
doi: 10.1002/nav.10117
AbstractSupply chain members can gain substantial benefits by coordinating their activities. However, a remaining challenge is to create useful coordination mechanisms when channel members are independent. This paper develops a coordination strategy with which a supplier uses quantity discounts to entice independent buyers to comply with an integer‐ratio time coordination scheme. The problem is analyzed as a Stackelberg game in which the supplier acts as the leader by announcing its coordination policy in advance and buyers act as followers by deciding their ordering decisions with this information. The strategy is compared to a coordination mechanism with quantity discounts and power‐of‐two time coordination. While both strategies are able to produce substantial benefits over simple quantity discounts, integer‐ratio time coordination provides a better coordination mechanism for a decentralized supply chain. It is shown that power‐of‐two time coordination may not be able to provide a stable equilibrium coordination strategy when buyers act independently and opportunistically. Furthermore, if this is not the case, integer‐ratio time coordination is at least equally effective. Unlike a centralized solution, under which the improvement by integer‐ratio over power‐of‐two time coordination is limited to 2% of optimality, system cost reduction from a decentralized coordination strategy could be much more significant. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2004.
Auctions, bargaining, bidding and selling, and other market models, Hierarchical games (including Stackelberg games), Stackelberg game, coordination strategy
Auctions, bargaining, bidding and selling, and other market models, Hierarchical games (including Stackelberg games), Stackelberg game, coordination strategy
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 21 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
