You are on page 1of 2

Leitax

Leitax was the seventh largest company producing digital cameras. In 2002 it suffered poor
planning for three of its camera models. One had its launch delayed, the other outsold its
inventory and the third had poor sales. Leitax incurred losses equaling $19.5 million, $4.5
million and $2.5 due to these errors, respectively. This concerned the top management of
the company who decided to undertake a major overhaul in the supply chain operations of
Leitax.

The CEO hired Fowler for redesigning the project and supply/demand planning and
distributions. Previously, there had been a lack of co-ordination between departments when
planning the demand and each department estimated a different figure. This led to
inaccurate data for forecasting. Fowler aimed to create a consensus forecasting method. He
introduced the estimation of demand through sell through number rather than sell in. Sell
through meant the quantities shipped from resellers’ DC to other regions. Secondly, he
introduced the practice of ignoring capacity constraints while estimating demand. He further
introduced the frequent master production schedule which was consistently published.
Furthermore, he acquired the help of softwares which helped in demand planning and
forecasting and supplier network planning. Fowler involved the different functional groups
and acquainted them with the new process.

In the early meetings there were differences between the departments when estimating
demand due to various assumptions. The newly developed Demand Management System
(DMS) was aided by excel templates to account for these business assumptions such as price
changes. The stating point of consensus was the business assumptions package which
contained all the information relevant to the industry. This information was presented to
three functional groups including the top-down forecast, bottom-up forecast and sell
through forecast. The final forecast was sent to finance department who matched them with
revenue targets. To measure targets, after thirteen weeks (the longest contracted lead time
in the supply chain), forecasts were compared with actual results. The results were
promising, the sell-through forecast improved from 58% to 88% while sell in forecast
improved from 49% to 84%.

However, two recent problems called for immediate improvement in system. SF-6000, a
high-end camera was greatly overcasted while Optix-R cannibalized the existing Shoot XL
even though consensus forecast did not predict so. Fowler began to wonder if statistical
analysis should be applied. The problem with that was that it would rely on DMS team which
would have a greater control and other departments might think they are being controlled
by DMS. Fowler changed the goal of the consensus meeting to discuss product life cycle
instead of next quarter, but this confused sales directors. The misestimation by DMS made it
a difficult situation for Fowler. Was a greater change required?

You might also like