گرایش مدیریت و عرضه کننده کالا / عملکرد خریدار
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|8695||2000||17 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 9159 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||13 روز بعد از پرداخت||824,310 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||7 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,648,620 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Operations Management, Volume 18, Issue 3, April 2000, Pages 317–333
Academics and practitioners agree that excellence in supply management results in better quality, customer service, and channel performance. Yet, most of these studies are either conceptual in nature or actual case studies. The primary objective of this research is to test the impact of a supply management orientation (SMO) on the suppliers' operational performance and buyers' competitive priorities (cost, quality, delivery, flexibility). Three major research hypotheses associated with SMO, Supplier Performance (SP), and Buyer Performance (BP) are tested using a confirmatory structural equation modeling approach. The results of this research support the conclusion that an improvement (increase) in the SMO improves both the suppliers' and buyers' performance (i.e., a win–win situation for the supply chain). In addition, the influence of SMO on delivery- and quality-related performance is more statistically significant than on cost or flexibility performance. In fact, when volume and process flexibility are top competitive priorities, a supply chain management orientation may not be an effective way to achieve the desired flexibility. The article ends by discussing other conclusions and suggests directions for future research.
The positive impact of the supply chain management on a firm's performance has been reported from many industries. Proctor & Gamble (P&G) strengthened its leadership position in the consumer package goods industry by excelling at supply chain management. P&G has generated more than US$325 million in supply chain savings by using Continuous Replenishment Program and Efficient Customer Response. In the automobile industry, Chrysler launched a supplier involvement program, Supplier Cost Reduction Effort (SCORE), benchmarking the supply chain management practices of Japanese companies. Chrysler announced that it achieved more than US$1.2 billion in cost savings through 1997 due to the SCORE program. Also, Honeywell Industrial Automation and Control reported a 90% reduction of product defect rates based on its supply management program during the period of 1990 through 1996. As opposed to traditional procurement and distribution channels composed of independent organizations, a ‘supply chain’ consists of interdependent organizations working for the efficiency of the entire supply chain. In general, ‘supply chain management’ can be defined as “an integrative philosophy to manage the total flow of a distribution channel from the supplier to the ultimate user” (Cooper and Ellram, 1993, p. 13). The term ‘supply chain’ or ‘supply chain management’ is widely used in the literature even when the procurement side of manufacturing is the primary interest Choi and Hartley, 1996 and Forker et al., 1997. However, since our research focuses primarily on the dyadic supply relationship in the supply chain, we use the term Supply Management or Supply Management Orientation (SMO) throughout this research to describe the management efforts or philosophy necessary for creating an operating environment where the buyer and supplier interact in a coordinated fashion. Considerable research has been conducted on buyer–supplier relationship management or supply management, but most of these studies are conceptual in nature or based on a few case studies. Moreover, the existing literature fails to address empirically what improving supply management really means in practice and how it is related to the companies' operational performance. In this context, the primary objective of this research is to test empirically the impact of an SMO on the performance of both supplier and buyer. We test the following three questions with corresponding research hypotheses using a confirmatory structural equation modeling approach (Bollen, 1989, Bollen and Long, 1993 and Hair et al., 1995). • Does an improved SMO improve supplier's performance? • Does an improved supplier's performance improve the buyer's performance? • Does an improved SMO improve internally the buyer's performance as well? The SMO is the driver (exogenous latent variable) of the structural equation models developed in this study (refer to Fig. 1) and contains the following performance characteristics identified from the literature. Those characteristics are (1) a long-term relationship with suppliers, (2) supplier involvement in the product development process, (3) a reduced number of suppliers, and (4) a ‘quality focus’ meaning that quality performance is the number one priority in selecting suppliers. Supplier Performance (SP) and Buyer Performance (BP) are the two endogenous latent variables in each model. The logic and details of Fig. 1 are explained later. In this research, we develop four different structural equation models depending on buyer's competitive priorities: quality, delivery, cost, and flexibility. By doing so, we can show how SMO and SP affect the buyer's performance in each of the competitive priorities. Based on these structural models, we are testing the theory that, “if a manufacturer (buyer) adopts an improved SMO, then the adoption of SMO improves both SP and BP”. Given the measurement scales for SMO and SP, BP is evaluated for each of the four competitive priorities using confirmatory data analysis. The rest of this article is organized in the following order. A literature review is presented next to provide the background and content validity for the primary constructs of the research. Then the research hypotheses and design are presented, followed by a section that describes the sample data. Finally, the results of the data analysis are presented. The paper concludes by summarizing the results, limitations, and future directions of this research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Practitioners as well as researchers have advocated the advantages of supply chain management. This research identified four major characteristics of supply management that help to create an SMO. The impact of this construct on the performance of both suppliers and buyers is tested using a confirmatory structural equation modeling approach. The general research outcome is that an improvement in SMO improves both suppliers' and buyer's performance especially when the buyer emphasizes quality and delivery as its competitive priorities. More specific findings and relevant managerial implications of this research can be summarized as follows. (1) The following four performance characteristics of an SMO are major contributors to improved performance of the supply chain: (a) a long-term relationship with suppliers; (b) supplier involvement in the product development process; (c) a reduced number of suppliers; and (d) a quality focus. Manufacturing firms (buyer) with a higher level of SMO resulted in improved performance of both the supplier and buyer. (2) The Quality and Delivery Models, as defined in this research, are good causal models because they are statistically significant and sound and provide a practical and logical interpretation. Moreover, the Quality and Delivery Models support the supply chain management theory that SMO improves not only SP but also the buyer's competitive priorities, some more than others. (3) For American manufacturers (buyers) in the automobile industry, improvements in the SMO are more statistically significant for quality and delivery performance than for flexibility and cost performance. Buyer flexibility and cost performance are most likely influenced by other variables that are not analyzed in this study. For example, buyer volume and process flexibility has an internal focus that is a function of the buyer's internal capacity capabilities. (4) Buyer Cost Performance is positively associated with SP although ‘Supplier Cost’ is not a significant effect-indicator for SP. This result implies that the cost reduction of a buyer company in a supply chain may be achieved by the suppliers' quality and delivery performance, not by their cost performance. (5) When cost reduction is a top competitive priority, it is imperative for manufacturers (buyers) to simultaneously adopt other strategies in addition to SMO in order to reduce internal costs considerably. The Cost Model lacks a direct linkage between the SMO and the buyer's internal cost performance, and therefore, other cost reduction strategies such as reducing setup time or overhead costs must complement an SMO. (6) When volume and process flexibility are top competitive priorities, an SMO may not be an effective way to achieve the desired flexibility. Most of the findings in this research conform to the conjectures and propositions of practitioners and researchers in the supply management area. For example, the goal of supply management at Honda is to find and develop world class suppliers who will share Honda's systematic approach to improving quality, developing technology, and meeting target costs. Therefore, supply management featuring (1) a long-term relationship or partnership, (2) supplier involvement in the product development process, (3) a reduced number of suppliers, and (4) a quality focus in choosing suppliers is a strategic choice at Honda. The results of this research also indicate that ‘supply management’ is not a panacea to improve all the competitive priorities of the buyer. We learn much from the insignificant results from the Cost and Flexibility Models. Given the relatively weak association between SMO and BP Flexibility/Cost, it is reasonable to accept that the buyer's objective of reducing cost and enhancing manufacturing flexibility cannot be accomplished without strong internal managerial efforts that complement an SMO. Future research can improve upon this research by (1) using more than two supply chain participants (supplier and buyer); (2) using more than two performance indicators for the ‘Buyer Cost Performance’ and ‘Buyer Flexibility Performance’ constructs, respectively; (3) investigating whether these results hold for first versus second tier suppliers; and (4) expanding our definition of SMO and/or the external operating environment. On the latter point, industry, market, product, and production characteristics would provide useful insights into “what type of SMO is best in particular situations?”