It's very well definetion of SCM. So niceThanks
voice is too small, please make little louder
Good sir g
Sir 1 video inbound and outbound process par bhi banao...plz
Sir aapne video kis editor se banaya....
What a brilliant summary. Thanks for making it that easy. Plus the texture of your Voice is equally awesome.
Well explained ,Thanku
does the scm done by one company from the raw material to final product?
How to join
Course kahase Kar sakte he?
Kya isme mba bba aur m.com ki books combine kr kr study krwarty hain
Kya isme mba bba aur m.com ki books combine kr kr study krwarty hain
Very well said, your presentation is quite outstanding and easy to comprehend, there is a lot going on in the world now which will eventually affect the future either positively or negatively thereby causing an increase or decrease in the financial market, in order not to fall victim now is the time to start investing to secure your futureIm currently building my finance and increasing my portfolio in the mean time
You are really a good mentor
This video is exactly what I needed in my life right now. All I can say is: thank you. Thank you.
What is a supply chain design?
I am studying Microsoft Dynamics 365, done reading all the stuff in MB 330 Supply Chain Management Functional Consultant Exam.. Thank you uploader, this video gave me an overview and renewed my insights on what really I am studying about.
Good, can prepare please a video for SMC applying in the IT engineering industry ?
Global network use to deliver product and services from raw materials customer through engineer flow information physical distribution and cash
Very good and funny videos bring a great sense of entertainment!
The day after tomorrow is my MBA mid term exam of Supply Chain Management (SCM) at Quaid-i-Azam School of Management Sciences (QASMS). I watched this video and already my topics are cleared. Thanks for the upload!
Thanks for this presentation!
very intersting to know all about the supply chain Management
Can you help with my my activiySignificance of Studying Supply chain in our applied business tools
That's a full Certificate course on Supply chain management in a nutshell
Yes! It is informative, and has basicmatic information for Logic logistics chain management.This compelling topic help me pass my courses
Best lectures understandable and excellent
What's a nucleus organisation send help please
@ AIMS Education, UKI find the terminology used confusing at the initial part of your presentation.1:30 If we would not use business models but ask the common man who he considers "seller", he would say "the entity I buy my product from". The "producer" would be considered as the entity producing the goods/services that then can be purchased via an intermediary seller, like retail. These are commonly accepted terms for the lifecycle of a product, as something can only be sold once it has been produced. In other words, in layman's terms "producing" would preceed "selling", not the other way around. One could argue that manufacturing end products cannot be done without first "buying" the required parts and therefore parts sellers ARE the "seller", but the same applies to selling the end product to the end consumer, doesn't it? Selling and buying are both activities performed at every step of the supply chain, so hardly a good choice to use the same terminology and appoint it to a single entity in the process.Likewise, "production" can be both producing parts for the next company in the chain producing a product (e.g. a bike component manufacturer sells ready parts that a bike manufacturer buys for assembly of the bike), so "producer" can of course be interpreted freely there as well. Which makes for a challenge in using the right terminology. So it is all in the aim of the educational process on identifying the participants in the supply chain. The more understandable in layman's terms however, the easier it is to avoid confusion.Now, a supply chain is a complex matter and therefore there is hardly ever only three participants, as illustrated in the video, i.e. those who deliver the materials, those producing the end product and those buying them. So it all depends what level of complexity we want to show.1. If the aim of the example is to simplify the process, then I would prefer to see the terms "manufacturer" (or "supplier"), "seller" (better still: intermediary, as this leaves open the extent of adding value) and "customer". These are easiest to identify in layman's terms, as in the end the raw material lands with the final user and there's added value inbetween.2. If the aim is to expand on complexities of a theoretical model by explaining the sub-steps (such as, how can a product be manufactured when we are missing the step of acquiring the raw materials), then one could either fill all steps between original raw material provider(s) and end consumer by using "intermediary 1", "intermediary 2", etc. as any number of entities that can add value by either manufacturing or producing, or one could simplify by adding only a fourth intermediary between the original material provider and the seller of the goods, namely the manufacturer. 4 players then: Supplier - Manufacturer - Seller - Consumer. Raw material from the original provider (harvester/processer/producer) gets used by the manufacturer to create a product, which is then sold by the sales entity to the final customer.2:03 You totally lost me there. I do not see a clearly defined difference between mentioned strategies and consider them all the same type, the difference rather being a difference in competence of managing the chain. These are not mutually exclusive however.For example, salt production is mentioned as "Stable strategy". Arguments used are e.g. "no need for real-life information", which would not require it to be classed as "Reactive". Well, if salt manufacturers were not constantly aware of determinants of market forces influencing the supply of their manufacturing process (top of my head: climate effects on seabeds, oil price fluctuations with no fuel hedging influencing bulk raw material transportation cost to the refinery, labour cost fluctuations due to governmental/union regulations, competitive cost efficiency changes, etc.), then they would quickly go bankrupt in a free market economy or new entrants grab market share due to more advanced real-time market/process information. So despite taking a very simple example, it already shows that there is no such thing as a "stable" strategy in a changing and interdependent environment. What the video probably tries to explain is a difference in COMPETENCE. The lower the awareness for the complexities and the less effort put into monitoring these dependencies, the more "simple" it seems to manage a process and to assume that it is a "stable" process. But that is anything but a strategy, it is rather a lack of competence or resources to invest in properly managing the process.Also, most of the points mentioned here are interchangeable between the "strategies": since when does fulfilling demand from trade partners not apply to the salt industry? If the market trends necessitate a change of sourcing of salt (e.g. less ecological harm via salt mines pushes for a shift towards sea salt extraction, or the other way around for that matter when other means of extraction get preference for whatever reason), a manufacturer/corporation better adjust to those needs prompty, lest it loose market share. A simple change in market demand, like cooking style influencing type/refinement of salt, policy changes in using salt for winter road application, etc., can easily make major changes influencing the whole of the supply and manufacturing process of a salt company, whether it's only an intermediary or producer.I feel like the theories in this video regarding mentioned "strategies" are built around competencies and complexities of respective business fields, rather than real differences in theoretical approach. These competencies however are not inherently different strategies within the field of SCM, but rather the broad field of management. Adaptability as a keyword comes to mind. The more adaptable a corporation, the more complexity it can handle.It would have been more fortunate to scale the "extent of adaptability" and put the so-called "stable strategy" on the lower part of the scale and name it "less adaptable", while the higher the adaptability, the more we move on the scale towards "efficient reactivity". The writers already show this implicitly: "reactive" vs "efficient reactive" is nothing more than scaling a term of quality.With all due respect, I also think that the makers of these theories are not familiar with basic business theories, specifically supply and demand. "Reactivity" as described in the video is not a strategy, but is basically meeting customer needs, in other words an inherent part of any (business) transaction. It is no rocket science that a salt manufacturer meets customer needs, just like a football T-shirt manufacturer company does. just like a shopping mall. The differences are just as much as the similarities, as in all walks of life and business: none are identical, but none differ in basic approach either. In practice the market may be different, the complexity and challenges may be different, but the process as described decades ago by economists like Kotler are exactly the same. The only difference is how well the process is executed, how applicable the used tools/methods are to this end and how the change of market mechanics, like increasing technological progress influence the methods, but the process fundamentally remains the same.Not sure if I'm shaking the tree now in fundamentals with large consensus, but I would appreciate to see links and source material (i.e. scientific publications for reference) on how this video came to the conclusions depicted, particularly the section I mentioned, on "strategies".As we know, in all science, whether mathematics, economics or specialty fields within, everything is built on theories. And theories are ideas worth discussing, in my opinion.
#Bombardier Inc is engaged in the manufacturing of both planes & trains. The Company operates through two reportable segments: Aviation & Transportation. The Aviation segment is engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing & providing aftermarket support for three families of business jets such as Learjet, Challenger & Global. The Transportation segment offers a portfolio of products and services in the rail industry, covering the full spectrum of rail solutions, ranging from trains to sub-systems, services, system integration & signaling. The Companys subsidiaries include #BombardierAerospaceCorporation, #BombardierAerospace Germany GmbH, Bombardier Services Corporation, Learjet Inc., #Bombardier Transit Corporation, #Bombardier Mass Transit Corporation, #Bombardier Transportation Australia Pty Ltd., and #BombardierTransportationCanada Inc. #Bombardier's huge energy efficient manufacturing facility is located on 2900-800 Rene-Levesque Blvd WMONTREAL, QC, #Canada H3B 1Y8 TSE:BBD.PR.C #AllforOne