Inventory holding cost

EOQ (economic order quantity) Q, = S/2CE(D,)lh, the classical EOQ formula (refer to Section 1.1), where C is a fixed cost for placing a replenishment order, and h is the inventory holding cost per period. 

The indicator k (p, h, b, i) is a tuple representing the considered cost categories where p indicates pumping costs, h indicates inventory holding costs, b indicates backorder costs, and i indicates interface costs. Note that not all cost categories are considered in all... 

In contrast, in Rejowski and Pinto (2008) the speed of pumping is a decision variable which leads to a non-linear term in the objective function since both pump rate and batch length have to be determined. Furthermore, this work is noteworthy as it explicitly accounts for the inventory holding costs, but at the expense of another non-linear term in the objective function. Note that the time-continuous formulation requires that both the period s length and the tank level in a period are decision variables. The product of these terms determines the holding costs. Cafaro and Cerda (2004, 2008) approximate the holding costs by averaging the stock levels at the depots. 

The objective is to minimize the inventory holding costs which comprises a) ordering/-shipment costs, b) stock holding costs and c) shortfall costs. The drivers of these costs are a) the number 6 of shipments, b) the average total inventory I and c) the plant utilization As discussed above, the precise cost rates of these three drivers are assumed to be unknown and time-varying. The aim is to determine efficient configurations of the inventory parameters and to quantify the trade-off between the three cost drivers. 

Part period heuristic aims to balance set-up cost and inventory holding cost. Assuming the inventory holding cost 7(f, t + n) associated with carrying inventory for n periods. If the inventory holding cost is greater than the set-up cost, then it is reasonable to place a new order at the period t + n. 

Using the data for the toy laptop example, the first period will not have any inventory holding cost, 7(1,1) = 0. The holding cost for carrying from first to second period 7(1,2) will be 5 x 60 = 300 that is less than the set-up cost. The holding cost carrying till third period 7(1, 3) will be 5 x 60 + 2 x 5 x 45 = 750 that is more than the set-up cost, 400. So, we set the lot size for the first period 45 + 60 = 105, and place a new order for the third period. Holding cost for the third period 7(3, 3) will be zero. 7(3, 4) = 5 x 60 = 300 that is less than the set-up cost. 7(3,... 

For example, if the optimal lot sizing policy required ordering in the first, third, and the fifth period that would mean path 1-3-5-7 (for toy laptop example, we need seven nodes). Arc weights (cy) are the costs that include set-up and/or inventory holding cost. Cy is defined as the cost of ordering in period i to cover... 

In particular, consider an alternate proposal for the rail option, whereby the trains travel at a lower average lead time that is less variable. Since transport cost per unit of train shipments is low, these lower average lead time and less variability could reduce both the in-transit inventory holding costs to ship by rail and the associated safety stock. We examine next the impact of these changes on the total supply chain cost experienced by the shipper. 

In-transit inventory holding cost between Santa Fe and Boston... 

Thus, total in-transit inventory holding cost between all component plants and assembly plants = l,440/day. 

The paper [51] considers the agency effect and provides an example where supplier and buyer coordination affect set-up cost at the supplier. The buyer requires a product from the supplier at a fixed rate D per unit time. Demand is met from finished-goods inventory maintained by the supplier. Shortages are not allowed. Production is assumed to be instantaneous, but there is a production set-up cost and an inventory-holding cost, both incurred by the supplier. 

Ultimately, when obstacles are overcome and enablers are in place, a supply chain can gamer significant benefits. The benefits can be broadly categorized into two groups financial and non-financial. The financial benefits arising from collaboration arise from reduction in inventory holding costs and greater efficiency of productive resources (Cachon Fisher, 2000). 

To illustrate, consider an infinite-horizon variant of the newsvendor game with lost sales in each period and inventory carry-over to the subsequent period, see Netessine et al. 2002 for complete analysis. The solution to this problem in a non-competitive setting is an order-up-to policy. In addition to unit-revenue r and unit-cost c we introduce inventory holding cost h incurred by a unit carried over to the next period and a discount factor 0. Also denote by x the inventory position at the beginning of the period and by yj the order-up-to quantity. Then the infinite-horizon profit of each player is... 

Similarly, Federgruen and Heching [51] study a problem where price and inventory decisions are coordinated under linear production cost, stochastic demand and backlogging of excess demand. They assume revenue is concave (e.g., as under a linear demand curve with an additive stochastic component), and inventory holding cost is convex. All parameters are allowed to vary over time, and price changes may be bi-directional over a finite or infinite horizon. 

We use the subscript D in the safety-stock parameters, since they relate to a decoupled system. As can be seen, decoupled policies are attractive because of their simplicity and the ease of their performance evaluation. Nevertheless, they may be significantly outperformed by better non-decoupled policies. Although the use of a decoupled inventory control policies may sometimes be well-justified (if, for instance, inventory holding costs at the supplier s facility are not significant, or if the supplier almost accurately forecasts the demand he faces), we advise some caution when selecting this type of policy structure merely due to its technical convenience. 

We first describe a basic model which will be used in this section as a reference point when we review results in this problem class. Most problems studied in this area have a similar structure and share many assumptions made in this basic model. A manufacturer produces one product on a single production line at a constant rate for a customer with a constant demand rate for the product which must be satisfied without backlog. At the manufacturer s end, there is a fixed setup cost for each production run, and a linear inventory holding cost. At the customer s end, there is a linear inventory holding cost. Between the manufacturer and the customer, there is a fixed delivery cost per order delivered from the manufacturer to the customer, regardless of the order size. The problem is to find a joint cyclic production and delivery schedule such that the total cost per unit time, including production setup costs, inventory costs at both the manufacturer and the customer, and transportation costs, is minimized over an infinite planning horizon. 

Inventory Both the manufacturer and the customers can hold inventory. Unit inventory holding cost and the initial inventory of product j at location k are hjk and Ijko respectively, where location k = 0 represents the manufacturer, and location A = 1,. .., n represents the n customers respectively. 

Product Cycle Time This is the time that elapses from the start of production of the item up to its conversion into a product that can be shipped to the customer. Clearly, longer cycle times can result in larger costs (e.g., labor costs and/or inventory holding costs). 

Production ahead of schedule incurs an inventory holding cost of 50 per unit per month. Each unit of C not delivered on schedule involves a penalty cost of 75 per month until delivery is completed. However, all deliveries must be completed in 6 months. The supplier requires a final labor force of 30 workers and 50 units of C at the end of the 6th month. 

---