We examine when and how task division improves performance for inventory planning. Specifically, we consider a decentralized inventory management context with two interdependent subtasks: preparing a forecast and setting a service level. Using a behavioral experiment, we reveal that the task challenge moderates the relationship between task division and performance. Our findings indicate that task division improves performance when the task becomes more challenging, such as under high demand uncertainty. It facilitates counteracting behavior, where individuals adjust their decisions to counterbalance their partner's errors, leading to more stabilized final decisions. We identify this counteracting behavior as a critical mechanism driving the benefits of task division, mainly when subtasks are interdependent. We demonstrate the robustness of our findings by examining an egalitarian system, where decision-making authority is shared among team members, and a hierarchical system, where decision control resides entirely with one team member.
AdadiABerradaM (2018) Peeking inside the black box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access6: 52138–52160.
2.
AlickeKNHobergKRachorJ (2019) The supply chain planner of the future. Supply Chain Management Review23(3): 40–47.
3.
AllredSRCrawfordLEDuffyS, et al. (2016) Working memory and spatial judgments: Cognitive load increases the central tendency bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review23: 1825–1831.
4.
AmbroseSCRutherfordBN (2016) Sales and operations planning (S&OP): A group effectiveness approach. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal20(2): 17–41.
5.
APQC (2022) Sales & Operations Planning in Supply Chain: Quick Poll Summary Report. Houston, TX: American Productivity & Quality Center.
6.
ArvanMFahimniaBReisiM, et al. (2019) Integrating human judgment into quantitative forecasting methods: A review. Omega86: 237–252.
7.
AyresP (2006) Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction16(5): 389–400.
BeckerGSMurphyKM (1992) The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Economics107(4): 1137–1160.
10.
BrauRAloysiusJSiemsenE (2023) Demand planning for the digital supply chain: How to integrate human judgment and predictive analytics. Journal of Operations Management69(6): 965–982.
11.
BrennanSEChenXDickinsonCA, et al. (2008) Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition106(3): 1465–1477.
12.
BuzacottJA (2004) Modelling teams and workgroups in manufacturing. Annals of Operations Research126(1): 215–230.
13.
ChenDLSchongerMWickensC (2016) oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance9: 88–97.
14.
DietvorstBJSimmonsJPMasseyC (2018) Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science64(3): 1155–1170.
15.
DobsonGPinkerEVan HornRL (2009) Division of labor in medical office practices. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management11(3): 525–537.
16.
DuncanJ (1980) The demonstration of capacity limitation. Cognitive Psychology12(1): 75–96.
17.
DurkheimE (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
18.
FahimniaBArvanMTanT, et al. (2023) A hidden anchor: The influence of service levels on demand forecasts. Journal of Operations Management69(5): 856–871.
19.
FengYMartelAD’AmoursS, et al. (2013) Coordinated contract decisions in a make-to-order manufacturing supply chain: A stochastic programming approach. Production and Operations Management22(3): 642–660.
20.
FransooJCBlancoEEMejia-ArguetaC (2017) Reaching 50 Million Nanostores: Retail Distribution in Emerging Megacities. Cambridge, MA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
21.
GalyECariouMMelanC (2012) What is the relationship between mental workload factors and cognitive load types?International Journal of Psychophysiology83(3): 269–275.
22.
HanWWnagXPetropoulosR, et al. (2019) Brain imaging and forecasting: Insights from judgmental model selection. Omega87: 1–9.
23.
HernandezIPrestonJL (2013) Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49(1): 178–182.
MeierSStephensonMPerkowskiP (2019) Culture of trust and division of labor in nonhierarchical teams. Strategic Management Journal40(8): 1171–1193.
35.
NeiderMBChenXDickinsonCA, et al. (2010) Coordinating spatial referencing using shared gaze. Psychonomic Bulleting & Review17(5): 718–724.
36.
OlivaRWatsonN (2011) Cross-functional alignment in supply chain planning: A case study of sales and operations planning. Journal of Operations Management29(5): 434–448.
37.
OlschewskiSRieskampJScheibehenneB (2018) Taxing cognitive capacities reduces choice consistency rather than preference: A model-based test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General147(4): 462–484.
38.
PapierFThonemannUW (2021) The effect of social preferences on sales and operations planning. Operations Research69(5): 1368–1395.
39.
RaveendranMPuranamPWarglienM (2016) Object salience in the division of labor: Experimental evidence. Management Science62(7): 2110–2128.
40.
RaveendranMPuranamPWarglienM (2022) Division of labor through self-selection. Organization Science33(2): 810–830.
41.
RavinderHVKleinmuntzDN (1991) Random error in additive decompositions of multiattribute utility. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making4(2): 83–97.
42.
RicardoD (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray.
43.
RicoRSanchez-ManzanaresMGilF, et al. (2008) Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review33(1): 163–184.
44.
RudiNDrakeD (2014) Observation bias: The impact of demand censoring on newsvendor level and adjustment behavior. Management Science60(5): 1334–1345.
45.
ScheeleLMThonemannUWSlikkerM (2018) Designing incentive systems for truthful forecast information sharing within a firm. Management Science64(8): 3690–3713.
46.
SchweitzerMECachonGP (2000) Decision bias in the newsvendor problem with a known demand distribution: Experimental evidence. Management Science46(3): 404–420.
StasserGStewartDDWittenbaumGM (1995) Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology31(3): 244–265.
49.
SuX (2008) Bounded rationality in newsvendor models. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management10(4): 566–589.
50.
SwellerJ (2018) Measuring cognitive load. Perspectives on Medical Education7: 1–2.
51.
ThompsonJD (2017) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. Routledge.
52.
TuomikangasNKaipiaR (2014) A coordination framework for sales and operations planning (S&OP): Synthesis from the literature. International Journal of Production Economics154: 243–262.
53.
UppariBSHasijaS (2019) Modeling newsvendor behavior: A prospect theory approach. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management21(3): 481–500.
54.
Von HippelE (1990) Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Research Policy19(5): 407–418.
55.
WatanabeKFunahashiS (2014) Neural mechanisms of dual-task interference and cognitive capacity limitation in the prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience17(4): 601–611.
56.
WickensCD (2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science3(2): 159–177.
57.
YechiamEHochmanG (2014) Loss attention in a dual-task setting. Psychological Science25(2): 494–502.
58.
ZhangYSiemsenE (2019) A meta-analysis of newsvendor experiments: Revisiting the pull-to-center asymmetry. Production and Operations Management28(1): 140–156.
59.
ZhouYM (2013) Designing for complexity: Using divisions and hierarchy to manage complex tasks. Organization Science24(2): 339–355.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
