In this blog, we will explore how organizations can achieve exceptional efficiency and accuracy with AI-driven inventory optimization. Traditional inventory management methods often fall short due to their reactive nature and reliance on manual processes. Maintaining optimal inventory levels is fundamental for meeting customer demand while minimizing costs. The introduction of AI-driven inventory optimization can significantly reduce the burden of manual processes, providing relief to supply chain managers from tedious tasks. With AI, we can predict demand more accurately, reduce excess stock, avoid stockouts, and ultimately improve our organization’s bottom line. Let’s explore how this approach not only boosts sales and operational efficiency but also elevates customer satisfaction by ensuring products are always available when needed.

 

Insights for Improved Decision-Making in Inventory Management

1. Enhanced Forecast Accuracy Advanced Machine Learning algorithms analyze historical data to identify patterns that humans might miss. Techniques like clustering, regime change detection, anomaly detection, and regression analysis provide deep insights into data. Measuring forecast error is essential for refining forecast models; for example, techniques like Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) help quantify the accuracy of forecasts. Businesses can improve accuracy by continuously monitoring and adjusting forecasts based on these error metrics. As the Demand Planner at a Hardware Retailer stated, “With the improvements to our forecasts and inventory planning that Smart Software enabled, we have been able to reduce safety stock by 20% while also reducing stock-outs by 35%.”

2. Real-Time Data Analysis State-of-the-art systems can process vast amounts of data in real time, allowing businesses to adjust their inventory levels dynamically based on current demand trends and market conditions. Anomaly detection algorithms can automatically identify and correct sudden spikes or drops in demand, ensuring that the forecasts remain accurate. A notable success story comes from Smart IP&O, which enabled one company to reduce inventory by 20% while maintaining service levels by continuously analyzing real-time data and adjusting forecasts accordingly. FedEx Tech’s Manager of Materials highlighted, “Whatever the request, we need to meet our next-day service commitment – Smart enables us to risk adjust our inventory to be sure we have the products and parts on hand to achieve the service levels our customers require.”

3. Improved Supply Chain Efficiency Intelligent technology platforms can optimize the entire supply chain, from procurement to distribution, by predicting lead times and optimizing order quantities. This reduces the risk of overstocking and understocking. For instance, using forecast-based inventory management, Smart Software helped a manufacturer streamline its supply chain, reducing lead times by 15% and enhancing overall efficiency. The VP of Operations at Procon Pump stated, “One of the things I like about this new tool… is that I can evaluate the consequences of inventory stocking decisions before I implement them.”

4. Enhanced Decision-Making AI provides actionable insights and recommendations, enabling managers to make informed decisions. This includes identifying slow-moving items, forecasting future demand, and optimizing stock levels. Regression analysis, for example, can relate sales to external variables like seasonality or economic indicators, providing a deeper understanding of demand drivers. One of Smart Software’s clients reported a significant improvement in decision-making processes, resulting in a 30% increase in service levels while reducing excess inventory by 15%. “Smart IP&O enabled us to model demand at each stocking location and, using service level-driven planning, determine how much to stock to achieve the service level we require,” noted the Purchasing Manager at Seneca Companies.

5. Cost Reduction By optimizing inventory levels, businesses can reduce holding costs and minimize losses from obsolete or expired products. AI-driven systems also reduce the need for manual inventory checks, saving time and labor costs. A recent case study shows how implementing Inventory Planning & Optimization (IP&O) was accomplished within 90 days of project start. Over the ensuing six months, IP&O enabled the adjustment of stocking parameters for several thousand items, resulting in inventory reductions of $9.0 million while sustaining target service levels.

 

By leveraging advanced algorithms and real-time data analysis, businesses can maintain optimal inventory levels and enhance their overall supply chain performance. Inventory Planning & Optimization (IP&O) is a powerful tool that can help your organization achieve these goals. Incorporating state-of-the-art inventory optimization into your organization can lead to significant improvements in efficiency, cost reduction, and customer satisfaction.

 

 

 

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.

 

In this blog, we are steering the conversation towards the transformative potential of technology in inventory management. The discussion centers around the limitations of simple thinking in managing inventory control processes and the necessity of adopting systematic software solutions. Dr. Tom Willemain highlights the contrast between Smart Software and the basic, albeit comfortable, approaches commonly employed by many businesses. These elementary methods, often favored for their ease of use and zero cost, are scrutinized for their inadequacies in addressing the dynamic challenges of inventory management.

​

​The importance of this subject lies in the critical role inventory management plays in a business’s operational efficiency and its direct impact on customer satisfaction and profitability. Dr. Tom Willemain points out the common pitfalls of relying on oversimplified rules of thumb, such as the whimsical nursery rhyme used by one company to determine reorder points, or the gut feel method, which depends on unquantifiable intuition rather than data. These approaches, while appealing in their simplicity, fail to adapt to market fluctuations, supplier reliability, or changes in demand, thus posing significant risks to the business. The video also critiques the practice of setting reorder points based on multiples of average demand, highlighting its disregard for demand volatility, a fundamental consideration in inventory theory.

Concluding, the presenter advocates for a more sophisticated, data-driven approach to inventory management. By leveraging advanced software solutions like those offered by Smart Software, businesses can accurately model complex demand patterns and stress-test inventory rules against numerous future scenarios. This scientific method allows for the setting of reorder points that account for real-world variability, thereby minimizing the risk of stockouts and the associated costs. The video emphasizes that while simple heuristics may be tempting for their ease of use, they are inadequate for today’s dynamic market conditions. The presenter encourages viewers to embrace technological solutions that offer professional-grade accuracy and adaptability, ensuring sustainable business success.

 

 

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.