Supplier Competition and Cost Reduction with Endogenous Information Asymmetry

Cuihong Li
{"title":"Supplier Competition and Cost Reduction with Endogenous Information Asymmetry","authors":"Cuihong Li","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3098877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem definition: We consider a buyer sourcing from multiple competing suppliers who exert cost-reduction efforts before procurement contracts are awarded. Academic/practical relevance: The supply chain is subject to the classic hold-up problem—as the lack of a contract commitment hinders suppliers’ incentives to make investment upfront—complicated with supplier competition. Methodology: With deterministic cost-reduction outcomes, suppliers will not exert any effort if this effort is observable, and a pure-strategy equilibrium does not exist if the effort is unobservable. We analyze the mixed-strategy equilibrium with unobservable supplier effort, in which suppliers randomize their efforts and the buyer designs an optimal procurement mechanism. Results: We show that the optimal procurement mechanism can be implemented by a conventional single-price reverse auction with a random reserve price. The mixed strategy of supplier effort generates endogenous information asymmetry on supplier costs that provides suppliers with information rent, which sustains their efforts. The endogenous information asymmetry improves effort efficiency (by inducing positive supplier effort), yet introduces trade inefficiency (by causing the possible failure of trade between the parties). Although increasing supplier competition (measured by the number of suppliers) hurts the effort efficiency, it improves trade efficiency. As a result, the buyer is always better off introducing supplier competition by including more than one supplier in the supply base. However, the desired supply base size (number of suppliers) depends on the product revenue: For high-margin goods, the optimal size is achieved with two suppliers, whereas for low-margin goods, a larger supply base is better for the buyer. We show that the result based on deterministic cost reduction can be established as a limit of the case when uncertainty in cost reduction exists and shrinks to null. Managerial implications: Our study helps to understand the impact of supplier competition when supply-chain parties deliberately make their actions unpredictable to avoid being held up. The findings provide managerial guidance on procurement auction and supply base designs.","PeriodicalId":330843,"journal":{"name":"PROD: Analytical (Supply) (Topic)","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROD: Analytical (Supply) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3098877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Problem definition: We consider a buyer sourcing from multiple competing suppliers who exert cost-reduction efforts before procurement contracts are awarded. Academic/practical relevance: The supply chain is subject to the classic hold-up problem—as the lack of a contract commitment hinders suppliers’ incentives to make investment upfront—complicated with supplier competition. Methodology: With deterministic cost-reduction outcomes, suppliers will not exert any effort if this effort is observable, and a pure-strategy equilibrium does not exist if the effort is unobservable. We analyze the mixed-strategy equilibrium with unobservable supplier effort, in which suppliers randomize their efforts and the buyer designs an optimal procurement mechanism. Results: We show that the optimal procurement mechanism can be implemented by a conventional single-price reverse auction with a random reserve price. The mixed strategy of supplier effort generates endogenous information asymmetry on supplier costs that provides suppliers with information rent, which sustains their efforts. The endogenous information asymmetry improves effort efficiency (by inducing positive supplier effort), yet introduces trade inefficiency (by causing the possible failure of trade between the parties). Although increasing supplier competition (measured by the number of suppliers) hurts the effort efficiency, it improves trade efficiency. As a result, the buyer is always better off introducing supplier competition by including more than one supplier in the supply base. However, the desired supply base size (number of suppliers) depends on the product revenue: For high-margin goods, the optimal size is achieved with two suppliers, whereas for low-margin goods, a larger supply base is better for the buyer. We show that the result based on deterministic cost reduction can be established as a limit of the case when uncertainty in cost reduction exists and shrinks to null. Managerial implications: Our study helps to understand the impact of supplier competition when supply-chain parties deliberately make their actions unpredictable to avoid being held up. The findings provide managerial guidance on procurement auction and supply base designs.
内生信息不对称下的供应商竞争与成本降低
问题定义:我们考虑一个买方从多个相互竞争的供应商处采购,这些供应商在签订采购合同之前努力降低成本。学术/实践相关性:供应链受到经典的拖延问题的影响,因为缺乏合同承诺阻碍了供应商进行预先投资的动机,使供应商竞争变得复杂。方法:对于确定性的成本降低结果,如果这种努力是可观察到的,供应商将不会付出任何努力,如果这种努力是不可观察到的,则不存在纯战略均衡。本文分析了供应商努力不可观察的混合策略均衡,其中供应商的努力是随机的,买方设计了一个最优的采购机制。结果:我们发现最优采购机制可以通过传统的带有随机底价的单价反向拍卖来实现。供应商努力的混合策略在供应商成本上产生了内生的信息不对称,为供应商提供了信息租金,从而维持了供应商的努力。内生信息不对称提高了努力效率(通过诱导积极的供应商努力),但也引入了贸易效率低下(通过导致双方之间的贸易可能失败)。虽然增加供应商竞争(以供应商数量衡量)损害了努力效率,但它提高了交易效率。因此,通过在供应基础中包含多个供应商来引入供应商竞争,买方总是更好。然而,理想的供应基础规模(供应商数量)取决于产品收益:对于高利润商品,两个供应商达到最优规模,而对于低利润商品,更大的供应基础对买方更好。我们证明了基于确定性成本降低的结果可以建立为成本降低中存在不确定性并缩小为零的情况的极限。管理启示:我们的研究有助于理解供应商竞争的影响,当供应链各方故意使他们的行动不可预测,以避免被阻碍。研究结果为采购、拍卖和供应基地设计提供了管理指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信