The document discusses how demand driven dynamic replenishment (DR) could help the Department of Defense reduce its $9 billion inventory excess. It argues current procurement methods like min/max ordering cause excess. DR, used successfully in aviation and airlines, offers a proven alternative to better meet demand while lowering costs and inventory. The document outlines key aspects of DR, including increasing order frequency, positioning stock centrally, and replenishing based on buffer depletion rather than forecasts. It provides an example of how DR reduced average inventory levels during transition from min/max ordering.

1. Demand driven
dynamic replenishment
The change in supply chain logistics
that could allow the Department of
Defense to reign in procurement costs
and contain inventory excess while also
boosting material availability
Introducing the Theory of Constraints (TOC) approach to Supply Chain Management
Abstract: The Department of Defense currently has a $9 billion inventory excess. This paper argues current
procurement and inventory management methods — such as min/max ordering — are the cause of this
excess. Demand driven dynamic replenishment — already used with success in Naval Aviation Enterprise
and the airline industry — offers a proven method to reign in procurement costs, contain inventory and
simultaneously increase parts and material availability.

2. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
2
A significant excess in a time of thrift
In the face of impending cuts in government spending, the challenge for DoD
budget managers is to find innovative methods that will provide high levels of
readiness with less funding. The logistics budget for the various needs of the
military services is one of the largest items in the DoD budget and, as such,
continuously receives the scrutiny of the public, the press and Congress. One
article cites a Pentagon Inspector General report, “DoD has inadequate policies
and procedures addressing the use of DoD inventory….”1 A second article
observes, “The Pentagon admits that it has at least $9 billion worth of excess
items in inventory. These include spare parts for obsolete systems, perishable
items that won’t be used before their expiration date and supplies that exceed
the projected requirements.”2 The second article’s observation of excess
inventory is a symptom of the first article’s observation of DoD’s inadequate
policies and procedures.
Any procedure that allows $9 billion in excess inventory is clearly inadequate as
described above. Selling the excess, as the second article goes on to suggest,
“earning pennies on the dollar,”3 would have very little monetary effect since
excess inventory represents sunk cost. Two of the three categories of excess
cited, obsolescence and expiration, can be minimized but not eliminated. The
third category, supplies that exceed projected requirements, can be eliminated.
These excesses result from the current policies and procedures that attempt
to manage material from the early identification of planning requirements to
material issue at point of use. The current policies and procedures need to be
changed in order to lower inventory and improve availability. The question to
be answered is: how do you change the policy and procedures to buy the right
material and throw away less of it?
An inherent management conflict
The inherent conflict in the management of the inventory systems is between
meeting the material demand and maintaining low inventory cost. If the two
motives of this conflict are not balanced, high levels of inventory result yet
demand is not met. Current acquisition methods do not resolve this conflict.
Certain elements of the current methods actually contribute to the imbalance
between the two motives.
1 Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, “Pentagon Struggles to Manage
Increase in Logistics Contracts”, Michael Fabey, July 06, 2011.
2 Defense News, “Our View: Tackle Inventory Problem-Now”, 27 May 2012.
3 Ibid

3. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
3
One element of the current approach to inventory management is the minimum
and maximum ordering system (Min/Max) which operates with rules that
increase the chances of not meeting the demand. The object of the Min/Max
system is to meet demand for all material required in the process and to carry
the minimum amount of inventory to cover demand during the time it takes to
order, move, and issue the next unit of material after the minimum stock level
is reached. What the system attempts to avoid with minimum inventory is a
condition where there is zero stock on hand. This zero stock on hand condition
is referred to as a “stock out” condition. If we assume that the signal to reorder
is instantaneous, then the time to order, move and issue is the time to replenish
the stock to some non-zero level. This interval is called replenishment lead time.
The maximum level of each order is merely the maximum number of units that
are expected to be consumed between order cycles. The maximum attempts to
adjust order quantities for the delay induced by the acquisition process and for
the expected maximum variable demand during the total delay in restocking.
The maximum determines the order quantity for each order. Order size, in
general, is the maximum minus the minimum plus backorder quantity. In
this system, the minimum threshold is intended to avoid stock outs and the
maximum threshold is intended to keep inventory cost down. The system
operates on two simple rules: “reorder when the amount of stock is equal to or
below the minimum” and “set order quantity to attain the maximum.”

4. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
4
Min/Max Inventory
Figure 1. Typical inventory level fluctuations with a Minimum and Maximum replenishment system.4
Figure 1 depicts typical results from minimum and maximum ordering rules. This
graph is for initial inventory of 90 units with a demand average of 10 units per
week with a standard deviation of 1.67 units and a constant replenishment time
of 4 weeks. The portion of the line below at zero represents periods of stock out
condition when demand cannot be met and demand accumulates in backlog. The
inventory excursions of this graph occur with the Min/Max system if the initial
levels are inadequate or if demand changes after the levels are set.
Attempting to mask these problems by manually adjusting orders provided by
Min/Max systems in an ad hoc fashion as consumption trends are discovered
becomes a woeful, never-ending game of catch-up. The standard deviation of
demand in this example is actually relatively small, and the standard deviation of
the replenishment time is zero. With larger standard deviations seen in actual
practice, stock out conditions would occur more frequently.
Exacer bation thro ugh “bulk-buying ”
and long -range forecasts
In addition to Min/Max ordering, another element of the current inventory
management system is the procurement practice of “buying in bulk” which
attempts to reduce inventory costs through large orders of material. Each
price and delivery interval is negotiated separately for each line item based on
forecasted information on the potential future use of the line item. The result of
this procedure is over stocking in a mix that does not match actual production
demand. Excess stock due to buying in bulk often increases loss due to
obsolescence and expiration. Over stocking of non-essential parts also ties up
money that could be used elsewhere.
4 Sproull and Nelson, Epiphanized, 2012, North River Press, Great Barrington, MA.
Modified from Appendix 5.

5. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
5
In addition to the specific problems cited above, a
general underlying problem for the current inventory
system is that, in operation, the acquisition policies
based on reducing the cost of inventory decouple the
order process from the demand. In cases where the
production process manager experiences or predicts
demand changes, it is difficult for him to justify and
excite order level changes due to acquisition policy
inflexibility. Demand information must be transmitted
across functional organization boundaries against
varying functional motives. Stock outs are a critical
event for the production manager, but not necessarily
for the acquisition manager. The production manager
is concerned with production throughput, the
acquisition manager with inventory cost. The resolution of this conflict requires methods
that integrate cost savings activities without impeding production throughput. An airline
example discussed later in this article illustrates the effect of policy that does not consider
throughput and illustrates one potential win-win solution.
Another underlying problem in the current supply chain operations is the use of
forecasting software at central ordering organizations to plan orders over long periods
of time, like the budget year. The software models use historical demand information to
create supply ordering plans and budgets to achieve a planned flow of material into the
supply chain. Buying supplies in bulk, discussed above, is a specific use of forecasting
information. The execution of the forecasted plan “pushes” material into the points of
use at local inventory locations. These push systems require accurate predictions of the
line item demand, the destination locations and when the line items will be required. The
complexity of the models and the inability to achieve accurate predictions are reasons
why demand forecasting methods do not generally meet the local inventory demand
requirements.5 The forecasting method can predict the total need across the entire
inventory system but cannot predict or meet local demand at each point of use in the
inventory system. The central system may have the required material, but it is rarely at
the point of use when needed.
Another element of the current inventory management system is the practice of locating
parts close to the point of use and independently managing orders for each local
inventory. The idea is to have parts available to quickly meet local demand. However,
once a line item is pushed out into the extremity locations of the supply chain, it becomes
costly to move that line item to another peripheral location where it is stocked out. The
result is excess inventory at some points of use while out of stock conditions exists at
others. When orders are managed at the point of use, the orders are less frequent and
order quantities are highly variable, resulting in a sporadic flow of material.
Inventory systems that use the Min/Max system, forecasting and holding inventory at
point of use are insensitive to stock out conditions. This insensitivity causes loss of
5 Schragenheim, Amir. 2010. “Supply Chain Management,” Theory of Constraints Handbook. Cox and Schleier, Ed.
New York: McGraw Hill, Chapter 11.

6. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
6
opportunity in the form of production delay, missed deliveries, reduced sales,
lower profit, reduced capacity, reduced customer satisfaction, lower future
bookings and real dollar loss from ordering material that is never used. In
DoD inventory systems, use of these methods, motivated by the desire to
control inventory costs, results in losses which parallel those of commercial
systems. Material shortages result in weapons systems that are not mission
ready. Excess inventory is never used. And there are high material losses
due to obsolescence and expiration. Unavailability of critical items results in
low customer satisfaction and motivates the practice of unauthorized local
purchasing or “buy around” activities. Also prevalent in high shortage inventory
systems are hoarding activities such as “gunny lockers” for scrounging often
used by the military to improve parts availability.
In general DoD operates an acquisition system displaced from demand.
Functional procurement staffs follow department policies and rules motivated
by cost cutting and by policies that are in place to meet audit requirements.
The DoD system uses automated models for forecasting demand, uses bulk
buys, uses a Min/Max system for replenishment and positions stock at point of
use. The results, as observed in the quoted articles, are excess inventory and
insensitivity to obsolescence and expiration. All of which result in significant
increases to the cost of inventory.

7. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
7
A new yet proven alternative :
Dynamic Replenis hment Theor y
An alternative inventory management approach which addresses the problems
of the current inventory systems is a Theory of Constraints method called
Dynamic Replenishment (DR). DR uses an alternative to ordering to supply
targets and to demand forecasts. Orders are constructed as instantaneous
responses to demand during short intervals. Where instantaneous response
to demand is possible, such as production line operations, forecasting is not
needed,6 except for budget planning. The DR method constantly replenishes
stock using real time response to demand and manages stock buffers to
accommodate variation in demand and variation in replenishment time.
There are six basic features of a DR implementation:
1 Stock is positioned at the highest level in the distribution system so that all
available inventory can be used to satisfy demand at multiple points of use.
Centralization of inventory also allows more frequent ordering because the
central warehouse sums the demand usage of the various consumption
locations. Using this approach, larger order quantities are accumulated at
the central warehouse sooner than at each separate location.
2 Buffers are positioned at points of potential high demand variation and
stocked and restocked at levels determined by stock on hand, demand rate
and replenishment lead time.
3 Order frequency is increased and order quantity is decreased to maintain
buffers at optimum levels and avoid stock out conditions which cause
interruption to the flow of product.
4 Ordering is determined by buffer depletion. How much to order and where
to distribute available stock are determined by buffer status.
5 Buffer size is managed dynamically. Buffer depletion data provide signals
to determine when and by how much to modify buffer size.7
6 Order urgency is based on buffer depletion and is used to set ordering
priorities. The DR order method accounts for buffer depletion and local
demand information so the right mix of parts is ordered and parts are
distributed to the priority locations.
For purpose of comparison Figure 2 depicts inventory levels using a DR
approach. The differences with the DR method in this example are that orders
are placed every week and order quantity is the demand for the past week.
Stock out conditions do not exist in this example of the DR approach. Also, the
maximum inventory level required to avoid stock out conditions is much less
than the maximum inventory level would be with the Min/Max method.
6 Ibid. p269.
7 Camp, Henry, TOC Distribution Webinar, TOCICO 2011.

8. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
8
Figure 2. Dynamic replenishment inventory levels with ordering to demand.8
Inventory
Figure 3. Transition from a Min/Max to a DR inventory replenishment system.9
Time
Figure 3 illustrates the reduction of average inventory during transition between
Min/Max and DR inventory replenishment systems. As seen in Figure 3, simple
changes in frequency and size of replenishment orders address the flaws in a
Min/Max system, significantly reducing inventory and stock out conditions.
Many other supply chain improvement activities are included in a DR
implementation. An end to end redesign of the inventory management process
is often required. Initial gains, however, can be made with less than a complete
overhaul of the system, such as changes to ordering methods discussed
above. Any comprehensive approach to a supply chain redesign should
include the consideration of the following: number of central warehouses in
the system, the existing replenishment process including buffers and signals
between warehouses and points of use10, and the lead times in the planning,
8 Camp, Henry, TOC Distribution Webinar, TOCICO 2011.
9 Demory, Erin F., Henry Camp, The Benefits of Moving from a Push to a Pull System, Charleston, SC, n.d.

9. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
9
procurement and ordering processes. The approach should also consider
supplier procedures including replenishment time, variation of replenishment
time, procedures for expediting priority demand, contracts to support smaller,
more frequent orders and cost effective shipping of small orders. Automatic
replenishment software applications should also be redesigned to include new
rules for buffer management and order frequency. Applications should include
dynamic analysis of demand changes including early warning of impending stock
out occurrences. Finally, electronic interface should be provided for suppliers
to facilitate order placement and order status tracking.
No change effort is successful without appropriate activities to ensure new
procedures are absorbed by the organization. Replenishment concepts
implemented in DR change many organizational ideas related to acquisition
of inventory. Maximizing throughput and minimizing stock outs are the focus
of DR and at times works at odds with classical cost saving ideas. Required
changes in behavior are paramount to a successful DR implementation.
For example, the organization must be willing to release stock between
points of use, must agree to cease the practice of prematurely drawing
stock and hoarding it, and must implement a strong communication system
between production and acquisition allowing decisions based on throughput
requirements rather than inventory cost.
Depending on the size of the acquisition system and how independent that
system is from the production system, making changes to the acquisition system
can be a significant challenge. As an example, the effort to establish long
term contracts that allow frequent, small orders could be extensive and time
consuming. However daunting such policy changes may appear, the potential
reductions in total inventory would certainly justify the efforts.
find out more
We hope you enjoy this paper. If you would like to learn more about the
application of Demand Driven Dynamic Replenishment, we recommend
a Best Practice Briefing.
This structured 40-minute conference call will give you a clearer idea of
how DR has succeeded for large commercial organizations as well as Naval
Aviation Enterprise, the clear inventory control and procurement advantages
it offers, and how it could conceivably work for military applications.
Just call toll free 1-855-NOVACES to arrange yours today.
10 “Schmidt, Snyder and Shen, Centralization versus Decentralization: Risk Pooling, Risk Diversification,
and Supply Uncertainty in a One-Warehouse Multiple-Retailer System, May 27, 2008, NSF Grants DGE-
9972780, DMI-0522725, DMI-0621433.

10. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
10
DR In Action : Availa bilit y Up , Inventor y
Down at Turkis h Airlines Tec hnic
Recently Dynamic Replenishment principles were successfully applied to Turkish
Airlines Technic’s aircraft parts inventory system. The inventory, in this case,
supported its maintenance and repair function, which is of vital significance to
its operations in addition to maintaining third party aircraft. The aircraft on the
line were either company owned or contracted from other airlines. Production
tasks consisted of both periodic maintenance and the correction of operational
malfunctions. The inventory system managed consumable items and rotable
pools of subassemblies for both types of repairs. Initially, the purchasing system
supporting replenishment was the Min/Max type.
The existing inventory system was sometimes unable to provide parts to meet
maintenance demand. Low parts availability may affect the cycle time to repair and
deliver aircraft. Long cycle times represented lost opportunities: loss of passenger
revenue for the additional time that the company owned aircraft were down for
maintenance, loss of potential external revenue from additional external aircraft
maintenance and repairs that could be conducted with excess capacity, and loss of
premium payments from from external customers for quick turnaround of repairs.
Turkish Technic was determined to improve cycle times and commenced
analysis of their inventory system under the initial subjective conclusion that
variation in supplier replenishment times for required repair parts was one of
the major contributors to stock out conditions and that waiting for parts in stock
out condition was the biggest component of long maintenance and repair lead
times. For the first phase of DR implementation, about 1000 line items were
selected from the 45,000 inventory items. These selected items were of high
dollar value and had high consumption. The overall availability of these line
items was 90.4% at the outset.
The general objective was to increase parts availability and reduce inventory.
Analysis verified that wait time for parts out of stock was a significant
nonproductive contributor to maintenance cycle time. However, the internal
contribution to the replenishment lead time was larger than expected. The
preliminary improvement phases were focused on ordering procedures
for consumable inventory, deferring rotable demand to later phases of the
improvement effort. Three critical actions were initially undertaken: establishing
an internal pull replenishment system, maintaining targeted buffer inventory
levels, and establishing supplier contracts and procedures consistent with DR
system requirements.
Establishing an internal pull replenishment system included setting the order
frequency of each line item to weekly. Decreasing these ordering frequencies
resulted in an immediate reduction in inventory levels. Shipments were

11. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
11
combined to avoid increases in transportation costs. IDEA’s Elucidate software
was used to augment legacy inventory software. Elucidate automatically adapts
targeted inventory levels based on changes in actual demand. The basics of an
integrated automated ordering application were developed with the intention
to connect the system directly to the suppliers in order to easily manage three
times more orders. This ordering application might be implemented after the
new ERP system is ready to use.
Maintaining targeted buffer inventory levels included several activities:
1 Dynamic buffer management,
2 Improvement efforts continued to reduce replenishment times,
3 Suppliers were assisted in expediting orders for line items with low on-hand
levels, expediting decisions considered whether inbound orders were
likely to arrive before stock out conditions occurred.
Establishing supplier contracts and procedures consistent with DR system
requirements included communication with suppliers to make them aware of
new ordering procedures and new expedite procedures. One prototype supplier
was engaged to reduce their replenishment time. Contracts were modified for
blanket purchase orders with longer terms, with smaller orders and with timely
orders shipped to meet consumption. Transportation was managed to change
the mix of parts being shipped to maintain full-truckload shipping.
In addition to supplier cycle time delays, one purchasing policy contributed
significantly to lengthening replenishment lead time. For many orders placed,
purchasing was required to research whether lower cost suppliers existed for
the specific line item in the order. If a lower price could be found, the order
was frequently shifted to the lower price supplier, to often one with longer

12. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
12
replenishment times. In addition, the corresponding administrative delay due
to the changing of purchasing contracts contributed to the internal component
of the replenishment lead time. This policy, although based on cost savings
motivation, frequently resulted in a negative impact on product throughput and
drove AOG (aircraft on ground) emergencies. Delays resulting from this policy
may have offset any cost benefit, since more inventory had to be held to cover
the extended replenishment interval.
Now identified as a major contributor to replenishment lead time, re-engineering
the price check activity to decouple it from the ordering procedure
is being explored so that needed line items could be ordered without delay.
In a future state, price checks will be conducted routinely, but apart from the
ordering process to ensure cost savings. Changes to replenishment lead time
due to changes in suppliers may be planned into future buffer modifications.
Only four months after the start of the second phase of DR implementation,
initial purchasing process changes had been made and inventory data were
collected. Overall availability had improved from 90.4% to 95.9% with $1.5
million less investment in inventory despite that fact that only a portion of
DR Strategy and Tactics has been implemented so far. These gains resulted
from the application of simple changes to inventory policies. The continued
application of DR methods is projected to reduce replenishment lead times
even further. Automated ordering and careful buffer management will continue
to reduce stock out conditions and to reduce the cost of total inventory.

13. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
13
The lessons and challenges
for DoD procurement
The DR theory and the solutions of the airline example
have relevance to processes within the DoD supply
chain. DoD acquisition contains many of the functions
and undesirable effects of the classical inventory
management systems discussed above. Solutions for
these effects exist in industry inventory management
practices as shown in the airline example. Dynamic
Replenishment methods are proven. The challenge is
to determine how the methods may be applied in DoD
and how to get started. In spite of the fact that the
$9 billion in excess inventory represents a significant
opportunity, retired United States Navy Vice Admiral Keith Lippert, former head
of the Defense Logistics Agency, said he is worried that it will take congressional
hearings before
key decision-makers in the Defense Department begin taking this problem
seriously.11 Congressional action will certainly be required to change the policies
in order to accomplish an overhaul of the entire acquisition system. However,
DR can be applied immediately within current DoD policy in processes such as
maintenance and overhaul where demand is continuous. Work on changing
these processes should start now. The application of DR principles to broader
global replenishment is dependent on the scale of inventory levels, demand
rates and replenishment lead times and will require coordinated planning for a
phased introduction into the entire supply system. Changes to some processes
in the system cannot be made in isolation from related processes in the system,
or we will run the risk that new conflicts will be created to replace the current
cost and demand conflict. A long-term, methodical effort must consider the
entire supply chain as a whole with its interlocking components.
The challenge involved in changing supply chain policy within DoD to
accommodate DR methods is not trivial. Implementing DR requires changing the
government’s approach to acquisition policy which is currently motivated by item
by item cost savings and fraud avoidance. As in the airline maintenance example,
cost control procedures have to be isolated from demand requirements. Other
basic changes are also required. Contracting methods that allow large blanket
purchases with flexible delivery quantities are needed. Acquisition of strategic
reserves, which is not demand driven, and acquisition of currently demanded
material have to be managed differently to simplify inventory management of
demanded material. New expedite procedures for shortages of critical demand
material need to be developed. New oversight methods to continuously avoid,
identify and purge excess, obsolete and expired material are required to reduce
11 http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120527/DEFFEAT05/305270008/Our-View-Tackle-Inventory-
Problem-8212-Now

14. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
14
warehouse costs. New approaches need to be developed for disposal of excess
material based on return on investment. Current automated systems need to be
streamlined to give precedence to demand. And, finally, new approaches to fraud
prevention must ensure throughput of material is not impeded and ensure stock
is always available for issue.
Despite the challenge in making these simple policy changes come to pass, the
improvement in the inventory system responsiveness would justify the effort.
Inventory costs would be reduced, weapon system availability would increase,
warehouse space would decrease, and costs to dispose of excess material
would decrease. As a secondary benefit, customer confidence in the inventory
system would increase, reducing the incentives to buy material outside the
system and to hoard material. The accumulation of $9 billion in excess material
is a symptom that such a solution is long overdue. A critical hurdle for DoD
managers is the acceptance that the current system is not working. It should
not be surprising when incremental improvements yield diminishing results.
Managers must be willing to challenge the status quo and to seek new methods
to change how the supply chain performs. With the doomsday outlook for
future DoD budgets, a creative, but proven approach is needed to successfully
manage the supply chain with fewer dollars. If there are no funds to pay for
the waste currently required to support high readiness, then readiness will
most certainly decline with each declining budget. Leadership from both
Congress and the Department of Defense is required for the success of such an
ambitious undertaking in a comprehensive manner, but initial progress can be
made immediately within current policy by applying Dynamic Replenishment.
Dynamic Replenishment is an industry-proven method that reduces out of stock
conditions while reducing excess inventory, thereby freeing up funds while
sustaining force readiness.
The next step...
We hope you enjoyed this paper. If you would like to learn
more about the application of Demand Driven Dynamic
Replenishment, we recommend a Best Practice Briefing.
This structured 40-minute conference call will give you a
clearer idea of how DR has succeeded for large commercial
organizations as well as Naval Aviation Enterprise, the clear
inventory control and procurement advantages it offers, and
how it could conceivably work for military applications.
Just call (888) 317-3039 to arrange yours today.

15. Demand driven dynamic replenishment
15
About the Authors
Joe Boudreaux
Dr. Boudreaux graduated from George Mason University with a
degree in statistics. He was contract Program Manager for Defense
Logistics Agency’s Defense Fuels Automated System (DFAS). He
worked with Dr. Edwards Deming on the DoD prototype TQM
implementation at North Island depot. He spent 15 years at
Motorola and became a certified Lean Six Sigma Master Black
Belt. He worked with senior executives at Motorola to establish strategic direction for
continuous improvement. He is currently contract Master Black Belt in DLA Headquarters
where he works with managers of DLA’s supply chain improvement projects.
Kevin Lehigh
Mr. Lehigh graduated from Stanford University with an M.S.
in Mechanical Engineering. He worked for 15 years in the
aerospace industry at Martin Marietta and Lockheed Martin. He
received an M.B.A. in Project and Quality Management. He was a
certified Lean consultant at IBM working with customers in high
tech and aerospace industries. He was certified as a Six Sigma
Black Belt at Sun Microsystems where he improved the design and development of
computer network storage systems. He worked in the intelligence and information
systems field for Raytheon and National Security Agency. At DRS Defense Solutions,
Inc. he was Director of Processes and Procedures and provided diversified products
and logistics services to U.S. war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Israeli and
Saudi Foreign Military Sales programs. He is currently a contract Master Black Belt
at DLA Headquarters where he works with managers of DLA Enterprise Continuous
Process Improvement projects.

16. Who We Are
NOVACES is a premier implementer of today’s most powerful process improvement and project management
methodologies that strengthen operational capabilities and financial performance. We deliver Lean, Six Sigma
and Constraints Management consulting and training to clients in the federal government, defense, healthcare,
manufacturing, maritime and service industries. We are dedicated to advancing the science of process
improvement and leverage research to provide the most effective solutions in the market.
Northeast U.S.
8 Robbins Street, Suite 101
Toms River, NJ 08753
Corporate Headquarters
650 Poydras Street #2320
New Orleans, LA 70130 www .NOVACES.com
Toll free : 1-855-NOVACES
The next step...
We hope you enjoyed this paper. If you would like
to learn more about the application of Demand
Driven Dynamic Replenishment, we recommend a
Best Practice Briefing.
This structured 40-minute conference call will give
you a clearer idea of how DR has succeeded for
large commercial organizations as well as Naval
Aviation Enterprise, the clear inventory control
and procurement advantages it offers, and how it
could conceivably work for military applications.
Just call toll free 1-855-NOVACES to arrange
yours today.