工业工程专业毕业外文翻译
翻 译
专 业 工业工程本科专业 毕业外文翻译一篇 题 目 基于商品惟一标识的供应链整合 工业工程
Supply chain integration obtained
through uniquely labelled goods
A survey of Swedish manufacturing Industries
Packaging Logistics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Henrik Pa°lsson and Ola Johansson
基于商品惟一标识的供应链整合
瑞典制造业的调查
Abstract 摘要
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the use of unique identities (through radio frequency identification technology, bar codes and ―human-readable‖ labels) on packages and load carriers in Swedish manufacturing industries. The purpose is to investigate drivers behind the adoption, the perceived improvements and visions for the coming 2-5 years. It also covers different methods for reading the identities, locations of identification in the supply chain and how the acquired information is utilised.
目的:本文旨在探讨瑞典制造业的包装和运输中利用惟一识别(通过无线射频识别技术,条形码和“人类可读的”标签)的使用情况。其目的是为了调查采用者背后的驱动力量,自觉改进的情况,并展望未来2-5年的前景。本文还涉及了在供应链中身份识别,地点识别的不同方法,以及如何获得可利用的资料。
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses the survey method. The survey instrument was developed in co-operation with an expert group consisting of both researchers
and industry representatives. The data were analysed using multivariate techniques.
设计/方法/途径:本文使用调查法,这种调查工具在专家小组中是相当成熟的,专家小组是由研究人员和行业代表组成的一个小组,对这些数据进行分析时要采用多元技术。
Findings – The analysis shows that there are a number of distinct clusters of companies with similar drivers for the adoption of unique identification. Characteristics of companies in these clusters are described and compared. The analysis clarifies the essential roles of integration and information sharing to obtain logistical improvements.
结果:分析表明,有一些不同的集团公司群因为类似的驱动力量而采用惟一识别。这些集团公司的特点将被一一介绍和比较。该分析表明,为了获得后勤改进,一体化和信息分享具有至关重要的作用。
Research limitations/implications – To provide a more robust scientific justification of the
survey results, in-depth case studies should be carried out and similar studies could be conducted in other countries and/or industries.
研究的局限性/影响:为了给调查结果提供一个更有力的科学依据,应进行深入的个案研究,类似的研究可以在其他国家或行业进行。
Practical implications – Managers intending to implement unique identities need to understand the importance of having the right organisational motivation to succeed. Firms already using unique identities should note that the greater the integration and information sharing, the greater the number of improvements which could be obtained.
实际影响:打算实施惟一识别的经理必须理解,拥有正确的组织动机对于成功的重要性。已经在使用唯一识别的公司要注意的是,应致力于更高的一体化、信息共享和更多的改进。
Originality/value – The study shows that there are links between the drivers behind the adoption of unique identities and the level of integration and improvements achieved. It also provides the current status of different identification methods in Swedish manufacturing industries.
创新/价值:研究表明,唯一识别及其获得的整合和改进背后的推动力量是有联系的。该
研究还提供了,目前在瑞典制造业中使用不同的识别方法的现状。
Keywords Barcodes,Product identification, Information strategy,Integration,Sweden,Manufacturing industries
Paper type Research paper
关键词:条形码,产品识别,信息战略,整合,瑞典,制造业
报告类型:研究报告
Integration has been defined as combining and co-ordinating separate parts or elements into a unified whole. In today’s global economy, with ever-increasing competition, the manufacture and supply of goods to the customer has become increasingly complex, and without efficient and effective systems of
communication
and co-ordination, it will be difficult to identify problems and respond quickly to a
change in customer demand. “The signs are clearly pointing to a future where it will be
the extent and quality of supply chain integration that will determine marketplace performance” (Christopher, 1998, p. 232).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
IJPDLM
39,1
28
International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 39 No. 1, 2009
pp. 28-46
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/[**************]74
Integration is, however, a wide concept encompassing many different aspects of co-ordinating separate parts of a supply chain into a cohesive whole. Consequently, the
phenomenon has been defined in a number of different, albeit interrelated ways. Pagell
(2004) features a review of different definitions of integration. Although a large number
of definitions can be found in literature, they usually share common themes and include elements such as co-operation, co-ordination, interaction and
collaboration
(Ellinger et al., 2000; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Kahn and Mentzer, 1996). The
definitions provided in literature, however, are generally high-level constructs, and as
such, are difficult to measure or assess. Several attempts have been made to operationalise the constructs to enable empirical measurements of integration. Some
authors have chosen to focus on behavioural aspects, e.g. Ellinger et al. (2000), who
suggest three behavioural dimensions of integration:
(1) collaboration, which is defined as informal behaviours based on resource and information sharing;
(2) consultation, defined as mandatory, bidirectional interactions requiring personal contacts; and
(3) information exchange, i.e. formal, structured, documented interactions which do
not involve personal contacts.
Others, like Larson (1994, p. 155), suggest that inter-organisational integration is
“measured as (1) co-operative behaviour between purchasing and key supplier firm departments, and (2) co-operative attitudes”. A second group of authors, e.g. Dawe
(1994), Gustin and Daugherty (1995) and Lee and Whang (2000), focus on information sharing, information availability and IS system performance across
inter-departmental
or inter-organisational borders as signs of integration.
Frohlich and Westbrook (2001) take a similar path and assess the level of
integration through signs of integrative activities such as access to planning systems,
sharing of production plans, joint EDI (electronic data interchange)
access/networks,
etc. but they also include common use of third-party logistics, standardisation of
logistical equipment or containers, and packaging customisation. The inclusion of
packaging aspects is rare in integration research. Traditionally, packaging has been
viewed as a protective component only, especially in business to business, rather than
something which can create value throughout the supply chain. While the importance of integration is not in doubt, relevant literature lacks a comprehensive study of how
packaging and, more importantly, the common information interface packaging
collaboration
(Ellinger et al., 2000; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Kahn and Mentzer, 1996). The
definitions provided in literature, however, are generally high-level constructs, and as
such, are difficult to measure or assess. Several attempts have been made to operationalise the constructs to enable empirical measurements of integration. Some
authors have chosen to focus on behavioural aspects, e.g. Ellinger et al. (2000), who
suggest three behavioural dimensions of integration:
(1) collaboration, which is defined as informal behaviours based on resource and information sharing;
(2) consultation, defined as mandatory, bidirectional interactions requiring personal contacts; and
(3) information exchange, i.e. formal, structured, documented interactions which do
not involve personal contacts.
Others, like Larson (1994, p. 155), suggest that inter-organisational integration is
“measured as (1) co-operative behaviour between purchasing and key supplier firm departments, and (2) co-operative attitudes”. A second group of authors, e.g. Dawe
(1994), Gustin and Daugherty (1995) and Lee and Whang (2000), focus on information sharing, information availability and IS system performance across
inter-departmental
or inter-organisational borders as signs of integration.
Frohlich and Westbrook (2001) take a similar path and assess the level of
integration through signs of integrative activities such as access to planning systems,
sharing of production plans, joint EDI (electronic data interchange)
access/networks,
etc. but they also include common use of third-party logistics, standardisation of
logistical equipment or containers, and packaging customisation. The inclusion of
packaging aspects is rare in integration research. Traditionally, packaging has been
viewed as a protective component only, especially in business to business, rather than
something which can create value throughout the supply chain. While the importance of integration is not in doubt, relevant literature lacks a comprehensive study of how
packaging and, more importantly, the common information interface packaging
provides, can support manufacturing and distribution efficiency by integrating internal and external functions within a supply chain.
A key component for achieving integration through packaging is the use of unique identities on items. Unique identities can be realised by means of, e.g. labels, bar codes
or radio frequency identification (RFID) tags which can be applied to packaging. Bar
codes and RFID tags may be read using automatic data collection, which is often superior compared to “human-readable” labels. The error rate for human data entry
has been reported to be 1 in 300, while the corresponding level for automatic data collection is radically lower (Smith and Offodile, 2002). In addition to increased information accuracy, automatic data collection may also reduce time for data entry
and reduce paperwork (Singer, 1998). However, the characteristics of technologies for
automatic data collection differ. Regarding performance, RFID has a number of Supply chain
integration
29
advantages over bar codes. For instance, it does not require line of sight, the reading
distance can be longer, reading is faster and RFID can have both read and write capabilities. The additional benefits of RFID over bar codes have been reported to save
labour costs compared to the manual scanning of bar codes, and to reduce inventory, shrinkage and out-of-stock situations through the higher visibility offered by RFID
(Lee and O ¨ zer, 2007). On the other hand, bar codes have one major advantage over
RFID; they are usually cheaper than RFID tags.
Unique identities can be applied to different levels of packaging; primary packaging
(usually a sales unit or item level), secondary packaging (e.g. a case) and tertiary
packaging (e.g. a pallet for bulk handling of goods). Regardless of packaging level, the
use of unique identities must certainly be complemented with information systems and infrastructure to register the identities and store data about the whereabouts and
condition of items in the supply chain. However, taking a packaging perspective and
focusing on the use of unique identities to investigate supply chain integration represent, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, a new approach and one which
may
provide new insights into supply chain integration.
Thus, this paper examines the use of unique identities (through RFID technology, bar codes and “human-readable” labels) applied to packages and load carriers in
Swedish manufacturing industries. The purpose of the paper is to investigate drivers
behind the adoption, as well as the perceived improvements and visions for the coming
2-5 years. It also covers the use of different methods for reading the identities, locations
of identification in the supply chain and how the acquired information is utilised. The paper is structured in the following way. First, we provide the methodology, including the survey instrument, the respondents and the data collection process. Then, the results of the survey and the data analysis are presented, including descriptive statistics, integration levels, logistical improvements, and information
sharing for different types of companies, as well as visions for the future. Subsequently, we discuss our results from a more general perspective in relation to
findings in current literature. Finally, we draw conclusions as we highlight the main
results and their implications and make suggestions for future research.
2. Methodology
In order to ensure an overall view of the usage of unique identities, a postal survey of
Swedish manufacturing firms was conducted across a wide range of industries.
2.1 Instrument
The survey instrument was developed in four stages. In the first stage, literature regarding supply chain integration and RFID technology was reviewed. This review facilitated identification of focus areas for the survey. Supply chain integration was
selected, since the use of unique identification of goods along the supply chain can be
seen as a sign of integration. RFID technology, on the other hand, is considered by
authors in current logistics literature to play a key role for obtaining unique identification of goods. Consequently, current literature on RFID technology presents
many potential benefits of unique identities which contributed to the survey development. In the second stage, a draft questionnaire with 14 question areas was
developed. To gain feedback about the structure and clarity of the questionnaire, it was
pre-tested on a group of academics. Based on the feedback, the questionnaire IJPDLM
39,1
30
was modified; a number of questions were rephrased, added or deleted. The revised questionnaire was then tested on a group of representatives from industry. This also
resulted in further modifications; the survey was reorganised, a few questions were
deleted and some questions were rephrased. The final version of the survey instrument
included 14 question areas with three to 19 questions per area. The initial questions
considered type and registration location of unique identities on a nominal scale. The
other questions were based on a five-point Likert scale covering demographic data, information sharing, results and visions obtained through unique identities. The response alternatives ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with a neutral
alternative in the middle.
2.2 Respondents
The survey was directed at logistics managers in manufacturing companies in Sweden.
Several industries were selected to obtain a broad overview of the use of unique identities across different businesses, and manufacturing firms were selected because
these were expected to have both complex internal and external material flows. To
limit the study, small companies with fewer than 100 employees were not considered. The total population includes 715 companies in nine different manufacturing industries with 100 or more employees. The sample size and distributions between different groups of company size and industries were discussed with a statistical expert. This led to the conclusion that company size and type of industry could affect
survey results. Therefore, a stratified sample was used to avoid disequilibrium among
the groups. The companies were divided into three groups according to size; small, medium-sized, and large companies (Table I). All large companies, i.e. those with 500 or
more employees, were included in the sample. Then, 40 per cent of the medium-sized companies with 200-499 employees were systematically selected, and every one small company in four, i.e. with 100-199 employees, was systematically selected to be included in the sample. Thereby, a systematic, stratified sample with
approximately
equal group sizes was obtained. In total, 310 firms were selected, which equals a
sample size of 43 per cent of the total population (manufacturing industries).
2.3 Data collection
The data collection took place in February and March 2008. The logistics managers of
the selected firms were posted questionnaires accompanied by an explanatory covering letter and a pre-paid postage return envelope. The covering letter explained
the research, asked for the respondents’ help in completing the survey and promised a
prompt copy of the results of the study to encourage participation (Frohlich, 2002).
A unique code was attached to each questionnaire to facilitate follow-up. The use of the
code was explained to the respondents and the covering letter emphasised the respondents’ confidentiality. Reminder letters including the same package were sent
out to non-respondents two weeks after the first questionnaire was posted. Follow-up
telephone calls, conducted one week after the reminder mail, were made to obtain additional responses. The 152 responses received represent an overall response rate of
49.0 per cent. Out of the responses, all but one could be used for subsequent data processing. Table I provides frequency distributions of number of employees and industry. A majority of the non-respondents were reached by phone during the follow-up calls. The reason cited most often for non-response was lack of time, followed
Supply chain
integration
31
1 简 介
整合的定义是合并和协调不同的部件或零件成为一个统一的整体。在当今的全球经济与日益增加的竞争下,制造和供应的商品的对于顾客而言已日益复杂,没有高效率和有效的系统的通信和协调,将很难在客户需求的变化上发现问题,并迅速作出反应。“有迹象清楚地表明,在未来,数量和质量的供应链整合将决定市场份额(克里斯托弗,1998年,第232页)”。
然而,整合的更广泛的概念,包括许多不同的方面,统筹供应链的单独部分以纳入一
个统一的整体。因此,这种现象已经被定义在许多不同,但相互关联的方式上。第2页(2004年)采用了不同的定义。虽然许多的定义可以在文献中找到,他们通常有着共同的主题,并且包括合作、协调、互动和协作等内容(Ellinger等,2000年; Frohlich 和 Westbrook, 2001年;Kahn和Mentzer,1996年)。然而,文献中提供的这些定义,一般是高水平的结构,并且难以衡量或评估。几次试图作出了量化的构造,使实际测量一体化。一些学者已决定把重点放在行为方面,例如:Ellinger等(2000年),他们提出了整合的三个层面的行为:
(1)合作,它的定义是非正式的行为基础上的资源和信息共享; (2)协商,强制性的,需要个人接触的双向互动等;
(3)信息交流,即正式的,有条理的,记录在案的相互作用,但不涉及个人接触。 另外一些学者,比如Larson(1994年,第155页),指出组织间整合是“衡量(1)消费和主要供应商公司各部门的合作行为,和(2)合作的态度”。第二类的学者,例如Dawe(1994年),Gustin 和 Daugherty (1995年) 和 Lee 和 Whang (2000年),他们的重
2 方法论
为了确保对使用唯一识别能有全面看法,对瑞典制造企业进行了跨越多个行业的邮政调查。
2.1 工具
调查工作是分四个阶段进行。在第一阶段,审查关于供应链整合和RFID技术的文字记录。本次审查协助确定调查的重点领域。供应链整合是选定的,因为使用惟一标识的商品供应链可被视为一种整合的标志。 RFID技术,另一方面,被学者们认为能在当前物流著作中发挥关键作用,便于获得货物的唯一识别。因此,当前关于RFID技术的著作介绍了许多唯一识别潜在的好处,这有助于调查的进行。在第二阶段,一个有14个未知领域的调查表草案已经生成。为了获得关于调查表的结构和清晰度的反馈,它需要一组学者的预测。在反馈的基础上,调查表将被修改;有一些问题将被修改,补充或删除。修订后的问卷调查,将被用于测试一批代表行业。这也造成了进一步的修改;这项统计调查是在重组,有几个问题将被删除,一些问题将被修改。最终版本的调查文书包括14个调查领域,每个领域有3到19个问题。最初的问题考虑唯一识别的类型和记录地点。其他问题以利克特五点量表为基础,覆盖了通过唯一识别获取的人口数据, 信息共享,结果和前景。选择将替代强烈反对或强烈同意,以中立替代。
2.2问卷
这项调查是针对瑞典制造业的物流管理人员。 被选定的几个行业对使用唯一识别产生了广泛的认识,制造业公司被选中,是因为它们都有复杂的内部和外部的物质流动。为了限制研究,只有不到100名员工的小公司并没有考虑。在总数中包括715家公司,跨越9个不同的制造行业,他们都有100名或更多的雇员。针对不同类别的公司和行业的样本大小和分布,将用于专家的讨论与统计。这导致的结论是,公司的规模和行业的类型可能会影响到调查的结果。因此,分层抽样,可以避免使用中的不平衡。根据规模大小,公司分为3组,小型,中型和大型企业(见表一) 。所有的大公司,即那些拥有500或更多的员工的公司,包括在该样本中。然后,对百分之四十的中型公司,即有200-499员工的公司,进行了系统的选择。对四分之一的小公司,即有100-199员工的公司,进行了系统
地选定。这样,样本包括了一个系统的,大约有分层抽样的分组。共有310个企业被选中,这等于占总数(制造业)43%的样本大小。
2.3数据收集
数据收集工作在2008年2月和3月进行。选定的公司的物流经理都受到了邮件,以及解释文件和为回信预付的邮资。回信解释了这项研究,它要求受访者尽量完成调查,并承诺迅速复制研究结果,以鼓励参与(Frohlich, 2002年)。每一个调查表都附有一个惟一的代码,以便于采取后续行动。使用代码的方法必须向受访者解释,信件必须做到对受访者信息进行保密。第一份调查表被寄出两个星期后,包括相同的包裹的提醒信件被送往非受访者。提醒邮件寄出的一个星期后,要打后续电话,以获得进一步的答复。 共收到152个回复,占总数的49.0%。所有的回复中,只有一个可用于随后的数据处理。表一提供了雇员人数和行业数量的频率分布。在后续电话环节中,大多数非受访者收到电话。
为没有回复列举的理由往往是时间不够,其次是公司的政策。若要检查不答复的理由,将早期的第一个回复和后期得到的答复进行比较,发现他们并无显着差异,这表明没有非反应偏差(Armstrong and Overton,1977)。
表I 统计数据
3 结 果
通过四个步骤对这些数据进行分析。首先,个别问题的描述性统计需要回顾。利用图形数据分析法来分析受访者使用唯一识别的经验和结果。图形说明了所有变量的同方差,即变量显示相同水平的差额。第二,进行因素分析,以确定使用唯一识别背后的推动力量。然后进行集中分析,分组分析受访者在执行中的驱动程序。最后,集中评估和分析差异。
3.1描述性统计
调查表中的最初的问题,是关于公司是否在产品或运输设备上采用唯一识别。在受访者中,有57个认为他们没有。表II显示了使用独特的身份与公司规模的关系。不出所料,相对于小公司,大公司使用惟一识别更为常见。计学意义,其可信度为百分之九十五。
基于唯一识别的使用,数据材料可以分为两部分。这一节的其余部分,除非另有说明,都是基于使用唯一识别的分组的数据。受访者中的71%使用唯一识别,他们认为唯一识别主要用于初级包装或者产品水平,67%的受访者将唯一识别用于二次包装或包装盒,而66%的受访者将之应用于高级包装或运输设备的水平。33%的受访者认为,他们将唯一识别应用在所有三个层次的包装上。条形码是最常使用的方法(84%),它用于指定包装上惟一的识别,通过‖人类可读的‖文本或数字字符串(56%)实现 。只有七个受访者(7%)指出,他们在产品和包装上使用RFID标签,以达到唯一识别。另有23%的受访者(152个)认为 ,他们正考虑在未来实施RFID,并且8%的受访者说,他们已对使用RFID技术进行了详细的研究。
唯一识别被记录和阅读的位置也应该进行评估(图1)。可见下游利用唯一识别比上游使用更为常见。内部使用似乎占主导地位,特别是对于追踪产成品存货。
类似的模式可以在执行唯一识别的驱动程序中看到。改进跟踪分数最高的,同时减少了盗窃或假冒似乎更被受访者关注(表III)。改进后的数据更能减少错误和大大提高效率评分,以及改进库存控制和运输服务。再次,内部协调比起外部,似乎是更重要的。与客户协调似乎比和供应商协调更重要。
试验结果表明,各组之间的差异有统
表II 使用唯一识别的公司
图 I 唯一识别的产品和运输设备的记录结构
3.2 驱动程序的因子和群体分析
为了辨别不同大小的数据资料,对驱动程序变量进行因子分析。变量,一个主成分分析的结果是KMO( Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin)值0.825,它的特点是有功的(Kaiser, 1974).。此外,相关矩阵的一致性似乎不可能,因为Bartlett的测试明显是大规模的。所有的变量在分析时都是可用的,因为这个群体不会透露任何极端值(表4)。相关矩阵显示所有的变量,除了一个,它和至少一种其他的变量相关,相关系数为0.3(显著水平为0.01)。最后的变量和另一个变量相关,相关系数为0.2。不在任何其他的因素中包含这个变量,我们让它保持现状,因为我们怀疑,对于产品群,这可能是最重要的变量。
一个详细计划表明它涉及到使用六个因素。对循环的组成部分的解释导致了下列驱动因素矩阵(表4):
(1)更有效的库存控制和改进的送货服务。 (2)改进协调物料流动。
(3)使产品回报和产品回收的执行更有效。 (4)改进的可追溯性。
(5)为客户和政府等外部的要求。 (6)减少伪造或偷窃。
对于实行唯一识别的公司,供应链整合是一个关键的机会。然而,这取决于执行背后的驱动力量,整合的水平和类型是不同的。整合其实是一个广泛的概念,并没有单一的方式来衡量。为了利用这个概念,我们不得不评估供应链中使用唯一识别的地点的数量。这个测试是符合服务于研究的包装视角的。这种概念是,在越多的地方使用相同的识别, 供应链整合度越高。
表IV 基于驱动变量的因素的循环组成部分
3.4 不同的集群的改善
唯一识别的标签的实施为受调查公司提供了改进。为了识别数据资料的结果,要进行主成分分析方法对结果变量进行分析(表七),这是一个至关重要的因素分析。
表V 各集群整合驱动力量的单因子变异数分析
15
表VI 集群驱动力量的整合水平(均值)
4个评估结果表明,所有变量的单因素分析是合适的。首先,巴特利特的球体检验显著性够大。第二,KMO值为0.883(可信)。第三,提取的群体不会导致任何极端值(表七),最后,相关矩阵显示,所有变量至少和一个其他变量有关,相关系数的值为0.4 (显着性水平0.01 )。
一个详细计划表明四到六个因素应该被使用。为了指定逻辑标签,使用了6个因子(见表7)。这些因素解释了78.3%的结果变量的差异。
为了区分从四个集群驱动力量获得的改进,需要进行一个基于这6个结果因子的判别分析。循环结构矩阵和群体中心表明了各组改善的差异。这种分类法预测了各组公司的改善比例,集群1(55%),集群3(75%)和集群4(69%),但集群2中只有14%的公司被正确分类。总共有 52.6%的公司正确分类(46.3%有效),而先前的比例是25%。比较表明:
*旨在协调物料流动(集群1)的公司,已经在库存管理上,提高生产率和交货质量上,获得更多改善,超过了其他公司。
*旨在提高产品的收益和可追溯性(集群2)的公司,有迹象改善了交货质量以及次品率
16
和废品率,但该群的公司关于改善有极大的差异。
*有外部的要求去实施唯一识别的公司(集群3)在所有的方面取得的改进是最少的。 *旨在减少伪造或偷窃的公司(集群4),在次品率和废品率上获得更多的改进。在提高库存管理、生产力和交货质量上,他们的改进高于平均水平。
上面的差异有统计学意义,99%的可信度。在因素‖人力成本‖和‖与顾客和供应商的合作‖上,并没有统计学差异,有95%的可信度。
数据表明,为了获得唯一识别的改进,信息共享的范围和频率是必要的。因此,需要对这些问题进行阐述。
3.5.1 信息共享的范围 为了提高信息共享的水平
,必须发现信息共享的参与者。与顾客和供应商的信息共享都在潜在的增加。目前,很有可能是公司与他们的最重要的客户分享信息 (平均3.2)。与最重要的供应商(2.7),绝大多数的客户信息共享(2.5),且供应商(2.1)范围比较狭窄的。
集群间的差异已经发现。一个单因子变异数分析测试,描述性统计和×2测试表,表明集群3中的公司在信息共享方面,有相同的水平。但几乎没有与他们的供应商实现共享。交叉表和×2测试表也显示了其他的不同。该群的公司比起其他群的公司,他们能和大多数的顾客分享信息,比供应商要多。比起其他的公司,在集群2中的公司与他们的重要顾客(平均2.71)分享信息较少。在群1、4的公司与他们的供应商和最重要的绝大部分客户分享更多的信息。然而,我们应该记住,尽管有差异,各群信息共享的水平都较低。
3.5.2信息共享的频率
与客户和供应商的信息共享的频率变化范围很大,但有些集群显著特征被识别 (表VIII)。在集群1中公司的中值显示,多数的这些公司分享信息的水平,取决于使用唯一识别。使用频率表分析集群间的公司。他们显示,在集群1一半的公司在日常中共享信息,异常情况下有25%的公司分享信息。在集群2公司分享信息的频率是一周,但大多数的公司以一天为频率。在集群3中绝大多数的公司在特殊情况下才分享信息。在集群4中的公司的信息共享很高。
表VII 基于结果变量的因素的循环组成部分
17
3.6 前景
在确定了实施的驱动力量,整合程度,其他改进,信息资源共享,改进的局限条件后,我们得到了使用唯一识别的公司的未来前景。在所有的驱动因素分组中,这些是很相似。然而,集群与其他不同。单因子变异数分析测试显示,集群3在很多变量上明显和其他不同。一般情况下,这个方法明显偏低。交叉表和×2实验表明,在集群3的公司认为,在2 ~ 5年内,,关于存货水平、库存空间、服务水平,交货时间减少, 降低运输成本,协调与顾客和供应商的物料流等方面,他们将获得有限的提高。而其他集群并非如此。
表 VIII 信息共享频率的中值
18
然而,在总体水平上,受调查企业给出了未来2-5年内部和可控制方面最高的分数。在这段时间范围内,本公司相信他们会改进传输错误(平均3.74)、信息质量(3.64)、服务水平 (3.54),控制内部物料流(3.28),库存空间(3.54),重复的工作(3.21)和交货时间(3.20)。另一方面,最低分数给了换模时间(27.2)、生产力利用率(2.73)和损耗(2.80)。
我们已经得到了关于改善的对比并,期望在2-5年在重点能有所改变。直到现在,公司似乎集中于提高信息质量、消除重复的工作和减少发货错误。这些变量都被赋予了相似的分数,无论是已经达到或期望改进。最大的问题,如近期计划和细节改善,涉及到内部整合和逆向整合;库存分(0.53),与供应方的协作(0.50),库存周转(0.43)和库存水平(0.41)。
这项统计调查的公司打算在未来2-5年,增加客户和供应商的信息交流。得分最高的是最重要的顾客(平均4.08),其次是最重要的供应商(3.74),绝大多数的客户( 3.31),最后,绝大多数供应商(3.07)。
19
4 讨 论
本研究旨在突出使用唯一识别的动力和已经发现的改善。数据显示,无论达到了怎样的整合水平,执行的动力似乎发挥了关键作用。反过来,通过使用唯一识别,也会影响到后勤改进的程度和性质。在分析中,我们确定了4个不同的集群,他们有类似的执行动力。基于分类的关系,得到了不同层次的整合水平和改善水平。
这些拥有最高级别的整合度的公司也已经获得了最大程度的改善。与此相比,公司的目的是加强协调的材料流动,确保了最大的改进。在库存管理以及提供质量和生产率上,他们比其他公司获得更多的改进。旨在减少假冒或盗窃的公司也获得类似的改进,但程度较轻。二者的主要区别是信息共享的水平。而第一组的信息共享频率为每天,后者则是每月两次(表VIII)。这是符合阿伯丁集团(Dortch,2007年)提供的一项研究,该报告说,数据共享是执行唯一识别唯一最重要的贡献者。
低层次的一体化也导致了低水平的后勤改进。有外部需求的公司获得了最少的改进。其总体分数特别低。要么他们的营商环境没有提供任何可能的改进,或者他们由于任务以最少精力执行唯一识别。旨在提高产品回收和可追溯性的公司,在交付质量以及浪费和损耗上也已取得了一些改进。
论整体水平,所有的受调查公司预计将在2-5年内,在使用唯一识别上得到更多的改进。大部分现行的改进,都与物料流控制有关,如交付错误和服务水平的提升。参与调查的公司未来的2-5年的目标更多地集中于逆向整合。通过协调供应商,他们希望减少库存水平,并增加存货周转率。一个合乎逻辑的步骤后,将重点放在推进逆向整合。然而,这是没有处理的研究。然而,这种做法将提供一个结构化的道路,完全融入其中的潜在机会正在逐步获取。这一逐步的方法是符合Gimenez (2006)在西班牙食品制造业和Caputo 和Mininno (1998)在意大利杂货店的阶段研究的。
5 结论
良好的决策依赖于准确,及时和可靠的信息。这可以通过在供应链中的产品和商品上安装唯一识别的标签来实现。在调查中,62.5%的公司报告说,他们利用了唯一识别。然而,大公司和小公司有着显著的差异。尽管74%的大公司利用唯一识别,而小公司只有50%。这种差异可以解释为小型和大型公司一般采用的不同的技术(Evangelista and Sweeney, 2006)。更令人惊讶的是,在同一级别的唯一识别的使用上,可以找到所有三个包装水平(初级,中级,运输设备级)。
此外,研究表明,使用唯一识别的驱动因素及达到的整合水平之间有联系。数据表明:四个不同的公司群有类似的驱动力量。旨在提高物料流协作和减少假冒和盗窃的公司达到了最高水平的整合,而旨在提高产品回收和可追溯性的公司的整合度较低。
在未来的2-5年里,受访公司的期望,在使用唯一识别上,获取的更多的改进。特别是,他们的目标是把重点放在逆向整合。然而,要成功地获得更多的改进,公司需要增加它们与供应商和客户的信息共享。
然而,这项研究和其他大多数的研究一样,具有一定的局限性。这项研究的重点一直在从包装和信息系统达到一体化。然而,它清楚地表明,虽然沟通是整合一个关键的推动者(推而广之,缺乏沟通是一个严重的阻碍),信息系统本身是一个复杂的部分(Pagell,2004年)。进一步的研究必须提供深入理解,如企业如何将在包装上使用唯一识别作为一种机制,以和供应链合作伙伴在物料流上实现整合。此外,研究只是,在使用唯一识别的水平,使用的驱动力上,改进上,进行一次快速取样。这项研究的另一个延伸,即进行专门研究,以探讨变革的模式达到包装上更高的整合度装。这可以通过深入的案例研究,只能涉及纵向少量的公司。