“Supply Disruptions, Asymmetric Information, and a Dual Sourcing Option

We study a manufacturer’s strategic use of a dual-sourcing option when facing suppliers who possess private information about their likelihood of experiencing a supply disruption. The manufacturer can diversify its supply by ordering from both suppliers, but we find that the cost of doing so is inflated under asymmetric information due to the suppliers’ incentives to misrepresent their reliabilities. If the manufacturer instead sole-sources, competition between the suppliers curbs their informational rents. Therefore, asymmetric information pushes the manufacturer away from diversification and towards sole-sourcing. Surprisingly, the additional cost that asymmetric information imposes on diversification may cause the manufacturer to cease diversifying in reaction to uniformly eroding supply base reliability, while it would do just the opposite under symmetric information. Despite these trends away from diversification, the value of the dual-sourcing option should not be underestimated for manufacturers who are unsure of their suppliers’ reliabilities — the dual-sourcing option is actually more valuable under asymmetric information than under symmetric information if the manufacturer’s cost of replacing a unit lost due to a disruption is moderate. We also analyze the effect of codependence between supply disruptions, and find that a reduction in supplier codependence increases the manufacturer’s value of information. Therefore, strategic actions to reduce codependence between supply disruptions should not be seen as a substitute for learning about the suppliers’ reliabilities. ∗Department of Industrial & Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, 1205 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: zhibiny@umich.edu †Department of Industrial & Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, 1205 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: ayding@umich.edu ‡Department of Industrial & Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, 1205 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: babich@umich.edu §Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: dbeil@bus.umich.edu

[1]  Haresh Gurnani,et al.  A Bargaining Model for a First-Time Interaction Under Asymmetric Beliefs of Supply Reliability , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Charles J. Corbett,et al.  Stochastic Inventory Systems in a Supply Chain with Asymmetric Information: Cycle Stocks, Safety Stocks, and Consignment Stock , 2001, Oper. Res..

[3]  Lawrence M. Wein,et al.  An Inverse-Optimization-Based Auction Mechanism to Support a Multiattribute RFQ Process , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Kevin B. Hendricks,et al.  The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth , 2003 .

[5]  Daniel F. Spulber,et al.  Managing procurement auctions , 1990 .

[6]  Volodymyr Babich,et al.  Risk, Financing and the Optimal Number of Suppliers , 2007 .

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

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

[9]  Yeon-Koo Che Design competition through multidimensional auctions , 1993 .

[10]  E. Maskin,et al.  The principal-agent relationship with an informed principal. II : Common values , 1992 .

[11]  Maxsell R. Conklin Annual survey of manufactures , 1952 .

[12]  Yimin Wang,et al.  On the Value of Mix Flexibility and Dual Sourcing in Unreliable Newsvendor Networks , 2005, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[13]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[14]  Izak Duenyas,et al.  Total-Cost Procurement Auctions: Should the Buyer Reveal Suppliers' Quality? , 2006 .

[15]  Ming-Deh A. Huang,et al.  Proof of proposition 1 , 1992 .

[16]  David Simchi-Levi,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Supply Chain Analysis: Modeling in the E-Business Era (International Series in Operations Research & Management Science) , 2004 .

[17]  Dilip Mookherjee,et al.  Dominant Strategy Implementation of Bayesian incentive Compatible Allocation Rules , 1992 .

[18]  L. Wein,et al.  An Inverse-Optimization-Based Auction Mechanism to Support a Multi-Attribute Rfq Process , 2001 .

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

[20]  Ming-Deh A. Huang,et al.  Proof of proposition 2 , 1992 .

[21]  Christopher S. Tang Perspectives in supply chain risk management , 2006 .

[22]  Brian Tomlin,et al.  On the Value of Mitigation and Contingency Strategies for Managing Supply Chain Disruption Risks , 2006, Manag. Sci..

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

[24]  Maqbool Dada,et al.  A Newsvendor's Procurement Problem when Suppliers Are Unreliable , 2007, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[25]  Christopher S. Tang,et al.  Designing Supply Contracts: Contract Type and Information Asymmetry , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[26]  Sandy D. Jap An Exploratory Study of the Introduction of Online Reverse Auctions , 2003 .

[27]  E. Maskin,et al.  The Principal-Agent Relationship with an Informed Principal: The Case of Private Values , 1990 .

[28]  V. Babich Vulnerable options in supply chains: Effects of supplier competition , 2006 .

[29]  Germaine H. Saad,et al.  Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains , 2005 .

[30]  Thomas Y. Choi,et al.  Supplier–supplier relationships in the buyer–supplier triad: Building theories from eight case studies , 2005 .

[31]  Volodymyr Babich,et al.  Supply Disruptions, Asymmetric Information, and a Backup Production Option , 2009, Manag. Sci..