Fluent Essays

I have 2 case studies- Clear eyes and Ranger, and it needs to be 3 pages double spaced.Please reference the case studies I have provided. Case Study Paper Format● APA format● No longer than 3 pages – double spaced● Abstract (check your APA manual on how to do this properly for case studies, not part of the 3 pages)● Background – no more than 1⁄2 page. Only include pertinent information that has brought the organization to its current situation.● Issues – Identify the pertinent issues that the organization is facing.● Analysis – Using analysis tools/concepts from your text or appropriate mathematical calculations; perform the appropriate analysis of the data/situation. (Analysis tools can be placed in an appendix and are not counted in the limit of 3 pages. Only include a summary of the results of the analysis performed in the body of the paper).● Recommendations – Provide possible recommendations that will resolve the issues identified. Select the best recommendation(s) and support your decision.● Conclusion grading_rubrics.docx ranger_case_.pdf unknown.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Grading Rubric Case Studies Category Content of Memo Abstract Background Info Issues/Challenges Caliber of Analysis Recommendations Basis of Recommendations 90-100\% 80-89\% 70-79\% Provided a clear & complete abstract of the memo, outlining a summary of the entire paper. Provided an excellent background (only info that has brought org to its current issues. Provided a good case of the memo, outlining some of the aspects of the paper. Provided a good amount of info. May have left out one/two important facts or provided some nonrelevant info. Provided an abstract but may have not been a complete picture of the components of paper. Did not provide abstract of the memo or may have been unclear. Provided some background info but left out key information or spent time on non-relevant info. Identified all the pertinent issues with the organization. Concentrated only on relevant issues Performed excellent analysis using concepts outlined in text & appropriate for situation. Provided clear recommendations that address the current issues facing the organization. Concentrated only on relevant issues. Identified most of the pertinent issues with the organization. May have had some nonrelevant issues. Performed good analysis but may not have used the best concepts provided in the text. Provided recommendations that would adequately address most of the issues. May have addressed some nonrelevant issues. Identified issues but did not seem to have an understanding of which were pertinent. Did not provide adequate background info or seemed confused as to what background information to provide. Did not have a clear understanding of the issues of the organization. Provided solid reasoning as to why the recommendation is the right method. Provided good reasoning as to the why the recommendation is a good method but did not provide reasoning as to why it is the best method. Provided some reasoning to justify recommendation but did not convince the reader that it was the best method. Performed an adequate level of analysis but left out key components/concepts. Provided recommendations that may address some of the issues facing the organization. Also included were nonrelevant issues. Below 70\% Did the not use appropriate concepts for the situation or analysis was limited. Recommendations would not address the issues being faced by the organization. Did not justify the recommendation and/or did not convince the reader the recommendation is best for the organization. Summary/Conclusion Format & Writing Format of Memo Grammar & Spelling Reference Documentation A good conclusion was included that summarized key components of the case study. A conclusion was included that reviewed most of the key parts of the case study. A conclusion was included that briefly/partially addressed the key components of case study. No concluding remarks were included in the case study. Writer followed the format well. The logic and flow of material were sensible and not distracting to the reader. Writer followed format in most cases. The logic and flow were not distracting to reader. Writer followed format in some cases but deviated from the format and made it somewhat difficult for the reader to follow logic. Writer made no errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. All sources used for quotes and facts were credible and cited correctly. Writer made 1-2 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. All sources used for quotes and facts are credible and most were cited correctly. Writer made 3-4 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. Writer did not follow the suggested format and made it difficult for the reader to determine the logic and flow of material. Writer made more than 4 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. Many sources used for quotes and facts were less than credible (suspect) and/or were not cited correctly. Most sources used for quotes and facts were credible but were not cited correctly. Notes/Comments:_______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020. W14673 RANGER CREEK BREWING AND DISTILLING Jorge Colazo wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The author does not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The author may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com. Copyright © 2015, Ivey Business School Foundation Version: 2018-02-02 In September 2013, the owners of Ranger Creek Brewing and Distilling (Ranger Creek)—Mark McDavid, Dennis Rylander and T.J. Miller—met at their manufacturing facility in San Antonio, Texas. Miller was going to present some potential operational scenarios for the company for the 2014 to 2019 period. Now in its third year of operations, Ranger Creek had so far been a success. Its beers and bourbons had won several tasting awards and the financials were meeting expectations, but the managing team was starting to feel acute growing pains. Before the owners could even focus on growth plans, there were some unanswered questions they needed to tackle: Considering the current production records, what was the maximum attainable capacity of the plant? Would brewing capacity need to be expanded and, if so, what equipment should be purchased? Should the focus be placed on automating the brewing or filling process? And what were the operational consequences of the recently passed beer laws in Texas? Miller opened the meeting by announcing that he was going to present a few different operational scenarios for the 2014 to 2019 capital and manpower budget that would address all these concerns. Since moving the entire operation to a bigger facility had been ruled out as too costly, Miller was going to present other alternatives to increase capacity, including buying additional or bigger equipment, redesigning the plant’s layout and renting outside storage space. RANGER CREEK BREWING AND DISTILLING In the early 2000s, Miller, Rylander and McDavid met while working at the same employer. They shared a passion for beer making, and soon they started homebrewing together. They quickly realized that San Antonio was the seventh-largest city in the United States, with a rich brewing heritage but no sizeable microbrewery. Drawing from their time at business school, they started writing a microbrewery business plan. They also figured that proud Texans would love to drink a whiskey made in their home state. Plus, they argued, “The craft distilling movement is about to explode.” Thus, they started writing their microdistillery business plan too. This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020. For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020. Page 2 9B14D011 All three founders of Ranger Creek were passionate homebrewers and had attended numerous workshops, trade fairs and brewing competitions, winning several awards, including a gold medal at the Dixie Cup, one of the most prestigious competitions for homebrewers in the United States. McDavid had a BA in marketing from Texas A&M and an MBA from the University of Texas at Austin. He had developed his business skills in the financial services area and founded several small businesses before joining Ranger Creek. Rylander hailed from Sweden, where he had commanded a military communications unit and had been a FIDE master, having won several regional and national chess competitions, including two Swedish junior chess championships. He held a BA in marketing from the University of Texas at Dallas and a MBA from the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to co-founding Ranger Creek, Miller served eight years in the U.S. Army, including two combat tours, and got a degree in political science and a MBA from Vanderbilt, with a concentration in marketing and entrepreneurship. With their own savings, funds from friends and relatives, the help of a few angel investors, and a bank loan, the three owners raised about US$1,000,000 1 for startup costs. McDavid would manage marketing, distribution and sales, Rylander would deal with accounting and regulatory issues and Miller would be in charge of operations (see Exhibit 1). In October 2010, they started brewing and distilling in a 7,500square-foot facility located in a light industrial sector of northeast San Antonio. Manufacturing used 6,000 square feet of brewing equipment (see Exhibit 2), most of it imported from Europe (see Exhibit 2). About 1,000 square feet of the facility was reserved for a “front room” where the company hosted tastings and educational and promotional functions for the public. PRODUCTS Beer In 2012, 200 million (M) barrels of beer were sold in the United States, of which about 12.5 M barrels were sold in Texas. Craft beer sales in the United States were 11 M barrels in 2011 and 13 M barrels in 2012. National brewers included Anheuser-Busch (the largest brewer in the United States), SABMiller and the Molson Coors Brewing Company. Imports had made significant inroads into the U.S. beer market, with a market share of about 15 per cent. In 2012 alone, 310 microbreweries and 99 brewpubs opened for business in the country. As of March 2013, there were 2,360 U.S. craft breweries in the United States, of which 1,124 were brewpubs. 2 Fewer than 100 companies in the craft beer segment retained the status of regional microbrewer (sales of more than 15,000 barrels per year). This segment included Samuel Adams, Yuengling, New Belgium and Shiner. Samuel Adams, the largest of this group, commanded a market share of 0.8 per cent.3 The craft brewer segment had been growing at double-digit rates (15 per cent in 2012) and benefited from increased public awareness and a more favourable tax environment. 1 All currencies are in US$ unless otherwise stated. The New Brewer, May/June 2013, magazine of the Brewers Association. Distributed to members only. 3 Ibid. 2 This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020. For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020. Page 3 9B14D011 Off-premises consumption of beer accounts three out of every four pints sold, but contributes to only half of the sales. The wholesale price for a keg of beer (15.5 gallons) was $130, while a pint of draft beer retails at about $4.50. Specialty or seasonal beers command a 20 per cent premium over regular ones. 4 Ranger Creek’s main line of beers had four products (see Exhibit 4). Oatmeal Pale Ale was an Americanstyle pale ale with a sweet, toasty flavour imparted by oats and had an alcohol by volume (ABV) of 5.8 per cent. Lucky Ol’ Sun was named after a traditional working man’s song and was a light “patio beer” brewed with pilsner malt. Light-bodied and dry, this brew had a 5.5 per cent ABV. La Bestia Aimable (“the friendly beast”) was a strong, Belgian-style dark beer made with local Texas honey, with a hefty 9.4 per cent ABV. Mesquite Smoked Porter was a bottle-conditioned dark beer with a 6.4 per cent ABV. For this beer, the grains were smoked before they were mashed. In addition to the main line, Ranger Creek offered seasonal and experimental brews, such as Strawberry Milk Stout, which was made with strawberries from Poteet, Texas, that were sliced by hand and added at two separate times during the brewing process to ensure that the taste and aroma of the strawberries could be appreciated in the finished product. Some of these beers were eventually moved to the main line such as had been the case with Lucky Ol’ Sun (see Exhibit 4). Spirits Following a constantly increasing trend (see Exhibit 5), in 2011, sales of spirits in the United States were 38 M gallons, of which 4 per cent was sold in Texas. Of the 38 M gallons, 16 M were bourbon. Roughly 60 per cent of spirits were sold on-premises (in bars, restaurants, etc.), while the rest was for off-premises consumption, such as sales at liquor stores for home consumption. The American whiskey market was dominated by two players: Beam Global recently acquired by Suntory of Japan (Jim Beam, Maker’s Mark) and Brown-Forman (Jack Daniel’s). They accounted for 55 per cent of premium whiskey sales. Stranahan’s and Anchor Distilling were some of the biggest microdistilleries, a segment rapidly growing but too small to make a dent in the market share. A handful of microdistilleries had been opening recently in Texas, such as Balcones Distilling in Waco, with its award-winning single malt. Ranger Creek believed that an important opportunity existed to create the “Texas Whiskey” category, following the very successful story of Tennessee Whiskey. In the spirits area, Ranger Creek’s main product was the award-winning Ranger Creek .36 Texas Bourbon Whiskey, a traditional sour mash bourbon with a flavour that had hints of vanilla, brown sugar and maple syrup. Ranger Creek .36 took its name from the 0.36 calibre pistol that the Texas Rangers used to carry. This product accounted for half the whiskey production at Ranger Creek. Ranger Creek Rimfire Mesquite Smoked Texas Single Malt Whiskey was based off of Mesquite Smoked Porter beer distilled into a whiskey. Rimfire took its name from the type of ammunition used by the Winchester 1866 “Yellow Boy” repeating rifle used by many frontier Texans. It could be said that rimfire was a smoked whiskey that used Texas mesquite wood to smoke the malt instead of using Scottish peat. Rimfire constituted 40 per cent of the production mix at Ranger Creek. Another 10 per cent of the mix was made up of unaged and experimental whiskeys that were sold in limited quantities. 4 Ibid. This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020. For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020. Page 4 9B14D011 THE BEER BREWING PROCESS AT RANGER CREEK The oldest written recipe for brewing beer appeared in a clay tablet written in cuneiform some 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia (currently Iraq). Beer is one of the oldest produced beverages known to mankind, and it was routinely enjoyed by pharaohs in ancient Egypt. Brewing beer involves breaking down a source of starch into sugars, which are then fermented by yeast, a unicellular fungus. The two main products of yeast fermentation are alcohol and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Malted barley is the predominant source of starch in beer making. Grains are malted when they are soaked in water and allowed to partially germinate, and then dried and toasted, developing enzymes that help break down the grain’s starches into a complex mixture of molecules with a characteristic flavour and aroma. In general, beers do not use a single kind of grain but a combination of several malted and sometimes unmalted grains. The bitter and aromatic flavour in beer is provided by the addition of hops — the dried flowers of the hop vine, humulus lupulus. Other ingredients are added in different parts of the process to flavour the beer, such as dried or fresh fruits, herbs or seeds. At Ranger Creek, the grains were bought malted, and the first process was to “mill” or crack the grains in a mechanical mill. There was one mechanical mill at Ranger Creek, shared with the whiskey-making process, and it had a capacity of 1,800 pounds of grain per hour. A batch of beer took, depending on the final ABV of the product, between 1,500 and 2,000 pounds of malted grain per batch. The milling of a batch took about one hour for a 1,800-pound load. Since the milling process released some amount of grain dust, to prevent contamination the milling process was isolated from the rest of the plant and enclosed in a milling shed. The milled grains were loaded into a hopper at the milling shed, from where they were transported by means of an auger to the plant’s beer mash tank. The mash tank is a stainless steel tank equipped with a false bottom to later strain the grains from the liquid, producing 930 gallons of liquid per batch. In the mash tank, the malted grains were mixed with hot water and allowed to steep for around one hour so that the starches decomposed into fermentable sugars. After steeping, the liquid part of the mash was transferred through the mash tank’s false bottom to another tank, the boiler kettle, and boiled to deactivate further enzymatic action. The transfer of the 930 gallons to the boil kettle took an hour. The spent grain or “draff” was rinsed with enough water to assure an output of 930 gallons, which was transferred to the boil kettle. The draff was donated to local farmers to be used as animal feed. Cleaning the mash tank took one and a half hours. During the boiling, hops and other flavouring agents were added. Boiling not only deactivated further enzymatic action, but also sterilized the liquid, called “wort,” which was necessary to prevent microorganism competition with the yeast. After one hour, to get the mix to boiling temperature, the boiling proceeded for an additional hour and then the liquid was cooled down to fermentation temperature by means of a heat exchanger in about one hour. After the wort cooled down, it was transferred to one of the fermentation tanks, where yeast was added, and the wort would spend about two weeks fermenting until the alcohol content was correct. After the fermentation took place, the mixture less all the dead yeast and other debris collected at the bottom of the fermentation tank was transferred to the 930-gallon conditioning tank. In the conditioning tank the liquid This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020. For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020. Page 5 9B14D011 would settle for a week, separating sediment or “dregs” at the bottom and the clear beer on top. Conditioning took about a week, and fermentation tanks could be used for conditioning, but conditioning tanks could not be used for fermentation. From the conditioning tank, the beer layer was sent directly to packaging after correcting the CO 2 levels by injecting commercially bought CO 2 , and was sent to be poured in either bottles or kegs. The conditioning stage could be avoided if instead of letting the fermented beer settle to the bottom of a tank it was filtered with a plate filter, which would cost around $8,000. Filling and labeling one batch of beer took about eight hours, with one hour for setup tasks, and if the beer was filled in kegs, it would take two hours per 930-gallon load in addition to the eight hours. Cleaning kegs prior to filling a batch was a manpower-intensive task that took a worker about three days. Automatic keg-cleaning equipment would do it in half a shift, but would cost $20,000. Any tank fillings had to be preceded by tank cleaning and sanitization, which took about an hour to complete and was a manual task. The price of select e ... Purchase answer to see full attachment