The task and original case
Model warehouse picking distance under a simple separate-trip assumption, then compare a clearly stated alternative. The result is useful because it exposes what the distance model assumes. It does not claim to optimize a real warehouse or account for congestion and carrying limits.
| Case element | Value or requirement |
|---|---|
| Inputs | Separate round trips cost distance units A 4,B 12,C 2; counts A 5,B 2,C 3. |
| Build | A picking model comparing a declared batching alternative against the baseline. |
This is an original invented exercise. It is independent practice, with no employer assessment or open-vacancy claim. Download the inputs, attempt your own result, then open the separate answer key.
Data and worked inputs
Build a result another person can follow
Assign round-trip distance units A4, B12 and C2. Required counts are A5, B2 and C3. Under the baseline, each picked unit requires its own round trip. Multiply each item's round-trip distance by its unit count, then sum the three contributions.
For a comparison, declare that one trip to each item's location can carry all units required for that item, while trips to different locations remain separate. This alternative assumes sufficient carrying capacity and no change in distances. Microsoft's PivotTable guidance helps check numeric Sum settings if you summarize the ledger; the travel assumptions and comparison are original model choices.
Sources[1]
Check the worked result
Baseline contributions are A4 ×5 =20, B12 ×2 =24 and C2 ×3 =6, totaling 50 distance units. Under the declared one-trip-per-location alternative, distance is 4 +12 +2 =18 units. The modeled difference is 32 units, or 64% of the baseline.
Label this a scenario difference, not achieved travel savings. Real acceptance would require layout, capacity, route and timing evidence. The alternative also is not a combined tour visiting all three locations; that would need distances between locations.
Make the failure visible
Set carrying capacity to one unit and the alternative collapses back to the 50-unit baseline. Set B's demand to zero and its trip should disappear from both scenarios. Do not compare a one-way distance input with a round-trip baseline without conversion. Keep the unit definition beside every total.
Revise it and ask someone to reproduce it
Have a peer add a two-unit carrying limit and calculate required trips using rounding up. A requires three trips, B one and C two, for 3 ×4 +1 ×12 +2 ×2 =28 units. Preserve this intermediate scenario and explain why it differs from both unlimited carrying and separate-unit picking.
- Distance definitions and trip counts are visible.
- Comparison scenarios state their carrying assumptions.
- Modeled differences are not presented as measured warehouse savings.
Describe the work accurately
After completing your own version, you could adapt this project bullet: “Built an independent picking-distance model comparing separate trips with explicit carrying-capacity scenarios and stated layout limits.”
Use Projects or Independent practice as the heading. Keep the input files, result and revision together. Describe only your own completed work; the invented numbers are model outputs, not employer results or measured business impact.