I want to join

Hello Does offload and processing offloading mean the same ?

Please help it feels like I'm havent eaten in days it hurts I don't wanna die

I absolutely loved how it made it so easy for me I literally had a headache while understanding it from book

If you have mild internal bleeding, and you get bruises, can the bruise go away and you will still be bleeding inside or does the bruise remain until the bleeding is stopped? Also can mild internal bleeding correct itself or is medical treatment always necessary? And lastly how do they diagnose internal bleeding? Through MRI or other such scans?

I can't understand what she's saying. What are the symptoms of you're not in India?

Hadir sebab lect

Tata Nano Singur plant was unsuccessful for political issues

Please share explain process cost of any sheet metal operation

gyaani baba

Thanks for the information.

I’m high wtf

لل پکہک

Great video and spot on, I will use this for class, for more reading on Indirect Procurement that I use with my supply chain students: Jayaram, J., and Curkovic, S. “The Right Way to Procure Indirect Materials.” Supply Chain Management Review, February/March, 2018, p. 14-27. www.researchgate.net/publication/342008872_Jayaram_J_and_Curkovic_S_The_Right_Way_to_Procure_Indirect_Materials_Supply_Chain_Management_Review_FebruaryMarch_2018_p_14-27 Sample Lectures & Should You Major in Supply Chain Management? wmich.edu/supplychain/academics/lectures Dr. Sime (Sheema) Curkovic, Ph.D., Professor, Operations/Supply Chain Western Michigan University, Haworth College of Business Schneider Hall Room 3246, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5429 Tel.: 269.267.3093; E-Mail: [email protected] "Better, faster, cheaper"; www.wmich.edu/supplychain "WMU Integrated Supply Management (ISM)...Nation's best undergraduate SCM program (Gartner 2014); 2nd in SCM technology (SoftwareAdvice 2015); 2nd in top global SCM talent (SCM World 2017)

But this site is not running where to enroll ourselves ?

Great video, here is an explanation I offer my supply chain students: Let's say you have a supplier and you are starting to get the vibe that you are overpaying. What can you do? You could ask them for a cost break down. However, if a CURRENT supplier does not want to break out costs for you (the buyer), then the contract should allow for competition once a reasonable period of time has elapsed for the supplier to recover their fixed costs. Most Buyer-Supplier contracts actually let a buyer cancel a contract for almost any competitive reason (i.e., they think they are overpaying). SCM Factoids: A cost breakdown should be requested with each RFQ (request for quote). RFQ is a fancy way of saying: I am a buyer and I am requesting that you (the supplier) bid (quote) for this business. RFQ can either stand for Request for Quote (quote me the buyer on this business - tell me how much it would cost me) or it can stand for Request for Quotation (I want a quotation/bid from you the supplier on this potential business with me the buyer). Get it? This should be requested using the following statement: “The buyer will only consider quotations accompanied by a cost breakdown”. Suppliers may not want to furnish this information, however, it can be required by the RFQ (the supplier has to make a choice). If the quote is for a commodity and there are tons of suppliers to choose from, then the supplier is probably going to give a cost breakdown. However, why would a supplier do this if it is a highly engineered part and the buyer has few suppliers to choose from. In this case, the supplier could professionally give the buyer the middle finger and say here is my price and that is all that I am telling you. Warning: Merely reducing the supply base to reduce the supply base does not make sense. Management goals, like “reduce the number of suppliers by 30% this year” usually have the wrong effect (and lots of companies do this). Each acquisition should be evaluated separately. If welding wire is available from three suppliers and no price breaks can be gained by buying all welding wire from one source, then maintaining three suppliers gives the firm more assurance of continuous supply while the cost of buying from three suppliers is not significant greater. Does this make sense to you? Academic researchers (educated idiots like me) say: One approach is to award 70/30 split contracts. The supplier with 70% of the business can provide needed services, while the supplier with 30% of the business provides safety of supply and also puts pressure on the large supplier. Reality: Single sourcing. Most companies are using single sources of supply to get bigger price discounts via higher volumes (economies of scale). Also - Some firms like to become a big portion of their suppliers' business so that they can apply pressure on the supplier. American companies are infamous for this. Why? Because they are greedy. Thank goodness for that because they are paying top dollar for ISM graduates. How should companies use competitive bidding (think long-term)? Typically, buying organizations will use several rounds of the competitive bidding process to pick a low cost supplier. Buying organizations will send out RFQs to get bids from suppliers. RFQ stands for a Request for Quotation. In other words, please give us a quote for this business. Unfortunately, several iterations of the competitive bidding process can be very resource intensive, especially for smaller companies. Larger companies have been able to somewhat reduce these costs by using information based technology (e.g., electronic reverse auctioning). Either way, the data seems to indicate that several iterations of the competitive bidding process does not get the lowest price. Why? Suppliers pad their quotes from beginning to end because they know the game. Data indicates that the most effective way to get the lowest bid is to tell suppliers that they will only have once chance to bid/quote on the business. If they really believe that, then they will deliver their best quote the first time around (because it is the only time). However, very few companies actually make bidding a one shot deal. Most companies are too greedy and are not convinced that the one time only cycle works. Another problem with competitive bidding is that you are just trying to get suppliers to low ball each other and that means you are just hacking away at their profit margins. If you have a current supplier that charges $1.00 per part, and it costs them $.90 to make it, they have about a 10% margin. If you have them rebid and rebid and rebid on the business, and then they agree to $.93 per part, you are indeed paying less per part, but you have reduced the supplier’s margin down to nothing. Smaller companies with larger industrial customers have often been victimized by such approaches. So, why would a smaller company use the same ineffective tactics on its own suppliers? In a perfect world, buying organizations would sit down with suppliers and help them reduce their direct costs (e.g., labor and material). Most of a supplier’s costs are probably already coming from direct labor and material which means there are probably some significant cost savings to be had. What if you could help a supplier cut their direct costs by 30% and then you tell them they can still keep the 10% margin? That supplier would say thank you because their margins do not change. They are just more cost competitive and probably end up getting more business because of it (and you now pay around $.70 per part). Also, there is nothing stopping a smaller supplier from asking its larger customer for assistance in reducing its direct costs. A larger customer probably has the resources and skill sets to offer just this type of assistance. It would also demonstrate the cost improvement intentions that customers often seek in suppliers. A recommendation for smaller companies is to take a strategic approach to their sourcing decisions, even for commodities. That often requires a careful analysis of how its customers manage them and perhaps not necessarily using the same tactics with its own suppliers. Smaller companies can look to the ineffective tactics of their customers to better manage their own supply chains. Perhaps the customer will then ask the supplier for help. Dr. Sime (Sheema) Curkovic, Ph.D., Valluzzo & Lee Honors College Faculty Fellow Professor, Operations/Supply Chain Management Western Michigan University, Haworth College of Business Schneider Hall Room 3246, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5429 Tel.: 269.387.5413; E-Mail: [email protected] "Better, faster, cheaper"; www.wmich.edu/supplychain "WMU Integrated Supply Management (ISM)...Nation's best undergraduate SCM program (Gartner 2014); 2nd in SCM technology (SoftwareAdvice 2015); 2nd in top global SCM talent (SCM World 2017) Vitae: www.wmich.edu/sites/default/files/curriculum-vitae/CurkovicVitae2017_

Great video, this is an explanation that I offer to my supply chain students: Subject: Read: How should companies use competitive bidding (think long-term)? Typically, buying organizations will use several rounds of the competitive bidding process to pick a low cost supplier. Buying organizations will send out RFQs to get bids from suppliers. RFQ stands for a Request for Quotation. In other words, please give us a quote for this business. Unfortunately, several iterations of the competitive bidding process can be very resource intensive, especially for smaller companies. Larger companies have been able to somewhat reduce these costs by using information based technology (e.g., electronic reverse auctioning). Either way, the data seems to indicate that several iterations of the competitive bidding process does not get the lowest price. Why? Suppliers pad their quotes from beginning to end because they know the game. Data indicates that the most effective way to get the lowest bid is to tell suppliers that they will only have once chance to bid/quote on the business. If they really believe that, then they will deliver their best quote the first time around (because it is the only time). However, very few companies actually make bidding a one shot deal. Most companies are too greedy and are not convinced that the one time only cycle works. Another problem with competitive bidding is that you are just trying to get suppliers to low ball each other and that means you are just hacking away at their profit margins. If you have a current supplier that charges $1.00 per part, and it costs them $.90 to make it, they have about a 10% margin. If you have them rebid and rebid and rebid on the business, and then they agree to $.93 per part, you are indeed paying less per part, but you have reduced the supplier’s margin down to nothing. Smaller companies with larger industrial customers have often been victimized by such approaches. So, why would a smaller company use the same ineffective tactics on its own suppliers? In a perfect world, buying organizations would sit down with suppliers and help them reduce their direct costs (e.g., labor and material). Most of a supplier’s costs are probably already coming from direct labor and material which means there are probably some significant cost savings to be had. What if you could help a supplier cut their direct costs by 30% and then you tell them they can still keep the 10% margin? That supplier would say thank you because their margins do not change. They are just more cost competitive and probably end up getting more business because of it (and you now pay around $.70 per part). Also, there is nothing stopping a smaller supplier from asking its larger customer for assistance in reducing its direct costs. A larger customer probably has the resources and skill sets to offer just this type of assistance. It would also demonstrate the cost improvement intentions that customers often seek in suppliers. A recommendation for smaller companies is to take a strategic approach to their sourcing decisions, even for commodities. That often requires a careful analysis of how its customers manage them and perhaps not necessarily using the same tactics with its own suppliers. Smaller companies can look to the ineffective tactics of their customers to better manage their own supply chains. Perhaps the customer will then ask the supplier for help. Dr. Sime (Sheema) Curkovic, Ph.D., Valluzzo & Lee Honors College Faculty Fellow Professor, Operations/Supply Chain Management Western Michigan University, Haworth College of Business Schneider Hall Room 3246, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5429 Tel.: 269.387.5413; E-Mail: [email protected] "Better, faster, cheaper"; www.wmich.edu/supplychain "WMU Integrated Supply Management (ISM)...Nation's best undergraduate SCM program (Gartner 2014); 2nd in SCM technology (SoftwareAdvice 2015); 2nd in top global SCM talent (SCM World 2017) Vitae: www.wmich.edu/sites/default/files/curriculum-vitae/CurkovicVitae2017_0.pdf Sample Lectures & Should You Major in Supply Chain Management? wmich.edu/supplychain/academics/lectures

stools?

Amazing video Tanvi keep the work up.

This is so scary 😭

Muito bom material, e' posivel eu ter em pdf?

Excellent !!!

Hiiiiiiiiiiiì

Very nice, please share more related topics

Can anyone help me register for this course ?? The captcha just does not work nor the mentioned number replies to any queries !!!

This video is Supap! I want to know more about this supplier performance, what are the daily activities as a supplier quality engineer and so on..please suggest me some books or video!

Sir aap dekh rhe chup - chup ke

App dekh ke bol rhe ho

Dasmesh engineers

wat that a ad for a 3rd world car company?

i Just had abdominal surgery and had to sneeze. AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

Hazard, Risk, Near Miss and Accident are terminologies used in Safety. Learn more about each of these terminologies with the explanation and examples given in the video.

thank you very much for loading