| Course | MGT 240 Operations Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Process analysis paper |
| Length | About 1,072 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 240 Module 1
Wrapping, Racks and 800 Bars a Day: A Process Analysis for a Handmade Soap Maker With a New Grocery Account
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
MGT 240: Operations Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Wrapping, Racks and 800 Bars a Day: A Process Analysis for a Handmade Soap Maker With a New Grocery Account
Kaw River Soap Works, a composite company in Lawrence, Kansas, makes cold-process bar soap by hand from oils, lye and botanicals. For years it sold through its own website and farmers markets, producing about 600 bars a day. It has now signed a contract with a regional grocery chain that will raise demand to about 800 bars a day, five days a week, beginning in four months. The owners do not know whether the current process can meet that demand or where to invest. This paper maps the process, calculates the capacity of each step, applies Little's Law to the curing stage and recommends changes.
The Process
Soap moves through five steps. Workers weigh oils and lye, mix them and pour the batter into loaf molds. Loaves set for one day, then are cut into bars and stamped with the logo. Bars cure on wooden racks for four weeks, or twenty working days, while water evaporates and the soap hardens. After curing, bars are wrapped in printed paper and labeled by hand. Finally, they are packed into cases for shipping. Packing is quick and is done by the same two workers who wrap.
Capacity at Each Step
| Step | Resources | Capacity in bars per working day |
|---|---|---|
| Mixing and pouring | Two workers, four mixers | 1,200 |
| Setting | Mold space for one day of production | 1,000 |
| Cutting and stamping | One worker, one cutter | 900 |
| Curing | Racks holding 14,000 bars | Limited by rack space; see Little's Law |
| Wrapping and labeling | Two workers by hand | 650 |
| Packing | Same two workers | Included in wrapping |
The Constraint
Goldratt and Cox (2004) presented, through a novel about a struggling plant manager, the idea that every system's output is set by its constraint. An hour lost at the constraint is an hour lost for the entire system, while an hour saved at a step that is not the constraint saves nothing. They proposed a sequence: identify the constraint, decide how to get the most from it, subordinate everything else to it, raise its capacity and then look for the next constraint. At Kaw River, wrapping at 650 bars a day is the constraint. Buying a second mixer would raise mixing capacity without adding a single bar to shipments.
Little's Law and the Curing Racks
Little (1961) proved that in a stable system, average inventory equals the throughput rate multiplied by the average time a unit spends in the system. The relationship holds for any process where items wait. For curing, flow time is fixed at twenty working days. At today's 600 bars a day, the racks hold about 12,000 bars, within their 14,000 capacity. At 800 bars a day, they would need to hold 16,000. The racks therefore limit output to 700 bars a day, only slightly above wrapping. Fixing wrapping alone would raise output by just 50 bars.
Swift, Even Flow
Schmenner and Swink (1998) proposed a theory of swift, even flow, arguing that a process becomes more productive the faster materials move through it and the less variable the timing of steps. Kaw River's flow is uneven: mixing runs in the morning, cutting in bursts and wrapping falls behind on days with large orders, leaving cured bars waiting. Matching each step's pace to the constraint would reduce waiting inventory and make output more predictable.
Getting More From Wrapping Now
Goldratt and Cox's second and third steps, exploiting the constraint and subordinating other steps to it, cost almost nothing and can start before any purchase. Today the two wrappers also pack cases, answer the door for deliveries and take breaks at the same time, so wrapping stops for about seventy minutes a day. Moving packing and deliveries to the cutter, who has slack because cutting can produce more than wrapping uses, and staggering breaks would keep wrapping running all shift. Labels could be printed and sorted the afternoon before. These changes are expected to lift wrapping to about 730 bars a day, enough to serve the existing website orders and the first weeks of grocery deliveries while equipment is ordered. Cutting should also stop running ahead of what wrapping can absorb, since extra cut bars only crowd the racks.
Options
The owners considered three options. Hiring a third wrapper would raise wrapping to about 975 bars a day at about $36,000 a year in wages and benefits. A semi-automatic wrapping machine costing $38,000 would allow the two current wrappers to produce about 1,400 bars a day. Adding racks for 3,000 more bars in an unused corner of the building would cost about $4,500 and raise rack capacity to 17,000, enough for 850 bars a day.
Recommendation
Kaw River should buy the wrapping machine and add the racks. The machine costs about the same as one year of an added wrapper and lasts many years. With both changes, wrapping can produce 1,400 bars, racks support 850 and cutting produces 900, so the process can meet 800 bars a day.
Risks
The machine's rated speed of 1,400 bars a day assumes bars of uniform size; hand-cut bars vary by a few millimeters, so the supplier will be asked to run a trial with Kaw River's soap before the sale is final. The grocery chain's orders may also arrive unevenly, with large orders before holidays, so the plan includes building a small stock of cured, wrapped bars in slower months. Finally, a new machine will need someone trained to clear jams and change paper rolls; both wrappers will be trained, so a single absence does not stop the constraint.
Where the Bottleneck Moves
After these changes, rack space at 850 bars and cutting at 900 become the tightest steps. If the grocery chain adds stores, rack space will bind first, followed by cutting. The owners should plan now for a second cutting station and for whether a warmer, drier curing room could shorten curing time, which by Little's Law would reduce the racks needed.
Conclusion
Kaw River's process cannot meet the new contract today because wrapping and curing racks both fall short. Goldratt and Cox's focus on the constraint prevents spending on steps that do not limit output, and Little's Law reveals the rack shortage that a simple list of steps would hide. A wrapping machine and added racks, at a combined cost of about $42,500, meet the 800-bar target with a small margin.
References
Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement (3rd rev. ed.). North River Press.
Little, J. D. C. (1961). A proof for the queuing formula: L = λW. Operations Research, 9(3), 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.9.3.383
Schmenner, R. W., & Swink, M. L. (1998). On theory in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00028-X
MGT 240 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
Aspen describes MGT 240 as covering how organizations design and manage the processes that produce goods and services, and an opening paper usually asks for a process analysis. Your classroom's Module 1 instructions decide the details; here a small manufacturer's process is analyzed. Draw or describe the process from start to finish. Calculate the capacity of each step in the same units. Identify the bottleneck and explain why it limits the whole system. Use Little's Law to connect inventory, throughput and flow time. Compare options for raising capacity with their costs. Check what happens after the fix, because removing one bottleneck usually reveals another.
Inside the MGT 240 Module 1 example
The paper opens with Kaw River Soap Works, which makes cold-process soap by hand and has signed a contract that raises demand to 800 bars a day. A table lists each step: mixing and pouring can produce 1,200 bars a day, cutting and stamping 900, curing racks hold 14,000 bars and wrapping produces 650. Goldratt and Cox's novel about plant management argues that output is set by the constraint and that time lost there is lost for the whole plant. Little's 1961 proof shows that inventory equals throughput times flow time, so twenty working days of curing at 800 bars a day needs 16,000 rack spaces. Schmenner and Swink's Journal of Operations Management article explains why speed and even flow raise productivity. The recommendation adds a $38,000 wrapper and 3,000 rack spaces, and the paper shows cutting becomes the next constraint.
MGT 240 Module 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Process analysis papers are graded on accurate capacity calculations, correct identification of the bottleneck, sound use of Little's Law and recommendations that consider the whole process. This example states every step's capacity in bars per day so they can be compared directly. Wrapping is identified as the constraint, and Little's Law reveals a second limit in rack space that a simple capacity list would miss. Goldratt and Cox's constraint thinking explains why improving other steps would waste money. Schmenner and Swink's theory links flow to productivity. The recommendation is costed, and the check for the next bottleneck shows that the student understands capacity as a system.
MGT 240 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Process analysis papers often list steps without converting their capacities to common units, which hides the bottleneck. State every capacity per day or per hour. Another weakness is improving a step that is not the constraint; explain why only the bottleneck's capacity changes total output. Use Little's Law for steps where products wait, such as curing, drying or queues. Show your arithmetic so a reader can check it. Cost each option. After recommending a fix, recalculate to see where the bottleneck moves. Finally, distinguish between capacity, what a step can do, and demand, what customers want, and say whether the improved process will meet demand.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MGT 240 and Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 240 Module 2: Labor Content and Line Balancing
- MGT 240 Module 3: Setups, Batching and Changeovers
- MGT 240 Module 4: Variability and Waiting Lines
- MGT 240 Module 5: Demand Forecasting
- MGT 240 Module 6: Inventory and Risk Pooling
- MGT 240 Module 7: Revenue Management
- MGT 240 Module 8: Supply Chain Coordination and the Bullwhip Effect
- BUS 305 Module 6: Formal Business Report
- BUS 225 Module 4: Intellectual Property Plan
- MGT 414 Module 8: Controlling and Performance Measurement
- MGT 424 Module 8: Personal Leadership Development Plan
MGT 240 Module 1 questions, answered
What does MGT 240 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 240 starts with process analysis, so mapping a process, calculating capacity and finding the bottleneck is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
What is a bottleneck?
The step with the lowest capacity relative to demand; it sets the output of the whole process.
What is Little's Law?
Average inventory equals throughput rate multiplied by average flow time, a relationship John Little proved in 1961.
Where can I find a free MGT 240 Module 1 sample paper?
The complete analysis above maps a handmade soap maker's process, finds the bottleneck, applies Little's Law to curing racks and recommends a costed fix.
What happens after a bottleneck is fixed?
The constraint usually moves to the next slowest step, so capacity must be recalculated after every change.