Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This chapter is focused on discovering important trading partner selection criteria that are relevant in electronic data interchange (EDI)-enabled relationships. Increasing implementation of integrated supply chain management (SCM) and collaborative commerce initiatives call for the cultivation and maintenance of long-term strategic partnerships such as those engendered by EDI. A body of evidence shows that hub firms (i.e., firms that initiate technology-enabled partnership networks) are getting choosier about their trading partners. However, there is a need to understand specific trading partner attributes that are more likely to ensure successful long-term relationships. Using the survey technique, this study brought forth respondents from customer and supplier firms engaged in EDI applications; the final respondent sample ended up with a pool of firms primarily in the manufacturing sector. Factor analysis uncovered six trading partner selection factors which both customer and supplier firms thought were critical in selecting partners: strategic commitment of top management, readiness for high-level EDI, joint partnering, trading partner flexibility, communications, and EDI infrastructure. Overall, customer firms regarded a number of trading partner selection factors with a higher level of criticality than did the supplier firms. Customer firms have historically been ahead in initiating EDI networks that may partly explain their higher level of awareness of the implementation requirements involved. This is reflected, for instance, in one other finding that shows customer firms highly valuing the trading partner flexibility and joint partnering factors, which is indicative of their understanding of the collaboration process. Specific items of the trading partner selection factors that correlate highly with many EDI network system success measures are also articulated in the study. The effect of the network initiator status was also taken into consideration after looking at the firms’ perceptions of the success of the EDI network. Customer firms perceived their EDI systems to be successful whether they had a customer firm initiator in their network. Network initiator status appears to have a marginal effect on customer firms in this way. On the other hand, a supplier firms with a supplier initiator in the network perceived the system as more successful than supplier firms with a customer initiator. It behooves managers of systems using EDI, particularly of supplier firms, to understand the findings of this study in order to enhance their position as a desirable potential trading partner for customer firms that they value. Unless the supplier is in the rare position of having high bargaining power in the marketplace, for instance, having a near monopoly over certain goods or services, it behooves the supplier to enhance its position in the eyes of the customers. This is especially necessary in marketplace segments where suppliers fiercely compete for targeted customer accounts. This study’s findings have important implications for strong partnerships involved in integrated supply chain management initiatives and collaborative commerce.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,027 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».