制造商规模不经济的链与链竞争两部定价合同

基于链与链数量竞争及制造商生产规模不经济的环境,以批发价格合同为基准,探索两部定价合同选择的绩效改进条件、博弈均衡特征和局限性,并进一步分析市场竞争强度、规模不经济参数对合同选择行为的影响.研究发现:不管竞争对手供应链是否采用两部定价合同,本供应链通过采用两部定价合同并把固定收费调节在适当范围内,可使制造商和零售商同时实现帕累托(Pareto)绩效改进.值得指出的是,通过适当调节固定收费,两部定价合同成为实现制造商和零售商帕累托绩效改进的占优均衡合同,但该固定收费的选择严重依赖于竞争强度和规模不经济的程度.当规模不经济程度相对较强且严重依赖于数量竞争强度时,两部定价合同是实现供应链系统绩效改进的占优均衡合同.     

需求不确定和纵向约束的链与链竞争固定加价

基于需求不确定和纵向约束的链与链竞争环境,识别固定加价合同选择的绩效改进条件和博弈均衡特征,并进一步分析市场需求波动风险、市场规模、市场份额、价格竞争、零售商预测能力及固定加价比例对合同选择行为的影响。研究发现：当横向价格竞争相对较弱,零售终端的市场份额相对较大时,基于纵向约束的固定加价合同是实现供应链系统绩效改进的贝叶斯占优均衡;若此时固定加价的比例相对适中且市场需求波动风险不是很高,或者固定加价的比例较大但市场需求波动的风险相对适中,则固定加价合同是实现制造商和零售商Pareto绩效均改进的贝叶斯均衡;而若价格竞争非常激烈,则无纵向约束的批发价格合同能形成实现供应链系统绩效Pareto改进的占优贝叶斯均衡。     

基于链与链竞争的延保服务渠道策略选择

构建由两个制造商和两个专有零售商组成的链与链竞争模型，考虑三种延保服务渠道策略选择情形——两条链均由制造商提供延保服务(MM),两条链均由零售商提供延保服务(RR)和一条链由制造商提供延保服务，另一条链由零售商提供延保服务(H),以探究链与链竞争环境下的延保服务渠道策略选择问题.结果表明，从供应链视角，MM和RR都可能成为均衡策略，且这两种均衡策略可能单独存在或同时存在.有趣的是，从制造商和零售商的视角，研究发现双方并非会一直偏好于接受同一种延保服务渠道策略，存在特定的区域使得制造商和零售商在策略选择上有冲突.此外，在链与链竞争环境下，分散化渠道情形下的系统总利润可能会优于集中化渠道情形下的系统总利润.     

竞争供应链基于下游企业主导的纵向研发联盟研究

从博弈论的视角,构建2个强势制造商和2个排他性供应商组成的链与链价格竞争模型,研究竞争供应链基于利润分享合同的纵向研发联盟选择策略。研究表明,当市场竞争强度较低,或者市场竞争强度相对适中且研发效率较高时,形成纵向联盟结构链与链竞争均衡,该均衡为实现制造商和供应商利润Pareto改进的占优均衡。数值分析表明,随着竞争强度的减弱或者研发效率的提高,联盟的有效利润分享比例范围逐渐缩减。     

基于交叉销售的竞争供应链纵向契约研究

考虑市场上存在两个竞争性制造商和两个竞争性零售商,且每个制造商都由两个共同的零售商来分销产品,进而形成交叉销售的竞争供应链模型.研究该模型下制造商契约选择的动态演化过程.分析收益分享契约同时实现制造商与零售商利润改进的条件.结果显示:制造商的契约选择严重依赖于产品间的竞争强度,零售商间竞争强度只起到催化剂的作用.当产品间的竞争较弱,收益分享比例设置在合适范围内时,制造商由最初的批发价契约转化为收益分享契约,且此时收益分享契约为占优策略.否则,两者将因为收益分享比例无法达成一致,被迫以批发价契约进行交易.     

不同权力结构和联盟策略下风险规避型闭环供应链决策

本文旨在探讨不同渠道权力结构和联盟策略下风险规避型闭环供应链的决策问题。考虑到产品需求和废旧产品回收的不确定性及决策者的风险规避特性,在制造商主导、零售商主导及制造商和零售商势力均衡三种情形下,分别构建了制造商和零售商联盟与不联盟时的闭环供应链博弈模型,获得了六个博弈模型下的均衡解,对比分析了不同模型下产品定价、废旧产品的最优回收价格和供应链及其成员的期望收益。研究结果表明,在制造商和零售商不联盟的情形下,决策者的风险规避程度增加能够缓解双重边际效应,供应链期望收益与风险规避程度正相关,而在制造商和零售商联盟的情形下,供应链期望收益与风险规避程度负相关;制造商和零售商不联盟时,制造商和零售商势力均衡的渠道权力结构对消费者最有利,而制造商和零售商联盟时,制造商和零售商势力均衡的渠道权力结构对消费者最不利;制造商和零售商权力结构不对等时最优价格决策之间的关系与制造商和零售商的风险规避程度有关;供应链期望收益在制造商和零售商势力均衡下最大,制造商期望收益在制造商主导的渠道权力结构下最大,零售商期望收益在零售商主导的渠道权力结构下最大。     

网络环境下考虑动态定价的渠道协调问题研究

在一个制造商和一个在线零售商构成的供应链中,制造商委托在线零售商销售产品,确定价格和生产数量,零售商确定收益分享比例.本文假定制造商动态定价,研究了上述供应链的协调问题,研究发现:动态定价不能影响收益分享比例,但会提高供应链整体的利润;收益分享合同不能达到供应链协调;收益分享合同与返利合同的组合能够实现供应链协调.最后用算例说明了动态定价对供应链的影响.     

基于网络直销可替代随机需求的供应链研究

在网络直销背景下,研究一个电子零售商和两个制造商的供应链.电子零售商仅提供其网络平台并收取相应费用,制造商确定单个替代产品的价格和供货量,并借助网络平台发布产品价格信息供顾客选购.基于网络直销模式,针对产品可双向替代和面临随机需求的特点,采用加和的线性需求模型,在单个周期内构建一个两阶段主从博弈模型,讨论制造商的均衡最优定价、供货量和电子零售商的最优收益分享比例;借助数值实验,讨论替代系数和生产成本对制造商、电子零售商决策的影响.研究结果表明,在网络直销模式和终端随机需求环境下,当产品的单位供货成本既定时,产品相互替代度越大,电子零售商的收益分享比例和利润越大;当制造商产品相似替代系数既定时,单位供货成本越大,电子零售商的收益分享比例和利润越少.研究结果对于电子零售商提高利润和吸引更多的制造商直销产品以及制造商提高直销替代产品时的利润都具有重要的理论意义和实践价值.     

传统渠道与电子渠道预测信息分享的绩效研究

多渠道冲突与治理成为电子商务环境理论与实践的关键问题,信息分享研究主要集中于传统渠道结构,忽略了传统渠道与电子渠道混合的结构特征.主要研究传统零售商渠道与制造商控制的电子渠道竞争环境信息分享的绩效问题,该文通过构建模型考察了市场风险、两个渠道的潜在市场份额、信息预测精度、渠道的竞争强度对信息分享各渠道成员绩效的影响.从而识别了制造商与零售商信息分享选择的博弈结构与行为特征,得到不同于传统渠道结构信息分享的绩效结果.     

异质品双渠道供应链下制造商的渠道决策研究

研究由两个制造商、两个零售商以及消费者组成的双渠道供应链，制造商的最优产品分销渠道策略问题，通过构建Stackelberg主从动态博弈模型，分析制造商在不同渠道选择下的产品质量水平及定价决策，消费者三种不同渠道偏好下渠道竞争和品牌竞争激烈程度对制造商渠道选择均衡结果及帕累托最优选择的影响，以及对产品质量水平、产品价格、制造商及零售商利润的影响.研究表明：品牌和渠道双重竞争下，两种竞争之间存在相互作用的关系，并共同影响制造商最终渠道选择，制造商通过权衡价格决策的后动优势与消费者渠道偏好对其利润的贡献选择是否开辟双渠道，产品价格与产品质量水平正相关，与产品的替代率负相关，产品质量水平对渠道价格的影响程度等于消费者对该渠道的偏好程度.当消费者偏好某一渠道时，制造商可在该渠道上的产品采取优质高价策略，但渠道上产品性价比降低，当品牌竞争越激烈，产品价格越低，对制造商和零售商的利润挤压越严重.     

Supply chain contract evolution

This paper draws together theories from organisational and neo-institutional literatures to address the evolution of supply chain contracts. Using a longitudinal case study of the Norwegian State Railways, we examine how firms move through the stages in an inter-organisational process of supply chain contract evolution and how they can cooperate to ensure efficiency and equity in their contractual relationship. The findings suggest that inefficient and inequitable initial contracts can occur, in part, because of the cognitive shortcomings in human decision-making processes that reveal themselves early in the arrangement before learning and trust building can accumulate. We then reveal how parties can renegotiate towards a more equitable and efficient supply chain contract.     

Models for supply chain reengineering

The goal of this paper is to provide a first step in the development of a coherent set of modelling methods for supply chain reengineering. This paper shows that different fields of attention in supply chain management should be approached with different modelling methods. Three modelling methods are presented: the event process chain (EPC) method; the activity chain model (ACM) method; and the GRAI grid method (adjusted for supply chains). EPC modelling focuses on time relationships between primary processes/functions, and is customer oriented. ACM modelling focuses on functions/processes and information flows. GRAI focuses on decision structures and information flows. The three methods are described, and an application of the methods to a case study company is presented. This paper concludes with a comparison of the methods and a discussion of their applicability.     

一种基于语法的供应链流程定义元模型

在供应链流程建模和描述的方法体系中,语法建模方法是最新出现的一种很有发展潜力的建模语言,与其它建模方法相比具有多方面的优越性.供应链流程定义语言(SCPDL,supply chain process definition language)作为一种新的供应链流程建模方法,是供应链流程与语法模型的转换器,它可使供应链流程转化为相应的语法模型,以便在系统上实现对流程的查询、管理等逻辑处理,并进一步实现了不同方法描述的供应链流程之间的便利转换.通过对流程定义语言的深入研究,融入最新的过程语法建模和协调理论的相关理念,提出了一个基于语法的供应链流程定义元模型.并在此基础上采用XML(eXtensible Markup Language)对其规则进行重写,形成了基于XML的供应链流程定义语言.提出的XSCPDL(XML SCPDL)模型方法将使供应链管理的建模、管理和优化工具与供应链流程引擎之间实现相互转换,并便于不同软件开发商提供的流程模型在XML的平台上进行快速交互.     

Supply chain coordination with information design

We consider the coordination of a supplier–retailer supply chain where, in addition to classical contract considerations, a supplier decides the adoption of an information structure (IS) for the supply chain, with a higher-quality IS allowing the supply chain parties to obtain a more accurate demand forecast. Because a wholesale price contract cannot coordinate the supply chain due to misaligned incentives of supply chain parties, we explore what common coordinating contracts in the classical coordination literature can continue coordinating the supply chain with the IS adoption. Interestingly, our analysis appears to reveal the power of simplicity: some simple classical coordinating contracts (e.g., the buy-back and revenue-sharing contracts), though not designed with the IS consideration, still coordinate the supply chain, whereas other more complicated classical contracts (e.g., the quantity flexibility and sales rebate contracts) fail to do so. We derive a general condition for supply chain coordination and show that any contract with a newsvendor-like transfer payment can coordinate the supply chain.     

Business process re-engineering the supply chain

Common foundations which underlie thinking in the supply chain management (SCM), Business process re-engineering (BPR) and business process improvement (BPI) philosophies are highlighted. The view that BPR is a new concept is argued against by highlighting die work performed in other fields, namely SCM from the systems perspective. It is argued that those who have already implemented the SCM philosophy will have already travelled the same path as BPR and indeed re-engineered their own processes. Once businesses have integrated their supply chain the greatest benefits will have already been achieved, however system dynamics analysis does show significant on-cost differences dependent on the redesign strategy implemented. A generic structured model for SCM is enhanced through this comparison with BPR with the following characteristics being added; do not be afraid to be radical with respect to internal integration and continually search for step change improvement ideas which can be strategically phased in to positively impact the marketplace.     

Information leakage and supply chain contracts

This paper investigates information leakage under different contract configurations in a supply chain. We consider two competing retailers, one of whom (incumbent) has private information about market demand while the other (entrant) has no access to acquire any market demand information. We assume that the supplier is the leader who may choose a wholesale price contract (WPC) or a revenue-sharing contract (RSC) with each retailer independently. We explore the effect of the supplier's and incumbent's incentives on non-leakage equilibrium and find out that there exists a non-leakage equilibrium only when the incumbent signs an RSC with the supplier under an appropriately given revenue-sharing rate in situations of high demand variation.     

In-house capability and supply chain decisions

This study considers an internal production option for a contractor and analyzes its effect on the supply chain decisions when the contractor has innovated and the subcontractor has an incentive for opportunistic behavior. In contrast to the single disclosure threshold in the benchmark scenario where the contractor lacks in-house capability, we find two thresholds in the referred scenario. When information misappropriation is possible and the contractor has in-house capability, the contractor will organize a coordinated supply chain only when innovations fall between the two thresholds. Compared to the benchmark scenario, in-house capability has a positive effect on the contractor's incentive to innovate and an ambiguous effect on the subcontractor's incentive to invest in the production process. When the contractor needs to incur an extra cost to build in-house capability, the contractor keeps the same levels of investment compared to the case of no additional in-house capability cost, whereas the subcontractor increases the levels of investment. Furthermore, we find that in the presence of potential misappropriation on the part of the subcontractor, the higher the level of in-house capability, the less likely the contractor will be to outsource innovative products that generate higher profitability. This study can explain why firms strategically outsource low-end products and produce high-end products themselves. This study provides new results on the effects of in-house capability on the strategic interactions of parties in supply chains and, hence, on supply chain efficiency.