基於服務邏輯下的供應契約價值分析

Abstract

本研究旨在運用service-dominated logic以拋棄當前供應契約協同方法來開發一種更全面的方法來評估供應契約給予零售商的價值，重點關注三種流行的契約類型：wholesale pricing、buy-back及revenue-sharing，並分別以靜態模型與動態模擬進行雙佔市場中的價值分析。 在service-dominated logic下，價值的提取並非僅在垂直結構內提取，零售商、供應商、競爭對手及最終顧客形成了一價值網絡，價值的衡量應當擴及整個價值網絡，因此每個合同的靈活性是重要標準，而協同空間的大小反應了合同的靈活性，零售商應選擇有較大協同空間的契約類型，如此一來零售商有更多的靈活性去面對雙佔的競爭市場且可有更多機會去創造價值。 服務常被預期可有效提高零售商在競爭市場的競爭能力並可降低需求的不確定性，新服務可能影響需求偏移、需求偏移，抑或兩者兼之，當新服務投入後需求發生變化，零售商需在時間與資訊價值間權衡，並盡快做出適應性決策，而新服務的價值即藉由兩個動態適應性決策來證實，分別是一次補退貨決策及服務強度的調整。先前研究顯示，服務已被評估為有效可提高零售業者能力的一種策略，因此契約的協同已不再是契約設計的重點，相反的，契約的彈性及靈活性才是契約的價值。 當retailer進行一系列的賦能策略，無論協同與否供應鏈的效率都會提升，因此協同不應成為契約設計的硬性條件，契約設計應當考慮到訂購時的彈性與對整個價值網絡產生的價值。

Supply contracts are a primary mechanism for supply chain integration. Past studies have focused on achieving decision coordination. Comparing contract types in order to shed light on contract select is still an open research issue. In this paper, the principle of service-dominant logic is applied to evaluate and compare three major supply contracts. We regard a supply contract as a service that is offered by the supplier and utilized by firm 2 to enhance her capability. Following S-D logic, the value of a service is determined not by its provider but by its customer in her use of the service. Thus, the value of a supply contract does not reside in the internals of the vertical structure. On the contrary, the value should be evaluated on how the contract improves the competitiveness of firm 2 in the duopoly. Our model of value evaluation comprises two key components: (1) evaluating coordinative space and (2) utilizing the operant resource and creating strategic benefits. Retailers, suppliers, competitors and end customers form a value network. The measurement of value should be extended to the entire value network, so the flexibility of contract is an important criterion, and the size of the coordinative space reflects the flexibility of the contract. Retailers should choose the type of contract with greater space, so that retailers have more flexibility to face the competitive market, and there are more opportunities to create value. We consider multiple candidates of new services. A new service might affect either θ or the demand uncertainty, or both. The value of new services is demonstrated with two dynamic actions: one final replenishment and adjusting the level of service intensity. Previous studies have shown that services have been evaluated as effective strategies to increase the ability of retailers, so coordination is no longer the focus of contract design. Conversely, the flexibility of contracts is the value of contracts. With the empowerment, the performance of supply chain will be improved, whether coordination or not. Coordination should not be the hard requirement for contract design.