![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-50e5aef8-b6fa-4ceb-bf38-9abb1e41b655.jpg)

## A Multi-Stage Supply Chain Network Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms

Nelson Christopher Dzupire 1* , Yaw Nkansah-Gyekye 1

1 Nelson Mandela African Institution Of Science and Engineering,

School of Computational and Communication Science and Engineering,

P. O. Box 447, Arusha, Tanzania.

* E-mail of corresponding author: dzupiren@nm-aist.ac.tz

## Abstract

In today's global business market place, individual firms no longer compete as independent entities with unique brand names but as integral part of supply chain links. Key to success of any business is satisfying customer's demands on time which may result in cost reductions and increase in service level. In supply chain networks decisions are made with uncertainty about product's demands, costs, prices, lead times, quality  in  a  competitive  and  collaborative  environment.  If  poor  decisions  are  made,  they  may  lead  to  excess inventories that are costly or to insufficient inventory that cannot meet customer's demands.

In this work we developed a bi-objective model that minimizes system wide costs of the supply chain and delays on delivery of products to distribution centers for a three echelon supply chain. Picking a set of Pareto front for multi-objective optimization problems require robust and efficient methods that can search an entire space. We used evolutionary algorithms to find the set of Pareto fronts which have proved to be effective in finding the entire set of Pareto fronts.

Key  words: multi-objective  optimization,  Pareto  fronts,  evolutionary  algorithms,  supply  chain  networks, echelon.

## 1. Introduction

A supply chain (SC) is a set of facilities, suppliers, customers, products and methods of controlling inventory, purchasing and distribution  (Sabri and Beamon, 2000). It is aimed at providing customers with products they want  in  a  timely  way  and  efficiently  and  as  profitable  as  possible.  The  main  objective  is  to  enhance  the operational efficiency, profitability and competitive position of a firm and its supplier chain partners  (Min and Zhou, 2002). Each independent entity of supply chain has inherent objective function to maximize in business transactions  for  profit  maximization  (Pinto,  2004).  In  a  supply  chain  network  (SCN)  managers  need  to  make strategic decisions that are viable for the business. The decisions range from what product to produce and their design, how much, when and from where to buy a product, how much, where and when to produce a product, etc (Veinott Jr, 2002). These strategic decisions are made with uncertainty about product demands, costs, prices, lead times and quality. Besides, the environment in which these decisions are made is competitive.

Recently there has been a growing interest in research in supply chain network optimization problems. This may be due to increasing competitiveness introduced by rapid globalization such that firms wants to reduce costs and maintain profit margins as observed by Altiparmak et al . (2006) or from a practical stand point of view, the rise may be from a number of changes in the manufacturing environment including the rising cost of manufacturing, the  shrinking  of  manufacturing  bases,  shortened  life  cycle,  the  leveling  of  the  playing  field  within  the manufacturing  industries  and  globalization  of  market  economies  as  suggested  by  Beamon  (1998)  as  well  as attractive to cost ratios and building of long term relationships with trusted suppliers as stated by Williams and Gunal (2003).

Supply chain network design problems are functions of different parameters namely lead times at each entity, fill rates, inventory management, retailers' and customers' demands, stochastic nature of the SC, logistic issues, etc (Pinto, 2004; Cakravastia et al ., 2002; Giannoccaro and Pontrandolfo, 2002). The ultimate objective of the SCN optimization is to minimize the overall system wide cost while customer service is kept at pre-specified level (Truong and Azadivar, 2003) and maximizing profitability of not just one entity but rather all the entities in SCN, Pinto  (2004).  Moreover  objective  functions  of  the  entities  in  the  SCN  are  always  conflicting  in  nature.  For instance, the objective of marketing is to maximize customer service level and sales volume, which is in conflict with  the  objectives  of  production  and  distribution  which  is  to  produce  and  ship  products  of  higher  quality  at minimum cost and in adequate amount. Also raw materials procurement decisions are aimed at minimizing cost of goods while production and distribution decisions are based on maximum output from plants with minimum

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-00101732-4da5-4a33-a1db-c67df90bff93.jpg)

production cost and demand. In such a scenario, there is a need to present a vector of options to the decision makers, so that the final decisions should be taken after taking a total balance over all criteria into account i.e. trade-offs (Latha Shankar et al. , 2013).

Multi-Objective  Optimization  (MOO)  involves  simultaneous  optimization  of  problems  with  at  least  two objective functions which are conflicting in nature. In MOO, there is no single optimum solution, but a number of them exist that are optimal called Pareto fronts. There are several approaches of finding the Pareto fronts in MOO models. One can aggregate all the objectives into a single objective by scalarization using the weighted sum, distance functions, goal programming and   constraint (Konak et al. , 2006; Coello, 1999; Zitzler et al. , 2004. In contrast evolutionary algorithms are able to generate and maintain multiple solutions in one simulation. Commonly used  evolutionary  algorithms  include  genetic  algorithms  which  have  been  shown  to  give  a  good approximation of the Pareto fronts (Kalyanmoy et al. , 2002; Konak et al. , 2006).

The  supply  chain  network  design  problem  has  been  optimized  as  single  objective  problem  (Cohen  and  Lee, 1988;  Arntzen et  al. ,  1995).  However  the  results  obtained  from  such  models  were  not  a  true  wholesomely optimal and to an extent misleading since an optimal solution for a specific scenario is not optimal to the other entities' objectives.

Several studies have been undertaken where the SCN problems have been optimized as MOO problems and the results  are  more  than  encouraging:  Amodeo et  al. (2007)  optimized  a  supply  chain  as  a  multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms and simulation model. Objectives considered were: minimizing inventory cost and maximizing service level. It was concluded that this approach obtained inventory policies better than the ones  used  in  practice  then  with  reduced  costs  and  improved  service  level.  Also  Erol  and  Ferrell  Jr  (2004) proposed a model that assigned suppliers to warehouses and warehouses to customers and used multi-objective optimization  modeling  framework  for  minimizing  system-wide  costs  and  maximizing  customer  satisfaction. Chen and Lee (2004) developed a multi-product, multi-stage, and multi-period scheduling model for a multistage  SCN  with  uncertain  demands  and  prices.  They  simultaneously  optimized  the  following  objectives:  fair profit distribution among all participants, safe inventory levels, maximum customer services, and robustness of decision to uncertain demands.

There  has  been  a  growing  interest  of  using  evolutionary  algorithms  to  solve  multi-objective  optimization problems  recently  (Deb,  2001;  Pinto,  2004;  Farahani  and  Elahipanah,  2008).  Different  models  have  been developed with different objective functions where evolutionary algorithms have been used to find Pareto fronts. Sabri  and  Beamon  (2000)  developed  an  integrated  multi-objective  supply  chain  model  for  strategic  and operational under certainties of products-delivery and demands. Similarly Melachrinoudis et al. (2005) worked on a bi-objective optimization with cost minimization and service level maximization as objectives. Pinto (2004) and Altiparmak et  al. (2006) independently proposed a solution procedure based on genetic algorithms to find the Pareto optimal solutions for supply chain design problem.

Farahani and Elahipanah (2008) set up a bi-objective model for the distribution network of a supply chain which produces  one  product  in  a  three  echelon  supply  chain  design.  The  objectives  were:  minimizing  costs  and minimizing  backorders  and  surpluses  of  products.  The  Pareto  optimal  were  found  by  using  mixed  integer programming by applying non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms.

Most of the existing models places much emphasis on the optimization of location and allocation decisions while ignoring important aspects such as capacities and technology aspects of the manufacturing facilities which also affects  the  production  and  distribution  of  products.  In  addition,  many  models  have  been  implemented  using genetic algorithms, genetic algorithms in particular. It should be noted that with large size problems they take long run time to find optimal solutions and sometimes they may converge towards a limited region of the Pareto fronts ignoring solutions that might be interesting. In such cases, there is need to guide the algorithm to converge towards desirable solutions if prior information is available.

This paper is organized as follows: section 2 gives the problem description in which we introduce the objective function and its assumptions followed by the mathematical models for the integrated supply chain. The proposed methodology is described in  section 4  followed  by  computed results  and  discussion  in  section  5.  Finally,  the conclusion is given in section 6.

## 2.  Problem Description

We consider a general supply chain network model consisting of suppliers, manufacturing plants, distribution centers (DC), and retailers as shown in Figure 1 below. The suppliers are companies from which raw materials are bought. We assume that each supplier supplies a specific raw material. In additional there are transporting vehicles of different capacities which transport the raw materials or products. The manufacturing plant is where the  products  are  produced.  The  distribution  centers  are  the  warehouses  of  different  capacities  that  store  the products  before  they  are  delivered  to  retailers  through  use  of  vehicles.  So  we  need  to  design  a  supply  chain

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-8b6c401f-2c91-4747-9898-7cc2ed4146d4.jpg)

network  that  allows  strategic  decisions  like  selecting  suppliers  of  raw  materials  quantities,  determining  the subsets  of  plants  and  distribution  centers  to  be  opened,  and  a  distribution  network  strategy  that  satisfy  all capacities and customer's demands in such a way that total cost and on time delivery delays are minimized.

Figure 1. A Supply Chain Network Model

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-2312f42a-e108-45d1-8bf4-42c79e32dd90.jpg)

Ideally we would like to deliver the products at the right time the retailers have requested and in right amount as demanded. This helps to save storage cost and maximize customer services. So we require that every supplier must deliver the right amount of products at the right time and to the right place. Though products are stored prior to delivery, due to capacity constraints of the distribution centers and plants, it might not be possible to satisfy all the requests on time hence we either have to deliver earlier or late sometimes, incurring excess storage costs in the process. In this research we simultaneously optimize the following two objective functions: total cost of  the  supply  chain  which  includes  the  cost  of  opening  and  running  manufacturing  plants  and  distribution centers, cost of buying and transporting raw materials, cost of transporting products from plants to DCs and from DCs to retailers, and cost of  holding products at DCs. The other objective function is about on-time delivery (minimum delay) which involves earliness: representing the amount of products that are delivered prior to the due date, and tardiness: representing the amount of products that are delivered after their due date.

In terms of minimizing cost objective, it would be costly to supply products earlier to the distribution centers and deliver them late to retailers as we will incur holding costs. While for on time delivery objective we would want the warehouses to be supplied products earlier and have to store them up to an appropriate time so that we don't miss  customer  demands. As  such  we  require  a  trade-off  between  delivering  the  products  late  or  earlier  and minimizing storage cost at the distribution center  while  maximizing customer service  in terms of not missing customers' demands.

We considered the following assumptions:

-  Number of retailers and suppliers and the capacity of suppliers are known.
-  Number of plants and distribution centers and their maximum capacities are known.
-  Demands of retailers are uncertain but can be determined from past history.
-  We only consider that storage costs are incurred at distribution centers since that is where they may stay for long time before being delivered to retailers.
-  Each retailer is served from one distribution center, while manufacturing plants delivers their products to many distribution centers.
-  Each plant gets raw materials from all the suppliers.

## 3. The Mathematical Model

We use the following notations for our mathematical model formulation.

- a) Notation for indices of the entities are as follows:
- s : supplier
- k : plant
- j : distribution center

- i : retailer
- p : product type
- t : time
- b) Variables for quantities are as follows:
- r sk : Amount of raw materials from supplier s to plant k
- f kj : Total number of products from plant k to distribution center j
- qji : Total number of products from distribution center   to retailer j i
- bpjt : Total number of backorders of products at distribution center j in time   (tardiness) t
- z pjt : Total number of products delivered to distribution center j in time   (earliness) t
- bj : Binary variable to indicate whether a distribution center   is open or closed j
- bk : Binary variable to indicate whether a plant k is open or closed
- c) The variable notation for model parameters are:
- Dk : Capacity of plant k
- SCs : Capacity of supplier s
- di : Quantity of demanded items from retailer i
- dit : Quantity of demanded items from retailer   on a given time i t
- DCtot : Total number of distribution centers
- Ptot : Total number of plants
- vj : Fixed cost of operating distribution center j
- gk : Fixed cost of operating plant k
- ckj : Unit transportation of products from plant k to distribution center j
- t sk : Unit transportation cost of raw materials from supplier s to plant k
- cs : Unit cost of raw material from supplier s
- hj : unit holding cost at distribution center j
- r ji : Unit transportation cost from distribution center   to retailer j i
- Qj : Holding capacity of distribution center j
- u : utilization rate of raw materials per unit of each product
- bl pjt : Maximum amount of permitted backorder for distribution center   in time  . j t

The mathematical formulation of the model is as follows:

## minimize

$$f _ { 1 } = \sum _ { k } g _ { k } b _ { k } + \sum _ { j } v _ { j } b _ { j } + \sum _ { s } \sum _ { k } ( c _ { s } + t _ { s k } ) r _ { s k } + \sum _ { k } \sum _ { j } c _ { k j } f _ { k j } + \sum _ { j } \sum _ { t } h _ { j } b _ { p j t } + \sum _ { j } \sum _ { i } r _ { j i } q _ { j i }$$

and minimize

$$f _ { 2 } = \sum _ { p } \sum _ { j } \sum _ { t } ( \mathbf b _ { p j t } + z _ { p j t } )$$

Subject to the following constraints:

bpjt ≤ Qj : Warehouse's (distribution center) holding capacity.

bpjt ≤ bl pjt : Allowable backorder.

- i j i j d Q    : Capacity constraint for distribution centers.
- kj ji k i f q    :  Amount of products sent to retailers is within

the capacity  of the distribution centers capacity.

$$\sum _ { j } q _ { j t } = \sum _ { i } d _ { i t } \ \colon \text{Customer satisfaction}.$$

- it i t d d   : Total demand of product by  retailer i over total time.
- sk s k r SC   : Supplier's capacity.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-48ea3692-dbdf-41f6-a829-e24a5882631b.jpg)

u

u

kj kj

 

s



k

f

f

D



j



sk

r

: Supplier's capacity on production of products.

: Plant's capacity for each product.

j

$$\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { D C _ { t o t } } b _ { j i } = 1, i = 1, 2, \dots, N \, \colon \, \text{Each customer is served by a single DC}.$$

  0,1 j b  ,   0,1 k b 

$$, 1 \} \, \colon \, \text{Binary variables}$$

$$f _ { k j }, \mathfrak { r } _ { s k }, g _ { k }, v _ { j }, t _ { s k }, c _ { k j }, b l _ { p j t }, Q _ { j }, \mathfrak { b } _ { p j t }, z _ { p j t }, S C _ { s }, D _ { k }, d _ { i t } \geq 0$$

## 4. Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEA)

In general a MOO problem has the form min

F

={f1(

x

), f

2

(

x

),..., f

N(

x

)}

subject to gi ( x )≤0, i=1,...,M

h ( j x )=0, j=1,...K

x l ≤ x ≤ x u

In MOO, mathematically, a feasible solution x1 is  said  to  dominate another feasible solution x2 if  and only  if f (x i 1 )  ≤  f (x i 2 ),  i  =  1,  2,...,  N and f (x j 1 )  &lt;  f (x j 2 ) for  at  least  one  objective  function j .  A  solution  that  is  not dominated by any other solution is called Pareto-optimal. The set of all non-dominated solutions is called ParetoOptimal set and the corresponding objective values for the Pareto-optimal set in the objective space is called Pareto-fronts.  Hence  the  ultimate  goal  in  MOO  is  to  find  the  Pareto  fronts  which  give  trade-offs  among  the objectives being optimized. Pareto fronts cannot be improved with respect to any objective without worsening at least one other objective function.

Identifying the entire Pareto-optimal set, for many multi-objective problems is practically impossible due to its size, in addition, for combinatorial problems like supply chain network, proof of optimality is computationally infeasible (Konak et al. , 2006). Therefore we investigate a set of solutions that approximate the Pareto-optimal set as much as possible. Over the past decades, several multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEA) have been proposed by different researchers to solve MOO problems (Deb et al. , 2002). The advantages of MOEAs is that they deal with a set of possible solutions called populations which enables finding of the entire set of Pareto fronts and maintaining them in one run of the algorithm which is one of the necessary element in multi-objective optimization  (Deb,  2001;  Donoso  and  Fabregat,  2010)  .  In  addition  they  are  less  susceptible  to  the  shape  or continuity of the Pareto fronts (Coello, 1999; Deb et  al. ,  2002). Evolutionary algorithms originate in Darwin's theory  of  evolution  and  were  first  developed  as  solution  for  optimization  problems  by    Holland  (1975). Simulating  the  biological  evolution  process,  the  algorithms  use  structure  or  individuals  to  solve  the  problem (Donoso and Fabregat, 2010; Konak et al. , 2006). The algorithm consists of individuals called chromosome, the population  of  the  individuals,  the  fitness  of  each  of  the  individuals  that  is  its  phenotype,  and    the  genetic operators namely mutation, selection and cross over. Each chromosome is made up of discrete units called genes that  controls  one  or  more  features  of  the  chromosome,  and  corresponds  to  a  unique  solution.  In  crossover, generally  two  chromosomes  referred  as  parents  combine  to  form  new  chromosomes  called  offspring  while mutation  introduces  random  change  into  characteristics  of  chromosomes  which  helps  to  re-introduce  genetic diversity  back  into  the  population  so  as  to  avoid  converging  to  a  local  optimal.  Selection  is  the  process  of choosing chromosomes among the population to form the next generation. Some methods of selection include proportional selection, ranking and tournament selection and  ( )  selection. Evolutionary algorithms run in   polynomial time, so even though there is no guarantee that an  optimal value will necessarily be found, we can find a good approximate value that we can actually use (Donoso and Fabregat, 2010; Deb, 2001).

The first MOEA was vector evaluated genetic algorithm (VEGA) proposed by Schaffer (1984), which was an extension  of  simple  genetic  algorithm  to  accommodate  vector-valued  fitness  measures  followed  by  multiobjective genetic algorithm (MOGA) proposed by Fonseca and Fleming (1993). Both VEGA and MOGA had no mechanisms to preserve best fit individuals that should have been passed to the next generation which enhances convergence  to  optimal  solutions.  Since  then,  several  MOEAs  have  been  developed  namely  niched  pareto genetic  algorithm,  random  weighted  genetic  algorithm  (RWGA),  non-dominated  sorting  algorithm  (NSGA), strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm (SPEA), and fast non dominated sorting algorithm (NSGA-II) (Konak et al. ,  2006;  Deb et  al. ,  2002; Srinivas and Deb, 1994; Coello, 1999). They all incorporate crossover, selection,

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-7ab60570-137b-4e16-8ab2-64b9c06cc503.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-57bb28ba-8796-48ee-8fca-fd132c5e0457.jpg)

mutation  and  replacement,  but  they  differ  in  the  way  they  implement  them  and  how  they  deal  with  multiple objectives and preservation of diversity in the solutions.

In this research we make use of NSGA-II genetic algorithm proposed by Deb et al. (2002) which was aimed at overcoming problems associated with NSGA. NSGA developed by Srinivas and Deb (1994) was  based exactly on  MOGA  except  for  the  specification  of  the  sharing  parameter.  However  it  has  higher  computational complexity of O(MN 3 ) for M objectives and a population size of N lacked elitism and required specification of a sharing parameter for the fitness value. Unlike NSGA, NSGA-II implements elitism which is a mechanism that allows preservation of best fit individuals in a population to ensure good fitness already obtained does not get lost in subsequent generations. It has a reduced computational complexity of O(MN 2 ) . NSGA-II uses tournament selection whereby a group of individuals takes part in a tournament and the winner is judged by fitness levels that each individual brings to the tournament. It has been shown that it outperforms most contemporary MOEAs like SPEA, PAES, etc and its performance has been tested on several test problems where it has given accurate results in generating Pareto fronts (Deb et al. , 2002; Pinto, 2004).

Our choice of NSGA-II for the research is based on the fact that it is an elitist and fast strategy, modular and flexible,  emphases  on  the  non  dominated  solutions,  can  be  applied  to  a  large  wide  of  problems  and  the availability of global optimization toolbox in MATLAB that implements it so that we do not re-invent the wheel.

The main principle in NSGA-II is that we categorize all solutions into ranks and for each individual solution we calculate the crowding distance. To determine the ranking, two entities are calculated for each solution p namely np domination count representing the number of solutions that dominate solution p , and s p set of all solutions q dominated by solution p .  All  solutions p with np = 0 are  identified  and  ranked as 1, the first non-domination front. Thereafter, we visit each member q of s p where np = 0 and reduce its domination count by 1. If nq = 0 then solution q is ranked as 2, the second non-domination front. We continue in this way until all ranks are identified. Solutions with rank 1 are non-dominated and represent the best. Then we calculate the overcrowding distance of each solution which is the measure of the diversity of solutions along the front of the non dominated solutions and enables the algorithm to obtain uniformly distributed solutions over the true Pareto fronts. The crowding distance of each solution tan [ ] dis ce I i is calculated as follows:

Let n=|I|, I is set of solutions. For each , assign [ i I  ] 0. I 

$$\mathbb { 1 } _ { d i s t a n c e }$$

For each objective m sort the set I in ascending order based on the objective values.

For each objective m ,  assign  large  distances to the boundary solutions, tan tan [1] [ ] .   For  all dis ce dis ce I I n    solutions i=2 to n-1 , then

$$I [ i ] _ { d i s t a n c e } = I [ i ] _ { d i s t a n c e } + \frac { ( I [ i + 1 ] _ { m } - I [ i - 1 ] _ { m } ) } { f _ { m } ^ { \max } - f _ { m } ^ { \min } }, \text{where}$$

[ ] : m I i th m objective function value of the th i individual in the set , I

max : maximum value of the m f th m objective function, min : minimum value of the m f th m objective function.

NSGA-II uses a two step selection process, which combines binary tournament and  ( )  selection (Reed   et al. , 2003). The binary tournament allows only the fittest individuals to be placed in the mating population while

( )  selection, selects which of the parents or children should form the next generation. To enable elitism,   individuals for the next generation are selected from both the parents and children based on their non-domination front and crowding distance in case of tier until N individuals. Here are the steps involved in the algorithm:

- Step1 :  Generate  a  parent  population Pt randomly and create an offspring population Qt from P t using  genetic operators: selection, crossover and mutation each of size N.
- Step 2 : Combine Pt and Qt into a single population set St where |S | = t 2 N .

Step3 : Classify and rank each individual in S t .

- Step 4: Select the best N individuals from St based on ranks and crowding distance to form a parent population Pt+1 for the next generation.

Step 5: Repeat steps 1-4 until the termination criteria is met.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-0cf99179-bd8c-4758-891e-9bef7d5a9c66.jpg)

For each of plant, distribution center and retailer, we dedicate a section in the chromosome for its representation as in Figure 2.

Figure 2. An example chromosome

| PLANTS   |     |
|----------|-----|
| P2       | DC1 |

The variables Pk represents  amount  of  raw  materials  received  on  each  plant P ,  while DCj are  the  amount  of products that are produced and transported to distribution center DC RTn . is amount of products received on each retailer RT.

## 5. Results and Discussion

In this research, data was collected from SBC Tanzania which is a supply chain company that produces and sells soft drinks to both retailers and wholesalers (SBC Tanzania, 2010). The simulation was run in MATLAB 2013A with the following parameters: population size is 1290 (default) which is initially uniformly created, selection is by tournament with crossover probability of 0.6. Mutation is at 0.01. The mutation and crossover probabilities are chosen to tally with the recommendation of Reed et al. (2003) on choices of parameters for NSGA-II after we had run the simulation for several values. The Pareto fronts are shown in the figure below for a maximum generation of 500 and the default maximum value in MATLAB :

Figure 3. Pareto Fronts at 500 Generations

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-4c8bad62-3e02-434c-b3da-4b5805ca4c65.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-9aa307a1-bde7-401f-92fb-333846ee72c5.jpg)

Figure 4. Pareto Fronts Using Maximum Generations

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-393b46f2-99bc-416d-9d31-0d0c6fe5c5f6.jpg)

The objective function values are shown in the Table 1 and Table 2 below:

Table 1. Pareto Fronts at 500 Generations

|   Total Cost (TZ shillings/week) |   Minimum Delays (Days) | Total Cost (TZ shillings/week)   | Minimum Delays(Days)   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------|
|                         42496345 |                    3.43 | 42697666                         | 3.06                   |
|                         42529667 |                    3.34 | 42750136                         | 3.05                   |
|                         43384315 |                    2.98 | 42716485                         | 3.06                   |
|                         42524359 |                    3.4  | 42599589                         | 3.10                   |
|                         43075927 |                    2.99 | 42906090                         | 3.01                   |
|                         42804906 |                    3.05 | 42683399                         | 3.07                   |
|                         42529667 |                    3.34 | 42737024                         | 3.06                   |
|                         42558216 |                    3.24 | 42863937                         | 3.04                   |
|                         42529430 |                    3.37 | 42539146                         | 3.28                   |
|                         42610867 |                    3.07 | 42808494                         | 3.04                   |
|                         42519600 |                    3.42 | 42980958                         | 3.00                   |
|                         42818656 |                    3.04 | 42459411                         | 3.64                   |
|                         42846044 |                    3.04 | 42858301                         | 3.04                   |
|                         42529667 |                    3.34 | 42737934                         | 3.05                   |
|                         42529667 |                    3.34 | 43384315                         | 2.98                   |
|                         42562288 |                    3.11 | 42456237                         | 3.77                   |
|                         42870315 |                    3.04 | 42558216                         | 3.24                   |
|                         42877834 |                    3.02 |                                  |                        |

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-9507a9f7-0e67-49c9-836e-7706a332c344.jpg)

Table 2. Pareto Fronts at Maximum Generations

|   Total Cost (TZ Shillings/week) |   Minimum (Days) | Total Cost (TZ Shillings/week)   | Minimum (Days)   | Delay   |
|----------------------------------|------------------|----------------------------------|------------------|---------|
|                         42392602 |             2.11 | 42343410                         | 2.31             |         |
|                         42512544 |             2.01 | 42453549                         | 2.05             |         |
|                         42479149 |             2.02 | 42373738                         | 2.13             |         |
|                         42426517 |             2.06 | 42359834                         | 2.15             |         |
|                         42319822 |             2.37 | 42433977                         | 2.05             |         |
|                         42344611 |             2.26 | 42469855                         | 2.04             |         |
|                         42396879 |             2.06 | 42350870                         | 2.18             |         |
|                         42369365 |             2.14 | 42303267                         | 3.40             |         |
|                         42392100 |             2.12 | 42310332                         | 2.73             |         |
|                         42575749 |             1.98 | 42392297                         | 2.11             |         |
|                         42298487 |             3.46 |                                  |                  |         |

With this vector of optimal choices offering several trade-offs, the decision maker can thus intelligently decide based on expertise to evaluate those solutions that  would  be  most  beneficial  to  the  company  from  a  system's optimization perspective.

On the results itself, it was found that there is an inverse relationship between the total cost and the allowable delay in both simulations though with a slight difference. If products are delayed for many days the total cost decreases and if demands are met with minimum delays the cost becomes bigger. The results can be interpreted as follows: to satisfy customers demands we need to have minimum delays in delivering goods once they have requested. Since goods are manufactured from plants and temporally stored in distribution centers then we incur several costs in terms of production as there is need to manufacture more goods so that they are readily available once they are ordered. In the same way these products may be kept for long time at distribution centers hence incurring  more  storage  costs.  There  might  also  be  a  need  for  more  transporting  vehicles  hence  increasing transportation  cost.  With  maximum  delays  these  additional  costs  may  be  small  or  not  there  at  all  as  we  can deliver goods as long as they are available with no pressure.

From our perspective, we would advise the industry not to delay the deliveries with more than two days as it makes a good business sense and the earlier the delivery the better. And it is advisable most times to choose extremes when a decision cannot be made on which option to select.

The results obtained in this optimization ranges from 40-50 million TZ Shillings which is less compared to the actual amount that is spend by the company in a week which is 45-65 million TZ shillings on the same processes considered.

## 6. Conclusion

In  this  paper,  we  have  developed  a  mathematical  model  for  a  distribution  network  in  a  three  echelon  supply chain  that  minimizes  the  system-wide  costs  and  delays  on  delivery  of  products.  The  mathematical  model  is designed as a multi-objective optimization problem taking into account the two conflicting objective functions. We  have  found  several  options  in  which,  for  some  cases  we  might  opt  for  high  costs  to  maintain  customer satisfaction,  whereas in other cases depending on the situation we might opt to save costs. We used NSGA-II through the Global Optimization Toolbox in MATLAB. The algorithm clearly provides the Pareto fronts which are efficient solutions so that decision makers can use in planning and designing to improve the supply chain services. This work demonstrates that evolutionary algorithms provide a successful way of dealing with multiobjective optimization problems and have potential to solve combinatorial problems. Though the MOEAs have proved to be efficient in solving multi-objective problems, they become unsuccessful as the number of objectives increases from two in the problem. The main principle of these algorithms is the emphasis on non-dominated solutions  in  a  population;  however,  as  the  number  of  objectives  increases  most  population  members  in  a randomly created population tend to become non-dominated to each other resulting in the algorithm failing to introduce new population members in the new generation thereby causing a stagnant performance. For instance 10% and 90% of members in a population of size 200 are non-dominated in a 3 and  10 objective  functions problem respectively (Deb, 2011; Reed et al. , 2003).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-05bd0ca1-333c-4df2-9e4d-3af4b550c55f.jpg)

Future research should consider designing of a model where the company hires transporting vehicles rather than having their own as there are other costs like maintenance and wear and tear. In addition, it might be interesting to  if  reducing  product's  cost  and  allowing  retailers  to  organize  their  own  transport  to  collect  products  from distribution centers is optimal or not as compared to the current scenario where the company delivers products to retailers as the number of customers keep increasing.

## Acknowledgement

Nelson  is  indebted  to  the  Nelson  Mandela  African  Institution  of  Science  and  Technology  for  financial  and material support.

## References

- Altiparmak,  F.,  Gen,  M.,  Lin,  L.  and  Paksoy,  T.  (2006).  A  genetic  algorithm  approach  for  multi-objective optimization of supply chain networks. Computers &amp; Industrial Engineering . 51 : 196-215.

Amiri, A. (2006). Designing a distribution network in a supply chain system: Formulation and efficient solution procedure. European Journal of Operational Research . 171 : 567-576.

Amodeo, L., Chen, H. and El Hadji, A. (2007). Multi-objective supply chain optimization: an industrial case study, Applications of Evolutionary Computing. Springer, pp. 732-741.

Arntzen, B.C., Brown, G.G., Harrison, T.P. and Trafton, L.L. (1995). Global supply chain management at Digital Equipment Corporation. Interfaces . 25 : 69-93.

- Babu, B. and Gujarathi, A.M. (Ed.) (2007). Multi-objective differential evolution (MODE) for optimization of supply  chain  planning  and  management. In:  Evolutionary  Computation,  2007.  CEC  2007.  IEEE Congress on . IEEE , pp. 2732-2739, 2007.
- Beamon,  B.M.  (1998).  Supply  chain  design  and  analysis:::  Models  and  methods. International  Journal  of Production Economics . 55 : 281-294.
- Cachon,  G.  and  Fisher,  M.  (1997).  Campbell  Soup's  continuous  replenishment  program:  evaluation  and enhanced inventory decision rules. Production and Operations Management . 6 : 266-276.

Cakravastia, A., Toha, I.S. and Nakamura, N. (2002). A two-stage model for the design of supply chain networks. International Journal of Production Economics . 80 : 231-248.

Chen, C.-L. and Lee, W.-C. (2004). Multi-objective optimization of multi-echelon supply chain networks with uncertain product demands and prices. Computers &amp; Chemical Engineering . 28 : 1131-1144.

Coello, C.A.C. (1999). A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques. Knowledge and Information systems . 1 : 269-308.

Cohen, M.A. and Lee, H.L. (1988). Strategic analysis of integrated production-distribution systems: models and methods. Operations Research . 36 : 216-228.

Corne, V.D. (2012). Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization and Preference Modeling in Green  Logistics, Academic Award. Erasmus University Rotterdam.

- Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms :  1346.
- Deb,  K.  (2011).  Multi-objective  optimisation  using  evolutionary  algorithms:  an  introduction,  Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimisation for Product Design and Manufacturing. Springer, pp. 3-34.
- Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on . 6 : 182-197.

Donoso, Y. and Fabregat, R. (2010). Multi-objective optimization in computer networks using metaheuristics. Auerbach Publicationspp.

- Erol, I. and Ferrell Jr, W.G. (2004). A methodology to support decision making across the supply chain of an industrial distributor. International Journal of Production Economics . 89 : 119-129.

Farahani, R.Z. and Elahipanah, M. (2008). A genetic algorithm to optimize the total cost and service level for just-in-time distribution in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics . 111 :  229243.

Fonseca, C.M. and Fleming, P.J. (Ed.) (1993). Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: FormulationDiscussion and Generalization. In: ICGA , pp. 416-423, 1993.

- Giannoccaro, I. and Pontrandolfo, P. (2002). Inventory management in supply chains: a reinforcement learning approach. International Journal of Production Economics . 78 : 153-161.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-e887c657-8ae5-4701-bea3-67e3b28f4135.jpg)

Global Optimization ToolBox User's Guide, 2010. Mathworks. Inc.

Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. U Michigan Press.

Kalyanmoy, D., Amrit, P., Sameer , A. and T, M. (2002). A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions On Evolutionary Computation . 6 : 182-197.

Konak, A., Coit, D.W. and Smith, A.E. (2006). Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliability Engineering &amp; System Safety . 91 : 992-1007.

Latha Shankar, B., Basavarajappa, S., Kadadevaramath, R.S. and Chen, J.C. (2013). A bi-objective optimization of supply chain design and distribution operations using non-dominated sorting algorithm: A case study. Expert Systems with Applications . 40 : 5730-5739.

Lee, H.L. and Billington, C. (1995). The evolution of supply-chain-management models and practice at HewlettPackard. Interfaces . 25 : 42-63.

Marler, R.T. and Arora, J.S. (2004). Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization . 26 : 369-395.

Melachrinoudis,  E.,  Messac,  A.  and  Min,  H.  (2005).  Consolidating  a  warehouse  network::  A  physical programming approach. International Journal of Production Economics . 97 : 1-17.

Melachrinoudis,  E.  and  Min,  H.  (2000).  The  dynamic  relocation  and  phase-out  of  a  hybrid,  two-echelon plant/warehousing facility: A multiple objective approach. European Journal of Operational Research . 123 : 1-15.

Min,  H.  and  Zhou,  G.  (2002).  Supply  chain  modeling:  past,  present  and  future. Computers  &amp;  Industrial Engineering . 43 : 231-249.

Nozick,  L.K.  and  Turnquist,  M.A.  (2001).  Inventory,  transportation,  service  quality  and  the  location  of distribution centers. European Journal of Operational Research . 129 : 362-371.

Pinto, E.G.  (2004).  Supply  chain  optimization using multi-objective evolutionary  algorithms. Retrieved December . 15 : 2004.

- Reed,  P.,  Minsker,  B.S.  and  Goldberg,  D.E.  (2003).  Simplifying  multiobjective  optimization:  An  automated design methodology for the nondominated sorted genetic algorithm -II. Water Resources Research . 39 .

Sabri,  E.H.  and  Beamon,  B.M.  (2000). A  multi-objective  approach  to  simultaneous  strategic  and  operational planning in supply chain design. Omega . 28 : 581-598.

SBC Tanzania (2010). http://www.sbctanzania.com/company-profile.html. Accessed on, 2010.

Srinivas, N. and Deb, K. (1994). Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolutionary computation . 2 : 221-248.

Truong,  T.  H.  and  Azadivar,  F.  (Ed.)  (2003).  Simulation  optimization  in  manufacturing  analysis:  simulation based optimization for supply chain configuration design. In:  Proceedings  of  the  35th  conference  on Winter simulation: driving innovation . Winter Simulation Conference , pp. 1268-1275, 2003.

Veinott Jr, A. F. (2002). Lectures in Supply-Chain Optimization. Course Notes for MS&amp;E.

Williams, E. J.  and  Gunal, A.  (Ed.)  (2003).  Supply  chain  simulation  software  I:  supply  chain  simulation  and analysis  with  SimFlex™. In:  Proceedings  of  the  35th  conference  on  Winter  simulation:  driving innovation . Winter Simulation Conference , pp. 231-237, 2003.

Zitzler,  E.,  Laumanns,  M.  and  Bleuler,  S.  (2004).  A  tutorial  on  evolutionary  multiobjective  optimization, Metaheuristics for multiobjective optimisation. Springer, pp. 3-37.

The  IISTE  is  a  pioneer  in  the  Open-Access  hosting  service  and  academic  event management.  The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the firm can be found on the homepage:

http://www.iiste.org

## CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

There  are  more  than  30  peer-reviewed  academic  journals  hosted  under  the  hosting platform.

Prospective  authors  of  journals  can  find  the  submission  instruction  on  the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/  All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.  Paper version of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

## MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

## IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB,  Open  J-Gate, OCLC  WorldCat,  Universe Digtial Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-cd80ccda-8d68-4595-953e-9bde1557e799.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-b5624134-2280-4bc0-9de5-bbba9e3f3ab7.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-da614d5e-8953-460e-ab4a-75fd6120ac8d.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0614v1-figure-52bfb0ed-8a78-4172-8580-7f307c113410.jpg)
Nelson Christopher Dzupire Yaw Nkansah-Gyekye
A Multi-Stage Supply Chain Network Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms
In today's global business market place, individual firms no longer compete
as independent entities with unique brand names but as integral part of supply
chain links. Key to success of any business is satisfying customer's demands on
time which may result in cost reductions and increase in service level. In
supply chain networks decisions are made with uncertainty about product's
demands, costs, prices, lead times, quality in a competitive and collaborative
environment. If poor decisions are made, they may lead to excess inventories
that are costly or to insufficient inventory that cannot meet customer's
demands. In this work we developed a bi-objective model that minimizes system
wide costs of the supply chain and delays on delivery of products to
distribution centers for a three echelon supply chain. Picking a set of Pareto
front for multi-objective optimization problems require robust and efficient
methods that can search an entire space. We used evolutionary algorithms to
find the set of Pareto fronts which have proved to be effective in finding the
entire set of Pareto fronts.