Routing Problems

Hub & Spoke Milk Run

Vehicle Routing Problems
VRP is to determine K vehicle delivery routes.
A route is a tour that begins at the depot,
traverses a subset of the customers in a specified
sequence and returns to the depot.
Each customer must be assigned to exactly one of
the K vehicle routes.
The total size of deliveries for customers assigned
to each vehicle must not exceed the vehicle
capacity b.
The routes should be chosen to minimize
VR total
travel cost. P

Dep
ot
Objective
Minimize the total cost of providing the service.
This includes vehicle capital costs, mileage and
personnel costs.
Other objectives → Public sector
School bus: Minimize the total number of students-
minutes on the bus.
Dial-a-ride for handicapped or elderly: Minimize
the inconvenience for all customers.
Meals-for-ME: Deliver meals at certain times of the
day.
Emergency services: Minimize respond time to an
incident.
Characteristics
of the Problems
Presented as graphical networks consisting of nodes
and arcs.
The problem under consideration is visualized.
Depot node: the “home base” for the vehicle or
provider.
Arcs describe the time, cost, or distance required to
travel from one node to another.
Given an average speed or a distribution of travel
times, distance can be converted to time.
(Physical barriers are ignored.)
Directed arcs / Undirected arcs
Characteristics of the
Problems
A tour: A route for the vehicle
In general, a feasible tour must satisfy the
following conditions:
A tour must include all nodes.
A node must be visited only once.
A tour must begin and end at a depot.
A route specifies the sequence in which the
nodes (or arcs) to be visited.
A schedule identifies when each node is to be
visited.
Traveling Salesman Problem
(TSP)
The simplest case.
A set of nodes is to be visited, in any order, by
a single vehicle.
The travel costs between two nodes are the
same regardless of the direction traveled.
(Symmetric)
No delivery time restrictions.
Vehicle capacity is not considered.
Objective: Minimize the total tour cost.
Multiple Traveling Salesman
Problem (MTSP)
An extension of the TSP.
A fleet of vehicles must be routed from a single
depot.
Objective: To generate a set of routes, one for each
vehicle in the fleet, that minimizes the total tour
cost
A node maybe assigned to only one vehicle, but a
vehicle will have more than one node assigned to it.
There are no restrictions on the size of load or
number of passengers a vehicle may carry.
Vehicle Routing Problem
(VRP)
Restrict the capacity of the multiple vehicles
Demand may vary at each node.
Objective: To generate a set of routes, one for
each vehicle in the fleet, that minimizes the
total tour cost
Chinese Postman Problem
(CPP)
The demand for the service occurs on the
arcs, rather than at the nodes.
Or if demand is so high that individual
demand nodes become too numerous to
specify.
Example: Street sweeping, Snow removal,
Refuse collection, Postal delivery, Paper
delivery.
Very difficult to solve.
Problem Classifications
Routing Problems &
Scheduling Problems
If the customers being serviced have no
time restrictions and no precedence
relationships exist.
→ A pure routing problem
If there is a specified time for the service
to take place, then a scheduling problem
exists.
Solving Routing &
Scheduling Problems
Consider a product delivery problem from
a warehouse to customers.
The customers have different demands,
and the vehicles have different capacities.
Each vehicle is assigned a route beginning
and ending at the depot.
Solving Routing &
Scheduling Problems
For a problem with only 10 customers,
there are 210 or 1,024 possible routings.
For 50 customers, there are 250 or over 1
trillion (1012) possible routings.
The problems of any size quickly become
too expensive to solve optimally.
→ Heuristics that yield “good,” if not
optimal, solutions to these problems.
TSP: The Nearest Neighbor
Procedure
The nearest neighbor procedure (NNP) builds a tour
based only on the cost or distance of traveling from the
last-visited node to the closest node in the network.
The heuristic is simple, but it has the disadvantage of
being rather shortsighted.
The procedure is outlined as follows:
1. Start with the depot node.
2. Find the node closest to the last node added to the tour.
3. Go back to step 2 until all nodes have been added.
4. Connect the first and the last nodes to form a complete
tour.
Example: Nearest
Neighbor
Example: Nearest
Neighbor
Example: Nearest
Neighbor
Example: Nearest
Neighbor
Example: Nearest
Neighbor
Example: Nearest
Neighbor
The complete tour
Example: Improved
Solution

5.4 + 5.0 + 5.0 +7.8 + 3.6 +4.1 = 30.9 miles

The Nearest Neighbor
Procedure
The limitation of heuristics: they cannot
guarantee optimality.
In practice, the heuristic is applied repeatedly
by assigning every node to be the depot node,
resolving the problem, and then selecting the
lowest-cost tour as the final solution.
For example, if we repeat the procedure using
node 6 as the depot node, the tour that
results is 6 → 3 → 1 → 2 → 5 → 4 → 6 with a
total length of 31.3 miles.
Clarke & Wright Savings
Heuristic
The Clarke & Wright savings heuristic (C&W) is one of the
most well-known techniques for solving TSP & VRP.
The heuristic begins by assuming that one vehicle travels
from the depot directly to a node and returns to the depot.
Clarke & Wright 5 miles

Savings Heuristic
 The distance from node 2 to node 3 is 5 miles.
 The total distance covered by the two vehicles is 36 miles.
 The key to the C&W heuristic is the computation of savings.
 Savings is a measure of how much the trip length or cost can be reduced
by “hooking up” a pair of nodes (e.g. nodes 2 & 3) and creating the tour
which can then be assigned to a single vehicle.
 By linking nodes 2 & 3, we add 5 miles (the distance from node 2 to node
3), but we save 10 miles for the trip from node 2 to node 1 and 8 miles
from the trip from 3 to 1.
 The total tour length for the complete tour, 1 → 2 → 3 → 1, is 23 miles.
 The savings obtained = (10+10+8+8) – (10+5+8) = 36 – 23 = 13 miles.
Clarke & Wright Savings
Heuristic
Steps:
1.Select any node as the depot node (node 1).
2.Compute the savings, Sij for linking nodes i and j:
Sij = c1i + c1j − cij for i and j = nodes 2,3,…,n
where cij = the cost of traveling from node i to
node j.
3.Rank the savings from largest to smallest.
4.Starting at the top of the list, form larger subtours by
linking appropriate nodes i and j.
5.Stop when a complete tour is formed.
Example: C&W Savings
 The initial tours (with solid lines) are shown in the figure.
 The dashed lines show arcs that may be used but are not in use currently.
 The savings obtained from linking nodes 2 and 3 is (10 miles + 8 miles) - (5 miles) =
13 miles.
 The savings of linking nodes 2 and 4 is (5 miles + 10 miles) - (3 miles) = 12 miles.
 The savings of linking nodes 4 and 3 is (5 miles + 8 miles) - (7 miles) = 6 miles.
 We next rank the savings for every pair of nodes not yet linked.
→ Rank: [2, 3], [2, 4], and [3, 4].
 The first step in specifying a tour is to link the nodes with the highest savings; nodes
2 and 3.
Example: C&W Savings
Proceeding to the next highest savings, nodes 2
and 4 are linked.
The complete tour is 1 → 4 → 2 → 3 → 1, which has
a total tour length of 21 miles.
The total savings obtained over the “one vehicle
per node” configuration is 25 miles.

(5+5) + (10+10) + (8+8) = 46 miles 5 + 3 + 5 + 8 = 21 miles

Clarke & Wright Savings
Heuristic
In general, because C&W considers cost when
constructing a tour, it yields better quality
solutions than the nearest neighbor
procedure.
Both the Clark & Wright savings heuristic and
the nearest neighbor procedure can be easily
adjusted to accommodate problems with
directed arcs.
Multiple Traveling Salesman
Problem (MTSP)
The MTSP is a generalization of the TSP where
there are multiple vehicles and a single depot.
In this problem, instead of determining a route for
a single vehicle, we wish to construct tours for all
M vehicles.
Solution procedures begin by “copying” the depot
node M times.
The problem is thus reduced to M single-vehicle
TSPs, and it can be solved using either the
nearest neighbor or Clark and Wright heuristics.
Example: MTSP

Copy Copy
The Vehicle Routing
Problem (VRP)
The classic VRP expands the multiple
traveling salesman problem to include
different service requirements at each node
and different capacities for vehicles in the
fleet.
The objective of these problems is to
minimize total cost or distance across all
routes.
Example: VRP
Suppose we have a single depot and two
buses, 1 and 2.
Vehicle 1 has a capacity of 20 people and
vehicle 2 a capacity of 10.
There are three nodes where travelers are to
be picked up.
The number of travelers to be picked up is
shown in brackets beside each node.
Example: VRP
If the capacity of the buses and the demand at each node are
ignored, the C&W heuristic would construct a tour for each vehicle as
follows:
 Bus 1’s tour: 1 →2 →3 →1 (with 21 passengers)
violates the capacity constraints of bus 1
 Bus 2’s tour: 1 → 4 → 1 (with 4 passengers)
Example: VRP
Bus 1’s tour: 1 →2 →2 (with 15
passengers)
Bus 2’s tour: 1 → 4 → 3 → 1 (with 10
passengers)
Cluster First, Route Second
Approach
 The figure presents a 12-node VRP
problem in which two vehicles must
deliver cargo to 11 stations and return
to the depot.
 The capacities of vehicles 1 and 2 are
45 and 35 tons, respectively.
 Cargo demand is bracketed at each
node, and distances, in miles, are
shown on the arcs.
 The 12 nodes have been clustered
initially into two groups, one for each
vehicle.
 Nodes 2 through 6 are assigned to
vehicle 1.
 Nodes 7 through 12 to vehicle 2.
 Node 1 is the depot node.
Cluster First, Route Second
Approach
 In practice, clustering takes into account
physical barriers such as rivers,
mountains, or interstate highways, as well
as geographic areas such as towns and
cities that form a natural cluster.
 Capacity restrictions are also taken into
account when developing the clusters.
 From the initial clustering, vehicle 1
carries 40 tons and vehicle 2 carries 34
tons.
 Using the C&W heuristic, tours are
constructed as follows:
Vehicle 1’s: 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 1
(A total tour length is 330 miles)
Vehicle 2’s: 1 → 7 → 8 → 9 → 10 → 11 → 12
→1
(A total tour length is 410 miles)
Cluster First, Route Second
Approach
 The next phase is to determine whether a
node or nodes can be switched from the
longest tour (tour 2) to tour 1 such that the
capacity of vehicle 1 is not exceeded and the
sum of the two tour lengths is reduced.
 This step is referred to as tour improvement.
 The nodes in tour 2 that are closest to tour 1
are nodes 7 and 8.
 Node 8 has a demand of 6 tons and cannot be
switched to tour 1 without exceeding vehicle
1’s capacity.
 Node 7 has a demand of 3 tons and is eligible
to switch.
 Evaluate where the node 7 should be inserted
into tour 1 and whether it will reduce the
distance traveled. → The minimum cost of
insertion technique.
Cluster First, Route
Second Approach
The minimum cost of insertion is calculated in
the same way as the Clark and Wright heuristic.
If all distances are symmetrical, then the cost of
insertion, Iij , can be calculated as follows:
Iij = ci,k + cj,k − cij for all i and j, i≠j
where cij = the cost of traveling from node i to
node j.
Nodes i and j are already in the tour.
Node k is the node we are trying to insert.
Cluster First, Route Second
Approach
 Node 7 is a candidate for insertion because it is near
tour 1.
 Evaluate all alternatives :
 Node 7 could be inserted between nodes 6 and 1
 Or it could be inserted between nodes 5 and 6.
 The cost of inserting node 7 between nodes 1 and 6 is
130 miles (30 + 50 - 50) = 30 miles.
 The cost of inserting node 7 between nodes 5 and 6 is
60 miles (60 + 30 - 90) = 0 miles.
60 miles
30 miles The lowest cost is found by inserting node 7 between

nodes 5 and 6, resulting in a completed tour for vehicle
1 of 1-2-3-4-5-7-6-1.
 The total length of tour 1 is now 330 miles, and the
length of tour 2 is 400 miles.
 The distance traveled by the two vehicles has
decreased from 740 to 730 miles.
Cluster First, Route Second
Approach

Initial solution: Revised solution:

Tour 1: 330 miles ; Tour 2: 410 miles Tour 1: 330 miles ; Tour 2: 400 miles
Total distance traveled: 740 miles Total distance traveled: 730 miles
Scheduling Service
Vehicles
Scheduling problems are characterized by delivery-
time restrictions.
The starting and ending times for a service may be
specified in advance. → “Time windows”
A one-sided time window either specifies that a
service precede a given time or follow a given time.
(e.g., most newspapers attempt to have papers delivered
before 7:00 A.M.)
Two-sided time window:
 In the Meals-for-ME program, meals had to be delivered
between 11:30 A.M. and 1:00 P.M.
 Furniture delivery is usually scheduled after 9:00 A.M.
and before 4:30 P.M.
A VRP with Time Windows
 An arc may join node i to node j if the
start time of task j is greater than the
end time of task i and the start time of
task j must include a user-specified
period of time (“deadhead time”)
longer than the end time of task i.
 In this example, the deadhead time is
45 minutes.
 This is the nonproductive time required
for the vehicle to travel from one task
location to another or return to the
depot empty.
 The paths are not restricted in length.
 Each vehicle must start and end at the
depot.
A VRP with Time
Windows
 The VRP with time windows (VRPTW) may be formulated as
a special type of network problem called a minimal-cost-
flow problem.
 Alternatively, a heuristic approach such as “the concurrent
scheduler approach” may be used.
Steps:
1. Order all tasks by starting times. Assign the first task to
vehicle 1.
2. For the remaining number of tasks, do the following. If it is
feasible to assign the next task to an existing vehicle,
assign it to the vehicle that has the minimum deadhead
time to that task. Otherwise, create a new vehicle and
assign the task to the new vehicle.
 The Concurrent Scheduler
Approach
 Initially, vehicle 1 is assigned to task 1.
 Because task 2 begins before vehicle 1
is available, a second vehicle is
assigned to this task.
 Vehicle 2 finishes task 2 in time to take
care of task 3 also.
 In the meantime, vehicle 1 completes
task 1 and is available for task 4.
 A third vehicle is not required until task
5, when vehicles 1 and 2 are busy with
tasks 4 and 3, respectively.
 Continuing in a similar fashion, the
schedule for vehicle 1 is 1-4-7-10-12,
Assume that the deadhead time is 15 minutes. for
 vehicle 2 the schedule is 2-3-6-9, and
for vehicle 3 the schedule is 5-8-11.
Nearest Neighbor
Add nearest customer to end of the route.

1 2 3

dep dep dep

ot ot ot
Nearest Neighbor
4 5 6

dep dep dep

ot ot ot
Nearest Insertion
Insert customer closest to the route in the
best sequence.

1 2 3

dep dep dep

ot ot ot
Nearest Insertion
4 5 6

dep dep dep

ot ot ot
Savings Method
(Clarke & Wright, 1964)
Remo Add Savings = S12 = C10 +C02 -C12
ve

2 3
1 2 3
1

4
4

dep
dep
ot
ot
Savings Method
3
S12
3 S13 3
1 2 1 2 1 2
4 5 4 4
5 5

dep dep dep

ot 6 ot 6 ot 6

S14 3 S15 3 S16 3

1 2 1 2 1 2
4 4 5 4 5
5

dep dep dep

ot 6 ot 6 ot 6
Small savings
Savings Method (Clarke & Wright,
1964)
Form route by linking customers according to
savings.
S35 :link 3&5 S34 :link 3&4 (keep 3-5)

3 3
1 2 1 2
4 5 4
5

dep dep
ot 6 ot 6

0-3-5-0 0-4-3-5-0
Savings Method
S23 3
S24
3 S25 3
1 2 1 2 1 2
4 5 4 4
5 5

dep dep dep

ot 6 ot 6 ot 6

S26 3 S34 3 S35 3

1 2 1 2 1 2
4 4 5 4 5
5

dep dep dep

ot 6 ot 6 ot 6
Large savings Large savings
Savings Method
Large savings
S36 3
S45
3 S46 3
1 2 1 2 1 2
4 5 4 4
5 5

dep dep dep

ot 6 ot 6 ot 6

S56 3 In general, with n customers there

1 2 are n(n-1)/2 savings to calculate.
4
5
Order savings from largest to smallest.
dep S35 , S34 , S45 , S36 , S56 , S23 , S46 , S24 , S25 , S12 ,
ot 6 S26 , S13 , etc.
Savings Method
S45 : skip S36 : skip S56 :link 5&6

3 3 3
1 2 1 2 1 2
4 5 4 4
5 5

dep dep dep

ot 6 ot 6 ot 6
Savings Method
S23 : skip S46 : skip S24 :link 2&4
3 3 3
1 2 1 2 1 2
4 4 4
5 5

dep dep dep

ot 6 ot 6 ot 6
Savings Method
S25 : skip 3 S12 : link 1&2 3
1 2 1 2
4 5 4
5

dep dep
ot 6 ot 6

Final route: 0-1-2-4-3-5-6-0

The Sweep Method (Gillett and
Miller, 1974)
Simple
Solves problems rapidly, without requiring enormous
amounts of computer memory.
The level of computational error is considered acceptable
where results must be obtained in a short time.
Disadvantage:
 The routing process is two-staged, with stop being assigned to
vehicles first. Then, the stop sequence on the routes is
determined.
 Timing issues such as total time spent on route and time
windows allowance are not well handled.
The Sweep Method
1. Locate all stops including the depot on a map or grid.
2. Extend a straight line from the depot in any direction. Rotate
the line clockwise or counterclockwise, until it intersects a stop.
 The inserted stop will be included on the route, if the vehicle
capacity is not exceeded.
 Use the largest vehicle first.
 Continue with the sweep until all points have been assigned
to routes.
1. Within each route, sequence the stops to minimize distance.
(The tear-drop method or algorithms for TSP.)
Example: P.K. Smith Trucking
Company
The P.K. Smith Trucking Company uses vans to
pick up merchandise from customers to a
depot point.
The vans can haul 10,000 units.
To complete a route typically requires the
entire day.
The company wants to determine:
How many routes (trucks) are needed?
Which stops should be on the routes and in
which sequence?
Example: P.K. Smith Trucking
Company
The Sweep Method
The “sweep” method has the potential to
giving very good solutions when:

1. Each stop volume is a small fraction of the

vehicle capacity,
2. All vehicles are the same size,
3. There are no time restrictions on routes.
Typical Complications in Real
VRPs
1. Travel costs can be asymmetric so that cij ≠ cji in general.
2. The characteristics of the vehicles can introduce a variety of
constraints beyond the simple vehicle capacity constraints.
 Heterogeneous fleet (each with bk)
(Vehicles have different capacity limitations to both weight and volume.)
 Multiple capacity constraints (weight & volume)
 Different products in different compartments
 Customer -Vehicle compatibility
 Multiple-trip VRP
 Pickup & Delivery VRP (Precedence constraints imposed)
Typical Complications in Real
VRPs
3. The total time duration in a route may be constrained.
Department of Transportation (DOT) safety restriction:
 Max. drive duration = 10 hrs. before 8 hrs. break.
 Max. work duration = 15 hrs. before 8 hrs. break.
 Max. trip duration = 144 hrs.
3. The time of delivery to customer i may be constrained
to fall with in a designated ‘time window’.
(Customers allow pickup and/or delivery only at certain
times of the day.)
4. Drivers may be allowed to take short rests or lunch
breaks at certain times of the day.
Typical Complications in Real
VRPs
6. There may be multiple depots with each vehicle in the fleet assigned to
a particular depot.
7. Precedence constraints can impose a partial ordering on the customer
delivery sequence.
8. In fleet planning problems, the number of vehicle used is a variable
rather than a constant. (Fixed charge included)
9. Delivery to some customers may be optional provided we incur a
specified penalty cost for not delivering (or hiring an outside carrier at a
known cost).
10. Period VRPs arise in the distributing firms that are interested in
developing a set of daily routes for some T-day period so that each
customer receives delivery at a designated frequency.
Typical Complications in Real
VRPs
11. Inventory routing problems (IRP) arise in the distribution of liquid
products (e.g., gases or gasoline).
Each customer has an inventory of product, and the distributor
must determine the timing and amount of deliveries so that the
customer does not run out of product.
12. The objective function in real problems can be complex, including
terms dependent on the distance traveled, the number of vehicle
used, the time duration of routes, and penalties.
Many costs involved:
Fixed charge; Variable costs per loaded mile & per empty mile;
Waiting time; Loading & unloading cost; Penalties; etc.
VRP with Time Windows
Hard time windows:
The deliveries must be made within specified
time windows.
Soft time windows:
The deliveries may be made outside the
specified time windows with penalties.
Mixed Pickup & Delivery
VRP
Pickup
Delivery

Dep
ot

Can pickups and deliveries be made on same trip?

Can they be interspersed?
Mixed P&D VRP Interspersed

Pickup
Delivery
Dep
ot

Not Interspersed Separate routes

Dep
Dep
ot
ot
 Pickup

Interspersed Routes Delivery

F
For clockwise trip: I
E H
D K
 Load at depot ACDFIJK A G
J
 Stop 1: Deliver A CDFIJK C
dep L
B ot
 Stop 2: Pickup B BCDFIJK

 Stop 3: Deliver C BDFIJK Delivering C requires moving B

 Stop4: Deliver D BFIJK Delivering D requires moving B

 etc.
 Pickup

VRP with Backhauls Delivery

Should a vehicle return empty (deadhead) or find a

backhaul?
How far out of the way should it look for a backhaul?
Compare profit from deadheading and carrying
backhaul.
C
B
A B
Dep A
ot C
Empty Return
Backhaul D
D
Cognitive Approach for
VRPs
When points are spatially related, good
solutions can be found by using the pattern
recognition capabilities of the human mind.
Good stop sequences are formed when the
paths of the route do not cross.
The route shape will usually bulge, or form a
teardrop shape, where possible.
An analyst may be able to quickly sketch
out a route plan that might require a
computer many hours to find.
Poor vs. Good Routing
Example
 A company uses route salespersons to sell beer and other
beverages from a truck owned by the local distributor.
 The salesperson is paid on a commission and, like the distributor,
does not wish to spend more time or travel any greater distance
than necessary to cover the accounts on a daily basis.
 Pins on a map are used to locate the current accounts for a
particular salesperson.
 An example of this type of information for 20 rural accounts has
been transferred to the grid-overlay map shown as Figure 7-7(a).
 The coordinate relate to distance.
 The truck is to start at the depot and return to the depot, visit all
accounts and travel the least distance possible.
Example
Try the cognitive approach.
Compare your solution with the one generates
by ROUTESEQ module in LOGWARE, as shown
in Figure 7-7(b).
The total tour distance (cost) is 37.59
coordinate units.
This is a good solution, but not necessarily an
optimal one.
Example
When Points are NOT spatially
related.
The spatial relationships become distorted for
practical reasons.
(Travel barrier, one-way streets, traffic congestion)
Exact distances or times should be specified between
stop pairs.
Cognitive procedures are less applicable.
Use one of the mathematical procedures suggested in
the researches to find the stop sequences on a route.
Solution procedures tend to give approximates answers.
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
Good solutions to the VRP problems can be
found by applying “principles for good routing
and scheduling” or some “logical heuristic
procedures”.

Consider the routing & scheduling problem

where trucks are to start at a central depot,
visit multiple stops to make deliveries, and
return to the depot in the same day.
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
1. Form truck routes around clusters of stops
that are nearest to each other in order to
minimize the inter-stop travel between
them.
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
2. Stops on different days should be arranged to
produce tight clusters.
 The stops should be segmented into separate
routing & scheduling problems for each day of the
week.
 The daily segments for which routes & schedules are
to be developed should avoid overlapping stop
clusters.
 Minimize the number of trucks needed to serve all
stops.
 Minimize truck travel time & distance during the
week.
Daily Segments
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
3. Build routes beginning with the farthest stop from the
depot and then working back toward the depot.
 Identify the farthest stop.
 Select the volume from the tightest cluster of stops
around that stop to fill out the assigned truck capacity.
 After the stop volumes have been assigned to the vehicle,
select another vehicle and identify the farthest stop from
the depot among the remaining stops not yet routed.
 Proceed until all stops have been assigned to the
vehicles.
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
4. The sequence of stops on a truck route
should form a teardrop pattern.
 No routes paths cross.
 The route appears to have a teardrop shape.
 However, time window restrictions and the
forcing of stop pickups after deliveries may
cause route paths to cross.
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
5. The most efficient routes are built using the
largest vehicles available.
 Ideally, using a vehicle large enough to handle
all stops in one route will minimize total
distance or time traveled to serve the stops.
 Therefore, the largest vehicles should be
allocated first, providing that good utilizations
for them can be utilized.
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
6. Pickups should be mixed into delivery routes rather than
assigned to the end of routes.
 To minimize the amount of path crossing that can occur
when such stops are served after all deliveries are
made.
 Depend on:
 The vehicle configuration
 The size of the pickup volumes
 The degree to which they may block access to the delivery
merchandise inside the vehicle
 The compatibility of merchandises (Cross-contamination
among food, raw materials, and chemicals)
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
7. A stop that is isolated from a route cluster
(especially that with low volume) is a
good candidate for an alternate means of
delivery.
 Using small trucks to handle such stops may
prove to be more economical, depending on
the isolation of particular stops and volumes.
 Using a for-hire transportation service would
be a good alternative.
Principles for Good
Routing & Scheduling
8. Narrow stop time window restrictions
should be avoided.
 Time window restrictions on stops, where they
are narrow, can force stop sequencing away
from ideal patterns.
 Any stop(s) forced to be served in a less-than-
desired routing pattern should have its time
window limits renegotiated and hopefully
widened.
Example: The Case Casket
Company
 The company manufactures and distributes a complete line
of burial caskets to funeral homes.
 Typically, a funeral director will order caskets to replenish his
or her inventory or to meet the particular needs of a family.
 Orders are usually in small quantities, frequently no more
than one casket at a time.
 The company’s warehouse operates two specially racked
trucks that each haul a maximum of 18 caskets.
 Delivery are made 5 days a week.
 Develop a routing & scheduling plan for the given week for
the territory in Figure 7-11.
1. Segment the territory into 5 daily
customer clusters based on 5 delivery
days per week.
 Cluster customers starting with the farthest customer and
then adding customers by progressively moving toward the
warehouse.
 Construct 4 customer groups for outlying stops for the first
four days of the week, and one group for the fifth day that
serves stops close to the warehouse.
 Balancing the workload for each of the five groups is desired
to avoid the need for more than 2 trucks.
 Since Detroit is a dominant market point, we divide it over 2
days.
 Sweeping in both directions to capture approximately equal
stop volume in each of the four stop clusters.
2. Load the truck and design routing
patterns.
Each day is considered separately.
Starting with the farthest stop, cluster enough stops in
close proximity to each other until the capacity of a
truck is filled.
Then, select the farthest stop from the remaining ones
and repeat the process for loading the next truck.
For the stops assigned to a truck, the stops are
sequenced so that the paths within a route do not cross,
and they bulge outward.
→ Cluster-First, Route-Second