1 / 50

HUB Group Implements a Suite of OR Tools to Improve Its Operations

HUB Group Implements a Suite of OR Tools to Improve Its Operations. Barış Kamay – 21001470 Hülya Patır – 20901837 Pamir Yanık – 20901081. «…Hub Group is USA’s largest intermodal transportation company.» [1] Founded in 1971 [2] North American firm

rue
Télécharger la présentation

HUB Group Implements a Suite of OR Tools to Improve Its Operations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HUB Group Implements a Suite of OR Tools to Improve Its Operations Barış Kamay – 21001470 Hülya Patır – 20901837 Pamir Yanık – 20901081

  2. «…Hub Group is USA’s largest intermodal transportation company.» [1] • Founded in 1971[2] • North American firm • Intermodal freight rail transportation company • Intermodal transportation uses two or more modes. • For this case, train and truck.

  3. Figure 1. Intermodal rail network of Hub Group

  4. Figure 2. Theintermodalprocess

  5. The Change in HubGroup’s Strategy • Previously, • Perspective on freight shipment: One-Way • Using rail-owned containers • After railroad companies reduced their fleets, • Hub needs to have its own containers • Hub has to overhaul its approach

  6. The Change in HubGroup’s Strategy After having its own fleet, The new CHALLENGE: «To find the right mix of customer traffic and the best allocation of rail-owned and Hub-owned containers to effectively and efficiently serve its customer base.» [1]

  7. Early Attempts at Improvement • Hub Group realizes that its new fleet will change their view of business. • One-way economics no longer sufficient • How to best deploy the new fleet to maximize the profit? • In 2003: Fleet Allocation Model (FAM)

  8. The Fleet Allocation Model (FAM) • FAM minimizes the cost of serving customer demand, subject to: • Fleet availability constraints • Historical transit time • Hub fleet balance constraints • Estimated rail fleet availability • FAM helps the company to develop good mixes of Hub fleet and rail fleet containers.

  9. The Fleet Allocation Model (FAM) • Questioning: • Can the timespan be enlarged? • Why in a quarterly basis?

  10. The Fleet Allocation Model (FAM) • FAM drawbacks: • Containers become available very frequently as they are released from receivers but FAM cannot deal with it in the long run. • FAM works on a three-month basis and the optimal mix of Hub fleet and rail fleet may not hold on a daily basis.

  11. Figure 3. The FAM network

  12. The Network Optimization Program • In order to achieve the benefits of FAM, they thought they should come up with something new. • In 2007,Hub Group introduced the Network Optimization Program. • Into Hub’s existing production information system • Five integrated modules

  13. Figure 4. TheSystem Architecture and Decision Support Modules

  14. SupplyandDemandForecasts Provides a two- weekview of thenetwork Createddaily

  15. SupplyForecast: • Based on geographical areas, • Around 20 major rail ramp based markets

  16. Controlled Supply (CS) • Comprises all containers that Hub customers unloaded (Currently Supply), • Currently moving under load and will soon be available (Future Supply),

  17. Street Supply (SS) • Number of rail owned containers that can be attained on a spesific date at a ramp location Sum of controlled and predicted supply indicates the expected container capacity at a location on a given date.

  18. Demand Forecasts • Created for nearly 150 major origin-destination pairs in the Hub network, • Constitutes 85 percent of the total demand of Hub. • Statistical forecasts based on customer order behaviour

  19. Table 1 shows a forecasted demand of 20 units for an example lane

  20. Capacity Valuation Model • Estimates the marginal profit potential of a container at a location on a given date • At an origin, value is considered an opportunity cost of accepting a load • At a destination, considered the profit potential created by future incremental supply for future moves.

  21. Hub created a novel two step heuristic methodolgy for • estimating the marginal value of incremental container supply • to support real time desicion making

  22. Step 1: Calculatethemarginalexpectedprofitability (MEP) within a singlelane, • MEP depends on theprofatibility of loads in a locationand • Theprobabilitythatthecontainerwill be used.

  23. Hub defined inverse cumulative probability denstiy function (InvCDF) • They calculate the InvCDF for the error distribution point forecast. • In table 3, they used the joint probability of each level of demand and market segment to calculate the InvCDF for each time

  24. Step 2: Rank the opportunities by expected profit and calculate their whole-unit equivalent. • Results of this step can be seen in Table 3.

  25. Given an anticipated level of container inventory for date, the CVC identifies the CV.

  26. Hub Fleet Inventory Targets • Because; - Hub’ s railroad contracts, the Hub fleet and rail-owned fleets have different profit potential. - Hub have responsibility of maintaining their container fleet distribution.

  27. So a question comes up; What inventoryof Hub containers is desirable at each location toallow a profit-maximizing mix of Hub and rail containerfleet assignments?

  28. Conceptualization of the Hub Fleet Cost Function by Origin • Thegraphbelowconverts the global FAM view to an origin- specific inventory cost function

  29. Establishing Fleet Inventory Target • To estimate the optimal container inventory targets • Hub built a nonlinear optimization model based on the regular day of week patterns at a location • Result of this optimization is a steady state allocation of containers by day of week

  30. Steady State Modeling Bases • After the simulation of implementation of this optimization, • They found the steady state target inventory model can be misleading when used in tactical setting, • In the tactical model, faced with a paradox, • Additional research are being conducted.

  31. The Implemented Heuristic Applied in 2 steps, • Identify target inventory levels, • Identify cost of deviation, Results might have to be adjusted to account for possible negative fleet inventory levels, volatile fleet releases and customer orders.

  32. Load Acceptance Optimization (LAO) • Profitability thresholds for tendered load acceptance , given forecasted demand, anticipated equipment supply, and margin distributions • Previously; • Based on one way profitability on first-come-first-serve basis • Now; • Based on their experience, current booking patterns, risk-aversion level

  33. LAO • A tendered load or a potential future load • Sequential representative decision process • Expected-value-based heuristic • Expected yield of container capacity maximization • Supply & DemandForecasts • Container capacity & profitability • Accept if load tendered load profitability ≥ load profitability threshold

  34. Load Routing Optimization (LRO) • The optimal assignment of expected loads to the available set of containers and rail service providers • Previously; • Based on one-way economics • The problem1: expensive and unprofitable misallocations of containers • The problem2: difficultcalculation of the future value of the container at the load • Now; • Based on the dual values

  35. LRO • Combines forecasts, CV’s and inventory targets • Minimizes the costs of assigning containers to accepted orders (actual accepted orders & placeholders ) • Similar to FAM in tactical setting • One-way costs of the load • Economic penalties • Different from FAM • day-of-week effects

  36. Challenges • Target inventory deviation costs,future probability-based profit-potential values, the network-based values • The more complicated CVs and network dual values

  37. Business Impact • Broad perspective of the Hub network • Two-week horizon rather than on a one-load-at-a-time, one way cost view • Profitability Improvement • Performance Improvement

  38. SUMMARY • Improved container management through the implementation of integrated optimization-based tools • Goal: to support the daily decision making of customer service representatives and dispatchers • Maximization of the yield of the containers • Minimization of short term costs • Maximization of future potential profitability • $11 million benefit • New avenues for theoretical research in intermodal freight yield management

  39. Intermodal Transportation in Turkey • Good potential, currently improving [3] • Mostly with trucks and ferries [3] • Between Turkey and Europe [3] • Trieste (Italy) port, one of the most important ports for transportation

  40. Intermodal Transportation in Turkey • [4]

  41. Web Search about Hub Group • [5] • [6]

  42. References [1] Gorman, Michael F. «HubGroupImplements a Suite of OR Tools toImproveIts Operations» [2] History. Online. www.hubgroup.com [3] Deveci, Ali. «A Strategic Model Suggestion for Intermodal Transportation in Turkey» [4] Roro Şirketini Kara Geçirdi. Online. http://www.ulasimgazetesi.com/?id=8068 [5] Hub Group Receives 2012 Intermodal Carrier of the Year Honor From Walmart. Online. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hub-group-receives-2012-intermodal-204400880.html [6] Hub Group Receives The US EPA 2013 SmartWay Excellence Award. Online. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hub-group-receives-us-epa-223000997.html

More Related