An Investigation of Automated Planograms Using a Simulated Annealing Based Hyper-Heuristic

  • Ruibin Bai
  • Graham Kendall
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series book series (ORCS, volume 32)

Abstract

This paper formulates the shelf space allocation problem as a non-linear function of the product net profit and store-inventory. We show that this model is an extension of multi-knapsack problem, which is itself an NP-hard problem. A two-stage relaxation is carried out to get an upper bound of the model. A simulated annealing based hyper-heuristic algorithm is proposed to solve several problem instances with different problem sizes and space ratios. The results show that the simulated annealing hyper-heuristic significantly outperforms two conventional simulated annealing algorithms and other hyper-heuristics for all problem instances. The experimental results show that our approach is a robust and efficient approach for the shelf space allocation problem.

Key words

Hyper-heuristics simulated annealing shelf space allocation planograms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, R. C. and Urban, T. L., A Deterministic Inventory System with an Inventory-Level-Dependent Demand Rate. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39(9): 823–831, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borin, N., Farris, P. W. and Freeland, J. R., A Model for Determining Retail Product Category Assortment and Shelf Space Allocation. Decision Sciences, 25(3): 359–384, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burke, E., Hart, E., Kendall, G, Newall, J., Ross, P, and Schulenburg, S., "Hyper-Heuristics: An Emerging Direction in Modern Search Technology" in Handbook of Meta-Heuristics (Glover F. and Kochenberger, G. eds.), Kluwer, ISBN: 1-4020-7263-5, 457–474, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke, E., Kendall, G. and Soubeiga, E., A Tabu-Search Hyperheuristic for Timetabling and Rostering. Journal of Heuristics, 9: 451–470, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., Goossens, T. and Verhetsel, A., The Impact of Location Factors on the Attractiveness and Optimal Space Shares of Product Categories. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17: 255–279, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connolly, D. T., An Improved Annealing Scheme For the QAP. European Journal of Operational Research, 46: 93–100, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corstjens, M. and Doyle, P., A Model for Optimaizing Retail Space Allocations. Management Science, 27(7): 822–833, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cowling, P., Kendall, G. and Soubeiga, E., Adaptively Parameterised Hyperheuristics for Sales Summit Scheduling. 4th Metahuristics International Conference [MIC 2001], 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cowling, P., Kendall, G. and Han, L., An Investigation of a Hyperheuristic Genetic Algorithm Applied to a Trainer Scheduling Problem. Proceedings of Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC2002), Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1185–1190, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cowling, P., Kendall, G. and Soubeiga, E., A Parameter-free Hyperheuristic for Scheduling a Sales Summit. Proceedings of the 4th Metaheuristic International Conference [MIC 2001], 127–131, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cox, K., The Effect of Shelf Space Upon Sales of Branded Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 7: 55–58, 1970.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curhan, R., The Relationship Between Space and Unit Sales in Supermarkets. Journal of Marketing Research, 9: 406–412, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curhan, R., Shelf Space Allocation and Profit Maximization in Mass Retailing. Journal of Retailing, 37: 54–60, 1973.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desmet, P. and Renaudin, V., Estimation of Product Category Sales Responsiveness to Allocated Shelf Space. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15: 443–457, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dowsland, Kathryn A., "Simulated Annealing" in Modern Heuristic Techniques for Combinatorial Problems (Reeves, C. R. ed.), McGraw-Hill, ISBN: 0-07-709239-2, 21–69, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drèze, X., Hoch, S. J. and Purk, M. E., Shelf Management and Space Elasticity. Journal of Retailing, 70(4): 301–326, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fisher, H. and Thompson, G. L., Probabilistic Learning Combinations of Local Job-shop Scheduling Rules. Factory Scheduling Conference, Camegie Institute of Technology, May: 10–12, 1961.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glover, F. and Kochenberger, G. A., Handbook of Meta-Heuristics., Kluwer, ISBN: 1-4020-7263-5, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hart, E., Ross, P. and Nelson, J. A., Solving a Real-World Problem Using An Evolving Heuristically Driven Schedule Builder. Evolutionary Computing, 6(1): 61–80, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kotzan, J. and Evanson, R., Responsiveness of Drug Store Sales to Shelf Space Allocations. Journal of Marketing Research, 6: 465–469, 1969.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levy, Michael and Weitz, Barton, Retailing Management, Homewood, IL., ISBN: 0-256-05989-6, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lundy, M. and Mees, A., Convergence of An Annealing Algorithm. Mathematical Programming, 34: 111–124, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nareyek, A., Choosing Search Heuristics by Non-Stationary Reinforcement Learning. Metaheuristics: Computer Decision-Making (Resende, M.G.C., and de Sousa, J.P.ed.). Kluwer, 523–544, 2003.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reeves, Colin R., Modern Heuristic Techniques For Combinatorial Problems, McGraw-Hill, ISBN: 0-07-709239-2, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ross, P., Marin-Blazquez, J. G., Schulenburg, S. and Hart, E., Learning a Procedure That Can Solve Hard Bin-Packing Problems: A New GA-Based Approach to Hyper-heurstics. Proceeding of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO2003, Berlin, Germany: 1295–1306, 2003.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Urban, T., An Inventory-Theoretic Approach to Product Assortment and Shelf-Space Allocation. Journal of Retailing, 74(1): 15–35, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Urban, T., The interdependence of inventory management and retail shelf management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(1): 41–58, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verbeke, W., Farris, P. and Thurik, R., Consumer Response to the Preferred Brand Out-of-Stock Situation. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11/12): 1008–1028, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wolpert, D. and MacReady, W. G., No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1): 67–82, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang, M.-H., An Efficient Algorithm to Allocate Shelf Space. European Journal of Operational Research, 131: 107–118, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang, M.-H. and Chen, W.-C., A Study on shelf Space Allocation and Management. International Journal of Production Economics, 60(61): 309–317, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zufryden, F., A Dynamic Programming Approach for Product Selection and Supermarket Shelf-Space Allocation. Journal of Operations Research Society, 37(4): 413–422, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruibin Bai
    • 1
  • Graham Kendall
    • 1
  1. 1.Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning (ASAP) Research Group, School of Computer Science & ITUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations