Inventory optimization software that supports what-if analysis will expose the tradeoff of stockouts vs. excess costs of varying service level targets. But first it is important to identify how “service levels” is interpreted, measured, and reported. This will avoid miscommunication and the false sense of security that can develop when less stringent definitions are used.  Clearly defining how service level is calculated puts all stakeholders on the same page. This facilitates better decision-making.

There are many differences in what companies mean when they cite their “service levels.”  This can vary from company to company and even from department to department within a company.  Here are two examples:

1. Service level measured “from the shelf” vs. a customer-quoted lead time.
   Service level measured “from the shelf” means the percentage of units ordered that are immediately available from stock. However, when a customer places an order, it is often not shipped immediately. Customer service or sales will quote when the order will be shipped. If the customer is OK with the promised ship date and the order is shipped by that date, then service level is considered to have been met.  Service levels will clearly be higher when calculated over a customer quoted lead time vs. “from the shelf.”

2. Service level measured over fixed vs. variable customer quoted lead time.
   High service levels are often skewed because customer-quoted lead times are later adjusted to allow nearly every order to be filled “on time and in full.” This happens when the initial lead time can’t be met, but the customer agrees to take the order later, and the customer quoted lead time field that is used to track service level is adjusted by sales or customer service.

Clarifying how “service levels” are defined, measured, and reported is essential for aligning organizations and enhancing decision-making, resulting in more effective inventory management practices.

We believe the leading edge of supply chain analytics to be the development of digital twins of inventory systems. These twins take the form of discrete event models that use Monte Carlo simulation to generate and optimize over the full range of operational risks. We also assert that we and our colleagues at Smart Software have played an outsized role in forging that leading edge. But we are not alone: there are a small number of other software firms around the globe who are catching up.

So, what’s next for supply chain analytics? Where is the next frontier? It might involve some sort of neural network model of a distribution system. But we’d give better odds on an extension of our leading-edge models of “single echelon” inventory systems to “multi-echelon” inventory systems.

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the distinction between single and multiple echelon systems. Figure 1 depicts a manufacturer that relies on a Source to replenish its stock of spare parts or components. When stockouts loom, the manufacturer orders replenishment stock from the Source.

Figure 1: A single-echelon inventory system

Single echelon models do not explicitly include details of the Source. It remains mysterious, an invisible ghost whose only relevant feature is the random time it takes to respond to a replenishment request. Importantly, the Source is implicitly assumed to never itself stock out. That assumption may be “good enough” for many purposes, but it cannot be literally true. It gets handled by stuffing supplier stockout events into the replenishment lead time distribution. Pushing back on that assumption is the rationale for multiechelon modeling.

Figure 2 depicts a simple two-echelon inventory system. It shifts domains from manufacturing to distribution. There are multiple warehouses (WH’s) dependent on a distribution center (DC) for resupply. Now the DC is an explicit part of the model. It has a finite capacity to process orders and requires its own reordering protocols. The DC gets its replenishment from higher up the chain from a Source. The Source might be the manufacturer of the inventory item or perhaps a “regional DC” or something similar, but – guess what? – it is another ghost. As in the single-echelon model, this ghost has one visible characteristic: the probability distribution of its replenishment lead time. (The punch line of a famous joke in physics is “But madame, it’s turtles all the way down.” In our case, “It’s ghosts all the way up.”)

Figure 2: A two-echelon inventory system

The problem of process design and optimization is much harder with two levels. The difficulty is not just the addition of two more control parameters for every WH (e.g., a Min and a Max for each) plus the same two parameters for the DC. Rather, the tougher part is modeling the interaction among the WH’s. In the single-level model, each WH operates in its own little world and never hears “Sorry, we’re stocked out” from the ghostly Source. But in a two-level system, there are multiple WH’s all competing for resupply from their shared DC. This competition creates the main analytical difficulty: the WH’s cannot be modeled in isolation but must be analyzed simultaneously. For instance, if one DC services ten WH’s, there are 2+10×2 = 22 inventory control parameters whose values need to be calculated. In nerd-speak: It is not trivial to solve a 22-variable constrained discrete optimization problem having a stochastic objective function.

If we choose the wrong system design, we discover a new phenomenon inherent in multi-echelon systems, which we informally call “meltdown” or “catastrophe.” In this phenomenon, the DC cannot keep up with the replenishment demands of the WH’s, so it eventually creates stockouts at the warehouse level. Then the WH’s increasingly frantic replenishment requests exhaust the inventory at the DC, which starts its own panicked requests for replenishment from the regional DC. If the regional DC takes too long to refill the DC, then the whole system dissolves into a stockout tragedy.

One solution to the meltdown problem is to overdesign the DC so it almost never runs out, but that can be very expensive, which is why there is a regional DC in the first place. So any affordable system design has a DC that is just good enough to last a long time between meltdowns. This perspective implies a new type of key performance indicator (KPI), such as “Probability of Meltdown within X years is less than Y percent.”

The next frontier will require new methods and new metrics but will offer a new way to design and optimize distribution systems. Our skunk works is already generating prototypes. Watch this space.

In this blog, we will discuss today’s fast-paced and unpredictable market and the constant challenges businesses face in managing their inventory and service levels efficiently. The main subject of this discussion, rooted in the concept of “Probabilistic Inventory Optimization,” focuses on how modern technology can be leveraged to achieve optimal service and inventory targets amidst uncertainty. This approach not only addresses traditional inventory management issues but also offers a strategic edge in navigating the complexities of demand fluctuations and supply chain disruptions.

Understanding and implementing inventory optimization technology is important for several reasons. First, it directly impacts a company’s ability to meet customer demands promptly, thereby affecting customer satisfaction and loyalty. Second, effective inventory management controls operational costs, reducing unnecessary stock holding and minimizing the risk of stockouts or overstocking. In an era where market conditions change rapidly, having a robust system to manage these aspects can be the difference between thriving and merely surviving.

At the heart of inventory management lies a paradox: the need to be prepared for fluctuating demand without succumbing to the pitfalls of overstocking, which can lead to increased holding costs, obsolescence, and wasted resources. Conversely, understocking can result in stockouts, lost sales, and diminished customer satisfaction, ultimately impacting a company’s reputation and bottom line. The unpredictable nature of market demands, compounded by potential supply chain disruptions and changing consumer behavior, adds complexity to this balancing act.

Technology plays a pivotal role here. Modern inventory optimization software integrates probabilistic models, sophisticated forecasting algorithms, and simulation capabilities. These systems help companies respond swiftly to changing market conditions. Furthermore, adopting such technology fosters a culture of data-driven decision-making, ensuring businesses are not merely reacting to uncertainties but proactively strategizing to mitigate their impacts.

Here are brief discussions of the relevant algorithmic technologies.

Probabilistic Inventory Optimization: Traditional inventory management approaches rely on deterministic models that assume a static, predictable world. These models falter in the face of variability and uncertainty. Enter probabilistic inventory optimization, a paradigm that embraces the randomness inherent in supply chain processes. This approach employs statistical models to represent the uncertainties in demand and supply, enabling businesses to account for a full range of possible outcomes.

Advanced Forecasting:  A cornerstone of effective inventory optimization is the ability to anticipate future demand accurately. Advanced forecasting techniques, such as [we don’t sell this outside of SmartForecasts or maybe not even there anymore, so don’t mention it], time series analysis, and machine learning, extract exploitable patterns from historical data.

Safety Stock Calculation: A Shield Against Uncertainty:

Forecasts that include estimates of their own uncertainty enable safety stock calculations. Safety stock acts as a buffer against the unpredictability of demand and supply lead times. Determining the optimal level of safety stock is a critical challenge that probabilistic models address adeptly. With the right safety stock levels, businesses can maintain high service levels, ensuring product availability without the burden of excessive inventory.

Scenario Planning: Preparing for Multiple Futures:

The future is inherently uncertain, and a single forecast can never capture all possible scenarios. Advanced methods that create a range of realistic demand scenarios are the essential form of probabilistic inventory optimization. These techniques allow businesses to explore the implications of multiple futures, from best-case to worst-case situations. By planning against these scenarios, companies can enhance their resilience in the face of market volatility.

Navigating the Future with Confidence

The uncertain landscape of today’s business environment necessitates a shift from traditional inventory management practices to more sophisticated, probabilistic approaches. By embracing the principles of probabilistic inventory optimization, companies can strike a durable balance between service excellence and cost efficiency. Integrating advanced forecasting techniques, strategic safety stock calculations, and scenario planning, supported by Smart Inventory Planning and Optimization (Smart IP&O), equips businesses to transform uncertainty from a challenge into an opportunity. Companies that embrace this approach report significant improvements in service levels, reductions in inventory costs, and enhanced supply chain agility.

For example, less critical Items forecasted to achieve 99%+ service levels represent opportunities to reduce inventory. By targeting lower service levels on less critical items, inventory will be “the right size” over time to the new equilibrium, decreasing holding costs and the value of inventory on hand. A major public transit system reduced inventory by over $4,000,000 while improving service levels.

Optimizing Inventory Levels also means savings realized on one subset of items can be reallocated to carry a broader portfolio of “in stock” items, allowing revenues to be captured that would otherwise be lost sales. A leading distributor was able to stock a broader portfolio of parts with savings used from inventory reductions and increased part availability by 18%.

Just as the renowned astronomer Copernicus transformed our understanding of astronomy by placing the sun at the center of our universe, today, we invite you to re-center your approach to inventory management. And while not quite as enlightening, this advice will help your company avoid being caught in the gravitational pull of inventory woes—constantly orbiting between stockouts, surplus gravity, and the unexpected cosmic expenses of expediting?

In this article, we’ll walk you through the process of crafting a spare parts inventory plan that prioritizes availability metrics such as service levels and fill rates while ensuring cost efficiency. We’ll focus on an approach to inventory planning called Service Level-Driven Inventory Optimization. Next, we’ll discuss how to determine what parts you should include in your inventory and those that might not be necessary. Lastly, we’ll explore ways to enhance your service-level-driven inventory plan consistently.

In service-oriented businesses, the consequences of stockouts are often very significant.  Achieving high service levels depends on having the right parts at the right time. However, having the right parts isn’t the only factor. Your Supply Chain Team must develop a consensus inventory plan for every part, then continuously update it to reflect real-time changes in demand, supply, and financial priorities.

Managing inventory with Service-level-driven planning combines the ability to plan thousands of items with high-level strategic modeling. This requires addressing core issues facing inventory executives:

• Lack of control over supply and associated lead times.
• Unpredictable intermittent demand.
• Conflicting priorities between maintenance/mechanical teams and Materials Management.
• Reactive “wait and see” approach to planning.
• Misallocated inventory, causing stockouts and excess.
• Lack of trust in systems and processes.

The key to optimal service parts management is to grasp the balance between providing excellent service and controlling costs. To do this, we must compare the costs of stockout with the cost of carrying additional spare parts inventory. The costs of a stockout will be higher for critical or emergency spares, when there is a service level agreement with external customers, for parts used in multiple assets, for parts with longer supplier lead times, and for parts with a single supplier. The cost of inventory may be assessed by considering the unit costs, interest rates, warehouse space that will be consumed, and potential for obsolescence (parts used on a soon-to-be-retired fleet have a higher obsolescence risk, for example).

To arbitrate how much stock should be put on the shelf for each part, it is critical to establish consensus on the desired key metrics that expose the tradeoffs the business must make to achieve the desired KPIs. These KPIs will include Service Levels that tell you how often you meet usage needs without falling short on stock, Fill Rates that tell you what percentage of demand is filled, and Ordering costs detail the expenses incurred when you place and receive replenishment orders. You also have Holding costs, which encompass expenses like obsolescence, taxes, and warehousing, and Shortage costs that pertain to expenses incurred when stockouts happen.

An MRO business or Aftermarket Parts Planning team might desire a 99% service level across all parts – i.e., the minimum stockout risk that they are willing to accept is 1%. But what if the amount of inventory needed to support that service level is too expensive? To make an informed decision on whether there is going to be a return on that additional inventory investment, you’ll need to know the stockout costs and compare that to the inventory costs. To get stockout costs, multiply two key elements: the cost per stockout and the projected number of stockouts. To get inventory value, multiply the units required by the unit cost of each part. Then determine the annual holding costs (typically 25-35% of the unit cost). Choose the option that yields a total lower cost. In other words, if the benefit associated with adding more stock (reduced shortage costs) outweighs the cost (higher inventory holding costs), then go for it. A thorough understanding of these metrics and the associated tradeoffs serves as the compass for decision-making.

Modern software aids in this process by allowing you to simulate a multitude of future scenarios. By doing so, you can assess how well your current inventory stocking strategies are likely to perform in the face of different demand and supply patterns. If anything falls short or goes awry, it’s time to recalibrate your approach, factoring in current data on usage history, supplier lead times, and costs to prevent both stockouts and overstock situations.

Enhance your service-level-driven inventory plan consistently.

In conclusion, it’s crucial to assess your service-level-driven plan continuously. By systematically constructing and refining performance scenarios, you can define key metrics and goals, benchmark expected performance, and automate the calculation of stocking policies for all items. This iterative process involves monitoring, revising, and repeating each planning cycle.

The depth of your analysis within these stocking policies relies on the data at your disposal and the configuration capabilities of your planning system. To achieve optimal outcomes, it’s imperative to maintain ongoing data analysis. This implies that a manual approach to data examination is typically insufficient for the needs of most organizations.

For information on how Smart Software can help you meet your service supply chain goals with service-driven planning and more, visit the following blogs.

–   “Explaining What  Service-Level Means in Your Inventory Optimization Software”  Stocking recommendations can be puzzling, especially when they clash with real-world needs.  In this post, we’ll break down what that 99% service level means and why it’s crucial for managing inventory effectively and keeping customers satisfied in today’s competitive landscape.

–  “Service-Level-Driven Planning for Service Parts Businesses” Service-Level-Driven Service Parts Planning is a four-step process that extends beyond simplified forecasting and rule-of-thumb safety stocks. It provides service parts planners with data-driven, risk-adjusted decision support.

–   “How to Choose a Target Service Level.” This is a strategic decision about inventory risk management, considering current service levels and fill rates, replenishment lead times, and trade-offs between capital, stocking and opportunity costs.  Learn approaches that can help.

–   “The Right Forecast Accuracy Metric for Inventory Planning.”  Just because you set a service level target doesn’t mean you’ll actually achieve it. If you are interested in optimizing stock levels, focus on the accuracy of the service level projection. Learn how.

​BACKGROUND

Most of Smart Software’s blogs, webinars and white papers describe the use of our software in “normal operations.” This one is about “irregular operations.”  Smart Software is in the process of adapting our products to help you cope with your own irregular ops. This is a preview.

I first heard the term “irregular operations” when serving a sabbatical tour at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, DC. The FAA abbreviates the term to “IROPS” and uses it to describe situations in which weather, mechanical problems or other issues disrupt the normal flow of aircraft.

Smart Inventory Optimization® (“SIO”) currently works to provide what are known as “steady state” policies for managing inventory items. That means, for instance, that SIO automatically calculates values for reorder points (ROP’s) and order quantities (OQ’s) that are meant to last for the foreseeable future. It computes these values based on simulations of daily operations that extend years into the future. If and when the unforeseeable happens, our regime change detection method reacts by removing obsolete data and allowing recalculation of the ROP’s and OQ’s.

We often note the increasing speed of business, which shortens the duration of the “foreseeable future.” Some of our customers are now adopting shorter planning horizons, such as moving from quarterly to monthly plans. One side effect of this change is that IROPS have become more consequential. If a plan is based on three simulated years of daily demand, one odd event, like a large surprise order, doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things. But if the planning horizon is very short, one big surprise demand can have a major effect on key performance indicators (KPI’s) computed over a shorter interval – there is no time for “averaging out”. The planner may be forced to place an emergency replenishment order to deal with the disruption. When should the order be placed to do the most good? How big should it be?

SCENARIO: NORMAL OPS

To make this concrete, consider the following scenario. Tom’s Spares, Inc. provides critical service parts to its customers, including SKU723, a replacement circuit board sold under the trade name WIDGET. Demand for WIDGET is intermittent, with less than one unit demanded per day. Tom’s Spares orders WIDGETs from Acme Products, who take either 7 or 10 days to fulfill replenishment orders.

Tom’s Spares operates with a short inventory planning horizon of 28 days. The company operates in a competitive environment with impatient customers who only grudgingly accept backorders. Tom’s policy is to set ROP’s and OQ’s to keep inventory lean while maintaining a fill rate of at least 90%. Management monitors KPI’s on a monthly basis. In the case of WIDGETS, these KPI targets are currently met using an ROP=3 and an OQ=4, resulting in an average on hand of about 4 units and average fill rate of 96%.  Tom’s Spares has a pretty good thing going for WIDGETS.

Figure 1 shows two months of WIDGET information. The top left panel shows daily unit demand. The top right shows daily units on hand. The bottom left panel shows the timing and size of replenishment orders back to Acme Products. The bottom right shows units backordered due to stockouts. In this simulation, daily demand was either 0 or 1, with one demand of 2 units. On hand units began the month at 7 and never dropped below 1, though in the next month there was a stockout resulting in a single unit on backorder. Over the two months, there were 4 replenishment orders of 4 units each sent to Acme, all of which arrived during the two-month simulation period.

GOOD TROUBLE DISRUPTS NORMAL OPS

Now we add some “good trouble” to the scenario: An unusually large order arises part way through the planning period. It’s “good” because more demand implies more revenue. But it’s “trouble” because the normal ops inventory control parameters (ROP=3, OQ=4) were not chosen to cope with this situation. The spike in demand might be so big, and so disadvantageously timed, as to overwhelm the inventory system, creating stockouts and their attendant backorders. The KPI report to management for such a month would not be pretty.

Figure 2 shows a scenario in which a demand spike of 10 units hits in the third day of the planning period. In this case, the spike puts the inventory under water for the rest of the month and creates a cascade of backorders extending into the next month. Averaging over 1,000 simulations, month 1 KPI’s show an average on hand of 0.6 units and a miserable 44% fill rate.

FIGHTING BACK WITH IRREGULAR OPERATIONS

Tom’s Spares can respond to an irregular situation with an irregular move by creating an emergency replenishment order. To do it right, they have to think about (a) when to place the order (b) how big the order should be and (c) whether to expedite the order.

The timing question seems obvious: react as soon as the order hits. However, if the customer were to provide early warning, Tom’s Spares could order early and be in better position to limit the disruption from the spike. However, if communication between Tom’s and the customer making the big order is spotty, then the customer might give Tom’s a heads-up later or not at all.

The size of the special order seems obvious too: pre-order the required number of units. But that works best if Tom’s Spares knows when the demand spike will hit. If not, it might be a good idea to order extra to limit the duration of any backorders. In general, the less early warning provided, the larger the order Tom’s should make. This relationship could be explored with simulation, of course.

The arrival of the replenishment order could be left to the usual operation of Acme Products. In the simulations above, Acme was equally likely to respond in 7 or 14 days. For a 28-day planning horizon, taking a risk on getting a 14-day response might be asking for trouble, so it may be especially worthwhile for Tom’s to pay Acme for expedited shipping. Maybe overnight, but possibly something cheaper but still relatively fast.

We explored a few more scenarios using simulation. Table 1 shows the results. Scenarios 1-4 assume a surprise additional demand of 10 units arrives on Day 3, triggering an immediate order for  additional replenishment. The size and lead time of the replenishment order varies.

Scenario 0 shows that doing nothing in response to the surprise demand leads to an abysmal 41% fill rate for that month; not shown is that this result sets of the next month for continued poor performance. Regular operations won’t do well. The planner must do something to respond to the anomalous demand.

Doing something in response involves making a one-time emergency replenishment order. The planner must choose the size and timing of that order. Scenarios 1 and 3 depict “half sized” replenishments. Scenarios 1 and 2 depict overnight replenishments, while scenarios 3 and 4 depict guaranteed one week response.

The results make clear that immediate response is more important than the size of the replenishment order for restoring the Fill Rate. Overnight replenishment produces fill rates in the 70% range, while one-week replenishment lead time drops the fill rate into the mid-50% to mid-60% range.

TAKEAWAYS

Inventory management software is expanding from its traditional focus on normal ops to an additional focus on irregular ops (IROPS). This evolution has been made possible by the development of new statistical methods for generating demand scenarios at a daily level.

We considered one IROPS situation: surprise arrival of an anomalously large demand. Daily simulations provided guidance about the timing and size of an emergency replenishment order. Results from such an analysis provide inventory planners with critical backup by estimating the results of alternative interventions that their experience suggests to them.

This video blog holds essential insights for those working with the complexities of inventory management. The session focuses on striking the right balance within the inventory tradeoff curve, inviting viewers to understand the deep-seated importance of this equilibrium. If you’ve ever had to manage stock, you’ll know it feels like a bit of a tug-of-war. On one side, you’re pulling towards less inventory, which is great for saving money but can leave your customers high and dry. On the other, you’re considering more inventory, which keeps your customers happy but can be a pain for your budget. To make a smart choice in this ongoing tug-of-war, you need to understand where your current inventory decisions place you on this tradeoff curve. Are you at a point where you can handle the pressure, or do you need to shuffle along to a more comfortable spot?

If you can’t answer this question, it means that you still rely on outdated methods, risking the potential for surplus inventory or unmet customer needs. Watch the video so you can see exactly where you are on this curve and understand better about whether you want to stay put or move to a more optimal position.

And if you decide to move, we’ve got the tools to guide you. Smart IP&O’s advanced “what-if” analysis enables businesses to precisely evaluate the impact of different inventory strategies, such as adjustments to safety stock levels or changes in reorder points, on their balance between holding costs and service levels. By simulating demand scenarios and inventory policies, Smart IP&O provides a clear visualization of potential financial outcomes and service level implications, allowing for data-driven strategic decisions. This powerful tool ensures businesses can achieve an optimal balance, minimizing excess inventory and related costs while maintaining high service levels to meet customer demand efficiently.