PMC9638377_01
Case study 1: average expected total cost comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig1_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Fig1
Figure 1 depicts the average expected total costs of the baseline Iso-Net and Co-Net heuristics under each supplier disruption profiles.
Case study 1: bioreactor quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig2_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Fig2
Figure 2 compares bioreactor quantities suggested by different heuristics. All Co-Net heuristics suggest less total bioreactors, see Fig. 2a. When the supplier disruption profile is asymmetric, the Co-Net methods intend to keep buffer bioreactors at the location with more severe supplier risk while keep the other facility lean, see red dotted lines in Fig. 2b, c.
Case study 1: average specimen transshipment quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig3_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Fig3
Figure 3 presents the comparison of average specimen transshipment quantity when different methods are applied.
Case study 1: average bioreactor relocation quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig4_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Fig4
Figure 4 presents the comparison of average bioreactor transshipment quantities when different methods are applied.
Case study 1: average reagent transshipment quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig5_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Fig5
This can be verified by the fact that E-MYO transships more reagent than other methods (see Fig. 5). The comparison of average reagent transshipment is presented in Fig. 5.
Case study 1: cost savings with and without bioreactor relocation
10696_2022_9475_Fig6_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Fig6
Lastly, we present cost saving results with and without bioreactor relocation, see Fig. 6. In Fig. 6, we compare Iso-Net (none of the resource sharing is allowed), Co-Net (solved by MDL, and all resource sharing is allowed) and Co-Net without bioreactor relocation (MDL with bioreactor relocation forced as zero values).
Case study 2: average expected total cost comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig7_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig7_HTML.jpg
Fig7
Case study 2: bioreactor quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig8_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig8_HTML.jpg
Fig8
The largest bioreactor investment saving occurs when the suppliers are negatively correlated, i.e. the E-MYO achieves 33.3% less bioreactors comparing to the baseline Iso-Net while reducing the expected total cost at the same time (Fig. 8).
Case study 2: average specimen transshipment quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig9_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig9_HTML.jpg
Fig9
Case study 2: average bioreactor relocation quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig10_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig10_HTML.jpg
Fig10
Case study 2: average reagent transshipment quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig11_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig11_HTML.jpg
Fig11
Case study 2: bioreactor quantity comparison
10696_2022_9475_Fig12_HTML.jpg
PMC9638377_01_10696_2022_9475_Fig12_HTML.jpg
Fig12
Figure 12 compares bioreactor quantities in different supplier correlation scenarios.