| Literature DB >> 31766175 |
Yan-Kwang Chen1, Fei-Rung Chiu2, Yu-Cheng Chang3.
Abstract
Online pharmacies are an important part of the modern healthcare system. They interact with customers through well-designed web interfaces to deliver the healthcare customers need. In addition to well-designed web interfaces, online pharmacies rely on an effective supply chain system to provide medical supplies and services, and especially effective inventory management for supply systems. As green supply chain management (GSCM) becomes increasingly considered by countries, how to develop a sustainable inventory model that takes into account the revenue growth of an online pharmacy while preventing waste and reducing energy costs has become very important. In line with this trend, the study develops a sustainable inventory model that focuses on both economic aspect (profit) and environmental aspect (losses from excessive inventory) within a framework of a single period multi-product inventory model. Specifically, the sustainable inventory model applies the visual-attention-dependent demand (VADD) rate to characterize customer demand in an online trading environment, thereby seeking a profitable marketing strategy and reducing losses due to excessive inventory. Since the complexity of model optimization will drastically increase due to the inclusion of many products in the problem, a Genetic Algorithm (GA) based solution procedure is proposed to increase the feasibility of the proposed model in solving real problems. The sustainable inventory model and the solution procedure are illustrated, compared, and discussed with an online pharmacy example. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis is formulated to study the influence of model parameters on the model solution, the loss of unsold inventory that results in a waste of resources and energy, and the profit of online pharmacies.Entities:
Keywords: genetic algorithms; green supply chain management; online pharmacy; sustainable inventory model; visual-attention-dependent demand
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31766175 PMCID: PMC6888255 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16224454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Some inventory models with state-dependent demands.
| Source | Inventory Model | Demand Rate Dependent on | Channel Format | Pricing? | Multiple Products? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corstjens and Doyle [ | EOQ | Stock | Off-line | No | No |
| Hwang et al. [ | EOQ | Location and stock | Off-line | No | Yes |
| Hariga et al. [ | EOQ | Stock | Off-line | No | Yes |
| Chen et al. [ | EOQ | Visual attention | On-line | No | Yes |
| Chen et al. [ | EOQ | Visual attention | On-line | No | Yes |
| Whitin [ | Newsvendor | Price | Off-line | Yes | No |
| Petruzzi and Dada [ | Newsvendor | Price | Off-line | Yes | No |
| Agrawal and Seshadri [ | Newsvendor | Price | Off-line | Yes | No |
| Murray et al. [ | Newsvendor | Price | Off-line | Yes | Yes |
| Urban and Baker [ | EOQ | Stock, price, and time | Off-line | Yes | No |
| Datta and Paul [ | Order-up-to | Stock and price | Off-line | Yes | No |
| You and Hsieh [ | EOQ | Stock and price | Off-line | Yes | No |
| Avinadav et al. [ | EOQ | Price and time | Off-line | Yes | No |
| Zhang et al. [ | EOQ | Stock and price | Off-line | Yes | No |
| Lu et al. [ | EOQ | Stock and price | Off-line | Yes | No |
Figure 1Pharmaceutical supply chain architecture.
Figure 2Configuration of product images on an online pharmacy catalogue.
Figure 3A chromosome for the decision variables pf proposed model.
Figure 4The configurable positions of the 12 product images.
Parameter values for the twelve merchandises.
| Product |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1,1) | (1,2) | (1,1) | (1,2) | (1,3) | (1,4) | (1,5) | (2,1) | (2,2) | (2,3) | (2,4) | (2,5) | ||||
| 1 | 74.00 | 2.1 | 0.53 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 2 | 70.00 | 2.4 | 0.60 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 3 | 59.00 | 3.8 | 0.95 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 4 | 62.00 | 3.3 | 0.83 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 5 | 70.00 | 2.4 | 0.60 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 6 | 74.00 | 2.1 | 0.53 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 7 | 75.00 | 2.1 | 0.51 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 8 | 64.00 | 3.1 | 0.78 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 9 | 69.00 | 2.5 | 0.63 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 10 | 65.00 | 2.9 | 0.73 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 11 | 58.00 | 3.9 | 0.98 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
| 12 | 63.00 | 3.2 | 0.80 | 0.367 | 0.352 | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.286 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.252 | 0.216 | 0.204 | 0.203 | 0.202 |
Analysis of candidate solutions to the 12-product problem.
| Problem Size | Position Combinations | Price Combinations | Procurement Quantity Combinations | Total Combinations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparisons of results from the proposed approach and two commonly used methods.
| Pages | Positions | Proposed Model | ‘High-Profit Items First’ | ‘Best-Seller Items First’ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item (i) |
|
| Item (i) |
|
| Item (i) |
|
| ||
| 1st page | (1,1) | 12 | 6.31 | 99 | 11 | 6.70 | 67 | 7 | 4.11 | 98 |
| (1,2) | 9 | 5.03 | 97 | 3 | 6.81 | 75 | 1 | 4.21 | 99 | |
| 2nd page | (1,1) | 4 | 6.58 | 50 | 4 | 6.26 | 50 | 3 | 6.81 | 51 |
| (1,2) | 11 | 7.09 | 51 | 12 | 5.99 | 50 | 6 | 4.23 | 88 | |
| (1,3) | 3 | 7.19 | 51 | 8 | 5.59 | 54 | 5 | 4.83 | 62 | |
| (1,4) | 10 | 5.83 | 52 | 10 | 5.83 | 52 | 2 | 4.85 | 62 | |
| (1,5) | 1 | 4.21 | 94 | 9 | 4.53 | 75 | 9 | 5.03 | 61 | |
| (2,1) | 8 | 6.22 | 50 | 2 | 4.60 | 75 | 10 | 5.25 | 55 | |
| (2,2) | 7 | 4.11 | 93 | 5 | 4.34 | 53 | 8 | 6.22 | 51 | |
| (2,3) | 6 | 4.23 | 93 | 1 | 4.21 | 75 | 12 | 6.31 | 50 | |
| (2,4) | 2 | 4.12 | 70 | 6 | 4.23 | 75 | 4 | 5.27 | 62 | |
| (2,5) | 5 | 4.83 | 72 | 7 | 4.11 | 90 | 11 | 7.49 | 50 | |
| Average price (1st page) | 5.67 | 6.76 | 4.16 | |||||||
| Average procurement quantity | 73 | 66 | 66 | |||||||
| Loss of unsold inventory | $178.00 | $101.00 | $417.00 | |||||||
| Total profit | $2062.96 | $1805.33 | $1532.34 | |||||||
Factors and Levels in the experimental design.
| Factors | Parameters | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low (−1) | High (+1) | ||
| A |
| 0.1 | 0.3 |
| B |
| 0.1 | 0.25 |
| C |
| 1.0 | 1.5 |
| D |
| 1.0 | 1.5 |
| E |
| 0.8 | 1.0 |
| F |
| 1 | 9 |
| G |
| (50,100) | (25, 125) |
Values for factors and responses of factional factorial design.
| Factors | Responses | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Runs | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 |
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 5.67 | 73 | 6% | 2134.06 | {12,9} |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 7.04 | 35 | 19% | 888.65 | {4,11} |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 5.67 | 73 | 8% | 2062.96 | {12,9} |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 5.89 | 40 | 19% | 967.74 | {7,11} |
| 5 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.36 | 61 | 5% | 1725.67 | {7,9} |
| 6 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 5.29 | 57 | 18% | 1459.03 | {10,9} |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 6.11 | 68 | 2% | 2029.08 | {3,9} |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 5.29 | 58 | 21% | 1443.65 | {10,9} |
| 9 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 6.30 | 67 | 2% | 2010.54 | {3,9} |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 6.90 | 52 | 11% | 1525.67 | {12,11} |
| 11 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 6.30 | 68 | 3% | 2048.44 | {3,9} |
| 12 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 7.72 | 51 | 6% | 1625.38 | {3,11} |
| 13 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 7.09 | 71 | 3% | 2275.35 | {12,11} |
| 14 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 5.40 | 45 | 15% | 1190.87 | {4,1} |
| 15 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 7.09 | 73 | 2% | 2383.58 | {12,11} |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.21 | 46 | 20% | 1219.91 | {4,10} |
A: ; B: ; C: D: ; E: ; F: ; G: . R1: Average price of the first page; R2: Average procurement quantity; R3: Loss of unsold inventory (share of revenue); R4: Total profit; R5: Products displayed on the first page.
The output of ANOVA for the average price of products on the 1st page.
| Source | R-Square = 0.3239 Adjusted R-Square = 0.2756 F = 6.71 Pr > F = 0.0214 * | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stdized Effect | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F Value |
| |
|
| 0.96 | 3.70 | 1 | 3.70 | 6.71 | 0.0214 * |
| residual error | 7.71 | 14 | 0.55 | |||
| total | 11.41 | 15 | ||||
* significance level 0.05
The output of ANOVA for the average procurement quantity.
| Source | R-Square = 0.9188 Adjusted R-Square = 0.9063 F = 73.54 Pr > F = 0.0001 * | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stdized Effect | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F Value |
| |
|
| −21.25 | 1806.25 | 1 | 1806.25 | 121.51 | 0.0001 ** |
|
| −9.75 | 380.25 | 1 | 380.25 | 25.58 | 0.0002 ** |
| residual error | 193.25 | 13 | 14.87 | |||
| total | 2379.75 | 15 | ||||
* significance level 0.05; ** significance level 0.01.
The output of ANOVA for the loss of unsold inventory.
| Source | R-Square = 0.8268 Adjusted R-Square = 0.8001 F = 31.02 Pr > F = 0.0001 ** | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stdized Effect | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F Value | Pr > F | |
|
| 0.12250 | 0.060025 | 1 | 0.060025 | 54.66 | 0.0001 ** |
|
| −0.04500 | 0.008100 | 1 | 0.008100 | 7.38 | 0.0180 * |
| residual error | 0.014275 | 13 | 0.001098 | |||
| total | 0.082400 | 15 | ||||
* significance level 0.05; ** significance level 0.01.
The output of ANOVA for the total profit.
| Source | R-Square = 0.9655 Adjusted R-Square = 0.9569 F = 112.03 Pr > F = 0.0001 ** | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stdized Effect | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F Value | Pr > F | |
|
| −793.6 | 2,519,188 | 1 | 2,519,188 | 266.83 | 0.0001 ** |
|
| 196.1 | 1,583,840 | 1 | 1,583,840 | 16.29 | 0.0020 ** |
|
| −353.6 | 500,125 | 1 | 500,125 | 52.97 | 0.0001 ** |
| residual error | 113,295 | 12 | 9441 | |||
** significance level 0.01.