APICS Updated CPIM-8.0 Exam Questions and Answers by tomas

Capable-to-promise (CTP) is a type of order fulfillment policy that confirms a customer order based on the available capacity and inventory, as well as the current production plan and schedule. CTPcalculates the earliest possible delivery date for a customer order, considering the existing demand and supply situation. CTP allows a company to accept an order that exceeds the current available inventory, as long as it can produce the remaining quantity within the customer’s requested delivery time. CTP helps to improve customer service, reduce inventory costs, and increase production efficiency12. References: 1 Capable to Promise (CTP) - Definition, Calculation, and Examples 3 2 CPIM Exam References - Association for Supply Chain Management

The demonstrated capacity last week is the total number of models completed by both modelers in 40 hours. One modeler finished 5 models a day, which means 25 models in a week. The other modeler finished 1 model a day, which means 5 models in a week. Therefore, the demonstrated capacity last week is 25 + 5 = 30 models. However, this is not one of the options given. The reason is that the question does not account for the setup time of each model, which can vary depending on the complexity. If we assume that the average setup time of 3 hours is applicable to all models, then we need to subtract the total setup time from the total working hours to get the actual capacity. The total setup time for30 models is 30 x 3 = 90 hours. The total working hours for both modelers is 2 x 40 = 80 hours. Since the setup time exceeds the working hours, the actual capacity is less than 30 models. To find the actual capacity, we need to solve the following equation:

80 = x * 3 + x * 1

where x is the number of models completed. Simplifying the equation, we get:

x = 10

Therefore, the actual capacity is 10 models, which is option C. References:

• Managing Supply Chain Operations, Chapter 6: Capacity Management, Section 6.1: Capacity Concepts, Subsection 6.1.1: Capacity Definitions
• CPIM Exam Content Manual, Module 4: Supply, Section 4.2: Capacity Management, Subsection 4.2.1: Capacity Concepts

Substituting capital equipment in place of direct labor can be economically justified for scenario A, where volumes are forecasted to increase. This is because capital equipment can provide higher productivity, efficiency, and quality than direct labor, especially for large-scale and standardized production. Capital equipment can also reduce labor costs, such as wages, benefits, and training, and avoid labor shortages or turnover. However, capital equipment also involves high initial investment, maintenance, and depreciation costs, and may require more skilled workers to operate and monitor. Therefore, the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor should be based on a careful analysis of the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of both alternatives.

Option B is not correct, because material prices are forecasted to increase. This scenario does not directly affect the decision to substitute capital equipment for direct labor, as both alternatives use the same materials. However, increasing material prices may reduce the profitability of the production, and may require the company to find ways to reduce material usage, such as improving material yield, reducing scrap and rework, or sourcing from cheaper suppliers.

Option C is not correct, because implementing a pull system in production. This scenario does not favor the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor, as a pull system is based on the principle of producing only what is needed by the customer, when it is needed, and in the quantity needed. A pull system requires flexibility, responsiveness, and adaptability to the changing customer demand, which may be better achieved by direct labor than capital equipment. A pull system also aims to minimize inventory, waste, and overproduction, which may reduce the need for capital equipment.

Option D is not correct, because functional layouts are being utilized. This scenario does not support the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor, as functional layouts are based on grouping similar or related processes or machines together, regardless of the product flow. Functional layouts may result in long and complex material flows, high transportation and handling costs, high work-in-process inventory, and low visibility and coordination of the production. Functional layouts may also require more direct labor to move and monitor the materials and machines. Capital equipment may be more suitable for product layouts, where the processes or machines are arranged according to the sequence of operations for a specific product or family of products.

References:

• Production and Inventory Management
• Capital Equipment and Labor
• Facility Layout and Design

A statistical safety stock calculation is based on the assumption that demand and lead time are normally distributed and independent. This method is suitable for end items with stable demand, as it can provide a reasonable estimate of the required safety stock to achieve a desired service level. Therefore, option C is correct. Option A is incorrect because components used in multiple end items may have dependent demand, which means that their demand is derived from the demand of the end items. Dependent demand may not follow a normal distribution and may require a different method of safety stock calculation. Option B is incorrect because new products at time of introduction may have uncertain or variable demand, which makes it difficult to apply a statistical safety stock calculation. Option D is incorrect because supply-constrained raw materials may have long and variable lead times, which also complicates the use of a statistical safety stock calculation. References: CPIM Part 2 Exam Content Manual, Version 8.0, Section E: Plan and Manage Inventory, Subsection E.2: Inventory Management Methods, p. 54.