European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Invited Review

Retail store operations: Literature review and research directions

Shandong Mou a,∗, David J. Robb a, Nicole DeHoratius b
a
Graduate School of Management, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
b
Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, 5807 S. Woodlawn Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the digital age, retail store operations face a variety of novel challenges and complexities. We review
Received 31 August 2016 255 papers on retail store operations from 32 operations research, management science, retailing, and
Accepted 3 July 2017
general management journals over the period 2008–2016. We assess the current state of research within
Available online 8 July 2017
the context of retail store operations. By discussing the limitations present in these papers, we identify
Keywords: a number of research gaps and propose several opportunities for advancing retail expertise in the opera-
Retailing tions management community.
Store operations © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Retail store execution
Literature review
Research directions

1. Introduction research on retail operations. Retailing is also widely taught in

Retailing comprises a large portion of the economy, directly ac-
counting for nearly 6% of US GDP (U.S. Bureau of Economic Anal-
ysis, 2016), and about 4% of EU-28’s GDP (Eurostat, 2014). Given
its impact on the economy, the recent attention granted to retail-
ing by academics is not surprising. There are specific journals (e.g.,
Journal of Retailing) as well as recent special issues dedicated to
the topic of retailing. See, for example, International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics – Logistics Management in Fashion Retail Supply
Chains (2008), INFORMS Transactions on Education – Teaching Ser-
vice and Retail Operations Management (2010), Production and Op-
erations Management – Retail Operations (2013), and International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management – Retail Lo-
gistics (2016). Moreover, to advance academic research and im-
prove management practice in retailing contexts, a variety of in-
stitutions have established retailing research centres. This includes
the Miller Retail Center at the University of Florida, the Center for
Retailing Excellence at the University of Arkansas, the JC Penney
Center for Retail Excellence at Southern Methodist University, the
Retail Management Institute at Santa Clara University, and the Re-
tail Operations Research Lab at Eindhoven University of Technol-
ogy. Similarly, research groups such as the Consortium for Opera-
tional Excellence in Retailing (COER) and the EURO Working Group
on Retail Operations meet frequently, collaborate, and disseminate
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.mou@auckland.ac.nz (S. Mou), d.robb@auckland.ac.nz (D.J.
Robb), nicole.dehoratius@ChicagoBooth.edu (N. DeHoratius).
higher education (van Woensel, Fisher, & Fransoo, 2010).
According to a recent survey of more than 19,0 0 0 respondents,
physical retail stores remain the primary destination for shoppers
even as Internet sales escalate (PwC 2015). However, retail stores
are evolving into interaction hubs spanning online and traditional
channels. Not only are e-tailers starting to open offline stores but
bricks-and-mortar stores now provide online services and under-
take order fulfilment – leading to a variety of new challenges and
complexities in retail store operations. Furthermore, the execution
quality of retail store operations significantly impacts the effective-
ness of store plans and automation (Raman, DeHoratius, & Ton,
2001), along with financial performance (Fisher, 2009; Fisher, Kr-
ishnan, & Netessine, 2006).
Despite the importance of, and the extensive interest in, retail
store operations, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no sub-
stantial overview of existing research in this context. Several pa-
pers review retailing research in general but do not focus on retail
store operations. For example, Grewal and Levy (2007) summarise
papers published in the Journal of Retailing from 2002 to 2007.
Brown and Dant (2008) review methodologies and Brown and Dant
(2009) summarise theories in retailing research. Other reviews
lack an integrated perspective on retail store operations in that
they deal only with specific research domains, such as assortment
planning (Hübner & Kuhn, 2012; Mantrala et al., 2009), inven-
tory systems with deterioration (Bakker, Riezebos, & Teunter, 2012;
Karaesmen, Scheller–Wolf, & Deniz, 2011), or lost sales (Bijvank &
Vis, 2011). There are also several edited volumes, such as Agrawal
and Smith (2015) and Doukidis and Vrechopoulos (2005), com-
piling academic research on retail operations and supply chain

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.003
0377-2217/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
400 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
management. These books do not provide a systematic discussion
on retail store operations.
We provide an integrated overview of recent research on re-
tail store operations. Our contributions are two-fold. First, we sum-
marise recent research developments and identify potential re-
search avenues. Our goal is to apprise academics of the current
status of, and opportunities for, research on retail store opera-
tions. Second, we highlight the managerial relevance of recent re-
search developments to assist practitioners interested in adopting
key findings of existing academic work.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We delin-
eate, in Section 2, the scope of this review and the literature selec-
tion process. In Section 3, we introduce a framework for assessing
research on retail store operations. In Sections 4 and 5, we review
the current status of research on retail store operations. In Section
6, we discuss research gaps, indicate the limitations of the current
research, and identify potential research avenues. We present con-
clusions in Section 7.
2. Literature selection process
2.1. Scope
Our objective is to provide an instructive description, rather
than an exhaustive survey, of all topics related to retail store op-
erations. We confine our review to those tasks for which the retail
store manager typically has decision rights. These include decisions
pertaining to both operational execution and service improvement,
such as maintaining inventory integrity, labour staffing, and cus-
tomer satisfaction. The role of the retail store manager, which en-
tails supervising store-level operations, may be fulfilled by an em-
ployee, a franchisee, or an owner of the store.
2.2. Literature selection process
Research on retail store operations is broad and involves mul-
tiple disciplines, such as operations research (OR), marketing, or-
ganization science, and human resource management. We selected
the 41 journals with the highest 5-year impact factor among the
82 journals listed in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) operations research and management science (OR/MS)
category. We retained 19 OR/MS journals based on our understand-
ing of the relevance of the journal scope to retail operations. We
then added 10 prominent journals associated with retailing (e.g.,
Journal of Retailing) and three general management journals (Cali-
fornia Management Review, Harvard Business Review, and MIT Sloan
Management Review). All journals contained in the final journal list
(see Table 4 in Appendix A) have a 5-year impact factor of or
exceeding 1.386. We believe this journal set is broad enough to
evaluate the current status of research in retail store operations.
To identify specific papers, we focused on manuscripts published
from 2008 through 2016 that contained the keywords “retail∗ ” or
“store∗ ” in the Title, Abstracts, or Keywords using the ProQuest and
Scopus databases. Combined, these two databases cover all publi-
cations of the nominated journals.
After deleting duplications retrieved from the two online
databases, our first-round sample contained 2,761 papers. In the
second round, we carefully reviewed the abstracts of each pa-
per. For the period 2008–2016, we found 27 literature review pa-
pers. Six of them (Ailawadi, Beauchamp, Donthu, Gauri, & Shankar,
2009; Bijvank & Vis, 2011; Grewal et al., 2011; Hübner & Kuhn,
2012; Mantrala et al., 2009; Moussaoui, Williams, Hofer, Aloysius,
& Waller, 2016) relate to topics in our survey. However, none of the
six had more than one-third of their references overlapping with
the papers reviewed in the present research. We build on these
surveys, include them in our categorisation process, and highlight
them in bold in Table 5 in Appendix B. We refined the total num-
ber of papers to 760, by excluding non-research-centric papers
(e.g., talks, interviews, and editorials), literature review papers in
other fields, and those pertaining primarily to marketing-related
decisions beyond the scope of the store manager (e.g., brand, ad-
vertising, and consumer behaviour), revenue management (e.g.,
dynamic pricing), supply chain management (i.e., joint inventory
management, supply chain coordination, network design, and ven-
dor managed inventory), and other areas (such as manufacturing,
human resource management, retail banking, and urban logistics).
Note that we exclude publications studying consumer behaviour
from the marketing perspective but retain papers regarding con-
sumer behaviour as an input to OR models. Also, we consider pric-
ing research only as it relates to promotional activities and in-store
inventory management. In the final round, we read the full texts
of these 760 papers and excluded an additional 150 papers focus-
ing on non-store-based decisions (i.e., centralised replenishment to
retail stores, inventory routing, and warehouse operations), 117 pa-
pers in e-business/catalogue contexts, and 238 other studies per-
taining to topics such as facility location, supplier selection, sales
forecasting, inventory allocation, contract design, the OM-financial
interface (e.g., trade credit), and supply reliability (e.g., disruptions
and dual sourcing). Our final sample consists of 255 papers (see
Table 5).
2.3. Summary of the papers reviewed
Four journals, namely California Management Review, Interna-
tional Journal of Operations & Production Management, Mathematics
of Operations Research, and Transportation Science, had no papers
on retail store operations in the period 2008–2016. Fig. 1 shows
the distribution of papers reviewed from the remaining 28 jour-
nals. Among these 28 journals, International Journal of Production
Economics, European Journal of Operational Research, and Produc-
tion and Operations Management published the highest number of
papers on retail store operations, together comprising 42% of the
total number of papers reviewed. For each journal we also show
the number of papers we reviewed as a proportion of the jour-
nal’s total publications during the period 2008–2016. Journal of Re-
tailing, which published 14 papers relating to retail store opera-
tions in its 395 papers over the period 2008–2016, ranks first (at
3.5%), followed by Production and Operations Management (3.2%),
and Manufacturing & Service Operations Management (3%). The ab-
solute number of papers relating to retail store operations, as well
as the percentage of these papers, reflects the foci of each jour-
nal and might also assist academics in making journal submission
decisions.
We identify and present in Table 1 the authors contributing
more than three papers among the papers reviewed. Waller dom-
inates the list with eight publications, followed by Minner, van
Donselaar, and Williams. We also identify the references most
commonly cited by the papers reviewed. We list in Table 2 all pa-
pers/texts referred to more than 20 times. These twelve references,
accounting for 0.2% of the total number of references, were cited
a total of 344 times by the papers reviewed, representing 3.7% of
the total number of citations. All except DeHoratius and Raman
(2008) were published before the census period.
We also calculate the citation frequency of the papers in our
sample. We extracted the citation data from the Web of Science
on Monday 6 February 2017. As shown in Table 3, DeHoratius
and Raman (2008) rank first with 109 citations. Among the top
10 most-cited papers, two are literature review papers: Ailawadi
et al. (2009) and Mantrala et al. (2009). All the papers in Table 3
appeared before 2011.
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422 401

60 3.50% 4.0%
3.20%
50 3.00%
3.0%
40

30 2.0%

20
1.0%
10
49 33 25 14 13 13 12 11 11 10 9 8 7 7 6 5 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0.0%

# of articles reviewed % of articles reviewed in a journal's total publications

Fig. 1. Distribution of papers reviewed.

Table 1 Table 3
Authors by number of publications. Most cited papers in the review sample.

Author # of reviewed papers Article Times cited

Waller, Matthew A. 8 DeHoratius and Raman (2008) 109

Minner, Stefan 6 Cachon and Swinney (2009) 101
van Donselaar, Karel H. 6 Rekik et al. (2008) 82
Williams, Brent D. 6 Ailawadi et al. (2009) 74
Broekmeulen, Rob A. C. M. 5 Chang, Teng, and Goyal (2010) 59
Chuang, Howard Hao-Chun 5 Dong et al. (2009) 53
van Woensel, Tom 5 Kok et al. (2008) 50
Piramuthu, Selwyn 5 Rekik et al. (2009) 49
Cheng, T. C. E. 4 DeHoratius et al. (2008) 48
Fransoo, Jan C. 4 Mantrala et al. (2009) 47
Honhon, Dorothée 4
Rekik, Yacine 4
Zhou, Wei 4
Oliva, Rogelio 4 through a receiving area in the backroom before being stored on
shelves and ultimately leave the store through various checkout
Table 2
stations (Reiner, Teller, & Kotzab, 2013). Retail employees unload
References most commonly cited by the reviewed papers. and inspect products arriving from upstream distribution centres
and/or suppliers and carry out activities such as stocking and re-
Reference # of citations in reviewed papers
plenishing store shelves. Customers view and select products from
Corstjens and Doyle (1981) 33 shelves and exit the store after payment.
Petruzzi and Dada (1999) 32
Within the four walls of the store, we also consider the fol-
Smith and Agrawal (20 0 0) 32
Mahajan and van Ryzin (2001) 28 lowing aspects: entities, decisions, performance, and research themes.
Ryzin and Mahajan (1999) 27 Each aspect represents a unique perspective from which to view
Raman et al. (2001) 26 retail store operations. We utilise two of these perspectives – de-
Dreze, Hoch, and Purk (1994) 24
cisions and research themes – to categorise our review. We use
Bultez and Naert (1988) 24
Urban (1998) 23
the other two aspects – entities and performance – to help struc-
Borin, Farris, and Freeland (1994) 23 ture future research. Together, the four aspects provide a concep-
Kök and Fisher (2007) 23 tual framework for evaluating retail store operations.
DeHoratius and Raman (2008) 22
• Entities: We identify three entities critical to retail store opera-
tions: customers, employees, and products. Fig. 3 illustrates some
3. A framework for retail store operations key attributes of each entity and provides indicative relation-
ships among them. For example, common interactions between
The existing literature on retail store operations can be viewed customers and products are purchasing, substituting, and re-
from the perspective of the physical layout of a retail store, as turning. Some product attributes, such as perishability and pack
shown in Fig. 2. Fisher (2004) notes that in most cases the retail size, may influence customer behaviour. Also, employees may
store is comprised of (1) a customer-facing shop floor and (2) an provide advice to customers seeking information on the loca-
operationally-focused backroom area. Products flow into the store tion, availability, or use of a product. In addition, customer at-
402 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
Backroom
Receiving area
Fig. 2. A simplified layout of a retail store.
Fig. 3. Entities in retail store operations.
tributes such as satisfaction and loyalty may be influenced both
by products and employees.
• Decisions: Based on the papers reviewed, we distinguish seven
operational decisions pertinent to store management: demand
forecasting, in-store logistics, inventory management, assortment
and display, product promotion, checkout operations, and em-
ployee management. Six decisions relate to in-store product
flow, while the seventh concerns the management of store as-
sociates. We review the current status of research for each de-
cision in Section 4.
• Performance: The performance of a retail store can, and we be-
lieve should, be assessed from multiple perspectives. The finan-
cial perspective primarily relates to bottom-line improvement.
The service perspective emphasises improvement on operational
criteria, such as on-shelf availability and average queue length.
Another two perspectives concern the impacts of retail store
operations decisions on employees and customers (e.g., job sat-
isfaction, customer loyalty, etc.). Researchers and practitioners
must consider both short- and long-term impacts of retail store
operations on these four performance perspectives. We evalu-
ate the extent to which the papers reviewed utilise these four
store operations performance perspectives in Section 6.1.
• Research themes: The motivation for proposing research themes
is to provide a unique lens connecting multiple decisions, enti-
ties, and performance aspects. This benefits readers seeking to
transition their focus from one area of retail store operations
to another. We identify six research themes linking the de-
cisions undertaken within the store with entities and perfor-
mance. These themes are (1) uncertainty relating to customers,
products, and employees, (2) market competition, highlighting
the impacts of competing with other retailers, (3) channel inte-
gration, investigating how omni-channel retailing impacts store
operations, (4) perishability, focusing on the influence of prod-
Shop floor
Exit
Checkout
Shelf Entry
uct attributes on retail store operations, (5) customer–employee
interaction, relating to the importance of store associates, and
(6) on-shelf availability (OSA), reflecting the importance of in-
ventory on shelves. We use these six research themes to further
explain the current state of research in Section 5.
We categorise the 255 papers based on both retail store op-
erations decisions and research themes, in Sections 4 and 5, re-
spectively. All of the 255 papers reviewed, including the six survey
papers highlighted in bold, appear in Table 5. Due to page length
limitations, we only refer to 189 papers in the text. We explicitly
discuss 73 out of the 189 papers in detail and categorise 171 out of
the 189 papers within a research topic. Apart from the 189 papers
referred to in the text, the rest of the 255 papers (66) only appear
in Table 5 as we found their content to be (1) superseded by other
works, (2) reviewed by other recent surveys discussed herein, (3)
focused solely on theoretical inventory models that do not pertain
to other research topics, and/or (4) applicable only to general as-
sortment and/or shelf allocation problems.
4. Retail store operations decisions
In this section, we categorise the reviewed papers according to
the aforementioned seven decisions pertaining to store operations.
Fig. 4 shows the distribution of papers by decision category over
the census period. We observe that research on inventory manage-
ment decisions dominates, followed by research addressing deci-
sions in assortment and display, product promotion, in-store logistics,
demand forecasting, employee management, and checkout operations.
Few papers cover more than one decision area – the average num-
ber of decision areas per paper is 1.1.
In what follows, we review the current state of research within
each decision category. We divide each decision category into sev-
eral subcategories and discuss the publications associated with
those topics. Where there is a recent survey specific to a decision
category or subcategory within store operations, we identify the
relevant survey and offer updates by noting the recent papers that
complement the existing review. Note that our categorisation pro-
cess does not imply store operations decisions are, or should be,
isolated from other decisions. Instead, we emphasise (in Section
5) the importance of managing a retail store as an integrated
system.
4.1. Demand forecasting
Demand estimation is fundamental for retail store operations.
It is an essential input to the management of inventory and
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
50
40
30
20
10
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fig. 4. Count of papers reviewed by store operations decisions and year.
labour. Various factors, including promotions, seasonality, holi-
days, and customer preferences, may influence customer demand
(Ramanathan & Muyldermans, 2010). Some product attributes,
such as perishability, pack sizes, and colours, may also influence
demand, exacerbating the difficulties of estimating accurate cus-
tomer demand.
In most retail stores, unsatisfied customer demand is lost and
not observed when inventory runs out. Thus, Point-of-Sales (POS)
data are censored by available inventory, and ignoring this effect
understates actual customer demand (Bensoussan, Çakanyildirim,
Li, & Sethi, 2016; Calli & Weverbergh, 2009; Sachs & Minner, 2014).
Incorporating the censoring effect, e.g., through sales trend anal-
ysis based on historical sales data, provides retailers more accu-
rate information to estimate actual customer demand and under-
stand product sales patterns via a dynamic learning process (Chen,
2010). Jain, Rudi, and Wang (2015) model demand estimation in a
Bayesian fashion, emphasising the importance of knowing both the
stock-out event (whether a stock-out occurs or not) and the timing
of sales occurrences until an out-of-stock (OOS). They find that in
situations with high demand uncertainty and small unit margins,
inventory management using the timing of a stock-out can outper-
form using only data about the stock-out event.
By assuming a sales record is a convolution of both cus-
tomer preferences and product availability, Bruno and Vilcassim
(2008) extend the traditional discrete-choice-based demand esti-
mation methods that only consider customer preferences for dif-
ferent products to include both customer preferences for key prod-
ucts as well as the availability of the product at the time of the
customer’s shopping trip. They simulate potential assortments con-
sumers may face in a given shopping trip, and find that failing to
consider the availability of products (especially those that are not
best-sellers) can lead to underestimation of demand parameters.
Data censoring is just one of the factors found to impact the
accuracy of demand estimation. Lee and Allenby (2014) show that
certain product characteristics may also influence demand esti-
mates. Specifically, they analyse both simulated and actual scan-
ner data, and find that failing to consider the impact of prede-
termined package size on demand can impair parameter estima-
tion in the dynamic demand information updating process. In ad-
dition to pack size, researchers have also identified seasonality as
a key input to demand estimation. Ehrenthal, Honhon, and van
Woensel (2014), for example, find that simply distinguishing week-
403
Checkout operations
Employee management
In-store logistics
Demand forecasting
Product promotion
Assortment and display
Inventory management
day from weekend sales significantly reduces inventory holding,
handling, and stock-out costs, with no considerable increase in
the complexity of the retailer’s automated store ordering (ASO)
system.
4.2. In-store logistics
Retail logistics is a widely studied area. Agatz, Fleischmann,
and van Nunen (2008) provide a systematic review of existing
B2C distribution models. We extend their review by evaluating re-
cent store-centric research. As such, our focus is on in-store logis-
tics (e.g., backroom storage, shelf replenishment) as well as omni-
channel fulfilment practices.
4.2.1. The use of backroom storage
In practice, as shown in Fig. 2, store personnel receive and
may inspect products delivered from internal distribution centres
and/or external suppliers in the receiving area. At this point, deliv-
eries that do not meet the order specifications, such as damaged
or incorrect inventory, may be returned (Reiner et al., 2013). Ac-
cepted products may be transferred to the backroom for tempo-
rary storage or directly to the shelves. In particular, items deliv-
ered to the retail store that cannot immediately fit in dedicated
retail shelves are typically stocked in a backroom and replenished
to retail shelves when shelf inventory reaches a threshold or has
run out. Multiple factors drive the need for a backroom. It may
be that the replenishment order size does not fit within the al-
located retail shelf space and thus any items that do not fit on
the shelf require temporary storage – so the backroom acts effec-
tively as a buffer between store delivery and limited retail shelf
space.
While the use of a backroom is common in retail stores, it
is rarely discussed in the literature. Eroglu, Williams, and Waller
(2013) are the first to quantify the backroom effect (driven by a
misalignment of case pack size, shelf space, and reorder point).
They find ignoring the existence of a backroom can result in higher
reorder levels and total costs (Eroglu et al., 2013). Atan and Erkip
(2015), correcting an error in Eroglu et al. (2013), derive the op-
timal reorder level based on the exact expression of the expected
cost function.
404 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
4.2.2. Shelf replenishment
Shelf replenishment refers to the activities undertaken by store
employees to move items from the backroom to retail shelves.
A regular shelf replenishment process consists of seven sub-
activities: grabbing/opening case packs, searching for the assigned
shelf location, walking to the assigned shelf location, preparing the
shelf for stacking the new items, filling new inventory on the shelves,
filling the old inventory back on the shelves (in the event that shelf
inventory is organised in a First Expired, First Out (FEFO) man-
ner), and disposing waste packages (Curşeu, van Woensel, Fransoo,
van Donselaar, & Broekmeulen, 2009). The operational costs asso-
ciated with delivering items from the backroom to retail shelves
can be substantial, accounting for between 38% and 48% of op-
erational logistics costs in a retail supply chain (Hübner & Kuhn,
2012). Moreover, more than 40% of the store employee working
hours are spent performing in-store logistics tasks (Reiner et al.,
2013). There exists limited research on in-store logistics tasks. Al-
though researchers address inventory-related costs (e.g., holding)
in great detail, scholars have only begun to explore all facets of in-
store handling costs. van Zelst, van Donselaar, van Woensel, Broek-
meulen, and Fransoo (2009) and Curşeu et al. (2009), for example,
were the first to explicitly analyse the shelf replenishment process
and estimate handling costs. Their field study reveals stacking new
products comprises nearly half of the entire shelf replenishment
process time (44%), followed by grabbing and unpacking case packs
(21%). The most important drivers for stacking efficiency are case
pack size, the number of case packs stacked simultaneously, the
filling regime that defines how products are stocked on shelves,
and the working pace of store clerks.
Other researchers link shelf replenishment activities to a reduc-
tion in OOS and thus an improvement in customer satisfaction and
store loyalty (Trautrims, Grant, Fernie, & Harrison, 2009; Waller,
Williams, Tangari, & Burton, 2010). Reiner et al. (2013), for ex-
ample, demonstrate how streamlining in-store logistics processes
leads to substantial improvements in store performance (including
inventory turnover, the frequency of OOS, and waste rates). This is
in line with Fisher (2004), who suggests applying just-in-time (JIT)
principles at the retail store level.
More recently, scholars have begun to analyse the impact
of technologies such as Radio Frequency Identification Devices
(RFID) and beacon technologies on shelf replenishment perfor-
mance (Condea, Thiesse, & Fleisch, 2012). Such technologies offer
real-time tracking of items. The objective is to replace the tradi-
tional shelf auditing practices currently in use by retailers (e.g., a
“zero-balance walk” (Fisher & Raman, 2010) whereby store em-
ployees periodically check on-shelf inventory levels) with tech-
nologies that supposedly offer more accurate, continuous monitor-
ing of on-shelf availability without extensive manual interventions.
Thiesse and Buckel (2015) compare the traditional shelf replen-
ishment process (with periodic inspections) with two RFID-based
policies using item-level and case-level RFID tags, respectively. The
two RFID-based policies have the potential to increase process ef-
ficiency (including both total costs and service levels), relying on
RFID tag costs and read rates. Specifically, the item-level RFID-
based policy is significantly more robust with respect to imperfect
RFID read rates than the case-level counterpart. However, despite
RFID visualising flow within a retail store, retailers need to con-
sider the imperfect detection rate (Condea et al., 2012; Metzger,
Thiesse, Gershwin, & Fleisch, 2013) and the cost of obtaining the
entire visibility of all products from tagging both cheap and ex-
pensive items (Piramuthu, Wochner, & Grunow, 2014).
4.2.3. New in-store logistics operations in omni-channel retailing
The emergence of the omni-channel retailing environment in
which customers shop through a variety of online and offline chan-
nels is encouraging retailers to satisfy customers with more ef-
ficient delivery of both information and physical products (Bell,
Gallino, & Moreno, 2014). Recently, picking up online orders from
neighbouring stores (or specific pickup points such as car parks
and petrol stations) has become an alternative to traditional home
delivery (Mahar, Salzarulo, & Wright, 2012; Teixeira & Gupta,
2015). Store personnel pick and pack these online orders (or they
are shipped from the distribution centre or another branch to
the store) for consumer pickup. This click-and-collect mode (also
termed Buy Online Pick up in Store (BOPS)) generally enables cus-
tomers to avoid lengthy shipment times compared with traditional
home delivery, but it has complicated traditional store operations.
In spite of the growing discussions about click-and-collect in
the practitioner community, limited research exists on this topic.
Mahar et al. (2012) develop algorithms that dynamically specify a
subset of stores available for customer pickup upon online check-
out. This dynamic algorithm outperforms the common practice of
allowing customers to pick up at any store with inventory. The per-
centage of pickup sales and customer sensitivity to travel moderate
the advantage of this dynamic algorithm. Chen, Chen, Parlar, and
Xiao (2011) consider a scenario in which two stores, apart from
serving in-store customers, act as drop-shippers fulfilling orders
for an online retailer. The authors propose heuristics to help retail
stores decide on the optimal inventory policy as well as whether to
accept order fulfilment requests from the online retailer. Given the
growth in omni-channel retailing, more work is needed to under-
stand how retail stores should adapt to the needs of omni-channel
customers in general and the impact of click-and-collect on store
operations in particular.
4.3. Inventory management
Inventory management has been a key focus of the OR commu-
nity. In what follows, we only discuss topics specific to retail store
operations. For a detailed overview of papers reviewed in this cat-
egory, please refer to Table 5 in Appendix B.
4.3.1. Lost sales
Assuring the availability of products is critical to retail store op-
erations. However, OOS is a frequently reported problem in retail-
ing. According to Gruen, Corsten, and Bharadwaj (2002), the world-
wide average OOS rate in grocery stores is 8.2%, varying from a
low of 7.9% in the USA to 8.6% in Europe. Store operations, includ-
ing poor store ordering and forecasting (47%) and phantom stock-
outs (25%) – items physically present in the store, but incorrectly
shelved or in storage areas where customers cannot find or pur-
chase them (Ton & Raman, 2010) – account for a combined 72% of
OOS, with the remainder stemming from upstream causes (Gruen
et al., 2002).
Although classic inventory models typically assume excess de-
mand is backlogged (Bijvank & Vis, 2011), this is not realistic
in many retail environments. Only 15% of customers facing an
OOS will buy later at the same store, while the demand from
the remaining customers will be either lost (40%) or switched
to another product at that purchase visit (45%) (Gruen et al.,
2002). We refer readers to Bijvank and Vis (2011) for a re-
cent review of models with lost sales. Among our sampled pa-
pers, approximately two thirds (100 out of 154) in the category
of inventory management consider lost sales or partial lost sales
situations. Musalem, Olivares, Bradlow, Terwiesch, and Corsten
(2010) propose a Bayesian model to estimate the effect of OOS
and use a data augmentation approach to incorporate incomplete
data on product availability when estimating the OOS time. They
then discuss two application cases of their model – estimating
costs of OOS and demand in the shampoo product category of
Spanish supermarkets. OOS also impairs customers’ store loyalty.
Che, Chen, and Chen (2012), using a dataset with information on
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
OOS incidents over time, find the preference of customers with
higher purchase frequency to be attenuated if the product is fre-
quently OOS.
It is notably more difficult to solve inventory problems with
lost sales than with backorders (Bijvank & Vis, 2011). Several re-
searchers focus on proposing parameter boundaries for inventory
systems with lost sales. Chen (2010) develops a set of upper and
lower bounds for managing non-perishable products with unob-
served lost sales and a demand distribution having an unknown
parameter estimated using Bayesian updating. Bijvank and Vis
(2012) analyse upper and lower boundaries of order-up-to levels in
a periodic review inventory system subject to a service level con-
straint.
4.3.2. Inventory record inaccuracy
Inventory record inaccuracy (IRI), or the discrepancy between
system records and actual inventory levels, is a topic closely
related to the research on lost sales. DeHoratius and Raman
(2008) find inaccuracies in 65% of the inventory records of a sin-
gle retailer. While the magnitude of these discrepancies differs
across stores and product categories, the average magnitude of IRI
amounts to approximately 35% of the average number of units
per stock keeping unit (SKU). Discrepancies arise from a variety of
sources including (1) shrinkage due to theft and obsolescence (Fan,
Chang, Gu, Yi, & Deng, 2014; Kok, van Donselaar, & van Woensel,
2008; Rekik, Sahin, & Dallery, 2009; Rekik & Sahin, 2012; Wang,
Fang, Chen, & Li, 2016), (2) product misplacement which may lead
to phantom stockouts (Rekik, Sahin, & Dallery, 2008; Ton & Ra-
man, 2010; Wang et al., 2016), (3) delivery errors from suppliers,
and (4) inaccurate system inputs, such as double scanning a prod-
uct at checkouts (Nachtmann, Waller, & Rieske, 2010). In addition,
“ticket-switching”, where a customer swaps two identifiers/tags in
order to obtain a higher-priced item for a lower price, also con-
tributes to IRI (Zhou & Piramuthu, 2013; Zhou & Piramuthu, 2015;
Zhou & Piramuthu, 2015).
Ignoring IRI may result in poor store performance (DeHoratius
& Raman, 2008; Raman et al., 2001). DeHoratius and Raman
(2008) estimate the potential lost revenue due to IRI at the re-
tailer in their study to be more than 1% of its North American retail
sales and more than 3% of its gross profit. IRI may also impair de-
mand estimation accuracy and the effectiveness of inventory plan-
ning (Mersereau, 2015). If the system record is higher than the re-
order point and the actual stock is less than the reorder point, “in-
ventory freezing” may occur – in which no replenishment orders
will be triggered. Furthermore, IRI ties up human resources with
performing inventory counts or walk-by shelf inspections, result-
ing in higher work pressure and labour turnover rates (Chuang &
Oliva, 2015; Chuang & Oliva, 2016).
Cycle counting is an approach commonly used by retailers to
mitigate IRI. DeHoratius, Mersereau, and Schrage (2008) propose a
probability distribution to represent uncertain physical inventory
levels and perform Bayesian updating of this distribution. They
demonstrate, through simulation, that replenishment and inven-
tory audit policies based on this distribution significantly outper-
form traditional approaches such as the “zero-balance walk” au-
dit policy. Chuang (2015) explicitly models potential human errors
(including both imperfectly correcting inaccurate inventory records
and mistakenly modifying correct inventory records) in inspection
processes. The author further highlights that failing to consider a
decision maker’s risk preferences will result in suboptimal inspec-
tion decisions.
RFID is another way in which retailers seek to deal effec-
tively with IRI. Building on newsvendor models, several researchers
have analysed the benefits of deploying RFID (e.g., (Fan et al.,
2014; Khader et al., 2014; Kok et al., 2008)). Based on two field
405
experiments in dozens of retail stores, Hardgrave, Aloysius, and
Goyal (2013) show that RFID-enabled visibility leads to a signifi-
cant decrease in IRI and find that such effectiveness varies with
product characteristics, ranging from no statistically significant
improvement to 81%.
4.3.3. Inventory-dependent demand
Inventory tends to serve dual roles in store operations manage-
ment. First, providing sufficient stock is important for retailers to
match customer demand. Second, inventory has a non-negligible
impact on customer demand. Scholars have shown that high on-
hand inventory quantities can stimulate demand (billboard effect),
as can low on-hand inventory quantities (scarcity effect).
Numerous scholars consider the billboard effect of inventory on
customer demand when managing store inventory (Amit, Mehta,
& Tripathi, 2015; Stavrulaki, 2011; Yang, 2014). Balakrishnan, Pang-
burn, and Stavrulaki (2008) characterise the optimal stocking pol-
icy considering both stochastic demand and the billboard effect
of inventory. Comparing a demand-driven policy maximising the
billboard effect (from the point of view of a marketing manager)
and a newsvendor model merely emphasising stochastic demand
(from the perspective of an inventory manager), the authors high-
light the importance of considering both the influence of demand
stochasticity and inventory levels. In addition, due to the use of a
backroom, not all in-store products are shown to customers. Thus,
the billboard effect stems only from displayed inventory available
to customers, rather than the entire in-store inventory (Abbott &
Palekar, 2008). In this case, a store manager needs to balance the
gain from displayed products and the cost due to in-store deliv-
eries when dealing with shelf space dependent demand (Goyal &
Chang, 2009; Piramuthu & Zhou, 2013).
4.3.4. Joint inventory and pricing
Pricing, as well as inventory planning, plays an important role
in driving store sales and profitability. A robust research stream ex-
ists evaluating the joint optimisation of inventory and pricing de-
cisions (Abad, 2014; Anily & Hassin, 2013; Arcelus, Gor, & Srini-
vasan, 2012; Arcelus et al., 2012; Chintapalli, 2015; Dong, Kouvelis,
& Tian, 2009; Ghoniem & Maddah, 2015; Hall, Kopalle, & Krishna,
2010; Hua, Wang, & Cheng, 2012; Hua et al., 2012; Huang, Hsu, &
Ho, 2014; Karakul, 2008; Li, Yu, & Wu, 2016; Li et al., 2016; Lim,
2013; Liu, Zhang, & Tang, 2015; Lu, Song, & Yang, 2016; Maihami
& Karimi, 2014; Murray, Gosavi, & Talukdar, 2012; Pan, Lai, Liang,
& Leung, 2009; Sainathan, 2013; Serel, 2009; Shah, Soni, & Pa-
tel, 2013; Sharma & Banerjee, 2013; Song, Ray, & Boyaci, 2009;
Transchel and Minner, 2009; Wu, Liu, & Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al.,
2015). Chung, Flynn, and Zhu (2009), for instance, extend the clas-
sic newsvendor model by allowing retailers to make an in-season
price adjustment based on a more precise understanding of re-
maining demand. They propose a simple procedure to compute
optimal order quantities and price adjustment policies. Numerical
experiments show that in-season price adjustments significantly
improve the expected profit derived in the classic newsvendor
model.
In some circumstances, due to deterioration, products with dif-
ferent remaining shelf times have different degrees of attractive-
ness to customers. Retailers need to make joint pricing and inven-
tory decisions for both new and old stock (Li et al., 2016; Li et al.,
2016). Sainathan (2013), extending a special case where new and
old stocks are not sold simultaneously (Li, Cheang, & Lim, 2012),
considers a general situation where old and new inventory may
be sold simultaneously. Such a situation may lead to vertical de-
mand substitution. The author notes that raising the price of new
inventory to drive customers to old products is not always bene-
ficial to total revenue. In some cases where ordering decisions for
406 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
new products and pricing decisions for both new and old prod-
ucts are constant over an infinite horizon, the benefit obtained
from selling the old product increases with a higher procurement
cost, a higher quality of the new product, and higher demand
volatility.
4.3.5. Ordering behaviour
Automated inventory replenishment systems have been utilised
in retail stores for decades. van Donselaar, Gaur, van Woensel,
Broekmeulen, and Fransoo (2010) study whether store managers
significantly and consistently change recommendations using an
ASO system, and the drivers of these behaviours. Using data from
a supermarket chain in Europe, they find store managers consis-
tently shift a portion of recommended peak-day order quantities to
recommended orders on nonpeak days that are prior to the peak
day. Regression results indicate that case pack size relative to aver-
age demand per item, net shelf space, product variety, and season-
ality error drive this behaviour. They conclude that existing ASO
systems greatly overlook store managers’ seeking to (1) balance
in-store workload among peak and nonpeak days and (2) improve
product availability. Store managers may also face demand shock,
defined as sudden changes in product demand (O’Neil, Zhao, Sun,
& Wei, 2016). Tokar, Aloysius, Williams, and Waller (2014) conduct
three experiments to investigate the over-ordering decision bias
present when a store manager faces an anticipated demand shock.
These results show that it is more difficult for decision makers to
deal with uncertainty in the timing than the magnitude of a de-
mand shock. In addition, decision biases, such as the framing effect
where individuals react to choices differently depending on how
the choice is presented, may also impact store managers’ ordering
decisions (Tokar, Aloysius, Waller, & Hawkins, 2016).
4.4. Assortment and display
Offering an appropriate variety of products given limited shelf
space is a key concern for attracting and retaining customers. The
two main research questions in this category concern (1) assort-
ment decisions determining which set of products to stock and
(2) shelf allocation problems dealing with product arrangement
on shelves. Several reviews appeared in the period 2008–2016.
In 2009, Mantrala et al. (2009) propose a framework for assort-
ment planning, explain factors complicating product assortment
planning decisions, and introduce commercial applications. Pentico
(2008) and Kök, Fisher, and Vaidyanathan (2015) review various
mathematical models of customer demand and assortment plan-
ning in 2008 and 2015. Hübner and Kuhn (2012) summarise papers
and commercial software relating to assortment and shelf alloca-
tion decisions in 2012. In this section, we only discuss literature
subsequent to Hübner and Kuhn (2012). There is partial overlap
with the references in Kök et al. (2015), but their survey focuses on
several recent assortment studies to complement their discussion
on the assortment modelling process, while our research organises
and reviews these references more broadly.
4.4.1. Assortment problems
A common principle in retailing is to provide the right product
at the right place to the right customer at the right time. Retail-
ers offer an appropriate variety of products in order to attract con-
sumers and respond to competition (Besbes & Sauré, 2016; Ren,
Hu, Hu, & Hausman, 2011). Hamilton and Richards (2009) anal-
yse the equilibrium among assortment depth (as measured by the
number of variants within a category), product differentiation, and
store differentiation. They find that within a category comprised of
relatively non-differentiated variants, category sales increase with
assortment depth. There is, however, a negative relationship be-
tween sales and assortment depth when product variants are more
differentiated in a category. Store differentiation also greatly in-
fluences the relationship among category sales, assortment depth,
and product differentiation through its impact on customer prefer-
ences.
Modelling demand, including consumer choice and substitu-
tion patterns, constitutes the foundation of assortment planning
(Blanchet, Gallego, & Goyal, 2016). Researchers commonly adopt
exogenous demand models and utility-based customer choice
models such as the multinomial logit (MNL) and locational choice
models (see Kök et al. (2015) for detailed modelling steps). Sub-
stitution patterns are also important in determining customer be-
haviour when a preferred choice is unavailable. Honhon, Jon-
nalagedda, and Pan (2012) discuss four ranking-based consumer
substitution structures: (1) one-way substitution for vertically dif-
ferentiated products (each product characterised by a quality level),
(2) a one-dimensional locational choice model for horizontally dif-
ferentiated products (products differentiated on a single attribute),
(3) out-tree preferences, in which customers have the same prefer-
ence list consisting of multiple attributes, but differ in the choice
of substituted products with fewer attributes, and (4) in-tree pref-
erences, in which customers have different preference lists com-
prised of multiple attributes, but one attribute is identical among
their preference lists. The authors then propose optimal algorithms
for assortment selection under these four substitution structures.
Pan and Honhon (2012) study the assortment selection problem for
vertically differentiated products. They assume customers differ in
their individual evaluation of quality, and their utility functions in-
crease in quality and individual evaluation of quality, and decrease
in price. They find that the optimal assortment may include prod-
ucts with a lower quality and margin when retailers cannot alter
prices – a counter-intuitive observation.
Because of the uncertainty that exists in most retailing envi-
ronments, retailers need to discern customer purchase behaviour
while simultaneously making assortment decisions, balancing the
trade-off between collecting information on purchase behaviour
(exploration) and maximising revenue (exploitation) (Jacko, 2016;
Sauré & Zeevi, 2013). Offering different assortments in different
periods is one approach for observing and learning customer pur-
chase behaviour. Rusmevichientong, Shen, and Shmoys (2010) con-
sider both static and dynamic assortment decisions using an
MNL model subject to a capacity constraint. The authors pro-
pose an adaptive policy exploring unknown parameters from past
data and simultaneously optimising the profit for dynamic assort-
ment decisions. Caro, Martínez-de-albéniz, and Rusmevichientong
(2014) analyse a multi-period assortment packing problem, deter-
mining, in advance of a selling season, the release time for a set
of short-lived products and balancing profit margins, preference
weights, and product life cycles. They find that when the collec-
tion of short-lived products has the same profit margins and their
attractiveness functions decay exponentially, retailers should in-
troduce products with slower decay earlier to maximise the to-
tal selling season profit. In addition to dynamic assortment plan-
ning in different periods, pricing is another approach for learning
about customer demand while making assortment plans. Talebian,
Boland, and Savelsbergh (2014) propose a stochastic dynamic pro-
gramming model for jointly optimising assortment and dynamic
pricing decisions, based on demand learning at the same time
rather than employing an upfront demand estimation from histori-
cal information. Their analysis shows that it is profitable to reduce
the price in the early sales season to accelerate demand learning
based on Bayesian updates.
In some circumstances customers buy products based on un-
derlying attributes (e.g., size, flavour, colour), rather than a di-
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
rect preference for a particular product in a category (Fisher
& Vaidyanathan, 2012). Based on this observation, Fisher and
Vaidyanathan (2014) model consumer preferences as a response
to a group of attributes for products within a category. They es-
timate demand and substitution probabilities at the attribute level
based on sales history using maximum likelihood estimation. They
then propose heuristics and evaluate the impact of their approach
on tyres and automotive appearance chemicals. Following imple-
mentation, sales of these two products increased 5.8% and 3.6%, re-
spectively. Rooderkerk, van Heerde, and Bijmolt (2013) also use an
attribute-based approach capturing preferences, substitution pat-
terns, and cross-marketing mix effects (e.g., price, shelf space,
and promotional activities). Using a large neighbourhood search
heuristic, they optimise the assortment in a liquid laundry de-
tergent category, expected to improve profits by 37.3%. Lee, Gaur,
Muthulingam, and Swisher (2016), using data for 26,749 book ti-
tles from 2007 to 2011 and a simulation experiment calibrated on
real data, show that such attribute-based choice modelling practice
can estimate demand with less than 1% absolute percentage error,
even when 89% of the textbooks get stocked out.
Decoupling product assortment from other store operations de-
cisions, such as supplier selection, may result in inefficient assort-
ment performance (Yücel, Karaesmen, Salman, & Türkay, 2009).
Ghoniem and Maddah (2015) jointly optimise inventory, assort-
ment, and pricing decisions with multiple selling periods and cus-
tomer segmentation. They assume demand is driven by exogenous
consumer reservation prices and endogenous assortment and price
decisions, and then model the problem as a mixed-integer nonlin-
ear program. They find that sub-optimal inventory policies signifi-
cantly decrease store profitability. Alptekinoglu and Grasas (2014),
taking product returns into account, find the optimal assortment
differs from the common practice of stocking only the most popu-
lar products. When the refund amount is sufficiently low, and re-
turn policies are relatively strict, the optimal assortment comprises
a mix of the most popular and most eccentric products, defined as
those with low attractiveness. Anecdotal evidence shows that ec-
centric products tend to have a higher return likelihood. They em-
phasise that retailers should take return policies into account when
making assortment decisions.
4.4.2. General shelf allocation problems
As discussed earlier, shelf space in retail stores, unlike virtual
display in online stores, is limited. It is important for physical
stores to maximise the utilisation of limited shelf space, account-
ing for both marketing effects and operations workload (Hübner &
Kuhn, 2012).
The main variables when making shelf allocation decisions are
(1) space elasticity – the ratio of additional sales to additional
space and (2) cross-space elasticity – the additional sales due
to additional space of other items (Zhao, Zhou, & Wahab, 2016).
Eisend (2014) presents a meta-analysis of 1,268 estimates of shelf
space elasticity in the period 1960–2012. The average magnitude of
these estimates is 0.17, varying across product categories. Products
relating to impulse buying tend to have higher shelf space elastic-
ity.
Shelf space allocation is also associated with in-store logistics.
Allocated display space, together with case pack quantity, directly
influences the efficiency of backroom-to-shelf operations and the
probability of shelf stock-outs (Eroglu, Williams, & Waller, 2011).
Therefore, in addition to space and cross-space elasticities, it is im-
portant to consider costs relating to ordering, shelf holding space,
and shelf replenishment (Irion, Lu, Al-Khayyal, & Tsao, 2012). Prod-
uct characteristics, such as the stimulation effect (Amit et al., 2015;
Baron, Berman, & Perry, 2011) and freshness (Piramuthu & Zhou,
2013), are also essential to shelf allocation decisions.
407
4.4.3. Planogram-based shelf allocation
The traditional tool employed to manage shelf-space is a
planogram, visualising how products are located and displayed on
shelves. In practice, effectively managing aisle and display place-
ment, in which retailers decide distances between space allocated
for different products in aisles and displays, is important to store
profitability (Bezawada, Balachander, Kannan, & Shankar, 2009;
Flamand, Ghoniem, & Maddah, 2016; van Nierop, Fok, & Franses,
2008). Tsai and Huang (2015) propose a data mining approach to
explore such effectiveness. They use historical sales records to un-
derstand customer purchasing behaviour. RFID systems deployed
around shelves and aisles track customer movement. They ex-
plore both product association rules and customer location prefer-
ences, using customer purchase and moving behaviours. They im-
plement their model at a supermarket and validate that the pro-
posed method is feasible and helpful for store managers.
Unlike general shelf-space allocation models that consider only
the width of products, planogram-based shelf allocation models
consider three dimensions of rectangular items and stack pat-
terns. Murray, Talukdar, and Gosavi (2010) and Geismar, Dawande,
Murthi, and Sriskandarajah (2015) propose planogram-based opti-
misation models, considering both dimensions and orientations of
products. In addition, product attractiveness varies with locations
in a planogram, namely, different areas of a store (e.g., near the
entrance/exit and perimeter) and locations within a shelf (such as
close to endcaps) (Flamand et al., 2016). Field experiments show
that vertical location has approximately twice the impact of hor-
izontal location on profit performance (Hansen, Raut, & Swami,
2010).
4.5. Product promotion
Retailer promotional activity is becoming more common
(Maihami & Karimi, 2014). There are various forms, including price
discounts, coupons, free goods, gifts, advertising, displays, and fea-
tures. Promotions have been widely studied in marketing research.
Ailawadi et al. (2009) review papers on communication via new
media and promotion decisions from the perspective of a retailer.
Grewal et al. (2011) summarise recent innovations in retail pricing
and promotions.
Activities, such as trade promotion and rebates, and decisions
on promotion type, size, duration, and price reduction for selected
products, are usually planned collaboratively by upstream suppliers
and retailers (Ramanathan & Muyldermans, 2010). As previously
discussed, we exclude revenue management and dynamic pricing
papers as well as studies on brand, advertising, or consumer be-
haviour unless they are pertinent to the reviewed OR models. Here,
we focus only on in-store promotion activities and their impacts on
store profitability from a retailer’s perspective.
4.5.1. Price promotions
Markdowns are common practice for excess or leftover inven-
tory. Customer behaviour and market demand uncertainty usually
mediate the effectiveness of markdown policies. Casado and Fer-
rer (2013), using a dataset on fast-moving goods from a major
Chilean retail chain, investigate how demand changes when prices
change. They find that there is a price threshold on the elasticity
of demand at the brand level – customer sensitivity to price varia-
tions within a threshold is less than that beyond a price threshold.
Strategic customer behaviour is also a concern (Cachon & Swinney,
2009; Whang, 2015). Johnson, Tellis, and Ip (2013) model house-
hold purchase timing and heterogeneous brand sensitivity to dis-
counts, obtaining individual household parameters using Bayesian
estimation. They consider the optimisation of customised temporal
discounts, consisting of “to whom, when and how much to dis-
count”, as a constrained multiple-knapsack problem under a given
408 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
budget. Simulation experiments reveal that the optimal discount
policy varies with margin, coupon distribution costs, the sensitiv-
ity of the market to discounts, and brand strength. They emphasise
that the appropriate timing of discounts, apart from the magni-
tude of the discounts considered in previous models, significantly
improves profit. Richards, Gómez, and Pofahl (2012) propose a dis-
crete/continuous model capturing customer purchase behaviour for
both continuous quantities and discrete product variants within
a category (specifically, apples). Experiments show the proposed
multiple-discrete/continuous model outperforms other price pro-
motion policies that do not account for the nature of multiple va-
rieties purchased in continuous quantities.
In addition to using price promotions (such as coupons) to in-
crease category sales, retailers also use them to increase store traf-
fic. Customers attracted by a certain product may purchase other
products, i.e., via cross-selling. One such promotion strategy, “loss-
leader”, offers a substantial price reduction on some products to
drive more store traffic. The trade-off is between the reduced mar-
gins or even losses from the loss-leader products and profits gener-
ated from the sale of other products. Katsifou, Seifert, and Tancrez
(2014) propose a heuristic to jointly determine product assortment,
inventory, and price for two products, consisting of one standard
product and one loss-leader product used to generate more store
traffic. Their findings show that retailers should pay more atten-
tion to the standard product when the cross-selling effect stem-
ming from displaying loss-leader products decreases.
4.5.2. Non-price promotions
Retailers also conduct non-price promotional activities (Khouja,
Pan, & Zhou, 2016). In some contexts with strategic customers,
offering free gift cards may outperform a discount price policy
(Khouja, Park, & Zhou, 2013). In addition, retailers employ shelf
display operations for merchandising activities. On the one hand,
the display of a large number of products may stimulate demand
(Koschat, 2008). On the other hand, the scarcity effect of inven-
tory can also be used to increase sales. Yin, Aviv, Pazgal, and Tang
(2009) discuss the effect of two display formats: display all (DA)
and display one (DO). Under the DA format, the retailer displays
all available units so that each arriving customer has perfect in-
formation about the actual inventory level. Under the DO format,
the retailer displays only one unit at a time so that each customer
knows about product availability but not the actual inventory level.
In the presence of strategic customers, the DO format can outper-
form DA by creating an increased sense of shortage risk, mitigating
the adverse impact of strategic customer behaviour.
4.6. Checkout operations
The checkout process is an indispensable component of the cus-
tomer shopping experience. Aspects of the checkout experience
(such as speed and friendliness) are key to the overall shopping
experience. While it is common to observe customers waiting in
lines in retail stores, few studies in our review focus on checkout
operations. This may be due to the keyword search we applied or
because queueing theory addresses this component of store oper-
ations. However, some emerging technologies, such as self-service
lanes and mobile checkouts, complicate traditional checkout oper-
ations, drawing specific attention to the retail context.
Among the reviewed papers, Lu, Musalem, Olivares, and
Schilkrut (2013), utilising video recognition technologies, analyse
customer queueing behaviour at the delicatessen section of a su-
permarket and find that “customers appear to focus mostly on
the length of the queue without adjusting enough for the speed
at which the line moves”. This implies that purchase incidence
appears to be affected more by the length of the queue than
the speed of service. Although classic queueing theory suggests
that pooling multiple queues into a single queue can reduce cus-
tomer waiting time relative to a system with separate single server
queues, their study suggests such a strategy may result in lower
revenues as increased queueing length may lead to an increase in
baulking and thus lost sales.
Recently, retailers have deployed new technologies to facilitate
self-checkout processes in retail stores. The advantages and disad-
vantages of these self-service checkout terminals are up for debate.
Some retailers have removed self-checkout lanes whereas others
continue to add more (BalanceInnovations 2015). One trade-off in
implementing self-checkout lanes is between expenditure savings
from the decrease in the number of cashiers required and the
loss of customer–employee interaction during the checkout pro-
cess. Such customer-employee interactions, along with customer-
customer interactions, can play a major role in driving perceived
service quality. Li, Choi, Rabinovich, and Crawford (2013) conduct
factorial field experiments where the timings of inter-customer in-
teractions during self-services are grouped into “waiting in line”
versus “within transaction” stages and the effect of such inter-
customer interactions is categorised into “positive” versus “nega-
tive”. Their findings show that such inter-customer interactions in-
fluence both a customer’s perceived quality and repeat purchase
intentions at the same store. The magnitude of this influence de-
pends on the extent to which customers believe the retail store
is responsible for their shopping experiences. Reducing customer
waiting time at self-service counters not only improves the fo-
cal customer’s shopping experience but also influences the service
quality perceived by other customers.
4.7. Employee management
Matching store associates with various customer demands and
store needs is important for driving retail store performance. While
workforce management is an important offshoot of OR, limited at-
tention (five modelling-based papers in our survey) is paid to the
retail sector (van den Bergh, Beliën, De Bruecker, Demeulemeester,
& De Boeck, 2013). By contrast, there is a considerable number
of papers in other application areas such as healthcare, call cen-
tres, manufacturing, and general contexts (van den Bergh et al.,
2013). There are a few surveys reviewing personnel scheduling
in general. van den Bergh et al. (2013) provide a comprehensive
classification/taxonomy for personnel scheduling modelling and De
Bruecker, Van den Bergh, Beliën, and Demeulemeester (2015) re-
view papers specific to workforce planning problems incorporating
skills. Herein, we focus only on the effects of employees on store
sales and personnel scheduling in the retail sector.
4.7.1. Customer traffic, employees, and sales
Frontline employees play an important role in driving store
sales by influencing the execution quality of store operations (Ton,
2008). While payroll is typically the second largest expenditure
after the cost of ordered products (Ton, 2009), cutting store pay-
roll may risk harming execution quality and thus financial perfor-
mance (Ton, 2008). Using hourly and daily traffic data from 41 ap-
parel stores over a one-year period, Perdikaki, Kesavan, and Swami-
nathan (2012) find that the conversion rate (the ratio of the num-
ber of customer transactions to the total number of customers en-
tering the store) and basket value (measured by the ratio of sales
volume to the number of customer transactions) exhibit diminish-
ing returns as in-store traffic increases, while labour is a moderat-
ing variable on the impact of in-store traffic on sales.
To improve the flexibility of personnel scheduling, retailers of-
ten hire part-time and/or temporary employees. Compared to full-
time employees, these flexible labour resources are often paid less.
Assuring the appropriate mix of full-time employees and flexible
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
labour resources is critical to retail store operations. Using a two-
year dataset from 445 stores of a large retailer, Kesavan, Staats, and
Gilland (2014) find that increasing the percentage of flexible labour
resources, including part-time and temporary employees, has an
inverted U-shaped relationship with store sales and profits.
Furthermore, store associates, in addition to salespersons, may
also indirectly influence conversion rates by improving OSA and
reducing phantom stock-outs. Ton and Raman (2010), using data
from a well-known retailer providing books, CDs, videos, etc., vali-
date this relationship between phantom stock-outs and sales.
4.7.2. Personnel scheduling
As discussed above, store associates should be regarded as more
than an operations expenditure, as is commonly assumed in many
personnel scheduling models (van den Bergh et al., 2013). Sev-
eral papers link store associates with sales and optimise personnel
schedules seeking to maximise total profit instead of minimising
operational costs of employees.
Kabak, Ülengin, Akta, Ule, and Topcu (2008) propose a two-
stage shift scheduling framework, comprised of (1) a sales re-
sponse function modelling hourly store sales volume as a func-
tion of the number of shoppers, the conversion rate, and the av-
erage shopping value per shopper, and (2) determining optimal
shift schedules based on traffic forecasting. Following Kabak et al.
(2008), Chapados, Joliveau, L’Ecuyer, and Rousseau (2014) explicitly
model the required number of salespeople for a smaller time pe-
riod (e.g., each 15-minute period) than the common practice of a
daily horizon, and consider the work status (working, break, lunch,
or at rest) of each employee. Applying their model in a medium-
sized retail chain yields an increase in net profit of approximately
2–3%, relative to its current solution. Chuang, Oliva, and Perdikaki
(2016) further revise the sales response function with a variable
elasticity between traffic and labour, relaxing the constant elastic-
ity assumption in the work of Kabak et al. (2008). They employ
panel data across multiple stores to estimate model parameters
and then validate the staffing heuristics based on the revised sales
response function in counterfactual experimentation.
Personnel schedules only perform well when employees work
as planned and when actual demand matches expected demand.
However, the uncertainty of customer demand and/or employee
absenteeism generate understaffing and/or overstaffing, and thus
impair store performance (Anonymous, 2014). In such situations,
store managers may resort to recourse actions, e.g., adjusting pre-
determined schedules through overtime (in the case of under-
staffing) and/or cancelling predetermined shifts (in the case of
overstaffing). While these are commonly practised, few papers con-
sider such situations. Including recourse actions, Parisio and Jones
(2015) propose a stochastic programming solution and apply it
to Swiss retailers. In the intra-day context, store managers may
take advantage of on-hand cross-trained employees and dynami-
cally allocate these employees to multiple tasks. Terekhov and Beck
(2009) study how to dynamically assign a mix of cross-trained and
specialised workers between frontline and backroom. The objec-
tive is to minimise the expected customer waiting time at check-
outs while ensuring the minimal time-average number of work-
ers in the backroom. The authors propose a threshold-based policy
for dynamic labour allocation and analyse optimal personnel struc-
tures in different scenarios.
5. Research themes
In this section, we classify the papers reviewed into the six re-
search themes proposed in Section 3. Uncertainty is the dominant
theme. About 84% of the papers explore uncertainty in some form.
Perishability (39 papers) ranks second, followed by on-shelf avail-
ability (34 papers), customer–employee interaction (14 papers),
409
market competition (11 papers), and channel integration (5 pa-
pers). This categorisation based on research themes provides a new
perspective on the current status of research on retail store opera-
tions. In what follows, we primarily refer only to papers that have
not been discussed in Section 4. All relevant papers are listed in
Table 5 in Appendix B.
5.1. Uncertainty
Here, we discuss how researchers view uncertainty from the
perspectives of the three entities presented in Fig. 3, customers,
products, and employees. From the point of view of customers,
there are three types of uncertainty. First, the purchase quantity of
a customer is uncertain until a checkout process. Second, the pur-
chase timing is uncertain particularly among strategic customers
(e.g., Anily & Hassin, 2013). Strategic customer behaviour matters
when managing inventory, assortment and display, and promo-
tion. Third, customer preferences differ in many ways. Ascertain-
ing substitution rates (Hopp & Xu, 2008; Karabati, Tan, & Öztürk,
2009) and preference lists (Honhon et al., 2012) is notoriously dif-
ficult, but such knowledge can be extremely valuable for inventory
and category management. For perishables, it is also important to
consider the heterogeneity of customer preferences regarding
product quality (Herbon, 2014).
In some cases, products may also contribute to uncertainty. In
addition to perishable products decaying, in-store logistics and IRI
may lead to uncertainties in product availability (DeHoratius et al.,
2008; Qi et al., 2009).
Uncertainty may also stem from employee management. Uncer-
tain labour availability may lead to mismatches between planned
and required labour capacity. Overstaffing leads to a waste of re-
sources while understaffing impairs store performance, such as
inventory record accuracy (Chuang & Oliva, 2015; Chuang et al.,
2016) and conversion rates (Mani, Kesavan, & Swaminathan, 2015).
Most studies on personnel scheduling, including in the retail con-
text, fail to consider this human resource uncertainty. In addition,
as pointed out by Raman et al. (2001), the quality of operational
execution, which needs the participation of employees in the re-
tail store context, has a significant influence on the effectiveness of
planning and automation. Ignoring uncertainties in execution qual-
ity may also lead to some operational issues, such IRI and phantom
stock-outs.
5.2. Market competition
Retailing is a competitive, low-margin business. Store differen-
tiation has a significant influence on a customer’s choice of retail
store (Hamilton & Richards, 2009) OOS may also influence store
choice. Liao, Shen, Hu, and Yang (2014) compare two approaches
to cope with OOS, namely lateral transhipment and emergency or-
dering. The authors assume that unsatisfied customers choose one
of the following options: (1) send requests to the store (leading to
a backorder), (2) switch to a neighbouring store (resulting in the
customer switching demand), or (3) leave the market with no pur-
chase. They find in the presence of a higher volume of customer
switching it is better to place emergency orders, despite greater
ordering costs and longer transport time relative to the cost of lat-
eral transhipment. Olsen and Parker (2008) consider a situation in
which customers, after a period, may forgive a store where they
have faced an OOS, resulting in the presence of both committed
and latent customers. Instead of using a unit stock-out penalty cost
common in classic inventory theory, they explicitly consider a mix
of customer behaviours (including backlogging, lost sales, and for-
giving), thus creating dynamic demand distributions in the subse-
quent period. They provide an optimal inventory policy.
410 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
In the presence of competition, other factors may also impact
customer purchase decisions. Grewal, Kopalle, Marmorstein, and
Roggeveen (2012) find when product availability is uncertain cus-
tomers pay more attention to travel time – a key determinant of
customer store choice. They suggest that the negative impact of
uncertainty in product availability on purchase intentions can be
effectively mitigated by the use of an in-stock guarantee.
5.3. Channel integration
Despite the recent discussions on omni-channel retailing, few
papers consider the impact of channel integration on store op-
erations and how retail stores should adapt to such changes. In
the omni-channel retailing environment, consumers gather prod-
uct knowledge from multiple channels (such as online and smart
mobile) and then purchase products from a specific channel (Bell
et al., 2014). This may lead to showrooming, where customers view
products at physical stores but purchase online, or web-rooming,
where customers view products online but purchase at a physical
store (PwC 2015). In addition to aforementioned click-and-collect,
customers may return online purchases to a local store (Mahar,
Wright, Bretthauer, & Hill, 2014).
These emerging operational modes and customer shop-
ping behaviour complicate traditional store planning, including
inventory planning, category management, and promotions. Store
associates face additional workload and execution challenges when
adapting to channel integration. For instance, IRI may hinder the
ability of a retail store to fulfill online orders.
5.4. Perishability
Perishability is a significant feature in many retail store oper-
ations, influencing customer-perceived utility in two ways. First,
product quality may decay over time, potentially resulting in waste
and spoilage. In the case of fresh food, some retailers have in-
vested in preservation technology (PT), reducing the deterioration
rate, and real-time product quality tracking technologies such as
time-temperature indicators (TTI) (Herbon, Levner, & Cheng, 2014;
Hsu, Wee, & Teng, 2010; Liu et al., 2015). According to a simula-
tion experiment (Ketzenberg, Bloemhof, & Gaukler, 2015), provid-
ing flow time information and temperature history through a sup-
ply chain may reduce the average cost per period by 43%, relative
to the base scenario without such information. Tromp, Rijgersberg,
da Silva, and Bartels (2012), simulating a Dutch pork supply chain,
find setting expiry dates dynamically can decrease potential losses,
including expired products, lost sales, and profit losses because of
discounting, by almost 80%. Product deterioration, along with het-
erogeneous consumer sensitivity to freshness, complicates inven-
tory, assortment, and shelf allocation decisions (Caro et al., 2014;
Herbon, 2014; Piramuthu & Zhou, 2013). In addition, some perish-
ables in grocery stores need specific facilities such as cold rooms,
and require store associates to inspect the quality and dispose of
waste and expired product more quickly (Reiner et al., 2013). See
Tromp, Haijema, Rijgersberg, and van der Vorst (2016) for a sys-
tematic discussion of the technical, logistical, and marketing per-
spectives for preventing chilled-food waste.
Second, product attractiveness may also decrease over time.
Some retailers tend to conduct clearance sales to maximise the
remaining value of unsold products before introducing a collec-
tion of new products to the market. Caro and Gallien (2012) pro-
pose a clearance optimisation model based on a formal forecasting
model replacing a manual and informal decision-making process.
The new decision-making system increased clearance sales by ap-
proximately 6% in Zara’s Belgian and Irish stores during the 2008
fall-winter season. Zara has now adopted this model worldwide
during clearance sales seasons.
5.5. Customer–employee interaction
Customer–employee interactions take several forms in retail
stores. Fig. 3 shows two basic means of customer-employee inter-
actions: consult and advise. Salespersons can promote products via
face-to-face interaction with customers, informing and encouraging
customers to purchase. Employees also offer advice to customers
seeking items and recommending substitutes in the presence of
OOS – helping to reduce lost sales. In addition, checkout engage-
ment may have an impact on the customer shopping experience.
However, literature on the interaction between employees and cus-
tomers is rare. Mani et al. (2015), using hourly data on store traffic,
sales, and labour from 41 stores of a retail chain, propose a bench-
mark staffing level based on queueing theory. They find that elim-
inating understaffing in retail stores during peak hours can lead to
significant increases in sales and profitability.
5.6. On-shelf availability
OSA provides a measurement of inventory available to cus-
tomers during their shopping visits. The ideal OSA level is a trade-
off between higher sales (or reduced risk of lost sales) and ad-
ditional costs for a given customer service level (Trautrims et al.,
2009). Anecdotal evidence suggests that increased OSA is associ-
ated with higher market share (Waller et al., 2010). Few studies
deal with shelf out-of-stocks, which may occur from inefficient
shelf replenishment or IRI. In 2016, Moussaoui et al. (2016) pre-
sented a systematic review of OSA based on 73 papers. They iden-
tify five drivers for OSA, including four factors in the planning
and/or execution stages (including operational, behavioural, man-
agerial, and coordination) and one systemic factor that may am-
plify the impact of supply chain failures on OSA. In what follows,
we summarise approaches dealing with shelf OOS, as it is only
briefly addressed in Moussaoui et al. (2016).
Several methods have been implemented to help identify and
track shelf stock-outs. The traditional practice is manual inspection,
but it should be noted that such manual inspection is not error-
free and requires better-trained employees (Chuang, 2015). Chuang
et al. (2016) discuss the impact of external audits on OSA based
on a field experiment in 60 stores. Items in the treatment group,
the audited items, are less likely to have shelf OOS and IRI. Such
external audits are economically viable and have a positive effect
on sales. The second approach is to predict shelf inventory levels
by utilising POS and inventory data. Papakiriakopoulos, Pramatari,
and Doukidis, (2009), applying machine learning techniques to
data from the information system (including POS, product assort-
ment, categories, catalogue, and order/deliveries) and rules derived
from physical audit practices, develop a decision support system
to detect shelf inventory levels. Documenting shelf inventory in-
formation in real-time, by deploying RFID and sensory technolo-
gies, is another potential approach. For instance, Zhou and Pira-
muthu (2013) propose a set of authentication protocols to help
prevent or detect ticket-switching incidents in apparel stores, us-
ing item-level RFID tags. Further, dealing with shelf out-of-stocks
requires not only effective inventory management, but also coor-
dination with other store operations, such as scheduling deliveries
for shelf replenishment and assigning clear logistics roles and re-
sponsibilities to store associates, along with manually identifying
stock-out events and causes (Ehrenthal & Stölzle, 2013).
6. Future research
Thus far we have discussed the current research status based
on store operations decisions and research themes. To identify re-
search opportunities, we first summarise the “future research” sec-
tions of the papers reviewed, and then construct a matrix to iden-
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
tify additional research gaps. Finally, we propose three research di-
rections based on our understanding of retail store operations.
6.1. Limitations of the current research
We first summarise the “future research” sections among the
255 papers reviewed and suggest open questions in each of the
store operations decision.
• Demand forecasting: Most demand forecasting papers do not
take inventory data integrity into account. It remains open
how to proactively account for inventory record inaccuracies
when forecasting demand (Mersereau, 2015). Furthermore, tak-
ing advantage of multiple data sources (such as traffic counters,
POS databases, and even real-time in-store monitoring/tracking
technologies) to incorporate the timing of out-of-stocks into de-
mand forecasting models is worthwhile (Jain et al., 2015).
• In-store logistics: While several papers analyse the traditional
shelf replenishment process and compare it with RFID-enabled
processes (Condea et al., 2012; Metzger et al., 2013; Piramuthu
& Zhou, 2013; Thiesse & Buckel, 2015), in-store logistics de-
serves more attention. First, all papers on shelf inspection and
replenishment deal with a single product. Future research could
explore how to allocate employees to inspect inventory levels of
multiple products, balancing the cost associated with inspec-
tion and potential lost sales. Second, reverse in-store logistics
processes, such as coping with leftover/expired shelf inventory,
and in-store returns/exchanges (Anderson, Hansen, & Simester,
2009), need more attention. We find only one paper dealing
with reverse logistics within a retail store (Holweg, Teller, &
Kotzab, 2016). Third, empirical studies have indicated that the
lack of coordination between store delivery and shelf replen-
ishment may lower OSA. To the best of our knowledge, Goyal
and Chang (2009) is the only paper discussing the coordination
between store delivery and shelf replenishment.
• Inventory management: Conventional inventory studies regard a
retail store as a node in a supply chain, without distinguish-
ing shelf from backroom inventory. Customers may still face an
“empty shelf” even when sufficient products are in the back-
room.
• Assortment and display: There is a considerable gap between
academic research on assortment and display, and applied
planograms. First, assortment and shelf display problems are
usually studied separately. Second, physical constraints of prod-
ucts and shelves limit the application of theoretically optimal
solutions. Further, store managers may alter recommendations
given by automated assortment planning systems. There is no
study investigating such behaviour. Also, operational execution
processes and the efficiency of in-store logistics are overlooked
(Hübner & Kuhn, 2012). Only Irion et al. (2012) and Tsao et al.
(2014) explicitly consider shelf replenishment cost for shelf al-
location.
• Product promotion: While some retailers have begun to imple-
ment in-store personalised promotions, associated academic
research is lacking. In addition, while perishable inventory
management studies have considered the impact of different
expiry dates, there is no product promotion research incorpo-
rating customer behaviours responding to various expiry dates
(Li et al., 2016).
• Checkout operations: Express and self-checkout lanes already ex-
ist in some retail stores. More research is needed to determine
the optimal configuration and associated staffing decisions. In
addition, in practice, retailers normally allocate an employee for
self-checkout stations in order to resolve questions customers
may have. We are not aware of any study on managing hu-
man resources for self-checkout operations. Apart from queue-
411
ing theory research, studies that incorporate both customer and
employee psychological variables deserve more attention.
• Employee management: It is worthwhile to seek solutions, that
take advantage of multi-skilled and on-call employees, when
dealing with the mismatch between planned and realised
labour capacity in real time. Further, setting an appropriate cus-
tomer service level for staffing decisions needs more attention.
Following the analysis of the current status of research based
on store operations decisions and research themes, we also see a
need for further research in the interface between multiple deci-
sions and themes. To facilitate this discussion, we provide a count
of papers by store operations decisions and research themes. 17
papers do not involve any of our six research themes. Fig. 5 depicts
the distribution of the remaining 238 papers. A full description is
provided in Table 5 in Appendix B.
Note that we do not imply that all gaps in Fig. 5 should be
treated as research gaps. Some blank cells are entirely reasonable,
e.g., checkout operations have no relation with on-shelf availability.
However, the following gaps may deserve further research:
• Most studies ignore market competition. While market compe-
tition and the resulting customer switching behaviour have a
significant impact on store performance, few papers incorpo-
rate this. For instance, maintaining market competition, as well
as expected profits in the planning period, is a key determi-
nant of product variety but commonly ignored in most assort-
ment studies (Han, Ye, Fu, & Chen, 2014; Ren et al., 2011). In
addition, customer switching behaviour impairs both store fi-
nancial performance and retailers’ reputation, and the advent
of mobile shopping and social media has amplified such impact
(PwC 2015). Further, most assortment studies assume customer
choice does not change. However, this assumption faces chal-
lenges in the real world.
• Despite a large research stream on perishable item inventory
management (Bakker et al., 2012; Karaesmen et al., 2011), the
influence of perishability on other store operations, such as in-
store logistics in which perishables need more attention from
store associates, has received little treatment.
• No work considers the impact of channel integration on em-
ployee management. Omni-channel retailing has been widely
discussed in both research and practice. Yet, employee manage-
ment, in particular of order fulfilment, receives little attention.
Despite the potential similarity of order fulfilment processes in
a retail store and a warehouse, store associates tend to be less
proficient than specialised order pickers in a warehouse, and
are mainly occupied by other in-store tasks.
• Studies that deal with multiple store operations decisions and
relate to multiple research themes are rare. By calculating the
number of decisions and themes relating to each paper, we find
222 (87%) of the papers reviewed cope with one store oper-
ations decision. No work discusses more than three decisions.
In regards to research themes, about two-thirds of papers (161
papers) relate to one research theme, with 74 papers dealing
with two research themes and three papers dealing with three
themes. This may be a result of the trade-off between research
relevance and computational complexity. However, a lack of re-
search breadth is likely to limit the applicability of academic
research. In daily store operations, store managers frequently
face multiple store operations decisions and deal with various
research themes simultaneously. For instance, to tackle shelf
stock-outs, a store manager needs not only to allocate an em-
ployee to inspect and replenish shelf inventory frequently, re-
sulting in additional in-store logistics, but also to consider the
interruption to previous work. A lack of either consideration
will lead to inefficient operations.
412 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
Fig. 5. Distribution of papers reviewed in the 2-dimensional matrix.
Finally, our reflections suggest additional issues worthy of more
attention. First, some big-box retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Tar-
get, and Tesco, are opening smaller retail stores with tailored as-
sortments (Felsted, 2016; Loeb, 2015). Getting the “right” prod-
uct range becomes even more critical for such retail stores. Sec-
ond, managing retail stores in developing markets must receive
more attention. Third, the advent of new store operations and
advancement of technologies call for more collaboration between
academics and practitioners. However, only one third of the 255
reviewed papers utilise industry data and/or implement their so-
lutions in real-world situations (Anderson et al., 2009; Bezawada
et al., 2009; Brabazon & MacCarthy, 2012; Bruno & Vilcassim,
2008; Calli & Weverbergh, 2009; Caro & Gallien, 2012; Caro et al.,
2014; Casado & Ferrer, 2013; Chapados et al., 2014; Che et al.,
2012; Chuang & Oliva, 2015; Chuang et al., 2016; Chuang et al.,
2016; Chuang et al., 2016; Curşeu et al., 2009; De Marco, Cagliano,
Nervo, & Rafele, 2012; DeHoratius & Raman, 2008; Ehrenthal &
Stölzle, 2013; Ehrenthal et al., 2014; Fadılogl̃u, Karaşan, & Pınar,
2010; Fisher & Vaidyanathan, 2012; Fisher & Vaidyanathan, 2014;
Geismar et al., 2015; Gelper, Wilms, & Croux, 2016; Ghoniem &
Maddah, 2015; Ghoniem, Flamand, & Haouari, 2016; Goic, Bosch,
& Castro, 2015; Grewal et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2010; Han et al.,
2014; Hardgrave et al., 2013; Holweg et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2016;
Huang & Zhang, 2016; Irion, Lu, Al-Khayyal, & Tsao, 2011; Irion
et al., 2012; Jain et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2013; Kabak et al.,
2008; Kesavan et al., 2014; Koschat, 2008; Lee et al., 2016; Lee &
Allenby, 2014; Li et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2013; Mahar et al., 2012;
Mahar et al., 2014; Mani et al., 2015; Miller, Smith, McIntyre, &
Achabal, 2010; Musalem et al., 2010; Nachtmann et al., 2010; Pan
& Honhon, 2012; Papakiriakopoulos et al., 2009; Parisio & Jones,
2015; Pastor & Olivella, 2008; Perdikaki et al., 2012; Ramanathan &
Muyldermans, 2010; Rekik & Sahin, 2012; Ren et al., 2011; Richards
et al., 2012; Rooderkerk et al., 2013; Rooderkerk & van Heerde,
2016; Rusmevichientong et al., 2010; Russell and Urban, 2010;
Sachs & Minner, 2014; Sinha, Sahgal, & Mathur, 2013; Soysal & Kr-
ishnamurthi, 2012; Teixeira & Gupta, 2015; Tokar et al., 2014; Tokar
et al., 2016; Ton, 2008; Ton & Raman, 2010; Ton, 2012; Trautrims
et al., 2009; Tromp et al., 2016; Tsafarakis, Saridakis, Matsatsinis,
& Baltas, 2016; Tsai & Huang, 2015; Tsai & Huang, 2012; van Don-
selaar et al., 2010; Abad, 2014; van Nierop et al., 2008; van Zelst
et al., 2009; Waller et al., 2010; Wong, Leung, Guo, Zeng, & Mok,
2012; Younes, Yates, & Mena, 2012; Zinn & Liu, 2008). Fourth, long-
term considerations stemming from improving customer satisfac-
tion and employee job satisfaction receive little attention. We cat-
egorise papers according to the objective function in each paper.
More than half of the papers reviewed (171 papers) consider prof-
its and/or sales as the objective. About 84% of the papers reviewed
(214 papers) focus on operational efficiency. However, studies with
explicit objectives from customers and/or employee perspectives
are scant. Four studies (Anderson et al., 2009; Che et al., 2012; Li
et al., 2013; Teixeira & Gupta, 2015) are customer-centric, focus-
ing on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Three studies (Chuang &
Oliva, 2015; Chuang et al., 2016; Ton, 2012) relate to employee sat-
isfaction, retention, and productivity.
6.2. Research directions
In conclusion, we see significant opportunities for research
on retail store operations. In what follows, based on our un-
derstanding in this research area, as well as industry reports
(BalanceInnovations 2015; Kearney, 2016; PwC 2015), we propose
three research directions. We trust this serves to inspire academics
to pursue further research.
1. Analysing new store operations in omni-channel retailing.
Competing in the age of omni-channel retailing leads to a vari-
ety of new and innovative store operations. Retail stores now
undertake greater responsibilities for order fulfilment (PwC
2015). Indeed, some stores have essentially evolved into minia-
ture distribution centres for online order fulfilment, providing
both click-and-collect and home delivery services. These new
store operations significantly influence conventional store oper-
ations, including in-store logistics, inventory management and
assortment. Few papers deal with the impact of these new re-
tail store operations, and discuss how retail stores adapt to this
situation in a cost-effective manner. Along with the migration
from a bricks-and-mortar to a “bricks-and-clicks” store, we see
great potential for research contributions in this area.
2. Adopting new technologies to facilitate store operations re-
search.
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
New technologies applied to retail stores not only facilitate
practical store operations but also provide an arena for OR/MS
researchers. Some emerging technologies provide opportunities
to relax assumptions and calibrate parameters in classical OR
models. For instance, video recognition technology enables
automatic recording of the number of servers and customers
(Lu et al., 2013). Traffic counters help provide real-time in-
formation on the number of in-store customers. Researchers
may use these data to improve staffing decisions. For example,
Wal-Mart recently implemented a new personnel scheduling
system, prioritising peak-hour schedules by taking into account
in-store traffic and sales data from every department in 653
small-format Neighbourhood Market stores (Bose, 2016). Sen-
sory technologies improve the visibility of store operations
(such as cycle counting), facilitating studies on operational
execution problems and enabling greater understanding of
customer shopping behaviour. For instance, with the help of
RFID installed on trolleys or in appropriate locations, there is
a stream of marketing research on in-store customer shopping
paths in recent years. Such data should also be beneficial
to operational research, by providing real-time analytics on
checkout operations, shelf replenishment, shelf allocation (Tsai
& Huang, 2015), and employee management. However, despite
the increasing deployment, few studies have taken advantage
of these technologies. Dealing with the non-structured data
(e.g., video footage) created by these emerging technologies
requires further studies. Moreover, evaluating, managing, and
integrating emerging technologies is challenging for both prac-
titioners and academics. For instance, the recent innovations on
checkout operations, such as no-checkout-stores (Amazon Go)
and self-checkout with customers’ mobile apps (Walmart Scan
& Go app), may significantly change traditional retail store op-
erations. In summary, the adoption of these new technologies
leads to a broad open research area, comprising both classical
operational research (e.g., staffing decisions based on in-store
traffic) and topics at the marketing-OR interface (e.g., in-store
customer behaviour).
3. Paying more attention to workforce management in retail
stores.
Despite advancing technology, store associates remain key to
the customer shopping experiences, directly promoting prod-
ucts and driving store performance (Kearney, 2016). According
to our review, the role of store associates is overlooked by aca-
demics, as evidenced by recent empirical studies (Kesavan et al.,
2014; Mani et al., 2015; Perdikaki et al., 2012). Despite the fact
that labour is a major entity in retail store operations, as indi-
413
cated in Fig. 3, only 14 out of 255 papers emphasise the par-
ticipation of store associates. Employee factors such as process-
ing speed, execution quality, and task-switching capabilities de-
serve more attention. Moreover, nowadays consumers can ac-
cumulate product knowledge from multiple channels (such as
online, and smart mobile), and expect more effective sugges-
tions from store associates. This calls for more knowledgeable
employees and more robust scheduling plans (Teixeira & Gupta,
2015) based on an improved understanding of the relationship
between store traffic, employees, and revenues (Kearney, 2016).
In addition, incentive design for both store managers and em-
ployees deserves more attention (Fisher, 2004). Last but not
least, store managers need guidance on how to respond to both
customer and store associates uncertainty, taking into account
employee skills (such as cross-training) (Henao, Munoz, & Fer-
rer, 2015) and execution quality (Raman et al., 2001).
7. Concluding remarks
Physical stores still remain the primary shopping destination
despite the increase in online sales, but store operations have
changed significantly in the omni-channel retailing environment
(Fisher & Raman, 2010; PwC 2015). Today retail stores not only rep-
resent a venue for offline shopping but are evolving into an inter-
action hub across channels. In this study, we have reviewed recent
research on retail store operations and operational execution pro-
cesses from a collection of prominent OR/MS, retailing, and gen-
eral management journals. We provide an integrated framework
of retail store operations comprised of four aspects (entities, deci-
sions, performances, and research themes). Within this framework
we discuss the current status of research on retail store operations
and identify both research gaps and limitations of the current re-
search. Lastly, three research directions are proposed.
Our work can help academics understand the current state of
research on retail store operations and motivate future research in
this domain. This review can also benefit practitioners as it dis-
cusses the relevance of existing research studies, thereby stimulat-
ing more research developments in this area.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments on this paper. The first author acknowledges the fi-
nancial support received from the China Scholarship Council (CSC)
(Grant No. 201406220153) Scholarship.
414 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422

Appendix A. Table for nominated journal list

Table 4
Nominated journal list1 .

Category JCR Journal 5-year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total # of Total publi- Papers
abbreviated impact papers cations reviewed as a
journal title factors reviewed percentage of
the journal’s
total
publications

OR/MS ANN OPER Annals of Operations 1.616 3 1 2 5 11 1680 0.7%

journals RES Research
COMPUT Computers & 2.382 1 2 1 1 2 7 2170 0.3%
OPER RES Operations Research
DECIS Decision Support 3.271 1 1 1 1 3 7 1396 0.5%
SUPPORT Systems
SYST
EUR J OPER European Journal of 3.109 4 7 2 2 4 2 6 1 5 33 5709 0.6%
RES Operational Research
IIE TRANS IISE Transactions 1.723 1 1 1 1 1 5 746 0.7%
INFORMS J INFORMS Journal on 1.504 1 1 472 0.2%
COMPUT Computing
INT J PROD International Journal of 3.548 4 4 5 1 11 5 7 7 5 49 2924 1.7%
ECON Production Economics
INT J PROD International Journal of 1.867 1 1 4 4 10 3687 0.3%
RES Production Research
J OPER Journal of Operations 8.229 1 1 1 3 396 0.8%
MANAG Management
J OPER RES Journal of the 1.386 3 2 2 2 9 1524 0.6%
SOC Operational Research
Society
MANAGE SCI Management Science 3.728 3 3 2 1 1 3 13 1420 0.9%
MATH OPER Mathematics of 1.692 -
RES Operations Research
M&SOM- Manufacturing & 2.714 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 11 379 3.0%
MANUF SERV Service Operations
OP Management
OMEGA-INT J Omega-International 4.289 1 3 4 2 2 12 1179 1%
MANAGE S Journal of Management
Science
OR OR Spectrum 2.191 1 1 379 0.3%
SPECTRUM
OPER RES Operations Research 2.838 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 13 990 1.3%
PROD OPER Production and 2.257 1 1 2 2 7 2 4 6 25 771 3.2%
MANAG Operations
Management
TRANSPORT Transportation Research 3.319 1 1 958 0.1%
RES E-LOG Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review
TRANSPORT Transportation Science 3.735 –
SCI
Journals DECISION SCI Decision Sciences 2.562 1 1 342 0.3%
relating to
retail
research
INT J OPER International Journal of 2.935 –
PROD MAN Operations &
Production
Management
INT J PHYS International Journal of 3.005 1 1 1 1 2 6 404 1.5%
DISTR LOG Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management
J BUS LOGIST Journal of Business 3.008 1 1 1 3 280 1.1%
Logistics
J CONSUM Journal of Consumer 5.292 1 1 670 0.2%
RES Research
J MARKETING Journal of Marketing 7.192 1 1 2 452 0.4%
(continued on next page)
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422 415

Table 4 (continued)

Category JCR Journal 5-year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total # of Total publi- Papers
abbreviated impact papers cations reviewed as a
journal title factors reviewed percentage of
the journal’s
total
publications

J MARKETING Journal of Marketing 4.482 1 1 604 0.2%

RES Research
J RETAILING Journal of Retailing 3.096 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 2 14 395 3.5%
J ACAD Journal of the Academy 6.062 1 1 2 419 0.5%
MARKET SCI of Marketing Science
MARKET SCI Marketing Science 3.055 2 2 1 2 1 8 623 1.3%
General CALIF California Management 2.590 –
manage- MANAGE REV Review
ment
journals
HARVARD Harvard Business 2.711 1 2 1 1 5 1844 0.3%
BUS REV Review
MIT SLOAN MIT Sloan Management 3.104 1 1 553 0.2%
MANAGE REV Review
Total 20 31 22 11 35 28 36 33 39 255 33,366 0.8%

Appendix B. Table for the 2-dimensional matrix

 416
Table 5
Papers classified by store operations decision and research theme2 , 3 .
Research themes
Uncertainty (215) Market Channel Perishability (39) Customer- On-shelf availability Others (17)
competition (11) integration (5) employee (34)
interaction (14)
Store op- Demand (Brabazon & MacCarthy, 2012; Bruno & Vilcassim, 2008; Calli & Weverbergh, 2009; (Sachs & Minner, 2014; (Ehrenthal et al.,
erations forecasting Ehrenthal et al., 2014; Feng, Luo, & Zhang, 2014; Fisher & Vaidyanathan, 2014; Hahn & Talebian et al., 2014; 2014)
decisions (16) Leucht, 2015; Jain et al., 2015; Lee & Eun, 2016; Lee & Allenby, 2014; Mersereau, 2015; van Donselaar et al.,
Ramanathan & Muyldermans, 2010; Sachs & Minner, 2014; Sauré & Zeevi, 2013; 2016)
Talebian et al., 2014; van Donselaar, Peters, de Jong, & Broekmeulen, 2016)
In-store (Anderson et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2011; Condea et al., 2012; De Marco et al., 2012; (Bell et al., 2014; (Bell et al., 2014; (Reiner et al., 2013; (Condea et al., 2012; (Holweg et al., 2016)
logistics (18) Eroglu et al., 2011; Mahar et al., 2012; Metzger et al., 2013; Thiesse & Buckel, 2015; Teixeira & Gupta, Chen et al., 2011; Tromp et al., 2016) Curşeu et al., 2009;
Trautrims et al., 2009; Waller et al., 2010) 2015; Waller Mahar et al., De Marco et al.,
et al., 2010) 2014; Teixeira & 2012; Eroglu et al.,
Gupta, 2015) 2011; Metzger et al.,
2013; Reiner et al.,
2013; Thiesse &
Buckel, 2015;

S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422

Trautrims et al.,
2009; Tromp et al.,
2016; van Zelst
et al., 2009; Waller
et al., 2010)
Inventory (Abad, 2014; Ahiska, Appaji, King, & Warsing, 2013; Alamri, Harris, & Syntetos, 2016; (Olsen & Parker, (Schneider & (Alamri et al., 2016; (De Marco et al., (Amit et al., 2015; (Abbott & Palekar,
management Amit et al., 2015; Anily et al., 2013; Arcelus et al., 2012; Arcelus et al., 2012; Atan & 2008; Tapiero & Klabjan, 2013) Baron et al., 2015; 2012) Atan & Erkip, 2015; 2008; Hovelaque &
(154) Erkip, 2015; Balakrishnan et al., 2008; Baron et al., 2011; Baron, Hu, Najafi-Asadolahi, & Kogan, 2009) Broekmeulen & van Chuang, 2015; Bironneau, 2015; Rong,
Qian, 2015; Bensoussan et al., 2016; Beutel & Minner, 2012; Bijvank & Vis, 2012; Donselaar, 2009; Chuang & Oliva, Shen, & Yano, 2012;
Broekmeulen & van Donselaar, 2009; Cachon & Swinney, 2009; Che et al., 2012; Chen, Chang et al., 2010; 2015; Chuang et al., Tokar et al., 2016;
2010; Chiang, 2008; Chintapalli, 2015; Choi & Chiu, 2012; Choi, 2016; Chuang, 2015; Chintapalli, 2015; Choi 2016; Chuang et al., Toptal, Oezlue, &
Chuang & Oliva, 2015; Chuang et al., 2016; Chuang et al., 2016; Chung et al., 2009; & Chiu, 2012; Choi, 2016; De Marco Konur, 2014; Transchel
Condea et al., 2012; De Marco et al., 2012; DeHoratius et al., 2008; DeHoratius & 2016; Haijema & et al., 2012; & Minner, 2009; Wang
Raman, 2008; DeYong & Cattani, 2012; Dong et al., 2009; Dutta & Chakraborty, 2010; Minner, 2016; Herbon, DeHoratius & et al., 2016)
Ehrenthal et al., 2014; Eroglu et al., 2013; Ertogral, 2008; Fan et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2014; Herbon et al., Raman, 2008;
2014; Ghoniem & Maddah, 2015; Goyal & Chang, 2009; Goyal, Levi, & Segev, 2016; 2014; Hsu et al., 2010; Ehrenthal & Stölzle,
Grewal et al., 2012; Guo & Ma, 2014; Hahn & Leucht, 2015; Haijema & Minner, 2016; Huang, 2013; Karakul, 2013; Ehrenthal
Hall et al., 2010; Hardgrave et al., 2013; Heese & Swaminathan, 2010; Herbon, 2014; 2008; Ketzenberg et al., 2014; Goyal &
Honhon, Gaur, & Seshadri, 2010; Hsu et al., 2010; Hu & Motwani, 2014; Hua et al., et al., 2015; Kouki Chang, 2009;
2012; Hua et al., 2012; Huang, 2013; Huang et al., 2014; Huang & Zhang, 2016; Hübner et al., 2015; Li et al., Hardgrave et al.,
et al., 2016; Jain et al., 2015; Jaksic & Fransoo, 2015; Karakul, 2008; Katsifou et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Li 2013; Metzger et al.,
2014; Ketzenberg et al., 2015; Ketzenberg, Geismar, Metters, & van der Laan, 2013; et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013;
Khader, Rekik, Botta-Genoulaz, & Campagne, 2014; Khmelnitsky and Singer, 2014; 2015; Maihami & Papakiriakopoulos
Khouja et al., 2013; Khouja et al., 2016; Kiesmüller, 2009; Kok et al., 2008; Koschat, Karimi, 2014; Minner et al., 2009;
2008; Kouki, Jemaï, & Minner, 2015; Kulkarni et al., 2015; Kwon & Cheong, 2014; Li, & Transchel, 2010; Piramuthu & Zhou,
Wu, & Cheung, 2009; Li et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Li et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2014; Piramuthu & Zhou, 2013; Rekik et al.,
Lim, 2013; Liu, 2016; Liu, Song, Li, & Wu, 2015; Lotfi, Rabbani, & Ghaderi, 2011; Lu 2013; Prasad & 2008; Trautrims
et al., 2016; Ma, Zhao, Xue, Cheng, & Yan, 2012; Maddah, Bish, & Tarhini, 2014; Mukherjee, 2016; et al., 2009; Tromp
Maihami & Karimi, 2014; Metzger et al., 2013; Minner & Transchel, 2010; Murray et al., Sachs & Minner, 2014; et al., 2016; van
2012; Musalem et al., 2010; Nachtmann et al., 2010; Nagarajan & Rajagapalan, 2008; Sainathan, 2013; Donselaar et al.,
O’Neil et al., 2016; Olsen & Parker, 2008; Pan et al., 2009; Papakiriakopoulos et al., Sazvar et al., 2016; 2010; Younes et al.,
2009; Piramuthu & Zhou, 2013; Piramuthu et al., 2014; Prasad, Stecke, & Zhao, 2011; Shah et al., 2013; 2012; Zhou &
Prasad & Mukherjee, 2016; Qi et al., 2009; Ray, Song, & Verma, 2010; Rekik et al., Tromp et al., 2012; Piramuthu, 2015)
2008; Rekik et al., 2009; Rekik & Sahin, 2012; Sachs & Minner, 2014; Sainathan, 2013; Tromp et al., 2016; and (Moussaoui
Sazvar, Mirzapour Al-e-hashem, Govindan, & Bahli, 2016; Schneider & Klabjan, 2013; Tsai & Huang, 2012; et al., 2016)
Serel, 2009; Serel, 2012; Shah et al., 2013; Sharma & Banerjee, 2013; Shi & Zhang, Zhang, Wang, Lu, &
2010; Song et al., 2009; Stavrulaki, 2011; Taleizadeh, Khanbaglo, & Cárdenas-Barrón, Tang, 2015)
2016; Tan & Karabati, 2013; Tokar et al., 2014; Trautrims et al., 2009; Tromp et al.,
2012; Tsai & Huang, 2012; van Donselaar et al., 2010; Waller, Williams, & Eroglu, 2008;
Wu et al., 2015; Yang, 2014; Yeo & Yuan, 2012; Younes et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2016;
Zheng, Shu, & Wu, 2015; Zheng, Wu, & Shu, 2016; Zhou, Katehakis, & Zhao, 2009; Zhou
& Piramuthu, 2013; Zhou & Piramuthu, 2015; Zhou & Piramuthu, 2015; Zinn & Liu,
2008) and (Bijvank & Vis, 2011; Moussaoui et al., 2016)

(continued on next page)

2
We highlight literature review papers in bold.
3
We use round brackets to show the number of papers in a decision/theme. Square brackets are used to indicate references.
Table 5 (continued)
Research themes

Assortment (Alptekinoglu & Grasas, 2014; Baron et al., 2011; Bezawada et al., 2009; Blanchet et al., (Besbes & Sauré, (Caro et al., 2014; (Wong et al., (Piramuthu & Zhou, (Fadılogl̃u et al., 2010;

S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422

and display 2016; Caro et al., 2014; Coughlan & Shaffer, 2009; Eisend, 2014; Fisher & Vaidyanathan, 2016; Coughlan & Graczová & Jacko, 2012) 2013; Ton & Raman, Flamand et al., 2016;
(64) 2012; Fisher & Vaidyanathan, 2014; Geismar et al., 2015; Gelper et al., 2016; Ghoniem Shaffer, 2009; 2014; Jacko, 2016; 2010) and (Hübner Gajjar & Adil, 2010;
& Maddah, 2015; Ghoniem et al., 2016; Gilland & Heese, 2013; Goyal et al., 2016; Hamilton & Piramuthu & Zhou, & Kuhn, 2012) Goic et al., 2015;
Graczová & Jacko, 2014; Hamilton & Richards, 2009; Han et al., 2014; Hansen et al., Richards, 2009; 2013; Raut, Swami, & Hong, Misra, &
2010; Honhon et al., 2010; Honhon et al., 2012; Hopp & Xu, 2008; Hübner, Kuhn, & Hopp & Xu, 2008; Moholkar, 2009; Vilcassim, 2016;
Kühn, 2016; Irion et al., 2011; Irion et al., 2012; Jacko, 2016; Karabati et al., 2009; Ren et al., 2011; Talebian et al., 2014) Russell & Urban, 2010;
Katsifou et al., 2014; Lamberton & Diehl, 2013; Lee et al., 2016; Lotfi et al., 2011; Lotfi & Wang et al., 2015) Tsafarakis et al., 2016)
Torabi, 2011; Maddah et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2010; Murray et al., 2010; Pan &
Honhon, 2012; Piramuthu & Zhou, 2013; Ren et al., 2011; Rooderkerk et al., 2013;
Rooderkerk & van Heerde, 2016; Rusmevichientong et al., 2010; Sauré & Zeevi, 2013;
Sinha et al., 2013; Talebian et al., 2014; Tsai & Huang, 2015; Tsao et al., 2014; van
Nierop et al., 2008; Wang, Sheen, & Yeh, 2015; Wong et al., 2012; Yin et al., 2009;
Yücel et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2016) and (Mantrala et al., 2009)
Product (Cachon & Swinney, 2009; Caro & Gallien, 2012; Casado & Ferrer, 2013; Demirag, 2013; (Caro & Gallien, 2012; (Ailawadi et al., (Grewal et al., 2011)
promotion Heese & Swaminathan, 2010; Johnson et al., 2013; Khouja et al., 2013; Khouja et al., Herbon et al., 2014; Li 2009)
(20) 2016; Li et al., 2016; Li, Sun, & Li, 2016; Ramanathan & Muyldermans, 2010; Richards et al., 2016; Li et al.,
et al., 2012; Soysal & Krishnamurthi, 2012; Tromp et al., 2012; Whang, 2015; Yin et al., 2016; Tromp et al.,
2009) 2012)
Checkout (Lu et al., 2013; Terekhov & Beck, 2009) (Li et al., 2013; Lu
operations et al., 2013)
(3)
Employee (Anonymous, 2014; Chapados et al., 2014; Defraeye & van Nieuwenhuyse, 2016; Kabak (Chapados et al., (Ton, 2008; Ton, (Henao et al., 2015)
management et al., 2008; Kesavan et al., 2014; Parisio & Jones, 2015; Pastor & Olivella, 2008; 2014; Chuang 2012)
(14) Perdikaki et al., 2012; Terekhov & Beck, 2009) et al., 2016; Kabak
et al., 2008;
Kesavan et al.,
2014; Mani et al.,
2015; Parisio &
Jones, 2015;
Perdikaki et al.,
2012; Ton, 2008;
Ton, 2012)

417
418 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
References
Abad, P. (2014). Determining optimal price and order size for a price setting
newsvendor under cycle service level. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 158, 106–113.
Abbott, H., & Palekar, U. S. (2008). Retail replenishment models with display-space
elastic demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 596–607.
Agatz, N. A., Fleischmann, M., & van Nunen, J. A. (2008). E-fulfillment and multi-
channel distribution–A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 187(2),
339–356.
Agrawal, N., & Smith, S. A. (Eds.). (2015). Retail supply chain management: quantita-
tive models and empirical studies. New York: Springer.
Ahiska, S. S., Appaji, S. R., King, R. E., & Warsing, D. P., Jr. (2013). A Markov decision
process-based policy characterization approach for a stochastic inventory con-
trol problem with unreliable sourcing. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 144(2), 485–496.
Ailawadi, K. L., Beauchamp, J. P., Donthu, N., Gauri, D. K., & Shankar, V. (2009). Com-
munication and promotion decisions in retailing: A review and directions for
future research. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 42–55.
Alamri, A. A., Harris, I., & Syntetos, A. A. (2016). Efficient inventory control for im-
perfect quality items. European Journal of Operational Research, 254(1), 92–104.
Alptekinoglu, A., & Grasas, A. (2014). When to carry eccentric products? optimal re-
tail assortment under consumer returns. Production and Operations Management,
23(5), 877–892.
Amit, R., Mehta, P., & Tripathi, R. R. (2015). Optimal shelf-space stocking policy using
stochastic dominance under supply-driven demand uncertainty. European Jour-
nal of Operational Research, 246(1), 339–342.
Anderson, E. T., Hansen, K., & Simester, D. (2009). The option value of returns: The-
ory and empirical evidence. Marketing Science, 28(3), 405–423.
Anily, S., & Hassin, R. (2013). Pricing replenishment, and timing of selling in a mar-
ket with heterogeneous customers. International Journal of Production Economics,
145(2), 672–682.
Anonymous (2014). Taming scheduling software. Harvard Business Review, 92(12)
34-34.
Arcelus, F. J., Gor, R., & Srinivasan, G. (2012). Price rebate and order quantity deci-
sions in a newsvendor framework with rebate-dependent recapture of lost sales.
International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 473–482.
Arcelus, F. J., Kumar, S., & Srinivasan, G. (2012). Risk tolerance and a retailer’s pricing
and ordering policies within a newsvendor framework. Omega, 40(2), 188–198.
Atan, Z., & Erkip, N. (2015). Note on "The backroom effect in retail operations". Pro-
duction and Operations Management, 24(11), 1833–1834.
Bakker, M., Riezebos, J., & Teunter, R. H. (2012). Review of inventory systems
with deterioration since 2001. European Journal of Operational Research, 221(2),
275–284.
Balakrishnan, A., Pangburn, M. S., & Stavrulaki, E. (2008). Integrating the promo-
tional and service roles of retail inventories. Manufacturing & Service Operations
Management, 10(2), 218–235.
BalanceInnovations (2015). Grocery Retailing Payments Study.; Avail-
able from: http://www.balanceinnovations.com/resources/2015-grocery-
retailing-payments-study/.
Baron, O., Berman, O., & Perry, D. (2011). Shelf space management when demand
depends on the inventory level. Production and Operations Management, 20(5),
714–726.
Baron, O., Hu, M., Najafi-Asadolahi, S., & Qian, Q. (2015). Newsvendor selling to
loss-averse consumers with stochastic reference points. Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, 17(4), 456–469.
Bell, D. R., Gallino, S., & Moreno, A. (2014). How to win in an Omnichannel world.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(1), 45–53.
Bensoussan, A., Çakanyildirim, M., Li, M., & Sethi, S. P. (2016). Managing inventory
with cash register information: Sales recorded but not demands. Production and
Operations Management, 25(1), 9–21.
Besbes, O., & Sauré, D. (2016). Product assortment and price competition un-
der multinomial logit demand. Production and Operations Management, 25(1),
114–127.
Beutel, A.-L., & Minner, S. (2012). Safety stock planning under causal demand fore-
casting. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(2), 637–645.
Bezawada, R., Balachander, S., Kannan, P. K., & Shankar, V. (2009). Cross-category ef-
fects of aisle and display placements: A spatial modeling approach and insights.
Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 99–117.
Bijvank, M., & Vis, I. F. A. (2011). Lost-sales inventory theory: A review. European
Journal of Operational Research, 215(1), 1–13.
Bijvank, M., & Vis, I. F. A. (2012). Lost-sales inventory systems with a service level
criterion. European Journal of Operational Research, 220(3), 610–618.
Blanchet, J., Gallego, G., & Goyal, V. (2016). A Markov chain approximation to choice
modeling. Operations Research, 64(4), 886–905.
Borin, N., Farris, P. W., & Freeland, J. R. (1994). A model for determining retail
product category assortment and shelf space allocation. Decision Sciences, 25(3),
359–384.
Bose, N. (2016). Wal-Mart’s new scheduling system looks to improve peak-
hour staffing.; Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-walmart-
labor- exclusive- idUSKCN10F27W.
Brabazon, P. G., & MacCarthy, B. (2012). Investigating a long tail in retail vehicle
sales. Omega, 40(3), 302–313.
Broekmeulen, R. A. C. M., & van Donselaar, K. H. (2009). A heuristic to manage per-
ishable inventory with batch ordering, positive lead-times, and time-varying de-
mand. Computers & Operations Research, 36(11), 3013–3018.
Brown, J. R., & Dant, R. P. (2008). Scientific method and retailing research: A retro-
spective. Journal of Retailing, 84(1), 1–13.
Brown, J. R., & Dant, R. P. (2009). The theoretical domains of retailing research: A
retrospective. Journal of Retailing, 85(2), 113–128.
Bruno, H. A., & Vilcassim, N. J. (2008). Structural demand estimation with varying
product availability. Marketing Science, 27(6), 1126–1131.
Bultez, A., & Naert, P. (1988). SH.A.R.P.: Shelf allocation for retailers’ profit. Marketing
Science, 7(3), 211–231.
Cachon, G. P., & Swinney, R. (2009). Purchasing, pricing, and quick response in the
presence of strategic consumers. Management Science, 55(3), 497–511.
Calli, M. K., & Weverbergh, M. (2009). Forecasting newspaper demand with
censored regression. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(7), 944–951.
Caro, F., & Gallien, J. (2012). Clearance pricing optimization for a fast-fashion retailer.
Operations Research, 60(6), 1404–1422.
Caro, F., Martínez-de-albéniz, V., & Rusmevichientong, P. (2014). The assortment
packing problem: Multiperiod assortment planning for short-lived products.
Management Science, 60(11), 2701–2721.
Casado, E., & Ferrer, J.-C. (2013). Consumer price sensitivity in the retail industry:
Latitude of acceptance with heterogeneous demand. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 228(2), 418–426.
Chang, C.-T., Teng, J.-T., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). Optimal replenishment policies for
non-instantaneous deteriorating items with stock-dependent demand. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, 123(1), 62–68.
Chapados, N., Joliveau, M., L’Ecuyer, P., & Rousseau, L.-M. (2014). Retail store
scheduling for profit. European Journal of Operational Research, 239(3), 609–624.
Che, H., Chen, X., & Chen, Y. (2012). Investigating effects of out-of-stock on con-
sumer stockkeeping unit choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(14), 502–513.
Chen, J., Chen, Y., Parlar, M., & Xiao, Y. (2011). Optimal inventory and admission
policies for drop-shipping retailers serving in-store and online customers. IIE
Transactions, 43(5), 332–347.
Chen, L. (2010). Bounds and heuristics for optimal Bayesian inventory control with
unobserved lost sales. Operations Research, 58(2), 396–413.
Chiang, C. (2008). Periodic review inventory models with stochastic supplier’s visit
intervals. International Journal of Production Economics, 115(2), 433–438.
Chintapalli, P. (2015). Simultaneous pricing and inventory management of deterio-
rating perishable products. Annals of Operations Research, 229(1), 287–301.
Choi, T.-M., & Chiu, C.-H. (2012). Mean-downside-risk and mean-variance
newsvendor models: Implications for sustainable fashion retailing. International
Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 552–560.
Choi, T.-M. (2016). Multi-period risk minimization purchasing models for fashion
products with interest rate, budget, and profit target considerations. Annals of
Operations Research, 237(1-2), 77–98.
Chuang, H. H.-C. (2015). Mathematical modeling and Bayesian estimation for
error-prone retail shelf audits. Decision Support Systems, 80, 72–82.
Chuang, H. H.-C., & Oliva, R. (2015). Inventory record inaccuracy: Causes and labor
effects. Journal of Operations Management, 39, 63–78.
Chuang, H. H.-C., & Oliva, R. (2016). Erratum: Inventory record inaccuracy: Causes
and labor effects. Journal of Operations Management, 42-43, 96–110.
Chuang, H. H.-C., Oliva, R., & Liu, S. (2016). On-shelf availability, retail performance,
and external audits: A field experiment. Production and Operations Management,
25(5), 935–951.
Chuang, H. H.-C., Oliva, R., & Perdikaki, O. (2016). Traffic-based labor planning in
retail stores. Production and Operations Management, 25(1), 96–113.
Chung, C.-S., Flynn, J., & Zhu, J. (2009). The newsvendor problem with an in-season
price adjustment. European Journal of Operational Research, 198(1), 148–156.
Condea, C., Thiesse, F., & Fleisch, E. (2012). RFID-enabled shelf replenishment with
backroom monitoring in retail stores. Decision Support Systems, 52(4), 839–849.
Corstjens, M., & Doyle, P. (1981). A model for optimizing retail space allocations.
Management Science, 27(7), 822–833.
Coughlan, A. T., & Shaffer, G. (2009). Price-matching guarantees, retail competition,
and product-line assortment. Marketing Science, 28(3), 580–588.
Curşeu, A., van Woensel, T., Fransoo, J. C., van Donselaar, K. H., & Broek-
meulen, R. A. C. M. (2009). Modelling handling operations in grocery retail
stores: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(2),
200–214.
De Bruecker, P., Van den Bergh, J., Beliën, J., & Demeulemeester, E. (2015). Workforce
planning incorporating skills: State of the art. European Journal of Operational
Research, 243(1), 1–16.
De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Nervo, M. L., & Rafele, C. (2012). Using system dynam-
ics to assess the impact of RFID technology on retail operations. International
Journal of Production Economics, 135(1), 333–344.
Defraeye, M., & van Nieuwenhuyse, I. (2016). A branch-and-bound algorithm for
shift scheduling with stochastic nonstationary demand. Computers & Operations
Research, 65, 149–162.
DeHoratius, N., Mersereau, A. J., & Schrage, L. (2008). Retail inventory management
when records are inaccurate. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management,
10(2), 257–277.
DeHoratius, N., & Raman, A. (2008). Inventory record inaccuracy: An empirical anal-
ysis. Management Science, 54(4), 627–641.
Demirag, O. C. (2013). Performance of weather-conditional rebates under different
risk preferences. Omega, 41(6), 1053–1067.
DeYong, G. D., & Cattani, K. D. (2012). Well adjusted: Using expediting and cance-
lation to manage store replenishment inventory for a seasonal good. European
Journal of Operational Research, 220(1), 93–105.
Dong, L., Kouvelis, P., & Tian, Z. (2009). Dynamic pricing and inventory control
of substitute products. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(2),
317–339.
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
Doukidis, G. J., & Vrechopoulos, A. P. (2005). Consumer driven electronic transforma-
tion. Springer.
Dreze, X., Hoch, S. J., & Purk, M. E. (1994). Shelf management and space elasticity.
Journal of Retailing, 70(4), 301–326.
Dutta, P., & Chakraborty, D. (2010). Incorporating one-way substitution policy into
the newsboy problem with imprecise customer demand. European Journal of Op-
erational Research, 200(1), 99–110.
Ehrenthal, J. C. F., & Stölzle, W. (2013). An examination of the causes for retail stock-
outs. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(1),
54–69.
Ehrenthal, J. C. F., Honhon, D., & van Woensel, T. (2014). Demand seasonality in
retail inventory management. European Journal of Operational Research, 238(2),
527–539.
Eisend, M. (2014). Shelf space elasticity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2),
168–181.
Eroglu, C., Williams, B. D., & Waller, M. A. (2011). Consumer-driven retail operations:
The moderating effects of consumer demand and case pack quantity. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(5), 420–434.
Eroglu, C., Williams, B. D., & Waller, M. A. (2013). The backroom effect in retail op-
erations. Production and Operations Management, 22(4), 915–923.
Ertogral, K. (2008). Multi-item single source ordering problem with transportation
cost: A Lagrangian decomposition approach. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 191(1), 154–165.
Fadılogl̃u, M. M., Karaşan, O. E., & Pınar, M. Ç. (2010). A model and case study for ef-
ficient shelf usage and assortment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 180(1),
105–124.
Fan, T.-J., Chang, X.-Y., Gu, C.-H., Yi, J.-J., & Deng, S. (2014). Benefits of RFID tech-
nology for reducing inventory shrinkage. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 147, 659–665.
Felsted, A. (2016). Tesco to focus on smaller stores.; Available from: https://www.ft.
com/content/33e1095c- 84cd- 11e1- b4f5- 00144feab49a.
Feng, Q., Luo, S., & Zhang, D. (2014). Dynamic inventory-pricing control under back-
order: Demand estimation and policy optimization. Manufacturing & Service Op-
erations Management, 16(1), 149–160.
Fisher, M. (2004). To me it’s a store. To you it’s a factory. International Commerce
Review: ECR Journal, 4(2), 9–18.
Fisher, M., Krishnan, J., & Netessine, S. (2006) Retail store execution: An empirical
study. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel-
phia.
Fisher, M. (2009), Rocket Science Retailing: The 2006 Philip McCord Morse Lecture: 57
(pp. 527–540). Operations Research.
Fisher, M., & Raman, A. (2010). The new science of retailing: How analytics are trans-
forming the supply chain and improving performance. Harvard Business Review
Press.
Fisher, M., & Vaidyanathan, R. (2012). Which products should you stock? Harvard
Business Review, 90(11), 108–118.
Fisher, M., & Vaidyanathan, R. (2014). A demand estimation procedure for retail as-
sortment optimization with results from implementations. Management Science,
60(10), 2401–2415.
Flamand, T., Ghoniem, A., & Maddah, B. (2016). Promoting impulse buying by allo-
cating retail shelf space to grouped product categories. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 67(7), 953–969.
Gajjar, H. K., & Adil, G. K. (2010). A piecewise linearization for retail shelf space
allocation problem and a local search heuristic. Annals of Operations research,
179(1), 149–167.
Gao, L., Thomas, D. J., & Freimer, M. B. (2014). Optimal inventory control with retail
pre-packs. Production and Operations Management, 23(10), 1761–1778.
Geismar, H. N., Dawande, M., Murthi, B., & Sriskandarajah, C. (2015). Maximizing
revenue through two-dimensional shelf-space allocation. Production and Opera-
tions Management, 24(7), 1148–1163.
Gelper, S., Wilms, I., & Croux, C. (2016). Identifying demand effects in a large net-
work of product categories. Journal of Retailing, 92(1), 25–39.
Ghoniem, A., & Maddah, B. (2015). Integrated retail decisions with multiple selling
periods and customer segments: Optimization and insights. Omega, 55, 38–52.
Ghoniem, A., Flamand, T., & Haouari, M. (2016). Optimization-based very large-s-
cale neighborhood search for generalized assignment problems with loca-
tion/allocation considerations. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 28(3), 575–588.
Gilland, W. G., & Heese, H. S. (2013). Sequence matters: Shelf-space allocation under
dynamic customer-driven substitution. Production and Operations Management,
22(4), 875–887.
Goic, M., Bosch, M., & Castro, J. P. (2015). Detecting inefficiently managed categories
in a retail store. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(1), 160–171.
Goyal, S. K., & Chang, C.-T. (2009). Optimal ordering and transfer policy for an in-
ventory with stock dependent demand. European Journal of Operational Research,
196(1), 177–185.
Goyal, V., Levi, R., & Segev, D. (2016). Near-optimal algorithms for the assortment
planning problem under dynamic substitution and stochastic demand. Opera-
tions Research, 64(1), 219–235.
Graczová, D., & Jacko, P. (2014). Generalized restless bandits and the knapsack prob-
lem for perishable inventories. Operations Research, 62(3), 696–711.
Grewal, D., & Levy, M. (2007). Retailing research: Past, present, and future. Journal
of Retailing, 83(4), 447–464.
Grewal, D., Ailawadi, K. L., Gauri, D., Hall, K., Kopalle, P., & Robertson, J. R. (2011).
Innovations in retail pricing and promotions. Journal of Retailing, 87, S43–S52.
Grewal, D., Kopalle, P., Marmorstein, H., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2012). Does travel time
to stores matter? The role of merchandise availability. Journal of Retailing, 88(3),
437–444.
419
Gruen, T. W., Corsten, D. S., & Bharadwaj, S. (2002). Retail out-of-stocks: A worldwide
examination of extent, causes and consumer responses. Washington, DC: Grocery
Manufacturers of America.
Guo, P., & Ma, X. (2014). Newsvendor models for innovative products with one-shot
decision theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 239(2), 523–536.
Hahn, G. J., & Leucht, A. (2015). Managing inventory systems of slow-moving items.
International Journal of Production Economics, 170, 543–550.
Haijema, R., & Minner, S. (2016). Stock-level dependent ordering of perishables: A
comparison of hybrid base-stock and constant order policies. International Jour-
nal of Production Economics, 181, 215–225.
Hall, J. M., Kopalle, P. K., & Krishna, A. (2010). Retailer dynamic pricing and ordering
decisions: Category management versus brand-by-brand approaches. Journal of
Retailing, 86(2), 172–183.
Hamilton, S. F., & Richards, T. J. (2009). Product differentiation, store differentiation,
and assortment depth. Management Science, 55(8), 1368–1376.
Han, S., Ye, Y., Fu, X., & Chen, Z. (2014). Category role aided market segmentation ap-
proach to convenience store chain category management. Decision Support Sys-
tems, 57, 296–308.
Hansen, J. M., Raut, S., & Swami, S. (2010). Retail shelf allocation: A comparative
analysis of heuristic and meta-heuristic approaches. Journal of Retailing, 86(1),
94–105.
Hardgrave, B. C., Aloysius, J. A., & Goyal, S. (2013). RFID-enabled visibility and retail
inventory record inaccuracy: Experiments in the Field. Production and Operations
Management, 22(4), 843–856.
Heese, H., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2010). Inventory and sales effort management
under unobservable lost sales. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3),
1263–1268.
Henao, C. A., Munoz, J. C., & Ferrer, J. C. (2015). The impact of multi-skilling on
personnel scheduling in the service sector: A retail industry case. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 66(12), 1949–1959.
Herbon, A. (2014). Dynamic pricing vs. acquiring information on consumers’ het-
erogeneous sensitivity to product freshness. International Journal of Production
Research, 52(3), 918–933.
Herbon, A., Levner, E., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2014). Perishable inventory management
with dynamic pricing using time-temperature indicators linked to automatic
detecting devices. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 605–613.
Holweg, C., Teller, C., & Kotzab, H. (2016). Unsaleable grocery products, their residual
value and instore logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logis-
tics Management, 46(6/7), 634–658.
Hong, S., Misra, K., & Vilcassim, N. J. (2016). The Perils of category management:
The effect of product assortment on multicategory purchase incidence. Journal
of Marketing, 80(5), 34–52.
Honhon, D., Gaur, V., & Seshadri, S. (2010). Assortment planning and inventory deci-
sions under stockout-based substitution. Operations Research, 58(5), 1364–1379.
Honhon, D., Jonnalagedda, S., & Pan, X. A. (2012). Optimal algorithms for assort-
ment selection under ranking-based consumer choice models. Manufacturing &
Service Operations Management, 14(2), 279–289.
Hopp, W. J., & Xu, X. (2008). A static approximation for dynamic demand substi-
tution with applications in a competitive market. Operations Research, 56(3),
630–645.
Hovelaque, V., & Bironneau, L. (2015). The carbon-constrained EOQ model with car-
bon emission dependent demand. International Journal of Production Economics,
164, 285–291.
Hsu, P. H., Wee, H. M., & Teng, H. M. (2010). Preservation technology investment
for deteriorating inventory. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2),
388–394.
Hu, X., & Motwani, J. G. (2014). Minimizing downside risks for global sourcing un-
der price-sensitive stochastic demand, exchange rate uncertainties, and supplier
capacity constraints. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 398–409.
Hua, G., Wang, S., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). Optimal pricing and order quantity for
the newsvendor problem with free shipping. International Journal of Production
Economics, 135(1), 162–169.
Hua, G., Wang, S., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). Optimal order lot sizing and pricing with
free shipping. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(2), 435–441.
Huang, M.-G. (2013). Economic ordering model for deteriorating items with random
demand and deterioration. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18),
5612–5624.
Huang, Y.-S., Hsu, C.-S., & Ho, J.-W. (2014). Dynamic pricing for fashion goods
with partial backlogging. International Journal of Production Research, 52(14),
4299–4314.
Huang, Y., & Zhang, Y. C. (2016). The out-of-stock (OOS) effect on choice shares of
available options. Journal of Retailing, 92(1), 13–24.
Hübner, A., Kuhn, H., & Kühn, S. (2016). An efficient algorithm for capacitated as-
sortment planning with stochastic demand and substitution. European Journal of
Operational Research, 250(2), 505–520.
Hübner, A. H., & Kuhn, H. (2012). Retail category management: State-of-the-art re-
view of quantitative research and software applications in assortment and shelf
space management. Omega, 40(2), 199–209.
Irion, J., Lu, J.-C., Al-Khayyal, F. A., & Tsao, Y.-C. (2011). A hierarchical decomposition
approach to retail shelf space management and assortment decisions. Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 62(10), 1861–1870.
Irion, J., Lu, J.-C., Al-Khayyal, F., & Tsao, Y.-C. (2012). A piecewise linearization frame-
work for retail shelf space management models. European Journal of Operational
Research, 222(1), 122–136.
420 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
Jacko, P. (2016). Resource capacity allocation to stochastic dynamic competitors:
Knapsack problem for perishable items and index-knapsack heuristic. Annals of
Operations Research, 241(1-2), 83–107.
Jain, A., Rudi, N., & Wang, T. (2015). Demand estimation and ordering under cen-
soring: Stock-out timing is (almost) all you need. Operations Research, 63(1),
134–150.
Jaksic, M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2015). Optimal inventory management with supply back-
ordering. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 254–264.
Johnson, J., Tellis, G. J., & Ip, E. H. (2013). To whom, when, and how much to dis-
count? A constrained optimization of customized temporal discounts. Journal of
Retailing, 89(4), 361–373.
Kabak, Ö., Ülengin, F., Akta, E., Ule, Ö., & Topcu, Y. I. (2008). Efficient shift scheduling
in the retail sector through two-stage optimization. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 184(1), 76–90.
Karabati, S., Tan, B., & Öztürk, Ö. C. (2009). A method for estimating stock-out-based
substitution rates by using point-of-sale data. IIE Transactions, 41(5), 408–420.
Karaesmen, I. Z., Scheller–Wolf, A., & Deniz, B. (2011). Managing perishable and ag-
ing inventories: Review and future research directions. Planning production and
inventories in the extended enterprise (pp. 393–436). Springer.
Karakul, M. (2008). Joint pricing and procurement of fashion products in the exis-
tence of clearance markets. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2),
487–506.
Katsifou, A., Seifert, R. W., & Tancrez, J.-S. (2014). Joint product assortment, inven-
tory and price optimization to attract loyal and non-loyal customers. Omega,
46-50, 36–50.
Kearney, A. T. (2016). Retail Operations: People Are Still the Best Investment.;
Available from: https://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/6368461/
Retail+Operations%E2%80%93People+Are+Still+the+Best+Investment.pdf/
239ca6c9- 5566- 4aee- a8f1- 184ea7cd9e71.
Kesavan, S., Staats, B. R., & Gilland, W. (2014). Volume flexibility in services:
The costs and benefits of flexible labor resources. Management Science, 60(8),
1884–1906.
Ketzenberg, M., Bloemhof, J., & Gaukler, G. (2015). Managing perishables with time
and temperature history. Production and Operations Management, 24(1), 54–70.
Ketzenberg, M. E., Geismar, N., Metters, R., & van der Laan, E. (2013). The value of
information for managing retail inventory remotely. Production and Operations
Management, 22(4), 811–825.
Khader, S., Rekik, Y., Botta-Genoulaz, V., & Campagne, J.-P. (2014). Inventory man-
agement subject to multiplicative inaccuracies. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 52(17), 5055–5069.
Khmelnitsky, E., & Singer, G. (2014). An optimal inventory management prob-
lem with reputation-dependent demand. Annals of Operations Research, 231(1),
305–316.
Khouja, M., Park, S., & Zhou, J. (2013). A free gift card alternative to price discounts
in the newsvendor problem. Omega, 41(4), 665–678.
Khouja, M., Pan, J., & Zhou, J. (2016). Effects of gift cards on optimal order and
discount of seasonal products. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(1),
159–173.
Kiesmüller, G. P. (2009). A multi-item periodic replenishment policy with full truck-
loads. International Journal of Production Economics, 118(1), 275–281.
Kök, A. G., & Fisher, M. L. (2007). Demand estimation and assortment optimization
under substitution: Methodology and application. Operations Research, 55(6),
1001–1021.
Kök, A. G., Fisher, M., & Vaidyanathan, R. (2015). Assortment planning: Review of
literature and industry practice. In N. Agrawal, & S. Smith (Eds.), Retail supply
chain management (pp. 175–236). Springer, New York.
Kok, A. G. d., van Donselaar, K. H., & van Woensel, T. (2008). A break-even analysis
of RFID technology for inventory sensitive to shrinkage. International Journal of
Production Economics, 112(2), 521–531.
Koschat, M. A. (2008). Store inventory can affect demand: Empirical evidence from
magazine retailing. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 165–179.
Kouki, C., Jemaï, Z., & Minner, S. (2015). A lost sales (r, Q) inventory control model
for perishables with fixed lifetime and lead time. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, 168, 143–157.
Kulkarni, S., Ponnaiyan, S., & Tarakci, H. (2015). Optimal ordering decisions un-
der two returns policies. International Journal of Production Research, 53(12),
3720–3734.
Kwon, K., & Cheong, T. (2014). A minimax distribution-free procedure for a
newsvendor problem with free shipping. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 232(1), 234–240.
Lamberton, C. P., & Diehl, K. (2013). Retail choice architecture: The effects of bene-
fit- and attribute-based assortment organization on consumer perceptions and
choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 393–411.
Lee, H., & Eun, Y. (2016). Estimating primary demand for a heterogeneous-groups
product category under hierarchical consumer choice model. IIE Transactions,
48(6), 541–554.
Lee, J., Gaur, V., Muthulingam, S., & Swisher, G. F. (2016). Stockout-based substitu-
tion and inventory planning in textbook retailing. Manufacturing & Service Op-
erations Management, 18(1), 104–121.
Lee, S., & Allenby, G. M. (2014). Modeling indivisible demand. Marketing Science,
33(3), 364–460.
Li, M., Choi, T. Y., Rabinovich, E., & Crawford, A. (2013). Self-service operations at
retail stores: The role of inter-customer interactions. Production and Operations
Management, 22(4), 888–914.
Li, Q., Wu, X., & Cheung, K. L. (2009). Optimal policies for inventory systems
with separate delivery-request and order-quantity decisions. Operations Re-
search, 57(3), 626–636.
Li, Q., Yu, P., & Wu, X. (2016). Managing perishable inventories in retailing: Replen-
ishment, clearance sales, and segregation. Operations Research, 64(6), 1270–1284.
Li, X., Sun, G., & Li, Y. (2016). A multi-period ordering and clearance pricing model
considering the competition between new and out-of-season products. Annals
of Operations Research, 242(2), 207–221.
Li, Y., Cheang, B., & Lim, A. (2012). Grocery perishables management. Production and
Operations Management, 21(3), 504–517.
Liao, Y., Shen, W., Hu, X., & Yang, S. (2014). Optimal responses to stockouts: Lateral
transshipment versus emergency order policies. Omega, 49, 79–92.
Lim, S. (2013). A joint optimal pricing and order quantity model under parameter
uncertainty and its practical implementation. Omega, 41(6), 998–1007.
Liu, F. (2016). Product damage and free sampling: A newsvendor model with pas-
sive and proactive self-consumption. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
67(2), 198–213.
Liu, G., Zhang, J., & Tang, W. (2015). Joint dynamic pricing and investment strategy
for perishable foods with price-quality dependent demand. Annals of Operations
Research, 226(1), 397–416.
Liu, W., Song, S., Li, B., & Wu, C. (2015). A periodic review inventory model with
loss-averse retailer, random supply capacity and demand. International Journal
of Production Research, 53(12), 3623–3634.
Loeb, W. (2015). The New Retail Edict: Close Stores (Or Make The New Ones
Smaller). Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterloeb/2015/
11/10/the- new- retail- edict- close- stores- or- make- the- new- ones- smaller/
#3d6b10cc6790.
Lotfi, M. M., Rabbani, M., & Ghaderi, S. F. (2011). A weighted goal programming ap-
proach for replenishment planning and space allocation in a supermarket. Jour-
nal of the Operational Research Society, 62(6), 1128–1137.
Lotfi, M. M., & Torabi, S. A. (2011). A fuzzy goal programming approach for mid-term
assortment planning in supermarkets. European Journal of Operational Research,
213(2), 430–441.
Lu, Y., Musalem, A., Olivares, M., & Schilkrut, A. (2013). Measuring the effect of
queues on customer purchases. Management Science, 59(8), 1743–1763.
Lu, Y., Song, M., & Yang, Y. (2016). Joint inventory and pricing coordination with
incomplete demand information. Production and Operations Management, 25(4),
701–718.
Ma, L., Zhao, Y., Xue, W., Cheng, T. C. E., & Yan, H. (2012). Loss-averse newsven-
dor model with two ordering opportunities and market information updating.
International Journal of Production Economics, 140(2), 912–921.
Maddah, B., Bish, E. K., & Tarhini, H. (2014). Newsvendor pricing and assortment
under Poisson decomposition. IIE Transactions, 46(6), 567–584.
Mahajan, S., & van Ryzin, G. (2001). Stocking retail assortments under dynamic con-
sumer substitution. Operations Research, 49(3), 334–351.
Mahar, S., Salzarulo, P. A., & Wright, P. D. (2012). Using online pickup site inclusion
policies to manage demand in retail/E-tail organizations. Computers & Opera-
tions Research, 39(5), 991–999.
Mahar, S., Wright, P. D., Bretthauer, K. M., & Hill, R. P. (2014). Optimizing marketer
costs and consumer benefits across "clicks" and "bricks". Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 42(6), 619–641.
Maihami, R., & Karimi, B. (2014). Optimizing the pricing and replenishment policy
for non-instantaneous deteriorating items with stochastic demand and promo-
tional efforts. Computers & Operations Research, 51, 302–312.
Mani, V., Kesavan, S., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2015). Estimating the impact of un-
derstaffing on sales and profitability in retail stores. Production and Operations
Management, 24(2), 201–218.
Mantrala, M. K., Levy, M., Kahn, B. E., Fox, E. J., Gaidarev, P., Dankworth, B.,
et al. (2009). Why is assortment planning so difficult for retailers? A framework
and research agenda. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 71–83.
Mersereau, A. J. (2015). Demand estimation from censored observations with inven-
tory record inaccuracy. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 17(3),
335–349.
Metzger, C., Thiesse, F., Gershwin, S., & Fleisch, E. (2013). The impact of false-neg-
ative reads on the performance of RFID-based shelf inventory control policies.
Computers & Operations Research, 40(7), 1864–1873.
Miller, C. M., Smith, S. A., McIntyre, S. H., & Achabal, D. D. (2010). Optimizing and
evaluating retail assortments for infrequently purchased products. Journal of Re-
tailing, 86(2), 159–171.
Minner, S., & Transchel, S. (2010). Periodic review inventory-control for perishable
products under service-level constraints. OR Spectrum, 32(4), 979–996.
Moussaoui, I., Williams, B. D., Hofer, C., Aloysius, J. A., & Waller, M. A. (2016). Drivers
of retail on-shelf availability: Systematic review, critical assessment, and reflec-
tions on the road ahead. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 46(5), 516–535.
Murray, C. C., Talukdar, D., & Gosavi, A. (2010). Joint optimization of product price,
display orientation and shelf-space allocation in retail category management.
Journal of Retailing, 86(2), 125–136.
Murray, C. C., Gosavi, A., & Talukdar, D. (2012). The multi-product price-setting
newsvendor with resource capacity constraints. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, 138(1), 148–158.
Musalem, A., Olivares, M., Bradlow, E. T., Terwiesch, C., & Corsten, D. (2010).
Structural estimation of the effect of out-of-stocks. Management Science, 56(7),
1180–1197.
 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
Nachtmann, H., Waller, M. A., & Rieske, D. W. (2010). The impact of point-of-sale
data inaccuracy and inventory record data errors. Journal of Business Logistics,
31(1), 149–158.
Nagarajan, M., & Rajagapalan, S. (2008). Inventory models for substitutable prod-
ucts: Optimal policies and heuristics. Management Science, 54(8), 1453–1466.
O’Neil, S., Zhao, X., Sun, D., & Wei, J. C. (2016). Newsvendor problems with demand
shocks and unknown demand distributions. Decision Sciences, 47(1), 125–156.
Olsen, T. L., & Parker, R. P. (2008). Inventory management under market size dy-
namics. Management Science, 54(10), 1805–1821.
Pan, K., Lai, K. K., Liang, L., & Leung, S. C. H. (2009). Two-period pricing and ordering
policy for the dominant retailer in a two-echelon supply chain with demand
uncertainty. Omega, 37(4), 919–929.
Pan, X. A., & Honhon, D. (2012). Assortment planning for vertically differentiated
products. Production and Operations Management, 21(2), 253–275.
Papakiriakopoulos, D., Pramatari, K., & Doukidis, G. (2009). A decision support sys-
tem for detecting products missing from the shelf based on heuristic rules. De-
cision Support Systems, 46(3), 685–694.
Parisio, A., & Jones, C. N. (2015). A two-stage stochastic programming approach
to employee scheduling in retail outlets with uncertain demand. Omega, 53,
97–103.
Pastor, R., & Olivella, J. (2008). Selecting and adapting weekly work schedules with
working time accounts: A case of a retail clothing chain. European Journal of
Operational Research, 184(1), 1–12.
Pentico, D. W. (2008). The assortment problem: A survey. European Journal of Oper-
ational Research, 190(2), 295–309.
Perdikaki, O., Kesavan, S., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2012). Effect of traffic on sales
and conversion rates of retail stores. Manufacturing & Service Operations Man-
agement, 14(1), 145–162.
Petruzzi, N. C., & Dada, M. (1999). Pricing and the newsvendor problem: A review
with extensions. Operations Research, 47(2), 183–194.
Piramuthu, S., & Zhou, W. (2013). RFID and perishable inventory management with
shelf-space and freshness dependent demand. International Journal of Production
Economics, 144(2), 635–640.
Piramuthu, S., Wochner, S., & Grunow, M. (2014). Should retail stores also RFID-tag
’cheap’ items? European Journal of Operational Research, 233(1), 281–291.
Prasad, A., Stecke, K. E., & Zhao, X. (2011). Advance selling by a newsvendor retailer.
Production and Operations Management, 20(1), 129–142.
Prasad, K., & Mukherjee, B. (2016). Optimal inventory model under stock and time
dependent demand for time varying deterioration rate with shortages. Annals of
Operations Research, 243(1-2), 323–334.
PwC (2015). Total Retail 2015: Retailers and the Age of Disruption.
Available from: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/retail-consumer/
global- multi- channel- consumer- survey.html.
Qi, L., Shen, Z.-J. M., & Snyder, L. V. (2009). A continuous-review inventory model
with disruptions at both supplier and retailer. Production and Operations Man-
agement, 18(5): 516–532.
Raman, A., DeHoratius, N., & Ton, Z. (2001). Execution: The missing link in retail
operations. California Management Review, 43(3), 136–152.
Ramanathan, U., & Muyldermans, L. (2010). Identifying demand factors for promo-
tional planning and forecasting: A case of a soft drink company in the UK. In-
ternational Journal of Production Economics, 128(2), 538–545.
Raut, S., Swami, S., & Moholkar, M. (2009). Heuristic and meta-heuristic approaches
for multi-period shelf-space optimization: The case of motion picture retailing.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(10), 1335–1348.
Ray, S., Song, Y., & Verma, M. (2010). Comparison of two periodic review models
for stochastic and price-sensitive demand environment. International Journal of
Production Economics, 128(1), 209–222.
Reiner, G., Teller, C., & Kotzab, H. (2013). Analyzing the efficient execution of in-store
logistics processes in grocery retailing - the case of dairy products. Production
and Operations Management, 22(4), 924–939.
Rekik, Y., Sahin, E., & Dallery, Y. (2008). Analysis of the impact of the RFID tech-
nology on reducing product misplacement errors at retail stores. International
Journal of Production Economics, 112(1), 264–278.
Rekik, Y., Sahin, E., & Dallery, Y. (2009). Inventory inaccuracy in retail stores due
to theft: An analysis of the benefits of RFID. International Journal of Production
Economics, 118(1), 189–198.
Rekik, Y., & Sahin, E. (2012). Exploring inventory systems sensitive to shrinkage -
analysis of a periodic review inventory under a service level constraint. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research, 50(13), 3529–3546.
Ren, C. R., Hu, Y., Hu, Y., & Hausman, J. (2011). Managing product variety and col-
location in a competitive environment: An empirical investigation of consumer
electronics retailing. Management Science, 57(6), 1009–1024.
Richards, T. J., Gómez, M. I., & Pofahl, G. (2012). A multiple-discrete/continuous
model of price promotion. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 206–225.
Rong, Y., Shen, Z.-J. M., & Yano, C. A. (2012). Cheaper by the pallet? Multi-item pro-
curement with standard batch sizes. IIE Transactions, 44(6), 405–418.
Rooderkerk, R. P., van Heerde, H. J., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2013). Optimizing retail as-
sortments. Marketing Science, 32(5), 699–826.
Rooderkerk, R. P., & van Heerde, H. J. (2016). Robust optimization of the 0-1 knap-
sack problem: Balancing risk and return in assortment optimization. European
Journal of Operational Research, 250(3), 842–854.
Rusmevichientong, P., Shen, Z.-J. M., & Shmoys, D. B. (2010). Dynamic assortment
optimization with a multinomial logit choice model and capacity constraint. Op-
erations Research, 58(6), 1666–1680.
421
Russell, R. A., & Urban, T. L. (2010). The location and allocation of products and
product families on retail shelves. Annals of Operations Research, 179(1), 131–147.
Ryzin, G. v, & Mahajan, S. (1999). On the relationship between inventory costs and
variety benefits in retail assortments. Management Science, 45(11), 1496–1509.
Sachs, A.-L., & Minner, S. (2014). The data-driven newsvendor with censored de-
mand observations. International Journal of Production Economics, 149, 28–36.
Sainathan, A. (2013). Pricing and replenishment of competing perishable product
variants under dynamic demand substitution. Production and Operations Man-
agement, 22(5), 1157–1181.
Sauré, D., & Zeevi, A. (2013). Optimal dynamic assortment planning with demand
learning. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 15(3), 387–404.
Sazvar, Z., Mirzapour Al-e-hashem, S. M. J., Govindan, K., & Bahli, B. (2016). A novel
mathematical model for a multi-period, multi-product optimal ordering prob-
lem considering expiry dates in a FEFO system. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 93, 232–261.
Schneider, F., & Klabjan, D. (2013). Inventory control in multi-channel retail. Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, 227(1), 101–111.
Serel, D. A. (2009). Optimal ordering and pricing in a quick response system. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics, 121(2), 700–714.
Serel, D. A. (2012). Multi-item quick response system with budget constraint. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics, 137(2), 235–249.
Shah, N. H., Soni, H. N., & Patel, K. A. (2013). Optimizing inventory and marketing
policy for non-instantaneous deteriorating items with generalized type deterio-
ration and holding cost rates. Omega, 41(2), 421–430.
Sharma, A., & Banerjee, S. (2013). Optimal price markup policy for an inventory
model with random price fluctuations and option for additional purchase. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics, 146(2), 620–633.
Shi, J., & Zhang, G. (2010). Multi-product budget-constrained acquisition and pricing
with uncertain demand and supplier quantity discounts. International Journal of
Production Economics, 128(1), 322–331.
Sinha, A., Sahgal, A., & Mathur, S. K. (2013). Category optimizer: A dynamic-assort-
ment, new-product-introduction, mix-optimization, and demand-planning sys-
tem. Marketing Science, 32(2), 221–358.
Smith, S. A., & Agrawal, N. (20 0 0). Management of multi-item retail inventory sys-
tems with demand substitution. Operations Research, 48(1), 50–64.
Song, Y., Ray, S., & Boyaci, T. (2009). Optimal dynamic joint inventory-pricing con-
trol for multiplicative demand with fixed order costs and lost sales. Operations
Research, 57(1), 245–250.
Soysal, G. P., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2012). Demand dynamics in the seasonal goods
industry: An empirical analysis. Marketing Science, 31(2), 293–316.
Stavrulaki, E. (2011). Inventory decisions for substitutable products with stock-de-
pendent demand. International Journal of Production Economics, 129(1), 65–78.
Talebian, M., Boland, N., & Savelsbergh, M. (2014). Pricing to accelerate demand
learning in dynamic assortment planning for perishable products. European
Journal of Operational Research, 237(2), 555–565.
Taleizadeh, A. A., Khanbaglo, M. P., & Cárdenas-Barrón, L. E. (2016). An EOQ inven-
tory model with partial backordering and reparation of imperfect products. In-
ternational Journal of Production Economics, 182, 418–434.
Tan, B., & Karabati, S. (2013). Retail inventory management with stock-out based
dynamic demand substitution. International Journal of Production Economics,
145(1), 78–87.
Tapiero, C. S., & Kogan, K. (2009). Risk-averse order policies with random prices in
complete market and retailer’s private information. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 196(2), 594–599.
Teixeira, T. S., & Gupta, S. (2015). Case study - can you win back online shoppers?
Harvard Business Review, 93(9), 117–121.
Terekhov, D., & Beck, J. C. (2009). An extended queueing control model for facilities
with front room and back room operations and mixed-skilled workers. European
Journal of Operational Research, 198(1), 223–231.
Thiesse, F., & Buckel, T. (2015). A comparison of RFID-based shelf replenishment
policies in retail stores under suboptimal read rates. International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics, 159, 126–136.
Tokar, T., Aloysius, J., Williams, B. D., & Waller, M. A. (2014). Bracing for demand
shocks: An experimental investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 32(4),
205–216.
Tokar, T., Aloysius, J., Waller, M. A., & Hawkins, D. L. (2016). Exploring framing ef-
fects in inventory control decisions: Violations of procedure invariance. Produc-
tion and Operations Management, 25(2), 306–329.
Ton, Z. (2008). The hidden risk in cutting retail payroll. Harvard Business Review,
86(3) 22-22.
Ton, Z. (2009). The effect of labor on profitability: The role of quality. Harvard Business
School Technology & Operations Management Unit Research Paper 09–040.
Ton, Z., & Raman, A. (2010). The effect of product variety and inventory levels on
retail store sales: A longitudinal study. Production and Operations Management,
19(5), 546–560.
Ton, Z. (2012). Why "good jobs" are good for retailers. Harvard Business Review, 90(1,
2), 124–131.
Toptal, A., Oezlue, H., & Konur, D. (2014). Joint decisions on inventory replenish-
ment and emission reduction investment under different emission regulations.
International Journal of Production Research, 52(1), 243–269.
Transchel, S., & Minner, S. (2009). The impact of dynamic pricing on the economic
order decision. European Journal of Operational Research, 198(3), 773–789.
422 S. Mou et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 265 (2018) 399–422
Trautrims, A., Grant, D. B., Fernie, J., & Harrison, T. (2009). Optimizing on-shelf
availability for customer service and profit. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(2),
231–247.
Tromp, S.-O., Rijgersberg, H., da Silva, F. P., & Bartels, P. (2012). Retail benefits of
dynamic expiry dates - Simulating opportunity losses due to product loss, dis-
count policy and out of stock. International Journal of Production Economics,
139(1), 14–21.
Tromp, S.-O., Haijema, R., Rijgersberg, H., & van der Vorst, J. G. A. J. (2016). A system-
atic approach to preventing chilled-food waste at the retail outlet. International
Journal of Production Economics, 182, 508–518.
Tsafarakis, S., Saridakis, C., Matsatsinis, N., & Baltas, G. (2016). Private labels and re-
tail assortment planning: A differential evolution approach. Annals of Operations
Research, 247(2), 677–692.
Tsai, C.-Y., & Huang, S.-H. (2015). A data mining approach to optimise shelf space
allocation in consideration of customer purchase and moving behaviours. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, 53(3), 850–866.
Tsai, P.-C., & Huang, J.-Y. (2012). Two-stage replenishment policies for deteriorating
items at Taiwanese convenience stores. Computers & Operations Research, 39(2),
328–338.
Tsao, Y.-C., Lu, J.-C., An, N., Al-Khayyal, F., Lu, R., & Han, G. (2014). Retailer shelf-s-
pace management with trade allowance: A Stackelberg game between retailer
and manufacturers. International Journal of Production Economics, 148, 133–144.
Urban, T. L. (1998). An inventory-theoretic approach to product assortment and
shelf-space allocation. Journal of Retailing, 74(1), 15–35.
van den Bergh, J., Beliën, J., De Bruecker, P., Demeulemeester, E., & De
Boeck, L. (2013). Personnel scheduling: A literature review. European Journal of
Operational Research, 226(3), 367–385.
van Donselaar, K. H., Gaur, V., van Woensel, T., Broekmeulen, R. A. C. M., & Fran-
soo, J. C. (2010). Ordering behavior in retail stores and implications for auto-
mated replenishment. Management Science, 56(5), 766–784.
van Donselaar, K. H., Peters, J., de Jong, A., & Broekmeulen, R. A. C. M. (2016). Anal-
ysis and forecasting of demand during promotions for perishable items. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics, 172, 65–75.
van Nierop, E., Fok, D., & Franses, P. H. (2008). Interaction between shelf layout
and marketing effectiveness and its impact on optimizing shelf arrangements.
Marketing Science, 27(6), 1065–1082.
Van Woensel, T., Fisher, M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2010). Teaching retail operations in
business and engineering schools. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 11(1),
29–34.
van Zelst, S., van Donselaar, K. H., van Woensel, T., Broekmeulen, R. A. C. M., & Fran-
soo, J. C. (2009). Logistics drivers for shelf stacking in grocery retail stores: Po-
tential for efficiency improvement. International Journal of Production Economics,
121(2), 620–632.
Waller, M. A., Williams, B. D., & Eroglu, C. (2008). Hidden effects of variable order
review intervals in inventory control. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 38(3), 244–258.
Waller, M. A., Williams, B. D., Tangari, A. H., & Burton, S. (2010). Marketing at the
retail shelf: An examination of moderating effects of logistics on SKU market
share. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 105–117.
Wang, F., Fang, X., Chen, X., & Li, X. (2016). Impact of inventory inaccuracies on
products with inventory-dependent demand. International Journal of Production
Economics, 177, 118–130.
Wang, S.-Y., Sheen, G.-J., & Yeh, Y. (2015). Pricing and shelf space decisions with
non-symmetric market demand. International Journal of Production Economics,
169, 233–239.
Whang, S. (2015). Demand uncertainty and the Bayesian effect in markdown pricing
with strategic customers. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 17(1),
66–77.
Wong, W. K., Leung, S. Y. S., Guo, Z. X., Zeng, X. H., & Mok, P. Y. (2012). Intelligent
product cross-selling system with radio frequency identification technology for
retailing. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(1), 308–319.
Wu, S., Liu, Q., & Zhang, R. Q. (2015). The reference effects on a retailer’s dynamic
pricing and inventory strategies with strategic consumers. Operations Research,
63(6), 1320–1335.
Yang, C.-T. (2014). An inventory model with both stock-dependent demand rate and
stock-dependent holding cost rate. International Journal of Production Economics,
155, 214–221.
Yeo, W. M., & Yuan, X.-M. (2012). Impact of transportation contract on inventory
systems with demand cancellation. International Journal of Production Economics,
137(1), 45–54.
Yin, R., Aviv, Y., Pazgal, A., & Tang, C. S. (2009). Optimal markdown pricing: Im-
plications of inventory display formats in the presence of strategic customers.
Management Science, 55(8), 1391–1408.
Younes, E., Yates, N., & Mena, C. (2012). Examining retail on shelf availability: Pro-
motional impact and a call for research. International Journal of Physical Distri-
bution & Logistics Management, 42(3), 213–243.
Yücel, E., Karaesmen, F., Salman, F. S., & Türkay, M. (2009). Optimizing product as-
sortment under customer-driven demand substitution. European Journal of Op-
erational Research, 199(3), 759–768.
Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Lu, L., & Tang, W. (2015). Optimal dynamic pricing and replenish-
ment cycle for non-instantaneous deterioration items with inventory-level-de-
pendent demand. International Journal of Production Economics, 170, 136–145.
Zhao, J., Zhou, Y.-W., & Wahab, M. I. M. (2016). Joint optimization models for shelf
display and inventory control considering the impact of spatial relationship on
demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 255(3), 797–808.
Zheng, M., Shu, Y., & Wu, K. (2015). On optimal emergency orders with updated
demand forecast and limited supply. International Journal of Production Research,
53(12), 3692–3719.
Zheng, M., Wu, K., & Shu, Y. (2016). Newsvendor problems with demand forecast
updating and supply constraints. Computers & Operations Research, 67, 193–206.
Zhou, B., Katehakis, M. N., & Zhao, Y. (2009). Managing stochastic inventory sys-
tems with free shipping option. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(1),
186–197.
Zhou, W., & Piramuthu, S. (2013). Preventing ticket-switching of RFID-tagged items
in apparel retail stores. Decision Support Systems, 55(3), 802–810.
Zhou, W., & Piramuthu, S. (2015). Effects of ticket-switching on inventory manage-
ment: Actual vs. information system-based data. Decision Support Systems, 77,
31–40.
Zhou, W., & Piramuthu, S. (2015). Effect of ticket-switching on inventory and shelf-s-
pace allocation. Decision Support Systems, 69, 31–39.
Zinn, W., & Liu, P. C. (2008). A comparison of actual and intended consumer behav-
ior in response to retail stockouts. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(2), 141–159.