Upload
hadieu
View
251
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PERMODELAN RANTAI PASOK DUA ESELON
DENGAN MEMPERTIMBANGKAN DISKON BIAYA TRANSPORTASI DAN
KELAYAKAN KONSOLIDASI
TESIS
Abdul Muid 2507203006
DOSEN PEMBIMBING Dr. Eng. Ir. Ahmad Rusdiansyah, M. Eng.
Nani Kurniati, ST., MT
2
Ruang Lingkup Penelitan
Gudang
(Cross-dock
Pengecer
Pengecer
Pengecer
Pengecer
TL (Truck Load)
TL with consolidation
or
LTL
carrier
Pabrik
Pengecer
3
Ruang Lingkup Penelitan
Gudang(Cross-dock
Pengecer Pengecer Pengecer Pengecer
TL (Truck Load)
LTL (Less than Truck Load)
Pabrik
Ruang lingkup penelitian Hill dan Galbreth (2008)
4
Ruang Lingkup Penelitan
Pabrik
Ruang lingkup penelitian Attanasio dkk. (2007)
PabrikPabrik
5
LATAR BELAKANG
Manajemenrantai pasok
sebagai strategibaru dalampersainganusaha
Perlunyapendekatanyang tepatterhadapbiaya
transportasi
Faktorkonsolidasi
sebagai suatustrategi untukmeminimasi
biayatransportasi
Penelitian
6
PERMASALAHAN
Bagaimanamembuat model rantai pasok duaeselon yang
mempertimbangkan biaya diskondan konsolidasipengiriman kepara pengecer
Bagaimanapengaruhkelayakankonsolidasiterhadap
rantai pasok
Faktor – faktor apayang berpengaruhterhadap biayarantai pasok duaeselon yang
mempertimbangkanbiaya diskon dan
konsolidasipengiriman ke para
pengecer
Penelitian
7
TUJUAN
Membuat model model rantai
pasok dua eselonyang
mempertimbangkan biaya diskondan konsolidasipengiriman kepara pengecer
Mengetahuipengaruhkonsolidasiterhadap
biaya rantaipasok
Mengetahui faktor –faktor yang berpengaruh
terhadap rantai pasokdua eselon yang
mempertimbangkanbiaya diskon
Penelitian
8
BATASAN
Perencananhanya
dilakukansekali padaawal periodeselama periodeperencanaan
Biayapemesananke shipper
tidakdimasukkandalam model
Penelitian
Biayacrossdocktidak di-
pertimbangkan
Pengecerberadadalamsatu
area tarif
9
STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH
Biaya transportasi dimodelkansebagai fungsi linier
(Ng dkk., 2001 dan LeBlancdkk.,2004)
Biaya transportasi diasumsikanbersifat tetap (fixed cost) dandimasukkan menjadi bagiandari biaya pesan (order cost)
(Leenders dkk., 2002)
Penyimpangan asumsi linier dankonstan terhadap biaya
transportasi khususnya padaless than truckload (LTL)
(Carter dan Ferrin, 1996, Bohman, 2006)
Model Rantai Pasok yang mengakomodasi biaya transportasi LTL dengan fungsi biaya diskon pada semuaunit / all-unit discount cost structure
(Carter dkk., 1995; Carter and Ferrin, 1996; Chan dkk., 2002; dan Croxton
dkk., 2003)
Heuristik Rantai Pasok GudangTunggal – Multi Retailer
dengan all-unit transportation cost discount structure
(James Hill, J.dan Galbreth, M., 2008)
PermodelanRantai PasokDua Eselondengan
Mempertimbangkan Diskon
BiayaTransportasidan KelayakanKonsolidasi
Usulan Thesis
Problem integrasi pengepakan dan pengiriman
(Attanasio dkk, 2007)
Penelitian Terdahulu
10
RESEARCH GAP
√−√Simplifikasi model
MAUD−MAUDPendekatan Model
MILPILPMILPModel yang digunakan
Model
√√√Biaya transportasi
Variabel Biaya Pengirim
√−√Biaya simpan
Variabel Biaya Pengecer
All Discount−All DiscountKebijakan Diskon
Volume Pengiriman−Volume PengirimanPertimbangan nilai diskon
√√−Konsolidasi pengiriman
√√√Volume pengiriman
Variabel Keputusan
√−√Biaya inventori pengecer
√√√Biaya pengrirman
Ukuran Performansi
√√−Konsolidasi pengiriman
√−√Diskon Biaya pengiriman
Kebijakan Sistem
√√√Pengecer / tujuan
√−√Gudang (Cross dock)
√√√Pabrik asal
DuaSatuDuaTingkatan rantai pasok
Ruang Lingkup
Ususlan ThesisAttanasio dkk
(2007)Hill dan Galbreth
(2008)Karakteristik Penelitian
11
All Units Quantity Discounts Structure
( )
≤<≤<≤<<
=
=
+
,
,
,
,0
,00
1
211
1
QyjikaQ
yQyjikaQ
yQyjikaQ
yQjikac
Qjika
QG
nn
iii
ααα
12
Model MILP (1)
∑∑∑∈
+β+βRr j
rjrj
j YHMin
( )∑∑ ∑ ∑∑∑
−+++≥x j jk a
jkxagenapa
xajkxaganjila
xajxa hjkDSDSF
∑ ∑∑∑∑≤ ≤
∀=+kj
kxkj a
jkxar b
jkrxb xkmDD .,,
∑ ∑∑∑∑∑∑ ∀+=≥≥x jk x a
jkxar jk b
jkrxbj jDDR .,
13
Model MILP (2)
.jVR j ∀≤
.jPHR jj ∀≤
( ) ∑≥
− ∀≤≤jk
jxaxajkxajxaax xajFCDFC .,,1
{ } ,,...2,1,0 jH j ∀∈{ },1,0∈jkrxbX
{ },....3,1,0∈rjY
14
Model MILP (3)
{ } ,,,1,0 axjF jxa ∀∈
∑ ∀≤a
jxa xjF .,1
{ } XxSa
xa ∈∈∑ ,1,0
15
Model MILP yang disederhanakan (1)
∑∑∑∈
+β+βRr j
rjrj
j YHMin
∑ ∑∑∑∑≤ ≤
∀=+kj
kxkj a
jkxar b
jkrxb xkmDD .,,
( ){ }∑∑ ∑
−++
≥x j jkjkxxjkxxjx hjkDSDLF
∑ ∑∑∑∑∑ ∀+=≥≥x jk x
jkxr jk b
jkrxbj jDDR .,
.jVR j ∀≤.jPHR jj ∀≤
∑≥
∀≤jk
jxjkx xajCFD .,,
16
Model MILP yang disederhanakan (2)
{ } ,,...2,1,0 jH j ∀∈
{ },1,0∈jkrxbX
{ },....3,1,0∈rjY
{ } ,b,x,j1,0Fjxb ∀∈
17
Analisa Perilaku Model Rantai Pasok
Perubahan kapasitas konsolidasiTipe 2
Perubahan tarif LTL carrierTipe 3
Perubahan biaya simpanTipe 4
Pilihan alternatif LTL carrier atau truckloadTipe 5
Contoh NumerikTipe 1
KeteranganSkenario
18
Contoh Numerik (1)
703.38
15.44233 July212 JuneMarseille8
61.54616 June111 JuneMarseille7
35.23616 June111 JuneMarseille6
19.59616 June111 JuneMarseille5
19.05616 June111 JuneMarseille4
102.54616 June212 JuneAncona3
207.34515 June111 JuneMarseille2
242.65515 June212 JuneAncona1
Weight(mkxb)
PeriodeDeadlin
e(k)
Deadline
PeriodeRelease
Time
Release time
Customer
location
Order(b)
19
Contoh Numerik (3)
1,328Bari – Ancona – Marseille3
1,280Bari – Marseille2
640Bari – Ancona1
Fixed Cost (USD)(ββββr)
KeteranganRute (r)
20
Daftar tarif dalam satu zone
200
195
190
185
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0
17.1 25.0 33.1 41.0 49.1 61.5 71.8 85.6 98.3 103.7 106.7 109.7 113.1 115.5 118.7 123.1 125.1 128.4 131.3 136.0 142.8 149.6 151.3 152.5 153.3 156.5 159.6 162.3 164.9 167.3 169.4 171.3 172.9 174.4 175.6 176.6 181.5 186.4 191.3 196.2
21
Struktur biaya rantai pasok
TL1COST TL2COST HOLDTL2COST LTLCOST HOLDLTLCOST
8,000.00
1,920.00
453.85 591.46202.65
22
Prosentase struktur biaya rantai pasok
TL1COST72%
TL2COST17%
HOLDTL2COST4%
LTLCOST5%
HOLDLTLCOST2%
23
Rute dan skedul pengiriman
24
Kapasitas TL2 naik / turun 10%
3.167,96
2.675,77
3.198,31
2.400,00
2.500,002.600,00
2.700,00
2.800,002.900,00
3.000,00
3.100,003.200,00
Skenario awal Kap TL2 naik 10% Kap TL2 turun10%
Total biaya Outbound
25
Kapasitas TL2 naik / turun 10%
0,1554
0,0096
-
0,0200
0,0400
0,0600
0,0800
0,1000
0,1200
0,1400
0,1600
Penurunan total biayaoutbound karena kap
TL2 naik 10%
Peningkatan total biayaoutbound karena kap
TL2 turun 10%
26
Kapasitas TL2 naik / turun 10%
1.920,00
591,46
99,27 81,06
640
181,99
1.901,80
202,65453,85
575,44
1.920,00
474,52
0,00
500,00
1.000,00
1.500,00
2.000,00
2.500,00
TL2COST HOLDTL2COST LTLCOST HOLDLTLCOST
Skenario awal Kap TL2 naik 10% Kap TL2 turun 10%
27
Rute dan skedul pengiriman dengan kenaikan kapasitas TL2 10%
28
Rute dan skedul pengiriman dengan kenaikan kapasitas TL2 10%
29
Kesimpulan1. Fungsi tujuan dipengaruhi oleh kapasitas kendaraan
konsolidasi, tarif LTL carrier, tarif biaya simpan, serta alternatif ketersediaan pengiriman.
2. Peningkatan kapasitas kendaraan mengakibatkan pengurangan nilai fungsi tujuan yang optimal, demikian juga sebaliknya
3. Kenaikan tarif LTL carrier menyebabkan meningkatnya nilai fungsi tujuan yang optimal, demikian juga sebaliknya
4. Kenaikan biaya simpan menyebabkan kenaikan fungsi tujuan melalui peningkatan total biaya simpan baik yang ditimbulkan pengiriman melalui konsolidasi maupun melalui LTL carrier, demikian juga sebaliknya
5. Pembatasan alternatif pengiriman order dengan maniadakan pilihan konsolidasi akan menaikkan nilai fungsi tujuan melalui peningkatan biaya perngiriman dengan LTL carrier. Demikian juga sebaliknya.
30
Saran
� Persoalan yang lebih komplek dengan peningkatan jumlah zone, order dan retailer yang banyak serta perlu diuji coba untuk mengetahui perilaku model yang lebih luas.
� Pengembangan model masih sangat terbuka dengan menambah kompleksitas rantai pasok
31
ReferencesAttanasio, A. dkk. (2007), “Integrated Shipment Dispatching and Packing Problems: A Case
Study”, Journal Math Model Algorithm, Vol. 6, hal. 77-85.
Ballou, R.H. (2004), Business Logistics / Supply Chain Management. 5th edition, Prentice Hall.
Bohman, R. (2006), “Smart Ways You can Cut LTL Costs”, Logistics Management, Vol. 45, No. 10, hal. 37–40.
Burwell, T.H. dkk. (1997), “Economic Lot Size Model For Price-Dependent Demand Under Quantity and Freight Discounts”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 48, hal. 141–155.
Carter, J.R. dkk. (1995). “The Effect of Less-Thantruckload Rates on The Purchase Order Lot Size Decision”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, hal. 35–44.
Carter, J.R., dan Ferrin, B. (1996), “Transportation Costs and Inventory Management: Why Transportation Costs Matter”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, hal. 58–62.
Chan, L.M. dkk. (2002), “Effective Zero-Inventory-Ordering Policies for The Single Warehouse Multiretailer Problem with Piecewise Linear Cost Structures”, Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 11, hal. 1446–1460.
Clark, A.R., dan Clark, S.J. (2000), “Rolling-Horizon Lot-Sizing when Set-Up Times are Sequence-Dependent”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38, No. 10, hal. 2287–2307.
32
ReferencesCopra, S. dan Meindl, P. (2007), Supply Chain Management, 3rd ed., Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Croxton, K.L. dkk. (2003), “Models and Methods For Merge-In-Transit Operations”, Transportation Science, Vol. 37, No. 1, hal. 1–22.
Diaby, M., dan Martel, A. (1993), “Dynamic Lot Sizing for Multiechelon Distribution Systems with Purchasing and Transportation Price Discounts”, Operations Research, Vol. 41, No. 1, hal. 48–59.
Ertogral, K. dkk. (2007), “Production and Shipment Lot Sizing in A Vendor–Buyer Supply Chain with Transportation Cost”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 176, hal 1592–1606.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is The Right Supply Chain for Your Product?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No. 2, hal. 105–116.
Garg, M. dan Cole, S.J. (2006), “Models and Algorithms for The Design of Survivable Multicommodity Flownetworks with General Failure Scenarios”. Omega, Vol. 36, hal. 1057 – 1071.
Ghiani, G. etc. (2004), Introductionto Logistics Systems Planning and Control, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., England.
Hill, J. dan Galbreth, M. (2008), “A Heuristic for Single – Warehouse Multi Retailer Supply Chains with All-Unit Transportation Cost Discounts”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 187, hal. 473-482.
33
ReferencesLeBlanc, L. dkk. (2004), “Nu-Kote’s Spreadsheet Linear Programming Models for Optimizing
Transportation”, Interfaces, Vol. 34, No. 2, hal. 139–149.Leenders, M. dkk (2002). Purchasing and Supply Management, 12th ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York.Ng, C.T. dkk. (2001), “Coordinated Replenishments with Alternative Supply Sources in Two-
Level Supply Chains”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vo. 73, hal. 227–240.
Nurwidiana (2007), “Pengembangan Model dan Algoritma Common Replenishment Epoch untuk Koordinasi Rantai Pasok dengan Mempertimbangkan Kelayakan KonsolidasiPengiriman”, Thesis, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya
Russell, R.M. dan Krajewski, L.J. (1991), “Optimal Purchase and Transportation Cost Lot SizingfFor A Single Item”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, hal 940–951.
Russell, R.M. dan Krajewski, L.J. (1992), “Coordinated Replenishments from A Common Supplier”, Decisions Sciences, Vol. 23, hal. 610–632.
Sumner, M. (2005), Enterprise Resource Planning. 1st Edition, Prentice Hall.Swenseth, S. dan Godfrey, M. (2002), “Incorporating Transportation Costs into Inventory
Replenishment Decisions”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 77, hal. 113–130.
Tersine, R.J. dan Barman, S. (1991), “Economic Inventory / Transport Lot Sizing with Quantity and Freight Rate Discounts”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, hal. 1171–1179.
Thomas, D.J. dan Griffin, P.M. (1996), “Coordinated Supply Chain Management”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 94, hal. 1–15.
Vroblefski, M. dkk. (2000), “Efficient Lot-Sizing Under Differential Transportation Cost Structure for Serially Distributed Warehouses”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 127, hal. 574–593.