Mitigating Supply Uncertainty: The Interplay Between Diversification and Pricing

We consider a firm's sourcing problem from one reliable supplier and one unreliable supplier in two price‐setting scenarios. In the committed pricing scenario, the firm makes the pricing decision before the supply uncertainty is resolved. In the responsive pricing scenario, the firm's pricing decision is made after the supply uncertainty is resolved. For the committed pricing scenario, we develop a condition on supply uncertainty that guarantees the unimodality of the firm's objective function. By comparing the firm's optimal diversification decisions in the two pricing scenarios, we examine the interplay of supply diversification strategy and responsive pricing strategy in mitigating supply uncertainty. While both strategies are effective in mitigating supply uncertainty, we show that they are not necessarily substitutes. The relationship between these two strategies depends on two adverse effects caused by supply uncertainty: the lost‐revenue effect and the lost‐goodwill effect. More specifically, when the lost‐revenue effect dominates the lost‐goodwill effect, these two strategies are complements; otherwise, they are substitutes. Furthermore, we examine the impact of market size, price sensitivity, supplier reliability, and failure rebate on the interplay between these two strategies, and discuss the implications of our results. Finally, we extend our analysis to the case of two unreliable suppliers and show that the insights regarding the interplay between diversification and pricing continue to hold.     

Role of Random Capacity Risk and the Retailer in Decentralized Supply Chains with Competing Suppliers

This research considers a supply chain under the following conditions: (i) two heterogeneous suppliers are in competition, (ii) supply capacity is random and pricing is endogenous, (iii) consumer demand, with and without an intermediate retailer, is price dependent. Specifically, we examine how uncertainty in supply capacity affects optimal ordering and pricing decisions, supplier and retailer profits, and the incentives to reduce such uncertainty. When two suppliers sell through a monopolistic retailer, supply uncertainty not only affects the retailer's diversification strategy for replenishment, but also changes the suppliers’ wholesale price competition and the incentive for reducing capacity uncertainty. In this dual‐sourcing model, we show that the benefit of reducing capacity uncertainty depends on the cost heterogeneity between the suppliers. In addition, we show that a supplier does not necessarily benefit from capacity variability reduction. We contrast this incentive misalignment with findings from the single‐supplier case and a supplier‐duopoly case where both suppliers sell directly to market without the monopolistic retailer. In the latter single‐supplier and duopoly cases, we prove that the unreliable supplier always benefits from reducing capacity variability. These results highlight the role of the retailer's diversification strategy in distorting a supplier's incentive for reducing capacity uncertainty under supplier price competition.     

Supplier competition and its impact on firm׳s sourcing strategy

Most research on firms׳ sourcing strategies assumes that wholesale prices and reliability of suppliers are exogenous. It is of our interest to study suppliers׳ competition on both wholesale price and reliability and firms׳ corresponding optimal sourcing strategy under complete information. In particular, we study a problem in which a firm procures a single product from two suppliers, taking into account suppliers׳ price and reliability differences. This motivates the suppliers to compete on these two factors. We investigate the equilibria of this supplier game and the firm׳s corresponding sourcing decisions. Our study shows that suppliers׳ reliability often plays a more important role than wholesale price in supplier competition and that maintaining high reliability and a high wholesale price is the ideal strategy for suppliers if multiple options exist. The conventional wisdom implies that low supply reliability and high demand uncertainty motivate dual-sourcing. We notice that when the suppliers׳ shared market/transportation network is often disrupted and demand uncertainty is high, suppliers׳ competition on both price and reliability may render the sole-sourcing strategy to be optimal in some cases that depend on the format of suppliers׳ cost functions. Moreover, numerical study shows that when the cost or vulnerability (to market disruptions) of one supplier increases, its profit and that of the firm may not necessarily decrease under supplier competition.     

Sourcing Decisions with Stochastic Supplier Reliability and Stochastic Demand

Supplier sourcing strategies are a crucial factor driving supply chain success. In this paper, we investigate the implications of uncertain supplier reliability on a firm's sourcing decisions in an environment with stochastic demand. In particular, we characterize specific conditions under which a firm should choose a single versus multiple supplier sourcing strategy. In an environment with both uncertain demand and supply, we characterize the total order quantity, the number of suppliers selected for order placement, and the allocation of the total order quantity among these selected suppliers. For deeper managerial insight, we also examine the sensitivity of the optimal sourcing decisions to interactions between uncertainties in product demand and supply reliability. We show that sourcing from a single supplier is an optimal strategy for environments characterized by high levels of demand uncertainty or high salvage values. A numerical analysis based on data obtained from an office products retailer further reinforces our analytical results. In addition, we also find that when minimal order quantities are imposed, there are situations where it is not optimal to place an order with the lowest cost supplier.     

Managing Disruptions in Decentralized Supply Chains with Endogenous Supply Process Reliability

Supply disruptions are all too common in supply chains. To mitigate delivery risk, buyers may either source from multiple suppliers or offer incentives to their preferred supplier to improve its process reliability. These incentives can be either direct (investment subsidy) or indirect (inflated order quantity). In this study, we present a series of models to highlight buyers’ and suppliers’ optimal parameter choices. Our base‐case model has deterministic buyer demand and two possibilities for the supplier yield outcomes: all‐or‐nothing supply or partial disruption. For the all‐or‐nothing model, we show that the buyer prefers to only use the subsidy option, which obviates the need to inflate order quantity. However, in the partial disruption model, both incentives—subsidy and order inflation—may be used at the same time. Although single sourcing provides greater indirect incentive to the selected supplier because that avoids order splitting, we show that the buyer may prefer the diversification strategy under certain circumstances. We also quantify the amount by which the wholesale price needs to be discounted (if at all) to ensure that dual sourcing strategy dominates sole sourcing. Finally, we extend the model to the case of stochastic demand. Structural properties of ordering/subsidy decisions are derived for the all‐or‐nothing model, and in contrast to the deterministic demand case, we establish that the buyer may increase use of subsidy and order quantity at the same time.     

Supply Diversification with Responsive Pricing

We study sourcing and pricing decisions of a firm with correlated suppliers and a price‐dependent demand. With two suppliers, the insight—cost is the order qualifier while reliability is the order winner—derived in the literature for the case of exogenously determined price and independent suppliers, continues to hold when the suppliers' capacities are correlated. Moreover, a firm orders only from one supplier if the effective purchase cost from him, which includes the imputed cost of his unreliability, is lower than the wholesale price charged by his rival. Otherwise, the firm orders from both. Furthermore, the firm's diversification decision does not depend on the correlation between the two suppliers' random capacities. However, its order quantities do depend on the capacity correlation, and, if the firm's objective function is unimodal, the total order quantity decreases as the capacity correlation increases in the sense of the supermodular order. With more than two suppliers, the insight no longer holds. That is, when ordering from two or more suppliers, one is the lowest‐cost supplier and the others are not selected on the basis of their costs. We conclude the paper by developing a solution algorithm for the firm's optimal diversification problem.     

Managing Engineering Design for Competitive Sourcing in Closed‐Loop Supply Chains

We examine the strategic interplay between a buyer's design decision and the ensuing competition between suppliers in a three‐tier closed‐loop supply chain setting with significant recycling considerations. The nature of the engineering design decision in our research entails choice of integral versus modular design that has direct implications for the input raw material waste and ensuing competition between suppliers (i.e., incumbent and new). Whereas the integral design requires a large blank and generates excessive material scrap, the modular design reduces the generated scrap, and enhances cut‐to‐fit modularity, but incurs joining cost and yield loss. The incumbent supplier who supports the status quo choice of integral design can effectively recycle excessive material waste, as it is strategically located close to the source of material. The engineering design team at our study firm is currently exploring the option to source from alternative suppliers that can support either integral or modular designs, but have significantly lower effectiveness in recycling scrap material. We characterize the buyer's price sensitivity levels, component characteristics, supply chain configurations, and virgin and scrap specialty material prices that yield various design and sourcing policy alternatives. The buyer's optimal policy choice, the ensuing price–demand dynamics, and the resulting recycling implications demonstrate that the buyer can benefit from strategically tailoring his design decisions to affect the suppliers' material requirements and costs. We show that utilizing an alternative supply option is particularly valuable for components made from a material with a low price differential in virgin and scrap forms in supply chains wherein the new supplier base can recycle effectively. In such cases, the buyer induces severe price competition by dual sourcing the integral design, and competition may negate the seemingly obvious benefits of operational improvements (e.g., higher scrap material return rate).      

Dynamic Pricing and Inventory Management with Dual Suppliers of Different Lead Times and Disruption Risks

It is common for a firm to make use of multiple suppliers of different delivery lead times, reliabilities, and costs. In this study, we are concerned with the joint pricing and inventory control problem for such a firm that has a quick‐response supplier and a regular supplier that both suffer random disruptions, and faces price‐sensitive random demands. We aim at characterizing the optimal ordering and pricing policies in each period over a planning horizon, and analyzing the impacts of supply source diversification. We show that, when both suppliers are unreliable, the optimal inventory policy in each period is a reorder point policy and the optimal price is decreasing in the starting inventory level in that period. In addition, we show that having supply source diversification or higher supplier reliability increases the firm's optimal profit and lowers the optimal selling price. We also demonstrate that, with the selling price as a decision, a supplier may receive even more orders from the firm after an additional supplier is introduced. For the special case where the quick‐response supplier is perfectly reliable, we further show that the optimal inventory policy is of a base‐stock type and the optimal pricing policy is a list‐price policy with markdowns.     

Coordinating Sales and Raw Material Discounts in a Global Supply Chain

In this paper, the supplier of a key component to a global manufacturer offers a one‐time price discount; we study the firm's optimal response to the discount under two different strategies. In the first strategy, the firm does not pass along the discount to its customers (sales subsidiaries); the firm simply coordinates purchasing and production among the different factories to take advantage of this one‐time price discount. In the second strategy, the firm offers price discounts for its most profitable products in different sales subsidiaries to increase their demand. We carried out experiments for the two strategies based on a mathematical programming model, built around Toshiba's global notebook supply chain. Model constraints include, among others, material constraints, bill‐of‐materials, capacity and transportation constraints, minimum lot size constraints, and a constraint on minimum fill rate (service level constraint). Unlike most models of this type in the literature, which define variables in terms of single arc flows, we employ path variables, which allow for direct identification and manipulation of profitable and non‐profitable products.     

Sourcing Strategy,Supplier Relationships and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation of UK Organizations

This article conceptualizes and empirically examines buyer–supplier relationships in respect of supply sourcing strategies, relationship characteristics and firm performance. Two sourcing strategies available to organizations are examined, critical and leverage, which in turn, influence the approach to managing the supplier relationship (arms‐length or collaborative). We argue that different relationship approaches are appropriate to achieving different performance outcomes. A structural equation model, using a sample of 142 manufacturing firms based in the United Kingdom, is used to test this hypothesized model. The results indicate that a critical sourcing strategy requires collaborative supplier relationships in order to achieve higher relationship and business outcomes, while leverage sourcing strategies have a direct impact on these same performance outcomes. In addition, a leverage strategy was associated with increased levels of supplier power, though this power was found not to have a significant effect on performance. Our study provides support for the importance of aligning sourcing strategies to particular supplier relationship approaches in order to improve firm performance. Managerial implications of these findings and future directions for research are then offered.     

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。     

Fairness in Selling to the Newsvendor

This paper studies the impact of fairness concerns on supply chain performance (SCP) in the two‐party newsvendor setting. We extend prior fairness analysis to a wide range of demand distributions, and also allow the degree and definition of fairness to assume a broader range of preferences than those in prior literature. Contrary to prior literature, we find that if the retailer's ideal allocation to the supplier is not sufficiently large, regardless of demand variability, a fair‐minded retailer makes no difference to system efficiency when facing a traditional profit‐maximizing supplier. Only when the retailer's ideal allocation to the supplier is above a threshold can the retailer's fairness concern improve the system efficiency for sufficiently high demand uncertainty. In order for the retailer's fairness concern to improve expected profits of both parties compared to the traditional supply chain case (win–win), the demand uncertainty cannot be too low, the retailer is not very averse to disadvantageous inequity, and his ideal allocation to the supplier is within a specific range. If only the supplier is concerned for fairness, the results range from worsening to improving (but not coordinating) the system and a win–win situation is impossible. Finally, when both the supplier and retailer are fair‐minded, SCP is improved unless both parties prefer to allocate small portions of system profit to the other. Again, win–win will be achieved only when the demand uncertainty is sufficiently high, the retailer's ideal allocation is within a certain range, and he is not very averse to disadvantageous inequity.     

Investing in a Shared Supplier in a Competitive Market: Stochastic Capacity Case

When firms invest in a shared supplier, one key concern is whether the invested capacity will be used for a competitor. In practice, this concern is addressed by restricting the use of the capacity. We consider what happens when two competing firms invest in a shared supplier. We consider two scenarios that differ in how capacity is used: exclusive capacity and first‐priority capacity. We model firms' investment and production decisions, and analyze the equilibrium outcomes in terms of the number of investing firms and capacity levels for each scenario; realized capacity is a stochastic function of investment levels. We also identify conditions under which the spillover effect occurs, where one firm taps into the other firm's invested capacity. Although the spillover supposedly intensifies competition, it actually discourages firms' investment. We also characterize the firms' and supplier's preference about the capacity type. While the non‐investing firm always prefers spillovers from the first‐priority capacity, the investing firm does not always want to shut off the other firm's access to its leftover capacity, especially when allowing spillover induces the other firm not to invest. The supplier's preference depends on the trade‐off between over‐investment and flexibility.     

Coordinating a Supply Chain System with Retailers Under Both Price and Inventory Competition

We investigate a supply chain system with a common supplier selling to downstream retailers who are engaged in both price and inventory competition. We establish the existence and uniqueness of the pure‐strategy Nash equilibrium for the retailer game and study how a supplier can coordinate the system to achieve the best performance. Our main conclusions are as follows: First, a buyback contract can be used to coordinate retailers competing on both price and inventory in a sense that optimal retail prices and inventory levels arise as the Pareto‐dominant equilibrium. With symmetric retailers, the system optimum arises as the unique symmetric equilibrium. Second, the particular type of competition experienced by retailers (price versus inventory competition) affects the characteristics of the contract. Specifically, strong price competition leads to a coordination mechanism with a positive buyback rate, where the supplier subsidizes retailers for leftover inventories; however, strong inventory competition leads to a negative buyback rate, where retailers are punished for overstocking. Using a linear expected demand function, we further explore the impact of system parameters on the coordination contract and the competitive equilibrium. We also find that the performance of the supplier's optimal contract is asymptotic to the system optimal coordination contract as competition becomes fierce.     

A Structural Analysis of the Effectiveness of Buying Firms' Strategies to Improve Supplier Performance

Many manufacturing firms have increased the amount of component parts and services they outsource, while refocusing on their core capabilities. Outsourcing parts and services to independent, external suppliers means that suppliers' performance is increasingly critical to the long‐term success of these buying firms. Buying firms are increasingly using disparate supplier development strategies to improve supplier performance including supplier assessment, providing incentives for improved performance, instigating competition among suppliers, and direct involvement of the buying firm's personnel with suppliers through activities such as training of suppliers' personnel. Using resource‐based theory, internalization theory, and structural equation modeling, we examine the impact of these supplier development strategies on performance. We conclude that direct involvement activities, where the buying firm internalizes a significant amount of the supplier development effort, play a critical role in performance improvement.     

Entry Deterrence of Capacitated Competition Using Price and Non‐Price Strategies

We analyze the role of pricing and branding in an incumbent firm's decision when facing competition from an entrant firm with limited capacity. We do so by studying two price competition models (Stackelberg and Nash), where we consider the incumbent's entry‐deterrence pricing strategy based on a potential entrant's capacity size. In an extension, we also study a branding model, where the incumbent firm, in addition to pricing, can also invest in influencing market preference for its product. With these models, we study conditions under which the incumbent firm may block the entrant (i.e., prevent entry without any market actions), deter the entrant (i.e., stop entry with suitable market actions) or accommodate the entrant (i.e., allow entry and compete), and how the entrant will allocate its limited capacity across its own and the new market, if entry occurs. We also study the timing difference between the two different dynamics of the price competition models and find that the incumbent's first‐mover advantage benefits both the incumbent and the entrant. Interestingly, the entrant firm's profits are not monotonically increasing in its capacity even when it is costless to build capacity. In the branding model, we show that in some cases, the incumbent may even increase its price and successfully deter entry by investing in consumer's preference for its product. Finally, we incorporate demand uncertainty into our model and show that the incumbent benefits from demand uncertainty while the entrant may be worse off depending on the magnitude of demand uncertainty and its capacity.     

Firms' R&D Cooperation Behavior in a Supply Chain

This study investigates firms' R&D cooperation behavior in a supply chain where two firms first cooperate in R&D investments and then decide the production quantity according to a wholesale price contract. By using a concept named contribution level that measures a firm's technological contribution to the R&D cooperation in the supply chain, we show that both firms can achieve win–win via cartelization only if their contribution levels are Pareto matched, i.e., when each firm's contribution level is comparable to its partner's. When spillovers are endogenized, we further establish that an increasing spillover always benefits both firms without any R&D cooperation, but only benefits the firm whose contribution level is relatively low when under R&D cartels. Finally, we show that the path of first increasing spillovers to be perfect and then forming a cartel has a higher chance of achieving the best mode in terms of profitability.     

A Stochastic Inventory Model With Fast‐Ship Commitments

We present a multiperiod model of a retail supply chain, consisting of a single supplier and a single retailer, in which regular replenishment occurs periodically but players have the option to support fast delivery when customers experience a stockout during a replenishment period. Because expedited shipments increase the supplier's transportation cost, and possibly production/inventory costs, the supplier typically charges a markup over and above the prevailing wholesale price for fast‐shipped items. When fast shipping is not supported, items are backordered if customers are willing to wait until the start of the next replenishment period. We characterize the retailers and the supplier's optimal stocking and production policies and then utilize our analytical framework to study how the two players respond to changes in supply chain parameters. We identify a sufficient condition such that the centralized supply chain is better off with the fast‐ship option. We find a range of markups for fast‐ship orders such that the fast‐ship option is preferred by both the supplier and the retailer in a decentralized chain. However, a markup that is a win–win for both players may not exist even when offering fast‐ship option is better for the centralized chain. Our analysis also shows that depending on how the markup is determined, greater customer participation in fast‐ship orders does not necessarily imply more profits for the two players. For some predetermined markups, the retailer's profit with the fast‐ship option is higher when more customers are willing to wait. However, the retailer may not be able to benefit from the fast‐ship option because the supplier may choose not to support the fast‐ship option when fast‐ship participation increases due to the fact that the fast‐ship participation rate adversely affects the initial order size.     

Dynamic Supply Risk Management with Signal‐Based Forecast,Multi‐Sourcing,and Discretionary Selling

We examine the critical role of advance supply signals—such as suppliers’ financial health and production viability—in dynamic supply risk management. The firm operates an inventory system with multiple demand classes and multiple suppliers. The sales are discretionary and the suppliers are susceptible to both systematic and operational risks. We develop a hierarchical Markov model that captures the essential features of advance supply signals, and integrate it with procurement and selling decisions. We characterize the optimal procurement and selling policy, and the strategic relationship between signal‐based forecast, multi‐sourcing, and discretionary selling. We show that higher demand heterogeneity may reduce the value of discretionary selling, and that the mean value‐based forecast may outperform the stationary distribution‐based forecast. This work advances our understanding on when and how to use advance supply signals in dynamic risk management. Future supply risk erodes profitability but enhances the marginal value of current inventory. A signal of future supply shortage raises both base stock and demand rationing levels, thereby boosting the current production and tightening the current sales. Signal‐based dynamic forecast effectively guides the firm's procurement and selling decisions. Its value critically depends on supply volatility and scarcity. Ignoring advance supply signals can result in misleading recommendations and severe losses. Signal‐based dynamic supply forecast should be used when: (a) supply uncertainty is substantial, (b) supply‐demand ratio is moderate, (c) forecast precision is high, and (d) supplier heterogeneity is high.     

Sourcing from Multiple Suppliers for Price‐Dependent Demands

We analyze a model that integrates demand shaping via dynamic pricing and risk mitigation via supply diversification. The firm under consideration replenishes a certain product from a set of capacitated suppliers for a price‐dependent demand in each period. Under deterministic capacities, we derive a multilevel base stock list price policy and establish the optimality of cost‐based supplier selection, that is, ordering from a cheaper source before more expensive ones. With general random capacities, however, neither result holds. While it is optimal to price low for a high inventory level, the optimal order quantities are not monotone with respect to the inventory level. In general, a near reorder‐point policy should be followed. Specifically, there is a reorder point for each supplier such that no order is issued to him when the inventory level is above this point and a positive order is placed almost everywhere when the inventory level is below this point. Under this policy, it may be profitable to order exclusively from the most expensive source. We characterize conditions under which a strict reorder‐point policy and a cost‐based supplier‐selection criterion become optimal. Moreover, we quantify the benefit from dynamic pricing, as opposed to static pricing, and the benefit from multiple sourcing, as opposed to single sourcing. We show that these two strategies exhibit a substitutable relationship. Dynamic pricing is less effective under multiple sourcing than under single sourcing, and supplier diversification is less valuable with price adjustments than without. Under limited supply, dynamic pricing yields a robust, long‐term profit improvement. The value of supply diversification, in contrast, mainly comes from added capacities and is most significant in the short run.