Talk:Supply chain management

Proposed merge from Supply chain event management

Any comments on the proposal? - N (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments against, so I am merging. --Ezeu 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any suggestion on where to get used book for CPIM certification

Proposed merge with Bullwhip effect

This seems like a particular side effect or subtopic of Supply chain management not critical to the topic itself. It seems like merging it would simply diminish interest in the subtopic. I would be opposed to merging. Avt tor 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose merging it too. Besides diluting the topic, I think Bullwhip Effect should be discussed by itself and the importance conveyed. There are other spin-offs of SCM similar to Bullwhip Effect which would then be qualified to enter this article. Nshuks7 08:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose merging the Bullwhip Effect page with the general page for supply chain management. The bullwhip effect is important enough to warrant its own entry in wikipedia, yet it is not so central to the field that it warrants inclusion on the SCM page. Sonicace 03:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Supply chain diversification

A merge from Supply chain diversification has been proposed. This proposal comes after the proposal to have the said article merged with the article on Procurement in wich I voted against, but suggested considering the merger with this article instead. The tone of the two articles seem non-cohesive, probably because the point of view is of management v.s. operations. I would like to get some imput on this merger. --Emana 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has given their opinion on this issue for three weeks. Under normal Wikipedia circumstances, the merge will happen, but in the case of this article, there has been so much more content added to it since the proposal of the merger. The new content added veers away from the tone and issue that prompted this merger. In my opinion the merger is no longer appropriate. Therefore, I will rescind the proposal. Remember, the merger can be proposed again by anyone who wishes to do so. --Emana 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the merge should be done, since SCM is a very particular topic of the operation management.

SCM Solutions comparison

SCM solutions are many. Which one is better and Why? SAP or i2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.128.181.120 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC). It would not be wise to merge these topics[reply]

Reference spam?

Rolf G. Poluha: Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. Youngstown, NY 2007, ISBN-10: 1-93404-323-0, ISBN-13: 978-1-934-04-323-3.

I noticed that this was added to the article before it's publication date, as far as I can tell. It was originally added 15 Sept '06 with a different isbn and a publication year of 2006, but I cannot verify either [1]. I think it should be removed unless someone has another explanation. -- Ronz 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics/SCM association

What are the names of the leading logistics or SCM federations or representations of interests in this field in the U.S., in Russia, and in the European Union? For Europe this may be http://www.elalog.org/ (European Logistics Association). I'm searching for associations like this one. 130.149.169.40 08:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>> CSCMP (Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) definitely comes to mind: www.cscmp.org

Thank you, so far. Does anybody of you has additional suggestions? 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the a reference to the supply chain council should be included as well (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-Chain_Council). This standardisation organisation is developing since the mid 1990ies the Supply Chain Operations Reference-model (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOR). Note further that respective wikepedia articles need considerable rework. I'm laccking the time for this.

Other associations would include LRN (the Logistics Research Network related to CILT/UK), NOFOMA (the Nordic Logistics Research Network) as well as a bunch of purchasing (e.g. IPSERA) and operations management (e.g. POMS, EUROMA) related networks. 128.214.107.203 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Partner

Can someone please add the definition of a "channel partner" That would be helpful in the explanation of SCM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac523 (talk • contribs) 18:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Channels are the various ways you can reach the end users or consumers. Examples are Retail Channel, Distributor Channel, B2B Channel, B2C Channel etc. The business partners or associates that enable the flow of products in each of these channels are called the Channel Partners. Examples are distributors, wholesellers, stockists, selling agents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.101.116 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Supply Chain

Reverse Supply Chain topic should be added as a context of forward and reverse supply chain. Please provide opinion on this.

While the reverse supply chain management is an important topic, but still it is a small part of the SCM as a whole. It would be misleading if we divide the whole SCM into two parts of forward and reverse. On the other hand, the reverse logistic page in Wikipedia already has an article closely related to the RSCM. If this is not enough, then my opinion is to post an independent article about the RSCM. Iburn78 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add external link

I would like to add www.buyersmeetingpoint.com as a link under supply chain management. This is an eductional site for procurement professionals to share experiences and knowledge among their peers. The majority of information is available at no cost. There is a forum for professionals to share their knowledge and ask questions to others in the industry. This seems to be a helpful and appropriate link for those interested in procurement.BMPmanagement (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL. In general, such links are inappropriate. You probably should read WP:COI as well if you haven't yet. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Supply Chain Management given in the first paragraph is quite adequate but I think it needs to be made clear that Supply Chain Management is nothing more than a rather long-winded name for what used to be called Operations, but I will leave it to the original author as to how he/she may like to word it.Snookerrobot (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

The definition of Supply Chain Management given in the first paragraph is quite adequate but I think it needs to be made clear that Supply Chain Management is nothing more than a rather long-winded name for what used to be called Operations, but I will leave it to the original author as to how he/she may like to word it.Snookerrobot (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic, tactical, operational

In the article, three levels of SCM are mentioned: strategic, tactical, operational SCM. Is there any source where these distinction is made, i.e. in a seminal paper or a popular book? 130.149.169.42 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image doesn't show a supply-chain

The image doesn't show a supply-chain, but the internal logistic chain of a company. A supply chain must be consist at least of: supplier-customer-supplier or customer-supplier-customer. The image is wrong. -- Grochim (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The primary conception of a supply chain is the chain of producer-to-consumer links, not some dubious introspective model. If we're going to show an image at the top, it should reflect the consensus view of a supply chain. 70.251.32.227 (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Focus on Supply Chain Management

The authors of this article must be from the transportation industry and they appear to know very little about managing suppliers. Product quality compliance and control of intellectual property rights are often the most critical and challenging aspects. The article contains no details on these. Instead, most descriptions are on shipping and trucking, which are the downstream tasks only.Kstam (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

This sentence under "Supply chain management d)" is garbled. Where is the verb?

Activities related to planning, scheduling and supporting manufacturing operations, such as work-in-process storage, handling, transportation, and time phasing of components, inventory at manufacturing sites and maximum flexibility in the coordination of geographic and final assemblies postponement of physical distribution operations.

Thanks for clarifying. --Remotelysensed (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tax efficient

I propose a merge from Tax Efficient Supply Chain Management for a number of reasons:

The capitalization suggests it's a particular company's formulation.
It is basically a dictionary definition.
It has had a notability tag for over 6 months, without any edits made.

However, it is and probably should be mentioned in this article, so if there is something relevant there, it should be merged here, and then the redirect should be moved to the correct capitalization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Efficient Supply Chain Management is not recognized as a methodology accepted by APICS or other professional supply chain certification groups. This sounds like someone selling software attempting to get a link into supply chain pages here for their product. It has not been proven that this idea has been accepted or even discussed by the major professional supply chain groups. Inventoryguy (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references

The recent blanking of the Supply chain management section made me notice that cited references have been removed from the article. I'm also concerned that this and much more information may have been copied from somewhere. It was originally added here by an editor with no other edits. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage and Write-Up Quality of the SCM Section

I agree with other comments that this SCM section is too biased to the downstream end of the supply chain. I also feel that the write-up is written by someone who has never actualy worked in the supply chain industry for the wording is very verbose and misses the point on many of the issues covered. A new starter reading this would only receive about 20% of what is needed in any decent and pragmatic description of SCM in my opinion. Having said that, my task now is to write something that addresses the shortcomings identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRobo (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort; Linked from Total Quality Management

I have read the article on SCM and the comments in the Discussion. I hope to balance these comments by saying that I find the article very informative and well-referenced. I believe that it is the role of practitioners out there to beef up the applications section by adding case studies of SCM. In fact, as I was editing Total Quality Management, I have just created a link to Supply Chain Management. Well done and keep it up. (P.s. For those of you who also have experience with TQM please go over and give your input to that relatively pathetic looking article)Mikebeep (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]