Knowledge that Transforms

We consider a supply chain in which a distributor procures from a producer a quantity of a fresh product, which has to undergo a long‐distance transportation to reach the target market. During the transportation process, the distributor has to make an appropriate effort to preserve the freshness of the product, and his success in this respect impacts on both the quality and quantity of the product delivered to the market. The distributor has to determine his order quantity, level of freshness‐keeping effort, and selling price, by taking into account the wholesale price of the producer, the cost of the freshness‐keeping effort, the likely spoilage of the product during transportation, and the possible demand for the product in the market. The producer, on the other hand, has to determine the wholesale price based on its effect on the order quantity of the distributor. We develop a model to study this problem, and characterize each party's optimal decisions in both decentralized and centralized systems. We further develop an incentive scheme to facilitate coordination between the two parties. Computational results are reported to show the effects of freshness‐keeping efforts.

We examine the use of consumer cash mail‐in rebates offered by a manufacturer in a Stackelberg game where the manufacturer is the leader and the retailer is the follower. Our analysis indicates that rebates are profitable for manufacturers if consumers are inconsistent in the sense that their rebate valuation when they make purchase decisions is independent of their redemption probabilities when they make redemption decisions. If the manufacturer keeps the wholesale price unchanged, then the rebate increases the retailer's profit by a larger amount than the increase in the manufacturer's profit. If the manufacturer jointly optimizes the wholesale price and rebate, then the increase in the manufacturer's profit is twice the increase in the retailer's profit. The retailer responds to rebates by increasing the retail price, which increases the margin paid by consumers who do not redeem the rebate. On average, consumer surplus decreases when it is optimal for manufacturers to offer rebates. We suggest incentive schemes that make it worthwhile for retailers to limit the price increase. In these incentive schemes, the manufacturer imposes a negative relationship between the rebate value and the retail price. We show that such incentives increase supply chain profits.

Advance selling through pre‐orders is a strategy to transfer inventory risk from a retailer to consumers. A newsvendor retailer can have three strategies to choose from: no advance selling allowed (NAS), moderate advance selling with a moderate discount for pre‐orders (MAS), and deep advance selling with a deep discount for pre‐orders (DAS). This research studies how a retailer could design an advance selling strategy to maximize her own profits. We find some interesting results. For example, there exist two thresholds for the selling season profit margin and two thresholds for consumer's expected valuation. For products with higher profit margin than the high threshold on profit margin, a retailer should always use DAS. For products with medium profit margin within the two thresholds, a retailer should adopt MAS if consumer's expected valuation is lower than the high threshold and use DAS otherwise. For products with lower profit margin than the low threshold, a retailer should use NAS, DAS, or MAS, respectively, if consumer's expected valuation is lower than the low threshold, higher than the high threshold, or between the two thresholds, respectively. Through sensitivity analyses, we also show the effects of multiple consumer characteristics on a retailer's optimal advance selling strategy.

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.

This paper considers two parallel supply chains with interacting demand streams. Each supply chain consists of one supplier and one retailer. The two demand streams are jointly described with a vector autoregressive time‐series process in which they interact and their respective innovation errors correlate contemporaneously. For each supply chain, we develop insights into when and how much the supplier and the retailer can improve on their forecasting accuracy if the external demand history of the other supply chain is utilized. When this external demand history is not available or made available after a time lag, we develop a partial process and a delayed process to characterize the demand structure that the retailer can recover from the available demand histories. Our results show that the external demand history of the other supply chain always helps the retailer make better forecasts when demand streams interact; however, the enhanced information alters the retailer's order process, which may produce larger forecasting errors for the supplier. Conditions are established for the supplier to benefit from the external demand history of the other supply chain.