Back to Projects
Supply Chain · Operations University of Arkansas Group Project MBA · 2025

GOLD Meals
Case Study

EOQ Optimization · Logistics Cost Reduction · National Growth Strategy

4
Team Members
$1.18M
Current Annual Logistics Cost
$866K
Annual Savings Identified
73%
Cost Reduction Achieved
3
Phase Growth Roadmap

Collaborators

Shikhar Shrestha
Soumen Patel
Brandon Wallace
Josh McCarroll

The Challenge

GOLD Meals — a small frozen meal startup selling 24 SKUs across Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah — ran what their Operations Manager proudly called a "zero-inventory operation." In practice, this meant placing individual orders every time demand hit 100 units, generating $1.18M in annual logistics costs from excessive ordering cycles and fragmented shipments. Retailers were grumbling about a five-day lead time in a fast-moving category where empty shelves cost sales. The company needed to prove its operations were worth scaling before pursuing nationwide growth.

The Approach

As outside consultants pitching for the engagement, the team built a compelling "burning platform" — quantifying exactly how much the current approach was costing GOLD Meals and demonstrating the savings achievable through Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) optimization. EOQ calculations were performed per state using August demand, ordering costs, and holding costs for SKU HA3, then extrapolated across all 24 SKUs and 12 months. Separately, the team analyzed three distribution models and built a three-phase national expansion roadmap with a progressive insourcing strategy.

Why GOLD Meals Had to Act

The Zero-Inventory Myth

GOLD Meals' Operations Manager believed "zero inventory" was a cost-saving strategy. In reality, it was the most expensive approach possible. Placing a new order every time demand crossed 100 units meant far too many order cycles — each carrying fixed order-processing costs ($90–$100 per CKO) and carrier shipping fees ($80–$110 per shipment) — with no regard for the optimal trade-off between ordering frequency and holding costs.

With a unit cost of $5.50 and a 45% annual holding cost factor ($2.48 per unit per year in refrigerated storage), the math was clear: GOLD Meals was over-ordering relative to the economic optimum, and the compounded annual cost across all 24 SKUs was $1,180,800. The frozen meal market topped $64 billion in the US — but GOLD Meals couldn't get to scale on broken logistics.

The EOQ Opportunity

Applying Economic Order Quantity principles to determine the optimal order size that minimizes the total of ordering costs and holding costs per state.

Current Method
$1,180,800
Annual · All 24 SKUs
Ad-hoc ordering — 100-unit trigger
EOQ Optimized
$315,138
Annual · All 24 SKUs
Optimal order quantities per state
$865,662 Annual Savings — 73.3% Cost Reduction

Optimal Ordering Policy by State

EOQ calculated per state using August demand for SKU HA3. Order size per state assumes continuous demand and constant lead times.

AZ
1,495
Units per order
Order cost: $180 / order
Monthly demand: 1,280 units
Holding cost: $2.48 / unit / yr
CO
1,629
Units per order
Order cost: $180 / order
Monthly demand: 1,520 units
Holding cost: $2.48 / unit / yr
NV
1,037
Units per order
Order cost: $200 / order
Monthly demand: 555 units
Holding cost: $2.48 / unit / yr
UT
1,144
Units per order
Order cost: $160 / order
Monthly demand: 844 units
Holding cost: $2.48 / unit / yr
Lead time does not change under the EOQ model — the five-day fulfillment window (2-day ingredient procurement + 2-day production + 1-day delivery) is driven by the CKO process, not order frequency. The EOQ optimization lowers total logistics cost purely through smarter order sizing, not by compressing the supply chain clock.

Production & Distribution Model

Three structural options evaluated for GOLD Meals' nationwide expansion. Only one balances cost, service, and scalability.

✕ Reject
Option A — Fully Decentralized
  • Too complex to manage at national scale
  • No scale economies — cost per unit stays high
  • Quality and consistency risk across CKOs
  • Brand integrity difficult to maintain
Not Scalable
⚠ Avoid
Option B — Fully Centralized
  • Slow and costly cross-country deliveries
  • Single point of failure — one disruption = nationwide impact
  • High fixed cost to build centralized capacity
  • Loses the flexibility that drove early growth
Too Risky

3-Phase National Growth Plan

GOLD Meals' path from a 4-state regional operator to a profitable national brand — prioritizing demographics, operational readiness, and unit economics at each stage.

01
Streamline & Optimize Year 1
  • Implement EOQ ordering across all 24 SKUs and 4 states immediately.
  • Establish hub-and-spoke distribution model — replace ad-hoc carrier relationships with structured regional DC partnerships.
  • Build the operational foundation that can handle higher volume with minimal lead time increase.
  • KPIs to monitor: Cost per unit, order lead time, on-time delivery rate.
↑ $865K Annual Savings Unlocked
02
Regional Cluster Expansion Years 2–3
  • Expand into adjacent states — building geographic clusters rather than isolated market entries.
  • Target states with high millennial concentration to maximize demand capture and brand fit.
  • Cut logistics complexity by adding states within existing DC coverage zones before building new ones.
  • Begin selective insourcing of top-selling SKUs (target 20–30%) to capture scale economies on proven volume.
✓ Successful Pilot Launch in New Regions
03
Full National Coverage Years 3–5
  • Achieve profitable national coverage by building regional hubs in the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and Pacific Northwest.
  • Expand in-house production to 40–50% of volume — concentrating on highest-margin, highest-volume SKUs at regional hubs.
  • Continue outsourcing seasonal and low-volume SKUs to CKO partners for variety and flexibility.
  • Leverage scale to negotiate better CKO rates and carrier contracts across the remaining outsourced volume.
✓ Full Profitable National Footprint

Insourcing Over Time

Progressive shift from fully outsourced CKO production toward strategic in-house capacity — timed to volume thresholds that justify fixed investment.

Near Term · 0–2 Years
0%
Insourced
Stay fully outsourced to CKOs. Focus entirely on EOQ implementation, logistics fixes, and service reliability before adding production complexity.
Mid Term · 3–5 Years
30%
Insourced
Bring top-selling SKUs in-house. Captures scale economies and ensures consistent quality, while keeping niche and seasonal SKUs with CKO partners for flexibility.
Long Term · 5+ Years
50%
Insourced
Expand in-house capacity at regional hubs. Gains cost control, stable quality, and CKO bargaining leverage — while outsourcing low-volume SKUs to maintain variety.

Project Documents

GOLD Meals — Pitch Presentation

PDF · 7 Slides · Burning Platform + Operations + Growth Strategy

EOQ Calculations — Excel Workbook

XLSX · Q1–Q5 Answers + SKU HA3 August Data + EOQ Model

Original Case Reading

PDF · 8 Pages · Prof. Christian Hofer · University of Arkansas

Methods & Tools

Operations & Logistics

Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) Inventory Optimization Total Logistics Cost Order Cycle Analysis Hub-and-Spoke Distribution

Strategy

Network Design Make vs. Buy Analysis Growth Roadmapping Centralization vs. Decentralization Demographic Targeting

Deliverables

Excel Financial Modeling Executive Presentation Burning Platform Narrative Consultant Pitch Deck