供应链风险评估 外文翻译

1、大学毕 业 设 计（论 文）外文文献翻译系别：专业：班级：管理工程学院物流管理学生姓名：导师姓名：职称：起止时间：2012 年 3 月 10 日 至 2012 年 6 月 11 日An analysis of supply chain risk assessmenttechniquesAuthor：George A.Zsidisin，Lisa M.Ellram and Joseph R.Carter，JosephL.Cavinato，Glendale，ArizonaNationality：USA（Michigan State University，East Lansing,Michigan）D

2、erivatio：Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management; February2004, Vol. 34 No 5, p397-413IntroductionEvery organization needs to obtain goods and services in order to carry outits objectives and goals. Risk exists in obtaining these items, whether it isexplicitly acknowledged and managed, i

3、nvestigated in a cursory manner, orignored altogether.However, there has been minimal research conducted onhow purchasing organizations assess the risk that exists with inbound supply.This paper focuses on inbound supply risk, which we dene in this research as“the potential occurrence of an incident

4、 associated with inbound supply fromindividual supplier failures or the supply market, in which its outcomes result inthe inability of the purchasing rm to meet customer demand or cause threatsto customer life and safety”.Two explicit concepts within this denition ofinbound supply risk are probabili

5、ty and impact.Probability, within a supply management context, is a measure of how oftena detrimental event that results in a loss occurs. Impact, on the other hand,refers to the signicance of that loss to the organization. Therefore, asdiscussed in prior research,Hallikas et al., 2002; Luce and Rai

6、ffa, 1957;Shapira, 1995; Yates and Stone, 1992 risk is perceived to exist when there isa relatively high likelihood that a detrimental event can occur and that eventhas a signicant associated impact or cost.It is critical to an organizations success to understand the supply risk thatexists. A upplie

7、rs failure to deliver inbound purchased goods or services canhave a detrimental effect for the purchasing rm and subsequently throughoutthe downstream supply chain. The purchasing rm will usually sufferimmediate damage from production delays when a loss associated with criticalsupplies occurs, or wh

8、en a supplier provides supplies or components that donot meet quality specications. For example, the quality problems discoveredwith the Wilderness AT tire in 2000 resulted in 174 reported deaths and anestimated cost of $2.1B for their recall (Truett, 2001.Assessing supply risk, including appraising

9、 its likelihood of occurrence,stage in the product life cycle, exposure, likely triggers, and likely loss, is acritical step in managing the risk inherent in a rms overall supply network(Harland et al., 2003. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to examinetools and techniques that purchasing o

10、rganizations implement for assessingsupply risk. The paper begins with a review of prior research on supply riskand supply risk assessment within an agency theory context. Next, case studyndings on supply risk assessment techniques are summarized. This isfollowed by a discussion of the research ndin

11、gs, conclusions,and futureresearch directions.Risk assessment frameworksThe nature of risk assessments can be formal to informal, as well asquantitative or qualitative. In one example, Steele and Court (1996 provide aconceptual approach for supply risk assessment. The rst step in their supplyrisk as

12、sessment approach is determining the probability of a risk eventoccurring, which can be classied as high, medium, and low chance. Thesecond step consists of estimating the likely problem duration, which can bebased on past experience. The third step is investigating the business impactof the risk ev

13、ent. Use of a multi-functional team is recommended to quantifythe size of the potential problem and its effect on business protability.A second example of a supply risk assessment process is thecomprehensive outsource risk evaluation (CORE system, which is a tooldeveloped by Microsoft and Arthur And

14、erson to prevent supply problems fromarising (Michalski,2000.This assessment process identies 9 risk factorscategorized into four families:(1 Infrastructure.(2 Business controls.(3 Business value.(4 Relationships.Each family is weighted based on its importance to the companyslong-term business strat

15、egies. Risk is analyzed objectively through measuressuch as nancial data, subjectively with measures such as the strength of therelationship between the rms, or through a combination of objective andsubjective measures.The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA of the US federalgovernment has also

16、 developed a supply risk assessment tool that isdisseminated throughout its agency The risk assessment is performed for allsuppliers, and includes three key areas of performance, schedule, and cost. Arisk rating is assigned by an operations team or functional specialist based ondata such as product

17、audits, system evaluations, and performance. Eachsystem or keyprocess is classied as a high, moderate, or low risk.Several common themes emerge from reviewing the risk assessmenttechniques previously described. First, all of the supply risk assessmentsconsist of procedures to investigate the probabi

18、lity and impact of detrimentalevents that can occur with inbound supply. This concurs with ndings fromHarland et al. (2003, Hallikas et al. (2002, and Yates and Stone (1992. Asecond commonality among these assessment tools concerns purchasingorganization use of techniques for obtaining risk informat

19、ion associated withsuppliers or the supplier market. Within the framework presented by Harlandetal. (2003, risk assessment is a necessary and critical facet for purchasingorganizations to prioritize the usage of resources for managing the riskinherent with inbound supply. Because effective supply ri

20、sk managementdeals with the interface between the buyer and supplier rm, one theory that isappropriate for understanding the implications of assessing supply risk isagency theory.Supply risk assessment and agency theorySeveral principles of agency theory can provide a theoretical foundation forunder

21、standing how and why organizations conduct supply risk assessments.Agency theory applies to the study of problems arising when one party, theprincipal, delegates work to another party, the agent (Eisenhardt,1989a;Lassar and Kerr, 1996. The unit of analysis is the metaphor of a contractbetween the ag

22、ent and the principal. In the buyer-supplier relationship, thepurchasing organization serves as the principal and the supplier as the agent.Some of the variables that inuence the “contract” or relationship between thebuyer and supplier include information systems, outcome uncertainty, goalconict, re

23、lationship length, adverse selection and moral hazard (Eisenhardt,1989a; Logan, 2000. Descriptions and citations for these variables can befound in Table I.each of the agency theory variables may have an inuence on the extent towhich purchasing organizations need to assess supply risk. For example,s

24、upply risk assessments can be used by purchasing organizations formonitoring the activities of supplier organizations. This monitoring can lead toa clearer understanding by purchasing organizations into the likelihood andimpact of supplier risk from moral hazard and adverse selection. Likewise, ther

25、elationship length between a supplier and purchasing organization caninuence the extent to which supply risk assessment processes areimplemented. Assessing supply risk may be vital when sourcing from newsuppliers or when evaluating potential supplier rms that provide criticalinbound supply (Kraljic,

26、 1983. On the other hand, the extensiveimplementation of risk assessment for established supplier alliance partnerscan result in inefcient resource allocation.The need for research on assessing supply riskAs presented above, several frameworks have been proposed to guidepurchasing organizations in t

27、heir assessment of the risk that exists withinbound supply. However,few studies exist that explore the key constructsnecessary for assessing supply risk. In addition, these prior frameworks focuson formalized tools for supply risk assessment. Additional tools may also existin purchasing organization

28、s that are not classied as “risk assessment,” butnonetheless provide those organizations insight for understanding the riskinherent with inbound supply. To address this gap in the literature, theresearchers in this study derived a case study research protocol andconducted multiple case studies for u

29、nderstanding how and why purchasingorganizations assess supply risk.Research methodThe case study research method was chosen in this research due to thenewness of the topic of supply risk and to obtain insights into how and whyorganizations assess supply risk (Eisenhardt, 1989b; Ellram, 1996; Straus

30、sand Corbin, 1998; Yin, 1994.Multiple sources of evidence were gathered inthe research, to include archival records such as supplier developmentchecklists and supplier certication standards, and interviews with keypersonnel from supply management, materials management, engineering,quality, and corpo

31、rate strategy.The researchers contacted organizations with strong reputations for havingproactive supply management functions, as recommended by knowledgeablepurchasing professionals and found in the popular press. Purchasingprofessionals were contacted via telephone or e-mail and asked severalquest

32、ions about their involvement in supply risk assessment and supply riskmanagement. Respondents from approximately ten organizations that eitherdid not engage in any management activities related to supply risk, or that didnot want to participate in the study were removed from the contact list.However

33、, several of the initial contacts that were unable to participate in thestudy provided the researchers with additional leads. Data generated in thecase studies was subject to open, axial, and selective coding analysis, as perthe guidelines set by Miles and Huberman (1984, Strauss and Corbin (1998,an

34、d Yin (1994. In addition, construct, internal and external validity, andreliability, were addressed throughout the investigation by creating and utilizinga case study research protocol (Ellram, 1996; Yin, 1994. Brief descriptions ofeach of the case study rms can be found in the Appendix.Research ndi

35、ngsThe following section provides a synthesis of how the purchasingdepartments of the organizations discover supply risk. The cases included twocomputer manufacturers (Comp1 and Comp2, two suppliers in the aerospaceindustry (Aero1 and Aero2, two semi-conductor manufacturers (Chip1 andChip2, and a ce

36、llular phone manufacturer (Cell. The unit of analysis was atthe corporate level for the computer manufacturers, and the business unit levelfor the remainder of the cases. Two of the rms, Chip1 and Cell, have formal,stand-alone supply risk assessment processes in place. The other rms do nothave speci

37、c, stand-alone risk assessment processes established, but insteaduse a variety of proactive supply management techniques to assess supplyrisk, as shown in Table II. The formal risk assessment tools are discussed rst,followed by the supply management techniques that facilitate supply riskassessment a

38、nalysis.Formal risk assessment techniquesTwo of the rms studied in this research have standardized, formal riskassessment techniques in place at their rms. The rst rm, Cell, has had aformal risk assessment process in place since February 2000. There are twofactors that inuenced the decision to creat

39、e a formal assessment tool. First,the supply risk assessment and measurement process was created to meetthe legal requirements of “KonTraG,” which is a German law implemented inMay 1998 to make investors aware of corporate risk (Kirk, 1999. Thisamendment to German corporate law requires companies to

40、 treat riskmanagement information similar to nancial information. KonTraG specicallyrequires companies to inform shareholders of the steps they take to managerisk. The second reason for initiating the supply risk assessment process is toachieve greater control of inbound supply and proactively reduc

41、e theoccurrence and impact of that supply risk. The supply risk measurementprocess is one facet reported to top management as part of an overall“balanced scorecard.”供应链风险评估技术分析作者：George A.Zsidisin，Lisa M.Ellram and Joseph R.Carter，JosephL.Cavinato，Glendale，Arizona国籍：美国（密歇根州立大学，密歇根州东兰辛）出处：营销和供应链管理，20

42、04，第5期卷34，P397-413介绍每个组织都需要获得商品和服务，以履行其目的和目标。风险存在于取得这些项目，无论是明确承认和管理，在粗略地调查，或干脆忽略。然而，已经微乎其微如何购买进行的研究组织评估入库供应中存在的风险。本文重点访港供应的风险，这是我们在本研究中定义为“一个潜在的发生访港供应从单个供应商的失败或与事件供应市场，其结果导致在采购公司无法在这满足客户的需求或客户的生命和安全造成的威胁 两个明确在此入境供应风险的定义概念是概率和影响。“。概率，在供应链管理方面，是衡量往往发生不利事件，导致亏损。的影响，另一方面，是指该组织损失的意义。因此，在以前的研究讨论，（Hallikas

43、等，2002;，卢斯和瑞发，1957年;沙皮拉，1995; Yates和石，1992年）的风险被认为存在的可能性相对较高，不利事件时有可能会出现与该事件有一个显着的影响或成本。它是一个组织的成功至关重要，了解存在的供应风险。一供应商未能提供入境购买的商品或服务，可以有采购公司的不利影响，并随后在整个下游供应链。采购公司通常会受到立即生产延误的损害与关键供应相关的损失发生时，或当供应商提供用品或部件不符合质量规范。例如，发现质量问题与荒野轮胎在2000年导致174人死亡，2.1B美元，估计其成本召回（Truett，2001年）。供应风险评估，包括评价其发生的可能性，在舞台上产品生命周期，曝光，可

44、能触发，并有可能亏损，是一个关键步骤在一个公司的整体供应网络（哈兰德等。，2003年）所固有的风险管理。因此，本研究的目的是研究工具和技术，采购组织实施供应风险评估。本文首先以前的研究机构内对供应风险和供应风险评估审查理论背景。其次，供应的风险评估技术的案例研究的结果是总结。其次是讨论研究结果，结论，未来的研究方向。风险评估框架风险评估的性质可以正式到非正式，以及定量或定性。举一个例子，斯蒂尔和法院（1996）提供一个概念性的方法提供风险评估。在他们的供应风险评估方法的第一步是确定的，可以划分为高风险事件发生的概率，中，低的机会。第二步，由估计可能出现的问题时间，可以根据以往的经验。第三步是调

45、查业务风险事件的影响。建议使用一个多功能的团队量化潜在的问题和其对企业盈利能力的影响的大小。一个供应风险评估过程的第二个例子是全面外包风险评估（核心）系统，这是由微软开发工具和安达信，以防止产生（MICHALSKI，2000年）的供应问题。这评估过程中确定19分为四个家庭的风险分类的因素：（1）基础设施。（2）商业控制。（3）商业价值。（4）关系。基于公司的长期业务的重要性，每个家庭加权战略。通过措施，如财务数据，客观分析风险，主观上有实力的企业之间的关系等措施，或通过主观和客观的措施相结合。美国联邦政府的国防合同管理局（DCMA）还开发了供应风险评估工具，其整个传播机构。风险评估所有供应商进

46、行，包括三个关键领域的表现，进度，和成本。风险评级被分配由运营团队或职能专家根据数据，如产品审核，系统评价，并表现。每个系统或keyprocess被列为高，中度或低风险。几种常见的主题出现，从审查的风险评估技术先前所描述的。首先，所有的供应风险评估程序，包括调查的不利事件发生的概率和影响对内供应。哈兰德（2003年）等，Hallikas（2002年）和Yates和Stone（1992）的调查结果与此同意。这些评估工具中的一个第二共同性涉及采购组织获得与供应商或供应商市场相关的风险信息技术的使用。哈兰德（2003年）的框架内，风险评估是必要和关键的方面，一个采购机构，优先资源的使用，管理风险与入境供应固有的。由于有效供给的风险管理涉及买方和供应商公司之间的界面，一种理论认为是适当的了解供应风险评估的影响，是代理理论。风险评估和代理理论提供风险评估和代理理论代理理论的几个原则提供了理论基础。了解如何以及为什么组织进行供应的风险评估。机构理论适用于研究问题产生的一方时，校长，代表工作另一方当事人，代理人（艾森哈特，1989a；Lassar和Kerr，1996）。分析单位是受托人与委托人之间的合同的比喻。在买方供应商之间的关系，采购机构作为本金和作为代理的供应商。一些变量影响的“合同”或买方和供应商之间的关系，包括信息系统，结果不确定性，目标冲突，关系长度，逆向选择和道德风险（艾森哈特，