Proceedings of

The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

1
Factors that Influence the Bullwhip Effect and its Impact
on Profitability: A Simulation Study on Supply Chains

Prasanna V. Manyem and Dr. Daryl Santos

Department of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering
State University of New York at Binghamton
Binghamton, NY 13902, USA.

Abstract

The phenomenon of demand variability as one proceeds upstream in the supply chain has been termed the
"bullwhip effect." The purposes of this paper are to study the propagation of the bullwhip effect, the
profitability impact caused by bullwhip effect and the effect of lead-times on this phenomenon. These
objectives are achieved through simulation analysis of a simple two-stage serial supply chain. It is observed
that both demand variability and supply chain costs increase with an increase in replenishment lead-time.
The consequences of the bullwhip effect have been quantified in monetary terms in this study through a
simulation study that compares the costs incurred in a supply chain where bullwhip effect occurs with the
cost incurred in a supply chain where bullwhip effect does not occur. It has been stated that the bullwhip
effect will have serious cost implications if the manufacturing systems are considered to be capacitated [7].
Whereas here it has been showed through simulation that even in uncapacitated systems, the bullwhip
effect leads to higher supply chain costs.

Keywords: Supply Chain, Bullwhip Effect, Simulation.

1. Introduction

An important observation in supply chain management, popularly known as the "bullwhip effect," suggests
that demand variability increases as one moves up a supply chain. For example, empirical evidence
suggests that the orders placed by a retailer tend to be much more variable than the customer demand seen
by the retailer. This increase in variability propagates up a supply chain, distorting the patterns of orders
received by distributors, manufacturers and suppliers.

As pointed out by Lee et al. [5], the bullwhip effect term was coined by executives at Procter and Gamble
(P&G). One of P&G's many products are diapers. These executives observed that while the consumer
demand for diapers was fairly constant over time, the orders for diapers placed by retailers to wholesalers
or distributors were quite variable, i.e., exhibited significant fluctuations over time. In addition, even larger
variations in order quantities were observed in the orders that Procter and Gamble received from its
wholesalers.

The bullwhip effect is a major concern for many manufacturers, distributors and retailers because the
increased variability in the order process:
(I) requires each facility to increase its safety stock in order to maintain a given service level,
(II) leads to increased costs due to overstocking throughout the system, and
(III) can lead to an inefficient use of resources, such as labor and transportation, due to the fact that it is
not clear whether resources should be planned based on the average order received by the facility
or based on the maximum order.

Trade estimates suggest that these activities result in excess costs in the range between 12.5% and 15% [1].
By another measure, the inefficiencies bear part responsibility for the $75 billion to $100 billion worth of
inventory caught between various members of the $300 billion (annual) grocery industry [2]. The bullwhip
effect has also been observed at Hewlett Packard for laser printers [3] and also occurs in the luggage,
camera and automobile industries [4].

Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

2

To better understand the impact of the bullwhip effect on the entire supply chain, consider the case of a
simple two-stage supply chain consisting of a single retailer and a single manufacturer. The retailer
observes customer demand and places orders to the manufacturer. To determine how much to order from
the manufacturer, the retailer must forecast customer demand. Generally, the retailer will use the observed
customer demand and some standard forecasting techniques to forecast future demand.

Next, consider the second stage in the supply chain, the manufacturer. The manufacturer observes the
retailer's demand and places orders to his suppliers. To determine these order quantities, the manufacturer
must forecast the retailer's demand. In most cases, the manufacturer will not have access to the actual
customer demand data. Therefore, the manufacturer forecasts based on the orders placed by the retailer. If,
as the bullwhip effect implies, the orders placed by the retailer are more variable than the customer demand
observed by the retailer, then the manufacturer's forecasting and inventory control problem will be much
more difficult than that of the retailers. In addition, the increased variability will force the manufacturer to
carry more safety stock or to maintain higher capacity than the retailer to meet the same service level as the
retailer.

Section 2 of this paper will describe the simulation model. The objective here is to analyze and quantify the
bullwhip effect in the supply chain that is considered. Section 3 considers the profitability impact of the
bullwhip effect. Section 4 will study the impact of lead-times on the bullwhip effect. The final section
presents the conclusions of the paper.

2. Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect through Simulation

In order to better understand and control the bullwhip effect, it would be useful to quantify the bullwhip
effect, i.e., quantify the increase in variability that occurs at every stage of the supply chain. This would be
useful to show not only the magnitude of the variability, but also to show the relationship between a non-
stationary demand process, forecasting and an increase in variability.

2.1. Supply chain description
The supply chain scenario described in this sub-section is modeled using the Arena simulation package.
A two-stage supply chain with one retailer and one manufacturer is considered in this study (see Figure 1).
The retailer fills customer demand from his inventory and the manufacturer fills retailer demand from her
inventory.












Figure 1. Two-stage supply chain to quantify the bullwhip effect

The retailer observes a customer demand, D
t
, in time t and places an order, q
t
, to the manufacturer. The
customer demand observed by the retailer is assumed to be a random variable of the form
D
t
= d + D
t -1
+
t
,
where d is a non-negative constant, is a correlation parameter with || < 1, and the error terms,
t
, are i.i.d.
from a symmetric distribution (a normal distribution is assumed in this case) with mean 0 and variance .

Customer
Demand
Retailer's
Inventory
Manufacturer's
Inventory
Production
Facility
External
Supplier
Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

3
Suppose that the retailer faces a fixed lead time, L, such that an order placed by the retailer at the end of
period t is received at the start of period t + L. Also, suppose the retailer follows a simple order-up-to policy
in which, in every review period, she places an order to bring her inventory level up to a specific target
level. Since a non-stationary demand process is considered here, the order-up-to level in each period will be
different and will have to be generated using a forecast technique. The target inventory level is given by
y
t
=
t
+ z
t
In order to implement this inventory policy, the retailer and the manufacturer must estimate the mean and
standard deviation of their respective demand based on observed demand. Since the implementation of this
policy is identical at the retailer and the manufacturer, the method of estimation of forecast parameters will
be the same at both stages. The retailer and manufacturer are assumed to use the moving average forecast
technique. In other words, in any review period (say, t) the retailer estimates the mean demand as the
average of previous p observations of demand, i.e.,

t
= (D
t -i
)/p, i = 1 to p.
An estimate of the standard deviation of the demand over a review period is obtained using the sample
standard deviation of the single period forecast errors, e
t
= D
t
-
t
.

The objective here is to quantify the increase in variability. This is achieved through the simulation study in
which the variance of the orders placed by the retailer and manufacturer are compared with the variance of
customer demand.

2.2 Simulation analysis
A simulation model of a two-stage supply chain is constructed to study the bullwhip effect. The following
assumptions have been made in building the model:
The beginning of the review period for both stages coincide.
The review period is set as 4 weeks.
The lead-time is considered to be deterministic at 1 week.
The value of p is set at five, so that the most recent five demand observations are used to forecast
the mean and standard deviation of demand.
Complete lost-sales is assumed at the retailer.
Complete back-ordering is assumed at the manufacturer.
The external supplier to the manufacturer is considered to be reliable. Hence, the only source of
variability in the system is introduced due to the demand process.
The values of demand process parameters are assumed to be D
0
= 10, = 0.5, d = 5 and = 2.
The value of the safety factor z in the equation to determine the order-up-to level is assumed to be
equal to one.

The simulation model is run for a period of 120 weeks and a warm-up period of 40 weeks is specified so
that the first few transient values are not considered while calculating average statistics. An initial
inventory of 36 units is assumed at both stages in the supply chain. The model is run for 30 replications and
the average demand variance, retailer order variance and manufacturer order variance are obtained. These
values are given in the following table.

Table 1. Increase in variance in the supply chain

Source of Variance Average Variance
Customer Demand 42.15
Retailer Order 95.27
Manufacturer Order 119.08

From this table, it can be observed that the variance of demand increases as one moves up the supply chain.
This phenomenon is the bullwhip effect.

The magnitude of increase in variability from a retailer to supplier (or manufacturer) has been shown to be
dependent on p, the number of observations used in the moving average, L, the lead-time between
Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

4
successive stages and , the correlation parameter. A study by Chen et al. [8] presents a lower bound on the
increase in variability due to a single stage, i.e., from a retailer to its upstream manufacturer. In the above
study, the increase in variability is observed over 2 stages.

The illustration in Figure 2 shows the customer demand alongside the retailer's order and the
manufacturer's order for one of the 30 replications. From Figure 2 it can be observed that a smaller (higher)
customer demand in a period leads to a smaller (higher) retailer order and manufacturer order for the same
period. The graph plots the demand experienced in that period and, for the next review period, the orders
placed by the retailer and the manufacturer.


Figure 2. Distortion in demand information in a supply chain

The figure clearly highlights the distortion in demand information as one moves up the supply chain.
Customer demand is the demand experienced by the retailer, the retailer's order is the demand experienced
by the manufacturer and the manufacturer's order is the demand experienced by the manufacturers
supplier.

The distortion in perceived demand caused by the bullwhip effect can be intellectually stimulating, but its
impact on business profitability is not clearly understood. The monetary effects of such demand behavior as
shown in Figure 2 may or may not be significant. Given sufficient capacity and technical conditions, such
as linear costs and deterministic demand spikes, such a demand pattern may be no more costly than
stationary demand. For example, consider two parallel situations, one with known demand of 0 one week
followed by demand of 1000 the next, compared to known demands of 500 each week. As long as capacity
is greater than 1000 per week, and demand is deterministic, costs are identical in either case.

Even when demand is stochastic rather than deterministic, the overall increase in holding and shortage cost
is closely approximated by a myopic policy [6]. In business practices, however, two conditions prevail that
cause the bullwhip effect to be of concern:
1. Manufacturers are typically capacitated; and
Distortion in Demand in a Supply Chain
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
13579
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
7
1
9
2
1
2
3
Review Period
U
n
i
t
s
Customer Demand Retailer Order Manufacturer's Order
Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

5
2. Missing a customer demand has ramifications in addition to loss of revenue [7].

Because of capacity considerations, meeting the demand pattern in Figure 1 requires carrying inventory in
low demand weeks in anticipation of a demand spike. This entails significant inventory costs in capacitated
systems.

3. Profitability Impact of Bullwhip Effect

In this section, the impact of bullwhip effect on the costs incurred in a supply chain is considered. The
impact is identified through a comparison between the cost incurred in a supply chain with the bullwhip
effect and the cost incurred in a supply chain without the bullwhip effect. These two supply chains are
referred here as the Bullwhip supply chain and the Non-Bullwhip supply chain, respectively. Both the
supply chains have a single retailer supplied by a reliable external supplier (see Figure 3).












Figure 3. Supply chain model for the bullwhip cost impact study

The unit shortage and holding costs in the two cases are identical. The parameters of the supply chains
considered are given below:
In both supply chains the unit holding costs are given by c
h

= 1.5 and c
s
= 6.5, where the subscript
"s" refers to shortage and "h" refers to holding.
A five-period moving average forecast is used to determine the mean and standard deviation of
future demand in the case of the Bullwhip supply chain.
An order-up-to policy, where the order-up-to level is determined by classical inventory theory, is
used in the Non-Bullwhip supply chain.
The replenishment lead-time in each case is 1 week.
The customer demand process in the Bullwhip supply chain is given by
D
t
= d + D
t -1
+
t
,
Here, Var (D
t
) = / (1-).
The demand process in the case of Non-Bullwhip supply chain is given by
D
t
= Normal (, )
Here, Var (D
t
) = .

Since a comparison in cost is made between the two supply chains, the variance of customer demand in
both cases should be identical to ensure that the comparison is made in identical conditions. Assuming =
2 and = 0.5 in the case of non-stationary demand (Bullwhip supply chain case), the customer demand
variance in this case is obtained to be Var (D
t
) = 5.33. Hence, the Variance of demand in the case of Non-
Bullwhip supply chain is also set to be 5.33.

In the Non-Bullwhip case the order-up-to level in each period is obtained using the decision rules provided
in [11]. Using the decision rule for the case of probabilistic demand, with
Weekly demand = Normal (= 10, = 5.33),
Lead-time = 1 week, and
Fill rate P
2
= 95%,
Retailer's
Inventory
External Demand Reliable Supplier
Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

6
the order-up-to level is obtained to be 50 units. The amount to be ordered in the case of Non-Bullwhip
supply chain is obtained using a five period forecast of mean and standard deviation of demand. The order-
up-to level y
t
, for any period t, varies from one period to the other and is given by
y
t
=
t
+ z
t
.
The value of z determines the fill rate of the retailer. A high value of z leads to a higher order-up-to level y
t
,
and this leads to a higher fill rate. Thirty replications of simulation runs are conducted with different values
of z and different average fill rates are obtained. A fill rate of 95% is obtained with a z value of 0.3. Thus,
the cost values obtained with z = 0.3 are used for comparison with the cost obtained in the Non-Bullwhip
effect scenario.

The simulation models are built using the above parameters. Both models are run for a period of 120 weeks
with a warm up period of 40 weeks. Table 2 provides the average output values (over 30 replications) from
the Arena summary output.

Table 2. Cost impact of the bullwhip effect

Cost Per Item
Demanded
Holding Cost Per
Item Demanded
Shortage Cost Per
Item Demanded
Total Number of
Units Demanded
Fill Rate
Bullwhip Effect
Case
0.8357 0.5509 0.2848 982 95.63
Non-Bullwhip
Effect Case
0.7149 0.4373 0.2776 990 95.75

From Table 2 it can be seen that, to obtain the same fill rate, the costs incurred when the bullwhip effect
occurs are more than the costs incurred when the bullwhip effect does not occur. The supply chain system
considered in this study is an uncapacitated system with a retailer and a reliable external supplier. Metters
[7] states that the business profitability impact of bullwhip effect will be of concern when the supply chain
is capacitated. The above simulation study shows that, even in an uncapacitated system, the bullwhip effect
may lead to an increase in supply chain costs. Thus, it can be stated that business profitability may be
impacted even when the system is an uncapacitated system.

4. Effect of Lead-times on the Bullwhip Effect

The supply chain simulation model discussed in Section 2 will be used to analyze the effect of lead-times
on the propagation of demand variability and the increase in costs in supply chains. Simulation runs are
conducted at three levels of lead-times to study their impact.

Three levels of lead-times are chosen at 1, 2 and 3 weeks. The forecasting method uses a 5-period moving
average. Here, the term period refers to the review period. The increase in variability for a period that
consists of a review period plus lead-time is identified in this study. The simulation model for the case
when the lead-time is one week forecasts for a period equal to a review period (which is 4 weeks) plus one
week. Similarly, the simulation model for the case where the lead-time is 2 weeks forecasts the demand for
a period equal to one review period plus 2 weeks.

In any period, the mean and standard deviation of the next period's demand needs to be forecasted. Now,
the forecasting method will be discussed through an example case. Consider the case where the lead-time is
1 week. At the end of each review period, the retailer forecasts the demand for the next period based on the
demand of the past 5 periods. The order-up-to point, y
t
, varies from period to period and is given by the
following equation:
y
t
= (L+R)
t
+ z(L+R)
t

where,
t
is estimated by the five period moving average of demand and
t
is estimated by the five period
moving average of (D
t
-
t
). The value of z determines the fill rate at the retailer. A larger value of z will
provide a higher fill rate. The value of z is increased from 0 in increments of 0.1 and simulation replications
are performed at these z values to find the average fill rate for that value of z. This process is continued
Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

7
until the retailer fill rate reaches 95%. The statistics obtained in this case are recorded. At the end of review
period t - 1, the retailer places an order for an amount given by
Retailer Order = y
t
- Current Retailer Inventory.
The retailer receives this order from the manufacturer after a lead-time of one week. The manufacturer
forecasts the demand for the next period using a similar five period moving average. He places an order
with the supplier for an amount that is given by the forecast for the next period less the current
manufacturer inventory.

The Arena model is run for 30 replications for each of the three different lead-times. The length of each
replication is set at 120 weeks with a warm-up period of 40 weeks. The values of customer demand, retailer
order and manufacturer order are written to a data file and the variance of customer demand, retailer order
and manufacturer order are calculated. Also, the retailer fill rate, manufacturer fill rate, holding and
shortage costs at retailer and manufacturer, and cost per unit demand are calculated using the Expressions
module in Arena. The averages of these expressions over 30 replications are obtained. The average
variance values as well as cost per unit demand for each lead-time are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Effect of lead-time on the bullwhip effect

Lead-time Customer
Demand
Variance
Retailer Order
Variance
Manufacturer
Order Variance
Supply Chain
Fill Rate
Cost Per Item
Demanded
1 week 42.15 70.79 87.88 95.32 1.23
2 weeks 42.15 94.62 123.22 95.67 1.79
3 weeks 42.15 132.90 183.85 95.41 2.48

The same demand parameter values (d, D
0
and ) are used in all three cases, hence, the customer demand
variance is identical. The value of safety factor z used in the forecasting technique is identical in all three
cases. This factor determines the fill rate achieved at a stage in the supply chain. A higher value of z leads
to a higher order-up-to level at that stage and hence a higher fill rate. The simulation models are run with
different values of z and the simulation results given above are obtained when the z value resulted in a 95%
fill rate at the retailer. From Table 3 it can be seen that as the lead-time increases the variance of orders
received by upstream members of the supply chain increases. It has been proved by Lee et al. (1997) that
demand variability amplification exists, even when lead-time is zero. But demand variability is further
amplified by lead-times. Table 4 gives the demand variability amplification values as one moves upstream
in the supply chain for the case where the lead-times are 1, 2 and 3 weeks.

Table 4. Demand variability amplification due to lead-times

Lead-time Amplification of
demand variability by
Retailer
Amplification of
demand variability by
Manufacturer
1 Week 1.68 2.08
2 Weeks 2.24 2.92
3 weeks 3.15 4.36

These values are ratios of demand variability at the stage to the customer demand variability. The value
1.68 in Table 4 can be interpreted as the factor by which the customer demand variance is amplified due to
the retailers' forecasting for the case where lead-time is 1 week. Thus, from Table 4, the results of this
simulation study indicate that, as lead-times increase, demand variability amplification also increases.

From Table 3, it can be observed that the cost per item demanded values increase as the lead-time
increases. This may be explained by the fact that with increased lead-times and, hence, increased variability
up the supply chain, higher inventory has to be held in order to achieve the same retailer fill rate. Thus, the
cost of delivering the product to t he customer is impacted by lead-times.
Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

8

The results obtained using the simulation study clearly indicate that lead-times serve to magnify the
increase in variability due to demand forecasting and demonstrate the dramatic effects that lead-times can
have on the costs incurred in delivering the product to the customer. Thus, it is clear that lead-time
reduction can significantly reduce the bullwhip effect.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a simulation model was constructed to study the occurrence of bullwhip effect in a supply
chain and the effect of lead-times on the same. The increase in demand variability up a two-stage supply
chain was quantified in the supply chain considered through a simulation study. The next simulation study
in this paper shows that, even in an uncapacitated system, the bullwhip effect may lead to an increase in
supply chain costs. Finally, another simulation study was conducted to study the effect of lead-times on the
bullwhip effect and supply chain costs. It was observed that both demand variability and supply chain costs
may increase with an increase in replenishment lead-time.

The bullwhip effect has serious cost implications, such as, the manufacturer incurs excess raw material cost
due to unplanned purchases of supplies, additional manufacturing expenses are created by excess capacity,
inefficient utilization of overtime, excess warehousing expenses, and additional transportation costs. The
consequences of the bullwhip effect have been quantified in monetary terms in this chapter through a
simulation study. The study compares the costs incurred in a supply chain where bullwhip effect occurs
with the costs incurred in a supply chain where bullwhip effect does not occur. While a prior study [7]
shows that the bullwhip effect will have serious cost implications if the manufacturing systems are
considered to be capacitated, we show through simulation that even in uncapacitated systems, the bullwhip
effect may lead to higher supply chain costs.

As a practical matter, the bullwhip effect is a well-documented problem that affects many businesses in
serial supply chains across a variety of industries. Although it may seem an obvious inefficiency that is
easy to correct, discovery of the bullwhip effect does not automatically lead to its solution. Previous case
studies ([9] and [10]) demonstrate that despite significant effort, the bullwhip effect can persist. Elimination
of the bullwhip effect depends on altering well-established methods of doing business.

Solutions to the bullwhip effect oft en involve increasing the abilities of companies to coordinate activity
and cut lead-times-which is typically accomplished both by "soft" means such as training, as well as the
procurement of expensive MIS hardware such as point of sale and electronic data interchange systems. By
centralizing demand information, an attempt can be made to reduce the uncertainty in the supply chain.
Lee, Padmanabhan and Whang [5] point out that even if each stage uses the same demand data, they may
use different forecasting practices or ordering policies, both of which may contribute to the bullwhip effect.
Reducing the variability inherent in the customer demand process can also reduce the bullwhip effect. For
example, if the variability of the customer demand is reduced, then, even if the bullwhip effect occurs, the
variability of the demand seen by the manufacturer will be less. The simulation results presented in this
paper indicate that lead-times serve to magnify the increase in variability due to demand forecasting. Thus,
reducing the lead-times can significantly reduce the bullwhip effect. Finally, engaging in any of a number
of strategic partnerships can also reduce the bullwhip effect. These strategic partnerships change the way
information is shared and inventory is managed within the supply chain, and can therefore reduce or
eliminate the bullwhip effect. For example, in vendor managed inventory (VMI), the manufacturer
manages the inventory of his product at the retailer, determining for himself how much inventory to keep
on hand and how much to ship to the retail location every period. Therefore, the manufacturer does not rely
on the orders placed by the retailer, and thus avoids the bullwhip effect, entirely.

References

[1] Kurt Salmon Associates, 1993, Efficient Consumer Response: Enhancing Consumer Value in the
Grocery Industry. Kurt Salmon Associates, Atlanta, GA.
Proceedings of
The 4
th
Annual International Conference on
Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice
November 17-20,1999, San Antonio TX USA

9
[2] Fuller, J. B., O'Connor, J., and Rawlinson, R., 1993, "Tailored Logistics: The Next Advantage."
Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 87-98.
[3] Lee, H.L., and Billington, C., 1995, "The Evolution of Supply Chain Management Models and Practice
at Hewlett Packard." Interfaces, Vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 42-63.
[4] Blackburn, J. D., 1991, "The Quick Response Movement in the Apparel Industry: a Case Study in
Time Compressing Supply Chains," in Time Based Competition: The Next Battleground in American
Manufacturing, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
[5] Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V., and Whang, S., 1997, "Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The
Bullwhip Effect." Management Science, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 546-558.
[6] Lovejoy, W. S., 1990, "Myopic Policies for Some Inventory Models with Uncertain Demand
Distributions." Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 724-738.
[7] Metters, R., 1997, "Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains." Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 89-100.
[8] Chen, F., Drezner, Z., Ryan, J. K., and Simchi-Levi, D., 1998, "The Bullwhip effect: Managerial
Insights on the Impact of Forecasting and Information on Variability in a Supply Chain," in
Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management, Ganeshan, R., Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston.
[9] Hammond, J., 1990, "Quick Response in the Apparel Industry." Case N9-690-038, Harvard Business
School, Boston, MA.
[10] McKenney, J. L., and Clark, T. H., 1995, "Campbell Soup Co.: A Leader in Continuous Replenishment
Innovations." Case 9-195-124, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
[11] Manyem, P.V., 1999, "Supply Chain Analysis Through Simulation," Unpublished Masters Thesis,
State University of New York at Binghamton.