采购管理中英文对照

Supply chain management

Supply chain management (SCM) is the term used to describe the management of the flow of materials, information, and funds across the entire supply chain, from suppliers to component producers to final assemblers to distribution (warehouses and retailers), and ultimately to the consumer.1 In fact, it often includes after-sales service and returns or recycling. In contrast to multiechelon inventory management, which coordinates inventories at multiple locations, SCM typically involves coordination of information and materials among multiple firms.

Supply chain management has generated much interest in recent years for a

number of reasons.Many managers now realize that actions taken by one member of the chain can influence theprofitability of all others in the chain.2 Firms are increasingly thinking in terms of competing as part of a supply chain against other supply chains, rather than as a single firm against other individual firms.Also, as firms successfully streamline their own operations, the next opportunity for improvement is through better coordination with their suppliers and customers. The costs of poor coordination can be extremely high. In the Italian pasta industry, consumer demand is quite steady throughout the year.

SCM typically involves coordination of information and materials among multiple firms.Supply chain management has generated much interest in recent years for a number of reasons. However, because of trade promotions, volume discounts, long lead times, full-truckload discounts, and end-of-quarter sales incentives the orders seen at the manufacturers are highly variable (Hammond (1994)). In fact, the variability increases in moving up the supply chain from consumer to grocery store to distribution center to central warehouse to factory, a phenomenon that is often called the bullwhip effect

Supply Chain Management Concerns

A key element of successful SCM involves the downstreamintegration of business customers as well as themanagement of upstream suppliers. However, integratingthe entire value chain is acomplex undertaking. Organizations encountering problems due to increased reliance on suppliers may reverse their downsizing emphasis and bring outsourced products and services back in-house,secure alternative sources of supply, or work with existing suppliers to increase their performance and capability (Watts and Hahn 1993). Alternatively, firms can use supplier evaluation to identify specific supplier deficiencies and to develop plans to address them (Krause 1997). While it is beneficial to recognize the specific practices that result in successful SCM implementation, it is also helpful to understand the primary concerns hindering a successful supply chain. The primary goal of identifying these concerns was to provide practitioners with a list of issues that adversely impact firms’ performance and appropriate actions that could be taken. To operationalize this construct, nine commonly cited concerns that restrain successful SCM were identified (see Table IV) based on

interviews and discussions with practitioners during plant visits and professional meetings. Once again, the SCM concerns were not organized in any order or categorized in the survey instrument. The concerns included cooperation and trust among supply chain members, information capability, competition, and geographical proximity. Performance Measures Economists disagree about the use of accounting data to measure firm performance because it ignores opportunity costs and the time value of money (Chen and Lee 1995). They have argued that business performance should be measured by financial data (e.g., internal rate of return). Financial data provides a measurement of a firm’s performance via the market’s valuation of the firm’s securities. However, since future cash flows of the business entity cannot be observed, measures of business performance are typically based on accounting data (e.g., return on investment [ROI] or return on assets [ROA]). While Jahera and Lloyd (1992) observed that ROI was a valid performance measure for midsize firms, Tobin and Brainard (1968) challenged its validity as a performance measure. A firm’s financial leverage can affect its ROI to such a degree that it renders comparisons between firms meaningless. ROI also ignores opportunity costs and the time value of investments. An alternate measure of performance, Tobin’s q ratio, evaluates the ratio of the market value of a firm to the replacement cost of its assets (Tobin 1969). However, the prospect of obtaining accurate measures of each firm’s market value and the replacement cost of its assets to calculate Tobin’s q was deemed impractical for this research. Given the lack of consensus regarding a valid crossindustry measure of corporate performance, performance in this study was operationalized by senior management’s perceptions of a firm’s performance in comparison to that of major competitors. This research adopted three of the nine performance measures

used in Tan et al. (1998b). The measures are overall product quality, competitive position, and customer service levels.

Survey Methodology

A survey instrument in the form of a questionnaire wasdesigned based on the constructs previously described.Respondents were asked to indicate, using a five-pointLikert scale, the importance of the 25 practices (1 = low, 5= high) in their firm’s SCM efforts. For questions regarding SCM concerns, respondents were asked to indicate, on asimilar five-point Likert scale, the likelihood that the nine issues prevented their firm from achieving the full potential of SCM. To elicit information on performance, respondents were asked to indicate, using a similar five-point Likert scale, their company’s performance relative to that of major industry competitors in terms of overall product quality, overall competitive position, and overall customer service levels. Some other questions including

demographics information were also presented in the questionnaire. The survey instrument was pretested by 30 supply and materials managers for content validity. Where necessary, questions were reworded to improve validity and clarity.

The pretest questionnaires were not used for subsequent analyses. The revised survey instrument was sent to 1,500 supply and materials managers identified from the Institute for Supply Management™ (ISM) (formerly the National Association of Purchasing Management) membership list. Firms represented by these individuals were from Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 20 to 39. The respondents represented manufacturers of food and kindred products, tobacco products, textile mill products, apparel and other textile products, lumber and wood products, furniture and fixtures, printing and publishing, chemicals and allied products, petroleum and coal products, rubber and plastics products, leather and leather products, fabricated metal products, industrial machinery and equipment, electronic and other electric equipment,

transportation equipment, and miscellaneous manufacturing industries. Two mailings and a follow-up reminder yielded 101 usable returned surveys. A second phase of the survey targeting 3,000 supply and materials managers identified from the American Production and Inventory Control Society (APICS) was conducted. The first APICS survey was mailed on October 1, 1999, and the follow-up postcards were mailed two weeks later. The final reminder with a complete, identical questionnaire was mailed on November 1, 1999. The last usable survey was received in the first quarter of 2000. Two mailings and a follow-up reminder yielded a total of 310 usable surveys. The combined ISM and APICS surveys resulted in a response rate of 9.1 percent (411 responses). Subsequently, t-tests were conducted to compare the sales, number of employees, and responses to the relevant survey questions between the ISM and APICS data.

The analysis did not reveal any statistical difference between the two populations. Therefore, results of the two surveys were combined.

Supplier Selection

A variety of evaluation procedures are possible; there is no best method or approach. The important thing is to make certain that some procedures are used. The manager must identify all potential suppliers for the item(s) being purchased. The next step is to develop a list of factors by which to evaluate each supplier. Management can use the variables mentioned in this text or develop another list. Once the factors have been determined, the performance of individual suppliers should be evaluated on each factor (e.g., product reliability, price, ordering convenience).

After evaluating suppliers on each factor, management must determine the importance of the factors to its particular situation. If, for example, product reliability is of paramount importance to the firm, that (actor will be given the highest importance rating. If price was not as important as product reliability,

management will assign price a tower importance rating. Any factor that is not important to the firm will be assigned a zero.

The next step is to develop a weighted composite measure for each factor. This is done by multiplying the supplier's rating for a factor by the factor's importance. The addition of the composite scores for each supplier provides an overall rating that can be compared to other suppliers. The higher the composite score, the more closely the supplier meets the needs and the specifications of the procuring company.

In principle, this kind of analysis is not completely new to purchasing managers. Many decisions in¬volve balancing one type of variable or characteristic against another. What is new and valuable about this approach, however, is that it makes the process of weighing variables explicit: Because it forces us to formalize the important elements of the purchasing decision, it helps

us bring our tacit assumptions to the surface and questions our intuitive or habitual priorities.

The process of suppler selection is more difficult when materials are being purchased in international markets. However, more firms are buying raw materials, components, and subassemblies from foreign sources, primarily because of cost and availability. When a company utilizes foreign suppers it should have an understanding of some of the problems associated with international sourcing.

供应链管理

供应链管理（SCM）是一个术语，用来描述材料，信息流的管理而言，和整个供应链的资金，从供应商到最终装配组件的生产到销售（仓库和零售商），并最终向顾客。事实上，它往往包括售后服务及退货再造。相对与多阶梯库存管理，协调在多个地点的库存，供应链管理通常涉及多个企业之间的信息和材料的协调。产生了供应链管理的一个很大的原因。许多管理人员在最近几年的兴趣现在认识到，采取的行动之一，链成员可以采取的影响在所有其他产业链的成员。企业愈来愈多的参与竞争，作为思维对其他的供应链，而不是针对其他个人和企业。单个企业在供应链中成功的简化自己的行动，为改善他们的下一个机会是与供应商和客户提供更好的协调。协调的成本可能会非常高。在意大利的面食业，全年消费需求是相当稳定。供应链管理通常涉及多个企业。供应信息和材料的供应链管理的协调产生了很大的兴趣。近年来产生了许多原因。但是，由于贸易促销，价格折扣，交货时间长，全卡车的折扣，和最终的季度销售奖励在制造商看到订单高度变量（哈蒙德（1994））。事实上，在从消费者的供应链移动到杂货店的分销中心，从中央仓库到工厂，一个常常被称为长鞭效应现象的变异性增加。

供应链管理问题

一个成功的供应链管理的关键要素涉及下游一体化的企业客户以及供应链管理的上游.但是，整合整个价值链是一个复杂的工作。组织由于增加供应链的依赖所带来的问题很可能改变他们的重视和缩编早在公司内部运行的产品和服务外包，替代能源的供应安全，或与供应商进行现有的工作，以提高其性能和能力（瓦茨和哈恩1993年）。另外，企业可以利用供应商评估0，以确定具体的供应商的不足，并制定计划，解决他们（克劳斯1997年）。这样不仅承认具体实施供应链管理的成功做法是确定可行的，而且这样也有助于了解阻碍供应链成功的主要问题。查明这些问题的主要目标是提供有关一张从业人员在公司表现的具体清单，并可以因此采取适当的行动。为了实施这个建议，9个普遍提及有关的供应链管理的问题被确定是根据在工厂参观和专业会议时，对从业人员的采访与讨论。再次，供应链管理关注的是在调查中没有组织的任何命令或者工具分类。它所关注的问题包括供应链成员之间的合作以及相互的信任，信息能力，竞争，还有地理位置上的接近。经济学家不同意使用会计事务所的有关数据来衡量绩效措施的性能。因为它忽略机会成本和货币的时间价值（陈和利1995年）。他们认为，企业绩效的衡量是必须通过财务数据（例如内部收益率），财务数据提供了一个通过公司的市场估值的坚定表现来测量公司的业绩的测量方法。然而，由于对企业的未来的现金流量不可估计，业务绩效的测量是根据财务会计数据（例如投资回报率[ROI]和资产收益率[ROA]）来确定的。虽然Jahera和Lloyd（1992）指出投资回报率是对中型公司应用的测量标准。但是托宾和布雷纳德（1968）怀疑其作为评价措施的有效性。一个企业的财务杠杆会影响其投资回报率到一种程度，这个程度使得企业之间的比较毫无意义。投资回报率也忽略机会成本和投资的时间价值。替代措施的性能衡量，托宾的Q比率，评估公司的市场价值及其资产的重置成本（托宾1969）。然而，在取得准确的每家公司的市场价值与资产的重置成本的前景下，来计算托宾的Q比率。这被认为是不切实际的研究。由于缺乏对关于企业业绩运行的一个有效的跨产业的措施的共识。有关绩效的此项研究的可操作性，高级管理层的看法与一个竞争者的相比是可以运行的。这次研究采用9项绩效测量措施中的3项，在美国的Tan et al（1998b）。这些措施包括整体产品质量，竞争优势和客户服务水平。

调查方法

一个问卷调查文书的形式设计了基于先前所描述的结构。受访者被要求表明，采用五点李克特规模，重要性，在25做法（1 =低5 =高）在其公司的供应链管理的努力。对于关注供应链管理方面的问题，受访者被要求表明，在一个类似的五点李克特规模，可能性，阻止他们的九个方面的问题。坚定实现全部潜力供应链管理。为了激发性能方面，受访者资料被要求表明，使用类似的五点李克特尺度，他们公司的业绩相对于该行业的主要对手，从整体产品质量方面，整体的竞争地位，以及客户的整体服务水平。其他一些问题，包括人口信息也提出了问卷调查。这项调查是预先测试仪器30材料的供应和管理为内容的有效性。如有需要，问题被改写，以提高有效性和清晰度。预试问卷不用于后续分析。修订后的调查文书被送往1500供应和材料管理人员从该研究所确定（国际安全管理物料管理（确定由供应管理协会™前身为全国采购管理协会））的成员名单。企业代表由这些来自标准产业分类（SIC）的20-39确定。受访者表示，制造商对食品和同类产品，烟草制品，纺织厂的产品，服装及其他纺织制品木材及木制品，家具及固定装置，印刷及出版，化学

品及有关产品，石油及煤制品，橡胶和塑料制品，皮革和皮革制品，金属制品，工业机械及设备，电子和其它电器设备，运输设备，杂项制造行业。两个邮件和后续提醒取得了101项可用返回调查。(APICS)第二阶段调查对象的社会库存控制供应和材料管理人员3000名来自美国确定的生产和进行。第一APICS的调查于1999年10月1日寄出，和后续明信片邮寄了两个星期后。相同的调查表的最后提醒了一个完整的，是1999年11月1日寄出。最后可用的调查收到了2000年第一季度。两个邮件和后续提醒产生了一个调查，共310项使用。合并后的ISM和APICS的调查导致了反应，反应率百分之九（411回复）。随后，对T型进行比较试验，销售，雇员数目和数据响应ISM和APICS的有关调查问题之间。分析没有发现任何两个群体之间的差异。因此，调查结果两相结合。

供应商选择

一种用以有效衡量产品质量好坏的方法是：一月一次将从不同供应商处所采购产品的金额数及在这月期间产品质量不合格的金额绘成图表，然后用后者的数据除以采购价值，算出不合格率。

通过将不同供应商所提供产品的不合格率进行对照分析，或者通过对比找出哪些供应商产品的不合格率高于平均水平，即可获知哪些供应商提供的产品质量较好。有许多种评估方法，然而很难找到最好方法，最重要的是要使用一些行之有效的方法。管理者必须确认所购产品的所有潜在供应商。下一步是开发一系列用于评估供应商的要素。管理人员可以运用本文中提及的变量，也可以开发其他变量。要素一旦确定后，就需要对每个供应商的每项要素（如，产品可靠性、价格、订单的方便性等）进行评估。

对供应商的每项要素评估后，管理人员必须确定每项要素在企业实际情况中的重要性，例如，产品可靠性是企业至关重要的因素，该要素的重要性得分就最高，如果价格没有产品可靠性重要，管理人员给价格重要性的分数就要低一些，任何不重要要素的重要性得分可定为0。

再下一步就是将供应商的要素得分与重要性得分相乘，算出每项要素的加权得分。每项要素的加权得分之和即是用于评估供应商的综合得分。综合分数越高，供应商越能满足采购企业的需求与规格要求。在原理上，这类分析法对采购经理来说并非是全新方法。许多决策需要将一种类型的变量或特征与其他的进行权衡。本方法的新颖之处与有价之处在于它使权衡变量过程明晰化，这主要在于它迫使我们明确采购决策的重要要素，有助于将问题公开化并对直观的或习惯性的优先选择要素进行审视。

在国际市场上采购物料时，对供应商的选择会更难些。然而由于成本因素和可获得性因素，许多公司从国外采购原材料、部件、装配件。当一个企业从国外采购物料时应对有关国际货源的某些问题做到心中有数。