Testing the robustness of deterministic models of optimal dynamic pricing and lot-sizing for deteriorating items under stochastic conditions

Original Paper
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Many models within the field of optimal dynamic pricing and lot-sizing models for deteriorating items assume everything is deterministic and develop a differential equation as the core of analysis. Two prominent examples are the papers by Rajan et al. (Manag Sci 38:240–262, 1992) and Abad (Manag Sci 42:1093–1104, 1996). To our knowledge, nobody has ever tested whether the optimal solutions obtained in those papers are valid if the real system is exposed to randomness: with regard to demand process as well as with regard to the deterioration process. The motivation is that although the real world is indeed stochastic, it is often more convenient to work with a deterministic decision model providing a nice closed form solution. The crucial thing is of course whether the results derived in the deterministic setting are robust when tested in a stochastic environment. Therefore, in this paper, we will try to expose the model by Abad (1996) and Rajan et al. (1992) to stochastic inputs; however, designing these stochastic inputs such that they as closely as possible are aligned with the assumptions of those papers. We do our investigation through a numerical test where we test the robustness of the numerical results reported in Rajan et al. (1992) and Abad (1996) in a simulation model. Our numerical results seem to confirm that the results stated in these papers are indeed robust when being imposed to stochastic inputs.

Keywords

Inventory control Optimal dynamic pricing Deterioration Simulation 

References

  1. Abad PL (1996) Optimal pricing and lot-sizing under conditions of perishability and partial backordering. Manag Sci 42:1093–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker M, Riezebos J, Teunter RH (2012) Review of inventory systems with deterioration since 2001. Eur J Op Res 221:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besbes O, Zeevi A (2009) Dynamic pricing without knowing the demand function: risk bounds and near-optimal algorithms. Op Res 57:1407–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elmaghraby W, Keskinocak P (2003) Dynamic pricing in presence of inventory considerations: research overview. Current practices and future directions. Manag Sci 49:1287–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goyal SK, Giri BC (2001) Recent trends in modeling of deteriorating inventory. Eur J Op Res 134:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kelton WD, Sadowski RP, Zupick NB (2015) Simulation with arena, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Law AM, Kelton WD (1991) Simulation modeling and analysis, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Li S, Zhang J, Tang W (2015) Joint dynamic pricing and inventory control policy for a stochastic inventory system with perishable products. Int J Prod Res 53:2937–2950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rajan A, Rakesh A, Steinberg R (1992) Dynamic pricing and ordering decisions by a monopolist. Manag Sci 38:240–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Talluri KT, van Ryzin GJ (2005) Theory and practice of revenue management. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Tijms H (2003) A first course in stochastic models. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wang Y, Zhang J, Tang W (2015) Dynamic pricing for non-instantaneous deteriorating items. J Intell Manuf 26:629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zhang J, Wang Y, Lu L, Tang W (2015) Optimal dynamic pricing and replenishment cycle for non-instantaneous deterioration items with inventory-level-dependent demand. Int J Prod Econ 170:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhao W, Zheng YS (2000) Optimal dynamic pricing for perishable assets with nonhomogeneous demand. Manag Sci 46:375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cluster for Operations Research and Logistics (CORAL), Department of Economics and Business EconomicsBSS, Aarhus UniversityAarhus VDenmark

Personalised recommendations