1、中文 3964 字 ,2500 单词， 14900 英文字符 出处： R. Bhagwat, M. K. Sharma. Performance measurement of supply chain management using the analytical hierarchy processJ. Production Planning & Control, 2007, 18(8):666-680. 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 hie
2、rarchy process R. BHAGWAT and M. K. SHARMA Department of Mechanical Engineering, MBM Engineering College, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, JNV University, Jodhpur-342011, Rajasthan, India Department of Production and Industrial Engineering, MBM Engineering College, Faculty of Engineering and
3、 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 factors affecting decision-making. The right choice of performance metrics and measures is
4、 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 (AHP) methodology as aid in making SCM evaluation decisions. For pair-wise comparison in AH
5、P, 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 different balanced scorecard (BSC) perspectives. A demonstration of the application of this met
6、hodology in a real life problem is presented. Keywords: Supply chain management； Performance measurement； Analytical hierarchy process； Balanced scorecard 1. Introduction In the era of globalisation, supply chains are being treated as extended enterprises. This arises partly from the attempts of the
7、 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 for the whole product life cycle, from material procurement and supply management, t
8、o 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 of supply chain management (SCM) in day-to-day operations management. However, they o
9、ften 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 strategic, tactical, and operational levels (Gunasekaran et al. 2001, Hudson et al. 2001). S
10、ome 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 classify them as financial and nonfinancial metrics at different decision levels. But
11、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 framework does not completely provide a balanced picture of the total business performance f
12、rom 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 performance from four different perspectives: the financial perspective, the internal busi
13、ness 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 these different perspectives for a firm is again an issue which needs to be addresse
14、d. 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 perspectives for SCM evaluation. For pair-wise comparison in AHP, a survey methodology
15、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 scorecard and the analytical hierarchy process are dealt with respectively. Applicati
16、on 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 this section, we make an attempt to summarise some of the most appropriate performan
17、ce 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 interorganisational performance measurement may be divided into supply chain and extended e
18、nterprise 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 its measurement arena. 2.1 Metrics for performance evaluation of planned order procedu
19、res For 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 downstream activities and inventory levels. Hence, the first step in assessing perf
20、ormance 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 Supply chain partnership and related metrics Recently, the buyersupplier partnersh
21、ip 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. 1995, New 1996, Thomas and Griffin 1996, Towill 1997, Fisher 1997, Maloni and Ben
22、ton 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 business 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
