Dynamic Pricing and Inventory Management with Regular and Expedited Supplies

We consider a periodic‐review inventory system with regular and expedited supply modes. The expedited supply is faster than the regular supply but incurs a higher cost. Demand for the product in each period is random and sensitive to its selling price. The firm determines its order quantity from each supply in each period as well as its selling price to maximize the expected total discounted profit over a finite or an infinite planning horizon. We show that, in each period if it is optimal to order from both supplies, the optimal inventory policy is determined by two state‐independent thresholds, one for each supply mode, and a list price is set for the product; if only the regular supply is used, the optimal policy is a state‐dependent base‐stock policy, that is, the optimal base‐stock level depends on the starting inventory level, and the optimal selling price is a markdown price that decreases with the starting inventory level. We further study the operational impact of such supply diversification and show that it increases the firm's expected profit, reduces the optimal safety‐stock levels, and lowers the optimal selling price. Thus that diversification is beneficial to both the firm and its customers. Building upon these results, we conduct a numerical study to assess and compare the respective benefit of dynamic pricing and supply diversification.     

Combined Pricing and Portfolio Option Procurement

In this paper, we study a single‐product periodic‐review inventory system that faces random and price‐dependent demand. The firm can purchase the product either from option contracts or from the spot market. Different option contracts are offered by a set of suppliers with a two‐part fee structure: a unit reservation cost and a unit exercising cost. The spot market price is random and its realization may affect the subsequent option contract prices. The firm decides the reservation quantity from each supplier and the product selling price at the beginning of each period and the number of options to exercise (inventory replenishment) at the end of the period to maximize the total expected profit over its planning horizon. We show that the optimal inventory replenishment policy is order‐up‐to type with a sequence of decreasing thresholds. We also investigate the optimal option‐reservation policy and the optimal pricing strategy. The optimal reservation quantities and selling price are shown to be both decreasing in the starting inventory level when demand function is additive. Building upon the analytical results, we conduct a numerical study to unveil additional managerial insights. Among other things, we quantify the values of the option contracts and dynamic pricing to the firm and show that they are more significant when the market demand becomes more volatile.     

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.     

PRICE‐DEPENDENT INVENTORY MODELS WITH DISCOUNT OFFERS AT RANDOM TIMES*

We consider an inventory model with a supplier offering discounts to a reseller at random epochs. The offer is accepted when the inventory position is lower than a threshold level. We compare three different pricing policies in which demand is induced by the resellers price variation. Policy 1 is the EOQ policy without discount offers. Policy 2 is a uniform price, stock‐independent policy. Policy 3 is a stock level‐dependent, discriminated price policy. Assuming constant demand rates, expressions are obtained for the optimal order quantities, prices, and profits. The numerical experiments show that if it is better to accept a suppliers discount, then it benefits the reseller to transfer the discount to downstream customers.     

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.     

Optimal Policies for Selling New and Remanufactured Products

Because of environmental and economic reasons, an increasing number of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) nowadays sell both new and remanufactured products. When both products are available, customers will buy the one that gives them a higher (and non‐negative) utility. Thus, if the firm does not price the products properly, then product cannibalization may arise and its revenue may be adversely impacted. In this paper, we study the pricing problem of a firm that sells both new and remanufactured products over a finite planning horizon. Customer demand processes for both new and remanufactured products are random and price‐sensitive, and product returns (also called cores) are random and remanufactured upon receipt. We characterize the optimal pricing and manufacturing policies that maximize the expected total discounted profit. If new products are made‐to‐order (MTO), we show that when the inventory level of remanufactured product increases, the optimal price of remanufactured product decreases while the price difference between new and remanufactured products increases; however, the optimal selling price of new product may increase or decrease. If new products are made to stock (MTS), then the optimal manufacturing policy is of a base‐stock policy with the base‐stock level decreasing in the remanufactured product inventory level. To understand the potential benefit in implementing an MTO system, we study the difference between the value functions of the MTO and MTS systems, and develop lower and upper bounds for it. Finally, we study several extensions of the base model and show that most of our results extend to those more general settings.     

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.     

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.     

Optimal Control of Replenishment and Substitution in an Inventory System with Nonstationary Batch Demand

We study an inventory system in which a supplier supplies demand using two mutually substitutable products over a selling season of T periods, with a single replenishment opportunity at the beginning of the season. As the season starts, customer orders arrive in each period, for either type of products, following a nonstationary Poisson process with random batch sizes. The substitution model we consider combines the usual supplier‐driven and customer‐driven schemes, in that the supplier may choose to offer substitution, at a discount price, or may choose not to; whereas the customer may or may not accept the substitution when it is offered. The supplier's decisions are the supply and substitution rules in each period throughout the season, and the replenishment quantities for both products at the beginning of the season. With a stochastic dynamic programming formulation, we first prove the concavity of the value function, which facilitates the solution to the optimal replenishment quantities. We then show that the optimal substitution follows a threshold rule, and establish the monotonicity of the thresholds over time and with respect to key cost parameters. We also propose a heuristic exhaustive policy, and illustrate its performance through numerical examples.     

Optimal Inventory Control with Dual‐Sourcing,Heterogeneous Ordering Costs and Order Size Constraints

We consider a dual‐sourcing inventory system, where procuring from one supplier involves a high variable cost but negligible fixed cost whereas procuring from the other supplier involves a low variable cost but high fixed cost, as well as an order size constraint. We show that the problem can be reduced to an equivalent single‐sourcing problem. However, the corresponding ordering cost is neither concave nor convex. Using the notion of quasi‐convexity, we partially characterize the structure of the optimal policy and show that it can be specified by multiple thresholds which determine when to order from each supplier and how much. In contrast to previous research, which does not consider order size constraints, we show that it is optimal to simultaneously source from both suppliers when the beginning inventory level is sufficiently low. We also show that the decision to source from the low‐cost supplier is not monotonic in the inventory level. Our results require that the variable costs satisfy a certain condition which guarantees quasi‐convexity. However, extensive numerical results suggest that our policy is almost always optimal when the condition is not satisfied. We also show how the results can be extended to systems with multiple capacitated suppliers.     

How Should a Firm Manage Deteriorating Inventory?

Firms selling goods whose quality level deteriorates over time often face difficult decisions when unsold inventory remains. Since the leftover product is often perceived to be of lower quality than the new product, carrying it over offers the firm a second selling opportunity, a product line extension to new and unsold units, and the ability to price discriminate. By doing so, however, the firm subjects sales of its new product to competition from the leftover product. We present a two period model that captures the effect of this competition on the firm's production and pricing decisions. We characterize the firm's optimal strategy and find conditions under which the firm is better off carrying all, some, or none of its leftover inventory. We also show that, compared to a firm that acts myopically in the first period, a firm that takes into account the effect of first period decisions on second period profits will price its new product higher and stock more of it in the first period. Thus, the benefit of having a second selling opportunity dominates the detrimental effect of cannibalizing sales of the second period new product.     

A Choice‐Based Dynamic Programming Approach for Setting Opaque Prices

Opaque pricing is a form of pricing where certain characteristics of the product or service are hidden from the consumer until after purchase. In essence, opaque selling transforms a differentiated good into a commodity. Opaque pricing has become popular in service pricing as it allows firms to sell their differentiated product at higher prices to regular brand loyal customers while simultaneously selling to non‐brand loyal customers at discounted prices. We use a nested logit model in combination with logistic regression and dynamic programming to illustrate how a service firm can optimally set prices on an opaque sales channel. The choice model allows the characterization of consumer trade‐offs when purchasing opaque products while the dynamic programming approach allows the characterization of the optimal pricing policy as a function of inventory and time remaining. We compare optimal prices and expected revenues when dynamic pricing is restricted to daily price changes. We provide an illustrative example using data from an opaque selling mechanism ( Hotwire.com ) and a Washington DC‐based hotel.     

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.     

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).      

A comparison of fixed and dynamic pricing policies in revenue management

We consider the problem of selling a fixed capacity or inventory of items over a finite selling period. Earlier research has shown that using a properly set fixed price during the selling period is asymptotically optimal as the demand potential and capacity grow large and that dynamic pricing has only a secondary effect on revenues. However, additional revenue improvements through dynamic pricing can be important in practice and need to be further explored. We suggest two simple dynamic heuristics that continuously update prices based on remaining inventory and time in the selling period. The first heuristic is based on approximating the optimal expected revenue function and the second heuristic is based on the solution of the deterministic version of the problem. We show through a numerical study that the revenue impact of using these dynamic pricing heuristics rather than fixed pricing may be substantial. In particular, the first heuristic has a consistent and remarkable performance leading to at most 0.2% gap compared to optimal dynamic pricing. We also show that the benefits of these dynamic pricing heuristics persist under a periodic setting. This is especially true for the first heuristic for which the performance is monotone in the frequency of price changes. We conclude that dynamic pricing should be considered as a more favorable option in practice.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Optimal Policies for a Two‐Product Inventory System under a Flexible Substitution Scheme

We study a two‐product inventory model that allows substitution. Both products can be used to supply demand over a selling season of N periods, with a one‐time replenishment opportunity at the beginning of the season. A substitution could be offered even when the demanded product is available. The substitution rule is flexible in the sense that the seller can choose whether or not to offer substitution and at what price or discount level, and the customer may or may not accept the offer, with the acceptance probability being a decreasing function of the substitution price. The decisions are the replenishment quantities at the beginning of the season, and the dynamic substitution‐pricing policy in each period of the season. Using a stochastic dynamic programming approach, we present a complete solution to the problem. Furthermore, we show that the objective function is concave and submodular in the inventory levels—structural properties that facilitate the solution procedure and help identify threshold policies for the optimal substitution/pricing decisions. Finally, with a state transformation, we also show that the objective function is ‐concave, which allows us to derive similar structural properties of the optimal policy for multiple‐season problems.     

Flexibility or Cost Saving? Sourcing Decisions with Two Suppliers

This article studies a decentralized supply chain in which there are two suppliers and a single buyer. One supplier offers the quantity flexibility (QF) contract to the buyer, while the other offers the cheaper price. Under the QF contract, the buyer does not assume full responsibility for the forecast, yet the supplier guarantees the availability of the forecasted quantity with additional buffer inventory. On the other hand, the price‐only contract places full inventory burden on the buyer, but with a cheaper price. We study this problem from the buyer's perspective and solve for the buyer's optimal procurement and forecasting decisions. We identify areas where flexibility and cheaper price have an advantage, one over the other. Our results indicate that the buyer significantly benefits from having multiple sources of supply. We also find that, from the system's standpoint, a multisupplier system may outperform a single‐supplier supply chain under certain conditions. Interestingly, we observe that providing too much flexibility may benefit the low‐price supplier rather than benefiting the QF supplier. We discuss the managerial implications and provide directions for future research opportunities.