Evaluating the effects of capacity constraints and demand patterns on supply chain replenishment strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research considers inventory replenishment in a stochastic, multi-echelon supply chain involving both production and distribution functions. Simulation is used to compare distribution/material requirements planning (DRP/MRP), re-order point (ROP) and Kanban (KBN) replenishment strategies. Additional experimental factors include the demand pattern and the existence of manufacturing capacity constraints. Trade-off curves between inventory and delivery performance are generated. Statistical techniques, including analysis of variance (ANOVA), are then used to compare the areas under the trade-off curves and determine the relative dominance among the replenishment strategies. The methodology is used to identify both main and interaction effects. With seasonal demand, DRP/MRP performance is found to be best, followed by ROP and KBN, respectively. Without seasonal demand, the relative performance ranking depends on the presence of capacity constraints. Without capacity constraints, ROP performs best, followed by DRP/MRP and KBN. With capacity constraints, the ranking is reversed. This difference in behaviour can be explained using queuing analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".