2022
DOI: 10.3934/jimo.2021060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal pricing and ordering policy for defective items under temporary price reduction with inspection errors and price sensitive demand

Abstract: This paper studies the retailer's optimal promotional pricing, special order quantity and screening rate for defective items when a temporary price reduction (i.e., TPR) is offered. Although previous studies have examined the similar issue, they assume a constant demand and an error-free screening process. A subversion of these two assumptions differentiates our paper. First, using a price-sensitive demand, we analyze that the original screening rate may be insufficient, and propose the CPD (i.e., control the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 60 publications
(102 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The model accounted for imperfect production at the manufacturer's stage and an inspection process at the retailer's stage that involved Type-I and Type-II errors. Zhu [72] conducted a study on the optimal promotional pricing, special order quantity, and screening rate for defective items at the retailer level in the presence of a temporary price reduction. The study considered both Type-I and Type-II inspection errors as factors to be incorporated into the analysis.…”
Section: ] Gharaei and Almehdawementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model accounted for imperfect production at the manufacturer's stage and an inspection process at the retailer's stage that involved Type-I and Type-II errors. Zhu [72] conducted a study on the optimal promotional pricing, special order quantity, and screening rate for defective items at the retailer level in the presence of a temporary price reduction. The study considered both Type-I and Type-II inspection errors as factors to be incorporated into the analysis.…”
Section: ] Gharaei and Almehdawementioning
confidence: 99%