The Role of Revenue‐Focused Managerial Performance Measures in Supply Chain Coordination

Many firms employ revenue‐focused managerial performance measures (RF‐MPMs) that cause managers to worry more about revenues than about costs. Although this can seemingly misalign the interests of a manager, we show that the use of such measures can help supply chain partners to overcome hold‐up issues with respect to capacity and promotion investments. We develop a game theoretic model in which two supply chain partners engage in repeated interactions in which the supplier invests in capacity and the buyer invests in demand promotion. Following the realization of demand in each period, the two firms negotiate over the output quantity and wholesale price. The novelty of our model is that we allow the owners of each firm to delegate decision‐making power and negotiating responsibility to a free‐agent manager. We characterize the conditions under which the owners of both firms employ RF‐MPMs in equilibrium and benefit from doing so. For a special case of our model, we show that for the owners of the buyer, an RF‐MPM is equivalent to a price only relational contract, and that it complements a price and quantity relational contract as a mechanism for mitigating hold‐up issues.     

Supply Chain Models with Mutual Commitments and Implications for Social Responsibility

In today's increasingly globalized environment, more and more companies recognize the mutual dependence of supply chain partners in value creation. When making business decisions, they take into consideration their partners’ bottom line profitability, especially in emerging markets. The question is, is this kind of practice sustainable? This study makes an attempt to formalize this issue by examining a stylized two‐party supply chain model in which each player maximizes its own profit while making a certain commitment to its partner. We compare five different games between the two supply‐chain partners, which reflect different power positions of the players and different levels of commitment. We identify conditions under which both players are better off with mutual commitments than without, a situation we call win–win. We show that win–win can be achieved if and only if the mutual commitments are comparable. Thus, the recognition of mutual dependence of the supply chain members needs to be translated into reciprocal concerns. In addition, different players’ commitments play different roles but together they have a similar effect as a profit sharing contract. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings in the context of socially responsible operations. In particular, our analyses show that it is possible to care about the supply chain partners’ bottom line without sacrificing one's own profitability, and our models can be used as a tool to determine the commitment levels by evaluating the predicted outcome.     

Social Indeterminacy

An extension of Condorcet's paradox by McGarvey (1953) asserts that for every asymmetric relation R on a finite set of candidates there is a strict‐preferences voter profile that has the relation R as its strict simple majority relation. We prove that McGarvey's theorem can be extended to arbitrary neutral monotone social welfare functions that can be described by a strong simple game G if the voting power of each individual, measured by the Shapley–Shubik power index, is sufficiently small. Our proof is based on an extension to another classic result concerning the majority rule. Condorcet studied an election between two candidates in which the voters' choices are random and independent and the probability of a voter choosing the first candidate is p>1/2. Condorcet's jury theorem asserts that if the number of voters tends to infinity then the probability that the first candidate will be elected tends to one. We prove that this assertion extends to a sequence of arbitrary monotone strong simple games if and only if the maximum voting power for all individuals tends to zero.     

Competition for a Majority

We define the class of two‐player zero‐sum games with payoffs having mild discontinuities, which in applications typically stem from how ties are resolved. For such games, we establish sufficient conditions for existence of a value of the game, maximin and minimax strategies for the players, and a Nash equilibrium. If all discontinuities favor one player, then a value exists and that player has a maximin strategy. A property called payoff approachability implies existence of an equilibrium, and that the resulting value is invariant: games with the same payoffs at points of continuity have the same value and ɛ‐equilibria. For voting games in which two candidates propose policies and a candidate wins election if a weighted majority of voters prefer his proposed policy, we provide tie‐breaking rules and assumptions about voters' preferences sufficient to imply payoff approachability. These assumptions are satisfied by generic preferences if the dimension of the space of policies exceeds the number of voters; or with no dimensional restriction, if the electorate is sufficiently large. Each Colonel Blotto game is a special case in which each candidate allocates a resource among several constituencies and a candidate gets votes from those allocated more than his opponent offers; in this case, for simple‐majority rule we prove existence of an equilibrium with zero probability of ties.     

Portfolio selection for managerial control

The paper formulates a decision problem where stocks are purchased to maximize the voting power of the portfolio. The statistic representing the voting power is derived from game theoretic solutions namely the “Shapley Value”. The tradeoff between the variance of the portfolio returns and the value of the voting power statistic is explicitly considered.     

Illustration of a Method to Incorporate Preference Uncertainty in Benefit–Cost Analysis

Benefit–cost analysis is widely used to evaluate alternative courses of action that are designed to achieve policy objectives. Although many analyses take uncertainty into account, they typically only consider uncertainty about cost estimates and physical states of the world, whereas uncertainty about individual preferences, thus the benefit of policy intervention, is ignored. Here, we propose a strategy to integrate individual uncertainty about preferences into benefit–cost analysis using societal preference intervals, which are ranges of values over which it is unclear whether society as a whole should accept or reject an option. To illustrate the method, we use preferences for implementing a smart grid technology to sustain critical electricity demand during a 24‐hour regional power blackout on a hot summer weekend. Preferences were elicited from a convenience sample of residents in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This illustrative example shows that uncertainty in individual preferences, when aggregated to form societal preference intervals, can substantially change society's decision. We conclude with a discussion of where preference uncertainty comes from, how it might be reduced, and why incorporating unresolved preference uncertainty into benefit–cost analyses can be important.     

Cost‐Reducing Innovation and the Role of Patent Intermediaries in Increasing Market Efficiency

Patent intermediaries have gained importance as non‐practicing entities in the innovation domain, buying innovations from an external provider and then licensing them to practicing firms. In this study, we analyze the competition between two identical incumbent firms and a patent intermediary for the acquisition and licensing of a cost‐reducing innovation developed by an external innovator. We show that the outcome of the IP acquisition and licensing game critically depends on the degree of the cost‐reducing innovation. Patent intermediaries win IP rights in patent markets if the innovation is incremental. They also win the IP rights when the innovation is moderate or radical, providing they have significant efficiency advantages over incumbent firms and the uncertainty about the degree of innovation is low. We also show that patent intermediaries serve to make markets more efficient. When the innovation is incremental or moderate, they help ensure a lower cost of production and a lower price for customers, and when the innovation is radical, they help increase the profits of the incumbent firms.     

Choosing Choices: Agenda Selection With Uncertain Issues

We study selection rules: voting procedures used by committees to choose whether to place an issue on their agenda. At the selection stage of the model, committee members are uncertain about their final preferences. They only have some private information about these preferences. We show that voters become more conservative when the selection rule itself becomes more conservative. The decision rule has the opposite effect. We compare these voting procedures to the designation of an agenda setter among the committee and to a utilitarian social planner with all the ex interim private information.     

Should the Model for Risk‐Informed Regulation be Game Theory Rather than Decision Theory?

Risk analysts frequently view the regulation of risks as being largely a matter of decision theory. According to this view, risk analysis methods provide information on the likelihood and severity of various possible outcomes; this information should then be assessed using a decision‐theoretic approach (such as cost/benefit analysis) to determine whether the risks are acceptable, and whether additional regulation is warranted. However, this view ignores the fact that in many industries (particularly industries that are technologically sophisticated and employ specialized risk and safety experts), risk analyses may be done by regulated firms, not by the regulator. Moreover, those firms may have more knowledge about the levels of safety at their own facilities than the regulator does. This creates a situation in which the regulated firm has both the opportunity—and often also the motive—to provide inaccurate (in particular, favorably biased) risk information to the regulator, and hence the regulator has reason to doubt the accuracy of the risk information provided by regulated parties. Researchers have argued that decision theory is capable of dealing with many such strategic interactions as well as game theory can. This is especially true in two‐player, two‐stage games in which the follower has a unique best strategy in response to the leader's strategy, as appears to be the case in the situation analyzed in this article. However, even in such cases, we agree with Cox that game‐theoretic methods and concepts can still be useful. In particular, the tools of mechanism design, and especially the revelation principle, can simplify the analysis of such games because the revelation principle provides rigorous assurance that it is sufficient to analyze only games in which licensees truthfully report their risk levels, making the problem more manageable. Without that, it would generally be necessary to consider much more complicated forms of strategic behavior (including deception), to identify optimal regulatory strategies. Therefore, we believe that the types of regulatory interactions analyzed in this article are better modeled using game theory rather than decision theory. In particular, the goals of this article are to review the relevant literature in game theory and regulatory economics (to stimulate interest in this area among risk analysts), and to present illustrative results showing how the application of game theory can provide useful insights into the theory and practice of risk‐informed regulation.     

Strategic Decisions of New Technology Adoption under Asymmetric Information: A Game‐Theoretic Model*

In this paper we explore strategic decision making in new technology adoption by using economic analysis. We show how asymmetric information affects firms' decisions to adopt the technology. We do so in a two‐stage game‐theoretic model where the first‐stage investment results in the acquisition of a new technology that, in the second stage, may give the firm a competitive advantage in the product market. We compare two information structures under which two competing firms have asymmetric information about the future performance (i.e., postadoption costs) of the new technology. We find that equilibrium strategies under asymmetric information are quite different from those under symmetric information. Information asymmetry leads to different incentives and strategic behaviors in the technology adoption game. In contrast to conventional wisdom, our model shows that market uncertainty may actually induce firms to act more aggressively under certain conditions. We also show that having better information is not always a good thing. These results illustrate a key departure from established decision theory.     

信息不对称下供应链成员的决策顺序研究

市场需求通常是不确定的，而供应链成员之间关于需求信息会存在不对称性。本文采用"信号"博弈（Signaling）的方法，探讨信息不对称结构下供应链成员的最优决策顺序。考虑由两个成员组成的供应链，各成员需要决定自己的边际收益，后决策方可以观测到先决策方的决策，并推测（Infer）市场需求信息。研究表明：1）当信息精确度较低时，拥有信息的一方偏向于先决策，而当信息精确度较高时，其会偏向于后决策；2）无论信息精确度的高低，不拥有信息的一方总是偏向于先决策；3）对于整个供应链而言，当信息精确度较低时，拥有信息的一方先决策较优，而当信息精确度较高时，拥有信息的一方后决策较优。一些结论与直观相悖，取决于"信号"成本（Signaling cost）、先行者优势（First-mover advantage）以及后行者对先行者的反应之间的权衡。     

Preferences for One‐Shot Resolution of Uncertainty and Allais‐Type Behavior

Experimental evidence suggests that individuals are more risk averse when they perceive risk that is gradually resolved over time. We address these findings by studying a decision maker who has recursive, nonexpected utility preferences over compound lotteries. The decision maker has preferences for one‐shot resolution of uncertainty if he always prefers any compound lottery to be resolved in a single stage. We establish an equivalence between dynamic preferences for one‐shot resolution of uncertainty and static preferences that are identified with commonly observed behavior in Allais‐type experiments. The implications of this equivalence on preferences over information systems are examined. We define the gradual resolution premium and demonstrate its magnifying effect when combined with the usual risk premium.     

The Retail Space‐Exchange Problem with Pricing and Space Allocation Decisions

We consider retail space‐exchange problems where two retailers exchange shelf space to increase accessibility to more of their consumers in more locations without opening new stores. Using the Hotelling model, we find two retailers’ optimal prices, given their host and guest space in two stores under the space‐exchange strategy. Next, using the optimal space‐dependent prices, we analyze a non‐cooperative game, where each retailer makes a space allocation decision for the retailer's own store. We show that the two retailers will implement such a strategy in the game, if and only if their stores are large enough to serve more than one‐half of their consumers. Nash equilibrium for the game exists, and its value depends on consumers’ utilities and trip costs as well as the total available space in each retailer's store. Moreover, as a result of the space‐exchange strategy, each retailer's prices in two stores are both higher than the retailer's price before the space exchange, but they may or may not be identical.     

Specifying Risk Goals: Inherent Problems with Democratic Institutions

Many risks have the property that large numbers of people are exposed and have little or no individual control over the risks they face. Dams, nuclear power plants, and recombinant DNA research have proven controversial not simply because there is vast uncertainty about the true level of risk associated with each, but because a fundamental issue is that in each case social risks can be lessened by spending more on safety: dams can be designed to withstand larger earthquakes, nuclear plants can have additional safety equipment, and DNA research could be done in yet more carefully isolated laboratories. Since each person will have preferences regarding the proper trade-off between increased cost and increased safety, there is little possibility of consensus. More importantly, we show that a voting process for expressing individual preferences can be manipulated and is seriously flawed in the sense that it does not lead to an "efficient" outcome. In addition, we show that virtually all people are unhappy with the safety decision, in the sense that each would prefer either a safer or a cheaper outcome. Thus, making safety decisions that affect a large group of people who will not be able to control the outcome is even more difficult than has been appreciated. We suggest some ways of handling some of the difficulties.     

“These Power Lines Make Me Ill”: A Typology of Residents’ Health Responses to a New High‐Voltage Power Line

Little attention has been devoted to the potential diversity in residents’ health responses when exposed to an uncertain environmental health risk. The present study explores whether subgroups of residents respond differently to a new high‐voltage power line (HVPL) being put into operation. We used a quasi‐experimental prospective field study design with two pretests during the construction of a new HVPL, and two posttests after it was put into operation. Residents living nearby (0–300 m, n = 229) filled out questionnaires about their health and their perception of the environment. We applied latent class growth models to investigate heterogeneity in the belief that health complaints were caused by a power line. Classes were compared on a wide range of variables relating to negative‐oriented personality traits, perceived physical and mental health, and perceptions of the environment. We identified five distinct classes of residents, of which the largest (49%) could be described as emotionally stable and healthy with weak responses to the introduction of a new power line. A considerable minority (9%) responded more strongly to the new line being activated. Residents in this class had heard more about the health effects of power lines beforehand, were more aware of the activation of the new line, and reported a decrease in perceived health afterwards. Based on our findings we can conclude that there is a considerable heterogeneity in health responses to a new HVPL. Health risk perceptions appear to play an important role in this typology, which has implications for risk management.     

A DECISION THEORY EXAMPLE IN FOOTBALL

In the 1967 Harvard-Cornell football game, Harvard was ahead 14–0 late in the game when Cornell scored two touchdowns. On both occasions, Cornell tried and failed on the two-point conversion attempt and lost the game 14–12. Postgame arguments were divided on the merits of Cornell's strategy. For this frequently occurring scenario in college football, we derive a maximum expected utility decision rule for the decision of kicking versus running/passing based on the relative utility of a win, a tie, or a loss and the probabilities of success with a kick as opposed to a run/pass.     

Context,Cultural Bias,and Health Risk Perception: The “Everyday” Nature of Pesticide Policy Preferences in London,Calgary, and Halifax

Risk perception and the cultural theory of risk have often been contrasted in relation to risk‐related policy making; however, the local context in which risks are experienced, an important component of everyday decision making, remains understudied. What is unclear is the extent to which localized community beliefs and behaviors depend on larger belief systems about risk (i.e., worldviews). This article reports on a study designed to understand the relative importance of health risk perceptions (threat of harm); risk‐related worldviews (cultural biases); and the experiences of local context (situated risk) for predicting risk‐related policy preferences regarding cosmetic pesticides. Responses to a random telephone questionnaire are used to compare residents’ risk perceptions, cultural biases, and pesticide bylaw preferences in Calgary (Alberta), Halifax (Nova Scotia), and London (Ontario), Canada. Logistic regression shows that the most important determinants of pesticide bylaw preference are risk perception, lack of benefit, and pesticide “abstinence.” Though perception of health risk is the best single predictor of differences in bylaw preferences, social factors such as gender and situated risk factors like conflict over chemical pesticides, are also important. Though cultural biases are not important predictors of pesticide bylaw preference, as in other studies, they are significant predictors of health risk perception. Pesticide bylaw preference is therefore more than just a health risk perception or worldview issue; it is also about how health risk becomes situated—contextually—in the experiences of residents’ everyday lives.     

Coordinating Production and Marketing with Dynamic Transfer Prices

Decentralized decision making is a fact in the modern business world accompanied by extensive research that looks into its consequences for overall firm profits. We study the interactions of decentralized marketing and operations divisions in a corporation and explore their impact on overall firm profits in the case with and without coordination of the two decentralized units. We assume that the marketing department is responsible for the price that influences the demand (sales), and the operations department is responsible for the production rate. We allow for backlogging over time. We model the interdependence involving marketing and operations decisions as a non‐cooperative differential game, with the two divisions as strategically interacting players. We find that, without coordination, strategic interactions of marketing and production result in inefficiencies that can quantitatively be substantial. Next, we introduce a dynamic transfer pricing scheme as a coordination device and evaluate if it establishes efficient (first best and fully coordinated) outcomes. We show that if production and marketing play a game with pre‐commitment strategies, there exists a dynamic transfer price that efficiently (fully) coordinates decentralized decision making and hence results in Pareto‐efficient company profits. If the two decentralized divisions play a game without pre‐commitment, dynamic transfer prices can partially coordinate decentralized decision making but fail to fully eliminate overall inefficiencies arising from strategic interactions among decentralized divisions.     

Deterrence and Risk Preferences in Sequential Attacker–Defender Games with Continuous Efforts

Most attacker–defender games consider players as risk neutral, whereas in reality attackers and defenders may be risk seeking or risk averse. This article studies the impact of players' risk preferences on their equilibrium behavior and its effect on the notion of deterrence. In particular, we study the effects of risk preferences in a single‐period, sequential game where a defender has a continuous range of investment levels that could be strategically chosen to potentially deter an attack. This article presents analytic results related to the effect of attacker and defender risk preferences on the optimal defense effort level and their impact on the deterrence level. Numerical illustrations and some discussion of the effect of risk preferences on deterrence and the utility of using such a model are provided, as well as sensitivity analysis of continuous attack investment levels and uncertainty in the defender's beliefs about the attacker's risk preference. A key contribution of this article is the identification of specific scenarios in which the defender using a model that takes into account risk preferences would be better off than a defender using a traditional risk‐neutral model. This study provides insights that could be used by policy analysts and decisionmakers involved in investment decisions in security and safety.     

Outsourcing to a Powerful Contract Manufacturer: The Effect of Learning‐by‐Doing

The contract manufacturing industry has grown rapidly in recent years as firms have increasingly outsourced production to reduce costs. This growth has created powerful contract manufacturers (CMs) in several industries. Achieving a competitive cost position is often a primary motive for outsourcing. Outsourcing influences both the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) and the CM's production levels, and, therefore, through learning‐by‐doing renders future costs dependent on past outsourcing decisions. As such, outsourcing should not be viewed as a static decision that, once made, is not revisited. We address these considerations by analyzing a two‐period game between an OEM and a powerful CM wherein both firms can reduce their production costs through learning‐by‐doing. We find that partial outsourcing, wherein the OEM simultaneously outsources and produces in‐house, can be an optimal strategy. Also, we find that the OEM's outsourcing strategy may be dynamic—i.e., change from period to period. In addition, we find both that the OEM may engage in production for leverage (i.e., produce internally when at a cost disadvantage) and that the CM may engage in low balling. These and other findings in this paper demonstrate the importance of considering learning, the power of the CM, and future periods when making outsourcing decisions.