Abstract
This final chapters deals with the evaluation of the collaborative planning scheme developed in chapters 4 and 5 by computational tests. The purpose is to determine the quality of solutions attainable with the scheme on the one hand and the computational efforts necessary for realizing these solutions on the other. The focus of the computational analysis is on the basic version of the scheme as described in chapter 4, i.e. one-time planning between a single buyer and supplier. However, a somewhat smaller number of tests also considers a more general SC structure with a single supplier but several buyers, as well as planning on a rolling basis between two SC partners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
C.f. ILOG (2000), p. 17.
See in particular section 4.3, pp. 90.
Details on test instances and input parameters used in the computational study follow in the next section 7.2, pp. 168.
See e.g. Model 6, p. 72.
See p. 96.
See pp. 23.
C.f. Derstroff (1995), pp. 90.
See e.g. Tempelmeier / Derstroff (1993), pp. 68, Tempelmeier / Derstroff (1996), pp. 750, Ertogral / Wu (2000), pp. 937, Stadtler (2003), pp. 23.
I.e. units of item j required to produce one unit of a successor item k (see Model 1, p. 30).
C.f. Stadtler (2003), p. 24.
I.e. capacity units of resource r required to process one unit of item j (see Model 1, p. 30).
In test class L, where the planning interval is limited to 10 periods, available capacity changes in periods 3 and 9 rather than 4 and 10 as shown in the table.
See Model 1, p. 30. Variable production costs are neglected, assuming that unit production costs per item do not change during the planning interval and hence do not affect planning results.
With respect to capacity expansion, the concept used here differs from Derstroff (1995) who does not foresee capacity expansion at all. Stadtler (2003) allows for overtime only in the prohibitive expediting mode (c.f. Stadtler (2003), p. 26).
C.f. Tempelmeier (2003), p. 213.
C.f. Derstroff (1995), p. 92.
The abbreviations of cost rates follow the declarations laid out in Model 1, p. 30.
See e.g. Silver et al. (1998), pp. 151, Chase et al. (1998), pp. 587.
Of course, a (percentage) surplus could be added for overtime operation due to higher overtime wages etc. This is however omitted for the sake of simplicity.
C.f. Simpson / Erengüc (2001), p. 123. Since the negotiation scheme is intended to “close the cost gap” between Upstream Planning and centralized optimization, significant initial gaps are desired.
The problem structures considered here are identical to test set A+ used by Stadtler (2003) (see Stadtler / Sürie (2000), p. 5).
See p. 30.
See 7.2, pp. 168.
C.f. Stadtler (1996), p. 572, (non-negativity restrictions on variable values are ignored).
See Stadtler (1996), p. 570.
C.f. Stadtler (1996), pp. 574.
Also, the total time to find solutions for all test instances of test class L was seen at a reasonable limit with 63 hrs.
C.f. Stadtler (2003), pp. 1.
Strictly speaking, without optimal solution to the global MLCLSP, the best known solution no longer represents a lower bound on total SC costs. Nonetheless, best solutions are still used as comparison benchmarks in all test cases.
See 7.2, pp. 168.
This information is not taken from Table 23, but from the detailed records available to the author.
In case of S2, this observation is however not valid.
C.f. Simpson / Erengüc (2001), p. 123.
See 7.2, pp. 168.
See p. 170.
See pp. 125 for details.
See pp. 103.
See pp. 127.
In the two-partner scenario, in contrast, only 94 of 756 test instances proved capacity infeasible in Upstream Planning.
See pp. 103.
See p. 184.
See p. 185.
See p. 174.
For details see the description is 5.2, pp.115.
See pp. 115 (implementation and computational tests are limited to the version with full exchange of cost information as laid out in 5.2).
See p. 178.
Alternatively, costs only up to period 12 could be considered, but would need to be reduced by a “bonus” depending on inventory levels at the end of period 12, since production of the inventory positions leads to costs that are actually caused by demand occurring in period 13 or later.
See Table 22, p. 179.
See p. 180.
See Table 24, p. 181.
See e.g. the schematic overview in Fig. 33, p. 119.
See Model 14, p. 121.
See p. 170.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dudek, G. (2004). Computational Evaluation. In: Collaborative Planning in Supply Chains. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 533. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05443-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05443-7_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-20457-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-05443-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive