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

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

F274

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.

Figures/Tables 20

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

	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 $η ∈ [0,1)$

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

References 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.

Research on Ordering Behavior Decision Considering Supply-demand under Combined Behavioral Operation

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 20

References 31

Related Articles 4

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	SONG Jin-bo, ZHOU Yu-shan, HE Qiu-ying. The Impact of Emotional Load on Service Quality and Operational Efficiency of Online Political Inquiry Platform—Evidence from Textual Data [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2023, 31(3): 133-142.
[2]	XU Dong-yang, LI Kun-peng, CUI Li-gang, TIAN Qian-nan. Multi-commodity Unpaired Supply-demandand Split Pickup and Delivery Vehicle Routing Problem with Multi-depot and Multi-type Trucks [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(1): 127-137.
[3]	FU Di-li, HU Bin. Research on KIBS Employees’ Cooperate and Conflict Behavior Based on Prospect Theory and Multi-Agent Simulation [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2013, 21(3): 159-168.
[4]	LIU Xiao-feng, CHEN Guo-hua, SHENG Zhao-han. Analysis on Food Safety and Government Regulation under the Different Relationship between Supply and Demand [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2010, 18(2): 143-150.