MS - Topic8 - Transportation FINALS
MS - Topic8 - Transportation FINALS
Transportation and
Assignment Models
To accompany
Quantitative Analysis for Management, Eleventh Edition, Global Edition
by Render, Stair, and Hanna
Power Point slides created by Brian Peterson
Factories Warehouses
Supply (Sources) (Destinations) Demand
$5
100 Des Albuquerqu 300
Units Moines $4 e Units
$3
$8
300 Evansvill $4 Bosto 200
Units e $3 n Units
$9
$7
300 Fort Clevelan 200
Units Lauderdale $5 d Units
Figure 9.1
Program 9.1
Figure 9.2
Program 9.2
Distribution Centers
■ Frosty Machines manufactures snow blowers in Toronto and
Detroit.
■ These are shipped to regional distribution centers in Chicago
and Buffalo.
■ From there they are shipped to supply houses in New York,
Philadelphia, and St Louis.
■ Shipping costs vary by location and destination.
■ Snow blowers cannot be shipped directly from the factories to
the supply houses.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 20
Network Representation of
Transshipment Example
Figure 9.3
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 21
Transshipment Applications
Frosty Machines Transshipment Data
TO
NEW YORK
FROM CHICAGO BUFFALO CITY PHILADELPHIA ST LOUIS SUPPLY
Toronto $4 $7 — — — 800
Detroit $5 $7 — — — 700
Chicago — — $6 $4 $5 —
Buffalo — — $2 $3 $4 —
Table 9.1
Program 9.3
DES MOINES $5 $4 $3
100
FACTORY
EVANSVILLE $8 $4 $3
300
FACTORY
FORT LAUDERDALE $9 $7 $5
300
FACTORY
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
Cell representing a
Total supply source-to-destination
Table 9.2 Cost of shipping 1 unit from Cleveland (Evansville to Cleveland)
Fort Lauderdale factory to warehouse and demand
shipping assignment
Boston warehouse demand that could be made
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 28
Developing an Initial Solution:
Northwest Corner Rule
■ Once we have arranged the data in a table, we
must establish an initial feasible solution.
■ One systematic approach is known as the
northwest corner rule.
■ Start in the upper left-hand cell and allocate units
to shipping routes as follows:
1. Exhaust the supply (factory capacity) of each row
before moving down to the next row.
2. Exhaust the demand (warehouse) requirements of
each column before moving to the right to the next
column.
3. Check that all supply and demand requirements are
met.
■ This problem takes five steps to make the initial
shipping assignments.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 29
Developing an Initial Solution:
Northwest Corner Rule
1. Beginning in the upper left hand corner, we
assign 100 units from Des Moines to
Albuquerque. This exhaust the supply from Des
Moines but leaves Albuquerque 200 desks short.
We move to the second row in the same column.
TO ALBUQUERQUE BOSTON CLEVELAND FACTORY
FROM (A) (B) (C) CAPACITY
DES MOINES $5 $4 $3
100 100
(D)
EVANSVILLE $8 $4 $3
(E) 300
FORT LAUDERDALE $9 $7 $5
(F) 300
DES MOINES $5 $4 $3
100 100
(D)
EVANSVILLE $8 $4 $3
200 300
(E)
FORT LAUDERDALE $9 $7 $5
(F) 300
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
DES MOINES $5 $4 $3
100 100
(D)
EVANSVILLE $8 $4 $3
200 100 300
(E)
FORT LAUDERDALE $9 $7 $5
(F) 300
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
DES MOINES $5 $4 $3
100 100
(D)
EVANSVILLE $8 $4 $3
200 100 300
(E)
FORT LAUDERDALE $9 $7 $5
(F) 100 300
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
DES MOINES $5 $4 $3
100 100
(D)
EVANSVILLE $8 $4 $3
200 100 300
(E)
FORT LAUDERDALE $9 $7 $5
(F) 100 200 300
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
ROUTE
UNITS PER UNIT TOTAL
FROM TO
SHIPPED x COST ($) = COST ($)
D A 100 5 500
E A 200 8 1,600
E B 100 4 400
F B 100 7 700
F C 200 5 1,000
4,200
TO FACTORY
ALBUQUERQUE BOSTON CLEVELAND
FROM CAPACITY
$5 $4 $3
DES MOINES 100 100
$8 $4 $3
EVANSVILLE 200 100 300
$9 $7 $5
FORT LAUDERDALE 100 200 300
WAREHOUSE
REQUIREMENTS 300 200 200 700 Table 9.3
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 43
Five Steps to Test Unused Squares
with the Stepping-Stone Method
Evaluating the unused Des Warehouse A Warehouse B
TO FACTORY
ALBUQUERQUE BOSTON CLEVELAND
FROM CAPACITY
$5 $4 $3
DES MOINES 100 100
$8 $4 $3
EVANSVILLE 200 100 300
$9 $7 $5
FORT LAUDERDALE 100 200 300
WAREHOUSE
REQUIREMENTS 300 200 200 700 Table 9.4
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 44
Five Steps to Test Unused Squares
with the Stepping-Stone Method
Evaluating the unused Des Warehouse A Warehouse B
TO FACTORY
ALBUQUERQUE BOSTON CLEVELAND
FROM Result
CAPACITY of Proposed
$5 $4 $3 Shift in Allocation
DES MOINES 100 100
= 1 x $4
$8 $4 $3 – 1 x $5
EVANSVILLE 200 100 300 + 1 x $8
– 1 x $4 = +$3
$9 $7 $5
FORT LAUDERDALE 100 200 300
WAREHOUSE
REQUIREMENTS 300 200 200 700 Table 9.4
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 45
Five Steps to Test Unused Squares
with the Stepping-Stone Method
Des Moines–
Boston index = IDB = +$4 – $5 + $5 – $4 = + $3
Table 9.5
Des Moines–Cleveland
improvement index = IDC = + $3 – $5 + $8 – $4 + $7 – $5 = +
$4
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 48
Five Steps to Test Unused Squares
with the Stepping-Stone Method
Opening the Des Moines–Cleveland route will not
lower our total shipping costs.
Evaluating the other two routes we find:
Evansville-
Cleveland index = IEC = + $3 – $4 + $7 – $5 = + $1
The closed path is
+ EC – EB + FB – FC
Fort Lauderdale–
Albuquerque index = IFA = + $9 – $7 + $4 – $8 = – $2
The closed path is
+ FA – FB + EB – EA
Opening the Fort Lauderdale-Albuquerque route will
lower our total transportation costs.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 49
Obtaining an Improved Solution
$8 $4 $3
E 200 100 300
– +
$9 $7 $5
F 100 200 300
+ –
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
Table 9.6
TO FACTORY
A B C
FROM CAPACITY
$5 $4 $3
D 100 100
$8 $4 $3
E 100 200 300
$9 $7 $5
F 100 200 300
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
Table 9.7
D to B = IDB = + $4 – $5 + $8 – $4 = + $3
(closed path: + DB – DA + EA – EB)
D to C = IDC = + $3 – $5 + $9 – $5 = + $2
(closed path: + DC – DA + FA – FC)
E to C = IEC = + $3 – $8 + $9 – $5 = – $1
(closed path: + EC – EA + FA – FC)
F to B = IFB = + $7 – $4 + $8 – $9 = + $2
(closed path: + FB – EB + EA – FA)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 54
Obtaining an Improved Solution
Path to Evaluate the E-C Route
TO FACTORY
A B C
FROM CAPACITY
$5 $4 $3
D 100 100
E 100
$8
200
$4 Start $3
300
– +
$9 $7 $5
F 100 200 300
+ –
WAREHOUSE 300 200 200 700
REQUIREMENTS
Table 9.8
ROUTE
DESKS PER UNIT TOTAL
FROM TO
SHIPPED x COST ($) = COST ($)
D A 100 5 500
E B 200 4 800
E C 100 3 300
F A 200 9 1,800
F C 100 5 500
3,900
TO FACTORY
A B C
FROM CAPACITY
$5 $4 $3
D 100 100
$8 $4 $3
E 200 100 300
$9 $7 $5
F 200 100 300
Table 9.9
D to B = IDB = + $4 – $5 + $9 – $5 + $3 – $4 = + $2
(closed path: + DB – DA + FA – FC + EC – EB)
D to C = IDC = + $3 – $5 + $9 – $5 = + $2
(closed path: + DC – DA + FA – FC)
E to A = IEA = + $8 – $9 + $5 – $3 = + $1
(closed path: + EA – FA + FC – EC)
F to B = IFB = + $7 – $5 + $3 – $4 = + $1
(closed path: + FB – FC + EC – EB)
$8 $4 $3 0
E 50 200 50 300
$9 $7 $5 0
F 150 150 300
WAREHOUSE
300 200 200 150 850
REQUIREMENTS
$10 $5 $8
PLANT X 175
$12 $7 $6
PLANT Y 75
Totals
WAREHOUSE 450
DEMAND
250 100 150
500
do not
balance
Table 9.11
$10 $5 $8
PLANT X 50 100 25 175
$12 $7 $6
PLANT Y 75 75
0 0 0
PLANT Y 50 50
WAREHOUSE
250 100 150 500
DEMAND
$10 $9 $9
WAREHOUSE 2 0 100 20 120
$7 $10 $7
WAREHOUSE 3 80 80
$15 $10 $7
FACTORY B 50 80 130
$3 $9 $10
FACTORY C 30 50 80
Table 9.14
$15 $7
FACTORY B 50
– +
$3 $10
FACTORY C 30 50
+ –
Table 9.15
Seattle $53
Table 9.16 Birmingham $49
TO LOS
FROM DETROIT DALLAS NEW YORK ANGELES
CINCINNATI $25 $55 $40 $60
SALT LAKE 35 30 50 40
PITTSBURGH 36 45 26 66
SEATTLE 60 38 65 27
BIRMINGHAM 35 30 41 50
Table 9.17
85 80 100 90
SALT LAKE 1,000 5,000 6,000
88 97 78 118
PITTSBURGH 14,000 14,000
84 79 90 99
BIRMINGHAM 11,000 11,000
WAREHOUSE
10,000 12,000 15,000 9,000 46,000
REQUIREMENT
Table 9.18
85 80 100 90
SALT LAKE 6,000 6,000
88 97 78 118
PITTSBURGH 14,000 14,000
113 91 118 80
SEATTLE 2,000 9,000 11,000
WAREHOUSE
10,000 12,000 15,000 9,000 46,000
REQUIREMENT
Table 9.19
Program 9.4
PROJECT
PERSON 1 2 3
Brown 8 10 11
Cooper 9 12 7
Table 9.20
PRODUCT ASSIGNMENT
LABOR TOTAL
1 2 3
COSTS ($) COSTS ($)
Adams Brown Cooper 11 + 10 + 7 28
Adams Cooper Brown 11 + 12 + 11 34
Brown Adams Cooper 8 + 14 + 7 29
Brown Cooper Adams 8 + 12 + 6 26
Cooper Adams Brown 9 + 14 + 11 34
Cooper Brown Adams 9 + 10 + 6 25
Table 9.21
Figure 9.4
Brown 8 10 11 Brown 0 2 3
Cooper 9 12 7 Cooper 2 5 0
Tables 9.22-9.23
Adams $5 $6 $0
Brown 0 0 3
Cooper 2 3 0
Table 9.24
Adams $5 $6 $0
PROJECT
PERSON 1 2 3
Adams $3 $4 $0
Brown 0 0 5
Cooper 0 1 0
Table 9.26
Adams $3 $4 $0
Table 9.27
Covering line Covering line
1 3
This requires three lines to cover the zeros so the
solution is optimal.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education 101
Making the Final Assignment
■ The optimal assignment is Adams to project 3,
Brown to project 2, and Cooper to project 1.
■ For larger problems one approach to making the
final assignment is to select a row or column that
contains only one zero.
■ Make the assignment to that cell and rule out its row
and column.
■ Follow this same approach for all the remaining cells.
Adams to project 3 6
Brown to project 2 10
Cooper to project 1 9
Total cost 25
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Table 9.28
Program 9.5
PROJECT
PERSON 1 2 3 DUMMY
Adams $11 $14 $6 $0
Brown 8 10 11 0
Cooper 9 12 7 0
Table 9.29
Davis 10 13 8 0
Table 9.30
Table 9.31
Table 9.32
SECTOR
SHIP A B C D
1 25 0 10 0
2 5 50 0 0
3 5 0 10 15
4 0 0 5 5
Table 9.33
ASSIGNMENT EFFICIENCY
Ship 1 to sector D 55
Ship 2 to sector C 80
Ship 4 to sector A 65