Changing the Game in Strategic Sourcing at Procter & Gamble: Expressive Competition Enabled by Optimization

Tuomas Sandholm (), David Levine (), Michael Concordia (), Paul Martyn (), Rick Hughes, Jim Jacobs and Dennis Begg
Additional contact information
Tuomas Sandholm: CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
David Levine: CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Michael Concordia: CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Paul Martyn: CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Rick Hughes: The Procter & Gamble Company, Two P&G Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Jim Jacobs: The Procter & Gamble Company, Two P&G Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Dennis Begg: The Procter & Gamble Company, Two P&G Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Interfaces, 2006, vol. 36, issue 1, 55-68

Abstract: Procter & Gamble put into practice CombineNet’s approach to building sourcing networks, called expressive competition . At its heart is a vision that looks past lowest-price reverse auctions and combinatorial package bidding toward a highly expressive commerce relationship with suppliers. It enables suppliers to make electronic offers that express rich forms of capabilities and efficiencies. As the buyer, P&G also uses an expressive language to state constraints and preferences. The detailed expressions of supply and demand are brought together via an advanced optimization engine to decide the optimal allocation of business to the suppliers. By March 2005, over a period of two and a half years, P&G had sourced over $3 billion through expressive commerce and seen $294.8 million (9.6 percent) in recommended savings. In the process, P&G’s suppliers benefited from the win-win approach: expressive competition matched demand to the most efficient means of production (rather than squeezing suppliers’ profit margins) and removed the exposure risks in making offers. Beyond direct monetary savings, the benefits included the redesign of supply networks with quantitative understanding of the trade-offs and the ability to implement in weeks instead of months.

Keywords: games; group decisions; bidding; auctions; industries; consumer goods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (19)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1050.0185 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:orinte:v:36:y:2006:i:1:p:55-68

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Interfaces from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().