• Journal of Korea Society of Industrial Information Systems
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.111-126
• /
• 2015

Currently, many enterprises are trying to allocate the investment costs and risks through collaboration, and strengthen their competitiveness by sharing their resources and gains. Intercorporate sharing economy, a type of intercorporate collaboration, refers to the economic activity to share the idle resources of enterprises and enhance their efficiency. For a successful intercorporate economy with the participation of various stakeholders, there is a need to establish the clear allocation method of gains. Accordingly, this study suggested three methods-the MST method that can apply transaction cost incurred when forming a coalition for sharing economy; the average of transaction cost incurred by each participant, and the Shapley Value application method for the transaction cost incurred between the participants. In addition, this study also suggested gain allocation methods such as the "Equal distribution of gain" method, a gain allocation method based on the Cooperative Game Theory, the the "Proportional distribution of gain" method, and the Shapley Value method that takes in consideration the transaction costs.

• Journal of Internet Computing and Services
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.105-117
• /
• 2010

In recent years, dynamic collaboration (DC) among cloud providers (CPs) is becoming an inevitable approach for the widely use of cloud computing and to realize the greatest value of it. In our previous paper, we proposed a combinatorial auction (CA) based cloud market model called CACM that enables a DC platform among different CPs. The CACM model allows any CP to dynamically collaborate with suitable partner CPs to form a group before joining an auction and thus addresses the issue of conflicts minimization that may occur when negotiating among providers. But how to determine optimal group bidding prices, how to obtain the stability condition of the group and how to distribute the winning prices/profits among the group members in the CACM model have not been studied thoroughly. In this paper, we propose to formulate the above problems of cooperative negotiation in the CACM model as a bankruptcy game which is a special type of N-person cooperative game. The stability of the group is analyzed by using the concept of the core and the amount of allocationsto each member of the group is obtained by using Shapley value. Numerical results are presented to demonstrate the behaviors of the proposed approaches.

• Journal of Distribution Research
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.29-53
• /
• 2012

As so many marketers get to use diverse sales promotion methods, manufacturer and retailer in a channel often use them too. In this context, diverse issues on sales promotion management arise. One of them is the issue of unplanned buying. Consumers' unplanned buying is clearly better off for the retailer but not for manufacturer. This asymmetric influence of unplanned buying should be dealt with prudently because of its possibility of provocation of channel conflict. However, there have been scarce studies on the sales promotion management strategy considering the unplanned buying and its asymmetric effect on retailer and manufacturer. In this paper, we try to find a better way for a manufacturer in a channel to promote performance through the retailer's sales promotion efforts when there is potential of unplanned buying effect. We investigate via game-theoretic modeling what is the optimal cost sharing level between the manufacturer and retailer when there is unplanned buying effect. We investigated following issues about the topic as follows: (1) What structure of cost sharing mechanism should the manufacturer and retailer in a channel choose when unplanned buying effect is strong (or weak)? (2) How much payoff could the manufacturer and retailer in a channel get when unplanned buying effect is strong (or weak)? We focus on the impact of unplanned buying effect on the optimal cost sharing mechanism for sales promotions between a manufacturer and a retailer in a same channel. So we consider two players in the game, a manufacturer and a retailer who are interacting in a same distribution channel. The model is of complete information game type. In the model, the manufacturer is the Stackelberg leader and the retailer is the follower. Variables in the model are as following table. Manufacturer's objective function in the basic game is as follows: ${\Pi}={\Pi}_1+{\Pi}_2$, where, ${\Pi}_1=w_1(1+L-p_1)-{\psi}^2$, ${\Pi}_2=w_2(1-{\epsilon}L-p_2)$. And retailer's is as follows: ${\pi}={\pi}_1+{\pi}_2$, where, ${\pi}_1=(p_1-w_1)(1+L-p_1)-L(L-{\psi})+p_u(b+L-p_u)$, ${\pi}_2=(p_2-w_2)(1-{\epsilon}L-p_2)$. The model is of four stages in two periods. Stages of the game are as follows. (Stage 1) Manufacturer sets wholesale price of the first period($w_1$) and cost sharing level of channel sales promotion(${\Psi}$). (Stage 2) Retailer sets retail price of the focal brand($p_1$), the unplanned buying item($p_u$), and sales promotion level(L). (Stage 3) Manufacturer sets wholesale price of the second period($w_2$). (Stage 4) Retailer sets retail price of the second period($p_2$). Since the model is a kind of dynamic games, we try to find a subgame perfect equilibrium to derive some theoretical and managerial implications. In order to obtain the subgame perfect equilibrium, we use the backward induction method. In using backward induction approach, we solve the problems backward from stage 4 to stage 1. By completely knowing follower's optimal reaction to the leader's potential actions, we can fold the game tree backward. Equilibrium of each variable in the basic game is as following table. We conducted more analysis of additional game about diverse cost level of manufacturer. Manufacturer's objective function in the additional game is same with that of the basic game as follows: ${\Pi}={\Pi}_1+{\Pi}_2$, where, ${\Pi}_1=w_1(1+L-p_1)-{\psi}^2$, ${\Pi}_2=w_2(1-{\epsilon}L-p_2)$. But retailer's objective function is different from that of the basic game as follows: ${\pi}={\pi}_1+{\pi}_2$, where, ${\pi}_1=(p_1-w_1)(1+L-p_1)-L(L-{\psi})+(p_u-c)(b+L-p_u)$, ${\pi}_2=(p_2-w_2)(1-{\epsilon}L-p_2)$. Equilibrium of each variable in this additional game is as following table. Major findings of the current study are as follows: (1) As the unplanned buying effect gets stronger, manufacturer and retailer had better increase the cost for sales promotion. (2) As the unplanned buying effect gets stronger, manufacturer had better decrease the cost sharing portion of total cost for sales promotion. (3) Manufacturer's profit is increasing function of the unplanned buying effect. (4) All results of (1),(2),(3) are alleviated by the increase of retailer's procurement cost to acquire unplanned buying items. The authors discuss the implications of those results for the marketers in manufacturers or retailers. The current study firstly suggests some managerial implications for the manufacturer how to share the sales promotion cost with the retailer in a channel to the high or low level of the consumers' unplanned buying potential.