I’ll bet your maintenance and repair teams would be ok with incurring higher stock out risks one some spare parts if they knew that the inventory reduction savings would be used to spread out the inventory investment more effectively to other parts and boost overall service levels.

I’ll double down that your Finance team, despite always being challenged with lowering costs, would support a healthy inventory increase if they could clearly see that the revenue benefits from increased uptime, fewer expedites, and service level improvements clearly outweighed the additional inventory costs and risk.

A spare parts tradeoff curve will enable service parts planning teams to properly communicate the risks and costs of each inventory decision.  It is mission critical for parts planning and the only way to adjust stocking parameters proactively and accurately for each part.  Without it, planners, for all intents and purposes, are “planning” with blinders on because they won’t be able to communicate the true tradeoffs associated with stocking decisions.

For example, if a proposed increase to the min/max levels of an important commodity group of service parts is recommended, how do you know whether the increase is too high or too low or just right?  How can you fine-tune the change for thousands of spares?  You won’t and you can’t.  Your inventory decision making will rely on reactive, gut feel, and broad-brush decisions causing service levels to suffer and inventory costs to balloon.

So, what exactly is a spare parts tradeoff curve anyway?

It’s a fact-based, numerically driven prediction that details how changes in stocking levels will influence inventory value, holding costs, and service levels.  For each unit change in inventory level there is a cost and a benefit.  The spare parts tradeoff curve identifies these costs and benefits across different stocking levels. It lets planners discover the stock level that best balances the costs and benefits for each individual item.

Here are two simplified examples. In Figure 1, the spare parts tradeoff curve shows how the service level (probability of not stocking out) changes depending on the reorder level.  The higher the reorder level, the lower the stockout risk.  It is critical to know how much service you are gaining given the inventory investment.  Here you may be able to justify that an inventory increase from a reorder point of 35 to 45 is well worth the investment of 10 additional units of stock because service levels jumps from just under 70% to 90%, cutting your stockout risk for the spare part from 30% to 10%!

​

Figure 1: Cost versus Service Level

Figure 2: Service Level versus Size of Inventory

In this example (Figure 2), the tradeoff curve exposes a common problem with spare parts inventory.  Often stock levels are so high that they generate negative returns.  After a certain stocking quantity, each additional unit of stock does not buy more benefit in the form of a higher service level.  Inventory decreases can be justified when it is clear the stock level is well past the point of diminishing returns. An accurate tradeoff curve will expose the point where it is no longer advantageous to add stock.

By leveraging #probabilisticforecasting to drive parts planning, you can communicate these tradeoffs accurately, do so at scale across hundreds of thousands of parts, avoid bad inventory decisions, and balance service levels and costs.  At Smart Software, we specialize in helping spare parts planners, Directors of Materials Management, and financial executives managing MRO, spare parts, and aftermarket parts to understand and exploit these relationships.

Every organization that runs equipment needs spare parts. All of them must cope with issues that are generic no matter what their business. Some of the problems, however, are industry specific. This post discusses one universal problem that manifested in a nuclear plant and one that is especially acute for any electric utility.

The Universal Problem of Data Quality

We often post about the benefits of converting parts usage data into smart inventory management decisions. Advanced probability modeling supports generation of realistic demand scenarios that feed into detailed Monte Carlo simulations that expose the consequences of decisions such as choices of Min and Max governing the replenishment of spares.

However, all that new and shiny analytical tech requires quality data as fuel for the analysis. For some public utilities of all kinds, record keeping is not a strong suit, so the raw material going into analysis can be corrupted and misleading. We recently chanced upon documentation of a stark example of this problem at a nuclear power plant (see Scala, ­­­­­­­Needy and Rajgopal: Decision making and tradeoffs in the management of spare parts inventory at utilities. American Association of Engineering Management, 30th ASEM National Conference, Springfield, MO. October 2009). Scala et al. documented the usage history of a critical part whose absence would result in either a facility de-rate or a shutdown. The plant’s usage record for that part spanned more than eight years of data. During that time, the official usage history reported nine events in which positive demand occurred with sizes ranging from one to six units each. There were also five events marked by negative demands (i.e., returns to warehouse) ranging from one to three units each. Careful sleuthing discovered that the true usage occurred in just two events, both with demand of two units. Obviously, calculating the best Min/Max values for this item requires accurate demand data.

The Special Problem of Health and Safety

In the context of “regular” businesses, shortages of spare parts can damage both current revenue and future revenue (related to reputation as a reliable supplier). For an electric utility, however, Scala et al. noted a much greater level of consequence attached to stockouts of spare parts. These include not only a heightened financial and reputational risk but also risks to health and safety: “Ramifications of not having a part in stock include the possibility of having to reduce output or quite possibly, even a plant shut down. From a more long-term perspective, doing so might interrupt the critical service of power to residential, commercial, and/or industrial customers, while damaging the company’s reputation, reliability, and profitability. An electric utility makes and sells only one product: electricity. Losing the ability to sell electricity can be seriously damaging to the company’s bottom line as well its long-term viability.”

All the more reason for electric utilities to be leaders rather than laggards in the deployment of the most advanced probability models for demand forecasting and inventory optimization.

​If you had your head up lately, you may have noticed some additional madness off the basketball court: The failure of Silicon Valley Bank. Those of us in the supply chain world may have dismissed the bank failure as somebody else’s problem, but that sorry episode holds a big lesson for us, too: The importance of stress testing done right.

The Washington Post recently carried an opinion piece by Natasha Sarin called “Regulators missed Silicon Valley Bank’s problems for months. Here’s why.” Sarin outlined the flaws in the stress testing regime imposed on the bank by the Federal Reserve. One problem is that the stress tests are too static. The Fed’s stress factor for nominal GDP growth was a single scenario listing presumed values over the next 13 quarters (see Figure 1). Those 13 quarterly projections might be somebody’s consensus view of what a bad hair day would look like, but that’s not the only way things could play out.  As a society, we are being taught to appreciate a better way to display contingencies every time the National Weather Service shows us projected hurricane tracks (see Figure 2). Each scenario represented by a different colored line shows a possible storm path, with the concentrated lines representing the most likely.  By exposing the lower probability paths, risk planning is improved.

When stress testing the supply chain, we need realistic scenarios of possible future demands that might occur, even extreme demands.   Smart provides this in our software (with considerable improvements in our Gen2 methods).  The software generates a huge number of credible demand scenarios, enough to expose the full scope of risks (see Figure 3). Stress testing is all about generating massive numbers of planning scenarios, and Smart’s probabilistic methods are a radical departure from previous deterministic S&OP applications, being entirely scenario based.

The other flaw in the Fed’s stress tests was that they were designed months in advance but never updated for changing conditions.  Demand planners and inventory managers intuitively appreciate that key variables like item demand and supplier lead time are not only highly random even when things are stable but also subject to abrupt shifts that should require rapid rewriting of planning scenarios (see Figure 4, where the average demand jumps up dramatically between observations 19 and 20). Smart’s Gen2 products include new tech for detecting such “regime changes”  and automatically changing scenarios accordingly.

Banks are forced to undergo stress tests, however flawed they may be, to protect their depositors. Supply chain professionals now have a way to protect their supply chains by using modern software to stress test their demand plans and inventory management decisions.

Figure 1: Scenarios used the Fed to stress test banks.

Figure 2: Scenarios used by the National Weather Service to predict hurricane tracks

Figure 3: Demand scenarios of the type generated by Smart Demand Planner

Figure 4: Example of regime change in product demand after observation #19

When managing service parts, you don’t know what will break and when because part failures are random and sudden. As a result, demand patterns are most often extremely intermittent and lack significant trend or seasonal structure. The number of part-by-location combinations is often in the hundreds of thousands, so it’s not feasible to manually review demand for individual parts. Nevertheless, it is much more straightforward to implement a planning and forecasting system to support spare parts planning than you might think.

This conclusion is informed by hundreds of software implementations we’ve directed over the years. Customers managing spare parts and service parts (the latter for internal consumption/MRO), and to a lesser degree aftermarket parts (for resale to installed bases), have consistently implemented our parts planning software faster than their peers in manufacturing and distribution.

The primary reason is the role in manufacturing and distribution of business knowledge about what might happen in the future. In a traditional B2B manufacturing and distribution environment, there are customers and sales and marketing teams selling to those customers. There are sales goals, revenue expectations, and budgets. This means there is a lot of business knowledge about what will be purchased, what will be promoted, whose opinions need to be accounted for. A complex planning loop is required. In contrast, when managing spare parts, you have a maintenance team that fixes equipment when it breaks. Though there are often maintenance schedules for guidance, what is needed beyond a standard list of consumable parts is often unknown until a maintenance person is on-site. In other words, there just isn’t the same sort of business knowledge available to parts planners when making stocking decisions.

Yes, that is a disadvantage, but it also has an upside: there is no need to produce a period-by-period consensus demand forecast with all the work that requires. When planning spare parts, you can usually skip many steps required for a typical manufacturer, distributor, or retailer. These skippable steps include:  

1. Building forecasts at different levels of the business, such as product family or region.
2. Sharing the demand forecast with sales, marketing, and customers.
3. Reviewing forecast overrides from sales, marketing, and customers.
4. Agreeing on a consensus forecast that combines statistics and business knowledge.
5. Measuring “forecast value add” to determine if overrides make the forecast more accurate.
6. Adjusting the demand forecast for known future promotions.
7. Accounting for cannibalization (i.e., if I sell more of product A, I’ll sell less of product B).

Freed from a consensus-building process, spare parts planners and inventory managers can rely directly on their software to predict usage and the required stocking policies. If they have access to a field-proven solution that addresses intermittent demand, they can quickly “go live” with more accurate demand forecasts and estimates of reorder points, safety stocks, and order suggestions.  Their attention can be focused on getting accurate usage and supplier lead time data. The “political” part of the job can be limited to obtaining organization consensus on service level targets and inventory budgets.

​

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.

Step 1. Ensure that all stakeholders agree on the metrics that matter. All participants in the service parts inventory planning process must agree on the definitions and what metrics matter most to the organization. Service Levels detail the percentage of time you can completely satisfy required usage without stocking out. Fill Rates detail the percentage of the requested usage that is immediately filled from stock. (To learn more about the differences between service levels and fill rate, watch this 4-minute lesson here.) Availability details the percentage of active spare parts that have an on-hand inventory of at least one unit. Holding costs are the annualized costs of holding stock accounting for obsolescence, taxes, interest, warehousing, and other expenses. Shortage costs are the cost of running out of stock including vehicle/equipment down time, expedites, lost sales, and more. Ordering costs are the costs associated with placing and receiving replenishment orders.

Step 2. Benchmark historical and predicted current service level performance. All participants in the service parts inventory planning process must hold a common understanding of predicted future service levels, fill rates and costs and their implications for your service parts operations. It is critical to measure both historical Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and their predictive equivalents, Key Performance Predictions (KPPs). Leveraging modern software, you can benchmark past performance and leverage probabilistic forecasting methods to simulate future performance. By stress testing your current inventory stocking policies against all plausible scenarios of future demand, you will know ahead of time how current and proposed stocking policies are likely to perform.

Step 3. Agree on targeted service levels for each spare part and take proactive corrective action when targets are predicted to miss. Parts planners, supply chain leadership, and the mechanical/maintenance teams should agree on the desired service level targets with a full understanding of the tradeoffs between stockout risk and inventory cost. By leveraging what-if scenarios in modern parts planning software, it is possible to compare alternative stocking policies and identify those that best meets business objectives. Agree on what degree of stockout risk is acceptable for each part or class of parts. Likewise, determine inventory budgets and other cost constraints. Once these limits are agreed, take immediate action to avoid stockouts and excess inventory before they occur. Use your software to automatically upload modified reorder points, safety stock levels, and/or Min/Max parameters to your Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) or Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system to adjust daily parts purchasing.

Step 4. Make it so and keep it so. Empower the planning team with the knowledge and tools it needs to ensure that you strike agreed-upon balance between service levels and costs by driving your ordering process using optimized inputs (forecasts, reorder points, order quantities, safety stocks). Track your KPI’s and use your software to identify and address exceptions. Don’t let reorder points grow stale and outdated.  Recalibrate the stocking policies each planning cycle (at least once monthly) using up-to-date usage history, supplier lead times, and costs. Remember: Recalibration of your service parts inventory policy is preventive maintenance against both stockouts and excess stock.

​