Revenue deficiency under second-price auctions in a supply-chain setting

Consider a firm, called the buyer, that satisfies its demand over two periods by assigning both demands to a supplier via a second-price procurement auction; call this the Standard auction. In the hope of lowering its purchase cost, the firm is considering an alternative procedure in which it will also allow bids on each period individually, where there can be either one or two winners covering the two demands; call this the Multiple Winner auction. Choosing the Multiple Winner auction over the Standard auction can in fact result in a higher cost to the buyer. We provide a bound on how much greater the buyer’s cost can be in the Multiple Winner auction and show that this bound is tight. We then sharpen this bound for two scenarios that can arise when the buyer announces his demands close to the beginning of the demand horizon. Under a monotonicity condition, we achieve a further sharpening of the bound in one of the scenarios. Finally, this monotonicity condition allows us to generalize this bound to the T-period case in which bids are allowed on any subset of period demands.

[1]  Gabriel Y. Weintraub,et al.  Combinatorial Auctions for Procurement: An Empirical Study of the Chilean School Meals Auction , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Jyrki Wallenius,et al.  A multi-attribute e-auction mechanism for procurement: Theoretical foundations , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Bidding Languages for Combinatorial Auctions , 2005 .

[4]  Wedad Elmaghraby,et al.  The Importance of Ordering in Sequential Auctions , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[5]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding , 2002 .

[6]  Xiaolan Xie,et al.  Discount auctions for procuring heterogeneous items , 2005, ICEC '05.

[7]  Ho Soo Lee,et al.  Special Issue: 2002 Franz Edelman Award for Achievement in Operations Research and the Management Sciences: Combinatorial and Quantity-Discount Procurement Auctions Benefit Mars, Incorporated and Its Suppliers , 2003, Interfaces.

[8]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  The Lovely but Lonely Vickrey Auction , 2004 .

[9]  Izak Duenyas,et al.  Total-Cost Procurement Auctions: Impact of Suppliers' Cost Adjustments on Auction Format Choice , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[10]  George Siemens,et al.  Current state and future trends: a citation network analysis of the learning analytics field , 2014, LAK.

[11]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Industrial Procurement Auctions , 2005 .

[12]  Jiri Chod,et al.  Strategic Investments, Trading, and Pricing Under Forecast Updating , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[13]  William Vickrey,et al.  Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders , 1961 .

[14]  Damian R. Beil,et al.  RFQ Auctions with Supplier Qualification Screening , 2009, Oper. Res..

[15]  Stefan Schneider,et al.  Compact bidding languages and supplier selection for markets with economics of scale and scope , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  Panos L. Lorentziadis Interfaces with Other Disciplines Optimal bidding in auctions of mixed populations of bidders , 2011 .

[17]  Marko Pfeifer,et al.  Inventory Management And Production Planning And Scheduling , 2016 .

[18]  Gustavo J. Vulcano,et al.  Effects of Information Disclosure Under First- and Second-Price Auctions in a Supply Chain Setting , 2009, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[19]  Wedad Elmaghraby,et al.  The Effect of Asymmetric Bidder Size on an Auction's Performance: Are More Bidders Always Better? , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[20]  Michael H. Rothkopf,et al.  Thirteen Reasons Why the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves Process Is Not Practical , 2007, Oper. Res..

[21]  Qiong Wu,et al.  Multiple Sourcing and Procurement Process Selection with Bidding Events , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Failures of the VCG mechanism in combinatorial auctions and exchanges , 2006, AAMAS '06.