چگونه در زنجیره تامین خود ثبات ایجاد کنیم؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|10889||2012||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 9100 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 135, Issue 2, February 2012, Pages 870–881
This case based research paper examines the stabilisation strategies used within seven supply chains and presents a framework to help practitioners stabilise their chains. The findings show that organisations should first select a cushioning strategy and then reduce demand uncertainty to lower the level of cushion held. However, they need to recognise that other organisations within the supply chain are making similar decisions and the whole supply chain needs to be stabilised. Despite this, businesses seem to only share information about their demand uncertainty-reducing mechanisms and not their cushioning strategies. This means that companies often make decisions in isolation of each other, which can then destabilise the chain.
To compete in increasingly uncertain and competitive markets, many companies choose to focus on their area of core competence and outsource other goods and services (Lowson et al., 2000), which often results in organisations managing ever more complex and varied supply chains (Preiss et al., 1996). A key strategic decision for businesses is how best to stabilise their supply chains and cushion them from market instability. Authors such as Newman et al. (1993) and Hopp and Spearman (1995) suggest using a combination of mechanisms such as inventory, order backlog and capacity. However, others believe there is a gap between theory and practice in supply chain management (Storey et al., 2006) and further management tools are required to help businesses develop strategies (Mills et al., 1998) and become more competitive (Menda and Dilts, 1997). This research seeks to examine the practical implications of stabilising supply chains to examine the gap between theory and practice. The paper explores the mechanisms for stabilising delivery systems, choosing between alternative mechanisms and current research on stabilising supply chains. The case study research methodology is then outlined explaining how companies were selected and how data was collected and analysed. The findings from each case study are described and the various cushioning strategies reviewed. This discussion leads to the development of the stability managerial framework and theoretical propositions about where alternative mechanisms are most appropriate and how supply chains can be stabilised.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The research reduces the gap between theory and practice in supply chain management (Storey et al., 2006) by making several contributions to the study of supply chain stabilisation. Firstly, it develops the supply chain stabilisation framework to help practitioners manage supply chain stability as shown in Fig. 3. Organisations should first select a cushioning strategy and then reduce demand uncertainty to lower the level of cushion held. However, they need to recognise that other organisations within the supply chain are making similar decisions and the whole supply chain needs to be stabilised. Cushioning strategies used at one stage of a supply chain affected those used elsewhere and, therefore, businesses need to consider the cushions used elsewhere in the chain before selecting their own strategy. The organisations researched found these insights useful for stabilising their own delivery systems and the supply chain as a whole. Secondly, a number of propositions were developed showing the suitable market and business environments for alternative cushioning strategies and demand uncertainty-reducing mechanisms. This supports the assertion that mechanisms are not better or worse than each other, they are simply more suited to different market and business conditions (Hopp and Spearman, 1995; Fisher et al., 1997):