To calculate the financial value of inventory held, two primary data points are essential: the quantity of the items and the cost per item. The fundamental formula for inventory valuation is:

Inventory Value = Quantity of Items Held × Unit Cost (Purchase Price)

The 'Number of items held in storage' provides the quantity, and the 'Purchase price' provides the unit cost. Multiplying these two figures gives the total value of the stock on hand. This calculation is the cornerstone of inventory accounting and is essential for financial statements like the balance sheet.

A. Number of items sold: This figure relates to the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and revenue, not the value of inventory currently held.

D. Expiry date: While important for managing obsolescence and potential write-downs, the expiry date is a qualitative factor, not a primary input for the initial value calculation.

1. Garrison, R. H., Noreen, E. W., & Brewer, P. C. (2021). Managerial Accounting (17th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. In Chapter 2, "Managerial Accounting and Cost Concepts," the text defines inventory costs for manufacturing companies as being based on the cost to acquire or produce the units, which are then multiplied by the quantity on hand to determine the value on the balance sheet (pp. 38-40).

2. Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2020). Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management (13th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 12, "Inventory Management," explains that holding costs, a key component of inventory analysis, are calculated based on the value of the inventory. This value is explicitly derived from the number of units and the cost per unit (p. 461).

3. Bozarth, C. C., & Handfield, R. B. (2016). Introduction to Operations and Supply Chain Management (4th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 10, "Managing Inventory," discusses inventory valuation, stating, "The firm must assign a value to the inventory. This is typically done on a cost basis," which requires knowing the quantity of units and their original purchase cost (pp. 320-321).

A downstream supplier has significant influence over the tangible aspects of quality, such as conformance to specification and fitness for purpose. However, they cannot influence all aspects of quality. Customer perception, a critical component of overall quality assessment, is subjective and shaped by numerous factors outside the supplier's direct control. These factors include the final brand's marketing communications, advertising messages, point-of-sale experience, and after-sales service. These activities are managed by other business functions, such as marketing and sales, which create expectations and frame the customer's experience, thereby influencing their perception of quality independently of the product's physical attributes.

A. Power dynamics are variable and situational; it is incorrect to assume downstream suppliers always hold the most power.

B. Customer perception is formed by a combination of product performance, expectations, and brand image, not solely by supplier inputs.

D. This is an overstatement; downstream suppliers (e.g., distributors, logistics providers) have significant control over quality through handling, storage, and timeliness.

1. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50. The model (Figure 1, page 44) explicitly shows that "External communications to customers" (i.e., marketing and advertising) is a key factor that shapes customer expectations, which in turn is a primary determinant of perceived service quality. This demonstrates that functions outside the direct supply process influence quality perception. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900403

2. Grönroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44. This foundational paper distinguishes between 'technical quality' (what the customer receives) and 'functional quality' (how the service is delivered). It also posits that the corporate 'image'—heavily influenced by marketing—acts as a filter for customer perception of quality (see The Perceived Service Quality Model, p. 40). This supports the idea that marketing influences perception beyond the supplier's control. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784

3. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & Supply Chain Management (5th ed.). Pearson. In Chapter 2, "The supply chain context," the text explains that the goal of supply chain management is to provide "customer value." This value is a complex mixture of cost and service, where service includes factors like availability and delivery reliability, but the overall perception of value is framed by the firm's marketing proposition. A supplier contributes to value, but does not control its entire perception.

Supply chain rationalisation is the strategic process of reorganizing a supply chain to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and cost-performance, typically through simplification and reduction. Reducing the number of suppliers, also known as supply base rationalisation, is a core tactic. It consolidates purchasing power, reduces administrative overhead, and fosters stronger, more strategic relationships with remaining suppliers. Tier-skipping is another rationalisation tactic where a company bypasses an immediate tier in its supply chain (e.g., a distributor or Tier 1 supplier) to deal directly with a lower-level supplier (e.g., a Tier 2 component manufacturer). This simplifies the supply chain structure, reduces costs by eliminating intermediary markups, and can improve communication and control.

A. Customisation: This involves tailoring products to specific customer needs, which typically increases complexity and costs, contradicting the simplification goal of rationalisation.

B. Supplier innovation: This is a value-creation strategy focused on leveraging supplier expertise for new ideas, not a method for streamlining or reducing existing supply chain complexity.

C. Collaborative inventory management: This is a partnership-based operational strategy (like VMI) to optimise stock levels, rather than a structural simplification of the supply base or chain tiers.

1. Ogden, J. A. (2006). Supply base reduction: an empirical study of critical success factors. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 42(4), 29-39. This paper defines and analyses supply base reduction (reducing the number of suppliers) as a key strategic purchasing initiative aimed at improving efficiency and performance. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2006.00019.x)

2. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & Supply Chain Management (5th ed.). Pearson. In Chapter 3, Christopher discusses the principle of simplification and reducing complexity as fundamental to creating lean and agile supply chains, highlighting that "often the number of suppliers can be significantly reduced" as part of this process (p. 78).

3. Trent, R. J., & Monczka, R. M. (2003). Understanding integrated global sourcing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33(7), 607-629. The authors discuss sourcing strategies that involve rationalising the supply base and establishing direct relationships with producers, which aligns with both reducing suppliers and the principle behind tier-skipping (disintermediation) to simplify the chain (p. 618). (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030310499286)

The Supplier Preferencing Model is used by suppliers to segment their customers based on two key dimensions: the value of the business (current spend/profitability) and the attractiveness of the account (potential for growth, strategic alignment, ease of business). RoostyFace spends very little, which places it low on the 'value of business' axis. Furthermore, it is unlikely to increase its spend, placing it low on the 'attractiveness of the account' axis. A customer that is both low in value and low in attractiveness falls into the 'Nuisance' quadrant. The supplier's strategy for such customers is to minimize the cost to serve or potentially cease the relationship.

A. Core: Core customers are highly attractive and provide high value. RoostyFace offers low value and low attractiveness.

B. Annoying: This is not a recognized category within the formal Supplier Preferencing Model framework.

C. Exploitative: Exploitative (or Exploitable) customers provide high value but are considered low in attractiveness. RoostyFace provides low value.

1. Baily, P., Farmer, D., Crocker, B., Jessop, D., & Jones, D. (2015). Procurement, principles & management (11th ed.). Pearson Education. In Chapter 4, "Sourcing," the model is detailed, explaining that customers with low account attractiveness and low relative value are classified as 'Nuisance' (see Figure 4.7, The supplier's customer portfolio matrix).

2. Cox, A. (2004). The art of the possible: relationship management in power regimes and a new logic of procurement. In Supply Chain Management: A Research Agenda (pp. 59-82). Springer, Boston, MA. This work discusses the power dynamics and segmentation logic that underpins models like supplier preferencing, where low-value, low-attractiveness accounts are managed for minimal effort.

3. University of Twente. (n.d.). Purchasing and Supply Management Courseware. The Supplier Preferencing model is presented as a tool for suppliers to classify their customers. The 'Nuisance' quadrant is consistently defined as containing customers who offer low value and low attraction, warranting minimal resource allocation from the supplier.

Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management philosophy that requires a holistic, organization-wide commitment to continuous improvement in all functions. The "Total" in TQM signifies that it must encompass the entire organization, from top-level management to frontline employees, and across all departments. Implementing TQM in a single division creates an isolated 'silo of excellence' that is likely to fail due to dependencies on, and inconsistencies with, other parts of the organization. For TQM to be successful, it must be embedded in the corporate culture and strategic vision, which necessitates a company-wide implementation.

A. Yes – TQM will ensure her division outperforms the other divisions: A siloed TQM implementation is likely to fail due to a lack of cross-functional support and integration, making outperformance unlikely.

B. Yes – staff will respond positively to the change: Staff response is not guaranteed and, without senior management commitment across the company, they may view the initiative with cynicism.

D. No – TQM is not suitable in a manufacturing company: This is incorrect. TQM principles were pioneered and are extensively and successfully applied within manufacturing environments (e.g., the Toyota Production System).

---

1. Oakland, J. S. (2014). Total Quality Management and Operational Excellence: Text with Cases (4th ed.). Routledge. In Chapter 1, Oakland defines TQM as a "holistic approach" that requires the involvement of "all people within an organisation" and must be integrated into the company's culture and strategy, making a divisional-only approach unviable. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315815663)

2. Dale, B. G., van der Wiele, T., & van Iwaarden, J. (2016). Managing Quality: An Essential Guide and Resource Gateway (6th ed.). Wiley. Chapter 3, "The building blocks of TQM," emphasizes that TQM is a total system requiring commitment and teamwork across all organizational functions. A piecemeal approach contradicts this fundamental principle of totality.

3. Powell, T. C. (1995). Total Quality Management as Competitive Advantage: A Review and Empirical Study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15–37. This foundational paper discusses TQM's success factors, including total employee involvement, top management support, and a unified culture (p. 19), all of which imply a company-wide scope rather than a departmental one. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160105)

The question refers to the Kraljic Matrix, a portfolio analysis tool used for segmenting an organization's spend. Items classified as Strategic/Critical are characterized by high supply risk (e.g., few suppliers, complex specifications) and high value/profit impact. For these items, the primary objective is to manage risk and ensure long-term availability. A partnership or strategic alliance is the most appropriate strategy. This approach fosters close collaboration, joint planning, information sharing, and mutual trust, which are essential for mitigating supply risks, driving innovation, and creating sustained competitive advantage. Transactional or adversarial approaches are unsuitable due to the high stakes involved.

A. Competitive bidding is most effective for 'Leverage' items (low risk, high value), where multiple suppliers exist, and the goal is to achieve the best price.

B. Outsourcing is a make-or-buy decision, not a specific supplier relationship strategy. A strategic item could be outsourced, but the relationship would still need to be a partnership.

D. An arm’s-length relationship is transactional and suitable for 'Non-critical' or 'Routine' items (low risk, low value), where relationship investment is unnecessary.

1. Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing Must Become Supply Management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109–117. In the section describing the portfolio matrix, items in the "Strategic" quadrant (high profit impact, high supply risk) are identified as requiring a "supply management" approach, which is characterized by long-term, collaborative relationships.

2. Lysons, K., & Farrington, B. (2020). Procurement and Supply Chain Management (10th ed.). Pearson. In Chapter 5, "Portfolio Analysis," the text explains the Kraljic matrix and explicitly states that for the 'strategic' quadrant, the recommended strategy is "performance-based partnership" and "strategic alliances" (p. 168, Table 5.3).

3. Van Weele, A. J. (2018). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. Chapter 4, "Purchasing and Business Strategy," discusses purchasing portfolio models. For strategic products, the author recommends strategies such as "Early supplier involvement," "Co-development," and "Long-term contracts," all of which are elements of a partnership approach (pp. 120-121).

A cost leader is a company that operates with the lowest cost structure in its industry. This fundamental advantage allows it to price its products or services lower than its competitors while still achieving profitability. By leveraging its low costs to set aggressive prices, the cost leader can initiate price wars, deter new entrants, and discipline the market. This effectively establishes a price benchmark or 'standard' that other firms must follow to remain competitive. Therefore, a cost leader not only has the ability to lower prices but also significantly influences the overall pricing dynamics of the marketplace.

A: This statement is too absolute. While a cost leader's primary weapon is lowering prices, it can raise them if market conditions, such as a general rise in input costs, allow for it.

C: This is incorrect. The core of the cost leadership strategy is using a low-cost base to exert significant influence over market pricing, often forcing competitors to react.

D: While cost leadership often results in a large market share, the claim that they 'never' reduce prices is the opposite of their strategic capability and primary competitive tool.

1. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press. In Chapter 2, "Generic Competitive Strategies," Porter explains that a cost leader's position defends it against competitive rivalry because "its lower costs allow it to continue to earn returns after its competitors have competed away their profits... A cost leader can price aggressively to capture market share, setting the pricing tone for the industry." (pp. 35-36).

2. Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary Strategy Analysis (9th ed.). Wiley. In Chapter 7, "The Sources and Dimensions of Competitive Advantage," Grant states, "The cost leader chooses a price at or near the industry average... Alternatively, it can choose to price below its rivals in order to gain market share. The ability to survive price competition gives the cost leader a key advantage in commodity markets." (p. 168).

3. MIT OpenCourseWare. (2014). 15.900, Competition, Innovation, and Strategy, Lecture Notes, Lecture 4: Cost Leadership. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The course materials explain that a key benefit of cost leadership is the ability to "price lower than competitors to attract price-sensitive buyers" and "better withstand price wars," which demonstrates the firm's role in setting a market price standard.

An agile supply chain strategy is designed for markets characterized by high demand volatility, short product life cycles, and unpredictability, which are hallmarks of the electronics industry. Agility focuses on flexibility, speed, and responsiveness to cope with rapid changes in customer requirements and market conditions. Unlike lean strategies that prioritize cost reduction in stable environments, agility enables a company like ABC to thrive by quickly adapting its products and supply volumes to a "highly competitive, fast-changing market." This approach uses market sensitivity and virtual integration with partners to manage uncertainty effectively.

A. Lean: Lean strategies are optimized for stable, predictable demand environments to eliminate waste and reduce costs, which is unsuitable for a volatile market.

B. Just-in-Time: As a component of the lean philosophy, JIT requires a highly predictable demand and stable supply base, making it inappropriate for a fast-changing industry.

C. Responsive: While responsiveness is a key element of agility, agility is a broader concept that also encompasses flexibility and the ability to manage both demand and supply-side uncertainty.

1. Christopher, M. (2000). The Agile Supply Chain: Competing in Volatile Markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), pp. 37-44. (This paper establishes the framework for agile supply chains, defining them as the appropriate response for volatile and unpredictable markets, contrasting them with lean supply chains which are suited for predictable environments. The electronics market is a classic example of a volatile market discussed.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00110-800110-8)

2. Lee, H. L. (2002). Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties. California Management Review, 44(3), pp. 105-119. (Lee's framework categorizes products based on demand and supply uncertainty. Electronics are "innovative products" with uncertain demand, for which a responsive or "agile" supply chain is the correct strategic choice, as detailed on p. 109, Figure 1.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41166135

3. Gattorna, J. L. (2006). Living Supply Chains: How to Mobilize the Enterprise Around Delivering What Your Customers Want. Pearson Education. (This text discusses aligning supply chain strategies with customer buying behavior. For dynamic and unpredictable markets like electronics, a "fully flexible" or "agile" response is required, as opposed to lean responses for predictable segments. See Chapter 4 for the strategic alignment framework.)

Internal failure costs are incurred when a product fails to meet quality standards before it is delivered to the customer. In this scenario, the confectionery product is identified as defective during an internal inspection process (before packaging and shipment). The costs associated with this discovery, such as the cost of scrapping the defective item, reworking it, or re-inspecting it, fall directly into the category of internal failure costs. These costs represent the financial impact of non-conformance detected within the organization's own processes.

B. External failure cost: This type of cost is incurred only after a defective product has been delivered to the external customer (e.g., warranty claims, returns).

C. Prevention cost: These are proactive costs aimed at preventing defects from occurring in the first place, such as quality planning and employee training.

D. Appraisal cost: This is the cost of the inspection activity itself (e.g., inspector's salary, testing equipment), not the cost resulting from finding a defect.

1. Dale, B. G., van der Wiele, T., & van Iwaarden, J. (2016). Managing Quality (6th ed.). Wiley. In Chapter 5, "The Cost of Quality," internal failure costs are defined as "costs arising from inadequate quality which are discovered before the transfer of ownership from supplier to purchaser." Examples provided include scrap, rework, and re-inspection (pp. 104-105).

2. Juran, J. M., & De Feo, J. A. (2010). Juran's Quality Handbook: The Complete Guide to Performance Excellence (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Chapter 8, "Quality and Costs," categorizes internal failure costs as those that "would disappear if no defects existed in the product... prior to shipment to the customer." It explicitly lists scrap and rework as primary components of this cost category (Section 8.5).

3. Schiffauerova, A., & Thomson, V. (2006). A review of research on cost of quality models and their integration. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(6), 647-661. This peer-reviewed article defines internal failure costs as "costs associated with defects that are found before the customer receives the product or service" (p. 650). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710610672470

The primary motivation for offshoring, which is the relocation of a business process to another country, is overwhelmingly driven by the strategic goal of cost reduction. Companies seek to leverage economic advantages in other locations, most notably lower labor costs. This financial incentive allows organizations to reduce their operational expenses, improve profit margins, and gain a competitive advantage in the market. While other factors like accessing new markets or skilled talent pools can play a role, the potential for significant cost savings remains the principal catalyst for most offshoring decisions.

A. Cheaper holidays: This is a personal travel consideration and is entirely unrelated to the corporate strategic decision of offshoring business operations.

B. Exploit other countries’ resources: This phrasing is pejorative and overly narrow. While accessing resources can be a factor, cost reduction is the broader and more fundamental driver.

D. Improve cultural competence: This is a potential secondary benefit or a soft skill that may develop from managing international teams, not the primary strategic reason for offshoring.

1. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & Supply Chain Management (5th ed.). Pearson. In Chapter 8, "Global Sourcing and Logistics," the text identifies the "search for lower costs" as a major driver of the trend towards global sourcing and offshoring, particularly citing lower labor and manufacturing costs (pp. 215-217).

2. Aron, R., & Singh, J. V. (2005). Getting Offshoring Right. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 135–143. The article explicitly states, "The 'why' of offshoring is usually simple: to lower costs or tap a pool of skilled labor unavailable at home." It emphasizes that cost reduction is the most common and initial driver for companies considering offshoring.

3. Farrell, D. (2005). Offshoring: Value Creation Through Economic Change. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 675-683. This article discusses the economic rationale behind offshoring, highlighting that companies are motivated by the potential to capture value through wage differentials and other cost-related efficiencies between countries. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00513.x)