Procurement in Supply Chains When the End-Product Exhibits the 'Weakest Link' Property

We consider a supply chain with one manufacturer who assembles an end-product using multiple outsourced parts. The end-product exhibits the “weakest-link” property, such that if any of its component parts fails, the end-product fails. The supplier of each component part can improve the (uncertain) quality of her parts by exerting costly effort that is unobservable to the manufacturer and is non-contractible. We analyze three possible contractual agreements between the manufacturer and suppliers: Acceptable Quality Level (AQL), Quality–Based Incentive Pricing (Q–Pricing) and Group Warranty. Under AQL, the manufacturer inspects all incoming parts, but establishes different quality thresholds and pays the suppliers different amounts for achieving the different thresholds. Under Q-Pricing, the manufacturer also inspects all incoming parts but pays each supplier a constant amount for each good part. Under Group Warranty there is no testing of the individual parts; instead all suppliers are responsible for any failed end-product. We compare the efficiency of these three contractual arrangements as a function of the exogenous variables.

[1]  Wei Shi Lim,et al.  Producer-Supplier Contracts with Incomplete Information , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Paul E. Fischer,et al.  Information, Contracting, and Quality Costs , 2000 .

[3]  Hideshi Itoh,et al.  Job design, delegation and cooperation: A principal-agent analysis , 1994 .

[4]  Joseph Moses Juran Juran on Quality by Design: The New Steps for Planning Quality into Goods and Services , 1992 .

[5]  Maitreesh Ghatak,et al.  The economics of lending with joint liability: theory and practice 1 This version: May 1999. 1 , 1999 .

[6]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  You Only Die Once: Managing Discrete Interdependent Risks , 2003 .

[7]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[8]  Paul E. Fischer,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Performance Measurement and Design in Supply Chains , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[9]  Hideshi Itoh Incentives to Help in Multi-agent Situations , 1991 .

[10]  Madhav V. Rajan,et al.  Incentive issues in inter-firm relationships , 2002 .

[11]  Robin L. Dillon,et al.  Probabilistic risk analysis for the NASA space shuttle: a brief history and current work , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[12]  Serguei Netessine,et al.  An Incentive Effect of Multiple Sourcing , 2004 .

[13]  Ananth V. Iyer,et al.  A Principal-Agent Model for Product Specification and Production , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[14]  H. Demsetz,et al.  Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization , 1975, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[15]  Joel S. Demski,et al.  Optimal incentive contracts with multiple agents , 1984 .

[16]  Gérard P. Cachon,et al.  Loss-Avoidance and Forward Induction in Experimental Coordination Games , 1996 .

[17]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  Moral Hazard and Observability , 1979 .

[18]  Kirk Monteverde,et al.  You have printed the following article : Supplier Switching Costs and Vertical Integration in the Automobile Industry , 2007 .

[19]  Kashi R. Balachandran,et al.  Quality Implications of Warranties in a Supply Chain , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[20]  Gérard P. Cachon Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts , 2003, Supply Chain Management.

[21]  David M. Kreps,et al.  A Course in Microeconomic Theory , 2020 .

[22]  Charles H. Kriebel,et al.  Asymmetric Information, Incentives and Intrafirm Resource Allocation , 1982 .

[23]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  Interdependent Security , 2003 .

[24]  R. Myerson Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem , 1979 .

[25]  James L. Bossert,et al.  Supplier management handbook , 1994 .

[26]  Robert M. Townsend,et al.  Resource Allocation under Asymmetric Information , 1981 .

[27]  R. Radner,et al.  Economic theory of teams , 1972 .

[28]  C. Tapiero,et al.  The delivery and control of quality in supplier-producer contracts , 1995 .