| Literature DB >> 27933237 |
Uttam Kumar Khedlekar1, Diwakar Shukla1, Anubhav Namdeo1.
Abstract
We have designed an inventory model for seasonal products in which deterioration can be controlled by item preservation technology investment. Demand for the product is considered price sensitive and decreases linearly. This study has shown that the profit is a concave function of optimal selling price, replenishment time and preservation cost parameter. We simultaneously determined the optimal selling price of the product, the replenishment cycle and the cost of item preservation technology. Additionally, this study has shown that there exists an optimal selling price and optimal preservation investment to maximize the profit for every business set-up. Finally, the model is illustrated by numerical examples and sensitive analysis of the optimal solution with respect to major parameters.Entities:
Keywords: Declining demand; Deterioration; Inventory; Preservation technology; Pricing; Replenishment cycle
Year: 2016 PMID: 27933237 PMCID: PMC5106420 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3627-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Graphical representation of the inventory system
Sensitivity analysis with respect to the major parameters
| Input parameters | Output parameters | −40% | −20% | 0% | 20% | 40% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 8.77 | 10.72 | 12.69 | 14.67 | 16.65 |
|
| 17 | 22 | 26 | 30 | 33 | |
|
| 1.050 | 0.830 | 0.712 | 0.633 | 0.576 | |
|
| 103 | 239 | 416 | 633 | 891 | |
|
|
| 19.34 | 15.18 | 12.69 | 11.03 | 9.85 |
|
| 28 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 24 | |
|
| 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.712 | 0.74 | 0.77 | |
|
| 765 | 549 | 416 | 325 | 258 | |
|
|
| 12.685 | 12.684 | 12.6833 | 12.683 | 12.682 |
|
| 26 | 26 | 26 | 26 | 26 | |
|
| 0.712 | 0.712 | 0.712 | 0.711 | 0.711 | |
|
| 416.06 | 416.03 | 416 | 415.97 | 415.90 | |
|
|
| 12.65 | 12.67 | 12.68 | 12.70 | 12.72 |
|
| 34 | 29 | 26 | 24 | 22 | |
|
| 0.910 | 0.792 | 0.712 | 0.654 | 0.606 | |
|
| 420.24 | 418.18 | 416 | 413.79 | 411.70 |
Sensitivity analysis with respect to θ
|
| T | P |
| Q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.01 | 0.712 | 12.6833 | 416.00 | 26.10 |
| 0.02 | 0.708 | 12.6879 | 416.20 | 26.00 |
| 0.03 | 0.701 | 12.6914 | 416.30 | 25.75 |
| 0.04 | 0.691 | 12.6945 | 416.33 | 25.50 |
| 0.05 | 0.682 | 12.6974 | 416.36 | 25.16 |
| 0.06 | 0.773 | 12.7002 | 415.38 | 24.87 |
| 0.07 | 0.664 | 12.7028 | 414.40 | 24.57 |
| 0.08 | 0.656 | 12.705 | 413.39 | 24.31 |
| 0.09 | 0.648 | 12.708 | 412.38 | 24.05 |
| 0.10 | 0.639 | 12.711 | 411.38 | 23.75 |
Fig. 2The effect of θ on the selling price (p)
Fig. 3The effect of θ on total profit (TP)