The Case for In-House Manufacturing: A Strategic Investment for Future Growth

OPPORTUNITY DETAILS

The new equipment would allow your company to manufacture a critical component in-house instead of buying it from a supplier. This capability would help you stabilize your supply chain, which has suffered from some irregularities and quality issues in the past. It could also positively impact profitability through the absorption of fixed costs since this new machine will have plenty of excess capacity. There may even be a possibility that the company could leverage this capability to create a new external revenue stream by providing services to other companies.

The company has been growing steadily over the past 5 years, and the financials and prospects look good. Your CEO has asked you to run the numbers. After doing some digging into the business, you have gathered information on the following

The estimated purchase price for the equipment required to move the operation in-house would be $860,000. Additional net working capital to support production (in the form of cash used in Inventory, AR net of AP) would be needed in the amount of $42,000 per year starting in year 0 and through all years of the project to support production as raw materials will be required in year 0 and all years to run the new equipment and produce components to replace those purchased from the vendor.
The current spending on this component (i.e., annual spend pool) is $1,600,000. The estimated cash flow savings of bringing the process in-house is 25% or annual savings of $400,000. This includes the additional labor and overhead costs required.
Finally, the equipment required is anticipated to have a somewhat short useful life, as a new wave of technology is on the horizon. Therefore, it is anticipated that the equipment will be sold after the end of the project (the last year of generated cash flow) for $80,000 (i.e., the terminal value).
As part of your research, you have sought input from several stakeholders. Each has raised important points to consider in your analysis and recommendation. Some of the points and assumptions are purely financial. Others touch on additional concerns and opportunities.

  1. Aisha, your colleague from Accounting, recommends using the base assumptions above: 5-year project life, flat annual savings, and a 10% discount rate. Aisha does not feel the equipment will have any terminal value due to advancements in technology.
  2. Bruno from Sales is convinced that this capability would create a new revenue stream that could significantly offset operating expenses. He recommends savings that grow each year: 5-year project life, 12% discount rate, and an 6% annual savings growth in years 2 through 5. In other words, instead of assuming savings stay flat, assume that year 2 will be 106% of year 1, year 3 will be 106% of year 2, and so on. Bruno feels that the stated terminal value of $80,000 is reasonable and uses it in his calculations.
  3. Chan from Engineering believes we should use a higher Discount Rate because of the risk of this type of project. As such, he is recommending a 5-year project life and flat annual savings. Chan suggests that even though the equipment is brand new, the updated production process could have a negative impact on other parts of the overall manufacturing costs. He argues that, while it is difficult to quantify the potential negative impacts, to account for the risk, a 14% discount rate should be used. As an engineer, Chan feels that the stated terminal value is low based on experience and recommends a $100,000 terminal value.
  4. Devi, the Product Manager, is convinced the new capability will allow better quality control and on-time delivery and that it will last longer than 5 years. He recommends using a 7 Year Equipment Life (which means a 7-year project and that savings will continue for 7 years), flat annual savings, and an 11% discount rate. In other words, assume that the machine will last 2 more years and deliver 2 more years of savings. Devi also feels the equipment will have an estimated terminal value of $50,000 at the end of its 7-year useful life as it will be utilized longer, thus having less value at the end of the project and savings.
  5. Eddy, the head of Operations, is concerned that instead of stabilizing the supply chain, making the component will just add another process to be managed and will distract from the existing core competencies in the factory. He feels the company should focus on improving communication and supply chain management with its current vendor, and he feels confident he can negotiate a price reduction of 5% off the annual outsourcing cost of $1,600,000 if he lets it be known we are considering taking over production of the component. As there is little risk associated with Eddys proposal due to no upfront capital requirements, a lower risk-free discount rate of 6% would be appropriate. Eddy believes that the price reduction from the current vendor will last for five years. (NOTE: because there is no "investment," the Nominal Payback, Discounted Payback, and IRR metrics are not meaningful. Simply provide the NPV of the annual savings cash flows).
    INSTRUCTIONS PART A: DATA CALCULATIONS

Using the data presented above and (ignoring the extraneous information) for this profit and supply chain improvement project, calculate each of the following (where applicable):

Nominal Payback
Discounted Payback
Net Present Value
Internal Rate of Return

  The Case for In-House Manufacturing: A Strategic Investment for Future Growth Thesis Statement Investing in new manufacturing equipment to produce critical components in-house is a strategic move that will stabilize the supply chain, enhance quality control, and potentially create a new revenue stream, ultimately leading to improved profitability for the company. Introduction In the rapidly evolving landscape of manufacturing, companies must navigate the complexities of supply chain management while maintaining product quality and profitability. This essay explores the opportunity presented by investing $860,000 in new equipment that would enable the company to produce a critical component in-house rather than relying on external suppliers. By examining various stakeholder perspectives, financial implications, and strategic advantages, it becomes clear that this investment is not only necessary but also beneficial for the company's long-term growth. Stabilizing the Supply Chain One of the most pressing issues the company faces is the irregularities and quality issues experienced with current suppliers. By bringing the manufacturing process in-house, the company can have greater control over production timelines and quality standards. Aisha from Accounting emphasizes the importance of stable annual savings of $400,000—25% of the current spend—by eliminating reliance on suppliers. Enhanced control over supply chain processes would mitigate disruptions and foster a more reliable production schedule. Financial Implications While initial estimates suggest that the equipment will have a short useful life due to advancing technology, the potential for significant cost savings cannot be overlooked. The estimated annual cash flow savings of $400,000, alongside a terminal value of $80,000, presents a compelling financial case. Each of the stakeholders has provided insight into different financial projections based on various assumptions: - Aisha's conservative approach suggests flat annual savings with a 10% discount rate. - Bruno's optimistic outlook anticipates a 6% growth rate in savings over five years, highlighting potential revenue generation from external services. - Chan's risk assessment argues for a 14% discount rate, suggesting that unforeseen costs may arise during production. - Devi’s perspective provides an extended project life of 7 years and an 11% discount rate due to expected longevity and quality control improvements. - Eddy's proposal of negotiating a price reduction from suppliers offers a lower-risk alternative with no upfront investment. Despite differing viewpoints on assumptions and methodologies, what remains evident is that there are financial benefits to be gained by transitioning to in-house production. Quality Control and Competitive Advantage Transitioning to in-house manufacturing is not merely about cost savings; it's also about enhancing quality control. Devi emphasizes that controlling the production process allows for better oversight, resulting in higher quality components and timely deliveries. This capability can lead to improved customer satisfaction and potentially increased market share. The strategic advantage gained through superior quality and reliability positions the company favorably against competitors who may still depend on external suppliers. Potential for New Revenue Streams Beyond cost savings, Bruno’s perspective sheds light on an additional opportunity: leveraging new manufacturing capabilities to establish an external revenue stream. By offering production services to other companies, the organization can utilize excess capacity and generate additional income. This diversification not only strengthens the financial footing but also enhances the company's reputation as a capable manufacturer in its industry. Conclusion In conclusion, investing in new manufacturing equipment to produce critical components in-house is a strategic decision that promises significant benefits. From stabilizing the supply chain and improving quality control to creating new revenue opportunities, this initiative aligns with the company’s long-term growth objectives. While caution is warranted regarding potential risks and costs, the overall advantages far outweigh these concerns. The company stands at a crossroads where it can choose to innovate and invest in its future or risk falling behind competitors who embrace such opportunities. Thus, it is imperative that leadership moves forward with this investment for sustained success.    

Sample Answer