Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cheng S, Informatization and virtual business, Management Review, 2014, 26(7): 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bhutta M, Supplier selection problem: Methodology literature review, Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 2003, 12(2): 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen C and Yan H, Network DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation, European Journal of Operational Research, 2011, 213(1): 147–155.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Färe R and Grosskopf S, Productivity and intermediate products: A frontier approach, Economics Letters, 1996, 50(1): 65–70.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Seiford L M and Zhu J, Profitability and marketability of the top 55 US commercial banks, Management Science, 1999, 45(9): 1270–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Li Y, Chen Y, Liang L, et al., DEA models for extended two-stage network structures, Omega, 2012, 40(5): 611–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tone K and Tsutsui M, Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach, European Journal of Operational Research, 2009, 197(1): 243–252.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Maghbouli M, Amirteimoori A, and Kordrostami S, Two-stage network structures with undesirable outputs: A DEA based approach, Measurement, 2014, 48: 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu D, Supplier selection: A hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network, Expert Systems with Applications, 2009, 36(5): 9105–9112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Färe R and Grosskopf S, Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: Comment, European Journal of Operational Research, 2004, 157(1): 242–245.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Lancaster K, The economics of product variety: A survey, Marketing Science, 1990, 9(3): 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chamberlin E H, Product heterogeneity and public policy, The American Economic Review, 1950, 85–92.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Fitzsimons G J, Consumer response to stockouts, Journal of Consumer Research, 2000, 27(2): 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Slywotzky A J, The age of the choiceboard, Harvard Business Review, 2000, 78(1): 40–41.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fisher M L, Yihaodian: The No. 1 Store, The Wharton School Case Study, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center on Fictitious Economy & Data Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Yong Shi, Zhuofan Yang & Xin Tian

  2. School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Yong Shi, Zhuofan Yang & Xin Tian

  3. Key Research Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Knowledge Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Yong Shi, Zhuofan Yang & Xin Tian

  4. Department of Logistics and Maritime Studies Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

    Hong Yan

Authors
  1. Yong Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhuofan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hong Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Tian.

Additional information

This research was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 71390330, 70921061, 71202114 and 71331005, the Hong Kong CERG Research Fund Polyu 5515/10H and Shandong Independent Innovation and Achievement Transformation Special Fund of China (2014ZZCX03302).

This paper was recommended for publication by Editor ZHANG Xun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, Y., Yang, Z., Yan, H. et al. Delivery efficiency and supplier performance evaluation in China’s E-retailing industry. J Syst Sci Complex 30, 392–410 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-017-5007-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-017-5007-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation