There are two common approximations for the $(r,Q)$ inventory optimization problem that use the EOQ model. It is well known that one of them has a fixed worst-case error bound, but there is confusion in the literature about which one it is.

Approximation 1 (EOQ+SS Approximation): In this approximation, we set $Q$ using the EOQ formula and set $r$ so that the safety stock (SS) ensures a service level of $\alpha \equiv p/(p+h)$: $$\begin{align} Q & = \sqrt{\frac{2K\lambda}{h}} \\ r & = \mu + z_\alpha\sigma, \end{align}$$ where $K$ is the fixed cost, $\lambda$ is the mean demand per year, $h$ is the holding cost per item per year, $p$ is the stockout cost per item per year, $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are the mean and standard deviation of the lead-time demand, and $z_\alpha$ is the $\alpha$th quantile of the standard normal distribution.

We are treating the inventory level process as being decomposed into two parts, a top part that looks like the EOQ curve and a bottom part that is flat, at height $s = r - \mu = z_\alpha\sigma$ (the safety stock).

Approximation 2 (EOQB Approximation): Here, we use the economic order quantity with backorders (EOQB) to set $Q$: $$Q = \sqrt{\frac{2K\lambda(h+p)}{hp}}.$$ To set $r$ we use the fact that, for given $Q$, the optimal $r$ satisfies $$g(r) = g(r+Q),$$ where $g(\cdot)$ is the standard newsvendor cost function.

Which approximation has a fixed worst-case error bound?


Only the EOQB approximation (approximation 2) has a fixed worst-case error bound. Zheng (1992) proved an error bound of $\frac18$, and Axsäter (1996) proved a stronger bound of $(\sqrt{5}-2)/2 \approx 0.118$, which is tight.

The EOQ+SS approximation (approximation 1) does not have a fixed worst-case error bound; for any $m$, we can find a problem instance for which the ratio between the cost of the EOQ+SS solution and the cost of the optimal $(r,Q)$ solution is greater than $m$.

I've noticed that it's a common mistake to say that the EOQ+SS approximation has a fixed worst-case bound, even though it does not. My guess is that the confusion arises from the fact that lots of people know the EOQ+SS approximation (it is simpler and therefore taught in many OR/OM/IE courses and textbooks) while fewer people know the EOQB approximation; and from the fact that the papers by Zheng and Axsäter both use the term "EOQ" in the title, rather than EOQB.

Note: Worst-case bounds aside, the EOQ+SS approximation can result in much larger errors in practice than the EOQB tends to. However, these errors largely disappear if we set $Q$ according to the EOQ model and then set $r$ using $g(r)=g(r+Q)$, instead of using $r = \mu+z_\alpha\sigma$.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.