G.Internal Factor Evaluation(IFE) Nestle Internal Factor Evaluation Key Internal Factors Weight Rate Weighted Score STRENGTHS 1. Introduced over 2.8 billion vegetable portions to its food and beverage segment 0.05 3 0.15 2. Emission of greenhouse gases reduced by 37% 0.07 0.28 3. Nestle operating expenses decreased by 11% 0.05 3 0.15 4. According to S&P's Industry survey, Plant-based meat sales rose over 20% 0.05 3 0.15 5. 45% of its revenues were derived from North, Central, and South America: 29% derived from North Africa, Middle East, Europe, and Russia; and 28% from sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Oceania! 0.08 0.32 6. Product Innovation or Renovation contributes to sales with 31% in 2020 0.07 0.28 7. Strategic Partnerships with international organizations 0.07 0.28 8. Established Customer Loyalty 0.05 0.15 9. Established CSR Programs 0.03 3 0.09 10. Commitment to Quality 0.04 14 0.16 WEAKNESSES 0.04 1 0.04 1. Revenues from milk and ice cream segment dropped over 17% from 2019 to 2020 2. 1.6 Billion is invested in R&D annually 0.05 2 0.10 3. Nutrition and Health Science was 16% lower than 2019 0.03 2 0.06 4. Limited Growth in Confectionery Segment Only accounted for about 8% of total sales in 2020 5. Total sales for prepared dishes and cooking aids dropped by 5% during 2020 0.03 2 0.06 0.04 1 0.04 6. Total sales of the water has dropped 30% in 2020 0.03 2 0.06 7. High marketing costs strains budget, limiting resources available for other critical areas and reducing overall profitability 0.05 2 0.10 8. High Competition Across Diverse Product Lines 0.07 1 0.07 9. Pressure from public health concerns and Regulations 0.06 1 0.06 10. Changing Customer's taste preferences on beverages 0.04 2 0.08 TOTAL 100 2.68 G 286 X

What can McDonalds do to address Bakshis concerns?

Cousins Jeri Lynn De Bose, Tish Hoover, and Josephine (Joey) Parks looked forward to meeting up during the Christmas holidays to compare notes on the results of midyear teacher evaluations. All were public school teachers in districts scattered over the state. In the pressured search for new levels of teacher accountability demanded by legislators, the state department of education joined 16 other States in implementing a new teacher evaluation system. The goal is to hold teachers account-able for student learning progress in the classroom. Under the guidance of the National Council for Teacher Quality, criteria varies by State, but in most cases, 40 percent of each teacher's accountability score would be based on the principal's evaluation and ranking based on personal observation, 30 percent would be based on personal observation by a master teacher from outside the district, and the Other 30 percent would be based on student test score gains. The state department of education would set a performance goal each school district, and the principal would set a performance goal for each teacher. In preparation, the State conducted intensive training sessions for principals and designated master teachers who would conduct the evaluations based on four class observations per teacher Officials used standardized achievement tests to derive value-added scores that measure student learning over the year. Teacher ratings were 1-5, with I am being the lowest and 5 representing near perfection. The publication of the first year's evaluations stirred interest and controversy, particularly among teachers who worried about the possible long-term effects on job retention and tenure. Now, with the first-year evaluations in hand, the three cousins pored over their experiences. The three represented different types of school systems within the state. Jeri Lynn worked for a metropolitan system in the state capital. The system included many low-income students whose first language was nor English, and several schools within the system were teetering on the brink of State takeover if improvement in student scores didn't materialize this school year. Tish worked in a county System dominated by upper-income residents, and Joey taught in the rural community in which all three grew up. The rural community had high unemployment, and a low percentage of graduates went on to college. As a result, the cousins came to the table with differing teaching experiences. "The numbers are all over the place," Jeri Lynn remarked as she studied the pages. "The whole system is flawed, and they need to make changes," Joey said. "It's too subjective. The principal and master teacher observations are subjective because there are personal factors that affect a true outcome." "Yeah, look at the numbers from your upper-income district," Jeri Lynn said to Tish. "How can 60 percent of the teachers score 5s?' Tish chuckled. "Yeah, lucky us. Our schools are overflowing with children from wealthy families. These are the kids who will apply to Ivy League schools. I can tell you that the principals are going to avoid confrontation on all fronts. No principal is going to give any indication that their students are receiving an education that's less than perfect, and that means cramming the rankings with 5s. They claim a higher level of motivation for students, and thus the selection of an elite team of educators. So with those pressures, I don't think we get personal feedback that is accurate." "At the other end of the spectrum, we have my rural district," Joey said. "The big problem is that the principals know everyone and have longstanding relationships with everyone in the county, so I think scores are based on personal history. We could almost predict who would get high or low scores before the observations. For principals, it can go back as far as 'his daddy and my daddy hated each other in high school, and now I get to evaluate his daughter "I think that in many cases, principals feel pressure to align scores with state expectations. The stare expected my district to have high scores and expected rural schools such as yours to be lower," Tish said. "But isn't that partially offset by lower goals for the rural school distracts responded Joey. "The key to the accountability system is the principal in each school," Jeri Lynn suggested. "With several of the schools in Metro teetering on the edge of state takeover by the end of the year, we had lots of strict principals who wanted to hold our feet to the fire with lower scores." "I thought the whole idea was to provide the teachers With feedback so that we would know the areas where we need improvement," Tish said. "The principals were supposed to conduct two observations in the fall and two more in the spring," Jeri Lynn said. think that's asking too much of them when they already have so much on their plates. I think a lot of them are skimping on their visits. know I only had one observation last semester, and I'm sure Mr. Talley just faked the second set of numbers. The master teachers make only two observations a year, which may be more objective but counts for less." "I'm wondering, too, how a principal measure performance in a course area outside his area of expertise, such as math," Joey said. "If the guy has a phobia about math, anything the teacher says or does is going to 100k brilliant-thus a 5." Tish and Jeri Lynn looked at each other and laughed. "Maybe we picked the wrong subjects," Tish said. "My question is one of perception," Jeri Lynn said. "A large percentage of my students are ELL. That affects their scores. How do you measure a 3 in my situation against a 5 for Tish? At the end of the school year, little Carlos is thrilled that his reading in English has improved, but there`s no Big Bang here. a slow steady improvement that may not actually show up in big strides for a couple of years: "So, the question is how do they create a system that is fair?" Tish asked. "And accurate," added Jeri Lynn. How might the state control the accuracy of principals who are conducting teacher evaluations? Explain.

How is tying rewards to improved sustainability performance a form of strategic control?

What forecasting techniques are used in the management of technology and innovation?

The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Calculate the total cost per unit of purchasing from Original Wire.

The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Calculate the total cost per unit of purchasing from Happy Lucky Assemblies.

The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Based on the total cost per unit, which supplier should Sheila recommend?

The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Are there any other issues besides cost that Sheila should evaluate?

The Global Sourcing Wire Harness Decision Sheila Austin, a buyer at Autolink, a Detroit-based producer of subassemblies for the automotive market, has sent out requests for quotations for a wiring harness to four prospective suppliers. Only two of the four suppliers indicated an interest in quoting the business: Original Wire (Auburn Hills, MI) and Happy Lucky Assemblies (HLA) of Guangdong Province, China. The estimated demand for the harnesses is 5,000 units a month. Both suppliers will incur some costs to retool for this particular harness. The harnesses will be prepackaged in 24 12 6-inch cartons. Each packaged unit weighs approximately 10 pounds. Quote 1 The first quote received is from Original Wire. Auburn Hills is about 20 miles from Autolinks corporate headquarters, so the quote was delivered in person. When Sheila went down to the lobby, she was greeted by the sales agent and an engineering representative. After the quote was handed over, the sales agent noted that engineering would be happy to work closely with Autolink in developing the unit and would also be interested in future business that might involve finding ways to reduce costs. The sales agent also noted that they were hungry for business, as they were losing a lot of customers to companies from China. The quote included unit price, tooling, and packaging. The quoted unit price does not include shipping costs. Original Wire requires no special warehousing of inventory, and daily deliveries from its manufacturing site directly to Autolinks assembly operations are possible. Original Wire Quote: Unit price = 30 Packing costs = 0.75 per unit Tooling = 6,000 one-time fixed charge Freight cost = 5.20 per hundred pounds Quote 2 The second quote received is from Happy Lucky Assemblies of Guangdong Province, China. The supplier must pack the harnesses in a container and ship via inland transportation to the port of Shanghai in China, have the shipment transferred to a container ship, ship material to Seattle, and then have material transported inland to Detroit. The quoted unit price does not include international shipping costs, which the buyer will assume. HLA Quote: Unit price = 19.50 Shipping lead time = Eight weeks Tooling = 3,000 In addition to the suppliers quote, Sheila must consider additional costs and information before preparing a comparison of the Chinese suppliers quotation: Each monthly shipment requires three 40-foot containers. Packing costs for containerization = 2 per unit. Cost of inland transportation to port of export = 200 per container. Freight forwarders fee = 100 per shipment (letter of credit, documentation, etc.). Cost of ocean transport = 4,000 per container. This has risen significantly in recent years due to a shortage of ocean freight capacity. Marine insurance = 0.50 per 100 of shipment. U.S. port handling charges = 1,200 per container. This fee has also risen considerably this year, due to increased security. Ports have also been complaining that the charges may increase in the future. Customs duty = 5% of unit cost. Customs broker fees per shipment = 300. Transportation from Seattle to Detroit = 18.60 per hundred pounds. Need to warehouse at least four weeks of inventory in Detroit at a warehousing cost of 1.00 per cubic foot per month, to compensate for lead time uncertainty. Sheila must also figure the costs associated with committing corporate capital for holding inventory. She has spoken to some accountants, who typically use a corporate cost of capital rate of 15%. Cost of hedging currencybroker fees = 400 per shipment Additional administrative time due to international shipping = 4 hours per shipment 25 per hour (estimated) At least two five-day visits per year to travel to China to meet with supplier and provide updates on performance and shipping = 20,000 per year (estimated) The international sourcing costs must be absorbed by Sheila, as the supplier does not assume any of the additional estimated costs and invoice Sheila later, or build the costs into a revised unit price. Sheila feels that the U.S. supplier is probably less expensive, even though it quoted a higher price. Sheila also knows that this is a standard technology that is unlikely to change during the next three years, but which could be a contract that extends multiple years out. There is also a lot of hall talk amongst the engineers on her floor about next-generation automotive electronics, which will completely eliminate the need for wire harnesses, which will be replaced by electronic components that are smaller, lighter, and more reliable. She is unsure about how to calculate the total costs for each option, and she is even more unsure about how to factor these other variables into the decision. Based on this case, do you think international purchasing is more or less complex than domestic purchasing? Why? Is it worth the additional effort?