presented by: y. levent koÇaĞa
DESCRIPTION
A Model for Assessing the Value of Warehouse Risk Pooling: Risk Pooling Over Outside-Supplier Leadtimes. Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA. THE MODEL. A multi-echelon inventory model A high service level system Highlights warehouse risk-pooling Two alternative configurations. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A Model for Assessing the Value of Warehouse Risk Pooling: Risk Pooling Over Outside-Supplier Leadtimes
Presented by:
Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA
![Page 2: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
THE MODEL
A multi-echelon inventory model A high service level system Highlights warehouse risk-pooling Two alternative configurations
![Page 3: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Alternative system configurations
1 2 3
Leadtime = (Ls + Ltr )
Retailers
System1: Direct shipment to Retailers
Warehouse
Outsidesupplier
Outsidesupplier
1 2 3
Retailers
System2: Shipment through Warehouse
Leadtime = (Ltr+LPW )
Leadtime = (LS+LTW )
![Page 4: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Assumptions
Retailers supply a normal identical demand Periodic-review demand replenishment Fixed lead times IT system to track inventory(at order time) No interchange of goods between retailers
![Page 5: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Assumptions( specific to system2)
Warehouse does not hold inventory Arriving orders are allocated at warehouse Allocation only at the order receipt Equalization of retailers` inventory Cost of allocation avoided
![Page 6: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Key differences
Time of order allocation Additional lead time (Ltw + Lpw) in system 2
Pipeline inventory in system 2
![Page 7: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
-Ls-Ltr
100
30
30
100
40
40
H0 -Ls-LtrH0
-Ls-Ltw-Lpw-Ltr
30
37
40
33
H0 H0-Ls-Ltw-Lpw-Ltr
-Lpw-Ltr -Lpw-Ltr
50 54
100100
Comparison of two systems
System 2
System 1
![Page 8: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Scope of the Study
Derive expressions for means and variances Formulate the performance measures Analysis to find breakeven lead times Sensitivity analysis Conclusions and managerial insights Further extensions
![Page 9: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Two alternative systems
N identical retailers Identical demand is N~(μ, σ) Drawings are independent(iid) Review period is H (system cycle) Order up to S0i every H periods, i=1,2
![Page 10: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Analysis of system 1
System order up to level is S01
Order placed (Ls + Ltr ) periods before period 1
Then retailer end-of-period k net inventory is: t=k
Ikl = S01/N -∑Dt , k=1,…,H
t=-(Ls
+ L
tr )
![Page 11: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Analysis of system 1
E(Ikl) = S01/N –(k+ Ls + Ltr) μ , k=1,…H
Var(Ikl) = (k+ Ls + Ltr) σ2 , k=1,…H
![Page 12: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Analysis of system 2
System order up to level is S02
Order placed at (Ls + Ltw + Lpw + Ltr ) periods before
period 1 Then retailer end-of-period k net inventory is:
j=N t=-( Lpw + Ltr+1) t=k
Ikl = {S02 - ∑ ∑ }/N - ∑ Dt , k=1,…,H
j=1 t=-(Ls
+ L
tw + L
pw + L
tr ) t= (L
pw + L
tr)
![Page 13: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Analysis of system 2
E(Ik2) =S02/N –(k+ Ls + Ltw + Lpw + Ltr )μ, k=1,…H
Var(Ik2) = [k+ Ls/N+(Ltw/N+Lpw) + Ltr] σ2, k=1,…H
![Page 14: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Service level measures
Retailer expected end-of-period backorders is :
EUBki = √var(Iki) . G[ E(Iki) / √Var(Iki)] , k=1,...H
P = EUBki /(Hμ) Observe that P = 1 – fill rate
![Page 15: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Risk pooling: incentive quantified
Warehouse serves to pool risk over outside-supplier leadtime
The incentive is reduced overall variance of inventory process
RPI = Var(Ik1) - Var(Ik2)
RPI = [(N-1) Ls – Ltw – NLpw)] σ2 / N
![Page 16: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
SS Breakeven Leadtimes
How large can (Ltw ,Lpw) be given that Retailers have the same safety stock Both systems provide the same service level
This yields:
Ltw + N.Lpw = (N-1).Ls
![Page 17: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Inventory cost breakeven leadtimes
System 2 incurs pipeline stock due to its internal lead time (Lpw + Ltr)
Change the question to address this issue:
How large can (Ltw ,Lpw) be given that Both systems provide the same service level The same safety holding cost ( plus pipeline holding
cost for System 2)
![Page 18: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Inventory cost breakeven leadtimes
Given an inventory holding cost h, the safety stock holding cost for system1 per cycle is:
Whereas the safety stock plus pipeline inventory holding cost for system 1 is:
![Page 19: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Inventory cost breakeven leadtimes
Equating the holding costs gives
![Page 20: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Inventory cost breakeven leadtimes
Average cycle inventories ignored Safety stocks approximated by end-of-period
expected on-hand inventory System 2 retailer stock is set to system 1
retailer stock less the retailer pipeline inventory Determination of breakeven points trades the
reduction in variance against this reduction
![Page 21: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Computational studies
Holding cost breakeven (Ltw ,Lpw) lead times for representative sets
Ls used as a scale parameter to assess the breakevens
H is set to 1
![Page 22: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Case1: Ltw and Ltr both set to zero
If transportation / receiving times are set to zero
RPI = [(N-1) Ls – NLpw)] σ2 / N
system 2’s pipeline inv. hldng. cost is LpwNμHh
![Page 23: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Holding cost breakeven Lpw values
![Page 24: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Holding cost breakeven Lpw values
![Page 25: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Case2: Ltw and Ltr both positive
![Page 26: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Case3: (Ltw,Lpw)-Lines
Lpw incurs pipeline inventory holding cost of
LpwNμHh per system cycle
System does not pool risk over Lpw
Therefore holding cost breakeven Lpw’s will be smaller than h. Cost breakeven Ltw’s
As Ltr increases both should decrease
![Page 27: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Case3: (Ltw,Lpw)-Lines
![Page 28: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Case3: (Ltw,Lpw)-Lines
![Page 29: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions
Overall value of using System to pool risk critically depends on System 2’s pipeline stock
Holding cost breakeven (Lpw,Ltw) values:
Very small values of Lpw but larger for Ltw
![Page 30: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Conclusions
Breakeven values decrease as N decreases, as Ltr increases, as σ/μ decreases, as H increases.
![Page 31: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Managerial Interpretations
If System 2 is to outperform System 1 Lpw must be quite small compared to Ls
Ltw may be considerably larger than Ls
Limited to high service level systems due to the allocation assumption
![Page 32: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Possible extensions
Goods “enter” each system More complex cost structure Generalizing transpotation/receiving leadtime Different H values for different systems
![Page 33: Presented by: Y. LEVENT KOÇAĞA](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681574d550346895dc4f01f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Q & A