(Restoration Hardware) Consider the following excerpts from a New York Times article (Kaufman,…

(Restoration Hardware) Consider the subjoined excerpts from a New York Times boundary (Kaufman, 2000): Despite its coming engagement . . . Restoration has had misfortune fit a mass-market player. . . . What went evil-doing? High on its own buzz, the community expanded at breakneck hurry, past than doubling the estimate of supplys, to 94, in the year and a half following the supply subsidy. . . . Community managers coincide, for copy, that Restoration’s ancient list plan, which designated for all movables to be kept at supplys instead of at a convenient depot, was a vexation. Let’s contemplate at one Restoration Hardware result, a leather chair. Average weekly sales of this chair in each supply is Poisson delay medium 1.25 units. The aliment guide occasion is 12 weeks. (This doubt requires using Excel to educe Poisson division and detriment part boards that are not moderate in the sequel. See Sequel C for the progress to evaluate a detriment part board.)

a. If each supply holds its own list, then what is the community’s annual list turns if the community device is to target a 99.25 percent in-supply presumption? [17.3]

b. Suppose Restoration Hardware builds a convenient depot to obey the 94 supplys. The guide occasion from the supplier to the convenient depot is 12 weeks. The guide occasion from the convenient depot to each supply is one week. Suppose the depot operates delay a 99 percent in-supply presumption, but the supplys suppress a 99.25 percent in-supply presumption. If singly list at the dispose-of supplys is considered, what are Restoration’s annual list turns? [17.3]