1、 外文翻译 原文 Logistic innovation in global supply chains: an empirical test of dynamic transaction-cost theory Material Source: GeoJournal An International Journal on Geography, Published online: 4 April 2008. Author: Evert-Jan Visser Abstract Upgrading logistic services in the context of international
2、supply chains is not a smooth process. Upgrading may require the development of co-operative relationships, or alliances, involving large logistic service firms and their customers: multinational enterprises. Both sides may be unwilling and/or unable to engage in upgrading strategies in an alliance
3、context. Fourth-party logistics is an example of a logistic product innovation entailing research-based advice as well as the design and implementation of new supply-chain solutions. It has the potential of stimulating spatial shift in global production networks and regional distribution systems (Vi
4、sser and Lambooy, Geographisches Zeitschrift 92(heft 1+2):520, 2005). Using dynamic transaction-cost theory (Nooteboom, Learning and innovation in organisations and economies, 2000), this paper theoretically specifies and empirically measures three risks associated with the development of fourth-par
5、ty logistics: dependence, unwanted spillovers, and conservatism. Case-study evidence reveals that dynamic transaction-cost theory partially explains the slow development of new logistic services in an alliance setting. Some aspects of conservatism are found to be relevant, along with risks of depend
6、ence due to specific investments in human resources and information systems. Other, not predicted but important factors, however, are the lack of credibility of service innovation by asset-based logistic firms, and strategic considerations of customers regarding logistic organization and control. Th
7、e first factor implies that firms specializing in fourth-party services are likely to remain (very) limited in number. The second factor implies that this type of service provision is more likely to develop in dynamic port clusters, as customers prefer to tap into a variety of ideas from many differ
8、ent suppliers. In local clusters, interactions between firms can be relatively frequent, casual, short-lived and open, so that the structure of local networks is relatively decentralized, dense and flexible. This stimulates (logistic) innovation (Nooteboom, in Hanusch and Pyka (eds.) Elgar companion
9、 to neo Schumpeterian economics, 2006). In global supply chains, interactions between logistic service firms and their customers tend to have the opposite characteristics, which do not stimulate innovation. Keywords Global supply chains - Logistic innovation - Dynamic transaction costs - Dynamic cap
10、abilities - Port clusters Logistics has become a key element in the competition strategies of multinational enterprises (MNEs). In a setting of enhanced logistic complexity resulting from globalization, these so-called business owners concentrate on marketing, R Hertz and Alfredsson 2003) while comp
11、eting on the basis of logistic performance (delivery reliability, service differentiation, and so forth), they may not be fully willing to go so far to allow specialized logistic service providers resolve supply-chain optimization and integration problems (maximizing service at minimum costs). Simil
12、arly, such service provision does not develop automatically, despite the advantages of specialization, increasing demand for logistic research, advice, design, and implementation services, and decreasing profit margins in the logistics sector (Van Klink and Visser 2004). The LSP considers its relati
13、onship with the customer to be moving towards a partnership, where interactions take place to discover the relative strengths and weaknesses of different solutions proposed on both sides for one and the same problem, to analyse mistakes, to determine who can be entrusted with the role of problem sol
14、ver, and so forth. Meetings are held to discuss the direction of the relationship. These often reinforce the position of the LSP as a logistic solution finder, in line with the critical assessments of the logistic initiatives of the customer. Trust is evolving slowly on the basis of experience, inte
15、raction, openness, and mutual respect. The three problems that potentially hinder 4th party service development (dependence, vulnerability to spillover, and conservatism) are relevant, however. The two interviewed LSP managers originally thought that dependence was the principal, vulnerability the s
16、econd, and conservatism the third most important of these. In the course of the interviewing process, however, it became clear that conservatism was a complex concept that had to be explained and understood well. Other arguments and considerations cropping up later shed new light on the nature of th
17、is problem, which eventually resulted in a higher ranking: first place. This reconsideration brought LSPs perceptions in line with those of the customer (see Table 2). Table 2 Relevance, causes and solutions to three problems hindering 4th party logistics Customer LSP Dependence Relevance (ranking)
18、2nd 2nd (after correction) Causes Specific investments in IT, human capital and mutual understanding Financial impact of logistic failure Specific investments in human capital, knowledge exchange, and IT Financial importance of customer Solutions Require LSP to make specific investments, so that net
19、 dependence of either party on another is reduced Research to turn specific into generic products (eliminating specificity) Intentional, informational, material, and competence trust Dynamic capabilities Customer LSP Vulnerability Relevance 3rd 3rd (after correction) Causes Customers talking to comp
20、etitors LSPs using ideas and methods for other customers Labour mobility jing Solutions Geographic complementarity Compensation by limited substitution Confidentiality agreements Embedded and hard-to-copy nature of IT systems It is a small world Implicit norms Conservatism Relevance 1st 1st (after c
21、orrection) Causes Lack of supply-chain awareness among some parties in the chain (not the LSP). Physical asset-based nature of ongoing work of LSPs, which reduces the credibility of advisory work Physical asset-based nature of current work: net cannibilizing effect of 4PL services Lack of strategic
22、reorientation of investment towards 4PL services (LSP) Solutions No comments Strategic choices Other Lack of and uncertainty about the value added of 4PL services Credence product nature of 4PL, requiring time before explicit payment mechanisms will Customer LSP be in place. Effective coordination o
23、f the process of transforming a 2nd or 3rd party into a 4th party logistic business Starting with the problem of dependence, the LSP mentions several factors: human asset specificity, investments in IT, knowledge exchange between the customer and LSP managers, the importance of the customer for the
24、LSP (in terms of turnover) and vice versa (in terms of financial impact). Human asset specificity arises as a result of specific investments in expertise regarding reverse logistics. IT system development also requires initial specific investments in interface development and data entry, but the LSP
25、 devotes considerable effort into turning these specific systems into generic products that are marketable to other customers as well. Research is a key feature in this regard, since it contributes to the LSPs understanding of what should be measured, how the performance of reverse logistic systems
26、should be evaluated, and what activities can be standardized. This experience, knowledge, and the supporting IT can be included in other service offerings. Specific investments in human capital do not induce a high level of dependence of LSP, however. LSPs net dependence on the customer is rated as
27、low. Solutions to the problem of dependence do not entail investing in IT, extensive contracts or incentive schemes, but do involve (in order of importance) intentional trust, informational trust, material trust, and competence trust (see Nooteboom (2002) for an explanation of these different aspect
28、s of trust). Dynamic capabilities are also important. One issue with respect to unwanted spillovers is labour mobility. Consider, for example, an LSP engineer involved in the development of an advanced IT system who moves to a competitor, where he develops a similar system. This development would ta
29、ke about 1.5 years, however, owing to the embedded nature of the system, which only works on the basis of the LSPs experience with return logistics, interface development, team work, and so forth. Another mechanism is a customer passing on a logistic novelty of an LSP to the firms competitors. Infor
30、mal agreements not to do so are sufficient. Monitoring these agreements is easy, since the logistics service industry is a small world. Overall, the LSP does not consider itself to be vulnerable in gross terms, while the firms net vulnerability is almost negligible. Regarding conservatism, both part
31、ies are considered to be somewhat conservative. Reverse logistics may provide a relatively positive situation, however, since although this activity is challenging, it does not require substantial new investments in physical infrastructure. There is plenty of scope for creativity in bringing down tr
32、ansport and cross-docking costs. In other chains, past investments in storage and warehousing activities are important, enhancing the attention paid to fill rates by account managers on the LSP side. In these chains, procurement managers on the customers side have incentives (discounts on larger pur
33、chases) or have the power to impose sourcing decisions despite disagreements with marketing and service departments within the customer firm or with an LSP. So, stock levels and storage costs may increase more than they should from a logistic and marketing point of view. Finally, logistic services m
34、ay be purchased on a cost basis, disregarding the quality and problem-solving skills of LSPs. In this case, conservatism leads to penny-wise, pound-foolish outsourcing linkages that prevent relationships growing into effective logistic alliances. So far, the evidence provided by the LSP leads us to
35、confirm the three hypotheses specified in section “Problems hindering logistic service upgrading;” transaction-cost related problems are relevant and seemingly hinder the development of 4th party functions in the context of an alliance involving an existing LSP and its customer. The supplementary qu
36、alitative information provided by the two interviewees gives more information, however, confirming that customers are usually responsible for designing logistic chains, and that the LSP usually is not involved. When outsourcing logistics, customer requirements are quite standard. However, the LSP al
37、ways considers whether the work a customer requests can be carried out straightforwardly or whether it can only be done if the LSP is allowed to improve the supply chain. This improvement requires research, advice, design, development, implementation and monitoring of alternative processes and produ
38、cts. So, work for a customer almost always consists of a bundle of simple outsourced tasks, after which the LSP starts launching proposals for more effective SCM. Customers expect logistic firms to develop these proposals without contractual requirements, however. As a result, 4th party logistic wor
39、k is relevant but not paid for in an explicit manner. To deal with this problem, the LSP often creates a budget for R (2) pursue new supply-chain solutions as long as these do not cannibalize current business. The first point implies investing in process efficiency so that cost savings exceed tariff
40、 and fee reductions, which generates a profit for the LSP. The second point means that the LSP may not want to move (at least not so fast) into the provision of 4th party services. New supply-chain concepts may work against short-term financial interests related to the deployment of existing assets,
41、 which cannot be compensated by the sale of advanced services such as 4th party logistics. This last problem in turn is the result of the credence good nature (cf. Visser and Lanzendorf 2004) of these services; a customer is unable to know before, during, and after consumption whether the service pr
42、ovided has been useful. To see this, we will turn to the point of view of the customer. To conclude: specialized 4th party service firms are likely to remain limited in number. Independent subsidiaries and spin-offs of existing logistic firms as well as industry entrants from other sectors (IT, soft
43、ware) have a better chance of developing 4th party services than existing and asset-based LSPs. Furthermore, value-added services like 4th party logistics may more easily develop in dynamic clusters, e.g. well-managed port areas, where customers may tap into a variety of logistic firms to develop ne
44、w concepts. In clusters, interactions between firms are relatively frequent, casual, short-lived and open, so that the structure of inter-firm networks is relatively decentralized, dense and flexible. In supply chains, logistic alliances tend to centralize and involve LSPs and customers only, so tha
45、t networks tend to be hierarchical, exclusive and well-structured, implying relatively rare, formal, repetitive and closed inter-firm interactions, which does not stimulate innovation. 译文 物流业在全国供应链中的革新：有关交易金额理论的一个动态经验测试 资料来源 : 国际地理杂志 ,2008.4 作者： 英凡特 杰维瑟 摘要：在全球化供应链的大背景下，物流业服务的升级并不是一帆风顺的过程。升级需要合作者或者联盟
46、的关系更进一步，包括大型的物流服务公司和他们的顾客：跨国企业。双方都有可能不愿意和 /或不愿意参加战略联盟升级。第四方物流就是一种典型的基于现代物流需求创新出来的物流业产物，也是对新的供应链设计出的执行解决方案。它在全球生产网络和地区分布系统中拥有刺激空间转变 的潜能。采用动态交易费用理论的，从理论上指出和正是了与第四方物流相关的三个危机：依赖性、不利的外部效应和文化保守主义。个案研究的证据表明 ,动态交易费用理论部分解释了物流服务发展缓慢有关的联盟设置。随着发展的进一步，危机显现，物流业依赖于在人力资源和信息系统的具体投资，被发现与文化保守主义有关。另外，不是猜测而是一个重要的因素是，缺乏信
47、誉服务创新的大型物流公司，并且潜在客户考虑战略需要物流业的组织和控制。第一个因素意味着专业从事第四方物流服务的公司数量任然很有限。第二个因素暗示这一类型的服务被提供很可能产生动 态港口集群 ,因为顾客喜欢在众多不同的提供者中选择有多种方案意见的。在本地集群公司中，公司间的相互作用相对频繁 ,随意 ,开放 ,短期性的 ,而本地网络的结构相对独立、致密而灵活。这种刺激创新在全球供应链中 ,物流服务公司之间的相互作用和他们的顾客需求倾向会有相反的特性 ,不刺激创新。 关键词：全球供应链；物流创新能力；动态交易成本；动态能力；港口集群； 物流已经成为跨国企业竞争的关键因素。随着全球化日益加强，也提升了
48、物流行业的复杂性，这就是所谓的企业主对生产企业和物流企业专注的市场、研发、销售、和顾客服务功能，外包活动 。在跨国公司日益面临复杂的全球物流挑战 (克里斯托弗 1998;赫兹和宗教 2003)的基础上 ,当面临着基于物流能力的竞争时 (发货可靠性、服务分化等等 ),他们可能不会完全愿意提供专业物流服务去解决供应链优化和整合问题 (最大服务至少成本 )。同样 ,这样的服务规定并不是自动发展的 ,尽管物流部门被建议提升专业化、增加对物流需求的研究 ,来实现物流服务的利润的提高 (范 Klink 和维瑟 2004)。 分层服务供应商的观点 分层服务供应商认为他们和顾客的关系将朝着合伙的关系发展，双方
49、将发生互动，对相关的问题或者难题的各个 方面提出不同的解决方案，包括弱势和优势，去分析相关的错误，然后决定谁可以被扮演解决问题的能手被相信等等。双方集中召开会议去讨论这种关系的发展方向。这些问题往往迫使分层服务供应商处于一个物流行业的建设者的位置，不断地改变去符合顾客提倡的关键的物流方面需要改进的地方。这种信任的建立需要一个缓慢发展的过程，需要基于经验、双方的互动、敞开胸怀和双方互相的尊重。 然而，这三个问题很可能隐藏在服务发展地第四个方面（ (依赖，脆弱性溢出，保守主义 )，与之有关，两个被访问的分层服务供应商经理认为在这三个因素中：信任为最重要， 其次脆弱性，保守主义排列第三。两位被访问者在被访问的期间，提到保护主义是一个复杂的概念，这个概念不得不被很好的解释，使得人们在这个问题上达到共识，然而，现在保护主义这个概念已经变得清楚。其他的争论和考虑在后来又起了冲突，使得人们又一次把目光投到了这个问题上，甚至关注率上升到了一个新的高度：首先，这次的重新考虑使得分层服务供应商关注更
