Balancing Act

Managing inventory, like managing anything, involves balancing competing priorities. Do you want a lean inventory? Yes! Do you want to be able to say “It’s in stock” when a customer wants to buy something? Yes!

But can you have it both ways? Only to a degree. If you lean into leaning your inventory too aggressively, you risk stockouts. If you stamp out stockouts, you create inventory bloat. You are forced to find a satisfactory balance between the two competing goals of lean inventory and high item availability.

Striking a Balance

How do you strike that balance? Too many inventory planners “guestimate” their way to some kind of answer. Or they work out a smart answer once and hope that it has a distant sell-by date and keep using it while they focus on other problems. Unfortunately, shifts in demand and/or changes in supplier performance and/or shifts in your own company’s priorities will obsolete old inventory plans and put you right back where you started.

It is inevitable that every plan has a shelf life and has to be updated. However, it is definitely not best practice to replace one guess with another. Instead, each planning cycle should exploit modern supply chain software to replace guesswork with fact-based analysis using probability math.

Know Thyself

The one thing that software cannot do is compute a best answer without knowing your priorities. How much do you prioritize lean inventory over item availability? Software will predict the levels of inventory and availability caused by any decisions you make about how to manage each item in your inventory, but only you can decide whether any given set of key performance indicators is consistent with what you want.

Knowing what you want in a general sense is easy: you want it all. But knowing what you prefer when comparing specific scenarios is more difficult. It helps to be able to see a range of realizable possibilities and mull over which seems best when they are laid out side by side.

See What’s Next

Supply chain software can give you a view of the tradeoff curve. You know in general that lean inventory and high item availability trade off against each other, but seeing item-specific tradeoff curves sharpens your focus.

Why is there a curve? Because you have choices about how to manage each item. For instance, if you check inventory status continuously, what values will you assign to the Min and Max values that govern when to order replenishments and how much to order. The tradeoff curve arises because choosing different Min and Max values leads to different levels of on hand inventory and different levels of item availability, e.g., as measured by fill rate.

A Scenario for Analysis

To illustrate these ideas, I used a digital twin  to estimate how various values of Min and Max would perform in a particular scenario. The scenario focused on a notional spare part with purely random demand having a moderately high level of intermittency (37% of days having zero demand). Replenishment lead times were a coin flip between 7 and 14 days. The Min and Max values were systematically varied: Min from 20 to 40 units, Max from Min+1 units to 2xMin units. Each (Min,Max) pair was simulated for 365 days of operation a total of 1,000 times, then the results averaged to estimate both the average number of on hand units and the fill rate, i.e., percentage of daily demands that were satisfied immediately from stock. If stock was not available, it was backordered.

Results

The experiment produced two types of results:

• Plots showing the relationship between Min and Max values and two key performance indicators: Fill rate and average units on hand.
• A tradeoff curve showing how the fill rate and units on hand trade off against each other.

Figure 1 plots on hand inventory as a function of the values of Min and Max. The experiment yielded on hand levels ranging from near 0 to about 40 units.  In general, keeping Min constant and increasing Max results in more units on hand. The relationship with Min is more complex: keeping Max constant,  increasing Min first adds to inventory but at some point reduces it.

Figure 2 plots fill rate as a function of the values of Min and Max.  The experiment yielded fill rate levels ranging from near 0% to 100%.  In general, the functional relationships between the fill rate and the values of Min and Max mirrored those in Figure1.

Figure 3 makes the key point, showing how varying Min and Max produces a perverse pairing of the key performance indicators. Generally speaking, the values of Min and Max that maximize item availability (fill rate)  are the same values that maximize inventory cost (average units on hand). This general pattern is represented by the blue curve. The experiments also produced some offshoots from the blue curve that are associated with poor choices of Min and Max, in the sense that other choices dominate them by producing the same fill rate with lower inventory.

Conclusions

Figure 3 makes clear that your choice of how to manage an inventory item forces you to trade off inventory cost and item availability. You can avoid some inefficient combinations of Min and Max values, but you cannot escape the tradeoff.

The good side of this reality is that you do not have to guess what will happen if you change your current values of Min and Max to something else. The software will tell you what that move will buy you and what it will cost you. You can take off your Guestimator hat and do your thing with confidence.

Figure 1 On Hand Inventory as a function of Min and Max values

Figure 2 Fill Rate as a function of Min and Max values

Figure 3 Tradeoff curve between Fill Rate and On Hand Inventory

I’ll start with a confession: I’m an algorithm guy. My heart lives in the “engine room” of our software, where lightning-fast calculations zip back and forth across the AWS cloud, generating demand and supply scenarios used to guide important decisions about demand forecasting and inventory management.

But I recognize that the target of all that beautiful, furious calculation is the brain of the boss, the person responsible for making sure that customer demand is satisfied in the most efficient and profitable way. So, this blog is about Smart Operational Analytics (SOA), which creates reports for management. Or, as they are called in the military, sit-reps.

All the calculations guided by the planners using our software ultimately get distilled into the SOA reports for management. The reports focus on five areas: inventory analysis, inventory performance, inventory trending, supplier performance, and demand anomalies.

Inventory Analysis

These reports keep tabs on current inventory levels and identify areas that need improvement. The focus is on current inventory counts and their status (on hand, in transit, in quarantine), inventory turns, and excesses vs shortages.

Inventory Performance

These reports track Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as Fill Rates, Service Levels, and inventory Costs. The analytic calculations elsewhere in the software guide you toward achieving your KPI targets by calculating Key Performance Predictions (KPPs) based on recommended settings for, e.g., reorder points and order quantities. But sometimes surprises occur, or operating policies are not executed as recommended, so there will always be some slippage between KPPs and KPIs.

Inventory Trending

Knowing where things stand today is important, but seeing where things are trending is also valuable. These reports reveal trends in item demand, stockout events, average days on hand, average time to ship, and more.

Supplier Performance

Your company cannot perform at its best if your suppliers are dragging you down. These reports monitor supplier performance in terms of the accuracy and promptness of filling replenishment orders. Where you have multiple suppliers for the same item, they let you compare them.

Demand Anomalies

Your entire inventory system is demand driven, and all inventory control parameters are computed after modeling item demand. So if something odd is happening on the demand side, you must be vigilant and prepare to recalculate things like mins and maxes for items that are starting to act in odd ways.

Summary

The end point for all the massive calculations in our software is the dashboard showing management what’s going on, what’s next, and where to focus attention. Smart Inventory Analytics is the part of our software ecosystem aimed at your company’s C-Suite.

Figure 1: Some sample reports in graphical form

Over forty years ago, Smart Software consisted of three friends working to start a company in a church basement. Today, our team has expanded to operate from multiple locations across Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Texas, with team members in England, Spain, Armenia and India. Like many of you in your jobs,  we have found ways to make distributed teams work for us and for you.

This note is about a different kind of teamwork: the collaboration between you and our software that happens at your fingertips. I often write about the software itself and what goes on “under the hood”. This time, my subject is how you should best team up with the software.

Our software suite, Smart Inventory Planning and Optimization (Smart IP&O™) is capable of massively detailed calculations of future demand and the inventory control parameters (e.g., reorder points and order quantities) that would most effectively manage that demand. But your input is required to make the most of all that power. You need to team up with the algorithms.

That interaction can take several forms. You can start by simply assessing how you are doing now. The report writing functions in Smart IP&O (Smart Operational Analytics™) can collate and analyze all your transactional data to measure your Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), both financial (e.g., inventory investment) and operational (e.g., fill rates).

The next step might be to use SIO (Smart Inventory Optimization™), the inventory analytics within SIP&O, to play “what-if” games with the software. For example, you might ask “What if we reduced the order quantity on item 1234 from 50 to 40?” The software grinds the numbers to let you know how that would play out, then you react. This can be useful, but what if you have 50,000 items to consider? You would want to do what-if games for a few critical items, but not all of them.

The real power comes with using the automatic optimization capability in SIO. Here you can team with the algorithms at scale. Using your business judgement, you can create “groups”, i.e., collections of items that share some critical features. For example, you might create a group for “critical spare parts for electric utility customers” consisting of 1,200 parts. Then again calling on your business judgement, you could specify what item availability standard should apply to all the items in that group (e.g., “at least 95% chance of not stocking out in a year”). Now the software can take over and automatically work out the best reorder points and order quantities for every one of those items to achieve your required item availability at the lowest possible total cost. And that, dear reader, is powerful teamwork.

I can’t imagine being an inventory planner in spare parts, distribution, or manufacturing and having to create safety stock levels, reorder points, and order suggestions without using key performance predictions of service levels, fill rates, and inventory costs:

Smart’s Inventory Optimization solution generates out-of-the-box key performance predictions that dynamically simulate how your current stocking policies will perform against possible future demands.  It reports on how often you’ll stock out, the size of the stockouts, the value of your inventory, holding costs, and more.  It lets you proactively identify problems before they occur so you can take corrective action in the short term. You can create what-if scenarios by setting targeted service levels and modifying lead times so you an see the predicted impact of these changes before committing to it.

For example,

• You can see if a proposed move from the current service level of 90% to a targeted service level of 97% is financially advantageous
• You can automatically identify if a different service level target is even more profitable to your business that the proposed target.
• You can see exactly how much you’ll need to increase your reorder points to accommodate a longer lead time.

If you aren’t equipping planners with the right tools, they’ll be forced to set stocking policies, safety stock levels, and create demand forecasts in Excel or with outdated ERP functionality.   Not knowing how policies are predicted to perform will leave your company ill equipped to properly allocate inventory.  Contact us today to learn how we can help!

What’s different about inventory planning for Maintenance, Repair, and Operations (MRO) compared to inventory planning in manufacturing and distribution environments? In short, it’s the nature of the demand patterns combined with the lack of actionable business knowledge.

Demand Patterns

Manufacturers and distributors tend to focus on the top sellers that generate the majority of their revenue. These items typically have high demand that is relatively easy to forecast with traditional time series models that capitalize on predictable trend and/or seasonality.  In contrast, MRO planners almost always deal with intermittent demand, which is more sparse, more random, and harder to forecast.  Furthermore, the fundamental quantities of interest are different. MRO planners ultimately care most about the “when” question:  When will something break? Whereas the others focus on the “how much” question of units sold.

Business Knowledge

Manufacturing and distribution planners can often count on gathering customer and sales feedback, which can be combined with statistical methods to improve forecast accuracy. On the other hand, bearings, gears, consumable parts, and repairable parts are rarely willing to share their opinions. With MRO, business knowledge about which parts will be needed and when just isn’t reliable (excepting planned maintenance when higher-volume consumable parts are replaced). So, MRO inventory planning success goes only as far as their probability models’ ability to predict future usage takes them. And since demand is so intermittent, they can’t get past Go with traditional approaches.

Methods for MRO

In practice, it is common for MRO and asset-intensive businesses to manage inventories by resorting to static Min/Max levels based on subjective multiples of average usage, supplemented by occasional manual overrides based on gut feel. The process becomes a bad mixture of static and reactive, with the result that a lot of time and money is wasted on expediting.

There are alternative planning methods based more on math and data, though this style of planning is less common in MRO than in the other domains. There are two leading approaches to modeling part and machine breakdown: models based on reliability theory and “condition-based maintenance” models based on real-time monitoring.

Reliability Models

Reliability models are the simpler of the two and require less data. They assume that all items of the same type, say a certain spare part, are statistically equivalent. Their key component is a “hazard function”, which describes the risk of failure in the next little interval of time. The hazard function can be translated into something better suited for decision making: the “survival function”, which is the probability that the item is still working after X amount of use (where X might be expressed in days, months, miles, uses, etc.). Figure 1 shows a constant hazard function and its corresponding survival function.

Figure 1: Constant hazard function and its survival function

A hazard function that doesn’t change implies that only random accidents will cause a failure. In contrast, a hazard function that increases over time implies that the item is wearing out. And a decreasing hazard function implies that an item is settling in. Figure 2 shows an increasing hazard function and its corresponding survival function.

Figure 2: Increasing hazard function and its survival function

Reliability models are often used for inexpensive parts, such as mechanical fasteners, whose replacement may be neither difficult nor expensive (but still might be essential).

Condition-Based Maintenance

Models based on real-time monitoring are used to support condition-based maintenance (CBM) for expensive items like jet engines. These models use data from sensors embedded in the items themselves. Such data are usually complex and proprietary, as are the probability models supported by the data. The payoff from real-time monitoring is that you can see trouble coming, i.e., the deterioration is made visible, and forecasts can predict when the item will hit its red line and therefore need to be taken off the field of play. This allows individualized, pro-active maintenance or replacement of the item.

Figure 3 illustrates the kind of data used in CBM. Each time the system is used, there is a contribution to its cumulative wear and tear. (However, note that sometimes use can improve the condition of the unit, as when rain helps keep a piece of machinery cool). You can see the general trend upward toward a red line after which the unit will require maintenance. You can extrapolate the cumulative wear to estimate when it will hit the red line and plan accordingly.

Figure 3: Illustrating real-time monitoring for condition-based maintenance

To my knowledge, nobody makes such models of their finished goods customers to predict when and how much they will next order, perhaps because the customers would object to wearing brain monitors all the time. But CBM, with its complex monitoring and modeling, is gaining in popularity for can’t-fail systems like jet engines. Meanwhile, classical reliability models still have a lot of value for managing large fleets of cheaper but still essential items.

Smart’s approach
The above condition-based maintenance and reliability approaches require an excessive data collection and cleansing burden that many MRO companies are unable to manage. For those companies, Smart offers an approach that does not require development of reliability models. Instead, it exploits usage data in a different way. It leverages probability-based models of both usage and supplier lead times to simulate thousands of possible scenarios for replenishment lead times and demand.  The result is an accurate distribution of demand and lead times for each consumable part that can be exploited to determine optimal stocking parameters.   Figure 4 shows a simulation that begins with a scenario for spare part demand (upper plot) then produces a scenario of on-hand supply for particular choices of Min/Max values (lower line). Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can be estimated by averaging the results of many such simulations.

Figure 4: An example of a simulation of spare part demand and on-hand inventory

You can read about Smart’s approach to forecasting spare parts here: https://smartcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Probabilistic-Forecasting-for-Intermittent-Demand.pdf