IFB201TC Warehouse and Inventory Management


Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit


IFB201TC Warehouse and Inventory Management

Coursework 2 – Inventory Management Case Report
Case: VitaGear – Twin-Hub Inventory Strategy Redesign

Assessment overview

Coursework type
 Individual coursework (individual report required)
Weighting
 50% of the IFB201TC final mark
Submission deadline
 19 April 2026, 17:00 (Beijing time)
What to submit
One PDF report (2000 words ±10%) + a zipped folder (Excel/Python) to reproduce results

Part 1. Company introduction

You are the inventory planning team of VitaGear, a consumer-tech brand selling smart wellness and immersive fitness devices. The product portfolio contains 9 SKUs across four families (smart bands, sport watches, balance devices, and VR glasses).

Based on market demand, VitaGear’s products are classified as:

 A-class: 2 smart-band SKUs, about 81% of total demand
 B/C-class: the remaining 7 SKUs, about 19% of total demand

Table 1 summarises the product portfolio (prices and classes are fixed and must match the dataset).

Table 1. VitaGear’s product portfolio

Product family
 SKU code
 Price (RMB/unit)
 ABC class
Smart band
 Bracelet Common
 360
 A
Smart band
Bracelet NFC
570
A
Sport watch
Sport Watch
1000
B/C
Balance device
Balance Car T
1880
B/C
Balance device
Balance Car S
1980
B/C
Balance device
Balance Car Pro
2105
B/C
VR glasses
VR Glass M
2350
B/C
VR glasses
VR Glass H
2878
B/C
VR glasses
VR Glass Pro
3882
 B/C

FY2025 baseline distribution structure: In FY2025, the company operated a conventional national distribution network with a single manufacturing site in Shenzhen supplying five regional distribution centres (RDCs) located in Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Xi’an, and Changsha. These RDCs fulfilled customer orders from a nationwide dealer network comprising 144 dealers distributed across 29 provinces and 100 cities in China. Under this baseline structure, finished goods typically moved from the factory to RDCs through linehaul shipments, and then from RDCs to dealers mainly via parcel delivery, providing the reference operating model against which the FY2026 inventory redesign will be evaluated.

Figure 1. FY2025 baseline network (factory → RDCs → dealers).


Part 2. Challenges

Management require an inventory strategy upgrade because the current stocking and replenishment rules are not reliably delivering the required service level, especially for the A-class SKUs that dominate demand.

1. Best-seller dominance creates service risk. A-class items account for most demand, so stockouts on A-class quickly reduce overall order fulfillment.

2. Mismatch between demand class and stocking logic. A-class should be supported by near-demand stocking, while B/C should benefit from pooling; the baseline policy does not explicitly implement this logic.
3. Need for a transparent policy that meets the service target. The firm requires overall order fill rate ≥ 95%. Differentiated targets by ABC are allowed if you justify them and show the quantitative impact.

FY2026 operating concept: In FY2026, management will operate a central-hub-based, differentiated fulfillment structure (hub locations are predefined in the dataset). Under this operating model, A-class SKUs will be fulfilled via regional DCs to strengthen near- demand availability, while B/C-class SKUs will be fulfilled directly from the central hub layer to dealers to benefit from inventory pooling. The A-class service benchmark is defined as achieving coverage of 95% of customer demand within a 960 km radius.

Figure 2. FY2026 operating concept (differentiated fulfillment by demand class).


Part 3. Tasks

Using the provided Excel dataset and the FY2026 operating concept, complete the following inventory-management work:

1. Design the FY2026 inventory deployment plan: Decide how inventory should be positioned by echelon (e.g., hub layer vs regional DCs) and by demand class (A vs B/C). Your plan must be consistent with the FY2026 operating concept.

2. Propose and parameterize an inventory policy: Select and justify an inventory control approach appropriate for IFB201TC (e.g., reorder point/order-up-to, (s,S),periodic review). Specify parameters and  show how they are estimated from data.

3. Evaluate performance against the service requirement: Define and compute/estimate fill rate. Demonstrate that your FY2026 design meets overall fill rate ≥ 95%. If you apply differentiated service targets, justify them and show the quantitative impact.

4. Compare FY2025 vs FY2026 inventory outcomes: Quantify the impact of FY2026 deployment/policy relative to FY2025 baseline (e.g., total inventory level/value,safety stock, inventory holding cost, and  any other inventory-relevant cost fields provided).

Part 4. Case data summary (Excel dataset overview)

The dataset file provided for this coursework is an Excel workbook (FY2025 baseline data). Use the dataset as-is and keep all calculations traceable. You may create newtabs/files for calculations, but do not  modify the original records.

Workbook structure (sheet-level summary):

 Data overview: A high-level guide to the workbook and key definitions.
 Product information: SKU list, ABC class, price, and SKU attributes needed for demand and inventory calculations.
 Customer information: Dealer master data: dealer IDs, locations, and any available classification fields.
 Customer orders (FY2025 baseline): Historical dealer orders used to estimate demand level and variability (mean, standard deviation; seasonality if applicable).
 Site information: Factory / DC / hub identifiers and site attributes. Use for mapping stocking echelons (not for changing locations).
 Warehousing information: Inventory holding cost rates and warehouse-related parameters needed to translate inventory into cost.
 Transportation information: Inter-site shipping information; use only if needed to support inventory logic (e.g., lead time assumptions).
 Parcel rate table: Parcel pricing by zone/region for dealer deliveries; use only if needed for supporting assumptions.
 Shipment summary (FY2025 baseline): Historical shipment records that may help infer lead time and validate service behaviour (if feasible).

Note: Some transportation-related sheets may include additional fields that are not required for this coursework.

Submission requirements

 Word count: 2000 words ±10% (recommended: excludes cover page, executive summary, tables, figures, references, and appendices).
 Use the official Taicang coursework coversheet.
 Submit your report as a single PDF.
 Submit a zipped folder containing your working files (Excel and/or Python) so results can be reproduced.
 All figures/tables must be labelled and referenced in the text (e.g., Figure 1, Table 2).
 Academic integrity: do not submit downloaded solutions; grading emphasises your method transparency and traceability from the provided dataset.
Suggested report structure (guidance)
 Executive summary (150–200 words): Context, proposed FY2026 policy, headline results (service and inventory).
 Context and objectives: Company, ABC demand concentration, FY2025 vs FY2026 operating concept, service requirement.
 Data and assumptions: Demand aggregation, variability estimation, lead-time assumptions, data checks.
 Baseline (FY2025) reference performance: How you estimate baseline inventory/service for comparison.
 FY2026 inventory policy design: Inventory positioning, replenishment policy, safety stock method, parameter estimation, and calculation steps.
 Results and comparison: FY2025 vs FY2026 KPIs; interpret drivers of change.
 Recommendations: Actionable recommendations and implementation notes.Marking rubric (100 points)

The rubric below shows how your report will be assessed.

Category and Weighting
 Marks
Problem framing & targets (inventory-only) (out of 10)
Scope and decisions are precise and coherent; correct service definition;
KPIs/constraints clearly stated and aligned to decisions.
8-10
Scope/decisions are mostly clear; service definition is correct;
KPIs/constraints stated; minor gaps in justification or target alignment.
7-7.5

Scope and decisions are generally clear but some ambiguity remains; 

service definition mostly correct; KPIs/constraints stated but linkage/justification is partially developed.

6-6.5
Basic framing of scope/decisions; service definition partially correct or weakly linked to decisions; KPIs/constraints mentioned but inconsistent.
 4-5.5
Unclear scope; incorrect or missing service definition; KPIs/constraints missing or not aligned to decisions.
 0-3.5
Data understanding & assumptions (out of 20)
Demand is summarised correctly; variability/lead-time assumptions explicit; evidence of data checks.
 16-20
Demand and variability are summarised with minor errors/omissions; key assumptions stated; some data checks; justification reasonable but not fully evidenced.
 14-15.5
Demand patterns are summarised but with noticeable gaps (e.g., variability or lead-time not fully analysed); assumptions partly explicit; limited data checks; some parameter choices justified.
12-13.5
Uses dataset but summarisation is limited; assumptions are generic; minimal data checks; several parameter choices unexplained.
 8-11.5
Little evidence of data use; key assumptions missing or inconsistent; results cannot be trusted.
 0-7.5
Inventory policy design & parameterisation (out of 35)Policy choice is appropriate; parameters correctly estimated; safety stock logic correct; coherent multi-echelon reasoning.
 28-35
Policy choice is appropriate; parameters mostly correct with minor technical errors; safety stock logic mostly correct; multi-echelon reasoning generally coherent.
 25-27.5
Policy choice is broadly appropriate; key parameters estimated with some mistakes/omissions; safety stock logic partly correct; calculations mostly coherent but with gaps.
 21-24.5
Policy is described but only partly implemented; parameters incomplete or weakly estimated; safety stock or echelon logic simplistic; gaps in calculations.
 14-20.5
Incorrect/incoherent methods; major formula/logic errors; results not interpretable.
 0-13.5
Service evaluation (fill rate ≥ 95%) (out of 15)
Fill rate computed/estimated transparently; target addressed; shows classlevel insight if used.
 12-15
Fill rate computed/estimated with mostly clear steps; target addressed; minor gaps in definition, assumptions, or class-level analysis.
 11-11.5
Fill rate computed/estimated but some steps/definitions are unclear; target discussed; limited class-level analysis or interpretation.
 9-10.5
Service evaluation attempted but definition/approach is unclear; partial calculations; target discussion superficial.
 6-8.5
No credible service evaluation or target not addressed.
 0-5.5
FY2025 vs FY2026 comparison & insight (out of 15)
Comparable baseline vs redesign results; coherent tables/figures; explains drivers and trade-offs.
12-15
Comparison presented with mostly consistent KPIs; tables/figures largely coherent; explains some drivers and trade-offs, but depth/rigour is limited.
 11-11.5
Comparison reported with some consistent KPIs and tables/figures; limited insight into drivers/trade-offs; discussion largely descriptive.
 9-10.5
Comparison attempted but incomplete; KPIs limited or not consistently defined; limited interpretation of drivers.
 6-8.5
Results unclear/inconsistent or not comparable.
 0-5.5
Communication & professionalism (out of 5)
Well structured; within word limit; clear visuals; correct referencing.
 4-5
Well organised and readable; minor issues with formatting, figure labelling, or referencing; within/near word limit.
 3.5-3.9
Generally well presented and readable; minor structural issues; visuals/tables mostly integrated but some labelling or referencing issues; within/near word limit.
 3.0-3.4
Generally readable but structural issues; visuals/tables poorly integrated or labelled; word limit or referencing issues.
 2.0-2.9
Hard to follow; missing visuals; poor presentation.
 0-1.9

Reminder: This is an individual submission. Similar wording, identical tables/figures, or identical parameter values across students without evidence of independent work may be treated as academic misconduct.

2026-04-01