IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v21y1993i5p511-517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing two aggregate planning models

Author

Listed:
  • Barman, S
  • Tersine, RJ

Abstract

The sensitivity of the linear programming (LP) model to forecast errors in aggregate planning (AP) is evaluated and its performance compared with that of the production switching heuristic (PSH) model. Two versions of the PSH, the popular three-level model and a two-level extension, are considered. While the LP tends to outperform the PSH in situations with high forecast errors, the performances of the models are comparable for low to moderate forecast errors. The use of an additional production and workforce level in the PSH is not justified unless forecast errors are high. A variation in the forecast error distribution had no significant effect on these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Barman, S & Tersine, RJ, 1993. "Comparing two aggregate planning models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 511-517, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:21:y:1993:i:5:p:511-517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(93)90019-H
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:21:y:1993:i:5:p:511-517. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.