Should a Stackelberg-Dominated Supply-Chain Player Help Her Dominant Opponent to Obtain Better System-Parameter Knowledge?

  • Jian-Cai Wang
  • Amy Hing Ling Lau
  • Hon-Shiang LauEmail author
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


A manufacturer (Manu) supplies a product to a retailer (Reta). The uncertain knowledge of the dominant player (which may be either Manu or Reta) about a system parameter is represented by a subjective probability distribution. At the time when the dominant player is designing the supply or purchase contract, should the dominated player help the dominant player to improve his imperfect system-parameter knowledge? Can the dominant player induce the dominated player to share her superior knowledge by using (or by threatening to use) sophisticated “channel-coordinating” contract formats? It is likely that one would surmise from the literature that the answer to both questions is “yes”. However, this chapter shows that very often the correct answer is “no”. Specifically, for the basic cost and market parameters, we show that the dominated player is (1) always motivated to mislead the dominant player to have a biased mean value for his subjective distribution; and (2) motivated, over a wide range of likely conditions, to increase the variance of the dominant player’s subjective distribution. Moreover, the dominant player cannot narrow this range of confusion-encouraging conditions by using a more sophisticated contract format such as a “menu of contracts.” Our results highlight the need to develop arrangements that can actually motivate a dominated player to share knowledge honestly.


Supply chain contract design Information sharing 


  1. Cachon GP (2003) Supply chain coordination with contract. In: de Kok AG, Graves C (eds) Handbooks in operations research and management science, vol 11, Supply chain management: design, coordination, and operation. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen FR (2003) Information sharing and supply chain coordination. In: de Kok AG, Graves C (eds) Handbooks in operations research and management science, vol 11, Supply chain management: design, coordination, and Operation. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Corbett CJ, Zhou D, Tang CS (2004) Designing supply contracts: contract type and information asymmetry. Manage Sci 50:550–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ha AY (2001) Supplier-buyer contracting: asymmetric cost information and cutoff level policy for buyer participation. Nav Res Log 48:41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lau AHL, Lau HS (2005) Some two-echelon supply-chain games: improving from deterministic-symmetric-information to stochastic-asymmetric-information. Eur J Oper Res 161:203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lee HL, So KC, Tang CS (2000) The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Manage Sci 46:626–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Li L (2002) Information sharing in a supply chain with horizontal competition. Manage Sci 48:1196–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu XC, Çetinkaya S (2009) Designing supply contracts in supplier vs buyer-driven channels: the impact of leadership, contract flexibility and information asymmetry. IIE Trans 41:687–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu H, Özer Ö (2010) Channel incentives in sharing new product demand information and robust contracts. Eur J Oper Res 207(3):1341–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Myerson RB (1979) Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Özer Ö, Wei W (2006) Strategic commitments for an optimal capacity decision under asymmetric forecast information. Manage Sci 52:1238–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Taylor TA, Xiao W (2010) Does a manufacturer benefit from selling to a better-forecasting retailer? Manage Sci 56(9):1584–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tirole J (1988) The theory of industrial organization. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang JC, Lau HS, Lau AHL (2008) How a retailer should manipulate a dominant manufacturere’s perception of market and cost parameters. Int J Prod Econ 116:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang JC, Lau HS, Lau AHL (2009) When should a manufacturer share truthful manufacturing cost information with a dominant retailer? Eur J Oper Res 197:266–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wu YN, Cheng TCE (2008) The impact of information sharing in a multiple-echelon supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 115:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jian-Cai Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy Hing Ling Lau
    • 1
  • Hon-Shiang Lau
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of BusinessUniversity of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong
  2. 2.School of Management and EconomicsBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of Management SciencesCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations