Mitigating Supply Uncertainty: The Interplay Between Diversification and Pricing

Abstract

We consider a firm's sourcing problem from one reliable supplier and one unreliable supplier in two price‐setting scenarios. In the committed pricing scenario, the firm makes the pricing decision before the supply uncertainty is resolved. In the responsive pricing scenario, the firm's pricing decision is made after the supply uncertainty is resolved. For the committed pricing scenario, we develop a condition on supply uncertainty that guarantees the unimodality of the firm's objective function. By comparing the firm's optimal diversification decisions in the two pricing scenarios, we examine the interplay of supply diversification strategy and responsive pricing strategy in mitigating supply uncertainty. While both strategies are effective in mitigating supply uncertainty, we show that they are not necessarily substitutes. The relationship between these two strategies depends on two adverse effects caused by supply uncertainty: the lost‐revenue effect and the lost‐goodwill effect. More specifically, when the lost‐revenue effect dominates the lost‐goodwill effect, these two strategies are complements; otherwise, they are substitutes. Furthermore, we examine the impact of market size, price sensitivity, supplier reliability, and failure rebate on the interplay between these two strategies, and discuss the implications of our results. Finally, we extend our analysis to the case of two unreliable suppliers and show that the insights regarding the interplay between diversification and pricing continue to hold.

Pricing strategy for renewable energy source electricity in the competitive hybrid electricity market

“…In other words, the amount of power the grid operator gets from the RES-E generator is min( q r , h ( Q ))=min( q r , x , Q ). A similar assumption was made by Li et al (2014).…”

Low-Certainty-Need (LCN) supply chains: a new perspective in managing disruption risks and resilience

“…Another research stream focuses on the contract-based SC coordination with supplier or market disruption considerations. Game-theoretic studies dominate this research field (Hu and Kostamis 2015;Tsai 2016;Li, Sethi, and Zhang 2017). Gupta, He, and Sethi (2015) analyzed the impact of contingent sourcing strategy under competition and in the presence of a possible supply disruption.…”

“…With regards to both product flexibility and disruption risks, Carbonara and Pellegrino (2017) analysed flexibility strategies to mitigate SC disruption risks. This research is related to that of product substitution under disruptions, mostly with considerations of pricing decisions using game theoretic modelling (Lu, Huang, and Shen 2011;Li, Sethi, and Zhang 2017;Kumar, Basu, and Avittathur 2018). Simchi-Levi, Wang" and Wei (2018) provide evidence that process flexibility and inventory should be considered as important drivers of SC robustness.…”

Guarding against Disruption Risk by Contracting under Information Asymmetry

“…Such strategies have been extensively discussed in the operations management literature (Anupindi & Akella, 1993;Gurnani, Akella, & Lehoczky, 2000;Tomlin, 2006;Snyder et al, 2016;Choi, Chan, & Yue, 2017. In addition to these strategies, an alternative and increasingly popular approach is for suppliers to invest in advanced technologies to enhance their supply reliability and prevent disruptions (Wang, Gilland, & Tomlin, 2010;Li, 2013;Huang, Shen, & Xu, 2016;Li, Sethi, & Zhang, 2017). This is very common for companies in the automobile industry.…”