Inventory management practices at a big-box retailer: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Managing inventory continues to be a growing area of concern for many retailers due to the multitude of issues that arise from either an excess or shortage of inventory. This study aims to understand how a large-scale retail chain can improve its handling of excess seasonal inventory using three common strategies: information sharing, visibility, and collaboration. Design/methodology/approach This study has been designed utilizing a case study method focusing on one retail chain at three key levels: strategic (head office), warehouses, and retail stores. The data have been collected by conducting semi-structured interviews with senior-level employees at each of the three levels and employing a thematic analysis to examine the major themes. Findings The results show how three common strategies are being practiced by this retailer and how utilizing these strategies aids the retailer in improving its performance in regard to seasonal inventory. Among our research findings, some challenges were discovered in implementing the strategies, most notably: human errors, advanced forecasting deficiencies, and the handling of return merchandise authorizations. Originality/value This research takes a case study approach and focuses on one big-box retailer. The authors chose to study three levels (head office, warehouses, and retail stores) to gain a deeper understanding of the functions and processes of each level, and to understand the working relationships between them. Through the collection of primary data in a Canadian context, this study contributes to the literature by investigating supply chain strategies for managing inventory. The Canadian context is especially interesting due to the multi-cultural demographics of the country.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".