Consideration'
Author(s): M. A. Hoque and S. K. Goyal
Source: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 55, No. 6 (Jun., 2004), pp. 674
676
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4101974
Accessed: 21/11/2010 01:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, noncommercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a notforprofit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Operational Research Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Operational Research Society.
http://www.jstor.org
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2004) 55, 674676 ? 2004 OperationalResearchSociety Ltd.All rightsreserved. 01605682/04 $30.00
www.palgravejournals.com/jors
Viewpoint
Some commentson 'Inventorymodelswith fixed and variable formulatedthe expectedannual cost, EAC(Q, L), as
lead time crashcosts consideration'

 Q
+ kav + (1
Q
+ D ai(Li L)+ a,(Tj tj)
Introduction
We would like to comment on the paper by Pan et al,1 in  L) + 
+ D bi(Li
which assuming reduced lead time crashing cost as a bj(Tj1 tj)
function of both the order quantity and the reduced lead t 
(1)
time, they presented two inventory models, the one with
known deterministicdemand and the other with unknown where TP(k) = 0b(k)k[1(D(k)] and Li= E= 1T
demanddistribution.The solution proceduresare illustrated ZI'(Titj) for Li<L <Li1. For correct calculation of
with numericalexamples. We have dealt with the determi the total cost bindingson L should be Li< L < Li1.
nistic demand case only. This viewpoint highlights For a fixed Q, they have shown that the minimum
the misleading behaviour of the formulae used to obtain expectedtotal annual cost occurs at one of the endpointsof
the optimal order quantity. It also demonstrates the the lead time intervals.Setting OEAC(Q,L)/6Q to zero and
infeasibilityof the model due to the lack of a constrainton solving for Q, they obtained
the orderquantityin orderto satisfy the demandin the lead
time. The model is extendedwith the additionof a constraint + [7r+ to(1
to satisfy the demand in the lead time. An optimal solution Q[•2D{A fl)]a/LT(k)
technique of the extended model is presented, and a i1/2 (2)
comparativestudy of the results of the numericalexample +ai(LiIL) + 
is carriedout. j= I)
aj(Tj tJ)
in case of crashing all the lead time components to their where Q?is the value of Q calculatedfrom Equation(2). The
minimumlimits, the lead time is Therefore,in the total cost calculatedfrom (1) for Q= Q* with Li< L < Li is
,/ , tj
above formulae these mathematical expressions must be the corresponding minimal cost. The minimum of the
interchanged.Thus they developedtheir algorithmbased on minimal costs thus calculated for all i gives the final
erroneous formulae providing misleading solution techni minimum cost. The value of Q associated with the final
ques. Besides, they developed their solution technique minimum cost is the minimal order quantity. Following
without imposing any constraint on the order quantity in this solution approach, the numericalexample 1 solved by
orderto satisfythe demandin the lead time. For this reason, Pan et all is solved and comparativeresults are given in
their solution technique has given infeasible solutions for Table 2 (in the table, PHL denotesthe method developedby
different values of / for the numerical example when Pan, Hsiao and Lee and HG denotes the method developed
demand D= 5500. These optimal solutions are shown in by us):
Table 1. For the same lot size and lead time, the total minimal
Note that the demandper week is 110 and hence none of costs calculated following our approach are always found
the optimallot sizesmeets the demandfor the corresponding to be different from the correspondingone they put in
optimal lead time. Thus the solution techniqueleads to an their Table 4. These may be due to the limitation
infeasiblesolution.
Li<L<~Li_1 in their formulation of the total cost.
For D=5500, the lot sizes found out for minimal
total costs by Pan et al's method do not satisfy the
An alternative solution technique
demand for the lead time and hence the solutions are
In order to satisfy the demand in the lead time, the order infeasible, whereas our approach provides minimal cost
quantity must be greater than or equal to the required solutions satisfyingthe demandin the lead time plus safety
demandin the lead time, that is, stock.
AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge that the authors of the original University Sains Malaysia MA Hoque
paper pointed out a typo in Equation (1) and the authors of the view
point are grateful to them.
and
Concordia University, SK Goyal
Canada
References
Editor's note: The authors of the orginal paper have seen
1 Pan JCH,Hsiao YC and Lee CJ (2002).Inventorymodelswith
fixed and variablelead time crashcosts considerations.J OplRes
and agreed to the publication of this viewpoint.
Soc 53: 10481053. T Williams