نیمه تاریک برون سپاری لجستیک - پرده برداشتن از ریسک های بالقوه که منجر به شکست روابط می شود
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|641||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 8525 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||15 روز بعد از پرداخت||767,250 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||8 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,534,500 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Volume 48, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 178–189
We identify and empirically examine the potential risk factors and their structural relationships that can cause a logistics outsourcing relationship to fail. Specifically, we investigate how the relationship risk as perceived by apparel wholesalers as user firms influence their evaluation on the asset and competence entrusted with their logistics service providers, which are logistics outsourcing risk factors considered important by the former in determining continued relationships with the latter. The results highlight the need for relationship management by user firms to mitigate the risks in asset and competence specifically invested in logistics service providers for their outsourced activities.
Over the past decade, the concept of value has received substantial attention in the literature and in practice, as organizations shift to compete on providing superior value as a strategic imperative. Value has emerged as a fundamental element of relationship building (Ravald and Grönroos, 1996), with collaboration between firms in the supply chain regarded as a means of value creation. Given its importance to organizational performance, there has been growing interest in uncovering the determinants of value (Menon et al., 2005). Value is most commonly considered in terms of the trade-off between the perceived benefits and sacrifices of a supplier’s offering (Zeithaml, 1988). Extant research focuses extensively on the benefits of a buyer–supplier relationship (BSR) (Lai et al., 2005 and Yang et al., 2008), whereas sacrifices are mainly considered in the context of purchase price only (Menon et al., 2005). Although adding benefits is a means of enhancing value, an equally important way of creating value is through the reduction of perceived sacrifice via minimizing relationship costs (Ravald and Grönroos, 1996). A key sacrifice in BSR is risk, empirically demonstrated to exert a more powerful effect on perceived value than price (Sweeney et al., 1999). Despite this recognition, there remain considerable opportunities for further explorations specifically in the area of managing risk in BSRs, and in particular the consequences of failed relationships. Currently, most research on managing risk in BSRs examines its influence on firm performance and governance structures as a focal point (Lai, 2009); conversely little is known about the potential impact posed by failed relationships on the involved parties. Vertical supply relationships such as logistics outsourcing are an increasingly popular alternative to traditional services such as transportation, warehousing, inventory, and value-added services (Hong et al., 2004). Some key benefits for organizations to outsource logistics activities include cost reduction and customer service improvement (Knemeyer and Murphy, 2004). However, there is debate on whether the benefits from logistics outsourcing outweigh the risk of relationship failure (Kremic et al., 2006). It is argued that outsourcing does not always lead to service advantages and cost savings (Gerwig, 1999 and Watjatrakul, 2005). Unsuccessful experiences that accrue undesirable consequences for client firms have been reported (Bahli and Rivard, 2003) and most of the research undertaken on outsourcing has revealed that the majority of managers are dissatisfied with the logistics outsourcing outcomes (Lonsdale, 1999). There is also a call for evaluation of logistics outsourcing risk by decision makers from organizations (Kremic et al., 2006), yet there remains a serious lack of studies on this important topic in business logistics (Wilding and Juriado, 2004 and Lun et al., 2011).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study examines the links among three types of risks in logistics outsourcing decisions based on TCT and RBV. The empirical results of logistics outsourcing relationships from a survey of 117 apparel wholesalers confirms initial predictions of the links among the risk types. Relationship risk which stems from failed relationships, leads to both asset risk and competence risk for the outsourcer. For relationship risk, prior research based on TCT shows that the presence of poor communications is the most important antecedent of the partner relationship, which in turn puts the involved parties at risk for their asset specific investments and service strategy development. The results confirm this line of reasoning. The effects of competence risk are slightly more significant than asset risk. In competence risk, both the lack of ability by LSPs to maintain superior transportation operations, such as rapid, punctual, secure delivery, and loss of control are identified as the most immediate risk concerns of wholesalers. On the other hand, in terms of asset risk, wholesalers are more concerned with immeasurable specialized assets, such as strategic human and information resources, than measurable cost items, i.e., internal governance cost. Furthermore, the findings illustrate a significantly positive relationship between asset risk and competence risk. It is understood that the possible damage to specialized assets, in particular human, organization and information resources, may not only lead to cost increase but also decrease the chance of maintaining, developing, and protecting business competences of outsourcers – an indirect effect from relationship risk through asset risk, despite not being very significant. In summary, this study fills a gap in the literature, where no prior efforts attempt to construct and empirically test a theoretical model to assess the effects of relationship risk in logistics outsourcing decisions. We contribute to the study of logistics outsourcing decision in several important ways. First, we use both TCT and RBV theoretical lenses to examine the links between the risk factors in logistics outsourcing. Using different theoretical perspectives to study organizational phenomena is important for business research (Meyer, 1991). The study identifies two paths by which relationship failure leads to competence risk; a direct path and the other through asset risk. As the two paths reveal different aspects of logistics outsourcing risk, understanding them is important.