供应链中产品与信息质量改进的战略联盟策略研究

本文分析了一个包含单个供应商和单个制造商的供应链,研究了关于供应商的产品质量和市场需求的信息质量改进的战略联盟策略的设计,分析了成本共担策略能提高供应链绩效的条件及其对供应链的影响和价值.在供应链联盟中制造商参与到供应商的质量改进活动中,使供应商具有改进质量水平的激励,相应的使市场需求均值增加或使需求信息精度提高,供应商的期望收益比分散决策的供应链中的收益增加,当质量成本共担参数满足某些条件时,制造商也将获得比无战略联盟情况中更高的收益.     

基于产品生命周期的战略库存与动态定价决策研究

本文考虑一个基于短周期产品供应商和零售商组成的两级供应链系统,在两个销售周期内,市场容量根据产品所处的生命周期变化而变化。文章研究了在承诺定价合同和动态定价合同下,零售商使用战略库存策略和战略缺货策略的条件,以及产品在不同生命周期下供应商和零售商的最优决策和利润。研究发现,战略库存策略和战略缺货策略在两种定价合同下都可能存在,产品所处生命周期和持有(缺货)成本的大小对供应链成员的决策和利润起着决定性作用。战略库存策略在产品处于发展期时可以有效降低产品第二期批发价格,但战略缺货策略却不具备议价效果。同时,当第二周期产品市场容量变化不剧烈,且持有成本较小时,零售商在动态定价合同下使用战略库存策略可以同时提高供应商和零售商利润,进而提高整体供应链效率;零售商在动态定价合同下使用战略缺货策略同样可以提高整体供应链效率,但当供应商决定供应链成员间的定价方式时,战略缺货策略始终不会存在。     

基于风险规避和公平偏好的供应链收益共享契约协调研究

在一个简单的二级供应链系统中,建立了供应商和零售商同时具有风险规避和公平偏好的收益共享契约协调模型,通过修正、扩展FS效用收益模型,先后考察并分析了分散决策和集中决策下供应链的协调状态,研究发现,供应商和零售商的风险规避系数和公平偏好系数及收益份额必须满足特定的条件,收益共享契约才能使系统供应链整体达到协调状态;在此基础上,对风险规避和公平偏好因素进行敏感度分析,得到供应商和零售商行为偏好系数对供应链及成员最优订货量的影响;最后进行演化博弈算例分析和结论验证,体现了该协调模型的有效性和实用性。由此说明供应商和零售商的风险规避和公平偏好因素同时作用会改变系统供应链协调时的最优订货量,并对决策人的决策行为产生很大的影响。     

基于货架空间成本共担的不同权力供应链均衡分析

针对产品需求受货架空间与零售价格共同影响的两级供应链,通过比较供应商主导、零售商主导和权力均等三种不同权力结构供应链均衡结果,分析了供应商与零售商共同承担货架空间成本对供应链定价、货架空间分配和利润的影响。研究结果表明:供应商与零售商共同承担货架空间成本会减少供应商主导供应链的整体利润,但会使零售商主导和权力均等供应链通过分配更多的货架空间增加产品销量,在一定范围内使得供应链整体利润得到提高。由于三种不同权力结构供应链均未达到整体最优,提出了基于货架成本共担的收入共享合同,并给出了供应商和零售商均能接受的分配方案。     

消费者低碳偏好下的供应链收益共享契约研究

在消费者对低碳产品存在偏好并且企业自愿减排的假定下,探讨了在由单个供应商与单个零售商构成的两级供应链中零售商确定最佳订货水平和供应商选择减少碳排放水平的决策问题。研究发现单位产品碳排放过大时,供应商不会选择减排;当单位排放较低时,选择减排战略会改善供应商和零售商的收益状况,可以实现供应链成员收益的帕累托改进;而当单位排放处于两者之间时,选择减排战略会使供应商的收益状况变差,使零售商的收益和供应链总体收益增加,虽然存在着改善供应链渠道收益状况的空间,但供应商没有减排动力,减排无法实施。针对这一问题,本文设计了收益共享契约来协调两者之间的关系,实现了帕累托改进。最后,利用Rubinstein讨价还价模型来分析分成比例在给定区间确定问题。     

基于返回策略的供应链网络竞争绩效研究

针对由多个供应商和多个零售商组成的结构可变的供应链网络,分别在零售商之间基于订货量以及价格两种竞争方式下,分析了供应商均不采用返回策略、部分采用返回策略以及均采用返回策略六种情景下供应链网络的竞争绩效。研究发现当零售商基于订货量竞争时,供应商采用协调策略对于其零售商客户及供应链均为占优策略,零售商更换供应商的成本将会影响供应商的收益以及采用协调策略的积极性;当零售商之间基于价格竞争时,返回策略在一定程度上仍能够激励零售商增加订货量,且对供应链渠道的利润绩效及其稳定性均具有一定的改善作用。     

两级再制造的S-M闭环供应链的决策与绩效分析

供应商是再制造战略研究中不可忽视的决策主体之一,因为制造商的产品回收再制造战略会对供应商的零部件供应决策产生影响,而且处于强势背景的供应商也有选择是否参与零部件的回收再制造的权利。为了探讨产品和零部件的两级再制造战略对供应商和零售商的定价决策及收益的影响,本文运用Stackelberg博弈,对供应商强势背景下供应商选择参与和选择不参与零部件的回收再制造的两种Supplier-Manufacturer闭环供应链模型进行了研究,并对两种情形下的定价决策与收益进行了对比分析。最后得出以下结论:再制造战略对批发价决策的影响与产品的市场需求状况有关,对零售价决策的影响与回收风险状况有关;供应商应积极参与两级再制造战略,因为供应商选择供应可再制造的零部件使自身受益,并且参与零部件的回收再制造可以在降低批发价和零售价的基础上使双方受益。最后,运用数值算例验证了本文的研究结论,丰富了再制造战略对定价决策及收益影响的研究成果。     

供应商协助库存转运：基于企业实践的创新方法

当企业面临资金约束、资源短缺和消费者需求不确定等不利因素时，库存共享和转运策略的有效实施显得尤为重要。传统研究大多关注零售商协商库存转运机制实施策略，忽略了高效实施传统机制的困难性，即零售商相隔甚远，缺乏信任，协商困难；零售商间私下窜货对供应商和供应链整体造成不利。 提出一类新颖的库存转运机制，即供应商协助转运机制，以突破现存转运方法的不足，从而为实施高效率库存转运提供新的依据。建立由单供应商和多零售商组成的多周期区域分销网络，并考虑零售商在周期初采取前瞻性库存转运；采用动态规划方法刻画对应的优化博弈模型，并通过均衡分析得出供应链成员间均衡博弈策略；通过与集中式供应链运作模式和最优决策相对比，以发掘库存转运过程中存在的不足，总结并提出供应商协助下的新型库存转运机制。从设计过程、实施流程、价格配置等方面对机制的规范实施过程进行详细分析和阐释，并辅以数值分析加以补充论证。 研究结果表明，与传统的零售商协商库存转运机制相比，供应商主导下的协助转运机制优势明显。供应商通过为零售商设置购买和卖出双向交易环节，使零售商在执行补货和清货策略时，同时实现供应链系统内部的库存共享；通过合理的批发价与购买价格和卖出价格配置，如采取随着市场库存整体剩余量增加而降低的转运价格形态，可以迫使零售商在制定最优库存决策以实现其自身利益最大化的同时，有效提升供应链整体运作效率，消除供应链系统内部双重边际效应，最终实现供应链整体收益达到集中式水平以及供应链成员间的完美协调。 提出一类更加易于实施和控制的新型库存转运机制，该机制的运用有助于实现各区域零售商间主动、高效且前瞻性库存转运，同时实现供应链整体收益最大化。建议供应商主动承担协助库存转运职责，同时摒弃传统常数定价机制，转而采取与零售商库存状态相关的批发和转运定价形态。 研究结果对于企业管理者更加合理、规范且高效的开展库存管理，以及实施库存转运和优化资源配置提供了科学的运营理论指导和决策依据。     

基于产品责任的零售商主导供应链质量成本分担合同研究

基于以零售商为主导的两级供应链，在供应商产品质量缺陷对消费者造成效用损失，并导致零售商承担产品责任的情形下，考虑了如何设计质量成本分担合同以激励产品质量水平的提升。基于此，考虑了两种质量成本分担比例(合同)决策模式(即零售商决策和纳什讨价还价决策),构建了供应链动态博弈模型，考察了责任成本对供应链质量决策和企业利润的影响机理，并揭示了不同质量成本分担比例决策模式对供应链均衡结果差异的策略性机理。结果表明：(1)在分散化下，当供应商质量投资效率较高(较低)时，其产品质量随责任成本的增加而增加(减小);而在质量成本分担合同下，随着责任成本的增加，最优质量成本分担比例随之增加，而产品质量随之先提高后降低。(2)质量成本分担有助于产品质量、零售商利润和供应链系统利润的提高，而供应商利润在纳什讨价还价决策模式下将提高，但在零售商决策模式下，当责任成本较小时其反而将降低。(3)相对于零售商决策模式而言，在纳什讨价还价决策模式下，最优质量成本分担比例、产品质量和零售商利润均相对较低，但供应商利润和供应链系统利润均相对较高。     

成本和需求同时扰动时供应链协调合约研究

研究一个供应商和一个面临指数需求的零售商组成的供应链系统的协调问题.首先证明收益共享合约在稳定条件下能实现该供应链协调;当突发事件导致零售商面临的需求规模和供应商的生产成本同时发生扰动时,供应链的协调被打破,提出了一体化决策时调整生产计划和零售价格的协调策略;进一步证明了改进的收益共享合约可协调需求和成本同时扰动的分权供应链;数值实验表明了模型的有效性.     

Impact of Retailers with Knowledge of Supplier's Inventory on Supply Chain Performance

We model a supply chain consisting of a supplier and multiple retailers facing deterministic demand. We denote some retailers as strategic in the sense that given the supplier inventory information, they will implement the optimal stocking policy by incorporating such information. On the other hand, some retailers are denoted as naïve in the sense that they ignore supply information and resort to a simplistic ordering policy. Naïve retailers learn the optimal policy over time and adjust their orders accordingly. We study the dynamics of this game and investigate the impact of such strategic and naïve retailers on the cost, ordering pattern and stocking policies of all parties. We analyze the supply chain under two scenarios: the centralized supply chain where the objective is to minimize the total supply chain cost, and the decentralized supply chain where each self‐interested player minimizes its own cost in a Stackelberg game setting. We fully characterize the optimal policies under both centralized and decentralized scenarios and show that, surprisingly, the supply chain might be better off by virtue of naïve retailers. The result is driven by the fact that strategic and naïve players’ decisions shift the positioning of inventory in the supply chain with its final impact being determined by the relative costs of different retailer‐types. Our results also offer managerial insights into how access to supply information can improve supply chain performance.     

Supply-Chain Strategy: Organizational Influence Through Supplier Alliances

The role of supply-chain management as an integral element in corporate strategy has been discussed in prior research, mostly at a broad conceptual level with relatively little empirical validation. This paper uses data from a longitudinal study of buyer-supplier relationships to evaluate the impact from firms' recent initiatives in developing strategic supplier alliances on the role played by the supply management effort in the corporate hierarchy. Contrary to anticipated results, the use of an alliance approach did not lead to any appreciable improvement in status and respect for supply management's role in developing corporate strategy. While several suggestions are offered to explain these results, the major conceptual models of supply-chain strategy are reassessed and a more appropriate and grounded framework for study is proposed. Further research is called for to empirically verify the link between strategic consideration for supply issues and firm success.     

考虑公平关切行为下竞争零售商的最优联合购买策略研究

本文考虑一个由两个竞争的零售商和一个供应商组成的两级供应链,其中供应商可通过提供批量折扣契约向两家竞争的零售商销售产品,而零售商表现出纵向公平关切(即当获得利润小于供应商的利润时,其获得一个负效用)。并且,考虑的两个零售商为了获得较低的批发价格可能更喜欢团购,进而它们将选择最佳订单数量来最大化其自身的效用。利用经典的纳什议价解决方案作为公平参考点,本文主要研究竞争与公平关切行为将如何影响零售商的联合购买策略。研究发现,当零售商追求公平时,联合购买策略优于单独购买策略,且越大竞争强度使得使用联合购买策略的优势越明显。此外,当零售商表现出不同的公平关切程度时,若批量折扣比例比较低,对公平关切敏感的零售商的效用总是小于对公平关切不敏感的零售商的效用;否则,对公平关切敏感的零售商的效用总是大于对公平关切不敏感的零售商的效用。     

基于RFID技术的双供应链投资决策研究

本文考虑零售商主导的分别由一个供应商和一个零售商组成的两条竞争型供应链中,当两个供应商都未投资RFID技术、只有一个供应商投资RFID技术以及两个供应商同时投资RFID技术时,考虑供应商成本结构的差异,对比分析供应链的投资决策。由于模型解析解过于复杂,本文通过算例分析,着重考虑产品的替代率、RFID标签价格以及库存可获得率三个因素对供应链成员利润的影响。结果表明两条供应链对RFID技术的投资决策会因成本结构和产品替代率的不同而发生变化,其中在两个供应商生产成本差异较大且产品竞争强度较低时,生产成本较高的供应商更愿意投资RFID技术,而生产成本较低的供应商不愿意投资RFID技术,两个零售商则希望使用RFID技术,所以此时仅会有一条供应链上的成员达成一致,决定投资使用RFID技术。     

The Impact of Forecast Errors on Early Order Commitment in a Supply Chain*

Supply chain partnership involves mutual commitments among participating firms. One example is early order commitment, wherein a retailer commits to purchase a fixed‐order quantity and delivery time from a supplier before the real need takes place. This paper explores the value of practicing early order commitment in the supply chain. We investigate the complex interactions between early order commitment and forecast errors by simulating a supply chain with one capacitated supplier and multiple retailers under demand uncertainty. We found that practicing early order commitment can generate significant savings in the supply chain, but the benefits are only valid within a range of order commitment periods. Different components of forecast errors have different cost implications to the supplier and the retailers. The presence of trend in the demand increases the total supply chain cost, but makes early order commitment more appealing. The more retailers sharing the same supplier, the more valuable for the supply chain to practice early order commitment. Except in cases where little capacity cushion is available, our findings are relatively consistent in the environments where cost structure, number of retailers, capacity utilization, and capacity policy are varied.     

Vertical cost information sharing in a supply chain with value-adding retailers

We consider a supply chain consisting of one supplier and two value-adding heterogeneous retailers. Each retailer has full knowledge about his own value-added cost structure that is unknown to the supplier and the other retailer. Assuming there is no horizontal information sharing between two retailers, we model the supply chain with a three-stage game-theoretic framework. In the first stage each retailer decides if he is willing to vertically disclose his private cost information to the supplier. In the second stage, given the information he has about the retailers, the supplier announces the wholesale price to the retailers. In response to the wholesale price, in the third stage, the retailers optimize their own retail prices and the values added to the product, respectively. Under certain conditions, we prove the existence of equilibrium prices and added values. Furthermore, we obtain the condition under which both retailers are unwilling to vertically share their private information with the supplier, as well as the conditions under which both retailers have incentives to reveal their cost information to the supplier, thus leading to a win–win situation for the whole supply chain.     

碳交易机制下零售商合作的费用分配研究

在一个由单供应商和多个零售商组成的二阶供应链中，研究碳交易机制下多零售商合作的订货决策问题。对完全信息下零售商合作的费用分配问题，应用合作博弈理论建立了费用分配的博弈模型，证明了博弈为子模博弈且设计了属于核心的费用分配方案，该方案不仅可通过总体单调分配机制实现而且可使大联盟长远稳定。对不完全信息下零售商合作的费用分配问题，证明了纯策略纳什均衡的存在性。研究结果表明，零售商的合作不仅能降低总费用，而且能降低碳排放量；各零售商在不完全信息下分担的费用大于完全信息下分担的费用。     

Balancing Inventory and Stockout Risk in Retail Supply Chains Using Fast‐Ship

In this study, we consider a two‐retailer, one‐supplier supply chain in which retailers satisfy excess demand by offering to directly ship out‐of‐stock items on an expedited basis at no extra cost to customers. This practice is referred to as the fast‐ship option. We consider two scenarios along with the fast‐ship option. In the first scenario, retailers transship when out of stock, whereas in the second scenario, they do not. If they do not transship, some customers may perform the search on their own. In each scenario, the wholesale prices are either exogenous, or chosen endogenously by the supplier. For both cases, we determine the supplier's and the retailers’ optimal decisions. The key research question we ask and answer is the following: which of the two scenarios is preferred by either player when all decisions are made optimally? We show that when fewer customers are willing to search on their own and wholesale prices are exogenous, both the supplier and the retailers prefer to transship. In addition, the decision maker in a centralized chain will have the exact same preference as that of players in a decentralized setting when the retailers’ and the supplier's preferences coincide and wholesale prices are exogenous. This preference concordance does not hold if wholesale prices are endogenous.     

Competition and Coordination in a Two‐Channel Supply Chain

We study competition and coordination in a supply chain in which a single supplier both operates a direct channel and sells its product through multiple differentiated retailers. We study analytically the supply chain with symmetric retailers and find that the supplier prefers to have as many retailers as possible in the market, even if the retailers' equilibrium retail price is lower than that of the supplier, and even if the number of retailers and their cost or market advantage prevent sales through the direct channel. We find that the two‐channel supply chain may be subject to inefficiencies not present in the single‐channel supply chain. We show that several contracts known to coordinate a single‐channel supply chain do not coordinate the two‐channel supply chain; thus we propose a linear quantity discount contract and demonstrate its ability to perfectly coordinate the two‐channel supply chain with symmetric retailers. We provide some analytical results for the supply chain with asymmetric retailers and propose an efficient solution approach for finding the equilibrium. We find numerically that the supplier still benefits from having more retailers in the market and that linear quantity discount contracts can mitigate supply chain inefficiency, though they no longer achieve perfect coordination.