The document summarizes a case study about Megacard Corporation, which operates business travel centers. It discusses issues faced by the company's operations manager Bill O'Brien regarding overstaffing and forecasting call volumes. It analyzes the costs of maintaining a decentralized system with individual queues at each travel center versus transitioning to a centralized system with one queue. Calculations show the centralized system would require 10 fewer travel consultants and save around $500,000 annually, more than offsetting the one-time $160,000 setup cost. The conclusion is that O'Brien should implement a centralized system to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
The document summarizes a case study about Megacard Corporation, which operates business travel centers. It discusses issues faced by the company's operations manager Bill O'Brien regarding overstaffing and forecasting call volumes. It analyzes the costs of maintaining a decentralized system with individual queues at each travel center versus transitioning to a centralized system with one queue. Calculations show the centralized system would require 10 fewer travel consultants and save around $500,000 annually, more than offsetting the one-time $160,000 setup cost. The conclusion is that O'Brien should implement a centralized system to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
The document summarizes a case study about Megacard Corporation, which operates business travel centers. It discusses issues faced by the company's operations manager Bill O'Brien regarding overstaffing and forecasting call volumes. It analyzes the costs of maintaining a decentralized system with individual queues at each travel center versus transitioning to a centralized system with one queue. Calculations show the centralized system would require 10 fewer travel consultants and save around $500,000 annually, more than offsetting the one-time $160,000 setup cost. The conclusion is that O'Brien should implement a centralized system to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
The document summarizes a case study about Megacard Corporation, which operates business travel centers. It discusses issues faced by the company's operations manager Bill O'Brien regarding overstaffing and forecasting call volumes. It analyzes the costs of maintaining a decentralized system with individual queues at each travel center versus transitioning to a centralized system with one queue. Calculations show the centralized system would require 10 fewer travel consultants and save around $500,000 annually, more than offsetting the one-time $160,000 setup cost. The conclusion is that O'Brien should implement a centralized system to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7
Operations Management-II
Case – Megacard Corporation
Section E Group 8
Darshita Doshi (2012PGP106)
Naveen S (2012PGP219) Partha Pratim Panda (2012PGP248) Srihari K V (2012PGP371) Swati Bhargava (2012PGP394) Yasarapu Vamsikrishna (2012PGP447) The Company – Megacard Corporation
• Business Travel Centers was one of their depts
• Had 20 BTCs spread throughout the US • Offered airline, hotel and car reservations • Received 10% commission from airlines • Provided management information reports and cost-control monitoring • Front end operation consisted of six functions- TC, Hotel Agents, Rate Agents, Ticketeers, Messengers, Prepaid agents. Issues faced by Bill O’Brien • Megacard is currently overstaffed for its operations. O’Brien feels it is better to overstaff than to under serve. • O’Brien is thinking about having a centralized system which essentially means a single queue for the entire company. Currently they have different queues for all the BTCs. • If forecast was too high and level of staff larger than necessary, profits would fall • Forecast of incoming calls was very difficult to forecast • If the forecast was too low and staff smaller than necessary, service quality, and ultimately profits would slip • Long waits on the line motivated callers who used more than one travel agent to try elsewhere • Quality and customer’s perception of quality were contrasting • Quality of service as perceived by corporations included reduced travel costs, monthly statements an reports Computations • Taking 1 min. as hold-time and 5 min. As average service time, we get 6 mins as average time a customer spends in the system • Assumptions : Total #working hours in a day are 10, with a one-hour break • Avg. Sales per call = $ 22,957 • TC Salary costs = 68% Total employment expenses = 68% of 60% of BTC’s total expenses Comparison of Costs for two systems
Decentralized system Centralized system
• Number of TCs required at a • We can compute the number BTC = (#Daily Calls*Avg time of TCs required for the total per call)/Daily working hours number of expected calls and • Therefore, for Indianapolis BTC, therefore the total costs, given #TCs reqd. = (749*6)/(60*9) = we have one queue for the 8.32 = 9 system. • Similarly for Kansas City, #TCs • The number of TCs would be reqd. = 5 less compared to the • For Dallas, #TCs reqd. = 4 decentralized system • Similar calculations can be done for the rest 17 BTCs assuming avg calls per sales volume in dollars BTC 1992 Expected Sales (000s) #Calls #TCs reqd Annual TC Salaries Total BTC Expenses New York 31437 1370 16 $ 4,80,000.00 $ 9,34,943.51 Washington, D.C. 26048 1135 13 $ 3,90,000.00 $ 7,59,641.60 Atlanta 9880 431 5 $ 1,50,000.00 $ 2,92,169.85 Boston 5838 255 3 $ 90,000.00 $ 1,75,301.91 Kansas City 10779 470 6 $ 1,80,000.00 $ 3,50,603.82 Indianapolis 14552 634 8 $ 2,40,000.00 $ 4,67,471.76 Denver 2246 98 2 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,16,867.94 Boulder, CO 2426 106 2 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,16,867.94 Phoenix 4554 199 3 $ 90,000.00 $ 1,75,301.91 Dallas 8084 353 4 $ 1,20,000.00 $ 2,33,735.88 Philadelphia 19761 861 10 $ 3,00,000.00 $ 5,84,339.70 Baltimore 9880 431 5 $ 1,50,000.00 $ 2,92,169.85 Stamford, CT 0 0 0 $ - $ - Newark 3862 169 2 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,16,867.94 Charlotte, CT 13203 576 7 $ 2,10,000.00 $ 4,09,037.79 Albany, NY 12484 544 7 $ 2,10,000.00 $ 4,09,037.79 San Francisco 35928 1565 18 $ 5,40,000.00 $ 10,51,811.45 Palo Alto, CA 3234 141 2 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,16,867.94 Oakland, CA 4491 196 3 $ 90,000.00 $ 1,75,301.91 Los Angeles 23354 1018 12 $ 3,60,000.00 $ 7,01,207.64
Decentralized system 242041 10552 128 $ 38,40,000.00 $ 74,79,548.11 Difference
Centralized System 242041 10552 118 $ 35,40,000.00 $ 68,95,208.41 $5,84,339.70 Conclusion • As we see from the computations, the company will be able to do away with 10 TCs, saving approx. $0.5 mn with a centralized system. The operating expenses have been considered as for a normal BTC in this computation as well. • Now, these savings are more than the annual expenses and one-time setup costs required for the centralized BTC which is $0.16 mn • They will still be saving approx. $ 0.4 mn for the first year and $0.5 mn per annum next year onwards. • Hence, O’Brien should go for a centralized system.