双重采购损害了供应链的生存能力?单一采购下品牌商合作的价值

IF 6.7 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Baozhuang Niu , Xinhai Deng , Fengfeng Xie , Zifan Shen
{"title":"双重采购损害了供应链的生存能力?单一采购下品牌商合作的价值","authors":"Baozhuang Niu ,&nbsp;Xinhai Deng ,&nbsp;Fengfeng Xie ,&nbsp;Zifan Shen","doi":"10.1016/j.omega.2024.103250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the post-pandemic era, maintaining supply chain viability under long-term crises has received increasing attention. Conventional wisdom suggests that diversifying the supply can effectively enhance the viability performance. However, recent business practices, such as Volkswagen's cooperation with XPENG, challenge this intuition by reducing supply diversification. This study therefore examines the cons and pros of two competing brand-owners’ cooperation for the improvement of supply chain viability. We utilize two commonly used indexes, namely, the Risk Loss Index and the Fulfillment Rate Index, to assess the impact of brand-owners’ cooperation. We explore three scenarios: (1) Scenario N, where each brand-owner chooses the non-cooperation strategy and hence, procures from their exclusive supplier; (2) Scenario Y, where both brand-owners choose the cooperation strategy and procure a common component from the same supplier; and (3) Scenario H, where brand-owners choose dual sourcing strategy and procure crosswise from two upstream suppliers. It seems that Scenario H enables stable supply and hedges the supply risk by dual-sourcing. Interestingly, our findings indicate that Scenario Y where brand-owners cooperate on sourcing from a common supplier can be the most effective, while dual sourcing in Scenario H may not always lead to better performance of supply chain viability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19529,"journal":{"name":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 103250"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual sourcing hurts supply chain viability? The value of brand-owners’ cooperation under single sourcing\",\"authors\":\"Baozhuang Niu ,&nbsp;Xinhai Deng ,&nbsp;Fengfeng Xie ,&nbsp;Zifan Shen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.omega.2024.103250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In the post-pandemic era, maintaining supply chain viability under long-term crises has received increasing attention. Conventional wisdom suggests that diversifying the supply can effectively enhance the viability performance. However, recent business practices, such as Volkswagen's cooperation with XPENG, challenge this intuition by reducing supply diversification. This study therefore examines the cons and pros of two competing brand-owners’ cooperation for the improvement of supply chain viability. We utilize two commonly used indexes, namely, the Risk Loss Index and the Fulfillment Rate Index, to assess the impact of brand-owners’ cooperation. We explore three scenarios: (1) Scenario N, where each brand-owner chooses the non-cooperation strategy and hence, procures from their exclusive supplier; (2) Scenario Y, where both brand-owners choose the cooperation strategy and procure a common component from the same supplier; and (3) Scenario H, where brand-owners choose dual sourcing strategy and procure crosswise from two upstream suppliers. It seems that Scenario H enables stable supply and hedges the supply risk by dual-sourcing. Interestingly, our findings indicate that Scenario Y where brand-owners cooperate on sourcing from a common supplier can be the most effective, while dual sourcing in Scenario H may not always lead to better performance of supply chain viability.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Omega-international Journal of Management Science\",\"volume\":\"133 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Omega-international Journal of Management Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324002147\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324002147","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大流行后时代,在长期危机下维持供应链的生存能力受到越来越多的关注。传统观点认为,供给多样化可以有效提高生存能力绩效。然而,最近的商业实践,如大众汽车与小鹏的合作,通过减少供应多样化,挑战了这种直觉。因此,本研究考察了两个竞争品牌所有者合作以提高供应链生存能力的利弊。我们采用风险损失指数和履约率指数这两个常用的指标来评估品牌商合作的影响。我们研究了三种场景:(1)场景N,每个品牌所有者选择不合作策略,因此从他们的独家供应商处采购;(2)情景Y,双方品牌商选择合作策略,从同一供应商采购共同的零部件;(3)情景H,品牌商选择双源策略,向两个上游供应商进行横向采购。似乎情景H能够实现稳定的供应,并通过双源来对冲供应风险。有趣的是,我们的研究结果表明,在情景Y中,品牌所有者合作从一个共同的供应商采购可能是最有效的,而在情景H中,双重采购可能并不总是导致供应链可行性的更好表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dual sourcing hurts supply chain viability? The value of brand-owners’ cooperation under single sourcing
In the post-pandemic era, maintaining supply chain viability under long-term crises has received increasing attention. Conventional wisdom suggests that diversifying the supply can effectively enhance the viability performance. However, recent business practices, such as Volkswagen's cooperation with XPENG, challenge this intuition by reducing supply diversification. This study therefore examines the cons and pros of two competing brand-owners’ cooperation for the improvement of supply chain viability. We utilize two commonly used indexes, namely, the Risk Loss Index and the Fulfillment Rate Index, to assess the impact of brand-owners’ cooperation. We explore three scenarios: (1) Scenario N, where each brand-owner chooses the non-cooperation strategy and hence, procures from their exclusive supplier; (2) Scenario Y, where both brand-owners choose the cooperation strategy and procure a common component from the same supplier; and (3) Scenario H, where brand-owners choose dual sourcing strategy and procure crosswise from two upstream suppliers. It seems that Scenario H enables stable supply and hedges the supply risk by dual-sourcing. Interestingly, our findings indicate that Scenario Y where brand-owners cooperate on sourcing from a common supplier can be the most effective, while dual sourcing in Scenario H may not always lead to better performance of supply chain viability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Omega-international Journal of Management Science
Omega-international Journal of Management Science 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
11.60%
发文量
130
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Omega reports on developments in management, including the latest research results and applications. Original contributions and review articles describe the state of the art in specific fields or functions of management, while there are shorter critical assessments of particular management techniques. Other features of the journal are the "Memoranda" section for short communications and "Feedback", a correspondence column. Omega is both stimulating reading and an important source for practising managers, specialists in management services, operational research workers and management scientists, management consultants, academics, students and research personnel throughout the world. The material published is of high quality and relevance, written in a manner which makes it accessible to all of this wide-ranging readership. Preference will be given to papers with implications to the practice of management. Submissions of purely theoretical papers are discouraged. The review of material for publication in the journal reflects this aim.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信