(整理)采购管理中英文对照

精品文档

Supply chain management

Supply chain management (SCM) is the term used to describe the management of

the

flow

of

materials,

information,

and

funds

across

the

entire

supply

chain,

from

suppliers to component producers to final assemblers to distribution (warehouses and

retailers), and ultimately to the consumer.1 In fact, it often includes after-sales service

and

returns

or

recycling.

In

contrast

to

multiechelon

inventory

management,

which

coordinates inventories at multiple locations, SCM typically involves coordination of

information and materials among multiple firms.

Supply chain management has generated much interest in recent years for a number

of managers now realize that actions taken by one member of the chain

can

influence

theprofitability

of

all

others

in

the

chain.2

Firms

are

increasingly

thinking in terms of competing as part of a supply chain against other supply chains,

rather than as a single firm against other individual , as firms successfully

streamline

their

own

operations,

the

next

opportunity

for

improvement

is

through

better coordination with their suppliers and customers. The costs of poor coordination

can be extremely high. In the Italian pasta industry, consumer demand is quite steady

throughout the year.

SCM typically involves coordination of information and materials among multiple

chain

management

has

generated

much

interest

in

recent

years

for

a

number

of

reasons.

However,

because

of

trade

promotions,

volume

discounts,

long

lead

times,

full- truckload

discounts,

and

end-of-quarter

sales

incentives

the

orders

seen

at

the

manufacturers

are

highly

variable

(Hammond

(1994)).

In

fact,

the

variability increases in moving up the supply chain from consumer to grocery store to

distribution center to central warehouse to factory, a phenomenon that is often called

the bullwhip effect

Supply Chain Management Concerns

A key element of successful SCM involves the downstreamintegration of business

customers as well as themanagement of upstream suppliers. However, integratingthe

entire value chain is acomplex undertaking. Organizations encountering problems due

to increased reliance on suppliers may reverse their downsizing emphasis and bring

outsourced products and services back in-house,secure alternative sources of supply,

or

work

with

existing

suppliers

to

increase

their

performance

and

capability

(Watts

精品文档

精品文档

and Hahn 1993). Alternatively, firms can use supplier evaluation to identify specific

supplier deficiencies and to develop plans to address them (Krause 1997). While it is

beneficial

to

recognize

the

specific

practices

that

result

in

successful

SCM

implementation,

it

is

also

helpful

to

understand

the

primary

concerns

hindering

a

successful

supply

chain.

The

primary

goal

of

identifying

these

concerns

was

to

provide

practitioners

with

a

list

of

issues

that

adversely

impact

firms’

performance

and

appropriate

actions

that

could

be

taken.

To

operationalize

this

construct,

nine

commonly cited concerns that restrain successful SCM were identified (see Table IV)

based

on

interviews

and

discussions

with

practitioners

during

plant

visits

and

professional

meetings.

Once

again,

the

SCM

concerns

were

not

organized

in

any

order or categorized in the survey instrument. The concerns included cooperation and

trust

among

supply

chain

members,

information

capability,

competition,

and

geographical proximity. Performance Measures Economists disagree about the use of

accounting data to measure firm performance because it ignores opportunity costs and

the

time

value

of

money

(Chen

and

Lee

1995).

They

have

argued

that

business

performance

should

be

measured

by

financial

data

(e.g.,

internal

rate

of

return).

Financial

data

provides

a

measurement

of

a

firm’s

performance

via

the

market’s

valuation

of

the

firm’s

securities.

However,

since

future

cash

flows

of

the

business

entity cannot be observed, measures of business performance are typically based on

accounting data (e.g., return on investment [ROI] or return on assets [ROA]). While

Jahera

and

Lloyd

(1992)

observed

that

ROI

was

a

valid

performance

measure

for

midsize

firms,

Tobin

and

Brainard

(1968)

challenged

its

validity

as

a

performance

measure. A firm’s financial leverage can affect its ROI to

such a degree that it renders

comparisons between firms meaningless. ROI also ignores opportunity costs and the

time

value

of

investments.

An

alternate

measure

of

performance,

Tobin’s

q

ratio,

evaluates the ratio of the market value of a firm to the replacement cost of its assets

(Tobin 1969). However, the prospect of obtaining accurate measures of ea

ch firm’s

market value and the replacement

cost of its assets to calculate Tobin’s q was deemed

impractical

for

this

research.

Given

the

lack

of

consensus

regarding

a

valid

crossindustry

measure

of

corporate

performance,

performance

in

this

study

was

opera

tionalized

by

senior

management’s

perceptions

of

a

firm’s

performance

in

comparison

to

that

of

major

competitors.

This

research

adopted

three

of

the

nine

performance measures used in Tan et al. (1998b). The measures are overall product

quality, competitive position, and customer service levels.

精品文档

精品文档

Survey Methodology

A

survey

instrument

in

the

form

of

a

questionnaire

wasdesigned

based

on

the

constructs

previously

dents

were

asked

to

indicate,

using

a

five- pointLikert scale, the importance of the 25 practices (1 = low, 5= high) in their

firm’s SCM efforts. For questions regarding

SCM concerns, respondents were asked

to

indicate,

on

asimilar

five- point

Likert

scale,

the

likelihood

that

the

nine

issues

prevented their firm from achieving the full potential of SCM. To elicit information

on performance, respondents were asked to indicate, using a similar five-point Likert

scale, their company’s performance relative to

that of major industry competitors in

terms

of

overall

product

quality,

overall

competitive

position,

and

overall

customer

service

levels.

Some

other

questions

including

demographics

information

were

also

presented in the questionnaire. The survey instrument was pretested by 30 supply and

materials managers for content validity. Where necessary, questions were reworded to

improve validity and clarity.

The

pretest

questionnaires

were

not

used

for

subsequent

analyses.

The

revised

survey instrument

was sent

to

1,500

supply

and

materials

managers identified from

the Institute for Supply Manage

ment? (ISM) (formerly the National

Association of

Purchasing

Management)

membership

list.

Firms

represented

by

these

individuals

were

from

Standard

Industrial

Classification

(SIC)

20

to

39.

The

respondents

represented manufacturers of food and kindred products, tobacco products, textile mill

products, apparel and other textile products, lumber and wood products, furniture and

fixtures,

printing and publishing, chemicals

and

allied products,

petroleum

and coal

products, rubber and plastics products, leather and leather products, fabricated metal

products,

industrial

machinery

and

equipment,

electronic

and

other

electric

equipment,

transportation

equipment,

and

miscellaneous

manufacturing

industries.

Two

mailings

and

a

follow-up

reminder

yielded

101

usable

returned

surveys.

A

second

phase of the survey targeting 3,000 supply and materials managers identified from the

American

Production

and

Inventory

Control

Society

(APICS)

was

conducted.

The

first APICS survey was mailed on October 1, 1999, and the follow-up postcards were

mailed two weeks later. The final reminder with a complete, identical questionnaire

was

mailed

on

November

1,

1999.

The

last

usable

survey

was

received

in

the

first

quarter of 2000. Two mailings and a follow-up reminder yielded a total of 310 usable

surveys.

The

combined

ISM

and

APICS

surveys

resulted

in

a

response

rate

of

9.1

精品文档

精品文档

percent (411 responses). Subsequently, t-tests were conducted to

compare the sales,

number

of

employees,

and

responses

to

the

relevant

survey

questions

between

the

ISM and APICS data.

The analysis did not reveal any statistical difference between the two populations.

Therefore, results of the two surveys were combined.

Supplier Selection

A

variety

of

evaluation

procedures

are

possible;

there

is

no

best

method

or

approach. The important thing is to make certain that some procedures are used. The

manager

must

identify

all

potential

suppliers

for

the

item(s)

being

purchased.

The

next

step

is

to

develop

a

list

of

factors

by

which

to

evaluate

each

supplier.

Management can use the variables mentioned in this text or develop another list. Once

the factors have been determined, the performance of individual suppliers should be

evaluated on each factor (e.g., product reliability, price, ordering convenience).

After

evaluating

suppliers

on

each

factor,

management

must

determine

the

importance of the factors to its particular situation. If, for example, product reliability

is

of

paramount

importance

to

the

firm,

that

(actor

will

be

given

the

highest

importance

rating.

If

price

was

not

as

important

as

product

reliability,

management

will

assign

price

a

tower

importance

rating.

Any

factor

that

is

not

important

to

the

firm will be assigned a zero.

The next step is to develop a weighted composite measure for each factor. This is

done by multiplying the supplier's rating for a factor by the factor's importance. The

addition of the composite scores for each supplier provides an overall rating that can

be compared to other suppliers. The higher the composite score, the more closely the

supplier meets the needs and the specifications of the procuring company.

In principle, this kind

of analysis is

not

completely new to

purchasing

managers.

Many

decisions

in?

volve

balancing

one

type

of

variable

or

characteristic

against

another. What is new and valuable about this approach, however, is that it makes the

process of weighing variables explicit: Because it forces us to formalize the important

elements

of

the

purchasing

decision,

it

helps

us

bring

our

tacit

assumptions

to

the

surface and questions our intuitive or habitual priorities.

The

process

of

suppler

selection

is

more

difficult

when

materials

are

being

purchased

in

international

markets.

However,

more

firms

are

buying

raw

materials,

精品文档