AIMS 3770 - Dr. Leon
November 14, 2012
PROJECT 3: BULLSEYE WAREHOUSE SIMULATION
Bullseye Department store is a discount retailer of general merchandise in the Southeastern United States.
The company owns more than 30 stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee that are
serviced by the company’s main warehouse near Statesboro, GA. Most of the merchandise received at
the warehouse arrives in trucks from ports in Jacksonville, Florida and Savannah, Georgia between the
hours of 5 a.m. and 11 p.m.
Trucks arrive at the warehouse according to the distribution described in Table 1. One loading dock is
currently available at the warehouse. Two workers are assigned to the dock and are able to unload the
truck according to the distribution in Table 2. When the dock is occupied, arriving trucks wait in a queue
until the dock becomes available.
Time Between Trucks (Minutes)
Probability
10
.15
20
.2
30
.2
40
.25
50
.1
60
.1
Table 1: Arrival Distribution
Time to Unload Truck (Minutes)
Probability
10
.05
20
.15
30
.15
40
.25
50
.2
60
.2
Table 2: Current System
Bullseye has received complaints from the trucking firms lately that deliveries are taking too long at the
warehouse. In response, Bullseye is considering a number of options to try to reduce the time trucks
spend at the warehouse. One option is upgrade the forklift equipment used by the two workers in the
loading dock to a new model that can be leased for $6 per hour and is expected to speed up time required
to unload a truck (see Table 3).
Time to Unload Truck (Minutes)
Probability
10
.10
15
.10
20
.20
25
.20
30
.20
40
.20
Table 3: With New Forklift Equipment
Alternatively, the company can build a second loading dock for a capitalized cost of $8 per hour and hire
two additional workers at a rate of $10 per worker per hour to man this new location. Trucks would still
form one line in the back alley, where the first truck in line would go to the next available loading dock.
If needed Bullseye could upgrade the lift equipment at both loading docks as well for the same $6 per
hour per unit leasing expense. Bullseye pays a shipping fee of $60 per hour that a truck spends at the
warehouse. They would like you to help them identify which alternative will help them speed up their
service and simultaneously control operational costs.
Two spreadsheet templates have been created for you in the Bullseye.xls file on the website. The first
worksheet models a system with one dock. The second worksheet models a system with two unloading
docks. Neither model incorporates the uncertainty present in the warehouse system.
Perform the following analysis for Bullseye:
 Modify the first simulation model to include the uncertainty in the current loading dock system:
determine random number intervals for the time between trucks and the unloading time and code the
appropriate Excel formulas into the columns where the appropriate times need to be simulated.
Extend the number of rows in the model to include enough trucks on average so as to simulate the
primary hours of operation being addressed in the analysis. Program formulas to measure the
system’s effectiveness. Consider performance measures such as waiting time, system time and idle
time/utilization. Be sure to think about the bias in the start-up period and the length of period being
simulated. How well is the current system working? What is the cost of the current system? (20
points)
 Make a copy of the worksheet modeling the current loading dock system. In the second worksheet,
study what will happen if the forklift equipment is upgraded. Adjust the distributions as necessary.
How well would this system work? What is the cost of the upgraded system? (10 points)
 Modify the two loading dock model to include the uncertainty in the system: determine random
number intervals for the time between trucks and the unloading time and code the appropriate Excel
formulas into the columns where the appropriate times need to be simulated. Assume that the
original forklift equipment is used in both docks. Extend the number of rows in the model to
include enough trucks on average so as to simulate the primary hours of operation being addressed in
the analysis. Program the system performance measure formulas to include the relevant trucks for the
analysis. Be sure to think about the bias in the start-up period and the length of period being
simulated. How well would this proposed system work? What is the cost of this system? (20 points)
 Make a copy of the two loading dock worksheet. In the second worksheet, study what will happen if
the forklift equipment is upgraded at both docks. Adjust the simulated values as necessary. How well
would this system working? What is the cost of the upgraded system? (8 points)
 For each worksheet, perform at least 100 simulation runs for the proposed loading dock system.
Collect data describing the relevant truck waiting time and the utilization rate of the system. Tabulate
the results for each run and summarize the data you collected into meaningful output. Include this
summary table as one of your worksheets in your submitted spreadsheet. (12 points)
 Submit the Excel file that contains the five described worksheets to the Assignment section
in MyLMUConnect for grading.
 Write a memo to Bullseye that provides an analysis of your simulation results with a recommendation
as to whether the company should build an additional loading dock or stay with only one as well as
whether they should upgrade the forklift equipment or not. Be sure to describe the risks of the
different situations by interpreting the expected performance as well as the potential downsides that
can occur. Describe the potential costs of each of the systems. Turn a hardcopy of your memo to the
instructor during class. The rubric on the following page will be used to grade this memo. (30
points)

The following guidelines can be used to organize your memo to Bullseye:
Paragraph
Content
1
Summary of system recommendations (# of loading docks and
type of forklift equipment you are recommending)
2
Analysis of operational performance and costs of the four
different loading dock systems. Use tables wherever possible to
summarize and compare numbers.
3
Concluding comments.
PROJECT 3: BULLSEYE WAREHOUSE SIMULATION RUBRIC
Points
Organization
Evaluation
Criteria
3
Your memo is
clearly and
efficiently
organized. After
reading the first
paragraph, the
audience
understands the
decision problem
and knows your
general
recommendation
and the criteria
on which you
based your
decision.
Portions of the
memo ramble or
are too technical
and/or the first
paragraph does
not summarize
the decision
criteria and
recommended
plan for the
audience.
Appropriate
criteria are
used to
evaluate the
system’s
performance.
The standards
for these
criteria are
clearly and
correctly
stated.
2
Appropriate
criteria are
used to
evaluate the
system’s
performance.
The standards
for one or
more of these
criteria are not
clearly stated
or are
incorrectly
stated.
Evaluation of System
Performance (Points
x2)
The individual
performances of the
four proposed system
scenarios are
evaluated by
accurately assessing
the attractiveness of
outcomes for all
evaluation criteria.
Cost calculations
(Points x 2)
Writing
Mechanics
Communication of Numerical Results
(Points x 3)
The daily operating
costs are correctly
calculated and
include all relevant
labor, equipment,
facility and trucking
cost estimates.
Your memo is
substantially free
from errors of
grammar, word
usage,
punctuation and
spelling.
*The numerical results from the
simulation and cost analysis are
communicated in a format such that
the audience easily sees how they
support the recommendations and
statements made in the performance
analysis of the four systems.
*The numerical results are clearly
identified with correct units and
meaningful labels so that they can be
interpreted easily.
*The expected outcomes as well as
some potential risks are
communicated to the audience
The individual
performances of the
four proposed system
scenarios are
evaluated by
accurately assessing
the attractiveness of
outcomes for most of
the evaluation
criteria.
The daily operating
costs do not correctly
calculate all relevant
labor, equipment,
facility and trucking
cost estimates.
Your memo has a
few errors of
grammar, word
usage,
punctuation and
spelling, but they
do not distract the
reader to a
significant
degree.
*Easy to read tables or graphs
summarize the simulation results in a
simple comparison of the expected
recommended system versus nonrecommended system performances
*Appropriate numerical results are
presented in a format that is not easy
to read and therefore it is hard for the
audience to clearly see how some of
the numbers support the performance
analysis of the four systems
Points
Organization
Evaluation
Criteria
System Performance
(Points x 2)
Cost calculations
(Points x 2)
Writing Mechanics
Communication of Numerical Results
(Points x 3)
1
Your memo
jumps from
idea to idea
without a clear
reason for
moving in that
direction. It is
addressed to
the appropriate
audience
however.
Your memo
does not
summarize the
information for
the appropriate
audience.
Incomplete
criteria are
used to
evaluate the
system’s
performance.
Not all of the systems
are analyzed or
Some of the systems
are incorrectly
analyzed
The daily operating
costs do not attempt
to include all relevant
labor, equipment,
facility and trucking
cost estimates.
*Key quantitative results are
communicated inaccurately or
incompletely, thereby misleading the
audience in its final decision or
making it impossible for the reader to
fully compare the different systems.
Inappropriate
criteria are
used to
evaluate the
system’s
performance.
The individual
performances of the
proposed system
scenarios are
incorrectly analyzed
or not interpreted at
all.
The daily operating
costs are not
addressed in the
analysis.
Your memo has
an accumulation
of errors of
grammar, word
usage,
punctuation and
spelling that
distracts the
reader from the
points you are
trying to make.
Your memo is
marred by many
and serious errors
of grammar,
word usage,
punctuation and
spelling
3
9
0
Points
Earned:
Points
Possible:
3
3
6
6
*Most of the quantitative results of
your analysis are not directly
communicated in any meaningful
form, thereby resulting in obscure or
inaccurate claims about performances
that provide no real support for your
recommendation.