scholarly journals Supply Chain Performance with Target-Oriented Firms

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Gongtao Chen ◽  
Qinshen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Expected Profit ◽  
Trading Partner ◽  
Supply Chain Performance ◽  
Decentralized System ◽  
Outside Option ◽  
Risk Neutral

Problem definition: We study a supply chain in which a supplier sets the wholesale price and a retailer responds with an order quantity. Both of the two firms can be either risk-neutral—maximizing the expected profit—or target-oriented, which is to maximize her or his ability to reach a target profit. Academic/practical relevance: Our work not only sheds light on the benefit/loss of trading with target-oriented decision makers but also, adds new knowledge to the supply chain coordination literature. Methodology: We provide strong support for firms’ target-based preference and the linear target formation model through a survey as well as analyzing company data. With the firms’ target-oriented behavior evaluated by a CVaR-satisficing measure, we apply a game theoretical framework to investigate how the target-based preference affects supply chain performance. Results: A firm, be it a supplier or a retailer, is always hurt by its target-based preference but can benefit from its trading partner’s target-based preference. A risk-neutral supplier, for example, can sometimes reap the whole supply chain’s profit if the retailer is target-oriented, and a target-oriented supplier always performs better with a target-oriented retailer than a risk-neutral one. Furthermore, a target-oriented retailer and/or supplier can help alleviate the double-marginalization effect and with a specific target, can help the supply chain achieve the same efficiency level as in a risk-neutral centralized system, with just a wholesale price contract. Another important finding is that if both firms are target-oriented, then the supply chain can have a higher expected profit under a decentralized system than a centralized one. This contrasts with the case when both firms are risk-neutral. We also investigate the role of outside option and retailer-type misidentification and find that both can alleviate the retailer’s disadvantage of being target-oriented. Managerial implications: (i) The target-based preference can be exploited by the trading partner, and hence, a firm should adopt the target-oriented decision criterion with caution. (ii) A target-oriented retailer can explore strategies such as revealing his outside option or hiding his target-based preference in order to be less manipulated. (iii) Whether a firm (and the supply chain) can benefit from its trading partner’s target-based preference often depends on how ambitious the trading partner (and the firm itself if it is target-oriented) sets the target. (iv) Target-based preference of one or both firms can help the supply chain reach the first-best efficiency. (v) When both firms are target-oriented, decentralization can be preferred to centralization.

Contract Unobservability and Downstream Competition

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Li ◽  
Qian Liu
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Multiple Equilibria ◽  
Alternative Explanation ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Supply Chain Performance ◽  
Supply Chain Contracts ◽  
Managerial Implications ◽  
The Right

Problem definition: In this paper, we consider a supply chain with a manufacturer and two retailers who are contracted through wholesale prices or two-part tariffs. We depart from the existing literature by assuming that contract terms between the manufacturer and a retailer are not observed by the rival retailer. Academic/practical relevance: Although the existing literature typically assumes that they are common knowledge in the market, contract terms may not be observed by rival retailers under certain circumstances. This paper contributes to the literature by studying the effect of contract unobservability on supply chain performance. Methodology: We use game-theoretical methods to find the equilibrium. When there are multiple equilibria, we adopt passive beliefs as an equilibrium-refinement criterion. Results: We find that certain established results regarding observable supply chain contracts do not always apply when those contracts become unobservable to competing retailers. In particular, compared with when using two-part tariff contracts, the manufacturer may benefit from using wholesale-price contracts when contract terms are unobservable. Moreover, the total industry profit may increase under wholesale-price contracts. Managerial implications: Our results offer an alternative explanation for the popularity of wholesale-price contracts and suggest that members of the supply chain must take unobservability into account when selecting the right contracts. We also offer new insights into buyback contracts and downstream mergers under unobservable contracts.

Implications of Price Matching in Supply Chain Negotiation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weixin Shang ◽  
Gangshu (George) Cai
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Nash Bargaining ◽  
Price Matching ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Multiple Buyers ◽  
Wholesale Pricing

Problem definition: Few papers have explored the impact of price matching negotiation (PM), in which a channel matches its price with the resulting wholesale price bargained by another channel, on firms’ performances, consumer welfare, and social welfare, with and without supply chain coordination. Academic/practical relevance: Negotiation has been widely seen in determining both uniform and discriminatory wholesale prices, which affect outcomes of competitive supply chain practices. Methodology: To characterize the PM mechanism, we use game theory and Nash bargaining theory to compare PM with simultaneous negotiation (SN) through a common-seller two-buyer differentiated Bertrand competition model. Results: Our analysis reveals that PM can benefit the seller but hurt all buyers, which is at odds with some fair wholesale pricing clauses intending to protect buyers. Under coordination with side payments, however, all firms can conditionally benefit more from PM than from SN. Despite firms’ gains, PM leads to less consumer utility and social welfare compared with SN, unless the second buyer in PM is considerably less powerful than the first buyer. Coordination further worsens PM’s negative impact on consumer utility and social welfare. Moreover, the existence of a spot market can increase the wholesale price in PM, hurting buyers, consumers, and society. Furthermore, the qualitative results about PM remain robust under an alternative disagreement point for PM, multiple buyers, and other extensions. Managerial implications: This paper delivers insights on when price matching in supply chain wholesale price negotiation can benefit a seller, buyers, consumers, and society in a variety of scenarios. It advocates how managers can use PM to their own advantages and provides rationale to decision makers for policy regulations regarding wholesale pricing.

Supply Chain Coordination for E-Commerce: Risk Penalty vs. Flat Rate

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ju Myung Song ◽  
Yao Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Information Asymmetry ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Supply Chain Coordination ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
Shipping Industry ◽  
Flat Rate

Problem definition: We study the coordination of an E-commerce supply chain between online sellers and third party shippers to meet random demand surges, induced by, for instance, online shopping holidays. Academic/practical relevance: Motivated by the challenge of meeting the unpredictable demand surges in E-commerce, we study shipping contracts and supply chain coordination between online sellers and third party shippers in a novel model taking into account the unique features of the shipping industry. Methodology: We compare two shipping contracts: the risk penalty (proposed by UPS) and the flat rate (used by FedEx), and analyze their impact on the seller, the shipper, and the supply chain. Results: Under information symmetry, the sophisticated risk penalty contract is no better than the simple flat rate contract for the shipper, against common belief. Although both the risk penalty and the flat rate can coordinate the supply chain, the risk penalty does so only if the shipper makes zero profit, but the flat rate can provide a positive profit for both. These results represent a new form of double marginalization and risk-sharing, in sharp contrast to the well-known literature on the classic supplier-retailer supply chain, where risk-sharing contracts (similar to the risk penalty) can bring benefits to all parties, but the single wholesale price contract (similar to the flat rate) can achieve supply chain coordination only when the supplier makes zero profit. We also find that only the online seller, but not the shipper, has the motivation to vertically integrate the seller-shipper supply chain. Under information asymmetry, however, the risk penalty brings more benefit to the shipper than the flat rate, but hurts the seller and the supply chain. Managerial implications: Our results imply that information plays an important role in the shipper’s choices of shipping contracts. Under information symmetry, the risk penalty is unnecessarily complex because the simple flat rate is as good as the risk penalty for the shipper; moreover, it is better for the seller-shipper coordination. However, under information asymmetry, the shipper faces additional shipping risk that can be offset by the extra flexibility of the risk penalty. Our study also explains and supports the recent practice of online sellers (e.g., Amazon.com and JD.com), but not shippers, to vertically integrate the supply chain by consistently expanding their shipping capabilities.

Coordination of Multiechelon Supply Chains Using the Guaranteed Service Framework

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tor Schoenmeyr ◽  
Stephen C. Graves
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Quantity Discounts ◽  
Minimum Order ◽  
Base Stock Policy ◽  
Decentralized Decision Making ◽  
Guaranteed Service ◽  
Stock Policy ◽  
Different Parts

Problem definition: We use the guaranteed service (GS) framework to investigate how to coordinate a multiechelon supply chain when two self-interested parties control different parts of the supply chain. For purposes of supply chain planning, we assume that each stage in a supply chain operates with a local base-stock policy and can provide guaranteed service to its customers, as long as the customer demand falls within certain bounds. Academic/practical relevance: The GS framework for supply chain inventory optimization has been deployed successfully in multiple industrial contexts with centralized control. In this paper, we show how to apply this framework to achieve coordination in a decentralized setting in which two parties control different parts of the supply chain. Methodology: The primary methodology is the analysis of a multiechelon supply chain under the assumptions of the GS model. Results: We find that the GS framework is naturally well suited for this decentralized decision making, and we propose a specific contract structure that facilitates such relationships. This contract is incentive compatible and has several other desirable properties. Under assumptions of complete and incomplete information, a reasonable negotiation process should lead the parties to contract terms that coordinate the supply chain. The contract is simpler than contracts proposed for coordination in the stochastic service (SS) framework. We also highlight the role of markup on the holding costs and some of the difficulties that this might cause in coordinating a decentralized supply chain. Managerial implications: The value from the paper is to show that a simple contract coordinates the chain when both parties plan with a GS model and framework; hence, we provide more evidence for the utility of this model. Furthermore, the simple coordinating contract matches reasonably well with practice; we observe that the most common contract terms include a per-unit wholesale price (possibly with a minimum order quantity and/or quantity discounts), along with a service time from order placement until delivery or until ready to ship. We also observe that firms need to pay a higher price if they want better service. What may differ from practice is the contract provision of a demand bound; our contract specifies that the supplier will provide GS as long as the buyer’s order are within the agreed on demand bound. This provision is essential so that each party can apply the GS framework for planning their supply chain. Of course, contracts have many other provisions for handling exceptions. Nevertheless, our research provides some validation for the GS model and the contracting practices we observe in practice.

Coordination and Decision of Supply Chain Under

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 21-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guangdong Liu ◽  
Tianjian Yang ◽  
Yao Wei ◽  
Xuemei Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Numerical Analysis ◽  
Cost Sharing ◽  
Supply Chain Coordination ◽  
Pareto Improvement ◽  
Optimal Price ◽  
Decentralized System ◽  
Risk Neutral ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Dependent Demand

In order to investigate supply chain coordination and decision under customer balking and stochastic demand, the article considers a two-echelon supply chain consisting of one manufacturer with risk-neutral and one retailer with risk-neutral and develops two models in a centralized and a decentralized system and the three contracts are designed to coordinate supply chain and the optimal price and customer balking strategies are obtained. The results show that the revenue and cost-sharing contract can coordinate supply chain under customer balking and price-dependent demand and achieve the Pareto-improvement; the expected sales quantity and expected reduced sales quantity are influenced conversely by the threshold of inventory and probability of a sale under customer balking. In addition, numerical analysis is given to verify the effectiveness of revenue and cost-sharing contract and the paper gives some managerial insights and puts forward to the future work at last.

Decision Models of Supply Chain Under Asymmetric Information with Demand Disruption

2010 ◽  
Vol 143-144 ◽  
pp. 773-781
Author(s):  
Xin Rong Jiang ◽  
Yong Chao Li
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Asymmetric Information ◽  
Stackelberg Game ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Retail Price ◽  
Expected Profit ◽  
Decision Models ◽  
Market Demand ◽  
Optimal Production ◽  
Production Quantity

This paper studied the influence of asymmetric information and demand disruption on the decision of the supply chain. We analyzed the supply chain decision models based on a Stackelberg game under normal circumstances and demand disruption situation. The conclusion indicates when the market demand is disrupted, the optimal wholesale price, the retail price, the supplier’s expected profit and the supply chain system’s expected profit change in the same direction as the demand disruption, while the optimal production quantity and the retailer’s profit both have certain robustness under disruption. Finally we gave a numerical example to illustrate our analysis.

Coordinating Vulnerable Supply Chains with Option Contracts

2021 ◽  
pp. 2050053
Author(s):  
Zhongyi Liu ◽  
Shengya Hua ◽  
Guanying Wang
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Value At Risk ◽  
Numerical Study ◽  
Supply Chain Coordination ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Conditional Value At Risk ◽  
Option Contract ◽  
Risk Neutral ◽  
Disruption Risk

We investigate vulnerable supply chain coordination with an option contract in the presence of supply chain disruption risk caused by external and internal disturbances. The supply chain consists of a single risk-neutral supplier and a risk-averse retailer. We characterize the retailer’s order quantity decision under the Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) criterion and the supplier’s production decision. The results show that facing disruption risk and risk-aversion, both the retailer and the supplier would be more prudent to order and produce less than the risk-neutral scenario, inducing damage to the supply chain performance. The number of options purchased is decreasing in disruption risk and the risk-aversion of the retailer. The supplier will increase production as the disruption risk decreases or the shortage penalty increases. When the supplier does not know the risk-aversion of the retailer, the former will produce more and bear a higher overstock risk. We also investigate conditions that facilitate vulnerable supply chain coordination and find that the existence of risk-aversion and disruption risk restrict the option price and exercise price to lower price levels. Finally, we compare the option contract with wholesale price contract from the supplier’s and retailer’s perspectives through a numerical study.

Coordination of a Supply Chain with Satisficing Objectives Using Contracts

2007 ◽  
pp. 232-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Shi ◽  
B. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Profit Maximization ◽  
Expected Profit ◽  
Business Success ◽  
Pareto Optimal ◽  
Performance Targets ◽  
Decentralized Supply Chain ◽  
Quantity Flexibility ◽  
Buy Back

Setting performance targets and managing to achieve them is fundamental to business success. As a result, it is common for managers to adopt a satisficing objective—that is, to maximize the probability of achieving some preset target profit level. This is especially true when companies are increasingly engaged in short-term relationships enabled by electronic commerce. In this chapter, our main focus is a decentralized supply chain consisting of a supplier and a retailer, both with the satisficing objective. The supply chain is examined under three types of commonly used contracts: wholesale price, buy back, and quantity flexibility contracts. Because a coordinating contract has to be Pareto optimal regardless of the bargaining powers among the agents, we first identify the Pareto-optimal contract(s) for each contractual form. Second, we identify the contractual forms that are capable of coordination of the supply chain with the satisficing objectives. In contrast to the well-known results for the supply chain with the objectives of expected profit maximization, we show that wholesale price contracts can coordinate the supply chain with the satisficing objectives, whereas buy back contracts cannot. Furthermore, quantity flexibility contracts have to degenerate into wholesale price contracts to coordinate the supply chain. This provides an important justification for the popularity of wholesale price contracts besides their simplicities and lower administration costs. Finally, we discuss possible extensions to the model by considering different types of objectives for different agents.

Sharing Manufacturer’s Demand Information in a Supply Chain with Price and Service Effort Competition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunjie Wang ◽  
Albert Y. Ha ◽  
Shilu Tong
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Theoretic Model ◽  
Price Distortion ◽  
Demand Information ◽  
Private Demand ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Share Information

Problem definition: This paper investigates the issue of sharing the private demand information of a manufacturer that sells a product to retailers competing on prices and service efforts. Academic/practical relevance: In the existing literature, which ignores service effort competition, it is known that demand signaling induces an informed manufacturer to distort the wholesale price downward, which benefits the retailers, and so, they do not have any incentive to receive the manufacturer’s private information. In practice, many manufacturers share demand information with their retailers that compete on prices and service efforts (e.g., demand-enhancing retail activities), a setting that has not received much attention from the literature. Methodology: We develop a game-theoretic model with one manufacturer selling to two competing retailers and solve for the equilibrium of the game. Results: We show how an informed manufacturer may distort the wholesale price upward or downward to signal demand information to the retailers, depending on the cost of service effort, the intensity of effort competition, and the number of uninformed retailers. We fully characterize the impact of such wholesale price distortion on the firms’ incentive to share information and derive the conditions under which the manufacturer shares information with none, one, or both of the retailers. We derive conditions under which a higher cost of service effort makes the retailers or the manufacturer better off. Managerial implications: Our results provide novel insights about how service effort competition impacts the incentives for firms in a supply chain to share a manufacturer’s private demand information. For instance, when the cost of effort is high or service effort competition is intense, a manufacturer should share information with none or some, but not all, of the retailers.

scholarly journals Optimal Decisions for Adoption of Item-Level RFID in a Retail Supply Chain with Inventory Shrinkage under CVaR Criterion

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Chunming Xu ◽  
Daozhi Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Recovery Rate ◽  
Value At Risk ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Revenue Sharing ◽  
Conditional Value At Risk ◽  
Decentralized System ◽  
Revenue Sharing Contract ◽  
Item Level ◽  
Inventory Shrinkage

This paper investigates the effect of item-level RFID on inventory shrinkage in the retail supply chain, which consists of a risk-neutral manufacturer and a risk-averse retailer. Under conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) criterion, two different supply chain settings are discussed as follows. In the centralized setting, we develop the models in both RFID case and no RFID case, respectively. Comparisons between the two cases are made. In particular, a sufficient condition is given to judge whether to adopt item-level RFID. In the decentralized setting, we focus on discussing two different contract types including wholesale price contact and revenue sharing contract. Finally, number examples and sensitivity analysis are given to illustrate the proposed models. The results show that, for the centralized system, the sales-available rate, the recovery rate, and the tag cost are mainly the driving factors in evaluating the benefit of an item-level RFID. In particular, when the sales-available rate and the tag cost are quite small and the recovery rate is higher, the supply chain partners’ profits obtained by investment for RFID are improved significantly. For the decentralized system, under revenue sharing contract, Pareto improving outcome and coaffording risk can be achieved if the retailer sets an appropriate parameter for the manufacturer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document