Features currently available
We compare current facility cost analysis, facility movement/consolidation, new candidate site evaluation, and RDC store/volume adjustment alternatives.
SOLUTION/NONO / Network OptimizationFacility and inventory decisions.
Facility and inventory decisions.
Compare the total logistics cost.
Compare the operating and storage costs and transportation costs of the current facility, as well as alternatives for moving, consolidating, or establishing a new facility and adjusting the store in charge of RDC. The inventory distribution and replenishment policy for each product between CDC and RDC provides advanced design and output examples.
Check the status of introduced features and experiences.
Based on the functions provided by NO, we discuss the scope of connection and advancement for each customer.
Customer-specific linkage functions
Connects facility, store, product master, demand, inventory, CAPA and storage and transportation unit price. Supply conditions between CDC and RDC and inventory days and storage volume for each product are defined according to customer-specific analysis standards.
Advanced review function
We advance inventory storage facility optimization by exploring storage volume and replenishment policies for each product between CDC and RDC. Define additional cost models and supply and storage constraints, verify them with customer data, and confirm the scope of provision.
Experience public status
Sandbox in PreparationTarget: ready during November 2026
Currently, we provide scenarios for illustrative purposes only. The actual NO·TO engine experience will be released after connection and verification are completed.
NO Experience Information ↗The provided modules, applicable versions, data/interfaces, and construction scope for each customer are confirmed during introduction consultation.
What input does NO receive and what does it connect to?
NO analyzes the volume and cost of the current facility and compares alternatives for facility reorganization. The integrated optimization of inventory distribution and replenishment policies for each product is an area of advancement, and design examples of comparative costs and storage volumes are provided below.
- 01input
facility/store location, demand volume, center CAPA, storage/operation/main line/delivery unit price
- 02Alternative configuration
Addition, relocation, consolidation of centers and change of stores in charge. Inventory allocation and replenishment policy confirms the scope of advanced design.
- 03Comparison results
Quantity and cost by region and facility, total logistics cost, map and report
- 04decision making
Select application plan by reviewing supply conditions and feasibility together
Basis: G-TO introduction (2026) pages 38~41, 48, 67~69, G-TO·TMS introduction (2025.10) pages 19·33, and GLT NO function description. Individually provided functions and screens are checked according to the applicable version, contract, and scope of connection.
Detailed information on input data ↗Introduction procedure and factors determining period and cost ↗
Construction screen included in the introduction material
Original Korean source material. See the English explanation on this page.
UNDERSTAND NO
What is the difference between NO and TO?
NO compares the location of the facility and the stores in charge and alternatives for volume, and reviews inventory distribution and replenishment policies for each product as areas of advancement. TO reviews which vehicle and route to transport the order. Connects facility/inventory strategy and transportation execution plan, but both solutions can be executed independently of TMS.
TO Transport Optimization See also ↗FUNCTIONS & APPLICATION
Five analyzes that look at facility, volume, and inventory together.
Compare alternatives against current costs and see how improvements in one center affect the network as a whole. Integrated optimization of inventory distribution and replenishment policies for each product is an advanced design area.
AS-IS Analysis
Current facility analysis
We calculate the operating and storage costs for each facility and the main line and store delivery transportation costs to create a cost structure and comparison standard for the current network.
Applicable conditionsThe volume of each facility, operation/storage unit price, and trunk/delivery costs are organized on the same basis.
Network Reconfiguration
facility movement/consolidation simulation
We compare the total logistics cost, cargo volume and processing load by facility, and delivery impact for alternatives such as relocating, consolidating, or closing facilities.
Applicable conditionsThe same demand and cost standards are applied to the current and alternative options, and facility CAPA and supply conditions are reviewed together.
Candidate Site Evaluation
Selection of new candidate facilities
We compare the combination of registered new logistics center candidates with existing facilities to evaluate alternatives that are advantageous in terms of cost and operational effectiveness.
Applicable conditionsPrepare candidate locations, operating conditions, and expected volumes and costs.
RDC Volume Allocation
Regional facility volume analysis
We analyze the effects of reallocating responsible stores and volumes between RDCs, and compare changes in overload/idle capacity and transportation costs compared to processing capacity.
Applicable conditionsWe use processing CAPA for each RDC, store in charge, and volume information for each store.
Upgrade review
Inventory Location Simulation
Optimization of inventory storage facility
We are enhancing the function to explore the storage amount and replenishment policy for each product between CDC and RDC. The direction is to evaluate storage costs, additional trunk costs, handling costs, and supply constraints together.
Applicable conditionsPrepare inventory days and storage volume for each product, storage unit price for each facility, and trunk supply conditions.
DATA & OUTPUT
What to prepare,
What to prepare,
What results should we see?
These are the data and result items to prepare when negotiating the scope of analysis. Detailed fields, units, API specifications and support conditions are provided for each applicable version.
| analysis area | review data | Results to check |
|---|---|---|
| Current Cost Analysis | facility location/volume of cargo, operation/storage unit price, main line/delivery transportation cost | Cost structure by facility, total network logistics cost, alternative comparison criteria |
| facility reorganization | Movement/integration/closure alternatives, demand volume, facility CAPA and supply conditions | Changes in cost compared to current, impact on volume, load and delivery by facility |
| Evaluation of new candidate sites | Candidate location, operating conditions, expected cost, existing facility and demand information | Costs and operational effects by combination of candidate sites and existing facilities |
| Coordination of stores in charge of RDC | CAPA by RDC, store location/volume, current responsible facility and transfer plan | Quantity distribution before and after store transfer, overload/idle capacity and transportation costs |
| Inventory placement and advanced design for each product | CDC/RDC information, inventory days/storage amount by product, storage unit price/main supply cost | Design example: average/peak storage amount/replenishment amount for each product, cost comparison, and constraint verification items |
Specifications to check upon introduction
- Detailed fields and units of facility, product, and cost data
- Scope of analysis and operational constraints by scenario
- Processing scale/computation time and result verification conditions
This is used for decision making.
Distribution, commerce, and franchises that operate multiple CDCs, RDCs and stores, manufacturers with multiple factories and centers, and 3PLs and 4PLs that perform facility operations and network design.
Would center consolidation be beneficial to overall costs?
We compare operating costs that can be reduced by integrating adjacent RDCs with trunk and delivery costs that can increase.
Is it possible to change the store in charge before expanding?
Some stores in RDC that lack CAPA will be transferred to nearby facilities to review the capacity of existing facilities and transportation impacts.
In which center should long-term inventory be placed?
An advanced scenario examines CDC storage of long-term inventory and RDC supply. In the example of cost and storage amount of home data, you can check storage cost reduction, additional trunk cost and handling cost, and verification conditions.
It specifies the scope of application of our work.
- Check current assignmentsSummarize current operations, decisions to be made for improvement, and comparison criteria.
- Review data and support coverageCheck available data, product versions, and associated/extended functions.
- Establishment of verification and introduction planSpecify comparison conditions, result verification methods, and integration/construction scope.
Where and how much inventory should we place?
We are reviewing the alternative of placing long-term storage in the CDC, which acts as a hub, and placing supplies that require quick supply in the RDC. This is not an advantageous arrangement if storage costs are reduced but replenishment transportation costs are higher.
Advanced design example
Below is an example of output calculated directly from hypothetical data. These are not actual customer cases or results of running the current GA engine. The ability to explore storage volume and replenishment policies for each product confirms the scope of provision after upgrading and verifying customer data.
Concentrate average inventory on RDC
RDC · Regional delivery facility1,000 PLT
Average storage volume for all products
Division of storage and supply roles
CDC · Central storage HUB720 PLT
Focus on long-term and buffer inventory
↓ CDC → RDC monthly supplement 1,200PLT
RDC · Regional delivery facility280 PLT
Inventory for short-term supply
CDC is a central logistics center and RDC is a regional logistics center. PLT is a pallet equivalent, here we keep the average storage amount totaling 1,000 PLT. Monthly replenishment is the volume that moves during a period and is different from average inventory.
01. Example of storage facility and volume results for each product
Divide roles for each product according to average demand and replenishment conditions. For products that need to be shipped quickly or supplied immediately, we also compare plans to keep them in RDC.
The table can be moved left or right to view all items.
| Product group | Average daily shipment PLT/day | Current RDC Average PLT | Alternative CDC Average PLT | Alternative RDC Average PLT | CDC → RDC PLT/month | Assumptions in Placement Judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · Long-term storage type | 10 | 600 | 540 | 60 | 300 | Of the total average inventory of 60 days, 6 days' worth is maintained in RDC. |
| B · Medium rotation type | 30 | 300 | 180 | 120 | 900 | Of the total average inventory of 10 days, 4 days' worth is maintained in RDC. |
| C · Immediate supply type | 50 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | Maintain 2-day supply at RDC and continue direct supply |
| total | 90 | 1,000 | 720 | 280 | 1,200 | Total average inventory is the same |
A·B assumes that CDC replenishes the average daily shipment × 30 days, and C maintains the existing direct supply. A's RDC inventory of 60PLT is enough to cover 6 days of average demand, and B's 120PLT is enough to cover 4 days of average demand. These figures alone do not demonstrate that safety stocks or target service levels have been met.
02. Subtract additional supply costs from storage cost savings.
Calculation assumption: 30 days / excluding VAT
- CDC storage unit price 500 won/PLT·day, RDC 1,200 won/PLT·day
- Monthly supplement 1,200PLT × net increase in trunk price 6,000 won/PLT
- Same replenishment amount × additional handling fee KRW 2,000/PLT
| Compare items | current | alternative | Difference·Alternative−Current |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDC storage fee | 0 | 1,080 | +1,080 |
| RDC storage fee | 3,600 | 1,008 | -2,592 |
| Net increase in trunk cost | 0 | 720 | +720 |
| Additional handling fee | 0 | 240 | +240 |
| Comparison range total | 3,600 | 3,048 | −552 |
Differences in home conditions5.52 million won / 30 days reduction
Reduction in storage costs by KRW 15.12 million − additional trunk costs by KRW 7.2 million − additional handling costs by KRW 2.4 million.
This is 15.3% of the comparative range cost and does not represent actual savings or overall network cost savings.
The net increase in main line unit cost is the additional cost minus the replacement/reduced cost from the existing supply route. Additional handling costs were assumed to be the sum of the increased operating costs per PLT of replenishment. The same final shipping costs, fixed costs, capital costs, etc. are excluded from the table above, and if new fixed costs, initial transfer costs, or increases or decreases in inventory occur, they must be included separately. The actual main route cost is calculated based on the number of trips, vehicle type, loading rate, and minimum fare.
Even though storage costs are low, CDC is not always advantageous. In this assumption, if the net increase in main line price is 10,600 won/PLT, the savings is 0. If this is exceeded, the comparative cost, including additional handling fees, will be greater than the current price.
03. For actual applications, cost and supply conditions are verified together.
data preparation
We match demand/inventory history/volume/temperature range/expiration date for each product, storage/stock/delivery CAPA for each facility, and freight rates and replenishment lead time for each route.
On-site pharmaceutical verification
Check peak inventory/peak throughput, replenishment cycle/minimum shipment quantity, delivery time, and defect tolerance criteria. We do not determine CAPA or availability based on average inventory alone.
Alternatives and Implementation Standards
Compare average/peak storage volume, replenishment volume/frequency, cost composition, and violation of restrictions by product/facility. The person in charge reviews the results and decides on an action target.
How do you design GA-based advancement?
The direction is to construct storage facilities, distribution amounts, and replenishment policies for each product as candidate proposals, and evaluate and explore storage, transportation, and handling costs. Plans that violate CAPA, delivery, and product constraints are designed to be excluded from execution candidates. Since GA is not a method that guarantees a global optimal solution, the application is judged through repeated execution, comparison with the current one, and separate constraint verification.
Design Note: Research on GA-based facility/distribution model ↗ · Multi-tier inventory optimization study considering service constraints ↗. The experimental results of the study do not imply GLT product performance.
NO / BEFORE YOU START
Before introducing NO
Before introducing NO
Please check any questions you may have.
From data preparation to existing system connection, result review and introduction procedures. This is a frequently asked question when determining the right coverage for your business.
NO introduction consultation ↗What data do I need to prepare for NO analysis?
Prepare facility/store locations, demand volume, center processing capacity (CAPA), and operation/storage/trunk/delivery unit costs. To compare storage facilities for each product, add inventory days, storage amount, and CDC/RDC supply conditions.
NO Information on data and results for each analysisCan I get started if my cost or volume data is not complete?
From available data, you can check the current cost structure and any missing items. We organize the basis for the unit, period, and estimated values together, agree on the scope of interpretation of the comparison results, and then analyze them.
Check data and determine verification scopeCan I use it even if there is no candidate location for a new logistics center?
Yes. You can start by reviewing the cost analysis of existing facilities or adjusting the stores and volumes in charge of RDC. In the stage of comparing new candidate sites, candidate site conditions such as location, CAPA, and operating costs are separately prepared.
Case of facility/region reorganizationIf some RDCs lack CAPA, how do we compare?
Compare the volume and CAPA of each facility to check overload and idle capacity. We look at the transportation costs and supply impacts of store transfer and regional adjustment alternatives, and review applications that fit operational constraints.
Review Items for RDC Quantity AnalysisWill I see a reduction in storage costs if I move my inventory to CDC?
It is judged based on a comparison table that subtracts additional trunk and handling costs from storage cost savings. The integrated exploration of storage volume and replenishment policies for each product is an area of advancement, and we currently provide examples of output calculated using assumed data and verification conditions.
Example of storage facility/volume and cost comparisonCan I utilize data from existing ERP, WMS, and TMS?
We review the scope of utilizing facility, demand, inventory, and cost data from the existing system as analysis input. Match the code, unit, and standard period and determine the data extraction method and update cycle according to the scope of linkage.
Data consistency and system linkage proceduresHow can I fairly compare the effects of facility relocation and integration?
The same demand, period, cost units and supply conditions apply. In addition to reducing storage and operating costs, we compare total logistics costs, including increased trunk and delivery costs and load by facility.
Standard for comparing results under the same conditionsHow do you proceed with the introduction of NO and how do you determine the period and cost?
We organize the current network and cost standards, agree on comparison scenarios, and verify the results. The scale of facility, store, and product, the complexity of the cost model, the number of scenarios, and the scope of system connection determine the schedule and cost.
Introduction procedure and factors determining period and costHow will the change of facility affect our logistics costs and operations?
Please tell us your current facility and any changes you are considering. Compare cost, volume, CAPA and analysis scope together.
Please choose a situation that is close to our company.
Having these materials will be helpful in your review.
- Summary of facilities, stores and volume
- Storage, operation, and transportation cost items
- Candidate facilities and capacity/service conditions
Even if you don't have any data yet, you can tell us about your current situation. Information that is difficult to disclose may be reviewed as a sample with identifying information masked.
In consultation, the scope is set as follows.
- Check current work and improvement goals
- Summary of data/constraints and comparative verification scope
- Link to existing systems and discuss scope of construction
Consult on our company’s assignments Apply without registering and select system/size input
CASES & RESOURCES
Please continue to check out NO’s examples and materials.
Company I: Finding the Right Mix of Dedicated and Hired Vehicles
A fleet planning case comparing daily orders and vehicle costs to evaluate the mix of dedicated and hired vehicles. The source describes the 30-day simulation assumptions and recommended fleet size.
Learn More ↗
Company B: Network Redesign with a New CDC and Revised RDC Territories
A case from GLT’s solution materials comparing each facility’s volume, capacity, storage and transport costs while reallocating territories around a new CDC.
Learn More ↗NO Facility and Inventory Analysis: Guide and Reference Materials
The data and outputs needed to assess current costs, facility redesign, candidate sites, RDC volumes and product-level inventory placement.
Learn More ↗
G-TO and TMS, October 2025: Implementation and Operations
A 44-slide PowerPoint covering TMS project experience, optimization functions, transport and network simulation, and screenshots of earlier implementations.
Learn More ↗G-TO Solutions 2026: Transportation and Network Optimization
An 85-page PDF introducing G-TO’s TO, NO, Route and Load Build functions, application architecture and GLT project examples.
Learn More ↗Implementing Optimization: What Determines Time and Cost?
The deliverables and factors that shape schedule and cost at each stage: data review, comparative validation, system integration and operational rollout.
Learn More ↗
What to Check When Comparing Optimization Results
A practical guide to input conditions, metric formulas, constraint compliance, execution environments and measured operational results.
Learn More ↗
Dispatch Optimization: Which Data Should You Prepare First?
Understand the roles of NO, TO and TMS, and how to prepare order, delivery point, vehicle and transport requirement data before implementing dispatch optimization.
Learn More ↗