什么是存货计划法[1] 所谓存货计划法，是利用共同的信息基础，在多个地点或在增值链的各阶段中协调存货需求。在工厂仓库层次会发生计划活动，以协调存货配置和向多个中心递送产品。为协调诸如制造商和零售商之类多个渠道伙伴之间的存货需求，也会发生计划活动。 什么是存货计划法的类型[1] 存货计划方法有两种，它们分别是：公平份额分配和配送需求计划。 一、公平份额分配 公平份额分配（fair share allocation）是一种简化的存货管理计划方法，用以向每一个配送设施提供公平的或“公平份额”的可得存货，这些可得存货来自诸如工厂仓库之类的共同货源。 式中，Aj--分配给配送中心j的数量； DS--每一个配送中心应达到的供给天数； Ij--用单位数表示的配送中心j的存货； Dj--配送中心j的日需求量。 虽然公平份额分配可以在多个地点协调存货，但它并没有考虑各地点的特殊因素，诸如完成周期、经济订货批量或安全储备需要等方面的差异。因此，公平份额分配方法在管理多阶段存货的能力方面受到了限制。 二、配送需求计划 配送需求计划（distribution requirements planning，DRP）是一种更加复杂的计划方法，它要考虑多个配送阶段以及各阶段的特点。DRP在逻辑上是制造需求计划（Manufacturing Requirements Planning，MRP）的扩展，尽管这两种技术之间存在着根本性的差异。制造资源计划是由企业制定和控制的生产计划所确定的，而DRP则是在一种独立的环境下运作，由不确定的顾客需求来确定存货需求。制造需求计划是由制定和控制的生产计划所确定的，而DRP则是由顾客需求引导的，企业无法加以控制。所以，制造需求计划通常是在一种相关需求的情况下运作的，而DRP则是在一种独立的环境下运作，由不确定的顾客需求来确定存货需求。制造需求计划的构成需要协调从材料到制成品之间的计划和综合。因此，制造需求计划在制造或装配完成之前就一直控制着存货。一旦在工厂仓库中接收了制成品后，DRP马上就承担了协调的责任。 参考文献 ↑ 1.0 1.1 唐纳德 J.鲍尔索克斯.物流管理[M],林国龙等译
什么是运输费率 运输费率是指在两地间运输某种具体产品时的每单位运输里程或每单位运输重量的运价。运输费率一般由承运人制定并罗列于费率本（tariffs）中。 具体运输方式的运输费率取决于商品种类、重量、运输距离、服务水平和其他选择性要求。如较坚固的商品费率比易碎商品的费率低，低密度商品单位质量费率比高密度商品高。远距离运输的费率比近距离的低。货主对服务水平的要求增加了额外费用，例如，3天送达比5天送达费率高。选择性要求包括对某次运输的货物集货和配货、部分配送、多据点集货等。不同行业、同一行业不同公司可能使用不同类型的费率形式，这取决于提供的服务类型、费用的分配、为达到特定的目标而采取的定价策略类型（如为了占领市场份额而不是大规模地获利）。 运输费率的基本形式 1、基于重量的费率。这种费率随着运输货物的重量变化，而不是随距离变化。例如邮政费率、快信费率等。这种费率简单、易用。采取这种费率的服务费用主要和搬运费用有关，费率在特定的重量点处变化。这种情况下一般有一个最小费用。如果根据货物重量算出的费用小于最低费用，按最低费用收费。 2、基于距离的费率。这种费率随距离和重量变化而变化，对一给定的重量以线性或非线性形式变化，如整车运输费率。因为这种运输的主要费用与燃料和人力有关，而燃料费随距离的增加而增加，人员费用随时间的增加而增加，所以大多数长途运输费率直接随距离变化。 3、和需求相关的费率。这种费率既不取决于重量，也不取决于距离，只是和外部市场需求有关。 4、契约费率。这种费率是在货主和承运商之间进行协商的费率。它们一般根据允许的容积、运货时间、服务可靠性、对承运商的印象、商品类型、运输线路等进行协商。 5、等级费率。等级费率是根据运输距离、商品类型而定。根据商品价值危险程度、不利因素、搬运要求将运输货物分级。不同的运输方式都有不同的运输费率表。等级费率不包括提供选择性服务如要求集货、存贮等的费率。对物流从业人员，应更可能获得企业所装运的全部货物的费率等级。尽管铁路货物分级表和公路货物分级表中存在差别，但各系统的分级标准都是由类似的规则指导的。不过，铁路的规则比汽车货运的规则更全面、也更详细。对于运输部门的成员来说，彻底了解这些分级系统也是有益的。 6、其他特殊费率。特殊费率是指一定的时期、对某些特殊地区或商品实行的费率，它可能比正常费率高或低。特定起点到某终点的费率或某些特殊商品费率都是特殊费率的例子。大宗货运费率一般比非整车装载的费率低。较轻但体积庞大的货物运输费率比正常的或密度小的货物运输费率高。服务水平低的货物运输费率比服务水平高的货物运输费用低。额外服务也将使正常运输费率提高，如半途中要改变目的地、到达目的地后改变收货人、变更卸货地、变更收货人、运输中途存贮及在中间站点部分货物进行装卸等，都会使运输费率提高。
日本扇港集团简介 扇港集团（SENKO GROUP）1946年在日本千叶_名古屋四日市成立SENKO Denki,下属各部门一直努力不懈,与时间竞赛,应付在供给链和生产上的种种竞争和挑战,成功屹立于世界科技领先位置。 扇港是一个多文化,多语种的团队,目标是为汽车关连品/工业,通信/光通信,电子/电工提供优质的产品和服务。生产据点随着全球市场需求改变而迁移.我们的分部战略性的分布于南北美洲,欧洲,亚洲和亚太地区,体现工业"从不休眠"的道理。 业务趋向多样化的同时,我们共同坚持同一信念:科技是推动全球前进的车轮,而扇港就是支持全球前进的枢纽。而扇港团队建立的口号也建立于这个理念:面向未来,与世界同进。 SENKO GROUP业务集中在电子/电工器件业务，服务于建筑，IT,电力供给等相关行业的厂房和办公自动化。扇港电机在全日本早已为行业所熟悉，分部战略性设立在日本各地，以服务东京和大阪及周边地区。 SENKO全球的办事处涵盖了电子/电工产品，包括电缆，照明灯具，开关，电脑主板元件，PLC,继电器，电源线及管材，胶带及粘合剂等，更延伸至一系列高质量的汽车电子元件。配合全球汽车线束装置和电子元件的需求日益增长，1983年建立的SENKO Sangyo扇港产业负责开发电子/电工，汽车关连品/工业，电信/光纤器件的国际贸易，在日本，北美，欧洲，亚太地区设立了多个办事处。 SENKO Group早在1976年便开始从事汽车配套线束和电器元件的销售。线束端子，连接器和粘结带等一直是我们的主要产品。然而，经过多年的发展，我们的产品线已经涵盖所有产品，从汽车内饰，传感器，配套线束，管材到塑料成型产品，润滑剂,EMI产品等。 SENKO扇港汽车关连品与工业产品的专业技术人员与SENKO扇港物流治理服务紧密结合，形成了跨国供给链治理，为一级，二级，三级制造商提供了及时交货JIT以及看板kanban服务，各分部已经通过ISO9001认证，配备检测，包装，仓储能力，战略性地分布于北美，欧洲及亚太地区，支持汽车相关产业的所有活动！ 在汽车工业领域，SENKO扇港的客户遍及全球，在整车制造有ISUZU五十铃，大发Daihatsu (丰田旗下公司)，Mitsubishi Motor三菱汽车，Nissan尼桑日产汽车，零部件制造商有Aishin AW (Toyota),Denso (Toyota),Toyota Koki (Toyota),Kanto Auto Works Ltd. (Toyota),Tokai Rika东海理化等。汽车线束制造商有,矢崎Yazaki,住友电装Sumitomo Wiring Systems,古河Furukawa,藤仓Fujikura,Kyoritsu High parts日本共立,Asahi Denso,Hokuto Sogyo,GSW等。 SENKO扇港还提供咨询/商务发展服务。扇港商业发展团队成员积极寻找机会，为跨国公司搜寻OEM产品！这方面的客户主要有通用汽车，三菱发动机，施乐，安捷伦，日本富士电子，西门子，日立等。 信赖和选择SENKO扇港 1、可以大大减少供给商数量，降低供给商治理成本。 2、通过SENKO扇港可以轻松控制全球运输及交货。 3、减少全球物流成本。 SENKO含义 SENKO不只是一个名字，它是公司的使命。 SEN在日本语里面的意思是"扇子",风扇传统上代表繁荣的前景,因为它的外形预示着好运都结合在一起。 KO在日语里意思是"港口",日本的全球经贸都是通过港口作为门户来进行的。
加拿大国家铁路公司简介 加拿大国家铁路（Canadian National Railway，CN Rail）——加拿大最大、北美第五大的铁路公司。 加拿大国家铁路集团(简称CN)是一个集合了许多已营运多年的中小型铁路公司的现代联合企业,经营着加拿大第一条连接大西洋和太平洋海岸的铁路线。 公司在北美的经营范围包括遍及北美大陆及各大港口的铁路服务，公司的铁路干线横跨北美，东起大西洋海岸，西至太平洋海岸，南达墨西哥湾，覆盖面在北美独一无二 。这一四通八达的铁路网令人称羡 ，运营效率堪称一流。我们被誉为北美的定时运输铁路 以精确、负责、可靠及运力强大著称。 （The Canadian National Railway (CN; AAR reporting marks CN, CNA, CNIS), known as Canadian National Railways (CNR) between 1918 and 1960, and Canadian National/Canadien National (CN) from 1960 to present, is a Canadian Class I railway operated by Canadian National Railway Company headquartered in Montreal, Quebec. It is the largest railway in Canada, in terms of both revenue and the physical size of its rail network. CN is currently Canada‘s only transcontinental railway company, spanning Canada from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. It also has extensive trackage in the central United States along the Mississippi River valley from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The Canadian National Railway was created between 1918 and 1923, comprising several railways that had become bankrupt and fallen into federal government hands, along with some railways already owned by the government. In 1995, the federal government privatized CN. Over the next decade, the company expanded significantly in the United States, purchasing Illinois Central Railroad and Wisconsin Central Railway, among others. Now primarily a freight railway, CN also operated passenger services until 1978, when they were assumed by VIA Rail.） Canadian National system map Creation of Canadian National Railways, 1918–1923 In response to public concerns fearing loss of key transportation links, the Government of Canada assumed majority ownership of the bankrupt Canadian Northern Railway (CNoR) on September 6, 1918, and appointed a "Board of Management" to oversee the company. At the same time, CNoR was also directed to assume management of Canadian Government Railways (CGR), a system comprised of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada (IRC), National Transcontinental Railway (NTR), and the Prince Edward Island Railway (PEIR), among others. On December 20, 1918, the federal government created the Canadian National Railways (CNR) through a Privy Council order as a means to simplify the funding and operation of the various railway companies. The absorption of the Intercolonial Railway would see CNR adopt that system‘s slogan The People‘s Railway. Another Canadian railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway (GTPR), encountered financial difficulty on March 7, 1919, when its parent company Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) defaulted on repayment of construction loans to the federal government. The federal government‘s Department of Railways and Canals took over operation of the GTPR until July 12, 1920, when it too was placed under the CNR. Finally, the bankrupt GTR itself was placed under the care of a federal government "Board of Management" on May 21, 1920, while GTR management and shareholders opposed to nationalization took legal action. After several years of arbitration, the GTR was absorbed into CNR on January 30, 1923. In subsequent years, several smaller independent railways would be added to the CNR as they went bankrupt, or it became politically expedient to do so, however the system was more or less finalized following the addition of the GTR. Canadian National Railways was born out of both wartime and domestic urgency. Railways, until the rise of the personal automobile and creation of taxpayer-funded all-weather highways, were the only viable long-distance land transportation available in Canada for many years. As such, their operation consumed a great deal of public and political attention. Many countries regard railway networks as critical infrastructure (even to this day) and at the time of the creation of CNR during the continuing threat of the First World War, Canada was not the only country to engage in railway nationalization. In the early 20th century, many governments were taking a more interventionist role in the economy, foreshadowing the influence of economists like John Maynard Keynes. This political trend, combined with broader geo-political events, made nationalization an appealing choice for Canada. The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 and allied involvement in the Russian Revolution seemed to validate the continuing process. The need for a viable rail system was paramount in a time of civil unrest and foreign military intervention. Criticism of CNR The Canadian National Railways logo or herald (Which would later be replaced by the controversial CN "worm" in the early 1960s) Regardless of the political and economic importance of railway transportation in Canada; there were many critics of the Canadian government‘s policies in maintaining CNR as a Crown corporation from its inception in 1918 until its privatization in 1995. Some of the most scathing criticism came from the railway industry itself, namely the commercially successful Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) which argued that its taxes should not be used to fund a competitor. Some argue that the CPR could afford to make this criticism, having been itself the child of government and recipient of untold wealth by virtue of land and resource grants, as well as its position as a monopoly from its completion in 1885 until the CNoR started operations on the Prairies at the turn of the century. As a result of history and geography, CPR served larger population centres in the southern prairies, while the CNR‘s merged system served as a de-facto government colonization railway to serve remote and undeveloped regions of Western Canada, northern ontario and Quebec, and the economically-depressed Maritimes. Also, CN was disadvantaged by being constituted from a hodge-podge of bankrupt rail systems that were not intrinsically viable, as they seldom had the shortest route between any major cities or industrial centres; to this day, CN has many division points far from significant industries or traffic sources. The only notable exception to this sorry state of affairs is the former Grand Trunk mainline between Montreal and Chicago. The company also became a convenient instrument of federal government policy from the operation of ferries in Atlantic Canada, to assuming the operation of the narrow-gauge Newfoundland Railway following that province‘s entry into Confederation, and the partnership with CPR in purchasing and operating the Northern Alberta Railways. A company-driven decision to create a radio network across Canada for its passenger train customers led to the federal government assuming total control in 1932, naming the radio network the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, which was then renamed and organized into a separate Crown corporation in 1936 as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Politics and government priorities It is generally accepted that government policy dictated CNR commercial decisions, whether such decisions were in the nation‘s interest, or in the political interest of the party in power. As such, CNR lost money for many years, except during the Second World War when its extensive network reaching into the resource hinterland proved beneficial, and during the late 1980s and early 1990s following deregulation of the Canadian railway industry. Where CNR failed to address costs was largely due to government interference, such as the requirement to purchase locomotives from all Canadian locomotive manufacturers, resulting in operational inefficiencies. CNR was considered to be competitive with CPR in several areas, notably in Central Canada, prior to the age of the automobile and the dense highway network that grew in ontario and Quebec. The former GTR‘s superior track network in the Montreal–Chicago corridor has always been a more direct route with higher capacity than CPR‘s. CNR was also considered a railway industry leader throughout its time as a Crown corporation in terms of research and development into railway safety systems, logistics management, and in terms of its relationship with labour unions. 3 CN Dash 9-44CWs arrive in Selkirk, New York Deregulation and recapitalization Another problem that hobbled CNR was in the sheer number of low-volume branch railway lines which did not produce sufficient traffic to pay for their operation. Without deregulation in the railway industry permitting abandonment or sale of a railway line, or even the ability to set prices to match those of trucks, both CNR and CPR paid dearly for owning these inefficient lines. One tactic that CNR perfected was to demarket a line by providing sufficiently poor service to its few customers, that those customers would turn to trucks for improved service and lower costs. once customers ceased to exist on a small branch line, the federal government would permit the line‘s abandonment. Had deregulation been in place several decades earlier, it is conceivable that many Canadian branch lines would have been viable in the hands of short line operators, saving millions of dollars for taxpayers funding highways, since the railway lines had already been publicly funded in their construction. From the creation of CNR in 1918 until its recapitalization in 1978, whenever the company posted a deficit, the federal government would assume those costs in the government budget. The result of various governments using CNR as a vehicle for various social and economic policies was a subsidization running into billions of dollars over successive decades. Following its 1978 recapitalization and changes in management, CN (name changed to Canadian National Railway, using the shortened acronym CN in 1960) started to operate much more efficiently, by assuming its own debt, improving accounting practices to allow depreciation of assets and to access financial markets for further capital. Now operating as a for-profit Crown corporation, CN reported a profit in 11 of the 15 years from 1978 to 1992, paying $371 million in cash dividends (profit) to the federal government during this time. Cutbacks and refocusing CN‘s rise to profitability was assisted when the company started to remove itself from non-core freight rail transportation starting in 1977 when subsidiary Air Canada (created in 1937 as Trans-Canada Air Lines) became a separate federal Crown corporation. That same year saw CN move its ferry operations into a separate Crown corporation named CN Marine, followed similarly by the grouping of passenger rail services (for marketing purposes) under the name VIA. The following year (1978), the federal government decided to create VIA Rail as a separate Crown corporation to take over passenger services previously offered by both CN and CPR, including CN‘s flagship transcontinental train the Super Continental and its eastern counterpart the Ocean. CN Marine was renamed Marine Atlantic in 1986 to remove any references to its former parent organization. CN also grouped its money-losing Newfoundland operations into a separate subsidiary called Terra Transport so that federal subsidies for this service would be more visible in company statements. CN also divested itself during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s of several non-rail transportation activities such as trucking subsidiaries, a hotel chain (sold to CPR), real estate, and telecommunications companies. The biggest telecommunications property was a company which was co-owned by CN and CP (CNCP Telecommunications) which, upon its sale in the 1980s, was successively renamed Unitel (United Telecommunications), AT%26amp;T Canada, and Allstream as it went through various owners and branding agreements. Another more-famous telecommunications property wholly-owned and built by CN was the CN Tower in Toronto which still keeps its original name but was divested by the railway company in the early 1990s. All the proceeds from such sales were used to pay down CN‘s accumulated debt. At the time of their divestitures, all of these subsidiaries required considerable subsidies which partly explained CN‘s financial problems prior to recapitalization. CN also was given free rein by the federal government following deregulation of the railway industry in the 1970s, as well as in 1987, when railway companies began to make tough business decisions by removing themselves from operating money-losing branch lines. In CN‘s case, some of these branch lines were those which it had been forced to absorb through federal government policies and outright patronage, while others were from the heady expansion era of rural branchlines in the 1920s and early 1930s and were considered obsolete following the development of local road networks. CN train at the busy East Junction, Edmonton, 2006 During the period starting in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, thousands of kilometres of railway lines were abandoned, including the complete track networks in Newfoundland (CN subsidiary Terra Transport, the former Newfoundland Railway ended freight operations in 1988 and passenger travel in 1969.) and Prince Edward Island (the former PEIR), as well as numerous branch lines in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Southern Ontario, throughout the Prairie provinces, in the British Columbia interior, and on Vancouver Island. Virtually every rural area served by CN in some form was affected, creating resentment for the company and the federal government. Many of these now-abandoned right-of-ways were divested by CN and the federal government and have since been converted into recreational trails by local municipalities and provincial governments. CN‘s U.S. subsidiaries prior to privatization CN‘s railway network in the late 1980s consisted of the company‘s Canadian trackage, along with the following U.S. subsidiary lines: Grand Trunk Western Railroad (GTW) operating in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois; Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad (DTI) operating in Michigan and Ohio; Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway (DWP) operating in Minnesota; Central Vermont Railway (CV) operating down the Connecticut River valley from Quebec to Long Island Sound; and a former GT line to Portland, Maine, known informally as the Grand Trunk Eastern, sold to a short line operator in 1989. The US subsidiaries kept their identities due to their ownership. Technically, foreign governments were not allowed to own railroads in the US. However, a railroad owned by another railroad was allowed to operate, regardless as to if that "other railroad" was owned by a foreign government. Privatization In 1992 a new management team led by ex-federal government bureaucrats, Paul Tellier and Michael Sabia, started preparing CN for privatization by emphasizing increased productivity. This was achieved largely through aggressive cuts to the company‘s bloated and inefficient management structure, widescale layoffs in its workforce and continued abandonment or sale of its branch lines. In 1993 and 1994 the company experimented with a rebranding that saw the names CN, Grand Trunk Western, and Duluth, Winnipeg, and Pacific replaced under a collective CN North America moniker. During this time, CPR and CN entered into negotiations regarding a possible merger of the two companies. This was later rejected by the federal government, whereby CPR offered to purchase outright all of CN‘s lines from ontario to Nova Scotia, while an unidentified U.S. railroad (rumoured to have been Burlington Northern Railroad) would purchase CN‘s lines in western Canada. This too was rejected. In 1995, the entire company including its U.S. subsidiaries reverted to using CN exclusively. The CN Commercialization Act was enacted into law on July 13, 1995 and by November 28, 1995, the federal government had completed an initial public offering (IPO) and transferred all of its shares to private investors. Two key prohibitions in this legislation include, 1) that no individual or corporate shareholder may own more than 15% of CN, and 2) that the company‘s headquarters must remain in Montreal, thus maintaining CN as a Canadian corporation. Purchasing Illinois Central Following the successful IPO, CN has recorded impressive gains in its stock price. In 1998, during an era of mergers in the U.S. railway industry, CN purchased the Illinois Central Railroad (IC), which connected the already existing lines from Vancouver, British Columbia to Halifax, Nova Scotia with a line running from Chicago, Illinois to New Orleans, Louisiana. This single purchase of IC transformed CN‘s entire corporate focus from being an east-west uniting presence within Canada (sometimes to the detriment of logical business models) into a north-south NAFTA railroad. CN is now feeding Canadian raw material exports into the U.S. heartland and beyond to Mexico through a strategic alliance with Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS). Failed BNSF merger In 1999, CN and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), the second largest rail system in the U.S., announced their intent to merge, forming a new corporate entity North American Railways to be headquartered in Montreal to conform with the CN Commercialization Act of 1995. The merger announcement by CN‘s Paul Tellier and BNSF‘s Robert Krebs was greeted with skepticism by the U.S. government‘s Surface Transportation Board (STB), and protested by other major North American rail companies, namely Canadian Pacific Railroad (CP) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Rail customers also denounced the proposed merger, following the confusion and poor service sustained in southeastern Texas in 1998 following UP‘s purchase of Southern Pacific Railroad (SP). In response to the rail industry, shippers, and political pressure, the STB placed an 15-month moratorium on all rail industry mergers, effectively scuttling CN-BNSF plans. Both companies dropped their merger applications and have never refiled. Purchasing Wisconsin Central After the STB moratorium expired, CN purchased Wisconsin Central (WC) in 2001, which allowed the company‘s rail network to encircle Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, permitting more efficient connections from Chicago to Western Canada. The deal also included Canadian WC subsidiary Algoma Central Railway (ACR), giving access to Sault Ste. Marie and Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula. The purchase of Wisconsin Central also made CN the owner of EWS, the principal freight train operator in the United Kingdom. Purchasing BC Rail On May 13, 2003 the provincial government of British Columbia announced that the provincial Crown corporation, BC Rail (BCR), would be sold with the winning bidder receiving BCR‘s surface operating assets (locomotives, cars, and service facilities). The provincial government is retaining ownership of the tracks and right-of-way. On November 25, 2003 it was announced that CN‘s bid of $1 billion CAD would be accepted over those of CP and several U.S. companies. The transaction was closed effective July 15, 2004. Many opponents – including CP Rail – accused the government and CN of rigging the bidding process, though this has been denied by the government. documents relating to the case are under court seal, as they are connected to a parallel marijuana grow-op investigation connected with two senior government aides also involved in the sale of BC Rail. Also contested was the economic stimulus package that the government gave the cities along the BC Rail route – some saw it as a buyoff done in order to get the municipalities to cooperate with the lease, though the government has asserted that the package was intended to promote economic development along the corridor. Passenger service along the route had been ended by BC Rail a few years earlier due to ongoing losses resulting from deteriorating service. The cancelled passenger service has recently been replaced by a blue-plate tourist service, the Rocky Mountaineer, with fares well over double what the BCR coach fares had been. Purchasing Great Lakes Transportation CN also announced in October 2003 an agreement to purchase Great Lakes Transportation (GLT), a holding company owned by Blackstone Group for $380 million USD. GLT was the owner of Bessemer %26amp; Lake Erie Railroad, Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway, and the Pittsburgh %26amp; Conneaut Dock Company. The key instigator for the deal was the fact that since the Wisconsin Central purchase, CN was required to use Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway trackage rights for a short 17 km (11 mi) "gap" that existed near Duluth, Minnesota on the route between Chicago and Winnipeg. In order to purchase this short section, CN was told by GLT that it would have to purchase the entire company. Also included in GLT‘s portfolio were 8 Great Lakes vessels for transporting bulk commodities such as coal and iron ore as well as various port facilities. Following Surface Transportation Board approval for the transaction, CN completed the purchase of GLT on May 10, 2004. CN today Since the company operates in two different countries, CN maintains some corporate distinction by having its U.S. lines incorporated under the Grand Trunk Corporation for legal purposes, however the entire company in both Canada and the U.S. operates under CN, as can be seen in its locomotive and rail car repainting programs. Since the IC purchase in 1998 CN has been increasingly focused on running a "scheduled freight railroad/railway", meeting on-time performance with rail industry-leading consistency. This has resulted in improved shipper relations, as well as reduced the need for maintaining pools of surplus locomotives and freight cars. CN has also undertaken a rationalization of its existing track network by removing double track sections in some areas and extending passing sidings in other areas. CN is also a rail industry leader in the employment of radio-control (R/C) for switching locomotives in yards, to the detriment of employees since this results in reductions to the number of yard workers required. CN has frequently been touted in recent years within North American rail industry circles as being the most-improved railroad in terms of productivity and the lowering of its operating ratio, acknowledging the fact that the company is becoming increasingly profitable. Recent controversies In December 1999 the Ultratrain, a petroleum products unit train linking the Saint-Romuald (Quebec) Ultramar oil refinery with a petroleum depot in Montreal, exploded when it collided with a derailed freight train between Sainte-Madeleine and Saint-Hilaire-Est, south of Montreal, killing its train crew. The train derailed on a switch frog that broke under the stress; according to many train crews, this spot was known to be defective, but even after repeated reports, management refused to effect any repairs. In memory of the dead crewmen, two new stations on the line have been named after them (Davis and Thériault). On May 14. 2003, a trestle collapsed under the weight of a freight train near McBride, B.C., killing both crew members. Both men had been disciplined earlier for refusing to take another train on the same bridge, claiming it was unsafe. Subsequent inquiry revealed that as far back as 1999, several bridge components had been reported as rotten, yet no repairs had been ordered by management. Eventually, the disciplinary records of both crewmen were amended posthumously. Controversy arose again in Canadian political circles in 2003 following the company‘s decision to refer solely to its acronym "CN" and not "Canadian National," a move some interpret as being an attempt to distance the company from references to "Canada," particularly in the United States, where Canada‘s decision to not participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq was unpopular. Canada‘s Minister of Transport at the time called this policy move "obscene" [2] after nationalists noted it could be argued the company is no longer Canadian, being primarily owned by American stockholders. The controversy is somewhat tempered by the fact that a majority of large corporations are being increasingly referred to by acronyms. Despite this, the company is still legally called the Canadian National Railway. In March 2004 a strike by the Canadian Auto Workers union showed deep-rooted divisions between organized labour and the company‘s current management. The residents of Wabamun Lake, in Alberta, staged a blockade of CN tracks in August 2005, when they were unsatisfied with CN‘s response to a fuel oil spill into the lake from the derailment of a freight train. It was resolved five hours later when CN officials met with the residents. On August 5, 2005, a CN train had nine cars derail on a bridge over the Cheakamus River, causing 41,000 litres (9,000 Canadian gal, 11,000 US gal) of caustic soda to spill into the river. The CBC has stated that it could take the river as long as 50 years to recover from the toxic pollution.[1] The Cheakamus River used to have a vibrant fishing tourism industry which now faces an uncertain future. CN is facing accusations from local British Columbians over the rail line‘s supposed lack of response to this issue, touted as the worst chemical spill in British Columbia‘s history. Transport Canada has restricted CN to trains not exceeding 80 car lengths because of the multiple derailments on the former BCR line north from Squamish. CN had been allegedly running trains in excess of 150 cars on this winding and mountainous section of track. A further derailment at Moran, twenty miles north of Lillooet, on June 30, 2006, has raised more questions about CN‘s safety policies. Two more derailments, days apart, near Lytton in August of 2006 have continued criticism. In the first case, 20 coal cars of a CPR train using a CN bridge derailed, dumping 12 cars of coal into the Thompson River. In the second case half a dozen grain cars spilled on a CN train. Corporate governance Current members of the board of directors of the company are: Michael Ralph Armellino, A. Charles Baillie, Hugh J. Bolton, Purdy Crawford, J.V. Raymond Cyr, Gordon D. Giffin, James K. Gray, E. Hunter Harrison, Edith E. Holiday, V. Maureen Kempston Darkes, Robert H. Lee, Denis Losier, Edward C. Lumley, David McLean (chairman), and Robert Pace. Passenger trains When CNR was first created, it inherited a large number of routes from its constituent railways, but eventually pieced its passenger network into one coherent network. For example, on December 3, 1920, CNR inaugurated the Continental Limited, which operated over four of its predecessors, as well as the Temiskaming and Northern ontario Railway. The 1920s saw growth in passenger travel, and CNR inaugurated several new routes and introduced new services, such as radio, on its trains. The growth in passenger travel ended with the Great Depression, which lasted between 1929 and 1939, but picked up somewhat during World War II. By the end of World War II, many of CNR‘s passenger cars were old and worn down. Accidents at Dugald, Manitoba in 1947 and Canoe River, British Columbia in 1950, wherein extra passenger trains comprised of older equipment collided with transcontinental passenger trains comprised of somewhat newer equipment, demonstrated the dangers inherent in the older cars. In 1953, CNR ordered 359 lightweight passenger cars, allowing them to re-equip their major routes. On April 24, 1955, the same day that the CPR introduced its transcontinental train The Canadian, CNR introduced its own new transcontinental passenger train, the Super Continental, which used new streamlined rolling stock. However, the Super Continental was never considered to be as glamourous as the Canadian. For example, it did not include dome cars. Rail passenger traffic in Canada declined significantly between World War II and 1960 due to automobiles and aeroplanes. In the 1960s, CN‘s privately-owned rival CPR reduced its passenger services significantly. However, the government-owned CN continued much of its passenger services and marketed new schemes, such as the "red, white and blue" fare structure, to bring passengers back to rail. In 1968, CN introduced a new high-speed train, the United Aircraft Turbo, which was powered by gas turbines instead of diesel engines. It made the trip between Toronto and Montreal in four hours, but was not entirely successful because it was somewhat uneconomical and not always reliable. The trainsets were retired in 1982 and later scrapped at Naporano Iron and metal in New Jersey. In 1976, CN created an entity called VIA as a separate operating unit for its passenger services. VIA evolved into a coordinated marketing effort with CP Rail for rail passenger services, and later into a separate Crown corporation responsible for inter-city passenger services in Canada. VIA Rail took over CN‘s passenger services on April 1, 1978. CN continued to fund its commuter rail services in Montreal until 1982, when the Montreal Urban Community Transit Commission (MUCTC) assumed financial responsibility for them; operation was contracted out to CN, which eventually spun-off a separate subsidiary, Montrain for this purpose. When the Montreal–Deux-Montagnes line was completely rebuilt in 1994-1995, the new rolling stock was the ownership of the MUCTC, until a separate government agency, the Agence métropolitaine de transport (AMT) was setup to consolidate all suburban transit administration around Montreal. Since then, suburban service has resumed to Saint-Hilaire. Since acquiring the Algoma Central Railway in 2001, CN has operated passenger service between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst, Ontario. As well, CN operates the Agawa Canyon Tour excursion, an excursion that runs from Sault Ste. Marie, ontario north to the Agawa Canyon. The canyon tour train consists of up to 28 passenger cars and 2 dining cars, the majority of which were built for CN by Canadian Car and Foundry in 1953-54. These cars were transferred to VIA Rail in 1978 and bought by the Algoma Central Railway in the 1990s. A "Snow Train" tour is also offered during the fall and winter season. Since CN acquired BC Rail in 2004, it has operated a railbus service between Seton Portage and Lillooet, British Columbia.
什么是仓储合理化 仓储合理化就是用最经济的办法实现仓储的功能。仓储的功能是对需要的满足，实现被储物的“时间价值”，这就必须有一定储量。 商品储备必须有一定的量，才能在一定时期内满足需要，这是仓储合理化的前提或本质。如果不能保证储存功能的实现，其他问题便无从谈起了。但是，储存的不合理又往往表现在对储存功能实现的过分强调，因而是过分投入储存力量和其他储存劳动所造成的。所以，合理储存的实质是，在保证储存功能实现前提下尽量少的投入，也是一个投入产出的关系问题。 仓储合理化的标志 1、质量标志。保证被仓储物的质量，是完成仓储功能的根本要求。只有这样，商品的使用价值才能通过物流之后得以最终实现。在仓储中增加了多少时间价值或是得到了多少利润，都是以保证质量为前提的。所以，仓储合理化的主要标志中，为首的应是反映使用价值的质量。现代物流系统已经拥有很有效的维护货物质量、保证货物价值的技术手段和管理手段，也正在探索物流系统的全面质量管理问题，即通过物流过程的的控制，通过工作质量来保证仓储物的质量。 2、数量标志。在保证功能实现前提下有一个合理的数量范围。 3、时间标志。在保证功能实现前提下，寻求一个合理的仓储时间，这是和数量有关的问题，仓储量越大而消耗速率越慢。 4、结构标志。是从被储物不同品种、不同规格、不同花色的仓储数量的比例关系对仓储合理性的判断，尤其是相关性很强的各种货物之间的比例关系更能反映仓储合理与否。 5、分布标志。指不同地区仓储的数量比例关系，以此判断当地需求比，以及对需求的保障程度,，也可以此判断对整个物流的影响。 6、费用标志。考虑仓租费、维护费、保管费、损失费、资金占用利息支出等，才能从实际费用上判断仓储的合理与否。 仓储合理化的要求 一般来说，仓储合理化的实施要点可以归纳如下：进行仓储物的ABC分析；在ABC分析基础上实施重点管理；在形成了一定的社会总规模前提下，追求经济规模，适当集中库存。所谓适度集中库存是利用仓储规模优势,以适度集中仓储代替分散的小规模仓储来实现合理化。 1、适度集中库存是“零库存”这种合理化形式的前提。 1）加速物资总的周转，提高单位产出。具体做法诸如采用单元集装存储，建立快速分拣系统都利于实现快进快出，大进大出。 2）采用有效的“先进先出”方式，保证每个被储物的仓储期不至过长。“先进先出”是一种有效的方式，也成了仓储管理的准则之一。 有效的先进先出方式主要有： A、贯通式货架系统。 B、“双仓法”仓储。给每种被储物准备两个仓位或货位，轮换进行存取，再配以必须在一个货位中取光才可补充的规定，则可以遵循信号实现“先进先出”。 C、计算机存取系统。采用计算机管理，在存时向计算机输入时间记录，编入一个简单的按时间顺序输出的程序，取货时计算机就能按时间标志给予指示，以保证“先进先出”。 2、减少仓储设施的投资，提高单位仓储面积的利用率，以降低成本、减少土地占用。 3、采用有效的仓储定位系统。 仓储定位的含义是被储物位置的确定。仓储定位系统可采取先进的计算机管理，也可采取一般人工管理，行之有效的方式主要有：“四号定位”方式；计算机定位系统。 4、采用有效的监测清点方式。 1）“五化”码。是我国手工管理中采用的一种科学方法。储存物堆垛时，以“五”为基本计数单位，堆成总量为“五”的倍数的垛形，如梅花五、重迭五等，堆码后，有经验者可过目成数，大大加快了人工点数的速度，且少差错。 2）光电识别系统。在货位上设置光电识别装置，该装置对被存物扫描，并将准确数目自动显示出来。这种方式不需人工，清点就能准确掌握库存的实有数量。 3）计算机监控系统。用计算机指示存取，可以防止人工出错。 仓储合理化的基本途径 1、实行ABC分类控制法 ABC分类控制法是指将库存货物按重要程度细分为特别重要的库存（A类货物），一般重要的库存（B类货物）和不重要的库存（C类货物）三个等级，针对不同类型级别的货物进行分别管理和控制的方法。 2、适当集中库存 所谓适度集中库存是利用储存规模优势，以适度集中储存代替分散的小规模储存来实现合理化。 3、加速总周转 储存现代化的重要课题是将静态储存变为动态储存，周转速度一快，会带来一系列的合理化好处：资金周转快、资本效益高、货损小、仓库吞吐能力增加、成本下降等。 4、采用有效的“先进先出”方式 保证每个被储物的储存期不致过长，“先进先出”是一种有效的方式也成了仓储管理的准则之一。有效的先进先出方式主要有：贯通式货架系统储存；“双仓法”储存；计算机存取系统储存等。 5、提高仓容利用率 1）采取高垛的方法。 2）缩小库内通道宽度以增加储存有效面积。 3）减少库内通道数量以增加储存有效面积。 6、采用有效的储存定位系统 储存定位的含义是被储物位置的确定。如果定位系统有效，能大大节约寻找、存放、取出的时间，节约不少物化劳动及活劳动，而且能防止差错，便于清点及实行订货点等的管理方式。 7、采用有效的监测清点方式 监测清点的有效方式主要有：“五五化”堆码（以“五”为基本计数单位，对成总量为“五”的倍数的垛形，如梅花五、重叠五）；光电识别系统；计算机监控系统等。
什么是物流系统5S目标 物流系统5S目标指：优质服务、迅速及时、节约空间、规模适当、合理库存。 1）优质服务（service）：无缺货，无损伤和丢失现象，且费用便宜。 2）迅速及时（speed）：按用户指定的时间和地点迅速送达。 3）节约空间（space saving）：发展立体设施和有关的物流机械，以充分利用空间和面积，缓解城市土地紧缺的问题。 4）规模适当（scale optimization）：物流网点的优化布局，合理的物流设施规模、自动化和机械化程度。 5）合理库存（stock control）：合理的库存策略，合理控制库存量。
物流成本治理的相关概念 物流成本是指伴随着企业的物流活动而发生的各种费用，是物流活动中所消耗的物化劳动和活劳动的货币表现，也称为物流费用。其由三部分构成：第一，伴随着物资的物理性活动发生的费用以及从事这些活动所必需的设备、设施的费用：第二，物流信息的传送和处理活动发生的费用以及从事这些活动所必需的设备和设施的费用；第三，对上述活动进行综合治理的费用。 物流成本一般有以下几种分类： (1)一般分类：直接成本或运营成本、间接成本。 (2)按物流功能范围分类：运输成本、流通加工成本、配送成本、包装成本、装卸与搬运成本、仓储成本。 (3)按物流活动范围分类：供给物流费、企业内物流费、销售物流费、回收物流费、废弃物物流费。 所谓物流成本治理，就是通过成本去治理物流，即治理的对象是物流而不是成本，物流成本治理可以说是以成本为手段的物流治理方法。物流成本治理的意义在于，通过对物流成本的有效把握，利用物流要素之间的效益背反关系，科学、合理地组织物流活动，加强对物流活动过程中费用支出的有效控制，降低物流活动中的物化劳动和活劳动的消耗，从而达到降低物流总成本，提高企业和社会经济效益的目的。 物流成本治理的目的 企业在进行物流成本治理时，首先要明确治理目的，有的放矢。一般情况下，企业物流成本治理的出发点是： (1) 通过把握物流成本现状，发现企业物流中存在的主要问题； (2) 对各个物流相关部门进行比较和评价； (3) 依据物流成本计算结果，制订物流规划、确立物流治理战略； (4) 通过物流成本治理，发现降低物流成本的环节，强化总体物流治理。 物流成本治理方法 准确地进行物流成本治理，必须把握好物流成本治理方法，一般有以下几种。 (1) 比较分析 ①横向比较：把企业的供给物流、生产物流、销售物流、退货物流和废弃物物流(有时包括流通加工和配送)等各部分物流费，分别计算出来，然后进行横向比较，看哪部分发生的物流费用最多。假如是供给物流费用最多或者异常多，则再具体查明原因，堵住漏洞，改进治理方法，以便降低物流成本； ②纵向比较：把企业历年的各项物流费用与当年的物流费用加以比较，假如增加了，再分析一下为什么增加，在哪个地方增加了，增加的原因是什么?假若增加的是无效物流费，则立即改正； ③计划与实际比较：把企业当年实际开支的物流费与原来编制的物流预算进行比较，假如超支了，分析一下超支的原因，在什么地方超支?这样便能把握企业物流治理中的问题和薄弱环节。 (2) 综合评价 比如采用集装箱运输，一可以简化包装，节约包装费；二可以防雨、防晒，保证运输途中物品质量；三可以起仓库作用，防盗、防火。但是，假如包装由于简化而降低了包装强度，货物在仓库保管时则不能往高堆码，浪费库房空间，降低仓库保管能力。由于简化包装，可能还影响货物的装卸搬运效率等等。那么，利用集装箱运输是好还是坏呢?就要用物流成本计算这一统一的尺度来综合评价。分别算出上述各环节物流活动的费用，经过全面分析后得出结论，这就是物流成本治理。即通过物流成本的综合效益研究分析，发现问题，解决问题，从而加强物流治理。 (3) 排除法 在物流成本治理中有一种方法叫活动标准治理(Activiey based Management，英文简称ABM)。其中一种做法就是把物流相关的活动划分为两类，一类是有附加价值的活动，如出入库、包装、装卸等与货主直接相关的活动；另一类是非附加价值的活动，如开会、改变工序、维修机械设备等与货主没有直接关系的活动。其实，在商品流通过程中，假如能采用直达送货的话，则不必设立仓库或配送中心，实现零库存，等于避免了物流中的非附加价值活动。假如将上述非附加价值的活动加以排除或尽量减少，就能节约物流费用，达到物流治理的目的。 (4) 责任划分 在生产企业里，物流的责任究竟在哪个部门?是物流部门还是销售部门?客观地讲，物流本身的责任在物流部门，但责任的源头却是销售部门或生产部门。以销售物流为例，一般情况下，由销售部门制订销售物流计划，包括订货后几天之内送货，接受订货的最小批量是多少等均由企业的销售部门提出方案，定出原则。假若该企业过于强调销售的重要性，则可能决定当天订货，次日送达。这样的话订货批量大时，物流部门的送货成本少，订货批量小时，送货成本就增大，甚至过分频繁、过少数量送货造成的物流费用增加，大大超过了扩大销售产生的价值，这种浪费和损失，应由销售部门负责。分清类似的责任有利于控制物流总成本，防止销售部门随意改变配送计划，堵住无意义、不产生任何附加价值的物流活动。 美国物流成本治理经验 我国如降低1%的物流成本，就等于增长了100亿美元的经济效益, 降低物流成本是提高效益的重要措施。据测算，美国每年的经济规模为10万亿美元，假如降低1%的成本，就相当多出1000亿美元的效益。 我国现在是1万亿美元的经济规模，假如降低1%的物流成本就等于增长了100亿美元的效益。美国的物流成本治理经验对我国物流业有重要启示。 美国物流成本约占GDP的10% 成本计算方法独到 美国物流成本占GDP的比重在二十世纪90年代保持在11.4%～11.7%范围内，而进入二十世纪最后10年，这一比重有了显著下降，由11%以上降到10%左右，甚至达到9.9%,但物流成本的绝对数量还在一直上升。 分析发现。美国的物流成本主要由三部分组成：一是库存费用；二是运输费用；三是治理费用。比较近20多年来的变化可以看出，运输成本在GDP中比例大体保持不变，而库存费用比重降低是导致美国物流总成本比例下降的最主要的原因。这一比例由过去接近5%下降到不足4%。由此可见，降低库存成本、加快周转速度是美国现代物流发展的突出成绩。也就是说利润的源泉更集中在降低库存、加速资金周转方面。 宏观上，美国物流成本包括的三个部分，且各自有其测算的办法。第一部分库存费用是指花费在保存货物的费用，除了包括仓储、残损、人力费用及保险和税收费用外，还包括库存占压资金的利息。其中，利息是当年美国商业利率乘以全国商业库存总金额得到的。把库存占压的资金利息加入物流成本，这是现代物流与传统物流费用计算的最大区别，只有这样，降低物流成本和加速资金周转速度才从根本利益上统一起来。 第二部分运输成本包括公路运输、其他运输方式与货主费用。公路运输包括城市内运送费用与区域间卡车运输费用。其它运输方式包括：铁路运输费用、国际国内空运费用、货物代理费用、油气管道运输费用。货主方面的费用包括运输部门运作及装卸费用。近十年来，美国的运输费用占国民生产总值的比重大体为6%，一直保持着这一比例，说明运输费用与经济的增长是同步的。 第三部分物流治理费用，是按照美国的历史情况由专家确定一个固定比例，乘以库存费用和运输费用的总和得出的。美国的物流治理费用在物流总成本中比例大体在4%左右。 另一个反映美国物流效率的指标是库存周期。美国平均库存的周期在1996年～1998年间保持在 1.38个月到1.40个月之间，但1999年发生了比较显著的变化，库存周期从1999年1月份的1.38个月降低到年底的1.32个月，这是有史以来的最低周期。库存周期减少的原因是由于销售额的增长超过了库存量增长。 降低物流成本提高效益 减少库存支出是 降低物流费用的主要来源 物流成本的概念必须拓展 美国的物流成本治理对我们有三大启示： 第一，降低物流成本是提高效益的重要战略措施。美国每年10万亿美元的经济规模，假如降低1%的成本，就相当多出1000亿美元的效益。我国现在是1万亿美元的经济规模，假如降低1%的物流成本就等于增长了100亿美元的效益。业界普遍认为我国物流成本下降的空间应该在10个百分点或更多，这是一笔巨大的利润源泉。 第二，美国的实践表明，物流成本中运输部分的比例大体不变，减少库存支出就成为降低物流费用的主要来源。减少库存支出就是要加快资金周转、压缩库存，这与同期美国库存平均周转期降低的现象是吻合的。因此，发展现代物流就是要把目标锁定在加速资金周转、降低库存水平上面。这是核心的考核指标。 第三，物流成本的概念必须拓展。库存支出不仅仅是仓储的保管费用，更重要的是要考虑它所占有的库存资金成本，即库存占压资金的利息。理论上还应该考虑因库存期过长造成的商品贬值、报废等代价，尤其是产品周期短、竞争激烈的行业，如PC机、电子、家电等。
什么是物流战略规划 企业物流战略规划是指企业高层管理机构根据企业长期经营、发展的总目标，结合企业内部条件和所处的外部环境制定出能够使企业达到总目标所需要遵循的管理方针和管理政策，做出现有资源优化配置的决策，提出实现总目标的经营途径和手段。 物流战略规划的流程 物流战略规划是通过提高流程价值和顾客服务而实现竞争优势的统一、综合和集成的计划过程，通过对物流服务的未来需求进行预测和对整个供应链的资源进行管理，从而提高顾客的满意度。 物流战略规划的三项要素：①目标的长期性。②实现目标的方法。③实现目标的过程。物流战略规划流程见下图。 物流战略规划的内容 企业物流战略规划是在一定的企业内外环境下，为实现企业的既定目标所制定的不同层次的规划，所要解决的是：在物流过程中，作为一个完整的物流“链条”上的每一个环节应当做什么、何时做和如何做的问题。 企业物流战略规划的结构与领域 1．物流战略规划的层次结构 物流规划是有层次的，物流战略规划涉及三个层面：战略层面、职能层面和作业层面。下表反映了不同规划层次的若干规律性问题。 决策类型策略层次 战略层次职能层次作业层次 选址设施的数量、规模和位置库存定位线路选择、发货、派车 运输选择运输方式服务的内容确定补货数量和时间表 订单处理选择和设计订单入系统确定处理客户订单先后顺序发出订单 客户服务设定标准服务程序沟通、反馈 仓储布局、地点选择存储空间选择订单履行 采购制定采购政策洽谈合同，选择供应商发出订单 表：物流规划层次的实施决策内容 2．物流战略规划的领域 物流规划领域和核心内容主要体现在，通过物流规划要针对8个方面的关键问题作出安排，这些问题包括： （1）每个细分市场的服务要求是什么？ （2）在供应链成员中，如何实现运作的基础集成？ （3）什么样的供应链结构最能使物流成本实现最小化，并提供具有竞争力的服务水平？ （4）什么样的物料流动方式和技术能够在设施和设备方面最佳投资水平的条件下实现服务目标？ （5）是否存在降低短期和长期运输成本的机会和方法? （6）制定什么样的库存管理程序能够更好地支持服务需求? （7）运用什么样的信息技术来实现物流运作的最大效率? （8）应如何组织资源来实现最佳的物流服务和运作目标? 图：物流战略规划领域 企业物流战略规划的制约因素 l．需求变动 2．客户服务 3．产品特征 4．物流成本 5．定价策略 企业物流战略定位 1．选择物流服务基准 基准的选择不限于单个企业，可以在众多的企业中各取其中最好的指标，也可以选取本企业历史最好指标，或参照国外企业的先进指标修订自己的基准。 2．物流成本定位 物流成本由直接成本和间接成本组成。直接成本是完全因物流活动的需要而发生的费用支出，可以从成本会计中获得，比较容易确定。而分摊到单项作业的间接成本却十分复杂，分摊的规则和方法对物流系统的设计和运作都会产生较大的影响。 3．服务质量定位 物流服务质量是指物流服务固有的特性满足物流客户和其他相关要求的能力。物流服务质量还可以分为物流技术质量和物流功能质量。 物流战略规划管理策略 物流战略是进行物流定位，进而确定发展的目标，目标能否顺利实现还取决于符合实际的实施策略。物流战略规划管理策略是物流战略的具体化。 1．分工与专业化协作 2．物流系统运行结构选择 物流系统运行结构设计的主要任务是确定产品从原材料起点到市场需求终点的整个流通渠道的结构。 物流运行结构设计必须充分考虑空间和时间两方面的因素。 不同行业的物流形式可归纳为三类。即多阶段结构、直送结构以及灵活运送结构。 （1）多阶段结构。多阶段结构如图所示： 这一结构是分工与专业化协作的产物，其特点是利用两个专业化的配送中心把物流过程分成几个阶段，可以清楚地看到配送中心在其中起的重要作用。 （2）直送结构。直送结构的生命力在于快速地把货物从仓库直接送达客户需求的目的地，没有任何的中间环节。 （3）混合结构。混合结构的出现是因为物流需求灵活多样，形式繁多，单一的结构不能获得理想的服务效果，所以要采用更灵活的系统结构。最简单的形式是把直送结构与多阶段结构相结合形成一种混合结构。如图所示： 企业物流战略规划分析 企业物流战略规划分析是对影响物流战略规划的各种内外因素所作的评价，由此，可提高企业物流战略规划实施的可行性和有效性。 企业物流环境分析 制定物流规划首先需要对企业系统赖以生存的环境进行分析。外部因素主要包括行业竞争态势、区域市场的变化、新技术动向、物流服务产业发展、政府法规动向等。 1．行业评价 可以从以下几方面入手。 (1) 市场规模与成长性。 (2) 竞争者的实力与战略分析。 (3) 有利因素与不利因素分析。 (4) 行业平均利润率。 2．区域市场的变化特征 3．新技术发展动态 其中特别重要的是信息技术，包括计算机、光电扫描、条形码、数据库、卫星定位等。 4．物流渠道与物流服务产业状况 5．政府法律、法规导向 企业营销管理分析 企业开展生产、营销活动的前提和必要条件，也是物流系统规划和管理的依据。 1．市场区域分析 在从事区域市场分析时，现有市场渗透度和市场扩大的可能性是必须充分考虑的问题。 2．产品品种的需求分布 产品品种的需求分布特性表明，大需求量品种的物流应与小需求量品种的物流区分开，就是说，相对大需求量品种更加侧重物流成本的降低，小需求量品种或需求量比较固定的品种应更注重物流服务的维持和改善。 3．顾客需求分布 顾客需求分布是指企业所有产品需求在市场中的分布状况。 4．订货分布类型 不同客户的订货类型也对物流系统的设计产生影响，订货的重要特征表现在订货大小、订货时间以及订货统计的相关特性等要素。 5．需求变动特性 随着时间的推移，平均需求比率或平均供给比例会随季节、气候的差异以及各产业的不同情况而变动。一般的需求特征可以把握，但对某一时点需求水准、需求变化状况、需求上升或下降作出正确预测相对较难。 能力条件分析 企业物流战略规划中的能力条件分析是以生产物流为基础的分析。 1．物流能力约束 约束理论在生产系统中运用的关键点主要有以下几点； （l）重新建立企业目标和作业指标体系 （2）寻找系统资源的瓶颈约束 （3）以物流为中心分析企业生产系统的特征 2．物料流向分析 根据不同类型企业生产过程的特点，一般将从原材料到成品的生产物流分为三种类型。 （1）“V”型企业。其结构为；由一种原材料加工或转变形成许多种不同的最终产品。 （2）“A”型企业。其结构为：由许多种原材料加工或转变成一种最终产品。 （3）“T”型企业。其结构为：由许多种原材料加工或转变成多种最终产品。 以下是三种类型企业不同特点的对比，如下表所示： “V”型企业“A” 型企业“T” 型企业 产品种类多单一或较少较多 产品加工过程基本相同不相同不相同 特料特点物料流程分解型物料流程加工装配型标准基件物料加工装配型 设备高度专业化通用型介于专业化与通用型之间 工艺流程经较清楚、设计简单物料清单较复杂、在制品库存较高 生产提前期较短较长 企业的瓶颈识别相对容易相对困难 生产控制、协调相对容易相对困难 典型行业炼油厂、钢铁厂造船、飞机厂制造厂、汽车制造厂 物流战略规划与设计 贯穿于生产和流通全过程的物流，在降低企业经营成本，创造第三利润源泉的同时，也在全球的市场竞争环境下，发挥着举足轻重的作用，物流成为企业经营主角的时代已经到来。很多企业虽然认识到发展物流的潜力，但往往感到无从着手。所以，要获得高水平的物流绩效，创造顾客的买方价值和企业的战略价值，必须了解一个企业的物流系统的各构成部分如何协调运转与整合，并进行相应的物流战略规划与设计。一个企业物流战略通常表现在五个重要层次上，构成物流战略环形图，它确立了企业设计物流战略的框架。 物流战略层：确立物流对企业战略的协助作用，建设两大平台和两大系统 物流首先是一种服务，企业建设物流系统的目的首先是为了实现企业的战略，所以企业发展物流必须首先确立物流规划与管理对企业总体战略的协助作用。同时，企业现代物流的发展必须建设两大平台和两大系统，即基础设施平台和信息平台，信息网络系统和物流配送系统。在进行企业物流规划管理最初必须进行企业资源能力的分析，充分利用过去和现在的渠道、设施以及其他各种资源来完善企业的总体战略并以最少的成本和最快的方式建设两大平台和两大系统。 物流经营层：通过顾客服务建立战略方向 物流活动存在的唯一目的是要向内部和外部顾客提供及时准确的交货，无论交货是出于何种动机或目的，接受服务的顾客始终是形成物流需求的核心与动力。所以，顾客服务是制定物流战略的关键。而且，要执行一项营销战略，必须要考察企业在与争取顾客和保持顾客有关的过程中的所有活动，而物流活动就是这些关键能力之一，可以被开发成核心战略。在某种程度上，企业一旦将其竞争优势建立在物流能力上，它就具有难以重复再现的特色。 物流结构层：物流系统的结构部分，包括渠道设计和设施的网络战略 企业的物流系统首先应该满足顾客的服务需求，而物流系统的渠道结构和设施网络结构提供了满足这些需求的物资基础。物流渠道设计包括确定为达到期望的服务水平而需执行的活动与职能，以及渠道中的哪些成员将执行它们。渠道体系设计需要在渠道目标的制定、渠道长度和宽度的评价、市场、产品、企业以及中间商因素的研究、渠道成员的选择及职责、渠道合作等方面认真分析与判断，因为体系一旦实施，常常无法轻易地改变。随着顾客需求变化和竞争者的自我调整，渠道战略必须再评价以维持或增强市场地位。 企业物流设施的网络战略要解决的问题有：设施的功能、成本、数量、地点、服务对象、存货类型及数量、运输选择、管理运作方式（自营或向第三方外筹）等。网络战略必须与渠道战略以一种给顾客价值最大化的方式进行整合。涉及到和3PL提供商的合作，物流网络可能会变得更为复杂，也比传统网络更加灵活，因此，对现有的仓储业务、库存配置方针、运输管理业务、管理程序、人员组织和体系等进行革新是明智之举。在动态的、竞争的市场环境中，也需要不断地修正设施网络以适应供求基本结构变化。 物流职能层：物流战略职能部分，尤其是运输、仓储和物料管理 物流战略规划职能部分主要是对企业物流作业管理的分析与优化。运输分析包括承运人选择、运输合理化、货物集并、装载计划、路线确定及安排、车辆管理、回程运输或承运绩效评定等方面的考虑；仓储方面的考虑包括设施布置、货物装卸搬运技术选择、生产效率、安全、规章制度的执行等；在物料管理中，分析可以着重于预测、库存控制、生产进度计划和采购上的最佳运作与提高。 物流执行层：日常的物流管理问题 企业物流战略规划与管理的最后一层为执行层，包括支持物流的信息系统、指导日常物流运作的方针与程序、设施设备的配置及维护、以及组织与人员问题。其中，物流信息系统和组织结构设计是其中最为重要的内容！ 物流信息系统是一体化物流思想的实现手段和现代物流作业的支柱。没有先进的信息系统，企业将无法有效地管理成本、提供优良的顾客服务和获得物流运作的高绩效。当今企业要保持竞争力，必须把信息基础结构的作用延伸到包括需求计划、管理控制、决策分析等方面，并将信息的可得性、准确性、及时性、灵活性、应变性等特点结合到一起，还要注意到与渠道成员之间的连接。 组织一体化、供应链整合、虚拟组织、动态联盟、战略联盟、战略伙伴、企业流程再造、敏捷制造等发生在组织管理领域的变革，需要以全新的思维认识企业，同时，物流管理也要对变革作出积极的反应。一个整合的、高效的组织对成功的物流绩效是重要的。一体化的物流管理并不意味着将分散于各职能部门中的物流活动集中起来，单一的组织结构并非对所有的企业都是适宜的，关键在于物流活动之间的协调配合，要避免各职能部门追求局部物流绩效的最大化。 物流战略规划的案例[1] 物流案例：济南汽运总公司成功实施物流战略规划 济南汽运总公司作为山东省经贸委指定的"优化企业物流管理试点单位"，近年来遵循物流业的发展规律，不断追踪业界新动态，在基础设施建设、网络建设、信息管理等方面都取得了长足的进步与发展，并以规范的管理、优质的服务赢得了众多大客户的青睐。 在确定发展物流战略之前，济南汽运总公司还在为日益萎缩的货运市场愁眉不展。为了探求新的发展道路，济南汽运总公司较早地接触并引进了物流经营管理理念。在南开大学物流专家组对公司进行了全面的系统调研之后，双方共同研究制定了《济运物流发展战略研究报告》，完全突破了"以货物位移为主"的传统货运经营思路束缚，提出了"以代理为龙头、以网络为基础、以场站为依托、以运力为配套、以多种方式联运为方向，向现代物流企业发?quot;的指导思想。与此同时，公司加快了物流经营的基础设施建设。 济南汽运总公司通过承运山东松下影像产业有限公司的产品，结识了松下物流公司（松下株式会社的专业物流子公司），并以优质的服务给对方留下了深刻的印象。在与日本松下物流公司的合作过程中，济南汽运总公司坚持将学习融于服务，积极采纳、借鉴外方先进的管理经验，并根据自己的发展战略，积极开拓国际市场、加强网络建设和发展现代科技，在努力为松下物流公司提供优质服务的同时，有力地拓展了服务空间，提高了自身的竞争力。 济南汽运总公司还力图进入国际市场，并于1998年组建了山东贸通国际货运代理有限公司，经国家外贸部审验批准取得了国际货运一级代理权，可独立承办进口物资的制单、报关等多种业务。在网络建设方面，济南汽运总公司在山东省内建立了以强大的客运网络体系为依托的快运配送网络，主要以高时效、批量小、高附加值的小件货物为服务对象，在省外则致力于将原有的联运网络、零担货运网络改造为物流服务网络，并参加了中国物流联盟，与24家物流企业建立了稳定的合作关系。 面对飞速发展的信息技术，济南汽运总公司于1999年投资40万元与西安亚桥公司合作，开发了山东省内第一套专业物流管理信息系统，实现了对受托、配送、过程查询、管理、结算等环节的全程控制和自动化管理，目前正着手构筑基于微软主流平台和因特网技术的第三方物流信息系统。2000年9月，汽运总公司在济南市高新技术开发区修建了物流交易大厅，交易中心引进了大屏幕、微机自动查询、自动报价等先进科技设备，成为山东省内最大的货运信息交易中心。 济南汽运总公司经过与松下公司近五年的携手合作，服务能力有了极大的提高：仓储面积由1996年年初的5000平方米增加到20000 平方米，各种运输车辆达到100余部，并与国内外几十家客户建立了稳定的合作关系。前不久，济南汽运总公司又与日本松下电器有限公司中国分公司正式签约，由济南汽运总公司全面代理其电器产品的整机、配件、样品机等货物品种的物流业务，负责在全国范围内为其提供多功能、一体化的综合性物流服务。这次新的合作，打破了以往以运输、仓储为主的单一服务模式，由济南汽运总公司根据松下公司需求自行设计服务方案，开始了真正意义上的物流运作。我们相信，济南汽运总公司在进行物流战略的规划与管理过程中，同时在为松下公司这样的知名企业服务的过程中，迅速成长为具有较强竞争能力的国内知名物流企业。 参考文献 ↑ 徐剑.企业物流战略规划管理
登录
工商服务
危机公关
金融律师
app开发
财税服务
金融牌照
网站建设
知识产权
企业征信
审计评估