Measuring and rewarding flexibility in collaborative distribution, including two-partner coalitions
Horizontal collaboration among shippers is gaining traction as a way to increase logistic efficiency. The total distribution cost of a logistic coalition is generally between 9% and 30% lower than the sum of costs of each partner distributing separately. However, the coalition gain is highly dependent on the flexibility that each partner allows in its delivery terms. Flexible delivery dates, flexible order sizes, order splitting rules, etc., allow the coalition to exploit more opportunities for optimization and create better and cheaper distribution plans. An important challenge in a logistic coalition is the division (or sharing) of the coalition gain. Several methods have been proposed for this purpose, often stemming from the field of game theory. This paper states that an adequate gain sharing method should not only be fair, but should also reward flexibility in order to persuade companies to relax their delivery terms. Methods that limit the criteria for cost allocation to the marginal costs and the values of the sub coalitions are found to be able to generate adequate incentives for companies to adopt a flexible position. In a coalition of two partners however, we show that these methods are not able to correctly evaluate an asymmetric effort to be more flexible. For this situation, we suggest an alternative approach to better measure and reward the value of flexibility.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Prinsstraat 13, B-2000 Antwerpen|
Web page: https://www.uantwerp.be/en/faculties/applied-economic-sciences/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Frisk, Mikael & Göthe-Lundgren, Maud & Jörnsten, Kurt & Rönnqvist, Mikael, 2006.
"Cost allocation in collaborative forest transportation,"
2006/15, Department of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics.
- Frisk, M. & Göthe-Lundgren, M. & Jörnsten, K. & Rönnqvist, M., 2010. "Cost allocation in collaborative forest transportation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(2), pages 448-458, September.
- Cruijssen, Frans & Cools, Martine & Dullaert, Wout, 2007. "Horizontal cooperation in logistics: Opportunities and impediments," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 129-142, March.
- Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
- E. Loehman & A. Whinston, 1974. "An Axiomatic Approach to Cost Allocation for Public Investment," Public Finance Review, SAGE Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 236-250, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2013017. 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: (Joeri Nys)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.