IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v45y1999i5p685-703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capacity Allocation Using Past Sales: When to Turn-and-Earn

Author

Listed:
  • Gérard P. Cachon

    (The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Martin A. Lariviere

    (The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

Consider a supplier selling to multiple retailers. Demand varies across periods, but the supplier's capacity and wholesale price are fixed. If demand is high, the retailers' needs exceed capacity, and the supplier must implement an allocation mechanism to dole out production. We examine how the choice of mechanism impacts retailer actions and supply chain performance. In particular, we analyze turn-and-earn allocation, a method commonly used in the automobile industry. This scheme bases current allocations on past sales and thus enables retailers to influence their future allocations; they compete for scarce capacity even if they do not compete for customers. We show that turn-and-earn induces the retailers to increase their sales when demand is low and the supplier's capacity is otherwise underutilized. Supplier profits thus increase. The impact on the supply chain depends on how restrictive capacity is. With mildly tight capacity, the retailers' higher sales rate does not significantly lower their profits but does reduce the cost of idle capacity. Supply chain performance improves. With extremely tight capacity, the retailers' intense competition dissipates more profits than the supplier gains, and supply chain performance suffers. Consequently, turn-and-earn does not generally coordinate the system. It is best characterized as a means for the supplier to increase her profits at the expense of the retailers and potentially even the supply chain. Furthermore, these results hold even if the retailers can hold inventory in anticipation of scarce capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Gérard P. Cachon & Martin A. Lariviere, 1999. "Capacity Allocation Using Past Sales: When to Turn-and-Earn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(5), pages 685-703, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:5:p:685-703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.5.685
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harris, Milton & Raviv, Artur, 1981. "A Theory of Monopoly Pricing Schemes with Demand Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 347-365, June.
    2. Fishman, Arthur, 1992. "Search Technology, Staggered Price-Setting, and Price Dispersion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 287-298, March.
    3. Raymond Deneckere & Howard P. Marvel & James Peck, 1996. "Demand Uncertainty, Inventories, and Resale Price Maintenance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 111(3), pages 885-913.
    4. Subramanian Balachander & Peter H. Farquhar, 1994. "Gaining More by Stocking Less: A Competitive Analysis of Product Availability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 3-22.
    5. Barro, Robert J & Romer, Paul M, 1987. "Ski-Lift Pricing, with Applications to Labor and Other," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 875-890, December.
    6. Hau L. Lee & V. Padmanabhan & Seungjin Whang, 1997. "Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 546-558, April.
    7. Sanjeev Dewan & Haim Mendelson, 1990. "User Delay Costs and Internal Pricing for a Service Facility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1502-1517, December.
    8. Jan A. Miegham & Maqbool Dada, 1997. "Capacity Investment under Demand Uncertainty: Price vs. Quantity Competition," Discussion Papers 1204, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    9. Wujin Chu & Preyas S. Desai, 1995. "Channel Coordination Mechanisms for Customer Satisfaction," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 343-359.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:5:p:685-703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.