×

The impact of delayed differentiation in make-to-order environments. (English) Zbl 1197.90034

Summary: To cope with the challenges of product proliferation, many firms are shifting their supply chain structures from make-to-stock (MTS) to make-to-order (MTO). An MTO strategy comes at a price however, as customers must wait longer for their configured products. Incorporating delayed differentiation (DD) in an MTO environment offers the potential of reducing the customer’s waiting time, since the generic part/component of the products is made available before receiving customer orders. In this paper, we quantify the trade-offs involved in implementing DD in an MTO environment using both customer waiting time and system cost as performance metrics. We show that under common conditions, the introduction of DD results in shorter waiting times and higher cost over a pure MTO strategy. These results are as expected. However, we also derive conditions where DD results not only in shorter customer waiting time but also lower cost, thus dominating a pure MTO strategy. Through a simulation experiment, we test the robustness of our results for the case where the customer arrivals and production times are generally distributed. For firms with the capability of estimating the customer waiting cost, we derive the optimal base-stock level of the generic component to minimise the total cost.

MSC:

90B05 Inventory, storage, reservoirs
90B06 Transportation, logistics and supply chain management
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] DOI: 10.1023/B:QUES.0000036396.19059.3b · Zbl 1073.60084 · doi:10.1023/B:QUES.0000036396.19059.3b
[2] Buzacott J, Stochastic models of manufacturing systems (1993)
[3] DOI: 10.1080/00207540500521543 · Zbl 1160.90378 · doi:10.1080/00207540500521543
[4] DOI: 10.1080/07408170490438519 · doi:10.1080/07408170490438519
[5] DOI: 10.1287/inte.23.4.1 · doi:10.1287/inte.23.4.1
[6] DOI: 10.1287/opre.44.1.151 · Zbl 0847.90044 · doi:10.1287/opre.44.1.151
[7] DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.43.1.40 · Zbl 0889.90108 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.43.1.40
[8] DOI: 10.1287/opre.40.5.936 · Zbl 0758.90025 · doi:10.1287/opre.40.5.936
[9] DOI: 10.1287/opre.43.6.1025 · Zbl 0852.90085 · doi:10.1287/opre.43.6.1025
[10] Matthias H, Sloan Management Review 43 pp 74– (2001)
[11] McCutcheon D, Sloan Management Review 35 pp 89– (1994)
[12] Robinet M, Automotive Industries 181 pp 40– (2001)
[13] DOI: 10.1080/00207540600844027 · Zbl 1128.90436 · doi:10.1080/00207540600844027
[14] Swaminathan, J and Lee, H. 2003. ”Design for postponement”. InSupply chain management–handbooks in operations research and management science OR & MS Vol. 11, Edited by: de Kok, AG and Graves, SC. 199–226. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[15] DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.10.016 · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2004.10.016
[16] DOI: 10.1016/0272-6963(84)90021-4 · doi:10.1016/0272-6963(84)90021-4
[17] DOI: 10.1080/00207540310001631601 · Zbl 1175.90243 · doi:10.1080/00207540310001631601
[18] Zipkin P, Foundations of inventory management (2000)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.