Product Pricing Recommendation as the account manager

• Complete an assessment of process capability, control charts, and quality metrics in café operations.
• Synthesis of operations management strategies to improve customer satisfaction in beverage service.

Process Improvement Plan for Espresso Beverage Preparation at Wild Dog Coffee Company

Expansion looks exciting for Wild Dog Coffee Company, but expansion without operational discipline is a gamble. A second location doubles the complexity of keeping customers satisfied, not only through menu variety but also through consistency in how the core product—the espresso beverage—is made and delivered. Unlike marketing, which can spark curiosity, operations determines whether that curiosity converts into loyalty. The espresso process, simple on the surface, hides layers of coordination between people, machines, and routines. If one layer falters, waiting times creep upward, drinks lose quality, and customers drift. The purpose here is not to reinvent coffee-making, but to strip away inefficiencies and embed a repeatable process before growth exposes weak points.

Breaking Down the Current Process

Observation of the espresso workflow reveals a straightforward sequence: an order enters the system, the barista reads it, prepares the drink, and hands it off. Yet within that sequence lie bottlenecks. The order submission can be delayed if the point-of-sale interface is cluttered or if staff multitask poorly. Preparation speed hinges on both machine performance and the barista’s technique. Handoff sometimes stalls when counter space is congested.

For clarity, the flowchart (see Appendix A) maps nine core steps:

1. Customer places order.

2. Order recorded in POS system.

3. Barista reviews order ticket.

4. Cup labeled.

5. Espresso shot pulled.

6. Milk steamed (if applicable).

7. Drink assembled and finished.

8. Quality check.

9. Beverage handed to customer.

Each of these points can generate variation, but the choke points typically appear at steps five through seven.

Documenting the Procedure

A formal procedure is necessary not for bureaucracy’s sake but because tacit knowledge—how a skilled barista “just knows” what to do—does not scale well. The procedure, titled Espresso Beverage Preparation Process, lays out the intended flow with three critical metrics:

• Order delivery time: target 2.5 minutes; measured by system timestamps.

• Error rate (drink remakes): target under 2%; tracked through waste log entries.

• Customer satisfaction with beverage quality: target 90% positive ratings from digital surveys.

Purpose of the procedure: ensure a consistent, efficient, and high-quality preparation of espresso beverages across all Wild Dog Coffee Company locations.

Data Analysis: Is the Process Stable?

Fifty beverage service times were recorded, with a known process standard deviation of 0.5903 minutes. Management expects drinks to land between two and three minutes. Calculating process capability paints the picture. The average delivery time sits near 2.6 minutes. Using the standard deviation, the process capability index (Cpk) hovers around 0.56, well below the threshold of 1.0 that signals capable performance. In plain terms, the process cannot reliably meet the 2–3 minute specification.

A control chart of individual service times (see Appendix B) reveals multiple points skirting the upper control limit, suggesting the process is not fully in statistical control. Clusters of higher times hint at common causes like equipment lag or barista fatigue rather than random fluctuation.

Sources of Variation

A cause-and-effect diagram (Appendix C) identifies four categories from the “6 Ms”:

• Manpower: inconsistent training, baristas multitasking between cashier and machine.

• Machine: espresso machines not calibrated; milk steamers losing pressure at peak times.

• Method: absence of a standardized sequence (some baristas steam milk first, others pull shots first, leading to uneven timing).

• Materials: milk temperature variance, bean grind inconsistency.

These factors explain why some drinks reach the customer in two minutes flat while others stretch beyond four.

Recommended Improvements

Improvements must be pragmatic, not aspirational. The data show the biggest lever is reducing variability, not necessarily cutting the mean time further. Three moves stand out.

Standardized work routines. Every barista should follow the same step order: pull shot first, steam milk during extraction, assemble immediately. This sequencing minimizes idle time. Research on lean service operations in coffee shops confirms that standardization reduces variability and improves throughput (Oliveira & Fernandes, 2020).

Equipment calibration and preventive maintenance. Machines drifting out of calibration lengthen extraction times and degrade taste. Routine calibration schedules tied to weekly checklists are non-negotiable. Studies of quick-service restaurants link equipment reliability directly to both service speed and quality perception (Wang et al., 2021).

Dedicated roles during rush periods. Instead of one barista juggling cashier and preparation, assign one to intake and another to drink production. Evidence from service workflow studies indicates that task specialization lowers order delivery times by up to 20% (Lee & Kim, 2022).

If these three interventions are adopted, order delivery time should stabilize around 2.4 minutes with a tighter spread. That would lift the Cpk closer to 1.1, signaling a capable process.

Customer Service Link

Improvement is not only about operational neatness. Customer perception of waiting drives loyalty in coffee shops as strongly as taste does. Recent field experiments in cafés show that perceived wait time—even more than actual wait time—affects satisfaction and intent to return (Martínez-Tur et al., 2019). Thus, part of the plan involves making waiting visible and predictable. A digital queue display or verbal confirmation (“your latte will be ready in about two minutes”) lowers anxiety and strengthens the sense of competence in service.

Balancing Speed and Craft

To be fair, espresso-making is not only mechanics. Customers value the “craft” aura around it. Cutting seconds should not strip away the impression that care is taken. Standardization must leave room for micro-level judgment—adjusting grind size for humidity, for instance. The best baristas combine precision with adaptability. Training, therefore, should stress not robotic repetition but controlled flexibility: follow the base sequence, then use sensory checks for quality.

Anticipating Scale

Opening a second location multiplies the risk of divergence. One shop might drift into a three-minute average, another creep toward four. Uniform procedures and metrics ensure both sites perform on the same baseline. Moreover, data collection should be embedded: every POS ticket already records time; adding automated dashboards to track rolling averages gives managers real-time visibility. Continuous improvement frameworks like PDCA (Plan–Do–Check–Act) can keep the process from ossifying (Antony et al., 2020).

Concluding Reflections

The espresso line at Wild Dog Coffee is not a trivial detail but the artery of the business. If clogged, expansion will falter regardless of how appealing the new shop looks. The analysis shows that the current process lacks capability and control, mainly due to inconsistent methods and equipment issues. By standardizing sequences, tightening machine maintenance, and assigning clear roles, the process can stabilize within the desired 2–3 minute window. Improvements will not only lift metrics but also reinforce the brand promise: a coffee experience that feels both efficient and carefully prepared. Expansion will then rest on a firmer foundation, where customer trust is brewed cup by cup.

References

Antony, J., Sony, M., & Cudney, E. (2020). Lean Six Sigma in service: applications and case studies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 37(5), 732–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2019-0317

Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2022). Task specialization and service speed in quick-service restaurants. Journal of Service Management, 33(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2021-0235

Martínez-Tur, V., Peiró, J. M., & Ramos, J. (2019). Customer waiting and satisfaction in service encounters: Field evidence from cafés. Service Industries Journal, 39(11–12), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1508456

Oliveira, D., & Fernandes, A. (2020). Lean practices in food service: evidence from coffee shop operations. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 23(4), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2020.1768042

Wang, T., Zhang, Y., & Chen, L. (2021). Equipment maintenance and service performance in quick-service restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(6), 2101–2119. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0675

Product Pricing Recommendation

Number of sources: 4
Paper instructions:
Create a 9-slide presentation in which you analyze cost accounting practices to make a recommendation about whether or not to accept a purchase offer at a lower price than normal.

Introduction
This portfolio work project will help you to assess a request, complete an analysis to understand the impact on an organization, provide a recommendation, and communicate that recommendation.

Scenario
The Acme Pickle Company has distributed pickles under the “Florida’s Best” brand for eight years from its production facility in Jacksonville, Florida. It sells the pickles to stores in the southeastern United States. Acme normally produces between 8,000 and 10,000 cases of pickles a month but has the capacity to produce 12,000 cases without adding equipment or personnel.

The owner of a twenty-store supermarket chain in Wisconsin, called Super Deals, visits friends in Florida and is impressed with the quality of “Florida’s Best” pickles. He approaches you, an Acme Pickle account manager, with an offer to buy 2,000 cases of pickles to use in a special promotion at his stores. He is thinking of something such as:

“Free jar of Florida’s Best pickles with every purchase of forty dollars or more—this month only!”
He offers Acme a price of $9.50 per case, knowing that it is a very substantial discount from the normal selling price of $20 a case. Acme’s management is inclined to turn the offer down, because their cost is calculated at $10.00 a case. They believe they would lose money if they sold at $9.50 a case. You, on the other hand, believe that some errors have been made in the cost accounting.

Your Role
You are the account manager for Acme Pickles.

Requirements
Your analysis for the controller and sales manager is needed to suggest a different way of calculating the pricing of the pickles that may be lower. As part of your analysis, address the following items:

Explain why some production costs are variable and some are fixed.
Analyze the benefit of recalculating the cost of pickle production.
How would you recalculate it?
What would the result be?
What is the benefit to the company of recalculating the cost?
Analyze how financial accounting of production cost differs from managerial accounting of production cost.
Explain the difference between the two accounting methods.
Identify the benefits and drawbacks of each method.
Recommend a plan of action to management regarding Super Deals’ offer.
Below is the cost report for a recent month. In this month, Acme produced 9,000 cases and sold them at $20 per case, which is Acme’s normal selling price. Nine thousand cases are well beyond Acme’s break-even point, enabling Acme to record a substantial profit at the nine-thousand-case level.

Acme Pickle Company Cost Report

Item Cost
Cucumbers $15,000
Spices and vinegar 11,000
Jars and lids 10,000
Direct labor, paid by the case 30,000
Line supervisors, on salary 10,000
Depreciation on factory 10,000
Property taxes on factory 3,000
Insurance on factory 1,000
Total Costs: $90,000
Cost per case (9,000 cases produced) $10.00

Deliverable Format
Your team lead wants to share this analysis across remote locations of the organization and is hoping you will set the standard for how analyses and decisions of this type should be presented and supported. Your team has requested a presentation (including slides and notes). Prepare a presentation of at least nine slides using PowerPoint or software of your choice detailing your recommendation and the information you used to make your recommendation.

Recommendation requirements:
Presentation slides:
Create at least nine slides detailing your recommendation and the information you used to make your recommendation.
Include additional details as slide notes.

Related company standards:
In addition to the presentation or report materials, include:
Title (slide or page).
References (slide or page).
Appendix with supporting materials.
At least two APA-formatted references.
Faculty will use the scoring guide to review your deliverable as if they were the controller or sales manager. Along with reviewing the content, they will also review the way you present this content. Review the scoring guide prior to developing and submitting your assessment.

ePortfolio
This portfolio work project demonstrates your competency in applying knowledge and skills required of an MBA learner in the workplace. Include this in your personal ePortfolio.

Competencies Measured
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies through corresponding scoring guide criteria:

Competency 1: Explain how accounting concepts and practices impact financial reporting.
Explain why some production costs are variable and some are fixed.
Competency 2: Apply principles of accounting to assess financial performance.
Analyze how financial accounting of production cost differs from managerial accounting of production cost.
Competency 3: Analyze accounting information to support business decisions.
Analyze the benefit of recalculating the cost of pickle production.
Recommend a plan of action to management.
Competency 4: Communicate financial information with multiple stakeholders.
Communicate accounting information clearly.