The Comparison of Two Vertical Outsourcing Structures under Push and Pull Contracts

In a three‐tier supply chain comprising an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), a contract manufacturer (CM), and a supplier, there exist two typical outsourcing structures: control and delegation. Under the control structure, the OEM contracts with the CM and the supplier respectively. Under the delegation structure, the OEM contracts with the CM only and the CM subcontracts with the supplier. We compare the two outsourcing structures under a push contract (whereby orders are placed before demand is realized) and a pull contract (whereby orders are placed after demand is realized). For all combinations of outsourcing structures and contracts, we derive the corresponding equilibrium wholesale prices, order quantities, and capacities. We find that the equilibrium production quantity is higher under control than under delegation for the push contract whereas the reverse holds for the pull contract. Both the OEM and the CM prefer control over delegation under the push contract. However, under the pull contract, the OEM prefers control over delegation whereas the CM and the supplier prefer delegation over control. We also show that for a given outsourcing structure, the OEM prefers the pull contract over the push contract. In extending our settings to a general two‐wholesale‐price (TWP) contract, we find that when wholesale prices are endogenized decision variables, the TWP contract under our setting degenerates to either a push or a pull contract.     

Should an OEM Retain Component Procurement when the CM Produces Competing Products?

We consider a large original equipment manufacturer (OEM) who relies on a contract manufacturer (CM) to produce her product. In addition to the OEM's product, the CM also produces for a smaller OEM. Both the larger OEM and the CM can purchase the component from the supplier, but their purchase prices may differ and remain unknown to each other. The main question we address is whether the larger OEM should retain component procurement by purchasing components from the supplier and reselling to the CM (buy–sell), or outsource component procurement by letting the CM purchase directly from the supplier (turnkey). We show that, under buy–sell, the larger OEM's optimal strategy is to resell components at the highest possible component purchase price of the CM (i.e., the street price). By comparing buy–sell and turnkey, we find that a CM with low component price is better off under turnkey, even though under buy–sell he receives more profits through the products sold to the smaller OEM. Furthermore, the larger OEM's preference between buy–sell and turnkey depends on her component price, the volatility of the CM's component price and substitutability between the two products.     

On the Advantage of Quantity Leadership When Outsourcing Production to a Competitive Contract Manufacturer

This study investigates a supply chain comprising an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and a contract manufacturer (CM), in which the CM acts as both upstream partner and downstream competitor to the OEM. The two parties can engage in one of three Cournot competition games: a simultaneous game, a sequential game with the OEM as the Stackelberg leader, and a sequential game with the CM as the Stackelberg leader. On the basis of these three basic games, this study investigates the two parties' Stackelberg leadership/followership decisions. When the outsourcing quantity and wholesale price are exogenously given, either party may prefer Stackelberg leadership or followership. For example, when the wholesale price or the proportion of production outsourced to the CM is lower than a threshold value, both parties prefer Stackelberg leadership and, consequently, play a simultaneous game in the consumer market. When the outsourcing quantity and wholesale price are decision variables, the competitive CM sets a wholesale price sufficiently low to allow both parties to coexist in the market, and the OEM outsources its entire production to this CM. This study also examines the impact of the supply chain parties' bargaining power on contract outcomes by considering a wholesale price that is determined via the generalized Nash bargaining scheme, finding a Stackelberg equilibrium to be sustained when the CM's degree of bargaining power is great and the non‐competitive CM's wholesale price is high.     

采购价格柔性策略与供应链利润风险分析

面对原材料市场价格的大幅波动,供应链节点企业需要采用相应策略来规避价格波动带来的风险。本文通过设计价格柔性合同,分析供应链企业通过采购价格柔性策略来缓解采购价格波动给企业利润带来的风险。采用Stackelberg主从博弈模型研究得出了制造商的最优采购数量和供应商的最优价格柔性系数,并分别分析了各最优结果随采购价格柔性合同参数的变化趋势。利用供应链各主体的利润方差度量各自承担的利润风险,分析了供应商和制造商的利润风险随采购价格柔性合同参数的变化规律。     

Contracting for Capacity under Renegotiation: Partner Preferences and the Value of Anticipating Renegotiation

This paper studies contract renegotiation in a stylized supply chain model. Two original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) sign fixed‐quantity contracts with a contract manufacturer (CM) prior to demand realization. Contract renegotiation after demand realization allows the OEMs to use capacity that is more or less than what they contracted for. We assume that the extra profit due to efficient allocation of capacity is allocated to the supply chain parties according to the egalitarian rule and investigate when an OEM's expected post‐renegotiation profit is maximized. We aim to understand how an OEM's expected post‐renegotiation profit is affected by her ability to negotiate a low wholesale price in the initial contract as well as the ability of the other OEM to do the same. Regardless of whether renegotiation is anticipated or not at the time of the initial contract, we find that an OEM, who had weak buyer power vis‐a‐vis the CM and was unable to negotiate a low wholesale price in the initial contract, may benefit more from renegotiation than a stronger OEM. In addition, we show that how the expected post‐renegotiation profit of an OEM changes with demand variance or anticipating renegotiation depends on the strength of the OEM's buyer power. Finally, we numerically test the robustness of our results in a supply chain with three OEMs and also identify when the OEMs prefer to leave the CM out of the renegotiation.     

Product Line Extensions and Technology Licensing with a Strategic Supplier

In many industries, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must obtain critical components from a few powerful suppliers. To the extent that the OEMs are also concentrated, the interactions between the suppliers of critical components and the OEMs are strategic, and have implications for how an incumbent OEM chooses its product line and interacts with potential rivals. We demonstrate that, by adding a low‐end product line extension, an OEM can induce a strategic supplier to offer more favorable pricing. Moreover, depending upon the cost structure and relative performance of the product line extension, the OEM may benefit even more from the low‐end line extension if it is produced by a rival instead of by itself, even if it cannot obtain any licensing income from it. Among other things, we show that this can result in a decentralized OEM accommodating competition from rivals producing product line extensions that would not be developed in a vertically integrated supply chain. In an extension, we re‐examine the common assumption that the supplier unilaterally dictates a single wholesale price that is available to all downstream buyers. We demonstrate that, by committing to offer a “lowest available” wholesale price to all downstream buyers, a supplier can encourage an incumbent OEM to share its technology (or otherwise accommodate the entry of a rival) so that the supplier, the incumbent OEM, and the rival are all better off.     

多部件采购外包的两阶段均衡投标策略

本文考虑一个由单个制造商和多个供应商群体组成的供应链——该制造商需要采购多个部件,对于每个部件在市场上均存在多个供应商。不同于传统的从各供应商群体分别采购各个部件,制造商考虑将所有部件的采购整体外包给某个供应商。在第一阶段,制造商使用一级价格密封投标的逆向拍卖来确定赢得整体采购合约的供应商。接下来,第一阶段投标的获胜者生产其所能供应的部件,并使用逆向拍卖向第一阶段中未获胜的其他竞标者采购其余部件。我们分析了供应商在两个阶段的均衡竞价策略,并比较了制造商在亲自逐件采购和外包整体采购两种情况下的期望采购成本。我们证明了在两种机制下制造商的总的期望采购成本相等。     

Outsourcing Manufacturing: Secure Price‐Masking Mechanisms for Purchasing Component Parts

This paper develops and tests a privacy‐preserving business process that supports the selection of a contract manufacturer by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), and the determination of whether the OEM or the chosen contract manufacturer will procure each of the components to be used in the manufacture of the OEM's branded product. Our “secure price‐masking (SPM)” technology contributes to procurement theory and practice in four significant ways: First, it preserves the privacy of every party's individual component prices. Second, SPM assures that the contract manufacturers will bid their own private purchase cost (i.e., not add a margin to their cost). Third, SPM is not invertible; i.e., none of the participants can “solve” for the private inputs of any other participant based on its own inputs and the outputs provided to it by SPM. Fourth, the posterior distribution of any other participant's private inputs is practically indistinguishable from its prior distribution. We also describe the results of a proof‐of‐concept implementation.     

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.     

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。     

感知的创业激情、 信任与员工创新行为关系研究

实践中, 制造商可通过商业保险策略降低因零部件质量问题造成的经济损失.然而, 商业保险购买成本较高且可能导致供应商轻视质量问题, 放弃质量改进.为此, 本文基于完全信息下单周期两级供应链的采购合约决策模型, 研究制造商如何利用商业保险管理供应链质量风险的问题.通过比较研究, 找出商业保险策略的实施条件, 并给出最优采购合约及商业保险策略.研究结果表明: (1) 当供应商的企业规模较小、抗风险能力较低时, 商业保险策略可完全消除风险承受能力对双方交易的制约, 促进双方达成交易; (2) 当供应商的企业规模较大、抗风险能力较高时, 制造商可利用商业保险策略降低零部件采购价格, 提高期望利润; (3) 在商业保险策略下, 制造商的最优商业保险策略是全额投保; (4) 商业保险的实施不一定造成零部件质量水平的下降.当质量成本或供应商的风险承受能力较低时, 商业保险策略与质量改进之间具有互补效应.当风险承受能力和质量成本均比较高时, 商业保险策略与质量改进之间具有替代效应.     

Supply Management Under High Goal Incongruence: An Empirical Examination of Disintermediation in the Aerospace Supply Chain

Aftermarket sales and profits are becoming an increasingly important part of an original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) business model. Because replacement parts often do not require further manufacturing, OEMs act as intermediaries in the aftermarket. As with any intermediary, the OEM must concern itself with suppliers disintermediating its supply chain selling replacement parts directly to the OEM's customers. We frame supply chain disintermediation (SCD) as a principal–agent contracting problem between an OEM buyer and a supplier. Hypotheses relate contract conditions, goal incongruence, supplier capabilities and contract enforcement to SCD. The data are collected from the aerospace industry using a multimethod study, combining an Internet‐based survey with archival data. Causal modeling with structural equation modeling (SEM) shows general support for the hypotheses. Particularly, SCD is positively related to buyer–supplier goal incongruence. The agency model offers insights that differ from previous transaction‐cost‐based models of buyer–supplier relationships. OEM buyers with a lucrative aftermarket should consider aligning goals through incentives rather than relying entirely on economic hostages associated with specific assets.     

多层供应链外包模式的选择及其协调

本文研究由两个原始设备制造企业（品牌企业）、一个代工企业和一个供应商组成的多层供应链的外包模式选择问题。应用主从博弈和纳什博弈理论,当一个原始设备制造企业的外包模式给定后,通过对不同外包模型求解比较,给出了后跟进的原始设备制造企业外包模式的最优选择策略。研究发现：后跟进的原始设备制造企业最优策略应采取与前一个原始设备制造企业相同的外包策略。针对最优外包策略,还设计了使供应链达到协调的二部定价契约机制,提高了外包供应链的竞争力。     

Competitive Quality Choice and Remanufacturing

We consider an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) who faces competition from an independent remanufacturer (IR). The OEM decides the quality of the new product, which also determines the quality of the competing remanufactured product. The OEM and the IR then competitively determine their production quantities. We explicitly characterize how the OEM competes with the IR in equilibrium. Specifically, we show that the OEM relies more on quality as a strategic lever when it has a stronger competitive position (determined by the relative cost and value of new and remanufactured products), and in contrast it relies more heavily on limiting quantity of cores when it has a weaker competitive position. The IR's entry threat as well as its successful entry can decrease the consumer surplus. Furthermore, our results illustrate that ignoring the competition or the OEM's quality choice leads to overestimating benefits of remanufacturing for consumer and social welfare. In addition, we show an IR with either a sufficiently weak competitive position (so the OEM deters entry) or a sufficiently strong one (so the OEM is forced to limit quantity of cores) is desirable for reducing the environmental impact. Comparing our results with the benchmark in which the OEM remanufactures suggests that encouraging IRs to remanufacture in lieu of the OEMs may not benefit the environment. Furthermore, the benchmark illustrates that making remanufacturing more attractive improves the environmental impact when the remanufacturer is the OEM, while worsening it when remanufacturing is done by the IR.     

竞合供应链的采购与质量决策研究

研究由原始设备制造商、竞争供应商与非竞争供应商构成的竞合供应链中原始设备制造商的采购决策,并分析了品牌效应、竞争供应商的模仿能力、非竞争供应商的原材料供应能力对采购模式选择与质量决策的影响。结果表明,双源采购对原始设备制造商而言是最优的采购策略;竞争供应商模仿能力较小时,原始设备制造商决策的产品质量随竞争供应商模仿能力的增大而提高,而当竞争供应商的模仿能力较大时,其模仿能力的增强会导致原始设备制造商降低产品的质量;原始设备制造商的品牌效应可以降低竞争供应商的竞争程度;非竞争供应商提高原材料供应能力并不一定能为自己带来更高的利润。本文考虑品牌效应和竞争供应商模仿能力等对原始设备制造商质量和采购决策的影响,扩展了现有的研究。     

三级装备制造业供应链质量管理行为研究

作为我国工业化建设和国民经济发展的根本保证,供应链环境下装备制造企业的产品质量问题受到了广泛关注。本文重点考虑产品质量对供应链收益的影响,运用微分对策理论研究由单一制造商、单一部件供应商和单一零件供应商构成的三级装备制造业供应链质量管理行为的协调问题。通过对比Nash非合作博弈和Stackelberg主从博弈两种分散式决策模式及集中式决策模式下协同合作博弈的均衡结果,得到相关结论,并利用算例进行验证。研究表明,①分散式决策下,制造商的质量管理行为相同,但相比于Nash非合作博弈,Stackelberg主从博弈能够改善部件供应商和零件供应商的质量管理行为,提升供应链成员的收益水平;②集中式决策下,供应链成员的质量管理行为达到最优,系统整体收益实现最大。研究结论为装备制造业供应链成员间质量管理战略联盟的构建提供了理论依据。     

Strategic Supply Chain Structure Design for a Proprietary Component Manufacturer

This paper examines the choice of supply chain structure for a proprietary component manufacturer (PCM). The PCM, who is the sole supply source of a critical component used to assemble an end product, can either provide its component to an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in the end‐product market (component supplier structure), develop the end product exclusively under its own brand (monopoly structure), or provide the component to the OEM as well as develop the end product under its own brand (dual distributor structure). Typically, the end products of the PCM and the OEM will be differentiated, and the OEM tends to have a capability advantage (compared with the PCM) in producing the end product. Our paper studies the impact of this degree of differentiation and capability advantage on the optimal choice of distribution structure. We then investigate how investing in component branding, enhancing the value of the end product, using alternative supply contracts, and product valuation uncertainty influence the PCM's optimal choice of distribution structure.     

政府激励政策下人造板绿色供应链谈判-协调机制研究

当前我国人造板产业面临效率低下、资源浪费和环境污染等问题,上下游企业缺乏合作与协调。本文界定了人造板绿色供应链系统,运用契约理论和纳什谈判理论,分别构建了政府激励政策下人造板绿色供应链集中优化决策、分散均衡决策和谈判协调决策模型,从而建立了相应的收益分享-成本分担契约谈判协调机制,并基于相关行业和企业经验数据,与传统人造板供应链进行了对比数值分析。研究结果表明:(1)收益分享-成本分担契约谈判-协调机制能够很好地实现人造板绿色供应链的协调运营,提高资源效率,降低环境负影响和提升运营绩效。(2)人造板绿色供应链管理模式下供应链及其成员的最优利润均高于传统管理模式,谈判协调决策情形下供应链及其成员的最优利润均高于分散均衡决策情形。(3)制定有"门槛"的增值税即征即退政策和适当的环境税政策,自建经济林场、选用经济型枝桠材,强化技术研发和工艺改进,有助于提高人造板供应链运营绩效。     

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.     

How does a component from a supplier with high reputation for product innovation improve the perception of a final offering? A process perspective

An excellent reputation for product innovation (RPI) is an intangible asset for any company and promises a sustainable competitive advantage. This study empirically analyzes the spillover effects of a high component supplier's RPI to the offering of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The results show that there are positive effects to be gained from the innovativeness of a component supplier, which increases the perceived performance of the final offering containing the supplier's product. In addition, the study demonstrates that such a strategic partnership between a component supplier and an OEM has the potential to influence the purchase intention of the final consumer in a positive manner, thereby creating value for both parties. Contributions are made to a better understanding of strategic options for such a partnership and to an on-going discussion on RPI and the importance of intangible attributes in innovation management.