Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Sequential Procurement with Contractual and Experimental Learning

Published: 01 April 2022 Publication History

Abstract

We study the design of sequential procurement strategies that integrate stochastic and strategic information. We consider a buyer who repeatedly demands a certain good and is unable to commit to long-term contracts. In each time period, the buyer makes a price offer to a seller who has private, persistent information regarding his or her cost and quality of provision. If the offer is accepted, the seller provides the good with a stochastic quality that is not contractible. Therefore, the buyer can learn from the (strategic) acceptance decisions taken by the seller and from evaluations of the (stochastic) quality delivered whenever a purchase occurs. Hence, the buyer not only faces a tradeoff between exploration and exploitation but also needs to decide how to explore: by facilitating quality experimentation or by strategically separating seller types. We characterize the perfect Bayesian equilibria of this sequential interaction and show that the buyer’s equilibrium strategy consists of a dynamic sequence of thresholds on his or her belief on the seller’s type. When only one seller type is more efficient than the buyer’s outside option, the buyer uses one form of information: either strategic or stochastic. If both seller types are more efficient, then the buyer uses both forms of information; at the early stages of the interaction, the buyer offers high prices that incentivize trade and quality experimentation, and after gathering enough information, the buyer may advance to offering low prices that partially separate seller types. We identify the effect strategic sellers have on the buyer’s optimal strategy relative to more traditional learning dynamics and establish that, paradoxically, when sellers are strategic, the ability to observe delivered quality is not always beneficial for the buyer.
This paper was accepted by Victor Martínez-de-Albéniz, operations management.

References

[1]
Acharya A, Ortner J (2017) Progressive learning. Econometrica 85(6):1965–1990.
[2]
Armstrong M, Rochet J-C (1999) Multi-dimensional screening: A user’s guide. Eur. Econom. Rev. 43(4-6):959–979.
[3]
Bergemann D, Valimaki J (1996) Learning and strategic pricing. Econometrica 64(5):1125–1149.
[4]
Berry DA, Fristedt B (1985) Bandit Problems: Sequential Allocation of Experiments (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability) (Chapman and Hall, London).
[5]
Besbes O, Muharremoglu A (2013) On implications of demand censoring in the newsvendor problem. Management Sci. 59(6):1407–1424.
[6]
Besbes O, Chaneton J, Moallemi CC (2017) The exploration-exploitation trade-off in the newsvendor problem. Columbia Business School Research Paper, 14-61.
[7]
Bondareva M, Pinker E (2019) Dynamic relational contracts for quality enforcement in supply chains. Management Sci. 65(3):1305–1321.
[8]
Caro F, Gallien J (2007) Dynamic Assortment with Demand Learning for Seasonal Consumer Goods. Management Sci. 53(2):276–292.
[9]
Chaturvedi A, Martínez-de Albéniz V (2011) Optimal procurement design in the presence of supply risk. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 13(2):227–243.
[10]
Che Y-K (1993) Design competition through multidimensional auctions. RAND J. Econom. 24(4):668–680.
[11]
den Boer AV, Zwart B (2014) Simultaneously Learning and Optimizing Using Controlled Variance Pricing. Management Sci. 60(3):770–783.
[12]
Devanur NR, Peres Y, Sivan B (2019) Perfect bayesian equilibria in repeated sales. Games Econom. Behav. 118:570–588.
[13]
Edelman Intelligence (2017) Freelancing in America: 2017. Technical report. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/upwork/freelancing-in-america-2017.
[14]
Engelbrecht-Wiggans R, Haruvy E, Katok E (2007) A comparison of buyer-determined and price-based multiattribute mechanisms. Marketing Sci. 26(5):629–641.
[15]
Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1991) Game Theory (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
[16]
Harrison JM, Keskin NB, Zeevi A (2012) Bayesian dynamic pricing policies: Learning and earning under a binary prior distribution. Management Sci. 58(3):570–586.
[17]
Hart OD, Tirole J (1988) Contract Renegotiation and Coasian Dynamics. Rev. Econom. Stud. 55(4):509–540.
[18]
Kakade S, Lobel I, Nazerzadeh H (2013) Optimal Dynamic Mechanism Design and the Virtual-Pivot Mechanism. Oper. Res. 61(4):837–854.
[19]
Kanoria Y, Saban D (2021) Facilitating the search for partners on matching platforms: restricting agent actions. Management Sci. Forthcoming.
[20]
Kessler A (1998) The value of ignorance. RAND J. Econom. 29(2):339–354.
[21]
Laffont JJ, Tirole J (1990) Adverse selection and renegotiation in procurement. Rev. Econom. Stud. 57(4):597–625.
[22]
Laffont JJ, Tirole J (1993) A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
[23]
Lattimore T (2016) Regret analysis of the finite-horizon gittins index strategy for multi-armed bandits. Conf. on Learn. Theory, 1214–1245.
[24]
Levin J (2003) Relational incentive contracts. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):835–857.
[25]
Lobel I, Paes Leme R (2019) Dynamic contracting under positive commitment. Proc. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2101–2108.
[26]
Myerson RB (1981) Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. 6(1):58–73.
[27]
Ortner J (2017) Durable goods monopoly with stochastic costs. Theor. Econom. 12(2):817–861.
[28]
Ostrovsky M, Schwarz M (2010) Information disclosure and unraveling in matching markets. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 2:34–63.
[29]
Papanastasiou Y (2020) Newsvendor decisions with two-sided learning. Management Sci. 66(11):5408–5426.
[30]
Parkes DC, Kalagnanam J (2005) Models for iterative multiattribute procurement auctions. Management Sci. 51(3):435–451.
[31]
Pavan A, Segal I, Toikka J (2014) Dynamic Mechanism Design: A Myersonian Approach. Econometrica 82(2):601–653.
[32]
Roesler AK, Szentes B (2017) Buyer-optimal learning and monopoly pricing. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(7):2072–2080.
[33]
Sauré D, Zeevi A (2013) Optimal dynamic assortment planning with demand learning. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 15(3):387–404.
[34]
Schmidt KM (1993) Commitment through incomplete information in a simple repeated bargaining game. J. Econom. Theory. 60(1):114–139.
[35]
Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Quart. J. Econom. 87(3):355–374.
[36]
Taylor TA, Plambeck EL (2007a) Simple relational contracts to motivate capacity investment: Price only vs. price and quantity. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 9(1):94–113.
[37]
Taylor TA, Plambeck EL (2007b) Supply chain relationships and contracts: The impact of repeated interaction on capacity investment and procurement. Management Sci. 53(10):1577–1593.
[38]
Tomlin B (2009) Impact of supply learning when suppliers are unreliable. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 11(2):192–209.
[39]
Wan Z, Beil DR (2009) RFQ auctions with supplier qualification screening. Oper. Res. 57(4):934–949.
[40]
Yang ZB, Aydin G, Babich V, Beil DR (2012) Using a dual-sourcing option in the presence of asymmetric information about supplier reliability: competition vs. diversification. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 14(2):202–217.
[41]
Zhang H, Nagarajan M, Sošić G (2010) Dynamic supplier contracts under asymmetric inventory information. Oper. Res. 58(5):1380–1397.

Index Terms

  1. Sequential Procurement with Contractual and Experimental Learning
            Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

            Information & Contributors

            Information

            Published In

            cover image Management Science
            Management Science  Volume 68, Issue 4
            April 2022
            800 pages
            ISSN:0025-1909
            DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2022.68.issue-4
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Publisher

            INFORMS

            Linthicum, MD, United States

            Publication History

            Published: 01 April 2022
            Accepted: 10 December 2020
            Received: 06 June 2019

            Author Tags

            1. incomplete information
            2. quality experimentation
            3. learning
            4. dynamic contracts
            5. no commitment
            6. dynamic games
            7. procurement
            8. perfect Bayesian equilibrium
            9. Gittins index

            Qualifiers

            • Research-article

            Contributors

            Other Metrics

            Bibliometrics & Citations

            Bibliometrics

            Article Metrics

            • 0
              Total Citations
            • 0
              Total Downloads
            • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
            Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

            Other Metrics

            Citations

            View Options

            View options

            Get Access

            Login options

            Media

            Figures

            Other

            Tables

            Share

            Share

            Share this Publication link

            Share on social media