Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 溝通管道與合約中數量及時間彈性對供應中斷風險的影響─以買方導向為觀點
The impact of communication pipeline as well as quantity and time flexibility in the contract on the risk of supply disruption - from the buyer’s perspective作者 洪銘澤
Hung, Ming-Chak貢獻者 林我聰
Lin, Woo-Tsong
洪銘澤
Hung, Ming-Chak關鍵詞 合約彈性
數量彈性
時間彈性
溝通管道
供應中斷風險
Contract flexibility
Quantity flexibility
Time flexibility
Communication channels
Supply disruption risk日期 2020 上傳時間 2-Mar-2020 11:00:31 (UTC+8) 摘要 專業分工及國際化的趨勢下，供應鏈越來越長，供應不確定性也越來越高，因此供應中斷成為了重要的研究議題。de Oliveira and Handfield （2017） 提出合約重新修訂對供應中斷風險有影響，然並無提及合約訂定時應保持哪些彈性以避免或減少供應中斷；同時過往對於合約彈性上的研究，亦較少討論其與供應中斷的關聯性。合約內容涵蓋項目多，合約訂定時對於貨品數量及交貨時間的需求預測不確定性高，本研究擬聚焦探討合約中數量及時間彈性對供應中斷風險的影響；以及於合約訂定討論時，合約中數量及時間彈性的制定，是否受到買賣雙方溝通管道及溝通狀況的影響。在研究結果顯示，交貨日期彈性對於供應情況而言最為主要，其次是貨品的數量也對供應情況有一定的影響，而在合作當中商家都較偏向以為正式的溝通方式聯絡，但在解約時間點的商討上卻是偏向非正式的溝通。
Under the trend of professional division of labor and internationalization, the supply chain is getting longer, and the supply uncertainty is getting higher. Therefore, supply disruption has become an important topic of research. de Oliveira and Handfield (2017) proposed that the contract re-amendment had an impact on the risk of supply disruption. However, there was no mention of the flexibility of contract timing to avoid or reduce supply disruption. At the same time, the study on contract resilience association with supply disruptions was less discussed. The contract covers a large number of projects. The forecasting of the demand for the quantity of goods and the delivery time is highly uncertain. The purpose of this study is to focus on the impact of quantity and time flexibility on the risk of supply disruption in the contract; The formulation of the quantity and time flexibility in the contract is affected by the communication channels of the buyers and sellers and their communication status. The research results show that the flexibility of delivery date is the most important for the supply situation. Secondly, the quantity of the goods also has a certain effect on the supply situation. In the cooperation, the merchants are more inclined to communicate in a formal way, but at the time of termination the discussions are biased towards informal communication.參考文獻 马胡杰， 石岿然， 范金，2015，供应链买方信任的源起及其对合约弹性的影响. 管理评论 27（11）: 192-206王忠宗，2000，採購管理手冊，中華企業管理發展中心，台北王燕， 刘永胜，2008，供应链风险管理概述，北京物资学院物流学院，北京朱文禎，2002，數位時代下軟體元件統治關係之演變，資訊管理研究. 南華大學李英睿，2005，供應鏈彈性供應合約的議題分析，臺灣大學工業工程學研究所學位論文: 1-70.李彬，季建华，孟翠翠，2011，基于降低供应中断风险的供应链管理研究。現代管理科學2011（9）: 5-7.孟翠翠，季建华，李新。2014，基于柔性能力的供应链突发事件应急管理研究述评。软科学28（4）: 127-130.庞庆华，2010，收益共享契约下三级供应链应对突发事件的协调研究中国管理科学 18（4）: 101-106.陈祥锋（Xiang-Feng Chen），朱道立（Dao-Li Zhu），2008，资金约束供应链中物流提供商的系统价值研究，系統工程學報23（6）: 666-673.钟玉洁，薛云建，2012，基于弹性供应链的供应中断风险应对，中国物流与采购（16）: 72-73.張偉豪，統計學. (2011). SEM 論文寫作不求人: 三星統計發行.郭茜，蒲云，李延来。2011。供应链中断风险管理研究综述。中國流通經濟 25（3）: 48-53陳曉萍，徐淑英，樊景立，鄭伯壎。2013，組織與管理研究的實證方法（2版），華泰文化，台灣黃芳銘. (2007). 結構方程模式: 理論與應用 (五版). 台北: 五南.Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing science, 8(4), 310-323.Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of marketing, 54(1), 42-58.Breivik, E., & Olsson, U. H. (2001). Adding variables to improve fit: The effect of model size on fit assessment in LISREL. Structural equation modeling: Present and future, 169-194.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136-136.Chauhan, S. S., & Proth, J.-M. (2005). Analysis of a supply chain partnership with revenue sharing. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(1), 44-51.Chen, Y.-C., & Lin, W.-T. (2013). The Research on Developing a Risk Assessment Model-Using Information and Electronics Industry as an Example. Paper presented at the International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (IE). Proceedings.Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32(5), 554-571.Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 453-461.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of research in marketing, 13(4), 303-317.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey. humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial marketing management, 31(4), 367-382.Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships? Journal of marketing, 56(2), 32-44.Hosseinabadi Farahani, M., Dawande, M., Gurnani, H., & Janakiraman, G. (2018). Better to Bend than to Break: Sharing Supply Risk Using the Supply-Flexibility Contract. Available at SSRN 3143238.Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner`s guide to structural equation modeling: psychology press.M. Gligor, D., & Holcomb, M. (2013). The role of personal relationships in supply chains: An exploration of buyers and suppliers of logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 24(3), 328-355.Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192-223.Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 430.Oliveira, M. P. V. d., & Handfield, R. (2017). An enactment theory model of supplier financial disruption risk mitigation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(5), 442-457.Rood, C., Van den Berg, D., Niemann, W., & Meyer, A. (2018). The role of personal relationships in supply chain disruptions: Perspectives from buyers and suppliers of logistics services. Acta Commercii, 18(1), 1-15.Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of psychology, 607-634.Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organization science, 10(4), 439-459.Zsidisin, G. A. (2003). A grounded definition of supply risk. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5-6), 217-224.Zsidisin, G. A., & Wagner, S. M. (2010). Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role of supply chain resiliency on disruption occurrence. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 1-20. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
106356040資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106356040 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 林我聰 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Woo-Tsong en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 洪銘澤 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hung, Ming-Chak en_US dc.creator (作者) 洪銘澤 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hung, Ming-Chak en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2020 11:00:31 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Mar-2020 11:00:31 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2020 11:00:31 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0106356040 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128783 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 資訊管理學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 106356040 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 專業分工及國際化的趨勢下，供應鏈越來越長，供應不確定性也越來越高，因此供應中斷成為了重要的研究議題。de Oliveira and Handfield （2017） 提出合約重新修訂對供應中斷風險有影響，然並無提及合約訂定時應保持哪些彈性以避免或減少供應中斷；同時過往對於合約彈性上的研究，亦較少討論其與供應中斷的關聯性。合約內容涵蓋項目多，合約訂定時對於貨品數量及交貨時間的需求預測不確定性高，本研究擬聚焦探討合約中數量及時間彈性對供應中斷風險的影響；以及於合約訂定討論時，合約中數量及時間彈性的制定，是否受到買賣雙方溝通管道及溝通狀況的影響。在研究結果顯示，交貨日期彈性對於供應情況而言最為主要，其次是貨品的數量也對供應情況有一定的影響，而在合作當中商家都較偏向以為正式的溝通方式聯絡，但在解約時間點的商討上卻是偏向非正式的溝通。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Under the trend of professional division of labor and internationalization, the supply chain is getting longer, and the supply uncertainty is getting higher. Therefore, supply disruption has become an important topic of research. de Oliveira and Handfield (2017) proposed that the contract re-amendment had an impact on the risk of supply disruption. However, there was no mention of the flexibility of contract timing to avoid or reduce supply disruption. At the same time, the study on contract resilience association with supply disruptions was less discussed. The contract covers a large number of projects. The forecasting of the demand for the quantity of goods and the delivery time is highly uncertain. The purpose of this study is to focus on the impact of quantity and time flexibility on the risk of supply disruption in the contract; The formulation of the quantity and time flexibility in the contract is affected by the communication channels of the buyers and sellers and their communication status. The research results show that the flexibility of delivery date is the most important for the supply situation. Secondly, the quantity of the goods also has a certain effect on the supply situation. In the cooperation, the merchants are more inclined to communicate in a formal way, but at the time of termination the discussions are biased towards informal communication. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄摘要 2第一章 緒論 9第一節 背景 9第二節 動機 10第三節 目的 11第四節 研究對象與範圍 11第五節 研究流程 12第二章 文獻探討 13第一節 供應鏈中斷風險的相關研究 13第二節 合約彈性的相關研究 16第三節 正式與非正式溝通的相關研究 20第三章 研究方法 24第一節 研究模型與假設 24第二節 研究變數之操作性定義與衡量 27第三節 問卷設計 33第四節 資料收集與分析方法 33第四章 實證分析 35第一節 敘述性統計分析 35第二節 測量信效度分析 41第三節 驗證性因素分析分析 43第四節 結構方程模型分析 45第五章 結論與建議 50第一節 研究結論 51第二節 管理意涵與建議 53第三節 研究限制 53第四節 未來研究的方向與建議 54第六章 參考文獻 55附錄一 正式調查問卷 58 表目錄表 2 1供應中斷的測量指標 15表 2 2合約的測量指標 18表 2 3合約修改的測量指標 19表 2 4 個人的關係與企業的關係比較 21表 2 5溝通的測量指標 23表 3 1正式溝通的操作性定義和衡量 27表 3 2非正式的操作性定義和衡量 28表 3 3合約貨品數量彈性彈性的操作性定義和衡量 29表 3 4合約交貨日期彈性的操作性定義和衡量 30表 3 5合約解約時間點彈性的操作性定義和衡量 31表 3 6供應中斷的操作性定義和衡量 32表 3 7模型配適度之檢驗要求 34表 4 1一、 描述性樣本統計分析 36表 4 2溝通管道—正式之敘述性統計分析 37表 4 3溝通管道—非正式之敘述性統計分析 37表 4 4合約彈性—貨品數量之敘述性統計分析 38表 4 5合約彈性—交貨日期之敘述性統計分析 38表 4 6合約彈性—解約時間點之敘述性統計分析 39表 4 7供應因應需求變動之敘述性統計分析 39表 4 8 各構面平均數 40表 4 9 各構面T檢定 40表 4 10 各構面信度分析 42表 4 11 各構面的相關係數 43表 4 12組成信度及聚合效度分析 45表 4 13淨化過程紀錄表 46表 4 14 模型配適度 47表 4 15 假設結果 48表 4 16 中介效果假設結果 49 圖目錄圖 1 1研究流程 12圖 2 1彈性供應合約之供應鏈架構 17圖 3 1研究架構 25圖 4 1 結構方程模型結果 48 zh_TW dc.format.extent 966518 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106356040 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合約彈性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數量彈性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 時間彈性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 溝通管道 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 供應中斷風險 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Contract flexibility en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Quantity flexibility en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Time flexibility en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Communication channels en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Supply disruption risk en_US dc.title (題名) 溝通管道與合約中數量及時間彈性對供應中斷風險的影響─以買方導向為觀點 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The impact of communication pipeline as well as quantity and time flexibility in the contract on the risk of supply disruption - from the buyer’s perspective en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 马胡杰， 石岿然， 范金，2015，供应链买方信任的源起及其对合约弹性的影响. 管理评论 27（11）: 192-206王忠宗，2000，採購管理手冊，中華企業管理發展中心，台北王燕， 刘永胜，2008，供应链风险管理概述，北京物资学院物流学院，北京朱文禎，2002，數位時代下軟體元件統治關係之演變，資訊管理研究. 南華大學李英睿，2005，供應鏈彈性供應合約的議題分析，臺灣大學工業工程學研究所學位論文: 1-70.李彬，季建华，孟翠翠，2011，基于降低供应中断风险的供应链管理研究。現代管理科學2011（9）: 5-7.孟翠翠，季建华，李新。2014，基于柔性能力的供应链突发事件应急管理研究述评。软科学28（4）: 127-130.庞庆华，2010，收益共享契约下三级供应链应对突发事件的协调研究中国管理科学 18（4）: 101-106.陈祥锋（Xiang-Feng Chen），朱道立（Dao-Li Zhu），2008，资金约束供应链中物流提供商的系统价值研究，系統工程學報23（6）: 666-673.钟玉洁，薛云建，2012，基于弹性供应链的供应中断风险应对，中国物流与采购（16）: 72-73.張偉豪，統計學. (2011). SEM 論文寫作不求人: 三星統計發行.郭茜，蒲云，李延来。2011。供应链中断风险管理研究综述。中國流通經濟 25（3）: 48-53陳曉萍，徐淑英，樊景立，鄭伯壎。2013，組織與管理研究的實證方法（2版），華泰文化，台灣黃芳銘. (2007). 結構方程模式: 理論與應用 (五版). 台北: 五南.Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing science, 8(4), 310-323.Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of marketing, 54(1), 42-58.Breivik, E., & Olsson, U. H. (2001). Adding variables to improve fit: The effect of model size on fit assessment in LISREL. Structural equation modeling: Present and future, 169-194.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136-136.Chauhan, S. S., & Proth, J.-M. (2005). Analysis of a supply chain partnership with revenue sharing. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(1), 44-51.Chen, Y.-C., & Lin, W.-T. (2013). The Research on Developing a Risk Assessment Model-Using Information and Electronics Industry as an Example. Paper presented at the International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (IE). Proceedings.Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32(5), 554-571.Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 453-461.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of research in marketing, 13(4), 303-317.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey. humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial marketing management, 31(4), 367-382.Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships? Journal of marketing, 56(2), 32-44.Hosseinabadi Farahani, M., Dawande, M., Gurnani, H., & Janakiraman, G. (2018). Better to Bend than to Break: Sharing Supply Risk Using the Supply-Flexibility Contract. Available at SSRN 3143238.Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner`s guide to structural equation modeling: psychology press.M. Gligor, D., & Holcomb, M. (2013). The role of personal relationships in supply chains: An exploration of buyers and suppliers of logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 24(3), 328-355.Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192-223.Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 430.Oliveira, M. P. V. d., & Handfield, R. (2017). An enactment theory model of supplier financial disruption risk mitigation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(5), 442-457.Rood, C., Van den Berg, D., Niemann, W., & Meyer, A. (2018). The role of personal relationships in supply chain disruptions: Perspectives from buyers and suppliers of logistics services. Acta Commercii, 18(1), 1-15.Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of psychology, 607-634.Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organization science, 10(4), 439-459.Zsidisin, G. A. (2003). A grounded definition of supply risk. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5-6), 217-224.Zsidisin, G. A., & Wagner, S. M. (2010). Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role of supply chain resiliency on disruption occurrence. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 1-20. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000135 en_US
