In particular, it considers a two-stage single-vendor single-buyer supply chain and assumes that the vendor has the option to invest in increasing its production rate. The outcome of these attempts to improve production capabilities, however, is uncertain and subject to an investment success probability. Due to different access to capital, the vendor and the buyer may also share the investment and the outcome uncertainty, which can be beneficial to both parties. Aligning strategic and operational decisions among the different echelons of a supply chain is a prerequisite for creating and maintaining competitive advantages in today’s business environment. Supply chain management therefore encompasses the coordination of material, financial and information flows in supply chains, and has received increased attention both in theory and in practice (Mentzer et al., 2001, Li et al., 2006).
- Aligning strategic and operational decisions among the different echelons of a supply chain is a prerequisite for creating and maintaining competitive advantages in today’s business environment.
- To further our understanding of how investment subsidies may influence the performance of a supply chain, this paper considers the case where a buyer offers a credit to its vendor (see, for example, Wadecki, et al. (2012)).
- Lot sizing in this deterministic setting is essentially the problem of balancing the fixed costs of ordering with the costs of holding inventory.
- In this chapter, we look at several different models of deterministic lot sizing.
- The credit offered by the buyer has the purpose to develop the vendor by improving its production capabilities and subsequently its performance (cf. Krause, 1997).
- Inventory carrying costs must be balanced against purchasing costs, since these costs are contradictory; purchasing costs increase as the unit volume purchased within each order declines, while inventory holding costs increase as the number of units purchased per order increases.
Inventory carrying costs must be balanced against purchasing costs, since these costs are contradictory; purchasing costs increase as the unit volume purchased within each order declines, while inventory holding costs increase as the number of units purchased per order increases. Our analysis of inventory models so far has focused on situations where demand was both known in advance https://accounting-services.net/ and constant over time. We now relax this latter assumption and turn our attention to systems where demand is known in advance yet varies with time. This is possible, for example, if orders have been placed in advance, or contracts have been signed specifying deliveries for the next few months. In this case, a planning horizon is defined as those periods where demand is known.
ELS is still valid for this situation, as long as average demand can be predicted accurately, and as long as the risk of obsolescence does not increase for larger batch quantities. Semantic Scholar is a free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature, based at the Allen Institute for AI. When inventory drops to zero, it is immediately replenished by the ELS quantity. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. The authors are thankful to the valuable, constructive and detailed comments, recommendations and suggestions provided by the reviewers that supported the improvement of the paper. The last author in addition wishes to thank the Carlo and Karin Giersch Stiftung for funding his research.
Summary of the Economic Lot Size Model
Establishing long-term relationships among the members of a supply chain has become necessary to enhance the supply chain’s competitiveness in a globalized environment. Besides coordinating operational decisions, such as how much and when to produce or to order, the members of a supply chain may also share financial resources or act jointly on the capital market. This is important especially when companies have unequal access to capital, for example because they are located in countries with different economic conditions and banking policies and/or they have different credit ratings. The joint financing of investments across the supply chain may thus ensure the stability of production and of the flow of products to the customers. In addition, it strengthens the established relationships among the supply chain members. The paper at hand takes up these issues and presents a joint economic lot size model that allows investments financed cooperatively by the members of the supply chain.
If the line is at or near capacity, overhead
costs should be included as representation of lost opportunity for production while
line is being changed over. Setup cost is averaged over the entire batch to
derive the Setup Cost per unit. Setup cost per unit is high when batches are
small and rapidly decreases with increasing lot size. Economic lot size is the quantity at which ordering and inventory carrying costs are minimized for a group of inventory items.
One stream of supply chain management research that enjoyed increased popularity in recent years studies the coordination of order and production quantities in supply chains. So-called joint economic lot size (JELS) models determine continuous inventory policies from a system’s point of view that maximize the profit of the considered supply chain, instead of optimizing the individual positions of the supply chain members. In this study, we consider a dynamic economic lot sizing problem for a single perishable item under production capacities. A similar problem without production capacities was studied in the literature and a polynomial time algorithm was suggested (Hsu, 2003 ).
Our objective is to identify optimal inventory policies for single-item models as well as heuristics for the multi-item case. Direct costs are generally directly
proportional to economic lot size model the amount produced, such as materials and direct labor. Since direct
cost per piece is typically unaffected by lot size, it does not actually affect
the calculation of ELS.
In this chapter, we look at several different models of deterministic lot sizing. First, we consider the most basic single-item model, the economic lot size model. Then we look at coordinating the ordering of several items with a warehouse of limited capacity. To further our understanding of how investment subsidies may influence the performance of a supply chain, this paper considers the case where a buyer offers a credit to its vendor (see, for example, Wadecki, et al. (2012)). The credit offered by the buyer has the purpose to develop the vendor by improving its production capabilities and subsequently its performance (cf. Krause, 1997). Under these circumstances, lenders pay particular attention to investment performances, and the modeling effort requires considerable accuracy (Borgonovo et al., 2010).
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article. Because this method was perceived by some as too complex, a number of authors also developed approximate heuristics (e.g., the Silver-Meal heuristic) for the problem.
We assume age-dependent holding cost functions and the deterioration rates, which are more realistic for perishable items. We prove the NP-hardness of the problem even with zero inventory holding and backlogging costs under our assumptions. We show the structural properties of the optimal solution and suggest a heuristic that finds a good production and distribution plan when the production periods are given.
We also give a Dynamic Programing-based heuristic for the solution of the overall problem. Production planning is also an area where difficult combinatorial problems appear in day-to-day logistics operations. In this chapter, we analyze problems related to lot sizing when demands are constant and known in advance. Lot sizing in this deterministic setting is essentially the problem of balancing the fixed costs of ordering with the costs of holding inventory.
Additionally, being aware of potential investment risks becomes essential for making rational decisions for the entire network (Ojala and Hallikas, 2006). To model the investment risk, this paper assumes that the investment has a continuous probability distribution of success. The probability distribution represents the stochastic result of the investment and its uncertainty.
Despite the control of material movements, supply chain management also focuses on the coordination of financial flows along the different stages of a supply chain (Mentzer et al., 2001, Wuttke et al., 2013). Surprisingly, the focus of prior research on supply chains has mainly been on material flows, and only little attention has been paid to the impact financial coordination may have on the supply chain’s performance. Particularly in terms of sharing financial resources, SCF might provide untapped potential for reducing the cost of capital in order to facilitate financing of necessary investments (cf. Randall and Farris, 2009). Setup Cost includes the labor and material required to prepare for
production. There may be costs for charging the production line with product
and increased scrap until the line is dialed in.