Tractable Consideration Set Structures for Assortment Optimization and Network Revenue Management

Discrete‐choice models are widely used to model consumer purchase behavior in assortment optimization and revenue management. In many applications, each customer segment is associated with a consideration set that represents the set of products that customers in this segment consider for purchase. The firm has to make a decision on what assortment to offer at each point in time without the ability to identify the customer's segment. A linear program called the Choice‐based Deterministic Linear Program (CDLP) has been proposed to determine these offer sets. Unfortunately, its size grows exponentially in the number of products and it is NP‐hard to solve when the consideration sets of the segments overlap. The Segment‐based Deterministic Concave Program with some additional consistency equalities (SDCP+) is an approximation of CDLP that provides an upper bound on CDLP's optimal objective value. SDCP+ can be solved in a fraction of the time required to solve CDLP and often achieves the same optimal objective value. This raises the question under what conditions can one guarantee equivalence of CDLP and SDCP+. In this study, we obtain a structural result to this end, namely that if the segment consideration sets overlap with a certain tree structure or if they are fully nested, CDLP can be equivalently replaced with SDCP+. We give a number of examples from the literature where this tree structure arises naturally in modeling customer behavior.     

Effects of non-normality on the power function in a one-way random model

The effects of non-normality on type-I and type-II errors in a one-way random model are investigated for moderate departures from normality. It is found that the probabilities of both errors are more sensitive to the kurtosis of between group effects than that of within group effects.     

On the construction of orthogonal factorial designs of resolution 11

A new method of construction of orthogonal resolution IV designs for symmetrical and asymmetrical factorials has been presented. Many new series of orthogonal factorial designs of resolution IV can be obtained by the above general method.     

Analysing exponential family based messy data

Recently exponential family based random effects models have received considerable attention. These models usually arise from an unobservable random process added to the independent exponential family models. An unobservable correlated process, however, would cause correlations among the exponential family based data. This paper, first, develops an asymptotically optimal test for testing the appropriateness of a fixed effects model for the exponential family based independent data versus a random effects model for the exponential family based independent or correlated data. The paper, then, provides a general framework on regression analysis for the exponential family based data generated under the random effects models.     

Robust inference for generalized partially linear mixed models that account for censored responses and missing covariates – an application to Arctic data analysis

In this article, we propose a family of bounded influence robust estimates for the parametric and non-parametric components of a generalized partially linear mixed model that are subject to censored responses and missing covariates. The asymptotic properties of the proposed estimates have been looked into. The estimates are obtained by using Monte Carlo expectation–maximization algorithm. An approximate method which reduces the computational time to a great extent is also proposed. A simulation study shows that performances of the two approaches are similar in terms of bias and mean square error. The analysis is illustrated through a study on the effect of environmental factors on the phytoplankton cell count.     

The Effect of Demand–Supply Mismatches on Firm Risk

A supply chain management (SCM) system comprises many subsystems, including forecasting, order management, supplier management, procurement, production planning and control, warehousing and distribution, and product development. Demand–supply mismatches (DSMs) could indicate that some or all of these subsystems are not working as expected, creating uncertainties about the overall capabilities and effectiveness of the SCM system, which can increase firm risk. This article documents the effect of DSMs on firm risk as measured by equity volatility. Our sample consists of three different types of DSMs announced by publicly traded firms: production disruptions, excess inventory, and product introduction delays. We find that all three types of DSMs result in equity volatility increases. Over a 2‐year period around the announcement date, we observe mean abnormal equity volatility increases of 5.62% for production disruptions, 11.19% for excess inventory, and 6.28% for product introduction delays. Volatility increases associated with excess inventory are significantly higher than the increases associated with production disruptions and product introduction delays. Across all three types of DSMs, volatility changes are positively correlated with changes in information asymmetry. The results provide some support that volatility changes are also correlated with changes in financial and operating leverage.     

The Effect of Product Development Restructuring on Shareholder Value

This article examines the effect of product development restructuring (PDR) on shareholder value. The results are based on a sample of 165 announcements made during 2002–2011. PDR announcements are associated with an economically and statistically significant positive stock market reaction. Over a two‐day period (the day of the announcement and the day preceding the announcement), the mean (median) market reaction is 1.63% (0.87%). The market reaction is generally positive regardless of the PDR purpose or action. Although the market reaction is more positive for higher R&D intensity firms, it is not directly affected by the firm's prior financial performance or whether the firm's primary PDR objective is to increase revenues or cut costs. However, the interaction between the firm's prior financial performance and its primary PDR objective is significant. For firms that are financial outperformers, the market reaction is more positive if the firm's primary PDR objective is to increase revenues. For financial underperformers, the market reaction is more positive if the firm's primary PDR objective is to cut costs.