Artificial Agents Play the Beer Game Eliminate the Bullwhip Effect
and Whip the MBAs
Steven O. Kimbrough
D.-J. Wu
Fang Zhong
The MIT Beer Game • Players
– Retailer, Wholesaler, Distributor and Manufacturer.
• Goal– Minimize system-wide (chain) long-run average cost.
• Information sharing: Mail. • Demand: Deterministic.• Costs
– Holding cost: $1.00/case/week.
– Penalty cost: $2.00/case/week.
• Leadtime: 2 weeks physical delay
Timing
1. New shipments delivered.
2. Orders arrive.
3. Fill orders plus backlog.
4. Decide how much to order.
5. Calculate inventory costs.
The Bullwhip Effect
• Order variability is amplified upstream in the supply chain.
• Industry examples (P&G, HP).
Analytic Results: Deterministic Demand
• Assumptions:– Fixed lead time.– Players work as a team.– Manufacturer has unlimited capacity.
• “1-1” policy is optimal -- order whatever amount is ordered from your customer.
Analytic Results: Stochastic Demand (Chen, 1999, Management Science)
• Additional assumptions:– Only the Retailer incurs penalty cost.– Demand distribution is common knowledge.– Fixed information lead time.– Decreasing holding costs upstream in the chain.
• Order-up-to (base stock installation) policy is the optimal.
Agent-Based Approach
• Agents work as a team.
• No agent has knowledge on demand distribution.
• No information sharing among agents.
• Agents learn via genetic algorithms.
• Fixed or stochastic leadtime.
Research Questions• Can the agents track the demand?
• Can the agents eliminate the Bullwhip effect?
• Can the agents discover the optimal policies if they exist?
• Can the agents discover reasonably good policies under complex scenarios where analytical solutions are not available?
Agents Coding Strategy
• Bit-string representation with fixed length n.• Leftmost bit represents the sign of “+” or “-”.• The rest bits represent how much to order.• Rule “x+1” means “if demand is x then order
x+1”.• Rule search space is 2n-1 – 1.
Experiment 1a: First Cup
• Environment:– Deterministic demand with fixed leadtime.– Fix the policy of Wholesaler, Distributor and
Manufacturer to be “1-1”.– Only the Retailer agent learns.
• Result: Retailer Agent finds “1-1”.
Experiment 1b• All four Agents learn under the environment of
experiment 1a.• Über rule for the team.
• All four agents find “1-1”.
Artificial Agents Whip the MBAs in Playing the MIT Beer Game
Accumulated Cost Comparison of MBAs and our agents
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Week
Acc
umul
ated
Cos
t
MBA Group1
MBA Group2
MBA Group3
Agent
Result of Experiment 1bAll four agents can find the optimal “1-1” policy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 32 33 34 35
Week
Retai ler
WholeSaler
Distr ibuter
Factor y
Stability (Experiment 1b)• Fix any three agents to be “1-1”, and allow the fourth
agent to learn.
• The fourth agent minimizes its own long-run average cost rather than the team cost.
• No agent has any incentive to deviate once the others are playing “1-1”.
• Therefore “1-1” is apparently Nash.
Experiment 2: Second Cup
• Environment:– Demand uniformly distributed between [0,15].– Fixed the lead time.– All four Agents make their own decisions as in
experiment 1b.
• Agents eliminate the Bullwhip effect.
• Agents find better policies than “1-1”.
Artificial agents discover a better policy than “1-1” when facing stochastic demand with penalty costs for all players.
Accumulated Cost vs. Week
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Week
Acc
umul
ated
Cos
t
Agent Cost
1-1 Cost
Artificial agents eliminate the Bullwhip effect.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
201 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Week
Ord
er
Retailer
WholeSaler
Factory
Distributer
Experiment 3: Third Cup
• Environment:– Lead time uniformly distributed between [0,4].
– The rest as in experiment 2.
• Agents find better policies than “1-1”.• No Bullwhip effect.• The polices discovered by agents are Nash.
Artificial agents discover better and stable policies than “1-1” when facing stochastic demand and stochastic lead-time.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Week
1-1 cost
Agent cost
Artificial Agents are able to eliminate the Bullwhip effect when facing stochastic demand with stochastic leadtime.
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Week
Retailor Order
WholeSaler Order
Distributer Order
Factory Order
Agents learning
Strategies Generation
Retailer Wholesaler Distributor Manufacturer Total Cost
0 x – 0 x – 1 x + 4 x + 2 7380
1 x + 3 x – 2 x + 2 x + 5 7856
2 x – 0 x + 5 x + 6 x + 3 6987
3 x – 1 x + 5 x + 2 x + 3 6137
4 x + 0 x + 5 x – 0 x – 2 6129
5 x + 3 x + 1 x+ 2 x + 3 3886
6 x – 0 x + 1 x + 2 x + 0 3071
7 x + 2 x + 1 x + 2 x+ 1 2694
8 x + 1 x + 1 x + 2 x + 1 2555
9 x + 1 x + 1 x + 2 x + 1 2555
10 x + 1 x + 1 x + 2 x + 1 2555
The Columbia Beer Game
• Environment:– Information lead time: (2, 2, 2, 0).– Physical lead time: (2, 2, 2, 3).– Initial conditions set as Chen (1999).
• Agents find the optimal policy: order whatever is ordered with time shift, I.e.,Q1 = D (t-1), Qi = Qi-1 (t – l).
Ongoing Research: More Beer
• Value of information sharing.
• Coordination and cooperation.
• Bargaining and negotiation.
• Alternative learning mechanisms: Classifier systems.
Summary
• Agents are capable of playing the Beer Game– Track demand.
– Eliminate the Bullwhip effect.
– Discover the optimal policies if exist.
– Discover good policies under complex scenarios where analytical solutions are not available.
• Intelligent and agile supply chain.• Multi-agent enterprise modeling.
A framework for multi-agent intelligent enterprise modeling
Executive Community (StrategyFinder)
Supply Chain Community
(DragonChain)
Production Community
(LivingFactory)
Pricing Agent
Investment Agent
Auction Agent
Bidding Agent
Contracting Agent
Factory Agent
Distributor Agent
Wholesaler Agent
Retailer Agent
E-Marketplace Community
(eBAC)