How to negotiate with dominant suppliers? A game-theory perspective from the industry

  1. Mediavilla Guisasola, Miguel 1
  2. Mendibil, Kepa 2
  3. Rivera, Olga 3
  1. 1 Deusto Business School University of Deusto San Sebastian Department of Mechanics and Industrial Production University of Mondragon Mondragon
  2. 2 Centre for Advanced Management Education University of Stirling Stirling-Scotland
  3. 3 Deusto Business School University of Deusto San Sebastian
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

ISSN: 1132-175X

Año de publicación: 2019

Número: 67

Páginas: 37-45

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.37610/DYO.V0I67.542 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

Resumen

The negotiation with dominant suppliers usually drives to locked-in situation in which buyers have no choice but to accept the given conditions. Commonly found in the industry, there is a need to provide new insights to practitioners to leverage competition. Specifically, researchers apply and test concepts from Game-Theory in a real supplier selection process in the port cranes industry. Our research shows that existing literature in Game-Theory is mostly descriptive, very focused on auctions and has still limitations regarding the design, application and impact of these supplier selection concepts. Therefore, it is presented one of the first field studies presenting the application of game-trees and backward induction (tools from Game-Theory) for the design and execution of a real bargaining, including the hows and whys of our decisions. The results suggest that using Game-Theory can enhance the chance to have better negotiation outcomes by predicting the possible outcomes and prescribing the best fitting game to be design in order to increase competition among suppliers.Keywords: Purchasing; Game-theory; negotiation; supplier selection

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Börgers, Tilman. 2015. An Introduction to the Theory of Mechanism Design Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Chaturvedi, Aadhaar, Damian R. Beil, and Victor Martínez-de-Albéniz. 2014. "Split-Award Auctions for Supplier Retention." Management Science 60 (7): 1719-1737.
  • Coghlan, David and Teresa Brannick. 2014. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization Sage.
  • Coughlan, Paul and David Coghlan. 2002. "Action Research for Operations Management." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22 (2): 220-240.
  • Dixit, Avinash K. and Susan Skeath. 1999. Games of Strategy. New York: Norton.
  • Dutta, Prajit K. 1999. Strategies and Games: Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
  • Eden, Colin and Chris Huxham. 1996. "Action Research for Management Research." British Journal of Management 7 (1): 75-86.
  • Gelderman, Cees J. and Arjan J. Van Weele. 2003. "Handling Measurement Issues and Strategic Directions in Kraljic's Purchasing Portfolio Model." Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 9 (5): 207-216.
  • Gelderman, Cees J. and Arjan J. Van Weele. 2005. "Purchasing Portfolio Models: A Critique and Update." Journal of Supply Chain Management 41 (3): 19-28
  • Handfield, Robert B. and Steven A. Melnyk. 1998. "The Scientific Theory-Building Process: A Primer using the Case of TQM." Journal of Operations Management 16 (4): 321-339.
  • Hawkins, Timothy G., Wesley S. Randall, and C. Michael Wittmann. 2009. "An Empirical Examination of Reverse Auction Appropriateness in B2B Source Selection." Journal of Supply Chain Management 45 (4): 55-71.
  • Hsin Chang, Hsin, Yao-Chuan Tsai, and Che-Hao Hsu. 2013. "E-Procurement and Supply Chain Performance." Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18 (1): 34-51.
  • Huang, Samuel H. and Harshal Keskar. 2007. "Comprehensive and Configurable Metrics for Supplier Selection." International Journal of Production Economics 105 (2): 510-523.
  • Kasanen, Eero, Kari Lukka, and Arto Siitonen. 1993. "The Constructive Approach in Management Accounting Research." Journal of Management Accounting Research 5: 243.
  • Kraljic, Peter. 1983. "Purchasing must Become Supply Management." Harvard Business Review 61: 109.
  • Krause, Daniel R., Mark Pagell, and Sime Curkovic. 2001. "Toward a Measure of Competitive Priorities for Purchasing." Journal of Operations Management 19 (4): 497-512.
  • Maestrini, Vieri, Davide Luzzini, Abraham B. Rami Shani, and Filomena Canterino. 2016. "The Action Research Cycle Reloaded: Conducting Action Research Across Buyer-Supplier Relationships." Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 22 (4): 289-298.
  • Mithas, Sunil and Joni Jones. 2007. "Do Auction Parameters Affect Buyer Surplus in E-Auctions for Procurement?" Production and Operations Management Vol. 16 (4): 455-470.
  • Monczka, Robert, Robert Handfield, Larry Giunipero, and James Patterson. 2008. Purchasing and Supply Chain Management Cengage Learning.
  • Osborne, Martin J. and Ariel Rubinstein. 1994. A Course in Game Theory. Boston, MA: MIT press.
  • Perry, Chad and Ortun Zuber-Skerritt. 1992. "Action Research in Graduate Management Research Programs." Higher Education 23 (2): 195-208.
  • Schoenherr, Tobias, Sachin B. Modi, W. C. Benton, Craig R. Carter, Thomas Y. Choi, Paul D. Larson, Michiel R. Leenders, Vincent A. Mabert, Ram Narasimhan, and Stephan M. Wagner. 2012. "Research Opportunities in Purchasing and Supply Management." International Journal of Production Research 50 (16): 4556-4579.
  • Spina, Gianluca, Federico Caniato, Davide Luzzini, and Stefano Ronchi. 2013. "Past, Present and Future Trends of Purchasing and Supply Management: An Extensive Literature Review." Industrial Marketing Management 42 (8): 1202-1212.
  • Susman, Gerald I. and Roger D. Evered. 1978. "An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research." Administrative Science Quarterly: 582-603.
  • Tassabehji, Rana. 2010. "Understanding E-Auction use by Procurement Professionals: Motivation, Attitudes and Perceptions." Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15 (6): 425-437.
  • Van Weele, Arjan J. 2009. Purchasing and Supply Chain Management: Analysis, Strategy, Planning and Practice Cengage Learning EMEA.
  • Vignali, Claudio and Mike Zundel. 2003. "The Marketing Management Process and Heuristic Devices: An Action Research Investigation." Marketing Intelligence & Planning 21 (4): 205-219.
  • Webster, Jane and Richard T. Watson. 2002. "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review." MIS Quarterly: xxiii.
  • Weele, Arjan J. and Erik M. Raaij. 2014. "The Future of Purchasing and Supply Management Research: About Relevance and Rigor." Journal of Supply Chain Management 50 (1): 56-72.
  • Westbrook, Roy. 1995. "Action Research: A New Paradigm for Research in Production and Operations Management." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 15 (12): 6-20.
  • Wyld, David C. 2011. "Current Research on Reverse Auctions: Part I-Understanding the Nature of Reverse Auctions and the Price and Process Savings Associated with Competitive Bidding." International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains 2: 1-15.
  • Yigin, I. H., H. Taşkin, I. H. Cedİmoglu, and B. Topal. 2007. "Supplier Selection: An Expert System Approach." Production Planning & Control 18 (1): 16-24.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet