Facility Location
Adapted from:
Facilities Planning, Tompkins, White, Bozer, Frazelle, Tanchoco,
Trevino, Wiley, New York, 1996
Lamar University
1
Importance of Location
• Up to 25% of the product’s selling cost
• Once a company commits to a location, many costs are
fixed and difficult to change
• Energy
• Labor
• Location depends on the type of business
• Manufacturing – minimizing cost
• Retail and professional services – maximizing
revenue
• Warehouse – cost and speed of delivery
Lamar University
2
In General - Location Decisions
• Long-term decisions
• Difficult to reverse
• Affect fixed & variable costs
• Transportation cost
• As much as 25% of product price
• Other costs: Taxes, wages, rent etc.
• Objective: Maximize benefit of location to firm
Lamar University
3
Location Options
• Expand the existing facility instead of moving
• Maintain current sites while adding another facility
• Closing the existing facility and moving to another
Lamar University
4
Factors The Affect Location Decisions
Country Decisions
• Government rules, attitudes, stability, incentives
• Cultural and economic issues
• Location of markets
• Labor availability, attitudes, productivity, costs
• Availability of supplies, communications,
energy
• Exchange rates
Lamar University
5
Factors The Affect Location Decisions
Region/Community Decisions
• Corporate desires
• Attractiveness of region (culture, taxes, climate, etc…)
• Labor availability, costs, attitudes towards unions
• Cost and availability of utilities
• Environmental regulations of state and town
• Government incentives
• Proximity to raw materials and customers
• Land/construction costs
Lamar University
6
Factors The Affect Location Decisions
Site Decisions
• Site size and cost
• Air, rail, waterway systems
• Zoning restrictions
• Nearness of services/supplies needed
• Environmental impact issues
Lamar University
7
Location Decision Example - BMW
In 1992, BMW decided to build its first major
manufacturing plant outside Germany in
Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Lamar University
8
Location Decision Example – BMW
Country Decision Factors
Market location
• U.S. is world’s largest luxury car market
• Growing (baby boomers)
Labor
• Lower manufacturing labor costs
– $17/hr. (U.S.) vs. $27 (Germany)
• Higher labor productivity
– 11 holidays (U.S.) vs. 31 (Germany)
Other
• Lower shipping cost ($2,500/car less)
• New plant & equipment would increase productivity (lower cost/car $2,000-3000)
Lamar University
9
Location Decision Example – BMW
Region/Community Decision Factors
Labor
• Lower wages in South Carolina (SC)
– About $17,000/yr (SC) vs. $27,051/yr (US)
• Based on 1993 metropolitan averages for all workers
Government incentives
• $135 million in state & local tax breaks
• Free-trade zone from airport to plant
– No duties on imported components or on exported cars
Lamar University
10
Organizations That Need To Be Close to Markets
Government agencies
• Police & fire departments
• Post Office
Retail Sales and Service
• Fast food restaurants, supermarkets, gas stations
• Drug stores, shopping malls
• Bakeries
Services
• Doctors, lawyers, accountants, barbers
• Banks, auto repair, motels
Lamar University
11
Ranking of the Business Environment
in 20 Countries, 1997 - 2001
1 Netherlands
11 Finland
2 Britain
12 Belgium
3 Canada
13 New Zealand
4 Singapore
14 Hong Kong
5 U.S.
15 Austria
6 Denmark
16 Australia
7 Germany
8 France
9 Switzerland
17 Norway
18 Ireland
19 Italy
20 Chile
10 Sweden
Lamar University
12
Labor Productivity
• Low wage rates often heavily influence location
choices
• What about productivity?
• Example:
• Company Q pays $70 per day with 60 units produced
per day in Texas. The Mexican plant pays $25 per day
with a productivity of 20 units per day:
• Labor cost per day/Productivity (units per day) = Cost
per unit
Lamar University
13
Labor Productivity - Example:
• Company Q pays $70 per day with 60 units produced per day in
Texas. The Mexican plant pays $25 per day with a productivity of
20 units per day:
• Labor cost per day/Productivity (units per day) = Cost per unit
• Case 1: Texas Plant
• $70 per day/60 units per day = $70/60 = $1.17 per unit
• Case 2: Mexican Plant
• $25 per day/20 units per day = $25/20 = $1.25 per unit
• Lesson: Employees with poor training, poor
education, or poor work habits may not be a good
buy even at low wages.
Lamar University
14
Costs: Tangible Vs. Intangible
• Tangible costs – those that are readily identifiable and precisely
measured
– Utilities
– Labor
– Material
– Taxes
– Depreciation
– Other costs that accounting can easily identify
• Intangible costs – not easily quantifiable
– Quality of education
– Public transportation facilities
– Community attitudes toward the industry and the company
– Quality and attitude of prospective employees
– Climate
Lamar University
15
Proximity To Markets
• Service organizations (drug stores, restaurants, post offices)
find proximity to market is the primary location factor
• Manufacturing – useful to be close to customers when
transporting finished goods is expensive or difficult
Lamar University
16
Proximity To Suppliers
Firms locate near their raw materials and suppliers because:
• Perishability
• Transportation costs
• Bulk
Lamar University
17
Proximity To Competitors
Clustering – the location of competing companies near each
other, often because of a critical mass of information, talent,
venture capital, or natural resources
Lamar University
18
Location Evaluation Methods
• Factor-rating method
• Locational break-even analysis
• Center of gravity method
• Transportation model
Lamar University
19
Factor-Rating Method
• Most widely used location technique
• Useful for service & industrial locations
• Rates locations using factors
– Intangible (qualitative) factors
• Example: Education quality, labor skills
– Tangible (quantitative) factors
• Example: Short-run & long-run costs
Lamar University
20
Factors Affecting Location Selection
• Labor costs (including wages, unionization,
productivity)
• Labor availability (including attitudes, age,
distribution, and skills)
• Proximity to raw materials and suppliers
• Proximity to markets
• State and local government fiscal policies (including
incentives, taxes, unemployment compensation)
• Utilities (including gas, electric, water, and their
costs)
Lamar University
21
Factors Affecting Location Selection - continued
• Site costs (including land, expansion, parking,
drainage)
• Transportation availability (including rail, air, water,
and interstate roads)
• Quality-of-life issues (including all levels of
education, cost of living, health care, sports, cultural
activities, transportation, housing, entertainment,
religious facilities)
• Foreign exchange Including rates and stability
• Quality of government (including stability, honesty,
attitudes toward new business - whether overseas or
local)
Lamar University
22
Steps in Factor Rating Method
• State relevant factors in terms of “max” or “min”
• Assign weights to each factor (should add to 100%)
• Assign rating to each factor (1-5) (1=poor, 5=excellent)
• Multiply scores by weights for each factor & total
• Calculate percent of total
• Compare top 2 alternatives (using percent as a basis of
comparison)
Lamar University
23
Steps in Factor Rating Method
Alternative A
Factor
Alternative B
Weight
Rating
Score
Rating
Score
Min. Operating
Cost
20
4
80
3
60
Max. Flexibility
30
3
90
2
60
Max. Space
utilization
10
3
30
5
50
Min. Payback
period
40
1
40
4
160
Total
Percent
Lamar University
240
330
240/330 =
.7272
330/330 =
1.00
24
Locational Break-Even Analysis
• Method of cost-volume analysis used for industrial
locations
• Steps
– Determine fixed & variable costs for each location
– Plot total cost for each location
– Select location with lowest total cost for expected production
volume
• Must be above break-even
Lamar University
25
Locational Break-Even Analysis Example
• You’re an analyst for AC Delco. You’re considering a
new manufacturing plant in Akron, Bowling Green, or
Chicago.
• Fixed costs per year are $30k, $60k, & $110k
respectively.
• Variable costs per case are $75, $45, & $25
respectively.
• The price per case is $120.
• What is the best location for an expected volume of
2,000 cases per year?
Lamar University
26
Locational Break-Even Analysis Example
Akron:
• Total cost = $30,000 + $75(2000) = $180,000
Bowling Green:
• Total Cost = $60,000 + $45(2000) = $150,000
Chicago:
• Total Cost = $110,000 + $25(2000) = $160,000
• With an expected volume of 2000 units per year, Bowling Green
provides the lowest cost location. The expected profit is:
• Total Revenue – Total Cost = $120(2000) - $150,000 = $90,000 per
year
Lamar University
27
Locational Break-Even Analysis Example
The crossover point for Akron and Bowling Green:
30,000 + 75(x) = 60,000 + 45(x)
30(x) = 30,000
X = 1,000
And the crossover point or Bowling Green and Chicago:
60,000 + 45(x) = 110,000 + 25(x)
20(x) = 50,000
X = 2,500
Thus, for a volume o less than 1,000, Akron would be preferred,
and for a volume greater than 2,500, Chicago would yield the
greatest profit.
Lamar University
28
Locational Break-Even Analysis Example
Lamar University
29
Center of Gravity Method
• Finds location of single distribution center serving
several destinations
• Used primarily for services
• Considers
– Location of existing destinations
• Example: Markets, retailers etc.
– Volume to be shipped
– Shipping distance (or cost)
• Shipping cost/unit/mile is constant
Lamar University
30
Center of Gravity Method Steps
• Place existing locations on a coordinate grid
– Grid has arbitrary origin & scale
– Maintains relative distances
• Calculate X & Y coordinates for ‘center of gravity’
– Gives location of distribution center
– Minimizes transportation cost
Lamar University
31
Center of Gravity Method Steps
Lamar University
32
Center of Gravity Method - Example
• Consider the case of Ryan’s discount Department
stores, a chain o four large K-Mart type outlets. The
firm’s store locations are in Chicago, Pittsburgh, New
York, and Atlanta; they are currently being supplied
out of an old and inadequate warehouse in Pittsburgh,
the site of the chain’s first store.
Store Location
Number of containers shipped pre month
Chicago
2000
Pittsburgh
1000
New York
1000
Atlanta
2000
Lamar University
33
Center of Gravity Method - Example
Chicago (30,120)
New York (130,130)
120
Pittsburgh (90,110)
90
Center of gravity (66.7, 93.3)
60
Atlanta (60,40)
30
30
60
Lamar University
90
120
150
34
Center of Gravity Method - Example
X-coordinate of the center of gravity:
= (30)(2000) + (90)(1000) + (130)(1000) + (60)(2000)
2000 + 1000 + 1000 + 2000
= 400,000/6000 =66.7
Y-coordinate of the center of gravity:
= (120)(2000) + (110)(1000) + (130)(1000) + (40)(2000)
2000 + 1000 + 1000 + 2000
= 560,000/6000 =93.3
Lamar University
35
Transportation Model
• Finds amount to be shipped from several sources to
several destinations
• Used primarily for industrial locations
• Type of linear programming model
– Objective: Minimize total production & shipping costs
– Constraints
• Production capacity at source (factory)
• Demand requirement at destination
Lamar University
36
General Transportation Model
Minimize Total Transporta tion Cost
m
n
Z   cij xij
i 1 j 1
Subject to
n
x
j 1
ij
m
x
i 1
ij
 ai , i  1,2,..., m (supply restrictio n at warehou se i)
 b j , j  1,2,..., n (demand requiremen t at market j)
xij  0, i, j  1,2,..., n (non - negativity restrictio ns)
Lamar University
37
Components of Volume and Revenue for a Service Firm
1. Purchasing power of customer drawing area
2. Service and image compatibility with demographics
of the customer drawing area
3. Competition in the area
4. Quality of the competition
5. Uniqueness of the firm’s and competitor’s locations
6. Physical qualities of facilities and neighboring
businesses
7. Operating policies of the firm
8. Quality of management
Lamar University
38
Location Strategies – Service vs. Industrial
Service/Retail/Professional Revenue Focus
• Volume/revenue
– Drawing area, purchasing power
– Competition; advertising/pricing
• Physical quality
– Parking/access; security/ lighting; appearance/image
• Cost determinants
– Rent
– Management caliber
– Operations policies (hours, wage rates)
Lamar University
39
Location Strategies – Service vs. Industrial
Industrial Revenue Focus
• Tangible costs
– Transportation cost of raw materials
– Shipment cost of finished goods
– Energy and utility cost; labor; raw material; taxes, etc.
• Intangible and future costs
– Attitude toward union
– Quality of life
– Education expenditures by state
– Quality of state and local government
Lamar University
40
Location Strategies – Service vs. Industrial
Service/Retail/Professional Techniques
• Correlation analysis to determine importance of factors for a
particular type of operation
• Traffic counts
• Demographic analysis of drawing area
• Purchasing power analysis of drawing area
Assumptions
• Location is a major determinate of revenue
• Issues manifesting from high customer contact dominate
• Costs are relatively constant for a given area; therefore, revenue
function is critical
Lamar University
41
Location Strategies – Service vs. Industrial
Industrial Techniques
• Linear Programming (Transportation method)
• Weighted approach to intangibles
• Breakeven analysis
• Crossover charts
Assumptions
• Location is a major determinate of cost
• Most major costs can be identified explicitly for each site
• Low customer contact allows focus on costs
• Intangible costs can be objectively evaluated
Lamar University
42
Major Methods of Solving Location Problems
• Weighted methods which:
– Assign weights and points to various factors
– Determine tangible costs
– Investigate intangible costs
• Center of Gravity Method
– Find best distribution center location
• Location breakeven methods
– Special case of breakeven analysis
• Transportation method
– A specialized linear programming method
Lamar University
43
Telemarketing and Internet Industries
• Require neither face-to-face contact with customers
(or employees) nor movement of material
• Presents a whole new perspective on the location
problem
Lamar University
44
Telemarketing and Internet Industries
• Require neither face-to-face contact with customers
(or employees) nor movement of material
• Presents a whole new perspective on the location
problem
Lamar University
45