IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v26y2018i1d10.1007_s10100-017-0483-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investments in supplier-specific economies of scope with two different services and different supplier characters: two specialists

Author

Listed:
  • Günter Fandel

    (FernUniversität in Hagen)

  • Jan Trockel

    (FernUniversität in Hagen)

Abstract

Firms have to choose their market positions. Suppliers can offer a wide range of services as generalists or they act as specialists by offering a small range of services. In this paper based on Chatain/Zemsky (Manag Sci 53:550–565, 2007) and Chatain (Strateg Manag J 32:76–102, 2011) we analyse how supplier-specific economies of scope generated by investments can compensate the loss occurring by a non-optimal organisational structure (resource configuration) of production. These considerations are modelled by a non-cooperative game with one buyer and two suppliers. We show how the buyer can gain from supplier-specific economies of scope. In this case, the buyer will never split the orders to both suppliers, i.e. he always should order one supplier, if the tasks have similar characteristics and the investment costs of a supplier result in higher specific economies of scope relevant to the choice of the buyer. The amount of the specific economies of scope determines to whom of the suppliers the buyer will place both orders. But, if the investment costs of the suppliers are very high and/or the gains of the buyer are rather low, the pure strategy combination “no investments” for the two suppliers will become the unique Nash equilibrium, whereby the buyer places the two orders each to the supplier who is the specialist for it.

Suggested Citation

  • Günter Fandel & Jan Trockel, 2018. "Investments in supplier-specific economies of scope with two different services and different supplier characters: two specialists," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 181-192, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:26:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10100-017-0483-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-017-0483-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10100-017-0483-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-017-0483-x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harborne W. Stuart, 2016. "Value Gaps and Profitability," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 56-70, March.
    2. Quintas, L G, 1989. "A Note on Polymatrix Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 18(3), pages 261-272.
    3. Adam M. Brandenburger & Harborne W. Stuart, 1996. "Value‐based Business Strategy," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 5-24, March.
    4. Victor M. Bennett & Lamar Pierce, 2016. "Motivation matters: Corporate scope and competition in complementary product markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1304-1315, July.
    5. Jens Schmidt & Richard Makadok & Thomas Keil, 2016. "Customer-specific synergies and market convergence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 870-895, May.
    6. Olivier Chatain & Peter Zemsky, 2007. "The Horizontal Scope of the Firm: Organizational Tradeoffs vs. Buyer-Supplier Relationships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 550-565, April.
    7. Adam Brandenburger & Harborne Stuart, 2007. "Biform Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 537-549, April.
    8. Victor Manuel Bennett, 2013. "Organization and Bargaining: Sales Process Choice at Auto Dealerships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2003-2018, September.
    9. Panzar, John C & Willig, Robert D, 1981. "Economies of Scope," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 268-272, May.
    10. Günter Fandel & Jan Trockel, 2016. "Investment and lot size planning in a supply chain: coordinating a just-in-time-delivery with a Harris- or a Wagner/Whitin-solution," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 173-195, January.
    11. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    12. Jens Schmidt & Richard Makadok & Thomas Keil, 2016. "Customer-specific synergies and market convergence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 2003-2007, September.
    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. Fandel, Günter, 2023. "Application of Input Output Analysis to the Production of Services - An Overview," EconStor Preprints 298116, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Fandel, Günter & Trockel, Jan, 2020. "Job Allocation and Profits in Service Production," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1052-1061.
    3. Manral, Lalit & Harrigan, Kathryn R., 2018. "The logic of demand-side diversification: Evidence from the US telecommunications sector, 1990–1996," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 127-141.
    4. Joao Montez & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda & Michael D. Ryall, 2018. "Competitive Intensity and Its Two-Sided Effect on the Boundaries of Firm Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2716-2733, June.
    5. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Todd Zenger, 2017. "Creating and Capturing Value in Repeated Exchange Relationships: The Second Paradox of Embeddedness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 894-914, October.
    6. Harborne W. Stuart, 2016. "Value Gaps and Profitability," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 56-70, March.
    7. Olivier Chatain & Denisa Mindruta, 2017. "Estimating Value Creation from Revealed Preferences: Application to Value-based Strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(10), pages 1964-1985, October.
    8. David Anderson & Margrét V. Bjarnadóttir & Cristian L. Dezső & David Gaddis Ross, 2019. "On a Firm’s Optimal Response to Pressure for Gender Pay Equity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 214-231, February.
    9. Sunny Li Sun & Mike W. Peng & Weiqiang Tan, 2017. "Institutional relatedness behind product diversification and international diversification," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 339-366, June.
    10. Günter Fandel & Jan Trockel, 2016. "Investment and lot size planning in a supply chain: coordinating a just-in-time-delivery with a Harris- or a Wagner/Whitin-solution," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 173-195, January.
    11. Olivier Chatain & Peter Zemsky, 2007. "The Horizontal Scope of the Firm: Organizational Tradeoffs vs. Buyer-Supplier Relationships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 550-565, April.
    12. Ron Adner & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda & Peter Zemsky, 2016. "Specialist versus Generalist Positioning: Demand Heterogeneity, Technology Scalability and Endogenous Market Segmentation," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 184-206, September.
    13. Douglas P. Hannah & Ron Tidhar & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2021. "Analytic models in strategy, organizations, and management research: A guide for consumers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 329-360, February.
    14. Victor M. Bennett & Lamar Pierce, 2016. "Motivation matters: Corporate scope and competition in complementary product markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1304-1315, July.
    15. Niloofar Abolfathi & Simone Santamaria & Charles Williams, 2022. "How Does Firm Scope Depend on Customer Switching Costs? Evidence from Mobile Telecommunications Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 316-332, January.
    16. Matthew Grennan, 2014. "Bargaining Ability and Competitive Advantage: Empirical Evidence from Medical Devices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3011-3025, December.
    17. David Gaddis Ross, 2012. "On Evaluation Costs in Strategic Factor Markets: The Implications for Competition and Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 791-804, April.
    18. Victor M. Bennett & Robert Seamans & Feng Zhu, 2015. "Cannibalization and option value effects of secondary markets: Evidence from the US concert industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1599-1614, November.
    19. Sick, Nathalie & Preschitschek, Nina & Leker, Jens & Bröring, Stefanie, 2019. "A new framework to assess industry convergence in high technology environments," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 84, pages 48-58.
    20. Gianluigi Giustiziero & Tobias Kretschmer & Deepak Somaya & Brian Wu, 2023. "Hyperspecialization and hyperscaling: A resource‐based theory of the digital firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(6), pages 1391-1424, June.

    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:spr:cejnor:v:26:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10100-017-0483-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.