0 Votes +0 Votes -

0 vues15 pagesrevevetb

Apr 11, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

0 vues

- ABC & VED Analysis
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Homework 04 So Ls
- Testing Profileing
- New Software Needs Analysis
- Director Operations VP Sales in Chicago IL Resume Rand Gloger
- Inventory Anylist
- Org Structure Presentation Oct 8
- Control Your Product Mix
- Merchandising
- Candela in One and a Half Days 2014
- Britannia Industries Limited
- Ratio Anyali
- SENTHIL (ICFAI TIRCHY) Financial Management project
- Case-Study-1.pdf
- Retail Site
- BWP_MAP
- Jobswire.com Resume of eovbynnpounding
- 2017 Retail Industry Trends
- Chua

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

transshipments from a support warehouse

To cite this article: Sven Axsäter , Christian Howard & Johan Marklund (2013) A distribution

inventory model with transshipments from a support warehouse, IIE Transactions, 45:3, 309-322,

DOI: 10.1080/0740817X.2012.706375

Aug 2012.

Published online: 02 Aug 2012.

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uiie21

IIE Transactions (2013) 45, 309–322

Copyright

C “IIE”

DOI: 10.1080/0740817X.2012.706375

support warehouse

Department of Industrial Management and Logistics, Lund University, Lund 22100, Sweden

E-mail: sven.axsater@iml.lth.se, christian.howard@iml.lth.se, johan.marklund@iml.lth.se

This article considers a distribution inventory system consisting of N retailers and a regional support warehouse, all being replenished

from a central warehouse/outside supplier. For the case where stock-outs occur, the retailers receive transshipments from the support

warehouse at an extra cost. A model is presented for cost evaluation and optimization of the reorder points in the system under fill

rate constraints. The solution method is designed to handle large real-life systems and is fast enough to be directly implemented in

practice. A numerical study illustrates that (i) the model renders near-optimal solutions; (ii) the value of using a support warehouse

can be significant even for large transshipment costs; and (iii) significant cost savings can be obtained using the proposed model.

Using real data for a sample of 50 representative products, the proposed model reduces the expected holding and transshipment costs

by 29% while still meeting target fill rates.

[Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher’s online edition of IIE Transactions to view the supplemental

file.]

Keywords: Inventory, multi-echelon, stochastic demand, transshipments, spare parts

size.

Distribution and inventory control of spare parts are im- The motivation for analyzing this type of distribution

portant activities in managing after-sales service for many system stems from a research collaboration with Volvo

companies. In this article we consider one particular type of Parts Corporation, which is a global spare parts service

inventory system used in practice to deal with these issues. provider with its headquarters in Sweden. Volvo Parts is

The system consists of a central warehouse that serves sev- responsible for the worldwide distribution of spare parts

eral markets; one local warehouse on each market, referred for vehicles and engines made by the Volvo Group, in-

to as a support warehouse; and a large number of retailers cluding Volvo Trucks, Mack, Renault Trucks, Volvo Buses,

(or dealers) that serve the end customers. The different in- Volvo Construction Equipment, Volvo Penta, and Volvo

ventory locations are connected through the replenishment Aero. The research cooperation with Volvo Parts has pri-

structure. Focusing on a single market, customers demand marily focused on the distribution of spare parts for trucks

items from the retailers, who use reorder point policies with and buses, where the described support warehouse struc-

fixed batch quantities (so-called (R, Q) policies in which a ture is used in almost every market. However, the consid-

batch of size Q is ordered when the inventory position ered system structure is not unique to Volvo Parts; it is,

drops to or below R) to place (regular) orders with the for example, used by some of their competitors. It is also

central warehouse. In the case of shortages at a retailer, a common in other industries, as described in Rijk (2007).

quick response order (typically associated with some extra Hence, the considered model is quite general even though

transshipment costs) is placed with the support warehouse. it is grounded in the specific conditions at Volvo Parts. A

Provided that the item is in stock at the support warehouse, closer look at these conditions reveals that some of the re-

it can be delivered very quickly to the retailer in ques- tailers are owned and operated by Volvo, but many of them

tion. The support warehouse replenishes its stock from the are independent, privately owned companies that purchase

products from Volvo Parts. Thus, from an organizational

point of view, the distribution system can be seen as be-

ing decentralized. However, in terms of inventory control,

∗ Volvo Parts has successfully negotiated a vendor-managed

Corresponding author

0740-817X

C 2013 “IIE”

310 Axsäter et al.

inventory contract with their retailers, which gives Volvo method. These solutions are then compared with an alter-

the mandate to control the retailers’ inventories of Volvo native decentralized system in which the retailers can only

products. This means that reorder points and order quan- place regular orders with the central warehouse. The results

tities are determined by Volvo through a centralized IT show that the value of the support warehouse can be signifi-

system. Consequently, from an inventory control perspec- cant even if the per unit transshipment costs are fairly high,

tive, the system can be viewed as being highly centralized. especially when the lead times from the central warehouse

An important aspect is that the support warehouses (as are long and the target fill rates are high. Using simulation

well as the central warehouses) are owned and operated by we also compare the performance of the support warehouse

Volvo Parts. This means that Volvo in the current system system with that for an alternative structure with complete

has full control over all transshipment operations, and they pooling through lateral transshipments among all retail-

avoid complicated gaming and incentive issues, which typi- ers. As may be expected, this study illustrates that com-

cally arise if independent firms are to share inventories; for plete pooling is advantageous as long as the transshipment

example, through regular lateral transshipments. costs in both systems are the same. However, if transship-

The challenge we address in this article is how to ana- ments are more expensive in the complete pooling system,

lyze and control the considered multi-echelon system. More the support warehouse structure can be preferable. Lower

precisely, we present a model for cost evaluation and opti- transshipment costs in the support warehouse system can

mization of the reorder points at a support warehouse and be argued because of scale effects and improved efficiency

the associated retailers under fill rate constraints. The rea- in transshipment operations.

son for choosing a fill rate constraint model is that meeting Looking at the literature, there is an obvious relation-

target fill rates is one of Volvo Part’s main performance in- ship between our work and the literature that deals with

dicators. The model assumes constant lead times for regular different types of lateral transshipment models. Examples

orders placed at the central warehouse and normally dis- of early contributions to this area are Allen (1958) and

tributed customer demand. An important characteristic is Gross (1963). Most papers consider lateral transshipments

that the developed method is computationally fast enough between parallel retailers. It is common to assume that a

to be directly implemented in practice for large systems. transshipment takes place, if possible, as soon as a shortage

Apart from being a concrete tool for inventory control of occurs. Both periodic review and continuous review mod-

real systems, the model enables us to investigate when it els are frequently considered in the literature. In periodic

makes sense to use a support warehouse structure. models it is common to assume that the system will be reset

The main contributions of our work lie in the deriva- at the end of each period. Essentially, this means that the

tion of the analytical approximation model and its useful- problem setting is reduced to a single period; see, for exam-

ness for control of real systems. Important aspects of the ple, Cohen et al. (1986). Quite a few of the available contin-

model’s usefulness are the quality of its solutions and its uous review models are related to the papers by Lee (1987)

computational feasibility. These issues are investigated in and Axsäter (1990). Examples include Alfredsson and Ver-

two different numerical studies. In the first one, focusing rijdt (1999), Grahovac and Chakravarty (2001), Kukreja

on the model accuracy, comparisons are made with opti- et al. (2001), and Kranenburg and Van Houtum (2009).

mal solutions found through enumeration and simulation For example, Alfredsson and Verrijdt (1999) uses the same

of all possible solutions. The results show that as long as approach as Axsäter (1990) when modeling transshipments

Q > R at the retailers—i.e., at most one regular order is out- between parallel retailers but also consider the possibility of

standing at each retailer—the average relative deviation in direct deliveries to customers. Typically these papers con-

total costs (expected inventory holding and transshipment sider spare parts with relatively low demand that can be

costs) is only −0.4%, and the average deviation in fill rate modeled as Poisson processes. Normal replenishments are

is −0.4 percentage points. For the examples where more often triggered by base-stock policies. For recent overviews

than one order may be outstanding the average deviation of the literature we refer to Wong et al. (2006) and Paterson

in total costs is 2.5% and the deviation in fill rate is one et al. (2011).

percentage point. A second numerical study is based on One of the aforementioned papers that is, in a sense,

real data for a sample of 50 representative products from related to our scope and system structure is Kranenburg

Volvo Parts’ stock list for the Spanish market. It illustrates and Van Houtum (2009). Motivated by collaboration with

that our proposed model is fast enough to be applied to ASML, an original equipment manufacturer in the semi-

large real-life problems. Moreover, by comparison with the conductor industry, they consider a spare parts distribution

current solution used by Volvo Parts using simulation, it network with partial pooling. The network consists of local

is shown that using our proposed model offers significant warehouses that face Poisson demand for spare parts and

reductions in the total costs without compromising the tar- use base-stock policies to replenish their inventory from a

get service levels. On average, the total costs are reduced by central warehouse. The local warehouses are classified as

29% while maintaining average fill rates above target. either regular locals or main locals. If a local warehouse

To gain insights as to the value of using a support ware- runs out of stock it can turn to a designated main local

house structure, we also present a numerical study where the and request a lateral transshipment. Using their model,

support warehouse system is optimized using our proposed the authors illustrate numerically that most of the pooling

A distribution inventory model with transshipments 311

benefits can be achieved by using only a few main locals. Support warehouse Retailers

The support warehouse structure we study is related to 1

one version of their network structure, where the support

warehouse is represented by a main local without direct

customer demand, and the retailers are modeled as regular Outside

locals. However, important differences are that their model supplier j Customers

is designed for low-level discrete Poisson demand and base-

stock policies, which does not suffice in the situations we

consider. They also assume that the central warehouse pro- N

vides a transshipment if neither the local warehouse nor

any main local warehouse can satisfy the demand. Our Fig. 1. The studied inventory system.

model can handle large demands and batch-ordering poli-

cies, and in our system the central warehouse does not pro-

vide any transshipments. The modeling and approximation The retailers face stochastic customer demand and place

techniques are therefore quite different. Kranenburg and replenishment orders (referred to as regular orders) with

Van Houtum (2009) provide an exact Markov analysis as- an outside supplier. The lead times for these orders are

suming exponential lead times for small stylized problems, assumed to be constant. The support warehouse also re-

as well as an approximate model based on analyzing each plenishes with constant lead times from the outside sup-

warehouse as a separate Erlang loss system under the as- plier. These lead time assumptions are motivated by the

sumption of identical lead times for all local warehouses. fact that the outside supplier at Volvo Parts is, for most

Other papers related to our present work consider sys- items, a central warehouse with very high service levels.

tems with unidirectional transshipments; see, for exam- Thus, stochastic delays due to shortages are rare. Clearly,

ple, Axsäter (2003) and Olsson (2010). The transshipments the assumption also simplifies the analysis. Expanding the

from the support warehouse in the present model are uni- model scope to include the central warehouse and ques-

directional, because there are no transshipments from the tioning the high service requirements currently used is an

retailers to the support warehouse. A difference between the interesting and challenging direction for future research.

discussed papers and our current model is that the support The demand data available at Volvo Parts are stored on

warehouse is not subject to direct customer demand. a monthly basis, which makes it difficult to characterize the

Models concerning lateral transshipments are also re- true distribution of the customer demand. Therefore, our

lated to dual supply models that include the possibility of choice of demand distribution varies depending on the pur-

using more than one supplier. In addition to a standard sup- pose. In our analytical derivations and parameter optimiza-

plier, it may, for example, be possible to use a supplier that tion we always assume that customer demand over any time

provides express deliveries at a higher cost. This alternative interval is normally distributed and independent across all

supplier can be used in special situations as needed. Ex- retailers and non-overlapping time intervals. The reason

amples from this stream of literature include Moinzadeh for choosing the normal distribution to approximate the

and Nahmias (1988), Moinzadeh and Schmidt (1991), demand is threefold: (i) it is computationally tractable for

Johansen and Thorstenson (1998), Minner (2003), Axsäter Volvo Parts’ entire range of low- and high-demand items;

(2007), Song and Zipkin (2009), and the references therein. (ii) it can be fitted to all variance-to-mean ratios (which

Compared with this literature, a difference with the current vary considerably between items); and (iii) it is a common

model is the multi-echelon focus, as opposed to the more assumption in the literature and has been proven to work

common single-echelon focus. As a consequence, the gen- well in many situations (see, for example, Axsäter (2011)).

eral modeling techniques in these papers are different from To simulate the solutions obtained from the analytical

ours. continuous review model, we use a discrete event simula-

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Sec- tion model built in the software Extend by Imagine That

tion 2 provides a model formulation and description of the Inc (San Jose, CA). A difficulty with the normal demand

considered distribution system. Section 3 presents the tech- assumption is that it cannot be exactly translated into a

nical details of the proposed cost evaluation method and discrete arrival process. Thus, in the simulations we use

the associated approximations. It also contains a descrip- two other demand distributions. For the model validation

tion of the optimization method used in the numerical study and comparison between different system configurations,

found in Section 4. Conclusions are drawn in Section 5. we want to mimic normal demand in a discrete event

simulation environment as close as possible and use

appropriately chosen gamma-distributed inter-arrival

2. Problem formulation times. This approach is based on results from renewal

theory and ensures that the demand over a time period t

The considered inventory system consists of N retailers is asymptotically normally distributed as t → ∞, if the

and one support warehouse that continuously reviews and times between arrivals are independent and identically

replenishes their inventories; see Fig. 1. distributed (see, for example, Grimmett and Stirzaker

312 Axsäter et al.

(1992, p. 394)). Finally, when simulating the real data support warehouse. The assumption of continuous review

from Volvo Parts, we use a compound Poisson process (or is realistic for the case company, considering that many

gamma-distributed inter-arrival times in those cases where retailers review their stock on a daily basis. (For retailers

the variance-to-mean ratio is below one). We argue this with a non-negligible review period, the standard approach

to be a good fit for Volvo Parts’ system, where demand is of adding half of the review period to the replenishment

discrete and an arriving customer may order more than one lead time has been applied in the numerical evaluation.)

unit. It should be added that it is not possible to directly The company also expects a move to a system based on

modify our analytical model to incorporate compound real-time point-of-sale data and inventory information in

Poisson demand. This is because it is based on the exact the near future.

solution of the single-echelon model with lost sales, which We consider inventory holding costs per unit and time

remains an open question for compound Poisson demand. unit at all installations. There is also a fixed transshipment

There is no direct customer demand at the support ware- cost per unit shipped from the support warehouse to a

house. Instead, the purpose of the support warehouse is retailer. This quantifies the extra cost of acquiring a unit

to provide additional demand coverage in cases of stock- through the support warehouse, compared with that for a

outs at the retailers. More precisely, if demand at a retailer regular replenishment through the outside supplier (e.g., for

exceeds that retailer’s current amount of on-hand stock, a the extra picking, loading, transportation, and receiving ac-

transshipment to cover the additional amount needed is re- tivities involved). The retailers operate under given service

quested from the support warehouse. In concurrence with constraints. The service measure that is used at Volvo Parts

current operations at Volvo Parts, the transshipment pol- for each retailer (referred to as the combined fill rate) is the

icy is to always order from the support warehouse when fraction of demand satisfied, either directly from stock on

a stock-out occurs. This commonly used policy is easy to hand at that retailer or directly from stock on hand at the

implement and does not require an advanced inventory in- support warehouse. In other words, if a demand occurring

formation system beyond what is currently used by Volvo. at a specific retailer can be satisfied instantly at the retailer,

However, it is clear that using more advanced policies (e.g., or via immediate shipment from the support warehouse, it

incorporating the arrival times of outstanding orders) may is considered satisfactory service for the customer. As pre-

be beneficial; see, for example, Howard et al. (2012). viously mentioned, this is reasonable for the case company

We assume that the time it takes to ship units from because the overnight shipment from the support ware-

the support warehouse to a retailer is negligible; i.e., house enables the retailer to complete service of a vehicle

transshipment lead times are zero. This is a reasonable within the time stipulated in the service contract. There-

approximation for the real system at Volvo Parts because fore, from the perspective of the customer, the same service

the support warehouse provides overnight shipments, com- is received, regardless of where the part originated.

pared with the much longer lead times for regular orders Our objective is to find the integer reorder points that

from the outside supplier. Also, the customers in the real minimize the long-run expected costs for the system under

system typically leave their vehicle for service at the retailer the specified service-level constraints. Our analysis assumes

and return to pick it up the next day or later. Thus, as long that the order quantities, both at the retailers and at the sup-

as the agreed-upon pickup time is not delayed because port warehouse, are given. This is a common assumption in

of the overnight delivery, the perceived customer service the literature. Moreover, a change in the order quantities at

is the same whether the item is available at the retailer or Volvo Parts would require an analysis outside the scope of

at the support warehouse. The assumption implies that if this present work (e.g., analysis of restrictions in box or pal-

the support warehouse has sufficient stock on hand when let sizes and renegotiation of contracts with transporters).

an order from a retailer arrives, the customer demand that Although our approach does not explicitly deal with how

generated this order is satisfied instantly. However, in the to optimize the order quantities, it is worth emphasizing

event of a stock-out at the support warehouse, the demand that the computational efficiency of our method makes it

is backordered, and the customer has to wait until the possible to evaluate the impact of different order quantities

next replenishment order arrives. Alternatively, this may by simple enumeration.

be viewed as a customer demand being lost to the retailer Note that transportation costs, setup costs, and vari-

(though not lost to the system) and transferred to the ous administrative costs are not explicitly included in our

support warehouse. All demands are satisfied according to model, although these costs may be affected by our policy.

a first-come–first-served policy. All of these costs are reflected in the transshipment cost.

All installations replenish their stock using continuous Normally it is considerably more expensive to distribute

review installation stock (R, Q) policies; that is, a batch an item through the support warehouse, which means a

of size Q is ordered when the inventory position drops relatively high transshipment cost.

to or below R. For the support warehouse, the inventory We introduce the following notation:

position is defined as stock on hand + stock on order –

backorders. For the retailers, the inventory positions only N = number of retailers;

include stock on hand and stock on order, as demand is LS = lead time for an order from the support warehouse to

never backordered there but is instead transferred to the arrive from the outside supplier;

A distribution inventory model with transshipments 313

Lj = lead time for an order from retailer j (j = 1, 2, . . ., N) We determine the combined fill rate, γ j (R), at retailer j

to arrive from the outside supplier; as

QS = order quantity for an order from the support ware-

house to the outside supplier; γ j (R) = α j (Rj ) + (1 − α j (Rj ))βS (R). (1)

Qj = order quantity for an order from retailer j to the

outside supplier; If all retailers are identical, then Equation (1) is exact. How-

RS = reorder point at the support warehouse; ever, in the case of non-identical retailers the expression is

Rj = reorder point at retailer j; an approximation. The reason for this is that the actual

hS = inventory holding cost per unit and time unit at the service received from the support warehouse in these situ-

support warehouse; ations might differ between retailers.

hj = inventory holding cost per unit and time unit at retailer We now focus on how to determine Cj , α j , C S , and β S .

j;

bj = transshipment cost per unit shipped from the support 3.1.1. Determining Cj and α j

warehouse to retailer j; We restrict the analysis to cases where there can be at most

μj = mean demand per time unit at retailer j; one regular order outstanding with the outside supplier at

σ j = standard deviation of the demand per time unit at each retailer or, equivalently, Qj > Rj . This is a common as-

retailer j; sumption in models with lost sales (for a discussion of this

j = target for the combined fill rate at retailer j. assumption, see, for example, Hadley and Whitin (1963)),

and it also accurately reflects the situation at the case com-

pany, where it is rare to have multiple orders outstand-

ing. The assumption implies that Cj can be determined

3. Methodology exactly using renewal theory (see, for example, Grimmett

and Stirzaker (1992, p. 394)). That is, we obtain Cj by de-

In this section we present the approximate cost and service riving the average cost for an order cycle (the time between

evaluation method for a given set of reorder points. We two deliveries of a batch at the retailer) and dividing this

then introduce a computationally efficient heuristic for op- by the average cycle length.

timizing the reorder points under the given fill rate targets Recall that the customer demand is assumed to be nor-

at the retailers. mally distributed and independent across disjoint time in-

tervals. Hence, the demand during the lead time also follows

3.1. Cost evaluation method a normal distribution. Define:

We seek the total expected system cost per time unit, TC(R), m j = L j μ j , mean demand during the lead time at retailer

and the combined fill rate for each retailer j, γ j (R), for j;

given reorder points R = (RS , R1 , . . . , RN ). Note that γ j δ j = L j σ j , standard deviation of the demand during the

is a function of all reorder points in the system. This is lead time at retailer j;

because the choice of reorder point at one retailer affects φ(x) = probability density function of the standard normal

the demand stream to the support warehouse, which in distribution;

turn affects the service given to all other retailers from this (x) = cumulative distribution function of the standard

location. For a given policy R we can separate TC(R) into normal distribution;

∞

the N + 1 components: G(x) = x (v − x)φ(v)dv = φ(x) − x(1 − (x)), the loss

function;

N

D(L j ) = stochastic lead time demand at retailer j;

TC(R) = CS(R) + C j (Rj ),

LSj = stochastic number of units lost at retailer j during

j=1

an order cycle (and satisfied by transshipments from the

where C S (R) is the expected holding cost per time unit at the support warehouse);

support warehouse, and Cj (Rj ) is the expected holding and OH j = stochastic number of units on hand just before a

transshipment cost per time unit associated with retailer j. batch arrives at retailer j;

Similarly, we define: (y)+ = max(y, 0);

(y)− = max(−y, 0).

α j (Rj ) = retailer fill rate; that is, the fraction of demand

satisfied directly from stock on hand at retailer j (inde- Analogous to Rosling (2002), we disregard the occur-

pendent of the service at the support warehouse); rence of negative demand in the analysis, and we start by

β S (R) = support warehouse fill rate, the fraction of de- determining the average number of units lost at retailer j

mand satisfied directly from stock on hand at the support during an order cycle (i.e., demand satisfied by transship-

warehouse. ments from the support warehouse), E(LSj ). The analysis

314 Axsäter et al.

is the same for all retailers. We obtain: retailer. We use the approximation:

N

E(LSj ) = E (Rj − D(L j ))−

∞ σ S2 = (1 − α j )σ j2 , (2)

1 u − mj

= (u − Rj ) φ du j =1

Rj δj δj

which means that we regard the overflow demand at re-

Rj − m j tailer j as the share (1 − α j ) of the total retailer demand.

= δj G

δj This approximation will tend to underestimate the vari-

ance; however, our numerical tests indicate that it works

Given E(LSj ) we can then determine the expected number quite well.

of units on hand at the beginning of an order cycle (right Given μ S and σ S2 , the support warehouse can be ana-

before the batch arrives) as lyzed separately from the retailers, using standard methods

for single-echelon systems under normal demand (see, for

E(OH j ) = E (Rj − D(L j ))+ = Rj − m j + E(LSj ).

example, Axsäter (2006)). Let:

The average time in stock for an item that just ar- m S =√LS μ S;

rived as part of a batch of size Qj is therefore given by δ S = LS σ S ;

E(OH j )/μ j + Q j /2μ j , and the resulting holding costs per IL S = inventory level at the support warehouse (stochastic

cycle are h j Q j [E(OH j ) + Q j /2]/μ j . Finally, since demand variable);

is either satisfied or lost, the average length of an order cy- FS(x) = P(IL S ≤ x); i.e., cumulative distribution function

cle is [Q j + E(LS j )]/μ j , which means that the average cost for the inventory level at the support warehouse.

per time unit is given by

h j Q j [Rj − m j + δ j G((Rj − m j )/δ j ) + (Q j /2)] + b j μ j δ j G((Rj − m j )/δ j )

Cj = .

Q j + δ j G((Rj − m j )/δ j )

Once again utilizing that the demand during an order Disregarding the occurrence of negative demand, and as-

cycle is either satisfied or lost at retailer j, determining α j is suming that the inventory position is uniformly distributed

straightforward: on the interval [R, R+Q], renders:

Qj RS+Q S

αj = . 1 u − x − mS

Q j + δ j G Rj − m j /δ j FS(x) = 1− du

Q S RS δS

In this analysis we assume that Rj ≥ 0. However, if, for δS RS − x − m S RS + Q S − x − m S

= G −G .

instance, the transshipment cost is low, it might be ad- QS δS δS

vantageous for the system that a retailer always requests

a transshipment when demand occurs. This is denoted by Furthermore, we have that:

Rj = −1, which means that the retailer does not keep any CS = h S E(IL S)+ = h S(E(IL S) + E(IL S)− ). (3)

stock at all and never places any regular orders. As a con-

sequence, α j is equal to zero and the support warehouse is Determining the two terms in Equation (3) is straightfor-

used each time a demand occurs; thus, Cj = bj μj . ward (for details see Axsäter (2006)) and we obtain:

δ2 RS − m S

3.1.2. Determining CS and β S CS = h S RS + Q S/2 − m S + S H

Q δS

Demand that cannot be satisfied directly at the retailers S

RS + Q S − m S

is transferred to the support warehouse. This means that −H .

demand at the support warehouse is the sum of N “over- δS

flow” demand (or lost sales) processes that are difficult to The function H is defined as

∞

characterize. Therefore, we approximate the support ware- 1 2

house demand with a normal distribution, with mean μ S H(x) = G(v)dv = (x + 1)(1 − (x)) − xφ(x) .

2

and variance σ S2 per time unit. The correct mean is given by x

Because the demand is continuous, the support ware-

N house fill rate is the probability of positive stock, given by

μS = (1 − α j )μ j .

δS RS − m S

j =1 β S = 1 − FS(0) = 1 − G

Q δS

S

Exact analysis of the variance is complicated because σ S2 RS + Q S − m S

−G .

depends on the frequency and length of stock-outs at each δS

A distribution inventory model with transshipments 315

3.2. Optimization of reorder points into the performance of the model. As an example, it is

obvious that the model will produce good results if the

In Section 3.1 we concluded that the combined fill rate at

transshipment cost is zero (all stock should then be kept at

any given retailer j is dependent on all reorder points in

the support warehouse) or very high (all stock should then

the system (via β S ). This implies that deriving an exact

be kept at the retailers), and therefore we focus on scenarios

optimization procedure is difficult (apart from a complete

with less predictable outcomes. We also purposely violate

search, which is not computationally tractable for larger

the assumption of at most one order outstanding to test

problems). Therefore, we propose a heuristic procedure.

the model’s sensitivity in these cases. In total, we consider

We wish to minimize TC(R) under the constraints

24 problems with identical retailers and 16 problems with

γ j (R) ≥ j for all j. For a given support warehouse fill

non-identical retailers for this model validation. Section

rate, β S = β̄ S, the choice of reorder point at one retailer no 4.2 investigates the value of having a support warehouse

longer affects the other retailers. Therefore, our approach in terms of cost reductions. Here, we present 32 problems

is to decompose the problem by searching over fixed values where the current structure is compared to a system without

of β S . That is, if we know the service given from the support a support warehouse, a structure also used by Volvo Parts

warehouse, each retailer’s cost function can be minimized in some markets. In Section 4.3 we compare the support

separately, with a constraint on α j given through Equation warehouse system to an alternative system structure where

(1). Conversely, if the Rj values are given (for all j), we can lateral transshipments are allowed between all retailers on a

easily determine the RS value that achieves a certain β̄ S. designated market. Finally, Section 4.4 provides simulation

The heuristic is therefore based on sequentially selecting β̄ S results based on real data from Volvo Parts.

and determining Rj for all retailers. Then, given all Rj , RS

is determined and the resulting total system cost, denoted

TC(β̄ S), is calculated. Since both C S (RS ) and β S (RS ) are 4.1. Model validation

increasing in RS it is clear that we only need to consider In total we consider 24 problems with identical retailers.

β̄ S between zero and max( 1 , . . . , N ). Hence, we can start First, we focus on problems 1 to 16. In these problems the

with β̄ S = 0 and increase it with some small

until we number of retailers, the demand, and the holding cost pa-

reach max( 1 , . . . , N ). Further details on the heuristic are rameters are given by N = 6, μj = 4, σ j = 2, and hS = hj =

available in the Online Supplement to this article. 1 (for all j). The remaining input parameters are QS = Qj =

Intuitively, the optimization procedure should produce 20 or 40, LS = Lj = 5 or 10, bj = 6 or 12, and j = 0.92

solutions of high quality. Still, the heuristic is based on or 0.98. The 16 combinations of the low and high values

each retailer acting in its own best interest. This means constitute our problem set. For each problem, the solution

that the optimal solution for the entire system might not given by the analytical model is simulated and compared

be found in some cases. For instance, in general it may be with the solution obtained through exhaustive search by

possible for a retailer to increase its own cost in order to simulation. For computational tractability in the exhaus-

change the demand structure at the support warehouse, tive search, we impose the constraint that all retailers must

thereby enabling other retailers to decrease their costs. Our have identical reorder points. This excludes the possibility

heuristic does not consider such possibilities but, at the of asymmetric solutions but, given identical input parame-

same time, our numerical tests indicate that this does not ters, this should constitute a minor restriction. The results

affect the quality of solutions noticeably. Also, note that are presented in Table 1, which can be found in the Online

the heuristic will always produce a feasible solution, given Supplement. In the last two columns of Table 1, the rel-

all of the assumptions in Section 3.1. ative difference in total cost resulting from the simulated

The heuristic is computationally very efficient. Large analytical solution,

TC = (TC A − TC SIM )/TC SIM , and

problems from the case company with around 60 retail- the difference in combined fill rate,

γ = γ A − γ SIM , are

ers and

= 0.001 take less than a second to solve on a given (index A refers to the simulated analytical solution

standard laptop computer. and SIM to the simulation optimization). These measures

of comparison are also depicted in Fig. 2.

For all simulations in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, we utilize re-

4. Numerical study sults from renewal theory (see, for example, Grimmett and

Stirzaker (1992, p. 394)) and approximate the normally dis-

The numerical study is divided into four sections. In Section tributed customer demand with gamma-distributed times

4.1 we validate the heuristic optimization procedure and the between arrivals of single demands. In problems 1 to 20,

approximations made in the analytical model. This is done σ 2/μ = 1, and the demand in the simulation model follows

by use of a discrete event simulation model and exhaustive a Poisson process.

search. Naturally, the computation times associated with Still focusing on the first 16 problems, in Fig. 2 and Ta-

this procedure limit the number of problems that can be ble 1 (Online Supplement) the most noticeable differences

evaluated. Therefore, the aim with the problem set chosen in cost and service are found in problems 5 to 8. Here,

is to focus on the scenarios that offer the most insight total costs and combined fill rates are significantly higher

316 Axsäter et al.

14.0%

10.0%

6.0%

ΔTC

2.0%

Δγ

-2.0%

-6.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

in the analytical solution. We note that the common fac- problems 19 and 20 the analytical solution is quite differ-

tor in these problems is that the order quantities are small ent, where a large amount of stock is kept at the retailer.

compared with the lead time demand. This means that the However, despite the different structures of the solutions,

assumption of at most one order outstanding at the retail- the differences in costs and service are rather small.

ers is likely to be violated. From Table 1 one can see that In problems 21 to 24 we consider lower, more volatile

the analytical solution does, in fact, render retailer reorder demand. Here, the input data are identical to problems

points around twice the size of Q in these problems. It is 1 to 4 except for the mean demand, which is reduced by

also interesting to note that, even though the analytical so- 50% to μj = 2. We see in Fig. 2 and Table 1 that the an-

lutions render higher costs and service, the retailer reorder alytical solutions are just below the target service levels in

points in problems 5, 6, and 8 are identical to the ones these cases. This is not surprising since the probability of

found by simulation optimization and only off by three negative demand under the normal demand assumption

units in problem 7. The main difference is instead found at is increased, a factor that is disregarded in the analytical

the support warehouse, where the analytical method ren- model.

ders higher reorder points than needed. To explain this We also consider 16 problems with non-identical retail-

behavior we compare the analytical results with the sim- ers. Here, the input data are given by N = 2, LS = L1 = L2

ulated analytical solution in Table 2, which can be found = 4, hS = h1 = h2 = 1, and QS = 10 in all problems. The

in the Online Supplement. For problems 5 to 8 where the values of the remaining input parameters differ between

assumption of at most one order outstanding is violated, the two retailers. That is, μ1 = 2 or 4, σ 1 = 1 or 2, b1 =

the analytical model underestimates the average stock on 2 or 10, Q1 = 15 or 25, and 1 = 0.92 or 0.98, where re-

hand at the retailers. Consequently, holding costs and fill tailer 2 is given the opposite value of retailer 1 (if μ1 = 2

rates are underestimated (by around 12–13% and two to then μ2 = 4, etc.). Given five parameters to vary, and be-

five percentage points, respectively), while transshipment cause retailer numbers are interchangeable, this results in 16

costs are overestimated (58–68%). However, for the retailer unique problems. A detailed comparison between the sim-

costs, these under- and overestimations seem to balance ulated analytical solution and the simulation optimization

out and the total retailer costs are close to the simulated is given in Table 3 and Table 4, which can be found in the

values (slight underestimations of around 3–4%). The an- Online Supplement. Analogous to the problems with iden-

alytical models’ fairly accurate approximations of total re- tical retailers, the differences in total costs and combined

tailer costs explains the similarity of the retailer reorder fill rate are depicted in Fig. 3. Note that, because the target

points (see Table 1) compared to the simulation optimiza- service level differs between the retailers, the comparison

tion. Furthermore, the underestimation of retailer fill rates of service levels is given separately for each retailer.

in the analytical model implies an overestimation of the From Fig. 3 we can conclude that the maximum devi-

overflow demand, which explains why the stock on hand ation in total costs is 4% and the maximum deviation in

at the support warehouse is overestimated in problems 5, combined fill rate is two percentage points. Moreover, in

6, and 8. Note that the same effect of having R ≥ Q at the many problems the solutions given by the analytical model

retailers can also be seen in problems 1, 4, and 16, although are much closer than that, rendering small differences in

less apparent in these cases. costs and service. The service assumption, Equation (1),

In problems 17 to 20 we make it more attractive to utilize used for calculating γ j in the analytical model also appears

the support warehouse by lowering the transshipment cost to be accurate. For all problems in Table 3 and Table 4,

to bj = 4 (the input data are otherwise identical to problems the average difference between the analytical values of γ 1

11 to 14). Here we see from Table 1 that, in all four problems, and γ 2 (not included in the tables) and the simulated values

all stock should be kept at the support warehouse, accord- of γ 1 and γ 2 is merely 0.2 percentage points, with a maxi-

ing to the simulation optimization. The analytical method mum of two percentage points. This means that the support

finds the exact same solution in problems 17 and 18. In warehouse provides the retailers with essentially the same

A distribution inventory model with transshipments 317

4.0%

2.0% ΔTC

0.0%

Δγ1

-2.0%

-4.0% Δγ2

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

service in the cases considered, which is the key assumption we will investigate the cost reductions that can be achieved

used in Equation (1). by utilizing the support warehouse system, compared with

Summarizing the insights gained in this section, the ana- the decentralized solution.

lytical model appears to be accurate, in cases of both iden- In the decentralized system, demand is backordered at

tical and non-identical retailers, given that the assumption each retailer in cases of stock-outs, as opposed to being

of R < Q at the retailers holds. In the 25 problems (out transferred to a support warehouse. Consequently, the tar-

of a total of 40) where this assumption holds, the aver- get fill rate j must be achieved at each retailer j individually,

age

TC is merely −0.4%, with a maximum of 2.6% and and the only cost incurred at the retailers is the inventory

minimum of −4.8%. The corresponding average for

γ is holding cost. The demand distribution, ordering policies,

−0.4 percentage points, with maximum 0.6 and minimum and lead times in the decentralized system are otherwise

−1.8 percentage points, where

γ for problems with non- identical to the ones for the support warehouse system.

identical retailers is the demand weighted average of

γ 1 The aim is to compare the total cost for achieving target

and

γ 2 . However, when the retailers have more than one service levels in the decentralized system, denoted TC DC ,

order outstanding the performance is slightly worse. Here, with the corresponding cost, TC SW , for the support ware-

the average

TC over these 15 problems is 2.5%, with max- house system. Note that TC DC is the sum of inventory

imum 13.2% and minimum −4.0%. In these cases, the av- holding costs at each retailer, whereas TC SW is the com-

erage

γ is 1.0 percentage points, with maximum 5.9 and bined holding and transshipment costs at both the support

minimum −0.4 percentage points. In general, the analytical warehouse and the retailers. For the decentralized system,

model tends to overestimate the amount of stock needed in the reorder point at each retailer is easily optimized using

the system when R ≥ Q at the retailers. Conversely, due to single-echelon methods (we apply the same method that

the normal demand assumption and the associated issues of was used for the support warehouse in Section 3.1). In the

negative demand realizations, the amount of stock needed support warehouse system, reorder points are optimized

is underestimated when the variance of the customer de- using our analytical method. In order to make perfor-

mand is high compared to the mean. Still, it is interesting mance measures comparable, both systems are simulated

to note that the total cost increases with the combined fill with gamma-distributed times between demand arrivals.

rate in most cases studied. That is, an increase in costs gives We define the value of having a support warehouse as

V =

an increase in service as well and vice versa. From a prac- (TC DC − TC SW )/TC DC . The interpretation of

V is the

tical perspective, this means that if you are paying more relative cost reductions that can be achieved by introduc-

in terms of stock, you are, as expected, receiving higher ing a support warehouse in the decentralized system. Note

customer satisfaction as a result. Thus, it is ambiguous to that the comparison assumes that the service to end cus-

say that a solution with lower costs is better. This explains tomers given from the support warehouse is comparable to

why the analytical solution for several problems in Figs. 2 the service given from the retailers, as discussed in Section

and 3 renders lower costs than the solution obtained by 2. Furthermore, the focus is purely on savings in inven-

simulation search. In all of these instances the lower cost is tory costs; additional costs of operating and maintaining a

associated with lower fill rates. support warehouse are not included in the comparison.

The numerical study encompasses 32 problems. For ease

of exposition we only consider problems with identical re-

4.2. The value of a support warehouse tailers. Input data shared by the two systems considered

The support warehouse structure studied in this work is one are N = 6 or 60, Lj = 5 or 20, σ j = 1 or 2, = 90% or

of two main inventory control structures that are currently 99%, Qj = 1.5 μj Lj or 3 μj Lj , hj = 1, and μj = 2. Here, the

used at Volvo Parts. The other type of system, which we retailer order quantities are functions of the lead time de-

refer to as the decentralized system, does not include a sup- mand. This is to ensure that the assumption of at most one

port warehouse and consists only of N retailers that operate order outstanding is not violated. The holding cost rates

independently of each other. Clearly, an interesting ques- and replenishment lead times are the same for the support

tion here is: what value does a support warehouse actually warehouse and the retailers; i.e., hS = hj = 1 and LS = Lj .

bring to these types of systems? Therefore, in this section To facilitate straightforward comparison between different

318 Axsäter et al.

ΔV ΔV

100% 100%

N=6, σ=1 L=5, Γ=90% N=6, σ=2 L=5, Γ=90%

90% 90%

L=5, Γ=99% L=5, Γ=99%

80% 80%

L=20, Γ=90% L=20, Γ=90%

70% L=20, Γ=99% 70%

L=20, Γ=99%

60% 60%

50% 50%

40% 40%

30% 30%

20% 20%

10% 10%

b b

0% 0%

(a) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 (b) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

ΔV ΔV

100% 100%

N=60, σ=1 L=5, Γ=90% N=60, σ=2 L=5, Γ=90%

90% 90%

L=5, Γ=99% L=5, Γ=99%

80% 80%

L=20, Γ=90% L=20, Γ=90%

70% L=20, Γ=99% 70% L=20, Γ=99%

60% 60%

50% 50%

40% 40%

30% 30%

20% 20%

10% b 10% b

0% 0%

(c) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 (d) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Fig. 4.

V , as a function of the transshipment cost b, when Qj = 1.5 μj Lj .

system configurations and avoid the issue of optimizing comparing graph (a) with graph (c) and (b) with (d) shows

QS , we assume QS = 1 in all problems. This implies that that

V increases when N = 60, compared with N = 6. The

we are looking at best-case scenarios, allowing for maxi- interpretation here is that the benefits of being able to pool

mum flexibility at the support warehouse. When it comes demand to a single location are increased with the number

to the transshipment cost, it is obvious that the value of of retailers.

having a support warehouse is directly related to the size of As for the effect of increased variability in customer de-

bj . Therefore, for each of the 32 problems we consider, we mand, the results point in two different directions. Clearly,

present

V as a function of bj , where bj starts at zero and the value of pooling demand to the support warehouse is

is increased one unit at a time until

V reaches zero. increased when σ = 2, compared with σ = 1. However,

For the problems considered, the differences in end- the choice of order quantities also affects system perfor-

customer service between the two systems are very small mance. Because we assume that Qj is given, and therefore

(average absolute difference over all problems and bj is less ignore ordering costs, increasing Qj will increase total costs.

than one percentage point) and, therefore, we focus solely Generally, large values of Qj will have less of an impact on

on costs. The results for the 16 problems where the retailer total costs when the variance is higher (see Federgruen and

order quantities are set to their lower value, Qj = 1.5 μj Lj , Zheng (1992) for joint optimization of R and Q in the

are depicted in Fig. 4. backorder case or Rosling (2002) for the lost sales case).

The results show that for low values of bj all stock is Therefore, the value of using the support warehouse and

kept at the support warehouse, as indicated by the linear thereby also making use of the smaller order quantity at

slope of the functions. We also see that the cost reductions this location is not necessarily increased when σ is higher.

that can be achieved with the support warehouse structure We now turn to the problems where the retailer order

are highly dependent on the system configuration. Figure 4 quantities are larger; i.e., Qj = 3 μj Lj . Because the results

shows that longer lead times increase the value of the sup- regarding other input parameters match those from the

port warehouse. Intuitively, as regular replenishments take previous problems, we refrain from presenting all 16 prob-

a longer time, the option of using quick transshipments to lems. Instead, we focus solely on the effects of larger order

satisfy demand should become more attractive. Further- quantities and present the four problems where N = 60 and

more, the results indicate that the support warehouse is σ = 2 in Fig. 5.

more valuable when the target service levels are high. This We see in Fig. 5 that the changes in the linear slopes

is also reasonable because the marginal costs for achiev- appear later when Qj are increased, meaning that there

ing targets at the retailers, without the help of the support is a greater benefit in keeping all stock at the support

warehouse, increase with the target service level. Moreover, warehouse. Moreover, in general, the value of the support

A distribution inventory model with transshipments 319

100% wait in anticipation of the next incoming regular replen-

N=60, σ=2 L=5, Γ=90%

90%

80%

L=5, Γ=99% ishment order from the central warehouse to the retailer

L=20, Γ=90% in question. As in the support warehouse system, we as-

70% L=20, Γ=99%

60% sume negligible transshipment times and a fixed cost b̂ j per

50% unit transshipped to retailer j. Other system features are

40% identical to those in the previous sections.

30% We wish to investigate the potential cost savings in using

20%

complete pooling instead of a support warehouse structure.

10%

0%

b We use the results obtained through simulation optimiza-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 tion for the support warehouse system in problems 1 to 16

(Table 1 in the Online Supplement) as a base for our com-

Fig. 5.

V , as a function of the transshipment cost b, when Qj = parison. Recall that all retailers are identical and initially

3 μj Lj . we also assume that the transshipment costs are the same

in both systems (i.e., b̂ j = b j for all j). Let TC CP be the

lowest total cost per time unit (found by simulation search)

warehouse is higher. However, as can be seen in the prob- that achieves target service levels in the complete pooling

lem with L = 5 and = 99% (solid gray line), compared system. Define

CP = (TC SW − TC CP ) / TC SW as the rela-

to the same problem in Fig. 4 (graph (d)), the larger order tive cost savings that can be achieved by using the complete

quantities do not benefit the support warehouse structure pooling structure instead of the support warehouse struc-

for all bj . A plausible explanation is that, in these situations, ture. Furthermore, define

γ = γ CP – γ SW as the increase

we are forced to keep either a large amount of stock at the in end-customer service. These performance measures and

retailers, or nothing at all. Consequently, the allocation of the best reorder points found in the complete pooling sys-

stock between the support warehouse and the retailers is tem for problems 1 to 16 are provided in Table 5, which can

affected by the order quantity. be found in the Online Supplement. Consider the first four

Concluding this section, our numerical tests indicate that columns. We see that there is an obvious benefit in com-

for items with long regular replenishment lead times and plete pooling if we assume the same transshipment costs.

high target service levels, the support warehouse structure The average relative cost decrease is 9.9% and the average

can hold a significant advantage over a decentralized struc- improvement in service is 2.4 percentage points. Clearly,

ture. Our tests show that utilizing a support warehouse having a multitude of transshipment providers from which

can make sense for a wide range of transshipment costs. to choose provides opportunities to achieve high service

For items with shorter lead times and lower target service levels at low costs. However, the potential downside is that

levels, utilizing a support warehouse is mainly reasonable it may be difficult to implement complete pooling in prac-

when the transshipment cost is low. tice. As previously mentioned, one of the main reasons why

Volvo Parts uses a support warehouse as the sole provider

of transshipments is that it makes the inventory distribu-

4.3. The value of complete pooling

tion easier to manage. For instance, routines for ordering,

The cost benefits of the support warehouse structure il- handling, and shipping can be standardized at the support

lustrated in Section 4.2 are due to the increased oppor- warehouse. This results in lower transshipment costs than

tunities for inventory pooling. Using the nomenclature of would be the case in a complete pooling system, where the

Kranenburg and Van Houtum (2009), the support ware- IT and logistics systems must be able to handle shipments

house offers means to partial pooling of safety stocks. An between the retailers. Therefore, in Table 5 we also include

alternative way of achieving these inventory pooling effects scenarios where a lateral transshipment between two retail-

is, of course, for the retailers to share stock with each other ers is twice (columns 5 to 7) and four times (columns 8 to

by use of lateral transshipments. In this section we compare 10) as expensive as a transshipment from the support ware-

the support warehouse system to a single-echelon system house. In these new scenarios the support warehouse sys-

where all retailers can provide lateral transshipments to all tem renders lower expected costs than the complete pooling

other retailers. Again using the nomenclature of Kranen- system in almost all cases (average

CP being −4.2% and

burg and Van Houtum (2009), we refer to this as a system −15.7%, respectively). This indicates that complete pooling

with complete pooling. is only a reasonable option if such a system can be imple-

In the complete pooling system, a retailer facing a stock- mented without large increases in the transshipment costs.

out requests a lateral transshipment from the retailer that

currently has the most stock on hand. In the case of a tie,

4.4. Numerical results from the case company

one of the retailers with the most stock on hand is chosen

randomly. In the event that all retailers have zero stock on We conclude the numerical study with some results from

hand, the demand is backordered at the retailer where the our case company. At the moment, Volvo Parts determines

320 Axsäter et al.

2 Average inventory

levels, current

1 soluon

Average inventory

0 levels, proposed

SW R2 R4 R6 R8 R10 R12 R14 R16 R18 R20 R22 R24 R26 soluon

reorder points (and order quantities) at each inventory lo- 96%, implying that the cost reductions can be made without

cation separately using tables based on price and forecasted compromising the target service levels set by management.

demand. Depending on their size (small, medium, or large) For the articles we consider, there are two main reasons

the retailers use different tables, and the support warehouse for the superior cost performance of the analytical model,

also uses separate tables. These tables were constructed on compared with the approach currently used. First, coor-

the basis of achieving target service levels, which also vary dinating all reorder points in the entire system obviously

between retailers, depending on price and frequency of de- means that the right amount of stock is kept where it is

mand. However, there is no coordination between the sup- most cost-effective. Hence, service levels can be retained,

port warehouse and the retailers when determining reorder or even increased, at a lower cost. Second, for some arti-

points. We present simulation results from 50 articles sold cles the model brings service levels closer to their target.

on the Spanish market. This market includes 63 retailers, Simulating Volvo Parts’ current solutions results in an av-

but not all articles are sold at all locations; this means that N erage service level of 5.5 percentage points above target

is between 7 and 63 for the articles considered. Lead times (compared with two percentage points in our solutions),

are LS = 2.5 days and Lj is between 5 and 15 days, depend- implying a costly overinvestment in stock. In order to il-

ing on the retailer (including half of the review period that lustrate these two typical situations we present two articles,

ranges between 1 and 6 days). The longer transportation referred to as Article A and Article B. Article A can be

times are associated with retailers on the Spanish islands. characterized as a high-price low-demand item, with a to-

Customer demand (μj ) varies significantly between retail- tal market demand of 113 units per year. The item is sold at

ers and articles, ranging from the extreme case of one per 27 retailers, with a total market target service level (target

year to around seven per day. The 50 articles chosen in- at each retailer weighted with that retailer’s average de-

clude both high- and low-price items, with target service mand) of 78%. For this kind of low-demand item, Volvo

levels between 75 and 97%. For more information on the Parts’ current strategy is to have RS = Rj = 0 and QS =

determination of parameters and the current system setup Qj = 1 for all j, with the exception of two larger retailers

at Volvo Parts, see Borowiec and Liedberg (2009). where Rj = 1. This results in a total market service level of

For each of the 50 articles, the reorder points and or- 88%. The average inventory level at each location is given in

der quantities that are currently used at Volvo Parts were Fig. 6.

obtained using the existing tables. Keeping the order quan- Figure 6 illustrates that the solution proposed by the

tities fixed, this current solution is compared, through simu- analytical method results in more stock at the support

lation, with the reorder points obtained from our presented warehouse and implies that the majority of retailers should

analytical model. Currently, the company stores demand always order directly from the support warehouse (zero in-

data on a monthly basis only. This makes it difficult to ventory) when a demand occurs. In effect, RS is increased

use statistical analysis in order to find a suitable demand by only two units while Rj is decreased by 24 units in to-

process for the simulation model. However, through discus- tal. This results in 58% savings in total costs and actually

sions with Volvo Parts, it was decided to use a compound increases the total service level to 92%.

Poisson process with a geometric compounding distribu- Article B is a less expensive, high-demand item with a

tion in cases where σ j 2/μj > 1 (see Axsäter (2006)). For total market demand of 17 700 units per year. The item is

other variance-to-mean ratios we use gamma-distributed sold at all 63 retailers and the weighted target service level

times between customer arrivals to mimic normally dis- is 96%. In this case, Volvo Parts’ current solution results

tributed lead time demand. in very high inventory levels with a total market service

Results show that applying the proposed model can lead level of close to 100%. As depicted in Fig. 7, the solution

to large cost savings. The reduction in total costs for all 50 from the analytical method is to lower all reorder points,

articles is 29% (the holding costs and transshipment costs resulting in lower average inventory levels, and thus there

are both reduced). Looking purely at the inventory level, is no need to utilize the support warehouse to achieve the

its average value decreases by 43%. The demand-weighted target service levels. This gives a cost decrease of 25% and

average target service level over all 63 retailers and 50 arti- a total market service level of 98%; that is, slightly above

cles is 94%. Our model renders an average service level of target in this case.

A distribution inventory model with transshipments 321

80

60 Average inventory

levels, current

40 soluon

Average inventory

20

levels, proposed

0 soluon

SW R5 R10 R15 R20 R25 R30 R35 R40 R45 R50 R55 R60

5. Summary and concluding remarks support warehouse. Another possible modification, in or-

der to quantify the difference in service, is to introduce a

In this article we present an inventory model for approx- factor θ j when calculating the combined fill rate. That is,

imate cost evaluation and joint optimization of reorder let γ j (R) = α j (Rj ) + (1 − α j (Rj ))β(R)θ j , where 0 ≤ θ j ≤ 1.

points across N retailers and a support warehouse. The Here, θ j can be interpreted as the proportion of customers

model is underpinned by our experiences with Volvo Parts, that recognize shipments from the support warehouse as

which is a global spare parts supplier with headquarters satisfactory service.

in Sweden. The proposed method is computationally effi-

cient and is designed to be directly applicable in practice. References

Through simulations we show that the approximations are

appropriate and that the model generally results in near- Alfredsson, P. and Verrijdt, J.H.C.M. (1999) Modeling emergency supply

optimal solutions. The numerical study shows that having flexibility in a two-echelon inventory system. Management Science,

45, 1416–1431.

a support warehouse as a provider of transshipments is Allen, S.G. (1958) Redistribution of total stock over several user loca-

most valuable when the transshipment cost is low, regular tions. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 5, 51–59.

replenishment lead times are long, target service levels are Axsäter, S. (1990) Modelling emergency lateral transshipments in inven-

high, and the number of retailers in the system is large. It tory systems. Management Science, 36, 1329–1338.

also indicates that the support warehouse structure may Axsäter, S. (2003) Evaluation of unidirectional lateral transhipments and

substitutions in inventory systems. European Journal of Operational

be attractive even if the transshipment cost is quite large. Research, 149, 438–447.

Comparing the support warehouse system with an alterna- Axsäter, S. (2006) Inventory Control, second edition, Springer, New York,

tive structure with complete pooling through lateral trans- NY.

shipments between all retailers illustrates an anticipated Axsäter, S. (2007) A heuristic for triggering emergency orders in an

cost advantage of the latter when transshipment costs are inventory system. European Journal of Operational Research, 176,

880–891.

equal. Arguably, the support warehouse structure has the Axsäter, S. (2011) When is it feasible to model low discrete de-

potential for lower transshipment costs, in which case our mand by a normal distribution? OR Spectrum (to appear). DOI:

study illustrates that this structure may offer lower expected 10.1007/s00291-011-0278-8

costs than complete pooling. Finally, we demonstrate the Borowiec, P. and Liedberg, C.J. (2009) Benefits and challenges with co-

model’s practical usefulness by applying it to real data from ordinated inventory control at Volvo Parts. M.S. thesis, Lund Uni-

versity, Sweden.

Volvo Parts. Here, simulation results for 50 representative Cohen, M.A., Kleindorfer, P.R. and Lee, H.L. (1986) Optimal stocking

products, showing average cost reductions of 29% without policies for low usage items in multi-echelon inventory systems.

compromising the target service levels, indicate that ap- Naval Research Logistics, 33, 17–38.

plying our model can result in considerable reductions in Federgruen, A. and Zheng, Y.S. (1992) An efficient algorithm for com-

inventory holding and transshipment costs. puting an optimal (R,Q) policy in continuous review stochastic in-

ventory systems. Operations Research, 40, 808–813.

In closing, one of the key assumptions in the model is Grahovac, J. and Chakravarty, A. (2001) Sharing and lateral transship-

that service from the support warehouse is comparable to ment of inventory in a supply chain with expensive low-demand

service from the retailers. As discussed previously, this is items. Management Science, 47, 579–594.

reasonable for our industrial partner. However, for some Grimmet, G.R. and Stirzaker, D.R. (1992) Probability and Random Pro-

companies it might be more realistic to assume that the cesses, second edition, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Gross, D. (1963) Centralized inventory control in multilocation supply

customer is more pleased if the products are readily avail- systems, in Multistage Inventory Models and Techniques, Scarf, E.,

able at the retailer. One way of dealing with these situ- Gilford, D.M. and Shelly, M.W. (eds), Stanford University Press,

ations, within the current model structure, is to add an Stanford, CA, pp. 47–84.

extra cost per unit shipped from the support warehouse or, Hadley, G. and Whitin, T.M. (1963) Analysis of Inventory Systems,

equivalently, to increase the transshipment cost, thereby Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Howard, C., Reijnen, I., Marklund, J. and Tarkan, T. (2012) Using

quantifying the difference in service perceived by the cus- pipeline information in a multi-echelon spare parts inventory sys-

tomer. This extra cost can, for instance, be based on the tem. Working paper, Lund University, Sweden, and Eindhoven Uni-

time the customer has to wait for a shipment from the versity of Technology, The Netherlands.

322 Axsäter et al.

Johansen, S.G. and Thorstenson, A. (1998) An inventory model with Song, J.S. and Zipkin, P. (2009) Inventories with multiple supply sources

Poisson demands and emergency orders. International Journal of and networks of queues with overflow bypasses. Management Sci-

Production Economics, 56–57, 275–289. ence, 55, 362–372.

Kranenburg, A.A. and Van Houtum, G.J. (2009) A new partial pooling Wong, H., Van Houtum, G.J., Cattrysse, D. and Van Oudheusden, D.

structure for spare parts networks. European Journal of Operational (2006) Multi-item spare parts systems with lateral transshipments

Research, 199, 908–921. and waiting time constraints. European Journal of Operational Re-

Kukreja, A., Schmidt, C.P. and Miller, D.M. (2001) Stocking decisions for search, 171, 1071–1093.

low-usage items in a multilocation inventory system. Management

Science, 47, 1371–1383. Biographies

Lee, H.L. (1987) A multi-echelon inventory model for repairable items

with emergency lateral transshipments. Management Science, 33,

1302–1316. Sven Axsäter has been a Professor of Production Management at Lund

Minner, S. (2003) Multiple-supplier inventory models in supply chain University since 1993. The main focus of his research has concerned

management: a review. International Journal of Production Eco- production and inventory control. Past and current interests include hi-

nomics, 81-82, 265–279. erarchical production planning, lot sizing, and multi-echelon inventory

Moinzadeh, K. and Nahmias, S. (1988) A continuous review model for systems. He has published numerous papers in the leading journals in his

an inventory system with two supply modes. Management Science, research area.

34, 761–773.

Moinzadeh, K. and Schmidt, C.P. (1991) An (S-1,S) inventory Christian Howard is a Ph.D. candidate in the Division of Produc-

system with emergency orders. Operations Research, 39, 308– tion Management at Lund University, Sweden. He holds degrees from

321. Linköping University (M.Sc.) and Lund University (Tekn. Lic.). His

Olsson, F. (2010) An inventory model with unidirectional lateral trans- research interests include supply chain management, inventory theory,

shipments. European Journal of Operational Research, 200, 725– and optimization theory. His current research is focused on stochastic

732. multi-echelon inventory systems.

Paterson, C., Kiesmüller, G., Teunter, R. and Glazebrook, K. (2011)

Inventory models with lateral transshipments: a review. European Johan Marklund is a Professor of Production Management at Lund

Journal of Operational Research, 210, 125–136. University, Sweden. Previously, he held positions at the Leeds School of

Rijk, P.J. (2007) Multi-item, multi-location stock control with capacity Business, University of Colorado, Boulder, and the Boston Consulting

constraints for the fieldstock of service parts at Océ. M.S. thesis, Group. He holds degrees from Linköping University (M.Sc.), and Lund

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands. University (B.Sc. and Ph.D.). His research interests include inventory

Rosling, K. (2002) The (r,Q) inventory model with lost sales. Working theory, supply chain management, and logistics, with a special focus on

paper, Växjö University, Sweden. stochastic multi-echelon inventory problems.

- ABC & VED AnalysisTransféré parTage Nobin
- Chapter 1 IntroductionTransféré parchampagnewine27
- Homework 04 So LsTransféré parvivek
- Testing ProfileingTransféré parAtul Erp
- New Software Needs AnalysisTransféré parRudyandiPraditya
- Director Operations VP Sales in Chicago IL Resume Rand GlogerTransféré parRandGloger
- Inventory AnylistTransféré parapi-121431081
- Org Structure Presentation Oct 8Transféré parGeorge Thanopoulos
- Control Your Product MixTransféré parEmcien
- MerchandisingTransféré parsoumya697
- Candela in One and a Half Days 2014Transféré parHassan Nasir
- Britannia Industries LimitedTransféré parradhika
- Ratio AnyaliTransféré parMOHITKOLLI
- SENTHIL (ICFAI TIRCHY) Financial Management projectTransféré parvasanthsen
- Case-Study-1.pdfTransféré parDevina Gupta
- Retail SiteTransféré parabhishek
- BWP_MAPTransféré parKunal Singh Gour
- Jobswire.com Resume of eovbynnpoundingTransféré parapi-28511799
- 2017 Retail Industry TrendsTransféré parGaurav Kumar
- ChuaTransféré parHarvey James Chua
- Singer LankaTransféré parrisirarocks
- Tables NamesTransféré parkavi_ashu
- Tables in SAPTransféré parashokkumar7330
- GNFC&ABCTransféré parBhadra Mehta
- FMS - Presnetaion and BenefitTransféré parArt Sittipat
- Manager TraineeTransféré parapi-78928895
- Sap Mm and Wms ConsultantTransféré parRavindra Chava
- 137 ERP607 Process Overview PRE en XXTransféré paraftabyousuf
- SAD_DOCUTransféré parCastiel David
- MANISH CV (2)Transféré parANIL

- Time ManagementTransféré pardaywalker
- Freight costs in the English East India trade 1601 1657.pdfTransféré parImran Khan
- Efficiency of Freight Forwarder s Participation in the Process of TransportationTransféré parImran Khan
- An RFID Based Digital Warehouse Management System in the Tobacco Industry a Case StudyTransféré parImran Khan
- WarehouseTransféré parSheikh Musta'ali
- FREIGHTTransféré parImran Khan
- Freight Forwarding - LogisticsTransféré parram9966
- ShermansLogistics BusinessPlan v3a WebTransféré parImran Khan
- Project KSFCTransféré parImran Khan
- FREIGHT FORWARDERS PDF BY KHANTransféré parImran Khan
- 162458600-freight-forwarding.docTransféré parImran Khan
- 103021172 Warehouse Management Final Project ReportTransféré parImran Khan
- Warehouse Management-Final Project ReportTransféré parpathania1
- muthoot salman.docxTransféré parImran Khan
- Final Project 1Transféré parImran Khan
- A Study on Two Warehouse Partially Backlogged Deteriorating Inventory Models Under Inflation via Particle Swarm OptimisationTransféré parImran Khan
- 228316702-MBA-Warehouse-Mangement-Project.pdfTransféré parImran Khan
- 05448060.pdfTransféré parImran Khan
- Warehousing Management Final_copyTransféré parSherlin Disouza
- CambridgeCore_CitationExport_2Apr2019.docxTransféré parImran Khan
- A Review on Data Warehouse Management (1)Transféré parImran Khan
- A_Review_on_Data_Warehouse_Management (1).pdfTransféré parImran Khan

- [9] Determination of Grating ConstantTransféré parAdrienne Cruz
- 5. WhittingtonTransféré parIrwan Suirwan
- Group_CTransféré parcristinandreeam
- Shure Vocal Master Pro Va300 UgTransféré parwonder104
- 1999 (C.Y. Nian, W.H. Yang, Y.S. Tarng) Optimization of turning operations with multiple performance characteristic.pdfTransféré parFikri Siplho
- Concrete Research ProposalTransféré parSravan Kumar
- A-Bar Interveners in WH QuestionsTransféré parJanita Nikoliva
- Business EnglishTransféré parVirginia Muró Legarra
- 1-20 Public Administration Mcqs Test –Transféré parAli Imran
- Vacuum BubbleTransféré parVincent J. Cataldi
- Approch of Construction Management Towards Rmc Plant ManagementTransféré parsachin hande
- Foundation CAD 2 Hours _ Day [AutoCAD]Transféré parचन्दनप्रसाद
- 78-8141-4838-9Transféré parRogelio Surco Capageña
- How to Create a Temp Table in ODI Interface (Yellow Interface) _ ODI ExpertsTransféré parIsaac SD
- 08_09_2009Transféré parfrontpor
- Impact TestTransféré parRashid Mehmood
- Pmdg b744 ChecklistTransféré parnautica85
- h13Transféré parVeyolla Jaffrey
- HR Dashboard & Reporting ExamplesTransféré pardissidentme
- Ce161p Exp#1 Data SheetTransféré parIdate Patrick
- Integral RulesTransféré parKARTHIK R K
- Simba 1354Transféré parManuel Uturunco Aguilar
- Data communication and networks assignment University of gujratTransféré pardfgfdg
- First Break All RulesTransféré parjsmk1980
- My ResumeTransféré parasdkamal
- Dr. Naeem AkhtarTransféré parMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- tkprofTransféré parKumar N Penumantra
- RFID by CuteBoizTransféré parNguyễn Tấn Phát
- Visu Performance Guide 8212 en 00Transféré parMark Schäfermann
- Tips and Tricks from our usersTransféré parTOPdesk

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.