Ann Oper Res DOI 10.

1007/s10479-013-1435-z

A new multi-criteria scenario-based solution approach for stochastic forward/reverse supply chain network design
Hamed Soleimani Mirmehdi Seyyed-Esfahani Mohsen Akbarpour Shirazi

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Analyzing current trends in supply chain management, lead to nd unavoidable steps toward closing the loop of supply chain. In order to expect best performance of ClosedLoop Supply Chain (CLSC) network, an integrated approach in considering design and planning decision levels is necessary. Further, real markets usually contain uncertain parameters such as demands and prices of products. Therefore, the next important step is considering uncertain parameters. In order to cope with designing and planning a closed-loop supply chain, this paper proposes a multi-period, multi-product closed-loop supply chain network with stochastic demand and price in a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) structure. A multi criteria scenario based solution approach is then developed to nd optimal solution through some logical scenarios and three comparing criteria. Mean, Standard Deviation (SD), and Coefcient of Variation (CV), which are the mentioned criteria for nding the optimal solution. Sensitivity analyses are also undertaken to validate efciency of the solution approach. The computational study reveals the acceptability of proposed solution approach for the stochastic model. Finally, a real case study in an Indian manufacturer is evaluated to ensure applicability of the model and the solution methodology. Keywords Closed-loop supply chain Mixed integer linear programming Reverse logistic Stochastic optimization Scenario-based solution 1 Introduction The vast tendency toward closing the loop of supply chain originate in its capability and feasibility in terms of economic criteria, which lead managers to think of prot maximization instead of cost minimization approaches (Guide and Van Wassenhove 2009). Although
H. Soleimani M. Seyyed-Esfahani ( ) M.A. Shirazi Amirkabir University, Valiasr Crossroad, Tehran, Iran e-mail: msesfahani@aut.ac.ir H. Soleimani e-mail: hd.soleimani@gmail.com

Ann Oper Res

Fig. 1 A generic form of forward/reverse logistics (Tonanont et al. 2008)

the classical form of supply chain (forward supply chain) just tried to fulll customers requests (Chopra and Meindl 2007), new denitions make supply chain responsible for End of Life (EOL) products too (reverse supply chain). For instance, in the US, 75 % of customers claim that they consider environmental reputation of manufacturers in their purchasing, and 80 % of customers even pay more for environmental friendly goods (Lamming and Hampson 1996). In a CLSC, manufacturers have to be responsible for collecting used products from customers and trying to reuse them in any possible forms or at least dispose them (Soleimani et al. 2013). Various procedures can be undertaken for reused products (called return products) including simple repairing and then reselling them to second markets, remanufacturing the EOL products, recycling return products to use them as raw materials, and environmental-friendly disposing. A generic structure of CLSC is illustrated in Fig. 1 (Tonanont et al. 2008). In this gure, forward, and reverse supply chain are presented by solid lines and dashed lines, respectively. The problem of CLSC design and planning is NP-hard and complicated (Krarup and Pruzan 1983 and Schrijver 2003), which is hard to achieve optimal solutions for real-sized instances. On the other hand, the other important factor of real situations is the uncertainty of parameters. Hence, in this paper, bi-level important decisions of designing and planning of a multi-period, multi-product CLSC are undertaken in an uncertain environment. Demands of rst and second customers, price of selling rst and second products, and the price of purchasing used products from customers are considered as nondeterministic parameters in the study. In order to guarantee the applicability of the model, an efcient scenario-based solution approach is developed to cope with the proposed stochastic model. A case study of a plastic water cane products manufacturer in India is exploited to evaluate the model and the solution approach. The rest of this paper is arranged as follow. In Sect. 2, a complete literature review is presented. The model characteristics and formulation is demonstrated in Sect. 3. Computational analyses and the proposed scenario-based solution approach are illustrated in Sect. 4. Section 5 is assigned to sensitivity analysis. Case study evaluation is presented in Sect. 6. Finally, Sect. 7 discusses conclusions of the study and future research.

Ann Oper Res

2 Literature review Designing and planning a CLSC with stochastic parameters is a critical issue, which needs to be considered by researchers. There are few papers dealing with mentioned problem and trying to solve it in an efcient and practical way. Recent review papers can shed more light on this claim. Pokharel and Mutha (2009) reviewed the current advancements in reverse logistics (RL) and they mentioned about necessity of generic models and stochastic approaches in this area. Also Subramoniam et al. (2009) presented another review in reverse logistics in automotive industry, which pointed out the lack of stochastic approaches in designing CLSC. Such points can also nd in Sasikumar and Kannan (2009). Concentrating on design and planning problem of CLSC, and regarding stochastic approaches, there are some papers, which can be discussed as follows (Table 1). The characteristics of this study are claried at the last row of Table 1. Reviewing Table 1 can be helpful to be convinced of the necessity of this study in three points of view: In terms of model, there are few stochastic, multi-period, and multi-product papers (rows 6 and 13), which is regarded in this study. Indeed, the proposed model of this study is scenario-based, multi-period, and multi-product with various possible ows between network entities, which can construct a close-to-real network. In terms of stochastic parameters, this study proposes a complete set of nondeterministic parameters, which are demands of the rst and second customers (return rate), price of rst products, price of return products, and purchasing price of EOL products. This paper, as regarding Table 1, is the only, which considers such nondeterministic parameters in its stochastic approach. In terms of nondeterministic solution approaches, there are various methodologies in dealing with such problems. This paper tries to develop a new efcient scenario-based approach, which can rationally achieve optimal solutions through some criteria. It should be pointed out that based on the difculties of other approaches such as two-stage stochastic optimization approaches specially in real world instances, scenario-based solution methodologies are mentioned as effective and well-behaved solution methods for stochastic problems (Dembo 1991 and Kaut and Wallace 2007). On the other hand, using three criteria in selecting optimal point in scenario-based solution methodologies is developed by this study to elevate the reliability of optimal decisions in uncertain environment. Finally, based on the above consideration, and the analyses of literature review in Table 1, the necessities of current study is revealed in terms of proposing and solving a stochastic model in an efcient and practical manner.

3 Model development The model notations are based on the multi-products, multi-period, and multi echelon CLSC network that presented in Soleimani et al. (2013) (Fig. 2) except that current study is a nondeterministic research and some notations are also changed to improve the applicability of the model. There are also differences in the assumptions of the model, which are completely presented as follows: The model is scenario-based, multi-echelon, multi-product, and multi-period consists of suppliers, manufacturers, warehouses, distributors, and customers in its forward supply

Table 1 Literature survey of CLSC design and planning under uncertainty Product Single Single Single Single Multi Multi Single Multi Single Multi Multi Multi Multi Multi Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Fuzzy Stochastic-Two stage Stochastic Stochastic Stochastic (Fuzzy weights) Stochastic Stochastic-Two stage Stochastic Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Fuzzy Stochastic-Two stage Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Stochastic-Two stage Stochastic-Two stage Uncertain Uncertain Fuzzy Uncertain Uncertain Stochastic Uncertain Fuzzy Demands Return Prices Uncertain approach Solution method CPLEX CPLEX LINGO Dash optimization Simulation CPLEX CPLEX GAMS CPLEX General solvers Genetic algorithm Exact Hybrid genetic algorithm Multi criteria approaches New Scenariobased solution

Row

Paper

Period

1.

zkr and Ba sl gil (2013)

Multi

2.

Pishvaee et al. (2011)

Single

3.

Pishvaee and Torabi (2010)

Multi

4.

El-Sayed et al. (2010)

Multi

5.

Francas and Minner (2009)

Single

6.

zceylan and Paksoy (2013)

Multi

7.

Liste s (2007)

Single

8.

Amin and Zhang (2012)

Single

9.

Chouinard et al. (2008)

Single

10.

Faccio et al. (2011)

Single

11.

Zhou and Min (2011)

Single

12.

Amin and Zhang (2013)

13.

Zhu and Xiuquan (2013)

Multi

14.

Ramezani et al. (2013)

Single

15.

This study

Multi

Ann Oper Res

Ann Oper Res

chain and disassembly centers, redistributors, disposal centers, and second customers in its reverse logistics. Dealing with used products can be undertaken in four alternatives: repairing by disassembly centers, remanufacturing by manufacturers, recycling by suppliers, and disposing by disposal centers. Disassembly centers are responsible for collecting used products from rst customers, deciding the next-step alternative decisions for return products, and repairing some portions of them. Demands of rst customers and price of rst products are directly considered as nondeterministic parameters through some scenarios. Besides, return products rate, price of second products, and purchasing price of used products are also regarded as stochastic parameters through factors related to demands of rst customers and price of rst products respectively. In terms of designing decision variables, the maximum number of facilities could regard nondeterministic and it could be different for each scenario. The potential locations, capacity of all facilities, and all cost parameters are predetermined. Quality, demand, and price of returned products are different from rst customers and they cannot be sold as new products. In terms of network ows, manufacturers, warehouses, and distributers can supply rst customers and manufacturers, warehouses, disassembly centers, and redistributors can supply second customers. The formulation of the model is presented as follows:

Sets: S: Set of scenarios, indexed by s . L: Potential number of suppliers, indexed by l . F: Potential number of manufacturers, indexed by f . W: Potential number of warehouses, indexed by w .

Fig. 2 The CLSC network structure (arrows show the possible ows) (Soleimani et al. 2013)

Ann Oper Res

D: C: A: R: P: K: U: T:

Potential number of distributors, indexed by d . Potential number of rst customers (retailers), indexed by c. Potential number of disassembly centers, indexed by a . Potential number of redistributors, indexed by r . Potential number of disposal centers, indexed by p . Potential number of second customers, indexed by k . Set of products, indexed by u. Set of periods, indexed by t .

Parameters: Ss : Maximum number of suppliers in scenario s . Fs : Maximum number of manufacturers in scenario s . Ws : Maximum number of warehouses in scenario s . Ds : Maximum number of distributors in scenario s . As : Maximum number of disassembly centers in scenario s . Rs : Maximum number of redistributors in scenario s . Ps : Maximum number of disposal centers in scenario s . M : a sufciently large constant. Dcuts : Demand of product u of rst the customer c in period t in scenario s , Dkuts : Demand of product u of the second customer k in period t in scenario s , Pcuts : Unit price of product u at rst customer c in period t in scenario s , PU cuts : Purchasing cost of product u at rst customer c in period t in scenario s , Pkuts : Unit price of product u at second customer k in period t in scenario s , Fi : Fixed cost of activating location i . DSij : Distance between location i and location j . SClut : Capacity of supplier l of product u in period t , SRClut : Recycling capacity of supplier l of product u in period t , FCf ut : Manufacturing capacity of manufacturer f of product u in period t , RFCf ut : Remanufacturing capacity of manufacturer f of product u in period t , WCwut : Warehouse capacity of warehouse w of product u in period t , DCdut : Capacity of distributor d of product u in period t , ACau : Capacity of disassembly a of product u in period t , RDCrut : Capacity of redistributor r of product u in period t , PCput : Capacity of disposal center p of product u in period t , MT lut : Material cost of product u per unit which is supplied by supplier l in period t , RT sut : Recycling cost of product u per unit which is recycled by supplier l in period t , FT f ut : Manufacturing cost of product u per unit, which is undertaken by manufacturer f in period t , RFT f ut : Remanufacturing cost of product u per unit, which is undertaken by manufacturer f in period t , DAT aut : Disassembly cost of product u per unit by disassembly center a in period t , RPT aut : Repairing cost of product u per unit that is repaired by disassembly center a in period t , PT aut : Disposal cost of product u per unit disposed by disposal center p in period t , NMT f ut : Non-utilized manufacturing capacity cost of product u of manufacturer f in period t ,

Ann Oper Res

NRMT f ut : Non-utilized remanufacturing cost of product u of manufacturer f in period t , ST ut : Shortage cost of product u per unit in period t , Fhf u : Manufacturing time of product u per unit at manufacturer f , RFhf u : Remanufacturing time of product u per unit at manufacturer f , RT sut : Recycling cost of supplier l of product u in period t , WHT wut : Holding cost of product u per unit at the warehouse w in period t , DHT dut : Holding cost of product u per unit at the store of distributor d in period t , Blu , Bf u , Bdu , Bau , Bru , Bwu , Bcu : Batch size of product u from supplier l manufacturer f , distributor d , disassembly a , redistributor r , warehouse w and customer c respectively. TRT ut : Transportation cost of product u per unit per kilometer in period t , RRut : Return ratio of product u at rst customers in period t , Rc: Recycling ratio, Rm: Remanufacturing ratio, Rr : Repairing ratio, Rp: Disposal ratio, First-stage decision variables: Lis : Binary variable equals 1 if location i is activated in scenario s and 0 otherwise. Second-stage decision variables: Qij uts : Flows of product u from node (entity) i to node (entity) j in period t in scenario s , Rwuts : Residual inventory of product u for warehouse w in period t in scenario s , Rduts : Residual inventory of product u for distributor d in period t in scenario s . TLij s : Binary variable, which is equal to 1 if a transportation link is established between node i and node j in scenario s and 0 otherwise. 3.1 Objective function Objective function is total prot, which can be calculated by total sales minus total costs for a scenario. Total sales: First products sales (ows that start from distributors, manufacturers, and warehouses to customers): (Qdcuts Bdu Pcuts ) +
d D cC uU t T f F cC uU t T

(Qf cuts Bf u Pcuts ) s S, (3.1)

+
wW cC uU t T

(Qwcuts Bwu Pcuts )

Total sales of second products (return product ows, which start from redistributors, warehouses, and manufacturers to second customers): (Qrkuts Bru Pkuts ) +
r R k K uU t T f F k K uU t T

(Qf kuts Bf u Pkuts ) s S (3.2)

+
wW k K uU t T

(Qwkuts Bwu Pkuts )

Ann Oper Res

Total costs: Total costs are calculated for each scenario as follows: Total costs = xed costs + material costs + manufacturing costs + non-utilized capacity costs + shortage costs + purchasing costs + disassembly costs + recycling costs + remanufacturing costs + repairing costs + disposal costs + transportation costs + inventory holding costs. Each of the above mentioned costs are calculated for each scenario as follows: Fixed costs (location costs): Fl Lls +
l L f F

Ff Lf s +
d D

Fd Lds +
a A

Fa Las +
r R

Fr Lrs +
p P

Fp Lps (3.3)

+
wW

Fw Lws

s S

Material costs (return materials benets should be considered here): Qlf uts Blu MTlut
l L f F uU t T a A l l uU t T

Qaluts Bau (MTlut RTlut )

s S (3.4)

Manufacturing costs: (Qf duts Bf u F Tf ut ) +

f F d D uU t T f F wW uU t T

(Qf wuts Bf u F Tf ut ) (Qf kuts Bf u F Tf ut )

f F k K uU t T

+
f F cC uU t T

(Qf cuts Bf u F Tf ut ) +

s S (3.5)

Non-utilized capacity costs for manufacturers: (F Cf u /F hf u )Lf s

f F uU t T d D

(Qf duts Bf u )
wW

(Qf wuts Bf u ) (Qwkuts Bwu ) NMT f u

cC

(Qf cuts Bf u ) +
wW r R

(Qwruts Bwu ) +
wW k K

+
f F uU t T

(RFCf u /RF hf u )Lf s

r R

(Qf ruts Bf u )
k K

(Qf kuts Bf u ) s S (3.6)

wW r R

(Qwruts Bwu ) +
wW k K

(Qwkuts Bwu ) NRMT f u

Shortage costs (for distributor): Shortageuts = (

t T wW

Dcuts
t T d D

(Qdcuts Bdu )
t T f F

Qf cuts Bf u (3.7)

cC uU t T

Qwcuts Bwu

s S s S

Shortage costs =
uU t T

Shortageuts STut

Purchasing costs: Qcauts P Ucuts Bcu

cC a A uU t T

s S

(3.8)

Ann Oper Res

Disassembly costs: Qcauts Bcu DAT aut

cC a A uU t T

s S

(3.9)

Recycling costs: Qaluts Bau RT sut

a A l L uU t T

s S

(3.10)

Remanufacturing costs: Qaf uts Bau RFT f ut

a A f F uU t T

s S

(3.11)

Repairing costs: Qaruts Bau RPT aut

a A r R uU t T

s S

(3.12)

Disposal costs: Qaputs Bau PT put

a A p P uU t T

s S

(3.13)

Transportation costs: Qlf uts Bsu TRT ut DSlf +

t T uU l L f F t T uU f F d D

Qf duts Bf u TRT ut DSf d

+
t T uU f F wW

Qf wuts Bf u TRT ut DSf w Qf cuts Bf u TRT ut DSf c + Qf kuts Bf u TRT ut DSf k

t T uU f F k K

t T uU f F cC

+
t T uU wW cC

Qwcuts Bwu TRT ut DSwc Qwkuts Bwu TRT ut DSwk + Qdcuts Bdu TRT ut DSdc
t T uU d D cC

t T uU wW k K

+
t T uU a A l L

Qaluts Bau TRT ut DSas Qaf uts Bau TRT ut DSaf + (3.14) Qaputs Bau TRT ut DSap
t T uU a A p P

t T a A uU f F

+
t T uU a A r R

Qaruts Bau TRT ut DSar Qf ruts Bf u TRT ut DSf r + Qwruts Bwu TRT ut DSwr
t T uU wW r R

t T uU f F r R

+
t T uU r R k K

Qrkuts Bru TRT ut DSruk Qcauts Bcu TRT ut DSca

t T uU cC a A

+
t T uU wW d D

Qwduts Bwu TRT ut DSwd

s S

Ann Oper Res

Inventory holding costs: Rwuts WHT wut +

wW uU t T d D uU t T

Rduts DHT dut

s S

(3.15)

3.2 Constraints Qlf uts Bsu =

l L d D

Qf duts Bf u +
wW

Qf wuts Bf u +
cC

Qf cuts Bf u , (3.16)

s S, u U, f F, t T Qf wuts Bf u = Rwuts +
f F d D

Qwduts Bwu +
cC

Qwcuts Bwu , (3.17) Qdcuts Bdu ,

s S, u U, w W, t T Qf duts Bf u +
f F wW

Qwduts Bwu = Rdut +

cC

s S, u U, d D, t T Qdcuts Bdu +
d D f F

(3.18) Qwcuts Bwu + Shortageuts Dcuts ,

wW

Qf cuts Bf u +

s S, u U, c C, t T Qcauts Bcu =
a A d D

(3.19) Qf cuts Bf u +
f F wW

Qdcuts Bdu +

Qwcuts Bwu RRut , (3.20)

s S, u U, c C, t T Qcauts Bcu =
cC l L

(Qaluts Bau ) +
f F

(Qaf uts Bau ) +

r R

(Qaruts Bau ) +
p P

(Qaputs Bau ), (3.21)

s S, u U, a A, t T (Qcauts Bcu )Rc =

cC l L

(Qaluts Bau ), (Qaf uts Bau ),

f F

s S, u U, a A, t T s S, u U, a A, t T s S, u U, a A, t T s S, u U, a A, t T

(3.22) (3.23) (3.24) (3.25) (3.26)

(Qcauts Bcu )Rm =

cC

(Qcauts Bcu )Rr =

cC r R

(Qaruts Bau ), (Qaputs Bau ),

p P

(Qcauts Bcu )Rp =

cC

Rc + Rm + Rr + Rp = 1 (Qaf uts Bau ) =

a A r R

(Qf ruts Bf u ) +
k K

(Qf kuts Bf u ), (3.27) (Qrkuts Bru ),

k K

s S, u U, f F, t T (Qaruts Bau ) +
a A f F

(Qf ruts Bf u ) =

s S, u U, r R, t T (Qrkuts Bru ) Dkuts ,

r R

(3.28) (3.29)

s S, u U, k K, t T

Ann Oper Res

Constraints (3.16) to (3.29) are balanced constraints. These constraints guarantee the equality of all entering ows to a network entity and all issuing ows of the same entity in a scenario. These constraints should be hold for all entities in all periods of a scenario. Precisely, constraints (3.16) are the balance constraints of manufacturers for a scenario, constraints (3.17) to (3.21) are related to warehouses (3.17), distributors (3.18), customers (3.19), disassembly centers inputs (3.20), and disassembly centers output (3.21), respectively. Again, constraints (3.22) to (3.29) are recycling rate constraints (3.22), remanufacturing rate constraints (3.23), repairing rate constraints (3.24), disposal rate constraints (3.25), manufacturers reverse ows constraints (3.27), redistributors constraints (3.28), and ultimately, second customers constraints (3.29). Finally, sum of all alternative decision rates for used products should be equal to 1 for a scenario (constraint (3.26)). Qlf uts Bsu SClut Lls ,
f F

s S, u U, l L, t T Qf cuts Bf u +
cC k K

(3.30)

Qf duts Bf u +
d D wW

Qf wuts Bf u +

Qf kuts Bf u Fhf u FCf ut Lf s (3.31) (3.32)

s S, u U, f F, t T Rwut WCwut Lws , Qf duts Bf u +

f F wW

s S, u U, w W, t T Qwduts Bwu + Rdut DCdut Lds ,

s S, u U, d D, t T Qaluts Bau +
l L f F

(3.33) Qaruts Bau +

r R p P

Qaf uts Bau +

Qaputs Bau ACaut Las , (3.34) (3.35) (3.36) (3.37) (3.38)

s S, u U, a A, t T Qrkuts Bru RCrut Lrs ,

k K

s S, u U, r R, t T s S, u U, l L, t T s S, u U, p P , t T s S, u U, w W, t T

Qaluts Bau SRClut Lls ,

a A

Qaputs Bau PCput Lps ,

a A

Qf wuts Bf u WCwut Lws ,

f F

Constraints (3.30) to (3.38) are capacity constraints. These constraints ensures that all entities entering and issuing ows be less than their capacities. Precisely, constraints (3.30) control all suppliers output capacity for each product in all periods for a scenario. Constraints (3.31) to (3.38) are capacity limitations of manufacturers, warehouses, distributors, redistributors, suppliers, disposal centers, and warehouses respectively. TLlf s
uU t T

Qlf uts M TLlf s , Qf duts M TLf ds ,

uU t T

l L, f F, s S f F, d D, s S f F, w W, s S

(3.39) (3.40) (3.41)

TLf ds TLf ws
uU t T

Qf wuts M TLf ws ,

Ann Oper Res

TLf cs
uU t T

Qf cuts M TLf cs , Qf kuts M TLf ks ,

uU t T

f F, c C, s S f F, k K, s S r R, f F, s S w W, d D, s S w W, c C, s S w W, k K, s S w W, r R, s S d D, c C, s S a A, c C, s S l L, a A, s S f F, a A, s S r R, a A, s S p P , a A, s S k K, r R, s S

(3.42) (3.43) (3.44) (3.45) (3.46) (3.47) (3.48) (3.49) (3.50) (3.51) (3.52) (3.53) (3.54) (3.55)

TLf ks TLf rs
uU t T

Qf ruts M TLf rs , Qwduts M TLwds ,

uU t T

TLwds TLwcs
uU t T

Qwcuts M TLwcs , Qwkuts M Liwks ,

uU t T

TLwks TLwrs
uU t T

Qwruts M Liwrs , Qdcuts M TLdcs ,

uU t T

TLdcs TLcas
uU t T

Qcauts M TLcas , Qaluts M TLals ,

uU t T

TLals TLaf s
uU t T

Qaf uts M TLaf s , Qaruts M TLars ,

uU t T

TLars TLaps
uU t T

Qaputs M TLaps , Qrkuts M TLrks ,

uU t T

TLrks

Constraints (3.39) to (3.55) are related to shipping limitations between two entities. For instance, in constraints (3.39), if in a scenario there is no real shipping way between a supplier and a manufacturer, so there would be no ows between them and vice versa. Lls Ss
l L

s S s S s S s S s S s S

(3.56) (3.57) (3.58) (3.59) (3.60) (3.61)

Lf s Fs
f F

Lds Ds
d D

Lws Ws
wW

Las As
a A

Lrs Rs
r R

Ann Oper Res Table 2 Parameters range of the computational study Row 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Parameter Demand Second demand rate Price Second product price Purchasing cost Manufacturer capacity Remanufacturer capacity Supplier capacity Supplier recycling capacity Recycling cost All other reverse cost Others facilities capacities Material cost Manufacturing cost All other forward cost Shortage cost Supplier xed cost Manufacturer xed cost Distributor xed cost warehouse xed cost Disassembly xed cost Redistributors xed cost Disposal centers xed cost Batch size Uniformly distributed or rates 03000 50 % of demand 1500020000 50 % of price 10 % of price 600014000 50 % of Manufacturer capacity 1800042000 50 % of Supplier capacity 10100 10100 600014000 1001000 1001000 1001000 10005000 710 million 70150 million 12 million 0.11 million 0.11 million 0.11 million 0.11 million 1

Lps Ps
p P

s S

(3.62)

Constraints (3.56) to (3.62) are the limitations to maximum number of allowable activated locations for each scenario. These types of managerial limitations or budget related limitations are necessary to complete the model.

4 Solution methodology and computational evaluation In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed stochastic model, a CLSC consists of ve units of each entity is considered (ve suppliers, ve manufacturers, ve warehouses etc.). The study is undertaken for 5 products in 5 periods and 11 various logically-generated scenarios. The data are generated based on the uniform distributed functions on the basis of Table 2. It should be mentioned that the recycling, remanufacturing, repair, and disposal rates are respectively 0.2, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.1 of return products and batch sizes are one for all entities. The above-mentioned ranges in Table 2 reveal the intervals, which parameters of the model are generated. On the other hand, considering real market situations, prices and demands are two main uncertain parameters, which are regarded as nondeterministic scenariobased values here. Quality and suitability of scenario-generation methods for a given

Ann Oper Res Table 3 Objective function values of 11 different scenarios (in millions) Scenarios Deterministic S 1 Prot 3309 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 Worst-case Best-case 5453

3400 3263 3274 3126 3450 3276 3304 3165 2191

stochastic programming models are discussed and proved in various studies such as Dembo (1991) and Kaut and Wallace (2007), and Liste s (2007). They also pointed out that based on simplicity and applicability characteristics of scenario-based approaches in comparison with other methods (like two-stage stochastic programming), they can be introduced as efcient and powerful methodologies to cope with stochastic programming problems. In this study, we develop a new multi-criteria scenario-based approach to solve the proposed stochastic problem of CLSC design and planning. Totally, 11 different scenarios are assigned logically and randomly. In the rst scenario, which called deterministic scenario, mean values of demands and prices (1500 and 17500 respectively) are considered. Then, 4 various possibilities for demands based on the range of the data in Table 2 (0300) and 2 different possible values for prices are created. The combination of these possibilities, leads to 8 various scenarios. In order to cover extreme situations, two more scenarios are considered: worst-case and best-case scenarios. The worst-case scenario considers demands at the lowest possible values (1000) and the best-case scenario considers them at the highest possible values (2500). Finally, adding the last 2 scenarios, 11 different scenarios are created for demands and prices, which affect return rates, return product demands, and purchasing price of used products. All computations are coded by IBM ILOG CPLEX 12.2 optimization software and run with a Core 2 Duo-2.26 GHz processor laptop. The complete solution steps are illustrated as follows: First, all scenarios are solved separately and the optimum points are reported and recorded. These solutions are candidate solutions for nal optimal point. Indeed, decisionmakers try to make best decision now, to ensure best performance in future. Therefore, these candidate solutions should be evaluated to nd best one in terms of regarding all scenarios. Second, the candidate solutions are evaluated in all scenarios and their performance (objective function values) are recorded. Third, three criteria are evaluated to analyze the overall performance of each candidate solutions in facing with all scenarios. This paper presents mean, standard deviation, and coefcient of variation as acceptable criteria to decide about best solution among all candidate solutions. Finally, optimal solution are selected based on the analyses of three criteria and appropriate sensitivity analyses are undertaken to determine the reliability of the developed solution approach. Under the above consideration, the rst step is solving all scenarios to achieve optimal solution of each one, which are mentioned as candidate solutions for nal decision. The results are illustrated in Table 3. Further, Fig. 3 contains a schematic view of different objective function (prot) values. Analyzing Table 3 and Fig. 3, lead to important conclusions to be convinced of sufciency of the number of scenarios: The total mean of scenario objective values is 3282 million. There are 5 scenarios with greater values, and 6 scenarios with lower values than mean value. This proves the fair random distributions of scenarios to consider all situations.

Ann Oper Res

Fig. 3 Objective function values (prot) of all 11 scenarios (in millions)

Mean Square Error (MSE) of results except the worst and the best cases is 101 million. Meanwhile, considering the worst and the best cases, MSE will be around 766 million (23 % of mean value). This point can prove the diversication of various scenarios. Indeed, we can nd different range of solutions and it can guarantee achieving the appropriate candidate solutions. Further, the range of results except the worst and the best cases is 324 million and considering the worst and the best cases, range will be 3252 million (96 % of mean value). Again, this can reconrm the discussion about diversication issues. Considering the above-mentioned points lead to conclude that the generated scenarios can cover sufcient intervals of different situations. Now, the evaluation phase of different candidate solutions should be performed. Indeed, in this step, solutions are evaluated through all scenarios. Here we have 11 candidate solutions and 11 different scenarios so the model should be solved 121 times. The results are presented in Table 4. Under the analyses of Table 4, all candidate solutions of all scenarios are evaluated in terms of overall performance. Therefore, in each column, the performances of a candidate solution are evaluated in 11 scenarios. Surely, each candidate solution reveals its best performance in its corresponding scenario (it is highlighted as the main diagonal of Table 4). The last three rows are the criteria of making nal decision of the best solution in various situations. The performances of candidate solutions considering three types of criteria are illustrated in Figs. 4, 5, and 6. Finally, analyzing these criteria in Table 4 and Figs. 4, 5, and 6, lead to the optimal solution, which are discussed as follows: Solution 2, which is achieved by scenario 2, presents the mean objective function value of 3276 million facing with all scenarios. Thus, regarding mean criterion, it is selected as best-performed solution (maximum prot mean) among all situations (scenarios). It means we can judge solution 2 as a well-behaved solution in various kinds of situations in terms of mean criterion, which is illustrated in Fig. 4. Considering a risk criteria lead decision makers to ensure reliability of their decisions. Denitely, relying just on mean value without regarding uctuations is not a reliable way of dealing with uncertain situations (Ogryczak 2000). Thus, it is decided to consider a simple risk measure, we can focus on variance (here SD) as a risk criterion. It is important for us to have a risk-base optimal solution in different conditions. Therefore, the overall

Ann Oper Res Table 4 Scenario-based solution approach for stochastic model (results in millions) Scenarios Solutions Det. Sol. 1 Sol. 2 Sol. 3 Sol. 4 Sol. 5 Sol. 6 Sol. 7 Sol. 8 Sol. solutions WC Det. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 WC BC Mean SD 3309 3388 3263 3212 3125 3436 3276 3232 3164 2135 4332 3261.1 499.53 Sol. BC

3285 3308 3256 3307 3284 3308 3256 3308 3124 3113 3400 3389 3358 3389 3340 3389 3358 3390 3047 3233 3199 3263 3193 3262 3198 3263 3193 3262 3042 3055 3217 3212 3274 3211 3217 3212 3274 3211 2944 3165 3116 3125 3111 3126 3115 3125 3111 3126 3002 3014 3450 3437 3409 3437 3450 3437 3409 3437 3088 3284 3212 3274 3207 3276 3211 3276 3207 3276 3052 3069 3244 3232 3304 3231 3244 3232 3304 3232 2957 3194 3156 3164 3152 3165 3155 3164 3152 3165 3037 3053 2104 2135 2071 2133 2101 2135 2071 2133 2191 1912 4496 4496 4617 4328 4501 4333 4617 4329 3376 5453 3262 3276 3268 3260 3256 3261 3268 3261 2987 3231 544.1 535.9 577 499.1 544.7 499.8 577 499.4 288.1 826.8 10.37 3.908 5.995 6.113 5.664 6.532 5.978 6.525 5.664 6.53

1/CV = 1/(SD/mean) 6.5283

Sol.: solution. Det.: deterministic, WC: worst-case, BC: best-case

Fig. 4 Mean results of objective values for candidate solutions (in millions)

SD performances for all solutions are evaluated. Results of Table 4 and Fig. 5 reveal that solution 4 presents the minimum SD. Indeed, regarding risk criterion, the solution with lower SD will be more reliable in uctuated environment. Now we have two different optimal solutions through two criteria: mean and SD. Consequently, an integrated approach is needed to make nal decision, which leads to the third criteria: coefcient of variation. Finally, regarding mean and SD simultaneously, leads to the most important criteria, which is coefcient of variation. This is a simple approach to make an integrated deci-

Ann Oper Res

Fig. 5 Standard deviation results of objective values for candidate solutions (in millions)

Fig. 6 Coefcient of variation results of objective values for candidate solutions

sion considering mean-SD (mean-variance) criteria. Again, solution 4 is best one with the minimum CV (actually, maximum 1/CV) among all candidate solutions and we can select it as the nal optimal solution (see Fig. 6). Regarding the special and rare kind of situation in the worst and the best cases, we should eliminate them in selecting the optimal solution. Indeed, they are incorporated just to considering all various reasonable scenarios. A brief review of solution 2 and solution 4 in designing level are presented in Table 5 in which the activated facilities are illustrated with value 1. Reviewing Table 5 reveals important strategic distinctions between solutions 2 and 4. In the mentioned table, the activated and not-activated locations are claried by one and zero respectively. Consequently, these two selected solutions can be compared in terms of different design decision variables, which show differences in locations of suppliers, disassemblies, and redistributors.

Ann Oper Res Table 5 A brief review of solution 2 and solution 4 in designing level Facilities Manufacturers in solution 2 Manufacturers in solution 4 Suppliers in solution 2 Suppliers in solution 4 Warehouses in solution 2 Warehouses in solution 4 Distributors centers in solution 2 Distributors centers in solution 4 Disassembly in solution 2 Disassembly in solution 4 Disposal centers in solution 2 Disposal centers in solution 4 Redistributors in solution 2 Redistributors in solution 4 Node 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Node 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Node 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 Node 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Node 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

5 Sensitivity analysis A very important step to prove the reliability of the proposed solution approach will be analyses in sensitivity. If the candidate solutions (specially the optimal ones) can prove their acceptable performance in these analyses, the results and the solution approach is more reliable. On the other hand, in location-allocation type of the problems, xed costs are the highest cost parameters and they play the most important roles in the results so they are chosen for sensitivity analysis in this paper. In this section, two different strategies are considered in changing xed costs, which are presented as follows: 50 % increasing in all xed costs of all facilities and evaluating all candidate solutions in 11 scenarios for new xed-cost situation. 50 % decreasing in all xed costs of all facilities and evaluating all candidate solutions in 11 scenarios for new xed-cost situation. The complete results of the above-mentioned strategies in sensitivity analyses are illustrated in Tables 6 and 7. Under consideration of Tables 6 and 7, interesting points of the solution methodology and the candidate solutions are claried, which are discussed as follows: Except the solutions of the worst-case and the best-case scenarios, other candidate solutions are rarely could achieve best performance in the corresponding scenarios. Best performances of each scenario are highlighted in Tables 6 and 7, which can prove the effects of xed costs in the optimal solutions and the necessity of this sensitivity analysis. Since, the worst and the best cases scenarios are a special situation, so their associate candidate solutions reveal best performance in the corresponding scenarios. Regarding mean criterion, vague results are achieved, which cannot lead decision makers to nd the optimal solution under uncertainty. When the xed costs are increased 50 %, three candidate solutions present best performances, which are solutions 2, 6, and deterministic solution (see Table 6). Vice a Versa, when the xed costs are decreased 50 %, two candidate solutions present best performance, which are solutions 3 and 7 (see Table 7). Results prove that although the candidate solution 2, reveals the best performance

Ann Oper Res Table 6 Evaluating candidate solutions for +50 % xed-costs strategy (results in millions) Scenarios Solutions Det. Sol. 1 Sol. 2 Sol. 3 Sol. 4 Sol. 5 Sol. 6 Sol. 7 Sol. 8 Sol. solutions WC Det. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 WC BC Mean SD 3249 3329 3203 3152 3065 3377 3216 3173 3104 2075 4273 3201 500 3218 3332 3132 3149 3048 3383 3144 3176 3088 2037 4428 3194 544 3248 3329 3203 3152 3065 3377 3216 3172 3104 2074 4273 3201 500 3177 3280 3115 3196 3032 3330 3128 3226 3073 1993 4538 3190 577 3246 3328 3201 3150 3065 3376 3214 3170 3104 2072 4267 3199 499 3214 3329 3127 3146 3044 3379 3140 3173 3084 2030 4430 3190 546 3248 3329 3203 3152 3065 3377 3216 3172 3104 2074 4273 3201 500 3177 3280 3115 3196 3032 3330 3128 3226 3073 1993 4538 3190 577 3246 3328 3201 3150 3064 3376 3214 3170 3103 2072 4267 3199 499 3087 3010 3005 2907 2965 3051 3015 2920 2999 2154 3339 2950 288 Sol. BC 2979 3099 2921 3031 2880 3149 2934 3060 2919 1778 5319 3097 827

CV = (SD/mean) 0.1561

0.1703 0.1562 0.1809 0.1560 0.1711 0.1562 0.1809 0.1561 0.0977 0.2670

Table 7 Evaluating candidate solutions for 50 % xed-costs strategy (results in millions) Scenarios Solutions Det. Sol. 1 Sol. 2 Sol. 3 Sol. 4 Sol. 5 Sol. 6 Sol. 7 Sol. 8 Sol. solutions WC Det. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 WC BC Mean SD 3368 3448 3322 3272 3185 3496 3336 3292 3224 2195 4392 3321 500 3353 3467 3266 3284 3183 3518 3279 3311 3223 2172 4563 3329 544 3368 3449 3323 3272 3186 3497 3337 3292 3225 2195 4394 3322 500 3334 3437 3272 3353 3189 3487 3285 3383 3230 2150 4696 3347 577 3369 3451 3324 3272 3188 3499 3337 3293 3227 2195 4390 3322 499 3356 3471 3269 3288 3186 3521 3282 3315 3226 2172 4572 3332 546 3368 3449 3323 3272 3186 3497 3337 3292 3225 2195 4394 3322 500 3334 3437 3272 3353 3189 3487 3285 3383 3230 2150 4696 3347 577 3370 3452 3324 3273 3188 3499 3338 3294 3227 2195 4391 3323 499 3162 3085 3080 2981 3040 3126 3089 2994 3074 2228 3414 3025 288 Sol. BC 3248 3368 3190 3300 3149 3418 3203 3329 3188 2047 5588 3366 827

CV = (SD/mean) 0.1505

0.1634 0.1505 0.1724 0.1503 0.1638 0.1505 0.1724 0.1503 0.0953 0.2456

in Table 6, but it cannot preserve its superiorities in sensitivity analyses in second xed costs strategy. Therefore, relying on the mean criterion cannot ensure nding the optimal solutions based on the proposed scenario-based solution methodology, which is common in earlier researches. Considering the risk criterion (standard deviation) and the integrated mean-risk criteria (CV), interesting results of conrming the superiorities of candidate solution 4 in both

Ann Oper Res

sensitivity analysis strategies are achieved. The results of Tables 6 and 7 prove that the candidate solution 4, which could previously present best performance in Table 4 of the main model, again, reveals best performances in objective function values in terms of achieving the lowest standard deviation and the lowest CV. Therefore, regarding the proposed integrated mean-risk criteria of this paper could lead decision makers to nd reliable optimal solutions under uncertain environment. Finally, the analyses of the sensitivity studies prove the reliability of the proposed scenario-based solution methodology to achieve optimal solutions, while regarding multi criteria in decision-making procedure (integrated mean-risk approach).

6 Case study: the plastic water cane manufacturer A well-known Indian company who produces plastic water cane products is selected to study the proposed model and the solution methodology. The company faced to demand uncertainty for the next 12 months, which considered as 12 periods here. The company expect 500 to 600 thousands unit of demand per period. The detail of the parameters is presented in Table 8. In order to apply the model and the solution methodology to the selected case study, three scenarios of demands are considered: high demand, mid demand, and low demand. Based on the solution methodology, which is completely described in Sect. 4, these scenarios are solved and then the results are regarded as candidate optimal solutions. The candidate solutions are evaluated under various scenarios and then based on the suggested criteria; best ows of the network are assigned to achieve the highest prot. The results of objective function values and criteria analysis are illustrated in Table 9. The results of Table 9 reveal that the candidate solution, which is achieved by middemand scenario, presents best performance in terms of considering mean criterion of its performance in all scenarios. However, if we are supposed to consider SD and CV (as the integrated mean-risk one), the candidate solution that is attained through low-demand scenario presents best performance. Thus, we can judge low-demand scenario solution as optimal one when regarding both mean and SD criteria simultaneously. Finally, in all cases, the reverse supply chain reveals a huge prot, which can make it reliable and protable to be developed and invested by the managers of the company.

7 Conclusion and future researches In this paper, we cope with a very important problem about designing and planning a closedloop supply chain. A scenario-based, multi-echelon, multi-period, and multi-product model including various ows between network entities is developed in this paper. This model has many characteristics of a generic model in both designing and planning stages. To solve the proposed model we have used IBM ILOG CPLEX 12.2 optimizer software. At the second step, we deal with non-deterministic demand and price parameters and then a multi criteria scenario based solution approach is developed to nd optimal solution through some logical scenarios and three comparing criteria. 11 various scenarios (one deterministic, eight random, one worst-case and one best-case scenarios) are generated and solved to achieve 11 different candidate optimal solutions. Then, we have evaluated the performance of each solution in all scenarios. We have calculated mean, variance, and coefcient of variations

Ann Oper Res Table 8 Parameters of the case study Row Parameter Average or range per month (period) 500000 to 600000 75 % of rst 70 Rupees per unit 40 Rupees per unit 15 Rupees per unit 800 550 4250 1400 3750 4250 4100 2400 3250 20 Rupees 5 Rupees 2 Rupees 2 Rupees 5 Rupees 2 Rupees 5 Rupees 2 Rupees 1 Rupees 1 Rupees per unit 3 Rupees per unit 70 % 20 % 5% 5%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Demand (nondeterministic) Second demand rate First product price Second products price Purchasing price Manufacturers capacity Remanufacturing capacity Warehouses capacity Suppliers capacity Distributors capacity Disassembly (collection) centers capacity Recycling centers capacity Redistributors capacity Disposal centers capacity

7.

Costs of supplying a unit in suppliers Costs of manufacturing a unit in manufacturers Costs of holding a unit in warehouses for one period Costs of distributing a unit in distributors Costs of remanufacturing a unit in manufacturers Costs of collecting a unit in disassembly centers Costs of recycling a unit in suppliers Costs of distributing a unit in redistributors Costs of disposing a unit of disposal centers Not utilizing manufacturing costs Per unit cost for not covering customers demand (shortage costs)

8. 9. 10. 11.

Recycling rate (portion of return products) Remanufacturing rate (portion of return products) Repair rate (portion of return products) Disposal rate (outsource) (portion of return products)

Table 9 The results of case study (in millions) Scenario Optimum Mean of the optimum in various scenarios 198 200 198 SD of the optimum in various scenarios 24.58 16.74 2.517 CV of the optimum in various scenarios 0.12 0.08 0.01

High demand Mid demand Low demand

221 210 195

as three proposed criteria to achieve optimal solution. The computational study and the corresponding sensitivity analyses reveal reliability of the proposed solution approach for the stochastic model. Indeed, regarding integrated mean-risk criteria such as CV present reliable

Ann Oper Res

solutions in uncertain environment. Finally, a real case study in an Indian manufacturer is evaluated to ensure applicability of the model and the solution methodology. Surely, there are some guides as future research; rst, in order to cope with large size instances, some heuristics, meta-heuristics, or elevated exact methods like branch and bound and column generation approaches can be utilized. Second, the risk considering method and the scenario-based solution approach can be developed in terms of incorporating other integrated criteria of decision making under uncertainty.

References
Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2007). Supply chain management: strategy, planning and operation. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Amin, S. H., & Zhang, G. (2012). An integrated model for closed-loop supply chain conguration and supplier selection: multi-objective approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 67826791. Amin, S. H., & Zhang, G. (2013). A three-stage model for closed-loop supply chain conguration under uncertainty. International Journal of Production Research, 51(5), 14051425. Chouinard, M., DAmours, S., & At-Kadi, D. (2008). A stochastic programming approach for designing supply loops. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(2), 657677. Dembo, R. S. (1991). Scenario optimization. Annals of Operations Research, 30(1), 6380. El-Sayed, M., Aa, N., & El-Kharbotly, A. (2010). A stochastic model for forward-reverse logistics network design under risk. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58(3), 423431. Faccio, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., & Zanin, G. (2011). Multi-stage supply network design in case of reverse ows: a closed-loop approach. International Journal of Operational Research, 12(2), 157191. Francas, D., & Minner, S. (2009). Manufacturing network conguration in supply chains with product recovery. Omega, 37(4), 757769. Guide, V. D. R., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2009). OR forumthe evolution of closed-loop supply chain research. Operations Research, 57(1), 1018. Kaut, M., & Wallace, S. W. (2007). Evaluation of scenario-generation methods for stochastic programming. Pacic Journal of Optimization, 3(2), 257271. Krarup, J., & Pruzan, P. M. (1983). The simple plant location problem: survey and synthesis. European Journal of Operational Research, 12(1), 3681. Lamming, R., & Hampson, J. (1996). The environment as a supply chain management issue. British Journal of Management, 7(s1), S45S62. Liste s, O. (2007). A generic stochastic model for supply-and-return network design. Computers & Operations Research, 34(2), 417442. Ogryczak, W. (2000). Multiple criteria linear programming model for portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research, 97(14), 143162. zceylan, E., & Paksoy, T. (2013). Fuzzy multi objective linear programming approach for optimizing a closed-loop supply chain network. International Journal of Production Research, 51(8), 24432461. zkr, V., & Ba slgil, H. (2013). Multi-objective optimization of closed-loop supply chains in uncertain environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41, 114125. Pishvaee, M. S., & Torabi, S. A. (2010). A possibilistic programming approach for closed-loop supply chain network design under uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 161(20), 26682683. Pishvaee, M. S., Rabbani, M., & Torabi, S. A. (2011). A robust optimization approach to closed-loop supply chain network design under uncertainty. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35(2), 637649. Pokharel, S., & Mutha, A. (2009). Perspectives in reverse logistics: a review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(4), 175182. Ramezani, M., Bashiri, M., & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2013). A new multi-objective stochastic model for a forward/reverse logistic network design with responsiveness and quality level. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(12), 328344. Sasikumar, P., & Kannan, G. (2009). Issues in reverse supply chain, part III: classication and simple analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 2(1), 227. Schrijver, A. (2003). Combinatorial optimization: polyhedra and efciency. Berlin: Springer. Soleimani, H., Seyyed-Esfahani, M., & Shirazi, M. A. (2013). Designing and planning a multi-echelon multiperiod multi-product closed-loop supply chain utilizing genetic algorithm. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-4953-6.

Ann Oper Res Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., & Chinnam, R. B. (2009). Remanufacturing for the automotive aftermarketstrategic factors: literature review and future research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(13), 11631174. Tonanont, A., Yimsiri, S., Jitpitaklert, W., & Rogers, K. J. (2008). Performance evaluation in reverse logistics with data envelopment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2008 industrial engineering research conference (pp. 764769). Zhou, G., & Min, H. (2011). Designing a closed-loop supply chain with stochastic product returns: a genetic algorithm approach. International Journal of Information Systems for Logistics and Management, 9(4), 397418. Zhu, X., & Xiuquan, X. U. (2013). An integrated optimization model of a closed-loop supply chain under uncertainty. In LISS 2012 (pp. 13891395). Berlin: Springer.