1. TAC SCM Survey Alberto Sardinha Norman Sadeh e-Supply Chain Management Lab Carnegie Mellon University

2. Outline Results of the TAC SCM Survey 55 Respondents from From 30 different organizations From 15 different countries The survey was conducted between May 20, 2006 and June 3, 2006.

3. Question 1 Enter your name and that of your organization

4. Number of Respondents per Organization

5. Question 2 Indicate each of the years when you had an entry in the TAC-SCM tournament

7. Question 3 If you had entries in 2005 or earlier but didn’t enter the competition in 2006, what was (were) the main reason(s)?

8. If you had entries in 2005 or earlier but didn’t enter the competition in 2006, what was (were) the main reason(s)

9. Most common answers*: Busy Schedule Joined another team The current game does not provide enough opportunities for machine learning (*) This is a subset of the answers. The full text is provided separately

10. Question 4 Assuming that the 2007 competition takes place in July-August, which of the following would increase/decrease the chances you participate?

11. Which of the following would increase/decrease the chances you participate?

15. e.g. semi-finals with 24 agents and finals with 12 agents, being mixed and matched for a couple of days

16. Which of the following would increase/decrease the chances you participate? e.g. 15-20 minute games instead of 55 minute games - with possible provisions to reduce startup/shutdown effects

17. Which of the following would increase/decrease the chances you participate

18. Which of the following would increase/decrease the chances you participate? e.g. combination of short-term and long-term procurement contracts

19. Question 5 Please use this box to provide additional details on any of your answers under Question 4

20. Sample of Responses - I : Improve agentware documentation "Start-Kit" for new competitors Improved API if possible to assist agent modularity Donations and symbolic entry fees instead of 250$ More complicated factory problem e.g. switch-over costs, multiple resources, machine breakdown perhaps correlated with high utilization Double the game length to make it more realistic and to reduce start and end game effects A more complex reputation management

21. Sample of Responses - II * : Introduction of multiple leagues “Experimental" league with a new set of rules League with 2006 rules Undergraduate league League with "simpler" specifications “The current supplier model encourages early component orders and discourages the use of negotiation strategies” (*) This summary provides a “small portion”/highlights of all the comments. The full text is provided in another file.

22. Sample of Responses - III * : Availability of game data should be delayed till after the tournament is over More opportunities for learning Competition should be designed to test security aspects of agents Finals with 12 agents Reduce predictability on the customer side Introduce a loan limit Products could have zero demand for several days at the beginning or end of games – e.g. product launch and phase-out Allow manufacturers to respond to consumer bids with offers for substitutable products (e.g. different CPUs, etc)

23. Question 6 Please briefly describe your main research interests and motivations for participating in TAC-SCM e.g. “adaptive techniques”, “optimization”, “Supply Chain Management”, “game theoretic issues”, etc.

24. Please briefly describe your main research interests and motivations for participating in TAC-SCM (*) First topic listed – even though respondents were not instructed to list topics in any particular order

26. Question 7 Do you use TAC-SCM software in courses that you teach?

32. Question 8 Do you find the TAC-SCM Agent repository useful?

34. Question 9 Do you have any suggestions for improving the research/educational value of the competition?

35. Samples Responses - I * The competition doesn’t encourage opponent modeling The game does not provide detailed information about the behavior of individual agents. Don’t release game logs but make more information reports available to agents to somewhat compensate Moving TAC-SCM 2007 to July would increase participation We already make use of available data logs from previous games. This has to continue. The rules of the game are too complex for students taking an agent course to try to make their own agents. Perhaps, we could develop a lighter version that will pick the students' interest enough to entice some of them to develop a full version agent. Changes to the game rules will be needed to keep the research papers coming (*) sample responses. The full text is provided in another file.

36. Samples Responses - II * A more sophisticated game viewer will be very interesting for educational purposes. I think having some support from industry is very important. Especially in credibility. Making all the agents available after the competition It's difficult to justify dedicating significant resources to the SCM game when you work for an organization that needs real impact and results. Increase the sharing of agent binaries, source code, analysis tools, agent descriptions etc. The ideal specification should have both high variability and moderate predictability. Long-term "strategic" decisions Games could last for 20 quarters (5 years), with each quarter taking 1 or 2 real minutes. A minor point about the current specification is that supplier prices have a rather strange pattern, in that it is often possible to get components for cheaper in the very short term (2-3 days out) than in the mid term (6-10 days out). (*) This summary provides a “small portion”/highlights of all the comments. The full text is provided in another file.

37. Samples Responses - III * Developing a GUI front-end to develop agents. This is critical for many Industrial Engineering students and Business School students that lack programming skills. The possibility of market shocks (i.e. suppliers going out of business or customer demand collapsing in one market segment) (*) This summary provides a “small portion”/highlights of all the comments. The full text is provided in another file.

38. Question 10 Enter here any other comments you may have about TAC-SCM and how you would like the tournament to evolve over the years to come

39. Samples Responses - I * I am imagining right now is an environment which houses lots of agents Having TAC run through late April was very unfortunate for my team Reduce the registration fee for the teams who lost in the previous year. It is quite difficult for us to get the funding for next year if we did not do well in the finals. Add a secondary market for components and finished goods. Allow agents to buy other agents. Final rounds should include more games, more representative Attracting more participants could be done in 2 ways: advertising this contest in the academic environment offering some cash prizes for the winners even if symbolic The requirement to have exactly 6 agents in a game is a bit of a problem for tournament organization. Perhaps the number could be variable? Or perhaps the technique used this year of having a "filler" agent is a reasonable compromise. Introduce mix of short-term and long-term contracts Introduce a one-day lag (or greater) before detailed game logs are accessible to competitors (*)The full text is provided in another file.