4.7 Article

Flexible strategies under supply disruption: the interplay between contingent sourcing and responsive pricing

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 16, 页码 4829-4850

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1722326

关键词

supply disruption; responsive pricing; contingent sourcing; strategy choice

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFB1601401]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71921001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to possible supply disruptions because of a low-cost unreliable supplier, a firm may use a high-cost reliable supplier as an additional regular supplier (dual sourcing) or an emergency backup supplier with an extra emergency cost (contingent sourcing). We consider the firm's sourcing problem when the pricing decision is made before any supply uncertainty is resolved (committed pricing) or after the supply state is realised (responsive pricing). By comparing the relative value of responsive pricing in contingent sourcing to that in dual sourcing, we study the relationship between contingent sourcing and responsive pricing in mitigating supply disruption risks. We show that the emergency cost and potential lost sales caused by disruption probability jointly impact the interplay of these two strategies. More specifically, when the emergency cost is low and the potential lost sales are lower under contingent sourcing than that under dual sourcing, contingent sourcing and responsive pricing are substitutes; otherwise, they are complements. Furthermore, we examine how disrupted capacity, i.e. the quantity that the unreliable supplier can deliver when disrupted, impacts the interplay, and find that the probability of the substitution relationship becomes higher when the disrupted capacity increases. We also find that under committed pricing, contingent sourcing is not optimal for any value of disruption probability when the emergency cost is high, a phenomenon that does not exist under responsive pricing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据