IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/rmswpp/1-4-1002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Linear Programming in a Business-to-Business Auction Mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • Milind Dawande

    (none)

  • R. Chandrashekaran

    (none)

  • J. Kalagnanam

    (none)

Abstract

Business to business interactions are largely centered around contracts for procurement or for distribution. Negotiations and sealed bid tendering are the most common techniques used for price discovery and generating the terms and conditions for contracts. Sealed bid tenders collect bids (that is private information between the two companies) and then pick a winning bid/s from among the submitted bids. The outcome of such interactions can be analyzed based on the theory of sealed bid auctions and have been studied extensively [7]. In contrast, negotiations tend to be more dynamic where a buyer (supplier) might be interacting with several suppliers (buyers) simultaneously and the contractual terms being negotiated with one supplier might directly impact the negotiations with another.An approach that is often used for this setting is to design an interactive mechanism where based on a "market signal" such as price for each item, the agents can propose bids based on a decentralized private cost model. A general setting for decentralized allocation is one where there are multiple agents with a utility function for the different resources and the allocation problem is to distribute the resources in an optimal way. A key difference from classical optimization is that the utility functions of the agents are private information and are not explicitly known to the decision maker. The key requirements for such a design to be practical are: (i) convergence to an "equilibrium solution" in a finite number of steps, and (ii) the "equilibrium solution" is optimal for each of the agents, given the market signal. One approach for implementing such mechanisms is the use of primal-dual approaches where the resource allocation problem is formulated as a linear program and the dual prices are used as market signals |2, 3, 8, 1, 4, 6|. Each agent can then use the dual price vector to propose a profit maximizing bid, for the next round, based on her private cost model. Here, the assumption is that the agents attempt to maximize their profits in each round. This assumption is referred to as the myopic best response |5|. In a procurement setting with a single buyer and multiple suppliers, the buyer uses a linear program to allocate her demand by choosing a set of cost minimizing bids and then use the dual price variables to signal the suppliers. In order to guarantee convergence a large enough price decrement is used on all non-zero dual prices in each iteration.In this paper we explore an alternate design where, the market signal provided to each supplier is based on the current cost of procurement for the buyer. Each supplier is then required to submit new bid proposals that reduce the procurement cost (assuming other suppliers keep their bids unchanged) by some large enough decrement d > a. We show that, for each supplier, generating a profit maximizing bid that decreases the procurement cost for the buyer by at least d can be done in polynomial time. This implies that in designs where the bids are not common knowledge, each supplier and the buyer can engage in an "algorithmic conversation" to identify such proposals in a polynomial number of steps. In addition, we show that such a mechanism converges to an "equilibrium solution" where all the suppliers are at their profit maximizing solution given the cost and the required decrement d. At the heart of this design lies a fundamental sensitivity analysis problem of linear programming - given a linear program and its optimal solution, identify the set of new columns such that any one of these columns when introduced in the linear program reduces the optimum solution by at least d.

Suggested Citation

  • Milind Dawande & R. Chandrashekaran & J. Kalagnanam, 2002. "Using Linear Programming in a Business-to-Business Auction Mechanism," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1002, Berkeley Electronic Press.
  • Handle: RePEc:bep:rmswpp:1-4-1002
    Note: oai:bepress:roms-1002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=roms
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-286, July.
    2. Ausubel Lawrence M & Milgrom Paul R, 2002. "Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-44, August.
    3. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Ostroy, Joseph M., 2002. "The Package Assignment Model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 377-406, December.
    4. Klemperer, Paul, 1999. " Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-86, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jawad Abrache & Teodor Crainic & Michel Gendreau & Monia Rekik, 2007. "Combinatorial auctions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 131-164, September.
    2. Yoon, Kiho, 2008. "The participatory Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3-4), pages 324-336, February.
    3. Oktay Günlük & Lászlo Ladányi & Sven de Vries, 2005. "A Branch-and-Price Algorithm and New Test Problems for Spectrum Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 391-406, March.
    4. Philippe Jehiel & Benny Moldovanu, 2005. "Allocative and Informational Externalities in Auctions and Related Mechanisms," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000490, UCLA Department of Economics.
    5. Elmaghraby, Wedad J., 2005. "Multi-unit auctions with complementarities: Issues of efficiency in electricity auctions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(2), pages 430-448, October.
    6. Longstaff, Francis A & Han, Bing & Merrill, Craig, 2004. "Revenue Implications of Multi-Item Multi-Unit Auction Designs: Empirical Evidence from the U.S. Treasury Buyback Auctions," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt7344v866, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    7. Avenali, Alessandro, 2009. "Exploring the VCG mechanism in combinatorial auctions: The threshold revenue and the threshold-price rule," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(1), pages 262-275, November.
    8. Martin Bichler & Alexander Pikovsky & Thomas Setzer, 2009. "An Analysis of Design Problems in Combinatorial Procurement Auctions," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 1(1), pages 111-117, February.
    9. Mishra, Debasis & Parkes, David C., 2007. "Ascending price Vickrey auctions for general valuations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 335-366, January.
    10. Grigoriev, A. & Hiller, B. & Marban, S. & Vredeveld, T. & van der Zwaan, G.R.J., 2010. "Dynamic pricing problems with elastic demand," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    11. Philippe Février & William Roos & Michael Visser, 2005. "The Buyer's Option in Multi‐Unit Ascending Auctions: The Case of Wine Auctions at Drouot," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 813-847, December.
    12. Zhang, Ning, 2009. "Market performance and bidders' bidding behavior in the New York Transmission Congestion Contract market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 61-68, January.
    13. Lamy, Laurent, 2012. "On minimal ascending auctions with payment discounts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 990-999.
    14. Marco A. Haan & Linda A. Toolsema, 2011. "License Auctions When Winning Bids Are Financed Through Debt," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 254-281, June.
    15. Kellermann, Konrad & Balmann, Alfons, 2006. "How Smart Should Farms Be Modeled? Behavioral Foundation of Bidding Strategies in Agent-Based Land Market Models," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25446, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Schamel, Guenter, 2006. "Auction Markets for Specialty Food Products with Geographical Indications," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25606, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Derek Clark & Christian Riis, 2008. "Rational benevolence in small committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 139-146, March.
    18. Daniel Lacker & Kavita Ramanan, 2019. "Rare Nash Equilibria and the Price of Anarchy in Large Static Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(2), pages 400-422, May.
    19. Maréchal, François & Morand, Pierre-Henri, 2011. "First-price sealed-bid auctions when bidders exhibit different attitudes toward risk," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 108-111.
    20. Erik Eyster & Matthew Rabin, 2005. "Cursed Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(5), pages 1623-1672, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bep:rmswpp:1-4-1002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.bepress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.