Reviews by Capital Equipment

Reviewed teams:

1. Space
2. Information Systems
3. Inventory


Reviews for Capital Equipment

Reviewing teams:

1. Purchasing
2. Quality
3. Materials Handling




Review of the Space team:

Team Members:  Sagar Shinde, Satya Khade, Prashanth Bhat. 

We feel that SPACE team has done hard work in collecting this amount of material in such a short duration. They have tried to use all the gathered information in writing the report and they have explained every point from the basics, which make it very clear for reader to understand. At the same time, at some places they have digressed from the main topic and the report hence turns out to be very lengthy.  

Following are some key points which Capital Equipment feels could help Space team to improve their project. 

Strengths:

  1. Well presented Web-Site.

  2. Covered a Lot of material.

  3. The differentiation between decisions and metrics is good. 

Weakness: 

  1. Very elaborated report.

  2. Sometimes they digress from the main topic.

  3. Some links are not properly placed. 

Recommendations:

  1. Try to be specific and concise. (Ex. Three Ts can include the tax and transportation.)

  2. Can use bullets, instead of long descriptions.

  3. Topic of evaluation can describe the points that can imply the design process so won’t make the report long.

 


Review of the Information Systems team:


Team Members: Thimmaiah Mallengada, Robert Townsend, Nilesh Kulkarni

·       Strengths: The topic on Metrics is well defined and extensive considering the limited amount of material available on this subject. Also good research work has been done and the Table of Contents looks very promising. Also a lot of research work has been done. The topic on Benchmarking was particularly impressive.

·        Weakness: Web page is not yet ready for viewing properly. Most of the links are not functional. Also the websites of the other team members are not yet developed. It is a good thing that they have included some figures but unfortunately they couldn’t be opened in IE/Netscape. A negative tone about IS was noticed in some topics.

·        Suggestions: Website could be updated and made user friendly. The general negative tone that the reader gets could be looked into. Also the failure of IS has been accounted to the failure of the Management in implementing it rather than the shortcomings in the system.  

 

Review of the Inventory Team:

Team Members: RajyaLakshmi Akella, SyamaSunder Adibhatta, Ojas Zatakia, Gautham G Subramanian

                      The presentation of the project is very good. The mission statement is clear in pointing out their objective. The Introduction is to the point and effective. The Project Plan has been laid out well.

          Next talking about forecasting covered under inventory management, there is a good amount of valuable information, and especially topics like forecasting techniques have been tackled very well. The topic on scheduling has been covered extensively, but we would like to suggest them to include a bit on MRPII (Manufacturing Resource Planning), which is a computerized tool for scheduling and ordering materials.

          The topic on inventory measurement has been carried out in a very detailed and convincing manner; especially the part on ABC analysis has been very informative. The graphs done on the inventory models need to be explained more clearly.

          The Inventory team does not seem to be very confident about the Metrics and their rankings.

          The Website is good but should be more user friendly. Also a couple of Graphic errors need to be rectified.

          Overall a commendable job.





Review of our project (Capital Equipment) done by other teams

Review by the Purchasing team:

Reviewing Team Members:        Jerry George, Madhan Dhandayutham, Sarosh Ahmed

Date: September20, 2000 

Overall the team had really put in a lot of effort in gathering the info and then putting it together. The objective  and mission is clear. The point we would appreciate is that the info is put in a lucid manner-that its easy to understand on a layman point of view. Overview of Capital Equipment Purchasing was dealt very well. It had a lot of good info.

We feel the definition of the Metrics had been done well, but then ranking of the Metric’ has not been dealt with. We feel that Ranking of the Metrics is the Real Crux of the Project and hence more weightage should be given. 

We could not find the Conclusion.



Review by the Quality team:

Reviewing Team:                     Quality 

Reviewing Team Members:    Faizal Zaman ( Team Leader & Liaison), Gautam Pasari (Project Planner),

                                                   Leila Rabuya ( Web-Site Coordinator & Research/Report Overseer) 

Date:                            Wednesday, September 20, 2000 

Strengths

·        Informative background section (brief and to the point)

·        Identified and presented metrics in the capital equipment function

·        Decisions are presented in a logical manner

·        Well-structured site layout

·        Information seems to be accurate 

Weaknesses

·        Unnecessary definition of metrics and measurements

·        Did not identify the IE tools that are used to analyze the metrics

·        Listed only the metrics for purchasing capital equipment 

Recommendations

·        Try to tie the function's metrics to the decisions in a logical manner

·        Might want to show the use of Engineering Economy principles in analyzing
capital equipment procurement (NPV, MARR, etc.)



Review by the Material Handling team:

Team members: Balaamarnath Balachandran, Somasundaram Gopalakrishnan, Sitaram Banda.

Date: 09/20/2000

                             First of all the materials handling team would like to congratulate your team for coming up with an excellent project report and website. The website was very impressive and the drafts informative and easy to comprehend. The highlighting on key words in your drafts makes the drafts more pleasant to read and one need not search for what your team is trying to convey. The drafts have been presented in a clear and crisp manner. The website was easy to navigate through.

                             Having gone through your website the materials handling team has a few suggestions to make. These suggestions will hopefully be helpful to you in finalizing your draft. 

Ø      There have been instances in which there are a few grammatical mistakes. Like for instance this line from your Introduction goes as follows “Research, on which large sum is been spend, acts as a stimulant to capital investment and will result in the replacement of much existing machinery”. Shouldn’t it be as follows? “ Research, on which large sums of money is being spent, acts as a stimulant for capital investment and will result in the replacement of a large amount of existing machinery.” 

Ø      The metrics has been well thought of. But it would be helpful if you could perhaps include a few lines describing each metric. Also ranking the metrics would enable the people looking through your website to have a clear understanding of the importance of each metric.

 Ø      The web site has been a pleasure to go through. However a few changes are required. When one clicks on the link “Introduction” one is not taken to the introduction part. There seems to be a problem with the link. Please have a look at it. Also the need to scroll horizontally to read a line in full is a bit irritating. It would be more pleasant if one need not scroll horizontally. 

Ø      A conclusion is probably needed to sum up your project. 

                             Once again the materials handling team would like to congratulate your team on having done a great job.