OPTIMAL PRICING AND PRODUCTION LOT SIZE FOR TWO RATES OF PRODUCTION WITH PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND, PRICE BREAK-EVEN POINT, AND PROFIT MAXIMISATION IN HIGHER ORDER EQUATION

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7166/35-1-2897

Abstract

In the present study, optimal pricing and optimal lot size production policy models with price-sensitive demand of deteriorating products are considered, taking into account two distinct production rates. It is possible to begin production at one rate and then switch to a different rate after a period of time. Such a scenario is appealing, in that a big initial stock of produced goods can be avoided by starting production at a modest pace, thus reducing the initial investment and the holding cost. Further, the fifth-order equation is obtained when the equation for optimal pricing is derived. Maximising the profit is calculated based on a fifth-order equation. Both optimal pricing and production lot size are decision variables, and optimal cycle time is also one of the decision variables for determining price break-even points. As far as information is concerned, no researcher has examined optimal pricing and production lot size policies in two-rates-of-production models for their study.The objective of the present study is to examine the optimal production, optimal pricing, and optimal cycle time to reduce the total cost and to maximise the total profit. Both price break-even point and profit maximisation are considered. An appropriate mathematical model is developed. An illustrative example is provided and numerically validated using a sensitivity analysis. Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 was used to code the model’s outcome validation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2024-05-31

How to Cite

C K, S., T. Nithya, & VSS, Y. . (2024). OPTIMAL PRICING AND PRODUCTION LOT SIZE FOR TWO RATES OF PRODUCTION WITH PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND, PRICE BREAK-EVEN POINT, AND PROFIT MAXIMISATION IN HIGHER ORDER EQUATION. The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 35(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.7166/35-1-2897