Submitted:
23 February 2025
Posted:
25 February 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview
2.2. Supplier and Warehouse Data
- Eastern Region: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Jacksonville, Atlanta.
- Central Region: Houston, Dallas, San Antonio.
- Western Region: Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, San Jose.
- Warehouse A: Atlanta, serving primarily Eastern and Central regions.
- Warehouse B: Los Angeles, serving primarily the Western region.
2.3. Regional Tariff Structures
-
Eastern Region:
- -
- Company 1: $0.06
- -
- Company 2: $0.07
- -
- Company 3: $0.07
Minimum rate: $0.06 (Company 1). -
Central Region:
- -
- Company 1: $0.10
- -
- Company 2: $0.09
- -
- Company 3: $0.11
Minimum rate: $0.09 (Company 2). -
Western Region:
- -
- Company 1: $0.12
- -
- Company 2: $0.13
- -
- Company 3: $0.11
Minimum rate: $0.11 (Company 3).
2.4. Cost Computation Model
2.5. Auction Method for Carrier Selection
- Bid Submission: Each carrier submits a bid calculated as in Equation (1) based on their respective tariff.
- Bid Comparison: The supplier compares the bids and selects the carrier with the lowest cost.
- Winner Declaration: The carrier offering the minimum bid wins the contract.
2.6. Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) for Route Optimization
3. Results
3.1. Determining Optimal Consolidation Warehouses
3.2. Auction Results for Carrier Selection
3.3. Route Optimization Using the Traveling Salesman Problem
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Regional Differentiation: Carriers exhibit varying tariff competitiveness across regions, with Company 1 dominating in the Eastern region, Company 2 in the Central region, and Company 3 in the Western region.
- Cost Savings: Our analysis indicates that switching to the proposed consolidation warehouses results in monthly cost savings on the order of $20,000, driven primarily by reduced travel distances and optimal carrier selection.
- Operational Efficiency: The integrated approach of using game theory for auction-based selection and TSP for route optimization significantly enhances logistical efficiency, which can translate into improved service levels and reduced environmental impact.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
Appendix A. Example SQL Table Structures
Appendix B. Procedural Code Examples
References
- Anderson, D. R.; Sweeney, D. J.; Williams, T. A. Quantitative Methods for Business; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hillier, F. S.; Lieberman, G. J. Introduction to Operations Research; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Tirole, J. The Theory of Industrial Organization; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Myerson, R. B. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Dantzig, G. B. Linear Programming and Extensions; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
- Winston, W. L. Operations Research: Applications and Algorithms; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
| Supplier City | Distance to Atlanta | Distance to Los Angeles |
|---|---|---|
| New York | 1300 | 4500 |
| Philadelphia | 1200 | 4400 |
| Boston | 1400 | 4600 |
| Jacksonville | 700 | 4100 |
| Atlanta | 0 | 3500 |
| Houston | 1200 | 2500 |
| Dallas | 1100 | 2300 |
| San Antonio | 1300 | 2400 |
| Los Angeles | 3500 | 0 |
| San Diego | 3600 | 200 |
| Phoenix | 3200 | 600 |
| San Jose | 3800 | 800 |
| Supplier City | Cost to Atlanta | Cost to Los Angeles |
|---|---|---|
| New York | ||
| Philadelphia | ||
| Boston | ||
| Jacksonville | ||
| Atlanta | ||
| Houston | ||
| Dallas | ||
| San Antonio | ||
| Los Angeles | ||
| San Diego | ||
| Phoenix | ||
| San Jose |
| Supplier City | Region | Distance (km) | Lowest Bid (USD/ton) | Winning Carrier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | Eastern | 1300 | Company 1 | |
| Philadelphia | Eastern | 1200 | Company 1 | |
| Boston | Eastern | 1400 | Company 1 | |
| Jacksonville | Eastern | 700 | Company 1 | |
| Atlanta | Eastern | 0 | - | |
| Houston | Central | 1200 | Company 2 | |
| Dallas | Central | 1100 | Company 2 | |
| San Antonio | Central | 1300 | Company 2 |
| Supplier City | Region | Distance (km) | Lowest Bid (USD/ton) | Winning Carrier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles | Western | 0 | - | |
| San Diego | Western | 200 | Company 3 | |
| Phoenix | Western | 600 | Company 3 | |
| San Jose | Western | 800 | Company 3 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).