Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The interplay between capacities, lead times, and inventory decisions is little researched but important.
Karmarkar [19] remains an important reference on these issues.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-9
Inventory Control 10-9
Inventory models are mathematical models of real systems. To evaluate inventory sys-
tems mathematically, these models make several assumptions that are sometimes restrictive.
Generally, as the assumptions are relaxed, the mathematical analyses become more dicult.
In this chapter some of the existing inventory models are discussed. First, it is assumed that
no uncertainty exists and deterministic models are presented. Then some limited stochastic
models will be presented.
10.3 Deterministic Inventory Systems
In deterministic inventory models it is assumed that the demand is xed and known. Also
it is assumed that when a lot is ordered, it arrives exactly at the time it is expected.
Further, when the demand pattern remains constant over time, the inventory pattern is
known exactly. Consequently, parameters like the maximum and minimum inventory levels
are known exactly. Thus, these models may also be referred to as maximumminimum
inventory models.
10.3.1 The Economic Order Quantity Model
The economic order quantity model represents the rm inventory control model due to
Harris [21]. This model can be applied to both raw material and nished goods. In the case
of raw material inventory, the demand is represented by the amount used by the production
process over a given period. The ordered quantities in this case are the amount ordered
from the supplier. In the case of nished goods, the demand is the amount shipped to the
retailer or consumer over a given period of time, and the orders are those sent to suppliers
requesting new lots to be supplied. In this model the whole inventory process can be shown
graphically. In a graph the amount of goods or products in the inventory is plotted against
time. Let us explain this situation through an example.
Example 10.1
Consolidated Appliance Company maintains an inventory of electric motors that are used in
the production of refrigerators. Figure 10.3a shows the graphical representation of the level
of inventory as a function of time (with the y-axis being in 100 units scale). At the start
there are 3000 motors on hand. The company uses 1000 motors a day; thus at the end of
day 1, there will remain only 2000 units in the inventory. This situation is shown by point
1 with coordinates of 1 and 2000, which corresponds to units in the inventory at the end
of day 1. At the end of day 2 there are 1000 units left, which is shown by point 2 with
coordinates of 2 and 1000. At the end of day 3, the number of motors on hand should be
zero, but the arrival of a new shipment of motors, which contains 7000 units, increases the
inventory level to 7000 (point 3 in Figure 10.3a). In this way, the inventory level at the end
of each day can be represented by a point.
The points in Figure 10.3a show the number of units at the end of each period. However, if
one wants to demonstrate a real variation of the level of inventory by time, one can observe
the level at innitesimal time dierentials. This results in a curve rather than a series
of points. As nothing is said about the pattern by which 1000 units are drawn from the
inventory each day, the curve between two consecutive ends of the day points can have any
shape. In the present model, however, it is assumed that the shape of the curve between the
points is linear. Thus the demonstration in Figure 10.3a can be changed to the one shown
in Figure 10.3b. From here on this linear graphical representation will be adopted for all
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-10
10-10 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Day
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
o
n
h
a
n
d
0
1
2
3
(a)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Day
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
o
n
h
a
n
d
(b)
FIGURE 10.3 Example 1: (a) Inventory graph. (b) Linear representation of inventory system.
the deterministic cases. There are several concepts in the design of inventory systems that
now can be explained using Figure 10.3b.
1. The system may be called a maximumminimum system because the number of
units in the system varies between a xed maximum and a xed minimum.
2. The minimum in this model corresponds to zero. As the decision maker is sure
that what has been ordered will arrive exactly at the time expected, he will have
nothing to worry about if he is out of stock for just a moment. However, as we
will see later, this is not the case where uncertainties are involved in the time of
arrival of the new shipment or the quantities of the demand.
3. As is seen in Figure 10.3b, it is assumed that everything ordered arrives at one
point in time, thus instantly raising the level of inventory at days 3 and 10.
Furthermore, it is clear that the maximum inventory in this case is equal to the
amount ordered.
Formulating the Model
To design such an inventory system it is necessary to nd several quantitative parameters
with which the system can be uniquely dened. The values of these parameters should be
such that they minimize the total cost of operating the inventory system. From Figure 10.3b
it is clear that this system can be dened by three parameters: demand, the maximum level
of inventory, and the minimum level of inventory. It is assumed that the demand is xed and
the designer has no control on this parameter. Also, as mentioned above, for this model the
minimum inventory level is always zero. Thus, the only parameter to be determined in this
case is the maximum inventory level. On the other hand, it was also mentioned that the max-
imum inventory level for this model is the quantity ordered. Then the design of the system
can be dened as nding the ordering quantity that minimizes the total cost of maintaining
the system. This best (optimal) order quantity is called the economic order quantity (EOQ).
To nd the optimum values of parameters of an inventory system the system is formulated
as an optimization problem according to the following procedure. First, a suitable period
of analysis is selected. This period is usually 1 year. Then the total cost of maintaining
the inventory over this period is evaluated as a function of the controllable parameters
of the system. This function is then minimized by dierentiation or any other applicable
mathematical technique to obtain the optimum values for the controllable variables of the
system. To formulate the EOQ model the following notation is utilized.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-11
Inventory Control 10-11
Q=Order quantity
Q
=
_
2BD
E
(10.9)
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-13
Inventory Control 10-13
As the above relationship shows, the cost of units involved does not play any role in this
optimum value. Thus, for this example, the economic order quantity can be calculated as
Q
=
_
2 125 1000
0.01
= 5000 units
Lead Time and Reorder Point
There is another parameter that is important in designing inventory systems. Usually orders
are not received at the time they are placed. In inventory systems terminology, the length of
time between when orders are placed and the time when they are received is called the lead
time (denoted by L). In deterministic inventory models, it is assumed that the lead time
is constant and known. In stochastic inventory systems, the lead time could be a random
variable.
Going back to the design stage, we note that orders are not received immediately after
they are placed. If one waits until the inventory level reaches zero and then orders, the
inventory will be out of stock during the lead time. Thus orders have to be placed before
the inventory level has reached zero. Two methods can be used to determine when an order
should be placed. In the rst method the time at which the inventory will reach zero is
estimated and the order is placed a number of periods equal to the lead time earlier than
that estimated time. For example, if the lead time is 4 days, one could estimate the time at
which the inventory will reach the zero level and order 4 days before that time.
The second approach, which is used more often, is based on the level of inventory. In this
approach, the order is placed whenever the inventory level reaches a level called the reorder
point (ROP). This means that if the order is placed when the amount left in the inventory
is equal to the reorder point, the inventory on hand will last until the new order arrives.
Thus the reorder point is that quantity sucient to supply the demand during the lead
time. Now, if we assume that both the lead time and the demand are constant, the demand
during the lead time is constant too. As the reorder point is equal to this demand, it can
be calculated from the following relation:
ROP = L D (10.10)
It is very important to keep in mind that the reorder point is not a point in time, but a
quantity equal to the level of the inventory at the time the order is to be placed. Figure 10.4
Time
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
l
e
v
e
l
Lead time
R
e
o
r
d
e
r
p
o
i
n
t
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
o
r
d
e
r
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
FIGURE 10.4 Graphical representation of economic order quantity, lead time, and reorder point.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-14
10-14 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
shows the values of economic order quantity, lead time, and reorder point graphically for a
simple maximumminimum system.
10.3.2 Uniform Demand with Replenishment Taking Place over
a Period of Time
In this model, the assumption that all of the ordered units arrive at the same time is relaxed,
and is replaced by the assumption that units arrive at a uniform rate of P over a period of
time. This model is especially useful for situations where the units are produced inside the
plant and are stored to supply a uniform demand. Consequently, the model is often referred
to as the economic production quantity (EPQ) model.
The rst requirement to build up a stock is that the supply rate P be higher than the
demand D during the production or supply period. During the supply period the inventory
is replenished at a rate of P units per period and consumed at a rate of D units per period.
Thus, in this period the inventory builds up at a rate of (P D) units per period. The
graphical representation of this system is shown in Figure 10.5. The design parameter for
this system is again the order quantity, but here the maximum inventory level and the
order quantity are not the same. The reason is that it takes some time to receive all units
of ordered quantity and during this time some of the units are consumed. Another way of
dening this system is to specify the supply period instead of the order quantity. Knowing
the supply rate and the supply period, the order quantity could be determined. In this
chapter, the order quantity is specied as a design parameter.
Formulating the Model
This problem can be formulated very similarly to the basic model. The only dierence here
is that the average inventory level is not half of the order quantity. As the system is still
linear and minimum inventory is zero, the average inventory is:
Average Inventory =
Maximum Inventory + Minimum Inventory
2
=
Maximum Inventory
2
(10.11)
Time
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
l
e
v
e
l
(
P
D
)
D
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Supply
period
FIGURE 10.5 Inventory systems with uniform supply.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-15
Inventory Control 10-15
Then if we can state the maximum inventory in terms of order quantity, the average cost
of the inventory system can be found as a function of order quantity. The calculation for
maximum inventory is done as follows. Let ST represent the length of the supply period.
As the order quantity is Q and supply rate is P, then
ST =
Q
P
During this supply period the inventory level is increased by (P D) units per unit time.
As it is assumed that the supply starts arriving when the inventory level is zero, then the
maximum inventory level is equal to the buildup during this period. Then,
Maximum inventory, I
max
= (P D)ST = (P D)
Q
P
= Q
_
1
D
P
_
(10.12)
The average inventory (I
avg
) is then given from Equations 10.11 and 10.12 as
I
avg
=
I
max
2
=
Q
2
_
1
D
P
_
As a result, the inventory holding cost is
EQ
2
_
1
D
P
_
. The ordering cost is the same as
before. Thus,
TC =
EQ
2
_
1
D
P
_
+
BD
Q
(10.13)
As before, dierentiating Equation 10.13 and equating to zero, we solve for the optimal Q,
which is given as
Q
2BD
E
_
1
D
P
_ (10.14)
Notes: In using Equation 10.14 it is important to note the following:
If P is less than D, the term (1 D/P) becomes negative. This would result in
a Q
BD
Q
2
FS
2
2Q
2
= 0
(TC)
S
=
E
2
_
2(QS)
Q
_
+
FS
Q
= 0
Solving these two equations simultaneously yields the optimum values of Q and S as
Q
=
_
2BD
E
_
E+F
F
(10.19)
S
=
_
2BD
E
E
2
F(E +F)
(10.20)
Now that we have two parameters and we know that I
max
=QS, the optimal value for
I
max
may be shown to be
I
max
=
_
2BD
E
_
F
E + F
(10.21)
10.3.4 Time-Varying Demand: The WagnerWhitin Model
Thus far, we have assumed that demand is deterministic and constant over time (i.e., time-
invariant or stationary). In this section, we relax this assumption of stationarity; the model
is due to Wagner and Whitin [22]. The following assumptions are made.
1. Demand is deterministically known for the following N periods and given by the
vector D={D
1
, D
2
, . . ., D
N
}. Note that time-varying demand implies D
i
=D
j
for at least one pair of i, j.
2. Let the inventory at the end of period j be given by I
j
and let the starting
inventory be I
0
=0.
3. Supply is assumed to be instantaneous.
4. Shortages and back orders are not permitted.
5. Holding costs are incurred on the ending inventory in every period j, with h
j
being the unit holding cost for period j. Then denote H
j
(x) =xh
j
. Similarly,
order costs for period j are given by C
j
(x) =a
j
(x) +u
j
x where a
j
is the set-up
costs in period j and u
j
is the cost/unit in period j. Further, let (x) =1 if x>0;
0 otherwise. We assume that H
j
and C
j
are concave functions of their respective
arguments.
Our objective is to nd the order quantities in each period that minimized total ordering
and holding costs over the N periods. In other words, we want to nd Q={Q
1
, Q
2
, . . ., Q
N
}
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-19
Inventory Control 10-19
where all order quantities are non-negative. The model may be formulated as given below:
min Z =
N
i=1
[C
i
(Q
i
) +H
i
(I
i
)] =
N
i=1
[a
i
i
(Q
i
) +u
i
Q
i
+h
i
I
i
] (10.22)
subject to I
i1
+Q
i
= D
i
+I
i
for all i
Q
i
, I
i
0 for all i
i
(Q
i
) binary for all i (10.23)
The above problem is a nonlinear, integer programming problem involving the minimization
of a concave function (since H
j
and C
j
are concave functions). To solve the problem, we
note the following [5,22]:
1. Inventory is held over a period if and only if the corresponding inventory costs are
lower than the ordering costs. Suppose k units are left at the end of period j 1;
then it would be optimal to hold these H
j1
(k) <C
j
(k). If not, the previous
replenishment should be reduced by these k units to reduce costs.
2. Inventory is replenished only when the inventory level is zero (zero inventory
ordering property). Consequently, if an order is placed, it must cover demand for
an integer number of future periods.
Using the above observations, Wagner and Whitin [22] show that the following must be
true:
Q
i1
I
i
= 0 for all i (10.24)
From the above properties and Equation 10.24, note that one of the following must be true
as a consequence:
1. I
i1
>0 Q
i
=0; and I
i1
>0 I
i1
>D
i
; I
i1
{D
i
, D
i
+D
i+1
, . . .,
N
k=i
D
k
}.
Essentially, this means that if the last periods ending inventory is positive, then
this inventory level is at least the current period demand (D
i
) and may be as
much as all remaining periods demand (
N
k=i
D
k
).
2. I
i1
=0 Q
i
>0. In fact, Q
i
{D
i
, D
i
+D
i+1
, . . .,
N
k=i
D
k
}. In this case, if
the ending inventory in period i 1 is zero, then an order must be placed in
the current period and this order quantity (Q
i
) must be, at a minimum, equal
to the current periods demand with the maximum possible order quantity being
equal to the total demand of all remaining periods.
Further, note that both I
i1
and Q
i
cannot equal zero (unless i =N +1, i.e., the last period
demand has been met).
A simple method to see and solve the WagnerWhitin model would be to represent it
as an acyclic graph (Figure 10.7). To do so, let each node represent the beginning of a period
k =1, 2, . . ., N node k +1 represents the end of period k. The graph then has a total of
1 2
3 4 i j
N N + 1
c
1,4
c
1,3
c
1,2
c
2,3
c
3,4
c
i,j
c
2,4
c
N,N+1
FIGURE 10.7 Graph representation of the WagnerWhitin model.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-20
10-20 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
N +1 nodes. The arc (i, j) represents ordering in period i with the next replenishment
being in period j. Consequently, all demands in periods i, i +1, . . ., j 1 are to be met from
inventory. Further, let arc (i, j) exist only if i <j (i =1, . . ., N; j =2, . . ., N +1). The total
number of arcs in the network is given by
N(N +1)
2
. Since the arc lengths (denoted by c
i,j
)
represent ordering and holding costs, we have
c
i,j
= C
i
_
j1
k=i
D
k
_
+
j2
k=i
_
H
k
_
j1
r=k+1
D
r
__
(10.25)
The optimal solution to the WagnerWhitin model is given by the shortest path from node
1 to node N and may be solved eciently using Dijkstra [23] and Wagelmans et al. [24].
See Lee and Nahmias [25] and Silver et al. [1] for examples and references.
Comments: Zangwill [26] solved the case where back orders are allowed. In addition to
these exact formulations, several heuristics like the SilverMeal method, the PartPeriod
Balancing method, and the like have been developed to get near-optimal solutions e-
ciently [1,27]. Finally, a requirement of the WagnerWhitin model is that there be a nite
horizon (with known ending inventory level). Rangarajan and Ravindran [28] exploit this
requirement to solve a SC inventory model eciency.
10.4 Stochastic Inventory Systems
So far, in all the models studied, it was assumed that the demand is constant and known.
Also, it was assumed that the units ordered will arrive exactly when they are expected. These
assumptions eliminated uncertainties and allowed somewhat simple solutions for designing
inventory systems. However, in the real world uncertainties almost always exist. Very few
manufacturers can claim that they know exactly what their demand will be. Also, very
seldom can they be certain that the supplier will deliver the ordered quantities exactly on
time. Thus, applying deterministic models may result in some undesirable consequences
that are discussed below.
Realistically, new orders do not necessarily arrive just when the last item in the inventory
is used up. Let us consider an example. Suppose an automobile service center stocks car
batteries. On an average, 10 cars that need new batteries are brought in every day. Let us
assume that the service shop has used a deterministic model of inventory control and orders
100 batteries every 10 days. Also, let us assume that the lead time is 3 days, which results
in a reorder point of 30 batteries. Suppose one day the shop operator notices that there
are only 30 batteries left and orders a new shipment. If the demand is deterministic and
is exactly 10 batteries a day, he would not have any problem while waiting 3 days for the
order to arrive. His 30 batteries would be sucient for these 3 days. However, the demand
is usually not deterministic. During these 3 days, the total number of batteries demanded
could be 40, 30, 20, or any other number. If the demand for these 3 days happens to be 20,
there is no problem, but if it happens to be 40 or anything more than 30, the service shop
will not have sucient batteries to supply the demand. In this case, the service center is
going to be out of stock for some period of time. In other words, an inventory system is out
of stock when there is no unit available to meet all or part of the demand.
As another example, consider the electric motor case. The lead time in this situation was
3 days, and the reorder point was calculated to be 3000 motors. Now, if an order is placed
at a point where there are 3000 units in stock and if a xed consumption rate of 1000 units
a day is assumed, the motors will be sucient for the coming 3 days. However, if for some
reason the supplier delivers the order on the fourth day instead of the third, the inventory
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-21
Inventory Control 10-21
will be zero for 1 day, and the demand for 1000 motors will be left unsatised. Again this
inventory system will be out of stock but in this case for a dierent reason.
The undesirable consequences of being out of stock vary, depending on the nature of the
operation. For example, in the case of the auto service center the customers may be willing
to wait for one more day to get replacement batteries. In this case, being out of stock does
not result in any problem. On the other hand, they may not be willing to wait and force
the service center to do something about the situation, like buying the needed batteries
from a neighboring supplier at a higher cost. It is also possible that the customers may take
their business elsewhere. This would result in a loss of prot. Furthermore, those rejected
customers may never come back to this shop for future repairs, which again causes the loss of
goodwill and future revenue. In the case of the electric motors being used in manufacturing
home appliances, being out of stock for 1 day may halt the whole manufacturing process,
thus resulting in an appreciable loss.
The cost of being out of stock is called the shortage cost. The magnitude of this cost
depends on the nature of the operation. Shortage costs can somewhat be avoided by main-
taining some reserve stock called safety stock.
10.4.1 Safety Stock
In the auto service shop example, suppose the shop had ordered a new shipment at the time
when there were 40 units in stock instead of 30. It would then have been prepared to meet
a demand of up to 40 units during the lead time. On the other hand, if the demand had
followed the usual pattern of 10 a day, at the end of the lead time when the new shipment
was to arrive, 10 batteries would have still been left in stock. There also exists the possibility
of the demand being less than the expected demand. This may result in say 20 units left in
the inventory when the new shipment arrives.
To handle the uncertainties we will assume that the demand is a random variable with an
average of 30 units for the lead time period. If we decide on the reorder point of 40 units, the
units left in the inventory when the new shipment arrives would also be a random variable
with an average of 10. This quantity of 10 units is called the safety stock for this inventory
situation. The signicance of safety stock is that it shows how many more units we should
keep in addition to the expected demand to cope with uncertainties. The safety stock of
10 units for the above example may not solve all of the problems the auto service shop
faces. For example, what happens if the demand during the lead time becomes 50? Again
the shop will be 10 units short. One may suggest that the safety stock of 20 batteries might
be better as it could respond to even greater uncertainties. In the extreme, to eliminate any
chance of being out of stock, it may seem that a large safety stock would be necessary.
Although a large safety stock may eliminate the risk of being out of stock, it raises another
problem. A large safety stock adds to the inventory holding costs. The capital spent on the
items in inventory is tied up and the insurance and tax costs on holdings increase. This
suggests that one should not increase the size of safety stock indenitely to eliminate the
risk of being out of stock. Rather, one has to establish a balance between the losses due to
being out of stock and the cost of holding the additional units in stock.
The optimum value of the safety stock is the value for which the sum of the cost of
being out of stock and the cost of holding the safety stock is a minimum. In stochastic
inventory systems the demand or lead time or both are random. Thus, the shortage would
be a random variable too. Then to evaluate shortage costs, some information about the
probability distribution of the demand, especially demand during the lead time, must be
given. In the derivations that follow these probability distributions will be assumed as given.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-22
10-22 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
Before starting to study the stochastic inventory models, two points regarding safety
stock must be made. First, when safety stock is considered, the procedure for calculating
the reorder point changes. Without safety stock the reorder point was simply the product
of lead time and the demand. With safety stock present, its value must be added to the
previous reorder point to satisfy the variations in the demand. Thus,
ROP = LD +SS (10.26)
where ROP, L, and D are as previously dened and SS is the safety stock.
It is very important at this point to examine this relationship carefully. As the factor
directly aecting our decision is the reorder point rather than the safety stock, we usually
determine the best reorder point before nding the best safety stock. Safety stock can be
found from the reorder point by
SS = ROP LD (10.27)
Also, as safety stock is used when dealing with stochastic systems, the above relationship
could be better dened by SS =ROP Expected value of the demand during the lead time.
The second point to keep in mind is that since the basis for ordering is the reorder point,
the variation of the demand before reaching the reorder point does not create any problem.
For example, in the auto service example suppose that a new order of 100 units arrives
today. For the rst 2 days assume that the demand has been 10 batteries a day. On the
third day, when there are 80 batteries left, a demand of 20 batteries arrives and the stock is
reduced to 60. As the reorder point of 30 has not yet been reached, the shop does not have
to do anything. Suppose the next day the demand is 30 batteries, which will deplete the
inventory to 30 units. Again, the shop has nothing to worry about because no customer has
been turned away; the new reorder point has been reached, the new order is placed, and
everything is in order. Now, if during the next 3 days the demands are 15, 15, and 10,
respectively, the shop will be out of stock after 2 days, and even if it orders immediately,
the order will not arrive on time. As a result, the shop will be 10 units short.
The above example shows that having two drastic demands of 20 and 30 units before
reaching the reorder point did not create any problem, while two demands of 15 units each
after the reorder point caused shortages. Thus we could conclude that the only time we
have to worry about being out of stock is during the lead time, and the period of study for
shortages should be restricted to this period.
To deal with uncertainties, like any other stochastic system, we would need some knowl-
edge about the stochastic behavior of the system. In this case, the stochastic characteristics
of interest would be the probability distribution of the demand during the lead time. The
problem arises from the fact that given the probability distribution function of the demand
per day or any other period, it is not always easy to determine the probability distribution
of demand during the lead time, which consists of several periods. In other words, if the
probability density function of demand per day is denoted by f(x), the density function for
demand during the lead time of n days is not always a simple function of f(x). As a result of
the above discussion, the rst attempt in evaluating the safety stock must be to determine
the distribution of the demand during the lead time. In the discussion and examples of this
chapter only those cases will be presented for which this function can be easily evaluated.
10.4.2 A MaximumMinimum System with Safety Stock
Here, a safety stock is added to the simple maximumminimum inventory system. The
general form of this model is shown in Figure 10.8. In this gure, when the ordered units
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-23
Inventory Control 10-23
Time
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
l
e
v
e
l
ROP
L
E
O
Q
=
Q
*
S
a
f
e
t
y
s
t
o
c
k
=
S
S
A
B
C
FIGURE 10.8 Inventory system with safety stock.
arrive, there are still a number of units equal to the safety stock SS left in the inventory. Of
course, as was pointed out earlier, because of the random demand the number of units left
when the new order arrives is a random variable. Three of the possible amounts left in the
inventory when the new order arrives are shown in Figure 10.8 by points A, B, and C. SS is
the expected value of these and all other possible values of this quantity. When new units
are received, they are added to this safety stock. As a result the inventory level is built up
to the maximum of
I
max
= SS +Q
For simplicity, it is assumed that the decline in the inventory level follows a linear path until
it reaches its minimum level of I
min
=SS where another order is received. Although it may
seem unreasonable to assume a linear decline pattern when the demand is random, in the
long run this assumption does not greatly aect the accuracy of the holding cost estimates.
The major eect of the random demand on the cost occurs during the lead time where the
possibility of shortage exists.
Now, having identied the maximum and the minimum levels of the inventory we can
determine the total cost function as
Total Inventory Cost/Period = Inventory holding cost/period + Ordering cost/period
+ Shortage cost/period
From previous discussions we know that
Inventory holding cost/period = E (average inventory)
= E
_
Q+SS +SS
2
_
= E
_
Q
2
+SS
_
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-24
10-24 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
Ordering cost/period =
BD
Q
TC = E
_
Q
2
+SS
_
+
BD
Q
+SC (10.28)
where SC is the shortage cost per period. Equation 10.28 could be used to minimize the cost
by nding the optimum values for the decision variables, Q and SS, provided that we could
state the shortage cost as a function of these two variables. This is possible if we know the
probability distribution of the random demand during the lead time. The demand during
the lead time is considered because that is the only time during which the possibility of
shortage exists. The calculation of shortage cost using that distribution is as follows.
Let the demand during the lead time be given by the random variable X with the density
function of f(x). Also let D and D
L
be the expected values of the demand per period and
the demand during the lead time, respectively. The shortages occur if the demand during
the lead time is more than the reorder point (denoted ROP). The reorder point in this
case is:
ROP = Expected value of the demand during the lead time + Safety stock
Expected value of the demand during lead time can be found as
D
L
=
_
xf(x)dx
ROP = D
L
+SS (10.29)
Now the only time we may have shortage is when the demand during lead time exceeds the
reorder point. That is,
Shortage cost/Lead time =
_
0 if X ROP
S E[No. of units short] if X > ROP
(10.30)
where S is the shortage cost per unit and E[] denotes the expected value. Notice that
this assumption implies that the shortage cost per item is independent of the duration of
shortage. In other words, if an item is short during the lead time, the cost of its shortage
will be S whether this shortage happened 1 day before the new shipment arrived or 5 days.
However, the demand in excess of reorder point includes all values of demand greater
than ROP. Now if the demand is x and reorder point R, the shortage would be a random
variable that could be shown by (xR). The expected value of this random variable is
E[No. of units short] =
_
R
(x R)f(x)dx
and, Shortage cost/Lead time = S
_
R
(x R)f(x)dx
As we have seen there are D/Q lead times per period
Shortage cost/Period = SC =
DS
Q
_
R
(x R)f(x)dx (10.31)
Although it is not explicitly stated, this cost is a function of Q and SS only. S is known
and the term under the integral after integration will be stated in terms of the limits of
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-25
Inventory Control 10-25
the integral that are between and R=D
L
+SS. Then the overall inventory cost (from
Equations 10.28 and 10.31) will be
TC = E
_
Q
2
+SS
_
+
BD
Q
+
DS
Q
_
D
L
+SS
(x D
L
SS)f(x)dx (10.32)
Now, if the density function can be integrated, the total cost will be in terms of Q and SS
only. When the demand is discrete, the total cost function changes to
TC = E
_
Q
2
+SS
_
+
BD
Q
+
DS
Q
x
i
>R
(x
i
R)p(x
i
) (10.33)
where the summation is for all demands that are greater than ROP and p(x
i
) denotes
the probability mass function of the (discrete) demand distribution during the lead time.
Interestingly, Lau et al. [29] suggest that under certain conditions, order-quantity, reorder-
point models may yield impractical solutions or may be unsolvable. They suggest that cost
parameters and service-level targets be chosen carefully to yield good solutions.
10.4.3 A Simplied Solution Method for Stochastic Systems
When the demand is discrete, Equation 10.33 does not produce a continuous function for
dierentiation. Also, sometimes even with continuous functions the resulting total cost
function is complicated and cannot be optimized easily. In such situations, the following
simplied method may result in a somewhat less accurate result, but the computations will
be easier. Consider Equation 10.32 or 10.33. The terms of these relations can be divided into
two categories. First, there are the terms associated with ordering and inventory holding
costs. These terms, which are similar to those in the deterministic model, are
TC
1
=
BD
Q
+
EQ
2
(10.34)
Second, there are the terms associated with holding the safety stock and shortage costs.
These terms are
TC
2
=E SS +
DS
Q
_
D
L
+SS
(x D
L
SS)f(x)dx
or TC
2
=E SS +
DS
Q
x
i
>R
(x
i
R)P(x
i
)
(10.35)
In the simplied model it is assumed that these two cost gures can be minimized separately
and independently from each other. This assumption is, of course, not correct because opti-
mizing a function term by term does not necessarily optimize the entire function. However,
the ease of evaluation obtained from this assumption sometimes compensates for the slight
loss of accuracy of the results.
Thus, the order quantity is found based on the rst two terms. Then this order quantity
is used in the second group of the costs to determine the optimum value of the safety stock.
The optimum order quantity from Equation 10.34 can be obtained as follows:
dTC
1
dQ
=
E
2
BD
Q
3
= 0
Q
=
_
2BD
E
=
_
2B E[D]
E
(10.36)
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-26
10-26 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
Note that this is the relationship for the economic order quantity for the simple maximum
minimum inventory model (i.e., the EOQ model). The only dierence here is that demand is
represented by the expected value of the demand (as denoted explicitly in Equation 10.36).
When demand is a continuous random variable, we need to evaluate the integral in Equa-
tion 10.35. Once this is done, the resulting function becomes a single variable function in
terms of SS. Again, one has to be careful in minimizing such a function to make sure SS
falls within the acceptable range. For discrete demands the cost could be evaluated using
ROP =DL S for the range of acceptable values of SS, and the optimum value could be
estimated as the one corresponding to the minimum cost.
10.4.4 Stochastic Inventory Model for One-Period Systems
This model applies to systems that operate for only one period and where items cannot be
carried from one period to the next. Examples of this type are perishable products, fashion
goods, or products that become obsolete or outdated after one period or selling season.
Consider keeping an inventory of fruits and vegetables to supply a stochastic demand for a
certain period. Obviously, at the end of the period, items left over are considered expired and
must be thrown away or sold at a considerable discount. Another example is the procurement
of newspapers and magazines. After a day or a week they become worthless. This model
is commonly referred to as the newsvendor model. To design an inventory system for these
situations one has to nd the amount to procure such that the expected value of the prot
is maximized as given below.
The newsvendor sells a single product over a single selling season with one procurement
opportunity before the start of the season. Demand is stochastic with known distribution
function F() and probability density function f(). The product is procured at a cost of
$c/unit and sold at a price of $p/unit. Any unsold inventory at the end of the selling period is
salvaged (i.e., the rm receives this amount per unsold unit) at a value of $s/unit (p >c >s).
Back orders are not permitted and supply is assumed to be instantaneous with no set-up
costs. The newsvendor is faced with the decision of how much to order at the start of the
period so as to maximize expected profit (denoted by ). As before, the order quantity is
given by Q and demand by D. To develop the prot maximization model, note that
E[] = E[prot when D [0, Q]] +E[prot when D [Q, )] (10.37)
When demand is less than or equal to Q, then all demand is met and a loss (=(c s)/unit)
is incurred for any excess inventory (rst term on the right). When demand exceeds the
available inventory, then all Q units are sold (indicated by the second term on the right in
Equation 10.37). Let the random demand be given by X with known distribution. Then,
we may write Equation 10.37 as
E[] =
Q
_
0
[(p c)x (c s)(Qx)]dF(x) +
_
Q
[(p c)Q dF(x)] (10.38)
Using Leibnizs rule to dierentiate Equation 10.38 and setting the derivative to zero, we
can show that the optimal order quantity, Q
, is given by
Q
= F
1
_
p c
p s
_
= F
1
(c
f
) (10.39)
where c
f
=(p c)/(p s) is known as the critical fractile. Now, note the following.
c
f
=
p c
p s
=
p c
(p c) + (c s)
=
c
u
c
u
+c
o
(10.40)
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-27
Inventory Control 10-27
where c
u
, the underage cost, represents the prot/additional unit that is lost by being short
of demand and c
o
, the overage cost, represents the loss incurred/additional unit that is in
excess of demand. See also Chapter 22 of this book for additional discussion and derivation
of the newsvendor model result using marginal analysis.
Example 10.2
Let demand be random and uniformly distributed between 100 and 400 over the selling sea-
son. Further, let p =12$/unit, c =9$/unit, and s =0$/unit. From Equation 10.40 we have
c
f
=(12 9)/(12 0) =0.25. The optimal order quantity, Q
=c
f
(b a) +a =
175 units.
Comments: (i) The case when demand follows a discrete distribution is analogous to the one
above. (ii) Q
is often called the base stock level. If the starting inventory is less than Q
,
then the optimal action is to bring the inventory level up to Q
I
0
)
units, where I
0
is the inventory at the start before ordering). Such a policy is called a base
stock policy in the literature and has wide applicability. Evidently, the maximum inventory
level will equal the base stock level in this model. (iii) Several modications of this model
are possible [see 1,15,30]. The newsvendor model also forms the basis of many models
addressing decisions in pricing [3134], supply chain inventory models [35,36], production
capacity investments [37,38], and so on.
10.4.5 Stochastic, Multi-Period Inventory Models: The (s, S) Policy
Given the simple solution to the single period problem above, it is obvious to ask if the
analysis can be extended to a multi-period setting. Multiperiod inventory models are usually
addressed using techniques from dynamic programming; see Chapter 7 of this book for
an overview. Essentially, we are interested in nding the minimum expected cost over N
periods. As such, two important cases are possible: the finite horizon case, where decisions
are to be made over a nite number of periods (N <) or the infinite horizon case (N =).
While the derivation of such models is beyond the scope of this chapter, it has been shown
that in both cases [39,40] the optimal inventory control policy is of the form of (s, S) with
s <S. The policy essentially implies the following ordering rule: if inventory falls below the
reorder level (=s), then place an order to bring the inventory level up to S. To state this
mathematically, let inventory at the start of a period be I and the decision variable be Q,
the order quantity for that period. Then, (s, S) implies the following optimal ordering rule
Q =
_
(S I) if I < s [i.e., raise inventory to S]
0 if I s [i.e., do nothing]
(10.41)
Evidently, the (s, S) policy is fairly simple in form and easy to implement. However, it
must be noted that computation of the two parameters (s and S) is not always easy though
several ecient heuristics are available. The (s, S) policy has also been shown to be opti-
mal under fairly generic assumptions. For detailed development of the model, assumptions,
extensions, and solution procedures, see Lee and Nahmias [25], Porteus [8], and Zipkin [3].
10.5 Inventory Control at Multiple Locations
In the models discussed thus far, we have looked exclusively at managing inventories at a
single facility. In doing so, we have assumed that orders placed with an external supplier
are assured to arrive after a suitable lead time (when L>0). The astute reader may have
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-28
10-28 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
Material flow
FIGURE 10.9 A general multi-echelon supply chain network.
reason to pause and ask: What if the supplier is out of stock? Furthermore, virtually
all facilities holding inventories are part of a SC in reality. One therefore begins to see the
need for looking at inventory management at multiple locations. Such models are referred
to as SC inventory management models or as multi-echelon inventory theory in the research
literature.
Multi-echelon inventory theory emerged from the need to control inventories at multiple production
stages in a facility and early literature reects this production heritage. Clark [41] and Scarf [42], pioneers
in the eld, give some perspective on the early developments and their work. In this chapter, we focus more
on SC inventory management that considers these locations to be distinct, reecting contemporary practice.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-29
Inventory Control 10-29
(a) Serial system
(b) Lateral supply
(c) Assembly network
(d) Distribution system
FIGURE 10.10 Common supply chain structures.
retailerwarehouse example, the retailer represents one stage or echelon of the SC and the
warehouse is another stage of the SC. In general, an SC may have multiple stages and
multiple facilities at each stage (as shown in Figure 10.9). In all cases, clear relationships
exist between these stages; namely, material ows (or moves) from one stage to the next.
As we move from the raw material suppliers toward the nal stages that see end customer
demand, we are said to be moving downstream in the SC and upstream when in the reverse
direction. So, material ows from upstream suppliers to downstream retailers.
We can now look at the common SC structures used in many multi-echelon inventory
models. These are represented graphically in Figure 10.10ad.
1. Serial system, shown in Figure 10.10a, is an SC wherein every facility has at most
one upstream supplier and one downstream customer and only one facility exists
at each stage. This often represents the simplest structure.
2. Assembly network is one in which there is one downstream facility that is sup-
plied by multiple upstream suppliers, who may in turn be supplied by multiple
suppliers themselves. It is commonly assumed that each upstream stage has only
one customer at the next downstream stage. Figure 10.10c gives an example of
such a system.
3. Distribution systems are networks where upstream facilities supply multiple down-
stream stages. A special case of particular importance is when each facility has
at most one supplier but may itself supply multiple downstream customers. Such
a network is called an arborescent distribution network (Figure 10.10d).
4. Lateral supplyAs mentioned in Section 10.2.3, in some cases, a facility may
receive supplies from another facility at the same stage. For example, consider
two Wal-Mart stores in a city. If one ships inventory to the other to make up for
shortages at the latter facility, this is known as a lateral shipment. This is usually
done as an emergency measure, though. Figure 10.10b represents this graphically.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-30
10-30 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
Note that the serial system is a special case of both the assembly and distribution network
types. In our discussions here, we will look at serial systems. See Graves et al. [2], Song and
Yao [45], and Song and Zipkin [46] for details on SC structure and assembly systems.
Inventory Coordination Policies
The eect of dependencies between inventories in the SC has the potential to complicate
operations. In the single warehouse, single retailer (serial) SC example, assume that the
retailer orders every week and the warehouse every 5 days. Ideally, we would like these
two reorder intervals to be such that the overall SC inventory costs are minimized; in
other words, we would like the SC members to be coordinated. Inventory coordination
schemes help smoothen operations. Coordination takes on special signicance in a decen-
tralized control setting where members in the SC operate independently, often leading
to ineciencies. Coordination is usually achieved in two ways: quantity coordination or
time coordination. In quantity coordination, SC members change their order quantities
so as to reduce system-wide costs. This is done using SC contracts that help induce this
change and redistributes some of the savings between the SC members. In time coordina-
tion schemes, the reorder intervals of the members are changed to bring some regularity
to operations (e.g., ordering weekly). Evidently, under deterministic settings, the two are
equivalent in terms of the changes in the order quantities and reorder intervals (though
contracts also look at the issue of sharing of cost savings). We discuss time coordination
policies here for two reasons: (a) they are operational in nature, fairly simple, and do
not involve issues like transfer pricing and compensation issues; and (b) optimal or near
optimal policies are available even without the use of more complex contracts and this suf-
ces for the discussion at hand. Cachon [47] and Tsay et al. [48] review the contracting
literature.
The following notation is used in the discussions below. The term facility is used to denote
an inventory stocking location. In general, we denote the rst upstream facility as node 0
and the last down stream facility as node N in the serial system. The distribution system
in Figure 10.10d is commonly referred to as the single warehouse, multiple retailer system,
and we denote the warehouse as facility 0 and the retailers as facilities 1 through N. Let the
review period length at each location be T
i
, i =0, 1, . . ., N. The following are some common
coordination policies [12,49].
Stationary Policy: If each facility orders at equally spaced points in time and in
equal quantities each time, then the policy is called a stationary policy.
Nested Policy: If each facility orders every time any of its immediate suppliers
does (and perhaps at other times as well), then it is known as a nested policy.
Stationary Nested: A policy is stationary and nested if T
i
T
0
for all i =1, 2, . . ., N.
Such a policy ensures that the order quantities at upstream stages are stationary.
Zero Inventory Ordering Property
Schwarz [50] considered a single warehouse, multi-retailer system and showed that an opti-
mal policy may be fairly complex. He then dened a basic policy that has the following
properties: (a) deliveries are made to the warehouse only when the warehouse and at least
one retailer have zero inventory; (b) deliveries are made to a retailer only when the retailer
has zero inventory; and (c) all deliveries made to any given retailer between successive
deliveries to the warehouse are of equal size. This result is known as the zero-inventory
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-31
Inventory Control 10-31
ordering property. In fact, the result holds for many other systems also when demand is
deterministic.
With this background, we now proceed to consider some basic multi-echelon inventory
models facing deterministic end demand.
10.5.2 Serial Supply Chain Inventory Models
Consider a serial, two-stage SC consisting of a warehouse supplying a downstream retailer
who faces demand of D units/time period. The warehouse and retailer have order costs of
a
0
, a
1
, inventory holding costs of h
0
, h
1
, and the inventory at each facility is denoted by
I
0
, I
1
(in appropriate units), respectively. Further, it is assumed that h
0
<h
1
as unit costs
and holding costs usually increase as we move downstream in the SC. We also assume that
the SC follows a nested coordination policy wherein the warehouse reorder interval (T
0
) is
a positive integer multiple (m) of the retailers reorder interval (T
1
); that is,
T
0
= mT
1
; m = 1, 2, . . . (10.42)
Assumptions of the EOQ model are assumed to hold unless otherwise stated. Two control
policies are possible (see Section 10.2.3), namely centralized and decentralized SC control
and both are discussed below.
Decentralized Control of the Serial System
In this case, the warehouse and retailer make inventory decisions independent of the other
subject to the nested policy constraint. So the retailer solves his/her inventory problem
(using the EOQ model; Section 10.3.1) rst and communicates the optimal reorder interval
(T
1
) to the warehouse. Thus, from Equation 10.9, we have
T
1
=
_
2a
1
Dh
1
; Q
1
= DT
1
(10.43)
The corresponding optimal cost is given by Z
1
=
2a
1
Dh
1
. The inventory plot for the
retailer is shown in the top panel of Figure 10.11. This is known as the retailers installation
stock and it follows the familiar saw-tooth pattern of the EOQ model.
Now, the warehouse sees a bulk demand of Q
1
units every T
1
time units. Thus, the
warehouse inventory pattern is not a saw-tooth pattern and is represented by the step
function in the middle panel of Figure 10.11. It is fairly easy to show that in this case, the
average inventory at the warehouse (denoted
I
0
) is given by
I
0
=
Q
1
(m1)
2
(10.44)
Then, the total variable costs at the warehouse is given by
Z
0
(m) =
a
0
T
0
+
h
0
Q
1
(m1)
2
=
a
0
mT
1
+
h
0
DT
1
(m1)
2
(10.45)
It is easy to show that Equation 10.45 is pointwise convex in the integer variable m and
so the minimum value is attained when the rst dierence (Equation 10.46) equals zero or
changes from negative to positive.
Z
0
(m) = Z
0
(m+ 1) Z
0
(m) (10.46)
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-32
10-32 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
Q
r
Time
Retailer installation stock
Supplier installation stock
3Q
r
2Q
r
Q
r
Supplier echelon stock
3Q
r
2Q
r
Q
r
Echelon Stock
Time
Time
FIGURE 10.11 The concepts of installation and echelon inventories.
Substituting Equation 10.45 in 10.46 and simplifying, we can show that the optimal solution
is given by identifying the smallest positive integer, m
1
)
2
m
(m
+ 1) (10.47)
Note that the left hand side of Equation 10.47 is a constant. The problem is a single variable
problem and ecient optimization techniques may be employed to nd the optimal m
to
get Q
0
and T
0
. This completes the analysis of the decentralized SC.
Centralized Control of the Serial System
In this setting, we are looking to optimize the reorder intervals at both facilities simultane-
ously. It is common practice to assume that all information like costs, inventory levels, and
the like at all facilities in the centralized network are known globally. We should note that
this places greater control in the hands of the manager(s), though obtaining such detailed
information in a timely manner may not be easy in practice. The optimization problem to
minimize the system-wide total variable costs (i.e., the sum of the ordering and holding
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-33
Inventory Control 10-33
costs at both facilities) is given by
Problem C: min Z
c
=
_
a
1
T
1
+
a
0
T
0
_
+
_
h
1
Q
1
2
+
h
0
Q
1
(m1)
2
_
=
1
T
1
_
a
1
+
a
0
m
_
+T
1
_
h
1
D
2
+
h
0
D(m1)
2
_
(10.48)
subject to
T
0
= mT
1
; m = 1, 2, . . .
T
1
0
Problem C is a nonlinear, integer programming problem in two variables, m and T
1
. Before
proceeding, though, let us pause to consider the average inventory expression at the ware-
house. Under more general SC structures, we may not get a nice expression for I
0
. Clark and
Scarf [51] introduced the concept of echelon inventories, which is dened as the total inven-
tory of a product at any particular stage in the SC and all subsequent downstream stages
linked to it. From this denition, the echelon inventory at the retailer (stage N) is identical
to its installation inventory. The echelon inventory helps us simplify the computation of
I
0
in many systems.
Consider Figure 10.11, where we assume that T
0
=3T
1
Q
0
=3Q
1
. Now, every T
1
time
units, Q
1
is released from warehouse inventory to the retailer resulting in the step function
shape of warehouse inventory level over time. However, note that this inventory merely
moves down the SC to the retailer. In a centralized SC, information on this inventory is
assumed to be known. So, by superimposing the two stages inventory curves, we get the
warehouses echelon levels (bottom panel of Figure 10.11) which has the familiar saw-tooth
pattern. Thus, the mean echelon inventory at the warehouse may be approximated in a
fashion similar to that of the retailer.
To complete the analysis, we are given h
0
<h
1
. Dene h
0
=h
0
and h
1
=h
1
h
0
as the
echelon inventory holding rates at the warehouse and retailer, respectively. Further, let
g
i
=
h
i
D
2
; i =0, 1. Substituting these in Equation 10.48 and simplifying gives us
Z
c
=
1
T
1
_
a
1
+
a
0
m
_
+T
1
(g
1
+mg
0
) (10.49)
Now, note that the form of Equation 10.49 is similar to the EOQ model objective function,
but with two variables. To solve this for optimal values, the following method may be used:
x m to some value and compute the corresponding best value for the reorder interval
given by
T
(m) =
(a
1
+
a
0
m
)
(g
1
+mg
0
)
(10.50)
Again using the rst dierence argument, we can show that the optimal integer multiple,
m
(m
+ 1)
a
0
/g
0
a
1
/g
1
(10.51)
Equations 10.50 and 10.51 may be used to get the optimal reorder interval for the retailer
(T
1
) and this gives us the corresponding warehouse reorder interval (T
0
=m
1
). The
optimal variable costs for the serial SC is given below, completing the analysis.
Z
c
=
_
_
a
1
+
a
0
m
_
(g
1
+mg
0
)
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-34
10-34 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
Comments: (i) The above procedure may be generalized to a serial SC with N stages.
(ii) Schwarz [50] proved that the nested policy is indeed optimal for a serial SC. See Muck-
stadt and Roundy [52] for further details.
The models above represent the simplest multi-echelon inventory models. Several exten-
sions are possible and the reader is referred to [5,6,12,14,49,51,52] for more extensive dis-
cussions on multi-echelon inventory theory.
10.6 Inventory Management in Practice
One may wonder, given the many simplications made in developing inventory management
models, if the models are of value in practice. The short answer is a resounding Yes! We
readily acknowledge that all the models are not applicable in all situations; real-world appli-
cations often use heuristics, simulations, and the like to manage inventories (in single and
multi-echelon settings). However, most of these are based on theoretical models like the ones
discussed in this chapter. Also, the focus in practice is often on getting good solutions rapidly
(and often optimal solutions are not achievable due to complex constraints, etc.). In many
situations, the models discussed previously can and have been applied in practice. A sample
of applications are listed in Table 10.2. All these cases are taken from the Interfaces journal.
Recent issues of many of the journals mentioned in the bibliography are excellent sources to identify
current advances in inventory management.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-37
Inventory Control 10-37
We also have assumed that the inventories are placed at existing facilities whose
locations are given. Facility locations, transportation modes, and the like can have
a signicant impact on inventory levels and ideally should be jointly optimized.
Sarmiento and Nagi [66] give a review of integrated SC models. For an overview
of the issues in transportation and inventory management, see Natarajan [67]
and Chapter 22 of this book. The placement of safety stocks in the SC is also
of strategic importance. However, the problem has been shown to be N P-hard
[68] and represents signicant challenges; see Graves and Willems [69]. Billington
et al. [70] present an application of some of this research to the HP SC. Finally, the
advent of global SCs has seen inventories and facilities being spread worldwide.
This has increased the vulnerability of the SC to disruptions and has begun
to receive considerable interest, though only a limited number of models exist
currently. Rangarajan and Guide [71] discuss the unique challenges presented by
disruptions and review the relevant literature.
Reverse Logistics and Closed-Loop SCs: We consider material ow to be from
upstream stages to downstream stages in the SC. However, material may also
ow in the reverse direction in the form of returns, defective parts, and the like.
This reverse ow must be managed, sometimes due to laws to this eect. They
can also represent a valuable income stream for a rm. The processes involved
in harvesting value from these products can be very dierent from the manu-
facturing processes involved in forward ow of material. Research into managing
inventories in the closed-loop SC is still in its infancy. The reader is referred to
Fleischmann et al. [72], Guide and Van Wassenhove [73], and Guide et al. [74].
10.8.1 Final Remarks
In conclusion, mathematical models for inventory management are abstractions of real sys-
tems. Nevertheless, they are often sucient to optimally control an inventory system or,
at the very least, provide valuable insight into the behavior of the system and salient fac-
tors inuencing it. As demonstrated by the examples presented earlier, these models, when
suitably applied, can lead to signicant improvements and increased protability. Despite
the long history and the many successes of inventory management methods, signicant
challenges (of both practical and theoretical interest) remain.
References
1. E.A. Silver, D.F. Pyke, and R. Peterson. Inventory Management and Production Planning
and Scheduling. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 3rd edition, 1998.
2. S.C. Graves, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, and P.H. Zipkin, editors. Logistics of Production and
Inventory, volume 4 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
3. P.H. Zipkin. Foundations of Inventory Management. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000.
4. G. Cachon and M. Olivares. Drivers of nished goods inventory performance in the U.S.
automobile industry. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
October 2006.
5. S. Axsater. Inventory Control. Springer, 2nd edition, 2006.
6. J. Bramel and D. Simchi-Levi. The Logic of Logistics: Theory, Algorithms and Applications
for Logistics Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-38
10-38 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
7. G. Hadley and T. Whitin. Analysis of Inventory Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis,
NJ, 1963.
8. E.L. Porteus. Foundations of Stochastic Inventory Theory. Stanford University Press, Palo
Alto, CA, 2002.
9. C. Munson and M. Rosenblatt. Theories and realities of quantity discounts: An exploratory
study. Production and Operations Management, 7:352359, 1998.
10. A. Federgruen. Centralized planning models for multi-echelon inventory systems under
uncertainty. In volume 4 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science,
chapter 3. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
11. H.L. Lee and C. Billington. Material management in decentralized supply chains. Opera-
tions Research, 41(5):835847, 1993.
12. A. Rangarajan. Inventory Models for Decentralized Supply Chains. Masters thesis, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, December 2004.
13. C.C. Sherbrooke. METRIC: A multi-echelon technique for recoverable item control. Oper-
ations Research, 16:122141, 1968.
14. C.C. Sherbrooke. Optimal Inventory Modeling of Systems: Multi-Echelon Techniques.
Wiley, New York, 1992.
15. J.M. Swaminathan and S.R. Tayur. Tactical planning models for supply chain management.
In A.G. de Kok and S.C. Graves, editors, Supply Chain Management: Design, Coordination
and Operation, volume 11 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science,
chapter 8, pages 423456. Elsevier, 2003.
16. G. Gallego, J.K. Ryan, and D. Simchi-Levi. Minimax analysis for nite-horizon inventory
models. IIE Transactions, 33(10):861874, 2001.
17. G.A. Godfrey and W.B. Powell. An adaptive, distribution-free algorithm for the newsven-
dor problem with censored demands, with applications to inventory and distribution. Man-
agement Science, 47(8):11011112, 2001.
18. I. Moon and G. Gallego. Distribution free procedures for some inventory models. The
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(6):651658, 1994.
19. U.S. Karmarkar. Manufacturing lead times, order release and capacity loading. In
S.C. Graves, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, and P.H. Zipkin, editors, Logistics of Production and
Inventory, volume 4 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, chap-
ter 6. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
20. S. Minner. Multiple-supplier inventory models in supply chain management: A review.
International Journal of Production Economics, 8182:265279, 2003.
21. F.W. Harris. How many parts to make at once. Factory, The Magazine of Management,
10(2):135136, 1913.
22. H.M. Wagner and T.M. Whitin. Dynamic version of the economic lot size model. Manage-
ment Science, 5:8996, 1958.
23. E.W. Dijkstra. A note on two problems in connection with graphs. Numerische Mathematik,
1:269271, 1959.
24. A. Wagelmans, S. Van Hoesel, and A. Kolen. Economic lot sizing: An O(nlogn) algorithm
that runs in linear time in the Wagner-Whitin case. Operations Research, 40(S1):145156,
1992.
25. H.L. Lee and S. Nahmias. Single-product, single-location models. In S.C. Graves,
A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, and P.H. Zipkin, editors, Logistics of Production and Inventory,
volume 4 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, chapter 1, pages
355. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
26. W.I. Zangwill. A deterministic multi-period production scheduling model with backlogging.
Management Science, 13:105119, 1966.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-39
Inventory Control 10-39
27. S. Nahmias. Production and Operations Analysis. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 4th edition,
2001.
28. A. Rangarajan and A.R. Ravindran. A base period inventory policy for decentralized supply
chains. Working paper No. 0504, Center for Supply Chain Research, Pennsylvania State
University, 2005.
29. A. H-L. Lau, H-S. Lau, and D.F. Pyke. Degeneracy in inventory models. Naval Research
Logistics, 49(7):686705, 2002.
30. M. Khouja. The single-period (news-vendor) problem: Literature review and suggestions
for future research. Omega, 27:537553, 1999.
31. M.A. Lariviere and E.L. Porteus. Selling to the newsvendor: An analysis of price-only
contracts. Manufacturing & Services Operations Management, 3(4):293305, 2001.
32. G.E. Monahan, N.C. Petruzzi, and W. Zhao. The dynamic pricing problem from a newsven-
dors perspective. Manufacturing & Services Operations Management, 6(1): 7391, 2004.
33. N.C. Petruzzi and M. Dada. Pricing and the news vendor problem: A review with exten-
sions. Operations Research, 47(2):183194, 1999.
34. G. Raz and E.L. Porteus. A fractiles perspective to the joint price/quantity newsvendor
model. Management Science, 52(11):17641777, 2006.
35. K.H. Shang and J-S. Song. Newsvendor bounds and heuristic for optimal policies in serial
supply chains. Management Science, 49(5):618638, 2003.
36. J.A. Van Van Mieghem and N. Rudi. Newsvendor networks: Inventory management and
capacity investment with discretionary activities. Manufacturing & Services Operations
Management, 4(4):313335, 2002.
37. A. Burnetas and S. Gilbert. Future capacity procurements under unknown demand and
increasing costs. Management Science, 47(7):979992, 2001.
38. J.A. Van Mieghem. Capacity management, investment, and hedging: Review and
recent developments. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 5(4):269302,
2003.
39. D.L. Iglehart. Optimality of (s, S) policies in the innite horizon dynamic inventory prob-
lem. Management Science, 9:259267, 1963.
40. H.E. Scarf. The optimality of (s, S) policies in the dynamic inventory problem. In
J.A. Kenneth, K. Samuel, and S. Patrick, editors. Mathematical Methods in the Social
Sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1960.
41. A.J. Clark. Multi-echelon inventory theorya retrospective. International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics, 35:271275, 1994.
42. H.E. Scarf. Inventory theory. Operations Research, 50(1):186191, 2002.
43. S. Chopra and P. Meindl. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and Operation.
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.
44. S.R. Tayur, R. Ganeshan, and M.J. Magazine, editors. Quantitative Models for Supply
Chain Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1999.
45. J-S. Song and D.D. Yao, editors. Supply Chain Structures: Coordination, Information and
Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 2002.
46. J-S. Song and P. Zipkin. Supply chain operations: Assemble-to-order systems. In
A.G. de Kok and S.C. Graves, editors, Supply Chain Management: Design, Coordination
and Operation, volume 11 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science,
chapter 6, pages 561596. Elsevier, 2003.
47. G.P. Cachon. Supply chain coordination with contracts. In A. G. de Kok and S. C. Graves,
editors, Supply Chain Management: Design, Coordination and Operation, volume 11 of
Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, chapter 6, pages 229339.
Elsevier, Boston, 2003.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-40
10-40 Operations Research and Management Science Handbook
48. A. Tsay, S. Nahmias, and N. Agarwal. Modeling supply chain contracts: A review, chapter
10. In Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management, pages 299336. Kluwer Aca-
demic, Dordrecht, 1999.
49. R. Roundy. 98%-eective integer-ratio lot-sizing for one-warehouse multi-retailer systems.
Management Science, 31(11):14161430, 1985.
50. L.B. Schwarz. A simple continuous review deterministic one-warehouse n-retailer inventory
problem. Management Science, 19:555566, 1973.
51. A. Clark and H. Scarf. Optimal policies for a multi-echelon inventory problem. Management
Science, 6:475490, 1960.
52. J.A. Muckstadt and R.O. Roundy. Analysis of Multistage Production Systems, In S.C.
Graves, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, and P.H. Zipkin, editors. Logisties of Production and Inven-
tory, volume 4 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, chapter 2,
pages 59131. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
53. H.L. Lee and C. Billington. The evolution of supply-chain-management models and practice
at Hewlett-Packard. Interfaces, 25(5):4263, 1995.
54. G. Lin, M. Ettl, S. Buckley, S. Bagchi, D.D. Yao, B.L. Naccarato, R. Allan, K. Kim, and
L. Koenig. Extended-enterprise supply-chain management at IBM Personal Systems Group
and other divisions. Interfaces, 30(1):725, 2000.
55. M.A. Koschat, G.L. Berk, J.A. Blatt, N.M. Kunz, M.H. LePore, and S. Blyakher.
Newsvendors tackle the newsvendor problem. Interfaces, 33(3):7284, 2003.
56. R. Kapuscinski, R.Q. Zhang, P. Carbonneau, R. Moore, and B. Reeves. Inventory decisions
in Dells supply chain. Interfaces, 34(3):191205, 2004.
57. A. Bangash, R. Bollapragada, R. Klein, N. Raman, H.B. Shulman, and D.R. Smith. Inven-
tory requirements planning at Lucent Technologies. Interfaces, 34(5):342352, 2004.
58. A. Bixby, B. Downs, and M. Self. A scheduling and capable-to-promise application for
Swift & Company. Interfaces, 36(1):6986, 2006.
59. T.A. Foster. The supply chain top 100 software vendors. Supply Chain Management
Review, pages S2S12, September/October 2006. Available at: http://www.scmr.com/info/
59562.html.
60. B. McCrea. The state of the supply chain software industry. Supply Chain Management
Review, pages S1S4, October 2006. Available at: http://www.scmr.com/info/59562.html.
61. W. Elmaghraby and P. Keskinocak. Dynamic pricing in the presence of inventory consider-
ations: Research overview, current practices, and future directions. Management Science,
49(10):12871309, 2003.
62. S. Netessine. Dynamic pricing of inventory/capacity with infrequent price changes. Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, 174(1):553580, 2006.
63. G. Cachon. Competitive supply chain inventory management. In S. Tayur, R. Ganeshan,
and M. Magazine, editors, Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management. Kluwer,
Boston, 1998.
64. G. Cachon and S. Netessine. Game theory in supply chain analysis. In D. Simchi-Levi,
S.D. Wu, and Z-J. Shen, editors, Handbook of Quantitative Supply Chain Analysis: Modeling
in the eBusiness Era, chapter 2. Kluwer, Boston, 2004.
65. G.P. Cachon and S. Netessine. Game theory in supply chain analysis. In Paul Gray, editor.
INFORMS TutORials in Operations Research, pages 200233. INFORMS, 2006.
66. A.M. Sarmiento and R. Nagi. A review of integrated analysis of productiondistribution
systems. IIE Transactions, 31(11):10611074, 1999.
67. A. Natarajan. Multi-Criteria Supply Chain Inventory Models with Transportation Costs.
PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, May 2007.
68. E. Lesnaia. Optimizing Safety Stock Placement in General Network Supply Chains. Ph.D.
thesis, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, September 2004. URL http://web.mit.edu/sgraves/www/LesnaiaThesis.pdf.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CH010.tex 30/10/2007 11: 22 Page 10-41
Inventory Control 10-41
69. S.C. Graves and S.P. Willems. Supply chain design: Safety stock placement and supply
chain conguration. In A.G. de Kok and S.C. Graves, editors, Supply Chain Management:
Design, Coordination and Operation, volume 11 of Handbooks in Operations Research and
Management Science, chapter 6, pages 95132. Elsevier, Boston, 2003.
70. C. Billington, G. Callioni, B. Crane, J.D. Ruark, J.U. Rapp, T. White, and S.P. Willems.
Accelerating the protability of Hewlett-Packards supply chains. Interfaces, 34(1):5972,
2004.
71. A. Rangarajan and V.D.R. Guide, Jr. Supply chain risk management: An overview. Work-
ing paper, January 2006.
72. M. Fleischmann, J.M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, R. Dekker, E. van der Laan, J.A.E.E. van
Nunen, and L.N. Van Wassenhove. Quantitative models for reverse logistics: A review.
European Journal of Operational Research, 103:117, 1997.
73. V.D.R. Guide, Jr. and L.N. Van Wassenhove. Closed-loop supply chains: An introduction
to the feature issue. Production and Operations Management, 15(3 & 4), 2006.
74. V.D.R. Guide, Jr., T. Harrison, and L.N. Van Wassenhove. The challenge of closed-loop
supply chains. Interfaces, 33(6):36, 2003.
2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC