Measurement and optimization of supply chain responsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers make-to-order supply chains with multiple stages where each stage is completed in a random length of time. An order that is placed in stage 1 is considered fulfilled when all of the stages are completed. The responsiveness of such a supply chain is defined as the probability that an order placed now will be fulfilled within t time units. The responsiveness of the supply chain is optimized by maximizing the probability that the order will be fulfilled within some promised time interval subject to a budget constraint. This is achieved by manipulating the rates of distributions representing the duration of each stage. It is assumed that the completion time of each stage is exponential (with possibly different rates) and generalized Erlang and phase-type distributed fulfillment times are both considered. This is followed by more realistic scenarios where the time to completion of a stage is non-exponential. The cases (i) of generalized beta-distributed, (ii) of correlated stage durations, (iii) where stages may be completed immediately with a positive probability (possibly corresponding to the availability of inventory), and (iv) where the number of stages traversed is a random variable are considered. Then an assembly-type system is analyzed for the case where the completion of a stage may depend on the availability of components to be delivered by an outside supplier and a serial system where each stage consists of a multi-server queue. Also considered is a related model of network of queues where the congestion effects are taken into account in the measurement of supply chain responsiveness. This model is analyzed using an approximation and its results are compared to those obtained by simulation. Detailed numerical examples of measurement and optimization of supply chain responsiveness are presented for each model.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".