Back to "Search By Author"

Abstract Number 002-0375

Comparing the Accuracy of Neural Networks to an Algorithm for Determining Minimum Cost Purchase Lot Sizes Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico, April 30 May 3, 2004

Michael R. Godfrey University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, College of Business Administration 800 Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh, WI 54901-8675 godfrey@uwosh.edu, (920) 424-1232, (920) 424-7413 (fax) Paul F. Schikora Indiana State University School of Business Terre Haute, IN 47809-0001 schikora@indstate.edu, (812) 237-2092

Back to "Search By Author"

Abstract Previous purchase lot-sizing studies in the OM literature have acknowledged the importance of considering transportation costs. With a few notable exceptions, the purchasing lot-sizing studies have failed to account for actual pricing decisions in the motor carrier industry, where shipments are automatically over-declared to attain a lower total transportation charge. Alternatively, other recent studies have explored the use of neural networks for determining minimum cost production lot sizes. The current study will compare the accuracy of one recently developed algorithm, which realistically incorporates over-declared shipments, to a neural network model developed for the current study. This accuracy will be based on how well either of these approaches minimizes annual logistics cost of purchase lot sizes. We will assume that all lot sizes are purchased FOB origin and the purchaser pays for shipment. Annual logistics cost will consist of annual ordering, carrying, and transportation costs incurred by the purchasing company. Key Words: Logistics, Lot-Sizing Models, Neural Networks, Purchasing, Supply Chain Management, Transportation.

Back to "Search By Author"

1. Introduction As manufacturing firms move to purchase more of the parts that they use in their finished products, those firms begin to place greater emphasis on controlling the total cost of purchased items. This control necessitates the development of total logistics cost models that incorporate ordering, carrying, and transportation-related costs. In this study we compare the accuracy of a neural network model to the accuracy of an algorithm recently developed by Swenseth and Godfrey (2003) to determine minimum cost purchase quantities. Accuracy is measured by comparing the actual truckload overdeclared weight and minimum logistics cost found through enumeration to the predicted truckload over-declared weights and total logistics costs of the algorithm and of the neural network model. 2. Related Research 2.1. Neural Networks Neural networks are used to model networks consisting of processing units arranged in layers. Typically, a neural network will include an input layer of data, which feeds into a middle layer of hidden units through variable weight connections. The middle layer of hidden units in turn feeds into an output layer through variable weight connections. The neural network learns by adjusting the values of the weights through a back-propagation algorithm that permits error corrections to be fed through the layers (Shtub and Zimerman, 1993). Neural networks have seen many diverse uses, e.g., in forecasting (Poli and Jones, 1994), comparing costs of different assembly systems (Schalkoff, 1997; Shtub and

Back to "Search By Author"

2 Versano, 1999), and, more recently, for solving the production lot-size model (Gaafar and Choueiki, 2000). Sharda (1994) provides a thorough review of neural network applications to management science/operations research problems. Schalkoff (1997) also presents an excellent overview of neural networks. 2.2. Purchasing Lot-Sizing Models Total cost models for the purchasing decision have been presented for several decades. Baumol and Vinod (1970) were among the first researchers to present inventory-theoretic models (total cost models that include holding, ordering, and transportation costs). Later Langley (1980) demonstrated the inclusion of freight rates into the lot sizing decision using either actual freight rates or functions to estimate freight rates. Other researchers (e.g., Carter and Ferrin, 1996; Gaither, 1982; Tyworth, 1991) developed lot-sizing models that used enumeration techniques and actual freight rate schedules in the determination of the minimum cost purchase quantity. In a different approach, some researchers (e.g., Burwell et al., 1997; Tersine and Barman, 1991) created complex algorithms to incorporate actual freight rate schedules in the determination of optimal purchase order quantities. Ballou (1991) and Swenseth and Buffa (1990, 1991) proposed using freight rate functions instead of actual freight rates in the inventory-theoretic model. In particular, Ballou (1991) argued that practical considerations such as time, cost, and effort lead decision makers to use estimated freight rates rather than actual freight rates. Several freight rate functions have been presented in the literature. Readers are referred to studies by Langley (1980), Godfrey (1995), or Swenseth and Godfrey (1996) for a discussion of those functions.

Back to "Search By Author"

3 Less-than-truckload (LTL) motor carriers typically provide software for freight rate lookups. This software automatically checks to see if a given shipment should be over-declared to the next higher LTL weight-break level. However, this software could not be used by a logistics decision maker to determine an optimal purchase lot size based upon simultaneous consideration of holding, order, and transportation cost. Shipments by motor carriers generally fall into two categories: (1) Shipments that should be shipped using a truckload (TL) carrier and (2) Shipments that should be shipped using a LTL carrier. Whether a shipment should be transported using a TL carrier depends on shipment weight and the differences between LTL and TL freight rates. Not all shippers move large enough shipments to rely exclusively upon TL shipments. Therefore, the purpose of the study by Swenseth and Godfrey (2003) was to extend the consideration of transportation costs in inventory replenishment decisions to include environments where it was not so clear whether it would be appropriate to over-declare to TL shipments. Although over-declaring of shipments is common practice in the motor carrier industry, most purchasing lot-sizing studies, with the exception of those by Russell and Krajewski (1991), Ferrin and Carter (1995), Godfrey (1995), Swenseth and Godfrey (1996), and Swenseth and Godfrey (2003), have ignored this practice. In the model presented in the Swenseth and Godfrey (2003) study, two freight rate functions, the inverse and the adjusted inverse, were incorporated into the total annual logistics cost function to determine their impact on purchasing decisions. Both of those functions were incorporated into total logistics cost models that extended the basic EOQ model. Several recent studies (e.g., Fazel, Fischer, and Gilbert, 1998; Pan and ChingJong, 1989) acknowledged the continued use of the EOQ model, and particularly at

Back to "Search By Author"

4 smaller manufacturing concerns that are not requesting JIT deliveries from their suppliers (Temponi and Pandya, 1995). The inverse function was used in their study because of its ability to model TL freight rates exactly while the adjusted inverse function was used because it more accurately models LTL freight rates than does the inverse function. Their model can be used to determine the following: (1) the minimum weight at which a particular shipment should be over-declared to a TL, and therefore, whether a particular shipment should be shipped as a TL or as a LTL shipment and (2) minimum cost purchase order quantities based on annual ordering, holding, and transportation costs. 3. Inventory Replenishment Model 3.1. Total Logistics Cost Model The total logistics cost model proposed by Swenseth and Godfrey (2003) is as follows: (L) =

QC h RCo + + Fy Rw 2 Q Where:

(1)

Q = order quantity (units); Ch = cost to hold one unit in inventory for one year (calculated by taking unit cost, C, multiplied by holding cost rate, i); R = annual requirements (units); Co = cost to place one order; Fy = the freight rate per pound for a given shipping weight (y) over a given route; w = weight per unit.

Back to "Search By Author"

5 Total logistics cost consists of annual holding, annual ordering, and annual transportation costs. 3.2. Inverse Function Model The inverse function provides a constant freight charge per shipment. Essentially, the inverse function assumes that all shipments are over-declared as TL shipments. For the inverse function, the determination of Fy and the resulting cost function and order quantity equations are as follows: Fy = FxW x Wy (2)

Where: Fx = the TL freight rate per pound (at the full TL shipping weight) for a given route; Wx = the full TL shipping weight (assumed to equal 46,000 pounds); Wy = the actual shipping weight. Here, FxWx is the total charge for a truckload shipment for a given route. This truckload charge could also be calculated by taking the freight rate per mile multiplied by the distance (miles). Substituting the inverse function into the total logistics cost formula yields:
QC h RCo FxWx + + Rw Q 2 Wy

L=

(3)

Because shipping weight, Wy, is a function of the order quantity (Wy = Qw), the formula for L must be modified to the following: QC h RCo FxWx + + Rw 2 Q Qw

L=

(4)

Back to "Search By Author"

6 Assuming that no quantity discounts exist and taking the derivative of L with respect to Q, setting the result equal to zero, and solving for Q provides the optimal order quantity for the inverse function: 2 R(C o + FxW x ) Ch

Q=

(5)

This model essentially adds the TL charge to the cost of placing an order in the order quantity determination. When the optimal solution is an order quantity for which the shipping weight should be shipped as a TL, the inverse function provides the true optimal solution. 3.3. Adjusted Inverse Function Model Of the functions studied by Swenseth and Godfrey (1996), the one that was most accurate when only considering the LTL shipments was the adjusted inverse function. For the adjusted inverse function, the determination of Fy and the resulting cost function and order quantity equations are as follows: For the adjusted inverse function, the determination of Fy and the resulting cost function and order quantity equations are as follows:
(W x W y ) Fy = Fx + Fx Wy Where:

(6)

(alpha) is a constant between 0 and 1. Substituting the adjusted inverse function into the total logistics cost formula yields:
(Wx W y ) QC h RC o + + Fx + Fx Rw 2 Q Wy

L=

(7)

Back to "Search By Author"

7 Because shipping weight, Wy, is a function of the order quantity (Wy = Qw), the formula for L must be modified to the following:
QC h RC o (W Qw) + + Fx + Fx x Rw Q 2 Qw

L=

(8)

Assuming that no quantity discounts exist and taking the derivative of L with respect to Q, setting the result equal to zero, and solving for Q provides the optimal order quantity for the adjusted inverse function: Q= 2 R(C o + FxW x ) Ch (9)

The value for alpha is predicted with the following regression equation developed by Swenseth and Godfrey (2003): Predicted = 0.1730501.460799(TL rate per lb. at 46,000 lbs.) -0.126689(LTL discount). (10)

This equation explained 69.57% of the variation in alpha. The TL rate per pound is equal to the TL charge for a given route divided by 46,000 pounds. The LTL discount is the discount given by the LTL carrier. The adjusted inverse function should be used for determining total logistics cost for LTL shipments, while the inverse function should be used for TL shipments. Whether a shipment should be over-declared as a TL depends on the over-declared weight, which is predicted using the following equation from Swenseth and Godfrey (2003): Predicted TL over-declared weight = -2487.67+169,108(TL rate per lb. at 46,000 lbs.) +19,134(LTL discount). This equation explained 74.85% of the variation in the TL over-declared weight. (11)

Back to "Search By Author"

8 3.4. Algorithm for Determining Minimum Cost Purchase Quantity The purchasing lot-sizing algorithm presented by Swenseth and Godfrey (2003) works as follows: 1. For a randomly selected route and set of parameters, predict using equation (10). 2. Predict the weight at which all shipments should be over-declared as a TL using equation (11). 3. For the adjusted inverse function, calculate the purchase order quantity using equation (9) and total logistics cost using equation (8). 4. For the inverse function, calculate the purchase order quantity using equation (5) and total logistics cost using equation (4). 5. Determine shipping weights for both functions by multiplying each order quantity by unit weight. 6. Compare the shipping weights of the adjusted inverse function and of the inverse function to the predicted over-declared weight from equation (11). 7. If both the adjusted inverse and the inverse weights the predicted overdeclared weight, then order the adjusted inverse quantity and stop. If both the adjusted inverse and inverse weights > the predicted over-declared weight, then order the inverse quantity and stop. If the adjusted inverse weight the predicted over-declared weight < the inverse weight, then compare the total logistics cost from equations (8) and (4). Choose the function with the lower total logistics cost and order the respective quantity for that function.

Back to "Search By Author"

9 3.5. Neural Network Model The neural net software package used was Statistica Neural Networks (SNN) from Statsoft. SNN requires proprietary data sets to be developed, but data can easily be imported from various sources. SNN has an automated feature called the Automatic Network Designer. The Automatic Network Designer builds and tests multiple networks, selecting the best one. A user can select various types of networks to be built and tested, including linear regression, generalized regression, radial basis function, and multi-layer (with 3 or 4 layers) perceptron networks. The designer does not include any variable selection, although SNN includes a genetic algorithm to separately recommend which variable(s) should be used in developing a network.
4. Experiment

4.1. Parameter Ranges For all problems the same parameter ranges were used as those used by Swenseth and Godfrey (2003). Table 1 lists those parameter ranges. 4.2. Assumptions The purchasing lot-sizing models presented in this section required the following assumptions: 1. Purchased items are classified in freight class 60, 65, 70 or 77.5, classes for which it is expected that 46,000 pounds can be legally loaded onto a trailer. 2. Purchase quantity discounts are not available. 3. Annual demand for a purchased item is known and constant. 4. Ordering cost is fixed per order. 5. Annual holding cost is linearly related to the average inventory.

Back to "Search By Author"

10 6. Shortages are not allowed. 7. All items are purchased F.O.B. Origin and the buyer bears all transportation charges. 8. Routes were randomly selected from 2,228 routes spanning the continental U.S. Table 1 Parameter Values for Experiment __________________________________________________________________________ Parameter Value __________________________________________________________________________ Unit Weight (w) Annual Requirements (R) Holding Cost Rate (i) Unit Cost (C) Holding Cost Per Unit Per Year (Ch) Order Cost (Co) LTL Discount (d) Freight Class 0-1000 pounds per unit 0-100,000 units per year 0-100% $0-$1,000 per unit $0-$1,000 per unit per year $0-$1,000 per order 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% 60, 65, 70, 77.5

TL Freight Rate Per Pound at 46,000 lbs. Dependent on which of 2,228 routes selected __________________________________________________________________________ 4.3. Initial Problems An initial set of 3,000 training problems (1,500 TL & 1,500 LTL problems) was randomly generated using the parameter values given in Table 1. Actual freight rates from one TL motor carrier and one LTL motor carrier were used. Then the following procedure was used:

Back to "Search By Author"

11 1. The purchasing lot-sizing algorithm by Swenseth and Godfrey (2003) (coded in a Fortran program), was used as presented above to predict an over-declared weight and to determine a purchase order quantity. 2. Enumeration was used in the Fortran program to calculate the true TL over-declared weight, the true optimal purchase quantity, its shipping weight, and its respective total annual logistics cost. This enumeration technique was designed to consider LTL discounts and over-declared shipments. 3. The neural network was trained on the data generated by the algorithm and enumeration to predict the TL over-declared weight. Specifically, the following data were used to train the neural network to predict the TL over-declared weight: class of freight, LTL discount, TL rate per pound at 46,000 pounds, and distance (miles). The following default settings were used to run the neural network: linear regression, generalized regression, radial basis function, and three-layer perceptron networks. 4.4. Test Problems A second set of 3,000 test problems (1,500 TL & 1,500 LTL problems) was randomly generated using the parameter values given in Table 1. The steps were as follows: 1. The purchasing lot-sizing algorithm was used as presented above to predict a TL over-declared weight and to determine a purchase order quantity/weight.

Back to "Search By Author"

12 2. Enumeration was used in the Fortran program to calculate the true TL overdeclared weight, the true optimal purchase quantity, its shipping weight, and its respective total annual logistics cost. 3. The neural network was used to predict the TL over-declared weight. Then the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm was used as described above, but here the TL over-declared weight used was the one predicted with the neural network. 4.5. Statistical Tests All statistical tests were performed on the test data set. First, ANOVA was used to test for differences between the true TL over-declared weight, the TL over-declared weight predicted by the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm, and the TL over-declared weight predicted by the neural network. Second, ANOVA was used to test for differences between the optimal logistics cost, the logistics cost of the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm, and the logistics cost of the neural network. Any statistically significant differences were followed up with multiple comparisons using Tukeys method (Keller and Warrack, 2000).
5. Results

An analysis of the 3,000 test problems is provided below. This analysis is broken down as follows: (a) Set of all 3,000 problems, (b) Set of 1,500 TL problems, & (c) Set of 1,500 LTL problems. Comparisons of TL over-declared weights and total logistics costs are included in the analyses. 5.1. Set of All 3,000 Problems The mean actual TL over-declared weight was 10,138 pounds, the mean predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm was 9,936 pounds, and the mean predicted TL

Back to "Search By Author"

13 over-declared weight of the neural network was 10,628 pounds. ANOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean weights were all equal (with = 0.05). This null hypothesis was rejected with F (2, 8997) = 29.02 and p = 2.73E-13, thus indicating that at least two of the mean weights differed. Multiple comparisons with Tukeys method ( = 0.05, = 218.6) indicated that the actual TL over-declared weight and the predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm did not differ significantly. The predicted TL overdeclared weight of the neural network was on average 489 pounds greater than the actual TL over-declared weight and 691 pounds greater than the predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm. The mean optimal logistics cost was $166,484, the mean logistics cost of the algorithm was $166,811, and the mean logistics cost of the neural network was $165,878. ANOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean costs were all equal (with = 0.05). This null hypothesis was not rejected with F (2, 8997) = 0.2279 and p = 0.7962. 5.2. Set of 1,500 TL Problems The purchasing lot-sizing algorithm using the TL over-declared weight predicted with the regression equation correctly over-declared in 1491/1500 (99.4%) TL problems while the neural network correctly over-declared in 1496/1500 (99.7%) TL problems. The purchasing lot-sizing algorithm using the TL over-declared weight predicted with the regression equation failed to over-declare in 9/1500 (0.6%) TL problems while the neural network failed to over-declare in 4/1500 (0.3%) TL problems. The mean actual TL over-declared weight was 9426 pounds, the mean predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm was 9484 pounds, and the mean predicted TL over-declared weight of the neural network was 10,062 pounds. ANOVA was used to test

Back to "Search By Author"

14 the null hypothesis that the mean weights were all equal (with = 0.05). This null hypothesis was rejected with F (2, 4497) = 14.4087 and p = 5.79E-7, thus indicating that at least two of the mean weights differed. Multiple comparisons with Tukeys method ( = 0.05, = 306.8) indicated that the actual TL over-declared weight and the predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm did not differ significantly. The predicted TL overdeclared weight of the neural network was on average 636 pounds greater than the actual TL over-declared weight and 578 pounds greater than the predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm. The mean optimal logistics cost was $189,561, the mean logistics cost of the algorithm was $189,586, and the mean logistics cost of the neural network was $189,578. ANOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean costs were all equal (with = 0.05). This null hypothesis was not rejected with F (2, 4497) = 1.11E-05 and p = 0.9999. 5.3. Set of 1,500 LTL Problems The purchasing lot-sizing algorithm using the TL over-declared weight predicted with the regression equation correctly did not over-declare in 1140/1500 (76%) LTL problems while the neural network correctly did not over-declare in 1394/1500 (92.9%) LTL problems. The purchasing lot-sizing algorithm using the TL over-declared weight predicted with the regression equation incorrectly over-declared in 360/1500 (24%) LTL problems while the neural network incorrectly over-declared in 106/1500 (7.1%) LTL problems. The mean actual TL over-declared weight was 10,846 pounds, the mean predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm was 10,383 pounds, and the mean predicted TL over-declared weight of the neural network was 11,189 pounds. ANOVA was used to test

Back to "Search By Author"

15 the null hypothesis that the mean weights were all equal (with = 0.05). This null hypothesis was rejected with F (2, 4497) = 19.4395 and p = 3.92E-09, thus indicating that at least two of the mean weights differed. Multiple comparisons with Tukeys method ( = 0.05, = 303.4) indicated that the predicted TL over-declared weight of the algorithm was on average 463 pounds less than the actual TL over-declared weight. The predicted TL over-declared weight of the neural network was on average 343 pounds greater than the actual TL over-declared weight and 806 pounds greater than the predicted TL overdeclared weight of the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm. The mean optimal logistics cost was $139,347, the mean logistics cost of the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm was $143,987, and the mean logistics cost of the neural network was $142,124. ANOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean costs were all equal (with = 0.05). This null hypothesis was not rejected with F (2, 4497) = 0.6243 and p = 0.5357.
6. Discussion

The results indicate that the neural network consistently predicts a truckload (TL) over-declared weight greater than both the actual TL over-declared weight and the predicted TL over-declared weight of the Swenseth and Godfrey purchasing lot-sizing algorithm. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the actual TL over-declared weight and the predicted TL over-declared weight of the Swenseth and Godfrey purchasing lot-sizing algorithm. Therefore, looking at only the TL over-declared weights, it appears that the neural network is less accurate than the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm. However, the reduced accuracy of the neural network seems to not have affected its ability to correctly select the inverse function for TL

Back to "Search By Author"

16 problems and to correctly select the adjusted inverse function for LTL problems. For the 1,500 TL problems, the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm and the neural network correctly selected the inverse function, i.e., correctly over-declared as a TL, in 99.4% and 99.7% of the problems, respectively. For the 1,500 LTL problems, the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm and the neural network correctly selected the adjusted inverse function, i.e., correctly did not over-declare as a TL, in 76% and 92.9% of the problems, respectively. Therefore, it appears that the neural network is more accurate for problems with smaller LTL weights. This accuracy should manifest itself in a comparison of logistics costs. The logistics costs of the true optimal shipping weight, the shipping weight determined with the purchasing lot-sizing algorithm, and the shipping weight determined with the neural network were not significantly different in any of the three analyses, including the analysis of the 1,500 LTL problems. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to further develop the neural network to determine if it could more accurately select purchase quantities/weights. For example, future research will analyze the inclusion of all parameter values (e.g., holding cost, unit cost, order cost, etc.) with the freight rate parameters in a revised neural network model. This neural network model will be designed to directly predict the optimal purchase quantity and shipping weight.

Back to "Search By Author"

17
References

Ballou, R.H. The accuracy in estimating truck class rates for logistical planning, Transportation Research-A 25A(6) (1991) 327-337. Baumol, W.J., Vinod, H.D. An inventory theoretic model of freight transport demand, Management Science 16(7) (1970) 413-421. Burwell, T. H., Dave, D.S., Fitzpatrick, K.E., Roy, M.R. Economic lot size model for price dependent demand under quantity and freight discounts, International Journal of Production Economics 48(2) (1997) 141-155. Carter, J.R., Ferrin, B.G. Transportation costs and inventory management: Why transportation costs matter, Production and Inventory Management Journal 37(3) (1996) 58-62. Fazel, F., Fischer, K.P., Gilbert, E.W. JIT purchasing vs. EOQ with a price discount: An analytical comparison of inventory costs, International Journal of Production Economics 54(1) (1998) 101-109. Ferrin, B.G., Carter, J.R. The effect of less-than-truckload rates on the purchase order lot size decision, Transportation Journal 34(3) (1995) 35-44. Gaafar, L.K; Choueiki, M.H. A neural net model for solving the lot-sizing problem, Omega 28 (2000) 175-184. Gaither, N. Using computer simulation to develop optimal inventory policies, Simulation 39(3) (1982) 81-87. Godfrey, M.R., 1995, Assessing the accuracy of freight rate functions used to model freight rates in logistics decision making (Dissertation Abstracts International, University Microfilms No. AAT9600737).

Back to "Search By Author"

18 Keller, G., Warrack, B., 2000. Statistics for Management and Economics, 5th edition. Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA. Langley, J.C. The inclusion of transportation costs in inventory models: Some considerations, Journal of Business Logistics 2(1) (1980) 106-125. Pan, A.C., Ching-Jong, L. An inventory model under Just-in-Time purchasing agreements, Production and Inventory Management Journal 30(1) (1989) 49-52. Poli, I; Jones, R.D. A neural net model for prediction, Journal of the American Statistical Association 89 (425) (1994) 117-121. Russell, R.M., Krajewski, L.J. Optimal purchase and transportation cost lot sizing for a single item, Decision Sciences 22(4) (1991) 940-951. Schalkoff, R.J., 1997, Artificial Neural Networks, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York. Sharda, R. Neural networks for the MS/OR analyst: An application bibliography, Interfaces 24 (2) (1994) 116-130. Shtub, A.; Versano, R. Estimating the cost of steel pipe bending, a comparison between neural networks and regression analysis, International Journal of Production Economics 62 (3) (1999) 201-207. Shtub, A.; Zimerman, Y. A neural-network-based approach for estimating the cost of assembly systems, International Journal of Production Economics 32 (2) (1993) 189-207. Swenseth, S.R., Buffa, F.P. Just-in-Time: Some effects on the logistics function, The International Journal of Logistics Management 1(2) (1990) 25-34.

Back to "Search By Author"

19 Swenseth, S.R., Buffa, F.P. Implications of inbound lead time variability for Just-in-Time manufacturing, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 11(7) (1991) 37-48. Swenseth, S.R., Godfrey, M.R. Estimating freight rates for logistics decisions, Journal of Business Logistics 17(1) (1996) 213-231. Swenseth, S.R., Godfrey, M.R. Incorporating transportation costs into inventory replenishment decisions, International Journal of Production Economics 77 (2003) 113130. Temponi, C., Pandya, S.Y. Implementation of two JIT elements in small-sized manufacturing firms, Production and Inventory Management Journal 36(3) (1995) 23-29. Tersine, R.J., Barman, S. Lot size optimization with quantity and freight rate discounts, Logistics and Transportation Review 27(4) (1991) 319-332. Tyworth, J.E. Transport selection: Computer modelling in a spreadsheet environment, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 21(7) (1991) 2836.