Inherent complexity research on the bullwhip effect in supply chains with two retailers: the impact of three forecasting methods considering market share (Q1723817)
From MaRDI portal
| This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes. Please use this page instead for the normal view: Inherent complexity research on the bullwhip effect in supply chains with two retailers: the impact of three forecasting methods considering market share |
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 7022133
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| default for all languages | No label defined |
||
| English | Inherent complexity research on the bullwhip effect in supply chains with two retailers: the impact of three forecasting methods considering market share |
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 7022133 |
Statements
Inherent complexity research on the bullwhip effect in supply chains with two retailers: the impact of three forecasting methods considering market share (English)
0 references
14 February 2019
0 references
Summary: An important phenomenon in supply chain management which is known as the bullwhip effect suggests that demand variability increases as one moves up a supply chain. This paper contrasts the bullwhip effect for a two-stage supply chain consisting of one supplier and two retailers under three forecasting methods based on the market share. We can quantify the correlation coefficient between the two retailers clearly, in consideration of market share. The two retailers both employ the order-up-to inventory policy for replenishments. The bullwhip effect is measured, respectively, under the minimum mean squared error (MMSE), moving average (MA), and exponential smoothing (ES) forecasting methods. The effect of autoregressive coefficient, lead time, and the market share on a bullwhip effect measure is investigated by using algebraic analysis and numerical simulation. And the comparison of the bullwhip effect under three forecasting methods is conducted. The conclusion suggests that different forecasting methods and various parameters lead to different bullwhip effects. Hence, the corresponding forecasting method should be chosen by the managers under different parameters in practice.
0 references
0 references
0 references
0 references
0.8813785910606384
0 references
0.860889732837677
0 references
0.8597448468208313
0 references
0.8526390790939331
0 references