Notice bibliographique
Résumé
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | This column discusses various aspects of the Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) planning horizon in terms of the length of and the foci of decision making within it. A Telescoping Planning Horizon approach is introduced that extends the planning horizon based on all supply-demand lead times, as well as focuses on various decision-making and decision-support data used in the short-term versus the long-term segments within the horizon.During a visit to a well-known semi-conductor manufacturer to conduct research on its Demand Management processesthat I define as the matching of supply and demand-I met with a young woman who wanted my advice concerning implementing a Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) process. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the company had asked her to start an S&OP process among executives. He made a good choice because during our conversation I found out that she had been at the company for some and was known as a thoughtful, deliberate consensus builder. She was an ideal person to moderate the various meetings that would take place among executives. I advised her to use her skills in building the requisite consensus-based process.Then she said to me that she was concerned that the COO wanted the process to focus only on the immediate fiscal quarter.This planning horizon is too short for executives to have full impact on the future. Sales and marketing activities are already in place and difficult to change significantly during a quarter, and supply is constrained within that window of as well. It's not really a good meeting for executives to impact performance in a meaningful way because it's often too detailoriented and operational. My advice to her was to not be initially concerned about that. She should focus primarily on getting a meaningful routine process started. However, over she should try to convince the COO to move out the planning horizon to at least 6, possibly up to 18 months, consistent with typical S&OP planning horizons at most other companies.PLANNING HORIZONS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVESMy Fall 2011 Journal of Business Forecasting column,S&OP:The Linchpin Planning Process, included Figure 1, which depicts the three types of planning processes that companies typically conduct. The planning horizon for Strategic Planning is typically three or more years out and might be driven by a snapshot of the company's vision at that in the future, or by a year-to-year evolutionary path towards it. Output from the planning process includes Strategic Objectives and Goals that ought to drive Tactical Planning processes, thereby enabling these to provide the requisite linkage from strategy to operations. Tactical processes should in turn then drive daily Operational Planning and Scheduling that might typically have a planning horizon that looks out one day and possibly up to a few weeks on a day-today or week-to-week basis.S&OP is the Tactical Planning process that matches demand and supply over a planning horizon that typically looks out from 6 to 18 months into the future. Demand forecasts that drive the plans, as well as the demand and supply plans themselves, are typically expressed with time buckets detailing week-to-week or month-to-month. The process has been extremely successful over the past two decades in being implemented by a lion's share of Fortune 500 companies. In fact, many believe that over it will evolve into the de facto Integrated Business Planning (IBP) process, since this type of process doesn't formally exist at most companies that have already implemented an S&OP process.The S&OP (as well the future IBP) process will have the major objective of helping to ensure that companies achieve annual/quarterly financial performance goals. As such, a crossfunctional S&OP team of managers will be responsible for routinely assessing whether a company is on a path towards achieving its financial goals and, if not, re-charting a path to get there or changing the goals to be more realistic. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,066 | 0,015 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».