قیمت گذاری زنجیره تامین - یک دیدگاه جدید در مورد قیمت گذاری در بازارهای صنعتی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|22840||2006||8 صفحه PDF||15 صفحه WORD|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 83–90
2. ایجاد همکاری با قیمت گذاری سنتی تحقیق در مورد روش هایی که برای ایجاد مشارکت میان تامین کنندگان و تولید کنندگان
شکل 1. شیفت توجه: از سنتی به سمت چشم انداز قیمت گذاری مشترک.
3. مفهوم قیمت گذاری زنجیره تامین
3.1 از مدیریت زنجیره تامین تا قیمت گذاری زنجیره تامین نیازمندی امروز برای همکاری در فعالیت ها در مناطق مختلف زنجیره
3.2 با استفاده از قیمت گذاری زنجیره تامین برای افزایش سود SCP بر اساس ایده های کلیدی قیمت گذاری عمودی است.
شکل 2. مثال مزایای قیمت گذاری زنجیره تامین.
3.3. مشکلات اجرای SCP منجر به همکاری میان همه طرفهای ذینفع برای افزایش سود در تمام سطوح زنجیره ارزش افزوده است.
جدول 1).معمای غیرقابل حل زندانی
3.4. پیامدهای مدیریتی
3.4.1 'سخت' 'مواد برای موفقیت
3.4.2 عناصر نرم برای موفقیت
4. نتیجه گیری
There is growing recognition that collaborative business relationships within the supply chain provide interesting opportunities for mutually increased benefit. However, while efforts on improving collaboration within the supply chain are indeed already widespread in some aspects of goods and services—for example, many manufacturers integrate their logistics function with those of their suppliers—such efforts are lacking when it comes to pricing. In contrast to the predominant position of pricing in most industries, the following article will investigate the opportunities for suppliers and customers to collaborate on pricing in order to establish mutually beneficial relationships. The article will demonstrate that this goal can only be attained when price is no longer regarded as an ex ante distributive parameter between market partners, but as a joint tool for outcome optimization within the overall supply chain process. We will clarify this new perspective with a calculation example and point out managerial implications for practical implementation.
Changes in competition (globalization, standardization in production and so on) have recently led to many businesses cutting production in order to focus on key competencies. Thus, an even larger portion of value added is subcontracted resulting in significant expansion in the supply chain in many industrial markets. While this trend has brought benefits in that businesses have been able to concentrate on their strengths and focus their main assets in specific areas, this strategic orientation also has increased the need to collaborate and integrate activities between the different companies in the supply chain. Therefore, most companies today try to establish relationships with their partners in the supply chain rather than concentrating on purchasing (Cannon & Perreault, 1999 and Narayandas & Rangan, 2004). This development is further supported by today's business relationships offering one of the most effective remaining opportunities for significant cost reduction and value improvement (Christopher & Gattorna, 2005). However, Frazier, Spekman Robert, and O'Neal Charles (1988) observes that these opportunities mainly depend on the closeness of the relationship. In this sense, suppliers in particular have cultivated business relationships for years by investing in their customers with a view to safeguarding subsequent business dealings from out suppliers (Jackson, 1985). However, there comes a point where making business relationships closer is only possible when both the supplier and the customer are prepared to invest in this special type of collaboration, as relationships in which the reason for staying in are solely determined by investments made on the part of the supplier are unstable by their very nature. As soon as competitors offer comprehensive benefits in alternative business transactions, there is an economic reason for customers to switch suppliers (Bonner & Calantone, 2005). This means that further investments will only become financially viable from the supplier's point of view if the customer is also prepared to put himself into a position of some dependence on the supplier. Both transaction partners then may devolve their economic welfare, at least in part, to the conduct of the other partner.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In discussing SCP, we were aiming at a shift of attention towards a more collaborative view of pricing. In this sense, SCP no longer sees price as a basis of distribution between business associates but as an opportunity for maximising gross margin and profit, thus realising mutual benefits. Like every new operating perspective, SCP raises the question of what type of business situations should be best applied, aside the problems of practical implementation and ingredients of success. One might easily conclude that collaborative pricing is especially recommendable for long-established relationships. We would argue, however, that SCP should only be introduced in new transaction processes and thus at the very beginning of a business relationship. As SCP aims at open books, possible unfair play in the past may come to the fore, even endangering the future maintenance of satisfied and profitable relationships. This is why we recommend that only new business projects aimed at improving results by developing business relationships should take into future consideration the option of partnership pricing; established ones, however, should keep to their traditional practices. Moreover, we would like to indicate one further problem of SCP that becomes evident where more than two parties are collaborating in the supply chain. As Coughlan and Wernerfelt (1989) point out, the widespread assumption that all intra-channel agreements are observable is not valid in reality, and that there are credible guarantees that observable agreements must be considered as possible. This possible intransparency situation, however, gives rise to mistrust within the whole supply chain, as one party never can be sure if two others are collaborating in the form of SCP and thus expanding their profit on its own costs. It only seems clear that this mutual mistrust foils the willingness to change to a more collaborative pricing strategy. Finally, companies must be aware that SCP will only provide a clear competitive advantage for the period of time when the competitors not yet have adapted to the new perspective. Taking the situation into consideration where a market or branch has completely switched into SCP, the use of our concept will no longer dispose of our stated overall advantage. In this situation, it can surely amount to nothing more than the prevention of competitive disadvantage.