International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Parameterisation of demand-driven material

requirements planning: a multi-objective genetic
algorithm

David Damand, Youssef Lahrichi & Marc Barth

To cite this article: David Damand, Youssef Lahrichi & Marc Barth (2022): Parameterisation of
demand-driven material requirements planning: a multi-objective genetic algorithm, International
Journal of Production Research, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2022.2098074

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2098074

Published online: 14 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2098074

Parameterisation of demand-driven material requirements planning:

a multi-objective genetic algorithm
David Damand, Youssef Lahrichi and Marc Barth
HuManis laboratory at EM Strasbourg Business School, Strasbourg, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning (DDMRP) is a recent inventory management Received 24 December 2021
method that has generated considerable interest in both academia and industry. Many recent papers Accepted 27 June 2022
have demonstrated the superiority of DDMRP over classical methods like MRP or Kanban, an observa- KEYWORDS
tion confirmed by companies that have implemented DDMRP. However, DDMRP depends on many DDMRP; multi-objective;
parameters that affect its performance. Only general rules are given by the authors of the method to metaheuristic; NSGA-II; OTD;
fix these parameters but no algorithm. The present paper aims to fill this gap by proposing a multi- on-hand inventory; lot sizing
objective optimisation algorithm to fix a set of eight identified parameters. The suggested genetic
algorithm is coupled with a simulation algorithm that computes the objective functions. Two oppos-
ing objective functions are considered: first, the maximisation of orders delivered on-time to the
customer and, second, the minimisation of on-hand inventory. A set of data instances was generated
to test the suggested method. Fronts of non-dominated solutions are found for all these instances.

1. Introduction
Due to new consumption trends, global competition and
fluctuating energy prices, companies now face grow-
ing volatility and uncertainty in terms of demand and
replenishment. This complex environment is referred to
as VUCA (Bennett and James Lemoine 2014). VUCA
stands for: Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambi-
guity, four factors that indeed characterise today’s indus-
trial environment. Volatility materialises in frequent
changes that require rapid process adaptation. Uncer-
tainty in lead times, costs, supply and demand results
in inaccurate forecasting. Complexity of processes makes
decision-making harder. Ambiguity is often encountered
due to the rise in the number of stakeholders and diffi-
culties in interpreting market trends. The VUCA envi-
ronment affects the companies’ KPIs (Key Performance
Indicators). In addition, the encountered KPIs are often
adversarial, like when companies try to maximise their
service level while minimising their costs.
Companies rely on efficient inventory management
systems to deal with the VUCA environment. MRP,
which is based on forecasts, has been widely used since
the 1960s. Because forecasts fail to give accurate pre-
dictions of demand, MRP is considered as inefficient in
today’s uncertain environment (Kortabarria et al. 2018).
Besides, according to Huq and Huq (1994), MRP is
a planning system that lacks visibility with regards to
execution. Kanban, which was widely adopted in the
West in the 1980s, attempts to correct this weakness.
It is less dependent on forecasting which is only used
for sizing the Kanban system. Day-to-day replenishment
orders are placed based on real-time observation of on-
hand inventory and demand (Ohno and Bodek 2019).
Kanban is inspired by a JIT (Just-In Time) philosophy
which involves ordering only what is needed and only
when needed. JIT is a strength of Kanban but it can
also constitute a weakness in the event of unforeseen
peaks in demands: Kortabarria et al. (2018). Ptak and
Smith (2011) and Ptak and Smith (2016) thus present
DDMRP as a viable alternative. This new method com-
bines both forecasts and real-time observation of the
system. The inaccuracy of forecasts is corrected by a
day-by-day observation of inventory and demand. Based
on comparative studies, several authors have shown
DDMRP to be efficient in terms of cost and service level
(El Marzougui et al. 2020; Azzamouri et al. 2021). Service
level is often measured by the OTD (On-Time Delivery)
indicator (Miclo 2016), in other words, the percentage of
orders that are delivered on-time to the customer (APICS
dictionary). Many authors measure costs by the aver-
age on-hand inventory (Kortabarria et al. 2018; Velasco
Acosta, Mascle, and Baptiste 2020). Indeed, the on-hand

CONTACT Youssef Lahrichi youssef.lahrichi.contact@gmail.com HuManis laboratory at EM Strasbourg Business School, 61 avenue de la Forêt Noire,
Strasbourg F-67000, France

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 D. DAMAND ET AL.
inventory is stored by the company and generates oper-
ating costs.
DDMRP is parameter-dependent, relying on a num-
ber of parameters that are fixed by the manager. The
authors of DDMRP (Ptak and Smith 2016) give some
rules to fix these parameters. However, these rules do
not give an exact value for each parameter, instead
offering only intervals. In addition, the rules strongly
depend on the manager’s judgment. For instance, Ptak
and Smith (2016) recommend setting a given parameter
of DDMRP between 20% and 40% if some data is ‘high’.
It is quite subjective to judge whether the data in ques-
tion is ‘high’ or not. Many authors, like Velasco Acosta,
Mascle, and Baptiste (2020) and Kortabarria et al. (2018),
point out the dependence of DDMRP on its parameters
as one of its possible shortcomings. Other authors, like
Bahu, Bironneau, and Hovelaque (2019), draw attention
to the lack of automatic procedures to fix the parameters
of DDMRP.
We suggest in this paper a multi-objective optimi-
sation algorithm based on NSGA-II to parameterise
DDMRP. The maximisation of OTD and the minimi-
sation of average on-hand inventory are considered
simultaneously. Fronts of non-dominated solutions are
obtained for randomly generated instances. The paper
is organised into seven sections. Section 2 is devoted
to the related literature. Section 3 describes the main
steps of DDMRP. Section 4 sets out the optimisation
problem considered and gives the notations. Section 5
describes the suggested resolution approach. In Section 6,
computational experiments are performed on randomly-
generated data instances. Concluding remarks and per-
spective research directions are given in the last section
of the paper.
2. Literature review
In this section, DDMRP (Demand-Driven Material
Requirements Planning) is positioned in relation to
MRP, Kanban and theory of constraints. Then, DDMRP-
related literature is presented. Finally, the literature gap is
explained to justify our contribution.
DDMRP is the most recent inventory management
method. It was first introduced in Ptak and Smith (2011)
then in Ptak and Smith (2016). The method is intended to
address the shortcomings of the previous inventory man-
agement methods in terms of overstocks and stock-outs,
thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the level
of customer service. DDMRP combines the best practices
of three main methods that underpin the system:
• MRP and MRP II: MRP stands for Material Require-
ments Planning. The method was first introduced
in 1964 by Joseph Orlicky and was implemented
the same year at the company Black & Decker
(Orlicky 1974). Based on demand and initial on-hand
inventory data, MRP computes production and pur-
chasing schedules (Dolgui and Prodhon 2007). This
computation is based either on mathematical models
or on heuristics like the silver meal heuristic (Silver
and Harlan 1973). MRP II, which stands for Material
Resource Planning, is an extension of MRP that first
appeared in the 1980s. It is a comprehensive system
that contains many more modules alongside with the
MRP module, including the MPS (Master Production
Schedule), which is the process of planning the quan-
tity of goods to be produced in each period (typically a
year) in order to adjust the system capacity. MRP (and
MRP II) can be described as a push system. This type
of systems uses demand forecasting to build the pro-
duction and purchasing schedules. Flow and products
are pushed from production to customers. The major
drawback of MRP is that it relies on forecast data that
can potentially be inaccurate.
• Kanban: Kanban means sign or card in Japanese. It
was first introduced by Toyota in 1953, before gaining
in popularity in the 1980s (Ohno and Bodek 2019).
Kanban, also called JIT (Just-In Time), is a lean man-
agement system, which means that it is designed to
minimise costs by reducing waste. Kanban is a reorder
point system which means that a replenishment order
(production or purchase) is launched when the on-
hand inventory and the scheduled receipts reach a
given level. In this situation, a (physical) Kanban card
containing the order information is released. The Kan-
ban card must contain at least the reference of the
article, the order amount, the name of the workstation
where the order is produced and the location where it
is stored. Unlike MRP which relies on forecasts, Kan-
ban relies on on-time observation of the system, which
is why it is classified as a pull system. It means that Kan-
ban is demand-driven: flow is pulled from demand
(customer) to the production (company). Kanban can
be less efficient, however, when unexpected peaks in
demand occur (Kortabarria et al. 2018).
• Theory of constraints: The Theory Of Constraints
(TOC) was first introduced in 1997 by Eliyahu M.
Goldratt. This management paradigm tends to first
identify the constraints of the system (Goldratt 2017).
A constraint is any limiting resource or process that
affects the system’s performance. Once identified, the
constraints must be exploited to achieve the desired
performance. Everything in the system must be sub-
ordinated to the constraints in order to elevate them.
TOC introduces buffers as a powerful tool to deal with
constraints. Buffers are placed before the constraints

to help absorb shocks and prevent the constraints
from being violated. The identification of the con-
straint (combinatorial decision) is decisive for a good
application of the TOC approach. The buffers, which
are used to remove these constraints, must then be
sized. TOC has been shown to reduce inventory and
lead times (Wu, Lee, and Tsai 2014) but the replen-
ishment policy is undermined in TOC which makes
its application somewhat arbitrary and difficult (Ptak
and Smith 2016).
DDMRP is the most recent evolution in inventory
management systems. It is based on the three earlier sys-
tems. DDMRP is often categorised as a push and pull sys-
tem (Azzamouri et al. 2021). It relies on both forecasting
(push system, MRP) and real-time observation of inven-
tory and demand (pull system, Kanban). DDMRP also
uses buffers for critical items (TOC) to account for pos-
sible fluctuations in demand. All non-buffered references
are managed by means of a pull strategy while buffered
references are handled by what looks more like a push
strategy. For this reason, DDMRP is described as a hybrid
system taking advantage simultaneously from opposing
approaches (Velasco Acosta, Mascle, and Baptiste 2020).
As DDMRP is a recent inventory management system,
the literature on the subject is relatively scarce. A com-
prehensive state of the art can be found in El Marzougui
et al. (2020). The latter lists 23 publications on DDMRP
appeared between 2011 and 2019. We have selected 17
publications from El Marzougui et al. (2020) and added
7 further publications appeared between 2020 and 2021.
We classify the resulting 24 publications into six major
classes:
• Comparative studies: In this category of papers,
authors compare DDMRP with other inventory man-
agement systems thanks to simulation tools and con-
clude that DDMRP performs relatively well. For exam-
ple, Miclo et al. (2019) compares DDMRP with MRP
II and Kanban via a structured experimental design.
The authors use a well-known product structure called
the kanban game and generate demand data ran-
domly. Based on the experiments, the authors show
that DDMRP achieves better performance in terms
of OTD (On-Time Delivery) and WIP (Work In-
Progress). We note that this class of papers contains
only papers that compare DDMRP with other plan-
ning systems empirically by simulation and not papers
that perform only a conceptual comparison.
• Case studies: Some authors have studied DDMRP by
applying it to company data. This data can be either
real and provided by an existing company or ficti-
tious and generated by the authors themselves. Velasco
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 3
Acosta, Mascle, and Baptiste (2020) apply DDMRP
on fictitious company data that are characterised by
complex product structures. The results are analysed
in terms of stock levels and lead times. Shofa and
Widyarto (2017) present a real case study from car
manufacturing industry. Due to the implementation
of DDMRP, the authors observe a reduction of stock
levels and lead times.
• Buffer positioning: Velasco Acosta, Mascle, and Bap-
tiste (2020) point out that the performance of DDMRP
is quite dependent on the positioning of buffers within
the BOM (Bill Of Materials). Buffer positioning is the
first step of DDMRP. It is situated at the strategical
level while the following steps are situated either at
the tactical or at operational levels. Buffering a ref-
erence leads simultaneously to a reduction in lead
times and an increase in operating costs. Jiang and
Rim (2017) deal with the problem of buffer position-
ing by means of a genetic algorithm. The suggested
approach decides which references in the BOM should
be buffered. It is intended to minimise the inven-
tory operating costs while satisfying the required lead
times.
• Parameterisation of DDMRP: As several authors have
noted, DDMRP is highly parameter-dependent (Bahu,
Bironneau, and Hovelaque 2019; Velasco Acosta, Mas-
cle, and Baptiste 2020). Its parameters have a real
impact on a system’s performance. The parameter-
isation of DDMRP is usually performed by prac-
titioners based on their own experience. Ptak and
Smith (2016) provide some general rules to fix the
parameters. These rules are approximate and largely
depend on the manager’s judgment. Bahu, Bironneau,
and Hovelaque (2019) points out the absence of an
automatic and objective method to fix these param-
eters. Miclo (2016) attempts to address this issue in
some part of his thesis. The author use a simula-
tion software to optimise three parameters thanks to
a simulated annealing algorithm. The objective func-
tion considered is a weighted sum of OTD and aver-
age stock. Lee and Rim (2019) suggest a heuristic
formula to fix two parameters of DDMRP, namely
the lead time factor and the variability factor. The
formula is extracted from a simulation based on a
case study. We note that this class of papers con-
tains only papers that suggest algorithms to parame-
terise DDMRP. Some other papers, like Martin (2020)
and Dessevre et al. (2019), deal with parameterisa-
tion in a statistical way. The authors set a plan of
experiments, test different parameterisation scenarios
and derive general rules for parameterisation. These
rules are generated thanks to the data set studied and
are therefore specific to the case study considered.
4 D. DAMAND ET AL.

Table 1. Literature review.

Comparat. Case Buffer Parame- Review Book
Paper study study position. terisation
Favaretto and Marin (2018)  
Kortabarria et al. (2018)  
Shofa, Moeis, and Restiana (2018)  
Miclo et al. (2019)  
Thürer, Fernandes, and Stevenson (2022)  
Ihme (2015) 
Shofa and Widyarto (2017) 
Bayard and Grimaud (2018) 
Dessevre et al. (2019) 
Martin (2020) 
Velasco Acosta, Mascle, and Baptiste (2020) 
Dessevre et al. (2021) 
Rim, Jiang, and Lee (2014)  
Jiang and Rim (2016)  
Jiang and Rim (2017)  
Abdelhalim, Hamid, and Tiente (2021)  
Miclo (2016)   
Lee and Rim (2019)  
Bahu, Bironneau, and Hovelaque (2019) 
Pekarčíková et al. (2019) 
Azzamouri et al. (2021) 
El Marzougui et al. (2020) 
Ptak and Smith (2011) 
Ptak and Smith (2016) 
The present paper 

For this reason, we classified these papers as case
studies.
• Reviews: Some recent reviews have been written on
DDMRP: Pekarčíková et al. (2019), Bahu, Bironneau,
and Hovelaque (2019), El Marzougui et al. (2020) and
Azzamouri et al. (2021). Very often, the method is
situated in relation to MRP, Kanban and the The-
ory of Constraints (TOC). Most authors highlight the
growing interest in DDMRP in both industry and
academia (El Marzougui et al. 2020). Some authors
also underscore the lack of research with regards to the
parametrisation of DDMRP (Bahu, Bironneau, and
Hovelaque 2019).
• Books: This last category contains the two seminal
books on DDMRP: Ptak and Smith (2011), and Ptak
and Smith (2016).
Table 1 summarises and classifies the main publi-
cations on DDMRP in the six above-mentioned major
classes.
Literature gap and contribution of this paper
We note a lack of research work regarding the parameter-
isation of DDMRP. The two only research items available
in the literature contain some gaps that justify the present
work:
• In Miclo (2016), only three parameters are considered
for optimisation. However, DDMRP performance is
affected by far more than three parameters. A single
objective (weighted sum) is studied which prevents
from having fronts of Pareto-optimal solutions.
• In Lee (2018), the suggested heuristic formula is
derived from a given case study. No proof is given that
it is optimal, nor that it yields good results in gen-
eral. Besides, it is shown in Damand et al. (2019) that
these formulas are highly contextual and cannot be
generalised.
In an attempt to overcome these gaps, we put forward
several contributions:
• Eight parameters affecting the performance of DDMRP
are identified.
• A first multi-objective metaheuristic is suggested.
It is based on NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm). It is designed to compute (local)
Pareto-optimal solutions with respect to OTD and
average stock. Unlike the formula suggested in Lee
and Rim (2019), a metaheuristic can adapt to new
instances thanks to operators that search the landscape
of solutions.
• 60 data instances are generated to test the suggested
algorithm. Characteristics of optimal parameters are
identified.
In the following section, we describe DDMRP to iden-
tify the eight parameters to be optimised. This also allows
to describe in more details the two papers about param-
eterisation from literature.

3. DDMRP: general description
DDMRP works through five consecutive steps.
Step 1: Strategic buffer positioning
In the first step, the decision-maker determines which
products in the BOM (Bill Of Materials) must be
buffered. Buffering a product involves high costs rela-
tive to setting up and managing the buffer stock. For
this reason, only the most ‘critical’ products are chosen
to be buffered. Criticality is contextual and depends on
the considered industry. For example, the manager could
choose to buffer products that are more sensitive to delays
or alternatively products that are less expensive to buffer
(Abdelhalim, Hamid, and Tiente 2021).
An example of BOM is given in Figure 1. Product 1
needs 2 times units to be assembled provided Component
1 and Component 2 are available. In this example, the LT
(lead times) are represented in a circle at the top of the
reference.
The decision-maker may choose to buffer product 1,
component 1 and subcomponent 3 as shown in Figure 1.
Once the buffers are positioned, Ptak and Smith (2016)
define the DLT (Decoupled Lead Time). DLT is defined as
‘the longest cumulative coupled lead time chain in a manu-
factured item’s product structure.’ In other words, the DLT
associated with a reference is the time needed to produce
this reference and all its non-buffered components. For
instance, the DLT associated with component 1 can be
calculated based on Figure 1 as follows:
DLT[comp. 1] = LT[comp. 1] + Max{LT[sub-comp. 1]
+ LT[sub-comp. 3], LT[sub-comp. 2]}
= 5 + Max{8 + 10, 13} = 23
Figure 1. Buffer positioning on BOM for product 1.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 5
The lead time of subcomponent 4 is not considered in
the above formula since it is buffered. DLT of product
1 is 16(2 + 14). We can note that, without buffering,
31(2 + 5 + 13 + 11) time units would be needed to pro-
duce product 1 instead of 16 time units. This is known
as lead time compression (Ptak and Smith 2016), which
is a major benefit of DDMRP. DLT is defined only for
buffered references. The DLT of subcomponent 4 is 11.
Step 2: Buffer sizing
In the second step, the decision-maker sizes the buffers.
In Ptak and Smith (2016), it is recommended that
the buffers contain three (fictitious) zones as shown in
Figure 2:
• The red zone is the bottom level of the stock. In this
zone, the stock level is critically low. An order, with a
high level of priority, must be generated. The size of
the red zone is given by:
TOR = ADU × DLT × FLT
  
Redbase
Red base
  
+ ADU × DLT × FLT ×FV (1)
  
Red safety
where ADU stands for Average Daily Usage, in other
words, the mean over some horizon of the customers’
orders. DLT is the Decoupled Lead Time of the
buffered reference in question. FLT and FV are respec-
tively the lead time factor and the variability factor.
These factors are parameters of the method to be
fixed by the decision-maker. The variability factor is
a percentage between 0% and 100%. It captures the
Figure 2. Buffer zones.
6 D. DAMAND ET AL.
Table 2. Recommendations to fix the
lead time factor.
Low DLT FLT between 61% and 100%
Medium DLT FLT between 41% and 60%
Long DLT FLT between 20% and 40%
Table 3. Recommendations to fix the vari-
ability factor.
High variability FV over 61%
Medium variability FV between 41% and 60%
Low variability FV between 0% and 40%
extent to which the customers’ orders vary. The vari-
ability factor is close to 100% when the demand is
highly volatile, and it is close to 0% when the demand
is nearly stable. The lead time factor is a percentage
between 20% and 100% that should be barely inversely
proportional to the DLT. Ptak and Smith (2016) make
some recommendations to fix the variability and the
lead time factors (Tables 2 and 3).
• The yellow zone is superposed over the red zone. It
covers the demand over the days that are beyond the
reach of a replenishment order. Since a replenishment
order needs DLT days to be processed, the size of the
yellow zone is given by the following formula:
TOY
 − TOR
 = ADU × DLT
Size of the yellow zone
• The green zone is superposed over the yellow zone.
Within this zone, the stock level is considered to be
‘comfortable’ and no replenishment order is generated.
The size of the green zone is given by the following
formula:
TOG
 − TOY
 = Max{MOQ, ADU × DLT
Size of the green zone
× FLT , ADU × Horder }
The above formula gives the average quantity of
replenishment orders. MOQ stands for the Minimum
(replenishment) Order Quantity. Horder represents
the desired order cycle, indicating that the company
wishes to launch a replenishment order every Horder
days.
Step 3: Buffer adjustment
The third step deals with the adjustment of buffer size.
Indeed, in a VUCA environment, the system is subject
to unforeseen changes. These changes affect the buffer
size that must be adjusted. Buffers may also need to be
adjusted to ramp up in case of high demand or to ramp
down in case of a drop in demand. Seasonal changes may
cause this change in the profile of demand (Ptak and
Smith 2016). Buffers can be adjusted either by directly
modifying the parameters that come into play in sizing
the buffers or by considering some Planned Adjustment
Factors (PAF) that handle seasonal changes. No seasonal
changes are considered in the present paper.
Step 4: Order generation
The fourth and the fifth steps of DDMRP deal with the
execution phase of the system following the design phase
(the first three steps). In the fourth step, the decision-
maker decides if a replenishment order must be gener-
ated and determines the quantity to be ordered (lot size).
The decision to generate an order on day t is based on the
value of the net flow on that day, denoted qflow
t . It is given
by the following formula:
qflow
t = qton-hand + qon
t
-order − d̃ (net flow equation)
t
where qton-hand is the on-hand inventory, i.e. the available
inventory/stock, on day t. qon -order is the on-order inven-
t
tory, i.e. the quantity that has been ordered but not yet
received and d̃t is the qualified demand on day t. Qual-
ified demand is given by the sum of the demand on the
(2)
day and the demand spikes over a given spike horizon. A
spike is defined as a demand that exceeds a given thresh-
old. The threshold is expressed as a percentage of the red
zone. This threshold is recommended to be set at 50% of
the red zone. The spike horizon is recommended to be set
at DLT. Figure 3 helps to explain the calculation of qual-
ified demands. In Figure 3, the order spike threshold is
assumed to be 50% of the red zone, in other words, 40.
A spike horizon of 3 days is assumed, which means that
days 5, 6 and 7 must be considered for the calculation of
the qualified demand on day 4. Only demands on days
(3)
5 and 7 are retained since they exceed 40 which makes
them spikes. Qualified demand on day 4 is finally given
by:
d̃4 = 35 + 50 + 60 = 145
The qualified demand is used in the net flow equation.
Based on the value of the net flow, two different scenarios
are possible:
• If the net flow is inferior to the TOY (Top of yellow),
a replenishment order is generated. The amount of
the order is the difference between the TOG (Top of
green) and the value of the net flow.
• If the net flow is superior to the TOY, no order is
generated.

Figure 3. Illustration of qualified demand.
In other words, the order amount on day t is given as
follows:
 Only one objective function (weighted sum) is consid-
TOGt − qflow If qflow ≤ TOYt
ot = t t
0 Otherwise.
where TOGt and TOYt are respectively the TOG and the
TOY on day t.
Step 5: Order prioritisation
The last step of DDMRP deals with order prioritisation
thanks to colour codes and alerts.
This section highlights the dependence of DDMRP on
many parameters. The DLT is determined by buffer posi-
tioning (step 1). All other parameters should be fixed by
the manager. The variability factor and the lead time fac-
tor affect the size of the red and green zones. The order
spike threshold and the order spike horizon affect the
qualified demand and, therefore, the net flow. The man-
ager should also choose a horizon for the calculation of
the ADU (Average Daily Usage). A daily calculation of
the ADU is the broader assumption we can take. It allows
to rapidly account for any significant changes in the size
of demands. Two additional parameters are introduced:
the ADU future horizon and the ADU past horizon. For
example, if the ADU past horizon is 2 and the ADU future
horizon is 3, then, the ADU is the mean of the demands
on the 2 past days, the 3 following days and the cur-
rent day. The Minimum Order Quantity (MOQ) and the
order cycle affect the size of the green zone. This brings
out 8 parameters to be optimised.
In Miclo (2016), the lead time factor, the variability
factor and the DLT (Decoupled Lead Time) are opti-
mised by means of a metaheuristic (simulated annealing).
The remaining parameters affecting the performance of
DDMRP are considered known. Besides, Miclo (2016)
considers the DLT as an optimisation variable while it is
most often a given (technological) data. Indeed, the DLT
is known as a result of the first step of DDMRP which
is situated at the strategic level unlike the steps dealing
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7
with buffer sizing and order generation that are situated at
the tactical and operational levels (Ptak and Smith 2016).
ered in Miclo (2016) which prevents from computing
(local) Pareto-optimal solutions.
The red zone formula (1) depends on the lead time fac-
tor and the variability factor. To overcome the problem of
fixing these two parameters, Lee and Rim (2019) suggest
an alternative formula that is independent of these two
factors. As said before, this formula is not proven to be
optimal and is based only on a single case study.
The considered optimisation problem is described in
the next section.
4. Problem statement
In the present paper, we consider that the first step of
DDMRP has already been addressed, which means that
buffers have already been positioned. The Decoupled
Lead Times (DLT) are known for all products. We first
describe the made assumptions then we define the prob-
lem recalling the eight parameters considered, and we
finally introduce notations used in the remainder of the
paper.
The following assumptions are made:
• We consider that the parameters are fixed once a year
based the history of the previous year. The consid-
ered time horizon is the previous year, denoted by
H = [1, 2, . . . , 253] (open days in 2020 = 253 = 366
– official holidays and week-ends). All the demand
quantities are known during the time horizon. We are
interested in finding the optimal parameters over the
period H. Assuming the demand to be known with-
out uncertainty over the planning horizon may seem
a strong assumption, however this can be justified by
two arguments. First, the literature lacks a first com-
prehensive deterministic study that sets the ground
for the parameterisation of DDMRP. Second, DDMRP,
8 D. DAMAND ET AL.

thanks to its replenishment policy, is intended to Table 4. Notations.

behave well in the presence of uncertainty (Ptak and Data
Smith 2016). For example, the red zone of the buffer H = [1, 2, . . . , 253]
(red base + red safety) can help to prevent stockouts DLT
dt , t ∈ H
in case where demand is higher than expected. We s0
can reasonably assume, to some extent, that a limited
Variables
uncertainty in the demand won’t have a significant
MOQ
impact on the KPIs that are computed over the entire FLT ,FV
planning horizon.
Horder
• We consider no capacity constraints. Therefore, Tspike
the parameterisation problem can be solved inde- Hspike
pendently for each buffered reference. This allows
H+ −
ADU , HADU
us to consider only one buffered reference with
a given DLT.
• An initial on-hand inventory is given, and replenish-
ment orders are generated with a DDMRP policy. Other (algorithmic) variables
• If a replenishment order is launched on day t, it is qton-hand , t ∈ H
delivered and immediately available without uncer- qton-order , t ∈ H
t ,t ∈ H
qflow
tainty at the end of day t+DLT (Decoupled Lead d̃t , t ∈ H
Time). ot , t ∈ H
• A demand is considered to be satisfied if the sum of õt , t ∈ H
ADUt , t ∈ H
the available on-hand inventory and the order arrival TORt , TOYt , TOGt , t ∈ H
of the day is greater than the demand quantity.
• The Average Daily Usage (ADU) is updated each day. Objectives
Consequently, the buffer zone sizes (TOR, TOY and OTD
TOG) are updated on a daily basis. Qon-hand
Time horizon.
Decoupled Lead Time.
Demand quantity on day t.
Initial on-hand stock or inventory.
Minimum order quantity.
Respectively the lead time and the variability
factors.
Desired order cycle horizon.
The order spike threshold.
The horizon for the calculation of the qualified
spikes.
Respectively the future and the past horizons for
the calculation of the ADU. ADUt is calculated on
−
the following interval {t − HADU , . . . , t, . . . , t +
+
HADU }.
On-hand inventory at the beginning of day t.
On-order inventory at the beginning of day t.
Net flow at the beginning of day t.
Qualified demand quantity on day t.
order amount launched on day t.
order amount arrival on day t.
Average daily usage calculated on day t.
respectively the top of red, the top of yellow and
the top of green levels on day t.
On-Time Delivery computed over the year horizon.
Average on-hand computed over the year horizon.

We define the DDMRP Parameter Optimisation Prob-

lem (DDMRP-POP). It can be stated as follows:
• Data:
(1) –The planning horizon H.
(2) –The demand quantities over the days of the plan-
ning horizon.
(3) –The DLT of the considered buffered product.
(4) –The initial on-hand inventory.
(5) –The lower bound and the upper bound for
each one of the 8 optimisation variables given
below.
• Variables:
(1) –The Minimum Order Quantity (MOQ).
(2) –The Lead Time (LT) factor.
(3) –The variability factor.
(4) –The order cycle.
(5) –The order spike threshold.
(6) –The order spike horizon.
(7) –The Average Daily Usage (ADU) future horizon.
(8) –The Average Daily Usage (ADU) past horizon.
• Constraints:
(1) –The order quantities must be computed using a
DDMRP policy. A DDMRP simulation algorithm
is given in the next section.
• Objectives:
(1) –Minimise the average on-hand stock over the
days of the planning horizon.
(2) –Maximise the On-Time Delivery (OTD), i.e. the
rate of satisfied demands.
In Table 4, we describe the notations used in the
remainder of the paper.
To solve DDMRP-POP, we first modeled it mathemat-
ically. The resulting model is quadratic and mixes con-
tinuous and binary variables. Solely for informative rea-
sons, it is given in Appendix where only the objective of
minimising the average on-hand inventory is considered
while the OTD is set to 100% by means of a constraint.
The presence of quadratic constraints and binary vari-
ables deterred us from using a solver to solve the model.
This justifies the use of the approximate optimisation
method that is described in the next section.
5. Description of the simulation-optimisation
approach
The general scheme of the suggested approach is
depicted in Figure 4. It is intended to optimise the

Figure 4. General scheme of the optimisation-simulation
approach.
eight parameters: HADU + −
, HADU , MOQ, Hspike , Tspike ,
FLT , FV , Horder . Initial solutions with initial values for
these parameters are generated to initiate the optimi-
sation algorithm. Each time new parameters values are
generated by the optimisation algorithm, the simula-
tion algorithm is executed to compute the values of the
two objective functions (On-Time Delivery and aver-
age on-hand inventory). After a given number of iter-
ations, the optimisation algorithm returns the obtained
non-dominated solutions.
In what follows, we describe the main components of
the suggested approach.
5.1. Simulation algorithm
The simulation algorithm is described in Algorithm 1.
It summarises the functioning of DDMRP (based on
Section 3 and Ptak and Smith 2016). The algorithm also
computes the values of the two objective functions.
Initialisation of variables is performed at line 1 of
Algorithm 1. For each day in the period (line 2), the
algorithm computes the on-hand inventory (line 3), the
on-order inventory (line 4), the average daily usage (line
5) and the sizes of the buffer zones (lines 6–8). The
algorithm then calculates the qualified demand over
the horizon Hspike (lines 9–14). The net flow is then
expressed thanks to the net flow equation (line 15). If the
net flow is below the top of yellow, an order is generated
(lines 16–18). Finally, the simulation algorithm computes
the values of the objective functions, namely the on-time
delivery (lines 21–29) and the average on-hand inventory
(line 30).
5.2. A non-dominated sorting genetic Algorithm-II
Multi-objective optimisation by means of metaheuris-
tics aims at computing an approximation of the Pareto
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 9
front of non-dominated solutions. A good approxima-
tion is characterised by diversified solutions that are close
enough to the front of non-dominated solutions (Talbi
et al. 2012).
Many multi-objective metaheuristics have been sug-
gested in recent years to solve various optimisation
problems (Talbi 2015). Among these methods, genetic
algorithms and notably NSGA-II, have stood out for
their adaptability as well as for their excellent results
(Lee 2018).
The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II,
NSGA-II, was introduced by Deb et al. (2002). It has
since been successfully applied to a wide range of multi-
objective optimisation problems: Katoch, Chauhan, and
Kumar (2021). NSGA-II has also been applied to lot-
sizing problems in the context of MRP: Hnaien, Delorme,
and Dolgui (2010), Amorim, Antunes, and Almada-
Lobo (2011), Yahia et al. (2015) and Rezaei et al.
(2016).
Like all genetic algorithms, NSGA-II is a bio-inspired
optimisation method that uses selection, crossover and
mutation within a population of solutions (chromo-
somes). Selection is used to select the best individuals for
reproduction, i.e. those with the greatest fitness. Repro-
duction is performed thanks to a crossover operator,
and better diversification can be achieved thanks to a
mutation operator.
Compared to a classical genetic algorithm, NSGA-II
introduces non-dominated ranking and crowding dis-
tance to rank solutions that are evaluated with more than
one objective function.
The Non-dominated ranking technique ranks the
population within ordered fronts of solutions. The solu-
tions contained within each front are not dominated by
any solution in the following fronts (Figure 5). The first
front contains all non-dominated solutions.
In Figure 5, solutions S1, S2 and S3 are non-dominated
by any other solution, which explains why they belong
to the first front. S4 is dominated by S2 as it has a worst
value for both objectives, and thus belongs to the sec-
ond front. S6 belongs to the third front as it is dominated
by S4.
Crowding distance is an indicator of diversity. It is
small when the neighbourhood around a solution is
dense. Figure 6 helps to understand the calculation of the
crowding distance.
In NSGA-II, reproduction is applied until the popu-
lation size is doubled. From one generation to the next,
only the best half of the population is preserved. The non-
dominated sorting then the (highest) crowding distance
are the two used criteria for this purpose.
The pseudo-algorithm of NSGA-II is given in
Algorithm 2.
10 D. DAMAND ET AL.

Algorithm 1 Simulation algorithm

+ −
INPUT H, DLT, HADU , HADU , MOQ, Hspike , Tspike , FLT , FV , Horder , s0 , dt , t ∈ H
OUTPUT ot , OTD, Q on-hand

1: Initialisation: qon-hand
0 := s0 , qon-order
0 := 0, õ0 := 0, ok := 0, k ∈ {1 − DLT, . . . , 0}, OTD-Aux-1 :=0, OTD-Aux-2
:=0
2: for t=1 to 253 do
3: qon-hand
t := qon-hand
t−1 + õt−1 − dt−1
4: qton-order := qon-order
t−1 + ot−1 − õt−1
t+HADU+

k=t−HADU − dk
5: ADUt := + −
HADU + HADU +1
6: TORt := ADUt × DLT × FLT + ADUt × DLT × FLT × FV
7: TOYt := TORt + ADUt × DLT
8: TOGt := TOYt + Max{MOQ ; ADUt × DLT × FLT ; ADUt × Horder }
9: d̃t := dt
10: for k = t + 1 to t + Hspike do
11: if dk ≥ TORt × Tspike then
12: d̃t := d̃t + dk
13: end if
14: end for
15: qflow
t := qon-hand
t + qon-order
t − d̃t
16: if qt ≤ TOYt then
flow

17: ot := TOGt − qflow t

18: end if
19: õt := ot−DLT
20: end for
21: for t=1 to 253 do
22: if dt > 0 then
23: OTD-Aux-1 := OTD-Aux-1 +1
24: if qon-hand
t + õt ≥ dt then
25: OTD-Aux-2 := OTD-Aux-2 +1
26: end if
27: end if
28: end for
OTD-Aux-2
29: OTD := × 100%
OTD-Aux-1
253 on-hand
q
30: Qon-hand := t=1 t
253

+ −
A solution is encoded as an eight-uplet: (HADU , HADU ,
MOQ, Hspike , Tspike , FLT , FV , Horder ). It represents the
eight optimisation variables.
The initial solutions (line 1) are generated by a select-
ing randomly and uniformly a value for each variable
between its lower bound and upper bound.
A deterministic tournament selection (line 4) is
applied. This works by selecting randomly a subset of
individuals and choosing the best individual from the
subset to be the first parent. The same process is repeated
for the second parent.
The cross-over operator (line 5) represents the merg-
ing of two solutions to generate one child solution.
The value of an optimisation variable in the child solu-
tion is the average of the values of the correspond-
ing variables from its parents. Cross-over is illustrated
in Table 5.
The aforementioned cross-over operator tends to cen-
tre the variables in the interval defined by their upper
and lower bounds. An adequate mutation operator is
necessary to correct this effect, allowing a better diver-
sification of solutions. The mutation operator (line 7) is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 11

Figure 5. Non-dominated sorting.

Figure 6. Crowding distance.

Table 5. Cross-over operator.

Parameters values
+ −
FLT FV HADU HADU Hspike Tspike MOQ Horder
Parent 1 40% 25% 4 0 5 90% 1000 0
Parent 2 60% 40% 3 2 5 50% 500 6
Child 50% 32.5% 4 1 5 70% 750 3

applied by taking, for each variable, the average of its is then averaged with the value of the randomly-drawn
value with either its lower bound or its upper bound. For bound. The mutation operator is shown in Table 6. For
each variable, a coin toss is performed between the lower each variable, the value of the randomly-drawn bound is
bound and the upper bound. The value of the variable framed.
12 D. DAMAND ET AL.

Algorithm 2 NSGA-II
INPUT Data of DDMRP-POP
OUTPUT Pareto local-optimal solutions

1: Generate N solutions to build the initial population .

2: for generation=1 to gmax do
3: while size of population ≤ 2.N do
4: Selection: choose two parents to perform reproduction.
5: Cross-over: apply cross-over operator and add a new solution to the population.
6: end while
7: Mutation: a mutation operator is applied with a given probability to each individual. The individual and its
muted version are kept in the population.
8: Population filtering: keep only the best N individuals in the population with respect to non-dominated sorting
and crowding distance.
9: end for

Table 6. Mutation operator.

Parameters values
+ −
FLT FV HADU HADU Hspike Tspike MOQ Horder

Lower bound 20% 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0

Upper bound 100% 100% 30 29 30 100% 1000 10
Solution 50% 32.5% 4 1 5 70% 750 3
Muted solution 75% 16.25% 2 15 3 35% 875 2

6. Computational experiments 60 data instances were generated. For each data

In this section, we present experiments performed to
evaluate the suggested approach for the parameterisation
of DDMRP. 60 data sets were generated. This section
is organised within four subsections. The first subsec-
tion presents the characteristics of the different data
instances and explains why such characteristics are
needed for experimentation (design of experiments). The
second subsection highlights the results for one par-
ticular data instance. The third subsection summarises
results for all the data instances. The last subsection
discusses general conclusions that can be drawn from
experiments.
Computer experiments were performed on a com-
puter equipped with 16Gb in RAM and an Apple
M1 processor. The source code has been written
in JAVA.
6.1. Design of experiments and data sets
The aim of the experimental section is to test the sug-
gested algorithm under different scenarios. This involves
varying the standard deviation to test different variability
scenarios. It also involves testing different spike profiles
to evaluate how the suggested approach behaves with low,
medium, or high spikes.
instance, we generated demand data over the 253 open
days of 2020. A normal distribution was chosen with a
mean of 1000 and a standard variation ranging from 100
to 1000 in steps of 100. Negative demands are made pos-
itive by using the absolute value. A demand entry has a
given probability to be a spike (spike probability). This
probability varies according to the instance, it is within
{0.1, 0.2}. The spike is generated randomly and uniformly
within an interval. This interval depends on the mean,
the standard variation and two parameters named min
and max. The interval used to generate the spikes is given
as follows:
[mean + min × std. var., mean + max × std. var.]
The extremities of this interval are called the spike lower
bound (mean + min × std. var.) and the spike upper
bound (mean + max ×std. var.). The values of min and
max vary according to the instance. Table 7 resumes the
characteristics of the generated data instances.
The 60 data sets were generated by varying the stan-
dard deviation, the spike probability and the min and
max values used to calculate the spike lower bound and
the spike upper bound. There are 10 possible values for
the standard variation, 2 possible values for the spike
probability and 3 possible combinations of min-max
which gives 10 × 2 × 3 = 60.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 13

The parameters of the suggested optimisation method
are determined experimentally and are given in Table 8.
These values are the result of a compromise between
the quality of the solutions and the CPU time. Indeed,
increasing the size of the population or the number of
generations leads to better solutions at the expense of
more CPU time. The mutation probability should be just
large enough to give some diversification to the pool of
solutions.
We first fixed an approximate CPU time. We retained
a CPU time of 10 minutes which is relevant based on
the literature of genetic algorithms (Katoch, Chauhan,
and Kumar 2021). We then tried to find a combination
(number of generations, number of solutions) that yields
a good and well-distributed front within at most 10 min-
utes. We reached the bottleneck combination (number of
generations = 100, number of solutions = 1000) by test-
ing smaller values and increasing them gradually. Beyond
100 generations the improvement on the solutions is neg-
ligible and beyond 1000 solutions the CPU time tends
to grow over 10 minutes. To fix the probability of muta-
tion, we went gradually from 0% to 30%. A probability of
mutation within 20% introduces just enough diversifica-
tion to the pool of solutions and keeps the running time
in the order of 10 minutes.
The parameters of DDMRP that are optimised thanks
to the optimisation algorithm have lower and upper
bounds that must be respected by the optimisation
algorithm. The values of these bounds for each one the
eight parameters are given in Table 9.
We can note that the lower bound of the lead time fac-
tor is set to 20% based on a recommendation by Ptak and
Smith (2016). We recall that the order spike threshold is
expressed as a percentage of the red zone.
The DLT is constant and equals 5 for all the instances.
This way, any replenishment order would need 5 days
to be processed. For this reason, we fix the initial on-
hand inventory to the sum of the demand over the first 5
Table 7. Design of experiments: data characteristics.
Customer demand data
Mean 1000
Standard deviation 100,200,300,400,500,600,700,800,900,1000
Probability for a demand to 0.1, 0.2
be a spike
Min-Max 0–5, 10–15, 25–30
days for all the instances. This prevents a stock-out from
occurring in the first 5 days of the planning horizon.
The suggested algorithm converges and computes
non-dominated solutions for all the data instances within
at most 10 minutes. The next section is intended to
present detailed results for a particular instance then
results are summarised for all the 60 instances in
Section 6.3.
6.2. Detailed results for a given data instance
A worst-case scenario is studied in this subsection. High
standard deviation and spikes are considered. Although
such a scenario may not be representative of all indus-
tries, it is useful for our study by allowing to push the
method to its limit. The characteristics of the considered
instance are given in Table 10.
Figure 7 gives the data distribution of demand for
the instance under consideration. As expected, it shows
a normal distribution centred in 1000 and a uniform
distribution for spikes between 26,000 and 31,000.
The suggested optimisation algorithm outputs the
solutions of the first front from the last generation of solu-
tions. This set of solutions constitutes the non-dominated
solutions searched by the algorithm and approximates the
Pareto-optimal solutions. These solutions are shown for
the considered instance in Table 11.
We can make the following remarks based on Table 11:
• The 29 solutions are mutually non-dominated with
respect to the two considered objectives.
• Only one solution with 100% OTD is obtained: S1.
This result is expected since two 100% OTD solutions
cannot be mutually non-dominated.
Table 9. Lower and upper bound on the parameters.
Parameter Min value Max value
Minimum order quantity 0 1000
Lead time factor 20% 100%
Variability factor 0% 100%
Order cycle 1 20
Order spike threshold 0% 100%
Order spike horizon 0 20
ADU future horizon 0 4
ADU past horizon 0 4

Table 10. Data characteristics.

Table 8. Parameters of the
optimisation algorithm. Customer demand data
Mean 1000
Genetic algorithm
Standard deviation 1000
Size of the population 1000 Probability for a demand to be a spike 0.20
Number of generations 100 Lower bounds for spikes 26,000
Probability of mutation 20% Upper bounds for spikes 31,000
14 D. DAMAND ET AL.

Figure 7. Demand data distribution.

Table 11. Obtained non-dominated solutions.

Parameters values Objective functions
+ −
Solution FLT FV HADU HADU Hspike Tspike MOQ Horder Average on-hand OTD
S1 35 38 3 2 5 86 319 1 74,815.74 100.00
S2 31 89 4 2 2 82 574 1 61,969.43 99.60
S3 25 66 3 0 2 94 493 1 60,393.13 99.21
S4 28 67 3 2 2 87 509 1 59,936.48 98.42
S5 26 71 3 2 2 91 533 1 57,319.72 98.02
S6 27 93 4 1 1 88 716 1 54,887.98 97.63
S7 34 34 4 3 1 47 348 1 52,955.75 97.23
S8 35 8 4 3 1 81 356 2 50,898.05 96.05
S9 24 79 3 2 1 94 708 1 50,527.55 95.65
S10 25 51 3 2 1 88 638 1 49,328.48 95.26
S11 25 47 3 2 1 87 421 1 49,309.34 94.86
S12 25 42 3 2 1 89 645 1 48,126.27 94.47
S13 25 43 3 2 1 89 387 1 47,568.00 94.07
S14 24 44 3 2 1 91 515 1 47,149.83 93.68
S15 25 67 3 2 0 65 504 1 46,845.55 93.28
S16 25 61 3 2 0 75 513 1 46,462.90 92.89
S17 25 60 3 2 0 75 568 1 44,729.00 92.49
S18 24 58 3 2 0 79 519 1 43,875.86 92.09
S19 25 43 3 2 0 85 342 1 42,548.36 91.70
S20 25 31 3 2 0 62 546 1 41,047.90 91.30
S21 25 37 3 2 0 62 539 1 41,012.21 90.91
S22 24 38 3 2 0 73 468 1 40,639.07 90.51
S23 24 28 3 2 0 50 463 1 39,479.14 90.12
S24 24 25 3 2 0 82 466 1 38,977.09 89.72
S25 27 4 4 3 0 40 678 1 35,130.66 89.33
S26 22 8 3 3 0 21 187 1 34,859.71 87.75
S27 21 10 3 3 0 78 646 1 34,170.64 87.35
S28 21 13 3 3 0 93 225 1 33,911.57 86.56
S29 21 7 3 3 0 37 166 1 33,227.12 86.17

• S1 is the only solution with Hspike = 5. This spike hori- average on-hand inventory. The other solutions have
zon is the highest among all the solutions. It allows a a lower spike horizon which deprives from detect-
100% OTD to be reached at the expense of a greater ing all spikes and therefore from satisfying all the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 15

demands (OTD < 100%). These solutions (S2–S29)
have a lower average on-hand inventory. In addition,
it seems that the spike horizon (Hspike ) is proportional
to the average on-hand inventory and inversely pro-
portional to the OTD.
• It seems that the lead time factor (FLT ) is overall sta-
ble. It is around 27% which is low and corresponds to
a long DLT according to Ptak and Smith (2016). The
variability factor is much more volatile. It is of 38% for
S1 which is low according to Ptak and Smith (2016).

Figure 8. Front of non-dominated solutions.

Figure 9. Evolution of the on-hand inventory, the red zone, the yellow zone and the green zone in 2020.
16 D. DAMAND ET AL.
Figure 10. Evolution of fronts over generations.
+ −
• The ADU horizon (HADU + HADU + 1) is overall sta-
ble. It is around one week (5 open days).
The front of non-dominated solutions is represented
in Figure 8. It shows that the solutions are well distributed
among the front.
From a decision-maker perspective, the solution with
100% OTD (S1) is of crucial importance since it provides
a maximum service level. Solution S1 has 62 replenish-
ment orders. For this solution, Figure 9 shows the evolu-
tion of on-hand inventory with respect to the three buffer
zones.
Figure 10 shows the evolution of non-dominated solu-
tions through the generations in the genetic algorithm.
The algorithm starts from only 3 non-dominated solu-
tions (generation 1) and is able to generate better solu-
tions after 50 generations of reproduction and mutation.
The last generation of solutions is significantly better than
the 50th generation of solutions.
Many customer-oriented industries are interested in
solutions with 100% OTD. These solutions provide a
maximum service level, as recommended by the DDMRP
philosophy which introduces buffers to guard against
shortages, at the expense of a higher cost. Table 12 gives
the solutions with a 100% OTD that are contained in the
last generation of solutions. In this table,  represents
the deviation from the best average on-hand inventory
Average on-hand−s∗
(s∗ = 74815.74):  = s∗ × 100%.
The 100% OTD solutions all have a spike horizon
which is at least 5( = DLT). This result is not surprising
since a replenishment order needs 5 days to be deliv-
ered. A spike detection horizon of 5 allows orders to
be launched 5 days in advance and to be delivered
on time. This allows the solutions to reach a 100%
OTD. These solutions also have a high spike threshold
(Tspike ).
6.3. General results for the remaining data
instances
In this subsection, we summarise the obtained results for
the 60 instances that have been generated. For the sake of
succinctness, only the solution with 100% OTD is given
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 17

Table 12. Solutions with 100% OTD.

Parameters values Objective functions
+ −
Solution FLT FV HADU HADU Hspike Tspike MOQ Horder Average on-hand OTD (%)
T1 = S1 35 38 3 2 5 86 319 1 74,815.74 100 0.00
T2 30 68 3 0 5 91 731 1 75,191.24 100 0.50
T3 33 58 3 2 5 75 556 1 78,909.23 100 5.47
T4 33 61 3 0 5 86 586 1 79,277.50 100 5.96
T5 35 44 3 2 5 81 473 2 79,430.43 100 6.17
T6 21 91 3 4 5 26 172 2 80,342.87 100 7.39
T7 36 59 3 2 5 82 431 1 80,362.85 100 7.41
T8 32 75 3 2 5 84 447 2 81,277.80 100 8.64
T9 57 39 3 3 5 84 452 2 81,596.07 100 9.06
T10 40 47 3 2 5 85 387 1 82,124.83 100 9.77
T11 30 50 3 0 5 81 586 1 82,385.57 100 10.12
T12 40 45 3 2 5 80 511 1 82,488.47 100 10.26
T13 26 75 3 2 5 70 819 1 82,503.57 100 10.28
T14 30 46 3 1 5 84 728 1 82,562.79 100 10.35
T15 22 82 4 4 5 49 908 2 82,627.86 100 10.44
T16 41 40 3 2 5 76 567 1 83,398.26 100 11.47
T17 35 62 3 1 5 86 640 1 83,605.48 100 11.75
T18 34 68 3 1 7 9 612 1 83,756.58 100 11.95
T19 42 38 3 2 5 72 648 2 83,964.60 100 12.23
T20 43 35 3 2 5 72 624 2 84,372.31 100 12.77
T21 35 47 2 1 5 83 519 1 84,384.15 100 12.79
T22 28 63 3 1 5 76 702 1 84,391.90 100 12.80
T23 35 47 2 1 5 81 560 1 84,578.87 100 13.05
T24 34 47 2 1 5 83 529 1 84,711.64 100 13.23
T25 36 46 2 1 5 82 569 1 84,787.59 100 13.33
T26 35 48 2 1 5 81 548 1 84,964.47 100 13.56
T27 36 47 2 1 5 81 558 1 84,990.86 100 13.60
T28 22 1 1 3 5 54 102 1 85,069.15 100 13.70
T29 29 65 3 2 5 66 713 1 85,085.91 100 13.73
T30 32 46 2 1 5 83 628 1 85,162.75 100 13.83
T31 35 48 2 1 5 81 577 1 85,201.38 100 13.88
T32 37 53 3 1 5 86 532 1 85,420.22 100 14.17
T33 36 47 2 1 5 83 514 1 85,465.93 100 14.24

for each instance and only 6 parameters are shown. These
results are shown in Table 13.
6.4. General discussion
The following conclusions can be inferred from the com-
puter experiments:
(1) The suggested simulation-optimisation approach is
able to find a significant number of non-dominated
solutions (Table 11).
(2) The front of solutions is well-distributed and diver-
sified (Figure 8).
(3) The genetic operators can generate better solutions
after dozens of generations which demonstrates
their effectiveness (Figure 10).
(4) The spike horizon and to a certain extent the
spike threshold are proportional to the OTD and
inversely proportional to the average on-hand inven-
tory (Table 11).
(5) It seems clear that the variability factor (FV ) is
impacted by the standard deviation, the interval
and the probability of the spikes. Instances with
larger standard deviation, larger spike probability, or
larger spike intensity have a larger variability factor
(Table 13).
(6) There is a correlation between the order spike hori-
zon (Hspike ) on one side and the standard deviation,
the interval and the probability of spikes on the
other side (Table 13). Instances with low standard
deviation, lower spike probability or lower spike
intensity have a lower order spike horizon. For exam-
ple, instances numbered 1, 7 and 13 all have a null
spike horizon. This result is expected since spikes are
negligible for these instances which means that the
ADU is sufficient to represent the demand in these
cases.
(7) As expected, the average stock is impacted by the size
of demand (Table 13). Instances with larger standard
deviation, larger spike probability, or larger spike
intensity have a larger demand and therefore a larger
average stock.
(8) We did not capture any clear correlation between
+ −
HADU or HADU on one side and the size of demand,
18 D. DAMAND ET AL.

Table 13. Solutions with 100% OTD for 60 instances.

Instance Parameters values
+ −
Nb. Std. dev. Spike proba. Spike interval FLT FV HADU HADU Hspike Tspike Avg. stock
1 100 0.1 [0,5] 21 1 3 2 0 79 1807
2 100 0.1 [10,15] 24 21 3 2 0 65 2671
3 100 0.1 [25,30] 29 20 3 2 1 49 4789
4 100 0.2 [0,5] 21 1 2 2 0 80 1820
5 100 0.2 [10,15] 24 12 3 2 0 42 2800
6 100 0.2 [25,30] 22 55 4 3 1 69 6032
7 200 0.1 [0,5] 21 1 3 1 0 90 1833
8 200 0.1 [10,15] 36 28 4 2 0 46 4986
9 200 0.1 [25,30] 21 15 4 3 5 66 10,300
10 200 0.2 [0,5] 21 1 3 3 0 25 2004
11 200 0.2 [10,15] 32 55 3 0 4 91 6609
12 200 0.2 [25,30] 44 27 3 2 5 89 13,699
13 300 0.1 [0,5] 22 8 3 0 0 59 2132
14 300 0.1 [10,15] 25 50 3 1 5 83 5311
15 300 0.1 [25,30] 26 26 3 3 5 89 11,799
16 300 0.2 [0,5] 21 70 3 1 0 75 3026
17 300 0.2 [10,15] 34 90 4 3 1 34 9889
18 300 0.2 [25,30] 39 78 3 3 5 87 18,764
19 400 0.1 [0,5] 24 56 3 2 0 85 3101
20 400 0.1 [10,15] 26 20 2 3 5 85 7360
21 400 0.1 [25,30] 27 14 3 3 5 86 14,971
22 400 0.2 [0,5] 25 73 4 1 2 99 3521
23 400 0.2 [10,15] 33 62 3 2 2 87 12,135
24 400 0.2 [25,30] 31 64 3 0 0 79 24,410
25 500 0.1 [0,5] 27 56 2 2 4 88 4369
26 500 0.1 [10,15] 25 38 2 2 5 79 8592
27 500 0.1 [25,30] 26 36 3 3 5 78 22,993
28 500 0.2 [0,5] 29 35 3 3 1 64 5210
29 500 0.2 [10,15] 22 50 3 4 5 67 12,716
30 500 0.2 [25,30] 33 47 3 2 5 90 36,371
31 600 0.1 [0,5] 28 18 3 2 1 38 4996
32 600 0.1 [10,15] 35 53 3 2 5 86 14,718
33 600 0.1 [25,30] 34 38 2 1 0 60 32,983
34 600 0.2 [0,5] 34 46 3 2 4 87 5763
35 600 0.2 [10,15] 57 4 4 1 3 98 18,807
36 600 0.2 [25,30] 21 30 3 3 5 42 35,225
37 700 0.1 [0,5] 29 48 4 2 2 84 4979
38 700 0.1 [10,15] 23 43 3 3 6 69 14,976
39 700 0.1 [25,30] 23 39 3 3 5 94 25,185
40 700 0.2 [0,5] 30 20 2 3 3 87 5701
41 700 0.2 [10,15] 41 24 3 0 0 47 22,352
42 700 0.2 [25,30] 32 44 3 2 5 90 44,934
43 800 0.1 [0,5] 38 15 3 1 0 59 5908
44 800 0.1 [10,15] 22 91 4 4 5 49 15,417
45 800 0.1 [25,30] 22 10 3 3 6 56 30,763
46 800 0.2 [0,5] 33 29 2 2 3 82 7933
47 800 0.2 [10,15] 27 86 3 1 5 94 25,222
48 800 0.2 [25,30] 38 64 3 3 4 86 56,547
49 900 0.1 [0,5] 28 27 3 1 1 75 5003
50 900 0.1 [10,15] 23 15 3 3 5 77 17,621
51 900 0.1 [25,30] 21 13 1 4 7 80 33,581
52 900 0.2 [0,5] 43 30 3 3 0 39 8016
53 900 0.2 [10,15] 27 63 3 1 3 83 28,353
54 900 0.2 [25,30] 26 50 3 2 5 83 52,089
55 1000 0.1 [0,5] 30 54 3 1 2 87 5977
56 1000 0.1 [10,15] 23 52 3 4 5 69 20,678
57 1000 0.1 [25,30] 23 33 3 3 5 58 43,650
58 1000 0.2 [0,5] 27 46 3 3 3 72 7700
59 1000 0.2 [10,15] 27 75 4 4 5 94 29,411
60 1000 0.2 [25,30] 35 38 3 2 5 86 74,816

the standard deviation, the interval or the probability
of spikes on the other side (Table 13).
We note that (5) confirms Ptak’s rule (Ptak and
Smith 2016) stating that the variability factor should be
proportional to the variability of the demand. To some
extent, experiments confirm also the other rule from Ptak
and Smith (2016) stipulating that the lead time factor
should be inversely propositional to the DLT. Indeed, we
observed from experiments that increasing the standard

deviation, the probability or the intensity of spikes leads
to increasing the size of demand (ADU). Increasing the
size of demand leads in turn to a relative reduction of the
DLT and therefore to an increase of the lead time factor.
For example, the mean lead time factor for instances with
a standard deviation of 100 is 23.5 while it is of 49.6 for
instances with a standard deviation of 1000.
Even if Ptak’s rules are confirmed by our exper-
iments, these rules do not give exact values of the
optimal parameters which justifies the relevance of
using an optimisation algorithm for the parametrisation
of DDMRP.
7. Conclusion and perspectives
A new simulation-optimisation method is presented
in this paper to optimise the parameters of DDMRP.
Eight relevant parameters are identified. NSGA-II (Non-
dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm) is coupled with
the DDMRP simulation algorithm. Two objective func-
tions are optimised simultaneously: the On-Time Deliv-
ery (OTD) and the average on-hand inventory.
The suggested approach is tested on randomly-
generated instances. It is able to find non-dominated
solutions for all these instances within a few minutes.
From a managerial point of view, the developed tool
can be used by the decision-maker on the history of
the previous year to fix the parameters for the following
year. Alternatively, the tool can be used on the predicted
demand data of the following month to fix the parameters
during this same month.
The considered problem is new and offers many
research perspectives:
• In the present study, the impact of uncertainty in
demand is neglected. It could be interesting to con-
sider a noisy demand that is given alongside with a
probability distribution. Stochastic optimisation can
be investigated for this perspective. One can also
adapt previous works for MRP in the presence noisy
demand: Thevenin, Adulyasak, and Cordeau (2021),
Kovačić, Usenik, and Bogataj (2017) and Hnaien,
Delorme, and Dolgui (2010).
• A mathematical model approach could also be inves-
tigated for the problem which involves a linearisation
effort. Only one objective function should be cho-
sen for the mathematical model, which could be the
average on-hand inventory while the On-Time Deliv-
ery could be forced to 100% with a constraint. The
mathematical model could help to evaluate the opti-
mality gap of the 100% OTD solutions presented in
this paper.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 19
• It could be interesting to compare the suggested
approach with a practitioner parametrisation of
DDMRP. To go further, the practitioner experience
could help the metaheuristic to converge rapidly
towards better solutions. Additionally, the suggested
approach could be compared with the DDMRP pro-
prietary software available in the market.
• The problem could be tackled by means of a learn-
ing approach. Indeed, in case where demand is not
known in advance and cannot be predicted, a learn-
ing algorithm can learn how to parameterise DDMRP
based on demand data that is fed into the algorithm
on a daily basis.
• No capacity constraints are considered in this paper.
It could be an interesting future research direction to
consider that the resource is limited. In this case, pri-
orities between replenishment orders would need to
be managed.
• Other types of costs like ordering or transport costs
may be considered in addition to inventory costs.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support received from the indus-
trial chair FM logistic.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are avail-
able from the corresponding author, Y.L., upon reason-
able request.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
David Damand is currently associate pro-
fessor at EM Strasbourg Buisness School
in Strasbourg (France). He is member
of Humanis laboratory. David Damand
heads the FM Logistic research chair and
the supply chain management master’s
degree at EM Strasbourg. His research
focuses on inventory management and
facility layout.
Youssef Lahrichi is currently post-doctoral
researcher at EM Strasbourg Buisness
School in Strasbourg (France). He holds
a Ph.D. degree from Université Clermont
Auvergne (France). His research focuses
on applications of operational research
models for problems of logistics, transport
or production.
20 D. DAMAND ET AL.
Marc Barth is currently is associate pro-
fessor in Industrial Engineering at INSA
of Strasbourg, France. He is member of
HUMANIS Laboratory of EM Strasbourg.
His research addresses the applications of
production planning and control, theory
of inventive problem solving and applica-
tion of ABC and TDABC in the area of
design of production systems and warehouse.
References
Abdelhalim, Achergui, Allaoui Hamid, and Hsu Tiente. 2021.
“Demand Driven Material Requirements Planning Buffer
Positioning Considering Carbon Emissions.” In IFIP Inter-
national Conference on Advances in Production Management
Systems, 460–468. Springer.
Amorim, Pedro, Carlos H. Antunes, and Bernardo Almada-
Lobo. 2011. “Multi-objective Lot-sizing and Scheduling
Dealing with Perishability Issues.” Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 50 (6): 3371–3381.
Azzamouri, Ahlam, Pierre Baptiste, Guillaume Dessevre, and
Robert Pellerin. 2021. “Demand Driven Material Require-
ments Planning (DDMRP): A Systematic Review and Classi-
fication.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
14 (3): 439–456.
Bahu, Baptiste, Laurent Bironneau, and Vincent Hovelaque.
2019. “Compréhension Du DDMRP Et De Son Adoption:
Premiers éléments Empiriques.” Logistique & Management
27 (1): 20–32.
Bayard, Stéphanie, and Frédéric Grimaud. 2018. “Enjeux
Financiers de DDMRP: Une Approche Simulatoire.” In 12e
Conférence Internationale de Modélisation, Optimisation et
SIMulation-MOSIM’18.
Bennett, Nathan, and G. James Lemoine. 2014. “What a Differ-
ence a Word Makes: Understanding Threats to Performance
in a VUCA World.” Business Horizons 57 (3): 311–317.
Damand, David, Ridha Derrouiche, Marc Barth, and Samia
Gamoura. 2019. “Supply Chain Planning: Potential Gener-
alization of Parameterization Rules Based on a Literature
Review.” Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 20
(3): 228–245.
Deb, Kalyanmoy, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. A.
M. T. Meyarivan. 2002. “A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective
Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II.” IEEE Transactions on Evolu-
tionary Computation 6 (2): 182–197.
Dessevre, Guillaume, Pierre Baptiste, Jacques Lamothe, and
Robert Pellerin. 2021. “Visual Charts Produced by Simu-
lation to Correlate Service Rate, Resource Utilization and
DDMRP Parameters.” International Journal of Production
Research 1–13.
Dessevre, Guillaume, Guillaume Martin, Pierre Baptiste,
Jacques Lamothe, Robert Pellerin, and Matthieu Lauras.
2019. “Decoupled Lead Time in Finite Capacity Flowshop: A
Feedback Loop Approach.” In 2019 International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM),
1–6. IEEE.
Dolgui, Alexandre, and Caroline Prodhon. 2007. “Supply Plan-
ning Under Uncertainties in MRP Environments: A State of
the Art.” Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2): 269–279.
El Marzougui, M., N. Messaoudi, W. Dachry, H. Sarir, and B.
Bensassi. November 12–14, 2020. “Demand Driven MRP:
Literature Review and Research Issues.” In 13ème Conférence
Internationale de Modélisation, Optimisation et Simulation
(MOSIM2020), Agadir, Maroc.
Favaretto, Daniela, and Alessandro Marin. 2018. An Empiri-
cal Comparison Study Between DDMRP and MRP in Mate-
rial Management. Department of Management, Università
Ca’Foscari Venezia Working Paper, (15).
Goldratt, Eliyahu M. 2017. Critical Chain: A Business Novel.
London: Routledge.
Hnaien, Faicel, Xavier Delorme, and Alexandre Dolgui.
2010. “Multi-objective Optimization for Inventory Con-
trol in Two-level Assembly Systems Under Uncertainty of
Lead Times.” Computers & Operations Research 37 (11):
1835–1843.
Huq, Ziaul, and Faizul Huq. 1994. “Embedding JIT in MRP:
The Case of Job Shops.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems
13 (3): 153–164.
Ihme, Mathias. 2015. “Interpreting and Applying Demand
Driven MRP: A Case Study.” PhD diss., Nottingham Trent
University.
Jiang, Jingjing, and Suk-Chul Rim. 2016. “Strategic Inven-
tory Positioning in BOM with Multiple Parents Using
ASR Lead Time.” Mathematical Problems in Engineering
2016.
Jiang, Jingjing, and Suk-Chul Rim. 2017. “Strategic Wip
Inventory Positioning for Make-to-order Production with
Stochastic Processing Times.” Mathematical Problems in
Engineering 2017.
Katoch, Sourabh, Sumit Singh Chauhan, and Vijay Kumar.
2021. “A Review on Genetic Algorithm: Past, Present,
and Future.” Multimedia Tools and Applications 80 (5):
8091–8126.
Kortabarria, Alaitz, Unai Apaolaza, Aitor Lizarralde, and
Itxaso Amorrortu. 2018. “Material Management Without
Forecasting: From MRP to Demand Driven MRP.” Jour-
nal of Industrial Engineering and Management 11 (4):
632–650.
Kovačić, Danijel, Janez Usenik, and Marija Bogataj. 2017.
“Optimal Decisions on Investments in Urban Energy Cogen-
eration Plants–Extended MRP and Fuzzy Approach to the
Stochastic Systems.” International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics 183: 583–595.
Lee, Carmen Kar Hang. 2018. “A Review of Applications of
Genetic Algorithms in Operations Management.” Engineer-
ing Applications of Artificial Intelligence 76: 1–12.
Lee, Chan-Ju, and Suk-Chul Rim. 2019. “A Mathematical Safety
Stock Model for DDMRP Inventory Replenishment.” Math-
ematical Problems in Engineering 2019.
Martin, Guillaume. 2020. “Contrôle Dynamique du Demand
Driven Sales and Operations Planning.” PhD diss., Ecole des
Mines d’Albi-Carmaux.
Miclo, Romain. 2016. “Challenging the” Demand Driven MRP”
Promises: A Discrete Event Simulation Approach.” PhD
diss., Ecole des Mines d’Albi-Carmaux.
Miclo, Romain, Matthieu Lauras, Franck Fontanili, Jacques
Lamothe, and Steven A. Melnyk. 2019. “Demand Driven
MRP: Assessment of a New Approach to Materials Manage-
ment.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (1):
166–181.
Ohno, Taiichi, and Norman Bodek. 2019. Toyota Production
System: Beyond Large-scale Production. New York: Produc-
tivity press.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 21

Orlicky, Joseph A. 1974. Material Requirements Planning: The In Design and Modeling of Mechanical Systems-II, 139–149.
New Way of Life in Production and Inventory Management. Springer.
New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Pekarčíková, Miriam, Peter Trebuňa, Marek Kliment, and Jozef
Trojan. 2019. “Demand Driven Material Requirements Plan- Appendix. (Non-linear) mathematical model for
ning. Some Methodical and Practical Comments.” Manage- the paremeterisation of DDMRP
ment and Production Engineering Review 10: 50–59.
Ptak, Carol, and Chad Smith. 2011. Orlicky’s Material Require-
Data
ments Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. • The planning horizon: H = {0, . . . , hmax }
Ptak, Carol, and Chad Smith. 2016. Demand Driven Mate- • The demand quantities over the days of the planning hori-
rial Requirements Planning (DDMRP): Version 2. New York: zon: {dk ; k ∈ H}
McGraw-Hill Education. • The decoupled lead time: DLT
Rezaei, Jafar, Mansoor Davoodi, Lori Tavasszy, and Mohsen • The initial on-hand inventory: s0
Davarynejad. 2016. “A Multi-objective Model for Lot-sizing • A very large number: M
with Supplier Selection for An Assembly System.” Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 19 (2):
125–142. Continuous variables
Rim, Suk-Chul, Jingjing Jiang, and Chan Ju Lee. 2014. “Strategic • The lead time factor: 0 ≤ FLT ≤ 1
Inventory Positioning for MTO Manufacturing Using ASR • The variability factor: 0 ≤ FV ≤ 1
Lead Time.” In Logistics Operations, Supply Chain Manage- • The order spike threshold: 0 ≤ Tpeak ≤ 1
ment and Sustainability, 441–456. Springer. • The top of red: 0 ≤ TOR
Shofa, Mohamad J., Armand Omar Moeis, and N. Restiana. • The top of yellow: 0 ≤ TOY
2018. “Effective Production Planning for Purchased Part • The top of green: 0 ≤ TOG
Under Long Lead Time and Uncertain Demand: MRP Vs • The on-hand inventory: qon -hand , t ∈ H
t
Demand-Driven MRP.” In IOP Conference Series: Materials -order , t ∈ H
• The on-order inventory: qon t
Science and Engineering, Vol. 337. IOP Publishing.
Shofa, Mohamad Jihan, and Wahyu Oktri Widyarto. 2017. • The net flow: qt , t ∈ H
flow

“Effective Production Control in an Automotive Industry: • The qualified demand: d̃t , t ∈ H

MRP vs. Demand-Driven MRP.” In AIP Conference Proceed- • The peak horizon: Hpeak
ings, Vol. 1855. AIP Publishing LLC. • The order amount: ot , t ∈ H
Silver, Edward A., and C. Harlan. 1973. “Meal. A Heuristic for • The incoming supply at day t: õt , t ∈ H
Selecting Lot Size Quantities for the Case of a Deterministic • The average on-hand inventory: Qon-hand
+ −
Time-varying Demand Rate and Discrete Opportunities for • The ADU future and past horizons: HADU , HADU
Replenishment.” Production and Inventory Management 14 • The desired minimum order quantity: MOQ
(2): 64–74. • The order cycle: Horder
Talbi, El-Ghazali. 2015. “Hybrid Metaheuristics for Multi- • The average on-hand inventory: Qon-hand
objective Optimization.” Journal of Algorithms & Computa-
tional Technology 9 (1): 41–63.
Binary variables
Talbi, El-Ghazali, Matthieu Basseur, Antonio J Nebro, and
Enrique Alba. 2012. “Multi-objective Optimization Using 
1 If demand of day k exceeds the order spike threshold
Metaheuristics: Non-standard Algorithms.” International zk =
0 Otherwise.
Transactions in Operational Research 19 (1-2): 283–305. 
Thevenin, Simon, Yossiri Adulyasak, and Jean-François 1 If a replenishment order should be launched on day t.
rt =
Cordeau. 2021. “Material Requirements Planning Under 0 Otherwise.
Demand Uncertainty Using Stochastic Optimization.” Pro-
duction and Operations Management30 (2): 475–493.
Thürer, Matthias, Nuno O. Fernandes, and Mark Stevenson.
2022. “Production Planning and Control in Multi-stage Objective
Assembly Systems: An Assessment of Kanban, MRP, OPT
(DBR) and DDMRP by Simulation.” International Journal of Min {Qon-hand }
Production Research 60 (3): 1036–1050.
Velasco Acosta, Angela Patricia, Christian Mascle, and Pierre Constraints
Baptiste. 2020. “Applicability of Demand-Driven MRP in a
Complex Manufacturing Environment.” International Jour- -hand = s
qon
0 0 (A1)
nal of Production Research 58 (14): 4233–4245.
Wu, Horng-Huei, Amy H. I. Lee, and Tai-Ping Tsai. 2014. “A qon -hand = qon -hand + õt−1 − dt−1 ∀t ∈ H − {0} (A2)
t t−1
Two-level Replenishment Frequency Model for TOC Supply
qon -order = 0 (A3)
Chain Replenishment Systems Under Capacity Constraint.” 0
Computers & Industrial Engineering 72: 152–159. -order = qon-order + o − õ
qon
t t−1 t−1 t−1 ∀t ∈ H − {0} (A4)
Yahia, Wafa Ben, Houssem Felfel, Omar Ayadi, and Faouzi 
Masmoudi. 2015. “Comparative Study for a Multi-objective k∈H 1[t−HADU
− +
,t+HADU ] (k).dk
MLCSP Problem Solved Using NSGA-II & E-Constraint.” ADUt = + − ∀t ∈ H (A5)
HADU + HADU + 1
22 D. DAMAND ET AL.

TORt = ADUt × DLT × FLT + ADUt qflow = qon -hand + qon-order − d̃ ∀t ∈ H (A15)
t t t t
× DLT × FLT × FV ∀t ∈ H (A6) TOYt − qflow ≤ M.rt ∀t ∈ H (A16)
t
TOYt = TORt + ADUt × DLT ∀t ∈ H (A7)
M.(rt − 1) ≤ TOYt − qflow
t ∀t ∈ H (A17)
TOGt = TOYt + Max{ADUt × DLT
0 ≤ ot ≤ TOGt − qflow
t + M.(1 − rt ) ∀t ∈ H (A18)
× FLT , MOQ, Horder } ∀t ∈ H (A8)
M.(rt − 1) + TOGt − qflow ≤ ot ≤ M.rt ∀t ∈ H (A19)
0 ≤ FLT ≤ 1 (A9) t
ot−DLT = õt ∀t ∈ H; t ≥ DLT (A20)
0 ≤ FV ≤ 1 (A10)
 õ0 = · · · = õDLT−1 = 0 (A21)
d̃t = dt + 1[t+1,t+Hpeak ] (k).zk .dk ∀t ∈ H (A11)
-hand
k∈H dt ≤ qon
t + õt ∀t ∈ H (A22)
hmax on-hand
dk − TORt × Tpeak ≤ zk .M ∀t, k ∈ H (A12) q
Qon-hand = t=0 t (A23)
(zk − 1).M ≤ dk − TORt × Tpeak ∀t, k ∈ H (A13) hmax

0 ≤ Tpeak ≤ 1 (A14) Note: 1A (x) is the indicator function, it equals one if x ∈ A

and 0 otherwise.