| Course | MGT 240 Operations Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Inventory analysis |
| Length | About 1,054 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 240 Module 6
Thirty-Seven Fence Chargers or Thirteen: Risk Pooling and Where a Farm and Ranch Supply Chain Should Hold Slow-Moving Stock
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
MGT 240: Operations Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Thirty-Seven Fence Chargers or Thirteen: Risk Pooling and Where a Farm and Ranch Supply Chain Should Hold Slow-Moving Stock
Pecan Valley Farm and Ranch, a composite company, operates eight stores across Central Texas selling feed, fencing, tools, livestock equipment and veterinary supplies to ranchers and rural homeowners. Each store stocks about 3,000 items, of which about 600 are slow movers that sell a few units a week or less, such as electric fence chargers, stock tank heaters, calf feeders and specialty gates. These slow movers tie up about $1.9 million across the eight stores, and store managers still report frequent stockouts. The owners are considering a central warehouse in the middle of the chain's territory with daily delivery to stores. This paper calculates the effect on safety stock and recommends which items to centralize.
Why Safety Stock Exists
Demand during the time it takes to replenish stock is uncertain. Safety stock is extra inventory held to cover higher-than-expected demand during that lead time. A common calculation multiplies the standard deviation of weekly demand by the square root of the lead time in weeks and by a factor for the desired service level, about 1.65 for a 95% chance of not running out in a cycle.
Safety Stock Store by Store
Take a fence charger costing the chain $180. Each store sells an average of three a week, with a standard deviation of two, and replenishment takes two weeks. Safety stock at one store is 1.65 times 2 times the square root of 2, about 4.7 units. Across eight stores, that is about 37 units, worth about $6,700, in addition to the stock held for average demand.
Safety Stock When Pooled
If the eight stores' demands are independent, the standard deviation of combined weekly demand is 2 times the square root of 8, about 5.7. Central safety stock is 1.65 times 5.7 times the square root of 2, about 13 units, worth about $2,400. Pooling cuts safety stock for this item by about 65%.
Why Pooling Works
Eppen (1979) proved that when identical locations with independent demand are combined, expected inventory costs under centralization grow with the square root of the number of locations rather than in proportion to it. High demand at one store tends to be offset by low demand at another. He also showed that the savings shrink as demands become positively correlated, reaching zero when they move perfectly together.
Testing the Drought Case
Demand for stock tank heaters and water equipment rises at all stores during drought and freezes. Using two years of data, the correlation of weekly demand between stores for these items averaged about 0.6, against about 0.1 for fence chargers. With a correlation of 0.6, pooled safety stock for a typical water item falls by only about 20% rather than 65%. These items gain less from centralization and are needed urgently when weather turns, so they should remain in stores.
Which Items to Move
Fisher (1997) distinguished functional products, with stable demand and long life cycles, from innovative products, with unpredictable demand and short lives, arguing that the first need efficient supply chains and the second need responsive ones. Lee and Billington (1992) identified pitfalls in supply chain inventory management, including simplistic stocking policies that set the same rules for every item and ignoring uncertainty in demand and delivery. Both suggest sorting items rather than treating all slow movers alike.
| Item group | Example | Demand pattern | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slow, stable, not urgent | Fence chargers, gate hardware | Independent across stores | Central stock, next-day delivery |
| Slow, weather-driven | Tank heaters, water troughs | Correlated across stores | Keep in stores; raise stock before seasons |
| Slow, urgent | Calving supplies, some vet items | Unpredictable, needed same day | Keep minimal stock in stores, backup centrally |
| Fast movers | Feed, common fencing | High and steady | Store stock, unchanged |
Savings and Costs
Applying the pooling calculation to the roughly 380 items in the first group, safety stock would fall from about $640,000 to about $230,000, freeing about $410,000. Daily delivery by one truck and driver, plus warehouse labor, would cost about $95,000 a year. At the chain's 12% cost of capital and about 10% annual holding cost for damage and space, the inventory reduction saves about $90,000 a year in carrying costs, roughly matching the delivery cost. The case therefore rests on fewer stockouts, which the owners consider the larger benefit: a central warehouse holding the whole chain's stock of an item can fill a store's need the next morning, while today a store that runs out waits two weeks.
Effect on Stockouts
Today, a store that runs out of a slow item waits for the next distributor order, often two weeks. Store records show about 1,900 such stockout events last year among first-group items, each with a customer who left or ordered elsewhere. With central stock at a 95% service level and next-morning delivery, a store that sells its last unit can be refilled the next day in nearly every case. The chain estimates that about 70% of current stockout events would become next-day fills, keeping sales and customers who now drive to a competitor in the next town.
Store Managers' Concerns
Store managers raised two concerns in interviews. First, a rancher who drives forty minutes for a fence charger will not come back tomorrow. To address this, every store will keep one display unit of each centralized item that can be sold, with the replacement arriving the next morning, so that a store runs out only if two customers want the item on the same day. Second, managers worried that a central warehouse would be stocked with what the buyers think they need rather than what their customers buy. Following Lee and Billington's warning about treating internal customers as an afterthought, stores' orders to the warehouse will be filled before any other use, and fill rates to each store will be reported monthly.
Recommendation
Pecan Valley should centralize the first item group, keep weather-driven and urgent items in stores with central backup and review the groups each year.
Conclusion
Risk pooling can cut safety stock for slow, independent items by about two-thirds, as Eppen's result predicts, but drought and freezes make some items move together, and ranchers often need parts the same day. Sorting items before centralizing captures most of the savings while protecting the customers who cannot wait.
References
Eppen, G. D. (1979). Effects of centralization on expected costs in a multi-location newsboy problem. Management Science, 25(5), 498-501. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.25.5.498
Fisher, M. L. (1997). What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review, 75(2), 105-116.
Lee, H. L., & Billington, C. (1992). Managing supply chain inventory: Pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 65-73.
Reading the MGT 240 Module 6 assignment instructions
Inventory in Aspen's MGT 240 includes how much to hold and where, and this module's paper commonly asks students to analyze safety stock and pooling for a multi-location business. The instructions in your classroom for Module 6 take priority; the example below handles one chain's slow-moving items. Explain why safety stock exists and how it is calculated. Calculate safety stock for each location separately and for a central pool, stating demand, variability, lead time and service level. Explain the research behind pooling and its limits. Sort products into groups that should and should not be centralized. Weigh savings against added transport and delivery time. Recommend a policy with estimated savings.
How this MGT 240 Module 6 example is built
The paper opens with Pecan Valley Farm and Ranch, whose eight stores each stock about 600 slow-moving items, from fence chargers to calf feeders. For a fence charger with weekly demand of three per store, a standard deviation of two and a two-week lead time, safety stock at 95% is about 4.7 units per store, or 37 in total, but about 13 when pooled. Eppen's Management Science note proves that pooled safety stock grows with the square root of the number of locations when demands are independent. Fisher's Harvard Business Review article distinguishes functional from innovative products. Lee and Billington's Sloan Management Review article lists pitfalls including simplistic stocking policies. A table assigns item groups to store or central stock. Savings of about $410,000 in inventory are weighed against about $95,000 a year in delivery costs, and drought's effect on correlated demand is tested.
Where the marks sit in the MGT 240 Module 6 rubric
Inventory papers are assessed on correct safety stock calculations, a clear explanation of why pooling works, attention to its limits and a recommendation that compares inventory savings with added costs. This example shows each calculation with its inputs, so the reduction from 37 to 13 units can be checked. Eppen's proof explains the square-root effect, and the paper tests what happens when demands are correlated. Fisher's product types and Lee and Billington's pitfalls help decide which items to move, rather than moving everything. Savings are weighed against delivery costs, and customer needs are considered.
Common MGT 240 Module 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Pooling papers sometimes present centralization as pure savings, ignoring delivery costs and the customer who needs a part today. Weigh both. Another weakness is calculating safety stock without stating the service level, demand variability or lead time. State every input. Explain why pooling works, using research, and when it works less well, for example when demand at locations rises and falls together. Sort items rather than treating them alike, since fast movers and urgent items belong in stores. Check units carefully. Finally, estimate the dollar value of inventory saved and compare it with the costs of the new arrangement.
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 1: Process Analysis and the Bottleneck
- 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 7: Revenue Management
- MGT 240 Module 8: Supply Chain Coordination and the Bullwhip Effect
- MGT 414 Module 6: Human Resources and Diversity
- BUS 499 Module 4: Method and Data Plan
- MGT 474 Module 6: Project Risk Management
- BUS 210 Module 5: Human Resources Plan
MGT 240 Module 6 questions, answered
What does MGT 240 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 240 covers inventory and risk pooling in this module, so analyzing safety stock and where a business should hold inventory is typical. Consult your classroom prompt.
What is risk pooling?
Combining demand from several locations into one inventory, which reduces total variability and the safety stock needed for the same service level.
Why does pooling reduce safety stock?
Eppen showed that when demands are independent, high demand at one location tends to offset low demand at another, so the combined variability grows only with the square root of the number of locations.
Where can I find a free MGT 240 Module 6 sample paper?
The example above calculates safety stock for a farm supply chain's slow-moving items with and without pooling and recommends which items to centralize.
When does risk pooling help less?
When demand at locations is correlated, such as when a drought raises demand everywhere at once, the savings from pooling shrink.