Dynamic mutual adjustment search for supply chain operations planning co-ordination

Abstract

and decentralized planning systems. Centralized systems can theoretically optimize supply chain performance although its implementation requires a high degree of information exchange among supply chain partners. This leads to difficulties when independent partners do not want to share information. In order to address these difficulties, decentralized systems are designed for supply chains where each member is a separate economic entity that makes its operational decisions independently, yet with some minimal level of information sharing.In this thesis, we first review supply chain operations planning coordination methods from centralized to decentralized approaches proposed in the literature. Next, we propose a classification scheme of these approaches based on the technology used by the authors. Finally, we identify research opportunities.Second, we propose a decentralized operations planning coordination mechanism referred to as mutual adjustment search (MAS), which is based on a negotiation-like mutual adjustment of planning decisions with financial incentives and rooted in mathematical programming. This mechanism, unlike traditional centralized system, involves two independent enterprises linked by material and non-strategic information flows, which interact with each other in order to coordinate their operations planning, and to improve their individual and collective performance.In this approach, only a few coordination solutions (pairs of coordinated operations plans) are considered and computational analysis shows that this coordination mechanism has the potential to improve global profit, while maintaining fairness in terms of revenue sharing.Finally, in order to develop an approach capable of supporting the dynamic coordination of operations planning in a rolling horizon context, this thesis first proposes a negotiation strategy for the supplier, as well as a revenue sharing protocol. Computational analysis shows that the proposed approach produces a win-win strategy for two partners of supply chain and improves the results of upstream planning. viii Keywords: Supply chain management, coordination, incentive mechanism, operations planning, mathematical programming, mutual adjustment search, and operation research. ix

The collaborative multi-level lot-sizing problem with cost synergies

“…In our literature review we bring together two streams of research, which are the one on operations pooling and on distributed decision-making. Various collaborative planning schemes have been introduced in the literature (Fransoo, Wouters, and de Kok 2001;Taghipour and Frayret 2013;Thomas et al 2015;Gansterer and Hartl 2018b;Pan et al 2019). These are referred to as horizontal, if participants act at the same levels in a market (Cruijssen, Dullaert, and Fleuren 2007).…”

Supply Chain Coordination: A Review

“…It is observed that with the support of a large number of documents, scholars have done a great deal of work on the applicability of the contract. The details from very simple models to very complex models are different, and coordination among multiple actors at different levels of the supply chain can be achieved through contract execution ( [42], [43]). The analysis of the contract implementation between supply chain members should pay more and more attention in theory and practice.…”

An empirical study on solving an integrated production and distribution problem with a hybrid strategy

“…At the same time, centralized planning cannot be reasonably implemented as an efficient coordination of the IPDS in SCs with different manufacturers’ objectives. Indeed, such planning requires an unrealistic level of information exchange, which is ultimately a deterrent to such a practice (Taghipour and Frayret [ 27 ]). Furthermore, a decision that is optimal with respect to both stages together (production and distribution) might not be an optimal decision for each stage individually, especially when suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and customers may have different conflict goals.…”