Select Page

I have 2 case studies- Clear eyes and Ranger, and it needs to be 3 pages double spaced.Please reference the case studies I have provided. Case Study Paper Format● APA format● No longer than 3 pages – double spaced● Abstract (check your APA manual on how to do this properly for case studies, not part of the 3 pages)● Background – no more than 1⁄2 page. Only include pertinent information that has brought the organization to its current situation.● Issues – Identify the pertinent issues that the organization is facing.● Analysis – Using analysis tools/concepts from your text or appropriate mathematical calculations; perform the appropriate analysis of the data/situation. (Analysis tools can be placed in an appendix and are not counted in the limit of 3 pages. Only include a summary of the results of the analysis performed in the body of the paper).● Recommendations – Provide possible recommendations that will resolve the issues identified. Select the best recommendation(s) and support your decision.● Conclusion
grading_rubrics.docx

ranger_case_.pdf

unknown.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Grading Rubric
Case Studies
Category
Content of Memo
Abstract
Background Info
Issues/Challenges
Caliber of Analysis
Recommendations
Basis of
Recommendations
90-100%
80-89%
70-79%
Provided a clear
& complete
abstract of the
memo, outlining a
summary of the
entire paper.
Provided an
excellent
background (only
info that has
brought org to its
current issues.
Provided a good
case of the
memo, outlining
some of the
aspects of the
paper.
Provided a good
amount of info.
May have left out
one/two important
facts or provided
some nonrelevant info.
Provided an abstract
but may have not
been a complete
picture of the
components of paper.
Did not provide
abstract of the
memo or may
have been
unclear.
Provided some
background info but
left out key
information or spent
time on non-relevant
info.
Identified all the
pertinent issues
with the
organization.
Concentrated
only on relevant
issues
Performed
excellent analysis
using concepts
outlined in text &
appropriate for
situation.
Provided clear
recommendations
that address the
current issues
facing the
organization.
Concentrated
only on relevant
issues.
Identified most of
the pertinent
issues with the
organization.
May have had
some nonrelevant issues.
Performed good
analysis but may
not have used
the best concepts
provided in the
text.
Provided
recommendations
that would
adequately
address most of
the issues. May
have addressed
some nonrelevant issues.
Identified issues but
did not seem to have
an understanding of
which were pertinent.
Did not provide
adequate
background info or
seemed confused
as to what
background
information to
provide.
Did not have a
clear
understanding of
the issues of the
organization.
Provided solid
reasoning as to
why the
recommendation
is the right
method.
Provided good
reasoning as to
the why the
recommendation
is a good method
but did not
provide reasoning
as to why it is the
best method.
Provided some
reasoning to justify
recommendation but
did not convince the
reader that it was the
best method.
Performed an
adequate level of
analysis but left out
key
components/concepts.
Provided
recommendations that
may address some of
the issues facing the
organization. Also
included were nonrelevant issues.
Below 70%
Did the not use
appropriate
concepts for the
situation or
analysis was
limited.
Recommendations
would not address
the issues being
faced by the
organization.
Did not justify the
recommendation
and/or did not
convince the
reader the
recommendation
is best for the
organization.
Summary/Conclusion
Format & Writing
Format of Memo
Grammar & Spelling
Reference
Documentation
A good
conclusion was
included that
summarized key
components of
the case study.
A conclusion was
included that
reviewed most of
the key parts of
the case study.
A conclusion was
included that
briefly/partially
addressed the key
components of case
study.
No concluding
remarks were
included in the
case study.
Writer followed
the format well.
The logic and
flow of material
were sensible
and not
distracting to the
reader.
Writer followed
format in most
cases. The logic
and flow were not
distracting to
reader.
Writer followed format
in some cases but
deviated from the
format and made it
somewhat difficult for
the reader to follow
logic.
Writer made no
errors in grammar
or spelling that
distract the
reader from the
content.
All sources used
for quotes and
facts were
credible and cited
correctly.
Writer made 1-2
errors in grammar
or spelling that
distract the
reader from the
content.
All sources used
for quotes and
facts are credible
and most were
cited correctly.
Writer made 3-4
errors in grammar or
spelling that distract
the reader from the
content.
Writer did not
follow the
suggested format
and made it
difficult for the
reader to
determine the
logic and flow of
material.
Writer made more
than 4 errors in
grammar or
spelling that
distract the reader
from the content.
Many sources
used for quotes
and facts were
less than credible
(suspect) and/or
were not cited
correctly.
Most sources used for
quotes and facts were
credible but were not
cited correctly.
Notes/Comments:_______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020.
W14673
RANGER CREEK BREWING AND DISTILLING
Jorge Colazo wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The author does not intend to illustrate either effective
or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The author may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to
protect confidentiality.
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. 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, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com.
Copyright © 2015, Ivey Business School Foundation
Version: 2018-02-02
In September 2013, the owners of Ranger Creek Brewing and Distilling (Ranger Creek)—Mark
McDavid, Dennis Rylander and T.J. Miller—met at their manufacturing facility in San Antonio, Texas.
Miller was going to present some potential operational scenarios for the company for the 2014 to 2019
period.
Now in its third year of operations, Ranger Creek had so far been a success. Its beers and bourbons had
won several tasting awards and the financials were meeting expectations, but the managing team was
starting to feel acute growing pains.
Before the owners could even focus on growth plans, there were some unanswered questions they needed
to tackle: Considering the current production records, what was the maximum attainable capacity of the
plant? Would brewing capacity need to be expanded and, if so, what equipment should be purchased?
Should the focus be placed on automating the brewing or filling process? And what were the operational
consequences of the recently passed beer laws in Texas?
Miller opened the meeting by announcing that he was going to present a few different operational
scenarios for the 2014 to 2019 capital and manpower budget that would address all these concerns. Since
moving the entire operation to a bigger facility had been ruled out as too costly, Miller was going to
present other alternatives to increase capacity, including buying additional or bigger equipment,
redesigning the plant’s layout and renting outside storage space.
RANGER CREEK BREWING AND DISTILLING
In the early 2000s, Miller, Rylander and McDavid met while working at the same employer. They shared
a passion for beer making, and soon they started homebrewing together. They quickly realized that San
Antonio was the seventh-largest city in the United States, with a rich brewing heritage but no sizeable
microbrewery. Drawing from their time at business school, they started writing a microbrewery business
plan.
They also figured that proud Texans would love to drink a whiskey made in their home state. Plus, they
argued, “The craft distilling movement is about to explode.” Thus, they started writing their
microdistillery business plan too.
This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020.
For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020.
Page 2
9B14D011
All three founders of Ranger Creek were passionate homebrewers and had attended numerous workshops,
trade fairs and brewing competitions, winning several awards, including a gold medal at the Dixie Cup,
one of the most prestigious competitions for homebrewers in the United States.
McDavid had a BA in marketing from Texas A&M and an MBA from the University of Texas at Austin.
He had developed his business skills in the financial services area and founded several small businesses
before joining Ranger Creek.
Rylander hailed from Sweden, where he had commanded a military communications unit and had been a
FIDE master, having won several regional and national chess competitions, including two Swedish junior
chess championships. He held a BA in marketing from the University of Texas at Dallas and a MBA from
the University of Texas at Austin.
Prior to co-founding Ranger Creek, Miller served eight years in the U.S. Army, including two combat
tours, and got a degree in political science and a MBA from Vanderbilt, with a concentration in marketing
and entrepreneurship.
With their own savings, funds from friends and relatives, the help of a few angel investors, and a bank
loan, the three owners raised about US$1,000,000 1 for startup costs. McDavid would manage marketing,
distribution and sales, Rylander would deal with accounting and regulatory issues and Miller would be in
charge of operations (see Exhibit 1). In October 2010, they started brewing and distilling in a 7,500square-foot facility located in a light industrial sector of northeast San Antonio.
Manufacturing used 6,000 square feet of brewing equipment (see Exhibit 2), most of it imported from
Europe (see Exhibit 2). About 1,000 square feet of the facility was reserved for a “front room” where the
company hosted tastings and educational and promotional functions for the public.
PRODUCTS
Beer
In 2012, 200 million (M) barrels of beer were sold in the United States, of which about 12.5 M barrels
were sold in Texas. Craft beer sales in the United States were 11 M barrels in 2011 and 13 M barrels in
2012. National brewers included Anheuser-Busch (the largest brewer in the United States), SABMiller
and the Molson Coors Brewing Company. Imports had made significant inroads into the U.S. beer
market, with a market share of about 15 per cent. In 2012 alone, 310 microbreweries and 99 brewpubs
opened for business in the country. As of March 2013, there were 2,360 U.S. craft breweries in the United
States, of which 1,124 were brewpubs. 2
Fewer than 100 companies in the craft beer segment retained the status of regional microbrewer (sales of
more than 15,000 barrels per year). This segment included Samuel Adams, Yuengling, New Belgium and
Shiner. Samuel Adams, the largest of this group, commanded a market share of 0.8 per cent.3 The craft
brewer segment had been growing at double-digit rates (15 per cent in 2012) and benefited from increased
public awareness and a more favourable tax environment.
1
All currencies are in US$ unless otherwise stated.
The New Brewer, May/June 2013, magazine of the Brewers Association. Distributed to members only.
3
Ibid.
2
This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020.
For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020.
Page 3
9B14D011
Off-premises consumption of beer accounts three out of every four pints sold, but contributes to only half
of the sales. The wholesale price for a keg of beer (15.5 gallons) was $130, while a pint of draft beer
retails at about $4.50. Specialty or seasonal beers command a 20 per cent premium over regular ones. 4
Ranger Creek’s main line of beers had four products (see Exhibit 4). Oatmeal Pale Ale was an Americanstyle pale ale with a sweet, toasty flavour imparted by oats and had an alcohol by volume (ABV) of 5.8
per cent. Lucky Ol’ Sun was named after a traditional working man’s song and was a light “patio beer”
brewed with pilsner malt. Light-bodied and dry, this brew had a 5.5 per cent ABV. La Bestia Aimable
(“the friendly beast”) was a strong, Belgian-style dark beer made with local Texas honey, with a hefty 9.4
per cent ABV. Mesquite Smoked Porter was a bottle-conditioned dark beer with a 6.4 per cent ABV. For
this beer, the grains were smoked before they were mashed.
In addition to the main line, Ranger Creek offered seasonal and experimental brews, such as Strawberry
Milk Stout, which was made with strawberries from Poteet, Texas, that were sliced by hand and added at
two separate times during the brewing process to ensure that the taste and aroma of the strawberries could
be appreciated in the finished product. Some of these beers were eventually moved to the main line such
as had been the case with Lucky Ol’ Sun (see Exhibit 4).
Spirits
Following a constantly increasing trend (see Exhibit 5), in 2011, sales of spirits in the United States were
38 M gallons, of which 4 per cent was sold in Texas. Of the 38 M gallons, 16 M were bourbon. Roughly
60 per cent of spirits were sold on-premises (in bars, restaurants, etc.), while the rest was for off-premises
consumption, such as sales at liquor stores for home consumption.
The American whiskey market was dominated by two players: Beam Global recently acquired by Suntory
of Japan (Jim Beam, Maker’s Mark) and Brown-Forman (Jack Daniel’s). They accounted for 55 per cent
of premium whiskey sales. Stranahan’s and Anchor Distilling were some of the biggest microdistilleries,
a segment rapidly growing but too small to make a dent in the market share. A handful of microdistilleries
had been opening recently in Texas, such as Balcones Distilling in Waco, with its award-winning single
malt. Ranger Creek believed that an important opportunity existed to create the “Texas Whiskey”
category, following the very successful story of Tennessee Whiskey.
In the spirits area, Ranger Creek’s main product was the award-winning Ranger Creek .36 Texas Bourbon
Whiskey, a traditional sour mash bourbon with a flavour that had hints of vanilla, brown sugar and maple
syrup. Ranger Creek .36 took its name from the 0.36 calibre pistol that the Texas Rangers used to carry.
This product accounted for half the whiskey production at Ranger Creek.
Ranger Creek Rimfire Mesquite Smoked Texas Single Malt Whiskey was based off of Mesquite Smoked
Porter beer distilled into a whiskey. Rimfire took its name from the type of ammunition used by the
Winchester 1866 “Yellow Boy” repeating rifle used by many frontier Texans. It could be said that rimfire
was a smoked whiskey that used Texas mesquite wood to smoke the malt instead of using Scottish peat.
Rimfire constituted 40 per cent of the production mix at Ranger Creek. Another 10 per cent of the mix
was made up of unaged and experimental whiskeys that were sold in limited quantities.
4
Ibid.
This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020.
For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020.
Page 4
9B14D011
THE BEER BREWING PROCESS AT RANGER CREEK
The oldest written recipe for brewing beer appeared in a clay tablet written in cuneiform some 6,000 years
ago in Mesopotamia (currently Iraq). Beer is one of the oldest produced beverages known to mankind,
and it was routinely enjoyed by pharaohs in ancient Egypt.
Brewing beer involves breaking down a source of starch into sugars, which are then fermented by yeast, a
unicellular fungus. The two main products of yeast fermentation are alcohol and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ).
Malted barley is the predominant source of starch in beer making. Grains are malted when they are
soaked in water and allowed to partially germinate, and then dried and toasted, developing enzymes that
help break down the grain’s starches into a complex mixture of molecules with a characteristic flavour
and aroma. In general, beers do not use a single kind of grain but a combination of several malted and
sometimes unmalted grains.
The bitter and aromatic flavour in beer is provided by the addition of hops — the dried flowers of the hop
vine, humulus lupulus. Other ingredients are added in different parts of the process to flavour the beer,
such as dried or fresh fruits, herbs or seeds.
At Ranger Creek, the grains were bought malted, and the first process was to “mill” or crack the grains in
a mechanical mill. There was one mechanical mill at Ranger Creek, shared with the whiskey-making
process, and it had a capacity of 1,800 pounds of grain per hour. A batch of beer took, depending on the
final ABV of the product, between 1,500 and 2,000 pounds of malted grain per batch. The milling of a
batch took about one hour for a 1,800-pound load. Since the milling process released some amount of
grain dust, to prevent contamination the milling process was isolated from the rest of the plant and
enclosed in a milling shed.
The milled grains were loaded into a hopper at the milling shed, from where they were transported by
means of an auger to the plant’s beer mash tank. The mash tank is a stainless steel tank equipped with a
false bottom to later strain the grains from the liquid, producing 930 gallons of liquid per batch.
In the mash tank, the malted grains were mixed with hot water and allowed to steep for around one hour
so that the starches decomposed into fermentable sugars. After steeping, the liquid part of the mash was
transferred through the mash tank’s false bottom to another tank, the boiler kettle, and boiled to deactivate
further enzymatic action. The transfer of the 930 gallons to the boil kettle took an hour. The spent grain or
“draff” was rinsed with enough water to assure an output of 930 gallons, which was transferred to the boil
kettle. The draff was donated to local farmers to be used as animal feed. Cleaning the mash tank took one
and a half hours.
During the boiling, hops and other flavouring agents were added. Boiling not only deactivated further
enzymatic action, but also sterilized the liquid, called “wort,” which was necessary to prevent
microorganism competition with the yeast. After one hour, to get the mix to boiling temperature, the
boiling proceeded for an additional hour and then the liquid was cooled down to fermentation temperature
by means of a heat exchanger in about one hour.
After the wort cooled down, it was transferred to one of the fermentation tanks, where yeast was added,
and the wort would spend about two weeks fermenting until the alcohol content was correct. After the
fermentation took place, the mixture less all the dead yeast and other debris collected at the bottom of the
fermentation tank was transferred to the 930-gallon conditioning tank. In the conditioning tank the liquid
This document is authorized for use only by Derricka Landis in Online Operations Management-1 taught by NORMA DAVIS, University of La Verne from Jan 2020 to Apr 2020.
For the exclusive use of D. Landis, 2020.
Page 5
9B14D011
would settle for a week, separating sediment or “dregs” at the bottom and the clear beer on top.
Conditioning took about a week, and fermentation tanks could be used for conditioning, but conditioning
tanks could not be used for fermentation.
From the conditioning tank, the beer layer was sent directly to packaging after correcting the CO 2 levels
by injecting commercially bought CO 2 , and was sent to be poured in either bottles or kegs. The
conditioning stage could be avoided if instead of letting the fermented beer settle to the bottom of a tank it
was filtered with a plate filter, which would cost around $8,000.
Filling and labeling one batch of beer took about eight hours, with one hour for setup tasks, and if the beer
was filled in kegs, it would take two hours per 930-gallon load in addition to the eight hours. Cleaning
kegs prior to filling a batch was a manpower-intensive task that took a worker about three days.
Automatic keg-cleaning equipment would do it in half a shift, but would cost $20,000. Any tank fillings
had to be preceded by tank cleaning and sanitization, which took about an hour to complete and was a
manual task. The price of select e …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment