Questioning the relative virtues of dynamic lot sizing rules

A new approach to solve the multi-product multi-period inventory lot sizing with supplier selection problem

“…Furthermore, several dynamic lot size rules have been proposed to solve the single-product multi-period inventory lot sizing problem. For instance, see Simpson (2001) who conducted a scrutinized and comprehensive study of nine well-known published rules. Since its introduction, it became one of the most studied and extended problems in inventory management.…”

Meta-heuristics for dynamic lot sizing: A review and comparison of solution approaches

“…A discussion of many of these lot size rules such as the Economic Order Quantity, Period Order Quantity, Least Period Cost (Silver and Meal 1973), Least Unit Cost, Part Period Balancing, Least Total Cost, Marginal Cost Difference (Groff 1979) and the Technique for Order Placement and Sizing (Coleman and McKnew 1990) can be found in Baker (1993) or in most textbooks on production planning (Silver et al 1998). A comparison of many of these heuristics can be found in Coleman (1992) and Simpson (2001). Bitran et al (1984), Axsäter (1985) and Vachani (1992) present worst-case bounds for some of these heuristics for several demand classes.…”

The dynamic lot-sizing problem with convex economic production costs and setups

“…For our numerical study, we considered the same experimental set described above. The rationale for this set has been the earlier performance studies for the classical problem setting; in particular, Simpson (2001).…”

“…There is also a parallel stream of research that focuses on developing lot sizing heuristics based on simple stopping rules. (See Vollmann et al (1997), Simpson (2001), and Jeunet and Jonard (2000) for a full list and review.) The advantages of such approximate solution methodologies are their ease-of-use, smoother production schedules and providing more intuition to practitioners about the fundamental trade-offs.…”