Journal of Industrial Management Perspective

Journal of Industrial Management Perspective

A Model for R&D Investment, Operational Decision-Making and Cooperative Contracts of a Supply Chain in Complex Product Systems: Game Theoretic Approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Jafar Gheidar-Kheljani 1
Kourosh Halat 2
1 Associate Professor, Management and Industrial Engineering Department, Malek-Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D, Industrial Engineering Department, Islamic Azad University, Tehran South Branch, Tehran, Iran.
10.48308/jimp.14.1.35
Abstract
Introduction: Despite numerous studies on supply chain cooperation, research shows that collaborations in chains with asymmetric power structures leading to R&D investment have received less attention. This study aims to develop a model for the supply chain of a complex product, which includes operational decisions for market supply and R&D investment. The objectives include determining the equilibrium point between R&D investment, product price, and production amount, and investigating the impact of R&D uncertainty, buyer fairness, and customer sensitivity to product technology level on supply chain performance.
Methods: The model considers the risk of uncertainty in R&D output and a demand function dependent on product technology level. Developed under an asymmetric power structure, the model incorporates various cooperation contracts, including R&D cost sharing, production cost sharing, and revenue sharing. Each scenario is presented as a nonlinear two-level programming model, created using the Nash bargaining game approach and optimized through simulation.
Results and discussion: The research indicates that uncertainty risk reduces supply chain profit, but cooperation contracts can improve performance compared to a decentralized structure. The revenue sharing contract generates higher profit for both the supply chain and the supplier. However, from the buyer’s perspective, when bargaining power is relatively low, R&D cost sharing and production cost sharing contracts are more beneficial. Increasing buyer fairness improves overall supply chain performance in revenue sharing and R&D cost sharing structures. Market sensitivity to product technology level enhances chain performance in production cost sharing and R&D cost sharing structures, but not all chain members benefit in revenue sharing structures. Market sensitivity to price and buyer fairness respectively decrease and increase supply chain performance.
Conclusions: Considering the significant costs of R&D and production in complex products, addressing these costs in supply chain cooperation contracts and sharing them among influential factors can enhance supply chain performance. The bargaining power between buyers and sellers affects the type of contract. Given the unknown nature of information for supply chain parties, further models can be developed.
Keywords
Complex Product
Supply Chain
R&D Investment
Uncertainty
Cooperative Contracts
Nash Bargaining Game
Simulation
Subjects
  1. Banerjee, T., & Siebert, R. (2017). Dynamic impact of uncertainty on R&D cooperation formation and research performance: Evidence from the bio-pharmaceutical industry. Reserch Policy, 46(7), 1255–1271. DOI:https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/ j.respol.2017.05.009
  2. Bhaskaran, S. R., & Krishnan, V. (2009). Effort, revenue, and cost sharing mechanisms for collaborative new product development. Management Science, 55(7), 1152–1169. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1010
  3. Chen, X., Wang, X., & Zhou, M. (2019). Firms’ green R&D cooperation behaviour in a supply chain: Technological spillover, power and coordination. J. Prod. Econ., 218, 118–134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.033
  4. Colson, B., Marcotte, P., & Savard, G. (2007). An overview of bilevel optimization. Annals of Operations Research, 153(1), 235–256. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0176-2
  5. Duong & Chong, J. (2020). Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 11, 3488–3507. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543. 2020. 1712491
  6. Guan, Z., Ye, T., & Yin, R. (2020). Channel coordination under Nash bargaining fairness concerns in differential games of goodwill accumulation. European Journal of Opereational Research, 285(3), 916–930. DOI:https://doi.org /10.1016/j.ejor.2020.02.028
  7. Leider, S., & Lovejoy, W. S. (2016). Bargaining in Supply Chains. Management Science, 1–20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2273
  8. Li C., Zhou Y. W., Cao B., and Zhong Y. (2022). Equilibrium analysis and coalition stability in R&D cooperation with spillovers. IISE Transactions, 54(4), 348–362. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/24725854.2021.1947545
  9. Li, Q., Xiao, T., & Qiu, Y. (2018). Price and carbon emission reduction decisions and revenue-sharing contract considering fairness concerns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 303–314. DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.032
  10. Liu, G., Wang, H., & Shao, X. (2022). Technology investments into a supplier with upstream entry. European Journal of Operational Research. 14(15). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.05.054
  11. Meng W., Ma M., Li Y., and Huang B. (2022). New energy vehicle R&D strategy with supplier capital constraints under China’s dual credit policy. Energy Policy, 168, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113099
  12. Mu M., Li Q., Dai G., Li K., Zhang F., and Zhang. (2022). Government Subsidy Policy and Online Selling Strategy in a Platform Supply Chain with Green R&D and DDM Activities. Sustainability, 14(15), DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159658
  13. Nooraei Baydokht R., Hamedi M., and Asgharizadeh E. (2018). A Model for R&D Project Portfolio Selection and Development in LCSI Enterprises. The Journal of Industrial Managemane Perspective. 8(3). https://jimp.sbu.ac.ir/article_87164.html. (In persian).
  14. Noordhoek M., Dullaert W., Lai D. S W, and Leeuw S. D. (2018). A simulation – optimization approach for a service-constrained multi-echelon distribution network. Transportation Research, Part E 114, 292–311. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.02.006
  15. Roberta Pereira C., Christopher M., and Lago Da Silva A. (2014). Achieving supply chain resilience: the role of procurement. Supply Chain Management. 19, 626–642. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2013-0346
  16. Pun, H. & Ghamat, S. (2016). The value of partnership under competition: When competitors may be R&D joint-venture and supply-chain partners for a critical component. International Journal of Production Economics, 177, 1–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.018
  17. Talbi, E. (2013). A Taxonomy of Metaheuristics for Bi-level. In Metaheuristics for Bi-level Optimization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37838-6
  18. Taleizadeh A. A. and Mohammadi R. (2015). Optimizing the Selling Price and Advertising Cost in a Two Layers Supply Chain Including a Manufacturer and Two Retailers. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective. 5(2). https://jimp.sbu.ac.ir/article_87259.html. (In persian).
  19. Tekin, E., & Sabuncuoglu, I. (2004). Simulation optimization: A comprehensive review on theory and applications. IIE Transaction. (Institute Ind. Eng., 36(11), 1067–1081. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170490500654
  20. Torabi S. A. and Tafakkori K. (2022). Designing an Applied Approach to Support Supplier Development Decisions in Buyer- Supplier Relationship Management. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 12(46), 9–36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.52547/JIMP.12.2.9. (In persian).
  21. Wang, L., Xiao, T., & Lu, Q. (2018). The Role of Fairness in Cooperative Supply Chain. International Journal of Applied Mathematics, 48(3).
  22. Xie, L., Hou, P., & Han, H. (2021). Implications of government subsidy on the vaccine product R&D when the buyer is risk averse. Transportation Research Part E. 146, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102220
  23. Yan, F., Chen, H., & Zhang Z. (2022). Price and cooperation decisions in a cooperative R&D supply chain with different licensing models. Kybernetes. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2021-1347
  24. Yao, D. Q., Yue, X., & Liu, J. (2008). Vertical cost information sharing in a supply chain with value-adding retailers. Omega, 36(5), 838–851. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.04.003
  25. Yenipazarli A. (2016). Managing new and remanufactured products to mitigate environmental damage under emissions regulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(1), 117–130. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.020
  26. Yu, X., Lan Y., & Zhao Y. (2021). Strategic green technology innovation in a two-stage alliance: Vertical collaboration or co-development? Omega (United Kingdom), 98, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.omega.2019.102116
  27. Zheng, Y., Liu, S., Zhao, Y., Han, C., Zhou, Q., Wang, L., Colace, F., Alhalabi, W., & Alsharif, H. (2023). Game analysis on general purpose technology cooperative R&D with fairness concern from the technology chain
  28. Zhou, J., Zhu, J., & Wang, H. (2021). Dual-sourcing and technology cooperation strategies for developing competitive supplier in complex product systems. Computer & Industrial Engineering, 159(29),
  29. Zhu, K. & Weyant, J. P. (2003). Strategic Decisions of New Technology Adoption under Asymmetric Information: A Game-Theoretic Model. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 643–675. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02460.x