In this
paper we will be discussing a new technique in aggregate inventory
management: inventory profile analysis (IPA). I developed IPA
to help my employer improve customer service while reducing our
finished goods inventory. I will give you a little background on our
company followed by a discussion of inventory turnover and months
on hand (MOH) analysis. I will
explain why MOH was a better choice for internal analysis
than inventory turnover, but why MOH still did
not meet our needs. I will
describe IPA with definitions and examples
using a hypothetical product
and then will give you the results of a six-month,
seven-product parallel study of MOH and IPA. I will conclude
with a brief discussion of how you can implement IPA at your company
using downloads from your current system and Microsoft Excel.
SOLA Optical is
a leading global manufacturer of lenses for prescription eyewear.
Customers, mostly retailers and laboratories, purchase
lenses as needed to fill prescriptions. With over 15,000 finished
goods part numbers, few customers can afford to stock large
inventories. SOLA meets the
inventory requirements of the customer by stocking lenses at
regional distribution centers (DCs) and providing overnight
delivery to the customer. Products not available from the local
DC are shipped, at SOLA
expense, from another DC or are backordered.
SOLA strives for a 95 to 99
percent service level as measured by same-day shipment from
the preferred DC. (Service level is sometimes referred
to as the order fill rate or the line fill rate.) The question is,
"How much inventory do we need to reach our service level
objective?" Too little would result in unacceptable service levels,
but too much is expensive and
wasteful. SOLA uses aggregate inventory management for
master scheduling, capacity planning, and budgeting.
Inventory is
best measured as it relates to demand. Several ratios
have been developed to aggregate
inventory and compare it to current or expected demand. The
question becomes, "Which inventory ratio should we use?"
One of the most popular inventory ratios is turnover. The formula
for
inventory turnover is annualized cost of goods sold divided by
average
inventory, also at cost. Inventory turnover has been around for
years and was probably very useful before we had computers to
monitor inventory at the stockkeeping unit (SKU) level. Inventory
turnover may still be the
best tool we have to compare companies via their financial
statements, but for internal analysis, inventory turnover has
outlived its usefulness.
The problem is that inventory turnover is a financial ratio. It
takes our
valuable SKU information and converts it to cost. It assumes that
two $5
items are the same as one S10 item, even when one is backordered and
we have a lifetime supply of the other. There is another problem
with inventory turnover, but first I will show you months on hand
analysis and describe how it solves the cost problem.
Months on hand (MOH) overcomes the cost problem by expressing
both demand and inventory in units. At SOLA, actual demand, as
opposed
to sales, is used for historical analysis and forecasted demand for
planning
purposes. Inventory is aggregated at the product family level (more
on that
later). Unfortunately MOH, like inventory turnover, assumes that a
shortage
of one product can be compensated for with additional quantities of
another product, or that shortages at one location are offset by
overages at
another. This may or may not be important. After all, we are talking
about
inventory aggregation. Let's look at some actual MOH data.
The scatter
chart in figure 1 was produced in Microsoft Excel.
The X axis is the inventory level,
expressed in months on hand. The
Y axis is the corresponding service level expressed as a percentage
of orders shipped the day the order was placed. Since both
inventory and service level are
expressed as functions of demand, we can that more inventory (higher
MOH) should result in higher service levels. We would expect
the data points to go from bottom left to top right.
To Be Continued