工期-质量协调均衡的项目导向型供应链跨组织激励

在假定项目型组织之间平等合作的基础上,从项目价值增值最大化角度,考虑工期-质量目标努力成本关系,构建并剖析工期-质量协调均衡的项目导向型供应链跨组织激励模型,并对模型进行数据模拟和算例分析。结果表明,不论工期-质量目标间努力成本是否存在线性关系,以调整不同控制目标的激励强度为协调手段,实施工期-质量协调激励策略不仅可实现项目导向型供应链项目价值增值的最大化,而且可实现合作双方净收益的帕累托改善,进而使得承包商在工期-质量目标上合理分配资源和努力水平,实现项目工期-质量目标间的协调均衡。     

基于工期协调的项目公司与承包商收益激励模型

从项目公司和承包商双层角度,考虑项目公司通过显性收益激励契约手段与单一标段承包商之间就工期目标优化问题进行协调决策.假设决策过程是一个完全信息的动态博弈过程,基于博弈论并应用二层规划方法建立了以项目公司为主方、承包商为从方的Stackelberg主从递阶收益激励模型,采用逆向归纳法并引入拉格朗日函数对问题进行分情形讨论,设计了遗传算法求解该非线性规划问题的子博弈精练纳什均衡解.算例结果表明,项目公司通过提供一定的收益激励而非传统指令性手段促使承包商在可压缩范围内积极主动地去压缩项目工期,可以实现项目工期控制目标协调优化和双方收益目标的帕累托改善.     

Designing Service Level Contracts for Supply Chain Coordination

Supply contracts are used to coordinate the activities of the supply chain partners. In many industries, service level‐based supply contracts are commonly used. Under such a contract, a company agrees to achieve a certain service level and to pay a financial penalty if it misses it. The service level used in our study refers to the fraction of a manufacturer's demand filled by the supplier. We analyze two types of service level‐based supply contracts that are designed by a manufacturer and offered to a supplier. The first type of contract is a flat penalty contract, under which the supplier pays a fixed penalty to the manufacturer in each period in which the contract service level is not achieved. The second type of contract is a unit penalty contract, under which a penalty is due for each unit delivered fewer than specified by the parameters of the contract. We show how the supplier responds to the contracts and how the contract parameters can be chosen, such that the supply chain is coordinated. We also derive structural results about optimal values of the contract parameters, provide numerical results, and connect our service level measures to traditional service level measures. The results of our analyses can be used by decision makers to design optimal service level contracts and to provide them with a solid foundation for contract negotiations.     

相对业绩与投资组合思想在期权激励契约设计中的应用

传统股票期权激励契约以股票价格来度量经理人的业绩,但股票价格实际上受到经理人不可控因素(系统风险)的影响,从而导致用股票价格来衡量经理人业绩时会出现反向激励现象,错误惩罚有能力的经理人或慷慨奖励无能的经理人。针对传统股票期权激励契约的缺陷,一些学者把期权激励契约的执行价格和一些指数相联系起来,消除了部分市场水平噪音对期权激励契约的影响。但这种绝对指数股票期权也没有改变指数期权激励契约的结构性缺陷,即不能完全消除市场和行业噪音对期权激励契约的影响。因此,本文借鉴相对业绩和投资组合思想,重新对股票期权的执行价格进行设计,即改变期权到期时权益结构或把执行价格设计成基准绩效投资组合形式,从而达到完全消除市场和行业噪音对期权激励契约的影响,提高期权报酬契约的绩效。     

风险资本联合投资的激励契约设计

针对风险资本在投资中期或晚期的联合投资激励契约问题,在风险投资家对项目已作了初步融资和了解条件下,建立了风险投资家之间的联合投资契约模型。分对称和非对称信息两种情形,就如何设计最优契约才能使联合投资双方都能真实地显示他们的信号进行了研究,分析了风险投资家的职业能力对联合投资契约的影响,并用算例进行了验证,为风险资本中期或晚期的联合投资提供了决策依据。     

工艺设计质量信息不对称环境下质量激励合同设计

工艺设计质量决定了产品可制造性，从而对产品质量产生重要影响。在生产外包环境下，不仅供应商的质量努力难以合同化，而且工艺设计质量可能是设计者的私人信息，因此在供应商和制造商之间往往是不对称的，从而为质量激励合同设计带来挑战。本文考虑一个制造商和一个供应商构成的两级供应链。制造商可能自己设计产品，然后将生产外包给供应商，也可能将设计和生产都外包给供应商。本文分析了在这两种外包策略下，制造商的质量激励合同设计。研究发现：1）当工艺设计质量是对称信息时，制造商可以通过质量合同设计实现全局最优质量和利润；2）当工艺设计质量是制造商的私人信息时，工艺设计质量高的制造商可以通过降低对供应商的质量惩罚强度以及增加采购价格来传递工艺设计质量的信号；3）当工艺设计质量是供应商的私人信息时，制造商可以通过质量合同菜单来甄别工艺设计质量信息。与工艺设计质量是对称信息时的均衡合同相比，在针对低工艺设计水平供应商的合同中，制造商降低质量惩罚强度和采购价格；在针对高工艺设计水平供应商的合同中，质量惩罚强度不变，但采购价格提高。     

Managing the Performance Trade‐Offs from Partner Integration: Implications of Contract Choice in R&D Projects

Formal contracts represent an important governance instrument with which firms exercise control of and compensate partners in R&D projects. The specific type of contract used, however, can vary significantly across projects. In some, firms' govern partnering relationships through fixed‐price contracts, whereas in others, firms' use more flexible time and materials or performance‐based contracts. How do these choices affect the costs and benefits that arise from greater levels of partner integration? Furthermore, how are these relationships affected when the choice of contract is misaligned with the scope and objectives of the partnering relationship? Our study addresses these questions using data from 172 R&D projects that involve partners. We find that, (i) greater partner integration is associated with higher project costs for all contract types; (ii) greater partner integration is associated with higher product quality only in projects that adopt more flexible time and materials or performance‐based contracts; and (iii) in projects where the choice of contract is misaligned with the scope and objectives of the partnering relationship, greater partner integration is associated with higher project costs, but not with higher product quality. Our results shed light on the subtle interplay between formal and relational contracting. They have important implications for practice, with respect to designing optimal governance structures in partnered R&D projects.     

基于不公平厌恶或地位追求的创新顾客最优合同类型研究

本文首先从创新顾客的公平偏好程度、薪酬合同类型（最优激励系数）与激励机制效果的关系入手,引入公平偏好理论（不公平厌恶和地位追求）、相对绩效评估（RPE）和参与成本要素,构建顾客参与企业新产品开发的激励模型;其次,通过模型求解和分析,探讨分析各类薪酬合同中风险成本、不公平预期损失和激励效果之间的关系;最后,通过仿真实验验证并确定企业采用的创新顾客最优薪酬合同类型。研究发现：在同一薪酬合同下,创新顾客愈不在意其参与成本的投入,该合同的激励效果愈积极;关于创新顾客最优合同类型的选择,意味着求解一个三方面权衡,包括风险成本、不公平预期损失和公平偏好的激励效果;对于公平偏好程度较低的创新顾客,企业可采用相对绩效合同,例如锦标竞争合同;对于公平偏好程度较高的创新顾客,当其风险规避程度较高时,可采用团队报酬合同,当其风险规避程度较低时,可采用完美团队合同。     

Implementation With Contingent Contracts

We study dominant strategy incentive compatibility in a mechanism design setting with contingent contracts where the payoff of each agent is observed by the principal and can be contracted upon. Our main focus is on the class of linear contracts (one of the most commonly used contingent contracts) which consist of a transfer and a flat rate of profit sharing. We characterize outcomes implementable by linear contracts and provide a foundation for them by showing that, in finite type spaces, every social choice function that can be implemented using a more general nonlinear contingent contract can also be implemented using a linear contract. We then qualitatively describe the set of implementable outcomes. We show that a general class of social welfare criteria can be implemented. This class contains social choice functions (such as the Rawlsian) which cannot be implemented using (uncontingent) transfers. Under additional conditions, we show that only social choice functions in this class are implementable.     

Incentive issues in performance-based outsourcing contracts in the UK defence industry: a simulation study

Traditional outsourcing literature has claimed gains for the customer in terms of quality and costs. However, such gains are illusory in outsourcing of high-risk, complex tasks. The use of contracts and governance mechanisms for handling complex procurements is essential in obtaining rewards from outsourcing. Powerful incentives and risks are normally used in industrial service contracts to transfer risks to measure compliance with performance measures. The availability contracts for complex engineering services provision are forms of outsourcing contracts that transfer resources from government to external service providers on a substantial scale. The change moves the contractor role from creating resources to managing resources. Such role change mandates collaboration with customers and suppliers in supply/value chains. The management task is then perceived in terms of linking and optimising alignments rather than increasing service levels. Incentive design is one mechanism for linking the coordination of resources required in availability contracting to the business model. This article studies the impacts of agreed contract type and incentive mechanism on the customer and service provider profits using agent-based discrete event simulation model under multiple risk sharing scenarios.     

EQUILIBRIUM INCENTIVE CONTRACTS AND EFFICIENCY WAGES

We analyze the optimal (efficiency) wage contract when output is contractible but firms neither observe the workers' effort nor their match‐specific productivity. Firms offer wage contracts that optimally trade off effort and wage costs. As a result, employed workers enjoy rents, which in turn creates unemployment. Nonetheless, the incentive power of the equilibrium wage contract is constrained efficient in the absence of taxes and unemployment benefits. We also show that more high‐powered incentive contracts tend to be associated with higher equilibrium unemployment rates. (JEL: E24, J30, J41)     

基于非排它性互换合约的管理层激励研究

管理者进行金融衍生品市场的非排它性股权互换交易会降低报酬合约的事后激励强度,并对企业价值和风险产生影响.本文在管理者可同时影响企业风险和企业价值的条件下,构建基于股权互换避险交易的管理者激励薪酬动态博弈模型.结果表明,当管理者投入产出效率高于某临界值时,互换避险的存在不会降低激励合约的强度;否则激励合约强度的减弱程度随...     

Distributing a Product Line in a Decentralized Supply Chain

Although there is a rich literature on single product distribution in decentralized supply chains, the incentive problems that arise in distributing a product line have largely not been investigated. In practice, most manufacturers distribute a line of products with different features and qualities and not just a single product. Consider a manufacturer who distributes a product line through competing downstream retailers. In this setting, we investigate how and why the retailers' price and inventory decisions deviate from the centrally optimal decisions. Due to substitution between different product variants, as well as between different retailers, the incentive problems associated with distributing a product line are more complicated than that of distributing a single product. We characterize retailers' incentive distortions under a residual‐claimancy contract, and construct contracts that achieve channel coordination. We show that retail price floors or inventory buybacks, appropriately tailored to each product variant, are among the contracts that can achieve coordination. Using numerical simulations, we demonstrate how the optimal contract terms (such as wholesale prices and buyback prices) for each variant are influenced by the parameters of an underlying consumer choice model.     

解雇威胁条件下经营者风险分担与激励设计

本文分析了解雇威胁条件下的经营者风险分担和激励设计问题。将企业产出线性函数中的能力因子扩展为经营者的人力资本变量;同时将解雇威胁定量化,把解雇概率植入到参与约束和激励相容约束条件中求得存在解雇威胁时的经营者分成合约分享系数的隐性方程。通过对这些方程的比较静态分析得出努力程度和人力资本变量与分享系数及解雇成本的关系,解释了隐性激励与显性激励之间的替代性,并就如何提高我国经理人市场的隐性激励效率,替代控制权激励并完善相关制度环境提出了政策建议。     

业绩的隐性激励与经理报酬契约的改进

本文认为经营业绩对经理有隐性激励作用是完全有可能的,将业绩的隐性激励作用引入经理的效用函数后建立了对经理的最优报酬激励模型,并通过对模型进行求解得到改进的最优报酬契约。通过分析给出了主要结论。     

产品召回供应链中线性保险合约与订货决策

考虑一个由单供应商和单制造商组成的二级供应链,在不确定市场需求情形下考虑产品召回,站在制造商角度研究供应链线性保险合约下的最优订货决策以及最优线性保险合约决策。研究表明,最优的订货决策与产品召回概率以及线性保险系数相关,存在唯一的最优订货量来最大化制造商的利润。对于密度函数倒数的导数较大的一般需求分布函数,最优的线性保险系数与线性保险合约的固定费用以及产品召回概率有关。当产品召回概率和线性保险合约的固定费用均较小时或者产品召回概率较大但线性保险合约的固定费用适中时,制造商通过选择线性保险合约可以改善自己的利润。     

Modeling Take-or-Pay Contract Decisions

Long-term purchase contracts for natural resources, such as natural gas, often contain take-or-pay provisions that penalize the buyer for not purchasing (taking) a minimum quantity of output over some period of time. In some contracts for a limited time interval, known as the make-up period, the penalty payments can be credited against future “takes” in excess of the take-or-pay level. Additionally, options to “buy down” or “buy out” existing contracts, or to initiate new contracts, may exist. The purchaser, faced with projected requirements over some planning horizon, must determine purchase levels from a selected set of take-or-pay contracts so as to minimize purchase, inventory holding, penalty costs, contract initiation, and buy-out or buy-down costs. This paper presents a mixed-integer programming model of take-or-pay decisions with and without make-up provisions.     

Fairness and Contract Design

We show experimentally that fairness concerns may have a decisive impact on the actual and optimal choice of contracts in a moral hazard context. Bonus contracts that offer a voluntary and unenforceable bonus for satisfactory performance provide powerful incentives and are superior to explicit incentive contracts when there are some fair‐minded players, but trust contracts that pay a generous wage up front are less efficient than incentive contracts. The principals understand this and predominantly choose the bonus contracts. These results are consistent with recently developed theories of fairness, which offer important new insights into the interaction of contract choices, fairness, and incentives.     

Get more for less? Experimental evidence on repeated decision making under non-monotone incentives

Summary  This paper presents experimental results of a benchmark study to analyze the incentive effects of non-monotone pay schemes. An incentive compatible contract that does not award the highest pay to the highest possible output combination was tested in a neutral, framing, and two framing-with-principal settings, respectively. The results confirm the model in a statistically significant way. Principals select the non-monotone contract over a monotone contract that would give them ex ante a lower expected surplus. Agents predominantly select the income-maximizing strategy, i.e. select the effort level that should be implemented by the contract. Given the widespread view that non-monotone output-contingent incentives are not plausible labor contracts, it seems worthwile to extend the experimental study to include aspects which are common in labor relations, such as an option to quit for the employee and repeated interaction between employer and employee. This would help answer the question whether theoretically optimal non-monotone contracts may be used as labor contracts. The author acknowledges insightful comments by Jeannette Brosig, Alexis Kunz, Thomas Riechmann, Dirk Sliwka, Joachim Weimann and two anonymous referees. Financial support by MaxLab is gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining errors are my own.     

A Comparison of the Effects of Incentive and Penalty Procedures on Work Performance: A Simulation

This study compared the effects of incentive and penalty on work performance. In Experiment 1, participants in the incentive group could earn 50 won (approximately 5 cents) for correctly completing each task and those in the penalty group could lose 50 won for incorrectly completing each task. The incentive and penalty did not exert differential impacts on work performance. In Experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to one of six experimental groups: incentive, penalty, and no reward groups under two different consequence delivery schedules. Under the continuous condition, the payment was determined in the same way as in Experiment 1. Under the VR 5 condition, 250 won was either added or deducted based on a VR 5 schedule. The effects of the incentive and penalty were comparable under the continuous condition. However, the incentive was more effective than the penalty under the VR 5 condition.