Nimbus Health: Inspect More, or Fix the Line?

Operations
medium35 min0 submissions
Morgan Stanley
Scenario

Nimbus Health manufactures digital health products in US, running 849,215 units a year.

Internal quality checks reject 2% of output, at a scrap and rework cost of about $617 a unit. A further 2.3% of shipped units come back under warranty, each costing roughly $1669 once field service, replacement and admin are counted.

Two proposals are on the table. Engineering wants $48 M of one-off capital to re-tool the station where most defects originate. Quality wants $25 M a year of additional inspection headcount to catch more before shipment.

The plant manager is measured on unit cost.

Supporting data

volume

units per year
849215

proposals

process retool one off m
48
additional inspection per year m
25

external failure

cost per claim
1669
warranty claim rate pct
2.3
warranty units per year
19532

internal failure

defect rate pct
2
defective units per year
16984
scrap rework cost per unit
617
Your task

Advise the plant manager. Your answer should provide:

  1. Analysis — the total cost of poor quality today, split by where it is detected, and the return on each proposal.
  2. Risks — what each option does not solve.
  3. Recommendation — which to fund, with a payback period.

State any assumptions you make.

Ready to move forward? Up next: Verity Insurance: How Much Stock Is the Right Amount?Next question
How you'll be graded

80 points, 60% to pass.

  • recommendation20
  • market analysis15
  • risk assessment20
  • financial analysis25
Hint
Reveal suggested structure

Cost of poor quality = internal failure + external failure. Compare prevention against detection on payback, and note that inspection does not reduce the defect rate.