Show simple item record

The impact of operational decisions on the design of salesforce incentives

dc.contributor.authorSaghafian, Soroushen_US
dc.contributor.authorChao, Xiulien_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-03T14:41:34Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_12_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-07-03T14:41:34Z
dc.date.issued2014-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationSaghafian, Soroush; Chao, Xiuli (2014). "The impact of operational decisions on the design of salesforce incentives." Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 61(4): 320-340.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0894-069Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1520-6750en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/107557
dc.description.abstractWhen facing high levels of overstock inventories, firms often push their salesforce to work harder than usual to attract more demand, and one way to achieve that is to offer attractive incentives. However, most research on the optimal design of salesforce incentives ignores this dependency and assumes that operational decisions of production/inventory management are separable from design of salesforce incentives. We investigate this dependency in the problem of joint salesforce incentive design and inventory/production control. We develop a dynamic Principal‐Agent model with both Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection in which the principal is strategic and risk‐neutral but the agent is myopic and risk‐averse. We find the optimal joint incentive design and inventory control strategy, and demonstrate the impact of operational decisions on the design of a compensation package. The optimal strategy is characterized by a menu of inventory‐dependent salesforce compensation contracts. We show that the optimal compensation package depends highly on the operational decisions; when inventory levels are high, (a) the firm offers a more attractive contract and (b) the contract is effective in inducing the salesforce to work harder than usual. In contrast, when inventory levels are low, the firm can offer a less attractive compensation package, but still expect the salesforce to work hard enough. In addition, we show that although the inventory/production management and the design of salesforce compensation package are highly correlated, information acquisition through contract design allows the firm to implement traditional inventory control policies: a market‐based state‐dependent policy (with a constant base‐stock level when the inventory is low) that makes use of the extracted market condition from the agent is optimal. This work appears to be the first article on operations that addresses the important interplay between inventory/production control and salesforce compensation decisions in a dynamic setting. Our findings shed light on the effective integration of these two significant aspects for the successful operation of a firm. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 61: 320–340, 2014en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherM.I.T. Pressen_US
dc.subject.otherDynamic Incentive Designen_US
dc.subject.otherPrincipal Agenten_US
dc.subject.otherMoral Hazarden_US
dc.subject.otherAdverse Selectionen_US
dc.subject.otherInventory Controlen_US
dc.titleThe impact of operational decisions on the design of salesforce incentivesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelStatistics (Mathematical)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/107557/1/nav21585.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/nav.21585en_US
dc.identifier.sourceNaval Research Logistics (NRL)en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA. Mas‐Colell, M.D. Whinston, and J.R. Green, Microeconomic theory, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJ.J. Laffont and D. Martimort, The theory of incentives: The principal‐agent model, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJ.J. Laffont and J. Tirole, Using cost observation to regulate firms, J Pol Econ 594 ( 1986 ), 614 – 641.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJ.J. Laffont and J. Tirole, Adverse selection and renegotiation in procurement, Rev Econ Stud 57 ( 1990 ), 597 – 625.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceR. Lal, Delegating pricing responsibility to the salesforce, Mark Sci 5 ( 1986 ), 159 – 168.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceM.A. Lariviere and E.L. Porteus, Stalking information: Bayesian inventory management with unobserved lost sales, Manag Sci 45 ( 1999 ), 346 – 363.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA. Levenson, C. Zoghi, M. Gibbs, and G. Benson, Getting what you pay for: A case study of incentive pay optimization. Working Paper, Marshal School of Business, Univ. of S. Cal., 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceH. Lutze and O. Ozer, Promised lead‐time contracts under asymmetric information, Oper Res 56 ( 2008 ), 898 – 915.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceB.K. Mishra and A. Prasad, Delegating pricing decisions in competitive markets with symmetric and asymmetric information, Mark Sci 24 ( 2005 ), 490 – 497.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceR. Myerson, Optimal coordination mechanisms in generalized principal‐agent problems, J Math Econ 10 ( 1982 ), 67 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceS. Oh and O. Ozer, Mechanism design for capacity planning under dynamic evolution of asymmetric demand forecasts. Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceS.W. O'Leary‐Kelly and B.E. Flores, The integration of manufacturing and marketing/sales decisions: Impact on organizational performance, J Oper Manag 20 ( 2002 ), 221 – 240.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA. Pavan, I. Segal, and J. Toikka, Dynamic mechanism design: Incentive compatibility, profit maximization and information disclosure. Working paper, Northwestern University, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceE.L. Plambeck and S.A. Zenios, Performance‐based incentives in a dynamic principal‐agent model, Manufact Serv Oper Manag 2 ( 2000 ), 240 – 263.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceE.L. Plambeck and S.A. Zenios, Incentive efficient control of a make‐to‐stock production system, Oper Res 51 ( 2003 ), 371 – 386.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceE. Porteus and S. Whang, On manufacturing/marketing incentives, Manag Sci 9 ( 1991 ), 1166 – 1181.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceC. Prendergastan, The provision of incentives in firms, J Econ Lit 36 ( 1999 ), 7 – 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceB. Salanie, The economics of contracts: A primer, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceB.P. Shapiro, Can marketing and manufacturing coexist? Harv Bus Rev 55 ( 1977 ), 104 – 114.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceH. Zhang, M. Nagarajan, and G. Sosic, Dynamic supplier contracts under asymmetric inventory information, Oper Res 58 ( 2010 ), 1380 – 1397.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceH. Zhang and S.A. Zenios, A dynamic principal‐agent model with hidden information: Sequential optimality through truthful state revelation, Oper Res 56 ( 2008 ), 371 – 386.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA. Zoltners P. Sinha, and G.A. Zoltners, The complete guide to accelerating sales force performance: How to get more sales from your sales force, AMACOM/American Management Association, 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceP. Agrell and P. Bogetoft, Use of menu of incentive contracts. AG2:V4, Draft Report, Sumicsid, 2003, Available at: www.Sumicsid.com.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA.A. Atkinson, Incentives, uncertainty and risk in the newsboy problem, Decis Sci 10 ( 1979 ), 341 – 353.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA.K. Basu, K. Amiya, R. Lal, V. Srinivasan, and R. Staelin, Salesforce compensation plans: An agency theoretic perspective, Mark Sci 4 ( 1985 ), 267 – 291.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceP. Bhardwaj, Delegating pricing decisions, Mark Sci 20 ( 2001 ), 143 – 169.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceP. Bolton and M. Dewatripont, Contract theory, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceC.B. Cadsby, F. Song, and F. Tapon, Sorting and incentive effects of pay‐for‐performance: An experimental investigation, Acad Manag J 50 ( 2007 ), 387 – 405.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceC.J. Chang, Gas prices and automobile advertising expenditures in U.S. markets, Honors Thesis, Duke University, 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceF. Chen, Sales‐force incentives and inventory management, Manufact Serv Oper Manag 2 ( 2000 ), 186 – 202.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceF. Chen, Salesforce incentives, market information, and production/inventory planning, Manag Sci 51 ( 2005 ), 60 – 75.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceX. Chen and D. Simchi‐Levi, Coordinating inventory control and pricing strategies with random demand and fixed ordering cost: The finite horizon case, Oper Res 52 ( 2004 ), 887 – 896.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA.T. Coughlan, “Salesforce compensation: A review of MS/OR advances.” in: J. Eliashberg and G. Lilien (Editors), Handbooks in Oper. Res. and Man. Sci.: Marketing, Vol. 5, Elsivier Science Publishers, North‐Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993, pp. 611 – 651.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA.T. Coughlan and S.K. Subrata, Salesforce compensation: Theory and managerial implications, Mark Sci 8 ( 1989 ), 324 – 342.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCybernet Data Systems, Inc., 10‐Q: LKQ COPR. Item 2. Management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations. Available at: http://www.menafn.com/, Last access on 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceT. Dai and K. Jerath, Salesforce compensation with inventory consideration, Manag Sci 59 ( 2013 ), 2490 – 2501.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceY. Dai and X. Chao, Salesforce contract design and inventory planning with asymmetric risk‐averse sales agents, Oper Res Lett 41 ( 2013 ), 86 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceN. DeHoratius and A. Raman, Store manager incentive design and retail performance: An exploratory investigation, Manufact Serv Oper Manag 9 ( 2007 ), 518 – 534.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceY. Ding, R. Jia, and S. Tang, Dynamic principal agent model based on CMDP, Math Methods Oper Res 58 ( 2003 ), 149 – 157.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceM. Doepke and R.M. Townsend, Dynamic mechanism design with hidden income and hidden actions, J Econ Theory 126 ( 2006 ), 235 – 285.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceA. Federgruen and A. Heching, Combined pricing and inventory control under uncertainty, Oper Res 47 ( 1999 ), 454 – 475.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceX. Frexias, R. Guesnerie, and J. Tirole, Planning under incomplete information and the ratchet effect, Rev Econ Stud 52 ( 1985 ), 173 – 191.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJ. Gonik, Tie saleman's bonuses to forecasts, Harv Bus Rev 56 ( 1978 ), 116 – 123.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceH.S. Heese and J.M. Swaminathan, Inventory and sales effort management under unobservable lost sales, Eur J Oper Res 207 ( 2010 ), 1263 – 1268.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceD.P. Heyman and M.J. Sobel, Stochastic models in operations research, Vol. II, McGraw‐Hill, New York, NY, 1984.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceW.J. Hopp, S.M.R. Iravani, and Z. Liu, The role of wholesale‐salespersons and incentive plans in promoting supply chain performance. Working Paper, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceK. Jerath, S. Netssine, and Z.J. Zhang, Can we all get along? incentive contracts to bridge the marketing and operations divide. Working Paper, The Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2011.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.