Centralization of stocks: Retailers vs. manufacturer

被引:148
作者
Anupindi, R [1 ]
Bassok, Y
机构
[1] Northwestern Univ, JL Kellogg Grad Sch Management, Evanston, IL 60208 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Sch Business Adm, Dept Management Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
关键词
inventory; pooling; manufacturer; retailers; competition; cooperation; market search; information system;
D O I
10.1287/mnsc.45.2.178
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
A well-known result in inventory theory is that physical centralization of stocks in a system with multiple retailers decreases total costs and increases total profits for the retailers. However, does this centralization also benefit the manufacturer, whose goods the retailers stock, when customers unsatisfied at retailers due to stock-outs are considered lost sales? In this paper we consider a model with two retailers and one manufacturer We then compare two systems: one in which the retailers hold stocks separately and the other in which they cooperate to centralize stocks at a single location. We show that whether or not centralization of stocks by retailers increases profits for the manufacturer depends on the level of "market search" in the supply chain. Market search is measured as the fraction of customers who, unsatisfied at their "local" retailer due to a stock-out, search for the good at, the other retailer before leaving the system. Specifically, we show that there exists a threshold level for market search above which the manufacturer loses. Furthermore, for "very high" search levels, even the system profit (sum of manufacturer and retailer profits) may decrease upon centralization. We then compare the performance of the two systems under optimal pricing/subsidy mechanisms and show that often a manufacturer is better off in a decentralized system with high market search. We conclude with a discussion of the role of information systems in the decentralized systems.
引用
收藏
页码:178 / 191
页数:14
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], MARKETING SCI
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1993, CORPORATE PARADOX PO
[3]  
ANUPINDI R, 1998, CENTRALIZATION STOCK
[4]  
EPPEN G, 1981, MULTILEVEL PRODUCTIO, P163
[5]  
EPPEN G, 1979, MANAGEMENT SCI, V25, P5
[6]  
ERNST R, 1992, PRODUCTION OPER MANA, V1, P3
[7]   ON THE EFFECT OF DEMAND RANDOMNESS ON INVENTORIES AND COSTS [J].
GERCHAK, Y ;
MOSSMAN, D .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 1992, 40 (04) :804-807
[8]  
Heyman D, 1984, Stochastic models in operations research, VII
[9]   Quick response in manufacturer-retailer channels [J].
Iyer, AV ;
Bergen, ME .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1997, 43 (04) :559-570
[10]   MANAGING CHANNEL PROFITS - REPLY [J].
JEULAND, AP ;
SHUGAN, SM .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1988, 7 (01) :103-106