JSOM Faculty Research
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10735.1/2086
Browse
Browsing JSOM Faculty Research by Subject "Auctions"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Optimal Procurement Auctions under Multistage Supplier Qualification(INFORMS) Chen, W.; Dawande, Milind W.; Janakiraman, Ganesh; 0000-0001-6956-0856 (Dawande, MW); 0000-0001-7386-4318 (Jamakiraman, G); Dawande, Milind W.; Janakiraman, GaneshWe consider a firm that solicits bids from a fixed-sized pool of yet-to-be qualified suppliers for an indivisible contract. The contract can only be awarded to a supplier who passes a multistage qualification process. For each stage of the qualification process, the buyer incurs a fixed testing cost for each supplier she chooses to test. The buyer seeks an optimal mechanism-that is, one that minimizes her total expected cost. Motivated by the buyer's urgency (or the lack of it) of time for completing the qualification process, we obtain optimal mechanisms for two testing environments: (1) simultaneous testing, where in each stage, the buyer selects a subset of those suppliers who have passed all the previous stages and tests them simultaneously; and (2) nonsimultaneous testing, where the simultaneous-testing requirement is not imposed. Under simultaneous testing, the admission policy for selecting suppliers at each stage is based on nonuniformreserve-price thresholds. Under nonsimultaneous testing, too, the admission policy is threshold based, but the selection process is sequential in nature. The relative increase in cost due to the simultaneous-testing requirement is (under a mild condition) monotonically increasing in the number of suppliers, the expected multistage testing cost, and the overall passing probability. We also study the optimal sequencing of the qualification stages and show that the buyer should schedule the stages in increasing order of the ratio of their testing cost to their failing probability. Finally, for the simpler setting of a single-stage qualification process and a single supplier, we study a two-dimensional mechanism design problem where, in addition to cost, the passing probability is also private to the supplier. Here, too, threshold-based admission remains optimal, and the buyer offers either a pooling or a separating contract. Copyright: ©2018 INFORMS.Item Should Sellers Prefer Auctions? A Laboratory Comparison of Auctions and Sequential Mechanisms(Informs) Davis, Andrew M.; Katok, Elena; Kwasnica, Anthony M.; 0000 0000 1152 7888 (Katok, E); 198160306 (Katok, E)When bidders incur a cost to learn their valuations, bidder entry can impact auction performance. Two common selling mechanisms in this environment are an English auction and a sequential bidding process. Theoretically, sellers should prefer the auction, because it generates higher expected revenues, whereas bidders should prefer the sequential mechanism, because it generates higher expected bidder profits. We compare the two mechanisms in a controlled laboratory environment, varying the entry cost, and find that, contrary to the theoretical predictions, average seller revenues tend to be higher under the sequential mechanism, whereas average bidder profits are approximately the same. We identify three systematic behavioral deviations from the theoretical model: (1) in the auction, bidders do not enter 100% of the time; (2) in the sequential mechanism, bidders do not set preemptive bids according to the predicted threshold strategy; and (3) subsequent bidders tend to overenter in response to preemptive bids by first bidders. We develop a model of noisy bidder-entry costs that is consistent with these behaviors, and we show that our model organizes the experimental data well.Item Split-Award Auctions: Insights from Theory and Experiments(INFORMS, 2018-03-28) Chaturvedi, Aadhaar; Katok, Elena; Beil, Damian R.; 0000-0002-7037-7896 (Katok, E); Katok, ElenaWe investigate procurement in a setting in which the buyer is bound by sourcing rules. Sourcing rules may limit the minimum and maximum amounts of business that can be awarded to a single supplier or dictate the minimum number of suppliers who are awarded business, thus necessitating split awards. The buyer announces the splits before the auction, and suppliers bid accordingly. We consider two auction formats: the sealed-bid first-price auction, and a version of the open-bid descending-price auction. We characterize the suppliers' symmetric equilibrium bidding strategy for both formats and find that the two formats yield the same expected buyer's cost. We characterize the cost of multisourcing, showing among other things that it is always costly for the buyer to split its award among more suppliers if the suppliers' costs are regularly distributed, but that doing so can actually reduce the buyer's expected auction payment if the suppliers' costs are not regularly distributed. The results from controlled laboratory experiments, involving human subjects, indicate that expected cost equivalence fails when costs are regularly distributed because suppliers bid more aggressively in the sealed-bid auction. However, for split-award auctions with nonregularly distributed costs, the sealed-bid prices are actually higher than predicted by theory. We explain these mismatches between observations and theory through a behavioral model based on bidders' aversion to anticipated regret. The experimental results indicate that the theory does a good job of predicting the relationship between the buyer's average cost and the award splits, as well as the cost of multisourcing. Importantly, the experiments confirm that when suppliers' costs come from a nonregular distribution, it may be to the buyer's advantage to diversify the supply base more than is strictly necessitated by sourcing rules.Item When Does it Pay to Delay Supplier Qualification? Theory and ExperimentsWan, Zhixi; Beil, Damian R.; Katok, Elena; 0000 0000 1152 7888 (Katok, E); 198160306 (Katok, E)We study a procurement setting in which the buyer seeks a low price but will not allocate the contract to a supplier who has not passed qualification screening. Qualification screening is costly for the buyer, involving product tests, site visits, and interviews. In addition to a qualified incumbent supplier, the buyer has an entrant of unknown qualification. The buyer wishes to run a price-only, open-descending reverse auction between the incumbent and the entrant, and faces a strategic choice about whether to perform qualification screening on the entrant before or after the auction. We analytically study the buyer's optimal strategy, accounting for the fact that under postauction qualification, the incumbent knows he could lose the auction but still win the contract. In our analysis, we derive the incumbent's optimal bidding strategy under postauction qualification and find that he follows a threshold structure in which high-cost incumbents hold back on bidding-or even boycott the auction-to preserve their profit margin, and only lower-cost incumbents bid to win. These results are strikingly different from the usual open-descending auction analysis where all bidders are fully qualified and bidding to win is always a dominant strategy. We test our analytical results in the laboratory, with human subjects. We find that qualitatively our theoretical predictions hold up quite well, although incumbent suppliers bid somewhat more aggressively than the theory predicts, making buyers more inclined to use postauction qualification. © 2012 INFORMS.