Narrative Information Processing in Electronic Medical Report

Download Report

Transcript Narrative Information Processing in Electronic Medical Report

Managing Economies of Scale in the Supply Chain: Cycle Inventory

Spring, 2014 Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation Chapter 10 Byung-Hyun Ha

Contents

    

Introduction Economies of scale to exploit fixed costs Economies of scale to exploit quantity discount Short-term discounting: trade promotions Managing multiechelon cycle inventory

1

Introduction

Cycle inventory

inventory level time 

Notation

 

D

: demand per unit time

Q

: quantity in a lot or batch size (order quantity) 

Cycle inventory management (basic)

 Determining order quantity

Q

that minimizes total inventory cost with demand

D

given 2

Introduction

Analysis of cycle

  Average inventory level (cycle inventory) =

Q

/2 Average flow time =

Q

/2

D

 Little’s law: (arrival rate) = (avg. number in system)/(avg. flow time)  Example • •

D

= 2 units/day,

Q

= 8 units Average inventory level • (7 + 5 + 3 + 1)/4 = 4 =

Q

/2 • Average flow time • (0.25 + 0.75 + 1.25 + 1.75 + 2.25 + 2.75 + 3.25 + 3.75)/8 = 2 =

Q

/2

D

3

Introduction

Costs that are influenced by order quantity

C

: (unit) material cost ($/unit) • Average price paid per unit purchased  Quantity discount 

H

: holding cost ($/unit/year) • Cost of carrying one unit in inventory for a specific period of time • Cost of capital, obsolescence, handling, occupancy, etc.

H

=

hC

 Related to average flow time 

S

: ordering cost ($/order) • • Cost incurred per order Assuming fixed cost regardless of order quantity • Cost of buyer time, transportation, receiving, etc.

10.2 Estimating cycle inventory-related costs in practice

 SKIP!

4

Introduction

Assumptions

 Constant (stable) demand, fixed lead time, infinite time horizon 

Cycle optimality regarding total cost

  Order arrival at zero inventory level is optimal.

Identical order quantities are optimal.

?

?

5

Introduction

Determining optimal order quantity Q*

  Economy of scale vs. diseconomy of scale, or Tradeoff between

total fixed cost

and

total variable cost Q

1

D

?

Q

2

D

6

Economies of Scale to Exploit Fixed Costs

Lot sizing for a single product

  Economic order quantity (EOQ) Economic production quantity (EPQ) • Production lot sizing 

Lot sizing for multiple products

 Aggregating multiple products in a single order  Lot sizing with multiple products or customers 7

Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)

Assumption

 Same price regardless of order quantity 

Input

 

D

: demand per unit time,

S

: ordering cost,

C

: unit material cost

H

=

hC

: holding cost 

Decision

Q

: order quantity •

D

/

Q

: average number of orders per unit time •

Q

/

D

: order interval •

Q

/2: average inventory level 

Total inventory cost per unit time (TC)

TC

TO

TH

( 

TM

) 

D

S Q

Q

hC

2

TO

: total order cost

TH

: total holding cost

TM

: total material cost 8

Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)

Total cost by order quantity Q

TC

D

S Q

Q

hC

2 

Optimal order quantity Q* that minimizes total cost

Q

* 

TC

*  2

DS hC

2

hCDS TC

 Opt. order frequency

n

* 

D Q

DhC

2

S

 Avg. flow time

Q

* 2

D

 2

S DhC Q

* 9

Q

Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)

Robustness around optimal order quantity (KEY POINT)

 Using order quantity

Q' T C

 

D Q

 

S

Q

 2 

hC

 = 

Q

* instead of

Q

* 1 2  1  

TC

* 

1/2

(

+ 1/

)

0.5

1.25

0 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.133 1.064 1.025 1.006

1.0

1.00

0 1.2

1.4

1.6

1.017 1.057 1.113

1.8

1.17

8 2.0

1.250

TC'

= 1.25

TC

*

TC

*  10 0.5

1 2

Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)

Robustness regarding input parameters

 Mistake in indentifying ordering cost

S'

= 

S

instead of real

S

• Misleading to

Q

  2

D S

hC

2

D

β

S hC

 β

Q

*

T C

  1 2 β  1 β 

TC

* 

1/2

(



+ 1/



)

0.5

1.06

1 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.033 1.016 1.006 1.001

1.0

1.00

0 1.2

1.4

1.6

1.004 1.014 1.028

1.8

1.04

3 2.0

1.061

TC'

= 1.061

TC

*

TC

*  

What does mean by robust?

11 0.5

1 2

Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)

Sensitivity regarding demand (KEY POINT)

 Demand change from

D

to

D

1 =

kD Q

1 * 

TC

1 *  2

D

1

hC S

 2

hCD

1

S

2

kDS

k

hC

2

hCkDS

 2

DS hC k

 2

k Q hCDS

* 

k TC

*  Opt. order frequency

n

1 * 

D

1

Q

1 * 

D

1

hC

2

S

k n

*  Avg. flow time

Q

1 * 2

D

1 

S

2

D

1

hC

 1

Q

*

k

2

D

12

Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)

Reducing flow time by reducing ordering cost (KEY POINT)

   Efforts on reducing

S

Hoping

Q

1 * =

k

Q*

How much should

S

to

S

1 = 

S

be reduced? (What is  ?)

Q

1 *  2

DS

1

hC

 2

D

γ

S

hC

γ 2

DS hC

 γ 

Q

* 

k

Q

*   =

k

2 (ordering cost must be reduced by a factor of

k

2 ) 13

Economic Production Quantity (EPQ)

  

Production of lot instead of ordering

P

: production per unit time

Total cost by production lot size Q Optimal production quantity Q*

 When

P

goes to infinite,

Q

* goes to EOQ.

TC

D

S Q

  1

Q

* 

D P Q

hC

2  1  2

DS D P

hC Q x D

(

P

D

)

Q

/

P Q

/

D

Q

/

P = Q

(

1

/

D

1

/

P

) 1/(

D

/

Q

) =

Q

/

D

14

Aggregating Products in a Single Order

Multiple products

   

m

products

D

: demand of each product

S

: ordering cost regardless of aggregation level All the other parameters across products are the same.

All-separate ordering

Q i

* 

TC i

*  2

DS hC

2

hCDS SSQ

* 

m

SSTC

* 

m

 2

DS hC

2

hCDS

All-aggregate ordering

ASQ

* 

ASTC

*  2

mDS

hC

2

hCmDS

m

m

 2

DS hC

2

hCDS

Impractical supposition for analysis purpose

15

Lot Sizing with Multiple Products

  

Multiple products with different parameters

  

m

products

D i

,

C i

,

h i

: demand, price, holding cost fraction of product

i S

: ordering cost each time an order is placed • Independent of the variety of products 

s i

: additional ordering cost incurred if product

i

is included in order

Ordering each products independently?

Ordering all products jointly

  Decision •

n

: number of orders placed per unit time •

Q i

=

D i

/

n

: order quantity of item

i

Total cost and optimal number of orders

TC

  

S

i m

  1

s i

  

n

i m

  1

D i h i C i

2

n

n

* 

i m

  1

D i h i C i

2  

S

i m

  1

s i

  16

Lot Sizing with Multiple Products

Q i

*

n i

*

TC i

*

i

Example 10-3 and 10-4

 Input • • Common transportation cost,

S

= $4,000 Holding cost fraction,

h

= 0.2

 Ordering each products independently •

ITC

* = $155,140 200,000 180,000

LE22B LE19B LE19A

1,095 11.0

$109,544 346 3.5

$34,642 110 1.1

$10,954 160,000 140,000 120,000  Ordering jointly • •

n

* = 9.75

JTC

* = $155,140 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

Q i

*

i

LE22B

1,230

LE19B

123

LE19A

12.3

LE22B

D i C i s i

i

LE22B

12,000 $500 $1,000

LE19B

1,200 $500 $1,000

LE19A

120 $500 $1,000 LE19B LE19A 17

Lot Sizing with Multiple Products

How does joint ordering work?

 Reducing fixed cost by enjoying robustness around optimal order quantity 

Is joint ordering is always good?

 No!

Then, possible other approaches?

  Partially joint • NP-hard problem (i.e., difficult) A heuristic algorithm • Subsection:

“Lots are ordered and delivered jointly for a selected subset of the products”

• SKIP!

18

Exploiting Quantity Discount

Total cost with quantity discount

TC

TO

TH

TM

D

S Q

Q

hC

2 

DC

Types of quantity discount

 Lot size-based • • All unit quantity discount Marginal unit quantity discount  Volume-based 

Decision making we consider

 Optimal response of a retailer 

Coordination

of supply chain

TO

: total ordering cost

TH

: total holding cost

TM

: total material cost 19

All Unit Quantity Discount

 

Pricing schedule

   Quantity break points:

q

0 ,

q

1 , ...,

q r

,

q r

+1 • where

q

0 = 0 and

q r

+1 =  Unit cost •

C i

where

C

0 when

q i

C

1     It is possible that

q i

C i Q C r

 ( 

q i q i

+1 , for + 1) 

C i i

=0,...,

r

Solution procedure

1. Evaluate the optimal lot size for each

C i

.

Q i

*  2

DS hC i

average cost per unit

C

0

C

1

C

2

C r

...

q

0

q

1

q

2

q

3 ...

q r

2. Determine lot size that minimizes the overall cost by the total cost of the following cases for each

i

.

• Case 1:

q i

Q i

* 

q i

+1 , Case 2:

Q i

* 

q i

, Case 3:

q i

+1 

Q i

* 20

All Unit Quantity Discount

Example 10-7

  

r

= 2,

D

= 120,000/year

S

= $100/lot,

h

= 0.2

Q

* = 10,000

q i C i

i

0

0 $3.00

1

5,000 $2.96

2

10,000 $2.92

390,000 385,000 380,000 375,000 370,000 365,000 360,000 355,000 350,000 345,000 340,000 335,000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 21

All Unit Quantity Discount

Example 10 7 (cont’d)

 Sensitivity analysis • Optimal order quantity

Q

* with regard to ordering cost (original)

S

= $100/lot (reduced)

S'

= $4/lot (no discount)

C

= $3 6,324 1,256 (discount) 10,000 10,000 22

Marginal Unit Quantity Discount

  

Pricing schedule

  Quantity break points:

q

0 ,

q

1 , ...,

q r

,

q r

+1 • where

q

0 = 0 and

q r

+1 = 

Marginal

• unit cost

C i

where

C

0 

C

1 when   

C r q i

Q

q i

+1 , for

i

=0,...,

r

Price of q

i

V i

=

C

0 (

q

1

units

q

0 ) +

C

1 (

q

2 –

q

1 ) + ... +

C

i –1 (

q i

q i

–1 )

Ordering Q units

 Suppose

q i

Q

q i

+1 .

TC

 

TO D Q

 

S TH

V i

 

TM

Q

 2

q i

C i

h

D

 

V i Q

 

Q

q i

C i

 marginal cost per unit

C

0

C

1

C

2

C r q

0 ...

q

1

q

2

q

3 ...

q r

23

Marginal Unit Quantity Discount

Example 10-8

  

r

= 2,

D

= 120,000/year

S

= $100/lot,

h

= 0.2

Q

* = 16,961

q i C i V i

i

0

0 $3.00

$0

1

5,000 $2.96

$15,000

2

10,000 $2.92

$29,800 395,000 390,000 385,000 380,000 375,000 370,000 365,000 360,000 355,000 350,000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000 24

Marginal Unit Quantity Discount

Example 10 8 (cont’d)

 Sensitivity analysis • Optimal order quantity

Q

* with regard to ordering cost (original)

S

= $100/lot (reduced)

S'

= $4/lot (no discount)

C

= $3 6,324 1,256 (discount) 16,961 15,775  Higher inventory level (longer average flow time)?

25

Why Quantity Discount?

1. Improve coordination to increase

total supply chain profit

 Each stage’s independent decision making for its own profit • Hard to maximize supply chain profit (i.e., hard to coordinate)  How can a manufacturer control a myopic retailer?

• •

Quantity discounts for commodity products Quantity discounts for products for which firm has market power

Manufacturer (supplier) Retailer customers supply chain

2. Extraction of surplus through price discrimination

 Revenue management (Ch. 15) 

Other factors such as marketing that motivates sellers

 Munson and Rosenblatt (1998) 26

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for commodity products

 Assumption • Fixed price and stable demand   Max. profit  min. total cost fixed total revenue  Example case • Two stages with a manufacture (supplier) and a retailer Manufacturer (supplier)

S

S

h

S

C

S = 250 = 0.2

= 2 Retailer

S

R

h

R

C

R = 100 = 0.2

= 3 customers

D

= 120,000 27

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for commodity products (cont’d)

  No discount • Retailer’s (local) optimal order quantity (  •

Q

1 = (2  12,000  100/0.2

 3) 1/2 = 6,325 • Total cost (without material cost) supply chain’s decision) •

TC

1

= TC

1 S +

TC

1 R = $6,008 + $3,795 = $9,803 Minimum total cost,

TC

*, regarding supply chain (coordination) • • •

Q

* = 9,165

TC

* =

TC

* S +

TC*

R = $5,106 + $4,059 = $9,165 Dilemma?

• Manufacturer saving by $902, but retailer cost increase by $264 • How to coordinate (decision maker is the retailer)?

TC

TC

S 

TC

R 

D

S

S

Q

Q

2 

h

S

C

S 

D Q

S

R 

Q

2 

h

R

C

R 

D

S

S

Q

S

R  

Q

2 

h

S

C

S 

h

R

C

R  

Q

*  2

D h

S

C

S 

S

 S 

S

R

h

R

C

R   9 , 165 28

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for commodity products (cont’d)

 Lot size-based quantity discount offering by manufacturer • • • •

q

1 = 9,165,

C

0 = $3,

C

1 = $2.9978

Retailer’s (local) optimal order quantity (considering material cost) •

Q

2 = 9,165 Total cost (without material cost) •

TC

2

= TC

2 S +

TC

2 R = $5,106 + $4,057 = $9,163 Savings (compared to no discount) • • Manufacturer: $902 Retailer: $264 (material cost) – $262 (inventory cost) = $2 

KEY POINT

• For

commodity products

for which price is set by the market, manufacturers with

large fixed cost

per lot can use

lot size-based quantity discounts

to maximize total supply chain profit.

• Lot size-based discount, however,

increase cycle inventory

supply chain.

in the 29

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for commodity products (cont’d)

Other approach:

setup cost reduction by manufacturer Manufacturer (supplier) Retailer customers

S'

S

h

S =

100

= 0.2

C

S = 2

S

R

h

R

C

R = 100 = 0.2

= 3

D

= 120,000 • • Retailer’s (local) optimal order quantity •

Q

3 =

Q

1 = 6,325 Total cost (without material cost): no need to discount!

TC

3

= TC

3 S +

TC

3 R = $3,162 + $3,795 = $6,957  Same with optimal supply chain cost when material cost is considered  Expanding scope of strategic fit • Operations and marketing departments should be cooperate!

30

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for products with market power

 Assumption • • Manufacturer’s cost,

C

S = $2 Customer demand depending on price,

p

, set by retailer •

D

= 360,000 – 60,000

p

 Profit depends on price.

Manufacturer (supplier)

C

S = 2 Retailer

C

R = ?

D

= 360,000 – 60,000

p

customers

p

= ?

31

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for products with market power (cont’d)

 No coordination (deciding independently) • • Manufacturer’s decision on

C

R • Expected retailer’s profit, »

Prof

R = (

p

Prof

R

C

R )  (360 – 60

p

) • • Retailer’s optimal price setting (behavior) when

C

R »

p

1 = 3 + 0.5

C

R Demand by

p

1 »

D

= 360 (supplier’s order quantity) – 60

p

1 = 180 – 30

C

R • Expected manufacturer’s profit,

Prof

S »

Prof

S = (

C

R –

C

S )  (180 – 30

C

R ) 

C

R 1 that maximizes

Prof

R (m anufacturer’s decision) is given Retailer’s decision on •

p

1 »

C

R 1 = $5 ( = $4

D

1

p

1 with given

C

R 1 = 360,000 – 60,000

p

1 = 60,000) • Supply chain profit,

Prof

0 1 •

Prof

0 1 =

Prof

R 1 +

Prof

S 1 = $120,000 + $60,000 = $180,000 32

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for products with market power (cont’d)

 Coordinating supply chain • • Optimal supply chain profit,

Prof

0 * •

Prof

0 = (

p

C

S )  (360 – 60

p

) •

p

* = $4 •

D

* = 120,000 •

Prof

0 * = $240,000  Double marginalization problem (local optimization) But how to coordinate?

• i.e.,

Prof

S * = ?,

Prof

R * = ?

33

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for products with market power (cont’d)

 Two pricing schemes that can be used by manufacturer • Two-part tariff • Up-front fee $180,000 (fixed) + material cost $2/unit (variable) • Retailer’s decision »

Prof

R = (

p

C

R )  (360 – 60

p

) »

p

2 = 3 + 0.5

C

R = $4 • 

Prof

0 2 =

Prof

R 2 +

Prof

S 2 = $180,000 + $60,000 = $240,000 Retailer’s side: larger volume  more discount • Volume-based quantity discount • •

q

1 = 120,000,

p

3 = $4

C

0 = $4,

C

1 = $3.5

Prof

0 3 =

Prof

R 3 +

Prof

S 3 = $180,000 + $60,000 = $240,000 34

Coordination for Total Supply Chain Profit

Quantity discounts for products with market power (cont’d)

KEY POINT

• For products for which the firm has market power, two-part tariffs or volume-based quantity discounts can be used to achieve coordination in the supply chain and maximizing supply chain profits.

KEY POINT

• For those products, lot size-based discounts cannot coordinate the supply chain even in the presence of inventory cost.

• In such a setting, either a two-part tariff or a volume-based quantity discount, with

the supplier passing on some of its fixed cost to the retailer

, is needed for the supply chain to be coordinated and maximize profits.

Lot size-based vs. volume-based discount

 Lot size-based: raising inventory level  high setup cost suitable for supplier’s  Hockey stick phenomenon & rolling horizon-based discount 35

Short-term Discounting: Trade Promotion

 

Trade promotion by manufacturers

 Induce retailers to use price discount, displays, or advertising to spur sales.

  Shift inventory from manufactures to retailers and customers.

Defend a brand against competition.

Retailer’s reaction?

 Pass through some or all of the promotion to customers to spur sales.

 Pass through very little of the promotion to customers but purchase in greater quantity during the promotion period to exploit the temporary reduction in price.

Forward buy

 increase  demand variability increase supply chain profit decrease  inventory & flow time 36

Short-term Discounting: Trade Promotion

Analysis

 Determining order quantity with discount

Q d

• Unit cost discounted by

d

(

C'

=

C

d

)  Assumptions • • Discount is offered only once.

Customer demand remains unchanged.

• Retailer takes no action to influence customer demand.

Q d Q

*

Q d

/

D

1 –

Q d

/

D

37

Short-term Discounting: Trade Promotion

Analysis (cont’d)

   Optimal order quantity without discount

Q

* = (2

DS

/

hC

) 1/2 Optimal total cost without discount

TC

* =

CD

+ (2

DShC

) 1/2 Total cost with

Q d TC

 

C

d

Q d

S

Q d

2 

h

C

d

 

Q d D

TC

* 1

Q d D

Q d

* 

h

C dD

d

 

CQ

*

C

d

 

Example 10-9

 

C d

= $3  = $0.15

Q

* = 6,324 

Q d

* = 38,236 (forward buy: 31,912  500%)

KEY POINT

 Trade promotions lead to a significant increase in lot size and cycle inventory, which results in reduced supply chain profits unless the trade promotion reduces demand fluctuation.

38

Short-term Discounting: Trade Promotion

Retailer’s action of passing discount to customers

  Example 10-10 Assumptions • • • Customer demand:

D

= 300,000 – 60,000

p

Normal price:

C

R = $3 Ignoring all inventory-related cost   Analysis • • Retailer’s profit,

Prof

R •

Prof

R = (

p

C

R )  (300 – 60

p

) Retailer’s optimal price setting with regard to

C

R •

p

= 2.5 + 0.5

C

R No discount (

C

R 1 •

p

1 = $4,

D

1 = $3) = 60,000  Discount (

C

R 2 •

p

2 = $2.85) = $3.925,

D

2 = 64,500 (

p

1 –

p

2 = 0.075 < 0.15 =

C

R 1 –

C

R 2 ) 39

Short-term Discounting: Trade Promotion

Retailer’ response to short-term discount

  Insignificant efforts on trade promotion, but High forward buying • • Not only by retailers but also by end customers Loss to total revenue because most inventory could be provided with discounted price 

KEY POINT

 Trade promotions often lead to increase of cycle inventory in supply chain without a significant increase in customer demand.

40

Short-term Discounting: Trade Promotion

Some implications

  Motivation for every day low price (EDLP) Suitable to • high elasticity goods with high holding cost • e.g., paper goods • strong brands than weaker brand (Blattberg & Neslin, 1990)  Competitive reasons  Sometimes bad consequence for all competitors  Discount by not sell-in but

sell-though

• Scanner-based promotion 41

Managing Multiechelon Cycle Inventory

Configuration

 Multiple stages and many players at each stage 

General policy -- synchronization

  Integer multiple order frequency or order interval Cross-docking 

(Skip!)

42