# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

October  2010, 6(4): 729-750. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2010.6.729

## On information quality ranking and its managerial implications

 1 Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, United States 2 Department of Systems Engineering & Engineering Management, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territory, Hong Kong, China

Received  December 2008 Revised  April 2010 Published  September 2010

We study the quality ranking of different information structures. In a unified setting, we present eight representations of essentially the same notion that may arise in distinct literatures, and also establish the intricate relationships among them. The forms that are less familiar to researchers turn out to be more relevant to the operations management context. We also relate the information structure ranking to concepts often invoked in operations management literature, such as advance demand information and decision postponement. Using some of the established relations, we argue for building a cross-docking facility as close as possible to the distribution centers it serves.
Citation: Jian Yang, Youhua (Frank) Chen. On information quality ranking and its managerial implications. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2010, 6 (4) : 729-750. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2010.6.729
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
 [1] Juliang Zhang, Jian Chen. Information sharing in a make-to-stock supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (4) : 1169-1189. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.1169 [2] Chih-Chiang Fang. Bayesian decision making in determining optimal leased term and preventive maintenance scheme for leased facilities. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020127 [3] Emma D'Aniello, Saber Elaydi. The structure of $\omega$-limit sets of asymptotically non-autonomous discrete dynamical systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (3) : 903-915. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019195

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366