Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Management Features
Jennifer V. Miller
Coaching is an investment you must make if you want to rise to greater heights yourself
Annette Franz
Sharing roles in CX can provide dividends for both customer and proprietor
Nicholas Wyman
As the pandemic continues to affect millions of jobs, getting people into apprenticeships has never been more vital
Gleb Tsipursky
Effective engagement can foster productivity and stronger financials
Tamela Serensits
Establish a profitable quality program in 2021

More Features

Management News
Provides synchronization, compliance, traceability, and transparency within processes
Galileo’s Telescope describes how to measure success at the top of the organization, translate down to every level of supervision
Too often process enhancements occur in silos where there is little positive impact on the big picture
Latest installment of North American Manufacturing Covid-19 Survey Series shows 38% of surveyed companies are hiring
How to develop an effective strategic plan and make the best major decisions in the context of uncertainty and ambiguity
What continual improvement, change, and innovation are, and how they apply to performance improvement
Good quality is adding an average of 11 percent to organizations’ revenue growth
Further enhances change management capabilities

More News

Anton Ovchinnikov


When Ordering Products, Are You Always One Step Ahead or Behind?

Managerial biases cost firms more than they realize

Published: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - 12:03

Left to their own devices, humans tend to fall prey to biases that make them poor decision makers. For instance, among other foibles, most purchasing managers routinely under-order. In fact, past research has shown that managers are typically 10 to 20 percent off the mark when it comes to ordering the optimal quantity of products.

However, somewhat surprising, the same research has also shown that this suboptimal ordering only results in a 1 to 5 percent loss in expected profit. This conundrum has left many an executive with a dilemma. As the CEO of a medium-sized online florist shop told me: “I cannot micro-manage all my people. Before I go and intervene, I need to know the impact on my business.”

Fair point. Managers who base purchasing decisions on their gut feelings—either because they have never devised a rational ordering policy or regularly choose to override it—make a lot of mistakes. But if it only costs the firm about 1 percent of extra profit, executives may be reluctant to stir the pot. In most SMEs, a CEO’s path is strewn with seemingly juicier projects in terms of ROI.

Such laissez-faire may be costlier than prior research had predicted. During the last 15 years or so, most academic papers on the so-called “news vendor problem” examined profit maximization in monopoly-like settings. But when Bernardo Quiroga (School of Management at PUC Chile), Brent Moritz (Smeal College of Business at Penn State), and I looked at what happens in a more realistic context involving competition, we found that a firm could increase its profit by 7 to 10 percent by adopting a scientific approach to ordering.

Delivering your customers on a silver platter

In our recent paper, “Behavioral Ordering, Competition and Profits: An Experimental Investigation,” we used controlled laboratory experiments to replicate a market with two competitors: a smart one with a data- and science-driven ordering policy in place, and another leaving its ordering in the hands of a capable but inevitably biased manager.

In our experiments, a computer played the role of the smart firm. It followed simple ordering rules steeped in management science. Business school students played the role of the competitor. While our participants were given full access to market data, they could order as they saw fit, leaving the door open to all the biases known to affect managers in this situation. (Of course, we used cash to incentivize them to make the very best inventory decisions possible.) We found that the average expected profits of our smart firm were 15 to 20 percent larger than those of its human bias-riddled competitor.

What explains this large profit difference? As mentioned, a common trait of purchasing managers is their tendency to under-order. So what happens when customers come to your shop and cannot find the specific product they wanted to purchase, say red roses? Although they may buy a substitute product (e.g., pink roses), odds are that they will walk themselves out the door to your nearest competitor.

If a competitor consistently outperforms you in stocking products and anticipating demand, even the most loyal of your customers may desert you over time, boosting your competitor’s bottom line.

Are you always one step ahead or behind?

Thanks to past management literature, we know quite a bit about the particular quirks of managers who find themselves in the news vendor paradigm. Not only do they routinely under-order, but they also lack responsiveness to situations calling for a change in purchase-order size (“pull-to-center effect”) and are likely to mindlessly adjust order quantities based on past demand (“demand chasing”). In other words, even in the absence of competition, managers, prey to various psychological biases, leave money on the table despite trying to maximize profit.

In a previous paper, also co-written with Quiroga and Moritz, we found that purchasing managers who know exactly what the competition is ordering are hardly influenced by this information. Even if they see that their competitor has a sophisticated ordering model that results in an outsized share of profit, they do not respond. They get trapped in self-reinforcing dynamics. Because the competitor usually captures the overflow, the manager of the biased firm sees even less reason to order more. The smart competitor is, in effect, always one step ahead.

Watch out for biases

In economics, the news vendor model is typically cast as a vendor selling perishable inventory, but it is, in fact, a metaphor for decision making with uncertainty. It applies to any decision that must be made in the moment, based on historical data that may not hold true in the future. It could be a firm trying to assess how many solar panels to install on its roof, without knowing what the demand and prices of electricity will be. Alternatively, it could be an automaker anticipating sales to best design its manufacturing platforms.

Our work shows that a knowledgeable firm applying ordering policies based on sound management science can significantly outperform its competitors across three metrics: service, market share, and most important, profit. Over time, a firm benefiting from such an advantage could further improve its business well beyond inventory-based competition alone. For instance, it could afford more aggressive advertising, expand into new markets, or even win talent wars.

The message should be clear to all CEOs relying on the intuition of their managers: Profit losses stemming from managerial biases are substantial enough to warrant your attention.

First published Dec. 11, 2019, on the INSEAD Knowledge blog.


About The Author

Anton Ovchinnikov’s picture

Anton Ovchinnikov

Anton Ovchinnikov is an INSEAD visiting professor of technology, operations and decision sciences. He is also a distinguished professor of management analytics and Scotiabank Scholar of Customer Analytics at the Smith School of Business of Queen’s University in Canada.