MRO organizations exist in a wide range of  industries, including public transit, electrical utilities, wastewater, hydro power, aviation, and mining. To get their work done, MRO professionals use Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. These systems are designed to do a lot of jobs. Given their features, cost, and extensive implementation requirements, there is an assumption that EAM and ERP systems can do it all.

For example, at a recent Maximo Utilities Working Group event, several prospects stated that “Our EAM will do that” when asked about requirements for forecasting usage, netting out supply plans, and optimizing inventory policies. They were surprised to learn it did not and wanted to know more.

In this post, we summarize the need for add-on software that addresses specialized analytics for inventory optimization, forecasting, and service parts planning.   

EAM Systems

EAM systems can’t ingest forecasts of future usage – these systems simply aren’t designed to conduct supply planning and many don’t even have a place to hold forecasts. So, when an MRO business needs to net out known requirements for planned production or capital projects, an add-on application like Smart IP&O is needed.

Inventory Optimization software with features that support planning known future demand will take project-based data not maintained in the EAM system (including project start dates, duration, and when each part is expected to be needed) and compute a period-by-period forecast over any planning horizon. That “planned” forecast can be projected alongside statistical forecasts of “unplanned” demand arising from normal wear and tear. At that point, parts planning software can net out the supply and identify gaps between supply and demand. This ensures that these gaps won’t go unnoticed and result in shortages that would otherwise delay the completion of the projects. It also minimizes excess stock that would otherwise be ordered too soon and needlessly consumes cash and warehouse space. Again, MRO businesses sometimes mistakenly assume that these capabilities are addressed by their EAM package.

ERP Systems

ERP systems, on the other hand, typically do include an MRP module that is designed to ingest a forecast and net out material requirements. Processing will consider current on hand inventory, open sales orders, scheduled jobs, incoming purchase orders, any bill of materials, and items in transit while transferring between sites. It will compare those current state values to the replenishment policy fields plus any monthly or weekly forecasts to determine when to suggest replenishment (a date) and how much to replenish (a quantity).

So, why not use the ERP system alone to net out the supply plan to prevent shortages and excess? First, while ERP systems have a placeholder for a forecast and some systems can net out supply using their MRP modules, they don’t make it easy to reconcile planned demand requirements associated with capital projects. Most of the time, the data on when planned projects will occur is maintained outside of the ERP, especially the project’s bill of materials detailing what parts will be needed to support the project. Second, many ERP systems don’t offer anything effective when it comes to predictive capabilities, relying instead on simple math that just won’t work for service parts due to the high prevalence of intermittent demand. Finally, ERP systems don’t have flexible user-friendly interfaces that support interacting with the forecasts and supply plan.

Reorder Point Logic

Both ERP and EAM have placeholders for reorder point replenishment methods such as Min/Max levels. You can use inventory optimization software to populate these fields with the risk-adjusted reorder point policies. Then within the ERP or EAM systems, orders are triggered whenever actual (not forecasted) demand drives on-hand stock below the Min. This type of policy doesn’t use a traditional forecast that projects demand week-over-week or month-over-month and is often referred to as “demand driven replenishment” (since orders only occur when actual demand drives stock below a user defined threshold).

But just because it isn’t using a period-over-period forecast doesn’t mean it isn’t being predictive. Reorder point policies should be based on a prediction of demand over a replenishment lead time plus a buffer to protect against demand and supply variability. MRO businesses need to know the stockout risk they are incurring with any given stocking policy. After all, inventory management is risk management – especially in MRO businesses when the cost of stockout is so high. Yet, ERP and EAM do not offer any capabilities to risk-adjust stocking policies. They force users to manually generate these policies externally or to use basic rule of thumb math that doesn’t detail the risks associated with the choice of policy.

Summary

Supply chain planning functionality such as inventory optimization isn’t the core focus of EAM  and ERP. You should leverage add-on planning platforms, like Smart IP&O, that support statistical forecasting, planned project management, and inventory optimization. Smart IP&O will develop forecasts and stocking policies that can be input to an EAM or ERP system to drive daily ordering.

​In this video blog, we explore the critical roles of Descriptive, Predictive, and Prescriptive Analytics in inventory management, highlighting their essential contributions to driving supply chain optimization through strategic foresight and insightful data analysis.

​These analytics foster a dynamic, responsive, and efficient inventory management ecosystem by enabling inventory managers to monitor current operations, anticipate future developments, and formulate optimal responses. We’ll walk you through how Descriptive Analytics keeps you informed about current operations, Predictive Analytics helps you anticipate future demands, and Prescriptive Analytics guides your strategic decisions for maximum efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

By the end of the video, you’ll have a solid understanding of how to leverage these analytics to enhance your inventory management strategies. These are not just tools but a new way of thinking about and approaching inventory optimization with the support of modern software.

“Business is war” may be an overdone metaphor but it’s not without validity. Like the “Bomber Gap” and the “Missile Gap,” worries about falling behind the competition, and the resulting threat of annihilation, always lurk in the minds of business executives, If they don’t, they should, because not all gaps are imaginary (the Bomber Gap and the Missile Gap were shown to not exist between the US and the USSR, but the 1980’s gap between Japanese and American productivity was all too real). The difference between paranoia and justified concern is converting fear into facts. This post is about organizing your attention toward possible gaps in your company’s supply chain analytics.

Surveillance Gaps

The US Army has a saying: “Time spent on reconnaissance is never wasted.” Now and then, our Smart Forecaster blog has a post that helps you get your head on a swivel to see what’s going on around you. An example is our post on digital twins, which is a hot topic throughout the engineering world.  To recap: using demand and supply simulations to probe for weaknesses in your inventory plan is a form of supply chain reconnaissance.  Closing this surveillance gap enables businesses to take corrective action before an actual problem emerges.

Situational Awareness Gaps

A military commander needs to keep track of what is available for use and how well it is being used. The reports available in Smart Operational Analytics keep you current on your inventory counts, your forecasting accuracy, your suppliers’ responsiveness, and trends in these and other operational areas.  You’ll know exactly where you stand on a variety of supply chain KPIs such as service level, fill rates, and inventory turns.  You’ll know whether actual performance is aligned with planned performance and whether the inventory plan (i.e., what to order, when, from whom, and why) is being adhered to or ignored.

Agility Gaps

The business environment can change rapidly. All it takes is a tanker stuck sideways in the Suez Canal, a few anti-ship ballistic missiles in the Red Sea, or a region-wide weather event. These catastrophes may fall as much on your competitors’ heads as on yours, but which of you is agile enough to react first? Exception reporting in Demand Planner and Smart Operational Analytics can detect major changes in the character of demand so you can quickly filter out obsolete demand data before they poison all your calculations for demand forecasts or inventory optimization. Smart Demand Planner can give advance warning of a pending increase or decrease in demand. Smart Inventory Optimization can help you adjust your inventory replenishment tactics to reflect these shifts in demand.

Innovation Gaps

Whether you refer to your competition as “The Other Guys” or “Everybody Else” or something unprintable, the ones you have to worry about are the ones always looking for an edge. When you choose Smart as your partner, we’ll give you that edge with innovative but field proven predictive solutions.  Smart Software has been innovating predictive modeling since birth over 40 years ago.

• Our first products introduced multiple technical innovations: assessment of forecast quality by looking into the future not the past; automatic selection of the best among a set of competing methodologies, exploiting the graphics in the first PCs to allow easy management overrides of statistical forecasts.

• Later we invented and patented a radically different approach to forecasting the intermittent demand that is characteristic of both spare parts and big-ticket durable goods. Our technology was patented, received multiple awards for dramatically improving the management of inventory.  The solution is now a field proven approach used by many leading businesses in service parts, MRO, aftermarket parts, and field service.

• More recently, Smart’s cloud platform for demand forecasting, predictive modeling, inventory optimization, and analytics, takes all relevant data otherwise locked in your ERP or EAM systems, external files, and other disparate data sources, organizes it in the Smart Data Pipeline, structures it into our common data model, and processes it in our AWS cloud.  Smart uses the power of our patented probabilistic demand simulations in Smart Inventory Optimization to stress test and optimize the rules you use to manage each of your inventory items.

It’s my job, along with my cofounder Dr. Nelson Hartunian, our data science team, and academic consultants, to continue to push the envelope of supply chain analytics and bring the benefits back to you by continuously rolling out new versions of our products so you don’t get stuck in an innovation gap – or any of the others.

In today’s competitive business landscape, companies are constantly seeking ways to improve their operational efficiency and drive increased revenue. Optimizing service parts management is an often-overlooked aspect that can have a significant financial impact. Companies can improve overall efficiency and generate significant financial returns by effectively managing spare parts inventory. This article will explore the economic implications of optimized service parts management and how investing in Inventory Optimization and Demand Planning Software can provide a competitive advantage.

The Importance of Optimized Service Parts Planning:

Optimized service parts management plays a vital role in mitigating inventory risks and ensuring critical spare parts availability. While subjective planning may work on a small scale, it becomes insufficient when managing large inventories of intermittently demanded spare parts. Traditional forecasting approaches simply fail to accurately account for the extreme demand variability and frequent periods of zero demand that is so common with spare parts.  This results in large misallocations of stock, higher costs, and poor service levels.

The key to optimized service parts management lies in understanding the trade-off between service and cost. Inventory Optimization and Demand Planning Software powered by probabilistic forecasting and Machine learning Algorithms can help companies better understand the cost vs. benefit of each inventory decision and wield inventory as a competitive asset. By generating accurate demand forecasts and optimal stocking policies such as Min/Max, Safety Stock Levels, and Reorder Points in seconds, companies can know how much is too much and when to add more. By wielding inventory as a competitive asset, companies can drive up service levels and drive down costs.

Improve the Financial Outcome of Spare Parts Planning

1. Accurate forecasting is crucial to optimize inventory planning and meet customer demand effectively. State-of-the-art demand planning software accurately predicts inventory requirements, even for intermittent demand patterns. By automating forecasting, companies can save time, money, and resources while improving accuracy.
2. Meeting customer demand is a critical aspect of service parts management. Companies can enhance customer satisfaction, loyalty, and increase their chances of winning future contracts for the asset-intensive equipment they sell by ensuring the availability of spare parts when needed. Through effective demand planning and inventory optimization, organizations can reduce lead times, minimize stockouts, and maintain service levels, thereby improving the financial impact of all decisions.
3. Financial gains can be achieved through optimized service parts planning, including the reduction of inventory and product costs. Excess storage and obsolete inventory can be significant cost burdens for organizations. By implementing best-of-breed inventory optimization software, companies can identify cost-effective solutions, driving up service levels and reducing costs. This leads to improved inventory turnover, reduced carrying costs, and increased profitability.
4. Procurement planning is another essential aspect of service parts management. Organizations can optimize inventory levels, reduce lead times, and avoid stockouts by aligning procurement and the associated order quantities with accurate demand forecasts. For example, accurate forecasts can be shared with suppliers so that blanket purchase commitments can be made. This provides the supplier revenue certainty and, in exchange, can hold more inventory, thereby reducing lead times.
5. Intermittent demand planning is a particular challenge in spare parts management. Conventional rule-of-thumb approaches fall short in handling demand variability effectively. This is because traditional approaches assume demand is normally distributed when in reality, it is anything but normal. Spare parts demand random bursts of large demand intersperse many period of zero demand.  Smart Software’s solution incorporates advanced statistical models and machine learning algorithms to analyze historical demand patterns, enabling accurate planning for intermittent demand. Companies can significantly reduce stockout costs and improve efficiency by addressing this challenge.

Evidence from Smart Software’s Customers:

Investing in Smart Software’s Inventory Optimization and Demand Planning Software enables companies to unlock cost savings, elevate customer service levels, and enhance operational efficiency. Through accurate demand forecasting, optimized inventory management, and streamlined procurement processes, organizations can achieve financial savings, meet customer demands effectively, and improve overall business performance.

• Metro-North Railroad (MNR) experienced an 8% reduction in parts inventory, reaching a record high customer service level of 98.7%, and reduced inventory growth for new equipment from a projected 10% to only 6%. Smart Software played a crucial role in identifying multi-year service part needs, reducing administrative lead times, formulating stock reduction plans for retiring fleets, and identifying inactive inventory for disposal. MNR saved costs, maximized disposal benefits, improved service levels, and gained accurate insights for informed decision-making, ultimately improving their bottom line and customer satisfaction.
• Seneca Companies, an industry leader in automotive petroleum services, adopted Smart Software to model customer demand, control inventory performance, and drive replenishment. Field service technicians embraced its use, and total inventory investment decreased by more than 25%, from $11 million to $8 million, while maintaining first-time fix rates of 90%+.
• A leading Electric Utility implemented Smart IP&O in just 3 months and then used the software to optimize its reorder points and order quantities for over 250,000 spare parts. During the first phase of the implementation, the platform helped the Utility reduce inventory by $9,000,000 while maintaining service levels. The implementation was part of the company’s strategic supply chain optimization initiative.

Optimizing Service Parts Planning for Competitive Advantage

Optimized service parts management is crucial for companies seeking to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and ensure the availability of necessary spare parts. Organizations can unlock significant value in this field by investing in Smart Software’s Inventory Optimization and Demand Planning Software. Companies can achieve better financial performance and gain a competitive edge in their respective markets through improved data analysis, automation, and inventory planning.

Smart Software is designed for the modern marketplace, which is volatile and always changing. It can handle SKU proliferation, longer supply chains, less predictable lead times, and more intermittent and less forecastable demand patterns. It can also integrate with virtually every ERP solution on the market, by field-proven seamless connections or using a simple import/export process supported by Smart Software’s data model and data processing engine. By using Smart Software, companies can leverage inventory as a competitive asset, enhance customer satisfaction, drive up service levels, push down costs, and save substantial money.

Our customers have usually settled into one way to manage their service parts inventory. The professor in me would like to think that the chosen inventory policy was a reasoned choice among considered alternatives, but more likely it just sort of happened. Maybe the inventory honcho from long ago had a favorite and that choice stuck. Maybe somebody used an EAM or ERP system that offered only one choice. Perhaps there were some guesses made, based on the conditions at the time.

The Competitors

Too seldom, businesses make these choices in haphazard ways. But modern service parts planning software lets you be more systematic about your choices. This post demonstrates that proposition by making objective comparisons among three popular inventory policies:  Order Up To, Reorder Point/Order Quantity, and Min/Max.  I discussed each of these policies in this video blog.

• Order Up To. This is a periodic review policy where every T days, on-hand inventory is tallied and an order of random size is placed to bring the stock level back up to S units.
• Q, R or Reorder Point/Order Quantity. Q, R is a continuous review policy where every day, inventory is tallied. If there are Q or fewer units on hand, an order of fixed size is placed for R more units.
• Min, Max is another continuous review policy where every day, inventory is tallied. If there are Min or fewer units on hand, an order is placed to bring the stock level back up to Max units.

Inventory theory says these choices are listed in increasing order of effectiveness. The first option, Order Up To, is clearly the simplest and cheapest to implement, but it closes its eyes to what’s going on for long periods of time.  Imposing a specified passage of time in between orders makes it, in theory, less flexible. In contrast, the two continuous review options keep an eye on what’s happening all the time, so they can react to potential stockouts quicker. The Min/Max option is, in theory, more flexible than the option that uses a fixed reorder quantity because the size of the order dynamically changes to accommodate the demand.

That’s the theory. This post examines evidence from head-to-head comparisons to check the theory and put concrete numbers on the relative performance of the three policies.

The Meaning of “Best”

How should we keep score in this tournament? If you are a regular reader of this Smart Forecaster blog, you know that the core of inventory planning is a tug-of-war between two opposing objectives: keeping inventory lean vs keeping item availability metrics such as service level high.

To simplify things, we will compute “one number to rule them all”: the average operating cost. The winning policy will be the one with the lowest average.

This average is the sum of three components: the cost of holding inventory (“holding cost”), the cost of ordering replenishment units (“ordering cost”) and the cost of losing a sale (“shortage cost”). To make things concrete, we used the following assumptions:

• Each service part is valued at $1,000.
• Annual holding cost is 10% of item value, or $100 per year per unit.
• Processing each replenishment order costs $20 per order.
• Each unit demanded but not provided costs the value of the part, $1,000.

For simplicity, we will refer to the average operating cost as simply “the cost”.

Of course, the lowest average cost can be achieved by getting out of the business. So the competition required a performance constraint on item availability: Each option had to achieve a fill rate of at least 99%.

The Alternatives Duke it Out

A key element of context is whether stockouts result in losses or backorders. Assuming that the service part in question is critical, we assumed that unfilled orders are lost, which means that a competitor fills the order. In an MRO environment, this will mean additional downtime due to stockout.

To compare the alternatives, we used our predictive modeling engine to run a large number of Monte Carlo simulations.  Each simulation involved specifying the parameter values of each policy (e.g., Min and Max values), generating a demand scenario, feeding that into the logic of the policy, and measuring the resulting cost averaged over 365 days of operation. Repeating this process 1,000 times and averaging the 1,000 resulting costs gave the final result for each policy.  

To make the comparison fair, each alternative had to be designed for its best performance. So we searched the “design space” of each policy to find the design with the lowest cost. This required repeating the process described in the previous paragraph for many pairs of parameter values and identifying the pair yielding the lost average annual operating cost.

Using the algorithms in Smart Inventory Optimization (SIO^TM) we made head-to-head-to-head comparisons under the following assumptions about demand and supply:

• Item demand was assumed to be intermittent and highly variable but relatively simple in that there was neither trend nor seasonality, as is often true for service parts. Daily mean demand was 5 units with a large standard deviation of 13 units. Figure 1 shows a sample of one year’s demand. We have chosen a very challenging demand pattern, in which some days have 10 to even 20 times the average demand.

Figure 1: Daily part demand was assumed to be intermittent and very spikey.

​​

• Suppliers’ replenishment lead times were 14 days 75% of the time and 21 days otherwise. This reflects the fact that there is always uncertainty in the supply chain.

And the Winner Is…

Was the theory right? Kinda’ sorta’.

Table 1 shows the results of the simulation experiments. For each of the three competing policies, it shows the average annual operating cost, the margin of error (technically, an approximate 95% confidence interval for the mean cost), and the apparent best choices for parameter values.

Table 1: Results of the simulated comparisons

For example, the average cost for the (T,S) policy when T is fixed at 30 days was $41,680. But the Plus/Minus implies that the results are compatible with a “true” cost (i.e., the estimate from an infinite number of simulations) of anywhere between $39,890 and $43,650. The reason there is so much statistical uncertainty is the extremely spikey nature of demand in this example.

Table 1 says that, in this example, the three policies fall in line with expectations. However, more useful conclusions would be:

1. The three policies are remarkably similar in average cost. By clever choice of parameter values, one can get good results out of any of the three policies.
2. Not shown in Table 1, but clear from the detailed simulation results, is that poor choices for parameter values can be disastrous for any policy.
3. It is worth noting that the periodic review (T,S) policy was not allowed to optimize over possible values of T. We fixed T at 30 to mimic what is common in practice, but those who use the periodic review policy should consider other review periods. An additional experiment fixed the review period at T = 7 days. The average cost in this scenario was minimized at $36,551 ± $1,668 with S = 343. This result is better than that using T = 30 days.
4. We should be careful about over-generalizing these results. They depend on the assumed values of the three cost parameters (holding, ordering and shortage) and the character of the demand process.
5. It is possible to run experiments like those shown here automatically in Smart Inventory Optimization. This means that you too would be able to explore design choices in a rigorous way.