3,855
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Statistical analysis of multi-criteria inventory classification models in the presence of forecast upsides

, &
Pages 15-39 | Received 08 Jan 2017, Accepted 29 Mar 2017, Published online: 24 May 2017

Figures & data

Table 1. Methods and techniques used in ABC classification (Van Kampen et al., Citation2012).

Table 2. Data structure for randomized block design with b blocks and k treatments.

Table 3. ANOVA table for randomized block design.

Table 5. Safety stock cost and FRT of various MCIC models without forecast error and when forecast error varies across classes A, B, and C.

Table 6. Summary of safety stock cost and customer orders fill rate for MCIC models at 15% forecast error.

Table 7. SCPI at various forecast error levels and CSL of 99, 95, and 90%, for classes A, B, and C, respectively.

Table 8. ANOVA for service-cost inventory performance of MCIC models when forecast error does not vary.

Table 9. Safety stock cost and overall FRT for MCIC models when forecast error varies, and CSL is 99, 95, and 90% for classes A, B, and C, respectively.

Figure 1. Graphical analysis of service-cost performance index (SCPI).

Figure 1. Graphical analysis of service-cost performance index (SCPI).

Table 10. ANOVA for service-cost performance index of MCIC models when forecast error varies across classes A, B, and C.

Table 11. ANOVA for service-cost performance index of MCIC models when forecast error does not vary across classes A, B, and C.

Table 12. ANOVA for service-cost performance index of MCIC models when forecast error varies across classes A, B, and C.

Table 13. Service-cost performance index for MCIC models – first data-set of 47 items.

Table 14. Service-cost performance index for MCIC models – second data-set of 10 items.

Figure A1. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 1 for Case 1.

Figure A1. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 1 for Case 1.

Figure A2. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 1 for Case2.

Figure A2. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 1 for Case2.

Figure A3. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 2 for Case1.

Figure A3. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 2 for Case1.

Figure A4. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 2 for Case2.

Figure A4. Comparison of treatment differences for sample data-set 2 for Case2.