Why are Minimum Order Quantity Contracts Popular in Practice? A Behavioral Investigation

Özge Tüncel, Niyazi Taneri, Sameer Hasija
{"title":"Why are Minimum Order Quantity Contracts Popular in Practice? A Behavioral Investigation","authors":"Özge Tüncel, Niyazi Taneri, Sameer Hasija","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3169112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem definition: In theory, all coordinating contracts are equivalent; however, the minimum order quantity (MOQ) contract is observed to be more popular in practice. We seek to understand whether decision makers as suppliers can perform better with the MOQ contract and, if so, why. We also study whether MOQ is indeed the preferred contract when subjects are allowed to choose among coordinating contracts. Academic/practical relevance: The behavioral operations management literature has established a trade-off between complex coordinating and simple noncoordinating contracts. This paper fills a gap in the literature by studying whether and how the coordinating MOQ contract attenuates this trade-off. Methodology: First, we test whether subjects in the role of suppliers given only a single contract type can optimize its parameters. Second, we introduce treatments where the coordinating contracts subject to demand risk are hedged such that risk is eliminated. Third, we repeat two of the initial sets of treatments with a cognitive load survey and introduce single-variable versions of those treatments to reduce cognitive burden. Fourth, we introduce a novel experimental design where, in each period, subjects choose both the type of contract to offer and the parameters of that contract. Results: We find that (i) subjects perform significantly better with the MOQ contract compared with other coordinating contracts; (ii) this can be attributed to the risk inherent in and cognitive burden induced by those contracts; and (iii) subjects choose the MOQ contract more frequently over theoretically equivalent coordinating contracts. Managerial implications: We show that the trade-off between efficiency and complexity can be mitigated by simpler yet efficient contracts. Hence, there is considerable benefit to identifying contractual mechanisms that ameliorate the adverse effects of complexity. This explains the prevalence of MOQ terms in supply contracts.","PeriodicalId":122208,"journal":{"name":"INSEAD Working Paper Series","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INSEAD Working Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3169112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Problem definition: In theory, all coordinating contracts are equivalent; however, the minimum order quantity (MOQ) contract is observed to be more popular in practice. We seek to understand whether decision makers as suppliers can perform better with the MOQ contract and, if so, why. We also study whether MOQ is indeed the preferred contract when subjects are allowed to choose among coordinating contracts. Academic/practical relevance: The behavioral operations management literature has established a trade-off between complex coordinating and simple noncoordinating contracts. This paper fills a gap in the literature by studying whether and how the coordinating MOQ contract attenuates this trade-off. Methodology: First, we test whether subjects in the role of suppliers given only a single contract type can optimize its parameters. Second, we introduce treatments where the coordinating contracts subject to demand risk are hedged such that risk is eliminated. Third, we repeat two of the initial sets of treatments with a cognitive load survey and introduce single-variable versions of those treatments to reduce cognitive burden. Fourth, we introduce a novel experimental design where, in each period, subjects choose both the type of contract to offer and the parameters of that contract. Results: We find that (i) subjects perform significantly better with the MOQ contract compared with other coordinating contracts; (ii) this can be attributed to the risk inherent in and cognitive burden induced by those contracts; and (iii) subjects choose the MOQ contract more frequently over theoretically equivalent coordinating contracts. Managerial implications: We show that the trade-off between efficiency and complexity can be mitigated by simpler yet efficient contracts. Hence, there is considerable benefit to identifying contractual mechanisms that ameliorate the adverse effects of complexity. This explains the prevalence of MOQ terms in supply contracts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么最小起订量合同在实践中流行?行为调查
问题定义:理论上,所有的协调契约都是等价的;然而,在实践中,最小起订量(MOQ)合同更受欢迎。我们试图了解决策者作为供应商是否可以更好地执行最小起订量合同,如果可以,为什么。我们还研究了当主体被允许在协调合同中进行选择时,最小起订量是否确实是首选合同。学术/实践相关性:行为运营管理文献在复杂的协调契约和简单的非协调契约之间建立了一种权衡。本文通过研究协调最小起订量契约是否以及如何减弱这种权衡,填补了文献的空白。方法:首先,我们测试了仅给定单一合同类型的供应商角色中的主体是否可以优化其参数。其次,我们引入了对受需求风险影响的协调合同进行对冲以消除风险的处理方法。第三,我们通过认知负荷调查重复两组初始治疗,并引入这些治疗的单变量版本来减少认知负担。第四,我们引入了一种新颖的实验设计,在每个阶段,受试者选择提供的合同类型和合同参数。结果:我们发现(1)与其他协调契约相比,最小起订量契约的被试绩效显著更好;(ii)这可归因于这些合同所固有的风险和由此引起的认知负担;(3)与理论上等价的协调合同相比,主体更频繁地选择最小起订量合同。管理意义:我们展示了效率和复杂性之间的权衡可以通过更简单但更有效的契约来缓解。因此,确定契约机制以改善复杂性的不利影响具有相当大的好处。这就解释了在供应合同中MOQ条款的流行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Thermodynamics and Gradient Manipulation Mechanism in Entrepreneurial Actions Leading a Board of Directors in The United Kingdom: Indirect Leadership Curbing the Opioid Epidemic at its Root: The Effect of Provider Discordance after Opioid Initiation A Study on Construction of an Investment Portfolio Using Fundamental Analysis Explaining the Erosion of Relational Care Continuity: An Empirical Analysis of Primary Care in England
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1