S
w
909B06
ADAMAC INC.
Emily Saunders wrote this case under the supervision of Elizabeth M.A. Grasby solely to provide material for class discussion. The
authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised
certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.
Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmission without its written
permission. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies
or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation, The University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail cases@ivey.uwo.ca.
Copyright © 2009, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation
Version: (A) 2011-02-09
It was a Sunday afternoon in mid-August 2008, and Ryan Olliver, a shareholder and employee of Adamac
Inc. (Adamac), finally had the opportunity to reflect on the disaster that had struck his plant two weeks
earlier: a machine malfunction had caused a complete shutdown of operations for eight days. Adamac
was a small laser and water jet cutting corporation, located west of Toronto. The company was growing
very quickly, which continuously presented multiple challenges and opportunities that had to be dealt with
in a timely manner. To keep up with this rapid growth and to avoid another disaster, Adamac was in need
of an expansion, which meant new equipment, more personnel and a bigger location. But was the
investment worth the returns? In addition, Olliver wondered whether he should buy out one of his
shareholders. Where would the money come from for one or both of these investments?
THE CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
The manufacturing industry was comprised of establishments primarily engaged in the physical or
chemical transformation of materials or substances into new products.1 Since Adamac and its clients were
part of this industry, it was important that Olliver paid close attention to its current and future state.
Unfortunately, the North American manufacturing industry had not performed well over the previous five
years. Although Canadian manufacturing revenue had increased each year since 2002, the growth rate had
decreased dramatically. The largest contributor to this drop in growth came from the transportation
equipment industry, the largest subsector in the manufacturing sector,2 where sales had declined since 2005
and were not expected to improve in the near future.
Another contributor to the decline in growth was the rising Canadian dollar’s value relative to its U.S.
dollar counterpart. Many Canadian manufacturing companies sold to U.S. clients, and with the increasing
value of the Canadian dollar, manufactured goods became more expensive to buy in American funds, thus
making it less attractive to American companies to purchase Canadian goods.
1
2
www.ic.gc.ca/canadian_industry_statistics/cis.nsf/IDE/cis31-33defe.html, January 19, 2009.
www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/manuf11.htm, January 19, 2009.
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 2
9B09B006
Manufacturing companies regularly imported needed components from countries throughout the world
because prices were cheaper, primarily due to lower labour costs. These manufacturing companies
imported hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of components each month. Even if Adamac could
compete on price with international companies, it did not have the capacity to supply many of these clients;
consequently, Adamac and its direct competitors processed manufacturers’ orders that were too small to be
worthwhile contracting offshore.
ADAMAC: 2003 TO 2008
History
After many years as a cutting machine operator for Perts, a laser cutting and water jet company in the
Greater Toronto Area, Ryan Olliver was promoted to a management position where he learned the “ins and
outs” of the business and soon realized how inefficiently Perts’s operations were run. In Olliver’s opinion,
the company had too many upper managers who did not understand the basics of the business, yet were
paid six-figure salaries. Olliver knew that Perts was in trouble, and he decided that it was in his best
interest to leave Perts and to start a company of his own. Olliver and a fellow Perts employee, Ben Watts,
incorporated their own company, Adamac Inc., on June 1, 2003, and began operations. Adamac would
offer the same services as Perts, but the new company would operate more efficiently and would offer its
clients exceptional customer service.
The decision to leave a stable job to start his own business was a risky one for Olliver. He used all the
family’s savings accumulated over the past decade to start Adamac, with no guarantee of success. Olliver
knew that if Adamac did do well, he would be able to provide his wife and children with opportunities that
he had never thought possible, but the risk of failure was alarming.
After discussions with a bank, it became clear that, alone, the two partners did not have the necessary startup capital to secure a loan. The hunt for a third shareholder began, as well as the search for a potential site
for Adamac. In early 2003, during discussions with a potential landlord, Watts found the third investor.
The landlord, Marshall Degena, was very intrigued with the business idea and mentioned it to his son,
Mike Degena, who, after many deliberations, became Adamac’s third shareholder. All three shareholders
would own a third of the business, and Adamac would move into Degena’s father’s building. Degena
would have no part in the operations of the business.
Operations began with a water jet machine, which Olliver and Watts had purchased used for $245,000. In
its first fiscal year, Adamac had sales of over $200,000, and the partners decided to purchase a used laser
cutter for $405,000. Adamac owned a third machine called a wire cutter, but it was used very little in
comparison to the laser cutter and water jet machines. Sales doubled over the next two years wherein
machine operators and an additional programmer where hired. Up until this point, Olliver had done all the
programming, which involved entering the design that the client wanted into the computer so the machine
would know where to cut. In fiscal 2007, sales exceeded $1.6 million, and fiscal 2008 looked like it would
be even more successful. Level sales were experienced throughout the year. Refer to Exhibit 1 for each
year’s statements of earnings since incorporation and to Exhibit 2 for the fiscal 2008 balance sheet.
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 3
9B09B006
Success Factors
Olliver believed there were three main factors contributing to Adamac’s success: exceptional customer
service, high-quality work, and the security that Adamac depended on one client’s work for no more than
10 per cent of its annual sales. As Adamac’s direct competitors became more and more price-competitive,
Olliver and Watts decided not to compete on price but on service. Olliver, who had always excelled at
“people skills,” provided his clients with the best customer service he could offer:
We try our best to make few mistakes; however, sometimes it is out of our control. For
example, the metal we buy from our suppliers may not be up to the level of satisfaction of
our clients. Typically, we do not recognize this until after the metal is cut. This is an
expensive problem to fix because we have to repurchase the metal and start from scratch;
however, I see a big positive out of a negative –– this is a chance to show our customers
how much we value their business. We always redo anything a client is not happy with ––
no questions asked.
Adamac charged premium prices, but offered a premium product. Olliver and Watts did not cost cut when
it came to materials or labour, and they believed they offered a better product as a result. Olliver saw two
major benefits to this approach. First, the majority of Adamac’s competitors offered low prices but also
low quality and little customer service, so they were suffering along with the rest of the manufacturing
industry. Second, customers who were willing to pay more for good customer service and a higher quality
product typically ran their operations with a similar approach to that of Adamac, and, like Adamac, they
were doing well in the industry even when it was declining. In the partners’ views, prosperous customers
meant continued business for Adamac.
Finally, Olliver worked hard to ensure a diverse group of clients contributed to Adamac’s annual revenues
and that no one particular business represented more than 10 per cent of annual sales. If a business went
under, Adamac would be somewhat protected from significant losses. Although the majority of Adamac’s
clients were in the manufacturing industry, Adamac also had customers in sectors such as agriculture and
finance. If a particular sector or subsector fell onto hard times, Adamac could look for sales from
customers from other industries.
Current Operations
At the beginning of summer 2008, Adamac had over 70 clients and had reached its maximum capacity.
Olliver managed all communication with Adamac’s suppliers and customers, and he performed half of the
programming. As a result, he was working at least six days a week, including some 15-hour days.
Employees included Olliver, Watts, Olliver’s wife, Jennifer, who handled most of the administrative work,
one additional programmer and four machine operators. The machines ran two shifts, one in the day and
one in the evening, with Watts running the evening shift. Both Olliver and Watts were exhausted, but they
did not want to turn business away.
Laser and Water Jet Cutting
Laser and water jet cutting of materials was primarily used by industrial manufacturing companies, but
work came from several other industries. A laser cutter machine used a laser to cut materials and was
operated by a computer that directed the machine where to cut. A laser cutter machine used focused light
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 4
9B09B006
mixed with cutting gases to melt, burn, vaporize or blow away the material, leaving a precise edge. A
water jet cutter machine operated similarly to the laser cutter, but it used a jet of water that was mixed with
crushed granite as an abrasive material to precisely cut metals and other materials. In comparison to water
jet cutting, laser cutting was faster and cheaper for customers; however, laser cutting was limited to thinner
materials, such as flat sheet steel. Water jets could cut thicker metal, as well as stone and ceramics. For
examples of the high precision cutting done by laser cutters and water jets, refer to Exhibit 3.
THE CRISIS
On the Monday morning of the last week in July 2008, Adamac’s laser cutter had a fatal error and stopped
working completely. The machine required an extensive cleaning to get up and working again at its
regular capacity, which took eight full working days. Since Adamac was already pressed to complete its
customers’ orders, Olliver was forced to ship materials to two other cutting shops to complete these jobs.
Contracting out this work was an expensive ordeal for Adamac.
Due to the cleaning of the machine, as well as the added chaos of the recent events, not only was Adamac
making no profits on its laser sales, but it was spending an additional $750 a day on material and labour on
the work done at the two other cutting shops. It was also costing $250 a day to transport raw materials and
finished goods between Adamac’s warehouse and the two shops’ locations. Olliver estimated that, on
average, the laser cutter broke down approximately six days a year. The water jet also broke down
approximately five days a year, costing Adamac $625 a day to outsource any work, plus transportation
costs.
In addition to the high costs of sending work out of its shop, Adamac always took a big risk that the
finished product might not be of the quality its customers had come to expect. So far, Olliver had been
lucky since no complaints had been made, but it was something that still concerned him.
FUTURE PLANS
Expansion
Olliver and Watts had discussed the need for new machines, even before the current crisis. Customer
demand was increasing, and both the laser cutter and water jet were operating at full capacity. When the
laser cutter broke down, Olliver and Watts started looking into the purchase of a new one. If Adamac had
owned a second laser cutter, it could have reduced, if not eliminated, the current disaster by operating the
second machine during the night shift (instead of sending work to other shops).
Olliver was trying to decide whether he should buy the laser cutter, buy a laser cutter and a water jet, or
buy neither. Purchasing a second laser cutter was Olliver’s priority. He could buy a used laser cutter for
approximately $500,000 and a used water jet for approximately $200,000, both including installation.
Currently, the laser cutter brought in 55 per cent of Adamac’s revenue, and the water jet brought in 40 per
cent. The wire cutter brought in the remaining five per cent of annual revenues. Olliver hoped that a
second laser cutter would eventually bring in the equivalent sales dollars, but it would take a few years to
reach this demand, so he estimated that the second laser cutter would be operating at only 40 per cent to 55
per cent capacity for the first couple of years of operations. If Olliver opted to purchase a water jet as well,
he was confident that both the new laser cutter and the water jet machines would operate at an average of
40 per cent capacity the first few years after they were purchased, which included the sales Adamac was
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 5
9B09B006
currently losing when the original machines broke down. Both machines would be amortized using the
straight-line method over a useful life of 10 years. The laser cutter would have an estimated salvage value
of $35,000 and the water jet an estimated salvage value of $10,000.
The bank supplying Adamac with the loan to purchase the equipment required a down payment of 10 per
cent of the total loan. Olliver estimated that Adamac would finance the loan over four years and would
make monthly principal and interest payments at an interest rate of eight per cent. Adamac had managed
to produce and maintain a strong cash flow, but if Olliver and Watts decided to purchase two machines,
cash could become a problem.
Adding to expenses was the fact that Olliver would need to hire two additional employees if either one or
both machines were purchased. Adamac would need a new machine operator, who would earn an hourly
wage of $24, as well as a programmer/quoter, who would earn an annual salary of $50,000. Both
employees would work 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year.
Adamac would also have no choice but to change locations if new machinery was purchased. After doing
some research, Olliver concluded they would need approximately 10,000 square feet, regardless of whether
Adamac purchased one or two machines. Most landlords in the area charged $1 per square foot per month,
and moving costs were estimated at $50,000.
If a new machine was bought, inventory would have to increase. Olliver expected materials to increase at
the same rate as sales. In fiscal 2008, operating expenses, excluding management salaries, wages and
benefits, and rent, were $42,079 per month. Olliver expected these operating expenses would remain the
same percentage of sales for fiscal 2009. Gross margins would stay the same as for fiscal 2008.
The Buyout
Along with the needed expansion, Olliver and Watts had been considering buying out Degena. Degena’s
original investment had been returned more than three times since 2003. He had never been involved in
operations or in any company decisions, and Olliver and Watts had not seen him in months. The success
of the business was almost entirely attributable to the hard work of Adamac’s employees and the decisions
made by Olliver and Watts. Both shareholders were ready to become the sole owners of Adamac; in fact,
they had had multiple discussions with a lawyer to begin the process of offering a buyout to Degena. This
would involve monthly payments to Degena over a period of two years. If Adamac was making payments
to the bank as well as supporting the current business operations, Olliver wondered whether Adamac
would have the cash available to make the machinery down payments and pay off Degena. Furthermore,
Olliver debated whether buying out Degena while undergoing an expansion was too risky, given the
current state of the manufacturing industry.
CONCLUSION
Olliver sighed and decided to stay in the office for a few more hours in the hope that he could reach some
conclusions. Which expansion route should Adamac take, if any? Should the two working partners attempt
to buy out Degena? And if the decision was made to take on both these actions, in what order should they
be done?
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 6
9B09B006
Exhibit 1
STATEMENT OF EARNINGS
For the year ending May 31
Revenue
Less: Cost of goods sold
Gross profit
Expenses:
Management salaries
Wages & benefits
Amortization1
Repairs & maintenance
Rent
Loan interest
Factory supplies
Auto expenses
Legal fees
Utilities
Telephone
Insurance
Miscellaneous
Travel & entertainment
Delivery charges
Office supplies
Computer software expense
Garbage service
Advertising & promotion
Operating earnings before tax
Income tax
Net earnings after tax
2005
2006
2007
2008
$ 413,095
$ 934,938
$ 1,096,771
$ 1,613,750
87,210
220,435
241,959
282,677
325,885
714,503
854,812
1,331,073
128,360
10,038
65,165
4,441
14,805
19,398
15,852
0
2,591
16,686
3,801
4,793
3,229
3,715
1,985
4,805
0
1,663
0
301,327
133,546
147,227
85,238
4,781
36,978
25,381
31,515
0
6,380
30,801
3,807
5,881
4,722
5,093
0
5,750
0
6,021
206
533,327
189,649
208,058
61,546
20,767
41,563
15,787
33,248
21,557
5,136
30,149
4,990
9,788
0
2,522
0
6,126
2,019
5,700
449
659,054
244,219
308,434
256,099
25,305
37,714
27,847
92,886
22,884
4,242
38,711
6,848
9,283
2,962
3,405
2,385
3,817
0
8,275
0
1,095,316
24,558
181,176
195,758
235,757
4,573
33,799
36,500
44,794
$ 19,985
$ 147,377
$
159,258
$
190,963
Source: Adamac Inc.
1
Amortization had significantly increased, primarily due to an expensive upgrade of the wire cutter machine.
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 7
9B09B006
Exhibit 2
BALANCE SHEET
As at May 31, 2008
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash
Accounts receivable1
Inventory
Prepaid rent
$ 100,135
330,133
32,766
3,656
Fixed Assets:
Computer equipment
Less: Accumulated amortization
10,280
1,339
8,941
Leasehold improvements
Less: Accumulated amortization
18,606
1,767
16,839
Machinery and equipment
Less: Accumulated amortization
743,516
326,877
416,639
Office Equipment
Less: Accumulated amortization
2,314
399
1,915
Vehicles
Less: Accumulated amortization
98,600
36,400
62,200
Total Assets
$ 973,224
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Liabilities:
Accounts payable2
Employee deductions payable
Bank Loan
Shareholders’ advances3
Total Liabilities
Equity
Common shares
Retained earnings
Total Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
$
38,814
15,307
327,201
(139,991)
241,331
214,310
517,583
731,893
$ 973,224
Source: Adamac Inc.
1
Accounts receivable was total due from customers.
Accounts payable was amount due to Adamac's material suppliers.
3
Advances were to Olliver and Watts, to be repaid in equal installments over five years, with first payment due June 1, 2009.
2
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 8
9B09B006
Exhibit 3
HIGH-PRECISION CUTTING EXAMPLES
One-inch thick laminated glass being water jet cut for the Scotia Tower downtown
Toronto. The stream of water is coming out at a pressure of 55,000 PSI, travelling
at twice the speed of sound.
Source: Adamac Inc.
A stone tile inset with copper, cut for a high-end Muskoka cottage.
Source: Adamac Inc.
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860
Page 9
9B09B006
Exhibit 3 (continued)
Black granite inset into red granite, cut for a Ferrari dealership.
Source: Adamac Inc.
Two-inch-thick aluminum parts, cut for the aerospace industry.
Source: Adamac Inc.
This document is authorized for educator review use only by Ngoc Tran, Beta Education until Jan 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860