Are you confused about what is AI and what is machine learning? Are you unsure why knowing more will help you with your job in inventory planning? Don’t despair. You’ll be ok, and we’ll show you how some of whatever-it-is can be useful.

What is and what isn’t

What is AI and how does it differ from ML? Well, what does anybody do these days when they want to know something? They Google it. And when they do, the confusion starts.

One source says that the neural net methodology called deep learning is a subset of machine learning, which is a subset of AI. But another source says that deep learning is already a part of AI because it sort of mimics the way the human mind works, while machine learning doesn’t try to do that.

One source says there are two types of machine learning: supervised and unsupervised. Another says there are four: supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised and reinforcement.

Some say reinforcement learning is machine learning; others call it AI.

Some of us traditionalists call a lot of it “statistics”, though not all of it is.

In the naming of methods, there is a lot of room for both emotion and salesmanship. If a software vendor thinks you want to hear the phrase “AI”, they may well say it for you just to make you happy.

Better to focus on what comes out at the end

You can avoid some confusing hype if you focus on the end result you get from some analytic technology, regardless of its label. There are several analytical tasks that are relevant to inventory planners and demand planners. These include clustering, anomaly detection, regime change detection, and regression analysis. All four methods are usually, but not always, classified as machine learning methods. But their algorithms can come straight out of classical statistics.

Clustering

Clustering means grouping together things that are similar and distancing them from things that are dissimilar. Sometimes clustering is easy: to separate your customers geographically, simply sort them by state or sales region. When the problem is not so dead obvious, you can use data and clustering algorithms to get the job done automatically even when dealing with massive datasets.

For example, Figure 1 illustrates a cluster of “demand profiles”, which in this case divides all a customer’s items into nine clusters based on the shape of their cumulative demand curves. Cluster 1.1 in the top left contains items whose demand has been petering out, while Cluster 3.1 in the bottom left contains items whose demand has accelerated.  Clustering can also be done on suppliers. The choice of number of clusters is typically left to user judgement, but ML can guide that choice.  For example, a user might instruct the software to “break my parts into 4 clusters” but using ML may reveal that there are really 6 distinct clusters the user should analyze. 

Figure 1: Clustering items based on the shapes of their cumulative demand

Anomaly Detection

Demand forecasting is traditionally done using time series extrapolation. For instance, simple exponential smoothing works to find the “middle” of the demand distribution at any time and project that level forward. However, if there has been a sudden, one-time jump up or down in demand in the recent past, that anomalous value can have a significant but unwelcome effect on the near-term forecast.  Just as serious for inventory planning, the anomaly can have an outsized effect on the estimate of demand variability, which goes directly to the calculation of safety stock requirements.

Planners may prefer to find and remove such anomalies (and maybe do offline follow-up to find out the reason for the weirdness). But nobody with a big job to do will want to visually scan thousands of demand plots to spot outliers, expunge them from the demand history, then recalculate everything. Human intelligence could do that, but human patience would soon fail. Anomaly detection algorithms could do the work automatically using relatively straightforward statistical methods. You could call this “artificial intelligence” if you wish.

Regime Change Detection

Regime change detection is like the big brother of anomaly detection. Regime change is a sustained, rather than temporary, shift in one or more aspects of the character of a time series. While anomaly detection usually focuses on sudden shifts in mean demand, regime change could involve shifts in other features of the demand, such as its volatility or its distributional shape.  

Figure 2 illustrates an extreme example of regime change. The bottom dropped out of demand for this item around day 120. Inventory control policies and demand forecasts based on the older data would be wildly off base at the end of the demand history.

Figure 2: An example of extreme regime change in an item with intermittent demand

Here too, statistical algorithms can be developed to solve this problem, and it would be fair play to call them “machine learning” or “artificial intelligence” if so motivated.  Using ML or AI to identify regime changes in demand history enables demand planning software to automatically use only the relevant history when forecasting instead of having to manually pick the amount of history to introduce to the model. 

Regression analysis

Regression analysis relates one variable to another through an equation. For example, sales of window frames in one month may be predicted from building permits issued a few months earlier. Regression analysis has been considered a part of statistics for over a century, but we can say it is “machine learning” since an algorithm works out the precise way to convert knowledge of one variable into a prediction of the value of another.

Summary

It is reasonable to be interested in what’s going on in the areas of machine learning and artificial intelligence. While the attention given to ChatGPT and its competitors is interesting, it is not relevant to the numerical side of demand planning or inventory management. The numerical aspects of ML and AI are potentially relevant, but you should try to see through the cloud of hype surrounding these methods and focus on what they can do.  If you can get the job done with classical statistical methods, you might just do that, then exercise your option to stick the ML label on anything that moves.

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.

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.

Summary

Smart Software’s advanced supply chain analytics exploits multiple advanced methods. Two of the most important are “statistical bootstrapping” and “Monte Carlo simulation”. Since both involve lots of random numbers flying around, folks sometimes get confused about which is which and what they are good for. Hence, this note. Bottom line up front: Statistical bootstrapping generates demand scenarios for forecasting. Monte Carlo simulation uses the scenarios for inventory optimization.

Bootstrapping

Bootstrapping, also called “resampling” is a method of computational statistics that we use to create demand scenarios for forecasting. The essence of the forecasting problem is to expose possible futures that your company might confront so you can work out how to manage business risks. Traditional forecasting methods focus on computing “most likely” futures, but they fall short of presenting the full risk picture. Bootstrapping provides an unlimited number of realistic what-if scenarios.

Bootstrapping does this without making unrealistic assumptions about the demand, i.e., that it is not intermittent, or that it has a bell-shaped distribution of sizes. Those assumptions are crutches to make the math simpler, but the bootstrap is a procedure,  not an equation, so it doesn’t need such simplifications.

For the simplest demand type, which is a stable randomness with no seasonality or trend, bootstrapping is dead easy. To get a reasonable idea of what a single future demand value might be, pick one of the historical demands at random. To create a demand scenario, make multiple random selections from the past and string them together. Done. It is possible to add a little more realism by “jittering” the demand values, i.e., adding or subtracting a bit of additional randomness to each one, but even that is simple.

Figure 1 shows a simple bootstrap. The first line is a short sequence of historical demand for an SKU. The following lines show scenarios of future demand created by randomly selecting values from the demand history. For instance, the next three demand might be (0, 14, 6), or (2, 3, 5), etc.

Figure 1: Example of demand scenarios generated by a simple bootstrap

Higher frequency operations such as daily forecasting bring with them more complex demand patterns, such as double seasonality (e.g., day-of-week and month-of-year) and/or trend. This challenged us to invent a new generation of bootstrapping algorithms. We recently won a US Patent for this breakthrough, but the essence is as described above.

Monte Carlo Simulation

Monte Carlo is famous for its casinos, which, like bootstrapping, invoke the idea of randomness. Monte Carlo methods go back a long way, but the modern impetus came with the need to do some hairy calculations about where neutrons would fly when an A-bomb explodes.

The essence of Monte Carlo analysis is this: “Our problem is too complicated to analyze with paper-and-pencil equations. So, let’s write a computer program that codes the individual steps of the process, put in the random elements (e.g., which way a neutron shoots away), wind it up and watch it go. Since there’s a lot of randomness, let’s run the program a zillion times and average the results.”

Applying this approach to inventory management, we have a different set of randomly occurring events: e.g., a demand of a given size arrives on a random day, a replenishment of a given size arrives after a random lead time, we cut a replenishment PO of a given size when stock drops to or below a given reorder point. We code the logic relating these events into a program. We feed it with a random demand sequence (see bootstrapping above), run the program for a while, say one year of daily operations, compute performance metrics like Fill Rate and Average On Hand inventory, and “toss the dice” by re-running the program many times and averaging the results of many simulated years. The result is a good estimate of what happens when we make key management decisions: “If we set the reorder point at 10 units and the order quantity at 15 units, we can expect to get a service level of 89% and an average on hand of 21 units.” What the simulation is doing for us is exposing the consequences of management decisions based on realistic demand scenarios and solid math. The guesswork is gone.

Figure 2 shows some of the inner workings of a Monte Carlo simulation of an inventory system in four panels. The system uses a Min/Max inventory control policy with Min=10 and Max=25. No backorders are allowed: you have the good or you lose the business. Replenishment lead times are usually 7 days but sometimes 14. This simulation ran for one year.

The first panel shows a complex random demand scenario in which there is no demand on weekends, but demand generally increases each day from Monday to Friday. The second panel shows the random number of units on hand, which ebbs and flows with each replenishment cycle. The third panel shows the random sizes and timings of replenishment orders coming in from the supplier. The final panel shows the unsatisfied demand that jeopardizes customer relationships. This kind of detail can be very useful for building insight into the dynamics of an inventory system.

Figure 2: Details of a Monte Carlo simulation

Figure 2 shows only one of the countless ways that the year could play out. Generally, we want to average the results of many simulated years. After all, nobody would flip a coin once to decide if it were a fair coin. Figure 3 shows how four key performance metrics (KPI’s) vary from year to year for this system. Some metrics are relatively stable across simulations (Fill Rate), but others show more relative variability (Operating Cost= Holding Cost + Ordering Cost + Shortage Cost). Eyeballing the plots, we can estimate that the choices of Min=10, Max=25 leads to an average Operating cost of around $3,000 per year, a Fill Rate of around 90%, a Service Level of around 75%, and an Average On Hand of about 10

Figure 3: Variation in KPI’s computed over 1,000 simulated years

In fact, it is now possible to answer a higher level of management question. We can go beyond “What will happen if I do such-and-such?” to “What is the best thing I can do to achieve a fill rate of at least 90% for this item at the lowest possible cost?” The mathemagic  behind this leap is yet another key technology called “stochastic optimization”, but we’ll stop here for now. Suffice it to say that Smart’s SIO&P software can search the “design space” of Min and Max values to automatically find the best choice.

Managing spare parts presents numerous challenges, such as unexpected breakdowns, changing schedules, and inconsistent demand patterns. Traditional forecasting methods and manual approaches are ineffective in dealing with these complexities. To overcome these challenges, this blog outlines key strategies that prioritize service levels, utilize probabilistic methods to calculate reorder points, regularly adjust stocking policies, and implement a dedicated planning process to avoid excessive inventory. Explore these strategies to optimize spare parts inventory and improve operational efficiency.

Bottom Line Upfront

​1.Inventory Management is Risk Management.

2.Can’t manage risk well or at scale with subjective planning – Need to know service vs. cost.

3.It’s not supply & demand variability that are the problem – it’s how you handle it.

4.Spare parts have intermittent demand so traditional methods don’t work.

5.Rule of thumb approaches don’t account for demand variability and misallocate stock.

6.Use Service Level Driven Planning  (service vs. cost tradeoffs) to drive stock decisions.

7.Probabilistic approaches such as bootstrapping yield accurate estimates of reorder points.

8.Classify parts and assign service level targets by class.

9.Recalibrate often – thousands of parts have old, stale reorder points.

10.Repairable parts require special treatment.

Do Focus on the Real Root Causes

Intermittent Demand

• Slow moving, irregular or sporadic with a large percentage of zero values.
• Non-zero values are mixed in randomly – spikes are large and varied.
• Isn’t bell shaped (demand is not Normally distributed around the average.)
• At least 70% of a typical Utility’s parts are intermittently demanded.

Normal Demand

• Very few periods of zero demand (exception is seasonal parts.)
• Often exhibits trend, seasonal, or cyclical patterns.
• Lower levels of demand variability.
• Is bell-shaped (demand is Normally distributed around the average.)

Don’t rely on averages

• OK for determining typical usage over longer periods of time.
• Often forecasts more “accurately” than some advanced methods.
• But…insufficient for determining what to stock.

Don’t Buffer with Multiples of Averages

Example:  Two equally important parts so let’s treat them the same.
We’ll order more  when On Hand Inventory ≤ 2 x Avg Lead Time Demand.

Do use Service Level tradeoff curves to compute safety stock

Standard Normal Probabilities

OK for normal demand. Doesn’t work with intermittent demand!

Don’t use Normal (Bell Shaped) Distributions

• You’ll get the tradeoff curve wrong:

– e.g., You’ll target 95% but achieve 85%.

– e.g., You’ll target 99% but achieve 91%.

• This is a huge miss with costly implications:

– You’ll stock out more often than expected.

– You’ll start to add subjective buffers to compensate and then overstock.

– Lack of trust/second-guessing of outputs paralyzes planning.

Why Traditional Methods Fail on Intermittent Demand: 

Traditional Methods are not designed to address core issues in spare parts management.

Need: Probability distribution (not bell-shaped) of demand over variable lead time.

• Get: Prediction of average demand in each month, not a total over lead time.
• Get: Bolted-on model of variability, usually the Normal model, usually wrong.

Need: Exposure of tradeoffs between item availability and cost of inventory.

• Get: None of this; instead, get a lot of inconsistent, ad-hoc decisions.

Do use Statistical Bootstrapping to Predict the Distribution:

Then exploit the distribution to optimize stocking policies.

How does Bootstrapping Work?

24 Months of Historical Demand Data.

Bootstrap Scenarios for a 3-month Lead Time.

Bootstrapping Hits the Service Level Target with nearly 100% Accuracy!

• National Warehousing Operation.

Task: Forecast inventory stocking levels for 12,000 intermittently demanded SKUs at 95% & 99% service levels

Results:

At 95% service level, 95.23% did not stock out.

At 99% service level, 98.66% did not stock out.

This means you can rely on output to set expectations and confidently make targeted stock adjustments that lower inventory and increase service.

Set Target Service Levels According to Order Frequency & Size

Recalibrate Reorder Points Frequently

• Static ROPs cause excess and shortages.
• As lead time increases, so should the ROP and vice versa.
• As usage decreases, so should the ROP and vice versa.
• Longer you wait to recalibrate, the greater the imbalance.
• Mountains of parts ordered too soon or too late.
• Wastes buyers’ time placing the wrong orders.
• Breeds distrust in systems and forces data silos.

Do Plan Rotables (Repair Parts) Differently

Summary

1.Inventory Management is Risk Management.

2.Can’t manage risk well or at scale with subjective planning – Need to know service vs. cost.

3.It’s not supply & demand variability that are the problem – it’s how you handle it.

4.Spare parts have intermittent demand so traditional methods don’t work.

5.Rule of thumb approaches don’t account demand variability and misallocate stock.

6.Use Service Level Driven Planning  (service vs. cost tradeoffs) to drive stock decisions.

7.Probabilistic approaches such as bootstrapping yield accurate estimates of reorder points.

8.Classify parts and assign service level targets by class.

9.Recalibrate often – thousands of parts have old, stale reorder points.

10.Repairable parts require special treatment.