787 Dreamliner’s but continued building them. The company had to seriously look at the jet program’s operations and reevaluate some of their critical decisions.

The final assembly of the Dreamliner’s takes place at the Everett facility, but the bulk of the jet’s large components come from numerous suppliers around the world so the time putting these planes together is influenced heavily on the getting the parts in quickly. “There are about 50 suppliers in California alone.” But the major production slowdown was due to Boeing having to redesign the 787’s battery system due to some overheating incidents that had occurred. One incident even resulted in a fire.

Although “Boeing will not say how much redesigning, testing, and retrofitting the battery system has cost the company,” officials have stated that the cost was absorbed into spending $705 million in research and development during Boeing’s first quarter. The three-month grounding period of the Dreamliner created a 2.5% downturn in revenue for the company, which came out to be around $18.9 billion. Despite all the production troubles Boeing has encountered recently, the company now firmly states it is back on track to deliver more than 60 of the planes during this year as originally planned. But the question is whether the Dreamliner will now stick in the pubic’s mind as a troubled aircraft?

In addition to the increased production of the Dreamliner jet, Boeing has also increased production of its 737 and 777 jets and is forecasting to deliver as many as 645 planes this year, making this a record for the company.

Which types of critical decisions did Boeing have to reevaluate? Do you think that the grounding of the Dreamliner will or has had any effect on the company or the plane’s reputation? Which types of forecasting methods do you think Boeing is using in regards to their production ability and what other factors does Boeing need to consider?

Article Reference: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/la-fi-mo-boeing-787-production-rate-20130510,0,6024577.story

 

The iPad Mini: Bigger Problems for a Smaller Consumer?

 

It comes as no surprise that Apple has done extremely well over the past year.  They have released a new iPad, the iPhone 5, and are now apparently gearing up to release the all new iPad Mini.

There have been many rumors circulating around the release of the new Apple product.  However, none of them can be stamped with a guarantee.  Apple has been very quiet when it comes to questions about the new iPad Mini.  There are many speculators out there though.  Some of these speculations are as follows:

  1. The Screen:  The screen of the iPad Mini will be smaller than the previous iPad models.  It is said to be roughly 7.85 inches (diagonally).  This does not seem to be a shocker though, it is called the “mini.”
  2. No Retina Display:  The iPad Mini will not have the same screen resolution as the previous iPad models.  The newest Apple products are highly valued for the excellent screen quality.
  3. The Lightning Port:  This is a new feature that is also part of the iPhone 5.  The Lightning Port is where the iPad Mini will connect to supplementary technology, as well as chargers.
  4. Storage:  The iPad Mini will most likely fall in line with other Apple products.  The model(s) will most likely be available with 16, 32, or 64 GB storage components.

The iPad Mini seems to be a great idea to the naked eye.  People say it will be more convenient than the original iPad and easier to use.  There are also many rumors circulating that say the iPad Mini was designed so that it can be marketed to children and people who might have a lower income.  The iPad will be cheaper given the size of the product.  This could allow for lower income consumers to purchase and use the Apple product.  It is also said that the iPad Mini is going to be marketed to lower level educational institutions.  The smaller size of the iPad Mini allows for it to be more functional with children and young teenagers.  The interaction between child and technology allows for more efficient teaching inside and outside of these educational institutions.

Although this product sounds amazing, there are many questions that come along with it. There are a number of skeptics who are saying the iPad Mini is just simply a scam.  It is nothing but a shrunken version of the iPad.  It also seems to be very convenient for Apple to be releasing this product, which is going to be heavily marketed towards children, right around the holiday season.  The consumers will not only have to purchase the iPad, but they will also have to purchase the new adaptors for the new Lightning Port.  This being one more thing the consumer has to spend money on.

Apple is well aware of what they are doing.  They know that people have millions of accessories for their Apple products.  The release of new products that require adaptors is a whole new revenue stream for Apple.  Old products are going to be replaced by new products that are able to function with the new Lightning Port.  Some of these adaptors already cost upwards of $3o.00.  This is interesting too because Apple has to now forecast a whole new sector of business.  The Lightning Port provides Apple with a whole new realm of consumer purchases.  Adaptors will need to be produced and consumers will purchase them.  The iPad Mini also requires a new level of forecasting.  If they are in fact going to market to a younger generation, they will have to compensate for many younger age groups, schools, and other institutions.

Apple is the only one who can support or disprove these speculations.  However, one could still ask – what do you think?  Is Apple just trying to pull a fast one?

Source:  http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/handheld/ipad-mini-what-we-know/240008988