Inventory is a modern trend. For example, why does every car or a truck carry a spare tyre?

It is because, in case of any puncture, the rider can change the tyre and immediately be on his way. He need not have to be stranded for a more stretched time. To avoid similar circumstances in business, companies carry inventory both for raw materials and finished goods..

We can say that Inventories are one of the main ingredients for any physical distribution system. We cannot distribute any product without any inventory. However, costs and investments are involved in inventories. They also directly influence the movement and transportation and cost. If inventory policy of a company dictates maintenance of large stocks, then transportation characteristic will be FTL (Full truck Load) shipments. This would result in economies of scale. The logistics manager is responsible for all these costs. Responsibility lies in him for making decisions concerning the size, depth or location of these inventories, the lot size, route and mode of transport. His primary objective should be in optimizing distribution costs. He has to find an economical balance between transportation and inventory cost where inventories represent an important alternative to creating time and place utility in the product Inventory management can be defined as the sum total of those related activities essential for the procurement, storage, sale, disposal or use of material. This can be understood by answering the following questions -when is a refrigerator not a refrigerator? In terms of physical distribution, a refrigerator is not a refrigerator when it is in Delhi, whereas when the demand is in Chandigarh. Further more, if the color required is grey and the refrigerator is blue then also the refrigerator is not a refrigerator. To conclude, utilities are created in goods when the right product is available at the right place, at the right time, at the right quantity and is available to the right customer. Inventory management deals itself with all these problems, placing importance on the quantities of goods needed Inventory managers have to keep stock when required and utilize available storage space resourcefully, so that the stocks do not exceed the available storage space. They are responsible in maintaining accountability of inventory assets. They have to meet the set budgets and decide upon what to order, when to order, how to order so that stock is available on time and at an optimum cost. Inventory managers have acknowledged that some of these objectives are contradictory; but their job is to achieve a economic balance between these conflicting variables. But to achieve this economic balance, a clear understanding of many interconnected variables is required -functions, types of costs, problems and the like. The following sections provide an insight into these variables. Further, it elaborates upon various aspects of inventory control in physical distribution system.

Objectives 1. To Know about complete inventory in ksrtc, chitradurga. 2. To support for inventory management helps to record and track materials on the basis of both quantity and value in ksrtc, chitradurga. 3. To improves cash flow, visibility, and decision making. 4. To track quantity and value of all your materials, perform physical inventory, and optimize warehouse resources 5. To identify the problems of inventory management in ksrtc, chitradurga 6. To offers suggestions for the effective working of ksrtc, chitradurga
Scope
Inventory management is a very important function that determines the health of the supply chain as well as the impacts the financial health of the balance sheet. Every organization constantly strives to maintain optimum inventory to be able to meet its requirements and avoid over or under inventory that can impact the financial figures.

The study of the inventory management towards ksrtc under taken onl;y on the context of chitradurga city only Many more researchers have been carried out at global level to trace and evaluate the problems of inventory management in transportation and some have took over to study the inventory management. While our study are carried with some of constraints namely time and resources, in restricted only to the chitradurga city 1.2 Literature review In reviewing related literature, we focus on work featuring periodic review inventory models with a convex (and nonlinear) ordering cost function or with an average cost criterion. Broader coverage of the subject of inventory theory may be found in Veinott (1966), Porteus (1990), Zipkin (2000), and Porteus (2002). References on Markov decision process (MDP) models more generally, including models under average cost criteria, include Heyman and Sobel (1984), Puterman (1994), Arapostathis et al. (1993), Hernandez-Lerma and Lasserre (1996), Sennott (1999), and Feinberg and Shwartz (2002). 1.2.1 Inventory control with a convex ordering cost function

Convex ordering cost functions appeared early in the literature on inventory control and production planning. Several studies in this area consider deterministic models, unlike our framework which features stochastic demand. For example, Veinott (1964) studies a production and inventory model with a convex ordering cost function (or rather a convex production cost function) in a

nite-horizon setting with deterministic future demand; here, uncertainty is dealt with by sensitivity analysis. In a subsequent survey of inventory theory, Veinott (1966) discusses other work with convex ordering cost functions in a deterministic setting, much of which was published in the 1950s. A few additional references along these lines are given in Sethi et al. (2005, p. 11). In a stochastic and dynamic setting, Karlin (1958) considers basic inventory control models featuring three types of ordering cost functions, associating each type of function with an optimal decision rule having a particular structure: 1. A linear ordering cost function is associated with what are now widely known as base stock rules, which have the form: order up to meet a target inventory level s

when the current period's inventory level is below s

; i.e., order the quantity (s I) if the current inventory level is I < s

, and otherwise order 3A convex ordering cost function is associated with what have been called (in Porteus 1990) generalized base stock rules, which have the property that the order-up-to level is a nondecreasing function of the current inventory level, while the order quantity is a nonincreasing function of the current inventory level. Here, Karlin's criterion for evaluating a given policy is the discounted expected cost

incurred, which by nature diminishes the emphasis on the (perhaps very) long term. By contrast, we are concerned with the structure of optimal policies under an average cost criterion, which is intended to ignore the short-term, transient behavior of the system and focus on the steady state. Also notable is that Karlin assumes strict convexity of the ordering cost function, apparently making extensive further speci-

cation of optimal policies cumbersome in general. We instead assume a piecewise linear form that implies an intuitive and relatively simple optimal policy structure. Further results for stochastic inventory control with a strictly convex ordering cost function under a discounted cost criterion may be found in Bulinskaya (1967). The case of a piecewise linear and convex ordering cost function is discussed in the survey of stochastic inventory theory by Porteus (1990). He describes the structure of a

nite generalized base stock rule by reference to a hypothetical situation involving alternative production technologies. Each technology has a linear cost and a

xed per-period capacity|except the most expensive technology, which is uncapacitated. This leads to a convex and piecewise linear ordering cost function, as in our setting, on the assumption that a particular technology is utilized only if all cheaper technologies are being used to capacity. The decision rule is then de

ned by a nonincreasing set of base stock levels corresponding to the technologies in increasing order of marginal cost. There may therefore be a range of inventory levels for which we do not utilize a given technology, though we utilize all cheaper technologies to capacity. Porteus asserts the optimality of a

nite generalized base stock policy under a discounted expected cost criterion, but he o ers no proof or reference for this proposition. The only optimality proof we have found that allows an ordering cost function with any number of linear pieces is in Bensoussan et al. (1983), under the

nite-horizon total expected cost criterion. Unlike Bensoussan et al., we deal with an average cost criterion, and we also allow unbounded marginal holding and backlogging costs|as well as a marginal ordering cost equal to zero for the cheapest source. Considerable attention has been given to stochastic models with piecewise linear and convex ordering cost functions for the special case with two linear pieces. Sobel(1970) studies such a model in which the location of the kink in the function is chosen at the outset and thereafter is

xed from period to period. He argues for the optimality of a

nite generalized base stock policy when the location of the kink is given|under discounted cost criteria, and also under an average cost criterion for the case of discrete demand. His

nite-horizon results are used in Kleindorfer and Kunreuther (1978). Henig et al. (1997) consider a similar model with an ordering cost function equal to zero for up to R units, with a cost of c per additional unit. (This is in the context of supply and transportation contracts, in which the available volume R per period may be speci

ed by a long-term agreement; like Sobel, they aim to optimally choose R.) They argue for the optimality of a

nite generalized base stock policy speci

ed by two base stock levels (and the parameter R) with respect to the discounted expected cost. They conjecture that the same type of policy isoptimal with respect to an average cost criterion. This conjecture is repeated in Geunes (1999) and in Serel et al. (2001). Yang et al. (2005) consider a model with capacitated \in-house" production and an uncapacitated \outsourcing" option. In their default setting, the capacity level uctuates randomly and there is a

xed cost of outsourcing as well as a per-unit cost. These complexities aside, they o er in e ect an argument for average optimality, in a discrete setting, of a

nite generalized base stock policy when the ordering cost function is nondecreasing, convex, and piecewise linear with two linear pieces. Our argument accommodates a cost function with any (

nite) number of linear pieces, and we also allow non-discrete demand distributions. Stochastic production smoothing models such as that of Beckmann (1961) are also relevant here. Beckmann's model incorporates a linear cost of production along with per-unit costs of increasing and decreasing the production level relative to the level chosen for the preceding period. Thus we have in e ect an inventory model in which the ordering cost function is convex and piecewise linear with two linear pieces, such that the location of the kink in the function may change from period to period. It is even allowed that the function may decrease up to the kink, signifying that it is very costly to reduce production. (This characteristic is also allowed in Sobel 1970.) Later work on production smoothing models in this vein includes Sobel (1969) and Sobel (1971). In our model, by contrast, the ordering cost function is nondecreasingand

xed across periods, while we allow any number of linear pieces. Huh et al. (2008) is a study aimed at developing a framework under which the optimality of particular inventory control policy structures may be immediately extended from

nite-horizon to in

nite-horizon (including average cost) settings. Their framework includes the possibility of a nondecreasing, piecewise linear and convex ordering cost, though they do not discuss the speci

c structure of optimal policies for this situation. Their framework also requires bounds on the marginal holding and backlogging costs, whereas our arguments do not require such bounds. Further-more, in the course of our technical argument we o er some structural insight for our problem that may be of wider use and that is not present in their paper. 1.2.2 Inventory control under average cost criteria As observed in the general treatments of Markov decision processes in Heyman and Sobel (1984, p. 171) and Puterman (1994, p. 331), an average cost criterion may be appropriate for modeling systems in which decisions are made frequently. These authors also note the complexity of technical analysis under average cost criteria; problematic characteristics of inventory models in particular include the possibility of state spaces and feasible action sets that are unbounded (and perhaps continuous), as well as unbounded cost functions. In Section 1.2.1 above, we have discussed work on inventory control under an average cost criterion when the ordering cost function is convex (and nonlinear). Here, we mention work on stochastic inventory control models with other types of ordering cost functions. The case of an inventory model with a linear ordering cost function (as in the

rst case examined in Karlin 1958, mentioned above) is studied in Vega-Amaya andMontes-deOca (1998). They argue that the base stock structure remains optimal under an average cost criterion. Our model encompasses linear (nondecreasing) ordering cost functions, but we assume backlogging of unmet demand while they assume lost sales. Literature on average optimality in models with a

xed cost of ordering in addition to a linear component (as in the second case examined in Karlin 1958) is brie y reviewed in Feinberg and Lewis (2006). They cite several papers arguing that the (s; S) structure remains optimal. One such paper of particular signi

cance for us is Zheng (1991), which employs a relaxation technique that we use as well. Other studies cited include Iglehart (1963), Veinott and Wagner (1965), Beyer and Sethi(1999), and Chen and Simchi-Levi (2004). The forthcoming volume of Beyer et al. (2009) also promises to discuss this case. The work by Huh et al. (2008) mentioned above stands to establish average optimality of policy structures, for a wide class of cost functions and other model parameters, whenever the structures are known to be optimal in a

nite-horizon setting.

Limitations of Study
Time was the main constraint. The researcher has to complete her work with in the stipulated time limit and the sample size was restricted to 50 respondents. The studies limited to ksrtc in Chitradurga. The respondents were of different perceptions and hence the researcher has a tedious task at hand in locating the respondents from Chitradurga. The respondents were not open up to the questions asked by the researcher.

Research Methodology
The research methodology includes the information regarding the sample size design, data collection methods and the analytical tools used. Here also the same is explained in detail regarding the sample size, data collection methods and the analytical methods used in this research.

Data Collection Methods

There are so many ways in which data shall be collected. The methods that have been used for collecting the data are: Primary Research Questionnaire Method Direct Interview Method Secondary Research Books Internet Articles Newspapers Magazines

Both of these methods have been used for collecting the data. Questionnaire method was used for collecting the primary data. This has been done by firstly preparing an appropriate structured questionnaire.. Secondary data for the purpose of research has been mainly taken from internet and various magazines. Various journals have been used for the purpose of reference.

Sample Design

Sample size Sample selection criteria Sample selection area

: : :

50 Random selection Chitradurga

Company profile
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation or KSRTC(Kannada) is a state-owned road transportation company in Karnataka. KSRTC was set up in 1961 under the provisions of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It is wholly owned by the Government of Karnataka. The Government of India is also a shareholder in this corporation. KSRTC is also known for its introduction of Volvo B7RLE low body city buses. These buses are air conditioned, with improved tyre suspensions, a far cry from the other old members of fleet. Till August 1997, KSRTC had a fleet of 10,400 buses, operating about 9500 schedules. In August 1997, KSRTC was divided and a new corporation by the name Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC). In November 1997, another new road transport corporation called North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) was formed to cater to the transportation needs of North Western parts of Karnataka. Recently, the North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC) was also formed with its corporate office in Gulbarga. The company runs a fleet of buses of all types like ordinary,semi-luxury, deluxe, and air-conditioned Volvo "Airavat" buses. The KSRTC operates services within Karnataka as well as far flung destinations such as Trivandrum, Mumbai, and Vijayawada, among others. The KSRTC runs different type of buses to suit every section of the society. Their main mission is Meeting Challenges with Innovation. As of 2010, KSRTC was the largest state-owned Volvo fleet operator in India.
[2]

KSRTC services almost all villages in Karnataka. At present, 92% villages are served by KSRTC (6743 out of 7298 [3] Villages) and 44% in other areas (6743 out of 7298). KSRTC operates 6463 schedules in a day covering an effective distance of 23.74 lakh km with a total fleet of 7599 buses. It transports, on an average, 24.57 lakh passengers per day. [edit]Awards

and recognition

1. Union Transport Ministers Trophy for lowest accident during 1996-99, 1997-00 and 1998-01. 2. Parisara Award 2001 by the State Govt. 3. Safety Award for 2001-02 by the Chartered Institute of Logistic and Transport, India. 4. IRTE Pince Michale International Road Safety Award 2001. 5. PCRA Award 2001-02 and 2002-03. 6. Golden Peacock International Award for 2002 (runners-up). 7. Golden Peacock Environment Management Award for 2003 (winner). 8. Golden Peacock Eco Innovation Award 2004 (second time). 9. Urban Mobility India -2009 10. mBillionth South Asia Awards -2010 11. Earth Care Award-2010 12. Chief Minister Rathna Award-2009-10 13. 'Public Sector bus fleet operator of the year' award from Apollo group