SUPPLY CHAIN DESIGN &

ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 2 Center of gravity (COG)

problem
INTUITION BUILDING WITH
CENTER OF GRAVITY MODELS
(READ EBOOK 1, CHAPTER 2)

COG PROBLEM
 The simplest facility-location problem is the center of gravity
(COG) problem  a good place to start building intuition for
more complicated models.
 For logistics, a center of gravity problem is usually defined as
selecting the location of a facility so that the weighted-average
distance to all the demand points is minimized.
COG PROBLEMS
In the world of logistics, center of gravity problems are valued
precisely because of their simplicity:
o A center of gravity solution suggests that facilities are located at
the center (the “center of gravity”) of a collection of demand
points (or in some instances, for firms with many suppliers, at
the center of the supply points).
o The larger demand points have more pull. If many small demand
points are in a region, they will pull the facility closer to the
region.

1/10/2024 3
COG PROBLEMS
PROBLEM 1:
PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
Center of gravity models are, by definition, clear - cut and not
ambiguous: CENTERING

o Problem formulations do not require a skilled professional to

determine the cleanest approximation or modeling formula, but
rather, merely require a correct and accurate specification.
o The same input data will inevitably yield the same result (or, in
some cases, the same set of distinct, but functionally equivalent
results).

 COG studies are useful both for building the intuition of the
professional analyst and for validating the accuracy of his or her more
comprehensive results.

PROBLEM 1: PROBLEM 1:
PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CENTERING LOGISTICA COUNTRY
Consider a hypothetical country – Logistica based on the
principles of rational organization. The citizens of Logistica must
choose a location for their capital:
o Although all the citizens wish to live as near the seat of
government as possible, it is impossible for all but a few of the
citizens to relocate to their new capital.
o The map shown in the Figure shows the cities of Logistica, with
the table showing the population.
 PROBLEM 1: PROBLEM 1:
PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CENTERING PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CENTERING
The map in Figure shows a square representing the approximate
The planners of Logistica first decide to place the capital in the
location of the geographic center. The planners calculate that this
most central location possible: point is, on average, 471 miles from each citizen.
o Initially, choose their capital location by considering the
boundaries of Logistica, and then selecting the location that
centers the country geographically.
o However, the population of Logistica is not uniformly distributed
across its interior. In general, there are more people in the East
than the West, with a relatively empty middle.
o Thus, a geographically centered capital would incur pointlessly
large travel times for everyone.

PROBLEM 1: PROBLEM 1:
PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CENTERING PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CENTERING

APPLY THE CENTER OF GRAVITY (COG): The coordinates of

We can estimate the distance in miles between any two latitude and Logistica’s capital are identified as follows:
longitude points that are approximately halfway between the
equator and the North or South Pole with the following equation.

-
 Dist(miles)ab is the distance from point a to point b.
 Longa, Lata, Longb, and Latb are the longitudes and latitudes expressed as
decimal numbers of point a and point b, respectively.
 If you want this measure to be in kilometers instead of miles, you simply
change the 69 to 111.
 Lon represents a city’s longitude, Lat represents its latitude, and P represents
a city’s population.
 Using the population as the weighting factor (In other problems, many
different weighting factors can be used, such as customer demand).
 The longitude and latitude of all the existing cities (represented by the set C).
 PROBLEM 1: PROBLEM 1:
PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CENTERING PHYSICS WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CENTERING
APPLY THE CENTER OF GRAVITY (COG): The coordinates of
THE CENTER OF GRAVITY (COG) should not be used for this case
Logistica’s capital are identified as in the figure:
because:

 It does not minimize what you want to minimize: weighted average distance.
 It might point to the middle of a large lake, an ocean, the top of a tall mountain,
a wildlife preserve, or the middle of a barren desert.
 It will almost never land in a location that exploits existing infrastructure, such
as a city, a population center with a workforce, railways, highways, or ports.
 The method cannot take advantage of true road distances or travel
restrictions—it has to rely on straight-line estimates based on latitude and
longitude.

 With COG approach, the weighted-average distance a citizen must travel is down  It cannot be extended to include factors like costs, capacities, different types of
to 388 miles. facilities, different products, multiple levels of facilities (hub and spoke,
 The location happens to fall in shark-infested waters offshore from a mountainous suppliers, warehouses, retailers, etc.), or other practical considerations.
and deserted region  citizens of Logistica are not pleased with the result.

The center of gravity (COG) calculation would not prove practical in this case.

PROBLEM 2:
PROBLEM 2: PRACTICAL CENTER OF GRAVITY
PRACTICAL CENTER OF GRAVITY Some planners start to ask the question of what happens when they
simply pick the three Eastern cities of 5, 16, and 11?

The planners of Logistica, having learned that applying the COG is

flawed for network design problems, now try to find an approach to
minimize the average distance traveled.

 Some planners start to ask the question of what happens when they simply pick
the three Eastern cities of 5, 16, and 11?
 PROBLEM 2:
PRACTICAL CENTER OF GRAVITY
Some planners start to ask the question of what happens when they
simply pick the three Eastern cities of 5, 16, and 11?
The weighted-average distance (miles) and the percentage of the population
within 100, 200, and 300 miles of the city selected are as follows:
 The COG solution does not do very well on the key statistics for judging
potential locations. It had a higher average distance and had very few citizens
with 100, 200, or 300 miles radius  not minimize the average distance or
percentage of customers close to the capital.
 There may be trade-offs they have to make  it may be important that a large
portion of the population can easily get to the capital city, even if the average
distance is a bit longer  City 11 should be chosen.
END OF
CHAPTER 2
LESSONS LEARNED FROM COG
PROBLEMS
 Locating a single point relative to demand is best done by minimizing the
average weighted distance. You can accomplish this by picking your solution
from a candidate list of locations.
 When you have a solution, it will tend to pull the single point close to as much
demand as possible.
 Although the COG solution appeals to our intuition and is mathematically easy,
it is flawed for network design studies  that lead to undesirable locations as it
minimizes the population multiplied by miles squared.
 COG cannot be extended to take advantage of existing infrastructure, road
distance, or other facility costs.
 More realistic and practical formulation of the problem is best solved with linear
and integer programming techniques  we will explore this further in the next
chapter  to minimize the weighted-average distance (or other factors), pick
locations we can actually use, and very easily expand to include other factors as
well.