lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An inherent differentiation and system level assessment approach to inventory management: a safety stock method comparison
Chalmers University of Technology. (Division of supply and operations management)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9457-5854
Linnaeus University, School of Business and Economics, Department of Management Accounting and Logistics. (supply chain studies)
2019 (English)In: The International Journal of Logistics Management, ISSN 0957-4903, Vol. 30, no 2, p. 663-680Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain the effects of inherent differentiation and system level performance assessment in inventory management. This is done by comparing the performance of two common safety stock methods, by considering the methods' inherent differentiation and item group-levelperformance effects.

Design/methodology/approach Due to the lack of analytical relationships between the two methods, the analysis is based on event-driven simulations. Data are collected from eight different case companies. Findings explain the importance of assessing safety stock performance for groups of items and not for individual items, as is common in academic studies. It explains how the methods' inherent differentiation and planning environment characteristics affect the relative performances of the two safety stock methods. 

Findings The study explains the importance of assessing performance of safety stock methods on a system-level, rather than on item-level measures. It explains why the demand fill-rate method has a negative impact on the performance for groups of items, while the number-of-days method has a positive impact. The study also explains how the group-level safety stock performance is affected by five demand data characteristics. 

Research limitations/implications The study explains the importance of assessing performance of safety stock methods on a system-level, rather than on item-level measures. It explains why the demand fill-rate method has a negative impact on the performance for groups of items, while the number-of-days method has a positive impact. The study also explains how the group-level safety stock performance is affected by five demand data characteristics. 

Practical implications Understanding the necessity of system level assessment of safety stock performance, how methods inherently differentiate service levels, and how demand characteristics affect methods' performance can guide the choice of safety stock methods in companies. 

Originality/value No research on the characteristics of the number-of-days safety stock method, any assessment of differentiation characteristics of and comparison with the demand fill-rate method, has been published. The variable inherent differentiation is also introduced and defined.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2019. Vol. 30, no 2, p. 663-680
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Economy, Logistics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-81348DOI: 10.1108/IJLM-12-2017-0329ISI: 000469076700014Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85063251754OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-81348DiVA, id: diva2:1299503
Available from: 2019-03-27 Created: 2019-03-27 Last updated: 2019-08-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jonsson, Patrik
By organisation
Department of Management Accounting and Logistics
In the same journal
The International Journal of Logistics Management
Business Administration

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 31 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf