Advertisement

Modeling Framework and Review of Relevant Literature

Chapter
  • 136 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 533)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to set out a quantitative modeling framework for the following treatment of collaborative planning and to report on findings from literature that are related to the problem setting.

Keywords

Order Quantity Planning Domain Demand Forecast Collaborative Planning Inventory Holding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 70.
    See e.g. Silver et al. (1998), pp. 538, Chase et al. (1998), pp. 552, Vollmann et al. (1984), pp. 12.Google Scholar
  2. 71.
    C.f. Silver et al. (1998), pp. 556, Stadtler (2000a), p. 11.Google Scholar
  3. 72.
    C.f. Rohde / Wagner (2002), p. 143.Google Scholar
  4. 73.
    Chopra / Meindl (2001), p. 103.Google Scholar
  5. 74.
    Minimizing cost is equivalent to maximizing net revenues when missed revenues are considered as costs and the degree of demand satisfaction as a variable to be decided upon during planning.Google Scholar
  6. 75.
    For a overview of other potential objectives see Thorn (2002), pp. 34.Google Scholar
  7. 76.
    It is e.g. difficult to balance on-time delivery and capacity utilization, unless these measures are expressed in terms of costs.Google Scholar
  8. 77.
    C.f. Hax / Meal (1975), p. 55, Stadtler (1988), p. 83. For an example method of how to compress product-process structures based on resource requirements see Billington et al. (1983), pp. 1132, and Stadtler (1998), pp. 178.Google Scholar
  9. 78.
    Shapiro (1999), p. 740.Google Scholar
  10. 79.
    E.g. simulation models (see Thorn (2002), pp. 49, for an overview of simulation model applications to planning in supply chains).Google Scholar
  11. 80.
    C.f. Hillier / Liebermann (2001), pp. 36, Shapiro (2001), pp. 84.Google Scholar
  12. 81.
    Rohde / Wagner (2002), p. 144.Google Scholar
  13. 82.
    See e.g. Fleischmann et al. (2002), pp. 73.Google Scholar
  14. 83.
    Interested readers are referred to the review articles by Bhatnagar et al. (1993), Thomas / Griffin (1996), and Erengüc et al. (1999) for a comprehensive overview. A more detailed comparative study of recent models is given by Thorn (2002), pp. 103.Google Scholar
  15. 84.
    Of course, these formulations can be redefined to contain only binary variables. However, this comes at the expense of a larger number of variables.Google Scholar
  16. 85.
    “I&L” abbreviates “inventory & lot-size” and means that end-of-period inventory levels and lot-sizes are directly used as decision variables (c.f. Stadtler (1996), p. 562).Google Scholar
  17. 86.
    C.f. Tempelmeier (2003), pp. 209, Günther / Tempelmeier (1997), p. 183, Stadtler (1996), p. 562. Please note that the formulation considered here neglects setup times (for the inclusion of setup times see e.g. Tempelmeier (2003), p. 209).Google Scholar
  18. 87.
    Variable operation cost rates are assumed constant over the planning interval and thus omitted.Google Scholar
  19. 88.
    It should be noted that without loss of generality replenishment lead times are neglected (i.e. assumed as zero) in the given model formulation. Although any fixed multiples of the planning period lengths could be used instead, this is omitted for ease of exposition.Google Scholar
  20. 89.
    C.f. Stadtler (1996), pp. 575.Google Scholar
  21. 90.
    Also, integrality gap and branch-and-bound solution time of the I&L formulation can be considerably reduced by adding strong valid inequalities as proposed by Pochet / Wolsey(1995),p.273.Google Scholar
  22. 91.
    Interested readers are referred e.g. to Aviv (2001), Thonemann (2002), Zhao et al. (2002), and the references discussed there.Google Scholar
  23. 92.
    C.f. Gavirneni et al. (1999), p. 20.Google Scholar
  24. 93.
    C.f. Bourland et al. (1996), p. 250.Google Scholar
  25. 94.
    C.f. Chen (1998), pp. S231.Google Scholar
  26. 95.
    Gavirneni et al. (1999), p. 20.Google Scholar
  27. 96.
    C.f. Gavirneni (2001), p. 645.Google Scholar
  28. 97.
    C.f. Gavirneni (2001), p. 651.Google Scholar
  29. 98.
    C.f. Cachon / Fisher (2000), pp. 1044.Google Scholar
  30. 99.
    C.f. Cachon / Fisher (2000), p. 1046.Google Scholar
  31. 100.
    C.f. Lee et al. (2000), p. 628.Google Scholar
  32. 101.
    C.f. Lee et al. (2000), pp. 635.Google Scholar
  33. 102.
    C.f. Raghunathan (2001), p. 606.Google Scholar
  34. 103.
    C.f. Gavirneni et al. (1999), p. 20.Google Scholar
  35. 104.
    See e.g. Lee et al. (1997), pp. 93.Google Scholar
  36. 105.
    C.f. Venkataraman / Nathan (1999), pp. 686. Unfortunately, the authors do not elaborate on cost differences to forecasts with small / none errors, i.e. high accuracy. Still, their results give an impression of the impact of accurate forecasting.Google Scholar
  37. 106.
    C.f. Simpson / Erengüc (2001), p. 122.Google Scholar
  38. 107.
    C.f. Friedman (1982), pp. 13.Google Scholar
  39. 108.
    C.f. Whang (1995), pp. 413.Google Scholar
  40. 109.
    C.f. Tsay et al. (1999), p. 306, Zimmer (2001), p. 50.Google Scholar
  41. 110.
    C.f. Anupindi / Bassok (1999), pp. 201.Google Scholar
  42. 111.
    C.f. Zimmer (2001), p. 25.Google Scholar
  43. 112.
    C.f. Corbett (2001), p. 487.Google Scholar
  44. 113.
    Interested readers are referred to Tsay et al. (1999), pp. 301, and Zimmer (2001), pp. 50.Google Scholar
  45. 114.
    C.f. Monahan (1984), p. 723.Google Scholar
  46. 115.
    C.f. Lee / Rosenblatt (1986), pp. 1178.Google Scholar
  47. 116.
    C.f. Weng (1995), p. 1512, Chen et al. (2001), pp. 693.Google Scholar
  48. 117.
    See e.g. Silver et al. (1998), pp. 385.Google Scholar
  49. 118.
    C.f. Lariviere / Porteus (2001), p. 293.Google Scholar
  50. 119.
    C.f. Lariviere (1999), pp. 246.Google Scholar
  51. 120.
    See Cachon (2001), pp. 7.Google Scholar
  52. 121.
    I.e. echelon stock re-order point policies (c.f. Clark / Scarf (1960), pp. 476).Google Scholar
  53. 122.
    C.f. Lee / Whang (1999), p. 636. A similar solution to the same problem is presented by Chen (1999), pp. 1079, except that transfer payments are gathered and granted by a central coordinator, e.g. headquarters of a decentralized firm.Google Scholar
  54. 123.
    C.f. Corbett / de Groote (2000), p. 447.Google Scholar
  55. 124.
    Corbett (2001), p. 488.Google Scholar
  56. 125.
    See e.g. Tempelmeier (2003), pp. 366, for a model to plan purchasing quantities based on several discount rates offered by a supplier.Google Scholar
  57. 126.
    C.f. Bhatnagar et al. (1993), p. 147, Zimmer (2001), pp. 146.Google Scholar
  58. 127.
    Bhatnagar et al.(1993), p. 147.Google Scholar
  59. 128.
    See Simpson / Erengüc (2001), pp. 120, for details.Google Scholar
  60. 129.
    Close-to-optimal solutions for the centralized planning model are obtained by the heuristic lot-sizing algorithm NIPPA developed by Simpson (c.f. Simpson / Erengüc (2001), p. 121).Google Scholar
  61. 130.
    C.f. Simpson / Erengüc (2001), pp. 122.Google Scholar
  62. 131.
    See pp. 15.Google Scholar
  63. 132.
    C.f. Zimmer (2001), pp. 31, Schneeweiss / Zimmer (2003), pp 16.Google Scholar
  64. 133.
    See Zimmer (2001), pp. 156, for details. This anticipation concept has in fact been realized in a SC project in automotive industry (c.f. Hirzel et al. (2002), pp. 64).Google Scholar
  65. 134.
    C.f. Zimmer (2001), pp. 197.Google Scholar
  66. 135.
    C.f. Schneeweiss (1999), pp. 43.Google Scholar
  67. 136.
    C.f. Zimmer (2001), pp. 181.Google Scholar
  68. 137.
    C.f. Zimmer (2001), p. 199.Google Scholar
  69. 138.
    See e.g. the decomposition proposals by Dantzig / Wolfe (1960) and Benders (1962).Google Scholar
  70. 139.
    A heuristic search by sub-gradient optimization is mostly proposed for this process step (c.f. Shapiro (1979), p. 124, Fisher (1985), pp. 12).Google Scholar
  71. 140.
    C.f. Fisher (1981), pp. 14.Google Scholar
  72. 141.
    For example Held / Karp (1970), pp. 1138, describe a well-known Lagrangean heuristic for the travelling salesman problem.Google Scholar
  73. 142.
    See Barbarosoglu / Özgür (1999), p. 474, for details.Google Scholar
  74. 143.
    Barbarosoglu / Özgür (1999), p. 474.Google Scholar
  75. 144.
    In result, the scheme therefore is similar to Upstream Planning, too. If the distribution plan turns out not to be feasible at the production stage, a simple, rule-based algorithm is used to modify distribution decisions (c.f. Barbarosoglu / Özgür (1999), p. 476).Google Scholar
  76. 145.
    C.f. Ertogral / Wu (2000), p. 936.Google Scholar
  77. 146.
    See Ertogral / Wu (2000), pp. 936, for details.Google Scholar
  78. 147.
    See e.g. Holmberg (1995), pp. 61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MainzGermany

Personalised recommendations