Page 1
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
A MULTI-PRODUCT, MULTI-SUPPLIER, MULTI-PERIOD AND MULTI-
PRICE DISCOUNT LEVELS SUPPLIER SELECTION AND ORDER
ALLOCATION MODEL UNDER DEMAND UNCERTAINTY
A Thesis in
Industrial Engineering and Operations Research
` by
Swapnil C. Phansalkar
© 2016 Swapnil C. Phansalkar
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
May 2016
Page 2
The thesis of Swapnil C. Phansalkar will be reviewed and approved* by the following:
M. Jeya Chandra
Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Thesis Advisor
Vittal Prabhu
Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Janis Terpenny
Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Department Head, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
ii
Page 3
Abstract
In this thesis, a multi criteria decision making model for supplier selection and order
allocation is developed under demand uncertainty. The primary goal of this model is to
assist the buyer in making the decision regarding the selection of suppliers and allocation
of order quantities to the selected suppliers to satisfy demand for each product in every
time period.
The multi criteria decision making model has the following three objectives: to
minimize the total cost over planning horizon, to minimize the total number of quality
defects and to minimize the weighted average lead time. The demand is assumed to follow
normal distribution and shortages are allowed in this model. Further, each supplier is
assumed to provide all unit type of price discount for each part. A mathematical
formulation is done for each objective and then a general model for multiple products,
multiple suppliers, multiple time periods and multiple price discount levels is developed.
The multi criteria model includes the buyer’s demand constraints, the supplier’s
capacity constraints and the supplier’s price break constraints. The following decisions are
to be made in this model: to select the appropriate suppliers considering the objectives of
the model and to determine the optimal order quantity from the selected suppliers to satisfy
the buyer’s demand for each time period. This model uses weighted objective method to
determine the optimal solution to the multi criteria decision making problem.
iii
Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables....................................................................................................................vi
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier selection and order allocation................. 1
1.2 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier selection and order allocation with
deterministic demand .............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier selection and order allocation with
stochastic demand ....................................................................................................3
1.4 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier selection and order allocation with price
discounts....................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2: Model Formulation...........................................................................................8
2.1 Model Assumptions .................................................................................................8
2.2 Objective functions ................................................................................................10
2.2.1 To minimize the total cost over the planning horizon......................................10
2.2.2 To minimize the number of defective parts ....................................................15
2.2.3 To minimize the weighted average lead time..................................................15
2.3 Constraints..............................................................................................................16
2.4 Weighted objective method....................................................................................17
Chapter 3: Numerical Example and Sensitivity analysis...................................................19
3.1 Problem Description...............................................................................................19
3.2 Mathematical Model...............................................................................................23
3.3 Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................30
iv
Page 5
Chapter 4: Summary, Conclusions and scope for future research.....................................39
4.1 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................................39
4.2 Scope for future research........................................................................................40
References…....................................................................................................................41
v
Page 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Numerical Example: Fixed order cost related to parts and suppliers.............19
Table 3-2: Numerical Example: Inventory holding cost and shortage cost related to
parts................................................................................................................20
Table 3-3: Numerical Example: Values of parameters related to suppliers and parts.....20
Table 3-4: Numerical Example: Values of unit price and price break quantity.............. 21
Table 3-5: Numerical Example: Weights of three objectives .........................................21
Table 3-6: Numerical Example: Values of demand for each part for each week .......... 22
Table 3-7 Mean values of demand ..................................................................................22
Table 3-8 Standard deviation values of demand..............................................................22
Table 3-9 Order proportions ............................................................................................26
Table 3-10 Order quantities ............................................................................................27
Table 3-11 Selection of Suppliers....................................................................................27
Table 3-12 Selection of price levels.................................................................................28
Table 3-13 Original values of Standard Deviation of demand........................................30
Table 3-14 New values of Standard Deviation of demand..............................................30
Table 3-15 Order proportions ..........................................................................................31
Table 3-16 Order quantities ............................................................................................31
Table 3-17 Selection of Suppliers....................................................................................32
Table 3-18 Selection of price levels.................................................................................33
Table 3-19 Comparison of values of objectives.............................................................. 33
Table 3-20 Original values of Mean of demand..............................................................34
Table 3-21 New values of Mean of demand................................................................... 34
vi
Page 7
Table 3-22 Order proportions .........................................................................................35
Table 3-23 Order quantities ............................................................................................35
Table 3-24 Selection of Suppliers....................................................................................36
Table 3-25 Selection of price levels.................................................................................37
Table 3-26 Comparison of values of objectives...............................................................38
vii
Page 8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I want to thank my parents, Chintamani Phansalkar and Varsha
Phansalkar, who have always supported me in every step of my life. I cannot imagine
success in any phase of my life without their support. Second, I sincerely thank my thesis
advisor, Dr. M Jeya Chandra, for his guidance throughout my degree and especially during
this research work. He has been an excellent advisor and mentor to me and I have learnt a
lot from him during the course of this degree and the thesis work. I also thank Dr. Vittal
Prabhu for agreeing to be the reader for this thesis.
Finally, I want to thank my family in U.S., Abann Sunny, Sandeep Gagganapalli,
Mohanarangan Tiruppathy, Malav Patel and Abhinav Singh for all the support, memorable
moments and the best two years of my life.
viii
Page 9
Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter focuses on presentation of literature review done in the field of multi
criteria optimization for supplier selection and order allocation.
1.1 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier Selection and Order Allocation
Make or buy decisions play a crucial role in any type of industry. If the industry decides
to buy as opposed to make, the important decisions to be made by the buyer are 1) To
decide whether to buy the products from single supplier or multiple suppliers 2) To make
the right choice of suppliers by taking into consideration the buyer’s demand and supplier’s
performance. Davarzani and Norrman (2014) explained the risk of having a single supplier
for a product in their study. The authors concluded that even if a single source may lead to
better quality of the product, buyer may have to compromise on other important criteria
such as product price and lead time of supplier. To make these key decisions, the buyer has
to take into consideration the supplier’s capacity, supplier’s lead time, quality of the
product and price offered per unit product. In case there are multiple suppliers for a single
product, it becomes a multiple criteria decision making problem due to the tradeoff
between cost, quality and lead time. The complexity of the problem increases in case of
supplier selection and order allocation for multiple products and multiple time periods.
Dickson (1966) classified criteria for supplier selection based on their importance. The
criteria such as quality, performance and delivery were classified as extremely important
criteria whereas criteria such as price, technical capability and reputation of supplier were
classified as considerably important. Geographical location of supplier was classified as a
1
Page 10
criterion of average importance. Different factors are of different level of importance for
every buyer and there is always a tradeoff in a supplier selection problem.
In this thesis, we choose three criteria for supplier selection: 1) The total cost over planning
horizon 2) The number of defective parts procured from supplier 3) Lead time of supplier.
1.2 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier Selection and Order Allocation with
deterministic demand
Mendoza and Ravindran (2008) proposed a multi criteria model for supplier selection
and order allocation to multiple suppliers under deterministic demand. The authors
considered following criteria: the total purchasing expenses, total distance of suppliers
selected, lead time of suppliers selected and percentage of defective parts procured from
suppliers. The multi criteria model is presented in three phases. Phase I concentrates on
screening process for the selection of a small set of suppliers from a large supplier base.
Phase II presents ranking of suppliers based on variety of criteria that are important to the
buyer. Finally, a multi criteria goal programming model is proposed in Phase III. This
model assumes that orders placed over given period of time are equal to the demand. The
optimal solution is obtained using optimization software LINDO.
Feyzan Arikan (2013) proposed a single product multiple supplier multi criteria model
using augmented max-min operator and novel solution approach. The author considered
following criteria for supplier selection: total cost over the planning horizon, weighted
average lead time and weighted average quality defect rate. These objectives were also
used by Ziqi Ding (2014) in her multi criteria model with single product and multiple
suppliers. Demand was assumed to be deterministic in this model and shortages are not
2
Page 11
allowed. The author takes into account supplier’s capacity constraints and buyer’s demand
constraints and proposes a weighted objective method approach for model formulation.
Mohsen, Majid and Ali (2011) proposed a supplier selection and order allocation model
by considering different transportation alternatives (TAs) used by suppliers. This is a single
product multiple supplier multiple period model under assumption of deterministic
demand. The authors choose a single criteria for supplier selection: total cost over planning
horizon. The total cost is presented as the sum of ordering cost, transportation cost and
inventory cost. Another multi criteria model was proposed using fuzzy multi-attribute
utility approach by Cuiab and Makab (2014). The authors chose following criteria for
supplier selection in their model: total cost of purchasing, quality of products purchased
from suppliers and delivery time of suppliers. Further, the authors proposed a mixed integer
nonlinear programming model using constraint programming to provide optimal solution.
1.3 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier Selection and Order Allocation with
stochastic demand
Guo (2014) considered a supplier selection and order allocation model under stochastic
demand. The author proposed a single product, single buyer and multiple supplier model
by considering different levels viz. suppliers, warehouses and retailers. In this model,
supplier selection is done by warehouses. These warehouses supply items to retailers. This
model chose a single criteria for supplier selection: total cost over planning horizon. Yishan
Sun (2015) developed a multiple product, multiple supplier and multiple time period model
by assuming the demand to follow uniform distribution. Shortages are allowed in this
model. The author considered three objectives for supplier selection: total cost over
3
Page 12
planning horizon, weighted average lead time and weighted average quality defect rate.
The optimal solution is calculated using weighted average method.
Another supplier selection and order allocation model considering lead time and
demand uncertainty was developed by Andreas Thorsen (2014). The primary objective of
this research paper was to study inventory control under demand and lead time
uncertainties. Fariborz and Yazdian (2011) proposed a multi criteria goal programming
model for multiple products and multiple suppliers for multiple time periods. The authors
also proposed a fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate the suppliers based on buyer’s criteria in the
first phase. Further, mixed integer linear programming model is developed for two
objectives: periodic budget and total purchasing cost.
Kazemi, Ehsani, Glock and Schwindl (2015) proposed a mathematical programming
model for supplier selection and order allocation. This research paper aimed at studying
the degree of buyer’s satisfaction level using a set of metric distance functions and
comparing the results with an earlier study that used weighted max-min approach. Kannan
et al (2013) provided a fuzzy multi criteria decision making approach to the supplier
selection and order allocation problem. This model assumes that the demand is stochastic.
The mathematical programming model considers two criteria for supplier selection: total
cost of purchasing and total value of purchasing.
1.4 Multi criteria decision making in Supplier Selection and Order Allocation with
price discounts
Price discounts are offered by suppliers depending on the order quantity from the buyer.
Incremental price discount is offered by some suppliers i.e. price discount is offered on the
4
Page 13
order quantity above the price break quantity. However, some suppliers offer all unit
discounts i.e. price discount is offered on all units of the order quantity if the order quantity
is above the price break quantity. Bundling type of discount is offered by suppliers, in case
two or more types of products are ordered together. Also, business volume type of discount
is offered by suppliers in case the total volume of business (measured in dollars) is handed
to them. In case of a multiple product, multiple supplier and multiple time period model,
price discount offered by suppliers can play a significant role in supplier selection and order
allocation. This thesis assumes that all unit type of discount is offered by each supplier.
Fariborz, Mahsa and Hamidreza (2013) proposed a multi-product multi supplier and
multi period model assuming price discount for deterministic demand. This model does not
allow shortages. Goal programming is used by authors to solve for optimal solution. Total
cost of purchase is the criteria for supplier selection in this model. Shakouri, Javadi and
Karamati (2013) considered an interactive decision making process for the supplier
selection and order allocation problem. The authors developed a fuzzy multi objective
linear programming model and applied piecewise linear membership functions to represent
the following objectives: total ordering cost, total number of defective parts and total
number of late delivered items by suppliers.
Jafar and Elham (2010) developed a multi item supplier selection and lot size planning
model with deterministic demand by considering two types of price discounts viz. business
volume discount and incremental discount. This model has three objectives: total ordering
cost, weighted average lead time and weighted average quality defect rate. Adeinat and
Ventura (2015) proposed a supply chain problem with multiple suppliers where each
supplier offers a price discount. A mathematical programming model is developed
5
Page 14
considering the following criteria for supplier selection: total replenishment and inventory
cost by taking into consideration supplier’s quality and supplier’s capacity constraints.
Lee and Kang (2013) considered an integrated multi criteria model for supplier
selection with price discounts and proposed a genetic algorithm to tackle the mixed integer
programming problem. The model considers following types of cost in the objective
function: ordering cost, holding cost, transportation cost and purchasing cost. Jadidi and
Zolfaghari (2014) models the multi criteria supplier selection problem considering three
criteria: total cost, number of quality rejects and lead time of supplier. Further, the research
paper provides a comparative analysis of compromise programming and weighted goal
programming techniques, used to solve the problem. A mathematical programming model
with same criteria was modeled by Ayhan and Kilic (2015). Suppliers are first selected
using buyer’s criteria and Analytical Hierarchy Process and a mixed integer linear
programming model is proposed to solve the single period multi product multi supplier
problem. Demand is assumed to be deterministic in this research. All unit type of discount
is assumed by the authors for this model.
Cebi and Otay (2016) developed a single period multi product and multi supplier
programming model for supplier selection and order allocation with price discounts offered
by each supplier. The authors focused on the following criteria of supplier selection: total
procurement costs, total number of late deliveries and total number of defective items.
Fuzzy goal programming is used to optimize the order quantities for selected suppliers.
Many of the previous studies in the research area of supplier selection and order
allocation using multiple criteria decision making focus on products with deterministic
demand. Further, shortages are not considered by most of the studies. Also, many supplier
6
Page 15
selection and order allocation models are developed for single period planning. The aim of
this thesis is to develop a multiple product, multiple supplier and multiple time period
supplier selection and order allocation model. Further, this thesis also aims to develop a
model in which each supplier offers an all unit price discount for each part. Many studies
have a single objective of minimizing the total cost over the planning horizon. However,
this thesis aims at developing a multi objective supplier selection and order allocation
model with following objectives: minimizing the total cost, minimizing the number of
defective parts and minimizing the weighted average lead time.
Chapter 2 includes the formulation of the model along with all objectives and all
constraints. Chapter 3 presents a numerical example along with the sensitivity analysis.
Conclusions and scope for future research are presented in chapter 4.
7
Page 16
Chapter 2
Model Formulation
In this chapter, we present a multi-criteria model to solve the supplier selection and order
allocation problem. Multi-criteria optimization techniques are used to solve the problem
that has three objective functions viz. minimize the total cost, minimize the number of
defective parts and minimize the weighted average lead time.
2.1 Model Assumptions
The multi criteria model has the following assumptions;
• A single buyer purchases m different parts from n suppliers in T time periods.
• Buyer can purchase a part from single or multiple suppliers in each period
• Demand for part i in period t is Dit, which follows normal distribution with a mean µit
and a standard deviation σit.
• Fixed order cost fij is constant for supplier j supplying part i in any period.
• Supplier j has a constant quality rejection rate qij, lead time lij and unit transportation
cost cij for part i during the planning horizon.
• Inventory holding cost and shortage cost for part i are assumed to be hi and sci
respectively.
• Capacity of supplier j for part i in each period is CAPij.
• Price discount is assumed to be offered by every supplier. Every supplier offers p price
levels for each part.
8
Page 17
• Model Indices:
i : part (i = 1,2,….., m). There are m types of parts.
j : supplier (j = 1,2,….., n ). There are n suppliers for each part.
t : time period (t= 1,2,….., T). There are T time periods in planning horizon.
k : price level (k= 1,2,……, p). There are p price levels for each supplier for each part.
• Model Parameters:
lij : lead time of supplier j for part i (in weeks).
Dit : Demand for part i in period t.
µit : mean of demand Dit.
σit : standard deviation of demand Dit.
Φ(Dit) : probability density function for demand Dit.
Cij : unit shipping cost of supplier j for part i.
CAPij : capacity of supplier j for part i in each period.
fij : fixed order cost for supplier j for part i.
qij : quality rejection rate of part i for supplier j.
pijk : price per unit for part i from supplier j at price level k.
bijk : quantity at which price break k occurs for part i from supplier j.
hi : unit holding cost for part i.
sci : unit shortage cost for part i.
• Decision variables
xijtk : proportion of part i purchased from supplier j in period t.
Oit : order quantity for part i in period t.
Iit : inventory level for part i at the end of period t.
9
Page 18
Sit : shortage quantity for part i at the end of period t.
δijt : 1, if order is placed to supplier j for part i in period t.
: 0, otherwise.
yijkt : 1, if order is placed with supplier j for part i at price level k for period t.
: 0, otherwise.
2.2 Objective functions
The multi criteria model has three objective functions: to minimize total cost, to minimize
number of defective parts and to minimize weighted average lead time.
2.2.1 To minimize the total cost over the planning horizon
In this model, total cost comprises of following five components.
• Fixed cost
• Purchasing cost
• Shipping cost
• Inventory holding cost
• Shortage cost
Each component of total cost is expressed below.
• Fixed cost: If supplier j is used for part i in period t, fixed cost is charged by supplier
j to the buyer. Fixed cost is given by
���𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
∗ 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
10
Page 19
• Purchasing cost: Purchasing cost over planning horizon is given by
����𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝑝𝑝
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
• Shipping cost: Shipping cost is paid by the buyer. It is given by
���𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
• Inventory holding cost: Total inventory holding cost is given by
= �� � ℎ𝑖𝑖
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
∗ �𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 − 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 � ∗ 𝜙𝜙 (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡) ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
= ��ℎ𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 � 𝜙𝜙 (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡) ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
− ℎ𝑖𝑖 � 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝜙𝜙 (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡) ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
= ��ℎ𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 �𝑒𝑒−
(𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ √2𝜋𝜋∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
− ℎ𝑖𝑖 � 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝑒𝑒−
(𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ √2𝜋𝜋∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
(2.1)
Let (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)/𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 𝑣𝑣
Therefore, 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝑣𝑣 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 and 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
Substituting in (2.1),
= ��ℎ𝑖𝑖 ∗𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1√2𝜋𝜋
� 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
− ℎ𝑖𝑖√2𝜋𝜋
� (𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝑣𝑣 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
) ∗ 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 (2.2)
11
Page 20
= ��ℎ𝑖𝑖 ∗𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1√2𝜋𝜋
� 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
− ℎ𝑖𝑖√2𝜋𝜋
�𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 � 𝑣𝑣𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 � 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣� (2.3)
First, we solve ∫ 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−10
Let 𝐼𝐼 = ∫ 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−10
𝐼𝐼2 = � 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 ∗ � 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
= � 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 ∗ � 𝑒𝑒−𝑢𝑢2/2 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
= � � 𝑒𝑒−(𝑢𝑢2+𝑣𝑣2 )/2 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
Using polar co-ordinate system,
𝑑𝑑 = 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 , 𝑣𝑣 = 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟
𝐼𝐼2 = � � 𝑒𝑒−𝑟𝑟2/2 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟2𝜋𝜋
0
∞
0
𝐼𝐼2 = 2𝜋𝜋 � 𝑒𝑒−𝑟𝑟2/2 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟 ∞
0
Let 𝑟𝑟2 = 𝑤𝑤
Therefore, 𝑑𝑑𝑤𝑤 = 2𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟 𝑠𝑠. 𝑒𝑒. 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟 = 𝑑𝑑𝑤𝑤/2
12
Page 21
𝐼𝐼2 = 2𝜋𝜋 � 𝑒𝑒−𝑤𝑤/2 𝑑𝑑𝑤𝑤/2 ∞
0
𝐼𝐼2 = [−2𝑒𝑒−𝑤𝑤2 ]0∞ = −2(0−1)
2= 1
∴ 𝐼𝐼 = ∫ 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−10 = 1 (2.4)
Second, we solve ∫ 𝑣𝑣𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2
2
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−10 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
Let 𝑣𝑣2
2= 𝑥𝑥2
∴ 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑣𝑣√2
𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥 = 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣√2
𝑠𝑠. 𝑒𝑒. 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 = √2𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥
∫ 𝑣𝑣𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2
2
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−10 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 = ∫ √2𝑥𝑥𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0 ∗ 𝑒𝑒−𝑥𝑥2∗ √2𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥
= 2 � 𝑥𝑥
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑒𝑒−𝑥𝑥2𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥
= [𝑒𝑒−𝑥𝑥2]0𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
= [𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2]0𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
∫ 𝑣𝑣𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2
2
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−10 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 = [1 − 𝑒𝑒
−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−12
2 ] (2.5)
Substituting (2.4) and (2.5) in (2.3), inventory holding cost is given by
��ℎ𝑖𝑖√2𝜋𝜋
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
� 𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1 − 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 �1− 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 � (2.6)
13
Page 22
• Shortage cost: Total shortage cost is given by
�� � 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
∗ �𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 � ∗ 𝜙𝜙 (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡) ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
= ��𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 � 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝜙𝜙 (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡) ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
− 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 � 𝜙𝜙 (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡) ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
= ��𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 � 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗𝑒𝑒−(𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ √2𝜋𝜋∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
− 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 � 𝑒𝑒−(𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡2
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ √2𝜋𝜋∗ 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
(2.7)
Let (𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)/𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 𝑣𝑣
Therefore, 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝑣𝑣 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 and 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
Substituting in (2.7), we get
��𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖√2𝜋𝜋
� (𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝑣𝑣 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
) ∗ 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 − 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1
√2𝜋𝜋 � 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣2/2 ∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
(2.8)
= ��𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖√2𝜋𝜋
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
�𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 � 𝑣𝑣𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 � 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣� − 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1√2𝜋𝜋
� 𝑒𝑒−𝑣𝑣22
𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1
0
Using results from (2.4) and (2.5), we get shortage cost as,
��𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖√2𝜋𝜋
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
� 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 �1− 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1� (2.9)
14
Page 23
• Total cost: Total cost is the sum of fixed cost, purchasing cost, shipping cost, inventory
holding cost and shortage cost. The first objective is given by
𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑍𝑍1 = ∑ ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=1
𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖=1 + ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖=1
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=1
𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖=1
+ ∑ ∑ ∑ 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=1
𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖=1 +
∑ ∑ ℎ𝑖𝑖√2𝜋𝜋
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖=1 � 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 − 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 �1 − 𝑒𝑒
−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−12
2 � + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 � +
∑ ∑ 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠√2𝜋𝜋
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=1
𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠=1 � 𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 �1 − 𝑒𝑒
−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−12
2 � + µ𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 − 𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1 � (2.10)
2.2.2 To minimize the number of defective parts
The product of quality rejection rate and quantity supplied is summed over all products,
suppliers and time periods. The number of defective parts should be minimum. The second
objective is given by
𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑍𝑍2 = ���𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑇𝑇
𝑡𝑡=1
(2.11)
2.2.3 To minimize weighted average lead time
The product of lead time of each part and quantity supplied is summed over all products,
suppliers and time periods and further divided by total order quantity to give weighted
average lead time. The weighted average lead time should be minimum. The third objective
is given by
𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑍𝑍3 =∑ ∑ ∑ 𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=1
∑ ∑ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖=1
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=1
15
Page 24
2.3 Constraints
Capacity constraints:
Capacity constraints ensure that the quantity ordered from each supplier in each period is
not more than supplier’s capacity. This constraint also ensures that binary variable δijt =1
in case supplier j is chosen in period t.
�𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ≤ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑠 = 1, . . ,𝑚𝑚 𝑗𝑗 = 1, . . ,𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡 = 1, . . ,𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝
𝑖𝑖=1
(2.13)
Price break constraints:
Price break constraints ensure that price discount is applied when the order quantity from
supplier j exceeds the price break quantity bijk for product i and price level k. This constraint
also ensures that binary variable yijk = 1 if price level k is chosen for part i for supplier j.
0 ≤ 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ≤ 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑠 = 1, .𝑚𝑚 𝑗𝑗 = 1, . . ,𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡 = 1, . . ,𝑇𝑇 𝑘𝑘 = 1, . . ,𝑝𝑝 (2.14)
�𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ≤ 1 𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑠 = 1, . . ,𝑚𝑚 𝑗𝑗 = 1, . . ,𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑡𝑡 = 1, . . ,𝑇𝑇 (2.15)
Demand constraints:
The following constraint is derived from the condition that inventory holding cost cannot
be negative.
16
Page 25
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 − 𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 �1 − 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−12
2 � + µ𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 ≥ 0
(𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
≥ − 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 (2.16)
The following constraint is derived from the condition that shortage cost cannot be
negative.
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 �1− 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 �+ µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 ≥ 0
𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−12
2 ≤ �𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 + µ𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 − 𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡−1�
𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 (2.17)
Other constraints:
These constraints ensure that all decision variables are non-negative and all binary
variables are well defined.
��𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 = 1 𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑠 = 1, . . ,𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡 = 1, … ,𝑇𝑇 (2.18)𝑝𝑝
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖, 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 , 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ≥ 0, 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ,𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∈ (0,1) (2.19)
2.4 Weighted Objective Method
The idea behind formulation of this multi criteria problem is to assign weights to each
objective to transform the problem into a single weighted objective problem. An example
of formulation of weighted objective problem is given below (Masud and Ravindran, 2008)
17
Page 26
𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑍𝑍 = ∑ 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖(𝑥𝑥)𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1
𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑗𝑗𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟 𝑥𝑥 ∈ 𝑆𝑆
∑ 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖 = 1.𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1
𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0
where λi is the weight assigned to objective 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖(𝑥𝑥)
and S = {x | gi (x) ≤ 0, j= 1, 2,….,m}
where gj (x) ≤ 0 represents constraint j.
Under this method, the multi objective problem becomes a single objective problem
as follows,
𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑍𝑍 = 𝑤𝑤1 ∗ 𝑍𝑍1 + 𝑤𝑤2 ∗ 𝑍𝑍2 + 𝑤𝑤3 ∗ 𝑍𝑍3
where w1 = weight assigned to objective 𝑍𝑍1 (minimize total cost)
𝑤𝑤2 = weight assigned to objective 𝑍𝑍2 (minimize number of defective parts)
𝑤𝑤3 = weight assigned to objective 𝑍𝑍3 (minimize weighted average lead time)
and 𝑤𝑤1 + 𝑤𝑤2 + 𝑤𝑤3 = 1
18
Page 27
Chapter 3
Numerical Example and Sensitivity Analysis
3.1 Problem description:
A company wants to purchase 3 different parts for its assembly. There are 3 suppliers for
each part and all these suppliers offer 2 levels of price discounts for each part. The
following values are used as inputs.
• Number of parts=3 , m=3, i= {1,2,3}
• Number of suppliers=3, n=3, j= {1,2,3}
• Number of weeks in planning horizon=5, T=5, t= {1,2,3,4,5}
• Number of price levels offered by each supplier of each part=2, p=2, k= {1,2}
The following inputs are assumed and used in the numerical example
Product Supplier Fixed order
cost i j fij ($) 1 1 500 1 2 400 1 3 600 2 1 500 2 2 400 2 3 600 3 1 500 3 2 400 3 3 600
Table 3-1: Numerical Example: Fixed order cost related to parts and suppliers
19
Page 28
Part
Inventory holding
cost Shortage
cost i hi ($) sci ($) 1 3 6 2 4.5 7.5 3 5 8
Table 3-2: Numerical Example: Inventory holding cost and shortage cost related to parts
Part Supplier Defect rate Capacity
Lead time
(weeks) Shipping cost ($)
i j qij CAPij lij Cij 1 1 0.04 1000 0.5 1.5 1 2 0.02 800 0.7 2 1 3 0.01 800 0.7 2.1 2 1 0.05 800 0.7 2 2 2 0.03 1000 0.6 1.8 2 3 0.02 600 0.8 1.5 3 1 0.04 600 0.5 2.5 3 2 0.03 900 0.6 1.9 3 3 0.02 700 0.5 2.5
Table 3-3: Numerical Example: Values of parameters related to suppliers and parts
20
Page 29
Table 3-4: Numerical Example: Values of unit price and price break quantity
Table 3-5: Numerical Example: Weights of three objectives
Product Supplier Price break
level Price
break qty
Unit Price
($) i j k (bijk) Pijk 1 1 1 500 25 2 1000 20 1 2 1 500 22 2 800 19 1 3 1 500 30 2 800 25 2 1 1 450 18 2 800 15 2 2 1 600 22
2 1000 18 2 3 1 350 20 2 600 16 3 1 1 350 30 2 600 26 3 2 1 550 33 2 900 30 3 3 1 400 27
2 700 24
W1 W2 W3 0.7 0.2 0.1
21
Page 30
Product Week Demand i t Dit 1 1 1500 1 2 1750 1 3 2000 1 4 1900 1 5 1600 2 1 1700 2 2 2100 2 3 2400 2 4 2200 2 5 2100 3 1 1800 3 2 2000 3 3 1800 3 4 2150 3 5 2000
Table 3-6: Numerical Example: Values of demand for each part for each week
Mean demand μ1t μ2t μ3t
1750 2100 1950
Table 3-7: Mean values of demand
Std. dev.of demand σ1t σ2t σ3t 206 255 150
Table 3-8: Standard deviation values of demand
22
Page 31
3.2 Mathematical model:
Decision variables:
xijtk : proportion of part i purchased from supplier j in period t at price level k, i=1, 2, 3 and j=1, 2, 3, t=1, 2,., 5 and k=1, 2
Oit : order quantity for part i in period t, i= 1, 2, 3 and t=1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Iit : inventory level for part i at the end of period t, i=1, 2, 3 and t=1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Sit : shortage quantity for part i at the end of period t, i=1, 2, 3 and t=1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
δijt =1, if order is placed for part i to supplier j for period t. i=1, 2, 3 and j=1, 2, 3 and t=1,2,3,4, 5.
=0, otherwise.
yijtk = 1, if price break level k is selected for part i from supplier j for period t.
=0, otherwise for i=1, 2, 3 and j=1, 2, 3 and t=1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and k=1, 2
Objective functions:
1) Minimize total cost over planning horizon
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑍𝑍1 = �{5
𝑡𝑡=1
500 ∗ (𝛿𝛿11𝑡𝑡 + 𝛿𝛿21𝑡𝑡+ 𝛿𝛿31𝑡𝑡) + 400 ∗ (𝛿𝛿12𝑡𝑡
+ 𝛿𝛿22𝑡𝑡 + 𝛿𝛿32𝑡𝑡) + 600 ∗ (𝛿𝛿13𝑡𝑡 + 𝛿𝛿23𝑡𝑡 + 𝛿𝛿33𝑡𝑡} +
∑ [{(25 + 1.5)𝑥𝑥11𝑡𝑡1 + (20 + 1.5)𝑥𝑥11𝑡𝑡2 + (22 + 2)𝑥𝑥12𝑡𝑡1 5𝑡𝑡=1 + (19 + 2)𝑥𝑥12𝑡𝑡2 +
(30 + 2.1)𝑥𝑥13𝑡𝑡1+(25 + 2.1)𝑥𝑥13𝑡𝑡2}𝑂𝑂1𝑡𝑡 + {(18 + 2)𝑥𝑥21𝑡𝑡1 + (15 + 2)𝑥𝑥21𝑡𝑡2 +(22 + 1.8)𝑥𝑥22𝑡𝑡1 + (18 + 1.8)𝑥𝑥22𝑡𝑡2 + (20 + 1.5)𝑥𝑥23𝑡𝑡1 + (16 + 1.5)𝑥𝑥23𝑡𝑡2}𝑂𝑂2𝑡𝑡 + {(30 + 2.5)𝑥𝑥31𝑡𝑡1+(26 + 2.5)𝑥𝑥31𝑡𝑡2 + (33 + 1.9)𝑥𝑥32𝑡𝑡1 + (30 + 1.9)𝑥𝑥32𝑡𝑡2 +
(27 + 2.5)𝑥𝑥33𝑡𝑡1 + (24 + 2.5)𝑥𝑥33𝑡𝑡2}𝑂𝑂3𝑡𝑡] + ∑ [ 3√2𝜋𝜋
5𝑡𝑡=1 � 𝐼𝐼1,𝑡𝑡−1 − 206�1 −
𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼1,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + 1750� + 4.5√2𝜋𝜋
� 𝐼𝐼2,𝑡𝑡−1 − 255 �1 − 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼2,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + 2100� +
5√2𝜋𝜋
� 𝐼𝐼3,𝑡𝑡−1 − 150 �1 − 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼3,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + 1950�] + ∑ [ 6√2𝜋𝜋
5𝑡𝑡=1 � 206 �1 −
23
Page 32
𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼1,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + 1750 − 𝐼𝐼1,𝑡𝑡−1 � + [ 7.5√2𝜋𝜋
� 255�1 − 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼2,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + 2100 − 𝐼𝐼2,𝑡𝑡−1 �
+ 8√2𝜋𝜋
� 150�1 − 𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼3,𝑡𝑡−1
2
2 � + 1950 − 𝐼𝐼3,𝑡𝑡−1 �]
2) Minimize number of defective parts
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑍𝑍2 = �[{(𝑥𝑥11𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥11𝑡𝑡2)0.04 + (𝑥𝑥12𝑡𝑡1 5
𝑡𝑡=1
+ 𝑥𝑥12𝑡𝑡2)0.02 + (𝑥𝑥13𝑡𝑡1
+ 𝑥𝑥13𝑡𝑡2)0.01}𝑂𝑂1𝑡𝑡 + {𝑥𝑥21𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥21𝑡𝑡2)0.05 + (𝑥𝑥22𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥22𝑡𝑡2)0.03
+ (𝑥𝑥23𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥23𝑡𝑡2)0.02}𝑂𝑂2𝑡𝑡 + {(𝑥𝑥31𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥31𝑡𝑡2)0.04 + (𝑥𝑥32𝑡𝑡1
+ 𝑥𝑥32𝑡𝑡2)0.03 + (𝑥𝑥33𝑡𝑡1
+ 𝑥𝑥33𝑡𝑡2)0.02} 𝑂𝑂3𝑡𝑡]
3) Minimize weighted average lead time
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑍𝑍3 = �[{(𝑥𝑥11𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥11𝑡𝑡2)0.5 + (𝑥𝑥12𝑡𝑡1 5
𝑡𝑡=1
+ 𝑥𝑥12𝑡𝑡2)0.7 + (𝑥𝑥13𝑡𝑡1
+ 𝑥𝑥13𝑡𝑡2)0.7}𝑂𝑂1𝑡𝑡 + {𝑥𝑥21𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥21𝑡𝑡2)0.7 + (𝑥𝑥22𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥22𝑡𝑡2)0.6 + (𝑥𝑥23𝑡𝑡1+ 𝑥𝑥23𝑡𝑡2)0.8}𝑂𝑂2𝑡𝑡 + {(𝑥𝑥31𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥31𝑡𝑡2)0.5 + (𝑥𝑥32𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑥𝑥32𝑡𝑡2)0.6 + (𝑥𝑥33𝑡𝑡1+ 𝑥𝑥33𝑡𝑡2)0.5} 𝑂𝑂3𝑡𝑡] /
�{𝑂𝑂1𝑡𝑡
5
𝑡𝑡 =1
+ 𝑂𝑂2𝑡𝑡 + 𝑂𝑂3𝑡𝑡 }
Constraints:
1) Capacity constraints:
�𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ≤ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 = 1,2,3 𝑗𝑗 = 1,2,3 𝑡𝑡 = 1,2,3,4,52
𝑖𝑖=1
24
Page 33
2) Price break constraints:
0 ≤ 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ≤ 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 = 1,2,3 𝑗𝑗 = 1,2,3 𝑡𝑡 = 1,2,3,4,5 𝑘𝑘= 1,2
�𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ≤ 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 = 1,2,3 𝑗𝑗 = 1,2,3 2
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑡𝑡 = 1,2,3,4,5
3) Demand constraints:
From equation (2.16), we have
(𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡)
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ≥ − 𝑒𝑒
−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−122 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 = 1,2,3 𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡 = 1,2,3,4,5
For t=1, i=1, we have µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 1750 and𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 206. Initial inventory is assumed to
be 0.
(0+1750-206)/ (206) ≥ −𝑒𝑒0 . This constraint is satisfied.
From equation (2.17), we have
𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−12
2 ≤ �𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1�
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 = 1,2,3 𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡 = 1,2,3,4,5
𝑒𝑒−𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−12
2 ≤ �𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 + µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 − 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖,𝑡𝑡−1�
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 𝑏𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑏𝑏𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑏𝑏
For t=1, i=1, we have µ𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 1750 and𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 = 206. 𝑒𝑒0 ≤ (206 + 1750-0) / (206). This constraint is satisfied.
25
Page 34
4) Other constraints:
� �𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 = 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 = 1,2,3 𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡2
𝑖𝑖=1
3
𝑖𝑖=1
= 1,2,3,4,5.
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 , 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡, 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ≥ 0, 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡,𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 ∈ (0,1)
Solutions:
For order proportion xijtk
x1111 x1121 x1131 x1141 x1151 x1112 x1122 x1132 x1142 x1152 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0.54 0.5 0.53 0.5
x1211 x1221 x1231 x1241 x1251 x1212 x1222 x1232 x1242 x1252 0 0 0 0 0 0.53 0.46 0.4 0.42 0.5
x1311 x1321 x1331 x1341 x1351 x1312 x1322 x1332 x1342 x1352 0 0 0.1 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0
x2111 x2121 x2131 x2141 x2151 x2112 x2122 x2132 x2142 x2152 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.38
x2211 x2221 x2231 x2241 x2251 x2212 x2222 x2232 x2242 x2252 0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.33 0.42 0.36 0.33
x2311 x2321 x2331 x2341 x2351 x2312 x2322 x2332 x2342 x2352 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.29 0.25 0.28 0.29
x3111 x3121 x3131 x3141 x3151 x3112 x3122 x3132 x3142 x3152 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.3 0.31 0.27 0.3
x3211 x3221 x3231 x3241 x3251 x3212 x3222 x3232 x3242 x3252 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.35 0.31 0.4 0.35
x3311 x3321 x3331 x3341 x3351 x3312 x3322 x3332 x3342 x3352 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.33 0.35
Table 3-9: Order proportions
26
Page 35
For order quantity Oit
Table 3-10: Order quantities
For binary variable δijt
Table 3-11: Selection of suppliers
O11 O12 O13 O14 O15 1500 1750 2000 1900 1600 O21 O22 O23 O24 O25
1700 2100 2400 2200 2100 O31 O32 O33 O34 O35
1800 2000 1800 2150 2000
δ111 δ112 δ113 δ114 δ115 1 1 1 1 1 δ121 δ122 δ123 δ124 δ125 1 1 1 1 1 δ131 δ132 δ133 δ134 δ135 0 0 1 1 0 δ211 δ212 δ213 δ214 δ215 1 1 1 1 1 δ221 δ222 δ223 δ224 δ225 1 1 1 1 1 δ231 δ232 δ233 δ234 δ235 1 1 1 1 1 δ311 δ312 δ313 δ314 δ315 1 1 1 1 1 δ321 δ322 δ323 δ324 δ325 1 1 1 1 1 δ331 δ332 δ333 δ334 δ335 1 1 1 1 1
27
Page 36
For binary variable y ijtk
y 1111 y1121 y 1131 y 1141 y 1151 y 1112 y 1122 y 1132 y 1142 y 1152
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 1211 y1221 y 1231 y 1241 y 1251 y 1212 y 1222 y 1232 y 1242 y 1252
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 1311 y1321 y 1331 y 1341 y 1351 y 1312 y 1322 y 1332 y 1342 y 1352
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
y 2111 y2121 y 2131 y 2141 y 2151 y 2112 y 2122 y 2132 y 2142 y 2152
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 2211 y2221 y 2231 y 2241 y 2251 y 2212 y 2222 y 2232 y 2242 y 2252
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 2311 y2321 y 2331 y 2341 y 2351 y 2312 y 2322 y 2332 y 2342 y 2352
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 y 3111 y3121 y 3131 y 3141 y 3151 y 3112 y 3122 y 3132 y 3142 y 3152
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 y 3211 y3221 y 3231 y 3241 y 3251 y 3212 y 3222 y 3232 y 3242 y 3252
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 y 3311 y3321 y 3331 y 3341 y 3351 y 3312 y 3322 y 3332 y 3342 y 3352
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3-12: Selection of price levels
28
Page 37
Objective 1: Z1 =Total cost = $ 815116.6
Objective 2: Z2 =Number of defective parts= 914
Objective 3: Z3 =Weighted Average lead time: 3.05 weeks
From table 3-5, we have weights for each objective as follows
W1 = 0.7, W2 = 0.2, W3 = 0.1
Objective function value= W1 * Z1 + W2 * Z2 + W3 * Z3
= (0.7*815116.6) + (0.2 * 914) + (0.1*3.05)
= 570764.6
29
Page 38
3.3 Sensitivity analysis
1) When the values for standard deviation are decreased by 10 % and the mean is kept the
same as original example, we get following input values.
Std. dev.of demand σ1t σ2t σ3t 206 255 150
Table 3-13: Original values of Standard deviation of demand
Table 3-14: New values of Standard deviation of demand
All other inputs are kept the same. The optimal solution is as follows,
For order proportion xijtk
x1111 x1121 x1131 x1141 x1151 x1112 x1122 x1132 x1142 x1152
0 0 0 0 0 0.54 0.54 0.48 0.53 0.52 x1211 x1221 x1231 x1241 x1251 x1212 x1222 x1232 x1242 x1252
0 0 0 0 0 0.46 0.46 0.4 0.42 0.48 x1311 x1321 x1331 x1341 x1351 x1312 x1322 x1332 x1342 x1352
0 0 0.12 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 x2111 x2121 x2131 x2141 x2151 x2112 x2122 x2132 x2142 x2152
0 0 0 0 0 0.42 0.38 0.36 0.39 0.42 x2211 x2221 x2231 x2241 x2251 x2212 x2222 x2232 x2242 x2252
0 0 0 0 0 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.32
Std. dev.of demand σ1t σ2t σ3t 185 230 135
30
Page 39
x2311 x2321 x2331 x2341 x2351 x2312 x2322 x2332 x2342 x2352
0 0 0 0 0 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 x3111 x3121 x3131 x3141 x3151 x3112 x3122 x3132 x3142 x3152
0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.3 0.28 0.29 0.26 x3211 x3221 x3231 x3241 x3251 x3212 x3222 x3232 x3242 x3252
0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.35 0.4 0.31 0.33 x3311 x3321 x3331 x3341 x3351 x3312 x3322 x3332 x3342 x3352
0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.4 0.41
Table 3-15: Order proportions
For order quantity Oit
Table 3-16: Order quantities
For binary variable δijt
δ111 δ112 δ113 δ114 δ115 1 1 1 1 1 δ121 δ122 δ123 δ124 δ125 1 1 1 1 1 δ131 δ132 δ133 δ134 δ135 0 0 1 1 0
O11 O12 O13 O14 O15 1750 1750 2100 1900 1650
O21 O22 O23 O24 O25 1900 2100 2200 2050 1900
O31 O32 O33 O34 O35 1800 2000 2150 1750 1700
31
Page 40
δ211 δ212 δ213 δ214 δ215 1 1 1 1 1 δ221 δ222 δ223 δ224 δ225 1 1 1 1 1 δ231 δ232 δ233 δ234 δ235 1 1 1 1 1 δ311 δ312 δ313 δ314 δ315 1 1 1 1 1 δ321 δ322 δ323 δ324 δ325 1 1 1 1 1 δ331 δ332 δ333 δ334 δ335 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3-17: Selection of suppliers
For binary variable y ijtk
y 1111 y1121 y 1131 y 1141 y 1151 y 1112 y 1122 y 1132 y 1142 y 1152
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 1211 y1221 y 1231 y 1241 y 1251 y 1212 y 1222 y 1232 y 1242 y 1252
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 1311 y1321 y 1331 y 1341 y 1351 y 1312 y 1322 y 1332 y 1342 y 1352
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
y 2111 y2121 y 2131 y 2141 y 2151 y 2112 y 2122 y 2132 y 2142 y 2152
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 2211 y2221 y 2231 y 2241 y 2251 y 2212 y 2222 y 2232 y 2242 y 2252
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
32
Page 41
y 2311 y2321 y 2331 y 2341 y 2351 y 2312 y 2322 y 2332 y 2342 y 2352
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 3111 y3121 y 3131 y 3141 y 3151 y 3112 y 3122 y 3132 y 3142 y 3152
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 3211 y3221 y 3231 y 3241 y 3251 y 3212 y 3222 y 3232 y 3242 y 3252
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 3311 y3321 y 3331 y 3341 y 3351 y 3312 y 3322 y 3332 y 3342 y 3352
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3-18: Selection of price levels
Objective 1: Z1 =Total cost = $ 699834.1
Objective 2: Z2 =Number of defective parts= 811
Objective 3: Z3 =Weighted Average lead time: 3.01 weeks
Objective Original value New value Percentage
decrease
Total cost $815,116.60 $699,834.10 14.14% Total number of quality defects
914 811 11.26%
Weighted average lead
time 3.05 weeks 3.01 weeks 1.31%
Table 3-19: Comparison of values of objectives
33
Page 42
From table 3-5, we have weights for each objective as follows
W1 = 0.7, W2 = 0.2, W3 = 0.1
Objective function value= W1 * Z1 + W2 * Z2 + W3 * Z3
= (0.7*699834.1) + (0.2 * 811) + (0.1*3.01)
= 490046.4
The percentage decrease in the value of objective function is 570764.6−490046.4570764.6
= 14.12 %
This decrease in the value of objective function is probably because of the decrease in the
standard deviation of demand. Therefore, decrease in the values of standard deviation of
demand by 10% leads to decrease in the value of objective function by 14.12 %, keeping
all other input parameters constant.
2) When the input values for mean of demand are increased by 10% and values for
standard deviation are kept same as original example, we have the following inputs,
Mean demand μ1t μ2t μ3t
1750 2100 1950
Table 3-20: Original Values of Mean of demand
Table 3-21: New values of Mean of demand
Mean demand μ1t μ2t μ3t
1925 2310 2145
34
Page 43
All other inputs are maintained same. The solution changes as follows.
For order proportion xijtk
x1111 x1121 x1131 x1141 x1151 x1112 x1122 x1132 x1142 x1152 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.54 0.38 0.56 0.46
x1211 x1221 x1231 x1241 x1251 x1212 x1222 x1232 x1242 x1252 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0.46 0.38 0.44 0.54
x1311 x1321 x1331 x1341 x1351 x1312 x1322 x1332 x1342 x1352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0 0
x2111 x2121 x2131 x2141 x2151 x2112 x2122 x2132 x2142 x2152 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 0.42 0.36 0.44 0.62
x2211 x2221 x2231 x2241 x2251 x2212 x2222 x2232 x2242 x2252 0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.32 0.36 0.33 0
x2311 x2321 x2331 x2341 x2351 x2312 x2322 x2332 x2342 x2352 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.23 0.38
x3111 x3121 x3131 x3141 x3151 x3112 x3122 x3132 x3142 x3152 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0.32 0.28 0.29 0.42
x3211 x3221 x3231 x3241 x3251 x3212 x3222 x3232 x3242 x3252 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.33 0.32 0.4 0.31 0
x3311 x3321 x3331 x3341 x3351 x3312 x3322 x3332 x3342 x3352 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.36 0.32 0.4 0.48
Table 3-22: Order proportions
For order quantity Oit
Table 3-23: Order quantities
O11 O12 O13 O14 O15 1400 1750 2100 1800 1500
O21 O22 O23 O24 O25 1700 1900 2200 1800 1300
O31 O32 O33 O34 O35 1650 1900 2150 1750 1450
35
Page 44
For binary variable δijt
δ111 δ112 δ113 δ114 δ115 1 1 1 1 1
δ121 δ122 δ123 δ124 δ125 1 1 1 1 1
δ131 δ132 δ133 δ134 δ135 0 0 1 0 0
δ211 δ212 δ213 δ214 δ215 1 1 1 1 1
δ221 δ222 δ223 δ224 δ225 1 1 1 1 0
δ231 δ232 δ233 δ234 δ235
1 1 1 1 1
δ311 δ312 δ313 δ314 δ315
1 1 1 1 1
δ321 δ322 δ323 δ324 δ325
1 1 1 1 1
δ331 δ332 δ333 δ334 δ335
1 1 1 1 1
Table 3-24: Selection of suppliers
36
Page 45
For binary variable y ijtk
y 1111 y1121 y 1131 y 1141 y 1151 y 1112 y 1122 y 1132 y 1142 y 1152 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 1211 y1221 y 1231 y 1241 y 1251 y 1212 y 1222 y 1232 y 1242 y 1252 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 1311 y1321 y 1331 y 1341 y 1351 y 1312 y 1322 y 1332 y 1342 y 1352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y 2111 y2121 y 2131 y 2141 y 2151 y 2112 y 2122 y 2132 y 2142 y 2152 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 2211 y2221 y 2231 y 2241 y 2251 y 2212 y 2222 y 2232 y 2242 y 2252 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 2311 y2321 y 2331 y 2341 y 2351 y 2312 y 2322 y 2332 y 2342 y 2352 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 3111 y3121 y 3131 y 3141 y 3151 y 3112 y 3122 y 3132 y 3142 y 3152 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
y 3211 y3221 y 3231 y 3241 y 3251 y 3212 y 3222 y 3232 y 3242 y 3252 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
y 3311 y3321 y 3331 y 3341 y 3351 y 3312 y 3322 y 3332 y 3342 y 3352 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3-25: Selection of price levels
Objective 1: Z1 =Total cost = $ 928322.2
Objective 2: Z2 =Number of defective parts= 1004
Objective 3: Z3 =Weighted Average lead time: 3.11 weeks
37
Page 46
Objective Original value New value Percentage
increase
Total cost $815,116.60 $928,322.20 13.88%
Total number of quality defects
914 1004 9.84%
Weighted average lead
time
3.05 weeks 3.11 weeks 1.96%
Table 3-26: Comparison of values of objectives
From table 3-5, we have weights for each objective as follows
W1 = 0.7, W2 = 0.2, W3 = 0.1
Objective function value= W1 * Z1 + W2 * Z2 + W3 * Z3
= (0.7*928322.2) + (0.2 * 1004) + (0.1*3.11)
= 650026.6
The percentage increase in the value of objective function is 650026.6−570764.6570764.6
= 13.85 %
This increase in the value of objective function is probably because of the increase in the
mean values of demand. Therefore, the value of objective function increases by 13.85%
when values of mean of demand are increased by 10%, keeping all other input parameters
constant.
38
Page 47
Chapter 4
Summary, Conclusions and scope for future research
In this chapter, we present a summary of the thesis and conclusions from the research
work. This research work can be extended by changing the assumptions or by adding new
parameters to the existing problem to increase the complexity. Scope for future research is
also presented in this chapter.
4.1 Summary and Conclusions
In this thesis, a multi criteria decision making model is developed for supplier selection
and order allocation. The primary objective of this model is to help the buyer make
decisions regarding choice of suppliers in case of procured products. The multi criteria
model is developed for the case of multiple products, multiple suppliers and multiple time
periods procurement activity. Each supplier is assumed to provide all-unit type of discount
for each part. The problem is formulated by considering three objectives: the total cost over
planning horizon, the number of defective parts procured from the supplier and the
weighted average lead time of the supplier. This problem is solved using weighted
objective method.
A numerical example is solved following the model formulation to illustrate the
functioning of the model. The supplier selection and order allocation problem is solved by
assuming that there are three parts to be procured. Each part can be supplied by three
different suppliers. This problem is solved by assuming that the buyer has to plan for five
weeks of procurement i.e. there are five weeks in the planning horizon. Further, each
supplier is assumed to provide two price levels for each part based on the quantity ordered.
39
Page 48
It is observed that the total cost, the number of quality defects and the weighted average
lead time decreased when the standard deviation of the demand was decreased, keeping all
other input parameters constant. Next, there is increase in the total cost, the number of
quality defects and the weighted average lead time when the mean values of the demand
increased. There is no change in the selection of suppliers with the changes in above
mentioned inputs. A change is observed in selection of price levels offered by the suppliers
when the demand for each week changed. It is observed that the model chose to procure
maximum quantity from the supplier that offered the best price before choosing the next
best supplier.
4.2 Scope for future research
The following can be considered to extend the work done in this thesis.
• Each supplier is assumed to provide all-unit type of discount. However, in reality,
some other types of discounts such as business volume discount and incremental
discount are offered by the suppliers.
• In reality, each supplier has different transportation alternatives (TA) for shipping
the parts to the buyer. Each transportation alternative offers different cost and
different values for lead time. The model can be extended by considering
transportation alternatives for each supplier.
• Selection of suppliers that are located globally increases the supply chain risk due
to delays in shipping or due to delays as a result of occasional natural hazards. The
multi criteria model can be extended by adding an objective of minimizing the
supply chain risk.
40
Page 49
REFERENCES
Andreas Thorsen: “Robust Optimization models for inventory control under demand and
lead time uncertainty”. PhD Dissertation, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 2014.
Cong Guo and Xueping Li. “A multi-echelon Inventory System with Supplier Selection and
Order Allocation under Stochastic Demand.” International Journal of Production Economics,
Volume 151, 37-47, 2014.
Fariborz, J., Mahsa, S. N. and G. Hamidreza: “A multi objective model for multi period, multi
products, supplier order allocation under linear discount”. International Journal of Management
Science and Engineering Management, 8:1, 24-31, 2013.
Fariborz, J. and Seyed, A.Y.: “Integrating Fuzzy TOPSIS and multi period goal
programming for purchasing multiple products from multiple suppliers.” Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 17, 42-53, 2011.
Ferhan Cebi and Irem Otay: “A two stage fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and order
allocation problem with quantity discounts and lead time.” Information Sciences, Volume 339,
143-157, 2016.
41
Page 50
Feyzan Arikan: “A fuzzy solution approach for multi-objective supplier selection.” Expert
Systems with Applications, 40, 947-952, 2013.
Hamza Adeinat and Jose A. Ventura: “Quantity Discount decisions considering multiple
suppliers with capacity and quality restrictions”. International Journal of Inventory Research,
Volume 2, Issue 4, 2015.
Hoda, Davarzani and Andreas Norrman: “Dual versus Triple Sourcing: Decision-making under
the risk of Supply Disruption.” Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics, 11, 2224-2899,
2014.
Jadidi, O., Zolfaghari, S. and S. Cavalieri: “A new normalized goal programming model for
multi objective problems: A case of supplier selection and order allocation.” International
Journal of Production Economics, Volume 148, 158-165, 2014.
Jafar, Razmi and Elham Maghool: “Multi item supplier selection and lot sizing planning under
multiple price discounts using augmented ε-constraint and Tchebycheff method.” International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 49: 379-392, 2010.
Lee, Amy H.I., Kang He-Yau, Lai Chun-Mei and Wan –Yu Hong: “An integrated model for lot
sizing with supplier selection and quantity discounts.” Applied Mathematical Modelling,
Volume 37, Issue 7, 4733-4746, 2013.
42
Page 51
Mendoza, A., Santiago, E. and A. Ravi Ravindran: “A three phase multi criteria method
to supplier selection problem”. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 15(2), 195-
210, 2008.
Mohsen, J.S., Madjid, T., Ali,A. and H.K. Mohammed: “A supplier selection and order
allocation model with multiple transportation alternatives.” International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 52: 365-376, 2011.
Salman Nazari Shirkouhi, Hamed Shakouri, Babak Javadi and Abbas Keramati: “Supplier
selection and order allocation problem using two-phase fuzzy multi objective liner
programming.” Applied Mathematical Modelling, Volume 37, Issue 22, 9308-9323, 2013.
Yishan Sun: “Multi period multi criteria supplier selection and order allocation under
demand uncertainty”. Master’s thesis, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 2015.
Ziqi, Ding: “Multi criteria multi period supplier selection and order allocation models”. Master’s
thesis, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania State
University, 2014.
43