Aligning incentives in supply chains

Most companies don't worry about the behavior of their supply chain partners. Instead, they expect the supply chain to work efficiently without interference, as if guided by Adam Smith's famed invisible hand. In their study of more than 50 supply networks, V.G. Narayanan and Ananth Raman found that companies often looked out for their own interests and ignored those of their network partners. Consequently, supply chains performed poorly. Those results aren't shocking when you consider that supply chains extend across several functions and many companies, each with its own priorities and goals. Yet all those functions and firms must pull in the same direction for a chain to deliver goods and services to consumers quickly and cost-effectively. According to the authors, a supply chain works well only if the risks, costs, and rewards of doing business are distributed fairly across the network. In fact, misaligned incentives are often the cause of excess inventory, stock-outs, incorrect forecasts, inadequate sales efforts, and even poor customer service. The fates of all supply chain partners are interlinked: If the firms work together to serve consumers, they will all win. However, they can do that only if incentives are aligned. Companies must acknowledge that the problem of incentive misalignment exists and then determine its root cause and align or redesign incentives. They can improve alignment by, for instance, adopting revenue-sharing contracts, using technology to track previously hidden information, or working with intermediaries to build trust among network partners. It's also important to periodically reassess incentives, because even top-performing networks find that changes in technology or business conditions alter the alignment of incentives.     

Beyond offshoring: assess your company's global potential

In the past few years, companies have become aware that they can slash costs by offshoring: moving jobs to lower-wage locations. But this practice is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how globalization can transform industries, according to research by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI). The institute's yearlong study suggests that by streamlining their production processes and supply chains globally, rather than just nationally or regionally, companies can lower their costs-as we've seen in the consumer-electronics and PC industries. Companies can save as much as 70% of their total costs through globalization--50% from offshoring, 5% from training and business-task redesign, and 15% from process improvements. But they don't have to stop there. The cost reductions make it possible to lower prices and expand into new markets, attracting whole new classes of customers. To date, however, few businesses have recognized the full scope of performance improvements that globalization makes possible, much less developed sound strategies for capturing those opportunities. In this article, Diana Farrell, director of MGI, offers a step-by-step approach to doing both things. Among her suggestions: Assess where your industry falls along the globalization spectrum, because not all sectors of the economy face the same challenges and opportunities at the same time. Also, pay attention to production, regulatory, and organizational barriers to globalization. If any of these can be changed, size up the cost-saving (and revenue-generating) opportunities that will emerge for your company as a result of those changes. Farrell also defines the five stages of globalization-market entry, product specialization, value chain disaggregation, value chain reengineering, and the creation of new markets-and notes the different levers for cutting costs and creating value that companies can use in each phase.     

Pseudo resilient supply chains: concept,traits, and practices

Supply chain vulnerability (SCV) and its counterpart supply risk management are increasingly researched in recent years. SCV is often quantifiable and can be effectively monitored if practices are implemented on a systematic basis. It is essentially more important to extend the research in supply chain risk management so as to address certain traits where the companies perform poor or areas where they overlook their performances. Here, we introduce the concept and property, the so-called pseudo resilience in supply chains where supply chains pretend to perform better in its risk management capabilities, but are essentially vulnerable. Pseudo resilience is an incessant nature of many supply chains to overlook concomitant risks. Typical traits of pseudo resilience were identified in this research and a brief analysis of the disruptions and its effects was done. This research is a maiden effort in the direction of addressing the property of pseudo resilience in supply chains. It is imperative for managers to identify the traits of pseudo resilience in their supply chains so as to avoid the ill effects resulting from it. Further quantitative and qualitative researches are recommended for evincing the property of pseudo resilience in supply chains.     

Supply chain risk: empirical research in the automotive industry

Supply chain risk management (SCRM) has become a popular topic over the past decade. It is not a surprise that the automotive industry has been a motivating arena for research within this field; however, the few existing empirical studies reveal that SCRM practices within this industry are still in their infancy. Because the identification of risks can be viewed as the trigger for SCRM, attempts to develop a risk profile for this industry that could serve as a guide to start the SCRM process are needed. This research identifies the main risks along the automotive supply chain by investigating their manifestation in three supply chains in Brazil and offers an initial risk profile for the Brazilian automotive industry. Although the importance of SCRM has been recognised by all analysed companies, the research findings underline the lack of preparedness regarding either identifying risk or considering risk-mitigation strategies and risk assessment. In this context, this study identifies the main risk in which a supply chain can be exposed, through the analysis of real-life manifested risks along different supply chains, as a way to help the supply chain start a SCRM process.     

Strategic sourcing: from periphery to the core

As globalization changes the basis of competition, sourcing is moving from the periphery of corporate functions to the core. Always important in terms of costs, sourcing is becoming a strategic opportunity. But few companies are ready for this shift. Outsourcing has grown so sophisticated that even critical functions like engineering, R&D, manufacturing, and marketing can-and often should-be moved outside. And that, in turn, is changing the way companies think about their organizations, their value chains, and their competitive positions. Already, a handful of vanguard companies are transforming what used to be purely internal corporate functions into entirely new industries. Companies like UPS, Solectron, and Hewitt have created new business models by concentrating scale and skill within a single function. As these and other function-based companies grow, so does the potential value of outsourcing to all companies. Migrating from a vertically integrated company to a specialized provider of a single function is not a winning strategy for everyone. But all companies need to rigorously reassess each of their functions as possible outsourcing candidates. Presented in this article is a simple three-step process to identify which functions your company needs to own and protect, which can be best performed by what kinds of partners, and which could be turned into new business opportunities. The result of such an analysis will be a comprehensive capabilities-sourcing strategy. As a detailed examination of 7-Eleven's experience shows, the success of the strategy often hinges on the creativity with which partnerships are organized and managed. But only by first taking a broad, strategic view of capabilities sourcing can your company gain the greatest benefit from all of its sourcing choices.     

ASSET BACKED COMMERCIAL PAPER: GET WITH THE PROGRAM

Asset backed commercial paper, or ABCP for short, is commercial paper that is issued by a special purpose corporation against undivided interests in corporate receivables, including retail, trade, or export receivables. Since the inception of the market in 1983, the volume of ABCP has grown to represent about 16% of the total commercial paper market.
ABCP is a valuable source of liquidity for companies that generate a steady flow of quality receivables. Many ABCP programs restrict purchases to companies with investment grade ratings. For such companies, ABCP may help diversify funding sources and allow the firms to lower their funding costs by arbitraging different markets. But ABCP programs can also prove a low-cost source of funding for companies that either do not have access to the CP market through their own balance sheets or have used up their prime CP and bank borrowing capacity. ABCP is also an important source of funds for smaller companies requiring liquidity to support rapid growth.
ABCP programs can be viewed as "synthetic" revolving bank credit facilities in the sense that they can provide the same flow of funds as revolving credits by using a vehicle constructed specifically to refinance pools of receivables. The benefits of ABCP relative to bank lines of credit may take the form of either lower interest rates, less restrictive financial covenants, or both. Although ABCP is at best a partial substitute for bank credit, the liquidity provided by an asset backed commercial paper program can be used to hold down the costs of bank borrowing.     

An integrated approach to supply chain risk analysis

Despite the increasing attention that supply chain risk management is receiving by both researchers and practitioners, companies still lack a risk culture. Moreover, risk management approaches are either too general or require pieces of information not regularly recorded by organisations. This work develops a risk identification and analysis methodology that integrates widely adopted supply chain and risk management tools. In particular, process analysis is performed by means of the standard framework provided by the Supply Chain Operations Reference Model, the risk identification and analysis tasks are accomplished by applying the Risk Breakdown Structure and the Risk Breakdown Matrix, and the effects of risk occurrence on activities are assessed by indicators that are already measured by companies in order to monitor their performances. In such a way, the framework contributes to increase companies’ awareness and communication about risk, which are essential components of the management of modern supply chains. A base case has been developed by applying the proposed approach to a hypothetical manufacturing supply chain. An in-depth validation will be carried out to improve the methodology and further demonstrate its benefits and limitations. Future research will extend the framework to include the understanding of the multiple effects of risky events on different processes.     

We're in this together

When managers from Wendy's International and Tyson Foods got together in 2003 to craft a supply chain partnership, each side had misgivings. There were those in the Wendy's camp who remembered past disagreements with Tyson and those on the Tyson side who were wary of Wendy's. But the companies had a tool, called the "partnership model,'to help get things started on the right foot. Drawing on the experiences of member companies of the Global Supply Chain Forum at Ohio State University, the model offers a process for aligning expectations and determining the most productive level of partnering. It rapidly establishes the mutual understanding and commitment required for success and provides a structure for measuring outcomes. This article puts the tool in the reader's hands. Partnerships are justified only if they stand to yield substantially better results than the firms could achieve on their own. And even if they are warranted, they can fail if the partners enter them with mismatched expectations. Over the course of a day and a half, the partnership model elucidates the drivers behind each company's desire for partnership, allows managers to examine the conditions that facilitate or hamper cooperation, and specifies which activities managers must perform to implement the relationship. This tool has proved effective at Wendy's and elsewhere in determining what type of partnership is most appropriate. Colgate-Palmolive, for example, used it to help achieve stretch financial goals with suppliers of innovative products. But the model is just as effective in revealing that some companies' visions of partnership are not justified. In matters of the heart, it may be better to have loved and lost, but in business relationships, it's better to have headed off the resource sink and lingering resentments a failed partnership can cause.     

Let's put consumers in charge of health care

Businesses spend billions on health insurance. And what do they get for their money? A lot of unhappy employees. Workers fret about the quality of the care they receive, the burden of their out-of-pocket expenses, and the gaps in their coverage. For businesses, health care has become a lose-lose proposition: They pay way too much, and they get way too little. The problem is that the health care industry has been shielded from consumer pressure--by employers, insurers, and the government. As a result, costs have exploded even as choices have narrowed. But if companies embrace a new model of health coverage--one that places control over both costs and care directly into the hands of employees--the competitive forces that spur productivity and innovation in consumer markets can be loosed upon the inefficient, tradition-bound health care system. Moving to consumer-driven health care requires that companies revamp their health benefits in six ways: Give employees incentives to shop intelligently; offer a real choice of insurance plans; charge employees prices that accurately reflect the company's costs; let providers set their own prices; adjust payments for each enrollee based on need; and provide relevant information. Putting consumers in charge of health care may seem like a radical approach. But individuals are highly motivated to educate themselves about their health, their insurance, and their care, and they want to seek the most value for their money. Promoting that economic dynamic--the same that fuels consumer markets everywhere--is the best way to enhance the health care industry's productivity and quality.     

Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior,agency costs and ownership structure

This paper integrates elements from the theory of agency, the theory of property rights and the theory of finance to develop a theory of the ownership structure of the firm. We define the concept of agency costs, show its relationship to the ‘separation and control’ issue, investigate the nature of the agency costs generated by the existence of debt and outside equity, demonstrate who bears these costs and why, and investigate the Pareto optimality of their existence. We also provide a new definition of the firm, and show how our analysis of the factors influencing the creation and issuance of debt and equity claims is a special case of the supply side of the completeness of markets problem.The directors of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company.Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776, Cannan Edition(Modern Library, New York, 1937) p. 700.     

基于需求信息传递的流通组织变革对敏捷供应影响研究

需求信息及时准确传递是实现敏捷供应的基础,但造成供应链中需求信息扭曲与间断的原因在组织结构层面上还没有得到揭示.研究表明,流通组织结构变革可通过两种路径来改善需求信息传递效率,进而影响敏捷供应.随着流通组织层级减少(扁平化),需求信息传递的间断次数将减少;而随着流通组织结构中主体间控制和联系程度的提升(关系化),需求信息传递的扭曲程度将降低.而扭曲程度和间断次数的减少有利于需求信息及时准确的传递,为实现敏捷供应提供了可能.因此,流通组织结构扁平化和关系化变革是需求快速变化的产业领域内企业实践敏捷供应的基本策略.     

Health and the welfare of U.S. business

Business leaders continue to blame the skyrocketing cost of health care for jeopardizing the global competitiveness of U.S. industries, and they continue to turn to Washington for the solution. Yet after a study of 16 countries, Wharton researchers David Brailer and R. Lawrence Van Horn have discovered that health care costs do not directly hinder U.S. competitiveness. Their conclusion: there is indeed a health care crisis in the United States as well as a competitiveness crisis. But the two are unrelated, and confusing them makes it difficult to solve either one. The real problem, according to the authors, is the hands-off approach that employers typically adopt when it comes to health care. No matter how Washington responds to the health care crisis, employers must explore their own role in ensuring the health of their work force. And they must realize that their role can be a strategic one. Instead of containing costs by fine-tuning benefits packages, companies can control costs and improve health care delivery by treating health care like any other crucial component of production. Brailer and Van Horn propose three strategies for managing health care delivery: First, companies must intervene in the supply side of the health care market. This may mean creating a clinic alone or with other companies, or joining with other companies to procure health care. Second, companies need to translate corporate health benefits into the most cost-effective set of services at the local level. Finally, companies must encourage and educate employees to participate in decisions regarding health care delivery.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Effect of internal cost management,information systems integration,and absorptive capacity on inter-organizational cost management in supply chains

Inter-organizational cost management is a strategic cost management approach to managing costs that span organizational boundaries in supply chains. Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm, we develop a model to predict which inter-related resources might enable companies to manage inter-organizational costs. We test this model using a survey of managerial accountants whose organizations are part of a supply chain. Using structural equation modeling, we conclude that the resources of internal electronic integration, external electronic integration, internal cost management, and absorptive capacity play significant direct and indirect roles in the development of an inter-organizational cost management (IOCM) resource. We find that these resources are inter-related and together are useful in enabling companies to ultimately benefit from managing inter-organizational costs. We find in particular the importance of relational resources associated with absorptive capacity in the development of an IOCM resource. Our research contributes to theory and practice by explaining how specific resources can be combined in allowing companies to better manage inter-organizational costs.     

Inventory-driven costs

In the 199os, Hewlett-Packard's PC business was struggling to turn a dollar, despite the company's success in winning market share. By 1997, margins on its PCs were as thin as a silicon wafer, and some product lines hadn't turned a profit since 1993. The problem had everything to do with the PC industry's notoriously short product cycles and brutal product and component price deflation. A common rule of thumb was that the value of a fully assembled PC decreased 1% a week. In such an environment, inventory costs become critical. But not just the inventory costs companies traditionally track, HP found, after a thorough review of the problem. The standard "holding cost of inventory"--the capital and physical costs of inventory--accounted for only about 10% of HP's inventory costs. The greater risks, it turned out, resided in four other, essentially hidden costs, which stemmed from mismatches between demand and supply: Component devaluation costs for components still held in production; Price protection costs incurred when product prices drop on the goods distributors still have on their shelves; Product return costs that have to be absorbed when distributors return and receive refunds on overstock items, and; Obsolescence costs for products still unsold when new models are introduced. By developing metrics to track those costs in a consistent way throughout the PC division, HP has found it can manage its supply chains with much more sophistication. Gone are the days of across-the-board measures such as,"Everyone must cut inventories by 20% by the end of the year," which usually resulted in a flurry of cookie-cutter lean production and just-in-time initiatives. Now, each product group is free to choose the supply chain configuration that best suits its needs. Other companies can follow HP's example.     

Was Deng Xiaoping Right? An Overview of China's Equity Markets

In the western world, stock markets arose from the search by privately owned companies for capital to build their businesses. Over time, the markets became places where ownership interests and even entire companies were bought and sold. In China, the complete opposite has happened. The markets arose out of the need for capital by bankrupt state‐owned enterprises operating in an economy with no history of private property. Deng Xiaoping, China's last emperor, gave the green light for the stock market experiment in early 1992 more with the hope of encouraging reform and efficiency than from any conviction that stock markets were the next sure thing. Now, after more than 20 years of experimentation with domestic and international listings, it appears evident that stock markets whose primary function is to trade minority interests in government‐controlled companies have not achieved the goal of improving enterprise performance, as China's leaders originally hoped. Instead, the combination of state monopolies with Wall Street expertise and international capital has led to the creation of national companies that represent little more than the incorporation of China's old Soviet‐style industrial ministries. As for the markets, the government's determination to prevent real privatization has produced separate classes of shares that are defined almost entirely by one thing: the shareholder's relationship to the government. And with all aspects of stock market activity regulated, managed, and owned by various state agencies, it is not surprising that non‐state investors have become motivated more by speculative opportunities than by investment fundamentals. But a quarter of a century is a short time in any country's development and, for all their shortcomings, the markets in mainland China and Hong Kong have played a significant role raising capital for China. It may be too early, perhaps, to suggest that China's equity markets have failed to accomplish what they were intended to do.     

Supply chain challenges. building relationships

Supply chain management is all about software and systems, right? Put in the best technology, sit back, and watch as your processes run smoothly and the savings roll in? Apparently not. When HBR convened a panel of leading thinkers in the field of supply chain management, technology was not top of mind. People and relationships were the dominant issues of the day. The opportunities and problems created by globalization, for example, are requiring companies to establish relationships with new types of suppliers. The ever-present pressure for speed and cost containment is making it even more important to break down stubbornly high internal barriers and establish more effective cross-functional relationships. The costs of failure have never been higher. The leading supply chain performers are applying new technology, new innovations, and process thinking to far greater advantage than the laggards, reaping tremendous gains in all the variables that affect shareholder value: cost, customer service, asset productivity, and revenue generation. And the gap between the leaders and the losers is growing in almost every industry. This roundtable gathered many of the leading thinkers and doers in the field of supply chain management, including practitioners Scott Beth of Intuit, Sandra Morris of Intel, and Chris Gopal of Unisys. David Burt of the University of San Diego and Stanford's Hau Lee bring the latest research from academia. Accenture's William Copacino and the Warren Company's Robert Porter Lynch offer the consultant's perspectives. Together, they take a wide-ranging view of such topics as developing talent, the role of the chief executive, and the latest technologies, exploring both the tactical and the strategic in the current state of supply chain management.     

SECURITIZATION: A LOW-COST SWEETENER FOR LEMONS

Since the launching of the mortgage backed market in the early 1970s, securitization has experienced extraordinary growth and spread to a remarkable variety of receivables. But financial economists in the tradition of Miller and Modigliani have been hard pressed to explain such growth. When viewed within the context of an M & M world of “perfect markets,” securitization appears to be simply another way—and a highly complex and costly one, at that—for a company to carve up its operating cash flows and repackage them for investors. This article seeks to explain the growth of securitization by identifying reductions in costs that M & M assume out of existence. For some types of companies, the largest sources of the cost savings are fairly obvious. Most mortgage securitizations are effectively subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed greatly to the launching of the securitization movement. And commercial banks forced to meet regulatory capital requirements have found securitization of loans to be a low-cost compliance strategy. But securitization appears to offer more than regulatory benefits. For example, higher rated companies with a variety of financing options appear to use securitization to diversify their funding sources and arbitrage small price differences in financial markets. But if such arbitrage profits can be significant, the non-regulatory benefits appear to be largest for companies with few financing alternatives—those firms that face what economists refer to as a “lemons problem.” Available information about such companies is often limited (as in the case of smaller companies), unfavorable (companies in financial distress), or particularly difficult to appraise (companies in volatile industries, or facing unstable political environments or potentially large liabilities). Especially in the case of such “lemons” companies, securitization may reduce overall financing costs by carving up the evaluation of a company's securities into tasks amenable to greater specialization. In so doing, it may reduce aggregate information costs for all its securities and thus increase total value.     

Public vs. Private Equity*

Many corporate executives view private equity as a last resort, as expensive capital that should be tapped only by companies that don't have access to presumably cheaper public equity. The reality of private equity, however, is more complex, and potentially quite rewarding, for both shareholders and management. This paper surveys some of the academic work on the costs and benefits of public vs. private equity, contrasting the private equity investment process with its public counterpart and exploring how such a process may add value. The importance of public equity, particularly for very large companies and growth companies with large capital requirements, is indisputable. But as investment bankers and other practitioners have noted, under certain circumstances the public markets effectively become “closed” to some public companies. Moreover, the cost of equity raised in public markets involves much more than the direct costs of underwriters, attorneys, and accountants. Some indication of the indirect costs is provided by the market's typically negative reaction to announcements of seasoned equity offerings. Although the negative reaction averages about 3%, in some cases stock prices drop by as much as 10%, thereby diluting the value of existing stockholders. Most academics attribute this reaction to the informational disadvantage of public stockholders. Private equity is designed in large part to overcome this information problem by replacing the monitoring performed by the typical public company board with the oversight of better informed and more highly motivated owners. A growing body of academic research suggests that private equity investors add value to the companies they invest in, and that the best investors are consistently effective in so doing. What's more, even public companies that tap private equity seem to benefit. As the author found in his own research on PIPES (Private Investment in Public Equity Securities) transactions, even though such securities are issued to private equity investors at a discount to the prevailing market price, the average market response to the announcement of such transactions is a positive 10%. In short, the participation of private equity investors is perceived to create value, and some of this value is shared with the rest of the market.     

国内上市公司债务融资效率的实证分析

经典公司理论表明,作为硬约束,债务融资能够在一定程度上降低公司内在的代理成本,从而提高公司经营效率。文章利用上海证券交易所A股上市的522家上市公司2003-2008年的财务报表相关数据对此做一个实证研究。时间固定效应模型回归的结果显示,我国上市公司的资产收益率与债务融资率之间呈负相关关系,国内上市公司的债务融资并不能有效控制经营者为最大化自身收益而采取的机会主义行为,代理成本的存在一定程度上降低了公司经营效率。