3 views

Uploaded by Anup Mohapatra

- Kemeny's Constant
- Ch. 10,11,12,13 test
- Solution Manual for Operations Management 9th Edition by Krajewski
- Henderson Retail Credit Models
- Impact of Standard of Living in Kudankulam
- fnl pjt
- InventoryStore_ExerciseSet_7
- Financial-Accounting-1-summary-VALIX.doc
- Multiechelon Inventory Optimization White Paper en Us
- Ch13
- Fill Rate
- ex5s
- Chapter 2
- Inventory Management
- d 0431013019
- Director of Allocation, Director of Inventory Management
- Matching Game - Plan Risk Responses
- The Navigation Mobile Robot Systems Using Bayesian Approach through the Virtual Projection Method
- SERC5chap4
- Best Practices for Distribution Companys

You are on page 1of 144

independently.

i.e., not in a multi-stage inventory system.

3.1 Costs

Holding costs

- Opportunity cost for capital tied up in

inventory

- Material handling costs

- Costs for storage

- Costs for damage and obsolescence

- Insurance costs

- Taxes

Ordering or Setup Costs

handling of orders

Shortage Costs or Service Constraints

- price discounts for late deliveries

- material handling and transportation.

is also lost. In any case it usually means a

loss of goodwill.

- component missing

- rescheduling, etc.

estimate, it is very common to replace them

by a suitable service constraint.

3.2 Different Ordering Systems

3.2.1 Inventory position

outstanding orders - backorders.

3.2.2 Continuous or Periodic Review

sufficiently low, an order is triggered. We

denote this continuous review.

L = lead-time.

between reviews.

3.2.3 Different Prdering Policies

(R, Q) policy

Inventory position

R+Q

R

Inventory level

L L

Continuous demand.

(R, Q) Policy

below the reorder point R, a batch quantity of

size Q is ordered. (If the inventory position is

sufficiently low it may be necessary to order

more than one batch to get above R) .

(s, S) Policy

Inventory position

Inventory level

L L Time

Figure 3.2 (s, S) policy, periodic review.

When the inventory position declines to or below s,

we order up to the maximum level S.

3.3.1 Classical Economic Order

Quantity Model

Harris (1913), Wilson (1934), Erlenkotter

(1989)

- Demand is constant and continuous.

- Ordering and holding costs are constant over

time.

- The batch quantity does not need to be an

integer.

- The whole batch quantity is delivered at the

same time.

- No shortages are allowed.

Notation:

H = holding cost per unit and time unit

Q = batch quantity

Stock level

Q/d Time

Figure 3.3 Development of inventory level over

time.

Q d

C h A (3.1)

2 Q

dC h d

2 A0 (3.2)

dQ 2 Q

2 Ad

Q

*

(3.3)

h

C

*

2 Adh

2 2

How important is it to use the optimal order

quantity? From (3.1), (3.3), and (3.4)

C Q h 1 2 Ad 1 Q Q*

*

* (3.5)

C 2 2 Ad 2Q h 2 Q Q

If Q/Q*= 3/2 (or 2/3), then C/C* = 1.08

from (3.5)

The cost increase is only 8 percent.

Costs are even less sensitive to errors in

the cost parameters. For example, if

ordering cost A is 50 percent higher than

correct ordering cost, from (3.3), batch

quantity is Q/Q*= (3/2)1/2 =1.225 , relative

cost increase 2 percent.

Example 3.1 A = $200, d = 300,

unit cost $100, holding cost is 20

percent of the value. Then,

(2 200 300/20)1/2 = 77.5 units.

3.3.2 Finite Production Rate

If there is a finite production rate, the

whole batch is not delivered at the same time

Stock level

Q(1-d/p)

Q/p

Time

Q/d

time with finite production rate.

P = production rate (p > d).

Q(1 - d/p)/2

Q(1 d / p) d. (3.6)

C h A

2 Q

2 Ad

Q

*

. (3.7)

h(1 d / p )

3.3.4 Quantity Discounts

v = price per unit for Q < Q0, i.e., the

normal price,

Holding cost

h= h0 + rv for Q Q0,

3.3.3 More General Models

Example 3.2

d: constant customer demand

Two machine production rates: p1 > p2 > d,

Two machine set up costs: A1 and A2

The fixed cost of the transportation of a batch of

goods from machine 2 to the warehouse: A3

The holding cost before machine 1 is h1 per unit

and time unit. The holding cost is h2 and after

machine 2 it is h3.

Optimal Batch size?

1 M1 2 M2 3 4

Time

Q/p1 Q/d

Stock level between machines 1 and 2 (2)

Time

Q/p1

Q/p2

Time

Q/p2

Time

Transportation Q/d

Holding Cost Calculation:

Q(Q / p1 ) d

h h

2Q / d p1

p2 Q

Q(1 )

p1 p2 Qd p1 p2 Qd 1 1

h ( ) ( )

2Q / d 2 p1 p2 2 p2 p1

Q d d d d d

C h 1 ( )h 2 ( 1)h 3 (A1 A 2 A 3 )

2 p1 p 2 p1 p2 Q (3.8)

2(A1 A 2 A 3 )d

Q *

d d d d

h1 ( )h 2 ( 1)h 3

p1 p 2 p1 p2

(3.9)

Q d

C dv (h0 rv ) A for Q Q0 (3.10)

2 Q

Q d (3.11)

C dv (h0 rv) A for Q Q0

2 Q

QQ Q0 Q

Two steps

1. First we consider (3.11) without the constraint

Q Q0. We obtain

2 Ad

Q (3.12)

h0 rv

and

solution, i.e., Q* = Q, and C* = C.

Example 3.3 v = $100, v = $95 for

Q Q0 = 100. h0 = $5 per unit and year,

and r = 0.2, i.e., h = $25 and h= $24

per unit and year.

d = 300 per year, A = $200.

From (3.14) and (3.15), Q = 69.28 and

C = 31732. Applying (3.16), C(100) = 30300.

Q* = Q0 = 100.

2. If Q < Q0 we need to determine

2 Ad

Q . (3.14)

h0 rv

C 2 Ad (h0 rv ) dv . (3.15)

Since v > v we know that Q < Q< Q0

Q0 d

C (Q0 ) dv ( h0 rv ) A

. (3.16)

2 Q0

The optimal solution is the minimum of (3.15)

and (3.16).

Incremental Discounts

v3=0.7

A3

v2=0.8

A2

v1=1

A1

Q1=1000 Q2=2500

d =36500 , r =0.3

A1=A=15

A2=A1 +(c1-c2)Q1=15+(1-0.8)*1000=215

A3=A2 +(c2-c3)Q2=215+(0.8-0.7)*2500=465

2dAi

EOQi=

vi r

Procedure

Candidate oi from each segment

EOQi if feasible

Oi = Qi if EOQi > Qi

Qi-1 if EOQi < Qi-1

Q* =best of all Oi

Example

EOQ1=1910 > Q1 O1=Q1=1000

0.3 * 0.8

2 * 36500 * 465

EOQ3= =12714 feasible

0.3 * 0.7

TC(Qi) =vid+Qivir /2+dAi / Qi

TC(1000)=36500*1+1000*0.5*0.3*1+36500*15/1000

=36500+150+547.5=37197.5

TC(2500)=(1000*1+1500*0.8)*36500/2500

+2500*0.5*0.3*(1000*1+1500*0.8)/2500

+36500*15/2500=32120+330+219=32669

TC(12714)=[1000*1+1500*0.8

+(12714-2500)*0.7+15]*36500/12714

=26884.9+1404.7=28289.6

Q*=12714

3.3.5 Backorders Allowed

b1= shortage penalty cost per unit and time unit.

x = fraction of demand that is backordered.

Inventory level

Q(1-x)

Time

-Qx

Q/d

with backorders.

Q(1 x ) 2 Qx 2 d

C h b1 A . (3.17)

2 2 Q

h

x

*

, (3.18)

h b1

and inserting in (3.17) we get

Q hb1 d . (3.19)

C( x )

*

A

2 h b1 Q

2 Ad (h b1 )

Q

*

hb1 , (3.20)

2Ad hb1

C

*

.(3.21)

( h b1 )

Example 3.4

production rate = 3000 units per year,

holding cost before the machine = $10 per unit

and year,

holding cost after the machine =$15 per unit and

year,

shortage cost = $75 per unit and year,

ordering cost = $1000 per batch.

Stock level before the machine

Time

Q/3000 Q/1000

Time

Q/3000 Q/1000

Q(1-x)

Time

-Qx

Q/1000

Q Q Q 2 1000

C (10 15) (1 x) 15 x 75

2

1000

6 2 2 Q

The optimal solution is x* = 15/90 = 1/6, and Q* = 310.

3.3.6 Time-varying Demand

T = number of periods

that d1 > 0, since otherwise we can just

disregard period 1)

A = ordering cost,

A replenishment must always cover the

demand in an integer number of consecutive

periods.

never exceed the ordering cost.

3.3.7 The Wagner-Whitin Algorithm

fk=minimum costs over periods 1, 2, ..., k, i.e.,

when we disregard periods k + 1, k + 2, ..., T,

the last delivery is in period t (1 t k).

f k min f k ,t , (3.22)

1 t k

f k ,t f t 1 A h( d t 1 2d t 2 ... ( k t )d k ) . (3.23)

Example 3.6

T =10, A = $300, h = $1 per unit and period.

Table 3.1 Solution, fk,t , of Example 3.6.

Period t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

dt 50 60 90 70 30 100 60 40 80 20

k=t 300 600 660 840 1030 1090 1370 1450 1530 1770

k=t+1 360 690 730 870 1130 1150 1410 1530 1550

k=t+5 1530

Table 3.2 Optimal batch sizes in

Example 3.6.

Period t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rolling horizon

Whether it is possible to replace an infinite

horizon by a sufficiently long finite horizon such

that we still get the optimal solution in the first

period.

DYNAMIC DETERMINISTIC MODELS

- ADDITIONAL MOTIVES FOR HOLDING INVENTORY

SMOOTHING,SPECULATIVE

- DISCRETE TIME MODELS FOR COMPUTATIONAL

REASONS

- FINITE HORIZON - INITIAL DECISION SHOULD NOT

BE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE HORIZON LENGTH T IF

T 'LARGE'.

- ROLLING PROCEDURE - USE THESE INITIAL

DECISIONS, REPEAT THE PROCESS USING

UPDATED FORECASTS IF AVAILABLE.

FORWARD ALGORITHM

AN EFFICIENT PROCEDURE FOR SOLVING

LONGER AND LONGER PROBLEMS.

DECISION HORIZON IS A STOPPING RULE.

(WILL ELABORATE ON IT LATER.)

Q

t1 t2 t3 t

HOLDING COSTS ARE FLOWS h(t)

SETUP COSTS ARE LUMP SUM AMOUNTS A(ti)

LET S BE A POLICY AS SHOWN IN FIG. 2

V ( S ) h(t )e dt A(ti )e rti

rt

0

i 1

GENERAL PROBLEM MIN V(S) (VERY COMPLICATED)

S

ALSO V(S) = FOR ALL S, THEN WHAT?

1ST SIMPLIFICATION

- DISCRETE TIME

- PRODUCTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD.

- HOLDING COST BASED ON AVERAGE INVENTORY IN EACH

PERIOD

- FINITE TIME

T

V (S ) A(ti )e r ( i 1)

i 1

FUDGE THE DISCOUNT RATE INTO

INTEREST EXPENSE

T

V ( S ) A(i )

i 1

AVERAGE COST

1 T

V ( S ) A(i )

T i 1

2ND SIMPLIFICATION

BRUTE FORCE METHOD OF EXAMINING EVERY S.

SHOW IN THE DYNAMIC LOT SIZE MODEL THAT IT IS

OPTIMAL TO PRODUCE ONLY WHEN INVENTORY IS

ZERO. (WAGNER-WHITIN ALGORITHM)

WHY FINITE T ?

1) IT IS CONVENIENT

MAKES COMPUTATIONS FEASIBLE

DOES NOT REQUIRE ALL FUTURE FORECAST

REAL WORLD PROBLEMS ARE FINITE BUT T IS

USUALLY UNKNOWN: ALSO THE SALVAGE

VALUE IS UNKNOWN.

2) IT IS REASONABLE

ROLLING HORIZON PROCEDURE

SOLVE WITH T=40 AT t=0.

USE Q1, Q2 , Q3 , Q4 DECISIONS.

AT t=4, SOLVE A 40-PD PROBLEM FOR [5, 44].

USE Q5 THRU Q8 AS 'OPTIMAL' DECISIONS:

COMPUTATIONAL TIME CONSIDERATIONS.

. - AT THE VERY LEAST, WE MUST BELIEVE THAT

THE LARGER. THE VALUE OF T, THE LESS WILL

BE THE INFLUENCE OF FINAL PERIODS ON

THE INITIAL DECISIONS.

- SMALL VALUES OF T ARE COMPUTATIONALLY

CONVENIENT; LARGE T ARE SAFE IN GETTING

GOOD ANSWERS.

- A COMPROMISE: FORWARD ALGORITHM

SOLVE PROBLEMS FOR T =1,2,.. .,40.

IF SOLVING THESE FORTY PROBLEMS REQUIRE

LITTLE OR NO MORE WORK THAN SOLVING

THE 40-PD PROBLEM, THEN SUCH A

PROCEDURE IS CALLED A FORWARD

ALGORITHM.

STOPPING RULE

NOT THE INITIALDECISION IS A 'GOOD ENOUGH

APPROXIMATION EVERY TIME T IS INCREASED BY ONE

PERIOD.

LITTLE OR NONE FOR THE LAST FEW VALUES OF T.

NEVER TO CHANGE IF T WERE FURTHER

INCREMENTED (INDEPENDENTOF DEMAND IN PDS

AFTER T).

STOPPING RULE (CONTINUED)

GUARANTEED TO BE WITHIN 5% OF THE

OPTIMAL COST.

GUARANTEED TO WITHIN 5% OF Q1*.

FORECAST HORIZON, DECISION HORIZON

OUT TO T, WE CAN GUARANTEE THAT DECISIONS FOR

THE FIRST J PERIODS ARE CORRECT FOR ANY (T +K) -

PROBLEM, K 1 (INDEPENDENT OF DEMAND IN T+1,

T+2, ... PDS), THEN THE FIRST T PERIODS IS CALLED A

FORECAST HORIZON WHILE THE FIRST J PERIODS

ARE CALLED A DECISION HORIZON.

DEMAND CAN BE NETTED OUT AS SHOWN. (EXCESS

OVER 'SAFETY STOCKS') THUS I0 = 0

NET DEMAND dl d2 d3 . . .

Qt PRODUCTION AT THE BEGINNING OF t TH

PERIOD.

A + cQt Qt > 0

COST = 0 OTHERWISE

It = AVERAGE INVENTORY

= It + dt = It-1 + Qt - dt

T

COST V [ t A cQt h I t ]

t 1

THEOREM: ANY OPTIMAL SOLUTION MUST SATISFY

I) It Qt+1 = 0 (I.E. Qt+1 > 0 It = 0

It > 0 Qt+ 1 = 0)

II) IT = 0

PROOF.

FIRST PRODUCTION WILL CERTAINLY NOT COME UNTIL

APERIOD (t+1) FOR WHICH dt+l > O. FOR ANY

FOLLOWING PRODUCTION PT. IF (I) DOES NOT HOLD,

THEN DECREASE PRECEDING PRODUCTION BY It AND

INCREASE Qt+l BY It GIVING A BETTER SOLUTION.

EXERCISE: COMPLETE THE PROOF IF THE

PREVIOUS PRODUCTION IS LESS THAN It.

ALSO SHOW IT MUST BE ZERO.

POINT.

IF Qt > 0, THEN PERIOD t IS CALLED A PRODUCTION

POINT.

REGENERATION - PRODUCTION ALTERNATION PROPERTY

AT LEAST ONE R-POINT.

AT MOST ONE P-POINT.

P IS SAID TO BE BEFORE R.)

PROOF:

I) LET t AND t+k BE SUCCESSIVE P-POINTS.

THEN Qt > 0, Qt+k > 0 => It+k-1 = 0 BY THEOREM.

I. E., t+k-1 IS AN R POINT. ALSO NOTE THAT

MORE R-POINTS POSSIBLE IF THERE ARE PERIODS

WITH NO DEMAND.

II) , WHICH

R P P R

CONTRADICTS WITH (I). NOTE: NO P-POINT CAN ONLY

OCCUR IF TWO SUCCESSIVE R-POINTS ARE

SEPARATED BY ZERO DEMAND.

P R R P R R

FOR A COMPLETE SOLUTION, WE NEED TO KNOW

- THAT K IS AN R-POINT

- OPTIMAL SOLUTION FOR PERIOD K+1 TO T.

II) EASY TO OBTAIN AN OPTIMAL SOLUTION

BETWEEN TWO SUCCESSIVE R-POINTS.

R R

III) SIMPLIFY THE COST FUNCTION Qt = dt ,

AND THUS THE PORTION OF COSTS GIVEN BY

1

('SUNK' COST) = t h d t IS CONSTANT.

c Q

2

REDUCED COST C(T) = At + h It

FURTHER, LET t=12 AND t=9 BE THE NEXT TO THE LAST

R~POINT. THEN THE COST C(9,12).

-D10

GENERAL FORNULA

n

C ( j, n) A h (k j 1)d k

k j 1

C(8,13) = C(8,12) + h (4d13)

C(T) = j MIN

0,1...( T 1)

C j (T )

Cj(T) = OPTIMAL T PERIOD COST IF j IS PERCURSOR

R-POINT OF T

= C(j) + C(j,T)

OPT. COST FROM COST FROM j TO T

t =0 TO t =j WHERE j PRECEDES

(IMMEDIATELY) T.

NOTE ALSO

CT-1(T) = C(T-1) + A

Cj(T) = Cj(T-1) + (T-j-1) h dT, 1j<T1

II II II

C(j) + C(j,T) = C(j) + C(j,T-1) + (T-j-1)hdt

ALGORITHM

LET j*(T) BE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING R-POINT

FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION TO THE T-PERIOD

PROBLEM. LET f*(T) BE THE FIRST

1) SET T = 0, C(0) = 0, j*(0) = -1, f*(0) = 0

(UNDEFINED)

2) SAVE C(T), j*(T), f*(T), Cj(T), 0 j T -1

(UNDEFINED FIRST TIME)

3) INCREASE T BY 1

4) CT-1(T) = C(T-1) + A

Cj(T) = Cj (T-1) + (T-j-1)hdT , 0 j < T -1

(DON'T USE FIRST TIME)

5) C (T ) j MIN

0,1...( T 1)

[C j (T )]

AS j*(T)

IF j*(T) > 0, THEN f*(T) = f*(j*(T))

8) GO TO STEP 2.

REMARKS

BOTHER TO WRITE IT DOWN.

OBTAINED BY ADDING A TO THE CIRCLED ITEM IN THE

COLUMN TO THE LEFT.

III) REMAINING ITEM, WORKING UP THE COLUMN, ARE

OBTAINED BY ADDING hdT TO THE ITEM DIRECTLY TO

THE LEFT, NEXT ITEM ADDING 2hdT TO THE ITEM

DIRECTLY TO ITS LEFT, THEN 3hdT , 4hdT AND SO ON.

IV) f* GIVES US OUR FIRST DECISION:

PRODUCE ENOUGH TO RUN OUT BY THE

END OF f*.

NUMBERS IN THE SHADED AREA.

INCREASES AS T INCREASES.

REGENERATION MONOTONICITY: j*(T) WITH T.

REGENERATION MONOTONICITY THEOREM:

FOR THE DYNAMIC LOT SIZE MODEL WITH

LINEAR COSTS

T1 > T2 j*(T1) j*(T2)

PROOF: RECALL THAT IN FORMING THE T + 1 COLUMN

WE ADD LARGER MULTIPLES OF dT+1 TO THE T-COLUMN

VALUES AS j DECREASES, THIS ALWAYS BENEFITS

LARGER j'S TO BE A MINIMUM, THUS

j*(T) = 11 AND j*(T+1) = 9 IS IMPOSSIBLE SINCE

C9(T) > C11(T) C9 (T+1) > C11 (T+1).

NOTE:

C9(T+1) = C9(T) + (T-9)hdT+1

C11(T+1) = C11(T) + (T-11)hdT+1

THUS, WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLETE THE WHOLE

TABLE. WE START AT THE BOTTOM AND STOP

OPPOSITE TO THE CIRCLED ITEM IN THE PREVIOUS

COLUMN. NOTE THAT TOTAL ENTRIES IN THE TABLE

ARE 1/2(T)(T) = 1/2T2. IT NOW REDUCES TO kT WHERE k

IS AVERAGE NUMBER OF ENTRIES IN A COLUMN.

DECISION HORIZON COROLLARY:

BY COROLLARY, AT LEAST ONE OPTIMAL SOLUTION

FOR T 8-PROBLEMS WILL HAVE AN R-POINT IN [5,6].

I. E., EITHER THE 5 OR 6-PERIOD PROBLEMS WILL

ALWAYS BE A PART OF ANY LONGER PROBLEM. SINCE

FOR THESE PROBLEMS, f*(5) = 5, f*(6) = 6. THUS, AFTER

7-PERIODS, IT WILL BE OPTIMAL TO PRODUCE 13 OR 17

IN THE FIRST PERIOD. LOOK AT T=11. j*(11) = 6

[6,7,8,9,10] IS AN R-SET FOR T 12. THUS WE STILL KNOW

f* = 5 OR f* = 6. NOW LOOK AT T = 15, j*(15) = 12.

THUS [12,13,14] IS AN R-SET FOR T 16,

BUT ALL THREE PROBLEMS (I.E. 12, 13, 14 PERIOD)

HAVE f* = 5 PRODUCING EXACTLY 13 IN PERIOD 1. THUS

WE HAVE A FORECAST HORIZON OF 15 AND DECISION

HORIZON OF 5. WE NOW HAVE FOR A T-PERIOD

PROBLEM, {j*(T), j*(T)+1, ..., (T-1)} IS AN R-SET. IF j*(T) 0,

THEN

A) f*(j*(T)) = f*(j*(T)+1) ... = f*(T-1) T IS A FORECAST

HORIZON AND f* IS A DECISION HORIZON.

f* GIVES BOUNDS ON THE INITIAL DECISION FOR ANY

LONGER PROBLEM.

COROLLARY: IF j*(T) IS THE NEXT TO THE LAST

R-POINT IN A T -PROBLEM, THEN { j* (T), j*(T) + 1...,

(T -1) } IS GUARANTEED TO CONTAIN AN R-POINT

OF EVERY (T+K)-PROBLEM FOR K 1 (FOR AT LEAST

ONE OPTIMAL SOLUTION).

CONTAIN AN R-POINT FOR ANY LONGER PROBLEM WILL

BE TERMED AN R-SET.)

PROOF:

IF j*(20) = 15 THEN {15, 16, 17, 18, 19} IS .AN R-SET.

CONSIDER T + K = 28. BY THEOREM, j*(28) [15,27].

IF j*(28) [15,19]. WE ARE DONE. IF NOT, SUPPOSE

j*(28) = 24, THUS OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF 24-PROBLEM

IS A PART OF THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION TO THE

28-PROBLEM. BY THEOREM, j*(24) [15,23]. LET

j*(24) = 21. THEN j*(21) [15,20]. IF j*(21) [15,19].

WE ARE DONE. IF NOT, THEN j*(21) = 20. BUT WE KNOW

THAT j*(20) = 15. THIS COMPLETES THE PROOF.

TV SPEAKER PROBLEM SOLUTION

d1 = 3, d2 = 2, d3 = 3, d4 = 2, A = 2, h =0.2

T = 0, C(0) = 0, j*(0) = -1, f*(0) = 0

T = 1 C(1) = MIN j 0

C j (1) = C0(1) = C(0) + A = 2

j*(1) = 0, f*(1) = 1

T = 2, C(2) = MIN

j 0,1

C j (2) = 2.4, j*(2) = 0, f*(2) = 2

C0(2) = C0(1) + (2-0-1)hd2 = 2 + 1(.2)2 = 2.4*

C1(2) = C(1) + A = 2 + 2 = 4

T = 3, C(3) = MIN

j 0,1, 2

C j (3) = 3.6, j*(3) = 0, f*(3) = 3

C0(3) = C0 (2) + (3-0-1)hd3 = 2.4 + 2(.2)3 = 3.6*

C1(3) = C1(2) + 1(.2)3 = 4 + .6 = 4.6

C2 (3) = C(2) + A = 2.4 + 2 =4.4

T = 4, C(4) = jMIN

0,1, 2,3

C j (4)

C0(4) = C0 (3) + (4-0-1)hd2 = 3.6 + 3(.2)2 = 4.8*

C1(4) = C1 (3) + 2(.2)2 = 4.6 + .8 = 5.4

C2(4) = C2 (3) + 1(.2)2 = 4.4 + .4 = 4.8*

C3(4) = C(3) + A = 3.6 + 2 = 5.6.

IF WE CHOOSE j* = 2, THEN j*(4) = 2,

f*(4) = f*(2) = 2.

3.3.8 The Silver-Meal Heuristic

k k 1

A h ( j 1)d j A h ( j 1)d j

j 2

j 2 ,2 k n, (3.24)

k k 1

n1 n

A h ( j 1)d j A h ( j 1)d j

j 2

j 2 . (3.25)

n 1 n

Example 3.7

A = $300 and h = $1 per unit and period.

Table 3.3 Demands in Example 3.7.

Period t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

dt 50 60 90 70 30 100 60 40 80 20

demand in period 1, the ONLY cost for this

period is A = 300. Then,

2 periods (300 + 60)/2 = 180 < 300,

3 periods (300 + 60 + 2 90)/3 = 180 180,

4 periods (300 + 60 + 2 90 + 3 70)/4 = 187.5 > 180

The same procedure is now applied with

period 4 as the first period.

2 periods (300 + 30)/2 = 165 < 300,

3 periods (300 + 30 + 2 100)/3 = 176.67 > 165

2 periods (300 + 60)/2 = 180 < 300,

3 periods (300 + 60 + 2 40)/3 = 146.67 180,

4 periods (300 + 60 + 2 40 + 3 80)/4 = 170 > 146.67

2 periods (300 + 20)/2 = 160 < 300.

Table 3.4 Solution with the Silver- Meal

Heuristic.

Period t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quantity 200 100 200 100

about 1-2 %

3.3.9 A heuristic that balances

holding and ordering costs

- Classical economic order quantity formula

Optimal solution

- Holding costs = ordering costs

First delivery quantity covers n periods, where n

is determined by

n n 1

h ( j 1)d j A h ( j 1)d j , (3.26)

j 2 j 2

Example 3.8

A = $300 and h = $1 per unit and period.

Demand table

Period t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

dt 50 60 90 70 30 100 60 40 80 20

2 periods 60 300,

period 4 as the first period.

2 periods 30 300,

2 periods 40 300,

Period t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quantity 200 200 200

AVERAGE DEMAND: AVERAGE DEMAND FOR 10

PERIODS IS 60. IF STATIONARY, EOQ MODEL WOULD

IMPLY T* = 2 A / dh 10 . ROUNDING THIS TO 3

YIELD THE PLAN (1-3) (4-6) (7-9)(10).

REMARKS

SUGGESTS THAT CONCLUSIONS OF STATIONARY

DEMAND MODELS MAY BE FAIRLY WELL APPLIED FOR

THE NONSTATIONARY CASE.

ALL THE RESULTS GO THRU PROVIDED

ct + ht > ct+1

(I.E., IGNORING SET UP COSTS, IT IS NEVER CHEAPER

TO PRODUCE AND HOLD.) THIS PRECLUDES THE

SPECULATIVE MOTIVE.

3.4 Safety stocks and reorder

points

3.4.1 Demand processes

Cumulative demand: nondecreasing,

stationary, independent increments

Compound Poisson Process: probability for k

customers in a time interval of length t is

( t ) k t (3.27)

P(k ) e , k 0,1,2......

k!

Both the average and the variance are equal to

t.

The size of a customer demand is

independent of the distribution of the

customer arrivals.

fj=probability of demand size j (j = 1, 2, ... ),

fj =1.

This assumes no demands of size zero

without loss of generality (division by 1-f0).

f jk =probability that k customers give the total

demand j; f kj 0, j k.

D(t)=stochastic demand in the time interval of

length t.

f 1 j f j , and the j-fold convolution

0

0

, f 1

of fj:

j 1

f

j

k

fi

i k 1

k 1

f j i , k =2, 3, 4,....; j k. (3.28)

customer minimum demand is 1. Using (3.27)

(t ) k t k

P( D(t ) j ) e fj

k 0 k! . (3.29)

f i k 1 f j1 Prob of k-1 customers with total

demand i and one with the demand j-i

=average demand per unit of time,

of time

one time unit

customer

considered.

Recall that E(K) = Var(K) =

E (Z ) E {E (Z K )} E {K E ( J )} E ( K ) E ( J ) E ( J ) jf j .(3.30)

j 1

To determine

E ( Z 2 ) E {E ( Z 2 K )} E {Var ( Z K ) ( E ( Z K )) 2 } E {KVar ( J ) K 2 ( E ( J )) 2 }.

(3.31)

Using E ( K 2 ) Var ( K ) ( E ( K )) 2 2 ,

2 E ( Z 2 ) 2 E {K Var ( J ) K 2 ( E ( J )) 2 } 2

Var ( J ) ( 2 )( E ( J )) 2 2 Var ( J ) ( E ( J )) 2

E ( J ) j 2 f j

2

j 1

(3.32)

Poisson demand model in practice.

Items with higher demand, use a

continuous distribution.

If the time period is long enough, use normal

distribution.

Standardized normal distribution has the density

x2

1

( x) e 2

(3.33)

2

and the distribution function,

x u2

1

( x )

2

e 2

du (3.34)

For values of >0 and , the density is

(1 / ) (( x ) / ) ,the distribution function is(( x ) / ) .

Note: ' ( x) x ( x) from (3.33).

Note: Normal distribution can give negative

demand with a small probability.

3.4.2 Continuous review (R, Q)

policy - inventory level distribution

IP=inventory position.

Thus, in steady state, R + 1 IP R + Q

Proposition 3.1

In steady state, the inventory position is uniformly

distributed on the integers R + 1, R + 2, ......,

R + Q.

Markov Chain:

Irreducible: all states communicate;

j transient: finite number of transitions to j;

j recurrent: infinite number of transitions to j;

Null recurrent: expected time to j is ;

Positive recurrent: expected time to j is finite;

Aperiodic: Period= 1;

Ergodic = aperiodic and positive recurrent;

unique steady state distribution with j > 0

Proof

R + j.

Markov chain: irreducible and ergodic. Thus, it

has a unique steady state distribution. Sufficient

to show that the uniform distribution is a steady

state distribution.

Uniform P(R i) 1 ,

Q

Q 1 1 Q

P( R j ) pi , j , j = 1, 2, ..., Q pi , j 1

i 1 Q Q i 1

(3.35)

But Qj1 pi , j 1 for a Markov chain. Given

demand size k, pij(D=k)=0 or 1, and for a

given j it is one for exactly one i.

So, i1 pij ( D k ) 1. Then,

Q

Q Q

pi , j pij ( D k ) P( D k )

i 1 i 1 k

Q

pij ( D k ) P( D k )

k i 1

Q

P( D k ) pij ( D k ) P( D k ) 1

k i 1 k

. (3.36)

With normally distributed demand, the

continuous inventory position is uniformly

distributed on the interval [R, R + Q], if we can

ignore the possibilities of negative demand.

L=lead time (constant)

IL=inventory level

D(t, t + ) = D( ) =stochastic demand in the

interval ( t, t + ].

Consider that the system has reached a steady

state by time t .

IL(t + L) = IP(t) - D(t, t + L). (3.37)

IP(t) uniform distribution on (R+1,R+Q)

IL(t+L) IP(t) R+Q

Since t is arbitrary, so is t+L. So we obtain the

steady state distribution of IL.

IL=j , IP(t)=k

Need to consider k j

IL(t+L) = IP(t)-D(t,t+L) =k-(k-j) =j

Consider compound Poisson demand

1 R Q

P(IL j) P(D(L) k j) j R Q (3.38)

Q k max{R 1, j}

1 r Q

P(IL j R r ) P(D(L) k j)

Q k max{ r 1, j}

1 Q

P(D(L) k ( j r )) P(IL j r R 0).

Q k max{ 1, j r}

(3.39)

In the special case of an S policy,

R = S - 1 and Q = 1 and (3.38) can be

simplified to

P(IL j) P(D(L) S j) jS (3.40)

Normally distributed demand

IP uniformly distributed on [R, R+Q]; density 1/Q

time demand,

f(x) = the density of the inventory level in steady

state,

F(x)= the distribution function of the inventory

level in steady state: IP(t)=u, D(L) u-x

1 R Q u x

F( x ) P(IL x ) 1 du

Q R (3.41)

Loss function G(x):

G( x) (v x) (v)dv

x

G(x) (v)dv ( x) 1

x

, (3.43)

G(x) is convex. See Figure 3.9.

G(x) given in Table in Appendix 2.

G(x)

0

-3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5

Using (3.43) to reformulate (3.41)

1 R Q u x R x R Q x

F(x ) G du G G

Q R Q

(3.44)

From (3.41) the density is

1 R Q 1 u x 1 R Q x R x

f (x) du

Q R Q

(3.45)

Example 3.9

=2, L=5. Continuous review (R,Q) policy

1 14

10k j 10

P( IL j )

5 k max{ 10, j} (k j )!

e

For j =1,

1 14 10k 1 10

P( IL 1) e 0.106

5 k 10 (k 1)!

the normal approximation, = 10 and =101/2

10 x 1 x4

F ( x) G ( ) G( );

5 10 10 see (3.44)

It is reasonable to compare P(IL = j )

by F( j + 0.5) - F( j - 0.5)

3.9.

In case of continuous demand and

continuous review, order is triggered at t

when IP(t)=R. Thus, the average stock on

hand just before the order arrives at t+L is

denoted the safety stock, SS,

SS R R L. . (3.46)

Replace (3.44) by the equivalent expression

SS x SS Q x

F( x ) G G

Q . (3.47)

3.4.3 Service levels

S2=fill rate- fraction of demand that can be

satisfied immediately from stock on hand,

S3=ready rate- fraction of time with positive

stock on hand=P(IL>0) or 1-F(0).

From a practical point of view it is usually

most important that the service level is

clearly defined and interpreted in the same

way throughout the company. A common

solution is to group the items in some way and

specify service levels for each group.

customer expectations

3.4.4 Shortage costs

b2=shortage cost per unit.

Shortage cost of type b1: spare parts

Shortage cost of type b2: overtime production

The optimal reorder point will increase with the

service level or the shortage cost used.

3.4.5 Determining the safety stock

for given S1

R SS

P( D( L) R) S1 (k )

(3.48)

k denotes the safety factor, and

SS k (3.49)

Finally we get the reorder point as R = SS + .

Table 3.6 illustrates how the safety

factor grows with service level S1.

of service level S1.

Service level S1 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.99

for large service levels.

3.4.6 Fill rate and ready rate

constraints

S3 P( IL 0) P( IL j )

j 1 . (3.50)

The fill rate: Average filled/average demand

min( j, k ) f k P(IL j)

k 1 j1

S2

k fk

k 1 , (3.51)

For Poisson Demand f1=1, which implies S2=S3.

For continuous normally distributed demand,

S2 = S3 ,

R R Q

S3 1 F (0) 1 G G

Q

, (3.52)

S2 and S3 increase with R. S2 = S3 =0 for R -Q,

Since R+Q 0.

It is common to approximate (3.52) by

R

S3 1 G

Q , (3.53)

It underestimates S3 . Works well for large values

of Q.

Example 3.10

Consider pure Poisson demand with = 2,

L = 5, continuous review (R, Q) policy with

R = 9 and Q = 5. We want to determine the fill

rate S3 , which in this case are equal because we

have pure Poisson demand. Applying (3.38) and

(3.50) we obtain

14 1 14 10 k j 10

S 2 S3 P(IL 0) e 0.679

j1 5 k max{ 10, j} (k j)!

10 1 4

S 2 S3 1 F(0) 1 G G

0.666

5 10 10

R 1

S1 0.376

10

3.4.7 Fill rate - a different approach

Consider a batch Q that is ordered when the

inventory position is R.

The considered batch will be consumed by the

demand for Q units following after these first R

units. When the batch arrives in stock, a part of

this demand may already occurred, i.e., there are

backorders waiting for the batch.

by the batch.

Note that we are only considering the

backorders that are covered by the batch.

Therefore, we must have 0 B Q. If the

backorders exceed Q when the batch arrives in

stock, the quantity exceeding Q is covered by

future batches.

S 2 S3 1 E(B) / Q . (3.54)

u R means B = 0,

R < u R + Q means B = u - R,

R + Q < u means B = Q.

R Q 1 u 1 u

E(B) (u R ) du Q du

R R Q

1 u 1 u

(u R ) du ( u R Q ) du

R R Q

R R Q

G

G ,

(3.55)

3.4.8 Shortage cost per unit and

time unit

We optimize the reorder point by balancing

backorder costs against holding costs

(x)+ = max(x, 0),

(x)- = max(-x, 0).

Using x+- x- = x,

the total cost rate =h IL+ + b1IL

= hIL + (h + b1)(IL).

For the compound Poisson demand, we can

use (3.38) to obtain the average costs per

time unit,

C hE (IL) (h b1 ) E ( IL )

Q 1 1

h( R ) (h b1 ) P( IL j )

2 j (3.56)

Where E(IL)=average inventory R+(Q+1)/2 minus

average lead time demand

1 1

jP ( IL j ) j[ P( IL j ) P( IL j 1)]

1 1

jP ( IL j ) jP( IL j 1)

1 1 1

jP ( IL j ) ( j 1)P( IL j 1) P( IL j 1)

1 2 1

jP ( IL j ) iP( IL i ) P( IL j 1)

1 1 1

jP ( IL j ) iP( IL i ) (1) P( IL 1) P( IL j 1)

1

P( IL 1) P( IL j 1)

2

P( IL 1) P( IL i )

1

P( IL j )

From (3.39), P(IL j R r) P(IL j 1 R r 1)

Thus,

Q 1 1

C( r ) h ( r ) (h b1 ) P(IL j 1 R r 1)

2 j

Q 1 0

h (r ) (h b1 ) P(IL j R r 1)

2 j

Note :

Q 1 1

C (r 1) h(r 1 ' ) (h b1 ) P( IL j | R r 1)

2

Or equivalently,

C(r + 1) - C(r)=h- (h + b1)[1- S3(r+1)]

= - b1 + (h + b1) S3(r+1) .

(3.58)

where S3(r + 1) = is the ready rate for R = r +1.

Since S3 increases with r, C(r+1)-C(r) increases

with r. Thus C(r) is convex in the reorder point.

To find the optimal R, start with R = - Q

and increase R by one unit at a time until

the costs are increasing.

If R* is the optimal reorder point

b1

S 3 (R ) S3 (R 1)

h b1 . (3.59)

In case of pure Poisson demand this is also

true for the fill rate.

For continuous normally distributed

demand 0

C h (R Q / 2 ) (h b1 ) F( x )dx

0 1 R Q u x

h (R Q / 2 ) (h b1 )

G dudx

Q R

R Q u

h (R Q / 2 ) (h b1 ) G du .

Q R

. (3.60)

Uses (3.44), y=-x/ , and G()=0.

dC R Q R

h (h b1 ) G G h (h b1 )(S 2 1)

dR Q

b1 (h b1 )S 2 b1 (h b1 )S 3 .

(3.61)

Uses S3=1-F(0), (3.52) and (3.44).

Chose R when Q is given. Newsboy chooses

R+Q.

Since dC/dR is increasing with R, C is a

convex function of R. The optimal R is

obtained for dC/dR = 0,

b1

S3

h b1 (3.62)

hS3

b1

1 S3

(3.63)

S3(R*)=P(IL>0|r=R*)=Prob(D(L)R*+Q)

(R*+Q)=b1/(h+b1)

Exercise: Use (3.42) and (3.43) to derive

1

H(x) G(v)dv (x 1)(1 (x)) x(x)

2

2

x (3.64)

Since H(x) = - G(x), H(x) is decreasing and

convex.

H(x)

0

-3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5

Using H(x), we can express the costs in

(3.60) as

2 R R Q

C h (R Q / 2 ) (h b1 ) H H

Q

(3.65)

3.4.12 The newsboy model

Single period with stochastic demand

Penalty costs associated with ordering both too

much and too little

x = stochastic period demand,

S = ordered amount,

Co = overage cost, i.e., the cost per unit for a

remaining inventory at the end of the period,

cu = underage cost, i.e., the cost per unit for

unsatisfied period demand.

For a given demand x the costs are

and the expected cost is

S 1 x 1 x

C c o (S x ) ( )dx c u ( x S) ( )dx

S

1 x

c 0 (S ) (c o c u ) ( x S) ( )dx

S

(3.83)

S

c 0 (S ) (c o c u ) G .

To find the optimal solution,

dC S

c o (c o c u )( ( ) 1) 0,

dS (3.84)

or,

S cu

( ) .

co cu

(3.85)

It is easy to see that C is convex, so (3.85)

provides the optimal solution.

Compare with (3.62).

Example 3.12

co = 25, cu = 50, = 300, = 60,

Applying (3.85) we obtain the optimal

solution from

S 300 50

( ) 0.6667,

60 25 50

implying that

S 300

0.43,

60

S 326

This problem concerns a single period.

The simple newsboy solution (3.85) is,

however, also common in multi-period

settings.

3.5 Joint optimization of order quantity and

reorder point

3.5.1 Discrete demand

= L

IL(t + L) = IP(t) - D(L). (3.98)

(S - 1, S) policy with S = k, i.e., R = k - 1 and Q = 1. Then IP(t)=k at

all time.

P(IL j) P(D(L) k j), j k.

(3.99)

Let g(k) be the average holding and shortage costs per time unit.

1

g(k) h E(IL) (h b1 ) E(IL ) h(k ) (h b1 ) P(IL j).

j

(3.100)

From section 3.4.8, g(k) is convex, g(k) |k| .

The inventory position is uniform on [R + 1, R + Q].

A 1 R Q

C(R, Q) g(k).

Q Q k R 1 (3.101)

C (Q) min C ( R, Q) C ( R * (Q), Q).

R

R

A min g (k )

k

A g (k *)

(3.102)

Q = 1 R*(1) = k*- 1.

A 1

C (2) min [ g ( R 1) g ( R 2)]

2 2 R

Since g(k) is convex, the second best k is k*-1 or k*+1.

Case (1): g(k*-1) g(k*+1)

then g(k*-1)+ g(k*) g(k*)+ g(k*+1)

if R*(2) = R*(1)-1= k*-2

g(R*(2) +1)+ g(R *(2) +2) = g(k*-1)+ g(k*)

if R*(2) = R*(1)= k*-1

g(R*(2) +1)+ g(R *(2) +2) = g(k*)+ g(k*+1)

Case (1): R*(2) = R*(1) -1

Case (2): g(k*-1) > g(k*+1) R*(2) = R*(1)

Then g(R*(1) ) g(R*(1)+2 ) R*(2) = R*(1)-1

Otherwise, R*(2) = R*(1)

Also,

A 1

C (2) min[ g ( R * (1)), g ( R * (1) 2)]

2 2

1

g ( R * (1) 1)

2

C (1) 1

min[ g ( R * (1)), g ( R * (1) 2)]

2 2

General Step:

C(Q 1) C(Q)

Q

Q 1

Q1 1 .

min g(R * (Q), g(R * (Q) Q 1)

(3.104)

C(Q + 1) C(Q) if and only if

min{g(R*(Q), g(R*(Q) + Q + 1} C(Q).

min{g(R*(Q), g(R*(Q) + Q + 1} is increasing with Q.

Let Q* be the smallest Q such that C(Q + 1) C(Q).

C(Q) C(Q*) for any Q Q*.

Q* and R*(Q*) provides the optimal solution.

3.5.2 An iterative technique: Continuous Case

By adding the average setup cost per time unit

to the cost expression in (3.65) we have

2 R R Q A

C(R , Q) h (R Q / 2 ) (h b1 )

H H .

Q Q

(3.107)

C R Q R

h (h b1 ) G G .

R Q

(3.108)

The resulting R decreases with Q.

C 2 R R Q Q R Q A

h / 2 (h b1 ) 2

H H G 2 .

Q Q Q

(3.109)

Start by determining the batch quantity

Q 2A / h

0

(3.110)

Determine reorder point R0 from (3.108) and C / R 0

2A 2(h b1 ) 2 R i R i Q i Q i R i Q i

Q i 1

H H G .

h h

(3.111)

Determine the reorder point R1 corresponding to Q1 from (3.108)

Qi+1 Qi Ri+1 Ri

Example 3.14 Let A = 100, h = 2, and b1 = 20.

The demand per time unit is normally distributed with

= 50 and = 20. The lead-time L = 4. We obtain

= L= 200 and = L1/2 = 40.

Table 3.7 Results from the iterations for the data in Example

3.14.

0 1 2 3 4 5

Iteration i

Order quantity 70.71 87.91 93.08 94.59 95.03 95.15

Qi

Ri

3.6 Optimality of ordering policies

The (R, Q) type or of the (s, S) type.

Without ordering costs and given a fixed batch

quantity, an (R, Q) policy is optimal.

(s, S) policies are not necessarily optimal for

problems with service constraints.

- Kemeny's ConstantUploaded bytremembe
- Ch. 10,11,12,13 testUploaded byCarlos Presas
- Solution Manual for Operations Management 9th Edition by KrajewskiUploaded byLakmal Himbutugoda
- Henderson Retail Credit ModelsUploaded bymentor_muhaxheri
- Impact of Standard of Living in KudankulamUploaded byIntegrated Intelligent Research
- fnl pjtUploaded byveenaos
- InventoryStore_ExerciseSet_7Uploaded byKrati Kashyap
- Financial-Accounting-1-summary-VALIX.docUploaded byGerald John
- Multiechelon Inventory Optimization White Paper en UsUploaded byGerson Cordon
- Ch13Uploaded bymjrf14
- Fill RateUploaded bySubhransu Mohapatra
- ex5sUploaded byaset999
- Chapter 2Uploaded byZuhri Muin
- Inventory ManagementUploaded byNaomi Kang
- d 0431013019Uploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- Director of Allocation, Director of Inventory ManagementUploaded byapi-72678201
- Matching Game - Plan Risk ResponsesUploaded byDavid Silva
- The Navigation Mobile Robot Systems Using Bayesian Approach through the Virtual Projection MethodUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- SERC5chap4Uploaded byTanay Singh
- Best Practices for Distribution CompanysUploaded byBarbara Wilbur
- QT-1_b___Set_2_Need Solution - Ur Call Away – 9582940966Uploaded byAmbrish (gYpr.in)
- Chapter 1Uploaded byAnonymous SuC1rG72C
- Risk PoolingUploaded bydibyendupathak
- M&DC-Independent Demand Ordering SystemsUploaded byBodhiswatta
- Receptionist or Customer Service Admin. or Assistant Mgr.Uploaded byapi-121347981
- Application of Stochastic Modeling in GeomagnetismUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Sec B_Group 5Uploaded byAklesh Padhy
- 9706_s12_qp_32Uploaded byFaisal Rao
- 04722034Uploaded byDiegoorva A. OV
- Budgeting NotesUploaded bySara Khalid

- SouthWest Airlines Case StudyUploaded byDodiNur
- Problem 6B3 Financial Accounting FIN 1Uploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- A_Study_on_Low-Cost_Leadership_Strategy.pdfUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- KeyConcept_SC0x_SV.pdfUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Hospital Case CardiacUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- QM 1 SolutionUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Inventory Control-3rev21804.pptUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Crashing Notes 2Uploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Enron Business & Financial ModelUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Python for Data ScienceUploaded bySujeet Omar
- Ijs Dr 1611020Uploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- JMEITOCT0305005Uploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- 2015-2016-Heinz-College,-School-of-ISM-COA-12.04.2014Uploaded bybluegreenblack
- Problem StatementUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Asset Management.docxUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Asset Management Intern recommendation WriteupUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Chap 8 NLP.pptUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Operation Research Note SheetUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Apple Group3Uploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- New Company ProfileUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- The Enron Scandal (1)Uploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Pricing (003).pptxUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Liquidity vs solvency.pptUploaded byAnup Mohapatra
- Quick Formulas Financial AnalysisUploaded byAnup Mohapatra

- 1918 airplanecharacte00bederichUploaded byUlf Dunell
- GAT Specifiersmanual SMLUploaded byAnonymous omGSHUEQ
- IMPAXX700Uploaded byMuditSingh
- Project ReportUploaded bysatakshi29
- Queueing SystemUploaded byAnirudh Prabhu
- Hf CommunicationsUploaded byGANESH
- A241E TOYOTAUploaded byJorge Negretti
- AutocarUploaded byJohnas Thecoolman
- Bo Admin QuestionsUploaded byviswanathnt
- MHI PresentationUploaded byluriah
- KAS_297B - J-KUploaded byHelio Silva
- Chapter 1 ExerciseUploaded byvinay_krishna_1
- ~_Project_Online-Mobile-Recharge-System.docxUploaded byYona
- IH Term 1 Test 1 PrepUploaded byuser0709
- Case Analysis FMB&TUploaded byTulis Nama
- 2014_31.Content.00246 a Technical Review of Bim Based Cost Estimating in UkUploaded byracing.phreak
- Combining State-Dependent Riccati Equation (SDRE) methods with Model Predictive Neural Control (MPNC).pdfUploaded byamin342
- 0000Uploaded bymark
- How to Adjust CarburetorUploaded bysalecello2113
- FICHT 6911691 v3 Task 1 Desalination PotentialUploaded byAsai Gunasekaran
- T265Uploaded byAditya Kulkarni
- Trent Hagen- ResumeUploaded byhagdog25
- Case Study StudioUploaded byjcy1978
- SIRIUS Datasheet P-1Uploaded bymadhan_22
- Ebilling Project ReportUploaded bymeenalpandey
- Kaushik Bi ProjectUploaded byAniket Kaushik
- hk00d 06-db-avn dd 1200-1800tb.pdfUploaded byMadalina Nitu
- Arc Flash RegulationUploaded byCarlos Puerto
- Jobswire.com Resume of moblack1186Uploaded byapi-29821276
- 275HDV High Voltage DetectorUploaded byByron Panchi