Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128783
|
| Title: | 溝通管道與合約中數量及時間彈性對供應中斷風險的影響─以買方導向為觀點
The impact of communication pipeline as well as quantity and time flexibility in the contract on the risk of supply disruption - from the buyer’s perspective |
| Authors: | 洪銘澤
Hung, Ming-Chak |
| Contributors: | 林我聰
Lin, Woo-Tsong
洪銘澤
Hung, Ming-Chak |
| Keywords: | 合約彈性
數量彈性
時間彈性
溝通管道
供應中斷風險
Contract flexibility
Quantity flexibility
Time flexibility
Communication channels
Supply disruption risk |
| Date: | 2020 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-03-02 11:00:31 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 專業分工及國際化的趨勢下，供應鏈越來越長，供應不確定性也越來越高，因此供應中斷成為了重要的研究議題。de Oliveira and Handfield （2017） 提出合約重新修訂對供應中斷風險有影響，然並無提及合約訂定時應保持哪些彈性以避免或減少供應中斷；同時過往對於合約彈性上的研究，亦較少討論其與供應中斷的關聯性。合約內容涵蓋項目多，合約訂定時對於貨品數量及交貨時間的需求預測不確定性高，本研究擬聚焦探討合約中數量及時間彈性對供應中斷風險的影響；以及於合約訂定討論時，合約中數量及時間彈性的制定，是否受到買賣雙方溝通管道及溝通狀況的影響。在研究結果顯示，交貨日期彈性對於供應情況而言最為主要，其次是貨品的數量也對供應情況有一定的影響，而在合作當中商家都較偏向以為正式的溝通方式聯絡，但在解約時間點的商討上卻是偏向非正式的溝通。
Under the trend of professional division of labor and internationalization, the supply chain is getting longer, and the supply uncertainty is getting higher. Therefore, supply disruption has become an important topic of research. de Oliveira and Handfield (2017) proposed that the contract re-amendment had an impact on the risk of supply disruption. However, there was no mention of the flexibility of contract timing to avoid or reduce supply disruption. At the same time, the study on contract resilience association with supply disruptions was less discussed. The contract covers a large number of projects. The forecasting of the demand for the quantity of goods and the delivery time is highly uncertain. The purpose of this study is to focus on the impact of quantity and time flexibility on the risk of supply disruption in the contract; The formulation of the quantity and time flexibility in the contract is affected by the communication channels of the buyers and sellers and their communication status. The research results show that the flexibility of delivery date is the most important for the supply situation. Secondly, the quantity of the goods also has a certain effect on the supply situation. In the cooperation, the merchants are more inclined to communicate in a formal way, but at the time of termination the discussions are biased towards informal communication. |
| Reference: | 马胡杰， 石岿然， 范金，2015，供应链买方信任的源起及其对合约弹性的影响. 管理评论 27（11）: 192-206
王忠宗，2000，採購管理手冊，中華企業管理發展中心，台北
王燕， 刘永胜，2008，供应链风险管理概述，北京物资学院物流学院，北京
朱文禎，2002，數位時代下軟體元件統治關係之演變，資訊管理研究. 南華大學
李英睿，2005，供應鏈彈性供應合約的議題分析，臺灣大學工業工程學研究所學位論文: 1-70.
李彬，季建华，孟翠翠，2011，基于降低供应中断风险的供应链管理研究。現代管理科學2011（9）: 5-7.
孟翠翠，季建华，李新。2014，基于柔性能力的供应链突发事件应急管理研究述评。软科学28（4）: 127-130.
庞庆华，2010，收益共享契约下三级供应链应对突发事件的协调研究中国管理科学 18（4）: 101-106.
陈祥锋（Xiang-Feng Chen），朱道立（Dao-Li Zhu），2008，资金约束供应链中物流提供商的系统价值研究，系統工程學報23（6）: 666-673.
钟玉洁，薛云建，2012，基于弹性供应链的供应中断风险应对，中国物流与采购（16）: 72-73.
張偉豪，統計學. (2011). SEM 論文寫作不求人: 三星統計發行.
郭茜，蒲云，李延来。2011。供应链中断风险管理研究综述。中國流通經濟 25（3）: 48-53
陳曉萍，徐淑英，樊景立，鄭伯壎。2013，組織與管理研究的實證方法（2版），華泰文化，台灣
黃芳銘. (2007). 結構方程模式: 理論與應用 (五版). 台北: 五南.
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing science, 8(4), 310-323.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of marketing, 54(1), 42-58.
Breivik, E., & Olsson, U. H. (2001). Adding variables to improve fit: The effect of model size on fit assessment in LISREL. Structural equation modeling: Present and future, 169-194.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136-136.
Chauhan, S. S., & Proth, J.-M. (2005). Analysis of a supply chain partnership with revenue sharing. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(1), 44-51.
Chen, Y.-C., & Lin, W.-T. (2013). The Research on Developing a Risk Assessment Model-Using Information and Electronics Industry as an Example. Paper presented at the International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (IE). Proceedings.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32(5), 554-571.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 453-461.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of research in marketing, 13(4), 303-317.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey. humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial marketing management, 31(4), 367-382.
Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships? Journal of marketing, 56(2), 32-44.
Hosseinabadi Farahani, M., Dawande, M., Gurnani, H., & Janakiraman, G. (2018). Better to Bend than to Break: Sharing Supply Risk Using the Supply-Flexibility Contract. Available at SSRN 3143238.
Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner`s guide to structural equation modeling: psychology press.
M. Gligor, D., & Holcomb, M. (2013). The role of personal relationships in supply chains: An exploration of buyers and suppliers of logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 24(3), 328-355.
Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192-223.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 430.
Oliveira, M. P. V. d., & Handfield, R. (2017). An enactment theory model of supplier financial disruption risk mitigation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(5), 442-457.
Rood, C., Van den Berg, D., Niemann, W., & Meyer, A. (2018). The role of personal relationships in supply chain disruptions: Perspectives from buyers and suppliers of logistics services. Acta Commercii, 18(1), 1-15.
Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of psychology, 607-634.
Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organization science, 10(4), 439-459.
Zsidisin, G. A. (2003). A grounded definition of supply risk. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5-6), 217-224.
Zsidisin, G. A., & Wagner, S. M. (2010). Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role of supply chain resiliency on disruption occurrence. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 1-20. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
106356040 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106356040 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202000135 |
| Appears in Collections: | [資訊管理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 604001.pdf | 943Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 136 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
