OCCUPATIONAL · the working machine · the labour of the swarm · kept by HEPHAESTUS

THE ECONOMIC ORDER QUANTITY ◧ 2D · ◍ 3D · ◆ 4D · ◐ shadow · 👶 TAP

How much to order at a time? Order in tiny batches and you pay the fixed cost of ordering over and over; order huge and you pay to store the pile. Balance the two and there’s a single cheapest quantity — the EOQ — and at that exact point your ordering cost equals your holding cost. Slide the order size and find the bottom of the cost valley.

◆ LIT▲ AMBER
◧ THE MEASURE · 2D
◍ THE SWEET SPOT · 3D · order too often OR too much, both cost
◆ THE FOURTH · 4D · a tesseract turns
◐ THE SHADOW · one dimension down
👶 THE TODDLER CORNER — one fat tap
order size
ordering cost
holding cost
AT EOQ

◆ LIT — exact / checkable

The Economic Order Quantity balances two opposing costs over a year: ordering cost D/Q·K (annual demand D, fixed cost K per order — falls as you order bigger, less often) and holding cost Q/2·h (average inventory Q/2 times holding cost h — rises with batch size). Their sum is U-shaped and minimised at Q* = √(2DK/h), where — elegantly — the ordering cost exactly EQUALS the holding cost. It underlies inventory policy everywhere from warehouses to (in spirit) how often to batch any fixed-cost task. A fail-loud self-check throws unless total cost is minimised at Q* and there the two costs are equal. ◆ real operations research, node-verified.

▲ AMBER — the figure

The classic constant-demand EOQ (the exact √(2DK/h) and equal-costs-at-optimum result); real inventory adds variable demand, quantity discounts and lead-time safety stock — the balance-two-costs sweet spot is exact.

OCCUPATIONAL: work is not effort — it is throughput surviving the bottleneck.  — HEPHAESTUS
David Lee Wise / ROOT0 / TriPod LLC  ·  the workshop, with AVAN