eoq model

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

Content Server

eoq model

© All Rights Reserved

- Design of Water
- Robust Thesis 2009
- Differential Evolution for Multi-Objective Optimization
- Vijay 1 Resume
- Significance of the Study
- Final Add. M Project
- Test Bank for Supply Chain Management a Logistics Perspective 9th Edition Coyle
- 650-150
- Developing Logistics Strategy
- Assistant Project Manager or Inventory Control Manager or Transp
- 1 Introduction
- RA 9003
- MBC_to_MBC_II
- A New Harvest Cost Model
- RajBasani - CV
- CASD 2017. Điều khiển dự báo động cơ tuyến tính đồng bộ kích thích vĩnh cửu sử dụng quy hoạch nhiều tham số và tuyến tính hóa chính xác
- Chapter 6 Sup.pptx
- Ch_1
- SCM 2
- Logistics Management (2) (1).docx

You are on page 1of 23

manufacturing/remanufacturing systems with return policies

Alberto Alinoviy, Eleonora Bottani* and Roberto Montanari

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

(Final version received February 2011)

This paper focuses on mixed manufacturing/remanufacturing systems, where manufacturing or purchase of

new items integrates product reuse or remanufacturing, with the purpose to achieve a complete and timely

demand satisfaction. We formulate a stochastic Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)-based inventory control

model for a mixed manufacturing/remanufacturing system. The model is intended to identify the need of

placing a manufacturing/purchasing order, to avoid the occurrence of stock-out situations. We then formulate

a total cost minimisation problem, to derive the optimal return policy, this latter being a financial incentive

paid to customers to increase the flow of returned items. The model developed is investigated through

simulations, in order to assess the effect of stochasticity (of demand, return fraction and return delay) on the

optimal return policy of the system; then, it is validated through a case study, to derive indications concerning

its practical application in real cases. Our study ultimately provides a framework for practitioners to establish

EOQ policies in reverse logistics contexts and to evaluate the opportunity of establishing a return policy in

those contexts.

Keywords: reverse logistics; EOQ inventory control; optimal return policy; uncertainty management;

asset management

1. Introduction

Reverse Logistics (RL) is the process of planning, implementing and controlling the efficient and effective flow of

materials, products and information from the points of consumption to the point of origin, for the purpose of

recapturing value or proper disposal (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1999). RL practices, including product recall,

recycling and disposal, are currently observed in a lot of economic and manufacturing environments, and the

Reverse Logistics Executive Council (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1999) estimates in billions of dollars the

American annual RL costs, resulting in a non-irrelevant fraction of the Gross Domestic Product.

There are several reasons why RL practices are increasingly applied in manufacturing and logistics

environments. First, RL is an answer to ecological and environmental problems. Long-term business sustainability

objectives and the increasing cost of traditional disposal force manufacturers to make significant efforts to

reintegrate used product into industrial production processes. Hence, more and more companies should improve

services provided to customers as regards replacing defective goods, repairing used products, refurbishing returned

products, recalling harmful goods and disposing product waste. All the above activities generate reverse flows in the

supply chain, and require their proper management for a company to remain competitive and differentiated.

Legislation and directives, consumer awareness and social responsibilities toward the environment are further

drivers for RL (Castell et al. 2004, Bloemhof and van Nunen 2005, Ravi and Shankar 2005). In the context of

Europe, for instance, German manufacturers are generally responsible for the final destination of their products;

moreover, the Packaging Ordinance (VerpackV 1998) mandates that German industries organise the reclamation of

reusable packaging waste. Procedures for collection, recycling and recovery targets for all types of electrical goods

are also set by the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (European Commission 2003), which

imposes responsibility for the disposal of electric and electronic equipment on manufacturers. A further important

act is the End of Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC (European Commission 2000), which sets clear quantified

targets for reuse, recycling and recovery of vehicles and components.

yCurrent address. Continuous Improving Department, Heinz Italia S.p.A., Milan, Italy.

ISSN 00207543 print/ISSN 1366588X online

2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.571921

http://www.tandfonline.com

1244

A. Alinovi et al.

Virtually any market field should deal with the problem of retrieving products from the market and defining

their proper disposition. Besides the case of vehicles and electrical equipment, logistics assets (or returnable

transport items) are a further example of products commonly involved in forward flows towards supply chain

partners and reverse flows. The proper management of forward and return flows of assets is a crucial question, as

their failure to enter the return channels, due to loss, theft or damage, involves relevant costs for companies (Breen

2006).

When approaching the analysis of RL systems, it is important to remark that reverse flows may be regarded by

firms under two different perspectives. Under some circumstances, product returns are only considered as a logistic

cost; thus, the typical goal of a company is to minimise their extent. However, more recently, companies have

realised that RL can become a leverage for gaining competitive advantage (Marien 1998); hence, economic

profitability from remanufacturing, reuse or recycling may also be the reason for favouring return flows. In the case

of logistics assets, for instance, remanufacturing/refurbishing and reuse are of particular interest, as assets reused do

not add to the amount of items to be recycled or destroyed, thus reducing the total logistics cost of a company

(European Commission 2007). Nonetheless, to work correctly, remanufacturing environments require a continuous

supply of market-used products (Klausner and Hendrickson 2000) and, consequently, a typical business goal is

maximising return flows, instead of reducing them. To this extent, a company could decide to establish a return

policy, i.e. a financial incentive paid to their customers to favour product or asset returns. In the current paper, we

refer to this latter situation.

Those contexts where assets can be reused, or returned products can be remanufactured and sold in the finishedgoods market, are known as mixed manufacturing/remanufacturing systems (MRSs). In such systems, some items

are remanufactured after their use by the customer, whereas manufacturing or purchasing of new items are required

when the return flow is insufficient to fulfil customers demand. MRSs are relevant to the RL context; however, their

analysis is complicated, because of:

(1) the complexity of material flows. In particular, a crucial question is represented by the necessity of a joint

coordination of the forward and reverse flows (Ketzenberg 2009);

(2) the uncertainty of demand, lead time and returns, which can significantly undermine the synchronisation of

forward and reverse flows (Chanintrakul et al. 2009).

According to this premise, in the current paper we formulate a stochastic analytic model representing a useful

framework for the establishment of an EOQ policy for a mixed MRS, and analytically derive the optimal return

policy. Moreover, we investigate the effects of stochasticity on the optimal return policy for an MRS operating

under the proposed EOQ policy.

The paper is organised as follows. In the next section, we review the relevant literature concerning models for RL

systems, with particular attention to inventory control and optimal return policy. In Section 3, we present the EOQ

model for an MRS, and assess the effects of stochasticity on the optimal return policy for the MRS analysed. In

Section 4, a case study is presented to show the application of the model to a real situation, and to derive insights for

practical implementations. The paper ends by a discussion of findings, managerial issues and suggestions for further

research.

2. Literature review

In accordance with the industrial interest raised by RL issues in recent years, literature on the topic is huge and

addresses different aspects related to MRSs. Owing to the focus of this paper, we analysed papers dealing with: (1)

inventory control models for MRSs; and (2) optimisation of the return policy and of the whole RL system.

With regard to the first point, inventory management in RL systems has received much attention in recent years,

and numerous EOQ-based inventory control models for MRSs have been developed so far. It is commonly accepted

that the first contribution to this area was given by Schrady (1967), who formulated a deterministic EOQ-based

model, assuming constant demand and return rates and fixed lead times for external orders and recovery. More

recent studies include Richter (1996), who considered an EOQ model with constant disposal and used-product

collection rates. Koh et al. (2002) developed a joint EOQ/EPQ (Economic Production Quantity) model, assuming

that demand could be satisfied both by remanufacturing used products and purchasing new items. Oh and Hwang

(2006) proposed an optimal inventory control policy for a recycling system, assuming deterministic demand and

1245

return fraction and null production lead times. Other works on the same topic include Teunter (2004), Dobos and

Richter (2004), Inderfurth et al. (2005) and Konstantaras and Skouri (2009).

Most of the proposed models focus on the calculation of optimal ordering and production lot sizes under

deterministic conditions, and assume the feasibility of infinite production and remanufacturing rates, with

consequent instantaneous flows of newly remanufactured or recovered goods. A typical critique to those models

thus consists of the scarce applicability of the formulation (Jaber and Rosen 2008). Specifically, in practical cases, it

is nearly prohibitive to punctually estimate parameters such as order cost, inventory holding cost and shortage cost,

which are basic inputs for EOQ lot sizing formulae, and whose wrong estimation may produce misleading results.

A further limitation of those approaches is that the problem is formulated as deterministic, according to the

traditional EOQ model. However, it is plainly acknowledged by researchers that a main challenge of supply chain

management is making decisions when facing uncertainty or incomplete information. Hence, deterministic models

are often unrealistic and of limited practical usefulness. Stochastic models for RL systems are proposed in a limited

group of papers. For instance, Fleischmann et al. (2002) proposed a basic inventory model, assuming Poissondistributed demand and returns, and derived the optimal control policy of the system. A limitation of this work is

that the authors assumed independent demand and return rates, whereas establishing a return policy could involve

dependence between demand and returns. More recently, Alinovi et al. (2009) simulated an RL system with

instantaneous integrative manufacturing flows; in this work, however, the authors assumed the delivery lead time to

be deterministically zero.

We already mentioned that firms operating in MRSs need a continuous supply of used products, and that return

policies are a possible means to ensure product return. Hence, a further topic investigated in the literature is the

optimisation of the return policy and of the RL system as a whole. In the case RL systems (with or without a return

policy) are examined for optimisation, the problem is often addressed by means of linear programming models,

intended to identify the minimum total cost or maximum profit of the system (e.g. Thierry et al. 1995,

Veerakamolmal and Gupta 1999, Hu et al. 2002, Beamon and Fernandes 2004, Savaskan et al. 2004, Lieckens and

Vandaele 2007). This is consistent with the fact that the total cost is one of the main performance measures of RL

systems, and of supply chains in general, which allows efficiency of the channel (Pochampally et al. 2009).

Minimising the total cost, while assuring a defined service level to the customer, is also the strategy used in this

study. Focusing on works which consider return policies, Linton et al. (2005) studied the available management

options for inventory control in environments collecting large waste flows of durable goods to support

remanufacturing activities, with particular reference to the case of cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions. The authors

consider the opportunity of additional expenditures to improve public awareness and interest, in order to increase

the supply of raw-material waste in the short and medium term. The opportunity to motivate consumers to sell their

used products with financial incentives has also been addressed by Lee (2001), Tsay (2001), Lau and Lau (1999) and

Emmons and Gilbert (1998). Setoputro and Mukhopadhyay (2004) proposed a model for determining the optimal

return policies as a function of given market reaction parameters, in an e-business environment. Liang et al. (2009)

also studied the formulation of a financial incentive for consumers to assure continuous supply of used products, in

analogy to financial option pricing. However, these contributions only studied uncertainties affecting finished

product demand; conversely, stochastic returns also significantly affect the return policy.

In comparison with previous research, our work aims at being more representative of real contexts; with this

purpose in mind, we have paid particular attention to:

. formulating the model to include stochasticity of demand, return fraction and lead times, at the same time

without focusing on specific probabilistic distributions;

. considering non-zero ordering and manufacturing lead time.

Conversely, we do not concentrate on lot sizing, assuming lot sizes to be given parameters, derived from external

constraints (e.g. capacity of transport vehicles) or a firms estimations.

3. A stochastic EOQ-based inventory control model for RL systems with return policies

3.1 Notation, introduction and definitions

Throughout the paper, we use the notation proposed in Table 1.

We consider a simple MRS system, made up of two echelons, i.e. a manufacturer and the end customers (see

Figure 1). This system integrates manufacturing activities with reuse of returned market-used items. We assume that

1246

A. Alinovi et al.

Symbol

Description

tmax

t, k

dt

t

d

d~t

rt

t

RLTt

RLT

RLT

RLT

IH t

It

pt

st

nDLT

EOQ

q

i

Yqi

Dq

time domain

length of the time horizon

generic days of the planning horizon, t, k 2 fNj1 t, k tmax g

daily demand

daily demand expected value

demand standard deviation

historical demand (as the outcome of the random variable dt on the historical day t)

daily return flow

return fraction

return fraction expected value

return fraction standard deviation

return lead time

return lead time probability mass function

return lead time expected value

return lead time standard deviation

on-hand inventory

inventory position

items supplied daily

items ordered daily

delivery lead time

order lot size

maximum tolerated stock-out probability

forecasting day

generic day in the forecasting horizon, i 2 q 1, q 2, . . . , , q nDLT

random return amount on day i, based on information available on day q

total random demand during the forecasting horizon, based on information available

on day q

total random returns during the forecasting horizon, based on information available

on day q

random net demand, i.e. demand minus returns, during the forecasting horizon,

based on information available on day q

stock-out probability during the forecasting horizon

Bernoulli random variable (with k i)

probability mass function of Zki

Bernoulli parameter of Zki

demand period

demand error

return policy

RL base cost

unitary cost of returned items

inferior asymptotic limit of the curve

superior asymptotic limit of the curve

flex point of the curve

standard deviation of the curve

beta random variable parameters

maximum feasible standard deviation for the beta variable

on-hand inventory at t 0

total cost function

unitary purchasing/manufacturing cost

daily inventory holding cost

Yq

Uq

q

Zki

Zki

pki

T

e

0

p1

p2

1 , 2

max

IH

0

TC

cp

hI

Measurement unit

[days]

[items/day]

[items/day]

[items/day]

[items/day]

[items/day]

[days]

[days]

[days]

[items]

[items]

[items/day]

[items/day]

[days]

[items]

[items/day]

[items]

[items]

[items]

[days]

[items/day]

[%]

[E/item]

[E/item]

[items]

[E]

[E/item]

[E/item/day]

returned items are of the same quality as the newly manufactured ones or, alternatively, that all returned items

having a low quality level can be instantaneously refurbished to the standard quality required for sale. The first

circumstance may suite more properly for MRSs dealing with assets, which commonly undergo lots of reuse cycles

before needing substantial maintenance interventions; conversely, the second hypothesis may hold for proper

product remanufacturing systems.

1247

As Figure 1 shows, the system faces the external customer demand dt, and receives reverse flows of marketreturned items rt. We consider a discrete time domain, represented by t 2 , where ft 2 N : 1 t tmax g. dt

is a non-negative continuous random variable, with t and 2d parameters. Note that time dependence for t

allows modelling seasonal behaviour of demand. Return flows are strictly related to the historical demand, as the

whole quantity demanded at day t is supposed to result in a return fraction t after RLTt days. t is thus a

continuous random variable defined over the interval 0, 1, with and 2 parameters. RLTt is a discrete nonnegative random variable, with probability mass function RLT , and RLT and 2RLT parameters.

Demand is to be satisfied through on-hand inventory, IH t, which can either be replenished through market

returns or manufacturing/external purchase. We assume that the supplied quantity pt is the result of a previous

corresponding order st of the same size. This latter was either placed to the supplier (in case of purchase) or to the

manufacturing plant (in case of internal production) nDLT days earlier. Hence, we may define the inventory position

It as the sum of IH t and the quantities ordered, but not yet delivered, which are expected to be physically

available within nDLT days. Orders are placed for a fixed amount of items, defined a priori and corresponding

to EOQ.

The inventory control model is aimed at determining whether the manufacturer should place a manufacturing/

purchasing order, to prevent the occurrence of out-of-stock situations, due to insufficient returns or excessive

demand.

Let q be a generic day in the time domain V, on which we want to evaluate the opportunity to place an order (cf.

Figure 2). At each day q, the decision to place an order is based on the computation of the probability of stock-out

occurrence in the following days; specifically, the manufacturer should estimate the stock-out probability q during

the forecasting horizon (i.e., from q 1 to q nDLT ). We assume that q nDLT tmax , remarking that tmax should

be taken instead

of q nDLT when theabove inequality does not hold. We consider the day i in the forecasting

horizon i 2 q 1, q 2, . . . , q nDLT and the amount of returned product on that day, Yqi . The distribution of

Yqi is expected to depend on the information on historical demand available at day q, as it is reasonable that the

returned quantity depends upon the demanded quantities and on their probability to be returned on a defined day.

1248

A. Alinovi et al.

decide whether an order

should be placed

q q+1 q+nDLT1

Historical demand

~

d (t )

q+nDLT

tmax

Forecasting horizon

(i=q+1,q+nDLT)

Time domain W

Yi q , d(i) for

D , Y , U , Iq

q

q+1

i = q+1,q+nDLT

q+2

One of the underlying assumptions of the model, in fact, is that the manufacturer does not have historical data of

return flows available, so that it has to estimate the amount of future return flows only based on the historical

deliveries. Such circumstance can be observed in the case the manufacturer did not establish a proper tracking

system, which may allow to precisely link returns with past deliveries.

We hereafter use the symbol to denote historical (known) data, which reflect the known outcomes of the

corresponding random variables; for instance, d~t denotes the known outcome of the random variable dt at day t.

According to the definitions of q , Dq , Yq and Yqi in Table 1, the following equations hold:

Dq

qn

DLT

X

di

Yqi

iq1

Yq

qn

DLT

X

iq1

Uq Dq Yq

qn

DLT

X

di Yqi

iq1

q PUq 4 Iq

where we denote as P the probability of the event in brackets.

We now define Zki as follows:

1, if k RLTk i

Zki

0,

else

By denoting as pki the probability of the quantity dk k to return on day i, Zki j can be written as follows:

pki ,

if j 1

Zki j PZki j

6

1 pki , if j 0

1249

The calculation of pki may be easily obtained from the probability mass function of RLT, as follows:

pki PRLTk i k RLT i k

It is important to remark that Equation (7) is valid regardless of the specific distribution of RLT(t), meaning that,

for developing the theoretical model, no assumptions are required in this regard. Because we assume that any

delivery of a given past day results in a return on only one future day, the following constraint holds:

1

X

Zki 1,

8k 1, . . . , tmax

ik

Having hypothesised that no historical data on return flows are available, to derive an analytic expression of q ,

some probabilistic parameters should be estimated, namely:

(1) the expected value and variance of return quantity at day i (propositions 1 and 2);

(2) the correlation between returned quantities at two different days (proposition 3). This parameter is required

to derive the variance of the total return flow over the forecasting horizon;

(3) the expected value and variance of the total return flow over the forecasting horizon (proposition 4);

(4) the correlation between the total demand over the forecasting horizon and the total returned flow

(proposition 5);

(5) the distribution of the net demand over the forecasting horizon (proposition 6).

For simplicity, we will henceforth introduce a notation change for time-dependent variables, moving the indication

of the day t from the argument in brackets to a newly introduced subscript (e.g., dt will be rewritten as dt ).

Proposition 1: According to the historical data available on the forecasting day q, the expected value of the returned

quantity on day i can be expressed as follows:

!

q

i

X

X

q

d~k pki

k pki

9

E Yi

k1

kq1

Proposition 2: According to the historical data available on the forecasting day q, the variance of the return quantity

on day i has the following expression:

q n

h

io

X

d~2k 2 2 pki 2 p2ki

Var Yqi

k1

i

h

i

X

2d 2k 2 2 pki 2k 2 p2ki :

10

kq1

q

Proposition 3: Let Yqi and

Yj be the random variables

representing the quantities to be returned on days i and j of the

forecasting horizon (i, j 2 q 1, q 2, . . . , q nDLT , i 6 j), according to the information available on day q. Yqi and

Yqj are not independent and their covariance has the following expression:

2

3

fi,jg

q

h

i

min

X

X

d~2k pki pkj

2k pki pkj 5:

Cov Yqi , Yqj 2 4

11

k1

kq1

It is not surprising that the expression for covariance in Equation (11) is negative. We actually expected Yqi and

to be negatively correlated, according to their competition as to receiving returns of past deliveries. As an

additional

we can note that no contribution to covariance is given by deliveries occurring between

remark,

min i, j

and max i, j . The reason is that there is no chance for items delivered in that period to return on min i, j ; hence, no

competition between the two variables arises under this circumstance. Finally, we remark that covariance tends to

Yqj

1250

A. Alinovi et al.

be lower in the absolute value and it approaches zero when i and j are relatively (compared to RLT ) distant from

each other. The mathematical reason for this result is that for any day k i, j, at least one between pki and pkj should

be close to zero, so that all addends in Equation (11) give little contribution to the whole sum. Once again, this can

be interpreted as a result of little competition between days in attracting past deliveries for return.

Proposition 4:

The expected value and the variance of Yq have the following expressions:

!

qn

q

i

DLT

X

X

X

d~k pki

k pki :

E Yq

iq1

VarY

qn

DLT

X

iq1

k1

12

kq1

q n

h

io

X

d~2k 2 2 pki 2 p2ki

k1

i

h

i

X

kq1

" q

#)

j

X

X X

2

2

2

d~k pki pkj

k pki pkj

:

2

j5i

13

kq1

k1

See the Appendix for the proof of Equations (12) and (13).

Proposition 5:

CovDq , Yq 2d

qn

DLT

X

i

X

pki

14

iq1 kq1

Proposition 6: The distribution of the net demand during the forecasting horizon (Uq ) may find normal approximation

with the following parameters:

E Uq

qn

DLT

X

i E Yqi

15

iq1

16

See the Appendix for the proof of Equations (15) and (16).

The stock-out probability q over the forecasting horizon reflects the probability of the net demand to exceed the

current inventory position; on the basis of the propositions above, and through a normal approximation, it can be

computed as per Equation (17):

Iq E Uq

q P Uq 4 Iq 1 p

17

VarUq

where we denoted the cumulative distribution function of the normal random variable by . In the case q exceeds a

defined threshold (q 4 ), a manufacturing/purchasing order should be placed, to prevent shortage.

To improve its ease of application, the model described above can be simplified, without compromising the

correctness of the results provided. More specifically, we have hypothesised that Yqi represents the returns on day i,

forecasted at day q; hence, the returns distribution of a given day i in the planning horizon should change according

to the position of q within the forecasting horizon and to its proximity to i. A possible simplification consists of only

considering Yi variables, assuming to know historical data until i, so that the distribution of returns for each day i

1251

will not change for all forecasting days including i in their respective forecasting horizon. This assumption is

unrealistic, because historical data are known only until the forecasting day and not until each day of the forecasting

horizon. Notwithstanding, the effects of such an unrealistic framework may be negligible if we assume that

RLT nDLT : in such a context, the demanded quantities on days immediately preceding any day i in the

forecasting horizon and following day q, have very low probability to generate a return on day i. Hence, historical

demand on those days (which would not be known in real contexts) does not significantly affect the resulting stockout probability. On the basis of this premise, the simplified definition of Yi is as follows:

Yi

i

X

d~k

Zki

18

k1

The definitions of k and Zki remain unchanged. For brevity, we omit the proofs for the following equations, which

can be easily obtained following the achievements of Section 3.2. Where necessary, we use a left-hand side

superscript () to avoid ambiguity with the notation previously used.

E Yi

i

X

d~k pki

19

k1

VarYi

i n

h

io

X

d~2k 2 2 pki 2 p2ki ,

20

k1

minfi,jg

X

d~2k pki pkj ,

Cov Yi , Yj 2

21

k1

q

qn

DLT

X

Yi ,

22

iq1

E Yq

qn

DLT

X

i

X

d~k pki ,

23

iq1 k1

q

Var Y

qn

DLT

X

iq1

i n

X

d~2k

j

h

io

XX

d~2k pki pkj

2 2 pki 2 p2ki 22

)

24

j5i k1

k1

q

U Dq Yq

qn

DLT

X

di Yi ,

25

iq1

E Uq

qn

DLT

X

i E Yi ,

26

iq1

27

Iq E Uq

P Uq 4 Iq 1 p

:

VarUq

28

q

The above simplified formulae will be used in the remainder of the paper.

1252

A. Alinovi et al.

We now consider the opportunity for the manufacturer to offer a return policy to increase the volume of returned

items. On the basis of the definitions provided in the previous sections, we can rewrite Equation (18) to express

return flows for each t 2 , as a function of demand and return fraction, i.e.:

rt

t

X

dk k Zkt

29

k1

Let represent the return policy, expressed as a percentage of the logistics cost 0 of the item. In the case a return

policy is applied, the unitary cost of returned items increases to 0 1 . At the same time, the return policy is

expected to enhance the return volume, thus reducing the cost of manufacturing/purchasing new items. Hence, the

opportunity of introducing a return policy is modelled inside a total cost-minimisation problem, which allows

deriving the optimal value of the return policy. As proposed by Thierry et al. (1995) for returns in function of the

intensity of environmental policies, we model customer compliance for returning items with an S curve, as in the

following equation:

Z

1

1 x 2

p1 p2 p1 p

e2 dx,

30

2 1

According to the inventory control model described, the manufacturer places an order, of quantity EOQ, if the

stock-out probability exceeds a defined threshold, i.e.:

EOQ, if t

st

31

0,

else

and:

pt

0,

st nDLT ,

if t nDLT

:

if t 4 nDLT

32

If we define IH

0 as the starting on-hand inventory level (cf. Table 1), the transition equations for inventories can be

expressed as follows:

where I 0 I0

follows:

IH

0.

IH t IH t 1 rt dt pt,

33

It It 1 rt dt st,

34

The formulation of the optimal return policy for the MRS can be finally obtained as

min TC

tmax

X

cp pt rt hI IH t

35

t1

Our next purpose is to investigate the behaviour of a simulated system operating under the EOQ model described in

Sections 3.23.4; in particular, we focus on calculating the optimal return policy under different stochastic

conditions. Since the analysis performed here is based on simulation, some assumptions should be made with regard

to the demand behaviour. Without loss of generality, we consider the case of seasonal demand, with:

t a b sin!t

36

dt t e

where e N 0, 2d .

37

1253

We have previously mentioned that the inventory control model is valid regardless of the distribution of RLT(t).

Nonetheless, to apply Equation (7), either for simulation purpose or in a real scenario, we have to assume (or know)

the distribution of RLTt. We suppose here that RLT(t) is the integer rounding of a normal random variable, with

parameters RLT and 2RLT , so pkt is calculated as:

t k 0:5 RLT

t k 0:5 RLT

:

38

pkt

RLT

RLT

We model as a beta random variable over the interval 0, 1 with parameters 1 and 2 , which can be calculated

from and as follows:

8

"

#

>

1

>

>

>

1

>

< 1

2

"

#:

39

>

1

>

>

> 2 1

1

>

:

2

The positivity constraint for 1 and 2 requires 2 5 1 ; thus, we define a maximum allowed value

of as:

q

max : k 1

40

with k 2 0, 1.

We report in Table 2 the parameters used for the simulated scenario. Note that the hypothesis RLT nDLT is

adequately respected, since the maximum value of RLT used in simulation (cf. Table 3) is 12 and the probability for

a normal distribution with expected value 50 and standard deviation 12 to be lower than 20 (nDLT ) is negligible

( 0:62 %).

The first simulation investigates the effect of demand stochasticity ( d ) on the optimal ; d was varied from 0 to

20 (step 5). The optimal value of was derived by comparing the experimental mean values of the total cost obtained

with different , ranging from 01 (step 0.05), with 50 replications for each . As Table 3 shows, a (slight) decreasing

trend for the optimal return policy as a function of d is observed, whereas the costs calculated in correspondence of

an optimal return policy showed an increasing trend.

Acronym

a []

b []

T [days]

tmax [days]

EOQ [items]

nDLT [days]

0 [E/item]

cp [E/item]

hI [E/item/day]

p1 []

p2 []

[]

[]

RLT [days]

RLT [days]

d [items/day]

[]

[]

Numerical

value

50

10

250

750

544

20

3.2

10

0.1

0.3

0.95

0.5

0.2

50

1

0

0

0.01

1254

A. Alinovi et al.

optimal return policy.

d

[items/day]

0

5

10

15

20

Optimal return

policy [%]

Optimal

costs [E]

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.65

0.65

362.25

363.17

365.67

378.49

393.84

optimal return policy.

[]

on the

Optimal return

policy [%]

Optimal

costs [E]

0.7

0.7

0.65

0.7

0.7

362.25

362.20

363.93

367.25

371.11

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.20

on the optimal return policy.

RLT [days]

1

5

8

10

12

Optimal return

policy [%]

Optimal

costs [E]

0.7

0.6

0.65

0.6

0.6

362.25

375.25

383.77

390.92

393.10

The sensitivity analysis for RLT (Table 4) shows a similar behaviour. Specifically, we found a decreasing trend

for the optimal return policy and an increasing trend for the optimal cost, as a function of RLT . Conversely, the

optimal return policy is almost insensitive to (Table 5), although the optimal cost still displays an increasing

trend.

4. Case study

In this section, we exploit the inventory control model developed before to evaluate the usefulness of establishing a

return policy in a case study, referring to the problem of asset (i.e., pallet) management between a company and its

customers. The company considered is headquarted in Milan (Italy), where it operates as a confectionery and

croissant manufacturer, offering more than 400 bakery and ice cream products. Such products are primarily sold in

hotels, restaurants and catering (HO.RE.CA.) and retail markets, where the company serves approximately 50

customers. To deliver products to customers, the company handles about 300,000 pallets, 13% of which should be

annually replaced, due to damage, theft and loss; theft and loss are responsible for about half the amount of pallets

purchased annually. Although the current return fraction for assets is about 87% (i.e., 139,000/300,000), the

company incurs significant costs for the purchase of new pallets, accounting for about 350,000 E/year, having

estimated in 9 E/asset the cost of a new asset.

Thanks to some contacts with the company, we got the data related to forward and reverse flows of assets for

about 660 working days (from day 220 to day 880). A partial list of flows is provided in Figure 3. It can be seen from

Figure 3 that, in the current situation, the company knows the amount of assets shipped and returned each day, as

well as the stock of assets available. According to the companys asset management policy, an order for purchasing

new pallets is placed anytime the current stock is lower than a defined threshold. The quantity purchased is always

550 pallets, corresponding to a full-truck-load shipment. The amount of pallets shipped and received each day, in

turn, is generated by fulfilment of customers orders and returns from customers respectively. As an example,

Figure 3 shows the details of quantity shipped and returned at day 225. It can be seen from the figure that each

shipment is coded as Zxx-yyyy, where Z indicates the product, xx is the customers identifier and yyyy is

the shipping number. The company sends products (and pallets) in response to the customers demand, by means of

full-truck-load shipments; hence, each shipment includes 2933 pallets. Once an order is shipped, it arrives at the

Figure 3. Partial list of forward and reverse flows for the case study company.

1255

1256

A. Alinovi et al.

Table 6. Input data for the case study company.

Acronym

Numerical value

tmax

(t)

d

EOQ

RLT

RLT

cp

hI

nDLT

0

p1

p2

880 days

621.11 pallet/day

6.17 pallet/day

0.87

0

550 pallets

50 days

9.82 days

9E/pallet

0.04E/day/pallet

4 days

0.8E/pallet

0.3

0.95

0.5

0.2

customers site within two working days, and the pallets received are included in the stock of assets available at the

customers site. The procedure adopted by the company for managing reverse flows of assets is the deferred

exchange (European Commission 2007). This means that customers return pallets to the company when they can

send back a full-truck-load shipment, including approximately 520550 empty pallets. Once the return flow is

shipped, it will reach the company within two working days. The time required to collect 520550 pallets is 50 days

on average (cf. Table 6); as an example, it can be seen from Figure 3 that pallets which return to the company at day

225 were shipped to the customer starting from day 189.

The case study company considered is a good example of a mixed MRS, where pallets can be either sent back by

customers or purchased externally; hence, the issue of avoiding the occurrence of out-of-stock situations is relevant,

as well as the potential application of a return policy for enhancing the return flows. To our knowledge, financial

incentives are not currently exploited by the company.

Historical data concerning forward and reverse flows were used to derive the statistical parameters of demand

and returns, to allow their correct simulation. Table 6 shows a list of input data derived from the analysis of the

historical flows of the company, as well as from direct contacts with it. Then, we have carried out an economic

analysis by comparing:

. the AS IS scenario, which reflects the current asset management policy of the company, as it results from

the forward and reverse flows in Figure 3; and

. several TO BE scenarios, where we apply the inventory control model proposed in Section 3 to decide

whether an order should be placed, and evaluate the usefulness of exploiting a return policy, with different

values.

Results of the analysis are proposed in Table 7 and graphically shown in Figure 4. As a first outcome, it can be seen

from Table 7 that, to increase the current return rate of 87%, the company should apply a relatively high return

policy, ranging from 0.79 in TO BE-1 to 1.20 in TO BE-10. This is due to the fact that the return rate is rather

high in the AS IS scenario. For the same reason, we observe that, despite the return policy decreasing the cost of

external purchase, there are no TO BE scenarios which score a lower total cost than the AS IS situation.

Consequently, the percentage variation of costs when moving from the AS IS to the TO BE scenario is always

greater than zero. Looking at Figure 4, one can also see that the total cost as a function of first decreases then

increases, with two scenarios (i.e., TO BE-6 and TO BE-7) scoring a total cost which is close to the AS IS situation.

Besides the high of the AS IS situation, we also conjecture that TO BE scenarios are not profitable in terms of the

total cost because of the relatively low value of assets cp compared with the logistic cost 0. The cost of new assets

being low, it is not advantageous for the company to pay a high logistic cost for increasing the return flows;

conversely, for assets having a higher economic value, increasing the return flows can be more profitable to the

company. Hence, we have investigated the sensitivity of the percentage variation of the total cost as a function of cp,

1257

Table 7. Results of the case study.

Scenario

AS IS

TO BE-1

TO BE-2

TO BE-3

TO BE-4

TO BE-5

TO BE-6

TO BE-7

TO BE-8

TO BE-9

TO BE-10

Cost of

return flows

[E/day]

87.00%

88.19%

90.11%

90.76%

92.23%

90.03%

93.15%

93.15%

93.25%

93.25%

93.25%

0.800

1.430

1.440

1.480

1.519

1.531

1.546

1.547

1.600

1.620

1.760

0.787

0.800

0.850

0.899

0.914

0.932

0.934

1.000

1.025

1.200

432.13

783.12

805.95

834.33

870.34

884.74

894.30

895.02

926.74

938.26

1019.41

Cost of

purchasing

[E/day]

Inventory

cost [E/day]

Total

cost [E/day]

Percentage

variation

AS IS ! TO BE

730.07

654.80

556.96

526.85

459.11

383.85

353.74

353.74

353.74

353.74

353.74

109.39

112.84

125.03

125.54

131.28

138.32

149.57

149.57

148.39

152.38

152.38

1271.60

1550.76

1487.94

1486.72

1460.74

1406.91

1397.61

1398.33

1428.87

1444.38

1525.53

21.95%

17.01%

16.92%

14.87%

10.64%

9.91%

9.97%

12.37%

13.59%

19.97%

1.560,00

TO BE-1

1.540,00

TO BE-10

1.520,00

1.500,00

1.480,00

1.460,00

TO BE-2

TO BE-3

TO BE-4

TO BE-9

1.440,00

TO BE-8

1.420,00

1.400,00

1.380,00

TO BE-5

TO BE-6

TO BE-7

Figure 4. Total cost as a function of the TO BE scenario for the case study company.

ranging from 919E/asset. The results, proposed in Table 8 and Figure 5, support our conjecture: as a matter of fact,

TO BE scenarios generate savings (i.e. a negative percentage variation of the total cost) when cp exceeds 13E/asset.

It can also be observed that, the higher the cost of assets, the more profitable the application of a return policy: for

instance, for cp 19E/asset, some TO BE scenarios generate savings which exceed 13.9% (e.g. 0.932 or

0.934).

The aim of our paper was to propose a stochastic EOQ-based analytic model for inventory management in RL

environments, with a particular focus on the case of MRS applying return policies. The model developed has some

strong points. First, it is more realistic than several works available in the literature, as it incorporates stochasticity

of demand, return fraction and lead times, which commonly affect real scenarios. Hence, we think that the

formulation proposed may serve practitioners as a theoretical framework for the implementation of EOQ policies in

RL and MRS. At the same time, the model is general, as its formulation does not require specific probability

distributions for demand, return fraction and lead times. Second, our approach is based on the estimation of a

stock-out probability to define whether an order should be placed; ultimately, it may constitute a useful instrument

to increase supply chain efficiency and control inventory levels without compromising customer satisfaction. Third,

1258

A. Alinovi et al.

Table 8. Percentage variation of the total cost as a function of and cp for the case study company.

cp [E/asset]

Scenario

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

BE-1

BE-2

BE-3

BE-4

BE-5

BE-6

BE-7

BE-8

BE-9

BE-10

10

88.19%

90.11%

90.76%

92.23%

90.03%

93.15%

93.15%

93.25%

93.25%

93.25%

0.787

0.800

0.850

0.899

0.914

0.932

0.934

1.000

1.025

1.200

21.95%

17.01%

16.92%

14.87%

10.64%

9.91%

9.97%

12.37%

13.59%

19.97%

20.03%

14.58%

14.25%

11.77%

7.18%

6.24%

6.30%

8.55%

9.70%

15.70%

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

9.43%

12.43% 10.50% 8.77% 7.20% 5.78% 4.49%

3.30%

2.21%

1.20%

11.88% 9.76% 7.86% 6.14% 4.58% 3.15%

1.85%

0.65% 0.46%

9.02% 6.56% 4.35% 2.35% 0.54% 1.12% 2.63% 4.03% 5.31%

4.10% 1.35% 1.12% 3.35% 5.37% 7.22% 8.91% 10.47% 11.90%

2.99% 0.08% 2.53% 4.90% 7.04% 9.00% 10.79% 12.43% 13.95%

3.04% 0.13% 2.49% 4.85% 7.00% 8.96% 10.75% 12.40% 13.92%

5.17% 2.14% 0.57% 3.03% 5.26% 7.29% 9.16% 10.87% 12.45%

6.25% 3.17% 0.40% 2.10% 4.38% 6.45% 8.35% 10.09% 11.70%

11.91% 8.53% 5.49% 2.74% 0.25% 2.03% 4.11% 6.03% 7.80%

Figure 5. Percentage variation of the total cost as a function of and cp for the case study company.

the estimation of the stock-out probability is only based on the knowledge of historical deliveries, whereas it does

not exploit return flows as input data; hence, the model is suitable to be adopted also by a company which did not

establish a proper tracking system for return flows. As regards the limitations of the model, the main one is its

complexity, which is a consequence of the need for including stochasticity in the mathematical formulation. This

could prevent its adoption in practical cases. Moreover, we should remark that our model may not be adequate for

contexts where the delivery lead time cannot be approximated as deterministic.

The model developed was investigated through simulations, and then tested by means of a case study. Results of

the simulation lead to the following considerations. First, we observed a negative effect of demand and return lead

time stochasticity on the optimal return policy, confirming that the calculation of an optimal return policy with

deterministic models would not be adequate. We may additionally deduce that stochasticity seems to make returns

less appealing for firms, although no apparent effect of return fraction stochasticity was observed. The application

1259

of the model to a case study, referring to the problem of assets management between a company and its customers,

highlighted some further points. First, we noted that the application of a return policy for the company examined is

not profitable compared to the existing asset management policy. This is due to the fact that the current return rate

is sufficiently high (i.e. about 87%); thus, increasing the return flows does not involve further benefits for the

company. At the same time, we found that the return policy could be profitable for assets of higher economical

value (from 1319E/asset), leading to a significant decrease of the total cost (up to 13.9%) compared with the

current scenario. The above results suggest that the application of a return policy should be carefully evaluated

according to the specific operating condition considered; the model we developed was proven to be a useful tool for

supporting such an evaluation.

Starting from the current paper, an interesting future research direction could be to develop a model considering

the availability of additional historical information, namely connections between return flows and historical

deliveries, which may apply to contexts where specific tracking systems have been implemented.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and to the guest editor, whose constructive suggestions

led to a significant improvement of the earlier version of the manuscript.

References

Alinovi, A., et al., 2009. Reverse Logistics: an optimal return policy based on a simulation approach. In: M. Macchi and

R. Pinto, eds., Proceedings of the 11th international conference on the modern information technology in the innovation

processes of the industrial enterprises, Vol. 1, 1516 October 2009, Bergamo, Italy, 531539.

Beamon, M.B. and Fernandes, C., 2004. Supply-chain network configuration for product recovery. Production Planning and

Control, 15 (3), 270281.

Bloemhof, J. and van Nunen, J., 2005. Integration of environmental management and SCM. ERIM Report Series Research in

Management; ERS-2005-030-LIS.

Breen, L., 2006. Give me back my empties or else! A preliminary ananlysis of customer compliance in reverse logistics pratices

(UK). Management Research News, 29 (9), 532551.

Castell, A., Clift, R., and France, C., 2004. Extended producer responsibility policy in the European Union a horse or a camel?

Journal of Industrial Ecology, 8 (1/2), 47.

Chanintrakul, P., et al., 2009. Reverse logistics network design: a state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of

Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 1 (1), 6181.

Dobos, I. and Richter, K., 2004. An extended production/recycling model with stationary demand and return rates. International

Journal of Production Economics, 90 (3), 311323.

Emmons, H. and Gilbert, S.M., 1998. Note: the role of returns policies in pricing and inventory decisions for catalogue goods.

Management Science, 44 (2), 276283.

European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/53/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000

on end-of-life vehicles. Official Journal, L 269, 34. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2000L0053:20050701:EN:PDF [Accessed 13 August 2009].

European Commission, 2003. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste

electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Official Journal, L 37, 2438. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:037:0024:0038:EN:PDF [Accessed 13 August 2009].

European Commission, 2007. BRIDGE building radio frequency identification for the global environment WP9: returnable

transport items: the market for EPCglobal applications. Available from: www.bridge-project.eu [Accessed 11 July 2008].

Fleischmann, M., Kuik, R., and Dekker, R., 2002. Controlling inventories with stochastic returns: a basic model. European

Journal of Operational Research, 138 (1), 6375.

Hu, T., Sheu, J., and Huan, K., 2002. A reverse logistics cost minimization model for the treatment of hazardous wastes.

Transportation Research Part E, 38 (6), 457473.

Inderfurth, K., Lindner, G., and Rachaniotis, N.P., 2005. Lot sizing in a production system with rework and product

deterioration. International Journal of Production Research, 42 (24), 51675184.

Jaber, M.Y. and Rosen, M.A., 2008. The economic order quantity repair and waste disposal model with entropy cost. European

Journal of Operational Research, 188 (1), 109120.

Ketzenberg, M., 2009. The value of information in a capacitated closed loop supply chain. European Journal of Operational

Research, 198 (2), 491503.

Klausner, M. and Hendrickson, C.T., 2000. Reverse Logistics strategy for product take-back. Interfaces, 30 (3), 156165.

1260

A. Alinovi et al.

Koh, S.G., et al., 2002. An optimal ordering and recovery policy for reusable items. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 43 (1),

5973.

Konstantaras, I. and Skouri, K., 2009. Lot sizing for a single product recovery system with variable setup numbers. European

Journal of Operational Research, 203 (2), 326335.

Lau, H.S. and Lau, A.H.L., 1999. Manufacturers pricing strategy and return policy for a single period commodity. European

Journal of Operational Research, 116 (2), 291304.

Lee, C.H., 2001. Coordinated stocking, clearance sales, and return policies for a supply chain. European Journal of Operational

Research, 131 (3), 491513.

Liang, Y., Pokharel, S., and Lim, G.H., 2009. Pricing used products for remanufacturing. European Journal of Operational

Research, 193 (2), 390395.

Lieckens, K. and Vandaele, N., 2007. Reverse logistics network design with stochastic lead times. Computers and Operations

Research, 34 (2), 395416.

Linton, J.D., Yeomans, J.S., and Yoogalingam, R., 2005. Recovery and reclamation of durable goods: a study of television

CRTs. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43 (4), 337352.

Marien, E.J., 1998. Reverse logistics as competitive strategy. Supply Chain Management Review, 34 (2), 4352.

Oh, Y.H. and Hwang, H., 2006. Deterministic inventory model for recycling system. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17 (4),

423428.

Pochampally, K.K., Gupta, S.M., and Govindan, K., 2009. Metrics for performance measurement of a reverse/closed-loop

supply chain. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 1 (1), 832.

Ravi, V. and Shankar, R., 2005. Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 72 (8), 10111029.

Richter, K., 1996. The EOQ and waste disposal model with variable setup numbers. European Journal of Operational Research,

95 (2), 313324.

Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S., 1999. Going backwards: Reverse Logistics trends and practices. Pittsburg, PA: RLEC

Press.

Savaskan, R.C., Bhattacharya, S., and Van Wassenhove Luk, N., 2004. Closed-loop supply chain models with product

remanufacturing. Management Science, 50 (2), 239252.

Schrady, D.A., 1967. A deterministic inventory model for repairable items. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 14 (3), 391398.

Setoputro, R. and Mukhopadhyay, S.K., 2004. Reverse logistics in e-business optimal price and return policy. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34 (1), 7088.

Teunter, R.H., 2004. Lot-sizing for inventory systems with product recovery. Computer and Industrial Engineering, 46 (3),

431441.

Thierry, M., et al., 1995. Strategic issues in product recovery management. California Management Review, 37 (2), 114135.

Tsay, A.A., 2001. Managing retail channel overstock: markdown money and return policies. Journal of Retailing, 71 (4), 457492.

Veerakamolmal, P. and Gupta, S.M., 1999. Analysis of design efficiency for the disassembly of modular electronic products.

Journal of Electronics Manufacturing, 9 (1), 7995.

VerpackV, 1998. Verordnung uber die Vermeidung und Verwertung von Verpackungsabfallen VerpackV (Packaging

Ordinance). BGBl, Teil I, Bonn.

Appendix

Proof of proposition 1

q

To prove Equation (9), we first introduce two new random variables, Yq

i and Yi , representing the return amounts on day i, due

to historical deliveries until day q and to future deliveries until day i, respectively. Hence, we can state that:

Yq

i

q

X

d~k

Zki

A1

k1

Yq

i

i

X

dk

Zki

A2

kq1

q

Yqi Yq

i Yi

A3

1261

Owing to the linearity properties of the expected value of random variables, we deduce:

" q

#

X

q

q

q

q

q

~

dk k Zki

E Yi E Yi Yi E Yi E Yi E

"

E

k1

i

X

dk

Zki

kq1

q

X

h

E d~k

i

i

X

Zki

E dk

Zki :

A4

kq1

k1

Further simplifications for Equation (A4) can be obtained observing that d~k are deterministic and known parameters, which can

be extracted from the argument of the expected value on account of the linearity properties. Moreover, k and Zki are

independent random variables (for any k), so that the expected value of their product can be transformed into the product of

their expected values. Similar considerations can be drawn from the independence of the three random variables dk , k and Zki .

According to the definitions above, and having recognised that pki is the expected value of Zki , we obtain:

q

X

E Yqi

d~k E

k

E Zki

E dk E

k

E Zki

kq1

k1

q

X

i

X

d~k pki

k1

i

X

k pki

q

X

k1

kq1

i

X

d~k pki

!

k pki

kq1

Proof of proposition 2

In order to calculate the variance of Yqi , we first use Equation (A3) and observe that Yq

and Yq

are independent, as they

i

i

represent returns on day i due to previous deliveries which occurred in disjoint time horizons (i.e. the days until and after q,

respectively). This observation allows writing the variance of the sum of the two random variables as the sum of the variances, as

follows:

q

q

q

VarYqi VarYq

i Yi VarYi VarYi

A5

VarYq

i ,

which is the variance of a sum of products, according to Equation (A1). All addends

are independent of one another, since deliveries fulfilled on different days will have independent future destination, and this

observation again allows writing the sum variance as a sum of variances. In addition, we can extract d~k from the variance

arguments, owing to its deterministic nature; as a result, we obtain:

" q

#

q

q

h

i X

X

X

q

~

dk k Zki

d~2 Var k Zki

Var

Var d~k k Zki

A6

Var Y

i

k1

k1

k1

We now calculate the variance of the product k Zki , applying the general variance property, according to which

VarA E A2 E A2 , for any random variable A. We will then use the independence between k and Zki to convert the

expected value of their product into the product of their expected values: note that the independence between k and Zki implies

2

2

k and Zki to be independent too, and hence similar transformations can be operated, as follows:

Var

Zki 2 E

2

k

E Z2ki E

Zki E

E

Zki 2 E

2

k

Z2ki E

k

E Zki 2

2

2

k E Zki

A7

2

By exploiting again the aforementioned variance property (this time as E A VarA E A ), Equation (A7) can be

expressed as a function of the model parameters:

E

E Zki 2

Var k E k 2 VarZki E Zki 2

2

k

E Z2ki E

k

E k 2 E Zki 2

2 2 pki 2 p2ki :

A8

as:

Hence, we obtain the variance of Yq

i

q

h

i

X

d~2k 2 2 pki 2 p2ki

Var Yq

i

k1

A9

1262

A. Alinovi et al.

as follows:

i

"

#

i

i

X

X

dk k Zki

Vardk k Zki

Var

Var Yq

i

kq1

kq1

i

X

E dk

Zki 2 E dk

Zki 2

kq1

i

X

E dk 2

Zki 2 E dk E

k

E Zki 2

kq1

i

X

E dk 2 E

E Zki 2 E dk 2 E

2

2

k E Zki

kq1

i

X

Vardk E dk 2 Var

k

2

k

VarZki E Zki 2

kq1

E dk 2 E k 2 E Zki 2

i

h

i

X

A10

kq1

Proposition 2 can be finally obtained by substituting the results of Equations (A9)(A10) in Equation (A5), which completes

proof 2.

Proof of proposition 3

In order to prove

3,P

some

covariance properties have to be applied. We first apply the bilinearity property, according

P Proposition

P

n Pm

to which Cov ni Ai , m

j Bj

i

j CovAi , Bj , given any random variables Ai , i 1, . . . , , n and Bj , j 1, . . . , , m. Hence, we

obtain:

q

q

q

CovYqi , Yqj CovYq

i Yi , Yj Yj

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

CovYq

i , Yj CovYi , Yj CovYi , Yj CovYi , Yj

q

CovYq

i , Yj

A11

q

CovYq

i , Yj

brackets. In fact, Yq

and Yq

are independent because they represent returns on days i and j due to previous deliveries which

j

i

occurred in disjoint time horizons. Analogous considerations apply for Yq

and Yq

j .

i

q

q

We now calculate CovYi , Yj , being aware that, in this case, no independence assumption holds. We will firstly apply the

bilinearity property; then, we will use the property CovA, B E A B E A E B, given any random variables A and B.

" q

#

q

q X

q

h

i

X

X

X

q

q

~

~

Cov d~k k Zki , d~h h Zhj

dk k Zki ,

dh h Zhj

CovY , Y Cov

j

k1

h1

q X

q h

X

E d~k

Zki d~h

k1 h1

h

Zhj E d~k

i

h

Zki E d~h

Zhj

A12

k1 h1

On the basis of the deterministic nature of d~k and d~h and of the independence between

E d~k

E d~h

In order to develop E d~k

Zki d~k E

~

h Zhj dh E

Zki d~h

Zki d~k E

~

h Zhj dh E

k

~

h E Zhj dh phj

k

E d~k

Zki d~h

E d~2k 2k Zki Zkj d~2k E

2

k

E Zki Zkj

We should remark that Zki and Zkj are not independent, according to constraint (8) implying their sum to be lower than 1.

Hence, one between Zki and Zkj should score zero, as they are binary variables and we assumed i 6 j. We therefore deduce that

1263

E Zki Zkj 0 and obtain:

E d~k

Zki d~h

Zhj

0:

kh

E d~k

Zki d~h

k

E

h

q

Note that Zki and Zhj are independent when k 6 h. Finally, we can write the expression of CovYq

i , Yj as:

q

CovYq

i , Yj

q X

q

X

kh d~k d~h 2 pki phj d~k d~h 2 pki phj

A13

k1 h1

where kh is defined as binary parameter scoring 1 if k 6 h and zero otherwise. Omitting null addends, Equation (A12) can be

more simply rewritten as:

q

X

q

2

CovYq

i , Yj

A14

k1

q

In a similar way, looking back at Equation (A11), we obtain an expression for CovYq

i , Yj , as follows:

"

#

j

i

X

X

q

dk k Zki ,

dh h Zhj

CovYq

i , Yj Cov

kq1

j

i

X

X

hq1

Cov dk

Zki , dh

Zhj

Zki dh

Zhj E dk

kq1 hq1

j

i

X

X

E dk

Zki E dh

Zhj

kq1 hq1

Following the same approach described before, we have to consider two further situations.

. Case k h: in this case, we have

E dk

Zki dh

Zhj E d2k E

2

k

E Zki Zkj 0,

. Case k 6 h: in this case, we have

E dk

Zki dh

Zhj E dk E dh E

k

E

h

E Zki E Zhj

k h pki phj :

Combining the results described above, we obtain:

minfi,jg

q

2

CovYq

i , Yj

A15

kq1

Proposition 3 can be finally derived, by substituting Equations (A14A15) into Equation (A11) and omitting two null addends,

thus completing proof 3.

Proof of proposition 4

Proof for Equation (12) directly follows from Equation (2), by substituting E Yqi with its expression derived in Equation (9) and

applying the linearity property of the expected

Proof for

(13) can be obtained applying the

P value

ofPrandom variables.

Equation

P P

variance property, according to which Var ni Ai ni VarAi 2 ni j5i Cov Ai , Aj , for any random variables Ai . In this

case, we have:

"qn

# qn

qn

DLT

DLT

DLT X

h

i

X

X

X

VarYq Var

Yqi

Var Yqi 2

Cov Yqi , Yqj

A16

iq1

iq1

iq1 j5i

Equation (13) can now be easily obtained by substituting the expressions of Equations (10 and 11) for VarYqi and CovYqi , Yqj

respectively, into Equation (A16), thus completing proof 4.

1264

A. Alinovi et al.

Proof of proposition 5

To prove Proposition 5, we apply covariance bilinearity properties as follows:

"qn

# qn qn

qn

h

i

DLT

DLT

DLT X

DLT

X

X

X

di ,

Yqj

Cov di , Yqj

CovDq , Yq Cov

iq1

qn

DLT qn

DLT

X

X

jq1

"

Cov di ,

iq1 jq1

iq1 jq1

q

X

qn

DLT qn

DLT

X

X

qn

DLT qn

DLT

X

X

Zkj

"

Cov di ,

#

dk

Zkj

kq1

k1

iq1 jq1

d~k

j

X

j

X

dk

Zkj

kq1

j

X

Cov di , dk

Zkj

A17

If i 6 k, we have Covdi , dk k Zkj 0, due to independence between the argument variables. Conversely, if i k, the

following calculation must be performed:

Covdi , dk

E dk E dk k Zkj 2d 2k pkj 2k pkj

pkj 2d 2k 2k pkj 2d

Zkj Covdk , dk

Hence, we obtain:

CovDq , Yq

qn

DLT

X

i

X

pki 2d

iq1 kq1

Proof of proposition 6

Proof for Equation (15) directly follows from Equation (3), applying the linearity properties of the expected value of random

variables. Equation (16) can be proved as follows:

"qn

#

"qn

#

DLT

DLT

X

X

q

q

VarU Var

di Yi Var

di VarYq 2 CovDq , Yq

iq1

iq1

where we used independence among demanded quantities on different days to convert the variance of their sum into the sum of

their variances.

With regard to the distribution of the random variable Uq describing the net demand, we assert that a normal approximation

can be adopted. As a matter of fact, Uq is calculated as a linear combination, with additions and subtractions, of random

variables, some of which (i.e. demanded quantities during delivery lead time) are independent from one another. The

approximation should get better with the increasing length of the delivery lead time, as a consequence of an increase in the

number of summed addends. Moreover, we can say that the addends representing quantities to be returned, i.e. Yqi , are

themselves sums of other random variables as from their definition in Equations (A1A3), so that the number of addends results

to be quite larger than what one could firstly figure out. Finally, in various contexts, the daily demand itself can be correctly

approximated with a normal distribution, since demand is the result of a sum of random variables, which are the daily customers

purchase decisions and this should contribute to improve the approximation. This completes proof 6.

Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

- Design of WaterUploaded byfakename4bugmenot
- Robust Thesis 2009Uploaded byAli Al Barazanchy
- Differential Evolution for Multi-Objective OptimizationUploaded bySerdar Karataş
- Vijay 1 ResumeUploaded bybalaji_pimpare
- Significance of the StudyUploaded byJonelou Cusipag
- Final Add. M ProjectUploaded byAnice Wong
- Test Bank for Supply Chain Management a Logistics Perspective 9th Edition CoyleUploaded bya385904759
- 650-150Uploaded byツ ツ
- Developing Logistics StrategyUploaded bySunil Nair
- Assistant Project Manager or Inventory Control Manager or TranspUploaded byapi-121372633
- 1 IntroductionUploaded byKunal Kapadia
- RA 9003Uploaded byHamid
- MBC_to_MBC_IIUploaded byarsenicum
- A New Harvest Cost ModelUploaded bystalin13
- RajBasani - CVUploaded byprakalash
- CASD 2017. Điều khiển dự báo động cơ tuyến tính đồng bộ kích thích vĩnh cửu sử dụng quy hoạch nhiều tham số và tuyến tính hóa chính xácUploaded byNam Hoang Thanh
- Chapter 6 Sup.pptxUploaded byMariz Tutanes
- Ch_1Uploaded byBadr Ammar
- SCM 2Uploaded bysonamh
- Logistics Management (2) (1).docxUploaded byShahul
- Application Development Using Fault DataUploaded byKamlesh Shetty
- 1-s2.0-S1877705814034559-mainUploaded byguranjan
- New Gleaning Project Prevents WasteUploaded byGulf Restoration Network
- DMO Assignment 11135Uploaded byDhivya Laxmi
- HFSS tutorial2(1)Uploaded byCristtian Martinez
- SPJUploaded byArdian20
- Idea Optimal Home Energy Management Under Dynamic Electrical and Thermal ConstraintsUploaded byMuhammad Naeem
- Multi-fase di ottimizzazione dei costi di produzione dei telai in acciaio semi-rigidi con algoritmi genetici.pdfUploaded byStefania Villacidro
- Transistor Sizing of Energy-Delay--Efficient CircuitsUploaded byDaveMartone
- 10.1.1.98Uploaded bykarthick_2007

- The 10 Best Leadership MoviesUploaded byAdrian Tofan
- Official Letters Regarding the Salary Advance and Leave ApplicationUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- loan syndicationUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- FRMUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Business CommunicationUploaded byrajeshpavan
- Behavioral Consulting QuestnsUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- FRM swapsUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- caiib_mcqsrmmodab_nov08Uploaded byAman Sharma
- Prepare for Case SlidesUploaded byantonvor
- 10 Characteristics of Transformational LeadersUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- derivative quizUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- 13Uploaded byCarlos Ramalhinho
- Investors Presentation 2014Uploaded byKaran Tripathi
- option mcqUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Must Read List for Mgmt ConsultantsUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- FDIUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Hari BhartiaUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Case Interview Headquaters TrainingUploaded by48powers
- GuesstimateUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Report NMIMS Asia Pac Winner HDFC BankUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Alumni AssoUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Alumni RelationsUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Bond Market IndiaUploaded bysonusingh1
- Critical Thinking and ReasoningUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Development of Corporate Bond Market in IndiaUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Happiness Short SpeechUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- BE_AkhilUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- Financial Service Rural Poor n WomenUploaded byakhilyerawar7013
- 03 Writing Positive Messages.pdfUploaded byakhilyerawar7013

- barriers to the development of environmental management accountingUploaded byaprilianjani
- Porter Five Forces of Nano by RvUploaded byRahul Verma
- FactorsofProduction.PDFUploaded byMaria Visitacion
- Case Analysis HSC2Uploaded byVamsee Krishna
- Seminararbeit JB TMUploaded byBridgestone55
- piotroskiUploaded bynwiggers
- Decision Tree AnalysisUploaded byBakey Azene
- CIMA Old P1 May 2005 QP and ANSUploaded byHarktheDark
- GE 9 cellUploaded byakhil
- Dlscrib.com Packers Amp Movers ProjectUploaded byabdullah
- Differentiating Between Market Structures SimulationUploaded byRobert Crawford
- Unit-1 Introduction to Managerial Economics.docUploaded byAsmish Ethiopia
- BAIN_BRIEF_Management_Tools_2015.pdfUploaded byVenp Pe
- WhirlpoolUploaded bySMAtiqurRahman
- MonopolyUploaded byRian Rian
- CLSA and Olam ResearchUploaded byCharles Tay
- ECO 162Uploaded byshahUiTM
- Final DraftUploaded byJotiba Jadhav
- Changes Your LifeUploaded byASIF RAFIQUE BHATTI
- Carmex 2 Case Study Ch.15Uploaded byNick Halden
- $RA3R8K9Uploaded bySamitRanjan
- Goodwill Questions and Their SolutionsUploaded byAMIN BUHARI ABDUL KHADER
- Executive SummaryUploaded byPreeti Gill
- Class Room Assignment 1Uploaded bysabinaa20
- m4l7Uploaded byKhai Huynh
- Are You an EntrepreneurUploaded byCj Espinal
- Indian Multinational CompaniesUploaded byBhavesh Joliya
- AIMS - Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Impacts of Microenterprise ServicesUploaded byJason Wolfe
- Business Economics VIUploaded byMaharaja Placement
- PARKIN12E_ECONOMICS_Ch14.pptxUploaded byDahlia Tam