Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An agent-based negotiation model on price and delivery date in a fashion supply chain

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Price and due-date negotiation between supply chain members is a critical issue. Motivated by industrial practice, we consider in this paper a make-to-order fashion supply chain in which the downstream manufacturer and the upstream supplier are cooperative on due-date and competitive on price. We propose a two-phase negotiation agenda based on such characteristics, and aim to find an optimal solution to deal with the negotiation problem considering production cost and mutual benefit. We build an analytical negotiation model for a manufacturer-supplier pair, discuss their utilities, and examine the Pareto efficiency frontier from the theoretical perspective. After that, from an application perspective, we build an agent-based two-phase negotiation system where agents are used to represent the two parties to enhance communication. In the cooperative phase, a simulated annealing based intelligent algorithm is employed to help the manufacturer agent and the supplier agent search tentative agreement on due dates which can minimize the total supply chain cost. In the competitive phase, the two parties bargain on the pricing issue using concession based methods. They adjust the reservation value and aspiration value for pricing accordingly based on the integrated utility and the result of the previous phase. Simulation results show that, the proposed negotiation approach can achieve optimal utility of agents and reach a win-win situation for the bilateral parties. Sensitivity analysis is conducted to further generate insights on how different parameters affect the performance of the proposed system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is known that simulated annealing (SA) is just a generic probabilistic metaheuristic (Glover et al. 2011; Osman and Laporte 1996). It aims at finding an acceptably good solution efficiently in a fixed amount of time, rather than the best possible solution. As such, the term “optimal” is not used in the strong sense that it is the “globally best” solution; it just refers to the “acceptably good solution” for the optimization problem and it is the “optimal” solution based on the SA algorithm.

References

  • Barbarosoglu, G. (2000). An integrated supplier-buyer model for improving supply chain coordination. Production Planning & Control, 11, 732–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behdani, B., Lukszo, Z., & Weijnen, M. (2011). An agent-based model to support negotiation-based order acceptance in a multi-plant enterprise. In IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 1014–1019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blocher, J. D., & Chhajed, D. (2008). Minimizing customer order lead-time in a two-stage assembly supply chain. Annals of Operations Research, 161, 25–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakravastia, A., & Nakamura, N. (2002). Model for negotiating the price and due date for a single order with multiple suppliers in a make-to-order environment. International Journal of Production Research, 40, 3425–3440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakravastia, A., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Integrated model for supplier selection and negotiation in a make-to-order environment. International Journal of Production Research, 42, 4457–4474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calosso, T., & Cantamessa, M. (2003). Evaluating a negotiation-production system through Markov chains. Production Planning & Control, 14, 578–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calosso, T., Cantamessa, M., & Gualano, M. (2004). Negotiation support for make-to-order operations in business-to-business electronic commerce. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 20, 405–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carabelea, C. (2002). Adaptive agents in argumentation based negotiation. In Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Vol. 2322. Conference MASA 2001 (pp. 180–187). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2007). Electronic reverse auction configuration and its impact on buyer price and supplier perceptions of opportunism: a laboratory experiment. Journal of Operations Management, 25(5), 1035–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaharsooghi, S. K., Honarvar, M., Modarres, M., & Kamalabadi, I. N. (2011). Developing a two stage stochastic programming model of the price and lead-time decision problem in the multi-class make-to-order firm. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61, 1086–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, T. C. E. (1989). A heuristic for common due-date assignment and job scheduling on parallel machines. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 40, 1129–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, T. C. E., & Chen, Z. L. (1994). Parallel-machine scheduling problems with earliness and tardiness penalties. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45, 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, T. C. E., & Gupta, M. C. (1989). Survey of scheduling research involving due date determination decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 38, 156–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, C., & Tyagi, R. (1999). Manufacturer selection and price negotiation for competitive wholesale distribution operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19, 977–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R., & Smith, R. G. (1983). Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem-solving. Artificial Intelligence, 20, 63–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, F. F., & Moodie, D. R. (1999). Pricing and lead time decisions for make-to-order firms with contingent orders. European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., & Hamalainen, R. P. (2001). Interactive multiple-criteria methods for reaching Pareto optimal agreements in negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(6), 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F., & Wong, T. N. (2010). Applying hybrid case-based reasoning in agent-based negotiations for supply chain management. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 8322–8332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faratin, P., Sierra, C., & Jennings, N. R. (1998). Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24, 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faratin, P., Klein, M., Sayama, H., & Bar-yam, Y. (2002a). Simple negotiating agents in complex games: emergent equilibria and dominance of strategies. In Intelligent agents VIII: agent theories, architectures, and languages (Vol. 2333, pp. 367–376).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Faratin, P., Sierra, C., & Jennings, N. R. (2002b). Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence, 142, 205–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, F., Lawrence, H. C., Patil, R., & Kelly, J. P. (2011). Integrated exact, hybrid and metaheuristic learning methods for confidentiality protection. Annals of Operations Research, 183, 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindan, K., & Khan, B. S. H. (2011). A multi objective simulated annealing for permutation flow shop scheduling problem. International Journal of Advanced Operation Management, 3(1), 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindan, K., Diabat, A., & Popiu, M. N. (2012). Contract analysis: a performance measure and profit evaluation within two-echelon supply chains. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 63(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, G., Pina, C., Espuna, A., & Puigjaner, L. (2005). Optimal offer proposal policy in an integrated supply chain management environment. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 44, 7405–7419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. W., Wang, N. M., & Li, P. X. (2012). Simulated annealing for financing cost distribution based project payment scheduling from a joint perspective. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-012-1155-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, P., & Sycara, K. P. (2002). Multi-agent learning in extensive games with complete information. In AAMAS’03 proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 701–708).

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H., Kauffman, R. J., Xu, H., & Zhao, L. (2011). Mechanism design for e-procurement auctions: on the efficacy of post-auction negotiation and quality effort incentives. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10, 650–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, T., & Salleh, M. R. (2000). A blackboard based negotiation for collaborative supply chain system. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 107, 398–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, N. R., Norman, T. J., Faratin, P., O’Brien, P., & Odgers, B. (2000). Autonomous agents for business process management. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14(2), 145–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplansky, E., & Meisels, A. (2007). Distributed personnel scheduling—negotiation among scheduling agents. Annals of Operations Research, 155, 227–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karunatillake, N. C., Jennings, N. R., Rahwan, I., & Mcburney, P. (2009). Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9–10), 935–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E. (2001). Modeling distributive and integrative negotiations: review and revised characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(6), 493–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., & Lo, G. (2003). Aspire: integration of negotiation support system and software agents for e-business negotiation. International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, 3(1), 215–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V. (2002). Auction theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, C. W., Wong, T. N., & Sculli, D. (2006). A framework for agents conducting ebusiness in a supply chain. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 15(3), 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F. R., & Lin, Y. Y. (2006). Integrating multi-agent negotiation to resolve constraints in fulfilling supply chain orders. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 5(4), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., & Nagurney, A. (2011). Supply chain networks with global outsourcing and quick-response production under demand and cost uncertainty. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-011-1006-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. (1994). Introduction to game theory. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neubert, R., Gorlitz, O., & Teich, T. (2004). Automated negotiations of supply contracts for flexible production networks. International Journal of Production Economics, 89, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, I. H., & Laporte, G. (1996). Metaheuristics: a bibliography. Annals of Operations Research, 63, 511–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panwalkar, S. S., Smith, M. L., & Seidmann, A. (1982). Common due date assignment to minimize total penalty for the one machine scheduling problem. Operations Research, 30, 391–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romp, G. (1997). Game theory: introduction and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, W., & Norie, D. H. (1999). An agent-based approach for manufacturing enterprise integration and supply chain management. In G. Jacucci (Ed.), Globalization of manufacturing in the digital communications era of the 21st century: innovation, agility and the virtual enterprise (pp. 579–590). Norwell: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidmann, A., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Due date assignment for production systems. Management Science, 27, 571–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierra, C., Faratin, P., & Jennings, N. R. (1997). A service-oriented negotiation model between autonomous agents. In: Multi-agent rationality (Vol. 1237, pp. 17–35).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. P. (1998). Multiagent systems. AI Magazine, 19, 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D. W., Fang, S. C., & Hodgson, T. J. (1998). A fuzzy due-date bargainer for the make-to-order manufacturing systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part C, Applications and Reviews, 28, 492–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Wang, H., Vogel, D., Kumar, K., & Chiu, D. (2006). Agent-based negotiation and decision making for dynamic supply chain formation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 22(7), 1046–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Wong, T. N., & Wang, X. (2012). An ontology based approach to organize multi-agent assisted supply chain negotiations. Computers & Industrial Engineering. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2012.06.018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, H. M., & Yang, P. C. (2007). A mutual beneficial pricing strategy of an integrated vendor-buyers inventory system. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 34, 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, T. N., Leung, C. W., Mak, K. L., & Fung, R. Y. K. (2006). Dynamic shop-floor scheduling in multi-agent manufacturing systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 31(3), 486–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, D. J., & Sycara, K. (1998). Bayesian learning in negotiation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Song, H., Chen, X., & Hong, L. (2011). A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents. European Journal of Operational Research, 210, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Division, Institute of Textiles and Clothing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, China

    An Pan & Tsan-Ming Choi

Authors
  1. An Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tsan-Ming Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsan-Ming Choi.

Additional information

Prepared for Annals of Operations Research, Special Issue on Evolutionary Algorithms for Supply Chain Management.

We sincerely thank the guest editor Professor Kannan Govindan and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which led to the major improvement of this paper. This research is supported in parts by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s Research Funding under the grant number G-YK71, and RGC(HK) under the grant number of PolyU 5424/11H.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pan, A., Choi, TM. An agent-based negotiation model on price and delivery date in a fashion supply chain. Ann Oper Res 242, 529–557 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1327-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1327-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation