IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umamet/2001016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A branch-and-cut approach for solving line planning problems

Author

Listed:
  • van Hoesel, C.P.M.

    (Quantitative Economics)

  • Goossens, J.H.M.

    (Quantitative Economics)

  • Kroon, L.G.

    (Externe publicaties SBE)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • van Hoesel, C.P.M. & Goossens, J.H.M. & Kroon, L.G., 2001. "A branch-and-cut approach for solving line planning problems," Research Memorandum 016, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    • Handle: RePEc:unm:umamet:2001016
    DOI: 10.26481/umamet.2001016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/1385672/guid-51f02bb9-f440-4b61-bb4d-8bf6fa34f97e-ASSET1.0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26481/umamet.2001016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kieran Mathieson, 1991. "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 173-191, September.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    4. Sheppard, Blair H & Hartwick, Jon & Warshaw, Paul R, 1988. "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 325-343, December.
    5. R. Burke Johnson, 1995. "Estimating an Evaluation Utilization Model Using Conjoint Measurement and Analysis," Evaluation Review, , vol. 19(3), pages 313-338, June.
    6. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    7. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    8. Moore, William L. & Semenik, Richard J., 1988. "Measuring preferences with hybrid conjoint analysis: The impact of a different number of attributes in the master design," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 261-274, May.
    9. Sridhar Balasubramanian, 1998. "Mail versus Mall: A Strategic Analysis of Competition between Direct Marketers and Conventional Retailers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 181-195.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keen, Cherie & Wetzels, Martin & de Ruyter, Ko & Feinberg, Richard, 2004. "E-tailers versus retailers: Which factors determine consumer preferences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(7), pages 685-695, July.
    2. Keen, C. & Wetzels, M., 2001. "Exploring the Preference Structure for Online and Traditional Retail Formats," Working Papers 01.18, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    3. Keen, C.N. & Wetzels, M.G.M. & de Ruyter, J.C. & Feinberg, R.A., 2001. "E-tailers versus retailers: which factors determine consumer preferences," Research Memorandum 040, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    4. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    5. Gao, Tao (Tony) & Rohm, Andrew J. & Sultan, Fareena & Pagani, Margherita, 2013. "Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2536-2544.
    6. Christopher R. Plouffe & John S. Hulland & Mark Vandenbosch, 2001. "Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions—Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 208-222, June.
    7. Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Nripendra P. Rana & Anand Jeyaraj & Marc Clement & Michael D. Williams, 2019. "Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 719-734, June.
    8. Ingrid Gottschalk & Stefan Kirn, 2013. "Cloud Computing As a Tool for Enhancing Ecological Goals?," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(5), pages 299-313, October.
    9. Syed Shah Alam & Maisarah Ahmad & Abdullah Sanusi Othman & Zullina Bt Hussain Shaari & Mohammad Masukujjaman, 2021. "Factors Affecting Photovoltaic Solar Technology Usage Intention among Households in Malaysia: Model Integration and Empirical Validation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    10. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    11. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Maruping, Likoebe M. & Brown, Susan A., 2006. "Role of time in self-prediction of behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 160-176, July.
    12. Attié, Elodie & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Banu Demirel & Ayça Kübra Hızarcı Payne, 2018. "Social Innovation Adoption Behavior: The Case of Zumbara," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Donglin Han & Huiying (Cynthia) Hou & Hao Wu & Joseph H. K. Lai, 2021. "Modelling Tourists’ Acceptance of Hotel Experience-Enhancement Smart Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    15. Dima Dajani & Saad G. Yaseen & Ihab El Qirem & Hanadi Sa’d, 2022. "Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    16. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    17. Andrei OGREZEANU, 2015. "Models Of Technology Adoption: An Integrative Approach," Network Intelligence Studies, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 55-67, June.
    18. Lean, Ooh Kim & Zailani, Suhaiza & Ramayah, T. & Fernando, Yudi, 2009. "Factors influencing intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 458-475.
    19. Patrick Holzmann & Erich J. Schwarz & David B. Audretsch, 2020. "Understanding the determinants of novel technology adoption among teachers: the case of 3D printing," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 259-275, February.
    20. Amy Wenxuan Ding & Shibo Li & Patrali Chatterjee, 2015. "Learning User Real-Time Intent for Optimal Dynamic Web Page Transformation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 339-359, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unm:umamet:2001016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Andrea Willems or Leonne Portz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meteonl.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.