QUANTIFYING MARKETING TRADE–OFFS IN PHYSICAL DISTRIBUTION POLICY DECISIONS
- 1 April 1976
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Decision Sciences
- Vol. 7 (2) , 186-201
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1976.tb00670.x
Abstract
The physical distribution management process involves dual, but conflicting objectives: (1) the minimization of system costs and (2) the maximization of service levels. Most physical distribution research focuses on cost minimization and treats service levels as constraints. This paper, however, highlights the service aspect of distribution. It reports an experiment with purchasing agents designed to test three alternative approaches for evaluating customers' (dollar) trade‐offs between service levels received and cost. Two of the approaches indirectly derive trade‐off values; the other approach relies on directly reported trade‐off information. In this experiment all three of the approaches were quite accurate in modeling customers' preferences for different physical distribution mixes, but the indirect procedures were more accurate than the direct approach.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- THE COST OF IGNORING LEAD TIME UNRELIABILITY IN INVENTORY THEORY*Decision Sciences, 1972
- Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental DataJournal of Marketing Research, 1971
- Determinants of Buyer Response to Physical Distribution ServiceJournal of Marketing Research, 1969
- Numerical Taxonomy in Marketing Analysis: A Review ArticleJournal of Marketing Research, 1968
- Use of TransformationsJournal of Marketing Research, 1966
- Perceived monetary value of job type, company size, and location among college seniors.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966
- Systematic Paired Comparisons in Preference AnalysisJournal of Marketing Research, 1965
- A quantitative analysis of expressed preferences for compensation plans.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964
- Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurementJournal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964
- A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review, 1927