Essay about Scotts Miracle

1860 Words Mar 29th, 2014 8 Pages
Gro | |


The purpose of this article is to determine whether staying at the Temecula plant or outsourcing to China is the best option for Scotts Miracle-Gro. A cost analysis will be used to determine which option will give Scotts Miracle-Gro the best opportunity for long-term growth and profit.


It has been determined that staying in the United States at the Temecula plant in California will be the best decision for Scotts Miracle-Gro financially and with regards to their image and product quality. However, in order to remain competitive, costs must be lowered to keep profits up to par with where they would be had the company decided to outsource. To do this, it has been recommended that Scotts
…show more content…
Cost Analysis
An analysis of the costs between manufacturing in Temecula, CA and in China show that Scotts Miracle-Gro can save between $4.6 million and $4.8 million per year by using a contract manufacturer. See Exhibit 1 Cost Analysis. However, the Temecula plant is currently innovating more efficient strategies for obtaining energy and increasing manufacturing productivity. These ongoing improvements will reduce labor and overhead costs per unit while maintaining control of quality and processes in Temecula.
As of 2007, a goal was set in place to automate the Temecula, CA plant as much as possible. This kind of plant improvement would increase production and quality control far above that of a contract manufacturer who has little incentive to invest in such technologies. Increased quality control and productivity leads to lower costs and tighter cash flows.
Maintaining manufacturing in-house also retains the relationship that Scotts Miracle-Gro has between its manufacturing and R&D departments. This relationship allows the company to have collaboration between the two areas of expertise which leads to more cost effective methods of designing products for manufacture.
The savings on Chinese labor and electricity are great, but the additional $8 million in transportation costs and $460,000 in required yearly safety stock inventory carrying costs quickly diminish the benefits. The left over savings do not offset the

Related Documents