I’ve stood in front of thousands of students. They’ve been more or less young, more or less technical, more or less experienced – and more or less interested.  I’ve done this as a university faculty member since 1972, first at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, then at Harvard University, finally in the School of Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Between Harvard and RPI I dropped out of academia temporarily to co-found Smart Software with Charlie Smart and Nelson Hartunian. So since then, I’ve also been busy training business users to exploit the power of advanced analytics for forecasting and inventory optimization.

As I write this, I’ve just returned to my office at RPI after introducing first-year Industrial Engineering students to the basic concepts of inventory management. If they stick with the program, they will go on to take required courses in supply chain, system simulation, statistical analysis, and optimization. I told them stories about how useful they will be to their companies should they decide to make a career in the world of supply chain. If I’d had more time, I would have mentioned how capable they will be when they graduate relative to many of their corporate peers. These freshmen and ready and willing to stay the course, soaking up all the techniques and theories we can throw at them, and honing their practical skills in summer jobs or coop assignments.

What I didn’t tell them is that many of them will have to work to keep their intensity when they are on the job. It’s a sad truth that, for whatever reason, many inventory practitioners settle into a kind of stasis that impedes their companies’ ability to exploit the latest technologies, such as cloud-based advanced demand forecasting and inventory optimization. Gather enough of such people in one place and agility and improved efficiency go out the window.

I think one of the factors that dulls people is that the process of implementation frequently feels painfully incremental and prolonged. It often begins with a sobering inventory of relevant data, its correctness, and its currency. Then it moves to an often-awkward discovery that there really is no systematic process in place and the subsequent need to design a good one going forward. Next is the need to learn to use a new software suite. That step involves learning new vocabulary, some level of probabilistic thought, an ability to interpret new graphs and tables, not to mention a new software interface.  All this takes time and effort.

We’ve found that a few things help new customers stay the course. One is having a champion among management, an executive sponsor, who can vouch for the commercial importance of a successful implementation while ensuring the users are supported with continuing education.  A second is identifying and training a super-user or two having unusual combinations of technical and communication skills.  A third is breaking the training into bite-sized chunks and testing for comprehension after each chunk and repeating this process until it is clear that the new concepts, vocabulary, and process are fully absorbed. But all those maneuvers will come to naught without management being all-in and ready to stay the course.  Inventory planning practices in place for many years are not going to be replaced entirely over a three-month implementation process.  You’ve got to want it to get it.

Managing the inventory in a single facility is difficult enough, but the problem becomes much more complex when there are multiple facilities arrayed in multiple echelons. The complexity arises from the interactions among the echelons, with demands at the lower levels bubbling up and any shortages at the higher levels cascading down.

If each of the facilities were to be managed in isolation, standard methods could be used, without regard to interactions, to set inventory control parameters such as reorder points and order quantities. However, ignoring the interactions between levels can lead to catastrophic failures. Experience and trial and error allow the design of stable systems, but that stability can be shattered by changes in demand patterns or lead times or by the addition of new facilities. Coping with such changes is greatly aided by advanced supply chain analytics, which provide a safe “sandbox” within which to test out proposed system changes before deploying them. This blog illustrates that point.

The Scenario

To have some hope of discussing this problem usefully, this blog will simplify the problem by considering the two-level hierarchy pictured in Figure 1. Imagine the facilities at the lower level to be warehouses (WHs) from which customer demands are meant to be satisfied, and that the inventory items at each WH are service parts sold to a wide range of external customers.

Figure 1: General structure of one type of two-level inventory system

Imagine the higher level to consist of a single distribution center (DC) which does not service customers directly but does replenish the WHs. For simplicity, assume the DC itself is replenished from a Source that always has (or makes) sufficient stock to immediately ship parts to the DC, though with some delay. (Alternatively, we could consider the system to have retail stores supplied by one warehouse).

Each level can be described in terms of demand levels (treated as random), lead times (random), inventory control parameters (here, Min and Max values) and shortage policy (here, backorders allowed).

The Method of Analysis

The academic literature has made progress on this problem, though usually at the cost of simplifications necessary to facilitate a purely mathematical solution. Our approach here is more accessible and flexible: Monte Carlo simulation. That is, we build a computer program that incorporates the logic of the system operation. The program “creates” random demand at the WH level, processes the demand according to the logic of a chosen inventory policy, and creates demand for the DC by pooling the random requests for replenishment made by the WHs. This approach lets us observe many simulated days of system operation while watching for significant events like stockouts at either level.

An Example

To illustrate an analysis, we simulated a system consisting of four WHs and one DC. Average demand varied across the WHs. Replenishment from the DC to any WH took from 4 to 7 days, averaging 5.15 days. Replenishment of the DC from the Source took either 7, 14, 21 or 28 days, but 90% of the time it was either 21 or 28 days, making the average 21 days. Each facility had Min and Max values set by analyst judgement after some rough calculations.

Figure 2 shows the results of one year of simulated daily operation of this system. The first row in the figure shows the daily demand for the item at each WH, which was assumed to be “purely random”, meaning it had a Poisson distribution. The second row shows the on-hand inventory at the end of each day, with Min and Max values indicated by blue lines. The third row describes operations at the DC.  Contrary to the assumption of much theory, the demand into the DC was not close to being Poisson, nor was the demand out of the DC to the Source. In this scenario, Min and Max values were sufficient to keep item availability was high at each WH and at the DC, with no stockouts observed at any of the five facilities.

Click here to enlarge the image

Figure 2 – Simulated year of operation of a system with four WHs and one DC.

Now let’s vary the scenario. When stockouts are extremely rare, as in Figure 2, there is often excess inventory in the system. Suppose somebody suggests that the inventory level at the DC looks a bit fat and thinks it would be good idea to save money there. Their suggestion for reducing the stock at the DC is to reduce the value of the Min at the DC from 100 to 50. What happens? You could guess, or you could simulate.

Figure 3 shows the simulation – the result is not pretty. The system runs fine for much of the year, then the DC runs out of stock and cannot catch up despite sending successively larger replenishment orders to the Source. Three of the four WHs descend into death spirals by the end of the year (and WH1 follows thereafter). The simulation has highlighted a sensitivity that cannot be ignored and has flagged a bad decision.

Click here to enlarge image

Figure 3 – Simulated effects of reducing the Min at the DC.

Now the inventory managers can go back to the drawing board and test out other possible ways to reduce the investment in inventory at the DC level. One move that always helps, if you and your supplier can jointly make it happen, is to create a more agile system by reducing replenishment lead time. Working with the Source to insure that the DC always gets its replenishments in either 7 or 14 days stabilizes the system, as shown in Figure 4.

Click here to enlarge image

Figure 4 – Simulated effects of reducing the lead time for replenishing the DC.

Unfortunately, the intent of reducing the inventory at the DC has not been achieved. The original daily inventory count was about 80 units and remains about 80 units after reducing the DC’s Min and drastically improving the Source-to-DC lead time. But with the simulation model, the planning team can try out other ideas until they arrive at a satisfactory redesign. Or, given that Figure 4 shows the DC inventory starting to flirt with zero, they might think it prudent to accept the need for an average of about 80 units at the DC and look for ways to trim inventory investment at the WHs instead.

The Takeaways

1. Multiechelon inventory optimization (MEIO) is complex. Many factors interact to produce system behaviors that can be surprising in even simple two-level systems.
2. Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for planners who need to design new systems or tweak existing systems.