The Cascading Effect of Effective Inventory Management
Controlling Open-Stock Inventory
A Questionnaire for New Inventory Items
Liquidate All Slow-Moving Inventory?
Analyzing Inventory Adjustments
Consider if Some Inventory Will Need To Be Buried
The Mysterious Cost of Carrying Inventory
Your Ideal Inventory Investment
Handling Maintenance Repairs and Operations Inventory
Can You Profit From Improved Inventory Control?
The Relationship of Fill Rates to Inventory Levels
Centralized vs. Decentralized Management of Inventories
Optimum Inventory Levels
Seasonality and Promotions as they Impact Inventory Management
How Many Inventory Turns Should I Get?
INVENTORY CONTROL IS EXERCISED WHEN YOU ORDER AN ITEM
Consignment Inventory: What is it and When Does It Make Sense to Use It
Enhance Inventory System Functionality Through Custom Reporting
Guide to Inventory Accuracy
Cycle Counting and Physical Inventories
I am frequently asked this question of, How many
turns should I be getting from my inventory. I have been very wary of
responding to the question, however, since there are so many factors that
influence the answer. The frequency at which you can order product, vendor lead
times, vendor reliability, minimum order quantities, breadth of the line being
stocked, all impact the final solution. Finally, the efficiency of the inventory
management software that you are using has a profound impact.
However, I have now seen a sufficient number of
companies that are using the MARS system to start to venture some guidance on
this issue. In fact, I have reduced the issue to a formula that operates as
follows:
Reasonable Expected Turns = 12 / (f x (OF + .2 x
LT))
Where:
- OF - is the average order frequency in months (e.g.
the time interval between placing orders with the vendor)
- LT - is the average lead time in months (e.g. the
time it takes to receive the product after being ordered)
- f - is a factor that represents the other factors
that interfere with obtaining a theoretical optimum number of turns. This
includes issues such as:
The breadth of the total product line being stocked.
e.g. the need to stock slow movers for marketing reasons.
Larger than needed
buys to take advantage of discounts.
Pallet or lot size
requirements
Vendor unreliability
Economic Order Size (EOQ)
considerations.
Promotional Stock-ups
Two Stage
Distribution
As long as these type of considerations are at
reasonable levels the factor should be around 1.5. If one or more of the
considerations is very extreme, then the factor can work its way up to 2.0.
Additionally, there are two basic assumptions behind
the use of this formula:
- MARS is being used to develop the inventory
replenishment orders without arbitrary overrides.
- The inevitable dead stock which will not move out
due to ongoing demand is being aggressively flushed out of the system.
The following table illustrates the solution to this
formula for a series of assumed variable levels:
Expected Inventory Turns
Using A Factor Of 1.5
| Order |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Frequency |
|
|
Lead |
Time |
|
|
| |
|
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
| |
0.25 |
22.9 |
17.8 |
14.5 |
12.3 |
10.7 |
9.4 |
| |
0.50 |
13.3 |
11.4 |
10.0 |
8.9 |
8.0 |
7.3 |
| |
1.00 |
7.3 |
6.7 |
6.2 |
5.7 |
5.3 |
5.0 |
| |
1.50 |
5.0 |
4.7 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
4.0 |
3.8 |
| |
2.00 |
3.8 |
3.6 |
3.5 |
3.3 |
3.2 |
3.1 |
This second table shows the same results for a factor
setting of 2.0:
Expected Inventory Turns
Using A Factor Of 2.0
| Order |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Frequency |
|
|
Lead |
Time |
|
|
| |
|
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
| |
0.25 |
17.1 |
13.3 |
10.9 |
9.2 |
8.0 |
7.1 |
| |
0.50 |
10.0 |
8.6 |
7.5 |
6.7 |
6.0 |
5.5 |
| |
1.00 |
5.5 |
5.0 |
4.6 |
4.3 |
4.0 |
3.8 |
| |
1.50 |
3.8 |
3.5 |
3.3 |
3.2 |
3.0 |
2.9 |
| |
2.00 |
2.9 |
2.7 |
2.6 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
2.3 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may feel that these expectations are overly
optimistic, but frankly I think that they are entirely reasonable given the
assumptions. For example, note that using, a one month order frequency, a half
month lead time, and a 2.0 factor, calls for 5.5 turns. This is slightly more
than an average of two months supply of every item. (Months supply is
simply the reciprocal of turns - or one divided by the turns.) Why do we need
more than even an average of one months supply , let alone two, if we are
ordering every month? (The lead time is somewhat immaterial because MARS will
place most of that inventory in the pipeline.)
Section 4.2 of my book, A New Era in Inventory
Management actually simulates two situations and illustrates that we should, at
the theoretical level, have slightly over 12 turns for the one month order cycle
and two week lead time example discussed above. (The average inventory is 58
units with a forecast of 60).
Keep in mind that one of our assumptions is that the
dead stock is being aggressively flushed out of the system by various special
programs. Generally this stock constitutes from 10% to 40% of the inventory and
acts as a lodestone around the neck of the inventory. (e.g. when 25% of the
inventory is dead it automatically reduces the turns by 25%, so a potential turn
level of 6 drops to 4.5)
Additionally, do not assume that your turns must be
low because you are required to stock many items that have very little turnover.
Granted, this situation will have some impact, but MARS will insure that you are
stocking only the bare minimum of those items. This situation of stocking slow
movers does hurt, however, when the vendor minimums by item are high,
relative to your sales. e.g. you only move one or two every few months, but the
vendor minimum is a carton of fifty. (Frankly, these type situations raise some
serious questions regarding the prudence of the stocking decision.)
The 1.5 factor does allow for some problems that
inflate the inventory such as those discussed above if they are not rampant.
Additionally, it allows for the extra inventory needed to meet pallet or lot
quantities, to take advantage of discounts, and also to meet economic order
quantities (EOQ). You should accept a higher factor only if you are truly
dealing with additional factors beyond the norm, and I have trouble seeing where
anything beyond the 2.0 factor is called for.