Supplier Development Investments in a Triadic Setting

Friedl, Günther; Wagner, Stephan M.

doi:10.1109/tem.2016.2517121

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the combination of the proposed dynamic strategy with decentralized approaches is of great importance and deserved a detailed analysis, see, e.g., the negotiation-based coordination mechanism proposed in [36]. Another interesting direction for future research is to expand our study to a network perspective, in which the supply chain consists of more than a single manufacturer and a single supplier, see, e.g., [13], where two manufacturers are engaged in the development of a supplier.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards dynamic contract extension in supplier development

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider supplier development within a supply chain consisting of a single manufacturer and a single supplier. Because investments in supplier development are usually relationship-specific, safeguard mechanisms against the hazards of partner opportunism have to be installed. Here, formal contracts are considered as the primary measure to safeguard investments. However, formal contracts entail certain risks, e.g., a lack of flexibility, particular in an ambiguous environment. We propose a receding horizon control scheme to mitigate possible contractual drawbacks while significantly enhancing the supplier development process and, thus, to increase the overall supply chain profit. Our findings are validated by a numerical case study.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This yields the optimal control strategy defined by (13), of which the first piece u H j ½0;DTÞ is applied. Then, the manufacturer and the supplier meet again at time t þ DT to negotiate a new contract.…”

Section: Receding Horizon Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards dynamic contract extension in supplier development

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More specifically, incorporating upstream lower tiers beyond the first-tier supplier will help to address end-to-end sustainability issues in supply chains; and it will also help to understand how pressures exerted by downstream consumers affect decisionmaking, including in terms of the investments made in and the focus of SSD, at the upstream end of the supply chain (Kraft, Vald es, and Zheng 2020). Furthermore, SSD in triadic (Friedl and Wagner 2016) or even quadratic (Meqdadi, Johnsen, and Pagell 2020) relationships, consisting of traditional and non-traditional supply chain actors, such as competing buyers, NGOs, and social enterprises in global supply chains, requires further investigation. This indicates the following future research recommendation:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, SSD practices adopted and deployed by the buyer interact with any assistance received from a third party, jointly affecting the improvements at the supplier side (Nguyen, Donohue, and Mehrotra 2019). In addition, horizontal collaboration with other buyers (Friedl and Wagner 2016) in sharing supplier development investments and collaboration with NGOs or other business partners to address tensions between social and commercial goals (Meqdadi, Johnsen, and Pagell 2020) also represent promising future research directions in the context of SSD. Thus, we propose the following recommendations for future research:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic literature review on sustainability-oriented supplier development

Jia

Stevenson

Hendry

2021

Production Planning & Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many buying firms are implementing sustainability-oriented supplier development (SSD) projects. This paper provides a systematic literature review on the SSD process and develops a future research agenda. A total of 83 papers are analyzed according to their research content and using contingency theory variables, i.e. contingencies and response actions, and contingency forms of fit that influence performance outcomes. Although there has been a considerable focus on contingency factors in the SSD literature, explicit use of the contingency fit perspective has been limited. A conceptual framework is developed and supported by a series of research recommendations to provide a holistic view of SSD and a starting point for future research. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to focus specifically on reviewing the SSD literature. The contingency theory lens provides a promising theoretical perspective for understanding how SSD initiatives can be successfully embedded in the supply chain.

show abstract

“…Some studies focused on how supplier and market conditions affect the buyers' optimal supplier development strategies. Plambeck and Taylor (2007), Wang, Xiao, and Yang (2014), Qi, Ahn, and Sinha (2015), and Friedl and Wagner (2016) showed that sharing a supplier has a negative effect on the supplier development investments of competing buyers. Worthmann, Proch, Braun, Schlüchtermann, and Pannek (2016) and Meisel and Glock (2018) recommended that buyers should have a long‐term perspective when it comes to direct supplier development programs.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investment Strategies in Supplier Development under Capacity and Demand Uncertainty

Golmohammadi

Hassini

2020

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study joint investment by a buyer and a supplier in improving the supplier's capacity using a Stackelberg game model. We analyze both buyer‐led and supplier‐led situations. We show that in both cases the players have an opportunistic behavior toward investment. In the buyer‐led game, when the buyer finds the supplier motivated enough to invest, he avoids any direct contribution on capacity improvement. In this situation, the buyer follows an order inflation strategy to increase the investment of the supplier. However, when the supplier does not show the desire to make enough investment, the buyer will engage in direct investment in the supplier's capacity. We showed that although the order inflation strategy increases the buyer's optimal order quantity, it does not coordinate the supply chain. Also, in the case that the buyer is forced to share the investment costs with the supplier, he relies less on order inflation strategy. In the supplier‐led game, we demonstrated that the buyer has no motivation to use order inflation strategy. In the case that the supplier is the only investor, the buyer‐led game results in a higher profit for the buyer, supplier, and the supply chain. Finally, we looked at two extensions where the supplier is penalized for unsatisfied demand and the buyer uses an order‐postponement strategy.

show abstract

Supplier Development Investments in a Triadic Setting

Cited by 21 publications

References 62 publications

Towards dynamic contract extension in supplier development

Towards dynamic contract extension in supplier development

A systematic literature review on sustainability-oriented supplier development

Investment Strategies in Supplier Development under Capacity and Demand Uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About