When using probabilistic lead times in actionrwd.reward, there is a possibility of encountering situations where a previously placed order is simulated to arrive later than the additional potential order considered by actionrwd. In other words, if a purchase order (PO) is in progress, the simulated purchase order generated by actionrwd may not adhere to a first-in, first-out (FIFO) rule in relation to the previous ongoing orders. This is a scenario that makes sense from a realistic standpoint, as purchase orders are not always strictly FIFO. However, from a stock manager/planning perspective, this can result in repetitive and misunderstood purchase suggestions for the user. It is unlikely that conditional lead time logic will be integrated into actionrwd, but this aspect should be addressed in the Monte Carlo reconstruction of actionrwd.
To avoid this pitfall, SCS often resort to using deterministic lead times (e.g., dirac(days)) that preserve the FIFO rule.
When using probabilistic lead times in
actionrwd.reward
, there is a possibility of encountering situations where a previously placed order is simulated to arrive later than the additional potential order considered byactionrwd
. In other words, if a purchase order (PO) is in progress, the simulated purchase order generated byactionrwd
may not adhere to a first-in, first-out (FIFO) rule in relation to the previous ongoing orders. This is a scenario that makes sense from a realistic standpoint, as purchase orders are not always strictly FIFO. However, from a stock manager/planning perspective, this can result in repetitive and misunderstood purchase suggestions for the user. It is unlikely that conditional lead time logic will be integrated intoactionrwd
, but this aspect should be addressed in the Monte Carlo reconstruction ofactionrwd
.To avoid this pitfall, SCS often resort to using deterministic lead times (e.g.,
dirac(days)
) that preserve the FIFO rule.