耦合行为运作下考虑供需关系的订购行为决策研究

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2023.0890

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在供应链管理愈趋于复杂化且导致管理者决策环境不确定性递增的背景下，以不确定环境下供应链的单供应源订购行为研究为基础，在需求不确定、供应不确定和供需不确定三种环境下，应用行为实验法探究管理者的订购决策，并根据其行为决策构建对应环境下的行为模型。建立特定不确定情境下的理论模型及获得其最优解，并通过实验设计与决策系统开发等完成行为实验数据采集，利用统计分析方法探寻特定实验情境下的订购决策行为，以订购行为为要素，耦合“先锚定后调整”和“需求追逐”启发式策略，提出一种带有学习效应的锚定追逐调整行为模型，拓展构建了供应不确定环境和供需不确定环境下的订购决策行为模型，并进行特定情境下模型的有效性检验。研究结果表明，在供应不确定、需求不确定、供需不确定环境下，单源订购决策中存在偏离理论最优订购决策的现象、追逐行为和锚定行为；供需不确定环境下订购决策者的订购行为同时受需求不确定和供应不确定的综合影响；同时，在锚定行为评价中，还提出了一种新的适定性锚定系数表达，以克服Bostain锚定系数的正负锚定值相消效应；所构造的行为模型在多项指标上的预测性能均优于Bostain的需求追逐启发模型和Benzion的中心趋化偏差模型，能够较好地拟合于真实订购决策数据。

关键词: 行为运作, 供需关系, 订购行为, 单源, 行为实验

Abstract:

Given the increasing complexity of supply chain management and the increasing uncertainty of managers' decision-making environment， behavioral experiments are applied to investigate managers' ordering decisions in three environments： demand uncertainty， supply uncertainty， and supply-demand uncertainty， constructing behavioral models in the three environments based on their behavioral decisions. The theoretical model and its optimal solution under specific uncertainty， and complete behavioral experimental data collection through experimental design and decision system development are provided. The ordering decision behavior in specific experimental situations is explored by using statistical analysis methods， corresponding behavioral models with ordering behavior as an element is constructed and the validity of the models under specific situations is tested， and an anchor chasing adjustment behavior model with a learning effect is proposed by coupling the “anchoring before adjustment” and “demand chasing” heuristic strategy with the ordering behavior as the element. In addition， the ordering decision-making behavior model in the environment of uncertain supply and uncertain supply and demand is constructed， and the validity test of the model in specific contexts is carried out. Research shows that there are deviations from theoretical optimal ordering decisions， chasing behavior and anchoring behavior in single-sourcing ordering decisions under supply uncertainty， demand uncertainty， and supply-demand uncertainty environments. The ordering behavior of ordering decision makers under supply-demand uncertainty environments is influenced by the combined effect of demand uncertainty and supply uncertainty at the same time. A new expression of an appropriate anchoring coefficient is proposed in the evaluation of anchoring behavior to overcome the phase-out effect of positive and negative anchoring values of Bostain's anchoring coefficient. The predicted performance of the constructed behavioral model is better than Bostain's demand chase heuristic model and Benzion's central chemotaxis bias model in many indicators， and it can better fit the real ordering decision data.

Key words: behavioral operations, supply-demand, ordering behavioral, single sourcing, behavioral experiments

中图分类号:

F274

赵世杰,荣雪娇,高雷阜. 耦合行为运作下考虑供需关系的订购行为决策研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2026, 34(6): 303-318.

Shijie Zhao,Xuejiao Rong,Leifu Gao. Research on Ordering Behavior Decision Considering Supply-demand under Combined Behavioral Operation[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2026, 34(6): 303-318.

图/表 20

图1

表1

模型符号及含义"

符号	含义	符号	含义
$p$	产品的单位售价	$D$	产品的随机需求
$c$	产品的单位成本	$q$	零售商的订购量
$v$	产品的单位残值	$η ∈ [0,1]$	供应商的随机供应产出
$s$	产品的单位缺货惩罚	$μ x$ ( $E [x]$ )	随机变量 $x$ 的（期望）均值
$(⋅) +$	$m a x {⋅, 0}$	$σ x$	随机变量 $x$ 的标准差

表1

表2

供-需不确定关系的混淆矩阵"

	需求确定 $D$	需求不确定 $D ¯$
供应确定 $S$	$D = q = D 0$ and $η = 1$	$D ≠ D 0$ and $η = 1$
供应不确定 $S ¯$	$D = D 0$ and $η ∈ [0,1)$	$D ≠ D 0$ and $η ∈ [0,1)$

表2

表3

实验组人员分配情况"

组别	$S D ¯$	$S ¯ D$	$S ¯ D ¯$
HP	20(22)	17(21)	22
LP	18(21)	20(21)	18(21)

表3

表4

不同情境下50期平均订购决策数据统计"

实验情境	实验组别	平均理论最优决策	平均实际订购决策	偏离程度
$S D ¯$	HP	400	352.4	-47.6
$S D ¯$	LP	300	318.2	18.2
$S ¯ D$	HP	444	455.8	11.8
$S ¯ D$	LP	386	423.3	37.3
$S ¯ D ¯$	HP	457	396.4	-60.6
$S ¯ D ¯$	LP	398	352.2	-45.8

表4

图2

图3

图4

表5

不确定环境下的追逐行为相关系数统计"

实验情境	实验组别	1~15期	16~35期	36~50期	总50期
$S D ¯$	HP	0.896(p=0.000)	0.850(p=0.000)	0.913(p=0.000)	0.853(p=0.000)
$S D ¯$	LP	0.898(p=0.000)	0.918(p=0.000)	0.948(p=0.000)	0.874(p=0.000)
$S ¯ D$	HP	0.862(p=0.000)	0.885(p=0.000)	0.829(p=0.000)	0.823(p=0.000)
$S ¯ D$	LP	0.861(p=0.000)	0.759(p=0.000)	0.934(p=0.000)	0.759(p=0.000)
$S ¯ D ¯$	HP	0.720(p=0.002)	0.844(p=0.000)	0.770(p=0.001)	0.762(p=0.000)
$S ¯ D ¯$	LP	0.902(p=0.000)	0.869(p=0.000)	0.901(p=0.000)	0.870(p=0.000)

表5

表6

不确定环境下的锚定系数统计"

实验情境	锚定系数	实验组别	1~15期	16~35期	36~50期	总50期
$S D ¯$	$α D$	HP	0.509	0.407	0.280	0.399
$S D ¯$	$α D$	LP	0.761	0.665	0.558	0.662
$S ¯ D$	$α S$	HP	0.419	0.330	0.378	0.371
$S ¯ D$	$α S$	LP	0.207	0.274	0.368	0.282
$S ¯ D ¯$	$α D S (κ = 1)$	HP	0.678	0.854	1.008	0.847
	$α D S (κ = 1)$	LP	1.848	1.404	1.425	1.543
	$α D S (κ = 0.5)$	HP	0.338	0.286	0.219	0.282
	$α D S (κ = 0.5)$	LP	8.884	10.485	9.935	9.840
	$α D S (κ = 0)$	HP	—	—	—	3.034
	$α D S (κ = 0)$	LP	—	—	—	5.695

表6

表7

需求不确定环境下 LeACAB 模型的参数估计"

实验组别	$ξ 1$	$Δ ξ$	$ϖ 1$	$Δ ϖ$	$q * ̂$	$ε$
HP	1.235	-0.089	0.117	-1.071	346.466	6.065
LP	0.555	-0.035	0.247	-1.014	341.445	-23.781

表7

表8

供应不确定环境下 LeACAB 模型的参数估计"

实验组别	$ξ 1$	$Δ ξ$	$ϖ 1$	$Δ ϖ$	$D 0 ̂$	$q * ̂$	$ε$
HP	0.536	-0.019	0.231	-0.994	379.072	486.47	-24.839
LP	0.327	-0.005	0.149	-0.994	429.835	386.478	14.025

表8

表9

供需不确定环境下 LeACAB 模型的参数估计"

实验组别	$ξ 1$	$Δ ξ$	$ϖ 1$	$Δ ϖ$	$θ$	$D 0 ̂$	$q * ̂$	$ε$
HP	0.920	-0.039	0.163	-1.020	0.711	280.129	378.127	24.207
LP	0.597	-0.031	0.294	-1.018	0.592	375.276	356.275	-19.292

表9

表10

不确定环境下行为模型拟合性能对比"

实验情境	实验组别	评价指标	LeCTBM	LeDCHM	LeACAB
$S D ¯$	HP	AIC	320.704	292.911	240.459
		$R 2$	0.001	0.434	0.828
		CAE	581.049	355.708	239.365
	LP	AIC	311.481	291.529	231.351
		$R 2$	0.054	0.371	0.837
		CAE	524.329	382.797	177.939
$S ¯ D$	HP	AIC	245.151	215.371	178.303
		$R 2$	0.015	0.485	0.786
		CAE	286.378	175.087	124.384
	LP	AIC	195.274	179.207	129.034
		$R 2$	0.238	0.473	0.833
		CAE	188.224	121.848	75.432
$S ¯ D ¯$	HP	AIC	—	285.50	250.476
		$R 2$	—	0.396	0.739
		CAE	—	649.506	426.366
	LP	AIC	—	285.375	244.382
		$R 2$	—	0.475	0.799
		CAE	—	617.824	389.153

表10

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

参考文献 31

[1]	Wieland A. Dancing the supply chain： Toward transformative supply chain management［J］. Journal of Supply Chain Management， 2021， 57（1）： 58-73.
[2]	Nilsson F， Gammelgaard B. Moving beyond the systems approach in SCM and logistics research［J］. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management， 2012， 42（8/9）： 764-783.
[3]	Sombultawee K， Lenuwat P， Aleenajitpong N， et al. COVID-19 and supply chain management： A review with bibliometric［J］.Sustainability， 2022， 14（6）： 3538.
[4]	Hosseini S， Ivanov D. A multi-layer Bayesian network method for supply chain disruption modelling in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic［J］. International Journal of Production Research， 2022， 60（17）： 5258-5276.
[5]	盖世汽车.疫情下的墨西哥：中国产零部件供应中断或致汽车停产［EB/OL］.（2020-03-13）［2023-03-13］..
	Gasgoo. Mexico in the midst of an epidemic：Disruptions in the supply of Chinese-made parts may lead to production stoppages ［EB/OL］.（2020-03-13）［2023-03-13］..
[6]	王眉，夏雨辰.全球供应链危机，百万越南工人逃离城［EB/OL］.（2021-10-12）［2023-03-13］..
	Wang M， Xia Y C. Millions of Vietnamese workers flee city amid global supply chain crisis［EB/OL］.（2021-10-12）［2023-03-13］..
[7]	索比光伏网. 供应链中断+新冠疫情导致全球光伏行业停工时间增加 95%［EB/OL］.（2022-05-27）［2023-03-13］..
	Solarbe. Supply Chain disruption+COVID-19 out⁃break leads to 95% increase in global PV industry downtime［EB/OL］.（2022-05-27）［2023-03-13］..
[8]	Montoya-Torres J R， Muñoz-Villamizar A， Mejia-Argueta C. Mapping research in logistics and supply chain management during COVID-19 pandemic［J］. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications， 2023， 26（4）： 421-441.
[9]	陈崇萍，陈志祥. 供应商产出随机与供应中断下的双源采购决策［J］. 中国管理科学， 2019， 27（6）： 113-122.
	Chen C P， Chen Z X. Optimal dual-sourcing procurement decisions with suppliers' random yield and disruptions［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2019， 27（6）： 113-122.
[10]	Berger P D， Gerstenfeld A， Zeng A Z. How many suppliers are best？ A decision-analysis approach［J］. Omega， 2004， 32（1）： 9-15.
[11]	Azad N， Hassini E. Recovery strategies from major supply disruptions in single and multiple sourcing networks［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2019， 275（2）： 481-501.
[12]	Larson P D， Kulchitsky J D. Single sourcing and supplier certification［J］. Industrial Marketing Management， 1998， 27（1）： 73-81.
[13]	Simon H A. Rational choice and the structure of the environment［J］. Psychological Review， 1956， 63（2）： 129-138.
[14]	Kahneman D， Tversky A. Prospect theory： An analysis of decision under risk［M］//MacLean L C， Ziemba W T.Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making： Part I.Singapore： World Scientific Publishing Company， 2013： 99-127.
[15]	周永务，刘敏，於慧琳，等. 基于前景理论的损失规避零售商的订货与融资策略研究［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2022， 42（11）： 2957-2975.
	Zhou Y W， Liu M， Yu H L， et al. Optimal ordering and financing decisions for a loss-averse retailer under prospect theory［J］. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice， 2022， 42（11）： 2957-2975.
[16]	Gino F， Pisano G. Toward a theory of behavioral operations［J］. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management， 2008， 10（4）： 676-691.
[17]	Schweitzer M E， Cachon G P. Decision bias in the newsvendor problem with a known demand distribution： Experimental evidence［J］. Management Science， 2000， 46（3）： 404-420.
[18]	Bostian A A， Holt C A， Smith A M. Newsvendor “pull-to-center” effect： Adaptive learning in a laboratory experiment［J］. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management， 2008， 10（4）： 590-608.
[19]	Benzion U， Cohen Y， Peled R， et al. Decision-making and the newsvendor problem： An experimental study［J］. Journal of the Operational Research Society， 2008， 59（9）： 1281-1287.
[20]	Lau N， Bearden J N. Newsvendor demand chasing revisited［J］. Management Science， 2013， 59（5）： 1245-1249.
[21]	Rudi N， Drake D. Observation bias： The impact of demand censoring on newsvendor level and adjustment behavior［J］.Management Science， 2014， 60（5）： 1334-1345.
[22]	Käki A， Liesiö J， Salo A， et al. Newsvendor decisions under supply uncertainty［J］. International Journal of Production Research， 2015， 53（5）： 1544-1560.
[23]	Papachristos I， Pandelis D G. Newsvendor models with random supply capacity and backup sourcing［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2022， 303（3）： 1231-1243.
[24]	Cheong T， Song S H. The value of information on supply risk under random yields［J］. Transportation Research Part E： Logistics and Transportation Review， 2013， 60： 27-38.
[25]	Gupta D， Cooper W L. Stochastic comparisons in production yield management［J］. Operations Research， 2005， 53（2）： 377-384.
[26]	Köster C， Schenk-Mathes H Y. Explanatory and predictive power of the adaptive learning model： Average and heterogeneous behavior in a newsvendor context［J］. Journal of Business Economics， 2016， 86（4）： 361-387.
[27]	Sterman J D. Modeling managerial behavior： Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment［J］.Management Science， 1989， 35（3）： 321-339.
[28]	Tversky A， Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty： Heuristics and biases： Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty［J］. Science， 1974， 185（4157）： 1124-1131.
[29]	Heathcote A， Brown S， Mewhort D J K. The power law repealed： The case for an exponential law of practice［J］. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review， 2000， 7（2）： 185-207.
[30]	Hager W W. Stabilized sequential quadratic programming［J］. Computational Optimization and Applications， 1999， 12（1）： 253-273.
[31]	Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle［M］//Parzen E， Tanabe K， Kitagawa G. Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike. New York， NY：Springer New York， 1998： 199-213.