Supply chain management
Supply chain management (SCM) is the term ud to describe the management of the flow of materials, information, and funds across the entire supply chain, from suppliers to component producers to final asmblers to distribution (warehous and retailers), and ultimately to the consumer.1 In fact, it often includes after-sales rvice 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 reasons.Many 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 firms.Also, as firms successfully streamline their own operations, the next opportunity for improvement is through better coordination with their su
梦见地震ppliers and customers. The costs of poor coordination can be extremely high. In the Italian pasta industry, consumer demand is quite steady throughout the year.
感知综合障碍>体育科学研究南京清凉山公园
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 reasons. However, becau of trade promotions, volume discounts, long lead times, full-truckload discounts, and end-of-quarter sales incentives the orders en at the manufacturers are highly variable (Hammond (1994)). In fact, the variability increas in moving up the supply chain from consumer to grocery store to distribution center to central warehou 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 incread reliance on suppliers may rever their downsizing emphasis and bring outsou
战斗歌曲
rced products and rvices back in-hou,cure alternative sources of supply, or work with existing suppliers to increa their performance and capability (Watts and Hahn 1993). Alternatively, firms can u supplier evaluation to identify specific supplier deficiencies and to develop plans to address them (Krau 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 the concerns was to provide practitioners with a list of issues that adverly impact firms’ performance and appropriate actions that could be taken. To operationalize this construct, nine commonly cited concerns that restrain successful SCM were identified (e Table IV) bad 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 u of accounting data to measure firm performance becau it ignores opportunity costs and
鸣人图片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 curities. However, since future cash flows of the business entity cannot be obrved, measures of business performance are typically bad on accounting data (e.g., return on investment [ROI] or return on asts [ROA]). While Jahera and Lloyd (1992) obrved 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 asts (Tobin 1969). However, the prospect of obtaining accurate measures of each firm’s market value and the replacement cost of its asts to calculate Tobin’s q was deemed impractical for this rearch. Given the lack of connsus regarding a valid crossindustry measure of corporate performance, performan
ce in this study was operationalized by nior management’s perceptions of a firm’s performance in comparison to that of major competitors. This rearch adopted three of the nine performance measures ud in Tan et al. (1998b). The measures are overall product quality, competitive position, and customer rvice levels.
扎心文案
Survey Methodology
A survey instrument in the form of a questionnaire wasdesigned bad on the constructs previously described.Respondents 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 rvice levels. Some other questions including demograph
ics information were also prented 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.
避五毒The pretest questionnaires were not ud for subquent analys. The revid survey instrument was nt to 1,500 supply and materials managers identified from the Institute for Supply Management™ (ISM) (formerly the National Association of Purchasing Management) membership list. Firms reprented by the individuals were from Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 20 to 39. The respondents reprented 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 cond pha 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 respon rate of 9.1 percent (411 respons). Subquently, t-tests were conducted to compare the sales, number of employees, and respons to the relevant survey questions between the ISM and APICS data.
