IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v21y2019i3p556-570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coordinating Supply and Demand on an On-Demand Service Platform with Impatient Customers

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaru Bai

    (School of Management, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York 13902)

  • Kut C. So

    (The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, California 92697)

  • Christopher S. Tang

    (Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California 90095)

  • Xiqun (Michael) Chen

    (College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Hai Wang

    (School of Information Systems, Singapore Management University, Singapore 188065)

Abstract

We consider an on-demand service platform using earning-sensitive independent providers with heterogeneous reservation price (for work participation) to serve its time and price-sensitive customers with heterogeneous valuation of the service. As such, the supply and demand are “endogenously” dependent on the price the platform charges its customers and the wage the platform pays its independent providers. We present an analytical model with endogenous supply (number of participating agents) and endogenous demand (customer request rate) to study this on-demand service platform. To coordinate endogenous demand with endogenous supply, we include the steady-state waiting time performance based on a queueing model in the customer utility function to characterize the optimal price and wage rates that maximize the profit of the platform. We first analyze a base model that uses a fixed payout ratio (i.e., the ratio of wage over price), and then extend our model to allow the platform to adopt a time-based payout ratio. We find that it is optimal for the platform to charge a higher price when demand increases; however, the optimal price is not necessarily monotonic when the provider capacity or the waiting cost increases. Furthermore, the platform should offer a higher payout ratio as demand increases, capacity decreases or customers become more sensitive to waiting time. We also find that the platform should lower its payout ratio as it grows with the number of providers and customer demand increasing at about the same rate. We use a set of actual data from a large on-demand ride-hailing platform to calibrate our model parameters in numerical experiments to illustrate some of our main insights.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaru Bai & Kut C. So & Christopher S. Tang & Xiqun (Michael) Chen & Hai Wang, 2019. "Coordinating Supply and Demand on an On-Demand Service Platform with Impatient Customers," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 556-570, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:21:y:2019:i:3:p:556-570
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2018.0707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2018.0707
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2018.0707?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. Gérard P. Cachon & Kaitlin M. Daniels & Ruben Lobel, 2017. "The Role of Surge Pricing on a Service Platform with Self-Scheduling Capacity," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 368-384, July.
    2. Naor, P, 1969. "The Regulation of Queue Size by Levying Tolls," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(1), pages 15-24, January.
    3. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    4. Armony, Mor & Haviv, Moshe, 2003. "Price and delay competition between two service providers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 32-50, May.
    5. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    6. Philipp Afèche & Haim Mendelson, 2004. "Pricing and Priority Auctions in Queueing Systems with a Generalized Delay Cost Structure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(7), pages 869-882, July.
    7. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    8. Baojun Jiang & Lin Tian, 2018. "Collaborative Consumption: Strategic and Economic Implications of Product Sharing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1171-1188, March.
    9. Kelly L. Haws & William O. Bearden, 2006. "Dynamic Pricing and Consumer Fairness Perceptions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 304-311, October.
    10. Terry A. Taylor, 2018. "On-Demand Service Platforms," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 704-720, October.
    11. Jochen Wirtz & Christopher Tang, 2016. "Uber: Competing as Market Leader in the US versus Being a Distant Second in China," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: SERVICES MARKETING People Technology Strategy, chapter 19, pages 626-632, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Saif Benjaafar & Guangwen Kong & Xiang Li & Costas Courcoubetis, 2019. "Peer-to-Peer Product Sharing: Implications for Ownership, Usage, and Social Welfare in the Sharing Economy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 477-493, February.
    13. Maxim Afanasyev & Haim Mendelson, 2010. "Service Provider Competition: Delay Cost Structure, Segmentation, and Cost Advantage," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 213-235, May.
    14. Antonio Moreno & Christian Terwiesch, 2014. "Doing Business with Strangers: Reputation in Online Service Marketplaces," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 865-886, December.
    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. Lin, Xiaogang & Sun, Cuiying & Cao, Bin & Zhou, Yong-Wu & Chen, Chuanying, 2021. "Should ride-sharing platforms cooperate with car-rental companies? Implications for consumer surplus and driver surplus," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    2. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    3. John Birge & Ozan Candogan & Hongfan Chen & Daniela Saban, 2021. "Optimal Commissions and Subscriptions in Networked Markets," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 569-588, May.
    4. Zhen Lian & Garrett van Ryzin, 2021. "Optimal Growth in Two-Sided Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6862-6879, November.
    5. Gu, Wei & Heese, H. Sebastian & Kemahlıoğlu-Ziya, Eda & Ziya, Serhan, 2024. "Pricing for services with cross-segment externalities, capacity constraints, and competition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 801-813.
    6. Jiayi Joey Yu & Christopher S. Tang & Zuo-Jun Max Shen & Xiqun Michael Chen, 2020. "A Balancing Act of Regulating On-Demand Ride Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 2975-2992, July.
    7. De Munck, Thomas & Chevalier, Philippe & Tancrez, Jean-Sébastien, 2023. "Managing priorities on on-demand service platforms with waiting time differentiation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    8. Vibhanshu Abhishek & Jose A. Guajardo & Zhe Zhang, 2021. "Business Models in the Sharing Economy: Manufacturing Durable Goods in the Presence of Peer-to-Peer Rental Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1450-1469, December.
    9. Saif Benjaafar & Ming Hu, 2020. "Operations Management in the Age of the Sharing Economy: What Is Old and What Is New?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 93-101, January.
    10. Kazakova, E. & Sandomirskaia, M. & Suvorov, A. & Khazhgerieva, A. & Shavshin, R., 2023. "Platforms, online labor markets, and crowdsourcing. Part 1. Traditional online labor market," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 120-148.
    11. Sun, Luoyi & Teunter, Ruud H. & Babai, M. Zied & Hua, Guowei, 2019. "Optimal pricing for ride-sourcing platforms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 783-795.
    12. Liu, He & Li, Xuerong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of platform research: Developing the research agenda for platforms, the associated technologies and social impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    13. Yu, Jianjun & Fang, Yanli & Zhong, Yuanguang & Zhang, Xiong & Zhang, Ruijie, 2022. "Pricing and quality strategies for an on-demand housekeeping platform with customer-intensive services," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    14. Chen, Mingyang & Zhao, Daozhi & Gong, Yeming & Rekik, Yacine, 2022. "An on-demand service platform with self-scheduling capacity: Uniform versus multiplier-based pricing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    15. Chenglong Zhang & Jianqing Chen & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2022. "Two-Sided Platform Competition in a Sharing Economy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8909-8932, December.
    16. Zhong, Yuanguang & Pan, Qi & Xie, Wei & Cheng, T.C.E. & Lin, Xiaogang, 2020. "Pricing and wage strategies for an on-demand service platform with heterogeneous congestion-sensitive customers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    17. Jun Li & Serguei Netessine, 2020. "Higher Market Thickness Reduces Matching Rate in Online Platforms: Evidence from a Quasiexperiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 271-289, January.
    18. Yang, Hai & Shao, Chaoyi & Wang, Hai & Ye, Jieping, 2020. "Integrated reward scheme and surge pricing in a ridesourcing market," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 126-142.
    19. Sun, Xiaojie & Tang, Wansheng & Chen, Jing & Zhang, Jianxiong, 2020. "Optimal investment strategy of a free-floating sharing platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Lin Tian & Baojun Jiang & Yifan Xu, 2021. "Manufacturer’s Entry in the Product-Sharing Market," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 553-568, May.

    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:ormsom:v:21:y:2019:i:3:p:556-570. 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.