IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v51y2005i12p1753-1762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better, Faster, Cheaper: An Experimental Analysis of a Multiattribute Reverse Auction Mechanism with Restricted Information Feedback

Author

Listed:
  • Ching-Hua Chen-Ritzo

    (Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Terry P. Harrison

    (Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Anthony M. Kwasnica

    (Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Douglas J. Thomas

    (Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

Abstract

The majority of reverse auctions for procurement use a single-attribute (price) format while providing constraints on nonprice attributes such as quality and lead time. Alternatively, a buyer could choose to conduct a multiattribute auction where bidders can specify both a price and levels of nonprice attributes. While such an auction may provide higher theoretical utility to the buyer, it is not clear that this theoretical improvement will be realized given the increased complexity of the auction. In this research, we present an ascending auction mechanism for a buyer whose utility function is known and dependent on three attributes. Motivated by a supply chain procurement problem setting, we consider quality and lead time for the two attributes in addition to price. The auction mechanism provides the bidders with restricted feedback regarding the buyer's utility function. We explore, experimentally, the performance of this multiattribute auction mechanism as compared to a price-only auction mechanism. Compared with the price-only auction, we find that our mechanism design is effective in increasing both buyer utility and bidder (supplier) profits.

Suggested Citation

  • Ching-Hua Chen-Ritzo & Terry P. Harrison & Anthony M. Kwasnica & Douglas J. Thomas, 2005. "Better, Faster, Cheaper: An Experimental Analysis of a Multiattribute Reverse Auction Mechanism with Restricted Information Feedback," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1753-1762, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:51:y:2005:i:12:p:1753-1762
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0433
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0433?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brewer, Paul J. & Plott, Charles R., 1996. "A binary conflict ascending price (BICAP) mechanism for the decentralized allocation of the right to use railroad tracks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 857-886, October.
    2. Yeon-Koo Che, 1993. "Design Competition through Multidimensional Auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(4), pages 668-680, Winter.
    3. Peter Cramton & John McMillan & Paul Milgrom & Bradley Miller & Bridger Mitchell & Daniel Vincent & Robert Wilson, 1998. "Simultaneous Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding," Papers of Peter Cramton 98cra2, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton.
    4. John Asker & Estelle Cantillon, 2008. "Properties of scoring auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 69-85, March.
    5. Alvin E. Roth & Axel Ockenfels, 2002. "Last-Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-Price Auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon Auctions on the Internet," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1093-1103, September.
    6. Mark Armstrong, 2000. "Optimal Multi-Object Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(3), pages 455-481.
    7. Cramton, Peter, 1998. "Ascending auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 745-756, May.
    8. Coppinger, Vicki M & Smith, Vernon L & Titus, Jon A, 1980. "Incentives and Behavior in English, Dutch and Sealed-Bid Auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, January.
    9. Steven R. Williams, 1999. "A characterization of efficient, bayesian incentive compatible mechanisms," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 14(1), pages 155-180.
    10. Kagel, John H & Harstad, Ronald M & Levin, Dan, 1987. "Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(6), pages 1275-1304, November.
    11. Jeffrey S. Banks & John O. Ledyard & David P. Porter, 1989. "Allocating Uncertain and Unresponsive Resources: An Experimental Approach," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 1-25, Spring.
    12. Damian R. Beil & Lawrence M. Wein, 2003. "An Inverse-Optimization-Based Auction Mechanism to Support a Multiattribute RFQ Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(11), pages 1529-1545, November.
    13. Fernando Branco, 1997. "The Design of Multidimensional Auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(1), pages 63-81, Spring.
    14. Rothkopf, Michael H & Teisberg, Thomas J & Kahn, Edward P, 1990. "Why Are Vickrey Auctions Rare?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(1), pages 94-109, February.
    15. Bichler, Martin & Kalagnanam, Jayant, 2005. "Configurable offers and winner determination in multi-attribute auctions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 380-394, January.
    16. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    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. Anthony M. Kwasnica & John O. Ledyard & Dave Porter & Christine DeMartini, 2005. "A New and Improved Design for Multiobject Iterative Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 419-434, March.
    2. Axel Ockenfels & David Reiley & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2006. "Online Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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.
    4. David C. Parkes & Jayant Kalagnanam, 2005. "Models for Iterative Multiattribute Procurement Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 435-451, March.
    5. Damian R. Beil & Lawrence M. Wein, 2003. "An Inverse-Optimization-Based Auction Mechanism to Support a Multiattribute RFQ Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(11), pages 1529-1545, November.
    6. Karca D. Aral & Damian R. Beil & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2021. "Supplier Sustainability Assessments in Total‐Cost Auctions," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(4), pages 902-920, April.
    7. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3257-3287, November.
    8. Fabian Ocker & Karl‐Martin Ehrhart & Marion Ott, 2018. "Bidding strategies in Austrian and German balancing power auctions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), November.
    9. Gregory E. Kersten, 2014. "Multiattribute Procurement Auctions: Efficiency and Social Welfare in Theory and Practice," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 215-232, December.
    10. Said, Maher, 2012. "Auctions with dynamic populations: Efficiency and revenue maximization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(6), pages 2419-2438.
    11. Peter Postl, 2013. "Efficiency versus optimality in procurement," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 53(2), pages 425-472, June.
    12. Pham, Long & Teich, Jeffrey & Wallenius, Hannele & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2015. "Multi-attribute online reverse auctions: Recent research trends," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 1-9.
    13. Jan Boone & Christoph Schottmüller, 2016. "Procurement with specialized firms," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(3), pages 661-687, August.
    14. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Paul Milgrom, 2004. "Ascending Proxy Auctions," Discussion Papers 03-035, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    15. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & Paul Milgrom, 2012. "System and Method for a Hybrid Clock and Proxy Auction," Papers of Peter Cramton 12acmhc, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton, revised 2012.
    16. Laurent Lamy, 2007. "Contingent Auctions with Allocative Externalities : Vickrey Versus the Ausubel-Milgrom Proxy Auction," Working Papers 2007-26, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    17. Dimitris Kostamis & Damian R. Beil & Izak Duenyas, 2009. "Total-Cost Procurement Auctions: Impact of Suppliers' Cost Adjustments on Auction Format Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1985-1999, December.
    18. Zhixi Wan & Damian R. Beil, 2009. "RFQ Auctions with Supplier Qualification Screening," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 934-949, August.
    19. Benjamin Blau & Clemens Dinther & Tobias Conte & Yongchun Xu & Christof Weinhardt, 2009. "How to Coordinate Value Generation in Service Networks," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 1(5), pages 343-356, October.
    20. Wang, Hong, 2020. "Quality manipulation and limit corruption in competitive procurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 1124-1135.

    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:51:y:2005:i:12:p:1753-1762. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.