Strategic decentralization of self-branded and contract manufacturing businesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the incentive of a competitive contract manufacturer (CCM) to adopt a decentralized structure by segregating contract manufacturing from its self-branded business. We consider an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) with the option to outsource production either to a CCM producing its self-branded product, or to a non-competitive contract manufacturer (NCM) also serving another OEM. The CCM has the option to centralize or decentralize its two businesses and competes in quantity with both OEMs in the end-user market. Our analysis of the strategic interactions between the OEM's outsourcing decision and the CCM's organizational structure choice shows that the likelihood of the OEM outsourcing to the CCM increases when the CCM adopts a decentralized structure compared to a centralized one. Under decentralization, a sufficiently low wholesale price offered by the contract manufacturing division provides the OEM with a competitive advantage. Consequently, the CCM is motivated to strategically deploy a decentralized structure to attract contract manufacturing business from the OEM, even though decentralization yields a lower profit than centralization. However, the CCM must be cautious when implementing a decentralized structure to secure orders from the OEM. The resulting intensified market competition undermines its profit from self-branded business and potentially makes it worse off from producing for the OEM. In such case, the CCM should maintain a centralized structure and uphold a purely competitive relationship with the OEM. Moreover, we demonstrate how the profitability of another OEM supplied by the NCM is influenced by the interplay between the CCM and the OEM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".