{"title":"提前订购:希望还是危险?","authors":"Yunan Liu, Luyi Yang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3673617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen growing adoption of order-ahead among quick-service restaurants. Ordering ahead enables customers to place orders on demand remotely and then travel to the service facility for pickup. It is widely believed that order-ahead reduces delay and therefore attracts more orders than if customers must order on-site. We build queuing-game theoretic models to study the implications of order-ahead for delay announcement and system throughput. We show that if the market size is small, a throughput-oriented service provider should give no real-time delay information to remote customers; if the market size is intermediate, the service provider should still withhold delay information from remote customers but reveal it to in-store customers; if the market size is large, the service provider should share delay information with remote customers. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the prevailing order-ahead model used in practice may yield a lower throughput than the order-onsite model. We propose two approaches to mitigate this throughput deficiency. The first approach rejects new orders at the outset if there are already too many outstanding ones; the second approach allows customers to cancel their orders in the process if they so choose. While both approaches restore the throughput superiority of order-ahead over order-onsite, neither always dominates the prevailing order-ahead model that does not support rejection or cancellation.","PeriodicalId":129855,"journal":{"name":"MKTG: Services Marketing (Topic)","volume":"439 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Order Ahead for Pickup: Promise or Peril?\",\"authors\":\"Yunan Liu, Luyi Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3673617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent years have seen growing adoption of order-ahead among quick-service restaurants. Ordering ahead enables customers to place orders on demand remotely and then travel to the service facility for pickup. It is widely believed that order-ahead reduces delay and therefore attracts more orders than if customers must order on-site. We build queuing-game theoretic models to study the implications of order-ahead for delay announcement and system throughput. We show that if the market size is small, a throughput-oriented service provider should give no real-time delay information to remote customers; if the market size is intermediate, the service provider should still withhold delay information from remote customers but reveal it to in-store customers; if the market size is large, the service provider should share delay information with remote customers. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the prevailing order-ahead model used in practice may yield a lower throughput than the order-onsite model. We propose two approaches to mitigate this throughput deficiency. The first approach rejects new orders at the outset if there are already too many outstanding ones; the second approach allows customers to cancel their orders in the process if they so choose. While both approaches restore the throughput superiority of order-ahead over order-onsite, neither always dominates the prevailing order-ahead model that does not support rejection or cancellation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129855,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MKTG: Services Marketing (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"439 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MKTG: Services Marketing (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3673617\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MKTG: Services Marketing (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3673617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent years have seen growing adoption of order-ahead among quick-service restaurants. Ordering ahead enables customers to place orders on demand remotely and then travel to the service facility for pickup. It is widely believed that order-ahead reduces delay and therefore attracts more orders than if customers must order on-site. We build queuing-game theoretic models to study the implications of order-ahead for delay announcement and system throughput. We show that if the market size is small, a throughput-oriented service provider should give no real-time delay information to remote customers; if the market size is intermediate, the service provider should still withhold delay information from remote customers but reveal it to in-store customers; if the market size is large, the service provider should share delay information with remote customers. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the prevailing order-ahead model used in practice may yield a lower throughput than the order-onsite model. We propose two approaches to mitigate this throughput deficiency. The first approach rejects new orders at the outset if there are already too many outstanding ones; the second approach allows customers to cancel their orders in the process if they so choose. While both approaches restore the throughput superiority of order-ahead over order-onsite, neither always dominates the prevailing order-ahead model that does not support rejection or cancellation.