SWIFTKART
LOGISTICS
Last Mile Parcel-Delivery
Group- 4
PROBLEM STATEMENT
SwiftKart Logistics operates from a single depot serving 6 customer
locations with specified parcel demands using 2 identical trucks with
fixed capacity. Currently, delivery routes are planned informally by
drivers using guesswork rather than optimization, resulting in inefficient
paths and suboptimal vehicle utilization.
THE CHALLENGE
ROUTE OPTIMIZATION IN URBAN LAST-MILE DELIVERY
Manual routing leads to unbalanced vehicle
Manual routing by driver intuition (no algorithms) loads and inefficient paths
Inefficient paths, unbalanced loads, wasted vehicle capacity Rising costs from fuel, congestion, and
High operational costs despite competitive pressures underutilized vehicle capacity
Last-mile operations consume over 50% of
total logistics costs
CASE CONTEXT
SwiftKart Logistics operates in urban last-mile parcel
delivery
Deliveries are made from one central depot
The depot serves six customer locations with known
parcel demand
The company uses two identical delivery vehicles
Each vehicle has a maximum capacity of 50 parcels
All deliveries must be completed in one delivery cycle
Each route must start and end at the depot
DATA TAKEN
From \ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Node (Depot) Demand
To
0 0 4.47 5.39 10 8.54 9.85 10.05
1 10
1 4.47 0 3.61 5.66 6.08 5.39 6.08
2 15
2 5.39 3.61 0 6.08 3.16 7.07 8.94
3 18
3 10 5.66 6.08 0 5.39 2.24 5.39
4 20
4 8.54 6.08 3.16 5.39 0 7.21 9.9
5 18
5 9.85 5.39 7.07 2.24 7.21 0 3.16
6 10.05 6.08 8.94 5.39 9.9 3.16 0 6 7
Distance Matrix Demand Across All Customers: 10 + 15 + 18 + 20 + 18 + 7 = 88
Capacity Constraints of Both Vans = 50 each
Warehouse
and
Customer
Map
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
CONSTRAINTS
DECISION VARIABLES
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
OPTIMAL SOLUTION
Minimum Total Distance Traveled:
44.55 distance units
Vehicle Assignments:
Van 1:
Route: Depot to Customer 2 to Customer 4 to Customer 1
to Depot
Total Load Delivered: 45 parcels
Capacity Utilization: 90% (45/50)
Van 2:
Route: Depot to Customer 6 to Customer 5 to Customer 3
to Depot
Total Load Delivered: 43 parcels
Capacity Utilization: 86% (43/50)
SENSTIVITY ANALYSIS
How would the optimal routing solution change if the capacity of 1 van
increased by 10%?
The change upon increasing the capacity further is non-linear in nature
because the initial demand constraint would then be completely fulfilled.
Route: 0 → 4 → 2 → 0(new) Load: 35
VEHICLE 1
Route: 0 → 1 → 4 → 2 → 0(old) Load: 45
Route: 0 → 1 → 3 → 5 → 6 → 0(new) Load: 55
VEHICLE 2
Route: 0 → 6 → 5 → 3 → 0(old) Load: 43
OPTIMAL ROUTE SENSTIVITY
ANALYSIS ROUTE
Van 1 Van 2
MANAGERIAL INSIGHTS
Geographic Clustering
Customers grouped by proximity → reduced unnecessary travel
Capacity Balancing
Vehicle capacities efficiently utilized → no under or overuse
Distance Reduction
Optimized total distance lower than randomized routing
Operational Consistency
Consistent routes improve scheduling, driver planning, service efficiency
Cost-Service Optimization
Cost reduction while maintaining service quality through decreased travel
distance
Scalability Benefits
Model scales easily for growing customer base and fleet expansion
Data-Driven Decisions
Provides objective metrics for performance tracking and continuous improvement
Last-mile delivery inefficiencies significantly
increase operational costs in urban logistics.
Intuition-based routing results in longer travel
distances and uneven vehicle utilisation.
Optimisation models enable systematic route
planning while respecting capacity and service
constraints.
The optimised solution reduces total distance
travelled and ensures balanced vehicle loads.
Overall, optimisation-based decision making
CONCLUSION improves cost efficiency, service reliability, and
operational planning.
THE TEAM
Aditya Kumar Prishita Vajar Anant Mishra Ashmeet Singh Chauhan
IPM05004 IPM05185 IPM05153 IPM05016
Mannat Longwani Hardik Kumar Shruti Bhutada
IPM05183 IPM05030 IPM05182
THANKYOU