Abstract:Supply chain management and integration play a key factor in contemporary manufacturing concept. Companies seek to integrate itself within a cooperative and mutual benefiting supply chain. Supply chain scheduling, as an important aspect of supply chain management, highly emphasizes on minimizing stock costs and delivery costs. Most previous researches on supply chain scheduling problems assume make-to-order production, which includes delivery cost in lot-size. This practice simplifies the complexity of the problem. Instead, this research discusses make-to-contract production, where the supply chain has a rolling planning horizon that changes according to contracts. Within a planning horizon, two types of interval are defined. The first is frozen interval, in which the manufacturing decision cannot be changed. The second is free interval, where schedules can be adjusted depending on new contracts. This research aims to build a robust rolling supply management schedule to satisfy customers’ needs, by considering supplier, production, and delivery lot-size simultaneously. The objective is to effectively decide a combination of supplier, production, and delivery lot-size that minimizes total cost consisting of supplier cost, finish good stock cost, and delivery cost. Based on the concept, this study designs a problem-solving process that combines the methods of rolling planning horizon and genetic algorithm. Delivery size (DS), finish good stock (FS), and early delivery cost (ED) are the three methods applied; each will provide a guideline to produce a feasible solution. By further considering the fluctuations in practical needs and performing an overall evaluation, a robust and optimal supply chain scheduling plan can be decided, including the optimal lot-sizes of supplier, production, and delivery. In the effectiveness test which considers 3 types of customer demands and 11 types of company cost structures, the simulated data test results suggest that the proposed methods in this study have excellent performance.

Lot Sizes Coordination among a Manufacturer and Two Suppliers Based on Supply-Hub

Research on Coordination Strategy of Two-level Supply Chain with the Logistic Service Provider Involved

Study of the Competition of Location and Pricing between Two Supply Chains Each Consisting of One Manufacture and One Retailer

Rolling Supply Chain Scheduling considering Suppliers, Production, and Delivery Lot-Size

Purchasing tasks allocation in electronics manufacturing supply chain

Two-manufacturer one-retailer supply chain coordination model with demand depending on effort level

Equilibriums and Coordination Strategies Considering Product Price, Quality and Service Competition in A Two-level Supply Chain

A Joint Decision Model of Lot-Sizing and the Pricing in Supply Chain Management

A multi-product dynamic supply chain inventory model with supplier selection, joint replenishment, and transportation cost

Supply chain coordination with shelf-space and retail price dependent demand and heterogeneous retailers

Coordinating a Two-Supplier and One-Retailer Supply Chain with Forecast Updating

Collaborative Planning in a Two-Stage Supply Chain: Transparent Coordination, Distributed Response, Integrated Optimization

Modelling and optimal lot-sizing of integrated multi-level multi-wholesaler supply chains under the shortage and limited warehouse space: generalised outer approximation

Capacity-delivery Coordination in Supply Chains: a Cost-Based Approach

Optimal Inventory Control with Heterogeneous Suppliers

Lot Sizing Production Planning with Random Demand in Supply Chain

A game theoretic model for coordination of single manufacturer and multiple suppliers with quality variations under uncertain demands

Sub-Coordination in a Competing Supply Chain with a 3PL Provider

Supply chain coordination with manufacturer's limited reserve capacity: An extended newsboy problem

A Two-Stage Supply Chain with Demand Sensitive to Price, Delivery Time, and Reliability of Delivery

Volume allocation in multi-sourcing: effects of the quantity–quality trade-off