@phdthesis{Hebisch2021,
  author    = {Hebisch, Benjamin},
  title     = {Power in supply chain negotiations: a two-stage approach},
  series = {Schriftenreihe zum Verhandlungsmanagement ; Band 15},
  journal   = {Schriftenreihe zum Verhandlungsmanagement ; Band 15},
  publisher = {Kovac},
  address   = {Hamburg},
  isbn      = {978-3-339-12400-5},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XXX,106},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Negotiations between buyers and suppliers directly influence a company's costs, revenue, and consequently its profits. The outcome of these negotiations relies heavily on the companies' as well as the negotiators' power position. Across three empirical articles the author demonstrates how the own power position can first be identified as well as improved and subsequently used to maximize profits in negotiations between sellers and buyers. In the first paper the sources underlying buyer and supplier power are identified and weighted. The results of the first paper show the impact of each single sources on the buyer and supplier power. The number of suppliers available for one product is by far the most important source of power for both sides. The results indicate that a higher number of suppliers leads to a better power position of the buyer and simultaneously to an inferior power position of a single supplier. The second paper aims to examine the impact of the number of suppliers on the outcome of buyer-seller-negotiations thereby considering the innovation level of the products purchased. The results of the second study which are based on real negotiation data from a German car manufacturer indicate that the number of available suppliers has a stronger impact on the negotiation outcome for innovative than for functional, less innovative products. The third paper analyzes how the ability to take the counterpart's perspective (perspective taking ability) influences the negotiation outcome. This relationship is examined for different power positions. The results indicate that a negotiator's high perspective taking ability leads to a more unfavorable negotiation outcome compared to low perspective taking ability. Simultaneously, high perspective taking ability causes a more positive perception of the conducted negotiation than low perspective taking ability. This contradictory effect of perspective taking ability bears the risk for buyers and suppliers to assess an unfavorable outcome as positive. Finally, the results of the papers are summarized and discussed. The dissertation concludes with implications for practice, limitations of the work, and approaches for future research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Fucik2010,
  author    = {Fucik, Markus},
  title     = {Bayesian risk management : "Frequency does not make you smarter"},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-53089},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Within our research group Bayesian Risk Solutions we have coined the idea of a Bayesian Risk Management (BRM). It claims (1) a more transparent and diligent data analysis as well as (2)an open-minded incorporation of human expertise in risk management. In this dissertation we formulize a framework for BRM based on the two pillars Hardcore-Bayesianism (HCB) and Softcore-Bayesianism (SCB) providing solutions for the claims above. For data analysis we favor Bayesian statistics with its Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation algorithm. It provides a full illustration of data-induced uncertainty beyond classical point-estimates. We calibrate twelve different stochastic processes to four years of CO2 price data. Besides, we calculate derived risk measures (ex ante/ post value-at-risks, capital charges, option prices) and compare them to their classical counterparts. When statistics fails because of a lack of reliable data we propose our integrated Bayesian Risk Analysis (iBRA) concept. It is a basic guideline for an expertise-driven quantification of critical risks. We additionally review elicitation techniques and tools supporting experts to express their uncertainty. Unfortunately, Bayesian thinking is often blamed for its arbitrariness. Therefore, we introduce the idea of a Bayesian due diligence judging expert assessments according to their information content and their inter-subjectivity.},
  language  = {en}
}