运用层次分析法分析供应链管理的绩效评价

1、本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文原文Performance measurement of supply chain management using the analytical hierarchy processR. BHAGWAT and M. K. SHARMADepartment of Mechanical Engineering, MBM Engineering College, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture,JNV University, Jodhpur-342011, Rajasthan, IndiaDepartment of P

2、roduction and Industrial Engineering, MBM Engineering College,Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, JNV University, Jodhpur-342011, Rajasthan, India Performance measurement of supply chain management (SCM) is a rapidly growing multi-criteria decision-making problem owing to the large number of fa

3、ctors affecting decision-making. The right choice of performance metrics and measures is critical to the success and competitiveness of the firms in the era of globalisation. Recognising the multiple objective nature of the problem, this paper proposes the use of the analytical hierarchy process (AH

4、P) methodology as aid in making SCM evaluation decisions. For pair-wise comparison in AHP, a survey methodology is used. The methodology presented can help firms to prioritise and formulate viable performance measurement strategies in the volatile and complex global decision environment from differe

5、nt balanced scorecard (BSC) perspectives. A demonstration of the application of this methodology in a real life problem is presented.Keywords: Supply chain management; Performance measurement; Analytical hierarchy process; Balanced scorecard1. IntroductionIn the era of globalisation, supply chains a

6、re being treated as extended enterprises. This arises partly from the attempts of the enterprises, situated at geographically dispersed locations, to build formal partnerships to gain a competitive advantage. According to Jagdev and Browne (1998) supply chains as extended enterprises are responsible

7、 for the whole product life cycle, from material procurement and supply management, to production and manufacturing, further to product distribution and customer service, and finally to the recycling and disposal of end-of-life product. In recent years, a number of firms have realised the potential

8、of supply chain management (SCM) in day-to-day operations management. However, they often lack the insight for the development of effective performance measures and metrics needed to achieve a fully integrated SCM due to lack of a balanced approach and of clear distinction between metrics at strateg

9、ic, tactical, and operational levels (Gunasekaran et al. 2001, Hudson et al. 2001). Some researchers (Browne et al. 1997, Rolstadas 1998, Childe 1998, Gunasekaran et al. 2001, Hudson et al. 2001, Gunasekaran et al. 2004, Folan and Browne 2005a, b) identified SCM metrics and proposed a framework to c

10、lassify them as financial and nonfinancial metrics at different decision levels. But due to the large number of SCM metrics given in the framework, firms faced further problems in identifying which measures are important to focus on in order to improve overall business performance. Also this framewo

11、rk does not completely provide a balanced picture of the total business performance from different perspectives, as it does not clearly highlight the business area which is lagging or leading. Kaplan and Norton (1992) have proposed the balanced scorecard (BSC), as a means to evaluate corporate perfo

12、rmance from four different perspectives: the financial perspective, the internal business process perspective, the customer perspective, and the learning and growth perspective. Many firms used BSC for SCM evaluation to give a more balanced picture of business performance. However, prioritisation of

13、 these different perspectives for a firm is again an issue which needs to be addressed. In this paper an attempt is made to prioritise SCM metrics and the different performance measure levels with the help of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). AHP is also used to prioritise the different BSC pe

14、rspectives for SCM evaluation. For pair-wise comparison in AHP, a survey methodology is used. The outline of the paper is as follows: section 2 throws light on performance metrics and measurements in SCM. Section 3 discusses performance evaluation framework for SCM. In sections 4 and 5 the balanced

15、scorecard and the analytical hierarchy process are dealt with respectively. Application AHP in SCM evaluation is reported in section 6. Section 7 gives the results and a discussion. Finally, the conclusions and implications are presented in section 8.2. Performance metrics and measurement of SCM In

16、this section, we make an attempt to summarise some of the most appropriate performance metrics and measures of SCM treating supply chains as extended enterprises identified and discussed by Jagdev and Browne (1998), and Gunasekaran et al. (2001, 2004). Folan and Browne (2005b) suggested that interor

17、ganisational performance measurement may be divided into supply chain and extended enterprise performance measurement: the former relying solely on traditional logistics measures, while the latter incorporates the structural aspects of the supply chain system and adds non-logistic perspectives to it

18、s measurement arena.2.1 Metrics for performance evaluation of planned order proceduresFor any firm, the prime activity is to procure orders; a typical order path is shown in figure 1.From the figure, it is clear that the way the orders are generated and scheduled will determine performance of the do

19、wnstream activities and inventory levels. Hence, the first step in assessing performance is to analyse the way the order-related activities are carried out. To do this, the most important issuessuch as the order entry method, order lead-time and the path of order traverseneed to be considered.2.2 Su

20、pply chain partnership and related metricsRecently, the buyersupplier partnership has gained a lot of attention from industry and researchers, resulting in a steady stream of literature promoting it (e.g. Ellram 1991, Toni et al. 1994, McBeth and Ferguson 1994, Graham et al. 1994, Landeros et al. 19

21、95, New 1996, Thomas and Griffin 1996, Towill 1997, Fisher 1997, Maloni and Benton 1997, Gunasekaran et al. 2001). According to Jagdev and Browne (1998) the framework of extended enterprises describes how a manufacturing system extends its boundary. The manufacturing enterprise focuses on core busin

22、ess activities, and out-sources non-core business activities to outside suppliers and other service providers. It encourages both the manufacturers and suppliers competitive ability, and enhances their mutual dependency in order to achieve mutual success. Most of these studies stress how partnership

23、s improve supply chain operations. Accordingly, an efficient and effective performance evaluation of buyer and/or suppliers is not enough; the extent of partnership that exists between them needs to be evaluated and improved as well.2.3 Measuring customer service and satisfactionExtended enterprises

24、 develop loyal and long-term relationships with key customers and treat them as their most important partners. This measurement is aimed at integrating customer specifications in design, and setting the dimensions of quality and feedback for the control process. They contain product/service flexibil

25、ity, customer query time, customer order fulfilment time, logistics of delivery and post-transaction service.2.4 Production level measures and metricsAs an important part of SCM as extended enterprises, the performance of the production process also needs to be measured, managed and improved, and su

26、itable metrics for it established. This category consists of a range of products and services, capacity utilisation, and effectiveness of scheduling techniques.2.5 Performance evaluation of delivery linkThese measures are designed to evaluate the performance of delivery and distribution cost in supp

27、ly chain. The typical measures for delivery performance evaluation are lead-time reduction in the delivery process, on-time delivery (delivery-to-request date, delivery-tocommit date and order fill lead-time), distribution mode, the delivery channel, vehicle scheduling, and warehouse location, the p

28、ercentage of goods in transit, quality of information exchanged during delivery, number of faultless notes invoiced, and flexibility of delivery systems to meet particular customer needs (Novich 1990, Gelders et al. 1994, Stewart 1995).2.6 Supply chain finance and logistics costThe aim of the logist

29、ics function is to ensure that the right product is delivered to the right destination at the right time, in the right quantity, and at the least possible cost. According to Jagdev and Browne (1998) logistics will help make decisions on such issues as, warehouse location, selection and coordination

30、with the transport company, resource management, scheduling, dispatching, demand forecasting, order processing, materials requirements planning, etc. Determining the total logistical cost can assess the financial performance of a supply chain. It is necessary to decide on a broad level of strategies

31、 and techniques that would contribute to the smooth flow of information and materials in the supply chain environment. 3. Performance evaluation framework for SCMMany manufacturing and service organisations have used performance measures and measurement systems to determine their performance (Mettan

32、en 2005). Rouse and Putterill (2003) argued that a performance measurement (PM) framework assists in the process of performance measurement system building, by clarifying PM boundaries, specifying PM dimensions or views and may also provide initial institutions into relationships among the PM dimens

33、ions. Hudson et al. (2001) investigated strategically aligned performance measures, which can help stimulate continuous improvements; this was achieved by linking performance measures to specific improvement efforts and helping to drive performance towards critical strategic objectives, which were d

34、esigned to be revisited and updated regularly. Folan and Browne (2005) presented different performance measurement frameworks specifically designed for the inter-organisational environment. They further developed a performance measurement system looking into the requirements of extended enterprise,

35、via two performance measurement frameworks: the structural extended enterprise balanced scorecard and the procedural framework for the selection and implementation measures. Browne et al. (1997) developed the ENAPS approach of performance measurement, which consists of a generic set of performance m

36、easures and indicatorsand uses a process-oriented top down approach. It contains a large number of performance measures/ metrics as discussed in an earlier section of the paper. Turner et al. (2005) suggested that application of performance measures has developed in the last decade or so from what w

37、ere traditional financial performance measures to now encompass a wide range of nonfinancial performance measures. This growth in the use of non-financial performance measures was stimulated by various models such as the strategic measurement and reporting technique (SMART) (Cross and Lynch 1988 198

38、9), the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992), the European excellence model (EFQM 1999) and the ABCD checklist for operational excellence (Wight 1993). Traditional performance measures have been heavily criticised in the literature for encouraging short-termism (Banks and Wheelright 1979, Hay

39、es and Garvin 1982), lacking strategic focus (Skinner 1974),encouraging local optimisation (Hall 1983, Fry and Cox 1989), encouraging minimisation of variance rather than continuous improvement (Johnson and Kaplan 1987, Lynch and Cross 1991) and not being externally focused (Kaplan and Norton 1992).

40、 In an attempt to overcome these and other criticisms, performance measurement frameworks have been developed and provide a balanced view between external and internal focus (Keegan et al. 1989), between levels in the organisation (Cross and Lynch 19881989), between results and determinants (Fitzger

41、ald et al. 1991), between the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992) and the multiple perspective of the stakeholders of the performance prism (Kennerley and Neely 2000). Gunasekaran et al. (2001) illustrated and discussed different performance measures and metrics of t

42、he SCM with the help of a framework that gives cohesive picture to address what needs to be measured, and how it can be dealt with. The framework developed is shown in table 1.4. The balanced scorecardThe need for performance measurement systems at different levels of decision-making, either in the

43、industry or service contexts, is undoubtedly not something new (Bititci et al. 2005). Robert Kaplan of Harvard University and David Norton, an American management consultant have presented the BSC concept in a series of articles published in Harvard Business Review (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1993, 200

44、0). They have argued that traditional financial accounting measures offer a narrow and incomplete picture of business performance, and that a reliance on such data hinders the creation of future business value. As a result they suggest that financial measures be supplemented with additional ones tha

45、t reflect customer satisfaction, internal business process, and the ability to learn and grow. Their BSC is designed to complement financial measures of past performance with their measures of the drivers of future performance. The name of their concept reflects intent to keep score of a set of item

46、s that maintain a balance between short term and long term objectives, between financial and non financial measures, between lagging and leading indicators, and between internal and external performance perspectives. The early image of the BSC serving the CEO like a control panel serves an aircraft

47、pilot seems to have expanded to include mechanisms to alter the course of action as well. Now, the BSC seems to serve as a control panel, pedals and steering wheel (Malmi 2001). Figure 2 shows the relationship between the four BSC perspectives.5. The analytic hierarchy processThe analytic hierarchy

48、process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision-making tool developed by Saaty (1980). The AHP is a systematic procedure for representing the elements of any problem, hierarchically. According to Jagdev et al. (2004) since decision-making in the strategy formulation domain is often fraught with uncertain

49、ty, the manager should be able to express a degree of belief and confidence in his judgment. AHP provides a theory and a corresponding methodology, which support the modelling of unstructured problems. A hierarchy is structured from the top (objectives from a managerial standpoint), through intermed

50、iate levels (criteria/sub criteria on which subsequent levels depend) to the lowest level (which is usually a list of alternatives). It organises the basic rationality by breaking down a problem into smaller and smaller constituent parts and then guides decision makers through a series of pair-wise

51、comparison judgments (which are documented and can be reexamined) to express the relative strength or intensity of impact of the elements in the hierarchy. These judgments are then translated to numbers.6. AHP in SCM evaluationThis work presents the use of AHP in SCM evaluation. The AHP can be the b

52、est tool for prioritising and choosing the best measure and metric for day-to-day business operations. The hierarchic portrayal of a problem is as follows: An overall performance measurement system (PMS) of a SCM is decided by three criteria performance measures in the hierarchy, strategic, tactical

53、 and operational level. These are further divided into subcriteria performance measures for different decision levels in the hierarchy. The problem is to decide which of the four balanced scorecard perspectives is most critical from the SCM performance evaluation point of view.7. Results and discuss

54、ionClearly from table 2, P-strategic (0.755) is perceived to be the most important criterion followed by the P-operational (0.178) and P-tactical (0.067). It reveals that performance measurement at the strategic level is the most important whereas the measures at tactical levels rated least importan

55、t. It also suggests that performance measures that reflect the strategic performance for long term are preferred. It is interesting to note that performance measures at operational level have been preferred over the same at tactical level. It shows that the day-to-day performance measures play more

56、significantly than the same of the middle level management.8. Conclusions and implications of the studyThe AHP approach, as a decision-making tool presented in the paper, is efficient in dealing with multi-criteria decision-making problems. Since performance measurementof SCM is a problem facing dec

57、ision-makers nowadays, especially in the era of globalisation, AHP involves the process of choosing among many alternatives based on multiple criteria and sub-criteria and explained in detail using Expert ChoiceTM software. The AHP method divides the complex problem into subproblems, which make it e

58、asier to decide and keep consistent the rendered judgment regarding the choices considering all factors affecting it. The decision maker can perform sensitivity analysis on the selection choices and the sub-criteria to account for variations (changes) of the pair-wise comparisons and have a high deg

59、ree of confidence in his/her judgment.译文：运用层次分析法分析供应链管理的绩效评价R.巴格瓦蒂和M.K尔马机械工程系，MBM 工程学院，工程及建筑，JNV 大学，印度拉贾斯坦邦，Jodhpur-342011生产部门供应链管理的绩效评价是一个由于大量因素影响决策的快速增长的多目标决策问题。在经济全球化的时代，提高公司的竞争力的关键是正确的选择绩效评价和措施。认识到这个问题的多目标的性质，本文提出用传统的层次分析法来帮助配置管理评估决定。成对比较是层次分析法中的一种调查方法。此方法可以帮助企业确定优先顺序，并从不同的平衡计分卡的角度不稳定和复杂的全球环境中制订一套可行的绩效评价策略。介绍了在现实生活问题中的应用并演示这种方法。关键词： 供应链管理 ；绩效评价 ；层次分析法 ；平衡记分卡1. 简介 在经济全球化时代，供应链被当作扩展企业。这些不同地区的企业尝试建立合作关系，以获得竞争优势。据乔德和布朗(1998)所说，供应链由于延长企业负责合计产品生命周期，从材料采购，供应