Hence, important common ground should always include compliance as a priority. Before the supplier is selected, companies should assess its level of education, knowledge and experience, ensuring the supplier is able to meet all necessary FDA requirements applicable to the product category. If a supplier is found to be deficient in any area, prior to disqualification, determine if the supplier is amenable to change and worthy of training as an investment.
If not, partnering should not be considered. Managing and ensuring the integrity of supplier partnership activities through supply chain segmentation-designed strategies calls for companies to identify the key segments functions of their supply chain, and to then implement respective practices to manage each function.
GMPs further provide companies the ability to develop and establish quality system integrity throughout the supply chain. Companies need to identify critical supply chain control points CSCCP , then facilitate the assignment of key compliance team leaders to each point to ensure adherence. Like a GMP production line, integrity and accountability are integrated within and throughout the various practices of each function, allowing for effective and measurable accountability.
Quite often, while building these partnerships and identifying supply chain segments, companies fail to recognize that the supplier-customer relationship is not a one-way street. Responsibility and accountability should be properly communicated and appropriately distributed, as is typically stipulated in a quality agreement, especially because FDA holds the own label brand or contracting party ultimately accountable for product released into commerce.
Considering this, it becomes extremely important that the contract customer ensures that it communicates with great clarity to the supplier all requirements and specifications to ensure that the product outcome meets the desired specifications. Keeping communication simple, clear and direct with the supplier provides a greater likelihood of the supplier better understanding its role—all of which is required to be appropriately documented i.
One final, but key, factor in the scheme of things is people. Beamon , B. Bearden , W. Beck , T. Belderbos , R. Belvedere , V. Bentler , P. Bhatnagar , R. Bojica , A. S1 , pp. Bordonaba-Juste , V.
Branzei , O. Bucklin , L. Cetindamar , D. Chan , F. Chen , M. Chin , K. Cho , M. Chun , H. Cooper , A. Crick , D. Croom , S. Das , S. Delbridge , R. Dollinger , M. Doyle , P. Duysters , G. Ellram , L.
Felzensztein , C. Forrest , J. Gottfredson , M. Green , K. Jr , Whitten , D. Grimpe , C. Gunasekaran , A. Hair , J. Hak , T. Kelle , P. Kerssens-van Drongelen , I. Knemeyer , A. Kuittinen , H. Kumar , R. Kuo , J. Lambert , D. Legros , D. Lorentz , H. McArthur , D. Maloni , M. Medcof , J. Mentzer , J. Min , H. Morgan , R. Narula , R. Nooteboom , B. Pan , F. Paulraj , A. Penrose , E. Ploetner , O.
Podsakoff , P. Power , D. Rajagopal , P. Rezaei , J. Richey , R. Rosenberg , L. Rothwell , R. Roy , D. Sahay , B. Sari , K. Saxenian , A. Schumacker , R. Soinio , J. Steiger , J. Swamidass , P. Tai , Y. Tan , E. Thakkar , J. Tidd , J. Udomleartprasert , P. Vaaland , T. Varadarajan , P. Vickery , S. Waller , M. Watts , A. Yao , C. Zeng , S. Zheng , J. His main research interests are in the area of supply chain partnership.
His research interest focuses on the different paths of development and diffusion of high-tech products. Report bugs here. Please share your general feedback. You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here. You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.
Visit emeraldpublishing. Answers to the most commonly asked questions here. Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine high-tech small-to-medium-sized enterprises SMEs supply chain partnerships. Findings The results indicate that there are considerable differences between business functions in terms of the degree of involvement in partnerships and the effect of partnerships on the performance of these functions.
Opens in a new window. Figure 1 A conceptual framework of SMEs functional partnership and its antecedents and consequences. Figure 2 Path model: drivers-functional partnership-functional performance. Cost reduction 3. Customer satisfaction 5. Inventory optimisation 3. Growth 3. Innovation 4. Demand optimisation 2. Partnership in marketing and sales MS 2. Partnership in research and development RD 2.
Partnership in purchasing and logistics PL 2. Partnership in production Pr 3. Performance — marketing and sales MS 4. Performance — research and development RD 4. Performance — purchasing and logistics PL 5. Performance — production Pr 4.
A complete list of the product categories is available upon request. Jafar Rezaei is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: j. Join us on our journey Platform update page Visit emeraldpublishing. Characteristics of the firms. Annual turnover 1, euro. Firm age. Characteristics of the respondents.
Years working for firm. Respondent age. Respondent sex. Respondent degree. High School: 70 Number of employees. Number of partners in marketing and sales. Number of partners in logistics and purchasing. Number of partners in production. Distribution costs. Packaging costs. On-time delivery of products. Accurate order deliveries.
Customer satisfaction. Inventory cycle times. Inventory fill rates. Company growth. Growth of the number of employees. Sales volume growth. Partners should consult with an attorney to avoid violating laws against restricting competition.
Creativity and sensitivity to relationship issues are critical skills for overcoming problems that arise in intimately coupled, highly integrated supply chains.
Only a constructive attitude, visionary leadership, and a strong commitment to mutual success can enable the highest levels of supply chain integration. The underlying mechanism of supply chain integration is the development of strong customer and supplier relationships based on mutually agreed-upon performance standards. These relationships are usually defined by means of a contract, the proper structure of which is important for successful integration. Integrated supply chain relationships are often defined by additional agreements regarding product and financial flows, channel product distribution policies, price protection, contingencies, and capacity reservations i.
Unlike purchase orders, which tend to be one-sided and generally ignore the issues of risk sharing and common goals, contracts are structured to meet the needs of the partners. Before an appropriate contract can be crafted, the partners should agree on a shared vision, objectives, and process framework. It should also be noted that although contracts are recommended, they are not required and it is possible to achieve effective supply chain integration without them.
Several aspects of contract development should be considered: 1 the difference between a myopic and a farsighted view of contracting; 2 the distinction between a contract structured as a set of legal rules and a contract that serves as a framework for the relationship among partners; 3 conflict avoidance and resolution, mutuality, creation and maintenance of order, and alignment of risks and rewards; and 4 different ways of structuring relationships among supply chain participants.
Some contracts are simple, such as those for the procurement of standard items, like office supplies, which are usually kept in stock and for which there are many suppliers. Unless large orders must be filled, these procurements do not require advanced planning or the creation of custom contracts.
If specialty items, nonstandard tolerances, or special deliveries are involved, the nature of the contract and its capacity to serve the needs of the parties becomes more important. Each party will. A long-term view is important for integrated supply chains in which the parties have a substantial bilateral stake in the relationship and contractual breakdowns can be costly.
The typical intent of a partnership is to establish a relationship with increasing interdependency that will outlive the term of the contract. A farsighted view, although it may be difficult to implement, can increase benefits for all parties. Contracts consisting of rules and contracts that serve as an operating framework for a relationship are very different. Lawyers and accountants often relate to the former, whereas business is more often conducted in the spirit of the latter.
Contracts that serve as frameworks for relationships are based on four key ideas: 1 the objective of the contract is to serve the goals and desires of the parties, rather than those of the lawyers; 2 contracts that attempt to define complex relationships are unavoidably incomplete; 3 give and take by all parties is necessary to work through gaps, errors, and unanticipated situations; and 4 informal and formal features of the contract and of the organization are all part of the exercise.
This is not to say that the letter of the contract is unimportant. If, despite their best efforts, the parties are unable to work through a contractual impasse, the contract can be useful for purposes of ultimate appeal. There is every reason, therefore, for contracts to be written and negotiated carefully, although this does not mean being legalistic. Because providing for every possible contingency is impossible, information disclosure and adaptive mechanisms must be included to assist the parties when difficulties arise and the formal terms of the contract take on added importance.
Contracts are legal documents, after all, and relationships should be defined precisely in case the contract becomes the ultimate reference for resolving disputes. Mainly, however, contracts should be thought of as frameworks to aid the parties in realizing their collective purposes and mutual gains.
Neither party, especially not an SME, can unilaterally decide that a framework is the correct approach to define a supply chain relationship. Both parties must subscribe to the concept for it to be successful. If one party adopts a myopic, legalistic view and the other views the contract as a framework, both parties will be frustrated.
It is important, therefore, that they agree on the nature of the relationship and recognize that each. Incomplete contracts can be fraught with hazards because the best short-term interests of one party rarely coincide with the short-term interests of the other. Therefore, a long-term view of the relationship is important, and a contract constructed as a framework helps to accomplish this.
An ideal supply chain contract is based on a history of mutual trust and provides a ''governance" structure that allows both parties to operate in a flexible, yet disciplined way, mitigates conflict, and aligns and shares both risks and rewards. Developing mutual experience and trust takes time, and a contract that outlines only the framework of a relationship may be impossible without it. Therefore, contracting should be considered an evolving process that proceeds in a slow and exploratory way, building on successes.
Learning how to deal, adapt, and relate to each other is a normal part of a productive contractual exercise. Supply chain relationships can be organized in many ways, and contracts must be customized to address the diversity of transactions and industries.
Transactions, for instance, can be generic or specialized.
0コメント