Woodland Adventure Playground Case Study

1630 Words 7 Pages
Q.1 a) Concept, package, and process: Woodland adventure playground is one of the largest in the country designed for leisure sports with adventurous and exciting experience for visitors. Along with sports like slides, ropewalks, towers and trampolines, the kids can learn responsibilities at working farmyard by having a chance to handle “livestock like pigs, sheep, fish, and chicken” (Nigel Slack). The park has to be regularly maintained to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for visitors, costing them £18,000 every year. And these costs are expected to increase every year.
Q.1b) Remove it: This is relatively feasible and low acceptable option because removing playground will save huge maintenance cost which may decrease revenue and visitor’s
…show more content…
Even though replacing with similar costs more, if they replace them with more exciting and adventurous spiral slides and others, will result in increased visitors count and revenue. Providing special places for adults to have interaction along with their kids. A chance to raise revenue by offering outdoor and indoor playing circumstances because there won’t be any surge in families count during bad weather.
Q.2 a) Amount of money to be spent to produce a product by using Chemling machine is £8.62 more than producing with AFU machine. AFU delivers the products with much better quality when compared with Chemling. Regarding automation, AFU can test quality automatically without any help from workers, but Chemling machine needs experienced workers to check the quality. AFU machine can produce more number of units per month when less unit cost when compared with Chemling machine. (please refer to excel for
…show more content…
Less acceptance and high vulnerability of Chemling machine is due to the quality and number of products produced per month are less. AFU machine is Highly feasible and acceptable as it can test the quality of product automatically, and it produces more number of products which will help as they expected to have a demand increase in future.
Q.2 c) I would recommend the company to invest in AFU, which can have more production and can produce better quality products when compared to Chemling. And also the cost per unit product is less when produced with AFU machine when compared to Chemling. If the Rochem sells their product for £1048.26, they can get their capital back in 3months, whereas if they invest in Chemling, they have to wait for three months to get the machine. According to the time value of money, the capital cost of Chemling cost shouldn’t invest if there is no immediate revenue. (please refer to excel for

Related Documents