Advertisement

Extensions to the Basic Collaborative Planning Scheme

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

Abstract

In this chapter we show that the negotiation-based scheme for collaborative planning can be applied to more complex scenarios than dealt with in the preceding chapter and actually allows to further reduce the amount of cost information exchanged between SC partners.

Keywords

Planning Horizon Cost Effect Rolling Basis Collaborative Planning Planning Step 
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. 223.
    See e.g. the example in Table 6, p. 58.Google Scholar
  2. 224.
    See p. 96.Google Scholar
  3. 225.
  4. 226.
    See pp. 64.Google Scholar
  5. 227.
    See p. 73.Google Scholar
  6. 228.
    AP is roughly determined from cost effects of previous compromise proposals as laid out above (see pp. 81).Google Scholar
  7. 229.
    See p. 89.Google Scholar
  8. 230.
    See pp. 89.Google Scholar
  9. 231.
    See 0, pp. 78.Google Scholar
  10. 232.
    C.f. Christopher (1998), pp. 32.Google Scholar
  11. 233.
  12. 234.
    That is, there can either be a single central agent responsible for the improvement checks at both tiers, or two distinctive central agents (one at each tier).Google Scholar
  13. 235.
    See p. 44.Google Scholar
  14. 236.
    C.f. Troßmann (1992), p. 126.Google Scholar
  15. 237.
    C.f. Federgruen / Tzur (1994), p. 457.Google Scholar
  16. 238.
    For example, in production planning a model covers demand only up to the planning horizon, whereas in reality demand also occurs beyond that point in time.Google Scholar
  17. 239.
    C.f. Troßmann (1992), p. 128, Stadtler (2000b), p. 318.Google Scholar
  18. 240.
    C.f. Baker / Peterson (1979), p. 346.Google Scholar
  19. 241.
    C.f. de Matta / Guignard (1995), p. 571, Simpson (1999), p. 21, see also de Matta / Guignard(1994),p. 501.Google Scholar
  20. 242.
    See Chand et al. (1992), pp. 1037, Federgruen / Tzur (1994), pp. 460.Google Scholar
  21. 243.
    C.f. McClain / Thomas (1977), p. 735, Baker / Peterson (1979), p. 349.Google Scholar
  22. 244.
    C.f. Stadtler (2000b), p. 324.Google Scholar
  23. 245.
    C.f. Sridharan et al. (1987), pp. 1144.Google Scholar
  24. 246.
    C.f. Kimms(1998),pp.359.Google Scholar
  25. 247.
    C.f. Calhoun et al. (2002), pp. 161.Google Scholar
  26. 248.
    C.f. Carlson et al. (1979), pp. 756.Google Scholar
  27. 249.
    See Jensen (1996), pp. 102.Google Scholar
  28. 250.
    C.f. Rohde / Wagner (2002), p. 143.Google Scholar
  29. 251.
    In effect, the partners are confronted with a “negotiation dilemma” as it is advantageous to use a large negotiation horizon from a cost improvement perspective, but to stick a small negotiation horizon due to the uncertainty of planning data.Google Scholar
  30. 252.
    See section 7.5, p. 201.Google Scholar
  31. 253.
    See Fig. 33, p. 119.Google Scholar
  32. 254.
    See p. 60.Google Scholar
  33. 255.
    See p. 60.Google Scholar
  34. 256.
    See p. 95.Google Scholar
  35. 257.
    This is indicated in Fig. 34 by the “evaluate corresponding buyer orders” box.Google Scholar
  36. 258.
    See p. 76.Google Scholar
  37. 259.
    C.f. Kimms (1998), p. 360.Google Scholar
  38. 260.
    A sum of weights of one would result in a weighted average. Since a weighted sum is sought for here, weights need to add up to TP.Google Scholar
  39. 261.
    In the terminology introduced in chapter 4 he transmits MATH and MATH (see pp. 95).Google Scholar
  40. 262.
    See p. 95.Google Scholar
  41. 263.
    See p. 100.Google Scholar
  42. 264.
    See p. 78.Google Scholar
  43. 265.
    See (115), p. 97.Google Scholar
  44. 266.
    See p. 105, p. 109.Google Scholar
  45. 267.
    See Fig. 28, p. 105.Google Scholar
  46. 268.
    See p. 111.Google Scholar
  47. 269.
    See p. 120.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MainzGermany

Personalised recommendations