This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sandholm, T. Articles by Begg, D. Search for Related Content

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

CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
CombineNet, Inc., Fifteen 27th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
The Procter & Gamble Company, Two P&G Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
The Procter & Gamble Company, Two P&G Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
The Procter & Gamble Company, Two P&G Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
tsandholm{at}combinenet.com
dlevine{at}combinenet.com
mconcordia{at}combinenet.com
pmartyn{at}combinenet.com

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.

Key Words: games; group decisions; bidding; auctions; industries; consumer goods

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. D. Jap and P. A. Naik BidAnalyzer: A Method for Estimation and Selection of Dynamic Bidding Models Marketing Science, November 1, 2008; 27(6): 949 - 960. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. M. Harstad and A. S. Pekec Relevance to Practice and Auction Theory: A Memorial Essay for Michael Rothkopf Interfaces, September 1, 2008; 38(5): 367 - 380. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. H. Rothkopf Decision Analysis: The Right Tool for Auctions Decision Analysis, September 1, 2007; 4(3): 167 - 172. [Abstract] [PDF]