两级供应链中延保服务与基础质保服务交互策略

延保服务已成为商家获取高额利润的重要手段。本文以一个制造商和一个零售商组成的两级供应链为对象,分别在单主体（制造商或零售商）和两主体同时提供延保（偏向于制造商或零售商延保）情形下,研究最优延保定价、产品定价及延保与基础质保交互的决策。结果表明：维修成本直接影响延保的提供方式。仅制造商或零售商提供延保时,延保期限对基础质保期限有明显促进或抑制作用,且制造商提供延保有利于制造商和零售商。两者同时提供延保时,延保竞争促使其价格降低,且消费者偏向于某主体时,其延保价格相对高于另一方;基础质保与延保的交互关系取决于竞争程度。当消费者偏向制造商延保时,供应链各方所获取的利润较为稳健,相对高于单一主体提供延保情形时的利润。     

两级供应链上质量控制的动态协调机制研究

文章应用微分博弈的方法研究了由单一制造商和单一供应商组成的两级供应链上的质量控制的协调问题.首先讨论了制造商作为供应链上质量控制的领导者而供应商作为跟随者的Stackelberg博弈情形,得到了一般的非协同质量控制博弈情形下制造商和供应商的最优行动选择;接着探讨了双方在协同质量控制博弈情形下的最优行动选择;通过对比两种情形下的博弈均衡结果,阐明了在两级供应链上的质量管理过程中,协同质量控制博弈结构严格优于一般的非协同质量控制博弈结构.     

新产品供应链协调

定价和促销是新产品推出阶段的两个重要决策。有些产品可能在价格还未确定之前就已经在市场上进行促销宣传,而有些产品在完全上市价格确定之后才进行宣传促销。本文考虑由一个生产商和一个销售商构成的供应链,产品的需求受到价格和促销努力的影响,生产商决定产品的价格,销售商进行促销。我们考虑下列三种决策顺序:先定价后促销,先促销后定价,同时定价和促销。我们证明,促销成本分摊和收益共享结合的契约在三种情形下都能协调该供应链。本文进一步还分析了三种决策顺序对生产商、销售商和供应链的影响。结果表明:同时定价和促销的情形对生产商、销售商以及供应链最不利;对于生产商和销售商来说,先决策时具有主动权,能获得更高的利润,但是当需求对价格比较敏感以及促销成本较高时,后决策反而能获得更多的利润。最后,通过数值实验研究了参数对最优决策和供应链利润的影响。     

How Sourcing of Interdependent Components Affects Quality in Automotive Supply Chains

In the automotive industry, many firms source key components from different suppliers, even though the components may function interdependently. In this study, we investigate how component level interdependence impacts quality performance and analyze how various operational factors moderate this relation. We synthesize information from several case studies to model the quality challenges faced by an automotive firm. For several sub‐assemblies that go into its products, the firm sourced key components from two different suppliers. The sub‐assemblies would fail whenever a component fails, but due to interdependent operations, failure of one component could cause the failure of the other. The firm found it challenging to improve the suppliers' quality performance as it was difficult to trace the failures to specific components. Our analysis reveals that – (i) the impact of interdependence is governed by the supply chain structure: reducing the interdependence between components improves quality when suppliers provide the components, but reducing interdependence worsens quality when the firm manufactures the entire sub‐assembly; and (ii) the relation between interdependence and quality performance is moderated by factors such as penalties, production costs, and interdependence costs. Additionally, we find that quality performance is lower when the firm outsources the components than when the firm manufactures the entire sub‐assembly. We identify coordinating mechanisms that leverage incentives and penalties to bridge the quality performance gap.     

Design of Extended Warranties in Supply Chains under Additive Demand

We study the design of extended warranties in a supply chain consisting of a manufacturer and an independent retailer. The manufacturer produces a single product and sells it exclusively through the retailer. The extended warranty can be offered either by the manufacturer or by the retailer. The party offering the extended warranty decides on the terms of the policy in its best interest and incurs the repair costs of product failures. We use game theoretic models to answer the following questions. Which scenario leads to a higher supply‐chain profit, the retailer offering the extended warranty or the manufacturer? How do the optimum price and extended warranty length vary under different scenarios? We find that, depending on the parameters, either party may provide better extended warranty policies and generate more system profit. We also compare these two decentralized models with a centralized system where a single party manufactures the product, sells it to the consumer, and offers the extended warranty. We also consider an extension of our basic model where either the manufacturer or the retailer resells the extended warranty policies of a third party (e.g., an independent insurance company), instead of offering its own policy.     

Coordination of Supply Chains with Risk‐Averse Agents

The extant supply chain management literature has not addressed the issue of coordination in supply chains involving risk‐averse agents. We take up this issue and begin with defining a coordinating contract as one that results in a Pareto‐optimal solution acceptable to each agent. Our definition generalizes the standard one in the risk‐neutral case. We then develop coordinating contracts in three specific cases: (i) the supplier is risk neutral and the retailer maximizes his expected profit subject to a downside risk constraint; (ii) the supplier and the retailer each maximizes his own mean‐variance trade‐off; and (iii) the supplier and the retailer each maximizes his own expected utility. Moreover, in case (iii), we show that our contract yields the Nash Bargaining solution. In each case, we show how we can find the set of Pareto‐optimal solutions, and then design a contract to achieve the solutions. We also exhibit a case in which we obtain Pareto‐optimal sharing rules explicitly, and outline a procedure to obtain Pareto‐optimal solutions.     

需求与回收确定下闭环供应链的竞争与链内协调研究

针对两条分别由单生产商和单零售商组成、零售商负责废品回收的闭环供应链,运用博弈论和均衡理论建立了对应两条闭环供应链均为分散式供应链、均为集中式供应链、一条为分散式供应链一条为集中式供应链的带均衡约束的均衡（EPEC）模型、纳什（Nash）均衡模型和带均衡约束的优化（MPEC）模型,并进行了模型求解。对比三种模式表明：集中式控制是供应链竞争下的占优策略。随后,给出了两条供应链竞争下可协调分散式供应链达到集中式供应链效果的批发价加回收补贴契约。最后的数值算例和敏感性分析表明了模型的合理性、协调契约的有效性、以及相关参数的影响。     

动态竞争环境下的产品保证管理最优控制策略研究

产品保证与产品质量和价格密切相关,在动态变化的市场环境中,如何通过产品保证优化管理实现保证政策与产品质量和价格三者的均衡,对扩大产品市场占有率、提高企业利润有重要作用.对国内外关于产品保证优化管理的研究进行总结,着重分析当前研究存在的问题,在此基础上提出动态市场竞争环境下企业保证管理的最优控制模型,通过引入市场竞争变量构建产品销售率函数,综合考虑市场竞争环境下产品保证与产品质量和价格的动态变化关系;采用极大值原理对该模型进行求解,并对最优解的参数和变化规律进行详细的分析讨论;应用灵敏度分析验证相关的分析结论,评估时间、市场变量和成本结构等参数对最优解的影响,并有针对性地提出具有指导性的管理建议.     

考虑质量失误的供应链博弈模型研究

在理性的制造商和供应商组成的二级供应链中,考虑存在产品质量失误的情况下,通过最优化方法选择中间品的质量水平和制造商的检测水平,以实现供应链的利润最大化.并结合实际情况,根据质量内部、外部失误的不同承担方式,讨论了三种质量损失承担方式,得到在整体损失由两者共同承担的情况下,通过制定合理的内、外部损失分配系数,可以使两者选择水平的纳什均衡解与供应链的全局最优解相符,从而实现供应链全局最优和局部最优的一致.所得结论对指导供应链的有效运作有着较好的实际意义和参考价值.     

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.     

竞争市场上保修期与价格的联合质量信号传递作用

虽然顾客重视产品的质量（可靠性）,但其在做出购买决策时往往不能完全掌握产品的质量信息。不同质量的产品可能具有不同生产和保修成本,因此保修期和销售价格可以成为传递产品质量的有效信号。考虑市场上存在相互竞争的两个生产商：在位者和新进者,顾客了解在位者的产品质量信息但不了解新进者的质量状况。研究并比较了仅保修期作为单质量信号、保修期和价格同时作为质量信号时,市场实现分离均衡的条件,以及新进者的保修期设计与定价决策。研究表明：在保修期作为单质量信号时,只要高质量新进者的单位时间保修成本小于低质量新进者,即可实现分离均衡;在保修期和价格同时作为质量信号时,当满足某些条件时也可实现分离均衡。相对于保修期作单质量信号的情形,当保修期和价格同作质量信号时,高质量新进者实现分离均衡所需提供的保修期更短、价格更低（信息租金更少）,且能获得更高的市场份额和利润。最后,数值分析表明保修期和价格同作质量信号时所需满足的条件是比较宽松的,比保修期单独作质量信号时更容易实现分离均衡。     

劣势耐用品厂商的产品质保期与质保服务投入策略研究

在实际中,消费者购买耐用品时均同时获得厂商提供的质保服务,由于产品质保服务影响着消费者的产品使用效用,因此耐用品定价、质保期和产品质保服务投入是影响厂商利润的主要因素。考虑双寡头市场环境下,建立微分博弈模型讨论单位产品质保服务投入和产品质保期对双寡头厂商均衡价格的影响。结论表明双寡头厂商的单位产品质保服务投入越高、质保期越长,均衡价格越高;但单位产品保服务投入与质保服务对消费者效用影响系数的关系影响着竞争对手在均衡价格的变化趋势;劣势的低质量厂商可以通过增加单位产品质保服务投入策略或延长质保期的策略实现在均衡下与高质量厂商以同等价格销售耐用品,但劣势厂商增加单位产品质保服务投入策略要优于延长质保期策略。最后,利用数值分析进一步验证了所得结论的有效性。     

产品责任、企业社会责任偏好与供应链中的质量-数量协调

在产品质量和产品数量（订货量）内生化的情形下，同时实现其质量和数量的协调将成为供应链管理的一个重要问题。进一步，在产品低质量对消费者造成伤害的情形下，制造商将面临着产品责任（表征制造商对消费者产品伤害的补偿），从而导致"产品责任如何影响供应链中的质量-数量协调"这一问题。最后，如果核心企业具有对消费者的企业社会责任（CSR）偏好，则这种CSR偏好又如何影响供应链中的质量-数量协调？针对这三个问题，首先，利用批发价合同构建了一个由上游制造商和下游零售商组成的两级供应链运作博弈模型；其次考察了制造商产品责任、CSR偏好程度和质量改进效率对其产品质量决策、批发价合同和相应的供应链节点企业利润的影响；最后，研究了供应链质量-数量协调问题。结果表明：（1）产品责任不影响产品质量、订货量、供应链节点企业经济利润和消费者剩余，但制造商批发价随产品责任的增加而增加；（2）随着CSR偏好程度的增加，产品质量、订货量、零售商经济利润、供应链系统经济利润和消费者剩余随之增加，而制造商经济利润随之减小；（3）质量改进效率的提高，有利于产品质量、订货量、零售商经济利润、供应链系统经济利润和消费者剩余的增加；（4）一个由数量折扣契约和质量改进成本分担契约共同构成的协调机制，可以有效的实现供应链系统的协调，其中，产品责任将促使数量折扣契约中产品批发价的增加和质量改进成本分担比例的减小，而CSR偏好程度的增加将促使数量折扣契约中产品批发价的减小，但不影响质量改进成本分担比例。     

Quality Risk Ratings in Global Supply Chains

Extended enterprises face many challenges in managing the product quality of their suppliers. Consequently characterizing the quality risk posed by value‐chain partners has become increasingly important. There have been several recent efforts to develop frameworks for rating the quality risk posed by suppliers. We develop an analytical model to examine the impact of such quality ratings on suppliers, manufacturers, and social welfare. While it might seem that quality ratings would benefit high‐quality suppliers and hurt low‐quality suppliers, we show that this is not always the case. We find that such quality ratings can hurt both types of suppliers or benefit both, depending on the market conditions. We also find that quality ratings do not always benefit the most demanding manufacturers who desire high‐quality suppliers. Finally, we find that social welfare is not always improved by risk ratings. These results suggest that public policy initiatives addressing risk ratings must be carefully considered.     

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.     

需求不确定下双渠道供应链产品质量控制研究

考虑到电商平台与实体门店两种渠道参与主体的质量决策对不同渠道产品质量水平的影响,进而引致两种渠道下供应链产品质量与价格的市场竞争。本文运用stackblerg博弈分析模型,研究由制造商、实体门店、电商平台与消费者组成的双渠道供应链产品质量控制问题。在考虑需求不确定性的基础上,构建双渠道下制造商、实体门店和电商平台收益分析模型,分析双渠道下制造商与实体门店的批发价格契约、制造商与电商平台之间收益共享契约两种策略对供应链产品质量控制水平的影响,通过运用最优化原理求解制造商、实体门店和电商平台物流配送的最优质量控制水平,并对结果进行仿真模拟。结果显示：制造商、实体门店和电商平台之间的契约对三方产品质量控制具有交互影响,电商平台物流配送质量水平与实体门店仓储质量水平呈同方向变化,而实体门店产品市场售格的提高则不利于电商平台加强物流配送质量水平,消费者对产品售格敏感性越高,制造商越注重产品质量提升。反之,消费者对仓储和物流配送质量水平敏感性提高,并不利于制造商加强产品质量控制。因此,通过大力发展物流配送服务业,提升产品物流配送质量控制水平,不仅有助于生产环节质量控制,同时也将促使实体门店加强产品仓储质量控制水平。     

Controversial Role of GPOs in Healthcare‐Product Supply Chains

This paper examines the controversial role that Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) play in the supply chains for healthcare products. Among the controversies, perhaps the most fundamental one is whether or not GPOs reduce purchasing costs for their members. However, the fiercest controversy is around the “contract administration fees (CAFs)” that GPOs charge to manufacturers. We examine these and other controversies using a Hotelling duopoly model. Among our conclusions: GPOs increase competition between manufacturers and lower prices for healthcare providers. However, GPOs reduce manufacturers' incentives to introduce innovations to existing products. We also demonstrate that the existence of lower off‐contract prices is not, per se, evidence of anticompetitive behavior on the part of GPOs. Indeed, we demonstrate that, under certain circumstances, the presence of a GPO lowers off‐contract prices. We also examine the consequences of eliminating the “safe harbor” provisions that permit healthcare GPOs to charge CAFs to manufacturers, and conclude that it would not affect any party's profits or costs.     

供应链库存协调策略研究

研究和分析了直运型供应链通过共同补给期协调库存的策略问题。在该供应链中,单一供应商提供单一产品给面临随机需求的单一零售商。在所提出的库存协调策略条件下,供应商指定共同补给期,当零售商按供应商指定的共同补给期作为其订货周期时,供应商提供零售商一定的价格折扣。这种协调策略可以视为Stackelberg博弈。在阐述了解决该博弈问题的方法后,进行了数值实验,分析了采用这种协调策略的利益。     

电子商务环境下双渠道供应链协调的补偿策略研究

构建了电子商务环境下由一个制造商与一个零售商组成的双渠道供应链模型,分析、比较了集中式决策与分散式决策下双渠道供应链的最优价格,从电子渠道与传统渠道合作的角度出发,研究了双渠道供应链协调的补偿策略,论证了这种补偿策略能够实现双渠道供应链协调,且在一定范围内可以保证双渠道供应链成员的双赢.最后通过算例分析,进一步检验了所设计的补偿策略对双渠道供应链协调的有效性.     

消费者效用视角下双渠道供应链的产品质量研发模式选择研究

考虑到产品质量是影响消费者购买行为的关键驱动因素,运用动态博弈理论和非线性消费者效用函数对双渠道供应链中三种产品质量研发模式分别建模,讨论了各种质量研发模式对供应链成员的利润和消费者效用的影响,并利用二部定价契约协调供应链。三种产品质量研发模式分别为：制造商不进行产品质量研发、制造商独立进行产品质量研发和制造商与零售商合作进行产品质量研发。研究表明：(1)当进行产品质量研发时,批发价、零售价,直销价和产品质量研发水平均提高,并在合作研发下达到最大值,且上述决策变量均随着渠道竞争程度的增加而降低;(2)产品在传统零售渠道和线上销售渠道的销售量和消费者效用随着渠道竞争程度的增加而降低;(3)产品质量研发能够提高制造商的利润和消费者效用,且在合作研发模式下达到最大值;对零售商而言,采用制造商独立研发模式时利润最高,合作研发模式时利润最低;(4)为激励零售商参与研发,制造商利用二部定价契约来协调供应链,协调后产品的研发水平能够达到合作研发时的水平,同时消费者效用增加。数值仿真结果有效地证明了相关结论。