Operational Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 737–745 | Cite as

Implementation of F.W. Lanchester’s combat model in a supply chain in duopoly: the case of Coca-Cola and Pepsi in Greece

Original Paper
  • 243 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the possibility of applying some of the most widely known mathematical theories of war in the case of firms. In this research, Frederick William Lanchester’s combat models, that seemed to be particularly useful to the U.S. Army at the Pacific campaign against the Japanese fleet during World War II, were examined. These mathematical models were based on differential equations and their main purpose was to predict the outcome of battles. After the appropriate theoretical assumptions were set, the examined models were applied to the case of Coca-Cola™ and Pepsi™ supply chains in the Greek market. These models have been applied to these firms by other researchers too. The results of the implementations have led to the conclusion that the theoretical models are almost identical to the reality, which means that they are applicable in business under the right conditions.

Keywords

Operations research Frederick William Lanchester Mathematical theories of war Differential equations Supply chain Duopoly 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90B06 93A30 

References

  1. Bracken J (1995) Lanchester models of the Ardennes campaign. Naval Res Logist 42(4):559–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalikias M, Skordoulis M (2014) Implementation of Richardson’s arms race model in advertising expenditure of two competitive firms. Appl Math Sci 8(81):4013–4023Google Scholar
  3. Cheema C (2005) Operations research. Laxmi Firewall Media Publications, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  4. Chintagunta P, Vilcassim N (1992) An empirical investigation of advertising strategies in a dynamic duopoly. Manag Sci 38(9):1230–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daras N (2001) Differential equations and mathematical theories of war, vol II. Evelpidon Military Academy, Athens (in Greek) Google Scholar
  6. Erickson G (1992) Empirical analysis of closed-loop duopoly advertising strategies. Manag Sci 38(12):1732–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fehlmann T (2000) Measuring competitiveness in service design; decisions based on customer’s needs. In: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on QFD, June 2000, QFD InstituteGoogle Scholar
  8. Fehlmann T (2008) New Lanchester theory for requirements prioritization. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on software product management, Barcelona, September 2008, Bacelona: IEEE, pp 35–40Google Scholar
  9. Fruchter G, Kalish S (1997) Closed-loop advertising strategies in a duopoly. Manag Sci 43(1):54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ICAP (2008) Sector study: juices-soft drinks. ICAP, Athens (in Greek) Google Scholar
  11. Lanchester FW (1956) Mathematics in warfare. World Math 4:2138–2157Google Scholar
  12. McKay N (2006) Lanchester combat models. Math Today 42:170–178Google Scholar
  13. Oudrhiri R (2005) Six sigma and DFSS for IT and software engineering. Q J TickIT Softw Qual Certif Scheme 4:7–9Google Scholar
  14. Ricardo H (1948) Frederick William Lanchester. Obit Not Fellows R Soc 5(16):756–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Taoka N (1997) Lanchester strategy: an introduction. Lanchester Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang Q, Wu Z (2001) A duopolistic model of dynamic competitive advertising. Eur J Oper Res 128(1):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Economic Statistics and Operations Research Lab, Department of Business Administration, School of Business and EconomicsPiraeus University of Applied Sciences (T.E.I. of Piraeus)PiraeusGreece
  2. 2.Management Information Systems and New Technologies Lab, Department of Business Administration, School of Business and EconomicsPiraeus University of Applied Sciences (T.E.I. of Piraeus)PiraeusGreece

Personalised recommendations