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。     

Forecast Updating and Supplier Coordination for Complementary Component Purchases

We study a supply chain where an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) buys subassemblies, comprised of two complementary sets of components, from a contract manufacturer (CM). The OEM provides a demand forecast at the time when the CM must order the long lead‐time set of components, but must decide whether or not to provide updated forecasts as a matter of practice. Forecast updates affect the CM's short lead‐time purchase decision, and the anticipation of updates may also affect the long lead‐time purchase decision. While the OEM and CM both incur lost sales costs, the OEM can decide whether or not to share the overage costs otherwise fully borne by the CM. We investigate when the OEM is better served by committing to provide updated forecasts and/or committing to share overage costs. For a distribution‐free, two‐stage forecast‐update model, we show that (1) the practice of providing forecast updates may be harmful to the OEM and (2) at the OEM's optimal levels of overage risk sharing, the CM undersupplies relative to the supply chain optimal quantity. For a specific forecast‐update model, we computationally investigate conditions under which forecast updating and risk sharing are in the best interest of the OEM.     

Impact of Reseller's Forecasting Accuracy on Channel Member Performance

This article studies a three‐layer supply chain where a manufacturer sells a product through a reseller who then relies on its own salesperson to sell to the end market. The reseller has superior capability in demand forecasting relative to the manufacturer. We explore the main trade‐offs between the risk‐reduction effect and the information–asymmetry–aggravation effect of the improved forecasting accuracy. We show that under the optimal wholesale price contract, both the manufacturer and the reseller are always better off as the reseller's forecasting accuracy improves. Nevertheless, under the menu of two‐part tariffs, the manufacturer prefers the reseller to be either uninformed or perfectly informed about the market condition. We further find that the improved forecasting accuracy is beneficial for the reseller if its current forecasting system is either very poor or very good.     

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.     

Outsourcing Manufacturing: Secure Price‐Masking Mechanisms for Purchasing Component Parts

This paper develops and tests a privacy‐preserving business process that supports the selection of a contract manufacturer by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), and the determination of whether the OEM or the chosen contract manufacturer will procure each of the components to be used in the manufacture of the OEM's branded product. Our “secure price‐masking (SPM)” technology contributes to procurement theory and practice in four significant ways: First, it preserves the privacy of every party's individual component prices. Second, SPM assures that the contract manufacturers will bid their own private purchase cost (i.e., not add a margin to their cost). Third, SPM is not invertible; i.e., none of the participants can “solve” for the private inputs of any other participant based on its own inputs and the outputs provided to it by SPM. Fourth, the posterior distribution of any other participant's private inputs is practically indistinguishable from its prior distribution. We also describe the results of a proof‐of‐concept implementation.     

专利技术授权、生产外包与合同设计

专利授权及其授权协议是知识产权转化为现实生产力的关键。本文针对由一个专利技术提供商、一个品牌制造商和一个OEM组成的供应链,考虑市场需求信息不对称以及OEM存在规模经济效应,研究了专利技术提供商最优专利授权合同设计问题,考察了不对称信息、规模经济效应等因素对专利授权合同设计、供应链利润、消费者剩余和社会福利的影响。研究结果表明：在不对称信息下,专利技术提供商通过设计一组合同菜单可以有效甄别市场需求信息;OEM会有动机去提升其规模经济效应,但却不一定有利于其他供应链成员和消费者;不对称信息的存在会影响供应链成员企业的利润水平以及消费者剩余,并总是会导致供应链系统利润的损失,但若满足一定条件,则专利技术提供商与品牌制造商可以达成信息共享谈判,实现"双赢"。     

Delegation vs. Control in Supply Chain Procurement under Competition

This paper studies the optimal component procurement strategies of two competing OEMs selling substitutable products. The OEMs outsource their production to a common contract manufacturer, who in turn needs an input from a component supplier. Each OEM may either directly procure the input from the component supplier, or delegate the procurement task to the contract manufacturer. We first analyze the OEMs' procurement game under a non‐strategic supplier whose component price is exogenously given. It is found that symmetric equilibria arise for most situations, that is, both OEMs either control or delegate their component procurement in equilibrium. Interestingly, despite the commonly‐held belief that the contract manufacturer would be worse off as OEMs gain component procurement control, we show that the contract manufacturer may enjoy a higher profit. Then we study the OEMs' procurement game under a strategic supplier who can set its component price. We find that the supplier's strategic pricing behavior plays a critical role in the equilibrium procurement structure. In particular, in the equilibrium under strategic supplier, the larger OEM always uses delegation while the smaller OEM may use either delegation or control. By identifying the driving forces behind the OEMs' procurement choices, this research helps explain observed industry practices and offer useful guidelines for firms' component sourcing decisions.     

不对称信息下考虑产能约束的供应链合同设计

本文针对由产能约束品牌制造商和零售商组成的供应链系统,考虑市场上消费者对产品的异质性偏好,以及品牌制造商和零售商之间存在信息不对称,研究品牌制造商最优合同设计与零售商定价策略,考察产能约束与不对称信息对产品定价和供应双方合作的影响。研究发现：受到产能约束的品牌制造商有三种合同策略,即低价合同、固定价格合同以及高价合同等三种合同,在低价合同下品牌制造商可以充分利用其产能约束,而在后两种合同下产品有可能滞销;不对称信息会导致"批发价格+一次性转移支付"合同不能完美协调供应链。当品牌制造商和零售商进行信息共享谈判时,若二者在高价合同下进行合作,则品牌制造商与零售商在一定条件下可以达成信息共享谈判,实现"双赢"。     

Product design strategies in a manufacturer–retailer distribution channel

Product design decision has significant impacts on firm's competitive edge. In a distribution channel, product design strategy of a manufacturer depends not only on its own decisions, but also on the behaviors of its upstream and downstream partners along the channel. This paper investigates the optimal product design strategy of a manufacturer in a two-stage supply chain that consists of an upstream manufacturer and a downstream retailer. Customers are classified into two groups (i.e., two market segments) according to their difference on quality valuations. For each of the two potential market segments, the manufacturer needs to decide if it is beneficial to design a product with appropriate quality level to meet the demand of customers in the market segment. The retailer procures the product from the manufacturer, and then sells to customers at a retail price. By considering the interactions between the manufacturer and the retailer, this paper first describes the product design problem as a manufacturer-dominant Stackelberg game, and presents the optimal product design strategy for the manufacturer. To improve the performance of the supply chain, the revenue-sharing contract is then introduced into the product design problem. It is found that the revenue-sharing contract can perfectly coordinate the distribution channel in the product design problem. Numerical experiments illustrate the impacts of customer characteristics on the optimal product design strategies.     

供应链中断下顾客缺货反应对牛鞭效应的影响研究

传统的关于供应链牛鞭效应的研究,仅关注供应链上游成员间（供应商、制造商或零售商）的协调运作,而忽略缺货发生后顾客缺货反应对供应链动态性的影响。本文利用高层级Petri-net对包含两个制造商、两个零售商的供应链系统进行建模与仿真,定量地研究不同的缺货强度下顾客缺货反应对两条相互竞争的供应链牛鞭效应的影响。研究结果表明,顾客缺货反应对缺货品牌及其竞争品牌的牛鞭效应均存在显著影响,但各种缺货反应对牛鞭效应的影响程度有所差异,且供应链中断强度（主要体现为发生缺货的品牌市场份额以及缺货持续时间）亦对牛鞭效应产生显著影响。我们建议不同产品类型（对应不同的顾客反应组合）的管理者根据品牌的市场占有率、缺货持续时间等因素对不同类型的顾客进行购买行为的引导,以缓解牛鞭效应并保持市场份额。     

Matching Product Architecture and Supply Chain Configuration

In this paper, we examine the suggested link between product architecture (i.e., the extent to which a product is modular vs. integral) and supply chain configuration (i.e., whether the product development is done internally by the manufacturer in an integrated supply chain or in collaboration with a supplier in a decentralized supply chain). Our model suggests that the choice of product architecture depends on firm, market, and product characteristics in addition to supply chain structure. In contrast to other studies, we find that the optimal mapping from architecture to supply chain structure is not always one‐to‐one. A decentralized supply chain may be associated with a more integral product when the technical collaboration penalty is not excessive and suppliers have significantly superior product development capabilities. Furthermore, in a decentralized supply chain, the nature of the relationship between the original equipment manufacturer and its supplier (adversarial or collaborative) plays a role in the choice of product architecture: modular architectures are more likely when the parties have adversarial relationships, while long‐term trust‐based relationships facilitate more integral product architectures.     

Quality Management in Multi‐Level Supply Chains with Outsourced Manufacturing

Outsourcing stretches supply chains longer with added contract manufacturers responsible for the manufacturing of parts and final products. Should a firm change its quality management approach as its supply chain becomes longer with outsourced manufacturing? This paper studies a brand owner's optimal choice between two commonly used quality management approaches: an inspection‐based approach and an external failure‐based approach, in two supply chains – a dyadic supply chain and a multi‐level supply chain where the brand owner outsources manufacturing to an independent contract manufacturer. Our study finds that the brand owner's optimal choice between the two quality management approaches could be opposite in the two supply chains. Specifically, we show that if agency costs exist between the contract manufacturer and the brand owner, the brand owner may prefer an inspection‐based approach in the multi‐level supply chain in contrast to preferring an external failure‐based approach in the dyadic supply chain. In particular, inspections can be effective for the brand owner to limit the manufacturer's profit by excluding defective finished products and components, which in turn reduce agency costs in the multi‐level supply chain. Hence, the efficiency of an inspection‐based approach relative to an external failure‐based approach can be higher in the multi‐level supply chain as compared to the dyadic one. Our findings suggest that firms should adjust to changes in supply chain structures and re‐evaluate the efficiencies of different quality management approaches accordingly.     

Private Labels: Facilitators or Impediments to Supply Chain Coordination

We consider a retailer’s decision of whether to develop an internally produced, private label version of a national brand and the role that this decision plays in coordinating the supply chain. Our model assumes that the perceived quality of the private label is lower than that of the national brand, and we allow for the two products to have different marginal costs. We further allow for a fixed development cost that the retailer must incur to develop private label capability, and distinguish two types of private labels depending upon whether they would or would not be developed as product line extensions by a vertically integrated supply chain. We refer to these two types as first‐best (FB) and non‐first‐best (NFB) product line extensions, respectively. When the private label can be characterized as a NFB product line extension, its development creates adverse cannibalization effects, yet it also helps to mitigate the effects of double marginalization with respect to the national brand. We characterize the conditions under which the retailer will develop private label capability, and distinguish among the conditions under which this is either beneficial or detrimental to the overall performance of the supply chain.     

How does a component from a supplier with high reputation for product innovation improve the perception of a final offering? A process perspective

An excellent reputation for product innovation (RPI) is an intangible asset for any company and promises a sustainable competitive advantage. This study empirically analyzes the spillover effects of a high component supplier's RPI to the offering of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The results show that there are positive effects to be gained from the innovativeness of a component supplier, which increases the perceived performance of the final offering containing the supplier's product. In addition, the study demonstrates that such a strategic partnership between a component supplier and an OEM has the potential to influence the purchase intention of the final consumer in a positive manner, thereby creating value for both parties. Contributions are made to a better understanding of strategic options for such a partnership and to an on-going discussion on RPI and the importance of intangible attributes in innovation management.     

Stockout Recovery under Consignment: The Role of Inventory Ownership in Supply Chains

We examine how a supply chain firm may implement an incentive contract under inventory consignment to recover stockouts and to retain customers. Inventory consignment allows an upstream firm (e.g., a manufacturer) to own and control inventory at a downstream firm (e.g., a retailer), representing a structural change in supply chain governance. Motivated by cases in pet toy and electronics component industries, we formulate principal–agent models based on the newsvendor framework to capture the strategic interactions in a supply chain. We find that consignment can be effective in reducing stockouts because the ownership and control of the product by the manufacturer allows better prevention of stockouts, which complements stockout recovery and leads to fewer stockouts. However, the lower level of stockout under consignment does not necessarily translate into profitability—when the manufacturer is highly opportunistic, that is, readily exploring outside opportunities for its product, consignment may lead to lower profitability for both the manufacturer and the supply chain. On the other hand, consignment will improve profitability for the manufacturer and the supply chain, if both the manufacturer opportunism and the retailer opportunism are moderate.      

The Comparison of Two Vertical Outsourcing Structures under Push and Pull Contracts

In a three‐tier supply chain comprising an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), a contract manufacturer (CM), and a supplier, there exist two typical outsourcing structures: control and delegation. Under the control structure, the OEM contracts with the CM and the supplier respectively. Under the delegation structure, the OEM contracts with the CM only and the CM subcontracts with the supplier. We compare the two outsourcing structures under a push contract (whereby orders are placed before demand is realized) and a pull contract (whereby orders are placed after demand is realized). For all combinations of outsourcing structures and contracts, we derive the corresponding equilibrium wholesale prices, order quantities, and capacities. We find that the equilibrium production quantity is higher under control than under delegation for the push contract whereas the reverse holds for the pull contract. Both the OEM and the CM prefer control over delegation under the push contract. However, under the pull contract, the OEM prefers control over delegation whereas the CM and the supplier prefer delegation over control. We also show that for a given outsourcing structure, the OEM prefers the pull contract over the push contract. In extending our settings to a general two‐wholesale‐price (TWP) contract, we find that when wholesale prices are endogenized decision variables, the TWP contract under our setting degenerates to either a push or a pull contract.     

COORDINATION ALTERNATIVES IN A MANUFACTURER/DEALER INVENTORY SYSTEM UNDER STOCHASTIC DEMAND

This paper introduces a stochastic model of a distribution system where the stocking location is owned by a dealer (or retailer) and the product is supplied by a manufacturer. Inventory is managed by the dealer, and the manufacturer is responsible for delivery of the product through both regular replenishment and expedite shipment modes. The dealer and the manufacturer share the goal of providing a high level of customer service. Demand, moreover, is a function of the service level offered to the market by the dealer. We develop optimal stock control policies for the cases where each decision maker in turn is dominant and acts unilaterally while being constrained by the supply/demand linkages of the system. We also develop an optimum policy for the case where both levels are managed under centralized control (i.e., both levels cooperate). Results indicate that the expected profit for a dominant dealer (or dominant manufacturer) is higher under decentralized control than the optimal solution for either under centralized control. However, the centralized solution is a global-optimal solution and therefore will guarantee longterm stability. Differences between the various solutions are analyzed explicitly to estimate the cost of coordination.     

Supply Chain Conflict Due to Store Brands: The Value of Wholesale Price Commitment in a Retail Supply Chain*

Store brands are of increasing importance in retail supply chains, often causing channel conflict, as the retailer's product directly competes with the manufacturer's national brand. Extant research on the resulting channel interactions either assumes the national brand manufacturer can credibly commit to maintaining a wholesale price or that he lacks such ability. However, these two scenarios imply very different supply chain interactions, as only a national brand manufacturer with commitment ability can strategically adjust a national brand wholesale price to prevent a store brand introduction by the retailer. We specifically analyze the impact of this assumption on the manufacturer, the retailer, and the customers. We determine when long‐term contracts that provide the manufacturer with such commitment ability can improve supply chain profitability.     

多层供应链外包模式的选择及其协调

本文研究由两个原始设备制造企业（品牌企业）、一个代工企业和一个供应商组成的多层供应链的外包模式选择问题。应用主从博弈和纳什博弈理论,当一个原始设备制造企业的外包模式给定后,通过对不同外包模型求解比较,给出了后跟进的原始设备制造企业外包模式的最优选择策略。研究发现：后跟进的原始设备制造企业最优策略应采取与前一个原始设备制造企业相同的外包策略。针对最优外包策略,还设计了使供应链达到协调的二部定价契约机制,提高了外包供应链的竞争力。     

不同混合回收模式和权力结构的逆向供应链决策分析

在制造商主导和销售商主导两种权力结构下,构建了制造商与销售商两者混合回收及制造商、销售商和第三方三者混合回收的四类逆向供应链模型,运用博弈理论求解,对四类逆向供应链进行比较发现：（1）回收竞争程度较高时,制造商的最优策略为制造商主导且两者混合回收;回收竞争程度较低时,制造商的最优策略为制造商主导且三者混合回收。（2）销售商的最优决策始终为参与制造商主导且制造商和销售商混合回收的逆向供应链,最差决策始终为销售商主导且三者混合回收的逆向供应链。（3）逆向供应链系统的最优决策为制造商主导两者混合回收或三者混合回收。（4）针对最佳权力结构和混合回收方式,制造商和逆向供应链系统的最优决策基本一致,均为制造商主导的逆向供应链;制造商、销售商和逆向供应链系统的最差策略均为销售商主导的逆向供应链。