# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
A note on network repair crew scheduling and routing for emergency relief distribution problem
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Coordination of VMI supply chain with a loss-averse manufacturer under quality-dependency and marketing-dependency
October  2019, 15(4): 1733-1751. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018120

## A savings analysis of horizontal collaboration among VMI suppliers

 Technologiepark 903, 9052 Zwijnaarde, Belgium

* Corresponding author

Received  June 2017 Revised  April 2018 Published  August 2018

Fund Project: This research was supported by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT)

This paper considers a logistics distribution network with multiple suppliers that each replenish a set of retailers having constant demand rates. The underlying optimization problem is the Cyclic Inventory Routing Problem (CIRP), for which a heuristic solution method is developed. Further, horizontal collaboration through a third party Logistics Service Provider (LSP) is considered and the collaborative savings potential is analyzed. A design of experiments is performed to evaluate the impact of some relevant cost and network structure factors on the collaborative savings potential. The results from the design of experiments show that for some factor combinations there is in fact no significant savings potential.

Citation: Benedikt De Vos, Birger Raa, Stijn De Vuyst. A savings analysis of horizontal collaboration among VMI suppliers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (4) : 1733-1751. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018120
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Location of LSP, suppliers and retailers in the illustrative example
Illustration of the factor $overlap$
Boxplots of percentage savings for different levels of $overlap$
Boxplots of percentage savings for different levels of $costlsp$
Boxplots of percentage savings for different levels of $nrs$
Interaction between the factors $overlap$ and $costlsp$
Interaction between the factors $overlap$ and $nr$
Interaction between the factors $costlsp$ and $nr$
Input data for the illustrative example
 LSP & Suppliers Retailers $\tau$ 1.2/km $\eta_j$ 0.8/unit/day $\varphi_0$ 20/tour $\varphi_j$ 10/visit $\kappa$ 100 units $\kappa_j$ 100 units
 LSP & Suppliers Retailers $\tau$ 1.2/km $\eta_j$ 0.8/unit/day $\varphi_0$ 20/tour $\varphi_j$ 10/visit $\kappa$ 100 units $\kappa_j$ 100 units
Routes for supplier 1 individually
 $r$ route $T_r$ $TC_r$ 1 $S_1 - 6 - 5 - 1 - 2 - S_1$ 6 152.41 2 $S_1 - 3 - 8 - S_1$ 5 72.62 3 $S_1 - 7 - 9 - 10 - 4 - S_1$ 7 182.47
 $r$ route $T_r$ $TC_r$ 1 $S_1 - 6 - 5 - 1 - 2 - S_1$ 6 152.41 2 $S_1 - 3 - 8 - S_1$ 5 72.62 3 $S_1 - 7 - 9 - 10 - 4 - S_1$ 7 182.47
Routes for the LSP in the grand coalition {1, 2, 3}
 $r$ route $T_r$ $TC_r$ 1 $LSP - 15 - 9 - 17 - 22 - 10 - 13 - 4 - LSP$ 4 222.95 2 $LSP - 25 - 6 - 23 - 20 - 24 - LSP$ 3 203.8 3 $LSP - 7 - 21 - 27 - LSP$ 6 146.21 4 $LSP - 2 - 5 - 1 - 16 - 18 - 30 - LSP$ 5 185.00 5 $LSP - 8 - 26 - 19 - 3 - 14 - 11 - LSP$ 3 142.36 6 $LSP - 28 - 29 - 12 - LSP$ 5 128.54
 $r$ route $T_r$ $TC_r$ 1 $LSP - 15 - 9 - 17 - 22 - 10 - 13 - 4 - LSP$ 4 222.95 2 $LSP - 25 - 6 - 23 - 20 - 24 - LSP$ 3 203.8 3 $LSP - 7 - 21 - 27 - LSP$ 6 146.21 4 $LSP - 2 - 5 - 1 - 16 - 18 - 30 - LSP$ 5 185.00 5 $LSP - 8 - 26 - 19 - 3 - 14 - 11 - LSP$ 3 142.36 6 $LSP - 28 - 29 - 12 - LSP$ 5 128.54
Costs and savings individual suppliers and coalitions
 Coalition Cumulative individual cost Coalition cost Saving %Saving 1 407.50 - - - 2 310.22 - - - 3 417.75 - - - {1} 407.50 410.20 -2.70 -0.66 {2} 310.22 310.01 0.21 0.07 {3} 417.75 428.84 -11.09 -2.65 {1, 2} 717.72 659.96 57.76 8.05 {1, 3} 825.25 780.96 44.29 5.3 {2, 3} 727.97 697.86 30.11 4.14 {1, 2, 3} 1135.47 1028.87 106.6 9.39
 Coalition Cumulative individual cost Coalition cost Saving %Saving 1 407.50 - - - 2 310.22 - - - 3 417.75 - - - {1} 407.50 410.20 -2.70 -0.66 {2} 310.22 310.01 0.21 0.07 {3} 417.75 428.84 -11.09 -2.65 {1, 2} 717.72 659.96 57.76 8.05 {1, 3} 825.25 780.96 44.29 5.3 {2, 3} 727.97 697.86 30.11 4.14 {1, 2, 3} 1135.47 1028.87 106.6 9.39
Cost rates (in € per day) for the individual supplier instances
 Supplier nrRet Total Distribution Holding S0 $32$ $620.7$ $447.7$ $173.0$ S1 $52$ $846.4$ $581.4$ $265.0$ S2 $44$ $751.4$ $516.3$ $235.1$ S3 $53$ $973.2$ $708.4$ $264.8$ S4 $46$ $779.8$ $552.7$ $227.0$ S5 $68$ $1255.6$ $904.3$ $351.4$ S6 $63$ $998.2$ $692.7$ $305.5$ S7 $31$ $521.5$ $368.3$ $153.2$ S8 $51$ $840.4$ $598.2$ $242.2$ S9 $56$ $1058.9$ $758.7$ $300.2$ L0 $84$ $1491.4$ $1061.3$ $430.1$ L1 $111$ $1886.6$ $1336.4$ $550.2$ L2 $118$ $1900.0$ $1279.1$ $620.9$ L3 $82$ $1257.8$ $843.9$ $413.8$ L4 $94$ $1662.8$ $1167.9$ $494.9$ L5 $120$ $1831.3$ $1249.8$ $581.5$ L6 $99$ $1639.2$ $1148.8$ $490.5$ L7 $109$ $1838.5$ $1296.7$ $541.8$ L8 $86$ $1546.4$ $1125.9$ $420.5$ L9 $87$ $1405.8$ $945.3$ $460.5$ Avg. $74.3$ $1255.3$ $879.2$ $376.1$
 Supplier nrRet Total Distribution Holding S0 $32$ $620.7$ $447.7$ $173.0$ S1 $52$ $846.4$ $581.4$ $265.0$ S2 $44$ $751.4$ $516.3$ $235.1$ S3 $53$ $973.2$ $708.4$ $264.8$ S4 $46$ $779.8$ $552.7$ $227.0$ S5 $68$ $1255.6$ $904.3$ $351.4$ S6 $63$ $998.2$ $692.7$ $305.5$ S7 $31$ $521.5$ $368.3$ $153.2$ S8 $51$ $840.4$ $598.2$ $242.2$ S9 $56$ $1058.9$ $758.7$ $300.2$ L0 $84$ $1491.4$ $1061.3$ $430.1$ L1 $111$ $1886.6$ $1336.4$ $550.2$ L2 $118$ $1900.0$ $1279.1$ $620.9$ L3 $82$ $1257.8$ $843.9$ $413.8$ L4 $94$ $1662.8$ $1167.9$ $494.9$ L5 $120$ $1831.3$ $1249.8$ $581.5$ L6 $99$ $1639.2$ $1148.8$ $490.5$ L7 $109$ $1838.5$ $1296.7$ $541.8$ L8 $86$ $1546.4$ $1125.9$ $420.5$ L9 $87$ $1405.8$ $945.3$ $460.5$ Avg. $74.3$ $1255.3$ $879.2$ $376.1$
Impact of $costLSP$ for the individual suppliers
 $costLSP$ Total Relative Distribution Relative Holding Relative $90\%$ $1166.6$ $0.93$ $800.2$ $0.91$ $366.4$ $0.97$ $95\%$ $1211.2$ $0.96$ $839.3$ $0.95$ $371.9$ $0.99$ $100\%$ $1255.3$ $1$ $879.2$ $1$ $376.1$ $1$ $105\%$ $1300.0$ $1.04$ $913.1$ $1.04$ $386.9$ $1.03$
 $costLSP$ Total Relative Distribution Relative Holding Relative $90\%$ $1166.6$ $0.93$ $800.2$ $0.91$ $366.4$ $0.97$ $95\%$ $1211.2$ $0.96$ $839.3$ $0.95$ $371.9$ $0.99$ $100\%$ $1255.3$ $1$ $879.2$ $1$ $376.1$ $1$ $105\%$ $1300.0$ $1.04$ $913.1$ $1.04$ $386.9$ $1.03$
Impact of $overlap$ for the individual suppliers
 $overlap$ Total Relative Distribution Relative Holding Relative 1 $1255.3$ $1$ $879.2$ $1$ $376.1$ $1$ 0 $1424.7$ $1.13$ $1041.3$ $1.18$ $383.5$ $1.02$
 $overlap$ Total Relative Distribution Relative Holding Relative 1 $1255.3$ $1$ $879.2$ $1$ $376.1$ $1$ 0 $1424.7$ $1.13$ $1041.3$ $1.18$ $383.5$ $1.02$
Illustration of the effect of $nr$
 $nr$ Coalition Total Cumulative Saving $\%$sav 1 S3 973.2 973.2 0 0.00 2 S3-L8 2409.6 2519.6 110.1 4.37 3 S3-L8-S2 3004.4 3271.0 266.6 8.15 4 S3-L8-S2-L6 4501.4 4910.2 408.9 8.33 5 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3 5620.9 6168.0 547.1 8.87 6 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3-L1 7248.3 8054.6 806.4 10.01 7 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3-L1-S5 8354.2 9310.2 956.0 10.27 8 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3-L1-S5-L4 9790.9 10973.1 1182.2 10.77
 $nr$ Coalition Total Cumulative Saving $\%$sav 1 S3 973.2 973.2 0 0.00 2 S3-L8 2409.6 2519.6 110.1 4.37 3 S3-L8-S2 3004.4 3271.0 266.6 8.15 4 S3-L8-S2-L6 4501.4 4910.2 408.9 8.33 5 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3 5620.9 6168.0 547.1 8.87 6 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3-L1 7248.3 8054.6 806.4 10.01 7 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3-L1-S5 8354.2 9310.2 956.0 10.27 8 S3-L8-S2-L6-L3-L1-S5-L4 9790.9 10973.1 1182.2 10.77
Results of the ANOVA with main effects and two-way interactions
 Source Type Ⅲ Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 121661.580a 21 5793.109 918.996 0.000 Intercept 570.029 1 570.029 90.422 0.000 $overlap$ 91248.526 1 91248.526 14474.561 0.000 $costLSP$ 20639.711 3 6879.904 1091.345 0.000 $nr$ 8779.363 7 1254.195 198.950 0.000 $overlap * costLSP$ 306.054 3 102.018 16.183 0.000 $overlap * nr$ 687.925 7 98.275 15.589 0.000 Error 7930.510 1258 6.304 Total 130162.118 1280 Corrected Total 129592.089 1279 a R Squared = 0.939 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.938).
 Source Type Ⅲ Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 121661.580a 21 5793.109 918.996 0.000 Intercept 570.029 1 570.029 90.422 0.000 $overlap$ 91248.526 1 91248.526 14474.561 0.000 $costLSP$ 20639.711 3 6879.904 1091.345 0.000 $nr$ 8779.363 7 1254.195 198.950 0.000 $overlap * costLSP$ 306.054 3 102.018 16.183 0.000 $overlap * nr$ 687.925 7 98.275 15.589 0.000 Error 7930.510 1258 6.304 Total 130162.118 1280 Corrected Total 129592.089 1279 a R Squared = 0.939 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.938).
Average percentage savings for the different $overlap$ levels
 $overlap$ 0 1 Estimate $-7.8\%$ $9.1\%$
 $overlap$ 0 1 Estimate $-7.8\%$ $9.1\%$
Average percentage savings for the different $costlsp$ levels
 $costLSP$ $90\%$ $95\%$ $100\%$ $105\%$ Estimate $6.1\%$ $2.3\%$ $-1.0\%$ $-4.8\%$
 $costLSP$ $90\%$ $95\%$ $100\%$ $105\%$ Estimate $6.1\%$ $2.3\%$ $-1.0\%$ $-4.8\%$
Average percentage savings for the different $nr$ levels
 $nr$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Estimate -4.8% -1.8% -0.1% 1.0% 1.9% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%
 $nr$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Estimate -4.8% -1.8% -0.1% 1.0% 1.9% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%
Post-hoc Tukey test for $nr$
 pctSava, b, c Subset $nr$ N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 160 -4.7630 2 160 -1.7617 3 160 -0.1306 4 160 1.0208 5 160 1.8715 1.8715 6 160 2.5444 2.5444 7 160 3.0449 3.0449 8 160 3.5125 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.051 0.244 0.632 0.710 a Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(error) = 6.304 b Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 160.000 c Alpha = 0.05
 pctSava, b, c Subset $nr$ N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 160 -4.7630 2 160 -1.7617 3 160 -0.1306 4 160 1.0208 5 160 1.8715 1.8715 6 160 2.5444 2.5444 7 160 3.0449 3.0449 8 160 3.5125 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.051 0.244 0.632 0.710 a Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(error) = 6.304 b Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 160.000 c Alpha = 0.05
 [1] Nurhadi Siswanto, Stefanus Eko Wiratno, Ahmad Rusdiansyah, Ruhul Sarker. Maritime inventory routing problem with multiple time windows. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (3) : 1185-1211. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018091 [2] Xiaohui Lyu, Nengmin Wang, Zhen Yang, Haoxun Chen. Shipper collaboration in forward and reverse logistics. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-37. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018173 [3] Katherinne Salas Navarro, Jaime Acevedo Chedid, Whady F. Florez, Holman Ospina Mateus, Leopoldo Eduardo Cárdenas-Barrón, Shib Sankar Sana. A collaborative EPQ inventory model for a three-echelon supply chain with multiple products considering the effect of marketing effort on demand. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-14. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019020 [4] Jingzhen Liu, Ka Fai Cedric Yiu, Alain Bensoussan. Ergodic control for a mean reverting inventory model. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (3) : 857-876. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017079 [5] Shuren Liu, Qiying Hu, Yifan Xu. Optimal inventory control with fixed ordering cost for selling by internet auctions. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (1) : 19-40. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.19 [6] Yanqing Hu, Zaiming Liu, Jinbiao Wu. Optimal impulse control of a mean-reverting inventory with quadratic costs. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (4) : 1685-1700. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018027 [7] Ganfu Wang, Xingzheng Ai, Chen Zheng, Li Zhong. Strategic inventory with competing suppliers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-15. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019048 [8] Mingyong Lai, Hongming Yang, Songping Yang, Junhua Zhao, Yan Xu. Cyber-physical logistics system-based vehicle routing optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (3) : 701-715. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.701 [9] K. F. Cedric Yiu, S. Y. Wang, K. L. Mak. Optimal portfolios under a value-at-risk constraint with applications to inventory control in supply chains. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2008, 4 (1) : 81-94. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2008.4.81 [10] Honglei Xu, Peng Sui, Guanglu Zhou, Louis Caccetta. Dampening bullwhip effect of order-up-to inventory strategies via an optimal control method. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2013, 3 (4) : 655-664. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.655 [11] Cheng-Kang Chen, Yi-Xiang Liao. A deteriorating inventory model for an intermediary firm under return on inventory investment maximization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (4) : 989-1000. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.989 [12] Michelle L.F. Cheong, Rohit Bhatnagar, Stephen C. Graves. Logistics network design with supplier consolidation hubs and multiple shipment options. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2007, 3 (1) : 51-69. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2007.3.51 [13] Mohsen Lashgari, Ata Allah Taleizadeh, Shib Sankar Sana. An inventory control problem for deteriorating items with back-ordering and financial considerations under two levels of trade credit linked to order quantity. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (3) : 1091-1119. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1091 [14] Yeong-Cheng Liou, Siegfried Schaible, Jen-Chih Yao. Supply chain inventory management via a Stackelberg equilibrium. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2006, 2 (1) : 81-94. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.81 [15] Zvi Drezner, Carlton Scott. Approximate and exact formulas for the $(Q,r)$ inventory model. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (1) : 135-144. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.135 [16] Qing Yang, Shiji Song, Cheng Wu. Inventory policies for a partially observed supply capacity model. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2013, 9 (1) : 13-30. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2013.9.13 [17] Ximin Huang, Na Song, Wai-Ki Ching, Tak-Kuen Siu, Ka-Fai Cedric Yiu. A real option approach to optimal inventory management of retail products. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (2) : 379-389. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.379 [18] Alexander O. Brown, Christopher S. Tang. The impact of alternative performance measures on single-period inventory policy. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2006, 2 (3) : 297-318. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.297 [19] Sanjoy Kumar Paul, Ruhul Sarker, Daryl Essam. Managing risk and disruption in production-inventory and supply chain systems: A review. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (3) : 1009-1029. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1009 [20] Xin Zhou, Liangping Shi, Bingzhi Huang. Integrated inventory model with stochastic lead time and controllable variability for milk runs. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (3) : 657-672. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.657

2018 Impact Factor: 1.025

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables