The replacement of multi-suppliers with a single supplier is a recommendable strategy which will assist the company to build a better and efficient supplier relation. However, the new supplier of eight items proposes the delivery to be made on a fixed-interval basis. Therefore, the evaluation of this offer according to the criteria of quality custom essay is important to enhance the analysis of the cost factors that are likely to increase or decrease in the supply chain.

The fixed-interval delivery is a strategy that ensures the establishment of a regular and reliable supply chain. If the firm is to incorporate this system, there is a chance of reductions in the cost of the inventory records. This anticipated reductions in the inventory cost are expected to arise from the reduces in the expenses previously incurred in the shipment processes. Further, there is a probable increase in the efficiency of the supply chain since there will be a fixed interval phase. Thus, these anticipations are expected to ensure the inventory cost is reduced.

The fixed-interval delivery is also expected to increase the storage costs of the firm. This is attributed to the fact that the delivery of the next stock might intervene with the previous stock still in store. Consequently, the firm would be forced to find more space and workforce to cater for the storage of the excess stock, hence, increasing the storage cost.

Bear in mind that it is prudent for the firm to consider adopting the fixed-interval delivery strategy as proposed by the single supplier for all the eight items. No doubt that the costs saved by the strategy are higher than the costs to be increased. Please do not hesitate to contact me in case of any doubts in relation to my evaluation of the costs to increase or decrease in the supply chain.

Personal Opinion on the switching of strategies in the aggregate planning

The possibility of switching from a chase demand strategy to a level-capacity one for aggregated planning is not an idea worth considering and implementing. Chase demand strategy has been utilized to ensure the organization matches demand and capacity of the service from time to time. Conversely, the level strategy will seek to use a constant level of outputs to satisfy the demand for the organization services. Therefore, it is essential to compare the merits of both strategies to enhance the effective transitioning to the best strategy for aggregated planning.

In aggregated planning, both strategies have their merits to the organization. The chase demand strategy merits in aggregate planning is that it allows the organization to use the lowest numbers of outputs at a considerable cost. On the other hand, the level-capacity strategy uses a constant level of output to meet the demand of the services. It may lead to financial losses especially when the level of demand is at the low peak seasons since the numbers of employees would have exceeded the demand to be produced. Thus, the chase demand strategy is a better strategy in aggregated planning.

In my opinion, I think it would be wise to stick to the chase demand strategy rather than switching to the level-capacity strategy for aggregated planning. Clearly, the merits brought in by chase demand strategy outweigh the merits of the level-capacity strategy for aggregated planning in the organization. In case of further concerns, I am open for further consultations on the merits of the strategies in aggregated planning.