0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

3 Ansichten19 Seitenjournal3

Apr 06, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

3 Ansichten19 SeitenSie sind auf Seite 1von 19

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered

office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

parametric lead time and demand

information

a b

Alex J. Ruiz-Torres & Farzad Mahmoodi

a

Departmento de Gerencia, Facultad de Administración de

Empresas , Universidad de Puerto Rico, Recinto de Río Piedras ,

San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00931-3332

b

School of Business, Box 5790, Clarkson University , Potsdam, NY

13699-5790, USA

Published online: 29 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Alex J. Ruiz-Torres & Farzad Mahmoodi (2010) Safety stock determination

based on parametric lead time and demand information, International Journal of Production

Research, 48:10, 2841-2857, DOI: 10.1080/00207540902795299

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the

“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,

our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to

the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions

and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,

and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources

of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,

proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising

out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any

substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

International Journal of Production Research

Vol. 48, No. 10, 15 May 2010, 2841–2857

and demand information

Alex J. Ruiz-Torresa* and Farzad Mahmoodib

a

Departmento de Gerencia, Facultad de Administración de Empresas, Universidad de Puerto

Rico, Recinto de Rı´o Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00931-3332; bSchool of Business,

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

(Received 1 July 2008; final version received 28 January 2009)

In many production environments where demand and lead times are variable,

significant levels of safety stock inventory are required to assure timely

production and delivery of the final product. Traditional models to determine

the appropriate safety stock level may result in more safety stocks at sub-assembly

and finished goods levels than necessary and thus lead to higher inventory

carrying costs than desired. Such models generally incorrectly assume that the

demand during the lead time follows a normal distribution. This paper revisits

and analyses a re-ordering point inventory model developed by Estes (1973) that

accounts for demand and lead time variability without making any particular

distributional assumptions. Instead, it focuses on historical data to determine the

possible outcomes of the replenishment cycle. We compare the proposed model

with the traditional model by conducting simulation analysis using three data sets

obtained from an electronics manufacturer. The results indicate that the proposed

model yields much closer to target service levels and lower inventory carrying

costs than the traditional model, regardless of the data set used.

Keywords: inventory management and inventory systems; safety stock

determination

1. Introduction

In the great majority of dependent demand production environments where not only the

demand, but also procurement and manufacturing lead times are variable, safety stocks

are required to achieve reasonable service levels. In such environments, the master

production schedules are generally fixed for just a short period of time because market

dynamics and competitive pressures often prevent them to be set for the entire

procurement and manufacturing lead time duration. Thus, safety stocks are required at

subassembly levels to assure timely production and delivery of the final product, and in

general, the consideration of safety stocks in the supply chain is a highly relevant problem

(Villegas and Smith 2006, Chen et al. 2007) given it affects customer service performance

and inventory costs. As many studies have shown, the amount of safety stock should be

derived based on the average and variability of demand and supply, as well as the desired

service level (e.g. Chase et al. 2004, Krajewski and Ritzman 2005, Stevenson 2005).

Research in the development of inventory systems and policies that include safety stock

ß 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/00207540902795299

http://www.informaworld.com

2842 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

calculations is abundant and includes Chandra and Grabis (2008), Persona et al. (2007),

Jung et al. (2004), and Pang and Yang (2002).

In the traditional r, Q inventory system, the re-order point is a function of the average

demand during the expected lead time, plus the required safety stock (r ¼ Ld þ ss), where d

represents the average demand per unit time, and L the average lead time and ss the safety

stock. The amount of safety stock is a function of five factors: average and standard

deviation of lead time, average and standard deviation of demand, and the desired service

level. The traditional model to calculate the safety stock is ss ¼ Zs0 , where

s0 ¼ ðLs2d þ d 2 s2L Þ1=2 and Z is based on the desired service level. Note that sd and sL

represent the standard deviation of demand and standard deviation of lead time,

respectively.

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

There are concerns regarding the above approach to determine the appropriate amount

of safety stock as the combined variability component s0 often overestimates the ‘joint’

variability of demand and lead time. In other words, safety stock based on the above-

mentioned calculation can actually result in higher service levels than desired and

consequently higher inventory carrying costs. One of the main reasons for the

overestimation is that the assumption of normality for the demand during the lead time

may be incorrect, and therefore the calculated safety stock resulting in a service level

significantly different from what was desired. It is often the case that the normal

distribution is not the best representation of the demand during the lead time. However,

information about the form of the probability distribution of the lead time demand is

generally limited. Often, only an estimate of the mean and the variance is available. There

is a tendency to use the normal distribution under these conditions, although many studies

have demonstrated that the normal distribution does not offer the best shield against the

occurrences of other distributions with the same mean and variance (e.g. Moon and Choi

1997, 1998, Ouyang and Wu 1998, Lin 2008).

Several studies have applied the mini-max distribution free approach to a variety of

inventory problems since the late 1950s. For example, Scarf (1958), Shore (1986), Gallego

and Moon (1993), and Moon and Choi (1995), studied the newsvendor problem where

only the mean and variance of demand is known without any assumptions regarding the

form of the demand distribution. In addition, Gallego (1992) and Moon and Choi (1994)

applied the mini-max distribution free approach to a continuous review inventory model,

while Moon and Gallego (1994) applied the approach to a periodic review inventory

model. Furthermore, Moon and Choi (1997) applied the distribution free approach to

a single period model with stochastic demand under a two-echelon production system and

developed a procedure that provides optimal inventory levels considering the worst

distribution. They concluded that the distribution free approach is robust. More recently,

Pan et al. (2004) applied the mini-max distribution free approach to study the integrated

inventory systems with the objective to simultaneously optimise the order quantity, lead

time, backordering and re-order point. Finally, Pan and Hsiao (2001) and Lin (2008)

applied the mini-max distribution free procedure to optimise continuous review inventory

model with backorder price discount in which the lead time and ordering cost reductions

are inter-dependent.

Another distribution free approach used to calculate the re-order point is based on the

bootstrapping approach. In this approach, the data is used to formulate an empirical

distribution of the lead times. This empirical distribution is then used to generate the

re-order point estimate (Bookbinder and Lordhal 1989, Wang and Rao 1992).

This approach was also used by Fricker and Robbins (2000) who addressed cases where

International Journal of Production Research 2843

no information is available about the inventory position and empirical distributions are

determined for both the demand and the lead time.

This paper re-visits a re-order point model initially proposed by Estes (1973) that

accounts for demand and lead time variability without any assumptions regarding the

form of the lead time demand distribution. Instead it focuses on historical information

regarding the lead time and the demand in order to generate all the possible outcomes of

the replenishment cycle (and the probability of each outcome) to determine the expected

service level that matches the target service level. The rest of the paper is organised

as follows: Section 2 describes the traditional model for determining the re-order

point. Section 3 describes the Estes (1973) model and presents a numerical example of the

calculations required for this model. Section 4 presents a simulation analysis illustrating

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

how the traditional and proposed (Estes 1973) models compare by utilising three data sets

obtained from an electronics manufacturer. Finally, Section 5 provides the discussion of

the results and provides direction for future research.

An important factor in the determination of safety stock is the definition of service level

(SL). The service level of an inventory system can be defined in several ways (Waters 2003),

one case being the percentage of times that demand during a cycle is fully served by the

available inventory (i.e. all demand filled service level). A second definition of service level

is based on the average percentage of demand that was filled from the available inventory

(i.e. fill rate service level), also presented as one minus the ratio of units not available

(stockout units) over the demand (Ballou 2004). The difference between these two service

level definitions is demonstrated by a simple example. Assume r ¼ 100 and the demand

during lead time for five re-ordering cycles is 96, 103, 99, 107, and 110. The resulting

measure assuming that all demand filled service level definition for this r would be 40%

(only in two out of the five cycles was the demand fully met), while based on the fill rate

service level definition, the service level measure equals 96.3% (average of 1, 100/

103, 1, 100/107, 100/110). Clearly, the resulting service level for a system given a fixed

r based on the second definition will be at least as high as the measure based on the first

definition. In this paper we are concerned with the fill rate service level (thus, if otherwise

noted, SL implies this definition and is defined as a percentage), as this measure is most

relevant and used in practice based on our observations.

As mentioned earlier, the traditional model to calculate the safety stock is ss ¼ Zs0 ,

where s0 ¼ ðLs2d þ d 2 s2L Þ1=2 and sd and sL represent the standard deviation of demand and

standard deviation of lead time, respectively. Given our fill rate service level definition, the

value of Z must be based on the expected number of units available during the cycle and

the total expected demand per cycle. As described in Ballou (2004), the expected number of

units of demand, but not filled per cycle is s0 E(z), where E(z) is the unit normal loss integral.

To determine the Z closest to the desired SL, we estimate E(z) by (1 L)Ld/s0 and then find

the corresponding Z value. Note that this formula assumes the replenishment quantity is

equal to the expected demand during the replenishment cycle. The general formula is

presented in Silver et al. (1998) and stated as (1 SL)Q/s0 , where Q is the number of units

remaining.

For example, let us assume d ¼ 6 units per day, sd ¼ 1.768, L ¼ 1.5 days, sL ¼ 0.51,

therefore s0 equals 3.75. For a SL of 80%, the expected number of units not filled in a cycle

2844 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

is 1.8((1 SL) L d), and the value of E(z) equal 0.48. For an E(z) ¼ 0.48 the related

Z ¼ 0.152, and therefore the desired ss ¼ 0.57 units, and r ¼ 8.43 units. Assuming

SL ¼ 99%, then E(z) ¼ 0.024, the corresponding Z ¼ 1.59, and r ¼ 14.95. As a comparison,

if the service level assumed all demand filled at 80%, the value of Z ¼ 0.842 and r ¼ 12.15

(3.73 units more), and at the SL of 99%, Z ¼ 2.33, and r ¼ 17.72 (2.77 units more). Thus,

as mentioned earlier, the all demand filled definition will lead to at least as much safety

stock and re-order point levels as the fill rate service level definition for a similar

percentage value.

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

A joint probability approach to determine the re-order point was originally proposed by

Estes (1973). We refer to this model as the expected value re-order-point (EVR) method.

As Estes (1973) suggests, this model utilises information that is often available to most

companies (or could be ‘easily’ collected) that utilise fixed re-order point inventory

control systems. The first piece of information that the model requires is usage by time

period, without considering if the demand occurs before or during the re-order cycle.

The model assumes that there are x possible levels of demand per time period (i.e.

a[1], a[2], a[3], . . . , a[x] represent the demand per unit time values). For example, if x ¼ 3,

and a[1] ¼ 4, a[2] ¼ 6, and a[3] ¼ 8, there is a probability pj that the demand per time

unit is at a particular level j. Thus, p1 is the probability of a daily demand equal to

4 units; p2 is the probability of a daily demand equal to 6 units, etc. Note that the

model assumes that the demand during each time unit is independent of the previous

time unit.

The second piece of information required by the Estes model is the lead time from

re-order signal to delivery. There are y possible levels of lead time, represented by b[1], b[2],

b[3], . . . , b[y], and Y ¼ {b[1], b[2], b[3], . . . , b[y]}. We limit all b[w] to be integer values. For

example, if y ¼ 2, and b[1] ¼ 1 day, and b[2] ¼ 2 days, there is a probability qj that the lead

time for a cycle is at a particular level j. Thus, q1 is the probability of the lead time equal to

1 day and q2 is the probability of the lead time equal to 2 days. As in the case of the

demand, the assumption is that the lead time of a cycle is independent of the previous

cycle.

The EVR model utilises the decision tree approach to estimate the service level under

each of the possible outcomes. The first split in the tree is based on the number of lead time

levels; therefore the number of branches at the first level is y. In principle each branch will

then split into x branches and this will be repeated for the number of lead time units of that

branch. Figure 1 presents the decision tree for the previously discussed example. The first

split signifies a lead time of 1 day (top part of the figure), and a lead time of 2 days (bottom

part of the figure).

Note that the decision variable is the re-order point, thus the service level equation is

based on this unknown. The variable Df,G is used to represent the lead time demand for

a particular lead time and sequence of demands, where f represents the lead time branch

value, and G represents the demand values during the lead time. For example, Db[2],a[2]a[3]

signifies the lead time demand when the lead time is b[2], and given b[2] ¼ 2, the demand

for the 2 lead time units (days) is based on the demand values of a[2] followed by a[3].

If the inventory value is positive, the ending inventory for that cycle represents the excess

inventory carried (resulting in inventory carrying costs), while if the inventory value is

International Journal of Production Research 2845

a[1] Probability

D b[1], a[1] = a[1] q1 p1

a[2]

D b[1], a[2] = a[2] q1 p2

a[3]

D b[1], a[3] = a[3]

q1 p3

b[1]

a[2]

D b[2], a[1] – a [2] = a[1] + a[2] q 2 p1 p2

a[3]

a[1]

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

b[2] a[2] a[2]

D b[2], a[2] – a [2] = a[2] + a[2] q 2 p2 p2

a[3]

D b[2], a[2] – a [3] = a[2] + a[3] q 2 p2 p3

a[2]

D b[2], a[3] – a [2] = a[3] + a[2] q 2 p3 p2

a[3]

D b[2], a[3] – a [3] = a[3] + a[3] q 2 p3 p3

negative, it represents the unsatisfied demand (and the service level based on the fraction

of the demand satisfied in that cycle). The boxes at the end of the branches in Figure 1

represent the lead time demand, and next to that is the corresponding probability.

Using simple combinatorics, the number of branches to be analysed can be reduced

significantly. Given Db[2],a[2]a[3] ¼ Db[2],a[3]a[2], what is relevant is the number of times

each particular level of lead time demand occurs, and not the particular sequence. Figure 2

presents an updated representation of the example’s decision tree. Note that Db[2],a[2]:a[3]

represents the lead time demand after one level 2 demand and one level 3 demand have

occurred, regardless of the sequence of the particular demands.

As previously mentioned, the number of initial branches depends on the lead time

levels. For each lead time level branch with b[w] time units, the number of branches at the

second level (and therefore outcomes) is based on the value of y and the properties of the

Pascal Triangle. The number of outcomes for a branch with b[w] time units and y demand

values is determined by 1/( y 1)!u¼0. . .y2(b[w] þ 1 þ u). For example, if b[w] ¼ 4 and

y ¼ 3, then there are 15 outcomes. Example outcomes are {4a[1], 4a[2], . . . 2a[1]: 2a[2], 3a[2]:

a[3], . . . , a[1]: a[2]: 2a[3], . . .}, with lead time demand values of {4a[1], 4a[2], . . . 2a[1] þ

2a[2], 3a[2] þ a[3], . . . , a[1] þ a[2] þ 2a[3], . . .}. Let [w] represent the coefficient for a[w],

thus for a branch with Db[w],a[1]:a[2]:2a[3], and therefore a lead time demand of

a[1] þ a[2] þ 2a[3], the corresponding values are [1] ¼ 1, [2] ¼ 1, [3] ¼ 2, and [4] ¼ 0.

The coefficient for the probability of a branch is then calculated by

2846 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

P

( u¼0. . .y [u])!/w¼0. . .y [w]!, thus when [1] ¼ 1, [2] ¼ 1, [3] ¼ 2, and [4] ¼ 0, the

probability is 12qb[w] p1 p2 p23 .

These characteristics of the problem allow for fewer calculations than the original full

enumeration. As the value of maxw¼0. . .x(b[w]) and the number of demand levels y increase,

the number of outcomes increases exponentially, limiting the applicability of this

approach. However, by reducing the fidelity of the data model, this limitation can be

overcome, for example by changing the base time units to ‘2 days’ or ‘2 weeks’, and by

aggregating the demand levels to reduce the size of y.

Let set b[w] include all the possible outcomes when the lead time is b[w] time units and

there are y demand levels. As mentioned earlier, the number of items in this set would be 1/

( y – 1)!u¼0. . .y–2(b[w] þ 1 þ u). Let c be a member of set b[w], for example c ¼ a[1]: a[2]:

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

2a[3]. The service level for an outcome c is 100% if r Db[w],c as the demand during the

lead time was less than or equal to the amount of inventory at the point of the re-order

signal (r). If r 5 Db[w],c it is clear that the demand during the lead time exceeded the

re-order point, thus the service level is less than 100% and equal to r/Db[w],c P . Let (c)

represent the coefficient for the probability of this outcome, calculated by ( u¼0. . .y[u])!/

w¼0. . .y[w])!. Thus (c) ¼ (a[1]:a[2]:2a[3]) ¼ 12. Let p0c represent the probability of

2

a branch c, and p0c ¼ w¼0. . .y p½w

w for that particular c, thereforePp0a½1:a½2:2a½3 ¼ pP

1 p2 p3 . The

overall service level given an unknown r is determined by: b[w] 2 Yqb[w] ( c 2 b[w]

p0c ðcÞ (min (100%, r/Db[w],c)). The EVR method will iteratively search for the value of

r that matches the desired service level based on the described equation.

a[1] Probability

D b[1], a[1] = a[1] q1 p 1

a[2]

D b[1], a[2] = a[2] q1 p 2

a[3]

D b[1], a[3] = a[3]

q1 p 3

b[1]

2a[1]

a[1]:a[2]

b[2] D b[2], a[1] : a [3] = a[1] + a[3] 2q2 p1 p 3

a[1]:a[3]

2a[2]

D b[2], 2a[2] = 2a[2] q 2 p2 2

a[2]:a[3]

2a[3]

International Journal of Production Research 2847

This section provides an example of the calculations required to determine the re-order

point using the EVR method. Assume q1 ¼ q2 ¼ 50%, p1 ¼ 37.5%, p2 ¼ 25%, and

p3 ¼ 37.5%. Let a[1] ¼ 4, a[2] ¼ 6 and a[3] ¼ 8; and y ¼ 2, and b[1] ¼ 1 day and b[2] ¼

2 days. Note that these parameters result in the same d, sd, L, and sL described in Section 2

(sd ¼ 1.768, L ¼ 1.5 days, sL ¼ 0.51, s0 ¼ 3.75). To obtain a service level of 80% the EVR

method estimates an r ¼ 7.275, while for a service level of 99% the re-order point equals

13.9. Tables 1 and 2 present the service level calculations when r ¼ 7.275, and r ¼ 13.9 (as

a reminder, the traditional method re-order points are 8.429, and 14.95, respectively).

When r ¼ 7.275 and the lead time is one day, two levels of demand fall below the re-order

point thus have a service level of 100%, and when the lead time is 2 days, all the combined

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

demand values are larger than the re-order point, thus the service level is always less than

100%. While not shown in a table, when r ¼ 8.429 (the r estimated by the traditional

method for a service level of 80%), the EVR method calculations indicate a service level of

86.35%, while if r ¼ 14.95, the EVR estimate for the service level is 99.54%. Finally, in the

proposed method the r value should never exceed 16 (given this is the highest combination

of demand and lead time), while the traditional method would consider such values (for

a very high service level), demonstrating another weakness of the traditional method.

4. Simulation analysis

In this section we compare the proposed EVR method with the traditional model by

conducting simulation analysis on three data sets obtained from an electronics

manufacturer. The three data sets were initially analysed in order to estimate d, sd, L,

and sL assuming normality. Using Arena’s Input Analyzer the data sets were also analysed

in order to obtain parameter estimates for seven additional distributions: Exponential,

Lognormal, Gamma, Beta, Weibull, Triangular, and Uniform (Altiok and Melamed

2007). The Input Analyzer software performs a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test to

determine the fit of the distribution and parameters to each data set. This was used to

determine what distributions to test in the simulation analysis. Finally, each data set was

grouped and analysed in order to estimate the parameters required for our model: a, p, b,

Table 1. Expected carrying cost and service level calculations for r ¼ 7.275.

a[2] 25.0% 1 6 100.0%

a[3] 37.5% 1 8 90.9%

P

c 2 b[w]p0c (c) (min (100%, r/Db[w],c) 96.6%

2 2a[1] 14.1% 1 8 90.9%

a[1]:a[2] 9.4% 2 10 72.8%

a[1]:a[3] 14.1% 2 12 60.6%

2a[2] 6.3% 1 12 60.6%

a[2]:a[3] 9.4% 2 14 52.0%

P 2a[3] 14.1% 1 16 45.5%

c 2 b[w]p0c (c) (min (100%, r/Db[w],c) 63.4%

Expected service level: 50% (96.6%) þ 50% (63.4%) 80.0%

2848 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

Table 2. Expected carrying cost and service level calculations for r ¼ 13.9.

a[2] 25.0% 1 6 100.0%

a[3] 37.5% 1 8 100.0%

P

c 2 b[w]p0c (c) (min (100%, r/Db[w],c) 100%

2 2a[1] 14.1% 1 8 100.0%

a[1]:a[2] 9.4% 2 10 100.0%

a[1]:a[3] 14.1% 2 12 100.0%

2a[2] 6.3% 1 12 100.0%

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

2a[3] 14.1% 1 16 86.9%

P

c 2 b[w]p0c (c) (min (100%, r/Db[w],c) 98%

Expected Service Level: 50% (100%) þ 50% (98%) 99%

Figure 3. Prototype tool to determine reorder point using the EVR method.

and q. As part of this analysis we developed a software tool to estimate the re-order point

given a desired service level based on a maximum of 10 demand levels per time unit and

with lead times of up to 8 time units. An image of the interface is presented in Figure 3.

Note that this is a prototype tool; features such as those related to file management

and error prevention were not included. The limitations on the number of demand levels

and time unit ranges for the prototype are based on the computational time experienced

during development. Table 3 presents the computational times for a sample set of number

of demand (x) and lead time levels ( y) combinations including different value for the

lead time ranges for y. The computer used for the experiments had an Intel Core Duo

International Journal of Production Research 2849

x (demand levels) y (lead time levels) Range of lead times CPU time (seconds)

4 5 1–5 51

7 5 1–5 2

10 5 1–5 4

4 5 4–8 5

7 5 4–8 306

10 5 4–8 3533

4 8 1–8 7

7 8 1–8 324

10 8 1–8 4142

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

CPU at 2.2 GHz. When there are five lead time levels ( y ¼ 5) and they are in the range of

1–5 time units, the required computational time is insignificant (less than 4 seconds),

regardless of the number of demand levels. However, with five demand levels ( y ¼ 5) but

with higher values for the lead times (4–8 time units), the computational times increase

exponentially as the number of demand levels increase. The same exponential growth in

computational times was observed with y ¼ 8 and using the full range of lead times (1–8

time units). These results show the constraints on time and demand levels and ranges, and

in the case of an industrial application for the software, computing times would also limit

the type of data that can be analysed. However, as described next, any range of data can be

modified to meet these constraints by the creation of demand and time buckets.

The three data sets used represent items that display demand and lead time variability.

Specifically, item 1 displays medium variation in both demand and lead time, while item 2

displays high variation of demand but relatively low variation of lead time. Finally, item 3

displays low variation in demand as well as lead time. Also, note that item 3’s demand and

lead time patterns fit the normal distribution better than that of the other two items. These

three items were selected from a larger set provided by the company as they were

representative of the remaining data sets.

The first item analysed has a mean demand of 72.13 units with a standard deviation of

26.61, while its average lead time is 3.55 days with a standard deviation of 1.11. The lead

time values for item 2 were relatively large and given the constraints of the developed

software (maximum of eight time units), the data was transformed into a half week time

scale. The average half week demand was 259.85 units with a standard deviation of 222.23.

The lead time had an average of 6.2 half weeks and a standard deviation of 1.21. Note that

the assumption of demand normality for this data set will lead to poor results due to the

high probability of negative demand. Item 3 had lead time characteristics relatively similar

to that of item 2 (although the time scales are quite different: half weeks for item 2 and

days for item 3), with the normal distribution being one of the two best fitting

distributions. The average lead time was 4.2 days with a standard deviation 0.95, while the

average demand was 303.95 with a standard deviation of 25.97. Table 4 summarises the

‘normal distribution’ parameters for the three items.

2850 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

d sd L sL

Item 2 259.85 222.23 6.18 1.210

Item 3 303.95 25.97 4.18 0.949

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

Item 2 26 þWEIB(239, 1.06) 0.01136 NORMAL 6.18, 1.21) 0.03252

Item 3 NORMAL(304, 25.9) 0.03830 1.5 þ 6 BETA(5.12, 6.21) 0.02227

Table 5 provides the parameters and the square error for the best fitting distribution

for each item. Out of all the distributions tested, only the Beta, Normal, and Weibull

resulted in a ‘best fit’, although the Exponential, Gamma, and Uniform were ‘close’ for

some of the variables. As can be noted, the normal distribution was the best fit in two of

the six cases. In addition, BETA(5.12, 6.21) behaved similarly to a normal distribution.

The analysis indicated that the most ‘non-normal’ distributions were the demand and lead

times for item 1 and the demand for item 2.

To form item 1’s demand parameters for the EVR method (a parameter set), the range

for the data was determined (35 to 111 per day) and then nine groups were formed, each

with a range of 10 units; the first group was from 35 to 44, the next from 45 to 54, and

so on. Then, we determined the average values for each group. For example, for the range

55–64 the data had the following five values: 59, 62, 63, 63, and 64 for an average of 62.2

(a[i] ¼ 62.2). Given there were 62 data points, the probability for this demand level is

8.06% (b[i] ¼ 5/62 ¼ 8.06%). Forming the parameter set for the lead times was significantly

easier due to a smaller range of lead times and the use of integer values for lead times.

Figure 4 provides a graphical presentation of the parameters a and b for item 1 (note that

there was no demand points for the range 45–54). For item 2 the groupings for the demand

data were made using an approach similar to that used for item 1, grouping demand from

1–100, 101–200, etc. Figure 5 depicts the graphical representations of the parameters a and

b for item 2. For item 3 the groupings were performed in ranges of 10 units, resulting in

8 demand groups. Figure 6 presents the graphical representations of the parameters a and

b for item 3.

A simulation model was developed to compare the re-order points determined by the

traditional and the proposed methods. Besides estimating the service level, we also

calculated the holding costs based on the inventory left at the end of each cycle; units left

International Journal of Production Research 2851

40%

30%

Probability

20%

10%

0%

39.4 62.2 67.8 80.5 85.0 99.0 107.9

Demand (Day)

40%

Probability

30%

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

20%

10%

0%

2 3 4 5

Lead Time (days)

40%

30%

Probability

20%

10%

0%

66.4 141.1 230.9 343.5 422.6 550.1 808.7

Demand (Half Week)

50%

40%

Probability

30%

20%

10%

0%

3 4 5 6 7 8

Lead Time (half weeks)

at the end of cycle H0 , where H0 represents the holding cost per unit per cycle.

The simulation model is fairly simple and works in the following manner for each

simulated re-order cycle (note that it is assumed that the lead time is always larger than 0,

and cycles with lead times equal to or smaller than 0 are not simulated):

Step 1: Use lead time distribution (best fit for the item) to generate a lead time value ¼ .

Step 2: If 0, then go to Step 1.

Step 3: Let P ¼ bc, and ¼ bc.

Step 4: Let D ¼ 0. Let W ¼ 1.

2852 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

40%

30%

Probability

20%

10%

0%

212 286 295 306 314 324 332 345

Demand (Day)

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

60%

50%

Probability

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2 3 4 5 6 7

Lead Time (days)

Step 5: Use demand per time unit distribution (best fit for the item) to generate a demand

value ¼ . Let D ¼ D þ d.

Step 6: Let W ¼ W þ 1. If W then go to Step 5

Step 7: Use demand per time unit distribution (best fit for the item) to generate a demand

value ¼ . Let D ¼ D þ P.

Step 8: Holding cost for the cycle is H0 max(0, r D). Service level for the cycle is

min(100%, r/D).

A total of 1000 replenishment cycles were simulated. For each re-ordering point and

distribution combination a total of 10 replications were conducted. The average values for

the inventory carrying cost and service level were tracked to determine the start up period

using the graphical method. The analysis indicated that the steady state condition was

reached after 50–100 cycles. Thus, to ensure that the steady state condition is reached, the

data corresponding to the first 100 cycles were discarded from all the simulation models.

Simulation runs for each item were performed at target service levels of 50%, 60%, 70%,

80%, 90%, 95%, and 99%.

Table 6 presents the results of the analysis for item 1, indicating the resulting re-order

points, and service levels from the simulations (i.e. minimum, average, and maximum of

International Journal of Production Research 2853

EVR cost

TSL Trad. EVR Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Max. savings

50% 132 112 57.0% 57.5% 58.0% 49.2% 49.6% 49.9% 133%

60% 161 138 67.0% 67.6% 68.1% 59.2% 59.7% 60.5% 121%

70% 194 168 76.2% 76.7% 77.3% 68.9% 69.6% 70.4% 80%

80% 232 206 84.5% 84.9% 85.5% 79.2% 79.7% 80.0% 54%

90% 280 261 92.1% 92.4% 92.7% 89.2% 89.7% 90.3% 27%

95% 322 306 96.1% 96.3% 96.5% 94.6% 95.0% 95.4% 18%

99% 397 380 99.2% 99.4% 99.5% 98.9% 99.0% 99.2% 12%

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

the 10 replications), as well as the cost savings due to using the EVR method. For all TSL

levels the traditional method resulted in higher re-order points than EVR, with the

percentage difference between the two (rTrad rEVR)/rEVR decreasing as the TSL increased.

At the lower TSL levels (i.e. 50%–80%), the resulting average service level was higher than

the TSL by 5–7% for the traditional method, while the average for the EVR method was

less than 1% below TSL. At the higher TSL levels (i.e. 90%–99%), the difference between

the resulting SL and the TSL was smaller for the traditional method, while the EVR had

close to ‘perfect’ performance. The range of service levels (max–min resulting SLs) was

narrow (1% or less) for both methods. For the traditional method, the minimum resulting

SL was always above target, while for the EVR method, the minimum was always below

target, thus in one or more replications the TSL was not achieved (by at most 1.1%),

demonstrating the approach does not guarantee it will meet the TSL, and can result in

lower than expected service levels.

These results demonstrate that the traditional method could result in significant

overestimation of the re-order point, leading to higher SL values than the target, as well as

higher inventory carrying costs. However, as the TSL increased the opportunity for such

gaps decreased, thus at very high TSL the traditional method resulted in closer to the

target actual service levels. In addition, the EVR method determined a re-order point that

was within 1% of the target, in most cases resulting in service levels that were less than 1%

of the target. Finally, with regards to inventory carrying costs, the savings resulting from

lower re-order points (EVR based) were highly significant at the lower TSL levels, and

decreased in significance as the TSL increased (i.e. ranged from 133% to 12%).

The results for item 2 (presented in Table 7) demonstrated the increased ‘accuracy’ of the

EVR method when compared to the traditional, which can be attributed to the high

demand variation and not behaving ‘normally’. The r determined by the traditional

method resulted in SLs about 7–9% above target at the lower TSL levels, while the EVR

method had an average SL less than 1% above TSL, resulting in significant cost savings.

At the higher TSL levels, the traditional method resulted in higher re-order points than

EVR, but similar to item 1, the resulting SLs were closer to the TSL and the savings

decreased as TSL increased. Only at TSL ¼ 99% did the EVR method result in an

2854 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

EVR cost

TSL Trad. EVR Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Max. savings

50% 838 695 58.6% 59.0% 59.8% 49.7% 50.0% 50.8% 177%

60% 1025 857 68.6% 69.5% 70.1% 59.4% 60.2% 61.0% 136%

70% 1233 1044 77.2% 78.7% 79.3% 69.8% 70.3% 71.0% 104%

80% 1479 1280 85.9% 86.8% 87.2% 79.8% 80.5% 81.7% 77%

90% 1818 1623 93.2% 93.7% 94.1% 90.0% 90.3% 90.5% 45%

95% 2094 1921 96.4% 96.7% 96.9% 95.0% 95.2% 95.5% 28%

99% 2596 2505 99.0% 99.1% 99.2% 98.7% 98.9% 99.1% 8%

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

EVR cost

TSL Trad. EVR Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Max. savings

50% 637 605 51.6% 52.0% 52.4% 49.1% 49.4% 49.8% 393%

60% 767 732 61.9% 62.5% 63.1% 59.3% 59.6% 60.0% 74%

70% 904 860 72.3% 73.0% 73.5% 69.5% 69.9% 70.2% 68%

80% 1056 1007 82.7% 83.0% 83.3% 79.8% 80.1% 80.8% 46%

90% 1251 1186 92.0% 92.2% 92.6% 89.2% 89.6% 90.1% 43%

95% 1400 1338 96.3% 96.5% 96.7% 94.9% 95.1% 95.4% 25%

99% 1659 1628 99.4% 99.5% 99.5% 99.3% 99.3% 99.4% 7%

average SL below target, and only by 0.1%. The minimum of the 10 replications for the

EVR method was at most 0.6% from target, and in most cases less than 0.3% from target,

so the accuracy of the EVR method was noticeably higher than the traditional. Besides the

TSL ¼ 80%, the maximum resulting SL was less than 1% above target. With regards to

inventory carrying costs, the savings resulting from lower re-order points were highly

significant at the lower TSL levels, and decreased in significance as the TSL increased

(i.e. ranged from 177% to 8%).

Given that the lead time and demand for this item behaved ‘normally’, we hypothesised

that the performance of the traditional method would be close to that of EVR model,

which as shown in Table 8, proved to be correct, at least when compared to the results for

items 1 and 2. The average resulting SLs were 1–3% above the TSL, while the resulting

average SL for the EVR method were less than 0.5% below the target, a result similar to

that of item 1. However, the minimum resulting SL for the EVR method was off by at

most 0.9%. While the cost savings resulting from using the EVR method were high (i.e.

393% to 7%), the resulting SLs were slightly below the target service levels. We point out

that when the target service level is 50%, the EVR cost savings are very high (i.e. 393%).

International Journal of Production Research 2855

This can be attributed to the fact that both the traditional method and the EVR method

have almost no safety stock (and therefore almost no holding costs). While the EVR

method resulted in an average holding cost of 0.0211, the traditional model resulted in an

average holding cost of 0.1041 (therefore the 393% savings). By comparison, when the

TSL was 99%, the holding costs were 386.8 and 361.2 for the traditional and the EVR

methods, respectively (therefore the 7% savings).

5. Conclusions

A significant amount of safety stock is required in production environments where both

demand and lead times are variable to assure timely production and delivery of the final

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

generally assume that the demand during the lead time follows a normal distribution.

However, information about the form of the probability distribution of the demand during

the lead time is by and large lacking, and the normal distribution is often not the best

representation of the demand during the lead time. In fact, several studies have

demonstrated that the normal distribution does not provide the best shield against the

occurrences of other distributions with the same mean and variance.

This paper presents an alternative re-ordering point model (i.e. EVR method) that

considers demand and lead time variability by focusing on historical data to determine the

possible outcomes of the replenishment cycle, without making any distributional

assumptions. We compare the proposed model with the traditional model by conducting

simulation analysis using three data sets obtained from an electronic manufacturer. The

results indicate that the proposed model yields much closer to target service levels and

lower inventory carrying costs than the traditional model, regardless of the data set used.

This confirms the perception that the traditional method tends to overestimate the re-order

point, resulting in higher service levels than targeted, and consequently higher than desired

inventory carrying costs.

Future research of interest includes the calculation of re-order points considering the

lead time variability of diverse suppliers and the analysis of data sets from other industries.

In addition, future research of practical significance includes how to determine safety

stocks for different seasons of the year (e.g. when demand is highly volatile, or when

demand is stable) and to develop a method that can trigger the change in safety stock

levels. Finally, historical data from the company in question demonstrated that when the

demand was highly volatile, safety stocks were typically not sufficient, while during

months of stable demand, safety stocks were excessive. Proactive management of safety

stocks in such environments provides opportunities for future research.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous referees for their insightful and valuable comments and

suggestions that helped to significantly improve this paper.

References

Altiok, T. and Melamed, B., 2007. Simulation modeling and analysis with Arena. Burlington, MA:

Academic Press (Elsevier).

2856 A.J. Ruiz-Torres and F. Mahmoodi

Ballou, R.H., 2004. Business logistics/supply chain management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Bookbinder, J.H. and Lordahl, A.E., 1989. Estimation of inventory re-order levels using the

bootstrap statistical procedure. IIE Transactions, 21 (4), 302–312.

Chandra, C. and Grabis, J., 2008. Inventory management with variable lead-time dependent

procurement cost. Omega, 36 (5), 877–887.

Chase, R.B., Jacobs, F.R., and Aquilano, N.J., 2004. Operations management for competitive

advantage. 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Chen, A., Hsu, C.-H., and Blue, J., 2007. Demand planning approaches to aggregating and

forecasting interrelated demands for safety stock and backup capacity planning. International

Journal of Production Research, 45 (10), 2269–2294.

Estes, R., 1973. The joint probability approach and reorder point determination. Journal of

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014

Fricker, R.D. and Robbins, M., 2000. Retooling for the logistics revolution – designing Marine Corps

inventories to support the warfighter. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Research Division.

Gallego, G., 1992. A minimax distribution free procedure for the (Q, r) inventory model. Operation

Research Letters, 11 (1), 55–60.

Gallego, G. and Moon, I., 1993. The distribution free newsboy problem: review and extensions.

Journal of Operational Research Society, 44, 825–834.

Jung, J.Y., et al., 2004. A simulation based optimisation approach to supply chain management

under demand uncertainty. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 28 (10), 2087–2106.

Krajewski, L.J. and Ritzman, L.P., 2005. Operations management: processes and value chains. 7th ed.

Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lin, Y., 2008. Minimax distribution free procedure with backorder price discount. International

Journal of Production Economics, 111, 118–128.

Moon, I. and Choi, S., 1998. A note on lead time and distributional assumptions in continuous

review inventory models. Computers and Operations Research, 25 (11), 1007–1012.

Moon, I. and Choi, S., 1997. Distribution free procedures for make-to-order (MTO),

make-in-advance (MIA), and composite policies. International Journal of Production

Economics, 48, 21–28.

Moon, I. and Choi, S., 1995. The distribution free newsboy problem with balking. Journal of

Operational Research Society, 46, 537–542.

Moon, I. and Choi, S., 1994. The distribution free continuous review inventory system with a service

level constraint. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 27, 209–212.

Moon, I. and Gallego, G., 1994. Distribution free procedures for some inventory models. Journal of

Operational Research Society, 45, 651–658.

Ouyang, L. and Wu, K., 1998. A minimax distribution free procedure for mixed inventory model

with variable lead time. International Journal of Production Economics, 56/57, 511–516.

Pan, C.H. and Hsiao, Y.C., 2001. Inventory models with back-order discounts and variable lead

time. International Journal of System Science, 32, 925–929.

Pan, C.H., Lo, M., and Hsiao, Y.C., 2004. Optimal reorder point inventory models with variable

lead time and backorder discount considerations. European Journal of Operational Research,

158, 488–505.

Pan, J.C.-H. and Yang, J.-S., 2002. A study of an integrated inventory with controllable lead time.

International Journal of Production Research, 40 (5), 1263–1273.

Persona, A., et al., 2007. Optimal safety stock levels of subassemblies and manufacturing

components. International Journal of Production Economics, 110 (1/2), 147–159.

Scarf, H., 1958. A min-max solution of an inventory problem, Studies in mathematical theory of

inventory and production. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, Chapter 12.

Shore, H., 1986. General approximate solutions for some common inventory models. Journal of

Operational Research Society, 37, 619–629.

International Journal of Production Research 2857

Silver, E.A., Pyke, F.P., and Peterson, R., 1998. Inventory management and production planning and

scheduling. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Stevenson, W.J., 2005. Operations management. 8th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Villegas, F.A. and Smith, N.R., 2006. Supply chain dynamics: analysis of inventory vs. order

oscillations trade-off. International Journal of Production Research, 44 (6), 1037–1054.

Wang, M.-C. and Rao, S.S., 1992. Estimating reorder points and other management science

applications by bootstrap procedure. European Journal of Operational Research, 56 (3),

332–342.

Waters, C.D.J., 2003. Inventory control and management. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley &

Sons.

Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee] at 16:48 04 October 2014