Note on supply chain integration in vendor-managed inventory
Introduction
The model developed in Yao et al. [2] explores the cost savings to be realized from collaborative initiatives such as vendor-managed inventory (VMI). The system modeled is that of a supply chain for a single item with two parties, where the downstream party (the buyer) faces demand at a constant rate r. The buyer is replenished by the upstream party (the supplier). Two situations are modeled: no-VMI and VMI. These two situations differ in the way the item flow is managed. In the no-VMI situation each of the parties optimizes his own ordering strategy ignoring costs borne by the partner. In the VMI situation the supplier, as an omnipotent manager, optimizes the ordering process at both the supplier and the buyer so as to minimize the total costs of the supply chain.
We find the outcomes of their model, which will be referred to as the Yao-model, arguable for two reasons.
- (1)
The model ignores costs borne by the supplier for shipping goods to the buyer.
- (2)
The model manages the incoming and outgoing flows at the supplier in the worst-case manner, thus overstating the inventory kept at the supplier.
Either one of these criticisms contests main conclusions in [2]. In particular, this note shows that under VMI:
- (1)
Shipment sizes from supplier to buyer increase.
- (2)
Inventory at the supplier goes down.
- (3)
Inventory at the buyer goes up.
This note follows [2] in notation. Uppercase characters represent variables and parameters that affect the supplier and lowercase characters are used to denote quantities that affect the buyer. Symbols are primed in the VMI situation, whenever their value differs from that in the no-VMI situation. See Fig. 1.
Section snippets
Extending the Yao-model with delivery cost
In the models of Yao et al. the delivery costs T and t are overlooked. Because delivery costs to the customers of the buyer cannot be impacted by the buyer's ordering pattern and therefore in the model represent sunk costs, t indeed can be ignored. The costs T of the outgoing shipments at the supplier however cannot be disregarded, as they are impacted by the buyer's ordering decisions. These costs, comprising of costs for order picking, shipping and transportation can be considerable; they can
Case descriptions
This section gives an overview of 5 possible cases; two cases in the no-VMI situation and three cases in the VMI situation. The two cases in the no-VMI situation differ in the way the buyer is charged by the supplier and the three cases for the VMI situation differ in the timing of replenishment orders at the supplier. Values pertinent to a certain case are subscripted with the case's number.
Analyses
Minimizing the total cost functions and relaxing the requirement that k be an integer, leads for the various cases, to the values as listed in Table 1.
Note that for all cases
To juxtapose the various cases, we have to further detail the relationship between parameter values in the no-VMI situation and the VMI situation.
- •
Consider, as in [2],
The values c and c′ represent the buyer's ordering costs in the no-VMI situation and in the VMI situation, respectively. As already remarked by [2]
Comparisons
Comparisons will be made now for the cost rate, the shipment size from supplier to buyer, the inventory at the buyer and the inventory at the supplier while considering parameter values in no-VMI and VMI situations as considered in the foregoing subsection.
Conclusion
Table 2 lists the difference in conclusions in our analysis with those in [2] when comparing VMI with No-VMI (Fup).
Our conclusions challenge the conclusions made in [2].
We hasten to add that the VMI analysis presented is limited in that it only considers and models effects that are a consequence of considering total costs in the optimization or that are a consequence of the coordinated inventory management at the supplier. Effects of VMI that are produced by considering
- •
the redistribution of
Piet van der Vlist is adjunct professor of Supply Chain Management at the Erasmus University's Rotterdam School of Management. He holds an MSC in Electronic engineering from Delft University of Technology and an MBA from the University of Twente.
References (2)
- et al.
Supply chain integration in vendor-managed inventory
Decision Support Systems
(2007) - et al.
Decision Systems for Inventory Management and Production Planning
(1985)
Cited by (39)
Quantifying the benefits of continuous replenishment program for partner evaluation
2017, International Journal of Production EconomicsA multiple-retailer replenishment model under VMI: Accounting for the retailer heterogeneity
2017, Computers and Industrial EngineeringTwo parameter tuned multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for a bi-objective vendor managed inventory model with trapezoidal fuzzy demand
2015, Applied Soft Computing JournalCitation Excerpt :To name a few, Yao et al. [4] modeled the VMI problem for single-vendor single-retailer supply chain; showing the advantages of using the VMI policy. Van der Vlist et al. [10] considered the costs of shipments from the supplier to the buyers for the model that was presented by Yao et al. [4]. Darwish and Odah [11] investigated a VMI model for the single-vendor multi-retailer supply chain in which the vendor pays a penalty if items exceed definite bounds.
The value of VMI beyond information sharing in a single supplier multiple retailers supply chain under a non-stationary (R<sup>n</sup>, S<sup>n</sup>) policy
2015, Omega (United Kingdom)Citation Excerpt :It is less clear whether the benefits have been achieved through a decrease in inventory levels or consolidation of shipments at the expense of increased inventory levels. Also, there is a lack of clarity on whether shipment sizes from the supplier to retailers increase or decrease using VMI [32,33,12]. In this paper, we assess the incremental benefits offered by VMI above and beyond IS on various supply chain performance measures such as expected cost savings, reduction in inventory levels and increase in replenishment deliveries at the retailers.
Vendor managed inventory for single-vendor multi-retailer supply chains
2015, Decision Support SystemsLexicographic max-min approach for an integrated vendor-managed inventory problem
2014, Knowledge-Based Systems
Piet van der Vlist is adjunct professor of Supply Chain Management at the Erasmus University's Rotterdam School of Management. He holds an MSC in Electronic engineering from Delft University of Technology and an MBA from the University of Twente.
Roelof Kuik is associate professor of Logistics and Simulation at RSM Erasmus University. He holds an Msc and a PhD in Physics from the University of Groningen.
Bas Verheijen is a PhD candidate in the department of Decision Sciences and Information Technology at RSM Erasmus University in Rotterdam. He holds an MSc in Applied Physics from Eindhoven University of Technology.