Transportation Cost and CO2 Emissions in

Location Decision Models

Josue C. Vélazquez Martínez, Jan C. Fransoo,

Edgar E. Blanco, Jaime Mora-Vargas

Beta Working Paper series 451

BETA publicatie WP 451 (working

paper)
ISBN
ISSN
NUR 804
Eindhoven March 2014
 Transportation Cost and CO2 Emissions in
Location Decision Models

Josue C. Vélazquez-Martínez1, Jan C. Fransoo1*, Edgar E. Blanco2, Jaime Mora-Vargas3

1
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

School of Industrial Engineering

P.O. Box 513, Pav F4

NL-5600 MB Eindhoven

Netherlands

2
MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics

3
Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Estado de México

* Corresponding author: j.c.fransoo@tue.nl

1
 Transportation Cost and CO2 Emissions in
Location Decision Models

Josue C. Vélazquez-Martínez1, Jan C. Fransoo1, Edgar E. Blanco2, Jaime Mora-Vargas3

1
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, School of Industrial Engineering
2
MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics
3
Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Estado de México

An increasing number of companies are making their supply chains more sustainable. Because
transportation accounts for a large share of global CO2 emissions, finding logistics alternatives that reduce
carbon emissions while keeping costs low is a priority. In this article, we study the trade-off between cost
and CO2 emissions by using a multiobjective approach for the facility location problem. We propose a
model with new cost and CO2 structures for the p-Median problem to determine a sustainable location. To
solve this problem, we develop the multiobjective combinatorial optimization cross-entropy method, to
address the difficulties of combinatorial models. We test the algorithm against two p-Median problems
from prior literature and show that it can approximate the Pareto frontier efficiently. We also conduct an
experimental study for a consumer packaged goods company in Mexico City to provide insights on the
structure of the Pareto frontier for a practical sustainable facility location case. The study shows that by
selectively changing a subset of locations, companies may achieve a substantial reduction in carbon
emissions under similar costs.

Key words: Sustainable facility location, Multiobjective combinatorial optimization.

1. Introduction
Regardless of whether companies’ decision makers believe in green and sustainable practices, a market
shift is occurring, driving firms to measure and disclose their carbon emissions and implement solutions
to reduce those emissions (Hoffman and Woody, 2008). For example, the number of companies around
the world reporting their emissions to the Carbon Disclosure Project (2011), a not-for-profit foundation,
has doubled from 2007 to 2010, and approximately 1,000 of these companies have publicly committed to
a carbon reduction target. Transportation is one of the main contributors of carbon dioxide (CO2)

2
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007), and predictions indicate increases in the next 20
years (European Commission, 2011); thus, more efficient transport operations would substantially reduce
carbon emissions.

A relevant logistics problem that determines the configuration of a company’s delivery of goods is the
facility location problem. The location of distribution centers is critical to the efficient and effective
operation of a supply chain; poorly placed plants can result in excessive costs and low service level no
matter how well tactical decisions (e.g., vehicle routing, inventory management) are optimized (Daskin et
al., 2005). In addition, this configuration can increase CO2 emissions, in that the main drivers of
transportation carbon emissions are distance, truck load (Greenhouse Gas Protocol Standard, 2011) and
the number of trips required to deliver demand to each customer.

A common facility location model that has multiple real-world applications is the p-Median problem
(ReVelle et al., 2008). The p-Median problem considers p facilities that must be located in a network,
such that the demand in each node must be satisfied while the total weighted demand-distance is
minimized (Hakimi, 1964). Because of the strategic nature of facility location problems, the cost structure
of the p-Median does not take into account capacity or cost of the truck fleet, and it assumes a constant
cost per distance per unit (ReVelle et al, 2008), linear to the distance and demand. However, in reality
these two factors are not linearly related; for example, the amount of items affects the transport cost (and
carbon emissions) when it implies an increase in the number of trucks or trips.

Previous operations research has addressed aggregations. Jalil et al. (2011) study cost aggregation for
real-life spare parts planning, and they find that errors can be significant. Velázquez-Martínez et al.’s
(2013) study addresses the effects of using different aggregation levels to measure transport carbon
emissions in the dynamic lot-sizing model, and they show that errors associated with aggregation tend to
be substantial and systematic. These findings suggest that increasing the level of detail in the p-Median
problem is necessary.

Because decision makers are likely interested in evaluating alternatives to increase carbon efficiency
while keeping low transport costs, we propose a multiobjective approach to analyze the trade-off between
cost and carbon emissions expressions for the p-Median problem. Although literature on multiobjective
facility location problems with environmental concerns has increased in the first decade of the twenty-
first century (e.g., Blanquero and Carrizosa [2002] study a semi-obnoxious location problem with cost
and negative effect; Medaglia et al. [2009] investigate a hospital waste management system; Fonseca et
al. [2009] address stochastic reverse logistics; Du and Evans [2008] study reverse logistics network), to
our knowledge, no studies include sustainability in their location models, because it is difficult to define a

3
structure that measures this attribute (Farahani et al., 2010). In this study, we propose an expression that
takes into consideration CO2 emissions in the p-Median problem.

The p-Median problem with a single objective is classified as NP-hard (Kariv and Hakimi, 1979);
therefore, defining the Pareto frontier for its multiobjective version is not an easy task. Traditional
optimization methods such as gradient- and simplex-based methods are difficult to extend to
multiobjective optimization (Fonseca and Fleming, 1995); however, the use of metaheuristics allows
researchers to manage these problems effectively. These techniques enable researchers to find several
solutions of the set in a single run instead of performing a series of separate runs (Ajith et al., 2005).
Bekker and Aldrich (2011) apply a new metaheuristic to solve multiobjective optimization problems
based on the cross-entropy (CE) method (De Boer et al., 2005), a simulation-based metaheuristic used to
solve single-objective optimization problems. Bekker and Aldrich (2011) adapt the CE method to solve
multiobjective optimization problems and test it against benchmark problems from the literature. They
show that the CE method applied to multiobjective optimization obtains satisfactory results. Although
their test results seem promising for applying the CE method in multiobjective problems, their study does
not address the use of the algorithm on multiobjective combinatorial optimization (MOCO) problems,
which corresponds to the structure of the p-Median model.

In the current research, we study the trade-off between cost and CO2 by using a multiobjective approach
to the p-Median problem. We name this new model the sustainable facility location (SFL) problem. Our
model captures a higher level of detail in the cost and CO2 formulations by taking into account truck
accessibility constraints per demand node and finer-grained expressions for both objective functions. To
approximate the Pareto frontier of the SFL, we develop an adaptation of the CE method applied to
multiobjective optimization problems, called the MOCO CE method (hereinafter, MOCO CEM). We test
our algorithm against problems from prior literature and demonstrate that the MOCO CEM is capable of
approximating the Pareto frontier for the SFL problem efficiently. Furthermore, we conduct an
experimental study of the MOCO CEM by solving the SFL for a consumer packaged goods (CPG)
company that operates in the Mexico City metropolitan area. The experiments provide managerial
insights on the structure of the Pareto frontier for an actual company in a large urban area and show that it
is possible to find location alternatives, such that for small increases in cost, firms can obtain large CO2
emission reductions.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the mathematical formulation of
the sustainable facility location model. Section 3 describes the MOCO CEM. Section 4 presents a case

4
study in which we apply the MOCO CEM to an actual CPG company. In Section 5, we present our
conclusions.

2. The Sustainable Facility Location Problem

Our model corresponds to the p-Median problem with cost and CO2 objective functions. The general
assumptions of the p-Median problem are applicable to our model; that is, deterministic demand and the
candidate locations are known in advance. We also assume that the company manages multiple trucks
with different capacities and the trucks are assigned according to demand node constraints. These
assumptions allow the model to include the possibility that certain customers are reachable only by
certain types of trucks, with distinct cost structures.

To formulate the carbon emissions objective function in our model, we use Network for Transport and
Environment’s methodology. For the estimation of carbon emissions, this methodology requires a high
level of detailed parameters: fuel consumption, distance traveled and weight per shipment (Network for
Transport and Environment Road, 2008). Fuel consumption is a function of the type of vehicle, the load
factor and the type of road. The methodology uses the European Assessment and Reliability of Transport
Emission Models and Inventory Systems database, which includes a detailed emissions model for all
transport modes to provide consistent emission estimates at the national, international and regional levels
(Transport Research Laboratory, 2010).

We therefore formulate our model as follows. Let 𝐼 be a set of demand nodes and 𝐽 be a set of candidate
locations. We define the following parameters:

ℎ𝑖 = Demand at node 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼
𝑑𝑖𝑗 = Distance between candidate facility site 𝑗 ∈ 𝐽 and
customer location 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼
𝐴𝑖𝑗 = Fixed cost per trip between candidate facility site
𝑗∈𝐽 and customer location 𝑖∈𝐼
𝑣𝑖𝑗 = Cost per distance traveled between candidate
facility site 𝑗∈𝐽 and customer location 𝑖∈𝐼
𝑊𝑖 = Truck capacity per trip restricted to customer
location 𝑖∈𝐼
ℎ𝑖 𝑌𝑖𝑗 = Number of trips per period required to serve the
𝑛𝑖𝑗 =
𝑊𝑖 customer location 𝑖∈𝐼 from facility site 𝑗∈𝐽
𝑘 = Constant emission factor (2,621 grams of CO2/liter

5
 of fuel)
𝑓𝑖𝑒 = Fuel consumption of the empty vehicle used to
serve at customer location 𝑖∈𝐼 (liters/km), and
𝑓
𝑓𝑖 = Fuel consumption of the fully loaded vehicle used
to serve at customer location 𝑖∈𝐼 (liters/km)

We use the following decision variables:

𝑋𝑗 = 1 if we locate at site 𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, 0 otherwise.

𝑌𝑖𝑗 = Fraction of demand at customer location 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼 that is
served by facility at site 𝑗 ∈ 𝐽.

We then formulate the multiobjective SFL model as follows:

𝑀𝑖𝑛 → 𝑂𝐹1 = � � 𝐴𝑖𝑗 𝑛𝑖𝑗 + � � 𝑣𝑖𝑗 𝑑𝑖𝑗 �𝑛𝑖𝑗 �

𝑗∈𝐽 𝑖∈𝐼 𝑗∈𝐽 𝑖∈𝐼

𝑀𝑖𝑛 → 𝑂𝐹2 = 𝑘 �� � 𝑑𝑖𝑗 𝑓𝑖𝑒 �𝑛𝑖𝑗 � + � � 𝑑𝑖𝑗 𝑛𝑖𝑗 �𝑓𝑖𝑓 − 𝑓𝑖𝑒 ��𝑛𝑖𝑗 ��
𝑗∈𝐽 𝑖∈𝐼 𝑗∈𝐽 𝑖∈𝐼

subject to

∑𝑗∈𝐽 𝑌𝑖𝑗 = 1 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼 (1)

∑𝑗∈𝐽 𝑋𝑗 = 𝑝 (2)
𝑌𝑖𝑗 − 𝑋𝑗 ≤ 0 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽 (3)
𝑋𝑗 ∈ {0,1} ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽 (4)
𝑌𝑖𝑗 ≥ 0 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼, ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽 (5)

The first part of OF1 corresponds to the fixed cost per trip. It includes labor and costs related to the use of
the truck (e.g., depreciation, insurance). In turn, 𝑛𝑖𝑗 is the total number of trips required to deliver the
total demand from location j to demand node i taking into account the truck capacity Wi. Note that we do
not restrict 𝑛𝑖𝑗 to be an integer because of the strategic nature of the model, fixed costs tend to be
allocated across multiple demand nodes and trips. The second part of OF1 corresponds to the variable
cost per distance traveled from candidate facility site 𝑗 ∈ 𝐽 to customer location 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼. We apply a ceiling

6
function to estimate the number of times distance 𝑑𝑖𝑗 is traveled. The first part of OF2 corresponds to the
carbon emissions due to the number of trips required, and the second part corresponds to the carbon
emissions due to the units to be transported. Constraint 1 states that each demand node is covered.
Constraint 2 establishes that p facilities are located. Constraint 3 designates that the facility is opened
when a demand node is assigned. Constraint 4 encompasses the integrality constraints, and constraint 5
encompasses the non-negative constraints.

By reducing the expressions, and because the single sourcing condition holds for both OF1 and OF2, we
formulate the multiobjective SFL problem as follows:

ℎ𝑖 ℎ𝑖
𝑀𝑖𝑛 → 𝑂𝐹1 = � � � 𝐴𝑖𝑗 + 𝑣𝑖𝑗 𝑑𝑖𝑗 � �� 𝑌𝑖𝑗
𝑊𝑖 𝑊𝑖
𝑗∈𝐽 𝑖∈𝐼

ℎ𝑖 𝑓 ℎ𝑖
𝑀𝑖𝑛 → 𝑂𝐹2 = � � 𝑑𝑖𝑗 � � �𝑓𝑖𝑒 + �𝑓𝑖 − 𝑓𝑖𝑒 � � 𝑌𝑖𝑗
𝑊𝑖 𝑊𝑖
𝑗∈𝐽 𝑖∈𝐼

subject to Constraints 1-5.

Note that the objective functions differ from each other: OF1 has fixed and variable costs, but only the
variable part depends on the distance traveled, whereas the entire OF2 expression depends on the distance
traveled. This relationship suggests that for a specific instance, if the highest fixed costs are assigned to
edges with the shortest distance (or the lowest fixed costs are assigned to edges with the largest distance),
SFL may provide multiple solutions, and thus, the Pareto frontier would contain a larger number of
points.

3. The Multiobjective Combinatorial Optimization Cross-Entropy Method

3.1. Multiobjective definitions
In general, the multiobjective optimization (MOO) problem involves having more than one objective
function to be minimized or maximized. Commonly, these objective functions are continuous. As in the
single-objective optimization problem, in the MOO problem, several constraints are clearly defined, and
any feasible solution must satisfy them. However, the main difference compared with single-objective
problems is that with MOO, it is commonly not possible to define an optimal solution for the problem (if
there were an optimal solution, the problem would not require a multiobjective setting, and a single
objective might suffice); instead, the result is a set of “efficient” solutions that are not superior to one
another in all the objective functions. In this sense, single-objective optimization problems are a
degenerate case of the MOO problem, not just an extension of it (Deb, 2001).

7
When a MOO problem involves discrete space, it is considered a MOCO problem. Similar to MOO,
MOCO has several objective functions, but the variables are integers or binary numbers. As in
combinatorial optimization with a single objective, MOCO has a finite and discrete set of feasible
solutions. A general formulation of the MOCO problem is as follows (Ehrgott, 2005):

𝑚𝑖𝑛�𝑓𝑗 (𝒙): 𝒙 ∈ 𝑋; 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑚�
𝑋 = {𝒙: 𝐴𝒙 = 𝒃, 𝒙 ≥ 0 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑟; 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛}

where 𝑓𝑗 is the 𝑗 𝑡ℎ objective function and x is the vector of decision variables. The matrix A and vector b
define the set of linear constraints.

In the following subsections, we elaborate on concepts from Deb (2001), Ehrgott (2005) and Coello
(2009) to define relevant terms.

Definition 1. Dominance
A solution x is said to dominate solution y if both the following conditions hold for a minimization
problem:
1. The solution x is not worse than y in all objectives; that is, 𝑓𝑗 (𝒙) ≤ 𝑓𝑗 (𝒚) for all 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝐽
2. The solution x is strictly better than y in at least one objective; that is, 𝑓𝑗′ (𝒙) < 𝑓𝑗′ (𝒚) for at least
one 𝑗′ ∈ {1, … , 𝑀}

Definition 2. Efficient or Pareto-optimal solution

A feasible solution is called efficient or Pareto optimal if there is no other feasible solution that
dominates it. If the solution vector x is efficient, the vector 𝑓(𝒙) whose M components are the values of
the objective functions at the point x is called a non-dominated point.

Definition 3. Nondominated set

The nondominated set of solutions P’ is the set of all solutions that are not dominated by any member of
the feasible solution set P.

Definition 4. Pareto-optimal set

The nondominated set of the entire feasible space is the globally Pareto-optimal set. This set is also
called the efficient frontier or Pareto frontier.

8
Thus, the goal in MOO and MOCO is to find members of the Pareto-optimal set. Some solution
approaches obtain all elements of the Pareto set, while other techniques aid in the approximation of this
set. Such an approximation could result in a subset of the exact Pareto set or a set of points within a
specified distance of the Pareto set.

For MOO in continuous problems, a classic approach to obtain the Pareto set involves using the weighted
sum scalarization method, which corresponds to the set of solutions that can be obtained by solving
𝑚𝑖𝑛�∑𝑚 𝑚
𝑗=1 𝜆𝑗 𝑓𝑗 (𝒙) : 𝒙 ∈ 𝑋�, where 0 ≤ 𝜆𝑗 ≤ 1 and ∑𝑗=1 𝜆𝑗 = 1. However, this approach does not work

for MOCO problems because of their discrete structure (Ehrgott and Gandibleux, 2000). The solutions for
the MOCO problems that can be obtained by this approach are called supported solutions. Typically,
MOCO problems have more efficient solutions that are not optimal for any weighted sum of the
objectives. These solutions are called nonsupported solutions, and their numbers increase exponentially
with the problem size (for the assignment problem, see Hansen 1980; for the traveling salesperson
problem, see Sergienko and Perepilitsa 1991). Ehrgott (2000) shows that the general MOCO problem is
NP-complete, and thus, it may be computationally prohibitive to use an exact method to determine all
efficient solutions. Therefore, we conclude that approximate methods are appropriate.

In the next section we review the main approximate algorithms for combinatorial multiobjective
problems.

3.2. Approximate algorithms for MOCO problems

Because most MOCO problems are NP-complete, literature mostly focuses on approximate (heuristic)
algorithms that address reasonably sized problems. These algorithms generate an approximated Pareto set
(or a subset of it) with solutions that either belong to the optimal Pareto set or are close to it.

Evolutionary algorithms are metaheuristic procedures that have become increasingly popular in recent
decades (Coello, 2009). Their ability to handle complex problems, involving features such as
discontinuities, multimodality and disjoint feasible spaces, have made them effective techniques to seek
approximately Pareto-optimal solutions for MOO problems (Fonseca and Fleming, 1995; Jaszkiewicz,
2002; Köksalan, 2008; Zitzler et al., 2000). Schaffer (1985) presents the vector evaluated genetic
algorithm (VEGA). Horn et al. (1994) propose the niched Pareto genetic algorithm (NPGA). Zitzler and
Thiele (1998) propose the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm (SPEA). Deb et al. (2000) suggest an
elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) that uses an elite preservation strategy together
with an explicit diversity-preserving mechanism.

9
In the current study, we propose using the CE method (Rubinstein & Kroese, 2004) for MOCO problems
by adapting the MOO CE method (hereinafter, MOO CEM) that Bekker and Aldrich (2011) present. The
MOO CEM was tested against benchmarking problems from Coello et al. (2007) and the results were
promising by approximating all the problems to the true Pareto optimal set (Bekker and Aldrich, 2011),
with fewer objective function evaluations than in other experiments reported for the algorithms VEGA,
NPGA and SPEA (Zitzler et al., 2000).

The MOO CEM is a metaheuristic to solve MOO problems using the CE method (De Boer et al., 2005;
Rubinstein and Kroese, 2004). The CE method was motivated by an adaptive algorithm for estimating
probabilities of rare events in complex stochastic networks (Rubinstein, 1997). This algorithm can solve
difficult single-objective combinatorial optimization problems. It works by translating the deterministic
optimization problem into a related stochastic optimization problem and then using rare event simulation
techniques similar to Rubinstein (1997). Several recent applications demonstrate the power of the CE
method as a practical tool for solving NP-hard problems: buffer allocation (Alon et al., 2005), control and
navigation (Helvik and Wittner, 2001), DNA sequence alignment (Keith and Kroese, 2002), vehicle
routing (Chepuri and Homem-de-Mello, 2005), project management (Cohen et al., 2005), heavy-tail
distributions (Rubinstein and Kroese, 2004), network reliability (Hui et al., 2005), maximal cut and
bipartition problems (Rubinstein, 2002) and facility location problems (Caserta and Quiñonez Rico,
2009). De Boer et al. (2005) provide a tutorial on the CE method.

3.3. The MOCO CEM algorithm

3.3.1. The CE Method

The foundation of CE method for optimization is in Importance Sampling and the Kullback–Leibler
distance (Rubinstein and Kroese, 2004). In the following paragraphs, we present a brief description of the
CE method based on some definitions from Rubinstein and Kroese (2004) and include the algorithm to
solve single-objective combinatorial optimization problems (for a more complete review, see De Boer et
al. 2005).

Let 𝚾 = (𝑋1 , … , 𝑋𝑛 ) be a random vector assuming values from some space x, and let f be some real
function on x. To determine the probability that 𝑓 (𝚾) is greater than or equal to a real number 𝛾 under a
family of probability density functions ℎ(∙; 𝑢) on x, we use 𝑙 = ℙ𝑢 (𝑓(𝚾) ≥ 𝛾) = 𝔼𝑢 𝐼(𝑓(𝚾)≥𝛾). Then
𝑓 (𝚾 ≥ γ) is called a rare event if l is very small, and it can be efficiently estimated using importance
sampling. We thus generate a random sample 𝚾1 , … , 𝚾𝑁 from a different density g on x and estimate l
1 ℎ(𝚾𝑖 ;𝐮)
using the following likelihood estimator (Rubinstein and Kroese, 2004): 𝑙̂ = 𝑁 ∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝐼{𝑓(𝚾𝑖 )≥𝛾} 𝑔(𝚾 ) .
𝑖

10
 𝐼�𝑓�𝚾 �≥𝛾� ℎ(𝚾𝑖 ;𝐮)
Thus, 𝑙 = 𝑖
𝑔 ∗(𝚾𝑖)
. In turn, 𝑔∗ can be approximated within the family of densities {ℎ(∙; 𝐯)} with

reference parameter v such that the distance between 𝑔∗ and ℎ(∙; 𝐯) is minimal. A measure of this
magnitude is called the Kullback–Leibler distance, or the CE between g and h.

To solve single-objective combinatorial optimization problems, the CE method associates an estimation

problem with the original combinatorial optimization problem, characterized by a density function q. The
stochastic problem is then solved by identifying the optimal importance sampling density q*, which is the
sampling density that minimizes the CE with respect to the original density q. The minimization of the
CE leads to the generation of improved feasible vectors, and it terminates when convergence to a point in
the feasible region is achieved. The four steps for the CE method are as follows (De Boer et al., 2005):
� 0 = (0.5, … ,0.5). Let 𝑡 ∶= 1.
� 0 , say 𝒑
1. Start with some 𝒑
� 𝑡−1 . Calculate the
2. Draw a sample 𝚾1 , … , 𝚾𝑁 of Bernoulli vectors with success probability vector 𝒑
performances of 𝑆 (𝚾𝑖 ) for all i and order them from smallest to largest, 𝑆(1) ≤ ⋯ ≤ 𝑆(𝑁) . Let 𝛾�𝑡
be (1 − 𝜌) quantile of the performances: 𝛾�𝑡 = 𝑆(⌈1−𝜌⌉𝑁).
� 𝑡 = �𝑝̂ 𝑡,1 , … , 𝑝̂ 𝑡,𝑛 � with the following:
3. Use the same sample to calculate 𝒑
∑𝑁 � 𝑡 � 𝑰�𝑋 =1�
𝑖=1 𝑰�𝑆�𝚾 𝑖 �≥𝛾
𝑖,𝑗
� 𝑡,𝑗 =
𝒑 ∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝑰�𝑆�𝚾 𝑖 �≥𝛾
�𝑡 �

4. If the stopping criterion (e.g., stop when 𝛾�𝑡 does not change for several subsequent iterations, stop
� 𝑡 has converged to a binary vector) is met, stop; otherwise set 𝑡 ∶= 𝑡 + 1 and
when vector 𝒑
reiterate from Step 2.

3.3.2. The CE Method for Solving MOCO Problems

The MOO CEM is similar to the CE method for a single objective in terms of deriving the best solution
through the generation of random samples based on a mechanism and then updating the parameters of the
mechanism to obtain better solutions (Bekker and Aldrich, 2011). The algorithm works as follows: We
generate the random sample using the probability density of the truncated normal distribution, based on
the lower and upper bounds of each decision variable. Using these random values, we evaluate all the
solutions in the objective functions and rank them using Goldberg’s (1989) Pareto ranking algorithm. The
best solutions are located in a vector called Elite. We then update this vector by building histograms for
each decision variable, such that the best solutions are more likely to influence the next random sample.
Finally, we use a stopping criterion such as a low standard deviation or a defined number of runs to
determine the Pareto frontier approximation.

11
Although Bekker and Aldrich (2011) demonstrate that the MOO CEM is suitable for solving MOO
problems from the literature, their study does not address issues in solving combinatorial optimization
problems. First, the solution representation is different in terms of the decision variables domain. The
MOO CEM involves continuous variables, which make the application of the truncated normal
distribution effective in terms of updating the parameters to generate new, “better” samples. However, the
decision variables in MOCO problems are either integer or binary; therefore, this approach is not useful.
In addition, the solutions that the MOO CEM obtains are not limited to constraints (just the boundaries of
the decision variables); therefore, an extension to include them in the procedure is not trivial and would
require changing the histogram concept, which is the basis of the MOO CEM.

To address these two issues, we define a new updating rule to provide feasible and better solutions in each
iteration. We propose a new metaheuristic algorithm based on the MOO CEM to solve the SFL problem:
the MOCO CEM.

The first step to define the MOCO CEM is how to represent a solution. Caserta and Quiñonez Rico
(2009) present a CE-based algorithm for solving facility location problems for a single objective function.
In their study, a binary representation was used to model the number of located facilities among the
candidates. Using this approach we propose the following vector representation for a solution: Consider
SFL problem. Let n and m be the number of demand nodes and candidate locations respectively. Table 1
shows the solution representation.

Table 1. Solution representation

Facility location Cost assignment CO2 assignment
𝑋1 , … , 𝑋𝑚 𝑌 𝑎 11 , … , 𝑌 𝑎 𝑛𝑚 𝑌 𝑏 11 , … , 𝑌 𝑏 𝑛𝑚

Thus, we define a solution k as �𝐗 𝑘 , 𝐘 𝑎 𝑘 , 𝐘𝑏 𝑘 �, where

= the binary vector of candidate locations for solution k, where

𝐗𝑘 = (𝑋1 , … , 𝑋𝑚 ) 𝑋𝑗 takes value of 1 if a facility is located at site j and 0
otherwise.
𝐘𝑎 𝑘 = (𝑌 𝑎11 , … 𝑌 𝑎 𝑛𝑚 ) = the binary vector for the optimal cost assignment of solution
𝐗𝑘 .
𝐘𝑏 𝑘 = �𝑌 𝑏11 , … 𝑌 𝑏 𝑛𝑚 � = the binary vector for the optimal CO2 assignment of solution
𝐗𝑘 .

12
Because the assignment subproblem is solvable in polynomial time, it can be solved optimally during the
algorithm procedure. In other words, for a feasible solution 𝐗 𝑘 , we can calculate the optimal value

𝑆(𝚾𝑘 ) = �𝑆(𝐘 𝑎 𝑘 ), 𝑆�𝐘𝑏 𝑘 ��, based on the optimal assignment subproblem 𝐘 𝑎 𝑘 and 𝐘𝑏 𝑘 of SFL. This

representation allows the algorithm to deal only with 𝐗 𝑘 vectors. The MOCO CEM differs from previous
applications of the CE method in several ways:

1. To generate random samples, we propose the Bernoulli distribution as in Caserta and Quiñonez
Rico (2009). Because the decision variables 𝑋𝑗 for all 1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝑚 are binary, the truncated normal
distribution that Bekker and Aldrich (2011) suggest is no longer adequate for the problem.
2. To generate more feasible solutions 𝐗 𝑘 , we propose using the success probability vector with
�0 = � 𝑝 , … , 𝑝 �, such that p is the number of facilities to be located and m is the number of
𝐏 𝑚 𝑚

candidate locations, which enables us to obtain more feasible solutions using smaller population
sizes. Then, to test feasibility, we evaluate each solution for the decision variables with the
expression ∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖 = 𝑚.

Previous applications in single combinatorial optimization problems suggest initializing the CE

�0 = (0.5, … ,0.5) (Caserta and Quiñonez Rico, 2009; De Boer et al., 2005), which
method with 𝐏
implies assuming equal probability for locating a facility in all candidate locations. This approach
might be appropriate when the number of facilities to be located is approximately half the
candidate locations, in which case we could obtain several feasible solutions rapidly in the
random sample. However, if the number of facilities is substantially more or less than half,
obtaining feasible solutions may require a very large random sample.
3. To avoid premature convergence, the MOO CEM adjusts the histogram frequencies during each
iteration t with a preset probability between .1 to .3, by inverting all the histograms for all
decision variables. Because our calculations involve the Bernoulli distribution and the histogram
class vector is reduced to two options, {0,1}, we adapted the histogram inversion operation by
�𝑗 = �𝑃�𝑡1 , … 𝑃�𝑡𝑚 � by 𝐏
changing the probability of the original vector 𝐏 �𝑗 = ��1 − 𝑃�𝑡1 �, … �1 −

𝑃�𝑡𝑚 �� with the same probability range of .1 to .3.

Next we present a narrative description of the MOCO CEM. We create a vector E that will contain the
efficient solutions, and initialize the iteration counter 𝑡 = 1 and the population size N. To generate sample
�𝑡−1 = � 𝑝 , … , 𝑝 � with m elements, as success probability values for
vectors 𝐗𝑗 for 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑁, we use 𝐏
𝑚 𝑚

the Bernoulli distribution. Each 𝐗𝑗 represents a feasible location of SFL. Then we calculate 𝐘 𝑎𝑗 and 𝐘𝑏𝑗

13
and the values of the fitness functions 𝑆�𝐘 𝑎𝑗 � and 𝑆�𝐘𝑏𝑗 � for the cost and CO2 emissions functions,
respectively (see Table 2).
Table 2. Representation of the random sample 𝚾1 , … , 𝚾𝑁
Facility location Cost assignment CO2 assignment 𝑆�𝚾𝑗 �
𝐗1 𝐘𝑎 1 𝐘𝑏 1 𝑆(𝐘 𝑎 1 ) 𝑆�𝐘𝑏 1 �
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
𝐗𝑁 𝐘𝑎 𝑁 𝐘𝑏 𝑁 𝑆(𝐘 𝑎 𝑁 ) 𝑆�𝐘𝑏 𝑁 �

We rank the solution using the Pareto-ranking algorithm (Goldberg, 1989), with a threshold (th) value of
2, as in Bekker and Aldrich (2011) (i.e., we keep all solutions dominated by no more than two solutions in
∑𝑟𝑗=1 𝑰 𝑰
�𝑆�𝚾 𝑗 � ∈ 𝐸� �𝑋𝑗 =1�
�𝑡 = �𝑝̂ 𝑡,1 , … , 𝑝̂ 𝑡,𝑚 � by using 𝑝̂ 𝑡,𝑗 =
E and delete the rest). Next, we update vector 𝐩 |𝐸|
,

�𝑡 contains the new success probability values for the Bernoulli distribution. We smooth 𝐩
where 𝐩 �𝑡 using
𝑝̂ 𝑡,𝑗 = 𝛼𝑝�𝑡,𝑗 + (1 − 𝛼 )𝑝̂ 𝑡−1,𝑗 , and we generate another random sample of vectors 𝐗𝑗 . After a given
number of iterations, we rank E again with 𝑡ℎ = 1. Finally, using the most updated version of E, we rank
the vector with 𝑡ℎ = 0 to obtain the final version of E, which contains the efficient solutions.

The pseudo-code for the MOCO CEM algorithm to solve the SFL problem is as follows:

1. Set vector 𝐄 = ∅. Set 𝑡 = 1, 𝑘 = 1.

𝑝 𝑝
�0 = � , … , � with m elements.
2. Start with 𝐏 𝑚 𝑚

�𝑡−1 .
3. Draw a sample 𝚾1 , … , 𝚾𝑁 of Bernoulli vectors with success probability vector 𝐩
4. Calculate the performances 𝑆�𝚾𝑗 �, 1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝑁 by solving the assignment problem of SFL.
5. Rank the performance values using the Pareto-ranking algorithm (Goldberg, 1989), with a relaxed
𝑡ℎ = 2 to obtain an updated elite vector E.
�𝑡 = �𝑝̂ 𝑡,1 , … , 𝑝̂ 𝑡,𝑚 � with the following equation:
6. Use the same sample to calculate 𝐩
∑𝑟𝑗=1 𝑰�𝑆�𝚾𝑗 � ∈ 𝐸� 𝑰�𝑋𝑗 =1�
𝑝̂ 𝑡,𝑗 =
|𝐸 |
�𝑡 using 𝑝̂ 𝑡,𝑗 = 𝛼𝑝�𝑡,𝑗 + (1 − 𝛼)𝑝̂ 𝑡−1,𝑗 .
7. Smooth the vectors 𝐩
8. If all 𝜎𝑡,𝑗 > 𝜖 or less than the allowable number of evaluations has been done, increment t and
reiterate from Step 3.

9. Rank E using the Pareto-ranking algorithm (Goldberg, 1989) with 𝑡ℎ = 1.

14
 10. Increment k.
11. If k is less than the allowable number of loops, return to Step 2.
12. Rank E using the Pareto-ranking algorithm (Goldberg, 1989) with 𝑡ℎ = 0 to obtain the final
vector of efficient solutions.

3.4. Validation

This section presents an analysis of the application of the MOCO CEM in solving p-Median problems
from the literature. Our purpose is to show that the algorithm can solve the problems efficiently by
approximating to the Pareto frontier; thus, we do not provide a full experimental analysis of its
performance against other algorithms.

To validate the MOCO CEM applied in p-Median problems, we solve two test instances from Beasley
(1985) (see Table 3). Because there are no extant test instances for multiobjective p-Median problems
with known Pareto frontiers, we selected the first two instances simply to exemplify the application of the
algorithm. The instances were designed to test heuristics for single objective problems; therefore, they
include only the transport cost 𝑐𝑖𝑗 and not the carbon emissions 𝑐′𝑖𝑗 . We calculate the carbon emissions as
follows: 𝑐′𝑖𝑗 = �𝑐𝑖𝑗 − 𝑚𝑎𝑥�𝑐𝑖𝑗 |𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼��. This operation does not change the complexity of the
problem; we calculate it with the purpose of defining a different carbon emissions objective function so
that the Pareto frontier can contain more points.
Table 3. Instances from Beasley (1985)
Instances nodes edges P possible solutions
pmed1 100 200 5 7.53 x 107
pmed2 100 200 10 1.73 x 1013

To measure the performance of our algorithm, we calculate the supported solutions by using the weighted
sum scalarization method (see Section 3.1) to identify some points of the real Pareto frontier. Note that
this method can be used for pmed1 and pmed2 because neither instance is as complex as the rest of the
instances Beasley (1985) provides. Therefore, we can compare solutions in terms of their quality. We use
∆𝜆 = 0.01 such that 𝜆𝑗 = 𝜆𝑗−1 + ∆𝜆 for 𝑗 = 1, … ,100 and 𝜆0 = 0. We obtain three supported solutions in
each instance. Using the efficient solutions the MOCO CEM obtains, we select the following metrics
from Knowles and Corne (2002) to assess the efficient solutions against the supported solutions: error
ratio (ER), general distance (GD), the maximum Pareto front error (MPFE), the overall nondominated
vector generation (ONVG) and the overall nondominated vector generation ratio (ONVGR). We

15
programmed the MOCO CEM in Mathematica 9 and performed the tests on an EliteBook laptop with two
Intel Core i7 CPUs and 8 GB memory. We used 𝛼 = 0.7 and a preset probability of .1 as Bekker and
Aldrich (2011) suggest. Table 4 presents the results.

Table 4. Test results for the MOCO CEM in solving pmed1 and pmed2
Instance N ER GD MFE ONVG ONVGR

pmed1 100 0% 0% 0% 11 3.67

pmed2 200 0% 0% 0% 24 8

Because the MOCO CEM generates all the supported solutions, the metrics ER, GD and MFE are equal
to zero. Furthermore, the ONVG indicates the cardinality of the nondominated set, which is equivalent to
the number of efficient solutions. The ONVGR shows the ratio between the nondominated solutions and
the real Pareto points—in this case, estimated as efficient solutions divided by supported solutions. It
indicates that the MOCO CEM reveals 3.67 and 8 times more efficient solutions than supported solutions
for pmed1 and pmed2, respectively. Figures 1 and 2 show the efficient and supported solutions (ES and
SS) for both instances. Note that none of the efficient solutions is dominated by any supported solutions.

14700

14600

14500

14400

14300
Cost
ES
14200
SS
14100

14000

13900

13800
13950 14000 14050 14100 14150 14200 14250 14300
Kg of CO2

Figure 1- Pareto approximation for pmed1.

16
 10900

10800

10700

10600

10500
Cost
ES
10400
SS
10300

10200

10100

10000
9300 9500 9700 9900 10100 10300 10500
Kg of CO2

Figure 2- Pareto approximation for pmed2.

The MOCO CEM thus is capable of solving the SFL problem. In the following section, we apply the
MOCO CEM to solve the SFL for a CPG company in the Mexico City metropolitan area. We aim to
provide managerial insights regarding the structure of efficient solutions for a practical case.

4. Case Study: CPG Company in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area

The Mexico City metropolitan area is among the largest regions in any developing country; it includes
more than 18 million inhabitants, more than 2.5 million vehicles and 35,000 industries that consume more
than 44 million liters of fuel per day (Molina and Molina, 2000). Therefore, a reduction proposal
conducted in this region could significantly affect global carbon emissions. To study the type of solutions
for the SFL, we ran experiments using data from a CPG company operating in this area. This company
has operations throughout Mexico. It manages approximately 80,000 delivery points in the Mexico City
metropolitan area, with an average demand per year of approximately 2.3 million tons. The company
assigns each truck to a specific zone of approximately 100 square kilometers.

The company decision makers want to evaluate the location of 10 distribution centers and have previously
defined 18 candidate locations. Figure 3 shows a map of the area divided by square zones. Dark colors
indicate high concentration of demand. We estimated the distance between points using the great circle
distance approximation (for the distance matrix, see the Appendix).

17
 Figure 3- Map of the Mexico City metropolitan area divided by squared clusters of 100 square
kilometers. Darker areas represent higher demand. Black points represent the candidate locations.

The goal of the experiment is to indicate which efficient solutions of the SFL problem are most beneficial
to the company. Because decision makers likely seek alternatives that reduce emissions but keep costs
low, we analyze the conditions in which the efficient frontier contains solutions, such that marginal
increases in cost imply significant reductions in carbon emissions. We also investigate the possible causes
of the problem that drive the number of efficient solutions.

We define the following factors with their respective levels:

1. Truck assignment:
a) Trucks are assigned based on the area’s conditions (e.g., only small trucks can access
downtown).
b) Trucks are assigned without considering the area’s conditions (e.g., large trucks are assigned
to regions with high demand).

18
 2. Fixed cost assignment:
a) We identify high fixed costs for short distance trajectories and vice versa (High 𝐴𝑖𝑗 – Short
𝑑𝑖𝑗 ).
b) We identify high fixed costs for large distance trajectories and vice versa (High 𝐴𝑖𝑗 – Large
𝑑𝑖𝑗 ).

Our response variables are the number of nondominated solutions (NDS) and the ratio between the
reductions in carbon emissions divided by the increase in costs (RCC). For this last indicator, we consider
only the largest value. We replicate each setting 10 times. Table 6 shows the results for the NDS response
variable. The numbers suggest that when high fixed costs are present in short distance trajectories, the
number of nondominated solutions is larger than when high fixed costs exist in large distance trajectories.

Table 6. Results for NDS response variable

MCMA conditions Large trucks to high demand nodes
Replicates High Aij - Large dij High Aij - Short dij High Aij - Large dij High Aij - Short dij
1 2 16 2 15
2 3 18 3 21
3 3 21 3 22
4 3 21 3 22
5 3 21 3 22
6 3 21 3 22
7 3 21 3 22
8 3 21 3 22
9 3 21 3 22
10 3 21 3 22

Table 7 shows the results for the RCC response variable. We notice similar behavior with the NDS
response variable, such that when high fixed costs are present for short distance trajectories, the
percentage of CO2 reduction divided by the cost increase percentage is larger than when high fixed costs
are present for large distance trajectories. We obtain large numbers (e.g., replicate 3 reports 1.9 million)
because the increase in cost is close to 0% (2 E^10-7%).

19
 Table 7. Results for RCC response variable (CO2 reduction divided by the increase in cost)
MCMA conditions Large trucks to high demand nodes
Replicates High Aij - Large dij High Aij - Short dij High Aij - Large dij High Aij - Short dij
1 1.09 47,442,889.08 0.12 384,331.72

2 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

3 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

4 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

5 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

6 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

7 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

8 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

9 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

10 0.05 1,946,988.58 0.12 384,721.67

To determine which factors affect the response variables, we conducted two analyses of variance. Table 8
shows the analysis of variance for the NDS response variable. We conclude that the assignment of fixed
costs to distances explains the number of nondominated solutions for the problem, independent of the
area’s conditions.

Table 8. Analysis of variance for the NDS response variable

Source DF SS MS F P
Truck assignment 1 .1 .1 .6 .444
Fixed cost & distance 1 220.9 220.9 1325.4 .000
Interaction 1 .1 .1 .6 .444
Error 36 6 .167

Table 9 shows the analysis of variance for the RCC response variable. We conclude that the truck
assignment, the assignment of fixed costs to distances and their interaction explain the percentage of CO2
reduction divided by the percentage of increase in cost for the problem.

20
Table 9. Analysis of variance for the RCC response variable (CO2 reduction divided by the increase
in cost)
Source DF SS MS F P
Truck assignment 1 2.82909E+18 2.82909E+18 19561.8 .000
Fixed cost & distance 1 6.14065E+18 6.14065E+18 42459.6 .000
Interaction 1 2.82909E+18 2.82909E+18 19561.8 .000
Error 36 5.20644E+15 1.44623E+14

To demonstrate the structure of Pareto approximation for the case study, we present some examples of the
results from the experiment. Figure 4, Panel A, shows an example of the Pareto approximation for the
area’s conditions with high fixed costs in short distance trajectories. Figure 4, Panel B, shows only the
nondominated solutions with an increase in cost close to zero (less than 1.4 E^10-6%). Note that it is
possible to achieve a significant reduction in carbon emissions (~40%) with almost no cost increase,
which may make the solutions equivalent for practical purposes.

1.6E-06
12%
1.4E-06
10%
1.2E-06
% of Cost increase
% of Cost increase

8% 1.0E-06

6% 8.0E-07
6.0E-07
4%
4.0E-07
2% 2.0E-07

0% 0.0E+00
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
% of CO2 reduction % of CO2 reduction

Figure 4 (A): Pareto approximation for the area’s conditions with high fixed costs found in short
distance trajectories; and (B): Sample of points with less than 1% of increase in cost.

Figure 5 shows the locations in the map for three Pareto approximation points from Figure 4. Panel A
shows the cost optimal location, Panel B shows a location with 36% of carbon reduction with an increase
in cost of 3 E^10-5% and Panel C shows the carbon emissions optimal location with 12.5% of increase in
cost.

21
A: Cost optimal location B: Location with 36% of carbon reduction and
cost increase of 3 E^10-5%

C: CO2 optimal location

Figure 5- Examples of three Pareto points for the area’s conditions with high fixed costs in short
distance trajectories.

Note that the solutions shown in Panels A and B of Figure 5 are similar in terms of changing only two
locations (X8 and X14 by X15 and X10). Furthermore, the CO2 optimal location (Panel C) is different than
the other solutions in terms of locating facilities closer to regions with high concentration of demand (and
also in terms of truck constraints).

22
Figure 6 shows an example of the Pareto approximation with high fixed costs in large distance
trajectories. Note that for these conditions, the three solutions result in similar costs and carbon emissions
(the largest difference is .025% of CO2 reduction with a cost increase of .55%).

0.6%

0.5%

% of Cost increase
0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%
0.000% 0.005% 0.010% 0.015% 0.020% 0.025% 0.030%
% of CO2 reduction

Figure 6- Pareto approximation with high fixed costs in large distance trajectories

Figure 7, Panel A, shows an example of the Pareto approximation when the company does not need to
accommodate Mexico City metropolitan area conditions (e.g., large trucks may be assigned to regions
with high demand) and when high fixed costs exist in short distance trajectories. Figure 7, Panel B, shows
only the nondominated solutions with an increase in cost close to zero (less than 5 E^10-6%). Note that it
is possible to achieve high reductions in carbon emissions (~25%) with almost no cost increase, similar to
the solutions shown in Figure 4, which may also make the solutions equivalent for practical purposes.

10% 5.0E-06
9% 4.5E-06
8% 4.0E-06
7% 3.5E-06
% of Cost increase

% of Cost increase

6% 3.0E-06
5% 2.5E-06
4% 2.0E-06
3% 1.5E-06
2% 1.0E-06
1% 5.0E-07
0% 0.0E+00
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
% of CO2 reduction % of CO2 reduction

Figure 7 (A): Pareto approximation when the company does not accommodate Mexico City and
metropolitan area conditions and with high fixed costs in short distance trajectories; (B): Sample of
points with less than 1% of increase in cost.

23
Figure 8 shows the locations in the map for three Pareto approximation points from Figure 7. Panel A
indicates the cost optimal location, Panel B shows a location with 26% of carbon reduction with an
increase in cost of 4.7 E^10-4% and Panel C shows the carbon emissions optimal location with 9% of
increase in cost.

A: Cost optimal location B: Location with 26% of carbon reduction and

cost increase of 4.7 E^10-4%

C: CO2 optimal location

Figure 8- Examples of three Pareto points when the company does not accommodate Mexico City
and metropolitan area conditions and with high fixed costs in short distance trajectories.

Note that the CO2 optimal location (Panel C) is different than the other solutions in terms of locating
facilities closer to regions with high concentration of demand (and also in terms of truck constraints).

24
Figure 9 shows an example of the Pareto approximation when the company accounts for Mexico City
metropolitan area conditions and experiences high fixed costs with large distance trajectories. Similar to
Figure 6, under these conditions, the three solutions result in similar costs and carbon emissions (the
largest difference is .12% of CO2 reduction with an increase in cost of almost 1.2%).

1.4%

1.2%

1.0%
% of Cost increase

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10% 0.12% 0.14%
% of CO2 reduction

Figure 9- Pareto approximation for nonconstrained delivery conditions with high fixed costs for
large distance trajectories

5. Conclusions

Transportation is a main contributing factor of carbon emissions, and studies indicate that these emissions
will increase in the future. This situation suggests that firms need more efficient transport logistics
operations to reduce CO2 emissions while keeping costs low. In the current study, we investigate the
trade-off between cost and CO2 using a multiobjective approach for the p-Median problem. We provide
three main contributions: First, we introduce the SFL problem, a multiobjective p-Median model with
new cost and CO2 objective functions that allow us to take into account vehicle access limitations in the
demand nodes. Second, to solve the SFL, we develop an adaptation of the MOO CEM: the MOCO CEM.
We test our algorithm against problems from prior literature and show that the MOCO CEM can solve the
multiobjective p-Median problem efficiently by finding efficient and supported solutions and by
performing better in the different metrics. Finally, we provide managerial insights on the structure of the
Pareto frontier using an application for an actual company: we conduct an experimental study of the
MOCO CEM by solving the SFL for a multinational CPG company that operates in Mexico City
metropolitan area. Our intention is to analyze two scenarios: when high fixed costs exist in short distance
trajectories and when high fixed costs exist in large distance trajectories. The results show that regardless
of Mexico City conditions, when high fixed costs are present in short distance trajectories, CO2 emission

25
reductions are much larger (~40% considering area conditions and 25% not considering these conditions)
than the increase in cost (almost 0% in both cases). The results also show that these CO2 savings can be
achieved by only changing a small subset of locations. The study provides insights that can help
companies make better decisions by analyzing the cost and CO2 trade-offs for the facility location
problem.

We leave comparison of the MOCO CEM against other algorithms from the literature as a fruitful future
research avenue. Furthermore, including other type of pollutants—such as noise, particulate matter, CO
and NOx—as possible objective functions in the SFL model is a worthwhile research direction. For this
problem, researchers may need to develop new heuristics strategies to accommodate the complexities.

References

Ajith, A., Jain, L., Goldberg, R. 2005. Evolutionary multiobjective optimization, theoretical advances and
applications. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited.
Alon, G., D.P. Kroese, T. Raviv, R.Y. Rubinstein. 2005. Application of the cross-entropy method to the
buffer allocation problem in a simulation-based environment. Annals of Operations Research
134, 19–67.
Beasley, J.E. 1985. A note on solving large p-median problems. European Journal of Operational
Research 21, 270–273.
Bekker, J., Aldrich, C. 2011. The cross-entropy method in multi-objective optimisation: An assessment.
European Journal of Operational Research 1(211), 12–121.
Blanquero, R., Carrizosa, E. 2002. A DC biobjective location model, Journal of Global Optimization 23,
139–154.
Caserta, M., Quiñonez Rico, E. 2009. A cross entropy-based metaheuristic algorithm for large-scale
capacitated facility location problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60(10),
1439–1448.
Carbon Disclosure Project. 2011. Carbon Disclosure Project. Available at www.cdproject.net/, accessed
on March 21, 2011.
Chepuri, K., Homem-de-Mello, T. 2005. Solving the vehicle routing problem with stochastic demands
using the cross-entropy method. Annals of Operations Research 134, 153–181.
Coello, C.A. 2009. Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: Some current research trends and topics
that remain to be explored. Frontiers of Computer Science in China 3(1), 18–30.
Coello, C.A., Lamont, G.B., Van Veldhuizen, D.A., 2007. Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-
objective problems, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.

26
Cohen, I., Golany, B., Shtub, A. 2005. Managing stochastic finite capacity multi-project systems through
the cross-entropy method. Annals of Operations Research 134, 183–199.
Daskin, M.S., Snyder, L.V., Berger, R.T., 2005. Facility location in supply chain design. In: Logistics
systems design and optimization, ed. Langevin, A. and Riopel, D. New York: Springer.
De Boer, P., Kroese, D.P., Mannor, S., Rubinstein, R.Y. 2005. A tutorial on the cross-entropy method.
Annals of Operations Research 134, 19–67.
Deb, K. 2001. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons, LTD.
Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T. 2000. A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1917,
849–858.
Du, F., Evans, G.W. 2008. A bi-objective reverse logistics network analysis for post-sale service.
Computer Operations Research 35, 2617–2634.
Ehrgott, M. 2000. Approximation algorithms for combinatorial multicriteria optimization problems.
International Transactions in Operational Research 7(1) 5-31.
Ehrgott, M. 2005. Multicriteria optimization, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
Ehrgott, M., Gandibleux, X. 2000. A survey and annotated bibliography of multiobjective combinatorial
optimization. OR-Spektrum 22(4), 425–460.
European Commission 2011. Roadmap to a single European transport area: Towards a competitive and
resource efficient transport system. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm,
accessed on May 27, 2011.
Farahani, R.Z., SteadieSeifi, M., Asgari, N. 2010. Multiple criteria facility location problems: A survey.
Applied Mathematical Modeling 34, 1689–1709.
Fonseca, M.C., Fleming, P.J. 1995. An overview of evolutionary algorithms in multiobjective
optimization. Evolutionary Computation 3(1), 1–16.
Fonseca, M.C., García-Sánchez, A., Ortega-Mier, M., Saldanha-da-Gama, F. 2009. A stochastic bi-
objective location model for strategic reverse logistics. TOP, 18(1), 158–184.
Greenhouse Gas Protocol Standard 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Available at
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards, accessed on March 11, 2011.
Goldberg, D. 1989. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Professional.
Hakimi, S.L. 1964. Optimum locations of switching centers and the absolute centers and medians of a
graph. Operations Research 12, 450–459.

27
Hansen, P. 1980. Bicriterion path problems. In: Multiple criteria decision making theory and application.
Heidelberg, DE: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 109–127.
Helvik, B.E., Wittner, O. 2001. Using the cross-entropy method to guide/govern mobile agents’ path
finding in networks. In Mobile Agents for Telecommunication Applications. Spring Berlin
Heidelberg, 255-268.
Hoffman, A.J., Woody, J.G. 2008. Climate change: What’s your business strategy? Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N., Goldberg, D.E. 1994. A niched pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective
optimization. in Evolutionary Computation. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on
Computational Intelligence. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Hui, K.P., Bean, N., Kraetzl, M., Kroese, D.P. 2005. The cross-entropy method for network reliability
estimation. Annals of Operations Research 134(1), 101–118.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007. Climate change 2007: An assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/, accessed on May
27, 2011.
Jalil, M., Zuidwijk, R., Fleischmann, M., Van Nunen, J. 2011. Spare parts logistics and installed base
information. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62(3), 442–457.
Jaszkiewicz, A. 2002. Genetic local search for multi-objective combinatorial optimization. European
Journal of Operational Research 137(1), 50–71.
Kariv, O., Hakimi, S.L. 1979. An algorithmic approach to network location problems, Part II: The p-
median. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 37, 539–560.
Keith, J., Kroese, D.P. 2002. SABRES: Sequence alignment by rare event simulation. In: Proceedings of
the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, 320–327.
Knowles, J., Corne, D. 2002. On metrics for comparing nondominated sets. In: Evolutionary
Computation, 2002. Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on, Vol. 1. New York: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 711–716.
Köksalan, M. 2008. Multiobjective combinatorial optimization: Some approaches. Journal of Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis 15(3–4), 69–78.
Medaglia, A.L., Villegas, J.G., Rodríguez-Coca, D.M. 2009. Hybrid bi-objective evolutionary algorithms
for the design of a hospital waste management network. Journal of Heuristics 15, 153–176.
Molina, M.J., Molina, L.T. 2000. Integrated strategy for air management in Mexico City Metropolitan
Area. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

28
Network for Transport and Environment Road 2008. Environmental data for international cargo
transport-road transport. Available at http://www.ntmcalc.se/index.html. Accessed on February
13, 2011.
ReVelle, C.S., Eiselt, H.A., Daskin, M.S., 2008. A bibliography for some fundamental problem
categories in discrete location science. European Journal of Operational Research 184, 817–848.
Rubinstein, R.Y. 1997. Optimization of computer simulation models with rare events. European Journal
of Operations Research 99, 89–112.
Rubinstein, R.Y. 2002. Cross-entropy and rare-events for maximal cut and bipartition problems. In: ACM
transactions on modeling and computer simulation. New York: Association for Computing
Machinery, 27–53.
Rubinstein, R.Y., Kroese, D.P. 2004. The cross-entropy method: A unified approach to combinatorial
optimization, Monte-Carlo simulation, and machine learning. New York: Springer.
Schaffer, J.D. 1985. Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. In:
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Mahwah, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates, 93–100.
Sergienko, I.V., Perepelitsa, V.A. 1991. Finding the set of alternatives in discrete multicriterion problems.
Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 23(5), 673–683.
Transport Research Laboratory. 2010. Information retrieved from ARTEMIS project web site.
http://www.trl.co.uk/artemis/. Accessed on June 5, 2012.
Velázquez-Martínez, J.C., Fransoo, J.C., Blanco, E.E., Mora-Vargas, J. 2013. The impact of carbon
footprinting aggregation on realizing emission reduction targets. Flexible Services and
Manufacturing Journal (January), 1–25.
Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L. 2000. Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical
results. Evolutionary Computation 8(2), 173–195.
Zitzler, E., Thiele, L. 1998. An evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: The strength
pareto approach. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, TIK-Report 43.

29
APPENDIX: DISTANCE MATRIX (IN KILOMETERS) FOR THE CPG COMPANY
Node/Candidate Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 57.5 59.3 62.4 78.4 59.1 49.9 59.2 83.5 62.4 62.8 60.6 68.6 81.7 73.8 42.6 83.6 84.1 88.6
2 63.0 64.6 67.2 82.1 64.1 55.0 65.5 87.5 67.2 67.2 65.7 73.2 85.7 78.7 47.9 88.0 88.6 92.7
3 45.0 46.8 50.2 66.7 46.7 37.5 46.5 71.6 50.2 50.7 48.3 56.5 69.7 61.4 30.2 71.5 71.9 76.6
4 50.3 51.9 54.6 70.0 51.5 42.3 52.8 75.2 54.6 54.7 53.0 60.6 73.4 66.1 35.2 75.6 76.1 80.3
5 56.4 57.9 59.9 74.1 57.2 48.3 59.8 79.6 59.9 59.7 58.7 65.7 77.9 71.5 41.4 80.4 81.0 84.8
6 28.6 30.8 36.2 54.4 32.2 25.3 25.6 57.6 36.2 38.1 33.4 42.2 55.6 44.7 21.3 55.7 55.9 61.8
7 29.4 31.5 36.2 54.2 32.3 23.8 28.7 58.2 36.2 37.5 33.6 42.5 56.2 46.2 17.8 57.0 57.3 62.8
8 32.6 34.5 38.3 55.5 34.6 25.4 33.8 60.1 38.2 39.1 36.1 44.6 58.1 49.2 18.3 59.6 60.0 64.9
9 37.5 39.2 42.1 58.0 38.9 29.7 40.2 63.1 42.1 42.4 40.4 48.2 61.3 53.5 22.5 63.2 63.7 68.2
10 43.7 45.2 47.2 61.7 44.4 35.6 47.3 67.2 47.2 47.1 46.0 53.1 65.4 58.8 28.8 67.8 68.4 72.3
11 50.7 51.9 53.3 66.4 50.9 42.5 55.0 72.1 53.3 52.8 52.4 58.8 70.4 64.9 36.1 73.2 73.8 77.3
12 22.1 24.0 29.7 47.0 26.1 22.6 16.3 49.2 29.8 32.1 26.8 34.8 47.4 35.8 22.5 46.7 46.7 52.9
13 19.5 21.6 27.0 45.2 23.1 16.9 16.7 48.3 27.1 29.0 24.2 33.0 46.4 35.5 14.7 46.5 46.7 52.6
14 20.5 22.6 27.1 45.0 23.2 14.6 21.1 49.1 27.1 28.3 24.6 33.4 47.1 37.4 8.9 48.1 48.4 53.7
15 24.8 26.6 29.8 46.5 26.4 17.1 27.6 51.3 29.7 30.3 27.9 36.0 49.4 41.1 9.8 51.1 51.5 56.3
16 31.1 32.5 34.5 49.5 31.7 22.9 35.2 54.8 34.5 34.5 33.2 40.4 53.0 46.1 16.4 55.3 55.8 60.0
17 38.3 39.5 40.7 53.8 38.3 30.2 43.1 59.5 40.6 40.1 39.8 46.1 57.8 52.2 24.3 60.5 61.1 64.6
18 46.1 47.1 47.6 59.1 45.7 38.1 51.4 64.9 47.6 46.7 47.1 52.6 63.4 58.9 32.7 66.4 67.1 70.1
19 21.9 23.0 28.0 42.3 25.5 26.6 14.1 43.0 28.0 30.7 25.5 31.1 41.4 29.7 29.7 39.6 39.4 45.7
20 14.7 16.3 21.8 38.3 18.6 18.1 7.6 40.2 21.9 24.4 19.0 26.3 38.4 26.7 20.9 37.5 37.5 43.7
21 10.3 12.4 18.0 36.1 14.1 10.1 8.4 39.1 18.0 20.1 15.1 23.8 37.2 26.3 12.2 37.4 37.6 43.4
22 12.2 14.0 18.0 35.8 14.3 5.4 15.4 40.0 18.0 19.2 15.7 24.4 38.1 28.8 3.5 39.2 39.6 44.8
23 18.6 19.8 21.9 37.7 19.0 10.4 23.6 42.7 21.8 22.0 20.5 27.9 40.8 33.4 5.4 42.8 43.4 47.8
24 26.4 27.3 28.0 41.3 25.9 18.5 32.0 46.9 28.0 27.4 27.3 33.4 45.2 39.5 14.1 47.8 48.4 52.1
25 34.6 35.3 35.3 46.4 33.7 27.0 40.7 52.2 35.2 34.2 35.0 40.0 50.6 46.4 22.9 53.7 54.4 57.4
26 51.6 52.1 51.2 59.1 50.2 44.3 58.0 65.2 51.2 49.8 51.4 55.1 63.8 61.7 40.4 67.5 68.2 70.1
27 19.5 19.7 23.4 34.9 22.0 26.3 12.7 34.8 23.4 26.0 21.5 24.8 33.3 22.0 31.4 31.1 30.8 37.1
28 10.7 11.1 15.5 29.9 13.6 17.7 4.5 31.3 15.5 18.2 13.2 18.4 29.5 17.7 23.3 28.4 28.3 34.6
29 2.1 3.6 9.3 27.0 5.9 9.4 5.7 29.9 9.4 11.8 6.4 14.7 28.0 17.2 15.9 28.2 28.4 34.2
30 6.9 7.5 9.3 26.7 6.3 3.9 14.1 31.0 9.3 10.1 7.8 15.6 29.1 20.8 10.7 30.6 31.1 35.9
31 15.6 15.9 15.5 29.1 14.0 9.8 22.7 34.4 15.5 14.7 15.3 20.7 32.7 26.9 11.5 35.1 35.7 39.6
32 24.3 24.5 23.4 33.7 22.5 18.1 31.4 39.5 23.4 22.0 23.7 27.6 37.9 34.1 17.4 41.0 41.7 44.7
33 33.1 33.2 31.7 39.7 31.2 26.7 40.2 45.7 31.7 30.1 32.2 35.4 44.3 41.9 25.0 47.8 48.6 50.8
34 50.6 50.7 48.9 54.1 48.6 44.1 57.7 60.1 48.8 47.0 49.6 51.8 58.9 58.4 41.6 62.8 63.6 64.8
35 29.4 28.8 30.6 35.9 30.8 37.2 24.2 33.7 30.7 32.8 29.7 29.4 32.8 24.1 43.0 29.2 28.6 34.2
36 21.1 20.4 21.9 28.6 22.2 29.2 17.1 27.3 21.9 24.1 21.1 20.9 26.1 16.1 35.5 23.2 22.8 28.9
37 13.5 12.3 13.1 22.2 13.8 21.7 12.3 22.6 13.2 15.3 12.6 12.6 21.0 9.4 28.5 19.4 19.3 25.6
38 8.5 6.5 4.5 18.0 6.5 15.6 12.8 20.7 4.5 6.6 4.9 5.9 18.7 8.4 22.9 19.1 19.4 25.0
39 10.7 9.2 4.5 17.5 6.8 13.1 18.2 22.3 4.5 2.3 6.6 8.0 20.4 14.3 19.7 22.5 23.1 27.3
40 17.6 16.8 13.2 21.1 14.3 15.9 25.5 26.8 13.1 11.0 14.7 15.7 25.2 22.2 20.1 28.4 29.1 32.0
41 25.7 25.1 21.9 27.1 22.7 22.0 33.5 33.1 21.9 19.7 23.3 24.1 31.7 30.6 24.0 35.4 36.2 38.1
42 34.1 33.7 30.7 34.3 31.3 29.5 41.8 40.3 30.6 28.4 32.0 32.7 39.1 39.1 30.0 43.1 43.9 45.1
43 42.6 42.3 39.4 42.1 39.9 37.6 50.2 48.0 39.4 37.2 40.7 41.4 47.0 47.7 37.1 51.1 51.9 52.6
44 33.2 32.1 32.3 32.5 33.5 41.3 29.8 29.0 32.3 33.9 32.2 29.2 28.5 22.9 47.9 24.3 23.6 28.2
45 26.2 24.8 24.1 24.2 25.9 34.3 24.4 21.2 24.2 25.5 24.4 20.6 20.5 14.2 41.2 16.6 16.0 21.5
46 20.5 18.7 16.6 16.2 19.2 28.2 21.3 14.6 16.6 17.6 17.6 12.1 13.4 5.6 35.5 10.7 10.4 16.7
47 17.6 15.5 11.1 9.6 14.8 23.9 21.6 11.5 11.1 10.8 13.3 4.9 9.5 3.7 31.1 10.2 10.7 15.8
48 18.8 16.9 11.1 8.7 14.9 22.3 25.1 14.2 11.1 8.9 14.1 7.3 12.5 12.2 28.8 15.7 16.5 19.3
49 23.4 21.9 16.6 14.6 19.5 24.0 30.8 20.6 16.6 13.9 19.2 15.3 19.4 20.9 29.1 23.3 24.1 25.5
50 30.0 28.8 24.1 22.4 26.3 28.5 37.7 28.3 24.1 21.5 26.4 23.9 27.3 29.6 31.9 31.5 32.3 32.8
51 37.4 36.5 32.3 30.7 34.0 34.6 45.2 36.4 32.2 29.7 34.3 32.5 35.6 38.4 36.6 39.9 40.8 40.7
52 45.3 44.6 40.7 39.2 42.1 41.7 53.1 44.8 40.6 38.2 42.5 41.2 44.1 47.1 42.7 48.5 49.3 48.9
53 38.9 37.4 36.2 31.6 38.3 47.0 36.9 26.7 36.3 37.3 36.9 31.8 26.9 25.3 53.9 22.4 21.6 24.4
54 33.1 31.4 29.2 22.8 31.9 40.9 32.7 18.0 29.3 29.9 30.3 24.2 18.1 17.8 48.1 13.7 12.8 16.1
55 28.8 26.8 23.4 14.1 26.7 36.0 30.4 9.4 23.5 23.5 25.2 17.5 9.4 12.0 43.3 4.9 4.1 8.8
56 26.8 24.7 19.9 5.5 23.8 32.7 30.6 2.3 19.9 19.0 22.4 13.5 0.7 11.3 39.8 3.8 4.7 6.9
57 27.6 25.6 19.9 3.6 23.9 31.5 33.2 8.6 19.9 18.0 22.8 14.6 8.1 16.2 38.0 12.6 13.4 13.1
58 31.0 29.1 23.5 12.2 27.0 32.8 37.7 17.2 23.4 20.9 26.3 19.8 16.9 23.5 38.2 21.3 22.1 21.1
59 36.2 34.6 29.3 20.9 32.2 36.2 43.5 25.9 29.2 26.6 31.9 27.0 25.6 31.5 40.4 30.0 30.9 29.6
60 42.5 41.2 36.3 29.7 38.7 41.2 50.2 34.6 36.2 33.6 38.7 34.9 34.3 39.8 44.2 38.8 39.6 38.2
61 49.6 48.5 43.9 38.4 46.0 47.3 57.4 43.4 43.9 41.2 46.1 43.1 43.1 48.3 49.3 47.5 48.4 46.8
62 40.9 39.0 36.0 25.1 39.1 48.4 41.4 19.2 36.0 36.2 37.6 30.2 20.2 24.5 55.6 16.3 15.6 15.1
63 37.5 35.5 31.5 17.5 35.1 44.3 39.6 11.5 31.5 31.1 33.6 25.2 12.9 20.7 51.5 10.2 9.8 6.7
64 36.0 33.9 29.0 11.7 32.9 41.7 39.8 7.0 29.0 27.9 31.5 22.6 9.0 20.3 48.6 9.7 10.0 3.9
65 36.6 34.5 29.0 11.0 33.0 40.8 41.8 10.9 29.0 27.2 31.9 23.3 12.1 23.4 47.2 15.4 16.1 11.8
66 39.2 37.3 31.5 16.0 35.3 41.7 45.4 18.5 31.5 29.2 34.5 26.9 19.1 28.9 47.4 23.1 23.8 20.3
67 43.4 41.7 36.0 23.4 39.4 44.4 50.4 26.8 36.0 33.5 38.9 32.5 27.1 35.7 49.2 31.3 32.1 29.0
68 48.9 47.3 41.9 31.4 44.9 48.6 56.2 35.3 41.9 39.3 44.6 39.3 35.5 43.2 52.3 39.8 40.6 37.7
69 55.1 53.8 48.7 39.8 51.3 53.9 62.7 43.9 48.6 46.0 51.2 46.8 44.0 51.1 56.7 48.3 49.1 46.4
70 46.5 44.4 40.1 24.2 43.8 52.9 48.8 18.6 40.1 39.4 42.3 33.7 20.4 29.7 60.1 18.8 18.5 13.5
71 45.3 43.1 38.1 20.4 42.1 50.7 48.9 16.2 38.1 36.9 40.7 31.8 18.2 29.4 57.6 18.6 18.7 12.4
72 45.7 43.6 38.1 20.0 42.1 50.0 50.6 18.3 38.1 36.4 41.0 32.3 19.9 31.6 56.4 22.1 22.5 16.6
73 47.8 45.8 40.1 23.1 44.0 50.8 53.6 23.6 40.1 37.9 43.0 35.0 24.8 35.9 56.6 28.0 28.6 23.5
74 51.3 49.5 43.7 28.7 47.3 53.0 57.9 30.5 43.7 41.3 46.7 39.5 31.4 41.6 58.1 35.1 35.8 31.3
75 56.0 54.3 48.7 35.6 52.0 56.6 63.0 38.2 48.7 46.1 51.5 45.2 38.8 48.2 60.8 42.8 43.5 39.5
76 61.6 60.0 54.6 43.1 57.6 61.1 68.9 46.2 54.6 52.0 57.3 51.8 46.7 55.4 64.6 50.8 51.6 47.9
77 67.8 66.4 61.2 51.1 63.9 66.5 75.4 54.5 61.2 58.5 63.8 59.0 54.9 63.0 69.3 59.1 59.9 56.4
78 54.5 52.3 47.3 29.4 51.3 59.8 58.1 25.5 47.3 46.0 49.9 41.0 27.4 38.6 66.7 27.7 27.7 21.5
79 54.9 52.7 47.3 29.1 51.3 59.2 59.5 26.8 47.3 45.6 50.1 41.4 28.6 40.3 65.6 30.1 30.4 24.2
80 56.6 54.6 48.9 31.4 52.8 59.9 62.1 30.7 48.9 46.8 51.8 43.5 32.1 43.7 65.8 34.7 35.1 29.3
81 59.6 57.7 51.9 35.7 55.7 61.8 65.8 36.2 51.9 49.6 54.9 47.2 37.5 48.5 67.0 40.6 41.2 35.9
82 63.7 61.9 56.2 41.4 59.7 64.8 70.4 42.9 56.1 53.7 59.1 52.1 43.9 54.3 69.4 47.5 48.1 43.2
83 68.6 66.9 61.4 48.0 64.6 68.9 75.7 50.2 61.3 58.8 64.2 57.9 51.0 60.8 72.8 54.8 55.5 51.0
84 63.7 61.6 56.5 38.5 60.5 69.0 67.3 34.7 56.5 55.2 59.1 50.2 36.6 47.8 75.7 36.8 36.8 30.6
85 64.0 61.9 56.5 38.3 60.5 68.4 68.5 35.7 56.5 54.8 59.3 50.5 37.5 49.2 74.8 38.7 38.9 32.6
86 65.5 63.5 57.8 40.0 61.8 69.0 70.8 38.7 57.8 55.8 60.7 52.3 40.3 52.0 75.0 42.4 42.7 36.6

30
Working Papers Beta 2009 - 2014

nr. Year Title Author(s)

451 2014 Transportation Cost and CO2 Emissions in Josue C. Vélazquez-Martínez, Jan C.
Location Decision Models Fransoo, Edgar E. Blanco, Jaime Mora-
Vargas
450 2014 Tracebook: A Dynamic Checklist Support System Shan Nan, Pieter Van Gorp, Hendrikus
H.M. Korsten, Richard Vdovjak, Uzay
Kaymak
449 2014 Intermodal hinterland network design with multiple Yann Bouchery, Jan Fransoo
actors

448 2014 The Share-a-Ride Problem: People and Parcels Baoxiang Li, Dmitry Krushinsky,
Sharing Taxis Hajo A. Reijers, Tom Van Woensel

447 2014 Stochastic inventory models for a single item K.H. van Donselaar, R.A.C.M.
at a single location Broekmeulen

446 2014 Optimal and heuristic repairable stocking and Joachim Arts, Rob Basten,
expediting in a fluctuating demand environment Geert-Jan van Houtum

445 2014 Connecting inventory control and repair shop M.A. Driessen, W.D. Rustenburg,
control: a differentiated control structure for G.J. van Houtum, V.C.S. Wiers
repairable spare parts

444 2014 A survey on design and usage of Software Samuil Angelov, Jos Trienekens,
Reference Architectures Rob Kusters

Extending and Adapting the Architecture Tradeoff Samuil Angelov, Jos J.M. Trienekens,
443 2014 Analysis Method for the Evaluation of Software Paul Grefen
Reference Architectures

A multimodal network flow problem with product Maryam SteadieSeifi, Nico Dellaert,
442 2014 Quality preservation, transshipment, and asset Tom Van Woensel
management

441 2013 Integrating passenger and freight transportation: Veaceslav Ghilas, Emrah Demir,
Model formulation and insights Tom Van Woensel

440 2013 The Price of Payment Delay K. van der Vliet, M.J. Reindorp,
J.C. Fransoo

439 2013 On Characterization of the Core of Lane Covering Behzad Hezarkhani, Marco Slikker,
Games via Dual Solutions Tom van Woensel
438 2013 Destocking, the Bullwhip Effect, and the Credit
Crisis: Empirical Modeling of Supply Chain
Dynamics
437 2013 Methodological support for business process
Redesign in healthcare: a systematic literature
review
436 2013 Dynamics and equilibria under incremental
Horizontal differentiation on the Salop circle
435 2013 Analyzing Conformance to Clinical Protocols
Involving Advanced Synchronizations
434 2013 Models for Ambulance Planning on the Strategic
and the Tactical Level
433 2013 Mode Allocation and Scheduling of Inland
Container Transportation: A Case-Study in the
Netherlands
Socially responsible transportation and lot sizing:
432 2013 Insights from multiobjective optimization
431 2013 Inventory routing for dynamic waste collection
430 2013 Simulation and Logistics Optimization of an
Integrated Emergency Post
429 2013 Last Time Buy and Repair Decisions for Spare
Parts
428 2013 A Review of Recent Research on Green Road
Freight Transportation
Maximiliano Udenio, Jan C. Fransoo,
Robert Peels
Rob J.B. Vanwersch, Khurram
Shahzad, Irene Vanderfeesten, Kris
Vanhaecht, Paul Grefen, Liliane
Pintelon, Jan Mendling, Geofridus G.
Van Merode, Hajo A. Reijers
B. Vermeulen, J.A. La Poutré,
A.G. de Kok
Hui Yan, Pieter Van Gorp, Uzay
Kaymak, Xudong Lu, Richard Vdovjak,
Hendriks H.M. Korsten, Huilong Duan
J. Theresia van Essen, Johann L.
Hurink, Stefan Nickel, Melanie Reuter
Stefano Fazi, Tom Van Woensel,
Jan C. Fransoo
Yann Bouchery, Asma Ghaffari,
Zied Jemai, Jan Fransoo
Martijn Mes, Marco Schutten,
Arturo Pérez Rivera
N.J. Borgman, M.R.K. Mes,
I.M.H. Vliegen, E.W. Hans
S. Behfard, M.C. van der Heijden,
A. Al Hanbali, W.H.M. Zijm
Emrah Demir, Tolga Bektas, Gilbert
Laporte
 Typology of Repair Shops for Maintenance M.A. Driessen, V.C.S. Wiers,
427 2013 Spare Parts G.J. van Houtum, W.D. Rustenburg

A value network development model and

426 2013 Implications for innovation and production network B. Vermeulen, A.G. de Kok
management

Single Vehicle Routing with Stochastic Demands: C. Zhang, N.P. Dellaert, L. Zhao,
425 2013 Approximate Dynamic Programming T. Van Woensel, D. Sever

Influence of Spillback Effect on Dynamic Shortest Derya Sever, Nico Dellaert,

424 2013 Path Problems with Travel-Time-Dependent Tom Van Woensel, Ton de Kok
Network Disruptions

423 2013 Dynamic Shortest Path Problem with Travel-Time- Derya Sever, Lei Zhao, Nico Dellaert,
Dependent Stochastic Disruptions: Hybrid
Approximate Dynamic Programming Algorithms Tom Van Woensel, Ton de Kok
with a Clustering Approach

System-oriented inventory models for spare R.J.I. Basten, G.J. van Houtum
422 2013 parts

Lost Sales Inventory Models with Batch Ordering T. Van Woensel, N. Erkip, A. Curseu,
421 2013 And Handling Costs J.C. Fransoo

420 2013 Response speed and the bullwhip Maximiliano Udenio, Jan C. Fransoo,
Eleni Vatamidou, Nico Dellaert

419 2013 Anticipatory Routing of Police Helicopters Rick van Urk, Martijn R.K. Mes,
Erwin W. Hans

418 2013 Supply Chain Finance: research challenges Kasper van der Vliet, Matthew J.
ahead Reindorp, Jan C. Fransoo

Improving the Performance of Sorter Systems S.W.A. Haneyah, J.M.J. Schutten,

417 2013 By Scheduling Inbound Containers K. Fikse

Regional logistics land allocation policies: Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de
416 2013 Stimulating spatial concentration of logistics Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar,
firms Jan C. Fransoo
 The development of measures of process Heidi L. Romero, Remco M. Dijkman,
415 2013 harmonization Paul W.P.J. Grefen, Arjan van Weele

BASE/X. Business Agility through Cross- Paul Grefen, Egon Lüftenegger,

414 2013 Organizational Service Engineering Eric van der Linden, Caren Weisleder

The Time-Dependent Vehicle Routing Problem Duygu Tas, Nico Dellaert, Tom van
413 2013 with Soft Time Windows and Stochastic Travel Woensel, Ton de Kok
Times

412 2013 Clearing the Sky - Understanding SLA Marco Comuzzi, Guus Jacobs,
Elements in Cloud Computing Paul Grefen

411 2013 Approximations for the waiting time distribution A. Al Hanbali, E.M. Alvarez,
In an M/G/c priority queue M.C. van der van der Heijden

410 2013 To co-locate or not? Location decisions and Frank P. van den Heuvel, Karel H. van
logistics concentration areas Donselaar, Rob A.C.M. Broekmeulen,
Jan C. Fransoo, Peter W. de Langen

409 2013
The Time-Dependent Pollution-Routing Problem Anna Franceschetti, Dorothée
Honhon,Tom van Woensel, Tolga
Bektas, GilbertLaporte.

Scheduling the scheduling task: A time

408 2013 J.A. Larco, V. Wiers, J. Fransoo
Management perspective on scheduling

J. Theresia van Essen, Mark van

Clustering Clinical Departments for Wards to
407 2013 Houdenhoven, Johann L. Hurink
Achieve a Prespecified Blocking Probability

MyPHRMachines: Personal Health Desktops

406 2013 Pieter Van Gorp, Marco Comuzzi
in the Cloud

Kasper van der Vliet, Matthew J.

Maximising the Value of Supply Chain Finance Reindorp, Jan C. Fransoo
405 2013

Reaching 50 million nanostores: retail Edgar E. Blanco, Jan C. Fransoo

404 2013
distribution in emerging megacities

A Vehicle Routing Problem with Flexible Time Duygu Tas, Ola Jabali, Tom van
403 2013 Windows
Woensel
402 2012 The Service Dominant Business Model: A Egon Lüftenegger, Marco Comuzzi,
Service Focused Conceptualization Paul Grefen, Caren Weisleder

401 2012 Relationship between freight accessibility and Frank P. van den Heuvel, Liliana
Logistics employment in US counties Rivera,Karel H. van Donselaar, Ad de
Jong,Yossi Sheffi, Peter W. de Langen,
Jan C.Fransoo

400 2012 A Condition-Based Maintenance Policy for Multi- Qiushi Zhu, Hao Peng, Geert-Jan van
Component Systems with a High Maintenance
Houtum
Setup Cost

399 2012 A flexible iterative improvement heuristic to E. van der Veen, J.L. Hurink,
Support creation of feasible shift rosters in
J.M.J. Schutten, S.T. Uijland
Self-rostering

Scheduled Service Network Design with

K. Sharypova, T.G. Crainic, T. van
398 2012 Synchronization and Transshipment Constraints Woensel, J.C. Fransoo
For Intermodal Container Transportation Networks

397 2012 Destocking, the bullwhip effect, and the credit Maximiliano Udenio, Jan C. Fransoo,
Crisis: empirical modeling of supply chain Robert Peels
Dynamics

396 2012 Vehicle routing with restricted loading J. Gromicho, J.J. van Hoorn, A.L. Kok
capacities J.M.J. Schutten

395 2012 Service differentiation through selective E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden,
lateral transshipments I.M.H. Vliegen, W.H.M. Zijm

394 2012 A Generalized Simulation Model of an Martijn Mes, Manon Bruens

Integrated Emergency Post

393 2012 Business Process Technology and the Cloud: Vasil Stoitsev, Paul Grefen
Defining a Business Process Cloud Platform
392 2012 Vehicle Routing with Soft Time Windows and D. Tas, M. Gendreau, N. Dellaert,
Stochastic Travel Times: A Column Generation T. van Woensel, A.G. de Kok
And Branch-and-Price Solution Approach

391 2012 Improve OR-Schedule to Reduce Number of J.T. v. Essen, J.M. Bosch, E.W. Hans,
Required Beds M. v. Houdenhoven, J.L. Hurink

390 2012 How does development lead time affect Andres Pufall, Jan C. Fransoo, Ad de
performance over the ramp-up lifecycle? Jong

Evidence from the consumer electronics Andreas Pufall, Jan C. Fransoo, Ad de

389 2012 industry Jong, Ton de Kok

The Impact of Product Complexity on Ramp- Frank P.v.d. Heuvel, Peter W.de
388 2012 Up Performance Langen,
Karel H. v. Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo

Co-location synergies: specialized versus diverse Frank P.v.d. Heuvel, Peter W.de
Langen,
387 2012 logistics concentration areas
Karel H. v.Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo

Proximity matters: Synergies through co-location Frank P. v.d.Heuvel, Peter W.de

Langen,
386 2012 of logistics establishments Karel H.v. Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo

Spatial concentration and location dynamics in

Zhiqiang Yan, Remco Dijkman, Paul
385 2012 logistics:the case of a Dutch province Grefen

W.R. Dalinghaus, P.M.E. Van Gorp

384 2012 FNet: An Index for Advanced Business Process
Querying

Defining Various Pathway Terms Egon Lüftenegger, Paul Grefen,

383 2012 Caren Weisleder

The Service Dominant Strategy Canvas:

382 2012 Stefano Fazi, Tom van Woensel,
Defining and Visualizing a Service Dominant
Strategy through the Traditional Strategic Lens Jan C. Fransoo
 A Stochastic Variable Size Bin Packing Problem K. Sharypova, T. van Woensel,
381 2012 With Time Constraints J.C. Fransoo

Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de

380 2012 Coordination and Analysis of Barge Container Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan
Hinterland Networks C.
Fransoo

379 2012 Proximity matters: Synergies through co-location Heidi Romero, Remco Dijkman,
of logistics establishments Paul Grefen, Arjan van Weele

378 2012 A literature review in process harmonization: a S.W.A. Haneya, J.M.J. Schutten,
conceptual framework P.C. Schuur, W.H.M. Zijm

A Generic Material Flow Control Model for H.G.H. Tiemessen, M. Fleischmann,

377 2012
Two Different Industries G.J. van Houtum, J.A.E.E. van Nunen,
E. Pratsini

Improving the performance of sorter systems by Albert Douma, Martijn Mes

375 2012 scheduling inbound containers

Strategies for dynamic appointment making by

374 2012 container terminals Pieter van Gorp, Marco Comuzzi

MyPHRMachines: Lifelong Personal Health E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden,
373 2012 Records in the Cloud W.H.M. Zijm

372 2012 Service differentiation in spare parts supply Frank Karsten, Rob Basten
through dedicated stocks

Spare parts inventory pooling: how to share X.Lin, R.J.I. Basten, A.A. Kranenburg,
371 2012
the benefits G.J. van Houtum

Condition based spare parts supply Martijn Mes

370 2012

Using Simulation to Assess the Opportunities of J. Arts, S.D. Flapper, K. Vernooij

369 2011 Dynamic Waste Collection

J.T. van Essen, J.L. Hurink, W.

Aggregate overhaul and supply chain planning for Hartholt,
368 2011 rotables B.J. van den Akker

367 2011 Operating Room Rescheduling Kristel M.R. Hoen, Tarkan Tan, Jan C.
Fransoo, Geert-Jan van Houtum

366 2011 Switching Transport Modes to Meet Voluntary

Carbon Emission Targets Elisa Alvarez, Matthieu van der Heijden

On two-echelon inventory systems with Poisson

365 2011 demand and lost sales
J.T. van Essen, E.W. Hans, J.L. Hurink,
A. Oversberg
364 2011 Minimizing the Waiting Time for Emergency
Surgery Duygu Tas, Nico Dellaert, Tom van
Woensel, Ton de Kok

Vehicle Routing Problem with Stochastic Travel

Erhun Özkan, Geert-Jan van Houtum,
363 2011 Times Including Soft Time Windows and Service
Costs Yasemin Serin

A New Approximate Evaluation Method for Two-

362 2011 Echelon Inventory Systems with Emergency
Said Dabia, El-Ghazali Talbi, Tom Van
Shipments Woensel, Ton de Kok

361 2011 Approximating Multi-Objective Time-Dependent Said Dabia, Stefan Röpke, Tom Van
Optimization Problems Woensel, Ton de Kok

360 2011 Branch and Cut and Price for the Time Dependent A.G. Karaarslan, G.P. Kiesmüller, A.G.
Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Window de Kok

Analysis of an Assemble-to-Order System with Ahmad Al Hanbali, Matthieu van der

359 2011 Different Review Periods
Heijden

Interval Availability Analysis of a Two-Echelon,

358 2011 Multi-Item System
Felipe Caro, Charles J. Corbett, Tarkan
Tan, Rob Zuidwijk
Carbon-Optimal and Carbon-Neutral Supply
357 2011 Chains Sameh Haneyah, Henk Zijm, Marco
Schutten, Peter Schuur
Generic Planning and Control of Automated
Material Handling Systems: Practical
356 2011 Requirements Versus Existing Theory M. van der Heijden, B. Iskandar

Last time buy decisions for products sold under

355 2011 warranty Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de
Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan
C. Fransoo
354 2011 Spatial concentration and location dynamics in Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de
logistics: the case of a Dutch provence Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan
C. Fransoo

353 2011 Identification of Employment Concentration Areas

Pieter van Gorp, Remco Dijkman

352 2011 BOMN 2.0 Execution Semantics Formalized as

Graph Rewrite Rules: extended version Frank Karsten, Marco Slikker, Geert-
Jan van Houtum
Resource pooling and cost allocation among
351 2011 independent service providers E. Lüftenegger, S. Angelov, P. Grefen

350 2011 A Framework for Business Innovation Directions

Remco Dijkman, Irene Vanderfeesten,
Hajo A. Reijers
The Road to a Business Process Architecture: An
349 2011 Overview of Approaches and their Use K.M.R. Hoen, T. Tan, J.C. Fransoo
G.J. van Houtum
Effect of carbon emission regulations on transport
348 2011 mode selection under stochastic demand Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens

An improved MIP-based combinatorial approach

for a multi-skill workforce scheduling problem
347 2011 R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
J.M.J. Schutten
An approximate approach for the joint problem of
level of repair analysis and spare parts stocking
346 2011 R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
J.M.J. Schutten
Joint optimization of level of repair analysis and
345 2011 spare parts stocks
Ton G. de Kok
Inventory control with manufacturing lead time
344 2011 flexibility Frank Karsten, Marco Slikker, Geert-
Jan van Houtum

Analysis of resource pooling games via a new

extenstion of the Erlang loss function Murat Firat, C.A.J. Hurkens, Gerhard J.
343 2011 Woeginger

Vehicle refueling with limited resources

342 2010 Bilge Atasoy, Refik Güllü, TarkanTan

Optimal Inventory Policies with Non-stationary

341 2010 Supply Disruptions and Advance Supply Kurtulus Baris Öner, Alan Scheller-Wolf
Information Geert-Jan van Houtum

Redundancy Optimization for Critical Components

339 2010 in High-Availability Capital Goods Joachim Arts, Gudrun Kiesmüller
338 2010 Analysis of a two-echelon inventory system with Murat Firat, Gerhard J. Woeginger
two supply modes

335 2010 Analysis of the dial-a-ride problem of Hunsaker Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens
and Savelsbergh

Attaining stability in multi-skill workforce scheduling

334 2010 A.J.M.M. Weijters, J.T.S. Ribeiro

P.T. Vanberkel, R.J. Boucherie, E.W.

Flexible Heuristics Miner (FHM) Hans, J.L. Hurink, W.A.M. van Lent,
333 2010
W.H. van Harten

An exact approach for relating recovering surgical Peter T. Vanberkel, Richard J.

332 2010 patient workload to the master surgical schedule Boucherie, Erwin W. Hans, Johann L.
Hurink, Nelly Litvak
Efficiency evaluation for pooling resources in
331 2010 health care M.M. Jansen, A.G. de Kok, I.J.B.F.
Adan
The Effect of Workload Constraints in
330 2010 Mathematical Programming Models for Production Christian Howard, Ingrid Reijnen,
Planning Johan Marklund, Tarkan Tan

Using pipeline information in a multi-echelon spare

329 2010 parts inventory system
H.G.H. Tiemessen, G.J. van Houtum

Reducing costs of repairable spare parts supply F.P. van den Heuvel, P.W. de Langen,
328 2010 systems via dynamic scheduling K.H. van Donselaar, J.C. Fransoo

Identification of Employment Concentration and

327 2010 Specialization Areas: Theory and Application Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens

A combinatorial approach to multi-skill workforce

scheduling Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens, Alexandre
326 2010 Laugier

Stability in multi-skill workforce scheduling

325 2010 M.A. Driessen, J.J. Arts, G.J. v.
Houtum, W.D. Rustenburg, B. Huisman

Maintenance spare parts planning and control: A

324 2010 framework for control and agenda for future
research R.J.I. Basten, G.J. van Houtum
 Near-optimal heuristics to set base stock levels in
323 2010 a two-echelon distribution network M.C. van der Heijden, E.M. Alvarez,
J.M.J. Schutten

322 2010 Inventory reduction in spare part networks by E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden,
selective throughput time reduction W.H. Zijm

The selective use of emergency shipments for

321 2010 service-contract differentiation
B. Walrave, K. v. Oorschot, A.G.L.
Romme

Heuristics for Multi-Item Two-Echelon Spare Parts

320 2010 Inventory Control Problem with Batch Ordering in
the Central Warehouse
Nico Dellaert, Jully Jeunet.

Preventing or escaping the suppression

mechanism: intervention conditions
319 2010 R. Seguel, R. Eshuis, P. Grefen.
Hospital admission planning to optimize major
resources utilization under uncertainty Tom Van Woensel, Marshall L. Fisher,
318 2010 Jan C. Fransoo.
Minimal Protocol Adaptors for Interacting Services
317 2010 Lydie P.M. Smets, Geert-Jan van
Teaching Retail Operations in Business and Houtum, Fred Langerak.
Engineering Schools
316 2010 Pieter van Gorp, Rik Eshuis.
Design for Availability: Creating Value for
315 2010 Manufacturers and Customers Bob Walrave, Kim E. van Oorschot, A.
Georges L. Romme
Transforming Process Models: executable rewrite
314 2010 rules versus a formalized Java program
S. Dabia, T. van Woensel, A.G. de Kok
Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration:
A simulation model
313

A Dynamic Programming Approach to Multi-

Objective Time-Dependent Capacitated Single
Vehicle Routing Problems with Time Windows
Tales of a So(u)rcerer: Optimal Sourcing Decisions
312 2010 Under Alternative Capacitated Suppliers and Osman Alp, Tarkan Tan
General Cost Structures
In-store replenishment procedures for perishable
311 2010 inventory in a retail environment with handling R.A.C.M. Broekmeulen, C.H.M. Bakx
costs and storage constraints
The state of the art of innovation-driven business E. Lüftenegger, S. Angelov, E. van der
310 2010
models in the financial services industry Linden, P. Grefen
 Design of Complex Architectures Using a Three
309 2010 R. Seguel, P. Grefen, R. Eshuis
Dimension Approach: the CrossWork Case
Effect of carbon emission regulations on transport K.M.R. Hoen, T. Tan, J.C. Fransoo,
308 2010
mode selection in supply chains G.J. van Houtum
Interaction between intelligent agent strategies for Martijn Mes, Matthieu van der Heijden,
307 2010
real-time transportation planning Peter Schuur
Marco Slikker, Peter Borm, René van
306 2010 Internal Slackening Scoring Methods
den Brink
Vehicle Routing with Traffic Congestion and A.L. Kok, E.W. Hans, J.M.J. Schutten,
305 2010
Drivers' Driving and Working Rules W.H.M. Zijm
R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
304 2010 Practical extensions to the level of repair analysis
J.M.J. Schutten
Ocean Container Transport: An Underestimated
303 2010 and Critical Link in Global Supply Chain Jan C. Fransoo, Chung-Yee Lee
Performance
Capacity reservation and utilization for a
302 2010 Y. Boulaksil; J.C. Fransoo; T. Tan
manufacturer with uncertain capacity and demand
F.J.P. Karsten; M. Slikker; G.J. van
300 2009 Spare parts inventory pooling games
Houtum
Capacity flexibility allocation in an outsourced
299 2009 Y. Boulaksil, M. Grunow, J.C. Fransoo
supply chain with reservation

An optimal approach for the joint problem of level R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
298 2010
of repair analysis and spare parts stocking J.M.J. Schutten
Responding to the Lehman Wave: Sales Robert Peels, Maximiliano Udenio, Jan
297 2009 Forecasting and Supply Management during the C. Fransoo, Marcel Wolfs, Tom
Credit Crisis Hendrikx
Peter T. Vanberkel, Richard J.
An exact approach for relating recovering surgical Boucherie, Erwin W. Hans, Johann L.
296 2009
patient workload to the master surgical schedule Hurink, Wineke A.M. van Lent, Wim H.
van Harten

An iterative method for the simultaneous

R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
295 2009 optimization of repair decisions and spare parts
J.M.J. Schutten
stocks
Pieter van Gorp, Ruben Jubeh,
294 2009 Fujaba hits the Wall(-e)
Bernhard Grusie, Anne Keller
Implementation of a Healthcare Process in Four R.S. Mans, W.M.P. van der Aalst, N.C.
293 2009
Different Workflow Systems Russell, P.J.M. Bakker
Business Process Model Repositories - Framework Zhiqiang Yan, Remco Dijkman, Paul
292 2009
and Survey Grefen
Efficient Optimization of the Dual-Index Policy Joachim Arts, Marcel van Vuuren,
291 2009
Using Markov Chains Gudrun Kiesmuller
Hierarchical Knowledge-Gradient for Sequential Martijn R.K. Mes; Warren B. Powell;
290 2009
Sampling Peter I. Frazier
Analyzing combined vehicle routing and break
C.M. Meyer; A.L. Kok; H. Kopfer; J.M.J.
289 2009 scheduling from a distributed decision making
Schutten
perspective
 Anticipation of lead time performance in Supply Michiel Jansen; Ton G. de Kok; Jan C.
288 2009
Chain Operations Planning Fransoo
Inventory Models with Lateral Transshipments: A Colin Paterson; Gudrun Kiesmuller;
287 2009
Review Ruud Teunter; Kevin Glazebrook
Efficiency evaluation for pooling resources in P.T. Vanberkel; R.J. Boucherie; E.W.
286 2009
health care Hans; J.L. Hurink; N. Litvak
A Survey of Health Care Models that Encompass P.T. Vanberkel; R.J. Boucherie; E.W.
285 2009
Multiple Departments Hans; J.L. Hurink; N. Litvak
Supporting Process Control in Business S. Angelov; K. Vidyasankar; J. Vonk; P.
284 2009
Collaborations Grefen
283 2009 Inventory Control with Partial Batch Ordering O. Alp; W.T. Huh; T. Tan
Translating Safe Petri Nets to Statecharts in a
282 2009 R. Eshuis
Structure-Preserving Way
The link between product data model and process
281 2009 J.J.C.L. Vogelaar; H.A. Reijers
model
Inventory planning for spare parts networks with
280 2009 I.C. Reijnen; T. Tan; G.J. van Houtum
delivery time requirements
Co-Evolution of Demand and Supply under
279 2009 B. Vermeulen; A.G. de Kok
Competition

B. Vermeulen, A.G. de Kok

Toward Meso-level Product-Market Network
278 2010 Indices for Strategic Product Selection and
(Re)Design Guidelines over the Product Life-Cycle

An Efficient Method to Construct Minimal Protocol R. Seguel, R. Eshuis, P. Grefen

Adaptors
277 2009
Coordinating Supply Chains: a Bilevel
276 2009 Ton G. de Kok, Gabriella Muratore
Programming Approach
Inventory redistribution for fashion products under
275 2009 G.P. Kiesmuller, S. Minner
demand parameter update
Comparing Markov chains: Combining aggregation A. Busic, I.M.H. Vliegen, A. Scheller-
274 2009
and precedence relations applied to sets of states Wolf
Separate tools or tool kits: an exploratory study of I.M.H. Vliegen, P.A.M. Kleingeld, G.J.
273 2009
engineers' preferences van Houtum

An Exact Solution Procedure for Multi-Item Two-

Engin Topan, Z. Pelin Bayindir, Tarkan
272 2009 Echelon Spare Parts Inventory Control Problem
Tan
with Batch Ordering
Distributed Decision Making in Combined Vehicle C.M. Meyer, H. Kopfer, A.L. Kok, M.
271 2009
Routing and Break Scheduling Schutten
Dynamic Programming Algorithm for the Vehicle
A.L. Kok, C.M. Meyer, H. Kopfer, J.M.J.
270 2009 Routing Problem with Time Windows and EC
Schutten
Social Legislation
Remco Dijkman, Marlon Dumas,
Similarity of Business Process Models: Metics and
269 2009 Boudewijn van Dongen, Reina Kaarik,
Evaluation
Jan Mendling
 Vehicle routing under time-dependent travel times:
267 2009 A.L. Kok, E.W. Hans, J.M.J. Schutten
the impact of congestion avoidance
Restricted dynamic programming: a flexible J. Gromicho; J.J. van Hoorn; A.L. Kok;
266 2009
framework for solving realistic VRPs J.M.J. Schutten;

Working Papers published before 2009 see: http://beta.ieis.tue.nl