“三天汽車”運遞模式——一種對汽車物流操作業(yè)務具有戰(zhàn)略意義的模式【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　Delivering the ‘3-day car’—the strategic implications for automotive logistics operations</p><p>　　Materia

2、l source：Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management </p><p>　　Author：Matthias Holwega, Joe Miemczykb</p><p>　　It is now becoming apparent that the current’ stock-push’ vehicle supply in the a

3、utomotive industry by ful?lling the large majority of orders from existing stock is no longer a viable proposition. Cost pressure from rising stock levels in the market and high discounts needed to sell these vehicles ha

4、ve forced vehicle manufacturers to rethink their order ful?lment strategy in favour of stock-less‘build-to-order’ystems. More responsive order ful?lment at vehicle manufacturer level however will not</p><p>

5、　　At the start of the second automotive century, the global car industry ?nds itself in a major phase of transition—and arguably, in one of its most interesting times. Beyond the days of Henry Ford, high-variety mass pro

6、duction, and the early adoption of lean production concepts, the global car industry currently faces signi?cant uncertainty of how to regain pro?tability, which averages at less than 4% EBIT at present. The industry is t

7、hreatened by global production over- capacity and rising stock</p><p>　　In summary, ‘the industry of industries’, as Drucker (1946)once referred to it, currently is in motion on its quest to ?nd the next sou

8、rce of competitive advantage, which is why build-to-order has received so much attention in the last few years.</p><p>　　Building vehicles to order, rather than to forecast, is not a new idea. It has been di

9、scussed for almost a decade (Delbridge and Oliver, 1991;Hall, 1993), but this research for the first time seriously questions the viability of the make-to-forecast and sell-from-stock approach. To date in Europe, only ha

10、lf of all volume vehicles are built to order, the remainder are sold from stock. In the UK, this percentage is even lower at 32% (Kiff, 1997;Williams, 1999). Yet the cost of holding inventory at</p><p>　　The

11、 transition from forecast-driven to customer-driven vehicle supply will have wide rami?cations for the whole supply chain. Not only will suppliers have to be more ?exible, it also puts a question mark on current global s

12、ourcing strategies. Whilst build-to-order has been discussed on a generic level (Holweg and Jones, 2001;Holweg and Pil, 2001), this paper will focus specifically on the logistics aspects of build-to-order.</p><

13、;p>　　As the connecting element in the supply chain (Bowersox and Closs, 1996), logistics plays a crucial role within a build-to-order system, which is best highlighted in the case of Renault. At the outset in 1999, th

14、e company had bold plans with PND, aiming to reduce the order-to-delivery cycle to 14 days. Since then, Renault has cut inventory by 21% and reduced expenditure byh513 million in the ?rst 6 months of 2001through stock re

15、duction and supply chain alignment to customer demand. Speaking at t</p><p>　　In 2002 Renault had to revise their target from 14-day order-to-delivery to 21days (de Saint-Seine, 2002), as only 21% of vehicle

16、s were received within the projected 14 days. According to Renault, the main reason for this failure was the unreliability and in?exibility of the logistics operations to cope with the short delivery times needed to supp

17、ort a 14-day car. This reinforces the fact that reducing manufacturing lead-time is of little impact, if the logistics lead-times are not addressed (Da</p><p>　　Rather than focussing on a single type of logi

18、stics operations in isolation, we aim at providing an overview of the main issues and implications of the major logistics operations in the automotive supply chain. This also allows for comparison of the issues within th

19、e three main logistics operations: inbound operations between ?rst tier suppliers and assembly plants, vehicle distribution logistics between factories and dealers, and the deep and short-sea vehicle shipping operations.

20、 The latter se</p><p>　　The research approach is based on case studies of inbound, outbound and a sea transport operations within the UK. Rather than using surveys, it was felt that a case-based research str

21、ategy would be more suitable to provide the necessary in-depth understanding of the current process and issues within these logistics schemes. Within each case study, a detailed 1–2 day process mapping workshop was condu

22、cted, following the ‘Learning to See’ Value Stream Mapping methodology (Rother and Shook, 1998), </p><p>　　Furthermore, a series of 26 semi-structured interviews was conducted with operations and planning st

23、aff at 6 logistics companies and 4 vehicle manufacturers in order to cover ‘softer’ issues and perceptions of the key problem areas in the system. Also, where available, secondary performance data was collected. Overall,

24、 this multi-method approach allowed for data triangulation (Jick, 1989;Mentzner and Flint, 1997).</p><p>　　A main concern with case-based research, since its origin, has been the generalisability of the ?ndi

25、ngs derived from single cases (e.g.Gummesson, 2000; Silverman, 2000). In order to mitigate bias in the case selection and to ensure general validity of the ?ndings, multiple cases studies were conducted. In detail, three

26、 cases each of inbound and outbound operations have been analysed, plus one vehicle import/export operations of one of the world’s leading car shipping companies. The cases compris</p><p>　　Based on the proc

27、ess maps and secondary performance data from all cases across the three logistics operations analysed, this section gives a brief explanation of each process in order to provide a background for the overall discussion. T

28、he focus will be upon the generic process and key ?ndings only. A more detailed discussion of the inbound and outbound operations, respectively, can be found inHolweg and Miemczyk (2002), andMiemczyk and Holweg (2002).&l

29、t;/p><p>　　The main function of the inbound logistics process is to collect goods from suppliers, to re-assemble these into delivery loads per time slot for each of the assembly plants, and to deliver these at

30、minimal cost exactly when they are needed. Cost is determined mainly by three factors, inventory in the system, load ef?ciency, and vehicle mileage on both collection and delivery runs. The process described inFig. 1show

31、s a generic supplier collection scheme based on UK suppliers and international de</p><p>　　The processes were similar across all cases, with regard to key process steps. Small differences in the operational

32、performance relating to lead-times and ef?ciencies were found, but did not add to the comparative analysis.</p><p>　　In all cases, which cover supplier collection of 470 suppliers and deliveries into 7 assem

33、bly plants, a third party logistics company organised collections from a selection of suppliers. These were delivered into the vehicle manufacturer (VM) either through a milkrun direct to the VM plant, a milkrun through

34、a cross-dock warehouse, or direct from the supplier to the VM plant. Collections from suppliers were made between once a week and more than daily, depending on bulk and parts volume. On aver</p><p>　　In cont

35、rast to the similarities of the ‘physical’ operations, the main differences between the schemes relate to the information ?ow. Across the cases, the collection requirements for the logistics companies were either transmi

36、tted directly from the VM (and concurrently to the supplier), transmitted from the supplier, or transmitted through the logistics company to the supplier. In the ?rst case the information direct from the VM allowed a rap

37、id response for collection, as the delivery and colle</p><p>　　In conclusion, all cases show short overall lead-times, yet, due to the differences in the information processing, have very different abilities

38、 to react to changes of the vehicle manufacturer. It should be noted that these changes generally only concern the quantities and types of parts collected, rather than the actual routing of the collection scheme itself,

39、which would take much longerto modify in all three cases.</p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p>　　“三天汽車”運遞模式——一種對汽車物流操作業(yè)務具有戰(zhàn)略意義的模式</p><p>　　資料來源：采購與供應管理月刊 </p><p>

40、　　作者：馬提亞 ．霍爾維格，瓊 ．邁因奇克</p><p>　　汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)內現(xiàn)行的“擠壓存貨”的供應方式是讓客戶大量地下單訂購現(xiàn)有的庫存產(chǎn)品。但這種供應方式現(xiàn)在愈來愈顯示出它的弊端。市場上不斷升高的汽車存貨量和售賣汽車時的必要貼現(xiàn)都日益增加了汽車廠商的成本和壓力。汽車廠商不得不重新思考他們的訂單完成策略，而漸漸青睞于建立趨向零庫存的“按訂單制造的生產(chǎn)模式”體系。然而對于一家汽車生產(chǎn)商，更加快捷地完成采購訂單不但需

41、要靈活高效的零部件供應和整車組裝的配合，而且還要為汽車供應鏈上所有物流操作建立廣泛的銷售渠道?；凇叭炱嚒闭{查項目的研究結果，本文比較了入境、出境和海運運輸物流的含義，旨在開發(fā)一種適用于將來汽車物流操作的戰(zhàn)略框架。</p><p>　　在第二個汽車百年開端之際，全球汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)處在了一個重要的轉型期——按理說應該是處在了它最有意思的一個階段。在亨利福特那個時代，涌現(xiàn)的基本上是多品種的大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)，而精益生產(chǎn)的概念還

42、只是處在被采納的初期，今天全球的汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)在如何重獲盈利能力的問題上面對著非常不確定的因素。眾所周知，汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)的盈利平均少于息稅前利潤（EBIT）的4%。全球產(chǎn)能過剩和汽車存貨量升高都威脅著整個產(chǎn)業(yè)。汽車制造商試圖通過一系列（經(jīng)常結果難以預測）的全球兼并與收購期望能以平臺和零部件共享的方式取得更好的規(guī)模經(jīng)濟效益。與此同時，先前的那些核心競爭力產(chǎn)品，包括零部件或組件組裝業(yè)務都外包給了一些比較大的第一階供應商——其中一些工廠已經(jīng)在銷售額和規(guī)模

43、上超過了他們的汽車制造商客戶。更遠的不確定性來源于歐洲的汽車壽命末期法令，它要求生產(chǎn)商到2015年底回收利用所有汽車的95%部件。如果該法案以它現(xiàn)在的樣子實施起來，那么它將在整個汽車供應鏈中帶起一波零部件和各種物質回收利用的逆流。</p><p>　　總之，“產(chǎn)業(yè)中的產(chǎn)業(yè)”，德魯克（1946年）曾用它來指汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)，現(xiàn)在在其運行中尋覓著下一個有競爭力優(yōu)勢的資源，這就是為什么近幾年中“按訂單制造”受到這么多的關注的原

44、因。</p><p>　　按訂單而不是按預測生產(chǎn)汽車的并不是一個新想法。它已經(jīng)被討論將近十年了(Delbridge and Oliver,1991;Hall,1993), 但是一開始這個研究是用來質疑“按預測生產(chǎn)的方式”和“按庫存銷售的方式”的。至今在歐洲，只有半數(shù)的汽車是按照訂單來制造的，其余的都是按庫存來銷售的。在英國，這個比率甚至更低，為32% (Kiff,1997;Williams,1999)。然而在供應

45、鏈中庫存持有的開銷占了最大的比重(Fisher,1997),而售賣汽車時的必要貼現(xiàn)也消耗了制造商大筆的費用。在全球市場，預計按訂單量來制造汽車所獲的財務收益是每輛500-1500美元(Lapidus,2000;RolandBerger,2000)。這就難怪大多數(shù)的生產(chǎn)商都會起初幾乎都按訂單來生產(chǎn)汽車。這樣的例子包括：沃爾沃的"21天訂單生產(chǎn)期后的交貨目標"模式(Hertz et al.,2001)，寶馬的“10天汽車

46、”模式，福特的"15天訂單實施項目”模式，雷諾和尼桑各自在他們的“新的銷售計劃”（PND）和“SCOPE計劃"中的"14天汽車"模式。</p><p>　　汽車供應從預測為導向到以顧客為導向的轉變將為供應鏈上所有物流操作建立廣泛的銷售渠道。這不僅促使供應商必須更加靈活處事，而且它也在現(xiàn)行的全球資源策略上打了個問號。同時“按訂單制造的生產(chǎn)模式”在屬層中也被討論過(Holweg

47、 and Jones,2001; Holweg and Pil,2001), 這篇論文將集中專注在物流方面的“按訂單制造的生產(chǎn)模式”上。</p><p>　　作為供應鏈中的連接單元(Bowersox and Closs,1996)，物流在“按訂單制造的生產(chǎn)模式”扮演了關鍵的角色，這在雷諾汽車例子里最為突出。1999年初，雷諾公司采用了PND這個大膽的計劃，該計劃旨在將“按訂單制造的”周期縮短到14天。從那時開始，

48、雷諾公司已經(jīng)砍掉了21%的庫存，并通過縮減庫存和讓供應鏈直接對準客戶的需要在2001年的6個月里減少了5億歐元的開銷。在2001年法蘭克福汽車展上，雷諾的行政副總Pierre-AlaindeSmedts發(fā)言道：“我們在物流方面開源節(jié)流，縮小庫存，縮短運遞時間，簡化整個運遞鏈?！崩字Z公司希望下一階段的規(guī)劃將在采購，運營和銷售方面把總開銷到2003年為止減少到30億歐元。</p><p>　　在2002年雷諾公司不得

49、不把他們的目標從14天下訂單后運遞增加到21天(de Saint-Seine,2002), 因為只有21%的汽車達到了在計劃中14天的目標。據(jù)雷諾公司透露，這次失敗的主要原因是物流操作在處理“14天汽車”的短時間運遞中存在著不可靠性和不靈活性。這說明縮短生產(chǎn)商的交貨期還是會有些影響的，如果物流方面時間沒有安排好的話。(Daugherty and Pittman,1995)。在本文中，我們旨在找出現(xiàn)行的汽車物流操作中抑制“按訂單制造的生產(chǎn)

50、模式”的不利因素，研究出如何克服它們的對策，并調查出運用“按訂單制造”的策略會產(chǎn)生的費用和它對環(huán)境影響。</p><p>　　我們不是孤立地關注單個的物流操作，而是旨在提供關于主要問題和涉及汽車供應鏈中重要物流操作的總看法。這也使得我們必須比較三個主要物流操作中的問題：在第一階供應商和組裝工廠之間的入境運輸物流，在工廠和銷售商之間的汽車銷售物流，遠海和近海中的汽車運輸物流。最后一個物流操作看似不太顯著，然而由于地

51、理分散和每輛車的低成本運輸（比如從日本運到英國只要700美元，從美國東海岸運到歐洲只要250美元），海運應該作為該體系中不可分割的一部分。每年幾乎有700萬輛新車通過海運到達世界各地(Beresford et al.,2000)。由于運費低廉，甚至在歐洲境內汽車的近海運輸也是非常普遍的。</p><p>　　本文的研究方法是基于英國的入境、出境和跨海運輸操作的案例研究。相比于調查研究，我們感覺基于案例的研究策略會

52、更適合于深層次剖析這些物流主題的現(xiàn)行流程和問題。根據(jù)“學會看”價值流程圖的方法論(Rother and Shook, 1998)，在每個案例研究中都導進一個細致的需要1-2天時間運算的過程圖工作室來深層次剖析物流流程。一張“學會看”價值流程圖能通過對比信息流和物流來獲取整個訂單的實現(xiàn)過程。而之后流程圖可以打在單張牛皮紙或者是掛圖上作為參考，這就是它被經(jīng)常稱為“大圖片制圖”的原因。</p><p>　　另外，對6家

53、物流公司和4家汽車制造公司中的操作規(guī)劃員的26次半結構訪問為的是得到物流體系中核心問題領域的“簡化后”的問題和看法。還有如果有可能的話，還能收集到輔助績效數(shù)據(jù)?？傊?，數(shù)據(jù)的三角測量方法也適合于這個多元方法探究(Jick, 1989; Mentzner and Flint, 1997)。</p><p>　　自以案例為基礎的研究問世后，人們主要是關注它概括單個案例研究結果的能力 (e.g. Gummesson, 2

54、000;Silverman, 2000)。為了降低案例選擇中存在的人為偏見因素，保證研究結果的總效力，我們采用了多案例研究的方式。更細得說，我們都會對三個案例中的每個出入境操作進行分析，另外還會對全球領先的汽車運輸公司的汽車出口/進口進行研究。這些案例包括了主要把汽車運送到英國汽車組裝廠的三個入境采購主題，將汽車從英國汽車工廠運到英國和國際市場的三個汽車物流操作，和一個汽車進出口操作。</p><p>　　基于從

55、三種物流操作的所有案例研究中得到的流程圖和輔助績效數(shù)據(jù)，這部分會給出關于所有流程的簡要概述，從而為整個討論提供背景。我們的關注點只會落在總流程和關鍵結果上。而對出入境操作的更多討論請參見霍爾維格和邁因奇克(2002)， 和邁因奇克和霍爾維格 (2002)。</p><p>　　入境物流流程的主要功能是從各供應商那采購產(chǎn)品零部件，重新對它們進行整理并每隔一段時間為每個組裝工廠進行裝載，為節(jié)約成本只在工廠需要時將它們

56、運送給工廠。期間費用主要取決于三因素，物流體系中的庫存，裝載效率，和包括采集和運送兩方面的總里程汽車運費。如表1所示，這個流程展現(xiàn)了一個供應商采購的總主題，這個主題是基于多家英國供應商和承運商將零部件供給一家英國汽車生產(chǎn)商的實例得出的。</p><p>　　所有案例中的流程都有著類似的關鍵流程步驟。在操作表現(xiàn)上的些許不同在于我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的那些運送間隔時間和運送效率，但這兩點都不會納入比較性分析中的。</p>

57、;<p>　　在所有的案例中，這些案例就是我們收集到的將零部件供給7家組裝工廠的470家供應商和承運商的案例，都是由一個第三方物流公司有組織地從幾家選定的供應商中采集零部件。這些零部件要么是通過循環(huán)取貨路線從交叉運轉倉庫運到汽車生產(chǎn)商（VM），要么是是直接從供應商那運送到VM工廠的。根據(jù)一次運載量和零部件需求總量，零部件從供應商那采集頻率是一周一次或是一天多次。平均而言，一家典型的VM需要每天一次或多次從50%左右的指定供

58、應商那采購零部件，而并不是經(jīng)常從其余供應商那采購。這是基于該公司的當時不斷變化的需要，采購計劃間隔時間和規(guī)劃的可行性而定的。如果“3天汽車”成了VM的主打產(chǎn)品，那么這三點的每一點都會改變。</p><p>　　相對于“物理”操作的相似性，這些物流主題中的主要不同點就在信息流上。在這些案例中，物流公司的采購需求信息要么是從VM（與此同時VM也將信息傳輸給了供應商）傳輸過來，要么是從供應商處傳輸過來，或者是從物流公司

59、傳輸給供應商。在第一個傳輸例子中，信息從VM傳輸過來可以給采購以及時的反饋信息，因為若做好的計劃要馬上變更，運送和采購計劃可以在幾小時內修改好。然而在最后一個傳輸例子中，由于以地面為通道的郵件作為海運計劃溝通方式在使用，采購內容需要2周的修改間期。對上述方式還在使用的質疑，合理的需要（需要紙質文件，而不是電子文檔）可以給出解釋。即使實際的傳輸時間大概在24小時到36小時之間，但是很明顯需要更快的信息流作為修改VM零部件需求的更快回應。另

60、外，通常的種數(shù)繁多的包裹和硬紙板包裝看來也對周轉效率具有不利影響。在這些案例中，集裝箱的數(shù)量從270（10%的標準尺寸）到120（60%的標準尺寸）不等。</p><p>　　總之，所有案例都表明要縮短總的周轉周期，然而，由于在信息傳遞過程中的不同特點，讓汽車生產(chǎn)商作出及時應變還是挺困難的。應該值得注意的是這些改變通常只涉及在采購的零部件的數(shù)量和種類上，而不是真正意義上的采購主題的工藝路徑上，在所有的案例中改觀這