Case study · Supply chain

Electronics life cycle: capacity vs. peak demand

Electronics: a model tested capital commitments, flexible ordering and expediting against forecast error over a two-year product life cycle.

Electronics life cycle: capacity vs. peak demand model view

Summary

Background

In collaboration with a manufacturer of electronics gear, SDI developed a simulation model to assess problems inherent in production of key components overseas.

Components made in China ship to the US assembly plant, or are expedited, then units are assembled, shipped to distribution centers and held as inventory for customers.

There is an allowance of 30 days for loading, transit and unloading, including customs.

Model Purpose

The model addressed three interrelated challenges:

  • The difficulty of forecasting total and peak demand during the two year life cycle of a consumer electronics product line.
  • The necessity of making capital commitments to production capacity in advance of production.
  • The impact of long lead times (three to six months) on inventory management and customer order fill rate.

Key model inputs

  • Life cycle demand and forecast combinations

Key Experiment Factors

Experiments were conducted to assess three strategic questions:

  • What are the consequences of over forecasting and under forecasting at several levels of capital commitment to production?
  • What are the potential advantages of using flexible ordering? What degree of flexibility strikes a balance between customer flexibility and supplier costs?
  • What are the potential advantages of using expedited shipments.

System Performance Measures

  • Capital equipment cost
  • Cost of prebuilding inventory when and if peak demand is over capacity
  • Total shipping cost
  • Inventory requirements in China and at the US assembly plant
  • Customer service

Key Model Issues

The life cycle flow with five numbered key issues: capacity commitment, long lead time, safety stock control, expediting, and alternative sales scenarios.

Actual Sales vs. Capacity

Simulation provided an assessment of the consequences of combinations of actual sales and capital investment.

Actual Sales A (high) Actual Sales B (medium) Actual Sales C (low)
Capacity 1 (high) Moderate prebuild during peak period No prebuild. Capital investment somewhat excessive No prebuild. Capital investment very excessive
Capacity 2 (medium) Massive prebuild during peak period Moderate prebuild during peak period No prebuild. Capital investment somewhat high.
Capacity 3 (low) Capacity unable to keep pace with sales Massive prebuild during peak period Moderate prebuild during peak period
Concept chart: forecasted monthly sales over the product life cycle (sales B) with higher (A) and lower (C) actual sales scenarios, against three production capacity levels.

Strategic Assessment

The following provides links to articles within this document that address strategic assessment issues related to this case study:

  • Life Cycle Resource Management
    The primary purpose of this model is to study the consequences of a mismatch between capacity and life cycle peak demand.

  • Production Capacity
    The only strategy available to cope with periods of capacity under demand was pre-building.

  • Flexible Ordering
    Flexible ordering was used as a primary tool to reduce large safety stocks at the US assemble plant. The need for large safety stocks results from long lead times results from short term demand unpredictability.

Documentation

Safety Stock Savings from Flexible Ordering: A Simulation Study; David J. Parsons, Simulation Dynamics.

Tell us your problem

Facing a problem like this one?

Tell us about the system and the decision. We'll tell you whether a model can answer it, and which tool fits.

  • A straight answer on whether simulation is the right tool
  • Which tool fits, even if it isn't one we use every day
  • A rough scope and timeline, before any commitment

Or book a 30-minute call.

We reply within one business day. Prefer email? info@simulationdynamics.com