Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 15

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT 1

The Bullwhip Effect in an Online Retail Supply


Chain: A Perspective of Price-Sensitive Demand
Based on the Price Discount in E-Commerce
Dandan Gao, Nengmin Wang, Zhengwen He, and Tao Jia

Abstract—This paper investigates the difference in bullwhip ef- σ Standard deviation of the market demand.
fects in online and offline retail supply chains, offering insights L Lead time.
into how frequent price discounts in e-commerce influence the z Safety factor.
bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain. We consider a
two-level online retail supply chain with a manufacturer and an μ Constant in price model.
online retailer in which the demand faced by the retailer is price ρ Price autoregression coefficient.
sensitive and based on the price discount. Assuming that the on- κ Ratio of the online retail market demand to the
line retailer employs an optimal order-up-to inventory policy with total market demand.
an optimal minimum mean-squared error forecasting technique, dt Market demand in period t.
we derive the expression of the bullwhip effect in the online re-
tail supply chain and make analysis and comparison. Finally, we ηt Price random disturbance term in period t.
develop a dual-channel supply chain model to directly observe the εt Demand random disturbance term in period t.
impact of price discounts in e-commerce on the bullwhip effect. The pt Market price in period t.
results suggest that price discounts in the online retail market gen- pm in Minimum expectation price.
erally amplify the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain, rt Reference price in period t.
but in certain conditions, the bullwhip in the online supply chain
may be smaller than that in the offline supply chain. We also find It Inventory level in period t.
that the relationship between the lead time and the bullwhip effect qt Order quantity in period t.
in the online supply chain presents a distinctive feature contrary yt Order-up-to point in period t.
to the conclusions of previous studies. Based on the analysis, we σ̂tL Estimate of the standard deviation of the L peri-
develop important managerial insights regarding online retail sup- ods forecasting error in period t.
ply chains.
dˆt Demand prediction in period t.
Index Terms—Bullwhip effect, e-commerce, online retail DtL Lead-time demand in period t.
market, online retail supply chain, price discount. D̂tL Estimate of the lead-time demand in period t.
BW Eonline Bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain.
NOMENCLATURE BW Eof f line Bullwhip effect in the offline retail supply chain.
a Market demand scale.
b Price-sensitivity coefficient. I. INTRODUCTION
r Price discount sensitivity coefficient. ITH THE rapid growth of the global digital economy, a
s Expectation price difference sensitivity coeffi-
cient.
W famous event in e-commerce is the “Double 11” promo-
tion event in China, during which Tmall has achieved amazing
δ Standard deviation of the market price. sales records. Total transactions have rocketed from ¥19.1
billion in 2012 to ¥91.2 billion in the latest grand shopping fes-
Manuscript received July 8, 2016; revised December 19, 2016; accepted tival in 2015. These promotion activities have strong appeal to
February 1, 2017. This work was supported in part by the National Natural online consumers largely due to the substantial price discounts.
Science Foundation Project of China under Grant 71572138, Grant 71390331,
and Grant 71371150; in part by the National Social Science Foundation Project Frequent price discounts and dynamic pricing are marked
of China under Grant 12&ZD070; in part by the National Soft Science Project features of e-commerce, because advanced information tech-
of China under Grant 2014GXS4D151; in part by the Soft Science Project of nologies have made it much easier and faster to adjust prices in
Shaanxi Province under Grant 2014KRZ04; in part by the Program for New
Century Excellent Talents in University under Grant NCET-13-0460; and in online retails than in traditional retails. Although a well-planned
part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. promotion campaign usually generates generous profits, in the
The authors are with the School of Management, and the Key Lab of past, many firms were reluctant to consider sales campaigns,
the Ministry of Education for Process Control and Efficiency Engineering,
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xian 710049, China (e-mail: gaodandan@stu.xjtu. in part because event planning and implementation typically
edu.cn; wangnm@mail.xjtu.edu.cn; zhengwenhe@mail.xjtu.edu.cn; jiatao@ require large amounts of money, time, and effort [1]. However,
mail.xjtu.edu.cn). the rise of the internet as a retailing channel has now provided
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. firms with an ideal environment for testing the effects of price
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2017.2666265 promotion activities and dynamic pricing on online sales. In

0018-9391 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

particular, prices posted on a website can be changed instantly supply chain? We are specifically interested in the features of
at a little cost for sellers [2]. In the traditional offline market, the bullwhip effect in the online supply chain and its difference
quantifying the effects of price promotion and dynamic pricing with that in the traditional offline supply chain. With distinctive
on consumer demands have been widely studied by researchers features, online retail supply chains differ from the traditional
[3], [4]. However, due to the complexity of the shopping supply chains in many aspects. However, no research has been
environment in e-commerce, especially with the emergence conducted on the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply
of powerful price comparison sites, recommendation systems, chain. To explore this issue, based on reference price theory,
spike activities, and other auxiliary tactics in recent years, we propose a demand model with price discounts in the online
quantitative research of demand in the online retail market has retail market. Considering a two-level online supply chain with
become more complicated and difficult. Most studies do not a manufacturer and an online retailer, we further derive the
report the impact on online retail market demands from the analytical expression of the bullwhip effect in the online supply
perspective of price discounts in e-commerce. chain with an optimal order-up-to inventory policy and optimal
How do frequent price discounts in e-commerce affect the minimum mean-squared error (MMSE) forecasting technique.
demand of online consumers? Here is an example. On October After analyzing the properties of the effect, we compare it with
21th, 2015, Mindy, who lives in China, was searching for e- the bullwhip effect in the offline supply chain. Finally, to directly
books on Tmall and ultimately chose the Hanvon E920 e-book, observe the impact of price discounts on the bullwhip effect, we
which was priced at ¥1759, after comparison. Then, she opened develop a dual-channel supply chain model.
a price comparison website called Huihui shopping assistant, in The main contribution of this study is fourfold: First, we
which she found the price history chart of that e-book and the develop a demand model with price discounts in the e-commerce
complete past price information since October 21, 2014. Mindy market. Second, we quantify and analyze the bullwhip effect
observed the line chart and paid special attention to three points: in an online retail supply chain. Third, we make a comparison
the minimum price of ¥1600 during “Double 11” in 2014, which between the bullwhip effects in online and offline supply chains.
was the same as the presale price of “Double 11” in 2015, Finally, we reveal the impact of price discounts in e-commerce
the recent price of ¥1699 last week, and the current price of on the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain.
¥1759. In the end, Mindy decided to wait until November 11th to The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
purchase the e-book, at the price of ¥1600, because her demand Section II reviews the literature. Section III presents the de-
for the e-book was not that urgent and she anticipated that the mand model and the price process in a two-level online re-
price would drop to the minimum of ¥1600 again during the tail supply chain. Section IV introduces the order-up-to in-
“Double 11” event. From this, it can be preliminarily inferred ventory policy model and the MMSE forecasting technique.
that the observed prices, which were lower than the current Section V derives the analytical expression of the bullwhip effect
price, had a negative impact on Mindy’s current demand for that in the online retail supply chain. Section VI provides analysis
e-book. As such, the observed price information as a reference and comparison. Section VII concludes this paper and suggests
can directly change the purchasing decisions of individual online follow-up research directions.
consumers and subsequently affect the overall online demands.
As for the relationship between price discounts in e-
commerce and the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply II. LITERATURE REVIEW
chain, we gain inspiration from the case of the grand promo- Our research builds on two lines of literature: The literature
tion activity “Double-11” in China. To prepare for the event and on the bullwhip effect and the literature on the impact of the
make large profits, online retailers usually stock up on products reference price on online consumer purchasing behaviors.
in advance according to the prediction of future demands. It is a
game of inventory and sales for online retailers. If online retail-
ers make the right forecast and win the game, they will not only A. Bullwhip Effect
make a fortune but also gain new customers from the event. In The bullwhip effect is a phenomenon of information distor-
contrast, if online retailers overestimate the sales in “Double- tion as ordering information moves upstream. It occurs when
11,” they will backlog huge stock and need a few months to deal a downstream demand fluctuation leads to larger fluctuations
with the inventory or even longer if the daily sales volume is in the variance of upstream ordering. The discovery of the ef-
low. Actually, after the “Double-11,” many e-commerce compa- fect can be traced back to Forrester [5], [6] who investigated its
nies transfer into the inventory-clearing period. High inventory causes and possible remedies in the context of industrial dynam-
means costs, the occupancy of capital and disrupted operation ics. Forrester’s work has drawn a great attention to the existence
schedules, resulting in damage to the interests of companies, of this phenomenon in supply chains. To date, bullwhip effects
which is so called the “bullwhip effect.” It follows that price in traditional offline supply chains have been studied extensively
discounts in e-commerce will impact the bullwhip effect in the by researchers.
online retail supply chain. According to Wang and Disney [7], the five main ele-
In this paper, we address the following question: How do ments in bullwhip modeling are demand, the lead time (a.k.a.
frequent price discounts in e-commerce influence the online time delay), the forecasting policy, the ordering policy, and
consumers’ demand and the bullwhip effect in an online retail information-sharing mechanisms.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

GAO et al.: BULLWHIP EFFECT IN AN ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN: A PERSPECTIVE OF PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND 3

First is the impact of demand. In bullwhip modeling, com- B. Impact of Reference Price on Online Consumer
monly used demand models include auto-regressive moving av- Purchasing Behaviors
erage (ARMA) models, price-sensitive models, and mixed mod-
els, respectively. The ARMA models are most broadly studied Consumers often set their price expectation prior to paying for
by researchers, especially the special form autoregressive AR(1) a product or service in online and offline markets. According to
model [8]14]. Lee et al. [8], [9] were the first to apply the AR(1) Lewis and Shoemaker [28], the price expectation, or the amount
demand model to the analysis of the bullwhip effect. They also customers expect to pay for a product or service, is used as a
provided a formal definition of the bullwhip effect and sys- reference point to compare prices and guide purchase decisions
tematically analyzed four main causes. Chen et al. [11], [12] [29]. The reference price is usually based on a variety of price
made a great contribution by recognizing the role of demand information, such as regular prices, presale prices, historical
forecasting as a filter for the bullwhip effect with the AR(1) de- prices, and discounted prices.
mand process. In addition to the AR(1) model, the general types Most consumers will inevitably be affected by the refer-
of ARMA models have been applied [15]–[17]. The bullwhip ence price in making their purchasing decisions. Moon et al.
effect has also been examined in price-sensitive demand pro- [30] found that the majority of consumers, approximately 91%,
cesses [18]–[21]. Ma et al. [18] analyzed the bullwhip effects follow reference price mechanisms in their buying behaviors.
on product orders and on inventory using a price-sensitive de- Consumers, especially online shoppers, continually monitor the
mand model. Wang et al. [20] considered linear and isoelastic price environment and change their purchasing behavior accord-
demand functions that both depend on the prices in multiple ingly. Moreover, they use the information they own, which is
periods. Ma et al. [21] analyzed the bullwhip effect in two par- based on their memory of the last time they purchased prod-
allel supply chains with interacting price-sensitive demands. A ucts or the most recent brand promotion. Erdem et al. [31]
relatively small amount of studies have considered the mixed revealed that the reference price is based on economically ra-
demand model [22], [23]. Zhang and Burke [23] proposed a tional behavior and used as a signal of quality or a predic-
mixed demand model and discussed the impacts of the demand tor of future prices. Hence, past prices are used as reference
autoregression coefficient and price-sensitive coefficient. The prices to predict future prices and unobserved or imperfectly
choice of demand model depends on the complexity of the observed quality.
supply chain structure, the market environment, the research Online price comparison sites, or shopbots, provide con-
objectives, etc. This paper intends to study the bullwhip effect sumers with easy access to price comparison for desired prod-
in a two-level online retail supply chain and analyze the impact ucts. Because shopbots greatly reduce the cost of searching for
of the online retail channel with price discounts on the supply information about products and facilitate better and more effi-
chain. Because the price-dependent model is beneficial for the cient purchase decisions, they have become extremely popular
analysis of price dynamics, we develop a price-sensitive model among consumers who shop on the internet. Since 2011, shop-
to survey the bullwhip. In addition, in light of Ma et al. [18], bots, such as NexTag.com, PriceScan.com, and Skinflint.co.uk,
the price-sensitive model involves in more practical demand have introduced line charts displaying a product’s full price his-
and price characteristic parameters (i.e., price sensitivity, de- tory, in addition to providing different sellers’ offers for any
mand elasticity, and market scale), providing more managerial product in the form of price comparison tables. NexTag.com
insights. calls this chart the "price history," whereas on pricescan.com,
Second is the impact of lead time. Forrester [6] found that it is called the "price trend graph." These price history charts
the lead time is a driving factor of demand amplification. Lee are easily available for online consumers around the world. As
et al. [9] and Chen and Simchi-Levi [12] revealed that bull- shown by Klein and Oglethorpe [32], historical price is a type of
whip effects increase with the lead time, which is supported by reference price that represents consumers’ personal purchasing
Steckel et al. [24] and Agrawal et al. [14]. Over the years, oth- experiences. Similarly, Kopalle and Lindsey-Mullikin [33] sug-
ers have discovered that this relationship does not always hold gested that information about a product’s price history is a source
[25], [26]. Luong [25] found that when the second-order au- of reference prices and should, therefore, stimulate consumer
toregressive coefficient is negative, the bullwhip effect will not purchasing behavior. Danziger and Segev [34] argued that price
always increase as the lead time increases and instead presents a expectations and purchase timing are conceptually related. Thus,
complex changing trend. Ma and Ma [26] showed that a smaller price history charts provided by shopbots should support con-
lead time does not always lead to a lower bullwhip effect, but a sumers in forming expectations about future prices and enforce
much greater lead time does result in a higher bullwhip effect. strategic buying behavior with respect to buying now or later. In
In this paper, we also investigate the relationship between the addition, in a shopping context, reference prices lower than the
lead time and the bullwhip effect in the online supply chain. offer price represent negative stimuli. Buyers will attach more
It is remarkable that our finding is different from all the above weight to lower price information [35]. Furthermore, Briesch
research. et al. [36] revealed that memory or observed information of
Finally, as for forecasting policy and ordering policy, we sup- recent prices has a greater reference effect than earlier prices.
pose that online retailers adopt the optimal ordering policy (i.e., Taken together, these studies imply a possible correlation be-
order-up-to policy [10]) and the optimal forecasting technique tween online demand and historical price information as refer-
(i.e., MMSE forecasting technique [27]). ence prices.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to quantify and where
analyze the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain and
Dt (pt ) = a − bpt (2)
investigate the difference in bullwhip effects between online and
offline supply chains. In the context of the e-commerce market, Rt (rt , pt ) = b (r + s) (rt − pt )
we develop a demand model dependent on the price and price   
r s
discounts based on the reference price theory. On that basis, we = b (r + s) pt − 1 + pm in − pt .
further measure the impact of price discounts on the bullwhip r + s r + s
effect in the online retail supply chain. (3)
According to Popescu and Wu [41] and Huh et al. [42], for
each period t, the demand dt can be separated into two com-
III. DEMAND MODEL ponents. The first component is demand in the absence of the
Consider a simple two-level online retail supply chain with reference price effect, which is denoted by Dt (pt ). The second
a manufacturer and an online retailer. The external demand for component is an adjustment owing to the reference price effect,
a single product occurs at the retailer and is price sensitive. In denoted by Rt (rt , pt ). Similarly, we develop a demand model
this context, we build a demand model with price discounts in with the reference price effect in (1)–(3).
e-commerce marketplace. By simplification, we obtain the following demand model:
dt = a − bpt − rb (pt − pt − 1 ) − sb (pt − pm in ) + εt (4)
A. Demand Model With Price Discounts in E-Commerce where a > 0, b > 0, 0 ≤ r < 1, and 0 ≤ s < 1.
In this formula, b denotes the price-sensitivity coefficient,
With the wide diffusion of e-commerce, online consumers and bpt stands for the demand part influenced by the current
can easily find the full price histories of any products through period price. Demand decreases as the current period price
price history charts provided by shopbots or price compari- increases. r denotes the price discount-sensitivity coefficient,
son sites. Historical prices as a type of reference prices have and rb(pt − pt − 1 ) represents the demand part affected by the
guiding impacts on online consumers’ demands. The relation- current price discount range by comparing the current period
ship between reference prices and consumers’ purchasing be- price with the previous period price. If pt < pt − 1 , a current
havior is supported by many researchers [30], [32], [33], [35], price discount will occur; thus, the demand will increase. When
[37], [38]. Prior studies provide significant afflatus for build- the demand elasticity of products is small, which is equiva-
ing a demand model in the e-commerce marketplace, where the lent to low-price sensitivity, consumers’ demands will be rela-
price history and other price information can be seen by on- tively rigid and urgent. Correspondingly, consumers will have
line shoppers through price comparison sites, and, thus, used as lower price discount sensitivity. This suggests that the price
reference price points in their purchasing decisions. According discount sensitivity is positively correlated with the price sen-
to Birnbaum and Stegner [35], reference prices, lower than the sitivity; hence, the expression of the price discount sensitivity
currently offered price, represent negative stimuli on current de- is rb. pm in is the consumers’ expected price formed from ob-
mands. Furthermore, Briesch et al. [36] revealed that memory serving the minimum discount price information. It is defined as
or observed information of recent prices has a greater reference the minimum expectation price and equals the minimum value
effect than earlier prices, and the latest price observed by the between the minimum promotion price in the past and an ob-
consumer is the strongest determinant of the consumer refer- served discount price in the near future (i.e., the presale price). s
ence price. Mayhew and Winer [39] and Krishnamurthi [40] denotes the expectation price difference sensitivity coefficient,
used the price on the last occasion pt − 1 as the reference price and sb(pt − pm in ) is the demand part influenced by the differ-
and correspondingly pt − 1 − pt to describe the gain and loss ence between the current price and the minimum expectation
of utility for consumers. In addition, Rajendran and Tellis [38] price. When this difference range increases, the demand will
and Birnbaum and Stegner [35] showed that buyers will attach decrease. Likewise, there is a positive correlation between the
more weight to lower price information. The lowest price is expectation price difference sensitivity and the price sensitiv-
recognized as an important reference price point [37] and was ity, and we express the expectation price difference sensitivity
incorporated into the reference price model by Rajendran and as sb.
Tellis [38]. Especially in e-commerce, the minimum discount In this paper, we define the comparison between the cur-
price (i.e., the presale price in "Double 11," the minimum price rent price and the reference prices (i.e., the historical price, the
in the historical price chart) is particularly important because it observed price, etc.) as the real-time price discount, which is de-
is usually posted in a conspicuous spot on the website to draw noted by rt − pt . pt < rt means a positive price discount, and
the eye and is usually deliberately guided by shopbots. pt > rt means a negative price discount. Thus, the real-time
As such, we choose the last period price pt − 1 and the mini- price discount information includes pt − pt − 1 and pt − pm in .
mum discount price pm in as the reference price points influenc- When r = 0 and s = 0, the demand model becomes (5). It has
ing online consumers’ purchasing behaviors and build a demand been used in previous studies [18], [19] to describe the demand
model in the e-commerce market in offline markets, where consumers usually have no complete
information about the full price history of a product and their
dt = Dt (pt ) + Rt (rt , pt ) + εt (1) purchasing decisions are based solely on the current period
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

GAO et al.: BULLWHIP EFFECT IN AN ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN: A PERSPECTIVE OF PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND 5

price, and they cannot capture the real-time price discounts by IV. ORDERING PROCESS
comparing the current price with the previous prices, as online
We adopt the following sequence of events during the replen-
consumers can. Therefore, we see that whether the real-time ishment period. The online retailer observes consumer demand
price discounts can be perceived by consumers is an important
dt−1 at the end of period t − 1 and places an order of quantity qt
mark of distinction between the online retail market and the
to the manufacturer at the beginning of period t according to its
offline market. current inventory level. After lead time L, the retailer receives
the product from the manufacturer at the beginning of period
dt = a − bpt + εt (5)
t + L. In this section, we introduce the order-up-to inventory
policy and the MMSE forecasting technique to calculate the
where εt is an independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) nor-
order-up-to level and the ordering quantity.
mally distributed demand shock with mean zero and variance
σ 2 . We further assume that εt has no relation with the market
price. Therefore, the covariance between the error term and the A. Order-up-to Inventory Policy
market price is zero: Cov(pt , εt  ) = 0, (∀t, t ). The order-up-to policy is one of the most widely studied
We consider an online retail market setting in which the policies of supply chain models. When demands are stationary,
retailer sells on a perfectly competitive market and exerts no resupply is infinite, product purchase cost is stationary, and there
control over the market clearing price, and the market price evo- is no fixed order cost, the order-up-to policy is considered as the
lution is determined by the overall market demand and supply. locally optimal inventory policy, which can minimize the total
The market price pt in (4) is an AR (1) pricing dynamic process discounted holding and shortage costs [9], [10]. Assuming that
the online retailer adopts the order-up-to inventory policy, the
pt = μ + ρpt − 1 + ηt , 0 < ρ < 1 (6) ordering decision is as follows:

where ηt is an i.i.d. normally distributed effect of overall qt = yt − (yt − 1 − dt − 1 ) . (8)


market shocks on the price across time with mean zero and The order-up-to level consists of an anticipation stock that is
variance δ 2 . The condition of 0 < ρ < 1 ensures that the AR retained to meet the expected lead-time demand and a safety
(1) pricing process is stationary. Similar to Zhang and Burke stock for hedging against unexpected demand. Therefore, the
[23], we assume that the error term ηt and the market price order-up-to level is updated in every period according to the
have a covariance structure: Cov(pt , ηt  ) = 0, (t < t ). following:
Thus, from (4) and (6), we obtain the expects and vari-
ances of price and demand, respectively: μp = E(pt ) = yt = D̂tL + zσ̂tL (9)
μ/(1 − ρ), σp2 = Var(pt ) = δ 2 /(1 − ρ2 ), μd = E(dt ) = a +
where DtL is the lead-time demand equal to the sum of demands
sbpm in − (1 + s)bμp , σd2 = Var(dt ) = ((1 + r + s)2 + r2 −
of L periods in the interval [t, t + L), D̂tL is an estimate of the
2(1 + r + s)rρ)b2 σp2 + σ 2 .
mean lead-time demand, z is a constant that has been set to meet
We further deduce the covariance of ηt and εt : Cov(pt , εt  ) =
a desired service level and is often referred to as the safety factor
Cov(ηt , εt  ) = 0, (∀t, t ) for any t or t . In other words, the
error terms are independent across time and are not correlated
[11], [12], and the estimate of the standard deviation of the L
contemporaneously. period forecasting error is σ̂tL = V ar(DtL − D̂tL ).
The following can be derived from (4) and (6): Gaalman and Disney [44] showed that the order-up-to policy
is optimal when the demand is normally distributed. We have
dt = w + λdt − 1 + ht (7) shown that our demand model in (4) and price dynamics model
in (6) can be simplified to an autoregressive demand process
where λ = ρ, ht = εt − (1 + r + s)bηt + rbηt − 1 − ρεt − 1 , as shown in (7). Because the errors ηt and εt are both i.i.d.
and w = a + sbpm in − (aρ + μb(1 + s) + sbρpm in ). This normally distributed and are not correlated contemporaneously,
equation reveals that the demand in (4) and the price dynamics the price pt and the demand dt are also both normally distributed.
in (6) can be simplified to an autoregressive demand process. Therefore, in this research, the online retailer uses the optimal
Using an actual consumption demand data, Erkip and Nahmias order-up-to inventory policy.
[43] observed that the autoregression coefficient of the demand Substituting (9) into (8), the order quantity qt can be rewritten
in adjacent periods hovers at approximately 0.7. The empirical as follows:
work of Lee et al. [10] showed that the autoregression corre-  
qt = D̂tL − D̂tL− 1 + dt − 1 + z σ̂tL − σ̂tL− 1 . (10)
lation coefficients of the demand of most products are greater
than zero and fluctuate between 0.26 and 0.89 (see Lee et al.
B. MMSE Forecasting Technique
[9], [10] for more details). As shown by (7), the autoregression
coefficients of the demand and the price are equal, so this paper To calculate the order-up-to level yt , the online retailer should
sets the autoregression coefficient 0 < ρ < 1. It should be noted use certain forecasting techniques to estimate the mean lead-
that ht is a function of the two error terms ηt and εt . Thus, the time demand D̂tL . The three most commonly used forecast-
simplified demand model is an autoregressive demand process ing techniques are MMSE, moving average, and exponential
but not an AR(1) process. smoothing. Among them, MMSE has the smallest error. MMSE
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

is provided by the conditional expectation given to previous ob- Substituting (14) and (15) into (11), we can compute the
servations and is considered as an optimal forecasting procedure demand forecast of period t + i
that minimizes the mean-squared forecasting error [27]. Thus,  
1 − ρi + 1
this paper uses the MMSE forecasting technique to analyze the dˆt + i = a − (1 + r + s) b μ + ρi + 1 pt − 1
bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain. 1−ρ
 
We suppose that the retailer in the online retail supply chain 1−ρ i

has adopted the optimal inventory policy and the optimal fore- + rb μ + ρi pt − 1 + sbpm in . (16)
1−ρ
casting technique.
Thus, the estimate of the mean lead-time demand is the fol-
lowing:
V. BULLWHIP EFFECT IN THE ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN
−1
L
In this section, we derive analytical expression of the bullwhip
D̂tL = dˆt + i
effect in the online retail supply chain. First, we analyze the i=0
retailer’s order quantity, which is a forward step of computing
the bullwhip effect. (1 + r + s) μb (L − ρΛL )
= La + Lsbpm in −
1−ρ
A. Online Retailer’s Ordering Decision rμb (L − ΛL )
+ + (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL ) bpt − 1
It has been shown that the MMSE forecast of period t + 1−ρ
i, (i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ...) is the conditional expectation of dt+i given (17)
previous observations dt − 1 , dt − 2 , ... [27]. Let dˆt + i be the L
where ΛL = 1−ρ1−ρ .
demand forecast of period t + i, (i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ...) made at the
Substituting (17) into (10), we obtain the following:
end of period t − 1. In the case of the AR (1) demand process,
it has been shown that the MMSE forecast of dˆt + i is given qt = b (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL ) (pt − 1 − pt − 2 )
by dˆt + i = E(dt + i |dt − 1 ) [10]. This paper considers a price-  
sensitive demand function in which the price follows an AR + dt − 1 + z σ̂tL − σ̂tL− 1 . (18)
(1) process. Let p̂t + i be the market price forecast of period Lemma 1: When the MMSE technique is used to forecast the
t + i made at the end of period t − 1. According to Ma et lead-time demand, the variance of forecasting error for the lead-
al. [18], [19], for the AR (1) pricing process, it can be done time demand in the online retail supply chain remains constant
in a similar way that p̂t + i can be given as the future price over time and is given by the following:
conditioned on the actual price observed up to period t − 1,  L 2
i.e., p̂t + i = E(pt + i |pt − 1 ). Thus, we can derive the demand σ̂t = Lσ 2 + (1 + r + s)2 b2 δ 2 + Φb2 δ 2 /(1 − ρ)2 (19)
forecast of period t + i as follows: where
  
dˆt + i = a − (1 + r + s) bp̂t + i + rbp̂t+i−1 + sbpm in . (11) 2 ρ2 − ρ1 + L ρ4 − ρ2 + 2L
2
Φ = (1 + r + s) L − 1 − +
By recursively applying (6), we can obtain the following 1−ρ 1 − ρ2
formulas:   
2 ρ − ρL ρ2 − ρ2L
pt + i = μ + ρpt+i−1 + ηt + i +r L−1−
2
+
1−ρ 1 − ρ2
= (1 + ρ) μ + ρ2 pt+i−2 + (ρηt+i−1 + ηt + i )
− 2r (1 + r + s)
1−ρ i+1 
i  
= ... = μ + ρi + 1 pt − 1 + ρi − j ηt + j ρ − ρL ρ3 − ρ2L + 1 ρ2 − ρ1 + L
1−ρ L−1− + − .
j=0 1−ρ 1 − ρ2 1−ρ
(12) (20)
and Proof: See Appendix A.
−1
i
From Lemma 1, it is obvious that the variance of the lead-
1 − ρi time demand forecasting error in an online retail supply chain
pt+i−1 = μ + ρi pt − 1 + ρi−1−j ηt + j . (13)
1−ρ j=0
is independent of time with the MMSE technique, which means
σ̂tL = σ̂tL , (∀t, t ). Substituting σ̂tL − σ̂tL− 1 = 0 into (18), we
Thus, the market price forecasts of period t + i and period obtain the retailer’s order quantity
t + i − 1 are as follows:
qt = b (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL ) (pt − 1 − pt − 2 ) + dt − 1 .
1 − ρi + 1
p̂t + i = E (pt + i |pt − 1 ) = μ + ρi + 1 pt − 1 (14) (21)
1−ρ
and B. Bullwhip Effect in the Online Retail Supply Chain
1 − ρi The bullwhip effect is computed as the ratio of the order
p̂t+i−1 = E (pt+i−1 |pt − 1 ) = μ + ρi pt − 1 . (15)
1−ρ variance of the retailer to the demand variance of the customer
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

GAO et al.: BULLWHIP EFFECT IN AN ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN: A PERSPECTIVE OF PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND 7

[9], [10]. When the ratio is larger than 1, it means that a bullwhip
effect exists. This information distortion represents potential
costs for the supply chain, including misguided capacity plans,
missed production schedules, and inactive transportation [8].
Therefore, it is desirable to reduce the bullwhip effect. Using
(21), the expression of the bullwhip effect in an online retail
supply chain is shown by Theorem 1.
Theorem 1: Assuming that an online retailer uses the order-
up-to inventory policy and the MMSE forecasting technique,
the bullwhip effect in a two-level online retail supply chain can
be expressed as follows:
Var(qt )
BW Eonline =
Var(dt )
 
2b 2 δ 2 (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL )2
1+ρ − (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL ) (1 + 2r + s)
=1+
σd2
(22)

where σd2 = ((1 + r + s)2 + r2 − 2(1 + r + s)rρ)b2 σp2 + Fig. 1. Condition of eliminating the bullwhip effect in the online retail
L 2 supply chain.
σ 2 , ΛL = 1−ρ 2
1−ρ and σp = 1−ρ 2 .
δ

Proof: See Appendix B.


From the expression of the bullwhip effect in Theorem 1, we The “areas” (different combinations of the price discount-
know that the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain de- sensitivity coefficient r and the expectation price difference sen-
pends on the following seven parameters: the price-sensitivity sitivity coefficient s) for the bullwhip effect in the online retail
coefficient b, the price autoregression coefficient ρ, the price supply chain are shown in Fig. 1 for ρ = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,
discount-sensitivity coefficient r, the expectation price differ- respectively. Every line in the figure stands for the borderline
ence sensitivity coefficient s, the lead time L, and the variances of BW Eonline = 1. The left area of each borderline represents
of error terms σ 2 and δ 2 . In contrast, the market demand scale a the case when BW Eonline > 1, whereas the right area of each
and the minimum expectation price pm in have no effect on the borderline means the case when BW Eonline < 1.
bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain. Fig. 1 shows that the area of BW Eonline < 1 reduces as the
price autoregression coefficient ρ increases. In particular, when
VI. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON ρ ≥ 0.5, the area of BW Eonline < 1 disappears. As we have
proven in Appendix C, the maximum value of ρ that satisfies
In this section, we analyze the properties of the bullwhip
the inequation of eliminating the bullwhip effect is less than 0.5.
effect in an online retail supply chain, compare the bullwhip
Property 1: When the price autoregression coefficient ρ and
effects in online and offline supply chains and investigate the
the expectation price difference sensitivity coefficient s are
impact of price discounts in e-commerce on the bullwhip effect.
smaller and the price discount-sensitivity coefficient r is larger,
the bullwhip effect in an online retail supply chain will be
A. Condition of Eliminating the Bullwhip Effect in the Online
smaller and even eliminated.
Retail Supply Chain
To simplify the analysis, we set σ 2 = δ 2 and obtain the sim- B. Impacts of Price-Sensitivity Coefficient and Lead Time on
plified expression of BW Eon lin e as follows: the Bullwhip Effect in the Online Retail Supply Chain
sim plified
BW Eonline = 1+ The impacts of the price autoregression coefficient, the price
   discount-sensitivity coefficient, and the expectation price differ-
 (r−(1 + r + s) ρ) 1−ρL

2b2 (r−(1+r+s) ρ) 1−ρL ence sensitivity coefficient on the bullwhip effect in an online
−(1−ρ) (1 + 2r + s)


. retail supply chain have been discussed in the above section.
(1 − ρ) 1−ρ2 +b2 r2 +(1 + r + s)2 −2r (1 + r + s) ρ In this section, we analyze the impacts of the price-sensitivity
(23) coefficient and the lead time on the bullwhip effect.
1) Impact of Price-Sensitivity Coefficient: Proposition 2:
2
Proposition 1: When ρ ≤ 1+rr +s ≤ ρ + ρ−ρ 1−ρ
L or b = 0 The impact of the price-sensitivity coefficient b on the bullwhip
holds, the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain will effect in the online retail supply chain satisfies the following
be eliminated. properties.
Proof: see Appendix C. 1) When ρ ≥ 1+rr +s , in the interval (0, +∞), ∂ B W∂Ebo n l i n e ≥
To illustrate the condition in Proposition 1, the following 0. Hence, BW Eonline increases with the price-sensitivity
numerical example is studied. coefficient b.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

Fig. 2. Impact of b on the bullwhip effect in an online retail supply chain at Fig. 3. Impact of L on the bullwhip effect in an online retail supply chain at
different values of ρ. different values of ρ.

lower bullwhip effect, but a much greater lead time does result
2) When ρ < 1+rr +s , in the interval (0, +∞), ∂ B W∂Ebo n l i n e <
in a higher bullwhip effect. It is remarkable that our finding is
0. Hence, BW Eonline decreases with the price-sensitivity
different from all the above research. In addition, Fig. 3 verifies
coefficient b.
the property in Proposition 1 that if ρ is less than 0.25, then the
Proof: see Appendix D.
bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain will be less than
The two characteristics in Proposition 2 are illustrated in
one; otherwise, the effect will be larger than one.
Fig. 2. Fig. 2 presents the different impacts of b on the bullwhip
Property 3 : When the values of other parameters are given,
effect in an online retail supply chain at different values of ρ.
if the price autoregression coefficient ρ is relatively small, the
The bullwhip effect decreases with b if ρ is less than 0.25, and
bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain decreases with
the effect increases with b if ρ is larger than 0.25. In addition,
the lead time L; otherwise, the bullwhip effect increases with
Fig. 2 validates the property in Proposition 1 that if ρ is less than
the lead time L.
0.25, the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain will
be less than one; otherwise, the effect will be larger than one.
Property 2: When the values of other parameters are given, C. Comparison of Bullwhip Effects in Online and Offline
if the price autoregression coefficient ρ is relatively small, the Supply Chain
bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain decreases with
the price-sensitivity coefficient b; otherwise, the bullwhip effect 1) Bullwhip Effect in the Offline Retail Supply Chain: The
increases with the price-sensitivity coefficient b. bullwhip effect in an online retail supply chain can be computed
2) Impact of Lead Time: Proposition 3: The impact of the by (22) in the above section. For the bullwhip effect in a tradi-
lead time L on the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply tional offline supply chain, we directly quote the conclusion of
chain satisfies the following properties. Ma et al. [18]. The demand faced by the offline retailer is shown
1) When ρ ≥ 1+rr +s , in the interval (0, +∞), ∂ B W∂ELo n l i n e ≥ by (5).
0. Hence, BW Eonline increases with lead time L. Supposing that the retailer uses the order-up-to inventory pol-
2) When ρ < 1+rr +s , in the interval (0, +∞), ∂ B W∂ELo n l i n e < icy and the MMSE forecasting technique, the expression of the
0. Hence, BW Eonline decreases with lead time L. bullwhip effect in a two-level offline supply chain is as follows:
Proof: see Appendix E. 
 
The two characteristics in Proposition 3 are illustrated in 1 − ρL 1 − ρL + 1 δ 2
2
BW Eoffl ine = 1 + 2b ρ . (24)
Fig. 3. Fig. 3 reveals the different impacts of L on the bullwhip (1 − ρ) ((1 − ρ2 ) σ 2 + b2 δ 2 )
effect in an online retail supply chain at different values of ρ.
The bullwhip effect decreases with L if ρ is less than 0.25, 2) Comparison of Bullwhip Effects in Online and Offline
and the effect increases with L if ρ is larger than 0.25. This Supply Chains: By letting BW Eonline < BW Eoffl ine , where
property indicates that in online retail supply chains, a larger BW Eonline is given by (22) and BW Eoffl ine is given by (24),
lead time will cause a smaller bullwhip effect when the price (25) as shown at the top of next page. we can obtain the condi-
autoregression coefficient is relatively small, which is contrary tion when the bullwhip effect in an online retail supply chain is
to the conclusions of previous research [9], [25], [26]. Lee et al. smaller than that in an offline supply chain, as shown by Propo-
[9] and many researchers revealed that bullwhip effects increase sition 4. Again, to simplify the analysis, we set σ 2 = δ 2 and
with the lead time. Luong [25] found that when the second- equalize the mutual parameters in two equations.
order autoregressive coefficient is negative, the bullwhip effect Proposition 4: The bullwhip effect in the online retail supply
presents a complex changing trend in the lead time. Ma and Ma chain is smaller than that in the offline retail supply chain, when
[26] showed that a smaller lead time does not always lead to a the following condition holds.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

GAO et al.: BULLWHIP EFFECT IN AN ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN: A PERSPECTIVE OF PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND 9

   
(r − (1 + r + s) ρ) b2 + 1 − ρ2 
× (r − (1 + r + s) ρ) 1 − ρL − (1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s)


< 1. (25)
ρ (1 − ρL + 1 ) 1 − ρ2 + b2 r2 + (1 + r + s)2 − 2r (1 + r + s) ρ

Fig. 4. (a) Impact of ρ on the bullwhip effect in an online retail supply chain
when L = 1 and b = 3. (b) Impact of ρ on the bullwhip effect in an online retail Fig. 5. (a) Impact of ρ on the bullwhip effect in an online retail supply chain
supply chain when L = 3 and b = 3. (c) Impact of ρ on the bullwhip effect in when L = 5 and b = 1. (b) Impact of ρ on the bullwhip effect in an online retail
an online retail supply chain when L = 5 and b = 3. supply chain when L = 5 and b = 3. (c) Impact of ρ on the bullwhip effect in
an online retail supply chain when L = 5 and b = 5.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

To illustrate the condition in Proposition 4, numerical exam- supply chain, the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply
ples are studied in Figs. 4 and 5. chain will be smaller than that in the offline retail supply chain.
The “areas” (different combinations of the price discount-
sensitivity coefficient r and the expectation price difference sen- D. Bullwhip Effect in the Dual-Channel Supply Chain
sitivity coefficient s) for comparing bullwhip effects in online
This section develops a dual-channel supply chain model.
and offline retail supply chains are shown in Fig. 4 for L = 1, 3, 5
We analyze the impact of the ratio of the online retail market
in the cases of ρ = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and in Fig. 5 for b = 1, 3, 5
demand to the total market demand κ on the bullwhip effect
in the cases of ρ = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, respectively. The results are
to study the impact of the online retail channel on the supply
not influenced by the parity of parameters. Every line in each
chain. Based on the analysis, the impact of price discounts on
picture stands for the borderline of BW Eonline = BW Eoffl ine
the bullwhip effect can be directly observed.
for the given values of parameters. The left area of each bor-
Consider a simple two-level dual-channel supply chain with
derline represents the case when BW Eonline > BW Eoffl ine ,
a manufacturer and a dual-channel retailer who sells products in
whereas the right area of each borderline stands for the case
the online market and offline market simultaneously. To simplify
when BW Eonline < BW Eoffl ine . Fig. 4 displays the compara-
the supply chain models, we make strong assumptions that the
ble results of bullwhip effects in online and offline supply chains
prices and the price-sensitivity coefficients of two markets are
for L = 1, 3, 5. Fig. 5 shows the comparable results of bullwhip
the same and that consumers in the offline market are loyal to the
effects in online and offline supply chains for b = 1, 3, 5.
offline retail channel and have no access to the historical prices
According to Figs. 4 and 5, we obtain the following.
and real-time price discount information in the online retail
1) Fig. 4(a) displays how the borderline of BW Eonline =
market. The total demand function faced by the dual-channel
BW Eoffl ine changes as ρ changes in the case of b = 3
retailer is then the following:
and L = 1. When the values of other parameters are
given, the area of BW Eonline > BW Eoffl ine increases dt = κdonline
t + (1 − κ) dot f f line + εt
with ρ, and the area of BW Eonline < BW Eoffl ine de-
creases with ρ. When ρ decreases from 0.8 to 0.6, the = κ (a − bpt − rb (pt − pt − 1 ) − sb (pt − pm in ))
area of BW Eonline > BW Eoffl ine dramatically reduces. + (1 − κ) (a − bpt ) + εt
If ρ continues to decrease, the trend of reduction be-
comes flattened. The same conclusion can be obtained = a − bpt − κrb (pt − pt − 1 ) − κsb (pt − pm in ) + εt
from Figs. 4(b), and (c) and 5. (26)
2) Fig. 4 overall depicts how the borderline of BW Eonline = where 0 ≤ κ ≤ 1. a is the total market demand scale (i.e., po-
BW Eoffl ine changes as L changes at different values of ρ. tential demand if free of charge). κ is the percentage share of
All in all, when the values of other parameters are given, the demand going to the online retail channel, and 1 − κ goes to
the area of BW Eonline > BW Eoffl ine decreases with L, the offline retail channel. κ reflects the consumers’ preference
and the area of BW Eonline < BW Eoffl ine increases with for the online retail channel. The assumptions and models for
L. When ρ is large (i.e., ρ = 0.8), the reduction of the area pt , εt , pm in , a, s, r, and b are the same as those mentioned above.
of BW Eonline > BW Eoffl ine is sharp as L increases. In The simplified expression of the bullwhip effect in a dual-
contrast, if ρ is not that large (i.e., ρ = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6), the channel supply chain (i.e., (σ 2 = σ 2 )) is as follows:
reduction is flat.
sim plified
3) Fig. 5 reveals globally how the borderline of BW Edual−channel
BW Eonline = BW Eoffl ine changes as b changes at dif-  
2b2(rκ − (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ) 1 − ρL 
ferent values of ρ. First, when the values of other param-
(rκ − (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ) 1 − ρL
eters are given, the area of BW Eonline > BW Eoffl ine ×
− (1 − ρ) (1 + 2rκ + sκ)
decreases with b, and the area of BW Eonline < =1+   2 2  .
BW Eoffl ine increases with b. When b increases from 1 r κ + (1 + rκ + sκ)2
(1 − ρ) 1 − ρ + b
2 2
to 3, the area of BW Eonline > BW Eoffl ine drastically re- −2rκ (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ
duces. When b increases from 3 to 5, the trend of reduction (27)
becomes flat.
Proposition 5: The impact of the ratio of the online retail
4) Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the condition of BW Eonline <
market demand to the total market demand κ on the bullwhip
BW Eoffl ine . If ρ is small (i.e., ρ = 0.2), BW Eonline <
effect in a dual-channel supply chain satisfies the following
BW Eoffl ine almost always holds. If not, when b and
property.
L are both large (i.e., b ≥ 5 and L ≥ 5), BW Eonline ≤ ∂ B W E sim p lifie d
BW Eoffl ine is also tenable. If all of the above are invalid, In the interval [0, 1], d u a l −c h a n n e l
∂κ ≥ 0. Hence,
sim plified
in the case that s is small and r is large, BW Eonline < BW Edual−channel increases with κ.
BW Eoffl ine will still exist. Proof: see Appendix F.
Property 4: When there is a small price autoregression coef- Proposition 5 indicates that the online retail channel
ficient ρ, or a large price-sensitivity coefficient b and lead time increases the bullwhip effect in the dual-channel supply
L, or a large price discount-sensitivity coefficient r and small chain. This result is not surprising because the online mar-
expectation price difference sensitivity coefficient s in an online ket demand has a smaller mean and larger variance than
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

GAO et al.: BULLWHIP EFFECT IN AN ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN: A PERSPECTIVE OF PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND 11

the offline market. From (4) and (5), we have μonline s = decrease with the lead time; if not, the bullwhip effect will
of f lin e
a − bμp + sb(pm in − μp ) μd = a − bμp , σd,on lin e =
2 increase with the lead time. This finding indicates that in
((1 + s)2 + 2r(1 + r + s)(1 − ρ))b2 σp2 + σ 2 and online retail supply chains, a larger lead time will cause a
2
σd,offl = b 2 2
σ + σ 2
. smaller bullwhip effect in certain conditions. This distinc-
ine p
Property 5: The bullwhip effect in the dual-channel supply tive relationship between the lead time and the bullwhip
chain increases with the ratio of the online retail market demand. effect in the online supply chain is different from the con-
Property 5 reveals that generally the online retail channel clusions of all previous research [9], [25], [26]. From the
has a larger bullwhip effect than the offline retail channel due perspective of supply chain managers, they should deter-
to its price transparency and the availability of real-time price mine the appropriate lead time with their cooperators for
discount information. It is worth reemphasizing that whether a lower bullwhip effect according to the actual online sup-
the real-time price discounts can be perceived by consumers is ply chain conditions, rather than blindly pursue a shorter
an important mark of the distinction between the online retail lead time.
market and the offline market, and the availability of real-time 4) When the price autoregression coefficient is relatively
price discount information of the online retail channel leads small, the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain
to a larger demand volatility in the online retail supply chain. decreases with the price-sensitivity coefficient; otherwise,
Therefore, we conclude that the price discounts in the online the bullwhip effect increases with the price-sensitivity co-
retail market amplify the bullwhip effect in the online supply efficient. This suggests that in the case of a small price
chain. autoregression coefficient, commodities with larger de-
mand elasticity in the online market will lead to a smaller
VII. CONCLUSION bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain.
5) When the price autoregression coefficient and the expec-
This paper studies the bullwhip effect in an online retail sup-
tation price difference sensitivity coefficient are smaller
ply chain for the first time. Based on the features of frequent
and the price discount-sensitivity coefficient is larger, the
price discounts and price information transparency in the online
bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain will be
retail market, we establish a demand model dependent on price
smaller and even eliminated.
discounts with reference price theory and derive the expression
Our research offers a method to measure the bullwhip ef-
of the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain. In ad-
fect in an online retail supply chain from a new perspective.
dition, we deduce the conditions of eliminating the bullwhip
The results reveal the amplification effect of frequent price dis-
effect in the online retail supply chain, analyze the properties,
counts in e-commerce on the bullwhip effect and provide novel
and compare the bullwhip effects in online and offline supply
insights about the relationships between the bullwhip effect
chains. Finally, to directly observe the impact of price discounts
and its influencing parameters. Our findings could help man-
in e-commerce on the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply
agers better understand the bullwhip effect in the online retail
chain, we develop a dual-channel supply chain model. Our ana-
supply chain and its difference with that in the offline supply
lytical findings help us to generate several managerial insights.
chain, which will help them improve the online supply chain
1) All in all, price discounts in the online retail market am-
performance.
plify the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain.
This research suggests several future directions to enhance
Managers who neglect the price transparency feature of
our understanding of the bullwhip effect in the online retail
the online retail channel will underestimate the bullwhip
supply chain. First, our model considers only the order-up-to
effect. This is because the availability of real-time price
inventory policy. Whether and how our findings will change un-
discount information of the online retail market leads to
der other inventory policies require further study. In addition,
larger demand volatility. Although frequent price promo-
extending the two-level supply chain to the multilevel chain is
tion event in e-commerce may cause the bullwhip effect
an interesting topic that deserves investigation. Finally, compar-
and increase inventory costs, it is still a useful channel for
ing more forecasting techniques and choosing the best one to
dealing with the perennial backlog of inventory, especially
minimize the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain
for garment and textile industries.
have a great deal of significance and should be a priority for
2) Despite the above conclusion, the bullwhip effect in the
future research in this area.
online retail supply chain can be smaller than that in the
offline supply chain, as long as the price autoregression
coefficient is small, or the price sensitivity coefficient and APPENDIX
lead time are both large, or the price discount sensitivity Appendix A. Proof of Lemma 1
coefficient is large and the expectation price difference
sensitivity coefficient is small. When one of these con- The variance of the forecasting error can be computed as
ditions is satisfied, traditional companies should consider follows:
 L 2

developing new e-commerce initiatives or strengthening σ̂t = Var DtL − D̂tL
their current e-commerce presence to reduce the bullwhip
effect and costs in supply chains. −1
L

3) If the price autoregression coefficient is relatively small, = Var dt + i − dˆt + i
the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply chain will i=0
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

12 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

  Appendix B. Proof of Theorem 1


−1
L
−b (1 + r + s) (pt + i − p̂t + i ) The variance of the order quantity can be derived from (21)
= Var
+rb (pt+i−1 − p̂t+i−1 ) + εt + i as follows:
i=0
⎛ 
i ⎞
−1
L −b (1 + r + s) ρi − j ηt + j Var (qt ) =
⎜ ⎟
= Var ⎜ j=0 ⎟ Var (b (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL ) (pt − 1 − pt − 2 ) + dt − 1 )
⎝ i
−1 ⎠
i=0 +rb ρi−1−j ηt + j + εt + i
j=0 = b2 (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL )2 Var (pt − 1 − pt − 2 )
⎛ L
− 1 i
−1 L
−1 ⎞
+ 2b (rΛL − (1 + r + s) ρΛL ) Cov (dt − 1 , pt − 1 − pt − 2 )
rb ρi−1−j ηt + j + εt + i
⎜ ⎟
= Var ⎜

i=1 j=0
L
i=0 ⎟

+ Var (dt − 1 ) (30)
−1 
i
i−j
−b (1 + r + s) ρ ηt + j
i=0 j=0 where Var(dt − 1 ) = σd2 , and
⎛ L
−1 
L −1−i L
−1 ⎞
rb ηt+i−1 ρj + εt + i Var (pt − 1 − pt − 2 ) = 2Var (pt ) − 2Cov (pt − 1 , pt − 2 )
⎜ ⎟
= Var ⎜

i=1 j=0
L
i=0 ⎟
⎠ = 2σp2 − 2ρσp2
−1 
L −1−i
−b (1 + r + s) ηt + i ρj
i=0 j=0 2δ 2
⎛ ⎞ = (31)
L
−1
L
−1 1+ρ
1−ρ L − i
⎜rb i = 1 ηt+i−1 + 1−ρ εt + i ⎟
= Var ⎜
⎝ −1

L
i=0


and
1−ρ L − i
−b (1 + r + s) η
1−ρ t+i
i=0 Cov (dt − 1 , pt − 1 − pt − 2 )
⎛L − 2

 −b(1+r +s)(1−ρ L − i ) r b(1−ρ L −1 −i )
= Cov (−b (1 + r + s) pt − 1 +rbpt − 2 +εt − 1 , pt − 1 −pt − 2 )
η
⎜i = 0 t + i 1−ρ + 1−ρ ⎟
= Var ⎜ ⎟ = −b (1 + r + s) Cov (pt − 1 , pt − 1 ) + b (1 + r + s)
⎝ L −1 ⎠
−b (1 + r + s) ηt+L −1 + εt + i Cov (pt − 1 , pt − 2 ) − rbCov (pt − 2 , pt − 2 )
i=0
L − 2  + rbCov (pt − 2 , pt − 1 )
 −b (1 + r + s) (1 − ρL − i )
= Var ηt + i = − (1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s) bσp2
i=0
1−ρ
 − (1 + 2r + s) bδ 2
rb(1 − ρL −1−i ) = . (32)
+ + Lσ 2 + (1 + r + s)2 b2 δ 2 , (28) 1+ρ
1−ρ
Substituting (31) and (32) into (30) and dividing both sides
where
of (30) by σd2 , we derive the expression of the bullwhip effect in
−2
L
     the online retail supply chain. This completes the proof.
−b (1 + r + s) 1−ρL − i rb 1 − ρL −1−i
Var ηt+i +
i=0
1−ρ 1−ρ
Appendix C Proof of Proposition 1
−2
L
2 2
δ b  2 According to (23), to eliminate the bullwhip effect in an online
= − (1 + r + s) (1 − ρL − i )+r(1 − ρL −1−i )
(1 − ρ)2 i=0
retail supply chain, the values of the parameters should satisfy
  the following:
2 (ρ 2 −ρ L + 1
)
(1 + r + s) b δ 2 2 2
L−1− + ρ 4 −ρ 2 L + 2
 2   
1−ρ 1−ρ 2 b (r − (1 + r + s) ρ) 1 − ρL  
;= × (r − (1 + r + s) ρ) 1 − ρL −(1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s)
(1 − ρ)2


  (1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 +b2 r2 +(1 + r + s)2 −2r (1 + r + s) ρ
2 (ρ−ρ L ) ρ 2 −ρ 2 L
r 2 b2 δ 2 L − 1 − 1−ρ + 1−ρ 2
+ ≤ 0. (33)
(1 − ρ)2

Because the denominator of (33) satisfies
L
ρ 3 −ρ 2 L + 1 ρ 2 −ρ L + 1
2r (1 + r + s) b2 δ 2 L − 1− ρ−ρ
1−ρ + −
1−ρ 2 1−ρ


− .
(1 − ρ)2 (1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 + b2 r2 +(1 + r + s)2 −2r (1 + r + s) ρ
(29)


= (1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 + b2 (1 + s)2 +2r (1 + r + s) (1−ρ)
Substituting (29) into (28), we see that (σ̂tL )2 is a constant.
This completes the proof. >0 (34)
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

GAO et al.: BULLWHIP EFFECT IN AN ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN: A PERSPECTIVE OF PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND 13

2 
 1−
−4b4 r(rκ − (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ) ρL 
sim plified
∂BW Edual−channel × (rκ − (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ) 1 − ρL − (1 − ρ) (1 + 2rκ + sκ)
=

2 (43)
∂κ
(1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 + κ2 r2 + (1 + rκ + sκ)2 − 2rκ (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ b2

and b2 (1 − ρL ) ≥ 0, we have the following: Appendix E Proof of Proposition 3


Taking the first derivative of (23) with respect to L, we obtain
  
(r − (1 + r + s) ρ) 1 − ρ L the following:
(r − (1 + r + s) ρ) ≤ 0.
− (1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s) sim plified
∂BW Eonline
(35)
∂L
Let (r − (1 + r + s)ρ)(1 − ρL ) − (1 − ρ)(1 + 2r + s) ≤ 0  
 (ρ) (r − (1 + r + s) ρ) b ρ
2 L
and r − (1 + r + s)ρ ≥ 0. Reducing the two inequations, we 2 ln  
obtain × (1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s)−2 (r − (1 + r + s) ρ) 1−ρL
=


(1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 +b2 r2 +(1 + r + s)2 − 2r (1 + r + s) ρ
r 1 − ρ2 (40)
ρ≤ ≤ρ+ . (36)
1+r+s ρ − ρL
where ln(ρ) ≤ 0, ρL ≥ 0, and
 
If (r − (1 + r + s)ρ)(1 − ρL ) − (1 − ρ)(1 + 2r + s) ≥ 0 (1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s) − 2 (r − (1 + r + s) ρ) 1 − ρL
and r − (1 + r + s)ρ ≤ 0, there is no solution. ≥ (1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s) − 2 (r − (1 + r + s) ρ)
1−ρ 2
Therefore, we conclude that when ρ ≤ 1+rr +s ≤ ρ + ρ−ρ L

or b = 0 holds, the bullwhip effect in the online retail supply = 1 + ρ + s + sρ > 0 (41)
chain will be eliminated. Because 0 ≤ r < 1 and 0 ≤ s < 1, we and
can easily obtain 0 ≤ 1+rr +s < 0.5. Then, the maximum value


of ρ that satisfies (36) is less than 0.5. This completes the proof. (1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 + b2 r2 +(1 + r + s)2 −2r (1 + r + s) ρ



= (1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 +b2 (1 + s)2 +2r (1 + r + s) (1 − ρ)
Appendix D Proof of Proposition 2
≥ 0. (42)
Taking the first derivative of (23) with respect to b, we obtain
∂BW E os inml ipn lei f i e d
the following: Therefore, if r − (1 + r + s)ρ ≤ 0, then ∂L ≥ 0;
∂BW E os inml ipn lei f i e d
if not, ∂L < 0.
∂ B W E os inml ipn lei f i e d Then, we can obtain the proposition. This completes the
⎛ ∂b   ⎞ proof.
4b(1 + ρ) (r − (1 + r +
⎝  s) ρ)L 1 − ρ
L
⎠
× (r − (1 + r + s) ρ) 1 − ρ −(1 − ρ) (1 + 2r + s)
= 2 Appendix F Proof of Proposition 5
(1−ρ 2 + (r 2 +(1+r +s) 2 −2r (1+r +s)ρ )b 2 )
(37) Taking the first derivative of (27) with respect to κ, we obtain
where the following: (43) as shown at the top of this page. where
 
  −4b4 r(rκ − (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ)2 1 − ρL
b (1 + ρ) 1 − ρL   2 2 2
 2 ≤ 0


2 ≥ 0 (1 − ρ) 1 − ρ2 +
κ r + (1 + rκ + sκ)
b2
1 − ρ2 + r2 + (1 + r + s)2 − 2r (1 + r + s) ρ b2 −2rκ (1 + rκ + sκ) ρ
(38) (44)
and and
 
(rκ −(1 + rκ +Lsκ) ρ) 1 − ρ − (1 −
L
 ρ) (1 + 2rκ  + sκ)
  = − rκ 1 + ρ (1 − ρ) + (1 + sκ) 1 − ρL + 1 ≤ 0.
(r − (1
 + r + s)ρ) 1 − ρL − (1 − ρ)
 (1 + 2r +s)
= − r 1 + ρL (1 − ρ) + (1 + s) 1 − ρL + 1 ≤ 0. (45)
∂ B W E sim p lifie d
(39) Therefore, we obtain d u a l − ch a n n el
∂κ ≥ 0.
∂ B W E os inml ipn lei f i e d Then, we can obtain the proposition. This completes the
Therefore, if r − (1 + r + s)ρ ≤ 0, then ∂b ≥ 0;
∂ B W E os inml ipn lei f i e d proof.
if not, ∂b < 0.
∂ B W E sim p lifie d
Solving the equation o n lin e
∂b = 0, we have b∗ = 0. REFERENCES
Then, we can obtain the proposition. This completes the [1] W. L. Baker, E. Lin, M. V. Marn, and C. C. Zawada, Getting Prices Right
proof. on the Web, McKinsey Quarterly, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 54–54, 2001.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

14 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

[2] V. Jayaraman and T. Baker, “The internet as an enabler for dynamic [29] M. U. Kalwani and Y. Sugita, “A price expectations model of customer
pricing of goods,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 470–477, brand choice,” J. Market. Res., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 251–262, 1990.
Nov. 2003. [30] S. Moon, G. J. Russell, and S. D. Duvvuri, “Profiling the reference price
[3] J. B. Sheu, “Marketing-driven channel coordination with revenue-sharing consumer,” J. Retail., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2006.
contracts under price promotion to end-customers,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., [31] T. Erdem, M. L. Katz, and B. Sun, “A simple test for distinguishing
vol. 214, no. 2, pp. 246–255, 2011. between internal reference price theories,” Quant. Market. Econ., vol. 8,
[4] B. Do Chung, J. Li, T. Yao, C. Kwon, and T. L. Friesz, “Demand learning no. 3, pp. 303–332, 2010.
and dynamic pricing under competition in a state-space framework,” IEEE [32] N. M. Klein and J. E. Oglethorpe, “Cognitive reference points in consumer
Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 240–249, May 2012. decision making,” Adv. Consum. Res., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 183–187, 1987.
[5] J. W. Forrester, “Industrial dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision [33] P. K. Kopalle and J. Lindsey-Mullikin, “The impact of external refer-
makers,” Harvard Bus. Rev., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 37–66, 1958. ence price on consumer price expectations,” J. Retail., vol. 79, no. 4,
[6] J. W. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, pp. 225–236, 2003.
1961. [34] S. Danziger and R. Segev, “The effects of informative and non-informative
[7] X. Wang and S. M. Disney, “The bullwhip effect: Progress, trends and price patterns on consumer price judgments,” Psychol. Market., vol. 23,
directions,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 250, no. 3, pp. 691–701, 2016. no. 6, pp. 535–553, 2006.
[8] H. L. Lee, V. Padmanabhan, and S. Whang, “The bullwhip effect in supply [35] M. H. Birnbaum and S. E. Stegner, “Source credibility in social judgment:
chains,” MIT Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 93–102, 1997. Bias, expertise, and the judge’s point of view,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.,
[9] H. L. Lee, V. Padmanabhan, and S. Whang, “Information distortion vol. 37, no. 1, p. 48, 1979.
in a supply chain: The bullwhip effect,” Manage. Sci., vol. 50, no. 4, [36] R. A. Briesch, L. Krishnamurthi, T. Mazumdar, and S. P. Raj, “A compar-
pp. 1875–1886, 1997. ative analysis of reference price models,” J. Consum. Res., vol. 24, no. 2,
[10] H. L. Lee, K. C. So, and C. S. Tang, “The value of information sharing pp. 202–214, 1997.
in a two-level supply chain,” Manage. Sci., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 626–643, [37] A. Biswas and E. A. Blair, “Contextual effects of reference prices in retail
2000. advertisements,” J. Market., vol. 55, pp. 1–12, 1991.
[11] F. Chen, J. K. Ryan, and D. Simchi-Levi, “The impact of exponential [38] K. N. Rajendran and G. J. Tellis, “Contextual and temporal components
smoothing forecasts on the bullwhip effect,” Naval Res. Log., vol. 47, of reference price,” J. Market., vol. 58, pp. 22–34, 1994.
no. 4, pp. 269–286, 2000. [39] G. E. Mayhew and R. S. Winer, “An empirical analysis of internal and
[12] F. Chen and D. Simchi-Levi, “Quantifying the bullwhip effect in a simple external reference prices using scanner data,” J. Consum. Res., vol. 19,
supply chain: The impact of forecasting, lead times, and information,” no. 1, pp. 62–70, 1992.
Manage. Sci., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 436–443, 2000. [40] L. Krishnamurthi, “Asymmetric response to price in consumer brand
[13] T. Hosoda and S. M. Disney, “On variance amplification in a three-echelon choice and purchase quantity decisions,” J. Consum. Res., vol. 19, no. 3,
supply chain with minimum mean square error forecasting,” Omega, pp. 387–400, 1992.
vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 344–358, 2006. [41] I. Popescu and Y. Wu, “Dynamic pricing strategies with reference effects,”
[14] S. Agrawal, R. N. Sengupta, and K. Shanker, “Impact of information Oper. Res., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 413–429, 2007.
sharing and lead time on bullwhip effect and on-hand inventory,” Eur. J. [42] W. T. Huh, S. Kachani, and A. Sadighian, “A two-stage multi-period
Oper. Res., vol. 192, no. 2, pp. 576–593, 2009. negotiation model with reference price effect,” J. Rev. Pricing Manage.,
[15] J. Hsiao and C. Shieh, “Evaluating the value of information sharing in a vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 443–475, 2010.
supply chain using an arima model,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 27, [43] N. Erkip and S. Nahmias, “Optimal centralized ordering policies in
nos. 5/6, pp. 604–609, 2006. multi-echelon inventory systems with correlated demands,” Manage. Sci.,
[16] K. Gilbert, “An ARIMA supply chain model,” Manage. Sci., vol. 51, no. 2, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 381–392, 1990.
pp. 305–310, 2005. [44] G. Gaalman and S. M. Disney, “State space investigation of the bullwhip
[17] I. Dhahri and H. Chabchoub, “Nonlinear goal programming models quan- problem with arma(1,1) demand processes,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 104,
tifying the bullwhip effect in supply chain based on arima parameters,” no. 2, pp. 327–339, 2006.
Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 177, no. 3, pp. 1800–1810, 2007.
[18] Y. Ma, N. Wang, A. Che, Y. Huang, and J. Xu, “The bullwhip effect
on product orders and inventory: A perspective of demand forecasting
techniques,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2012. Dandan Gao received the B.S. degree in electronic
[19] Y. Ma, N. Wang, A. Che, Y. Huang, and J. Xu, “The bullwhip effect under commerce from the Hunan University of China,
different information-sharing settings: A perspective on price-sensitive Changsha, China, in 2015. She is currently work-
demand that incorporates price dynamics,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 51, ing toward the Ph.D. degree in management science
no. 51, pp. 3085–3116, 2013. and engineering at Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an,
[20] N. Wang, Y. Ma, Z. He, A. Che, Y. Huang, and J. Xu, “The impact of China.
consumer price forecasting behaviour on the bullwhip effect,” Int. J. Prod. Her research interests include supply chain man-
Res., vol. 52, no. 22, pp. 1–22, 2014. agement and bullwhip effect.
[21] Y. Ma, N. Wang, Z. He, J. Lu, and H. Liang, “Analysis of the bull-
whip effect in two parallel supply chains with interacting price-sensitive
demands,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 243, no. 3, pp. 815–825, 2014.
[22] J. W. Hamister and N. C. Suresh, “The impact of pricing policy on sales
variability in a supermarket retail context,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 111, Nengmin Wang received the B.S. degree in invest-
no. 2, pp. 441–455, 2008. ment economy, and the M.S. degree in management
[23] X. Zhang and G. J. Burke, “Analysis of compound bullwhip effect causes,” science and engineering from the Central South Uni-
Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 210, no. 3, pp. 514–526, 2011. versity of Technology, Changsha, China, in 1997 and
[24] J. H. Steckel, S. Gupta, and A. Banerji, “Supply chain decision making: 2000, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in manage-
Will shorter cycle times and shared point-of-sale information necessarily ment science and engineering from Xi’an Jiaotong
help?" Manage. Sci., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 458–464, 2004. University, Xi’an, China, in 2003.
[25] H. T. Luong, “Measure of bullwhip effect in supply chains with autoregres- He is currently a Professor with the Industrial En-
sive demand process,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 180, no. 3, pp. 1086–1097, gineering Department, Xi’an Jiaotong University. He
2007. has authored 21 articles in peer-reviewed academic
[26] J. Ma and X. Ma, “Measure of the bullwhip effect considering the market journals, including the European Journal of Opera-
competition between two retailers,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 55, pp. 313–326, tional Research, the Annals of Operations Research, the International Journal
2017. of Production Research, the Journal of Management Information Systems, the
[27] G. E. P. Box, G. M. Jenkins, and G. C. Reinsel, “Time series analysis: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, Computers and Oper-
Forecasting and control (revised edition),” J. Market. Res., vol. 14, no. 2, ations Research, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Information Systems
pp. 199–201, 1994. Frontiers, Expert Systems With Applications, and the Journal of Operational
[28] R. C. Lewis and S. Shoemaker, “Price-sensitivity measurement : A tool for Research Society. His research interests include supply chain management and
the hospitality industry,” Cornell Hosp. Quart., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 44–54, big data.
1997.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

GAO et al.: BULLWHIP EFFECT IN AN ONLINE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN: A PERSPECTIVE OF PRICE-SENSITIVE DEMAND 15

Zhengwen He received the B.S. degree in mechan- Tao Jia received the B.S. degree in mechanical en-
ical engineering from the Xi’an Jiaotong University, gineering from Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an,
Xi’an, China, in 1989; the M.S. degree in mechanical China, in 1991; the M.S. degree in mechanical
and electronical engineering from the Xi’an Univer- and electronical engineering from Xidian University,
sity of Technology, Xi’an, in 2001; and the Ph.D. Xi’an, in 1994; and the Ph.D. degree in business ad-
degree in business administration from Xi’an Jiao- ministration from Xi’an Jiaotong University in 2005.
tong University in 2004. He is currently an Associate Professor with the
He is currently a Professor with the Industrial En- Industrial Engineering Department, Xi’an Jiaotong
gineering Department, Xi’an Jiaotong University, and University. He has authored eight articles in peer-
is a Member of the Scheduling Committee of the Op- reviewed academic journals, including the European
erations Research Society of China, Beijing, China. Journal of Operational Research, Computers and In-
He has authored 15 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, including the dustrial Engineering, and Annals of Operations Research. His research focuses
European Journal of Operational Research, Annals of Operations Research, on production and operation management.
Journal of Operational Research Society, Computers and Operations Research,
Computers and Industrial Engineering, and the International Journal of Pro-
duction Research.

You might also like