考虑损失规避的温度敏感型产品定价与订货联合决策

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2017.04.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 在现实中存在一类温度敏感型产品，其市场需求往往与销售季内的平均温度相关。在针对温度敏感型产品的定价与订货联合决策中，温度的不确定性与零售商的损失规避行为是不可忽视的重要因素，如何构建考虑零售商损失规避的温度敏感型产品定价与订货联合决策模型是需要关注的问题。依据该类产品对温度的敏感类型，本文主要关注高温适用型和低温适用型两类产品。考虑温度变化对两类温度敏感型产品市场需求的影响，给出了两类温度敏感型产品的需求函数；在此基础上，考虑零售商的损失规避行为对零售商效用的影响，构建了以零售商期望效用最大为目标的决策模型；进一步地，依据期望效用最大化理论，求解模型并确定了零售商的最优价格和最优订货量；通过数值实验，分别针对高温适用型和低温适用型两类产品，分析了不同温度敏感系数下销售季内平均温度和损失规避系数对零售商最优决策结果的影响。分析结果表明，销售季内平均温度和零售商的损失规避程度均在不同程度上影响其最优决策结果；相对于不考虑产品温度敏感性的温度敏感型产品零售商的最优决策结果，考虑温度敏感性的该类产品零售商的最优决策结果会更加保守；分析结果还表明，考虑损失规避行为的温度敏感型产品零售商的订货量往往会高于损失中性的该类产品零售商的订货量。

关键词: 报童, 定价与订货联合决策, 温度敏感型产品, 损失规避

Abstract: In reality, there are temperature sensitive products, whose demands are usually related to the average temperature in the selling season. In joint pricing and ordering decisions for temperature sensitive product, the average temperature in the selling season can affect the market demand. Since the random variation of the average temperature exacerbates the fluctuation in the demand of the temperature sensitive product, the demand uncertainty increases with the random variation of the average temperature. With respect to the demand uncertainty, the retailer usually exhibits the psychological behaviors which can affect his/her decisions. Obviously, the variation of the average temperature and the behavioral factors of the retailer are important factors and cannot be ignored in joint pricing and ordering decisions for temperature sensitive product. Hence, it is necessary to pour attention to the study on joint pricing and ordering decisions considering the temperature and behavioral effects. Given that the existing research results are difficult to be used to solve the joint pricing and ordering decision problem for the temperature sensitive product considering the temperature and behavioral effects, the objective of this paper is to provide a decision method based on the optimization model to solve this problem. In this paper, two types of the temperature sensitive products are considered: One is the high-temperature suitable product, the temperature for its survival is higher and its market demand increases with the average temperature in the selling season. The other is the low-temperature suitable demand, the temperature for its survival is lower and its market demand decreases with the average temperature in the selling season. For demand uncertainty of the two types of the products, the retailer may exhibit the loss aversion. On the basis of this, the three questions concerned in this study are presented: (1) How does the average temperature in the selling season affect the demands of the two types of the products, respectively? (2) How is the loss aversion introduced into the joint pricing and ordering decision model for the two types of the products? (3) How do the average temperature in the selling season and the loss aversion affect the retailer's optimal price and order quantity? To answer these questions, the study is conducted by the following steps. First, the impact of the average temperature in the selling season on the market demand for the high-temperature suitable product and the low-temperature suitable product is analyzed, and the high- and low- temperature sensitive demand functions for the two types of the products are provided, respectively. Then, by analyzing the loss aversion of the retailer, the loss aversion utility is introduced into the total utility of the retailer based on the utility framework model proposed by Bell (1985), and a joint pricing and ordering decision model is constructed to maximize the retailer's total utility. Furthermore, according to the expected utility maximization theory, the retailer's optimal price and order quantity for the two types of the products can be obtained by solving the constructed model. Finally, the numerical study is conducted to show the impacts of the average temperature in the selling season and loss aversion parameter on the retailer's optimal price and order quantity with respect to the different temperature sensitive parameters. The results show that the average temperature in the selling season and retailer's loss aversion can affect the optimal policy in varying degree, and the optimal policy with consideration of the impact of the average temperature on the demand is more conservative than the one without the consideration of the impact of the average temperature on the demand. The results also show that, for the high-temperature suitable product, the order quantity of the loss-averse retailer is greater than the one of the loss-neutral retailer.

Key words: newsvendor, joint pricing and ordering decisions, temperature sensitive product, loss aversion

中图分类号:

C934
F272

曹兵兵, 樊治平, 尤天慧, 李琪. 考虑损失规避的温度敏感型产品定价与订货联合决策[J]. 中国管理科学, 2017, 25(4): 60-69.

CAO Bing-bing, FAN Zhi-ping, YOU Tian-hui, LI Qi. Joint Pricing and Ordering Decisions for the Temperature Sensitive Product Considering the Loss Aversion[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25(4): 60-69.

参考文献

[1] Fu Hongyong, Dan Bin, Sun Xiangkai.Joint optimal pricing and ordering decisions for seasonal products with weather-sensitive demand[J]. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2014, 2014(4):1-8.

[2] Whitin T M. Inventory control and price theory[J]. Management Science, 1955, 2(1):61-68.

[3] Petruzzi N C, Dada M. Pricing and the newsvendor problem:A review with extensions[J]. Operations Research, 1999, 47(2):183-194.

[4] Chen F Y, Yano C A. Improving supply chain performance and managing risk under weather-related demand uncertainty[J]. Management Science, 2010, 56(8):1380-1397.

[5] 蔡建湖, 王丽萍. 季节性商品两级供应链契约设计与协调模型研究综述[J]. 计算机集成制造系统, 2010, 16(5):1012-1019.

[6] Aviv Y, Pazgal A. Optimal pricing of seasonal products in the presence of forward-looking consumers[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2008, 10(3):339-359.

[7] Caro F, Gallien J. Dynamic assortment with demand learning for seasonal consumer goods[J]. Management Science, 2007, 53(2):276-292.

[8] Soysal G P, Krishnamurthi L. Demand dynamics in the seasonal goods industry:An empirical analysis[J]. Marketing Science, 2012, 31(2):293-316.

[9] Gao Fei, Demirag O C, Chen F Y. Early sales of seasonal products with weather-conditional rebates[J]. Production and Operations Management, 2012, 21(4):778-794.

[10] 吴燕, 杨志林. 量折扣下季节性商品销售的newsboy模型[J]. 合肥工业大学学报(自然科学版), 2013, 36(6):760-764.

[11] Demirag O C. Performance of weather-conditional rebates under different risk preferences[J]. Omega, 2013, 41(6):1053-1067.

[12] 张宗益, 邢文婷, 吴胜利. 不完全市场天然气期货定价及季节性影响研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2016, 24(6):1-9.

[13] Simon H A. A behavioral model of rational choice[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955, 69(1):99-118.

[14] Su Xuanming. Bounded rationality in newsvendor models[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2008, 10(4):566-589.

[15] 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.

[16] 周永务, 肖旦, 李绩才. 损失规避零售商订货量与广告费用的联合决策[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2012, 32(8):1727-1738.

[17] Wang C X, Webster S. The loss-averse newsvendor problem[J]. Omega, 2009, 37(1):97-105.

[18] Wang C X, The loss-averse newsvendor game[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2010, 124(2):448-452.

[19] 刘咏梅, 彭民, 李立. 基于前景理论的订货问题[J]. 系统管理学报, 2010, 19(5):481-490.

[20] MA Lijun, Zhao Yingxue, Xue Weili, et al. Loss-averse newsvendor model with two ordering opportunities and market information updating[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2012, 140(2):912-921.

[21] 文平. 损失厌恶的报童-预期理论下的报童问题新解[J], 中国管理科学, 2005, 13(6):64-68.

[22] 周艳菊, 应仁仁, 陈晓红, 等. 基于前景理论的两产品报童的订货模型[J]. 管理科学学报, 2013, 16(11):17-29.

[23] 丁小东, 徐菱, 蒋葛夫, 等. 考虑浪费规避偏差和损失规避偏差的零售商订购行为研究[J]. 计算机集成制造系统, 2014, 20(10):2582-2598.

[24] 张桂涛, 胡劲松, 孙浩, 等. 考虑损失规避零售商的多期多产品供应链网络均衡[J]. 中国管理科学, 2015, 23(6):73-82.

[25] 张鹏, 张杰, 马俊. 两种需求情形下损失规避零售商的最优订货-定价联合决策[J]. 控制与决策, 2015, 30(10):1820-1827.

[26] Bell D. Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty[J]. Operations Research, 1985, 33(1):1-27.

[27] Loomes G, Sugden R. Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1986, 53(2):271-282.