1、<p>　　字?jǐn)?shù)：英文3228單詞，17138字符；中文5509漢字</p><p>　　出處：PK Krishnadevarajan,S Balasubramanian,N Kannan,V Ravichandran.A Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Inventory Management[J] International Journal of Mana

2、gement.2016,7(1):85-93</p><p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)：　</b></p><p>　　A Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Inventory Management</p><p>　　Abstract Inventory management is a process

3、/ practice that every company undertakes. Most companies fail to apply a comprehensive set of criteria to rank their products / items. The criteria are too few or subjective in nature. Inventory is required to stay in bu

4、siness and meet customer needs. If it is not done right it causes deterioration in customer service and could lead to damages to both customer and supplier relations and eventually cause business breakdown. A simple mult

5、i-criteria drive</p><p>　　1.Is there a comprehensive inventory management framework?</p><p>　　2.What inventory metrics should be tracked or monitored on a routine basis?</p><p>　　3.

6、How do implement a multi-criteria inventory classification?</p><p>　　This paper is an attempt to answer these critical questions and provide a framework that is developed by bringing together existing litera

7、ture available and input/findings from industry executives in the area of inventory management.</p><p>　　Key words: Inventory, Inventory Management, Inventory Classification, Inventory Ranking, Multi-Criteri

8、a Inventory Management.</p><p>　　1.INTRODUCTION</p><p>　　Inventory is a critical asset and resource that is handled extensively by most businesses. Managing inventory effectively has been someth

9、ing that every company strives for; however, it is also an area where companies often have failed and still continue to fail. Companies handle multiple items / products but treat all items equally because the business ob

10、jective is to serve the customer. As a result they end up having excess inventory of the wrong items. As businesses expand there are so many pr</p><p>　　2.FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT</p><p>　　The proc

11、ess of inventory classification actually begins by developing or choosing a framework that suits the company’s vision and goals. The development process of the proposed inventory framework process took place in two stage

12、s. The first stage was to look at existing literature to understand the different factors/criteria that are being used for inventory evaluation by various industries/businesses. The second stage was interaction with comp

13、anies to gather input, understand metrics used and c</p><p>　　2.1.Literature Review</p><p>　　(Pareto, 1906) observed that about 20% of the population of a country has about 80% of its wealth (al

14、so known as the 80-20 rule). This rule holds true for items sold by a firm: about 20% of items account for about 80% of a firm’s revenue.</p><p>　　(Flores and Whybark, 1987) present an inventory ranking mode

15、l driven by criticality and dollar-usage. The first stage is for the users to rank the items based on criticality, the second stage ranks items based on dollar/currency usage. Based on usage, items are ranked as A, B or

16、C.</p><p>　　(Flores, Olson and Dorai, 1992) propose the use of AHP as a means for decision makers to custom design a formula reflecting the relative importance of each unit of inventory item based on a weigh

17、ted value of the criteria utilized. The factors applied are – total annual usage (quantity), average unit cost (currency), annual usage (currency), lead time and criticality. They also present a reclassification model ba

18、sed on the following factors and weights: criticality (42%), followed by lead time (4</p><p>　　(Schreibfeder, 2005) recommend a combination model using cost of goods sold (procurement price from supplier), n

19、umber of transactions (orders or hits), and profitability (gross margin).</p><p>　　(Lawrence, Gunasekaran and Krishnadevarajan, 2009) state that best practices in item stratification are based on multiple fa

20、ctors such as sales, logistics (hits), and profitability (gross margin currency or percentage, or gross margin return on inventory investment [GMROII]) that help to attain the optimal solution in most cases. Companies, h

21、owever, can include more factors specific to their business environment, such as lead time, sense of urgency, product dependency, criticality, product life </p><p>　　(Pradip Kumar Krishnadevarajan, Gunasekar

22、an, Lawrence and Rao, 2013) rank items into 4 categories (High, medium-plus, medium-minus, low) for risk management and price sensitivity. Ranking is based on unit cost of the item. Items are also ranked based on annual

23、usage (currency), hits, gross margin (currency) and gross margin (percentage). The final ranks are Critical (A & B items), important (C items) and non-critical (D items).</p><p>　　(Dhoka and Choudary, 20

24、13) classify items based on demand predictability (XYZ Analysis). Items which have uniform demand are ranked as X, varying demand as Y, and abnormal demand as Z.</p><p>　　(Hatefi, Torabi and Bagheri, 2014) p

25、resent a modified linear optimization method that enables inventory managers to classify a number of inventory items in the presence of both qualitative and quantitative criteria without any subjectivity. The four factor

26、s used are ADU (Annual dollar usage), CF (critical factor – very critical [VC], moderately critical [MC] or non-critical [NC]), AUC (Average unit cost) and LT (Lead Time). Items are ranked as A, B, or C.</p><p

27、>　　(Xue, 2014) connects the characteristics of materials supply and the relationship between parts and production, a classification model based on materials attributes. The several criteria applied in the decision tre

28、e model are: Parts usage rate, carrying- holding-possession costs, ordering-purchase costs, shortage cost, and delivery ability.</p><p>　　(?ari?, ?imunovi?, Pezer and ?imunovi?, 2014) present a research on i

29、nventory ABC classification using various multi-criteria methods (AHP) method and cluster analysis) and neural networks. The model uses 4 criteria – Annual cost, Criticality, Lead Time 1 and Lead Time 2.</p><p

30、>　　(Kumar, Rajan and Balan, 2014) rank items based on their cost in bill of materials (ABC ranking). “A” items -70% higher value of items of bill of material, “B” items – 20% Medium value of items of Bill of material

31、and “C” items – 10% Lower value of items of Bill of material. They also determine vital, essential, and desirable components required for assembly (VED analysis).</p><p>　　(Sarmah and Moharana, 2015) present

32、 a model that has 5 criteria – consumption rate, unit price, replenishment lead time, commonality and criticality.</p><p>　　(Pradip Kumar Krishnadevarajan, Balasubramanian, and Kannan, 2015) present a strate

33、gic business stratification framework based on: suppliers, product, demand, space, service, market, customer and people.</p><p>　　(Pradip Kumar Krishnadevarajan, Vignesh, Balasubramanian and Kannan, 2015) pr

34、esent a framework for supplier classification based on several categories: convenience, customer service, profitability (financial), growth, innovation, inventory, quality and risk. A similar framework can be extended ba

35、sed on the supplier classification for items or products.</p><p>　　2.2.Industry Feedback</p><p>　　Interaction with companies was performed through surveys, interviews and focus groups with sever

36、al industry owners, inventory/purchasing managers and business managers. The objective was to get an idea of the metrics being utilized for inventory classification, challenges faced, inventory framework deployed and the

37、 effectiveness of their current inventory performance management processes. Key findings from the industry interaction were the following:</p><p>　　?Lack of a inventory management framework. Understanding wh

38、ere the process began and where it ended was the key challenge. Who should take ownership of this process in the company? Often, data was missing or currently not captured in the system in-order to create various metrics

39、 to help with inventory management. Internally, all companies did not have a goal or objective regarding what they would like to achieve with the inventory management process. No concrete data driven discussions or goal

40、s</p><p>　　?What to track? Companies either tracked too many metrics or did not track anything. Even if they tracked too many metrics most of them were subjective and anecdotal. They lacked a significant num

41、ber of quantitative metrics to act on something meaningful. Companies wanted a set of metrics they could choose from and then set a process in place to capture the relevant data to compute those metrics. If multiple metr

42、ics are used to track inventory performance, is there a methodology to combine vario</p><p>　　?Reporting and Scorecards: The next challenge was that even if a few companies had the required data and were abl

43、e to compute the metrics they did not have an effective way of reporting this information back to the purchasing team or anyone who influenced inventory decision. They lacked reporting tools and templates for the perform

44、ance metrics.</p><p>　　?Continuous Improvement: The steps that need to be established to continually improve the inventory management process at the company did not exist. Several companies had gone down the

45、 path of implementing a version of the inventory management but could not sustain the same due to lack of accountability/ownership, failing to change the metrics when the industry dynamics changed, and execution challeng

46、es.</p><p>　　The focus of this paper is to propose a simple, yet holistic framework, list of metrics to track and a multi-criteria ranking method for inventory management.</p><p>　　3.INVENTORY M

47、ANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK</p><p>　　The approach used to layout an inventory framework is bridging the gap between what was seen in the literature review and the feedback from industry. The key objectives in the fr

48、amework development were the following:</p><p>　　?Metrics should be quantitative (objective and data driven). There will be only a few qualitative metrics.</p><p>　　?The framework should be holi

49、stic and comprehensive at the same time easy understand.</p><p>　　?Scalability and flexibility of the framework is important as companies adopt it into their inventory management process.</p><p>

50、;　　?Apply a multi-criteria approach but provide the ability to get one single final rank (A, B, C or D) for a given item or product so that inventory policies and strategies can be established at a final rank level.</

51、p><p>　　?Provide a starting point for ranking criteria – what determines an A, B, C or D item for each metric used in the framework.</p><p>　　Most companies measure inventory solely based on sales

52、or usage. This is because almost all companies just focus on sales primarily. The proposed framework provides 5 categories based on which items should be ranked (shown in illustration 1). It varies from ‘revenue’ to ‘ris

53、k’. These 5 categories have a set of metrics (21 metrics in total), formula to compute the metric and a ranking scale that places each items in one of 4 ranks – A, B, C or D. Companies can choose the categories that are

54、most </p><p>　　Illustration 1: Inventory Classification Categories and Metrics</p><p>　　The five categories of the inventory framework address several inventory metrics. The definition of each m

55、etrics, corresponding formula (calculation method) and the criteria to determine A, B, C and D ranks is listed in illustration 2. Choosing one metric from each category is recommended. However, companies should customize

56、 the framework in alignment with their growth goals and customer requirements.</p><p>　　Illustration 2: Inventory Management – Metrics, Definition and Criteria</p><p>　　3.1.Final Item Rank</p

57、><p>　　Various metrics that could be applied to determine item ranks (across 5 categories) were addressed in the previous sections. Decision-making process becomes challenging when there are multiple ranks (whi

58、le using multiple metrics across the 5 categories) pointing in different directions. In this situation, a weighted stratification matrix helps determine a final rank for each item (Lawrence, Krishnadevarajan, Gunasekaran

59、, 2011). The final item rank depends on three factors:</p><p>　　?Weights given for each factor: This input captures the importance of each factor. Weights may vary depending on the environment, but an exampl

60、e when a company applies 5 metrics to rank their items could be: Sales currency = 25%; Hits = 20%; GMROII = 20%, Number of customers = 20%; and Pricing variability = 15%. If a company chooses to include additional factor

61、s, the weights may be distributed accordingly.</p><p>　　?The relative importance of A, B, C, and D ranks: Example: A=40; B=30; C=20; and D=10.</p><p>　　?Score the range for the final score: The

62、above weights are converted to a scale of 10 to 40, resulting in a best score of 40 (ranked A in all categories) and a least score of 10 (ranked D in all categories). The 30 points in the range of 10 to 40 is divided int

63、o four groups. Example: A=32.6 to 40; B=25.1 to 32.5; C=17.6 to 25; and D=10 to 17.5.</p><p>　　With these parameters, a final rank can be determined for a given item. If an item is ranked as A, B , Cand D ac

64、cording to sales currency, hits, GMROII, number of customers and pricing variability respectively; this item’s final performance score is computed as follows:</p><p>　　Final supplier score = [(25% x 30) + (2

65、0% x 20) + (20% x 40) + (20% x 30) + (15% x 10)] = 27</p><p>　　This score falls between the ranges of 25.1 to 32.5, so this item gets a final rank of “B”.</p><p>　　3.2.Summary of Item Ranking<

66、;/p><p>　　The various steps that are involved in the ranking of items can be summarized as follows:</p><p>　　?Step 1: Customize the framework according to the company’s requirement. This includes b

67、oth the categories as well as the metrics under each category.</p><p>　　?Step 2: Determine the cut-off values for each metric – the criteria that ranks items as A, B, C or D. This is a very important step.&l

68、t;/p><p>　　?Step 3: Choose key metrics that will determine item ranks.</p><p>　　?Step 4: Rank the items for each metric using company-specific cut-off values.</p><p>　　?Step 5: Assign

69、weights to each factor.</p><p>　　?Step 6: Compute final rank for each item.</p><p>　　?Step 7: Using a cross-functional team to determine inventory policies and strategies for A, B, C and D items

70、 based on the final rank.</p><p>　　4.CONCLUSION</p><p>　　The proposed inventory framework provides a guideline for companies with their inventory management process. Determining the right items

71、to stock (inventory investment) and managing them effectively is key to good customer service and business sustainability. Measuring items on data driven objective criteria is critical to maintaining profitable-sustainab

72、le business relationships with customers and suppliers.</p><p><b>　　中文譯文：</b></p><p>　　庫(kù)存管理的多準(zhǔn)則決策框架</p><p>　　摘要 庫(kù)存管理是每個(gè)公司都需要進(jìn)行的一個(gè)過程/實(shí)踐。大多數(shù)公司都沒有采用一套全面的準(zhǔn)則來對(duì)產(chǎn)品/物品進(jìn)行排序。這些準(zhǔn)則

73、太少，或者本質(zhì)上過于主觀。庫(kù)存需要維持業(yè)務(wù)和滿足客戶需求。如果做得不好，會(huì)使客戶服務(wù)質(zhì)量下降，并可能對(duì)客戶和供應(yīng)商的關(guān)系造成損害，最終導(dǎo)致業(yè)務(wù)中斷。由行業(yè)投入開發(fā)的一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的多準(zhǔn)則驅(qū)動(dòng)的整體框架是庫(kù)存管理成功的關(guān)鍵。本文介紹了使用5個(gè)主要準(zhǔn)則類別（收入、客戶服務(wù)、利潤(rùn)率、增長(zhǎng)、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)），21個(gè)指標(biāo)（每個(gè)類別3至6個(gè)）和4個(gè)等級(jí)（A、B、C、D）的庫(kù)存管理框架，來幫助公司進(jìn)行庫(kù)存管理。所提出的框架是通過文獻(xiàn)綜述、調(diào)查、訪談，以及焦點(diǎn)小組與幾

74、個(gè)行業(yè)業(yè)主、庫(kù)存經(jīng)理和業(yè)務(wù)經(jīng)理一起制定的。與公司的互動(dòng)產(chǎn)生了一組三個(gè)關(guān)鍵問題：</p><p>　　1.是否有全面的庫(kù)存管理框架？</p><p>　　2.應(yīng)該定期跟蹤或監(jiān)控哪些庫(kù)存指標(biāo)？</p><p>　　3.如何實(shí)施多準(zhǔn)則庫(kù)存分類？</p><p>　　本文試圖回答這些關(guān)鍵問題，并提供了一個(gè)框架，該框架通過匯集現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)和行業(yè)管理人員在庫(kù)

75、存管理方面的投入/研究結(jié)果而形成。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：庫(kù)存，庫(kù)存管理，庫(kù)存分類，庫(kù)存排序，多準(zhǔn)則庫(kù)存管理。</p><p><b>　　1.簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　庫(kù)存是大多數(shù)企業(yè)廣泛處理的重要資產(chǎn)和資源。有效地管理庫(kù)存一直是每個(gè)公司努力追求的目標(biāo)；然而，這也是公司經(jīng)常失敗并且仍在繼續(xù)失敗的一個(gè)方面。公司處理多個(gè)物品/產(chǎn)品，

76、但是因?yàn)闃I(yè)務(wù)目標(biāo)是為客戶服務(wù)，所以要對(duì)所有物品一視同仁。結(jié)果，他們最終得到了錯(cuò)誤物品的多余庫(kù)存。隨著業(yè)務(wù)的擴(kuò)大，庫(kù)存中有這么多產(chǎn)品，公司最終為每種產(chǎn)品提供更多的庫(kù)存，或者更多地投資于錯(cuò)誤的庫(kù)存。物品/庫(kù)存分類是根據(jù)適用于業(yè)務(wù)環(huán)境的相關(guān)因素對(duì)物品進(jìn)行排序的過程。根據(jù)Pradip Kumar Krishnadevarajan、Gunasekaran S.、Lawrence F.B.和Rao B（2015）以及Pradip Kumar Kri

77、shnadevarajan、S Balasubramanian和N Kannan（2015），應(yīng)該將物品分成若干類（通常少于5類），以便管理日常不會(huì)顯得笨拙。在處理成百上千個(gè)物品時(shí)，尤其需要這樣做，在這些物品中，識(shí)別和關(guān)注最關(guān)鍵的物品對(duì)于有效利用資源至關(guān)重要。這種分類過程通常是在整個(gè)公司的物理位置級(jí)別（分支或分發(fā)中心）進(jìn)行的，盡管它可以應(yīng)用于更高級(jí)別（區(qū)域或整個(gè)公司）。物品分類過程通常沒有明確的</p><p>

78、<b>　　2.框架開發(fā)</b></p><p>　　庫(kù)存分類的過程實(shí)際上是從開發(fā)或選擇適合公司愿景和目標(biāo)的框架開始的。擬議庫(kù)存框架進(jìn)程的發(fā)展進(jìn)程分兩個(gè)階段進(jìn)行。第一階段是研究現(xiàn)有的文獻(xiàn)，以了解不同行業(yè)/企業(yè)用于庫(kù)存評(píng)估的不同因素/標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第二階段是與公司進(jìn)行互動(dòng)以收集意見，了解執(zhí)行庫(kù)存分類過程中所使用的指標(biāo)和面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。</p><p><b>　　2.1.

79、文獻(xiàn)綜述</b></p><p>　　Pareto（1906）觀察到，一個(gè)國(guó)家約20％的人口擁有大約80％的財(cái)富（也被稱為80-20法則）。這個(gè)法則適用于公司銷售的物品：約20％的物品占公司收入的80％左右。</p><p>　　Flores和Whybark（1987）提出了一個(gè)由關(guān)鍵性和美元使用驅(qū)動(dòng)的庫(kù)存排序模型。第一階段是用戶根據(jù)關(guān)鍵性對(duì)物品進(jìn)行排序，第二階段根據(jù)美元/貨幣

80、使用情況對(duì)物品進(jìn)行排序。根據(jù)使用情況，物品排列為A、B或C。</p><p>　　Flores、Olson和Dorai（1992）提出將層次分析法作為決策者自定義設(shè)計(jì)公式的一種手段，該公式根據(jù)所使用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的加權(quán)值，反映每個(gè)庫(kù)存物品的相對(duì)重要性。應(yīng)用的因素包括：年度總使用量（數(shù)量）、平均單位成本（貨幣）、年度使用量（貨幣）、交貨時(shí)間和重要程度。他們還根據(jù)以下因素和權(quán)重提出重新分類模型：重要性（42％），其次是交付時(shí)

81、間（41％），年度美元使用量（9.2％）和平均單位成本（7.8％）。</p><p>　　Schreibfeder（2005）推薦使用銷售成本（供應(yīng)商的采購(gòu)價(jià)），交易數(shù)量（訂單或點(diǎn)擊量）和利潤(rùn)率（毛利率））的組合模型。</p><p>　　Lawrence、Gunasekaran和Krishnadevarajan（2009）指出，物品分類的最佳實(shí)踐基于多種因素，如銷售額、物流（點(diǎn)擊率）和利

82、潤(rùn)率（毛利率貨幣或百分比，或庫(kù)存投資的毛利率[GMROII]），這有助于在大多數(shù)情況下獲得最佳解決方案。然而，公司可以包含更多與其業(yè)務(wù)環(huán)境相關(guān)的因素，例如交貨時(shí)間、緊迫感、產(chǎn)品依賴性、重要性、產(chǎn)品生命周期和物流成本。他們還提出了一個(gè)基于需求模式對(duì)物品進(jìn)行分類的模型。需求穩(wěn)定指數(shù)（DSI）建立了三個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——需求頻率或使用頻率、需求規(guī)模和需求變化。</p><p>　　Pradip Kumar Krishnadeva

83、rajan、Gunasekaran、Lawrence和Rao（2013）將風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理和價(jià)格敏感度分為4類（高、中高、中低、低）。排序是基于物品的單位成本。物品還根據(jù)年度使用量（貨幣）、點(diǎn)擊率、毛利率（貨幣）和毛利率（百分比）進(jìn)行排序。最后的等級(jí)是關(guān)鍵（A和B物品），重要（C物品）和非關(guān)鍵（D物品）。</p><p>　　Dhoka和Choudary（2013）根據(jù)需求可預(yù)測(cè)性（XYZ分析）對(duì)物品進(jìn)行分類。具有統(tǒng)一需

84、求的物品排列為X，需求變化為Y，需求變異為Z。</p><p>　　Hatefi、Torabi和Bagheri（2014）提出了一種改進(jìn)的線性優(yōu)化方法，使庫(kù)存管理人員能夠在定性和定量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的情況下對(duì)許多庫(kù)存物品進(jìn)行分類，而不存在任何主觀性。使用的四個(gè)因素是ADU（年度美元使用率），CF（關(guān)鍵因素——非常關(guān)鍵[VC]、中度關(guān)鍵[MC]或非關(guān)鍵[NC]），AUC（平均單位成本）和LT（提前期）。物品排列為A、B或C。&

85、lt;/p><p>　　Xue（2014）將物料供應(yīng)的特點(diǎn)和零件與生產(chǎn)的關(guān)系聯(lián)系起來，建立了一種基于物料屬性的分類模型。決策樹模型中應(yīng)用的幾個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是：零部件使用率，持搬運(yùn)—持有過程成本，訂購(gòu)—采購(gòu)成本，短缺成本和交付能力。</p><p>　　?ari?、?imunovi?、Pezer和?imunovi?（2014）介紹了一種基于多準(zhǔn)則方法 (AHP)、聚類分析法和神經(jīng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的庫(kù)存ABC分類研究

86、。該模型使用4個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——年度成本，關(guān)鍵程度，提前期1和提前期2。</p><p>　　Kumar、Rajan和Balan（2014）根據(jù)材料清單（ABC排名）的成本對(duì)物品進(jìn)行排序?！癆”物品——材料清單物品價(jià)值高于70％，“B”物品 ——材料清單物品價(jià)值高于20%，“C”物品——物料清單物品價(jià)值低于10％。他們還確定了組裝所需的重要的、必要的和可取的組件（VED分析）。</p><p>　

87、　Sarmah和Moharana（2015）提出了一個(gè)具有5個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的模型——消費(fèi)率，單價(jià)，補(bǔ)貨提前期，通用性和關(guān)鍵性。</p><p>　　Pradip Kumar Krishnaderarajan、Balasubramanian和Kannan（2015）提出了一個(gè)基于供應(yīng)商、產(chǎn)品、需求、空間、服務(wù)、市場(chǎng)、客戶和人員的戰(zhàn)略業(yè)務(wù)分層框架。</p><p>　　Pradip Kumar Kri

88、shnadevarajan、Vignesh、Balasubramanian和Kannan（2015）提出了一個(gè)供應(yīng)商分類框架，基于以下幾個(gè)類別：便利性、客戶服務(wù)、利潤(rùn)率（財(cái)務(wù)）、增長(zhǎng)、創(chuàng)新、庫(kù)存、質(zhì)量和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。類似的框架可以根據(jù)物品或產(chǎn)品的供應(yīng)商分類進(jìn)行擴(kuò)展。</p><p><b>　　2.2.行業(yè)反饋</b></p><p>　　通過調(diào)查、訪談以及焦點(diǎn)小組與多家業(yè)主

89、、庫(kù)存/采購(gòu)經(jīng)理和業(yè)務(wù)經(jīng)理進(jìn)行交流，與公司進(jìn)行互動(dòng)。目的是了解用于庫(kù)存分類的指標(biāo)、面臨的挑戰(zhàn)、部署的庫(kù)存框架以及當(dāng)前庫(kù)存績(jī)效管理流程的有效性。行業(yè)互動(dòng)的主要發(fā)現(xiàn)如下：</p><p>　　?缺乏庫(kù)存管理框架。了解流程開始和結(jié)束的地方是關(guān)鍵的挑戰(zhàn)。誰應(yīng)該在公司中掌握這個(gè)過程？通常，系統(tǒng)中缺少或尚未捕獲數(shù)據(jù)，以創(chuàng)建各種指標(biāo)來幫助進(jìn)行庫(kù)存管理。在內(nèi)部，所有公司都沒有關(guān)于他們想要通過庫(kù)存管理流程來實(shí)現(xiàn)的目的或目標(biāo)。沒有發(fā)

90、生具體數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)的討論或目標(biāo)設(shè)定。大部分的庫(kù)存排序都是基于經(jīng)驗(yàn)的。</p><p>　　?要監(jiān)測(cè)什么？公司要么監(jiān)測(cè)太多指標(biāo)，要么監(jiān)測(cè)不到任何東西。即使他們監(jiān)測(cè)了太多指標(biāo)，但其中大部分指標(biāo)都是主觀和軼事的。他們?nèi)狈Υ罅康牧炕笜?biāo)來對(duì)有意義的事情采取行動(dòng)。公司需要一系列可供選擇的指標(biāo)，然后設(shè)置適當(dāng)?shù)牧鞒虂聿东@相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)以計(jì)算這些指標(biāo)。如果使用多個(gè)指標(biāo)來監(jiān)測(cè)庫(kù)存績(jī)效，是否有一種方法可以將各種指標(biāo)結(jié)合起來，為每種物品/產(chǎn)品開

91、發(fā)一個(gè)單一的等級(jí)（便于決策）？</p><p>　　?報(bào)告和記分卡：下一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)是，即使少數(shù)公司擁有所需數(shù)據(jù)并能夠計(jì)算指標(biāo)，但他們也沒有有效的方式將此信息報(bào)告給采購(gòu)團(tuán)隊(duì)或影響庫(kù)存決策的任何人。他們?nèi)狈?jī)效指標(biāo)的報(bào)告工具和模板。</p><p>　　?持續(xù)改進(jìn)：不存在建立持續(xù)改進(jìn)公司庫(kù)存管理流程的步驟。有幾家公司已經(jīng)走上了實(shí)施庫(kù)存管理的道路，但由于缺乏問責(zé)制/所有權(quán)，在行業(yè)動(dòng)態(tài)發(fā)生變化時(shí)未能更

92、改指標(biāo)以及執(zhí)行方面的挑戰(zhàn)，因此無法維持。</p><p>　　本文的重點(diǎn)是提出一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單而全面的框架，用來檢測(cè)的指標(biāo)列表，以及一個(gè)庫(kù)存管理的多準(zhǔn)則排序方法。</p><p><b>　　3.庫(kù)存管理框架</b></p><p>　　用于布局庫(kù)存框架的方法彌合了文獻(xiàn)綜述和行業(yè)反饋之間的差距?？蚣馨l(fā)展的主要目標(biāo)如下：</p><p

93、>　　?指標(biāo)應(yīng)該是定量的（客觀和數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)）。只會(huì)有少數(shù)定性指標(biāo)。</p><p>　　?框架應(yīng)該整體而全面的，同時(shí)易于理解。</p><p>　　?隨著公司將其納入到庫(kù)存管理流程，該框架的可擴(kuò)展性和靈活性非常重要。</p><p>　　?應(yīng)用多準(zhǔn)則方法，但為給定的物品或產(chǎn)品提供一個(gè)單一的最終等級(jí)（A、B、C或D）的能力，以便在最終的等級(jí)上建立庫(kù)存策略和戰(zhàn)略。&

94、lt;/p><p>　　?為排序準(zhǔn)則提供一個(gè)起點(diǎn)——確定框架中使用的每個(gè)指標(biāo)的A、B、C或D物品。</p><p>　　大多數(shù)公司僅根據(jù)銷售或使用量來衡量庫(kù)存。這是因?yàn)閹缀跛械墓径贾魂P(guān)注銷售。擬議的框架根據(jù)哪些物品應(yīng)該怎么排序提供了5個(gè)類別（如圖表1所示）。它從“收入”到“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”不等。這5個(gè)類別具有一組指標(biāo)（共21個(gè)指標(biāo)），計(jì)算指標(biāo)的公式，以及將包含每一項(xiàng)的等級(jí)量表——A、B、C或D。公司

95、可以選擇最與他們當(dāng)前的業(yè)務(wù)優(yōu)先級(jí)相關(guān)的類別，然后在每個(gè)類別下選擇一組因素/指標(biāo)來對(duì)其物品/產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行排序。</p><p>　　圖表1：庫(kù)存分類類別和指標(biāo)</p><p>　　庫(kù)存框架的五個(gè)類別解決了一些庫(kù)存指標(biāo)。圖表2列出了每個(gè)指標(biāo)的定義、相應(yīng)的公式（計(jì)算方法）以及確定A、B、C和D等級(jí)的準(zhǔn)則。建議從每個(gè)類別中選擇一個(gè)指標(biāo)。但是，公司應(yīng)該根據(jù)其增長(zhǎng)目標(biāo)和客戶需求定制框架。</p>

96、;<p>　　圖表2：庫(kù)存管理——指標(biāo)、定義和準(zhǔn)則</p><p>　　3.1.最終物品排序</p><p>　　前面的部分介紹了可用于確定物品等級(jí)（5個(gè)類別）的各種指標(biāo)。如果有多個(gè)等級(jí)（在5個(gè)類別中使用多個(gè)指標(biāo)）指向不同的方向，那么決策過程就會(huì)變得非常具有挑戰(zhàn)性。在這種情況下，加權(quán)分層矩陣有助于確定每個(gè)物品的最終排序（Lawrence、Krishnadevarajan、Gu

97、nasekaran，2011）。最終的物品等級(jí)取決于三個(gè)因素：</p><p>　　?給出每個(gè)因素的權(quán)重：該輸入捕捉每個(gè)因素的重要性。權(quán)重可能因環(huán)境而異，但公司應(yīng)用5個(gè)指標(biāo)來對(duì)物品進(jìn)行排序，例如：銷售貨幣數(shù)= 25％；點(diǎn)擊數(shù)= 20％； 庫(kù)存投資毛利率= 20％，客戶數(shù)量= 20％；價(jià)格變動(dòng)= 15％。如果公司選擇包含其他因素，則可以相應(yīng)地分配權(quán)重。</p><p>　　?A、B、C和D排

98、序的相對(duì)重要性：例如：A = 40；B = 30；C = 20；D = 10。</p><p>　　?對(duì)最終得分劃定評(píng)分范圍：將上述權(quán)重轉(zhuǎn)換為10至40分，得分最好的是40分（在所有類別中名列A），最少的是10分（在所有類別中名列D）。在10到40分之間的30分也被分成四組。例如：A = 32.6至40；B = 25.1至32.5；C = 17.6至25；D = 10至17.5。</p><p

99、>　　通過這些參數(shù)，可以確定給定物品的最終排序。如果根據(jù)銷售貨幣數(shù)、點(diǎn)擊數(shù)、庫(kù)存投資毛利率、客戶數(shù)量和價(jià)格變動(dòng)分別將商品排列為A、B、C和D；該物品的最終表現(xiàn)分?jǐn)?shù)計(jì)算如下：</p><p>　　最終供應(yīng)商評(píng)分= [（25％x 30）+（20％x 20）+（20％x 40）+（20％x 30）+ （15％×10）] = 27</p><p>　　這個(gè)分?jǐn)?shù)介于25.1 到32.

100、5 之間，所以這個(gè)物品的最終等級(jí)是“B”。</p><p>　　3.2.物品排序總結(jié)</p><p>　　物品排序涉及的各個(gè)步驟，可以總結(jié)如下：</p><p>　　?步驟1：根據(jù)公司的要求定制框架。這包括類別以及每個(gè)類別下的指標(biāo)。</p><p>　　?步驟2：確定每個(gè)指標(biāo)的截止值——將物品排列為A、B、C或D等級(jí)。這是非常重要的一步。&l