thesis on bullwhip effect

Impact of the Bullwhip Effect on Supplier Management: A Case Study of the Machine Tool Components Industry

• Conference paper
• First Online: 01 July 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Ya-Lan Chan 3 ,
• Jheng-Fong Ke 3 ,
• Sue-Ming Hsu 4 &
• Mei-Hua Liao 5  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies ((LNDECT,volume 214))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing

36 Accesses

Due to the impact of the pandemic in recent years, manufacturers have been severely out of stock, causing consumers to place excessive orders. When the pandemic slowed down, some of the original orders from manufacturers were abandoned, thus causing a bullwhip effect. When supply chain risk crises lead to changes in market uncertainty, the bullwhip effect will become more prominent. Business operations need to face unpredictable changes in sales forecasts and orders every day.

This study uses qualitative research methods to explore the response strategies adopted by the machine tool parts industry when facing the bullwhip effect. In order to gain a deeper understanding of how related industries respond to rapidly changing consumer demands, this study conducted interviews with five senior operators. From the interviews, important information can be obtained about the impact of the introduction of information systems on inventory management and the impact on business operations and employees. It is hoped that through the interview results, more useful suggestions and help can be provided to the practical community to cope with the challenges brought by the bullwhip effect.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Chang, K.Y.: Raw material shortage, across-the-board price increases: what’s happening to the global supply chain? Manager Today (2022). https://www.managertoday.com.tw/articles/view/64397 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Chang, K.Y.: Massive extension of payment terms to suppliers: management insights behind the scenes - excessive inventory is all due to the “bullwhip effect.” Manager Today (2022). https://www.managertoday.com.tw/articles/view/63159?utm_source=copyshare . Accessed 31 Mar 2023

Chen, C.L.: The impact of industrial supply chain configuration on supply chain management strategies and company performance. Master’s thesis, Department of Information Management, Tamkang University (2012)

Google Scholar  

Chen, C.L.: Operational strategies of E-supply chain - a case study of company a’s cameras. Master’s thesis, Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University (2015)

Handfield, R.B., Nichols, E.L.: Introduction to Supply Chain Management. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1999)

Harrington, L.H.: Supply chain integration from the inside. Transp. Distrib. 38 (3), 35–38 (1997)

Houlihan, J.B.: Supply chain management. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Technical Conference of the British Production and Inventory Control Society, pp. 101–110 (1984)

Hsu, Z.A.: Optimization of supply chain management. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology (2012)

Huang, C.C.: The impact of advanced planning and scheduling on the stainless steel supply chain. Master’s thesis, Executive Master of Business Administration Program, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University (2014)

Huang, S.C.: The influence of the bullwhip effect on the chain - a case study of the golf industry. Master’s thesis, Executive Master of Business Administration Program, College of Management, National Sun Yat-sen University (2022)

Hung, J.R.: Analysis of the application model of supplier management inventory. Master’s thesis, College of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University (2019)

Liu, J.C.: Exploring the impact of the bullwhip effect on the global supply chain of the PC industry: the case of the novel coronavirus. Master’s thesis, Name of University (2022)

Lin, S.J.: The impact of the bullwhip effect on inventory management in electronic contract manufacturing plants. Master’s thesis, MBA Program, Feng Chia University (2015)

Lee, H.L., Billington, C.: Material management in decentralized supply chain. Oper. Res. 41 (5), 835–847 (1993)

Article   Google Scholar  

Leenders, M.R., Fearou, H.E.: Purchasing & Supply Management, 11th edn. R. D. Irwin (1997)

Metz, P.J.: Demystifying Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management Review, Winter Issue (1998)

Stevens, G.: Integrating the supply chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Mater. Manag.Manag. 19 (8), 3–8 (1989)

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is partly supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan NSTC 112-2635-E-468-003-.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business Administration, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC

Ya-Lan Chan & Jheng-Fong Ke

Department of Business Administration, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC

Sue-Ming Hsu

Department of Finance, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC

Mei-Hua Liao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mei-Hua Liao .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Information and Communication Engineering, Faculty of Information Engineering, Fukuoka Institute of Technology, Fukuoka, Japan

Leonard Barolli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Chan, YL., Ke, JF., Hsu, SM., Liao, MH. (2024). Impact of the Bullwhip Effect on Supplier Management: A Case Study of the Machine Tool Components Industry. In: Barolli, L. (eds) Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing. IMIS 2024. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, vol 214. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64766-6_46

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64766-6_46

Published : 01 July 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-64765-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-64766-6

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Spring 1997

The bullwhip effect in supply chains.

Not long ago, logistics executives at Procter & Gamble (P&G) examined the order patterns for one of their best-selling products, Pampers. Its sales at retail stores were fluctuating, but the variabilities were certainly not excessive. However, as they examined the distributors’ orders, the executives were surprised by the degree of variability. When they looked at P&G’s orders of materials to their suppliers, such as 3M, they discovered that the swings were even greater. At first glance, the variabilities did not make sense. While the consumers, in this case, the babies, consumed diapers at a steady rate, the demand order variabilities in the supply chain were amplified as they moved up the supply chain. P&G called this phenomenon the “bullwhip” effect. (In some industries, it is known as the “whiplash” or the “whipsaw” effect.)

When Hewlett-Packard (HP) executives examined the sales of one of its printers at a major reseller, they found that there were, as expected, some fluctuations over time. However, when they examined the orders from the reseller, they observed much bigger swings. Also, to their surprise, they discovered that the orders from the printer division to the company’s integrated circuit division had even greater fluctuations.

What happens when a supply chain is plagued with a bullwhip effect that distorts its demand information as it is transmitted up the chain? In the past, without being able to see the sales of its products at the distribution channel stage, HP had to rely on the sales orders from the resellers to make product forecasts, plan capacity, control inventory, and schedule production. Big variations in demand were a major problem for HP’s management. The common symptoms of such variations could be excessive inventory, poor product forecasts, insufficient or excessive capacities, poor customer service due to unavailable products or long backlogs, uncertain production planning (i.e., excessive revisions), and high costs for corrections, such as for expedited shipments and overtime. HP’s product division was a victim of order swings that were exaggerated by the resellers relative to their sales; it, in turn, created additional exaggerations of order swings to suppliers.

In the past few years, the Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) initiative has tried to redefine how the grocery supply chain should work. 1 One motivation for the initiative was the excessive amount of inventory in the supply chain. Various industry studies found that the total supply chain, from when products leave the manufacturers’ production lines to when they arrive on the retailers’ shelves, has more than 100 days of inventory supply. Distorted information has led every entity in the supply chain — the plant warehouse, a manufacturer’s shuttle warehouse, a manufacturer’s market warehouse, a distributor’s central warehouse, the distributor’s regional warehouses, and the retail store’s storage space — to stockpile because of the high degree of demand uncertainties and variabilities. It’s no wonder that the ECR reports estimated a potential $30 billion opportunity from streamlining the inefficiencies of the grocery supply chain. 2

The ordering patterns share a common, recurring theme: the variabilities of an upstream site are always greater than those of the downstream site.

Other industries are in a similar position. Computer factories and manufacturers’ distribution centers, the distributors’ warehouses, and store warehouses along the distribution channel have inventory stockpiles. And in the pharmaceutical industry, there are duplicated inventories in a supply chain of manufacturers such as Eli Lilly or Bristol-Myers Squibb, distributors such as McKesson, and retailers such as Longs Drug Stores. Again, information distortion can cause the total inventory in this supply chain to exceed 100 days of supply. With inventories of raw materials, such as integrated circuits and printed circuit boards in the computer industry and antibodies and vial manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry, the total chain may contain more than one year’s supply.

In a supply chain for a typical consumer product, even when consumer sales do not seem to vary much, there is pronounced variability in the retailers’ orders to the wholesalers (see Figure 1). Orders to the manufacturer and to the manufacturers’ supplier spike even more. To solve the problem of distorted information, companies need to first understand what creates the bullwhip effect so they can counteract it. Innovative companies in different industries have found that they can control the bullwhip effect and improve their supply chain performance by coordinating information and planning along the supply chain.

Causes of the Bullwhip Effect

Perhaps the best illustration of the bullwhip effect is the well-known “beer game.” 3 In the game, participants (students, managers, analysts, and so on) play the roles of customers, retailers, wholesalers, and suppliers of a popular brand of beer. The participants cannot communicate with each other and must make order decisions based only on orders from the next downstream player. The ordering patterns share a common, recurring theme: the variabilities of an upstream site are always greater than those of the downstream site, a simple, yet powerful illustration of the bullwhip effect. This amplified order variability may be attributed to the players’ irrational decision making. Indeed, Sterman’s experiments showed that human behavior, such as misconceptions about inventory and demand information, may cause the bullwhip effect. 4

In contrast, we show that the bullwhip effect is a consequence of the players’ rational behavior within the supply chain’s infrastructure. This important distinction implies that companies wanting to control the bullwhip effect have to focus on modifying the chain’s infrastructure and related processes rather than the decision makers’ behavior.

We have identified four major causes of the bull-whip effect:

• Demand forecast updating
• Order batching
• Price fluctuation
• Rationing and shortage gaming

Each of the four forces in concert with the chain’s infrastructure and the order managers’ rational decision making create the bullwhip effect. Understanding the causes helps managers design and develop strategies to counter it. 5

Demand Forecast Updating

Every company in a supply chain usually does product forecasting for its production scheduling, capacity planning, inventory control, and material requirements planning. Forecasting is often based on the order history from the company’s immediate customers.

The outcomes of the beer game are the consequence of many behavioral factors, such as the players’ perceptions and mistrust. An important factor is each player’s thought process in projecting the demand pattern based on what he or she observes. When a downstream operation places an order, the upstream manager processes that piece of information as a signal about future product demand. Based on this signal, the upstream manager readjusts his or her demand forecasts and, in turn, the orders placed with the suppliers of the upstream operation. We contend that demand signal processing is a major contributor to the bullwhip effect.

For example, if you are a manager who has to determine how much to order from a supplier, you use a simple method to do demand forecasting, such as exponential smoothing. With exponential smoothing, future demands are continuously updated as the new daily demand data become available. The order you send to the supplier reflects the amount you need to replenish the stocks to meet the requirements of future demands, as well as the necessary safety stocks. The future demands and the associated safety stocks are updated using the smoothing technique. With long lead times, it is not uncommon to have weeks of safety stocks. The result is that the fluctuations in the order quantities over time can be much greater than those in the demand data.

Now, one site up the supply chain, if you are the manager of the supplier, the daily orders from the manager of the previous site constitute your demand. If you are also using exponential smoothing to update your forecasts and safety stocks, the orders that you place with your supplier will have even bigger swings. For an example of such fluctuations in demand, see Figure 2. As we can see from the figure, the orders placed by the dealer to the manufacturer have much greater variability than the consumer demands. Because the amount of safety stock contributes to the bullwhip effect, it is intuitive that, when the lead times between the resupply of the items along the supply chain are longer, the fluctuation is even more significant.

Order Batching

In a supply chain, each company places orders with an upstream organization using some inventory monitoring or control. Demands come in, depleting inventory, but the company may not immediately place an order with its supplier. It often batches or accumulates demands before issuing an order. There are two forms of order batching: periodic ordering and push ordering.

Instead of ordering frequently, companies may order weekly, biweekly, or even monthly. There are many common reasons for an inventory system based on order cycles. Often the supplier cannot handle frequent order processing because the time and cost of processing an order can be substantial. P&G estimated that, because of the many manual interventions needed in its order, billing, and shipment systems, each invoice to its customers cost between $35 and $75 to process. 6 Many manufacturers place purchase orders with suppliers when they run their material requirements planning (MRP) systems. MRP systems are often run monthly, resulting in monthly ordering with suppliers. A company with slow-moving items may prefer to order on a regular cyclical basis because there may not be enough items consumed to warrant resupply if it orders more frequently.

Consider a company that orders once a month from its supplier. The supplier faces a highly erratic stream of orders. There is a spike in demand at one time during the month, followed by no demands for the rest of the month. Of course, this variability is higher than the demands the company itself faces. Periodic ordering amplifies variability and contributes to the bullwhip effect.

One common obstacle for a company that wants to order frequently is the economics of transportation. There are substantial differences between full truck-load (FTL) and less-than-truckload rates, so companies have a strong incentive to fill a truckload when they order materials from a supplier. Sometimes, suppliers give their best pricing for FTL orders. For most items, a full truckload could be a supply of a month or more. Full or close to full truckload ordering would thus lead to moderate to excessively long order cycles.

In push ordering, a company experiences regular surges in demand. The company has orders “pushed” on it from customers periodically because salespeople are regularly measured, sometimes quarterly or annually, which causes end-of-quarter or end-of-year order surges. Salespersons who need to fill sales quotas may “borrow” ahead and sign orders prematurely. The U.S. Navy’s study of recruiter productivity found surges in the number of recruits by the recruiters on a periodic cycle that coincided with their evaluation cycle. 7 For companies, the ordering pattern from their customers is more erratic than the consumption patterns that their customers experience. The “hockey stick” phenomenon is quite prevalent.

Although some companies claim to thrive on high-low buying practices, most suffer.

When a company faces periodic ordering by its customers, the bullwhip effect results. If all customers’ order cycles were spread out evenly throughout the week, the bullwhip effect would be minimal. The periodic surges in demand by some customers would be insignificant because not all would be ordering at the same time. Unfortunately, such an ideal situation rarely exists. Orders are more likely to be randomly spread out or, worse, to overlap. When order cycles overlap, most customers that order periodically do so at the same time. As a result, the surge in demand is even more pronounced, and the variability from the bull-whip effect is at its highest.

If the majority of companies that do MRP or distribution requirement planning (DRP) to generate purchase orders do so at the beginning of the month (or end of the month), order cycles overlap. Periodic execution of MRPs contributes to the bullwhip effect, or “MRP jitters” or “DRP jitters.”

Price Fluctuation

Estimates indicate that 80 percent of the transactions between manufacturers and distributors in the grocery industry were made in a “forward buy” arrangement in which items were bought in advance of requirements, usually because of a manufacturer’s attractive price offer. 8 Forward buying constitutes $75 billion to $100 billion of inventory in the grocery industry. 9

Forward buying results from price fluctuations in the marketplace. Manufacturers and distributors periodically have special promotions like price discounts, quantity discounts, coupons, rebates, and so on. All these promotions result in price fluctuations. Additionally, manufacturers offer trade deals (e.g., special discounts, price terms, and payment terms) to the distributors and wholesalers, which are an indirect form of price discounts. For example, Kotler reports that trade deals and consumer promotion constitute 47 percent and 28 percent, respectively, of their total promotion budgets. 10 The result is that customers buy in quantities that do not reflect their immediate needs; they buy in bigger quantities and stock up for the future.

Such promotions can be costly to the supply chain. 11 What happens if forward buying becomes the norm? When a product’s price is low (through direct discount or promotional schemes), a customer buys in bigger quantities than needed. When the product’s price returns to normal, the customer stops buying until it has depleted its inventory. As a result, the customer’s buying pattern does not reflect its consumption pattern, and the variation of the buying quantities is much bigger than the variation of the consumption rate — the bullwhip effect.

When high-low pricing occurs, forward buying may well be a rational decision. If the cost of holding inventory is less than the price differential, buying in advance makes sense. In fact, the high-low pricing phenomenon has induced a stream of research on how companies should order optimally to take advantage of the low price opportunities.

Although some companies claim to thrive on high-low buying practices, most suffer. For example, a soup manufacturer’s leading brand has seasonal sales, with higher sales in the winter (see Figure 3).However, the shipment quantities from the manufacturer to the distributors, reflecting orders from the distributors to the manufacturer, varied more widely. When faced with such wide swings, companies often have to run their factories overtime at certain times and be idle at others. Alternatively, companies may have to build huge piles of inventory to anticipate big swings in demand. With a surge in shipments, they may also have to pay premium freight rates to transport products. Damage also increases from handling larger than normal volumes and stocking inventories for long periods. The irony is that these variations are induced by price fluctuations that the manufacturers and the distributors set up themselves. It’s no wonder that such a practice was called “the dumbest marketing ploy ever.” 12

Using trade promotions can backfire because of the impact on the manufacturers’ stock performance. A group of shareholders sued Bristol-Myers Squibb when its stock plummeted from $74 to $67 as a result of a disappointing quarterly sales performance; its actual sales increase was only 5 percent instead of the anticipated 13 percent. The sluggish sales increase was reportedly due to the company’s trade deals in a previous quarter that flooded the distribution channel with forward-buy inventories of its product. 13

Rationing and Shortage Gaming

When product demand exceeds supply, a manufacturer often rations its product to customers. In one scheme, the manufacturer allocates the amount in proportion to the amount ordered. For example, if the total supply is only 50 percent of the total demand, all customers receive 50 percent of what they order. Knowing that the manufacturer will ration when the product is in short supply, customers exaggerate their real needs when they order. Later, when demand cools, orders will suddenly disappear and cancellations pour in. This seeming overreaction by customers anticipating shortages results when organizations and individuals make sound, rational economic decisions and “game” the potential rationing. 14 The effect of “gaming” is that customers’ orders give the supplier little information on the product’s real demand, a particularly vexing problem for manufacturers in a product’s early stages. The gaming practice is very common. In the 1980s, on several occasions, the computer industry perceived a shortage of DRAM chips. Orders shot up, not because of an increase in consumption, but because of anticipation. Customers place duplicate orders with multiple suppliers and buy from the first one that can deliver, then cancel all other duplicate orders. 15

More recently, Hewlett-Packard could not meet the demand for its LaserJet III printer and rationed the product. Orders surged, but HP managers could not discern whether the orders genuinely reflected real market demands or were simply phantom orders from resellers trying to get better allocation of the product. When HP lifted its constraints on resupply of the LaserJets, many resellers canceled their orders. HP’s costs in excess inventory after the allocation period and in unnecessary capacity increases were in the millions of dollars. 16

During the Christmas shopping seasons in 1992 and 1993, Motorola could not meet consumer demand for handsets and cellular phones, forcing many distributors to turn away business. Distributors like AirTouch Communications and the Baby Bells, anticipating the possibility of shortages and acting defensively, drastically overordered toward the end of 1994. 17 Because of such overzealous ordering by retail distributors, Motorola reported record fourth-quarter earnings in January 1995. Once Wall Street realized that the dealers were swamped with inventory and new orders for phones were not as healthy before, Motorola’s stock tumbled almost 10 percent.

In October 1994, IBM’s new Aptiva personal computer was selling extremely well, leading resellers to speculate that IBM might run out of the product before the Christmas season. According to some analysts,IBM, hampered by an overstock problem the previous year, planned production too conservatively. Other analysts referred to the possibility of rationing: “Retailers — apparently convinced Aptiva will sell well and afraid of being left with insufficient stock to meet holiday season demand — increased their orders with IBM, believing they wouldn’t get all they asked for.” 18 It was unclear to IBM how much of the increase in orders was genuine market demand and how much was due to resellers placing phantom orders when IBM had to ration the product.

How to Counteract the Bullwhip Effect

Understanding the causes of the bullwhip effect can help managers find strategies to mitigate it. Indeed, many companies have begun to implement innovative programs that partially address the effect. Next we examine how companies tackle each of the four causes. We categorize the various initiatives and other possible remedies based on the underlying coordination mechanism, namely, information sharing, channel alignment, and operational efficiency. With information sharing, demand information at a downstream site is transmitted upstream in a timely fashion. Channel alignment is the coordination of pricing, transportation, inventory planning, and ownership between the upstream and downstream sites in a supply chain. Operational efficiency refers to activities that improve performance, such as reduced costs and lead time. We use this topology to discuss ways to control the bull-whip effect (see Table 1).

Avoid Multiple Demand Forecast Updates

Ordinarily, every member of a supply chain conducts some sort of forecasting in connection with its planning (e.g., the manufacturer does the production planning, the wholesaler, the logistics planning, and so on). Bullwhip effects are created when supply chain members process the demand input from their immediate downstream member in producing their own forecasts. Demand input from the immediate downstream member, of course, results from that member’s forecasting, with input from its own downstream member.

One remedy to the repetitive processing of consumption data in a supply chain is to make demand data at a downstream site available to the upstream site. Hence, both sites can update their forecasts with the same raw data. In the computer industry, manufacturers request sell-through data on withdrawn stocks from their resellers’ central warehouse. Although the data are not as complete as point-of-sale (POS) data from the resellers’ stores, they offer significantly more information than was available when manufacturers didn’t know what happened after they shipped their products. IBM, HP, and Apple all require sell-through data as part of their contract with resellers.

Supply chain partners can use electronic data interchange (EDI) to share data. In the consumer products industry, 20 percent of orders by retailers of consumer products was transmitted via EDI in 1990. 19 In 1992, that figure was close to 40 percent and, in 1995, nearly 60 percent. The increasing use of EDI will undoubtedly facilitate information transmission and sharing among chain members.

Even if the multiple organizations in a supply chain use the same source demand data to perform forecast updates, the differences in forecasting methods and buying practices can still lead to unnecessary fluctuations in the order data placed with the upstream site. In a more radical approach, the upstream site could control resupply from upstream to downstream. The upstream site would have access to the demand and inventory information at the downstream site and update the necessary forecasts and re-supply for the downstream site. The downstream site, in turn, would become a passive partner in the supply chain. For example, in the consumer products industry, this practice is known as vendor-managed inventory (VMI) or a continuous replenishment program (CRP). Many companies such as Campbell Soup, M&M/Mars, Nestlé, Quaker Oats, Nabisco, P&G, and Scott Paper use CRP with some or most of their customers. Inventory reductions of up to 25 percent are common in these alliances. P&G uses VMI in its diaper supply chain, starting with its supplier, 3M, and its customer, Wal-Mart. Even in the high-technology sector, companies such as Texas Instruments, HP, Motorola, and Apple use VMI with some of their suppliers and, in some cases, with their customers.

Inventory researchers have long recognized that multi-echelon inventory systems can operate better when inventory and demand information from downstream sites is available upstream. Echelon inventory — the total inventory at its upstream and downstream sites — is key to optimal inventory control. 20

Another approach is to try to get demand information about the downstream site by bypassing it. Apple Computer has a “consumer direct” program, i.e., it sells directly to consumers without going through the reseller and distribution channel. A benefit of the program is that it allows Apple to see the demand patterns for its products. Dell Computers also sells its products directly to consumers without going through the distribution channel.

Finally, as we noted before, long resupply lead times can aggravate the bullwhip effect. Improvements in operational efficiency can help reduce the highly variable demand due to multiple forecast updates. Hence, just-in-time replenishment is an effective way to mitigate the effect.

Break Order Batches

Since order batching contributes to the bullwhip effect, companies need to devise strategies that lead to smaller batches or more frequent resupply. In addition, the counterstrategies we described earlier are useful. When an upstream company receives consumption data on a fixed, periodic schedule from its downstream customers, it will not be surprised by an unusually large batched order when there is a demand surge.

One reason that order batches are large or order frequencies low is the relatively high cost of placing an order and replenishing it. EDI can reduce the cost of the paperwork in generating an order. Using EDI, companies such as Nabisco perform paperless, computer-assisted ordering (CAO), and, consequently, customers order more frequently. McKesson’s Economost ordering system uses EDI to lower the transaction costs from orders by drugstores and other retailers. 21 P&G has introduced standardized ordering terms across all business units to simplify the process and dramatically cut the number of invoices. 22 And General Electric is electronically matching buyers and suppliers throughout the company. It expects to purchase at least $1 billion in materials through its internally developed Trading Process Network. A paper purchase order that typically cost $50 to process is now $5. 23

Another reason for large order batches is the cost of transportation. The differences in the costs of full truckloads and less-than-truckloads are so great that companies find it economical to order full truckloads, even though this leads to infrequent replenishments from the supplier. In fact, even if orders are made with little effort and low cost through EDI, the improvements in order efficiency are wasted due to the full-truckload constraint. Now some manufacturers induce their distributors to order assortments of different products. Hence a truckload may contain different products from the same manufacturer (either a plant warehouse site or a manufacturer’s market warehouse) instead of a full load of the same product. The effect is that, for each product, the order frequency is much higher, the frequency of deliveries to the distributors remains unchanged, and the transportation efficiency is preserved. P&G has given discounts to distributors that are willing to order mixed-SKU (stock-keeping unit) loads of any of its products. 24 Manufacturers could also prepare and ship mixed SKUs to the distributors’ warehouses that are ready to deliver to the stores.

“Composite distribution” for fresh produce and chilled products uses the same mixed-SKU concept to make resupply more frequent. Since fresh produce and chilled foods need to be stored at different temperatures, trucks to transport them need to have various temperatures. British retailers like Tesco and Sainsbury use trucks with separate compartments at different temperatures so that they can transport many products on the same truck. 25

The use of third-party logistics companies also helps make small batch replenishments economical. 26 These companies allow economies of scale that were not feasible in a single supplier-customer relationship. By consolidating loads from multiple suppliers located near each other, a company can realize full truckload economies without the batches coming from the same supplier. Of course, there are additional handling and administrative costs for such consolidations or multiple pickups, but the savings often outweigh the costs.

The simplest way to control the bullwhip effect caused by forward buying and diversions is to reduce both the frequency and the level of wholesale price discounting.

Similarly, a third-party logistics company can utilize a truckload to deliver to customers who may be competitors, such as neighboring supermarkets. If each customer is supplied separately via full truckloads, using third-party logistics companies can mean moving from weekly to daily replenishments. For small customers whose volumes do not justify frequent full truckload replenishments independently, this is especially appealing. Some grocery wholesalers that receive FTL shipments from manufacturers and then ship mixed loads to wholesalers’ independent stores use logistics companies. In the United Kingdom, Sainsbury and Tesco have long used National Freight Company for logistics. As a result of the heightened awareness due to the ECR initiative in the grocery industry, we expect to see third-party logistics companies that forecast orders, transport goods, and replenish stores with mixed-SKU pallets from the manufacturers.

When customers spread their periodic orders or replenishments evenly over time, they can reduce the negative effect of batching. Some manufacturers coordinate their resupply with their customers. For example, P&G coordinates regular delivery appointments with its customers. Hence, it spreads the replenishments to all the retailers evenly over a week.

Stabilize Prices

The simplest way to control the bullwhip effect caused by forward buying and diversions is to reduce both the frequency and the level of wholesale price discounting. The manufacturer can reduce the incentives for retail forward buying by establishing a uniform wholesale pricing policy. In the grocery industry, major manufacturers such as P&G, Kraft, and Pillsbury have moved to an everyday low price (EDLP) or value pricing strategy. During the past three years, P&G has reduced its list prices by 12 percent to 24 percent and aggressively slashed the promotions it offers to trade customers. In 1994, P&G reported its highest profit margins in twenty-one years and showed increases in market share. 27 Similarly, retailers and distributors can aggressively negotiate with their suppliers to give them everyday low cost (EDLC). From 1991 to 1994, the percentage of trade deals in the total promotion budget of grocery products dropped from 50 percent to 47 percent.

From an operational perspective, practices such as CRP together with a rationalized wholesale pricing policy can help to control retailers’ tactics, such as diversion. Manufacturers’ use of CAO for sending orders also minimizes the possibility of such a practice.

Activity-based costing (ABC) systems enable companies to recognize the excessive costs of forward buying and diversions. When companies run regional promotions, some retailers buy in bulk in the area where the promotions are held, then divert the products to other regions for consumption. The costs of such practices are huge but may not show up in conventional accounting systems. ABC systems provide explicit accounting of the costs of inventory, storage, special handling, premium transportation, and so on that previously were hidden and often outweigh the benefits of promotions. ABC therefore helps companies implement the EDLP strategy. 28

Eliminate Gaming in Shortage Situations

When a supplier faces a shortage, instead of allocating products based on orders, it can allocate in proportion to past sales records. Customers then have no incentive to exaggerate their orders. General Motors has long used this method of allocation in cases of short supply, and other companies, such as Texas Instruments and Hewlett-Packard, are switching to it.

“Gaming” during shortages peaks when customers have little information on the manufacturers’ supply situation. The sharing of capacity and inventory information helps to alleviate customers’ anxiety and, consequently, lessen their need to engage in gaming. But sharing capacity information is insufficient when there is a genuine shortage. Some manufacturers work with customers to place orders well in advance of the sales season. Thus they can adjust production capacity or scheduling with better knowledge of product demand.

Finally, the generous return policies that manufacturers offer retailers aggravate gaming. Without a penalty, retailers will continue to exaggerate their needs and cancel orders. Not surprisingly, some computer manufacturers are beginning to enforce more stringent cancellation policies.

We contend that the bullwhip effect results from rational decision making by members in the supply chain. Companies can effectively counteract the effect by thoroughly understanding its underlying causes. Industry leaders like Procter & Gamble are implementing innovative strategies that pose new challenges: integrating new information systems, defining new organizational relationships, and implementing new incentive and measurement systems. The choice for companies is clear: either let the bullwhip effect paralyze you or find a way to conquer it.

1. This initiative was engineered by Kurt Salmon Associates but propelled by executives from a group of innovative companies like Procter & Gamble and Campbell Soup Company. See: Kurt Salmon Associates, “ECR: Enhancing Consumer Value in the Grocery Industry (Washington, D.C.: report, January 1993); and F.A. Crawford, “ECR: A Mandate for Food Manufacturers?” Food Processing , volume 55, February 1994, pp. 34–42.

2. J.A. Cooke, “The $30 Billion Promise,” Traffic Management , volume 32, December 1993, pp. 57–59.

3. J. Sterman, “Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperception of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision-Making Experiment,” Management Science , volume 35, number 3, 1989, pp. 321–339.

4. Sterman (1989); and P. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990).

5. For a theoretical treatment of this subject, see: H.L. Lee, P. Padmanabhan, and S. Whang, “Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect,” Management Science , 1997, forthcoming.

6. M. Millstein, “P&G to Restructure Logistics and Pricing,” Supermarket News , 27 June 1994, pp. 1, 49.

7. V. Carroll, H.L. Lee, and A.G. Rao, “Implications of Salesforce Productivity, Heterogeneity and Demotivation: A Navy Recruiter Case Study,” Management Science , volume 32, number 11, 1986, pp. 1371–1388.

8. Salmon (1993).

9. P. Sellers, “The Dumbest Marketing Ploy,” Fortune , volume 126, 5 October 1992, pp. 88–93.

10. P. Kotler, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997).

11. R.D. Buzzell, J.A. Quelch, and W.J. Salmon, “The Costly Bargain of Trade Promotion,” Harvard Business Review , volume 68, March–April 1990, pp. 141–148.

12. Sellers (1992).

14. Lee et al. (1997).

15. L. Lode, “The Role of Inventory in Delivery Time Competition,” Management Science , volume 38, number 2, 1992, pp. 182–197.

16. Personal communication with Hewlett-Packard.

17. K. Kelly, “Burned by Busy Signals: Why Motorola Ramped up Production Way Past Demand,” Business Week, 6 March 1995, p. 36.

18. Rory J. O’Connor, “Rumor Bolsters IBM Shares,” San Jose Mercury News , 8 October 1994, p. 9D.

19. M. Reid, “Change at the Check-Out,” The Economist , volume 334, 4 March 1995, pp. 3–18.

20. A. Clark and H. Scarf, “Optimal Policies for a Multi-Echelon Inventory Problem,” Management Science , volume 6, number 4, 1960, pp. 465–490.

21. E.K. Clemons and M. Row, “McKesson Drug Company — A Strategic Information System,” Journal of Management Information Systems , volume 5, Summer 1988, pp. 36–50.

22. Millstein (1994).

23. T. Smart, “Jack Welch’s Cyber-Czar,” Business Week , 5 August 1996, pp. 82–83.

24. G. Stern, “Retailers of P&G to Get New Plan on Bills, Shipment,” Wall Street Journal , 22 June 1994.

25. Reid (1995).

26. H.L. Richardson, “How Much Should You Outsource?,” Transportation and Distribution , volume 35, September 1994, pp. 61–62.

27. Z. Schiller, “Ed Artzt’s Elbow Grease Has P&G Shining,” Business Week , 10 October 1994, pp. 84–86.

28. R. Mathews, “CRP Moves Towards Reality,” Progressive Grocer , volume 73, July 1994, pp. 43–44.

PDFs Reprints Permission to Copy Back Issues

Articles published in MIT Sloan Management Review are copyrighted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology unless otherwise specified at the end of an article.

MIT Sloan Management Review articles, permissions, and back issues can be purchased on our website: shop.sloanreview.mit.edu , or you may order through our Business Service Center (9 a.m.-5 p.m. ET) at the phone number listed below.

To reproduce or transmit one or more MIT Sloan Management Review articles requires written permission.

To request permission, use our website shop.sloanreview.mit.edu/store/faq , email [email protected] or call 617-253-7170.

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets and Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Webinars
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events

Whang and Lee: Eliminating the Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains

How shared sales data, computer-based ordering, consolidating deliveries, and other innovations can benefit all stakeholders.

March 01, 1995

If you ask Seungjin Whang about the research and colleague Hau Lee do in supply chain management, he is likely to answer with a story about diapers. Babies consume diapers at a relatively steady rate, he will tell you. Month to month, the number of babies and the number of diapers that their parents purchase from Kmart, Safeway, or the local convenience store remain roughly the same. But several years ago, Procter & Gamble, which manufactures Pampers, studied its diaper sales to retailers and, despite the steady rate of demand among babies, found puzzling, dramatic fluctuations in retailers’ orders to wholesalers.

Even wilder were the fluctuations in orders that P&G was receiving from the wholesalers. “If the variability in demand among babies was small, why was there such a marked variability in demand from retailers?” asks Whang, Jagdeep and Roshni Singh Professor of Operations, Information, and Technology at the Stanford Business School. “And why was it even more extreme among wholesalers placing orders to manufacturers?”

Whang and Lee, the Thoma Professor of Operations, Information, and Technology, are describing the “bullwhip effect,” named for the variations in reaction down the length of a whip after it is cracked. They blame it for a host of expensive manufacturing problems. The bullwhip effect happens in manufacturing when information about consumer demand—for diapers or for any other product—becomes increasingly distorted as it moves upstream in the manufacturing process. This distortion leads to excessive inventory throughout the system, poor product forecasts, insufficient or excessive capacities, product unavailability, and higher costs generally.

In 1995 Lee, and V. “Paddy” Padmanabhan, now of INSEAD University, Singapore, and Whang wrote a paper that attempts to identify the causes of the bullwhip effect and explore ways to begin eliminating it. Today Lee and Whang are co-directors of the Stanford Global Supply Chain Management Forum.

They believe the problem can be fixed. But first, companies have to start cooperating and sharing data that has traditionally been considered proprietary. Sales estimates and forecasting are usually done separately by retailers, manufacturers, and suppliers. When retailers notice a slight increase in demand for diapers, say, besides putting in an order with the wholesaler to replace the diapers sold, they may order extra in case the small upturn in sales indicates a trend. The wholesaler gets the order, sees an uptick in diaper orders, and makes its own forecasts — which are blurrier than the retailers’ because they aren’t based on any real sales figures. Then, when a manufacturer tries to interpret orders coming from the wholesaler, the perceived increase in demand can become further exaggerated: the bullwhip effect.

To get around this, information about demand at the site farthest downstream must be made available to the upstream sites, say the researchers. In other words, retailers must tell manufacturers exactly how various items are selling. This gives the manufacturers necessary data for making sound plans for the future. “If I know more about real demand patterns, I can reduce my inventory,” says Whang. “But I have to have my retailers’ information. Instead of having each company myopically optimize its own inventory, companies need to look at the whole supply chain.”

Another traditional business practice that leads to the bullwhip effect is “batching” orders at certain times of the month or year. Companies make a practice of batching because it saves time and money. It is cheaper, for example, to transport infrequent large orders than frequent small ones. Likewise, the administrative costs of generating one large order of a certain item are smaller than the cost of generating many small orders of the same item.

But while sporadic ordering is cheaper, it leads to unsettling surges in demand on the manufacturing side. Plants may scramble to accommodate beginning-of-the-month orders, then lie idle for weeks while the products they rushed to make sit in a retailer’s warehouse. A healthier scenario, say the researchers, would be to have manufacturers receive a steady stream of orders, reflecting actual day-by-day consumer demand. The higher administrative and transportation costs of this system could be reduced by consolidating loads from multiple suppliers to achieve transportation economies of scale and switching from a paper-based to a computer-based ordering system.

A third cause of the bullwhip effect is a practice known as “gaming” — intentionally presenting manufacturers with a false picture of consumer demand. For instance, an electronics chain might know that the maker of a popular new laser printer currently has very limited capacity to produce the item. Meanwhile, the printer is selling rapidly and generating healthy profits for the chain, which wants to order 100 more. The chain knows the manufacturer is going to be rationing printers: retailers will be allocated half of what they request. So in order to get the 100 printers it wants, the retailer asks for 200. When other retailers behave the same way and each orders 200, the chain may not receive 100 printers. But it also leaves the manufacturer with a very distorted picture of consumer demand for the product. To discourage gaming, they suggest manufacturers allocate scarce products to retailers based on past sales records rather than on the amount requested in a particular order.

A final strike against the bullwhip effect would be to minimize price incentives. When manufacturers offer bargains, retailers stockpile inventory and don’t order again for months. This is not the way to keep the supply chain running smoothly. The logic behind an “everyday low price” is that it promotes steady, regular purchases at all levels, from the retailer to the wholesaler to the manufacturer, rather than sporadic shopping binges, which are at the root of the bullwhip effect.

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

Restore — don’t reshore — supply chains, sustainable supply chains helped companies endure the pandemic, making supply chains deliver more than just faster, cheaper products, editor’s picks.

Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect Hau L. Lee V. Padmanabhan Seungjin Whang

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Class of 2024 Candidates
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Dean’s Remarks
• Keynote Address
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Marketing
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2024 Awardees
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• Career Change
• Career Advancement
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

• DSpace@MIT Home
• MIT Libraries
• Graduate Theses

Prediction and prevention of the bullwhip effect in replenishment supply chains

Other Contributors

Terms of use, description, date issued, collections.

Show Statistical Information