IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A model of product line design and introduction sequence with reservation utility

  • Lacourbe, Paul
Registered author(s):

    Cannibalization is a major concern for a firm when designing a product line. In addition, external options from outside the firm’s product line may also play a significant role. In this paper, we investigate the impact of external options, represented by reservation utility, on product line design and introduction sequence. We find that: (a) heterogeneous reservation utility defines the relative attractiveness of segments and corresponding product line; (b) reservation utility makes it more favorable to introduce products sequentially rather than simultaneously; (c) aggregating segments is an effective way to mitigate cannibalization when it becomes too difficult to manage with different values of reservation utility across multiple segments; and (d) introducing products in a non-monotone order of quality can improve profit from simultaneous introduction when the value of reservation utility of a middle segment is particularly high.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221712000343
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal European Journal of Operational Research.

    Volume (Year): 220 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 338-348

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:220:y:2012:i:2:p:338-348
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Mark B. Vandenbosch & Charles B. Weinberg, 1995. "Product and Price Competition in a Two-Dimensional Vertical Differentiation Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 224-249.
    2. Mallik, Suman & Chhajed, Dilip, 2006. "Optimal temporal product introduction strategies under valuation changes and learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 430-452, July.
    3. Green, Paul E. & Krieger, Abba M., 1989. "Recent contributions to optimal product positioning and buyer segmentation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 127-141, July.
    4. Jullien, Bruno, 1997. "Participation Constraints in Adverse Selection Models," IDEI Working Papers 67, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    5. V. Krishnan & W. Zhu, 2006. "Designing a Family of Development-Intensive Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 813-825, June.
    6. Richard D. McBride & Fred S. Zufryden, 1988. "An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 126-140.
    7. Kraus, Ursula G. & Yano, Candace Arai, 2003. "Product line selection and pricing under a share-of-surplus choice model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(3), pages 653-671, November.
    8. Gruca, Thomas S. & Klemz, Bruce R., 2003. "Optimal new product positioning: A genetic algorithm approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 621-633, May.
    9. Tang, Christopher S. & Yin, Rui, 2010. "The implications of costs, capacity, and competition on product line selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(2), pages 439-450, January.
    10. V. Krishnan & Shantanu Bhattacharya, 2002. "Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 313-327, March.
    11. Srinagesh, P. & Bradburd, R.M., 1988. "Quality Distorsion By A Discriminating Monopolist," Department of Economics Working Papers 117, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    12. Bhattacharya, Shantanu & Krishnan, V. & Mahajan, Vijay, 2003. "Operationalizing technology improvements in product development decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(1), pages 102-130, August.
    13. V. Krishnan & Saurabh Gupta, 2001. "Appropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 52-68, January.
    14. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Alexouda, Georgia & Paparrizos, Konstantinos, 2001. "A genetic algorithm approach to the product line design problem using the seller's return criterion: An extensive comparative computational study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 165-178, October.
    16. Matsubayashi, Nobuo & Ishii, Yasuaki & Watanabe, Kentaro & Yamada, Yoshiyasu, 2009. "Full-line or specialization strategy? The negative effect of product variety on product line strategy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 795-807, July.
    17. Laurens G. Debo & L. Beril Toktay & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2005. "Market Segmentation and Product Technology Selection for Remanufacturable Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1193-1205, August.
    18. Krieger, Abba M. & Green, P. E., 2002. "A decision support model for selecting product/service benefit positionings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 187-202, October.
    19. Maggi G. & Rodriguez-Clare A., 1995. "On Countervailing Incentives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 238-263, June.
    20. Kohli, Rajeev & Krishnamurti, Ramesh, 1989. "Optimal product design using conjoint analysis: Computational complexity and algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 186-195, May.
    21. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1988. "Positioning and Pricing a Product Line," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 107-125.
    22. Preyas Desai & Sunder Kekre & Suresh Radhakrishnan & Kannan Srinivasan, 2001. "Product Differentiation and Commonality in Design: Balancing Revenue and Cost Drivers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 37-51, January.
    23. Shantanu Bhattacharya & V. Krishnan & Vijay Mahajan, 1998. "Managing New Product Definition in Highly Dynamic Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(11-Part-2), pages S50-S64, November.
    24. Day, Jamison M. & Venkataramanan, M.A., 2006. "Profitability in product line pricing and composition with manufacturing commonalities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(3), pages 1782-1797, December.
    25. Ferrer, Geraldo & Swaminathan, Jayashankar M., 2010. "Managing new and differentiated remanufactured products," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 370-379, June.
    26. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1984. "Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 288-307.
    27. Matsubayashi, Nobuo, 2007. "Price and quality competition: The effect of differentiation and vertical integration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 907-921, July.
    28. Rajeev Kohli & R. Sukumar, 1990. "Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1464-1478, December.
    29. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, June.
    30. K. Sridhar Moorthy & I. P. L. Png, 1992. "Market Segmentation, Cannibalization, and the Timing of Product Introductions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 345-359, March.
    31. Kim, Kilsun & Chhajed, Dilip, 2000. "Commonality in product design: Cost saving, valuation change and cannibalization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 602-621, September.
    32. Preyas S. Desai, 2001. "Quality Segmentation in Spatial Markets: When Does Cannibalization Affect Product Line Design?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 265-283, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:220:y:2012:i:2:p:338-348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.