zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Examples
Geometry Search for the term Geometry in any field. Queries are case-independent.
Funct* Wildcard queries are specified by * (e.g. functions, functorial, etc.). Otherwise the search is exact.
"Topological group" Phrases (multi-words) should be set in "straight quotation marks".
au: Bourbaki & ti: Algebra Search for author and title. The and-operator & is default and can be omitted.
Chebyshev | Tschebyscheff The or-operator | allows to search for Chebyshev or Tschebyscheff.
"Quasi* map*" py: 1989 The resulting documents have publication year 1989.
so: Eur* J* Mat* Soc* cc: 14 Search for publications in a particular source with a Mathematics Subject Classification code (cc) in 14.
"Partial diff* eq*" ! elliptic The not-operator ! eliminates all results containing the word elliptic.
dt: b & au: Hilbert The document type is set to books; alternatively: j for journal articles, a for book articles.
py: 2000-2015 cc: (94A | 11T) Number ranges are accepted. Terms can be grouped within (parentheses).
la: chinese Find documents in a given language. ISO 639-1 language codes can also be used.

Operators
a & b logic and
a | b logic or
!ab logic not
abc* right wildcard
"ab c" phrase
(ab c) parentheses
Fields
any anywhere an internal document identifier
au author, editor ai internal author identifier
ti title la language
so source ab review, abstract
py publication year rv reviewer
cc MSC code ut uncontrolled term
dt document type (j: journal article; b: book; a: book article)
Competition and cooperation in decentralized push and pull assembly systems. (English) Zbl 1232.90182
Summary: We study a decentralized assembly system consisting of a single assembler who buys complementary components from independent suppliers under two contracting schemes: push and pull. In both schemes, the component suppliers are allowed to freely form coalitions (or alliances) among themselves to better coordinate their pricing or production decisions. We show that the sole driver of the inefficiency in a push system, which is due to horizontal decentralization of suppliers, is the number of alliances that were formed. Specifically, it is shown that in a push system, the assembler’s profit, the total profit of all suppliers and the consumers’ surplus are all decreasing in the number of coalitions, and are thus maximized when the grand coalition is formed. We further carry out a stability analysis of coalition structures to verify to what extent suppliers can reduce or eliminate the inefficiency due to their decentralization by forming alliances. We show that in a push system with more than two suppliers and a power demand distribution, myopic suppliers would act independently, resulting with a least efficient channel, which makes all channel members, as well as the end consumers, worse off. On the other hand, we prove that farsighted suppliers would form the grand coalition and thus be able to completely eliminate the inefficiency stemming from their decentralization. Finally, it is shown that, in contrast to a push system, in a pull system the suppliers can easily coordinate their production quantities to eliminate the inefficiency due to their decentralization.

MSC:
90B30Production models
WorldCat.org
Full Text: DOI