网约车平台峰时补贴策略研究

针对网约车平台在需求高峰时段采取给予网约车司机补贴的实际背景，进行了网约车平台的最优峰时补贴策略选择研究。考虑采取平台单独补贴司机策略、乘客单独补贴司机策略、平台与乘客同时补贴司机策略的情况下，分别构建网约车平台的利润模型，通过最大化平台利润得到了三种情况下的最优决策。通过分析和比较三种情况下网约车平台的最优决策发现：当乘客潜在的市场规模较小时，应采用平台单独补贴司机策略；当乘客潜在的市场规模适中时，应采用平台与乘客同时补贴司机策略；当乘客潜在的市场规模较大时，应采用乘客单独补贴司机策略。此外，本文还进一步考察了乘客潜在市场规模、补贴敏感程度等因素对于最优决策下的补贴额度、需求与供给、平台利润和社会福利的影响。所得到的研究结果，对于网约车平台峰时补贴策略的选择和补贴价格的确定具有重要的指导价值。     

随机需求下考虑不同竞争情形的网约车平台动态定价

针对乘车需求波动下网约车平台间存在乘车需求竞争和乘运供应竞争的最优定价问题，以平台期望收益最大化为目标，运用最优控制论方法，构建不同竞争情形下的网约车平台动态定价模型，并利用哈密尔顿函数及模型推导，求得最优动态竞争价格解以及乘运供应率与需求率的变化轨迹。结果表明：平台最优动态竞争价格随市场需求的波动而动态变化，且最优价格可以有效调控平台供应能力，促使平台供需匹配，优化平台期望收益。此外，乘车需求市场竞争越激烈，平台最优价格越低，而乘运供应市场竞争越激烈，最优价格越高。平台间竞争的加剧将降低平台的期望收益，且平台期望收益随着固定佣金报酬率的提高先增大后减小。     

供应链中纵向信息获取和横向信息共享策略研究

研究由一个制造商和两个零售商组成的二级供应链中,零售商之间的横向信息共享策略和制造商的信息获取以及最优定价问题。在模型中,制造商同时为两家零售商提供等价商品,零售商向消费者销售商品且进行价格竞争。以Bertrand博弈为研究手段,求解了零售商的均衡销售价格、订货量决策和信息共享策略,制造商的最大利润和最优批发价格,以及供应链利润。分析比较了在制造商不同的信息获取策略下,零售商、制造商和供应链的利润。研究表明,零售商之间完全信息共享始终为占优策略。但制造商获取下游信息时会使得自身利润增加,零售商利润减少,因此零售商不会主动把信息共享给制造商。考虑到下游的边界均衡解,供应链的利润变化还与市场的不确定性和产品的替代性有关。当产品替代性较高或产品替代率较低且市场的不确定性处于中间水平时,制造商获取信息后供应链利润增加,此时制造商可以用部分增加的利润成功购买零售商信息。该模型为上游制造商提供了最优定价和信息获取策略,也为下游零售商提供了求解自身最优销售价格、订货量和信息共享决策的方法。     

互补品制造供应链的集团采购与需求信息共享

研究了集团采购中信息共享的激励问题.考虑两个互补品制造商通过一个集团采购组织(group purchasing organization,GPO)集中采购某种部件,制造商分别观测到不完美需求预测信息,并可选择向GPO共享任意水平信息量.通过建立不完全信息下的动态博弈模型和求解博弈均衡,分析互补性、信息精度和信息共享水平等因素对于系统绩效的影响,揭示制造商的信息共享激励问题,进而设计基于收益共享契约的信息共享激励机制.研究发现,批发价格契约下,各制造商不愿共享任何信息,信息共享会加剧双重边际效应,削弱互补效应和预测效应,从而降低系统利润;收益共享契约下,各制造商愿意共享全部信息,且所有参与者实现帕累托改进,而进一步消除制造商间的信息不对称可使系统达到最优.     

分散式供应链中信息共享的定价激励模型

从供应商的角度出发,针对一个供应商和多个零售商组成的分散式二级供应链,提出使用价格歧视策略来激励零售商参与信息共享.根据Stackelberg主从对策模型,在企业利润最大化约束下,建立了供应链中的定价激励模型.解出了供应商的最优定价策略,并比较了零售商之间的销售量和利润.最后从博弈论的角度,将本定价激励模型与统一定价模型进行了对比.     

需求不确定下制造商服务投入影响销售的供应链信息共享与激励

针对需求不确定环境下制造商既提供产品也提供相关服务时产品服务供应链中的信息共享与激励问题,考虑零售商拥有需求预测信息且可选择共享任意水平的信息量,通过构建不完全信息下的动态博弈模型,分析了零售商信息共享水平、制造商服务效率以及消费者服务敏感性对服务价值和信息共享价值的影响,并提出了基于两部补偿契约的信息共享激励策略。研究表明：需求信息共享能够有效提升整个供应链的服务价值;当制造商服务效率或者消费者服务敏感性较高时,信息共享的服务改善效应将占优于其双边际效应,零售商会自愿共享全部需求信息并达到供应链"双赢";而当制造商服务效率或者消费者服务敏感性较低时,采用两部补偿激励契约可实现产品服务供应链中的完全信息共享,并且契约实施难度会随着零售商需求预测精度、制造商服务效率以及消费者服务敏感性的提高而降低。     

Strategic Information Sharing in Competing Channels

We investigate strategic information sharing in two competing channels. The retailer in a channel can ex post decide whether to share private demand information with his upstream manufacturer after the content of information becomes known. We find that a retailer discloses low demand and withholds high demand to induce lower wholesale prices from his manufacturer. We show that a retailer should share less information when the retail market becomes more competitive, but should disclose more information when his capability to acquire information improves. When a decentralized supply chain competes with an integrated channel, we show that firms in the supply chain benefit from the rival channel's effort to improve information capability, that the incentive for the retailer in the supply chain to improve his information capability increases with the intensity of competition and with the rival channel's information capability, and that the retailer may not want to pursue perfect information acquisition even when doing so is costless. Extensive numerical studies demonstrate that similar results also hold for two decentralized supply chains competing with each other.     

Differential Pricing for Information Sharing Under Competition

We consider a two‐echelon supply chain with a manufacturer supplying to multiple downstream retailers engaged in differentiated Cournot competition. Each retailer has private information about uncertain demand. The manufacturer is the Stackelberg leader who sets the contract terms with the retailers, and benefits from retailers sharing their private information. When all retailers are given the same wholesale price, truthful information sharing is not an equilibrium outcome. We propose two variants of differential pricing mechanisms that induce truthful information sharing by all retailers. The first variant rewards a retailer for providing optimistic information and achieves truthful information sharing as a unique equilibrium. The differential pricing mechanism is optimal in the class of linear‐price, incentive‐compatible, direct mechanisms. The second variant, which incorporates provision for a fixed payment in addition to wholesale prices, preserves all the equilibrium properties of the first variant and additionally “nearly coordinates” the supply chain. Our analysis of differential pricing with a fixed payment provides interesting observations regarding the relationship between product substitutability, number of retailers, information precision, and market power. As products become closer substitutes and/or number of retailers increase, the manufacturer's market power increases, enabling her to extract a larger fraction of the supply chain surplus.     

存在竞争性制造商的集团采购供应链需求预测信息的共享与激励

针对两个竞争性制造商通过集团采购组织(GPO)采购部件时,是否向GPO共享需求预测信息的激励问题,考虑各制造商拥有有限信息、共享部分信息、基于产量竞争的情形,通过建立博弈模型,分析了竞争强度、信息精度和市场波动对信息共享价值的影响,进而提出了信息共享激励策略。研究表明:信息共享能够协调制造商间的竞争,当且仅当竞争强度超过某阈值时,信息共享能够增加供应链的系统预期利润,此时,用两部制补偿协议可激励制造商完全共享信息;当竞争强度和市场波动均较大时,通过信息共享激励,分散式决策能够实现比集中式决策更大的系统预期利润。最后,通过算例对研究结论进行了直观考察和说明。     

盟员行为偏好下生鲜农产品供应链生鲜努力激励机制与协调研究

本文建立了"合作社+核心企业"模式下两阶段折扣定价的二级生鲜农产品供应链，基于消费者生鲜偏好、价格敏感度对市场需求的影响，选取Nash谈判解作为公平参考点，引入合作社公平偏好理论，研究供应链盟员保鲜投入决策。针对合作社保鲜努力激励，探讨供应链盟员偏好对保鲜努力水平以及收益共享契约激励协调效果的影响。研究发现，消费者生鲜偏好的提高能够促进收益共享契约的激励效果，并且提高合作社公平效用。同时，收益共享契约在第一阶段对保鲜努力水平的激励效果优于第二阶段，而在第二阶段联合使用收益共享和成本分摊能够显著提高该阶段的保鲜投入。     

基于竞争型制造商创新投入的零售商需求预测信息共享研究

本文考虑两个制造商的竞争,从创新投入的视角构建零售商需求预测信息共享模型,运用贝叶斯统计理论和斯坦伯格博弈方法,探讨了制造商之间的竞争和其开展的成本降低创新对零售商需求预测信息共享的影响。研究发现：（1）制造商的创新投入决策受竞争对手和零售商信息共享的双重影响。（2）由于两个竞争型制造商进行成本降低创新,存在一定的条件使得零售商可以通过免费共享需求信息而获利。（3）当制造商们的创新能力较强时,供应链能够自发达到完全信息共享状态。当制造商们的创新能力较弱时,零售商的信息共享价值为负,竞争型制造商可以通过支付信息共享费用来激励零售商共享需求预测信息。制造商支付的信息共享费用与创新能力、上游竞争强度、预测准确性和随机需求波动性正相关。本文的研究克服了Shang等（2016）关于上游竞争型供应链中零售商信息共享研究中未考虑制造商创新的不足,并进一步探讨了上游竞争型供应链中的信息共享激励机制。     

服务质量、需求强度与共享出行平台定价——基于平台封闭与开放策略的视角

共享出行平台逐步由增加用户流量的扩张期进入提升出行多元化体验的稳定期,通过采取开放策略,平台在原有共享车基础上引入出租车来提供差异化服务。本文基于双边市场理论,构建共享出行平台定价策略模型,并利用计算实验方法,在Repast中模拟共享出行平台多智能体运行场景。研究发现：①无论平台选择封闭策略还是开放策略,平台对共享车收取的交易费应随着乘客出行需求强度增大而升高,且应随着共享车服务质量的增大而降低;平台对乘客收取的交易费应随着共享车服务质量增大而升高,且应随着乘客的出行强度的增大而降低。②平台开放程度越高,平台对共享车收取的交易费越低,对乘客收取的交易费越高。③为了利润最大化,平台应选择开放策略,并需注重提高共享车的服务质量。本文为共享出行平台优化运营策略提供了理论指导。     

供应链中具有产能限制的竞争企业中的信息共享研究

本文研究由一个供货商和两个制造商组成的二级供应链中，制造商之间的横向信息共享策略和供应商的定价问题。在模型中，上游供应商同时为下游两家制造商提供价格相同的原材料，下游制造商生产具有替代性的商品进行数量竞争，并受到相同的产能限制。以Cournot博弈为研究手段，求解了制造商的均衡订货决策和信息共享策略，分析比较了在不同的信息共享策略下制造商的利润、供应商的利润和批发价格。本文在研究制造商的信息共享策略时考虑了上游供应商的批发价格的影响。研究表明，当均衡解受到产能约束时，制造商的信息共享策略会反向。在某些情况下，完全信息共享和完全信息不共享都可能成为博弈的占优策略。上游供应商通过调整批发价格可以影响制造商的信息共享决策。该模型为上游供应商提供了一种最优定价策略，也为下游制造商提供了求解自身最优订货量和信息共享决策的方法。     

基于决策者风险规避特性的供应链需求信息共享价值分析

在随机需求条件下,利用条件风险估值(conditional value-at-risk,CVaR)的风险度量准则建立了供应链的需求信息共享决策模型,着重分析了零售商的风险规避程度以及市场需求的不确定性信息对供应链各决策者以及供应链整体信息共享价值的影响。研究结果表明,需求信息共享价值与零售商的风险规避程度、市场不确定性大小以及市场不确定信息所预测的市场需求变化情况有关。数值分析结果表明,零售商越害怕市场的不确定性风险,需求信息共享越有利于提升分散供应链的运作效率;但当市场信息反映出未来的市场需求是消极且零售商接近风险中性时,供应链的需求信息共享价值反而小于零,此时没有进行信息共享的必要。     

供应链伙伴信息共享的博弈与激励

针对产销双方对供求信息掌握的不对称性,分析了实现供应链合作伙伴信息共享的条件,从保证供应链合作伙伴信息共享的实现出发,建立了信息共享的博弈模型,分析了共享需求信息和成本信息前后期望利润变化,提出了在制造商与分销商信息共享的激励机制。通过激励机制,改变Nash均衡解的利润分配,在价格优惠和一次性补贴下,使供应链伙伴均获得信息共享带来的收益增加。     

预测信息分享对制造商开通直销渠道的影响

研究了零售商预测信息分享对制造商渠道结构选择的影响.运用不完全信息动态博弈分别建立了单渠道和双渠道供应链决策模型,得到了贝叶斯均衡的渠道价格和各方最优期望利润.研究发现当零售商的需求预测精度比较低时,制造商应当开通直销渠道.零售商没有动机将预测信息与制造商分享.设计了一个信息分享补偿机制使得零售商能自愿分享其私有信息.在信息分享补偿机制下,虽然制造商为获取零售商预测信息付出了成本,但是依然有动机开通直销渠道.     

供应链成员信息共享技术策略博弈分析

运用博弈论分析不确定条件下供应链成员的信息共享技术策略。首先建立基于需求不确定和供应不确定两种参数的"供应商+零售商"的期望收益模型,证实在不确定条件下的存在双方期望收益的最优解;建立三阶段博弈模型,探讨双方信息共享技术策略的博弈关系;分析四种的均衡状态:探讨初始需求不确定性、供应商的信息推测能力与零售商收益的不同关系对双方信息共享技术策略的影响,结论显示:当初始需求不确定性较大时,零售商以拒绝策略为先,进一步的策略取决于供应商的信息推测能力及其对零售商收益的影响,如果该能力较强,零售商将采取接受策略,反之则反。     

The Effects of Sharing Upstream Information on Product Rollover

The process of introducing new and phasing out old products is called product rollover. This paper considers a periodic‐review inventory system consisting of a manufacturer and a retailer, where the manufacturer introduces new and improved products over an infinite planning horizon using the solo‐roll strategy. We consider two scenarios: (1) the manufacturer does not share the upstream information about new‐product introduction with the retailer and (2) the manufacturer shares the information. For each scenario, we first derive the decentralized ordering policy and the system‐optimal ordering policy with given cost parameters. We then devise an optimal supply chain contract that coordinates the inventory system. We demonstrate that when the inventory system is coordinated, information sharing improves the performance of both supply chain entities. However, this may not be true if the inventory system is not coordinated. We also show that under the optimal contract, the manufacturer has no incentive to mislead the retailer about new‐product information in the information‐sharing model. When demand variability increases, information sharing adds more benefits to the coordinated supply chain. Our research provides insights about coordinating product, financial, and information flows in supply chains with product rollover.     

Value of and Interaction between Production Postponement and Information Sharing Strategies for Supply Chain Firms

We analyze the value of and interaction between production postponement and information sharing, which are two distinct strategies to reduce manufacturers’ uncertainty about demand. In both single‐level and two‐level supply chains, from the manufacturer's perspective, while information sharing is always valuable, production postponement can sometimes be detrimental. Furthermore, the value of production postponement is not merely driven by savings in inventory holding cost as postponement enables the manufacturer to avoid both excess and shortfall in production. We find that production postponement and information sharing strategies may substitute, complement, or conflict with each other, depending on the extent of the increase in the unit production cost when production is postponed. In a two‐level supply chain, from the retailer's perspective, information sharing and production postponement can be beneficial or detrimental. When information sharing is beneficial to the retailer, the retailer always shares her demand information with the manufacturer voluntarily. In addition, this voluntary information sharing is truthful because inflated or deflated demand information hurts the retailer through a higher wholesale price or a stock‐out. However, the retailer never shares her demand information voluntarily if the manufacturer has already adopted production postponement because production postponement and information sharing strategies always conflict with each other. Even when the retailer does not benefit from information sharing, we show that the manufacturer can always design an incentive mechanism to induce the retailer to share the demand information, irrespective of whether the manufacturer has already implemented production postponement or not. The above findings underscore the need for a careful assessment of demand uncertainty‐reduction strategies before the supply chain players embark upon them.     

Incentive Schemes for Semiconductor Capacity Allocation: A Game Theoretic Analysis

We study incentive issues that arise in semiconductor capacity planning and allocation. Motivated by our experience at a major U. S. semiconductor manufacturer, we model the capacity‐allocation problem in a game‐theoretic setting as follows: each product manager (PM) is responsible for a certain product line, while privately owning demand information through regular interaction with the customers. Capacity‐allocation is carried out by the corporate headquarters (HQ), which allocates manufacturing capacity to product lines based on demand information reported by the PMs. We show that PMs have an incentive to manipulate demand information to increase their expected allocation, and that a carefully designed coordination mechanism is essential for HQ to implement the optimal allocation. To this end, we design an incentive scheme through bonus payments and participation charges that elicits private demand information from the PMs. We show that the mechanism achieves budget‐balance and voluntary‐participation requirements simultaneously. The results provide important insights into the treatment of misaligned incentives in the context of semiconductor capacity‐allocation.