Optimal control of a production‐inventory system with both backorders and lost sales

We consider the optimal control of a production inventory‐system with a single product and two customer classes where items are produced one unit at a time. Upon arrival, customer orders can be fulfilled from existing inventory, if there is any, backordered, or rejected. The two classes are differentiated by their backorder and lost sales costs. At each decision epoch, we must determine whether or not to produce an item and if so, whether to use this item to increase inventory or to reduce backlog. At each decision epoch, we must also determine whether or not to satisfy demand from a particular class (should one arise), backorder it, or reject it. In doing so, we must balance inventory holding costs against the costs of backordering and lost sales. We formulate the problem as a Markov decision process and use it to characterize the structure of the optimal policy. We show that the optimal policy can be described by three state‐dependent thresholds: a production base‐stock level and two order‐admission levels, one for each class. The production base‐stock level determines when production takes place and how to allocate items that are produced. This base‐stock level also determines when orders from the class with the lower shortage costs (Class 2) are backordered and not fulfilled from inventory. The order‐admission levels determine when orders should be rejected. We show that the threshold levels are monotonic (either nonincreasing or nondecreasing) in the backorder level of Class 2. We also characterize analytically the sensitivity of these thresholds to the various cost parameters. Using numerical results, we compare the performance of the optimal policy against several heuristics and show that those that do not allow for the possibility of both backordering and rejecting orders can perform poorly.© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 2010     

Modeling and analysis of flexible queueing systems

We consider queueing systems with multiple classes of customers and heterogeneous servers where customers have the flexibility of being processed by more than one server and servers possess the capability of processing more than one customer class. We provide a unified framework for the modeling and analysis of these systems under arbitrary customer and server flexibility and for a rich set of control policies that includes customer/server‐specific priority schemes for server and customer selection. We use our models to generate several insights into the effect of system configuration and control policies. In particular, we examine the relationship between flexibility, control policies and throughput under varying assumptions for system parameters. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2004     

Production‐inventory systems with imperfect advance demand information and updating

We consider a supplier with finite production capacity and stochastic production times. Customers provide advance demand information (ADI) to the supplier by announcing orders ahead of their due dates. However, this information is not perfect, and customers may request an order be fulfilled prior to or later than the expected due date. Customers update the status of their orders, but the time between consecutive updates is random. We formulate the production‐control problem as a continuous‐time Markov decision process and prove there is an optimal state‐dependent base‐stock policy, where the base‐stock levels depend upon the numbers of orders at various stages of update. In addition, we derive results on the sensitivity of the state‐dependent base‐stock levels to the number of orders in each stage of update. In a numerical study, we examine the benefit of ADI, and find that it is most valuable to the supplier when the time between updates is moderate. We also consider the impact of holding and backorder costs, numbers of updates, and the fraction of customers that provide ADI. In addition, we find that while ADI is always beneficial to the supplier, this may not be the case for the customers who provide the ADI. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2011