臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著網際網路的發展，互聯網以及電子商務的蓬勃發展，在供應鏈中，資訊共享這個議題被視為節省成本最重要的關鍵。透過資訊共享的方式，可以幫助供應鏈的上游也就是供應商更加精準的預測市場上的需求，進而減少過多庫存所產生的成本或是缺貨的成本，大幅節省供應鏈中的成本，減少長鞭效應所帶來的影響。在過去一般的供應鏈當中，雖然也有許多利用資訊共享的方式來節省供應鏈中的成本，但並沒有結合現在的趨勢去解決供應鏈中各個成員要如何分攤成本的問題。
本研究針對供應鏈結合現在趨勢的商業模式，建構一個資訊平台，透過這個資訊平台可以掌握整個市場的動向，更加準確的知道消費者的相關資訊，利用資訊共享的方式，讓供應鏈中各個成員互相合作，目的是為了大幅縮減整個供應鏈中的成本以及獲得最佳的成本分擔，並且探討不同種聯盟可行的合作情況下，何種模式最能節省更多成本，計算出此種模式各個成員應該如何分擔成本。因此，本研究會提出合作賽局模型，以特徵函數來表示不同合作情況下節省的成本，並檢驗是否符合合作賽局的穩定性，透過合作賽局的重要概念，核心解、核仁解以及夏普利值分配各個成員的成本，期望最後能找出供應鏈中最佳的合作模式。

With the development of Internet and e-commerce, the issue of information sharing is considered the most important key to the cost savings. Through information sharing, it can help the upstream player, which is manufacturer predict the demand of the market accurately. Further, it can reduce the costs of excess inventory or the costs of out of stock. It can also reduce a great influence of the bullwhip effect. In the past, although there are a lot of methods to use information sharing to save the cost, it does not combine the current trend to allocate the cost of the player in the supply chain.
In this study, we construct the platform and develop a new business model in the supply chain. We can use the platform to obtain the demand information and cooperate with each other to implement information sharing. The goal is to save the more costs and obtain the optimal allocation in the supply chain. Therefore, we use the cooperative game theory to analyze and allocate the cost savings. Finally, we can find the optimal cooperation in the supply chain. Specifically, we concern with the tourism souvenir supply chain as an example.

口試委員會審定書 #
誌謝 i
中文摘要 ii
Abstract iii
Contents iv
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Model Framework 7
2.1 Problem Description 7
2.2 The Cost of Each Player in Different Conditions 19
2.3 The Total Cost of the Eight Types of Coalitions 22
Chapter 3 Method of Solution 26
3.1 Characteristic-Function of Cooperative Game Theory in the Supply Chain 26
3.2 Stability of the Eight Types of Coalitions 30
3.3 Three Methods to Allocate the Cost Savings to Each Player in Coalition 33
Chapter 4 Numerical Analysis 39
4.1 The Benefits of the Player in Different Coalition 45
4.2 The Impact of the Autocorrelation Parameter on the Cost Savings of the Stable Coalition and the Allocation of Each Player 46
4.3 The Impact of the Service Level of the Logistics Service Provider on the Total Cost of the Coalitions 50
Chapter 5 Conclusion 52
Reference 54
Appendix 57

Cho, D.W., Lee, Y.H. (2013). The value of information sharing in a supply chain with a seasonal demand process. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 65, 97-108.
Drechsel, J., Kimms, A. (2010). Computing core allocations in cooperative games with application to cooperative procurement. Int. J. Production Economics, 128, 310-321.
Ganesh, M., Raghunathan, S., Rajendran, C. (2008). The value of information sharing in a mult-product supply chain with product substitution. IIE Transactions, 40, 1124-1140.
Ganesh, M., Raghunathan, S., Rajendran, C. (2014). The value of information sharing in a multi-product, multi-level supply chain: Impact of product substitution, demand correlation, and partial information sharing. Decision Support Systems, 58, 79-94.
Jia, N.X., Yokoyama, R. (2003). Profit allocation of independent power producers based on cooperative game theory. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 25, 633-641.
Krus ́, L., Bronisz, P. (2000). Cooperative game solution concepts to a cost allocation problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 122, 258-271.
Kahn, J.A. (1987). Inventories and the volatility of production. The American Economic Review, vol.77, 4, 667-679.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, P., Whang, S. (1997a). Information distortion in a supply chain: the bullwhip effect. Management Science, 43, 546-558.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, P., Whang, S. (1997b). Bullwhip effect in a supply chain. Sloan Management Review, 38, 93-102.
Lee, H.L., So, C.K., Tang, S.C. (2000). The value of information sharing in a two level supply chain. Management Science, 46, 626-643.
Lee, H.L. (2000). Creating value through supply chain integration. Supply Chain Management Rev, 4(4), 30-36.
Leng, M., Parlar, M. (2009). Allocation of cost savings in a three-level supply chain with demand information sharing: A cooperative-game approach. Operations Research, 57 (1), 200-213.
Lozano, S., Moreno, P., Adenso-Di ́az, B., Algaba, E. (2013). Cooperative game theory approach to allocating benefits of horizontal cooperation. European Journal of Operational Research, 229, 444-452.
Metters, R. (1997). Quantifying the bullwhip effect in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 15, 89-100.
Qi, Y., Ni, W., Shi, K. (2015). Game theoretic analysis of one manufacturer two retailer supply chain with customer market search. Int. J. Production Economics, 164, 57-64.
Rached, M., Bahroun, Z., Campagne, J.P. (2015). Assessing the value of information sharing and its impact on the performance of the various partners in supply chains. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 88, 237-253.
Reddy, A.M., Rajendran, C. (2005). A simulation study of dynamic order up to policies in a supply chain with non stationary customer demand and information sharing. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 25, 1029-1045.
Ren, X.Y., Feng, Q.Q., Wang, S., Wen, X. (2015). Profit distribution of agricultural supply chain based on Shapley value. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology, 7(7), 479-483.
Sabitha, D., Rajendran, C., Kalpakam, S., Ziegler, H. (2016). The value of information sharing in a serial supply chain with AR(1) demand and non-zero replenishment lead times. European Journal of Operational Research, 255, 758-777.
Simchi-Levi, D., Y. Zhao. (2004). The value of information sharing in a two-stage supply chain with production capacity constraints: The infinite horizon case. Probab. Engrg. Informational Sci., 18(2), 247-274.
Xue, X., Shen, Q., Tan, Y., Zhang, Y., Fan, H. (2011). Comparing the value of information sharing under different inventory policies in construction supply chain. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 867-876.