An optimization model for demand-driven distribution resource planning DDDRP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Demand-Driven Distribution Resource Planning (DDDRP) has recently been proposed in the literature to deal with higher supply networks complexity, shorter customer tolerance times, and inaccurate forecasts. The DDDRP requires to position inventory buffers in critical network nodes, where the inventory level in each buffer is replenished based on actual demands rather than on demand forecasts. This paper aims to identify optimal buffer positions in a distribution network driven by the DDDRP approach and to assess the performance of the DDDRP approach compared to the conventional Distribution Resource Planning (DRP) approach.Design/methodology/approach: First, a mixed-integer non-linear model is proposed to optimize buffer positioning under supply network constraints and with the objective of minimizing supply chain holding costs. Then, a case study is investigated to validate the optimization model and to evaluate the performance of the optimized distribution network driven by the DDDRP approach, compared to the DRP approach.Findings: Results of the considered case study demonstrate that the distribution network optimized and driven by the DDDRP approach achieves savings of 75% in terms of total holding costs and 67% in terms of inventory amounts, compared to a distribution network driven by the DRP approach.Research limitations/implications: Results of this paper cannot be generalized since several assumptions have been considered. Thus, addressing real case studies in different industrial contexts may be of theoretical and practical interest.Originality/value: This paper is the first to propose a mathematical model to optimize buffer positioning in a distribution network driven by the DDDRP approach.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".