بررسی سوابق و نتایج صرفه جویی مشتری در هزینه های معاملات شرکتی در یک رابطه زنجیره تامین
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|19889||2006||11 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 6592 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||10 روز بعد از پرداخت||593,280 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||5 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,186,560 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 59, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 62–72
Cost reduction has become a preeminent goal for businesses. Since firms spend a significant portion of their annual revenues on the acquisition of an array of goods and services from suppliers, organizational procurement has been identified as an area holding tremendous potential for the removal of nonvalue-adding costs. This effort examines how a vendor's order management cycle performance and trust can affect a customer firm's transaction costs, which in turn, affect such customer-related outcomes as customer satisfaction and future purchase intentions. The results are theoretically meaningful as they address gaps identified in previous writings and pragmatically useful as they offer managers practical insight into important bases for securing a competitive advantage.
Cost reduction has become a preeminent goal for businesses (Denison, 2003). As a result, firms are “seeking ways to minimize overhead costs, to eliminate intermediate production steps, to reduce transaction and other “friction” costs, and to optimize business processes across functional and organizational boundaries” (Treacy and Wiersma, 1993, p. 85). Since 30–70% of a firm's annual revenues are expended on acquiring an array of goods and services (Killen and Kamauff, 1995), firms are pursuing such initiatives as enterprise resource planning (Trent and Monczka, 1998), just-in-time sourcing (Frazier et al., 1988), electronic catalogs (Pierson, 2002), reverse auctions (Jap, 2002), and global sourcing (Venkatraman, 2004) in an attempt to remove nonvalue-adding costs from the in-bound supply chain. While research in marketing has been preoccupied with investigating factors that can affect top-line revenues, relatively little attention has been devoted to understanding how managing the middle line (i.e., cost of goods sold) can also contribute to driving the bottom line. Since reducing costs in the inbound supply chain is yet another means to enhance cash flows (Srivastava et al., 1999), this research examines issues pertaining to customer firm transaction costs within an industrial purchasing context. More specifically, the main research questions investigated include: (1) what factors can influence customer firm transaction cost savings in a buyer–supplier relationship? and (2) what is the effect of customer firm transaction cost advantage on customer satisfaction and future purchase intentions? The answers to these questions are important for both theory and practice. Regarding the former, academics have called for examination into the factors affecting firm transaction costs (Rindfleisch and Heide, 1997 and Dahlstrom and Nygaard, 1999) as well as into the relationship between customer firm transaction costs and future intentions (Cannon and Homburg, 2001). This article extends current marketing knowledge by taking a novel approach to explore how a seller's performance along the order management cycle as well as trust can influence customer firm transaction costs, which in turn, affect such customer-related outcomes as customer satisfaction and future purchase intentions. Given that firms devote significant resources to procurement and that transaction costs often exceed actual invoice costs (Noordewier et al., 1990), this research also provides managers with insight into the factors that can introduce nonvalue-added costs into their firm's procurement activity.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This manuscript has implications for both academics and practitioners. As far as the former, the theoretical contributions are three-fold. For one, this research is to the best of our knowledge the first to operationalize the order management cycle construct and formally test it in empirical research. This is an important contribution as the activities from the time that an order is placed through post-sales assistance offer firms a fertile oppor- tunity to secure a competitive advantage ( Shapiro, 1997 ). Second, this article adds to our understanding of trust. Although trust has been cited as an important social consideration ( Morgan and Hunt, 1994 ), some authors contend that relatively little research has examined the role of trust in supplier selection decisions ( Doney and Cannon, 1997 ). This manuscript reasserts that trust must be studied as a domain-specific variable as a firm may have confidence in the reliability and integrity of the vendor along the lines of OMC performance, but may not trust the vendor in other areas (e.g., dedicating specific assets towards new product development). In addition to identifying a previously neglected antecedent of trust (i.e., trust emanates from a vendor’s demonstrated capability and credibility along the order management cycle), this effort offers that trust in a vendor’s OMC performance has a direct, tangible outcome sought by buying firms: customer firm transaction cost savings. Lastly, this manuscript empirically investigates a normative prescrip- tion of transaction cost theory: to examine factors that can give rise to costs caused by imperfect coordination in buyer–supplier relationships (i.e., transaction costs). Although transaction cost theory claims that higher levels of behavioral uncertainty increase the costs of monitoring and evaluating the performance of exchange partners, that proposition has not been formally tested. Our research suggests that effective OMC performance can lead to trust as the buying firm believes that the given exchange partner is reliable and is not likely to act opportunisti- cally in its order fulfillment, billing, and post-sales activities, thereby reducing the need to closely scrutinize that facet of the exchange relationship. As transaction costs can exceed actual invoice costs in a buyer–supplier relationship ( Noordewier et al., 1990 ) and problems associated with the OMC are much more likely to force customer firms to switch vendors than are product- related issues ( Shapiro, 1997 ), this research also has important implications for business practice. In particular, customer firms can develop objective operational metrics coinciding with the OMC to assess supplier performance as the information gathered can assist buying firms in identifying areas of efficiency and effectiveness improve- ment in each supplier interface ( Day, 1994; Smeltzer and Manship, 2003 ). This research suggests that a customer firm engaged in an exchange relationship with a supplier that performs well along the OMC is likely to improve the efficiency of the procurement process. Dell, for instance, serves as an exemplar as its business model mandates attending to such items as a supplier’s order cycle time, accuracy in filling orders, accuracy in billing processes, on- time delivery performance, ability to fill emergency orders, and condition of products on arrival ( Treacy and Wiersma, 1993 ). Thus, Dell has been able to lower acquisition costs by requiring its suppliers to become intimately familiar with its requirements and tolerances, and possession costs by replacing inventory with information. It is, therefore, advisable that firms develop tangible operational metrics, and then critically evaluate their suppliers along those metrics, and remain engaged with high performers that can deliver such instrumental benefits as transaction cost advantage. Although the results are theoretically and practically meaningful, we conclude by offering the limitations of this study and as well as directions for future research. For one, the data secured are cross-sectional in nature. Future research can undertake a longitudinal approach to better understand the relationship developmental processes ( Narayandas and Rangan, 2004 ) that can lead to a reduction in transaction costs. Second, this study relies upon one individual within the organization to serve as the key informant. As some researchers have raised issue with the ability of one individual to comment upon global, organizational-level phenomenon ( Kumar et al., 1993 ), future studies ought to secure perceptions from multiple informants within the customer firm, and ideally, be verified with objective measures. Third, it is necessary to more fully examine the concept of customer firm costs. One possibility is to identify and integrate the totality of acquisition, possession and direct product costs involved with using and subsequently disposing of a good or service from a vendor ( Ellram, 1995 ). Lastly, the measures that were used in the empirical tests were highly correlated. Specifically, given the limited evidence of discriminant validity between order management cycle performance and satisfaction in this study and task-related performance and satisfaction in previous inter-organiza- tional research (e.g., Kumar et al., 1992 ), researchers may wish to critically consider using one or the other in future research. As the order management cycle provides a viable basis to secure a competitive advantage, we encourage researchers to build upon the operationalization of order management cycle performance offered here and to further explore the nomological network in which the construct is embedded.