香港_璀璨的明珠_生产经营管理_经管营销_专业资料(1)
Agribusiness Economics and Management
A GRIBUSINESS E CONOMICS AND M ANAGEMENT R OBERT P.K ING,M ICHAELB OEHLJE,M ICHAEL L.C OOK,AND S TEVEN T.S ONKA Agribusiness scholarship emphasizes an integrated view of the food system that extends from research and input supply through production,processing,and distribution to retail outlets and the consumer. This article traces development of agribusiness scholarship over the past century by describing nine significant areas of contribution by our profession:(1)economics of cooperative marketing and manage-ment,(2)design and development of credit market institutions,(3)organizational design,(4)market structure and performance analysis,(5)supply chain management and design,(6)optimization of operational efficiency,(7)development of data and analysis forfinancial management,(8)strategic management,and(9)agribusiness education.Key words:agribusiness,cooperative,credit market,business organization,market structure,supply chain,operations,strategy,education.JEL codes:L10,M10,M20,Q13,Q14.In January1956John H.Davis,director of the program in agriculture and business at the Harvard Business School,published “From Agriculture to Agribusiness”in the Harvard Business Review(Davis1956).The following year Davis and Ray A.Goldberg published A Concept of Agribusiness.These two publications introduced and defined the term“agribusiness”asthe sum total of all operationsinvolved in the manufacture and dis-tribution of farm supplies;produc-tion operations on the farm;andthe storage,processing,and distribu-tion of farm commodities and itemsmade from them.Thus,agribusinessessentially encompasses today thefunctions which the term agriculturedenoted150years ago.(Davis and Goldberg1957,p.2)By the end of1959,the term had appeared in at least forty published articles and book Robert King is a professor of Applied Economics,University of Minnesota;Michael Boehlje is the Distinguished Professor of Agri-cultural Economics,Purdue University;Michael L.Cook is the Robert D.Partridge Chair in Agricultural Economics,Univer-sity of Missouri;and Steven T.Sonka is a professor in Agricul-tural and Consumer Economics and Interim Vice Chancellor of Public Engagement,University of Illinois.Authorship is equally shared.Preparation of this manuscript was coordinated by Robert King.reviews in ten journals,ranging from the Jour-nal of Farm Economics and the American Eco-nomic Review to Agricultural History and the Journal of Marketing.The key insight articulated by Davis and Goldberg was that the food system needs to be viewed as an integrated system.Man-agement strategies and public policy initia-tives designed to address problems in the food system would be doomed to failure if they focused on only one portion or segment of that integrated system.Their work stim-ulated new interest in the linkages between segments of the food system,in coordination across segments,in systemwide performance, and in strategy formulation in a context of interdependence.As Cook and Chaddad(2000, pp.209–210)note:[A]gribusiness research evolvedalong two parallel levels of anal-ysis:the study of coordinationbetween vertical and horizontalparticipants within the food chain,known as agribusiness economics,and the study of decision-makingwithin the alternative food chaingovernance structures,known asagribusiness management.In1956our association was approach-ing itsfiftieth anniversary.Though the term “agribusiness”had not been used prior to thatAmer.J.Agr.Econ.92(2):554–570;doi:10.1093/ajae/aaq009Received December2009;accepted January2010©The Author(2010).Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.All rights reserved.For permissions,please e-mail:journals.permissions@ at :: on April 22, 2011 Downloaded fromKing et al.Agribusiness Economics and Management555time,agricultural economists had been making significant contributions on issues related to agribusiness for many years.As early as1913, Charles J.Brand(1913,pp.85–86)noted that the farmer needed“suitable and convenient arrangements for securing credit”and“assis-tance in the establishment of a marketing sys-tem which will return him the true value of the particular qualities of the various crops that he produces,minus reasonable charges for handling,transportation and the legiti-mate profits of middlemen.”These concerns led to significant work on farm credit and cooperative marketing in the1920s,as well as articles on vertical integration,the organi-zation and operation of marketingfirms,and the role of business economics in our teach-ing programs.New concerns emerged dur-ing the1930s,including the structure of the food distribution system and marketing mar-gins.Other new issues related to agribusiness emerged during the1940s and early1950s. These included the rapid growth and concen-tration of food processing and retailing busi-nesses,analysis of costs and efficiency in food processing plants,and the dynamics of food retailing.Building on this previous work and stimu-lated by changing economic circumstances and important new conceptual and methodological developments in economics,the publications by Davis and Goldberg helped initiate a rapid expansion and redirection of agribusiness scholarship during the association’s second half century.In the late1950s and early1960s, annual meetings included sessions on cooper-atives,farm supply markets,industrial organi-zation,vertical integration,market power of food processing and farm supplyfirms,antitrust decisions,and bargaining.In the mid-1960s the National Commission on Food Market-ing was established“to study and appraise the changes taking place in the‘marketing structure’of the food industry and where they might lead;efficiency;services to con-sumers;market power;regulatory activities; services such as market news;and the effects of imports”(Brandow1966,p.1319).Key papers on cooperative theory and agriculturalfinance also appeared during the1960s.Research on the evolving sector structure continued in the 1970s along with discussions about how well teaching programs were serving the needs of the rapidly growing nonfarm segments of the food system.Work on food system structure and performance continued into the1980s, leading to landmark publications by members of the North Central Regional Project117(NC-117),“Organization and Control ofthe U.S.Food Production and Distribution System.”The1980s also was a time for questioningthe place of agribusiness scholarship withinthe agricultural economics profession.Thefirst issue of a new journal,Agribusiness, appeared in1985.Sonka and Hudson(1989) subsequently provided a conceptual assess-ment of the need for agribusiness scholarshipfrom both academic and industry perspectives.The interplay emanating from the cultural, biological,and political aspects of food and the differing competitive market structures alongthe agricultural supply chain were noted as particularly distinctive features of the sector.This article articulated the need for use of a broader range of behavioral sciences within agribusiness scholarship,while recognizingthe continued value of economic analysis.In1990the International Agribusiness Man-agement Association(IAMA)was formedunder the leadership of Ray Goldberg withthe objective of extending the range of disci-plines contributing to agribusiness researchand to foster more interaction betweenthe academic and industry practitioner communities.This article traces the development of agribusiness scholarship over the past100yearsby describing nine significant areas of contribu-tion by members of our profession—five asso-ciated with agribusiness economics and four linked to agribusiness management.Work in allnine of these areas began before the publica-tions by Davis and Goldberg and has continuedin subsequent years.Our review of key con-tributions cannot possibly be comprehensive,but we believe it does characterize the evolu-tion of work in this important area.In doingso,it also establishes a platform for looking ahead to future challenges and opportunitiesin agribusiness.Agribusiness EconomicsAgribusiness economics is concerned with understanding how institutions,organizations,and markets affect vertical and horizontal coor-dination within the food system.This section describesfive significant contributions that members of our profession have made to the design and analysis of institutions,organiza-tions,and markets.at :: on April 22, 2011Downloaded from556April2010Amer.J.Agr.Econ.Contribution#1:Agricultural economists have played important roles in introducing economic reasoning and pioneering theoretical advances in the study of agricultural cooperative marketing and managementIn thefirst major paper on cooperatives in the newly published Journal of Farm Economics, Asher Hobson(1921)struck a theme that agri-cultural economists would continually restate for the next50years—the importance of under-standing basic economic principles in farmer decision making when initiating joint verti-cal integration.Emphasizing scale economies, asymmetric information,and other market fail-ure elements as rational economic reasons for forming cooperatives,agricultural economists often confronted the advocacy frenzy of politi-cians and farm leaders rushing to organize producers into agricultural cooperatives in the post–World War I depression(Nourse1922; Erdman1924).They also published warnings of the dangers of moving too quickly without understanding market structure forces or the debilitating implications of inadequate capital and human resources.During these early years,agricultural economists advanced understanding of mar-ket coordination through detailed descriptions of market functions and the costs of partic-ipating privately or collectively in specific supply chains.Their emphasis on analyzing the performance and welfare role of mar-keting cooperatives relative to multipurpose cooperatives continues today.In addition to the competitive yardstick function and coordination role,agricultural marketing economists concentrated primarily on(a)the role of cooperatives in control-ling agricultural supply(Erdman1927),(b) the importance of cooperatives in establishing quality standards(Nourse1922),and(c)micro-analysis of organizational design(Jesness 1925).Three insightful diagnostic annual meet-ing proceedings articles by Erdman(1950), Knapp(1950),and Koller(1950)indicate a major turning point in the form of contribu-tion made by agricultural economists regarding the study of this complex governance struc-ture.These articles would be the last of the descriptive stage of cooperative analysis.For the next twenty years,agricultural economists introduced a stream of more rigorous neoclas-sical frameworks to inform the understand-ing of the agricultural cooperative.Bodies of theoretical work evolved around two struc-tural design camps.First,the Robotka/Phillips school defined a cooperative as a collectionof profit-maximizing economic enterprises engaged in economic activity involving the useof a common set of productive assets and inter-acting in Cournot-like fashion in response to individual sets of marginal cost and benefit relationships—in other words,a cooperative isan extension of the farm.The second schoolwas initiated by the models of Helmbergerand Hoos(1962).Their work identified the agricultural cooperative as an economic enter-prise consisting of a production function,anefficiency-maximizing criterion,and a rule that distributes the economic surplus to the suppli-ers of one of the input resources.In their modelthe cooperative is afirm.In his summary of the seminal study Cooperative Theory:New Approaches(Royer 1987),Staatz(1989)credits Emelianoff(1942), Robotka(1947),and Phillips(1953)as the original formal modelers viewing cooperativesas a form of vertical integration.They arguethat the principle of“service at cost”impliedthat only cooperative members incurred profitsor losses.Consequently each member deter-mined her optimal level of output by equatingthe sum of the marginal costs in all plants(farm and cooperative)with the marginal rev-enue in the plant from which the product was marketed.The heroic Cournot–Nash assump-tion implied in the model,applied only to marketing cooperatives,is the major criticismof this“multi-plantfirm modeling”approach.The cooperative-as-a-firm approach draws on Enke’s(1945)work on consumer cooperatives. Enke’s theory posits simply that the welfare of cooperative members and society is optimizedif a cooperative maximizes the sum of the cooperative’s producer surplus and the mem-bers’consumer surplus.This approach needs a hierarchical decision maker or coordinator—similar to the role assumed by the CEO or general manager of an investor-ownedfirm.The major criticism of this approach is thatit does not lead to a stable equilibrium.In advancing this work,Helmberger and Hoos (1962)convert Enke’s logic to explain mar-keting cooperatives’decision making.Basedon the assumptions of a known net revenue function,price taking,and zero surplus objec-tive function,the Helmberger–Hoos marketing concept of the cooperative as afirm suffersfrom the same equilibrium shortcomings as the Robotka/Phillips approach.By the1980s,economic theories and deci-sion models designed to address more complexintra-firm relationships began to emerge.Newat :: on April 22, 2011Downloaded fromKing et al.Agribusiness Economics and Management557approaches such as agency theory,behavioral theories of thefirm,incomplete contract the-ory,transaction cost economics,and property rights approaches allowed for more detailed investigation between inter-and intra-firm coordination decision making.The following twenty years saw advances uti-lizing new institutional economic approaches by Fulton(2001),Cook(1995),Hendrikse and Veerman(2001),and Hendrikse and Bijman (2002),among others.Additionally,advances in neoclassical frameworks increased under-standing of the role of cooperatives not only in remaining as a competitive yardstick but also in laying the groundwork for advances in the cooperative organizational design.Sexton (1990),building on the Helmberger–Hoosfind-ings,used neoclassical theory to model spatial competition in agricultural marketing indus-tries.The model derives price-output equilibria for investor-orientedfirms and cooperative processors in oligopsonistic spatial markets focusing on the pro-competitive effects of cooperatives by formally establishing the con-ditions and magnitude of the cooperative yard-stick effect in oligopsonistic markets.This work has interesting and controversial public pol-icy implications.Itsfindings support favorable public policy toward open-membership coop-eratives,but similar pro-competitive effects cannot be claimed for restricted membership cooperatives.Contribution#2:Agricultural economists have played a key role in the development and design of institutions that are the foundation for agricultural credit marketsSurveys and analyses initiated early in the twentieth century on agricultural credit condi-tions and markets showed that“farmers were not being adequately supplied with capital for certain types of farm operations….[T]he com-mercial banking machinery of the country was ill-adapted to making certain loans for the peri-ods required by the farmer…,and the cost of farm loans was disproportionately high in com-parison with the loans acquired for operating purposes in other industries”(Lee1925,p.425). Congressional discussions and debate con-cerning the appropriate response to the prob-lems identified by Lee included formation of cooperative or joint-stock banks,with an exclusive focus on agricultural loans,and the issuance of long-term bonds tofinance amor-tized loans for the purchase of farmland and other capital assets.Legislation originating with the1916Federal Farm Loan Act and eventually culminating in the Farm Credit Actof1933formed the base for the current Farm Credit System(FCS),which today is a major supplier of credit to farmers,farmer coopera-tives,and rural homeowners.William I.Myers’role in the development ofthe FCS in its formative years is legendary;he served as governor of the Farm Credit Admin-istration from1933to1938.At the annual meetings of the American Farm Economic Association,he emphasized the cooperative nature of the system and that“generally speak-ing the Farm Credit System is not lending government money….[I]ts object is to set up machinery through which farmers may obtainfunds forfinancing their farm businesses fromthe investment markets at the lowest possible cost”(Myers1934,p.36).Following the recovery of the agricultural sector from the Depression,the issue of therole of public credit institutions relative to private sector lenders became the focal pointof the debate over the appropriate insti-tutional structure of the agricultural credit markets.Benedict(1945)argued that com-mercial banks should be the principal sourceof short-term credit;the FCS lenders shouldbe self-supporting and charge competitivebut not-lower-than-market interest rates,since “[a]rtificially low interest rates on farm mort-gages tend to be translated to high land val-ues without long-term advantage either to the farmer or the public”(p.103).Moreover,loansfor emergencies must be evaluated by com-paring the costs with the“social values result-ing from the loans”(ibid).The result of this debate was the formation of the Farmers Home Administration(FmHA)in1946to provide supervised credit to farmers unable to obtain commercial credit.The farm lending activi-ties of the FmHA expanded modestly duringthe1950s and60s(Herr1969).Authoritieswere added in the1970s tofinance selectedrural infrastructure such as housing,water sup-ply,and waste disposal,as well as rural busi-ness and industrial development(Brake and Melchar1970,p.455).More recently these pro-grams have been administered by the Farm ServicesAgency(FSA),with increased empha-sis on guaranteed rather than direct loans andloans to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers(Ahrendsen et al.2005).Farm sector debt increased significantly dur-ing the1950s,1960s,and1970s.Declining incomes in the early1980s,combined withthe increased debt load,resulted in significantat :: on April 22, 2011Downloaded from558April2010Amer.J.Agr.Econ.debt service problems by the mid-80s.Jolly et al.(1985,p.1114)indicated that based on data from the USDA Farm Costs and Returns Survey,“about50%of farm operators and assets did not have a positive cashflow and that64%of debt was not fully serviced in 1984.”Much of the early debate about the appropriate response focused on how lend-ing institutions and their farmer-borrowers might resolve debt-servicing problems and pre-vent foreclosures or bankruptcyfilings.But as evidence began to mount that the problems were more serious than originally thought,the debate turned to the appropriate public sec-tor response.Harl(1990)strongly advocated a public sector debt restructuring/principal write-down/federal guarantee program(p.44). Passage of the Agricultural Credit Act of1987 included(a)debt restructuring requirements for FCS(as well as FmHA)for debt in default, (b)an insurance program along the lines of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and modifications to joint and several liability obligations of all FCS banks for system obli-gations,(c)and federal assistance to the FCS in the form of government loans to recapi-talize FCS institutions experiencingfinancial problems.The system obtained$1.261bil-lion of U.S.Treasury guaranteed bond funds subsequent to this legislation and repaid the federal government(principal plus)interest in2005.Agricultural economists also contributed to the development of more efficient and effec-tive capital andfinancial markets and insti-tutions to serve the agricultural sector in developing countries.Adams,Graham,and von Pischke(1984)focused on the develop-ment of viable credit institutions for farmers to obtainfinancing for fertilizer,seed,and chemical purchases.In essence,their work indi-cated that government/state-ownedfinancial institutions frequently encountered long-term viability problems,in large part because of the political pressure to forgive loan obliga-tions of borrowers in default.They were also critical of the common policy of government-runfinancial institutions of charging below-market interest rates,argued that informal lenders often provided more valuable services than is generally perceived,and suggested that financial institutions in developing countries should emphasize mobilization of local savings as a key source of funds rather than relying on international funding agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.Contribution#3:Agribusiness scholarsutilizing interdisciplinary approaches and new economic frameworks have becomeinstrumental in diagnosing and understandingthe incentives/disincentives embedded in agribusiness organizational architecture and complementary networksA graph of our profession’s interest in orga-nizational design of agribusiness enterprisesmight look like a U-shaped curve.In the earlydays of the profession,agricultural economists offered many thoughtful observations aboutthe recommended or optimal form that agri-cultural trade organizations,processingfirms,and agricultural cooperatives might take.Their insights into aligning residual claim and resid-ual control rights and efficient allocation of incentive-driven decision authority were uti-lized as benchmarking tools for organizers ofsaid entities(Jesness1925).But as formal mod-eling advanced utilizing neoclassical economic theories which tentatively treated thefirm as a “black box,”additional work on organizationaldesign did not appear until more intra-firm incentive models came into practice beginningin the late1980s.By the mid-1990s numerous conceptual pieces,including those of Moore and Noel (1995),Fulton(1995),Hind(1994),Chaddadand Cook(2004)and Hendrikse and Veerman (2001),began to appear in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics and related journals.Empirical pieces soon followed.For example,Holland and King(2004)and Detre,Wilson,and Gray(2007)exploredwhy producer-owned hybrids which are more investor driven than previous patron-drivenforms of collective action were increasing asan organizational form favored by agricultural producers.Examination of the Hendrikseand Bijman(2002)analysis expands on these conceptual advances as producers address complex governance structure choices.Their approach analyzes the impact of ownershipand control structure on investments in a multiple tier net chain utilizing a propertyrights–incomplete contract framework.They continue the quest to determine under what market and incentive structures it is benefi-cial for producers to integrate downstream through their own investment.Employinggame-theoretic models and analyzing scenar-ios with distribution of bargaining power asthe variant,the authors generatefirst-bestefficient ownership structures given alternate investment ing comparativeat :: on April 22, 2011Downloaded fromKing et al.Agribusiness Economics and Management559statics with the incorporation of residual claim levels,optimal ownership structures are derived.The contribution of the incomplete contract approach to governance structure choices is evident.Attempting to advance understanding and utilization of these deduc-tively generated set of hypotheses,Chaddad and Cook(2004)identify a typology of dis-crete organizational models ranging from traditional open-membership cooperatives described and analyzed by thefirst generation of agricultural economists to complex hybrids to investor-owned organizational forms.Their ownership rights typology challenges the next generation of agribusiness scholars studying the performance of food and agribusiness net chains and their aniza-tional design studies continue to diminish the concept of the cooperative as a black box. Contribution#4:Agricultural economists have documented,developed,and applied theories to explain changes in market structure and performance in the food systemThe structure and performance of the process-ing,distribution,and retailing segments of the food system have been a focus of inquiry since the early days of our association.In a paper pre-sented at the1922annual meeting,Price(1923, p.129)noted that marketing systems could be studied from the perspective of“inter-unit”or “intra-unit”organization.The former focuses on the number of intermediaryfirms between the farm and the consumer and the economic relationships among thesefirms.The latter focuses on the internal organization of mar-keting businesses.1Price focused on intra-unit organization,presenting operating cost infor-mation for butter plants and grocery stores. There was also much interest in inter-unit organization.For example,in1930an annual meeting session organized by Miller(1930) examined the evolving structure of the food distribution system.Several years later Waugh (1934)published his important paper on“Mar-gins in Marketing,”which presented estimates of farm–retail price spreads and outlined key issues for future research on marketing margins.In1940,A.C.Hoffman(1940)began a paper on the“Changing Structure of Agricultural Markets”by noting:1This is a distinction not unlike that between agribusiness eco-nomics and agribusiness management made nearly eight decades later by Cook and Chaddad(2000).It is probably correct to say thatthe organization of agricultural mar-kets has changed more in the last25years than during the precedingcentury….From a system comprisedalmost wholly of small,functionallyspecialized business enterprises therehas been a transition to verticallyintegrated concerns operating on aregional and even a national basis.(p.162)Hoffman described the emergence of mass retailing and the then-recent appearance ofthe supermarket.He went on to discuss size economies,the limits of management con-trol in large organizations,vertical integra-tion,and the problems created by monopoly power in food retailing.He also observedthat forces leading to consolidation and mar-ket power in retailing were also likely tobe seen in food manufacturing.In that sameissue of the Journal,William H.Nicholls (1940)published“Market-Sharing in the Pack-ing Industry,”another foundational paper on industrial organization of the food system. Nicholls drew on recently developed theo-ries of imperfect competition to explain how observed patterns in packers’purchase sharesin terminal markets were consistent with col-lusion that would likely harm farmers and consumers.The trends identified by Hoffman(1940) continued over the next several decades, prompting establishment of the National Com-mission on Food Marketing in the1960s (Brandow1966),lively debates on the struc-ture of the food system during the1970s,andthe establishment of NC-117,“Organizationand Control of the U.S.Food Production and Distribution System.”This remarkable project brought together a strong team of researcherswho combined insights from emerging theo-ries in thefield of industrial organization with careful observation,data collection,and empir-ical analysis to investigate the structure ofthe food system,the forces driving change inthe structure,the effects of alternative lawsand regulations on that system,and the con-sequences of alternative public policies and private actions on its performance.An arti-cle by Shaffer(1980)explores the concep-tual framework for the project’s efforts,andmany keyfindings of NC-117are summa-rized in three widely cited books:The Food Manufacturing Industries(Connor et al.1985),The Organization and Performance of the U.S.at :: on April 22, 2011Downloaded from。
生产与作业管理(最终版)
单选题：1．第1题MRP的3种输入信息中，应将计划时间内每一时间周期最终成品的计划生产量记入（）。
A.零件需要明细表B.产品结构信息C.库存状态信息D.主生产计划标准答案：D2．第2题产品在整个生产过程或其中某个生产阶段，生产环节，投入到产出所需要的全部时间叫做（）。
A.节拍B.工艺工序的时间C.生产周期D.工期标准答案：C3．第3题编制物料需求计划(MRP)的主要依据是主生产计划、物料清单和（）A.生产能力B.库存处理信息C.生产周期D.物料采购能力标准答案：B4．第4题汽车装配线宜采用A.流水线布置B.固定位置布置C.成组单元布置D.以上都不是标准答案：A5．第5题产品在各工艺阶段投入、产出的时间与成品出产时间相比所要提前的时间称为（）A.工艺提前期B.生产提前期C.计划提前期D.销售提前期标准答案：B6．第6题少品种、大批量的生产方式在设置生产单位时宜采用（）A.工艺专业化形式B.对象专业化形式C.设备专业化形式D.加工专业化形式标准答案：B7．第7题根据不同的特点、特性可以把生产划分成各种类型。
大量生产、单件生产、成批生产的分类依据是( )A.组织生产的特点B.生产的性质C.生产工艺特性D.生产专业化程度标准答案：D8．第8题生产计划分为长期生产计划，中期生产计划和生产作业计划。
长期生产计划的任务是A.规定企业品种质量等指标B.对生产任务作统筹安排C.确立何种竞争优势的决策D.控制库存水平标准答案：C9．第9题关键作业的含义是指在该项作业上的任何延迟都会导致项目完工期的( )A.提前B.推迟C.停顿D.失败标准答案：B10．"第10题按对象专业化原则建立生产单位，适用于A.单件生产B.小批生产C.大批生产D.工程项目标准答案：C11．"第11题JIT的核心是追求A.零库存生产方式B.柔性生产方式C.大量产出方式D.EOQ方式标准答案：A12．"第12题运作过程是“投入－转换－产出”的过程，其实质是投入一定的（）在转换过程中发生增值。
ポーラ
ブランド・リレーションシップ戦略•POLAPOLAの企業概要•１９２９年に静岡で創業した•全国約４５００営業所約１２万人のポーラレディ•百貨店ポーラコーナー伊勢丹新宿／阪急百貨店うめだ本店／銀座三越／日本橋タカシマヤ／横浜タカシマヤ含む31店舗•海外中国／アメリカ／タイ／台湾／香港／マレーシア／シンガポール／インドネシア／オーストラリア／ニュージーランド／カナダ／コロンビア／ロシア／ウクライナ／ベトナム•売上高９６５.４億円（２０１２年１２月期）2020/6/28•創業の思い最上のものを一人ひとりにあったお手入れとともに直接お手渡ししたい•企業理念私たち一人ひとりの「もっと美しくありたい」を知り、まごころと技術でお客さまを生涯サポートします•ポーラのビジネスモデル顧客を訪問して１対１で商品とサービスを提供する•主力ブランドアペックス・アイ（APEX-i）APEX-iとは•「妻の荒れた手をキレイにしたい」創業者鈴木忍が妻のために、たった一人のために作ったクリーム。
それがポーラの始まりです。
•「お客さまと徹底的に向き合うポーラだからこそ、一人ひとりの肌に合うオートクチュールのような化粧品が出来るはず」という熱い想いからアペックス・アイは誕生した。
•アペックス・アイは、美白や保湿用化粧品のように、ひとつの肌悩みにだけ対応する一般的な化粧品とは違います。
顧客に直接お会いして、肌を分析し、必要な成分を選び出して特別につくられる化粧品なのです。
だから、あなたがなりたい理想の肌へ、まっすぐ導くことができるAPEX-iの歴史•１９８９年アペックス・アイ誕生•１９９４年シワ進度分析を導入•１９９９年敏感分析・メラニン分析を導入肌老化個対応・仕上がり個対応を導入•２００４年角層分析進化・ニキビケア分類を導入•２００９年最新アペックス・アイ誕生キメやシワのデジタル画像解析を導入し、今と未来の肌をより詳細に分析。
個肌対応の使用法などのアドバイスが進化。
学习麦当劳_生产经营管理_经管营销_专业资料
孕育期 婴儿期 学步期
成熟度
萌芽
青春期 发展
盛年期 成熟
稳定期 壮大
组织 演进
• 行政部 • 人事部
• 人力资源部 • 培训部
• 培训中心
• 职业发展中心（如GE）
• 组织发展部（ODP） • 企业大学（如海尔）
• 企业商学院（如HP）
• 有培训意识，但• 有专职培训岗位，开 • 已建立相对完善的培 • 组织形态上，有独立组
•摩托罗拉大学
•惠普商学院
高
高
层
社会
层
社会
中
中
层
层
供
供
基 层
应 链
基 层
应 链
内部
外部
内部
外部
说明：从2005年起，摩托罗拉大学在亚太地区说的明战：惠普商学院的成立初衷是分享惠普多年的成 略重心发生重大转移，从主要培训内部员工转变功成管主理经验，帮助中国重要客户的高层管理者提升 要为其客户、供应商、战略伙伴和其他潜在顾客管提理供水平；发展过程中客户群逐渐扩大，成为专业 培训和咨询，与更多亚太地区包括中国的企业结从盟事，商业管理及个人职业技能培养的培训机构；成 建立更广泛的摩托罗拉商业生态系统，从而促进为业企务业的利润中心 的增长
• 如何定位企业大学，关键取决于以下几个问题
－是否需要通过培训业务整合价值链 －培训业务是否对企业有吸引力 －企业是否在培训业务方面具竞争优势，如企 业知名度、课程开发能力和培训师资等
企业培训的发展阶段
企业大学的建设 时机
创业初期
创业中期 快速增长期 稳健增长期 成熟期 衰退期
• 高层
中层
基层
企业内部
缺乏效果
体系
特许经营概论答案22
【判断题】包销是卖方以协议的形式给予买方在一定期间、一定地区经营卖方某一种或几种产品的权力。
选择一项：对错反馈正确的答案是“对”。
题目2标记题目题干【多项选择题】特许连锁企业人力资源培训的特点：（）选择一项或多项：a. 层次差异性b. 薪资加奖金制c. 战略投资d. 系统内克隆e. 周期性活动反馈 The correct answers are: 系统内克隆, 周期性活动, 层次差异性, 战略投资题目3 标记题目题干【匹配题】几种不同的销售方式的比较：直销企业招募直销员，由直销员直接向顾客销售商品的方式，不涉及销售权的转让问题。
答案 1一种典型的金字塔式销售模式，经营者层层通过发展人员，组织网络来推销产品（或服务）。
答案 2制造商或批发商将销售某种产品的权利授予某一销售商，由其在约定的期限和地域内销售商品，获得差价利益的一种商业模式。
答案3卖方以协议的形式给予买方在一定期间、一定地区经营卖答方某一种或几种产品的权力。
案4反馈正确答案是：直销企业招募直销员，由直销员直接向顾客销售商品的方式，不涉及销售权的转让问题。
→ 直销, 一种典型的金字塔式销售模式，经营者层层通过发展人员，组织网络来推销产品（或服务）。
→ 传销, 制造商或批发商将销售某种产品的权利授予某一销售商，由其在约定的期限和地域内销售商品，获得差价利益的一种商业模式。
→ 经销,卖方以协议的形式给予买方在一定期间、一定地区经营卖方某一种或几种产品的权力。
→ 包销题目4标记题目题干【判断题】从特许经营双方的实力讲，受许人的实力一定是弱小的，受许人的实力一定不会超过特许人。
选择一项：对错反馈正确的答案是“错”。
题目5标记题目题干【单项选择题】（）是整个特许经营企业工作分析过程的核心部分。
选择一项：a. 分析阶段b. 运行阶段c. 计划阶段d. 运用阶段反馈正确答案是：分析阶段题目6标记题目题干【单项选择题】（）是为了利于特许经营模式的复制、利用特许经营体系的管理和控制或保持整个特许经营体系的一致性，这是特许经营的优势和竞争力之一。
香港集团战略管理中期报告设计方案
高低由客户行业的利润水平决定；民用漆产品由 中度较高且主要为国内企业的客
消费者购买，消费能力决定价格敏感度
户行业
供给方
▪新生代企业在经济转型时期随
•技术高端市场由外资企业占据，集中度高；技 地域性客户厂商集团进入市场
术中端市场由传统国营大企业和区域性小企业分 割，集中度不高；技术低端市场由新生代企业和 区域性小企业占据，某些市场集中度高 •我国三大涂料基地初步形成
•技术壁垒低；原料依 靠进口，无成本差异； 需要投资小
•销售方式主要是直销
•关键成功要素：与客 户关系的维护能力，
19
铁路涂料市场客户单一、规模较小、发展缓慢，维护客户关系成为 至关重要的因素
客户行业特点
行业竞争态势
行业吸引力
行业进入壁垒
•中国铁路运输业形式 保持稳定，略有下降， 西部大开发和原有设 备的更新换代将成为 促进铁路涂料消费的 重要因素
➢ 未来管理模式和过渡性方案 框架
• 基于战略规划的未来管理模式和过渡性方 案： – 组织结构调整 — 运营系统流程改善 – 人力资源
6
本报告结构
➢ 行业分析和判断 ➢ 香港隆基进入涂料行业战略资源分析 ➢ 长江对香港隆基涂料的战略资源支持 ➢ 长江管理状况诊断 ➢ 香港隆基涂料的战略规划 ➢ 未来管理模式和过渡性方案框架
•铁路桥梁毛利率15 －20%、车辆毛利率 30%，未来几年将保 持比较平稳的状态
•技术壁垒低；需要投 资小
•铁路桥梁需要许可证
•销售方式主要是直销
•关键成功要素：与客 户关系的维护能力
20
家电涂料市场将进入激烈竞争的整合时期，跟随家电行业领先厂商 的能力是决定成败的关键要素
客户行业特点