Outline of coordination schemes
| Contracts | Producer | Retailer | Supply chain | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advantage | Disadvantage | Advantage | Disadvantage | Advantage | Disadvantage | |
| Case 0 (No coordination) | Facing lowest risk | Low order quantity from the retailer side | High profit margin | High risk | Virtually, there is no overall advantage supply chain (SC) | Expected demand for the product decreases |
| Free to set the wholesale price of the product to maximize own profit | High inventory carrying cost | Free to set a retail price to maximize own profit | Low product demand due to high price | Low supply chain profit | ||
| High profit margin | High product cost | |||||
| Case 1 (Whole sale price contracts) | Low risk | Low or zero profit | Capture maximum profit share of the SC | High risk | Profit increases | Both members of SC did not benefit equally, so the SC was not coordinated |
| High order quantity from the retailer | Can able to order a greater number of units of the product | Inventory carrying cost increases | Efficiency of the SC increases | |||
| Double marginalization reduces | ||||||
| Case 2 (Buy back contracts) | Profit increases | Risk sharing increase | Reduces risk of overstocking | Inventory carrying cost increases | Profit increases/overall cost reduction | Win-win situation is not achievable |
| Order quantity increases | Increases salvage value per unit in the form of payback | Product availability increases | May increase the retail price | |||
| Increases the level of product availability | Better coordination between producer and retailer | |||||
| Case 3 (Revenue Sharing Contracts) | Profit increases | Problem to decide the percentage of profit sharing | Lower wholesale price | Inventory carrying cost increases | Profit increases/overall cost reduction | Win-win situation is not achievable |
| Encourages retailer to order larger quantities | Applicability is limited to high value products | Profit increases | Due to the high cost of the product order quantity is less | Better coordination between producer and retailer | ||
| More space for negotiation | Increases the level of product availability | |||||
| Lower risk sharing | ||||||
| Case 4 (Markdown money policy) | Significant percentage increase in earnings | Require more careful deliberation | Net income increases | Inventory carrying cost increases | Profit increases/overall cost reduction | More complicated than wholesale price contract |
| Encourages retailer to order larger quantities | Increases the degree of product accessibility | High risk sharing | Simplicity and ease of implementation | |||
| Can use preannounce d markdown pricing to sell finite amount of product | Significant effect on pushing order quantity up | |||||
| Case 5 (Sale rebate contracts) | Net income increases | Due to rebate net income may decrease | Ordering cost reduces | To avoid significant markdown under stocking may be set up | Better marketing of merchandise | Win-win situation is not manageable |
| This reduces the risk factors | Net income increases | The high sales effort to receive a sales rebate | Enhance the supply chain performance | |||
| Encourages retailer to order larger quantities | Increases the level of product availability | |||||
| Push retailer to sell a greater number of units | Lower risk | |||||
| Contracts | Producer | Retailer | Supply chain | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advantage | Disadvantage | Advantage | Disadvantage | Advantage | Disadvantage | |
| Case 0 (No coordination) | Facing lowest risk | Low order quantity from the retailer side | High profit margin | High risk | Virtually, there is no overall advantage supply chain (SC) | Expected demand for the product decreases |
| Free to set the wholesale price of the product to maximize own profit | High inventory carrying cost | Free to set a retail price to maximize own profit | Low product demand due to high price | Low supply chain profit | ||
| High profit margin | High product cost | |||||
| Case 1 (Whole sale price contracts) | Low risk | Low or zero profit | Capture maximum profit share of the SC | High risk | Profit increases | Both members of SC did not benefit equally, so the SC was not coordinated |
| High order quantity from the retailer | Can able to order a greater number of units of the product | Inventory carrying cost increases | Efficiency of the SC increases | |||
| Double marginalization reduces | ||||||
| Case 2 (Buy back contracts) | Profit increases | Risk sharing increase | Reduces risk of overstocking | Inventory carrying cost increases | Profit increases/overall cost reduction | Win-win situation is not achievable |
| Order quantity increases | Increases salvage value per unit in the form of payback | Product availability increases | May increase the retail price | |||
| Increases the level of product availability | Better coordination between producer and retailer | |||||
| Case 3 (Revenue Sharing Contracts) | Profit increases | Problem to decide the percentage of profit sharing | Lower wholesale price | Inventory carrying cost increases | Profit increases/overall cost reduction | Win-win situation is not achievable |
| Encourages retailer to order larger quantities | Applicability is limited to high value products | Profit increases | Due to the high cost of the product order quantity is less | Better coordination between producer and retailer | ||
| More space for negotiation | Increases the level of product availability | |||||
| Lower risk sharing | ||||||
| Case 4 (Markdown money policy) | Significant percentage increase in earnings | Require more careful deliberation | Net income increases | Inventory carrying cost increases | Profit increases/overall cost reduction | More complicated than wholesale price contract |
| Encourages retailer to order larger quantities | Increases the degree of product accessibility | High risk sharing | Simplicity and ease of implementation | |||
| Can use preannounce d markdown pricing to sell finite amount of product | Significant effect on pushing order quantity up | |||||
| Case 5 (Sale rebate contracts) | Net income increases | Due to rebate net income may decrease | Ordering cost reduces | To avoid significant markdown under stocking may be set up | Better marketing of merchandise | Win-win situation is not manageable |
| This reduces the risk factors | Net income increases | The high sales effort to receive a sales rebate | Enhance the supply chain performance | |||
| Encourages retailer to order larger quantities | Increases the level of product availability | |||||
| Push retailer to sell a greater number of units | Lower risk | |||||
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.