Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inventory turns and finite-horizon Little’s Laws

  • S.I. : Avi-Itzhak-Sobel:Probability
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past 30 years managers have increasingly focused on improving inventory management both within their own firms and across the supply chain. To this end, inventory turns metrics have been adopted as a popular tool for measuring flow velocity through the inventory and the efficiency of inventory-related asset utilization. There are multiple computational methods thereof currently used by practitioners, but each has some flaws. In particular, consensus is lacking as to (1) how to measure inventory flow and (2) how to measure the inventory level. Clearly, high-quality accounting information is essential for an accurate assessment of all inventory performance metrics. Unfortunately, when comparing efficiencies across firms or diagnosing and correcting intra-firm inefficiencies, choices of specific accounting rules and distortions between fair market values and corresponding accounting book values can lead to potentially misleading results. This paper presents finite-horizon versions of Little’s Law and elucidates their connection to inventory turns and restricted sojourn times in inventory, defined as the portion of the full sojourn time that falls within a prescribed time period. In particular, it explains when the reciprocal of sample inventory turns coincides with the sample average of restricted sojourn times. As such, the paper provides a unified prescriptive model for correctly relating inventory turns to sojourn times through an inventory system, thereby facilitating more accurate intra-firm and cross-firm comparisons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alan, Y., Gao, G. P., & Gaur, V. (2014). Does inventory productivity predict future stock returns? A retailing industry perspective. Management Science, 60(10), 2416–2434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, R., Linsmeier, T. J., & Venkatachalam, M. (1996). Financial benefits from JIT adoption: Effects of consumer concentration and cost structure. Accounting Review, 71, 183–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, R. H. (1981). Estimating and auditing aggregate inventory levels at multiple stocking points. Journal of Operations Management, 1(3), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, R. H. (2000). Evaluating inventory management performance using a turnover curve. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30(1), 72–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, R. H. (2005). Expressing inventory control policy in the turnover curve. Journal of Business Logistics, 26(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blinder, A. S., & Maccini, L. J. (1991). Taking stock: A critical assessment of recent research on inventories. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billesbach, T. J., & Hayen, R. (1994). Long-term impact of JIT on inventory performance measures. Production Inventory Management Journal, 35(1), 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, D., & Lee, S. M. (1995). Impact of JIT on organizational performance of U.S. firms. International Journal of Production Research, 33, 3053–3068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chikán, A. (2009). An empirical analysis of managerial approaches to the role of inventories. International Journal of Production Economics, 118(1), 131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chikán, A. (2011). Managers’ view of a new inventory paradigm. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(1), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeter, K., & Matyusz, Z. (2011). The impact of lean practices on inventory turnover. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(1), 154–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eroglu, C., & Hofer, C. (2011). Lean, leaner, too lean? The inventory-performance link revisited. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 356–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, V., Fisher, M. L., & Raman, A. (2005). Econometric analysis of inventory turnover performance in retail services. Management Science, 51(2), 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (1997). Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance: Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards. Management Science, 43, 1258–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huson, M., & Nanda, D. (1995). The impact of just-in-time manufacturing on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 12, 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katehakis, M. N., & Smit, L. C. (2012). On computing optimal \((Q{,}r)\) replenishment policies under quantity discounts. Annals of Operations Research, 200(1), 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolias, G. D., Dimelis, S. P., & Filios, V. P. (2011). An empirical analysis of inventory turnover behaviour in Greek retail sector: 2000–2005. International Journal of Production Economics, 133, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konstantopoulos, T., Zazanis, M., & De Vecian, G. (1996). Conservation laws and reflection mappings with an application to multiclass mean value analysis for stochastic fluid queues. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 65(1), 139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. D. C., & Graves, S. C. (2008). Little’s Law. In D. Chhajed & T. J. Lowe (Eds.), Building intuition: Insights from basic operations management models and principles. Berlin: Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., Modi, S. B., & Animesh, A. (2013). The relationship between information technology capability, inventory efficiency, and shareholder wealth: A firm-level empirical analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 31(6), 298–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopalan, S., & Malhotra, A. (2001). Have U.S. manufacturing inventories really decreased? An empirical study. Manufacturing Service Operations Management, 3, 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schonberger, R. J. (2003). The right stuff, revisited. MSI, 21(9), 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, J., Katehakis, M. N., & Melamed, B. (2013). Martingale methods for pricing inventory penalties under continuous replenishment and compound renewal demands. Annals of Operations Research, 208(1), 593–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, J., Katehakis, M. N., Melamed, B., & Xia, Y. (2014). Production-inventory systems with lost sales and compound Poisson demands. Operations Research, 62(5), 1048–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, E. (2008). Designing and managing the supply chain (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weygandt, J. J., Kimmel, P. D., & Kieso, D. E. (2012). Financial accounting (8th ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiendahl, H. P., & Breithaupt, J. W. (2000). Automatic production control applying control theory. International Journal of Production Economics, 63(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, A. Z., & Hayya, J. C. (1999). The performance of two popular service measures on management effectiveness in inventory control. International Journal of Production Economics, 58(2), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Supply Chain Management, Rutgers Business School – Newark and New Brunswick, Rutgers University, 100 Rockafeller Rd., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Benjamin Melamed

  2. Department of Supply Chain Management, Rutgers Business School – Newark and New Brunswick, Rutgers University, 1 Washington Park, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Rudolf Leuschner & Weiwei Chen

  3. Department of Supply Chain Management, Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Main Campus, P.O. Box 874706, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Dale S. Rogers

  4. Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Rutgers Business School – Newark and New Brunswick, Rutgers University, 100 Rockafeller Rd., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Min Cao

Authors
  1. Benjamin Melamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rudolf Leuschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weiwei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dale S. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Min Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Melamed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melamed, B., Leuschner, R., Chen, W. et al. Inventory turns and finite-horizon Little’s Laws. Ann Oper Res 317, 129–146 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2157-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2157-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation