A framework for collaborative planning and state-of-the-art

Stadler, Hartmut

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-93775-3_1

Cited by 11 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In practice, this is not always possible, as most companies would not be willing to share data with its competitors even less if they end up collaborating with someone else. As discussed in Stadtler (2009), Frisk et al (2010 and Guajardo and Rönnqvist (2015), collecting sensitive information about supply, demand and costs can be done by an impartial organization which performs the analysis on collaborative planning and suggests a solution to the companies.…”

Section: Individual Cost Minimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructive and blocking power in collaborative transportation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We empirically investigate constructive and blocking power concepts in transportation planning. Our main question is what do these concepts represent in collaborative transportation. We address it by studying cost allocation and coalition structure problems in a real-world case on forest transportation involving eight companies. The potential savings of collaboration in this case account for about 9 %. We find that players more centrally located tend to benefit from the nucleolus allocation, which takes into account only the constructive power. Other methods, which take into account the blocking power, namely the modiclus and the SM-nucleolus, correct the relative importance of the central players with respect to those in more peripheral areas. The blocking power acknowledges that the more peripheral companies, as a block, are still crucial to the collaboration, despite among themselves they have little opportunities for collaboration. Our main conclusion is that incorporating the blocking power as a criterion in a cost sharing rule for collaborative planning in transportation is important specially in the case where the coalition consists of one or few centrally located companies and several peripheral companies. A method based merely on the constructive power might extremely benefit the central companies, hurting the possibilities of sustaining the coalition.

show abstract

Section: Individual Cost Minimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructive and blocking power in collaborative transportation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some authors defined a coordination scheme, through which plans of two or more decision-making units are aligned [5]. This scheme requires all members to adapt their individual plans in order to be developed an overall planning acceptable by all supply chain members, and refusing to follow any centralized planning approach that do not consider an active contribution of all partners.…”

Section: Planning As a Negotiation Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregate Collaborative Planning in Non-hierarchical Business Networks

Almeida

Toscano

Carneiro

et al. 2011

Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The last decade has been characterized by times of change, including increasing levels of globalization and competition. Collaboration allowed SMEs to respond effectively to the development of new complex products and services but presented new barriers concerning the management of their business processes and relations with partners. This paper presents a new collaborative aggregate planning for non-hierarchical business networks, where SMEs collaborate in the selection of partners and definition of the operations plan required to specify, manufacture and distribute a custom made products. The proposed approach is based on negotiations undertaken by the partners in order to promote the creation of alternative operations plans and allow a multicriteria evaluation of the involved costs and delivery dates. The proposed approach promotes the reduction of communication between partners, a reactive analysis of changes to planning and associated impact, enhancement of trust (since all partners have the same weight on the decision process).

show abstract

“…Lot-sizing in a SC is a major driver of costs and therefore is among the most widely researched areas in operational SC management [59,79]. The MLULSP captures some essential issues of production problems, namely several final products, a multi-level process structure, and the fundamental trade-off between setup and inventory [25,71].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An overview of CMs for production planning in a SC considering asymmetric information is given by Stadtler [79]. The author identifies three directions for future research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(3) The development of CMs which address, support or even secure a fair distribution of gains or costs among SC members in order to increase their willingness to use and to accept the CM (see also [3]). Social efficiency is the dominant objective of most existing CMs for SC planning [79]. In these approaches social welfare is often measured by the total or average costs (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A generic coordination mechanism for lot-sizing in supply chains

Homberger

2010

Electron Commer Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new generic mechanism to coordinate decentral planning of a group of independent and self-interested decision makers, who are searching for an agreeable contract regarding multiple interdependent issues, in the case of asymmetric information is presented. The basic idea of the mechanism is that the group members cooperatively carry out an evolutionary search in the contract space. Therefore the (1, λ)-selection procedure, which is used in many evolutionary strategies, is combined with the Borda maximin voting rule, which has been applied successfully in group decision making. The proposed mechanism is realized, applied and evaluated for production coordination in a supply chain. A decentralized variant of the multilevel uncapacitated lot-sizing problem (MLULSP) is taken as the production model. For the evaluation 95 problem instances are generated based on MLULSP instances taken from the literature, with problem sizes varying from 5 to 500 items, from 12 to 52 periods. Experimental results show that the proposed mechanism is effective to determine fair cost distributions.

show abstract

A framework for collaborative planning and state-of-the-art

Cited by 11 publications

References 51 publications

Constructive and blocking power in collaborative transportation

Constructive and blocking power in collaborative transportation

Aggregate Collaborative Planning in Non-hierarchical Business Networks

A generic coordination mechanism for lot-sizing in supply chains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About