Managing Inventory amid Regime Change

​If you hear the phrase “regime change” on the news, you immediately think of some fraught geopolitical event. Statisticians use the phrase differently, in a way that has high relevance for demand planning and inventory optimization. This blog is about “regime change” in the statistical sense, meaning a major change in the character of the demand for an inventory item.

An item’s demand history is the fuel that powers demand planners’ forecasting machines. In general, the more fuel the better, giving us a better fix on the average level, the volatility, the size and frequency of any spikes, the shape of any seasonality pattern, and the size and direction of any trend.

But there is one big exception to the rule that “more data is better data.” If there is a major shift in your world and new demand doesn’t look like old demand, then old data become dangerous.

Modern software can make accurate forecasts of item demand and suggest wise choices for inventory parameters like reorder points and order quantities. But the validity of these calculations depends on the relevance of the data used in their calculation. Old data from an old regime no longer reflect current reality, so including them in calculations creates forecast error for demand planners and either excess stock or unacceptable stockout rates for inventory planners.

That said, if you were to endure a recent regime change and throw out the obsolete data, you would have a lot less data to work with. This has its own costs, because all the estimates computed from the data would have greater statistical uncertainty even though they would be less biased. In this case, your calculations would have to rely more heavily on a blend of statistical analysis and your own expert judgement.

At this point, you may ask “How can I know if and when there has been a regime change?” If you’ve been on the job for a while and are comfortable looking at timeplots of item demand, you will generally recognize regime change when you see it, at least if it’s not too subtle. Figure 1 shows some real-world examples that are obvious.

Figure 1 Four examples of regime change in real-world item demand

Figure 1: Four examples of regime change in real-world item demand

 

Unfortunately, less obvious changes can still have significant effects. Moreover, most of our customers are too busy to manually review all the items they manage even once per quarter. When you get beyond, say, 100 items, the task of eyeballing all those time series becomes onerous. Fortunately, software can do a good job of continuously monitoring demand for tens of thousands of items and alerting you to any items that may need your attention. Then too, you can arrange for the software to not only detect regime change but also automatically exclude from its calculations all data collected before the most recent regime change, if any. In other words, you can get both automatic warning of regime change and automatic protection from regime change.

[For more on the basics of regime change, see our previous blog on the topic: https://smartcorp.com/blog/demandplanningregimechange/ ]

 

An Example with Numbers in It

If you would like to learn more, read on to see a numerical example of how much regime change can alter the calculation of a reorder point for a critical spare part. Here is a scenario to illustrate the point.

Scenario

  • Goal: calculate the reorder point needed to control the risk of stockout while waiting for replenishment. Assume the target stockout risk is 5%.
  • Assume the item has intermittent daily demand, with many days of zero demand.
  • Assume daily demand has a Poisson distribution with an average of 1.0 units per day.
  • Assume the replenishment lead time is always 30 days.
  • The lead time demand will be random, so it will have a probability distribution and the reorder point will be the 95th percentile of the distribution.
  • Assume the effect of regime change is to either raise or lower the mean daily demand.
  • Assume there is one year of daily data available for estimating the mean daily unit demand.

 

Figure 2 Example of change in mean demand and sample of random daily demand

Figure 2 Example of change in mean demand and sample of random daily demand

 

Figure 2 shows one form of this scenario. The top panel shows that the average daily demand increases from 1.0 to 1.5 after 270 days. The bottom panel shows one way that a year’s worth of daily demand might appear. (At this point, you may be feeling that calculating all this stuff is complicated, even for what turns out to be a simplified scenario. That is why we have software!)

Analysis

Successful calculation of the proper reorder point will depend on when regime change happens and how big a change occurs. We simulated regime changes of various sizes at various times within a 365 day period. Around a base demand of 1.0 units per day, we studied shifts in demand (“shift”) of ±25% and ±50% as well as a no change reference case. We located the time of the change (“t.break”) at 90, 180, and 270 days. In each case, we computed two estimates of the reorder point: The “ideal” value given perfect knowledge of the average demand in the new regime (“ROP.true”), and the estimated value of mean demand computed by ignoring the regime change and using all the demand data for the past year (“ROP.all”).

Table 1 shows the estimates of the reorder point computed over 100 simulations. The center block is the reference case, in which there is no change in the daily demand, which remains fixed at 1 unit per day. The colored block at the bottom is the most extreme increasing scenario, with demand increasing to 1.5 units/day either one-third, one-half, or two-thirds of the way through the year.

We can draw several conclusions from these simulations.

ROP.true: The correct choice for reorder point increases or decreases according to the change in mean demand after the regime change. The relationship is not a simple linear one: the table spans a 600% range of demand levels (0.25 to 1.50) but a 467% range of reorder points (from 12 to 56).

ROP.all: Ignoring the regime change can lead to gross overestimates of the reorder point when demand drops and gross underestimates when demand increases.  As we would expect, the later the regime change, the worse the error. For example, if demand increases from 1.0 to 1.5 units per day two-thirds of the way through the year without being noticed, the calculated reorder point of 43 units would fall 13 units short of where it should be.

A word of caution: Table 1 shows that basing the calculations of reorder points using only data from after a regime change will usually get the right answer. What it doesn’t show is that the estimates can be unstable if there is very little demand history after the change. Therefore, in practice, you should wait to react to the regime change until a decent number of observations have accumulated in the new regime. This might mean using all the demand history, both pre- and post-change, until, say, 60 or 90 days of history have accumulated before ignoring pre-change data.

 

Table 1 Correct and Estimated Reorder Points for different regime change scenarios

Table 1 Correct and Estimated Reorder Points for different regime change scenarios

Blanket Orders

Customer as Teacher

Our customers are great teachers who have always helped us bridge the gap between textbook theory and practical application. A prime example happened over twenty years ago, when we were introduced to the phenomenon of intermittent demand, which is common among spare parts but rare among the finished goods managed by our original customers working in sales and marketing. This revelation soon led to our preeminent position as vendors of software for managing inventories of spare parts. Our latest bit of schooling concerns “blanket orders.”

Expanding the Inventory Theory Textbook

Textbook inventory theory focuses on the three most used replenishment policies: (1) Periodic review order-up-to policy, designated (T, S) in the books (2) Continuous review policy with fixed order quantity, designated (R, Q) and (3) Continuous review order-up-to policy, designated (s, S) but usually called “Min/Max.” Our customers have pointed out that their actual ordering process often includes frequent use of “blanket orders.” This blog focuses on how to adjust stocking targets when blanket orders are used.

Blanket Orders are Different

Blanket orders are contracts with suppliers for fixed replenishment quantities arriving at fixed intervals. For example, you might agree with your supplier to receive 20 units every 7 days via a blanket order rather than 60 to 90 units every 28 days under the Periodic Review policy. Blanket orders contrast even more with the Continuous Review policies, under which both order schedules and order quantities are random.

In general, it is efficient to build flexibility into the restocking process so that you order only what you need and only order when you need it. By that standard, Min/Max should make the most sense and blanket policies should make the least sense.

The Case for Blanket Policies

However, while efficiency is important, it is never the only consideration. One of our customers, let’s call them Company X, explained the appeal of blanket policies in their circumstances. Company X makes high-performance parts for motorcycles and ATV’s. They turn raw steel into cool things.

But they must deal with the steel. Steel is expensive. Steel is bulky and heavy. Steel is not something conjured overnight on a special-order basis. The inventory manager at Company X does not want to place large but random-sized orders at random times. He does not want to baby-sit a mountain of steel. His suppliers do not want to receive orders for random quantities at random times. And Company X prefers to spread out its payments. The result: Blanket orders.

The Fatal Flaw in Blanket Policies

For Company X, blanket orders are intended to even out replenishment buys and avoid unwieldy buildups of piles of steel before they are ready for use. But the logic behind continuous review inventory policies still applies. Surges in demand, otherwise welcome, will occur and can create stockouts. Likewise, pauses in demand can create excess demand. As time goes on, it becomes clear that a blanket policy has a fatal flaw: only if the blanket orders exactly match the average demand can they avoid runaway inventory in either direction, up or down. In practice, it will be impossible to exactly match average demand. Furthermore, average demand is a moving target and can drift up or down.

Hybrid Blanket Policies to the Rescue

A blanket policy does have advantages, but rigidity is its Achilles heel.  Planners will often improvise by adjusting future orders to handle changes in demand but this doesn’t scale across thousands of items.  To make the replenishment policy robust against randomness in demand, we suggest a hybrid policy that begins with blanket orders but retains flexibility to automatically (not manually) order additional supply on an as-need basis. Supplementing the blanket policy with a Min/Max backup provides for adjustments without manual intervention. This combination will capture some of the advantages of blanket orders while protecting customer service and avoiding runaway inventory.

Designing a hybrid policy requires choice of four control parameters. Two parameters are the fixed size and fixed timing of the blanket policy. Two more are the values of Min and Max. This leaves the inventory manager facing a four-dimensional optimization problem.  Advanced inventory optimization software will make it possible to evaluate choices for the values of the four parameters and to support negotiations with suppliers when crafting blanket orders.

 

 

A Beginner’s Guide to Downtime and What to Do about It

This blog provides an overview of this topic written for non-experts. It

  • explains why you might want to read this blog.
  • lists the various types of “machine maintenance.”
  • explains what “probabilistic modeling” is.
  • describes models for predicting downtime.
  • explains what these models can do for you.

Importance of Downtime

If you manufacture things for sale, you need machines to make those things. If your machines are up and running, you have a fighting chance to make money. If your machines are down, you lose opportunities to make money. Since downtime is so fundamental, it is worth some investment of money and thought to minimize downtime. By thought I mean probability math, since machine downtime is inherently a random phenomenon. Probability models can guide maintenance policies.

Machine Maintenance Policies

Maintenance is your defense against downtime. There are multiple types of maintenance policies, ranging from “Do nothing and wait for failure” to sophisticated analytic approaches involving sensors and probability models of failure.

A useful list of maintenance policies is:

  • Sitting back and wait for trouble, then sitting around some more wondering what to do when trouble inevitably happens. This is as foolish as it sounds.
  • Same as above except you prepare for the failure to minimize downtime, e.g., stockpiling spare parts.
  • Periodically checking for impending trouble coupled with interventions such as lubricating moving parts or replacing worn parts.
  • Basing the timing of maintenance on data about machine condition rather than relying on a fixed schedule; requires ongoing data collection and analysis. This is called condition-based maintenance.
  • Using data on machine condition more aggressively by converting it into predictions of failure time and suggestions for steps to take to delay failure. This is called predictive maintenance.

The last three types of maintenance rely on probability math to establish a maintenance schedule, or determine when data on machine condition call for intervention, or calculate when failure might occur and how best to postpone it.

 

Probability Models of Machine Failure

How long a machine will run before it fails is a random variable. So is the time it will spend down. Probability theory is the part of math that deals with random variables. Random variables are described by their probability distributions, e.g., what is the chance that the machine will run for 100 hours before it goes down? 200 hours? Or, equivalently, what is the chance that the machine is still working after 100 hours or 200 hours?

A sub-field called “reliability theory” answers this type of question and addresses related concepts like Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF), which is a shorthand summary of the information encoded in the probability distribution of time before failure.

Figures 1 shows data on the time before failure of air conditioning units. This type of plot depicts the cumulative probability distribution and shows the chance that a unit will have failed after some amount of time has elapsed. Figure 2 shows a reliability function, plotting the same type of information in an inverse format, i.e., depicting the chance that a unit is still functioning after some amount of time has elapsed.

In Figure 1, the blue tick marks next to the x-axis show the times at which individual air conditioners were observed to fail; this is the basic data. The black curve shows the cumulative proportion of units failed over time. The red curve is a mathematical approximation to the black curve – in this case an exponential distribution. The plots show that about 80 percent of the units will fail before 100 hours of operation.

Figure 1 Cumulative distribution function of uptime for air conditioners

Figure 1 Cumulative distribution function of uptime for air conditioners

 

Probability models can be applied to an individual part or component or subsystem, to a collection of related parts (e.g., “the hydraulic system”), or to an entire machine. Any of these can be described by the probability distribution of the time before they fail.

Figure 2 shows the reliability function of six subsystems in a machine for digging tunnels. The plot shows that the most reliable subsystem is the cutting arms and the least reliable is the water subsystem. The reliability of the entire system could be approximated by multiplying all six curves (because for the system as a whole to work, every subsystem must be functioning), which would result in a very short interval before something goes wrong.

Figure 2 Examples of probability distributions of subsystems in a tunneling machine

Figure 2 Examples of probability distributions of subsystems in a tunneling machine

 

Various factors influence the distribution of the time before failure. Investing in better parts will prolong system life. So will investing in redundancy. So will replacing used pars with new.

Once a probability distribution is available, it can be used to answer any number of what-if questions, as illustrated below in the section on Benefits of Models.

 

Approaches to Modeling Machine Reliability

Probability models can describe either the most basic units, such as individual system components (Figure 2), or collections of basic units, such as entire machines (Figure 1). In fact, an entire machine can be modeled either as a single unit or as a collection of components. If treating an entire machine as a single unit, the probability distribution of lifetime represents a summary of the combined effect of the lifetime distributions of each component.

If we have a model of an entire machine, we can jump to models of collections of machines. If instead we start with models of the lifetimes of individual components, then we must somehow combine those individual models into an overall model of the entire machine.

This is where the math can get hairy. Modeling always requires a wise balance between simplification, so that some results are possible, and complication, so that whatever results emerge are realistic. The usual trick is to assume that failures of the individual pieces of the system occur independently.

If we can assume failures occur independently, it is usually possible to model collections of machines. For instance, suppose a production line has four machines churning out the same product. Having a reliability model for a single machine (as in Figure 1) lets us predict, for instance, the chance that only three of the machines will still be working one week from now. Even here there can be a complication: the chance that a machine working today will still be working tomorrow often depends on how long it has been since its last failure. If the time between failures has an exponential distribution like the one in Figure 1, then it turns out that the time of the next failure doesn’t depend on how long it has been since the last failure. Unfortunately, many or even most systems do not have exponential distributions of uptime, so the complication remains.

Even worse, if we start with models of many individual component reliabilities, working our way up to predicting failure times for the entire complex machine may be nearly impossible if we try to work with all the relevant equations directly. In such cases, the only practical way to get results is to use another style of modeling: Monte Carlo simulation.

Monte Carlo simulation is a way to substitute computation for analysis when it is possible to create random scenarios of system operation. Using simulation to extrapolate machine reliability from component reliabilities works as follows.

  1. Start with the cumulative distribution functions (Figure 1) or reliability functions (Figure 2) of each machine component.
  2. Create a random sample from each component lifetime to get a set of sample failure times consistent with its reliability function.
  3. Using the logic of how components are related to one another, compute the failure time of the entire machine.
  4. Repeat steps 1-3 many times to see the full range of possible machine lifetimes.
  5. Optionally, average the results of step 4 to summarize the machine lifetime with such metrics such as the MTBF or the chance that the machine will run more than 500 hours before failing.

Step 1 would be a bit complicated if we do not have a nice probability model for a component lifetime, e.g., something like the red line in Figure 1.

Step 2 can require some careful bookkeeping. As time moves forward in the simulation, some components will fail and be replaced while others will keep grinding on. Unless a component’s lifetime has an exponential distribution, its remaining lifetime will depend on how long the component has been in continual use. So this step must account for the phenomena of burn in or wear out.

Step 3 is different from the others in that it does require some background math, though of a simple type. If Machine A only works when both components 1 and 2 are working, then (assuming failure of one component does not influence failure of the other)

Probability [A works] = Probability [1 works] x Probability [2 works].

If instead Machine A works if either component 1 works or component 2 works or both work, then

Probability [A fails] = Probability [1 fails] x Probability [2 fails]

so Probability [A works] = 1 – Probability [A fails].

Step 4 can involve creation of thousands of scenarios to show the full range of random outcomes. Computation is fast and cheap.

Step 5 can vary depending on the user’s goals. Computing the MTBF is standard. Choose others to suit the problem. Besides the summary statistics provided by step 5, individual simulation runs can be plotted to build intuition about the random dynamics of machine uptime and downtime. Figure 3 shows an example for a single machine showing alternating cycles of uptime and downtime resulting in 85% uptime.

Figure 3 A sample scenario for a single machine

Figure 3 A sample scenario for a single machine

 

Benefits of Machine Reliability Models

In Figure 3, the machine is up and running 85% of the time. That may not be good enough. You may have some ideas about how to improve the machine’s reliability, e.g., maybe you can improve the reliability of component 3 by buying a newer, better version from a different supplier. How much would that help? That is hard to guess: component 3 may only one of several and perhaps not the weakest link, and how much the change pays off depends on how much better the new one would be. Maybe you should develop a specification for component 3 that you can then shop to potential suppliers, but how long does component 3 have to last to have a material impact on the machine’s MTBF?

This is where having a model pays off. Without a model, you’re relying on guesswork. With a model, you can turn speculation about what-if situations into accurate estimates. For instance, you could analyze how a 10% increase in MTBF for component 3 would translate into an improvement in MTBF for the entire machine.

As another example, suppose you have seven machines producing an important product. You calculate that you must dedicate six of the seven to fill a major order from your one big customer, leaving one machine to handle demand from a number of miscellaneous small customers and to serve as a spare. A reliability model for each machine could be used to estimate the probabilities of various contingencies: all seven machines work and life is good; six machines work so you can at least keep your key customer happy; only five machines work so you have to negotiate something with your key customer, etc.

In sum, probability models of machine or component failure can provide the basis for converting failure time data into smart business decisions.

 

Read more about  Maximize Machine Uptime with Probabilistic Modeling

 

Read more about   Probabilistic forecasting for intermittent demand

 

 

Leave a Comment
Related Posts
Managing Inventory amid Regime Change

Managing Inventory amid Regime Change

If you hear the phrase “regime change” on the news, you immediately think of some fraught geopolitical event. Statisticians use the phrase differently, in a way that has high relevance for demand planning and inventory optimization. This blog is about “regime change” in the statistical sense, meaning a major change in the character of the demand for an inventory item.

Blanket Orders

Blanket Orders

Our customers are great teachers who have always helped us bridge the gap between textbook theory and practical application. A prime example happened over twenty years ago, when we were introduced to the phenomenon of intermittent demand, which is common among spare parts but rare among the finished goods managed by our original customers working in sales and marketing. This revelation soon led to our preeminent position as vendors of software for managing inventories of spare parts. Our latest bit of schooling concerns “blanket orders.”

Call an Audible to Proactively Counter Supply Chain Noise

Call an Audible to Proactively Counter Supply Chain Noise

You know the situation: You work out the best way to manage each inventory item by computing the proper reorder points and replenishment targets, then average demand increases or decreases, or demand volatility changes, or suppliers’ lead times change, or your own costs change.

Thoughts on Spare Busses and Spare Parts

 

The Covid19 pandemic has placed unusual stress on public transit agencies. This stress forces agencies to look again at their processes and equipment.

This blog focuses on bus systems and their practices for spare parts management. However, there are lessons here for other types of public transit, including rail and light rail.

Back in 1995, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council published a report that still has relevance. System-Specific Spare Bus Ratios: A Synthesis of Transit Practice stated

The purpose of this study was to document and examine the critical site-specific variables that affect the number of spare vehicles that bus systems need to maintain maximum service requirements. … Although transit managers generally acknowledged that right-sizing the fleet actually improves operations and lowers cost, many reported difficulties in achieving and consistently maintaining a 20 percent spare ratio as recommended by FTA… The respondents to the survey advocated that more emphasis be placed on developing improved and innovative bus maintenance techniques, which would assist them in minimizing downtime and improving vehicle availability, ultimately leading to reduced spare vehicles and labor and material costs.

Grossly simplified guidelines like “keep 20% spare buses” are easy to understand and measure but mask more detailed tactics that can provide more tailored policies. If operational reliability can be improved for each bus, then fewer spares are needed.

One way to keep each bus up and running more often is to improve the management of inventories of spare parts. Here is where modern supply chain management can make a significant contribution. The TRB noted this in their report:

Many agencies have been successful in limiting reliance on excess spare vehicles. Those transit officials agree that several factors and initiatives have led to their success and are critical to the success of any program [including] … Effective use of advanced technology to manage critical maintenance functions, including the orderly and timely replacement of parts… Failure to have available parts and other components when they are needed will adversely affect any maintenance program. As long as managers are cognizant of the issues and vigilant about what tools are available to them, the probability of buses [being] ‘out for no stock’ will greatly diminish.”

Effective inventory management requires a balance between “having enough” and “having too much.” What modern software can do is make visible the tradeoff between these two goals so that transit managers can make fact-based decisions about spare parts inventories.

There are enough complications in finding the right balance to require moving beyond simple rules of thumb such as “keep ten days’ worth of demand on hand” or “reorder when you are down to five units in stock.” Factors that drive these decisions include both the average demand for a part, the volatility of that demand, the average replenishment lead time (which can be a problem when the part arrives by slow boat from Germany), the variability in lead time, and several cost factors: holding costs, ordering costs, and shortage costs (e.g., lost fares).

Innovative supply chain analytics uses advanced probabilistic forecasting and stochastic optimization methods to manage these complexities and provide greater parts availability at lower cost. For instance, Minnesota’s Metro Transit documented a 4x increase in return on investment in the first six months of implementing a new system. To read more about how public transit agencies are exploiting innovative supply chain analytics, see:

 

 

Leave a Comment
Related Posts
Managing Inventory amid Regime Change

Managing Inventory amid Regime Change

If you hear the phrase “regime change” on the news, you immediately think of some fraught geopolitical event. Statisticians use the phrase differently, in a way that has high relevance for demand planning and inventory optimization. This blog is about “regime change” in the statistical sense, meaning a major change in the character of the demand for an inventory item.

Blanket Orders

Blanket Orders

Our customers are great teachers who have always helped us bridge the gap between textbook theory and practical application. A prime example happened over twenty years ago, when we were introduced to the phenomenon of intermittent demand, which is common among spare parts but rare among the finished goods managed by our original customers working in sales and marketing. This revelation soon led to our preeminent position as vendors of software for managing inventories of spare parts. Our latest bit of schooling concerns “blanket orders.”

Call an Audible to Proactively Counter Supply Chain Noise

Call an Audible to Proactively Counter Supply Chain Noise

You know the situation: You work out the best way to manage each inventory item by computing the proper reorder points and replenishment targets, then average demand increases or decreases, or demand volatility changes, or suppliers’ lead times change, or your own costs change.

A Primer on Probabilistic Forecasting

The Smart Forecaster

 Pursuing best practices in demand planning,

forecasting and inventory optimization

If you keep up with the news about supply chain analytics, you are more frequently encountering the phrase “probabilistic forecasting.” If this phrase is puzzling, read on.

You probably already know what “forecasting” means. And you probably also know that there seem to be lots of different ways to do it. And you’ve probably heard pungent little phrases like “every forecast is wrong.” So you know that some kind of mathemagic might calculate that “the forecast is you will sell 100 units next month”, and then you might sell 110 units, in which case you have a 10% forecast error.

You may not know that what I just described is a particular kind of forecast called a “point forecast.” A point forecast is so named because it consists of just a single number (i.e., one point on the number line, if you recall the number line from your youth).

Point forecasts have one virtue: They are simple. They also have a flaw: They give rise to snarky statements like “every forecast is wrong.” That is, in most realistic cases, it is unlikely that the actual value will exactly equal the forecast. (Which isn’t such a big deal if the forecast is close enough.)

This gets us to “probabilistic forecasting.” This approach is a step up, because instead of producing a single-number (point) forecast, it yields a probability distribution for the forecast. And unlike traditional extrapolative models that rely purely on the historical data, probabilistic forecasts have the ability to simulate future values that aren’t anchored to the past.

“Probability distribution” is a forbidding phrase, evoking some arcane math that you may have heard of but never studied. Luckily, most adults have enough life experience to have an intuitive grasp of the concept.  When broken down, it’s quite straightforward to understand.

Imagine the simple act of flipping two coins. You might call this harmless fun, but I call it a “probabilistic experiment.” The total number of heads that turn up on the two coins will be either zero, one or two. Flipping two coins is a “random experiment.” The resulting number of heads is a “random variable.” It has a “probability distribution”, which is nothing more than a table of how likely it is that the random variable will turn out to have any of its possible values. The probability of getting two heads when the coins are fair works out to be ¼, as is the probability of no heads. The chance of one head is ½.

The same approach can describe a more interesting random variable, like the daily demand for a spare part.  Figure 2 shows such a probability distribution. It was computed by compiling three years of daily demand data on a certain part used in a scientific instrument sold to hospitals.

 

Probabilistic demand forecast 1

Figure 1: The probability distribution of daily demand for a certain spare part

 

The distribution in Figure 1 can be thought of as a probabilistic forecast of demand in a single day. For this particular part, we see that the forecast is very likely to be zero (97% chance), but sometimes will be for a handful of units, and once in three years will be twenty units. Even though the most likely forecast is zero, you would want to keep a few on hand if this part were critical (“…for want of a nail…”)

Now let’s use this information to make a more complicated probabilistic forecast. Suppose you have three units on hand. How many days will it take for you to have none? There are many possible answers, ranging from a single day (if you immediately get a demand for three or more) up to a very large number (since 97% of days see no demand).  The analysis of this question is a bit complicated because of all the many ways this situation can play out, but the final answer that is most informative will be a probability distribution. It turns out that the number of days until there are no units left in stock has the distribution shown in Figure 2.

Probabilistic demand forecast 2

Figure 2: Distribution of the number of days until all three units are gone

 

The average number of days is 74, which would be a point forecast, but there is a lot of variation around the average. From the perspective of inventory management, it is notable that there is a 25% chance that all the units will be gone after 32 days. So if you decided to order more when you were down to only three on the shelf, it would be good to have the supplier get them to you before a month has passed. If they couldn’t, you’d have a 75% chance of stocking out – not good for a critical part.

The analysis behind Figure 2 involved making some assumptions that were convenient but not necessary if they were not true. The results came from a method called “Monte Carlo simulation”, in which we start with three units, pick a random demand from the distribution in Figure 1, subtract it from the current stock, and continue until the stock is gone, recording how many days went by before you ran out. Repeating this process 100,000 times produced Figure 2.

Applications of Monte Carlo simulation extend to problems of even larger scope than the “when do we run out” example above. Especially important are Monte Carlo forecasts of future demand. While the usual forecasting result is a set of point forecasts (e.g., expected unit demand over the next twelve months), we know that there are any number of ways that the actual demand could play out. Simulation could be used to produce, say, one thousand possible sets of 365 daily demand demands.

This set of demand scenarios would more fully expose the range of possible situations with which an inventory system would have to cope. This use of simulation is called “stress testing”, because it exposes a system to a range of varied but realistic scenarios, including some nasty ones. Those scenarios are then input to mathematical models of the system to see how well it will cope, as reflected in key performance indicators (KPI’s). For instance, in those thousand simulated years of operation, how many stockouts are there in the worst year? the average year? the best year? In fact, what is the full probability distribution of the number of stockouts in a year, and what is the distribution of their size?

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate probabilistic modeling of an inventory control system that converts stockouts to backorders. The system simulated uses a Min/Max control policy with Min = 10 units and Max = 20 units.

Figure 3 shows one simulated year of daily operations in four plots. The first plot shows a particular pattern of random daily demand in which average demand increases steadily from Monday to Friday but disappears on weekends. The second plot shows the number of units on hand each day. Note that there are a dozen times during this simulated year when inventory goes negative, indicating stockouts. The third plot shows the size and timing of replenishment orders. The fourth plot shows the size and timing of backorders.  The information in these plots can be translated into estimates of inventory investment, average units on hand, holding costs, ordering costs and shortage costs.

Probabilistic demand forecast 3

Figure 3: One simulated year of inventory system operation

 

Figure 3 shows one of one thousand simulated years. Each year will have different daily demands, resulting in different values of metrics like units on hand and the various components of operating cost. Figure 4 plots the distribution of 1,000 simulated values of four KPI’s. Simulating 1,000 years of imagined operation exposes the range of possible results so that planners can account not just for average results but also see best-case and worst-case values.

Probabilistic demand forecast 4

Figure 4: Distributions of four KPI’s based on 1,000 simulations

 

Monte Carlo simulation is a low-math/high-results approach to probabilistic forecasting: very practical and easy to explain. Advanced probabilistic forecasting methods employed by Smart Software expand upon standard Monte Carlo simulation, yielding extremely accurate estimates of required inventory levels.

 

Leave a Comment

Related Posts

Call an Audible to Proactively Counter Supply Chain Noise

Call an Audible to Proactively Counter Supply Chain Noise

You know the situation: You work out the best way to manage each inventory item by computing the proper reorder points and replenishment targets, then average demand increases or decreases, or demand volatility changes, or suppliers’ lead times change, or your own costs change.

Four Ways to Optimize Inventory

Four Ways to Optimize Inventory

Inventory optimization has become an even higher priority in recent months for many of our customers.  Some are finding their products in vastly greater demand; more have the opposite problem. In either case, events like the Covid19 pandemic are forcing a reexamination of standard operating conditions, such as choices of reorder points and order quantities.

Top 3 Most Common Inventory Control Policies

Top 3 Most Common Inventory Control Policies

To make the right decision, you’ll need to know how demand forecasting supports inventory management, choice of which policy to use, and calculation of the inputs that drive these policies.The process of ordering replenishment stock is sufficiently expensive and cumbersome that you also want to minimize the number of purchase orders you must generate.

Recent Posts

  • Managing Inventory amid Regime ChangeManaging Inventory amid Regime Change
    If you hear the phrase “regime change” on the news, you immediately think of some fraught geopolitical event. Statisticians use the phrase differently, in a way that has high relevance for demand planning and inventory optimization. This blog is about “regime change” in the statistical sense, meaning a major change in the character of the demand for an inventory item. […]
  • CONNECT 2022 EPICOR PROPHET 21 INVNETORY OPTIMIZATION P21Smart Software Launches Smart Inventory Optimization and Demand Planning for Prophet 21
    Smart Software, a leader in enterprise demand forecasting, and inventory optimization solutions announces the release of Smart Inventory Planning and Optimization for Prophet 21 (P21). […]