基于补偿合约的供应链定价与能力设计的协调问题研究

研究和分析了在需求不确定并且受价格影响的情况下,供应链中制造商与供应商的产品定价与能力设计的协调问题。制造商从供应商处采购用于产品生产的关键零部件,供应链面临的潜在需求服从随机分布,有效需求则受产品定价的影响。当供应商的生产能力出现约束时,制造商可以从外部其他渠道获取关键零部件,但是需要付出一个更高的采购价格。制造商确定产品的销售价格,供应商确定生产能力。分析比较了在集成供应链与独立决策的供应链中的定价与能力计划策略,提出了一种能够有效协调制造商和供应商的决策行为的补偿合约。最后,进行了数值分析,证明补偿合约的有效性。     

制造商流程改进与采购合同联合优化

如何降低供应风险是供应链管理中的热点问题。本文考虑供应商拥有关于初始可靠性的私有信息,且制造商流程改进可提高初始可靠性,运用委托代理理论,研究了制造商流程改进和采购策略联合优化下的最优合同设计。通过对比对称和不对称信息下制造商的最优采购合同,发现信息不对称的存在降低了制造商向低初始可靠性供应商订货的概率,还可能导致过度努力。信息不对称的存在不一定造成社会福利损失,也不一定产生信息租金。当供应商的初始可靠性水平和纳什谈判力满足一定条件时,相比与制造商的最优采购合同,供应商披露私有信息会使供应链实现帕累托改进。最后通过算例验证了模型的结论。本文对供应风险下的采购实践有很好的参考价值和指导意义。     

基于 B2B电子交易市场的零售商最优订购策略

B2B电子交易市场能够为企业提供现货交易、远期合约交易以及产能期权合约交易等交易服务.B2B电子交易市场中交易的期权合约在签订后至到期日之前可再次交易.以此为背景研究了零售商最优采购策略.研究结果表明, 期权合约可再次交易为供应链中的零售商提供新的投机渠道, 显著地提高了零售商对期仅合约的采购数量, 而对与固定供应商签订的长期合约采购数量的影响不明显, 因此零售商在线下与网上市场的总订货量将有所增加.最后, 对供应链中的采购者、供应商以及第三方 B2B电子交易市场提出建议.     

产品服务升级下的契约设计与战略库存策略研究

零售企业进行升级产品服务的一个重要策略就是打造自有品牌。在考虑零售商拥有自有品牌以及具有战略库存能力的基础上,构建了两阶段博弈模型,得到了零售商和制造商在动态定价合约和价格承诺合约下的最优决策,探讨了自有品牌引入下供应链的最优契约设计。研究结果表明：当且仅当制造商的库存持有成本和自有品牌质量较低时,零售商才会在动态定价合约下持有战略库存。自有品牌对零售商的战略库存行为产生了抑制作用,自有品牌质量越高,战略库存水平越低。制造商更倾向于采用动态定价合约而零售商偏好价格承诺合约则仅出现在自有品牌的质量相对较低且库存持有成本处于中等水平的情况下;整体供应链对合约的倾向受到库存持有成本和自有品牌质量的双重影响;当零售商可选择最优的定价合约时,提高自有品牌质量不一定对制造商有害。     

基于B2B电子交易市场的零售商最优订购策略

B2B电子交易市场能够为企业提供现货交易、远期合约交易以及产能期权合约交易等交易服务.B2B电子交易市场中交易的期权合约在签订后至到期日之前可再次交易.以此为背景研究了零售商最优采购策略.研究结果表明,期权合约可再次交易为供应链中的零售商提供新的投机渠道,显著地提高了零售商对期仅合约的采购数量,而对与固定供应商签订的长...     

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.     

采购价格柔性策略与供应链利润风险分析

面对原材料市场价格的大幅波动,供应链节点企业需要采用相应策略来规避价格波动带来的风险。本文通过设计价格柔性合同,分析供应链企业通过采购价格柔性策略来缓解采购价格波动给企业利润带来的风险。采用Stackelberg主从博弈模型研究得出了制造商的最优采购数量和供应商的最优价格柔性系数,并分别分析了各最优结果随采购价格柔性合同参数的变化趋势。利用供应链各主体的利润方差度量各自承担的利润风险,分析了供应商和制造商的利润风险随采购价格柔性合同参数的变化规律。     

供应链上的后向整合外包与协调策略分析

制造业企业在设计与构造供应链时所面临的一个核心问题是如何对纵向整合度进行权衡,通过一个单期、单制造商和单供应商的两级供应链模型研究这一问题.制造商生产最终产品所需的零部件被分为两类,核心零部件与非核心零部件.对于非核心零部件制造商既可以选择自制从而提高纵向整合度.也可以选择外包给上游供应商.首先给出了制造商的最优整合外包策略,然后分析了整合外包策略对上、下游企业及供应链整体绩效带来的影响,最后讨论了几种基于整合外包方式的供应链改进与协调策略.     

存在信息更新时的双源采购和后备生产结合策略研究

在现实的采购运作中，双源采购和后备生产是两种最常见的风险应对策略。本文在考虑信息更新的情况下，探讨了一个两阶段动态采购决策模型：第一阶段，制造商向存在供应风险的一个或两个主供应商订货；第二阶段，制造商根据主供应商风险信息的更新，决定是否向供应可靠但价格较高的后备供应商订货。本文得到了两阶段的最优采购策略，分析发现，当固定采购成本较低时：若潜在市场需求较小，双源采购将排斥后备生产；若潜在市场需求较大，双源采购和后备生产共存；若潜在市场需求适中，后备生产可能排斥双源采购，两者也可能共存。特别地，在潜在市场需求适中时，可靠性改进概率的增大或后备供应商生产成本的降低，将使后备生产趋于排斥双源采购；反之，可靠性改进概率的减小、固定采购成本的降低或后备生产成本的增加，将使两者趋于共存。     

考虑双边用户多归属与组内网络效应的第三方制造平台服务与定价策略

针对两个为制造商和供应商提供零部件交易服务的第三方制造平台,考虑双边用户之间存在正向的交叉网络效应且各边用户群体内部存在负向的组内网络效应,通过构建Hotelling模型,研究了制造商和供应商多归属时平台最优的服务与定价策略,并考察了组内网络效应对平台最优决策的影响。研究表明：当两个平台为用户带来的基础效用较高时,它们应采取差异化服务策略,在此情形下,平台总是向供应商收费更多,但可能给予制造商一定的补贴;而当两平台为用户带来的基础效用较低时,它们应该采取同质化服务策略,此时平台不再实施补贴策略,甚至在一定条件下,平台可能会对交叉网络效应强度更高的制造商收费更多。     

Supply Chain Sourcing Under Asymmetric Information

We study a supply chain with two suppliers competing over a contract to supply components to a manufacturer. One of the suppliers is a big company for whom the manufacturer's business constitutes a small part of his business. The other supplier is a small company for whom the manufacturer's business constitutes a large portion of his business. We analyze the problem from the perspective of the big supplier and address the following questions: What is the optimal contracting strategy that the big supplier should follow? How does the information about the small supplier's production cost affect the profits and contracting decision? How does the existence of the small supplier affect profits? By studying various information scenarios regarding the small supplier's and the manufacturer's production cost, we show, for example, that the big supplier benefits when the small supplier keeps its production cost private. We quantify the value of information for the big supplier and the manufacturer. We also quantify the cost (value) of the alternative‐sourcing option for the big supplier (the manufacturer). We determine when an alternative‐sourcing option has more impact on profits than information. We conclude with extensions and numerical examples to shed light on how system parameters affect this supply chain.     

The Impact of Contracts and Competition on Upstream Innovation in a Supply Chain

We consider a supply chain with an upstream supplier who invests in innovation and a downstream manufacturer who sells to consumers. We study the impact of supply chain contracts with endogenous upstream innovation, focusing on three different contract scenarios: (i) a wholesale price contract, (ii) a quality‐dependent wholesale price contract, and (iii) a revenue‐sharing contract. We confirm that the revenue‐sharing contract can coordinate supply chain decisions including the innovation investment, whereas the other two contracts may result in underinvestment in innovation. However, the downstream manufacturer does not always prefer the revenue‐sharing contract; the manufacturer's profit can be higher with a quality‐dependent wholesale price contract than with a revenue‐sharing contract, specifically when the upstream supplier's innovation cost is low. We then extend our model to incorporate upstream competition between suppliers. By inviting upstream competition, with the wholesale price contract, the manufacturer can increase his profit substantially. Furthermore, under upstream competition, the revenue‐sharing contract coordinates the supply chain, and results in an optimal contract form for the manufacturer when suppliers are symmetric. We also analyze the case of complementary components suppliers, and show that most of our results are robust.     

Pay‐Back‐Revenue‐Sharing Contract in Coordinating Supply Chains with Random Yield

We consider coordination issues in supply chains where supplier's production process is subject to random yield losses. For a simple supply chain with a single supplier and retailer facing deterministic demand, a pay back contract which has the retailer paying a discount price for the supplier's excess units can provide the right incentive for the supplier to increase his production size and achieve coordination. Building upon this result, we consider coordination issues for two other supply chains: one with competing retailers, the other with stochastic demand. When retailers compete for both demand and supply, they tend to over‐order. We show that a combination of a pay back and revenue sharing mechanism can coordinate the supply chain, with the pay back mechanism correcting the supplier's under‐producing problem and the revenue sharing mechanism correcting the retailers' over‐ordering problem. When demand is stochastic, we consider a modified pay‐back‐revenue‐sharing contract under which the retailer agrees to not only purchase the supplier's excess output (beyond the retailer's order), but also share with the supplier a portion of the revenue made from the sales of the excess output. We show that this contract, by giving the supplier additional incentives in the form of revenue share, can achieve coordination.     

规避农副产品原材料产出不确定风险的商业保险策略

为了保证产品质量、降低生产成本，许多农副产品制造商选择自己种植原材料以满足农副产品的加工生产。然而，农作物的产出易受不利事件（如各种自然灾害）的影响而具有不确定性。这种不确定性可能导致最终产品产出不足，严重时甚至引发财务危机。为了应对潜在风险，农副产品制造商可向金融机构购买商业保险。本文建立了单周期农副产品制造商的计划产量决策模型，通过研究制造商购买商业保险的边界条件及最优商业保险策略，分析商业保险策略在制造商规避原材料产出不确定风险时所具有的价值。研究结果表明：（1）只有保费的安全因子低于外部融资的单位惩罚成本时，制造商才会购买商业保险；（2）最优商业保险策略与计划产量无关；（3）最终产品单位净收益越低，商业保险的价值反而越高。     

Coordinating Supply Chains via Advance‐Order Discounts,Minimum Order Quantities,and Delegations

To avoid inventory risks, manufacturers often place rush orders with suppliers only after they receive firm orders from their customers (retailers). Rush orders are costly to both parties because the supplier incurs higher production costs. We consider a situation where the supplier's production cost is reduced if the manufacturer can place some of its order in advance. In addition to the rush order contract with a pre‐established price, we examine whether the supplier should offer advance‐order discounts to encourage the manufacturer to place a portion of its order in advance, even though the manufacturer incurs some inventory risk. While the advance‐order discount contract is Pareto‐improving, our analysis shows that the discount contract cannot coordinate the supply chain. However, if the supplier imposes a pre‐specified minimum order quantity requirement as a qualifier for the manufacturer to receive the advance‐order discount, then such a combined contract can coordinate the supply chain. Furthermore, the combined contract enables the supplier to attain the first‐best solution. We also explore a delegation contract that either party could propose. Under this contract, the manufacturer delegates the ordering and salvaging activities to the supplier in return for a discounted price on all units procured. We find the delegation contract coordinates the supply chain and is Pareto‐improving. We extend our analysis to a setting where the suppliers capacity is limited for advance production but unlimited for rush orders. Our structural results obtained for the one‐supplier‐one‐manufacturer case continue to hold when we have two manufacturers.     

Should an OEM Retain Component Procurement when the CM Produces Competing Products?

We consider a large original equipment manufacturer (OEM) who relies on a contract manufacturer (CM) to produce her product. In addition to the OEM's product, the CM also produces for a smaller OEM. Both the larger OEM and the CM can purchase the component from the supplier, but their purchase prices may differ and remain unknown to each other. The main question we address is whether the larger OEM should retain component procurement by purchasing components from the supplier and reselling to the CM (buy–sell), or outsource component procurement by letting the CM purchase directly from the supplier (turnkey). We show that, under buy–sell, the larger OEM's optimal strategy is to resell components at the highest possible component purchase price of the CM (i.e., the street price). By comparing buy–sell and turnkey, we find that a CM with low component price is better off under turnkey, even though under buy–sell he receives more profits through the products sold to the smaller OEM. Furthermore, the larger OEM's preference between buy–sell and turnkey depends on her component price, the volatility of the CM's component price and substitutability between the two products.     

基于讨价还价模型的持股型供应链最优订货与定价策略研究

论文分析了风险规避型供应商和制造商组成的供应链系统，为了降低供应的不确定等因素，通过制造商投资供应商并持股的方式降低供应链的整体风险。构造均值-方差模型刻画制造商和供应商的风险偏好特征，并通过构建纳什讨价还价模型分析供应商和制造商的交易谈判过程。论文证明了纳什讨价还价模型存在唯一的均衡合同，并对均衡合同进行了比较静态分析，提出了可供实践企业参考的管理启示。     

Procurement Contracts in the Presence of Endogenous Disruption Risk

We consider a manufacturer facing an unreliable supplier with high or low type on initial reliability. The private reliability can be enhanced through process improvement initiated by either manufacturer (manufacturer‐initiated improvement, MI) or supplier (supplier‐initiated improvement, SI). We derive optimal procurement contracts for both mechanisms and find that the moral hazard does not necessarily generate more profit for high‐type supplier. Furthermore, information asymmetry causes a greater possibility of not ordering from low type in SI than MI. For low type, when an upward effort distortion appears in both mechanisms, a decreased (increased) unit penalty should be imposed in MI (SI) compared with symmetric information case. Although possibly efficient effort from the supplier could yield greater channel profit in SI, several scenarios violate this expectation. However, the manufacturer's expected profit in MI is no less than that in SI. When MI is extended to MSI where both manufacturer and supplier can exert effort, the expected profits of two parties are equal to those in SI. We further extend SI to SID, where both process improvement and dual‐sourcing are available. The manufacturer considers the trade‐off between the benefit from diversification and the loss from dual information rent to decide to choose SID or MI. By comparing SID with pure dual‐sourcing, we find that supplier's process improvement could either accelerate or retard the exercise of dual‐sourcing.     

Contracting and Coordination under Asymmetric Production Cost Information

We analyze a supply chain consisting of a supplier and a retailer. The supplier's unit production cost, which characterizes his type, is only privately known to him. When trading with the retailer, the supplier demands a reservation profit that depends on his unit production cost. We model this problem as a game of adverse selection. In this model, the retailer offers a menu of contracts, each of which consists of two parameters: the ordering quantity and the supplier's share of the channel profit. We show that the optimal contract depends critically on a surrogate measure—the ratio of the types’ reservation profit differential to their production cost differential. An important implication from our analysis is that information asymmetry alone does not necessarily induce loss in channel efficiency. The optimal contract can coordinate the supply chain as long as the low‐cost supplier's cost efficiency is neither much overvalued nor much undervalued in the outside market. We further discuss the retailer's preference of the supplier's type under different market conditions, as well as evaluate the effects of the supplier's reservation profit, the retail price, and the demand uncertainty on the optimal contract.     

竞合供应链的采购与质量决策研究

研究由原始设备制造商、竞争供应商与非竞争供应商构成的竞合供应链中原始设备制造商的采购决策,并分析了品牌效应、竞争供应商的模仿能力、非竞争供应商的原材料供应能力对采购模式选择与质量决策的影响。结果表明,双源采购对原始设备制造商而言是最优的采购策略;竞争供应商模仿能力较小时,原始设备制造商决策的产品质量随竞争供应商模仿能力的增大而提高,而当竞争供应商的模仿能力较大时,其模仿能力的增强会导致原始设备制造商降低产品的质量;原始设备制造商的品牌效应可以降低竞争供应商的竞争程度;非竞争供应商提高原材料供应能力并不一定能为自己带来更高的利润。本文考虑品牌效应和竞争供应商模仿能力等对原始设备制造商质量和采购决策的影响,扩展了现有的研究。