Journal of Systems Science and Complexity

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 392–410 | Cite as

Delivery efficiency and supplier performance evaluation in China’s E-retailing industry

  • Yong Shi
  • Zhuofan Yang
  • Hong Yan
  • Xin Tian


This paper focuses on overall and sub-process supply chain efficiency evaluation using a network slacks-based measure model and an undesirable directional distance model. Based on a case analysis of a leading Chinese B2C firm W, a two-stage supply chain structure covering procurementstock and inventory-sale management is constructed. The research shows overall supply chain inefficiency is attributable to procurement-stock conversion inefficiency. From a view of operations model, the third-party platform model is more efficient than a “shop in shop” self-operated model. However, the self-operated mode performs better in product categories such as computer & Office & digital, food & drink and healthy products due to these products’ delivery characteristics and consumers’ shopping habits. In the logistics selection, most e-retail players are inclined to choose the hybrid model of 3PL and self-operated logistics with the product category extension from vertical model to all-category model. These findings may help managers improve supplier-buyer relationship and strengthen supply chain management. This research offers a new explanation regarding the failure of e-retail supply chain.


Efficiency e-retail performance evaluation supply chain virtual business 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors are grateful to WANG Bo, CUI Limeng and ZHOU Ruizhi for their valuable assistance with formating the manuscript, which have helped improve the quality of this paper.


  1. [1]
    Cheng S, Informatization and virtual business, Management Review, 2014, 26(7): 3–8.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bhutta M, Supplier selection problem: Methodology literature review, Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 2003, 12(2): 53–72.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Weber C A, Current J R, and Benton W, Vendor selection criteria and methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 1991, 50(1): 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Ganslandt M and Maskus K E, Parallel imports and the pricing of pharmaceutical products: Evidence from the European Union, Journal of Health Economics, 2004, 23(5): 1035–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bullinger H J, Kühner M, and Van Hoof A, Analysing supply chain performance using a balanced measurement method, International Journal of Production Research, 2002, 40(15): 3533–3543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bhagwat R and Sharma M K, Performance measurement of supply chain management: A balanced scorecard approach, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2007, 53(1): 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Childerhouse P and Towill D, Analysis of the factors affecting real-world value stream performance, International Journal of Production Research, 2002, 40(15): 3499–3518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Liu J, Ding F Y, and Lall V, Using data envelopment analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and performance improvement, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 2000, 5(3): 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Liang L, Yang F, Cook W D, et al., DEA models for supply chain efficiency evaluation, Annals of Operations Research, 2006, 145(1): 35–49.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Wong W P and Wong K Y, Supply chain performance measurement system using DEA modeling, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2007, 107(3): 361–381.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Chen C and Yan H, Network DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation, European Journal of Operational Research, 2011, 213(1): 147–155.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Chai J, Liu J N K, and Ngai E W T, Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature, Expert Systems with Applications, 2013, 40(10): 3872–3885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Färe R and Grosskopf S, Productivity and intermediate products: A frontier approach, Economics Letters, 1996, 50(1): 65–70.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Seiford L M and Zhu J, Profitability and marketability of the top 55 US commercial banks, Management Science, 1999, 45(9): 1270–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kao C and Hwang S N, Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan, European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 185(1): 418–429.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Cook W D, Zhu J, Bi G, et al., Network DEA: Additive efficiency decomposition, European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 207(2): 1122–1129.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Li Y, Chen Y, Liang L, et al., DEA models for extended two-stage network structures, Omega, 2012, 40(5): 611–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Chen Y, Cook W D, Kao C, et al., Network DEA pitfalls: Divisional efficiency and frontier projection under general network structures, European Journal of Operational Research, 2013, 226(3): 507–515.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Tavana M, Mirzagoltabar H, Mirhedayatian S M, et al., A new network epsilon-based DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2013, 66(2): 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Tone K and Tsutsui M, Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach, European Journal of Operational Research, 2009, 197(1): 243–252.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lozano S, Gutiérrez E, and Moreno P, Network DEA approach to airports performance assessment considering undesirable outputs, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2013, 37(4): 1665–1676.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Maghbouli M, Amirteimoori A, and Kordrostami S, Two-stage network structures with undesirable outputs: A DEA based approach, Measurement, 2014, 48: 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Chung Y H, Färe R, and Grosskopf S, Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach, Journal of Environmental Management, 1997, 51(3): 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Zeydan M, Colpan C, and Cobanoglu C, A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation, Expert Systems with Applications, 2011, 38(3): 2741–2751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Wu D, Supplier selection: A hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network, Expert Systems with Applications, 2009, 36(5): 9105–9112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Chamodrakas I, Batis D, and Martakos D, Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, 2010, 37(1): 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, et al., Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 98: 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Chambers R G, Chung Y, and Färe R, Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 1998, 98(2): 351–364.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Chen P C, Yu M M, Chang C C, et al., Non-radial directional performance measurement with undesirable outputs, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 2014.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Färe R and Grosskopf S, Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: Comment, European Journal of Operational Research, 2004, 157(1): 242–245.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Lancaster K, The economics of product variety: A survey, Marketing Science, 1990, 9(3): 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Chamberlin E H, Product heterogeneity and public policy, The American Economic Review, 1950, 85–92.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Gaur V and Kesavan S, The effects of firm size and sales growth rate on inventory turnover performance in the U.S. retail sector, Working Paper, 2007.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Fitzsimons G J, Consumer response to stockouts, Journal of Consumer Research, 2000, 27(2): 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Slywotzky A J, The age of the choiceboard, Harvard Business Review, 2000, 78(1): 40–41.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Fisher M L, Yihaodian: The No. 1 Store, The Wharton School Case Study, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Systems Science, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yong Shi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zhuofan Yang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hong Yan
    • 4
  • Xin Tian
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Research Center on Fictitious Economy & Data ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Key Research Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Knowledge ManagementChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Department of Logistics and Maritime Studies Faculty of BusinessThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations