SCM Practices in Higher Educational Institutions. Dr.Kannan (Director - Grace Group of Institutions, India)

Transcription

1 SCM Practices in Higher Educational Institutions Dr.Kannan (Director - Grace Group of Institutions, India)

2 Supply Chain Management In 1985, Jones and Riley introduced SCM as a tool to manage inventory for gaining competitive advantage Supply Chain Management (SCM) is now a fact of life. Many definitions, theories and models proposed Supply Chain = linkages of organizations, people, procedures and systems involved in getting products to customers SCM is the management of the entire set of business processes that produces and delivers products/services to the final customer.

3 - continued.. supply chain management is a discipline that has been developed in the field and expanded by managers and by firms such as Toyota, McDonald s, Wal-Mart, Kellogg s, Harley-Davidson, and Dell. In this paper we have taken the Wal-Mart`s best practices in supply chain management to be implicated in higher educational institutions.

4 Higher Education in India Higher education institutions are expected to be responsive to the diverse needs of students and the demands of other stakeholders including staff, employers of graduates, and clients of consulting services, industry, venture partners and regional communities.

5 - Continued. The costs of offering, operating, and maintaining these services for students, in addition to an education, are astronomical. Tuition fees rise each year to defray the costs, and as a result, students and their families demand more return from their investments. Thus need arises for higher educational institutions to concentrate on the potential areas and ways by which the Educational institutions can successfully implement SCM systems to achieve competitive advantage.

6 Wal-Mart`s Practices in SCM Wal-Mart`s best practices in SCM can be categorized into four segments: strategic concepts, logistics and distribution, IT, and supplier collaboration. To relate Wal-Mart`s practices in supply chain management to higher education, a RAND Study (1998) and the Foundation for Independent Higher Education conducted a study which focused on college cost containment efforts found out three additional outsourcing, technology and Collaboration with institutions

7 Implications in Higher Educational Strategic Concepts: Institutions Wal-Mart predicted the importance of controlling and containing costs as much as possible in order to maintain prices low enough to maximize sales and revenue. These Concepts are embodied in the first two of the five cultural imperatives developed in 1995 by Wal-Mart to help management best focus their efforts: stock it, price it right, show the value, take the money, and teach them (Slater, 2003).

8 - Continued.. Logistics and distribution The very foundation of the growth strategy of the Institution is based arjound the system of distribution centres. Supplier Collaboration Wal-Mart s practices regarding suppliers have been important to their SCM strategy from the very beginning. The company has a reputation for being a tough negotiator when it comes to pricing and delivery, and it often uses reverse auctions and bidding when negotiating with competing suppliers.

9 - Continued. Outsourcing Outsourcing allows institutions to hire a thirdparty business to manage and operate a noncore competency for the institution (Jeffries, 1996). Some of the many services which universities outsource include food services (like Aramark and Marriott), maintenance, bookstores (like Barnes and Noble), and hiring part time faculty.

10 - Continued. Technology The success of the SCM of Wal-Mart is largely because of its expertise in information systems and supporting technology, the third category of best practices. As early as 1974, Wal-Mart began using computers for inventory control. By the 1980s, Wal- Mart had installed checkout scanners in all stores and started sending all point-of-sale information to a centralized IT department at headquarters in Bentonville to aggregate sales and inventory data. Technology provides a way to track information throughout the supply chain and share the information with suppliers and stores.

11 - Continued Collaboration with Institutions Institutions may choose to collaborate with other Institutions to become leaner and more sustainable, just as Wal-Mart collaborates with its large suppliers. The purpose here is to leverage economies of scale against price. Institutions and colleges joined with its neighbouring colleges and institutions may use centralized purchasing for all of them in their system to save money. In terms of faculty collaboration, many colleges are now offering courses in modules and using team teaching. The advantages of this are that faculty can be shared across departments/divisions for more expertise in various subjects, and the faculty are learning from their colleagues.

12 Methodology The current practice of SCM application is based on examining data reported from survey of SCM applications in the Engineering colleges of Tamilnadu, provided by 31 Engineering Institutions in Tamilnadu. Out of 31 institutions 6 are Government aided and Government engineering colleges, 2 of them are deemed universities and 29 of them are self financing engineering colleges. The data were collected through a structured 5 point questionnaire starting with a high score of 5 always true to a lowest score of 1 not at all true. Data was analysed through box plot and one way analysis of variance and the results were interpreted as below.

13 Reliability of the Instrument Dimension Alpha Value Strategic Concepts.8090 Logistics and Distribution.7673 Supplier Collaboration.7072 Outsourcing.7532 Technology.7199 Collaboration.7391

14 H01 : Location of the Institution is not influencing the Strategic Concepts H11: Location of the Institution is influencing the Strategic Concepts Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Strategic Concepts

15 H02 : Location of the Institution is not influencing the Logistics and Distribution H12: Location of the Institution is influencing the Logistics and Distribution Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Logistics and Distribution

16 H03 : Location of the Institution is not influencing the Supplier Collaboration H13: Location of the Institution is influencing the Supplier Collaboration Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Supplier Collaboration

17 H04 : Location of the Institution is not influencing the Outsourcing H14: Location of the Institution is influencing the Outsourcing Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Outsourcing

18 H05 : Location of the Institution is not influencing the Technology H15: Location of the Institution is influencing the Technology Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Technology

19 H06: Location of the Institution is not influencing the Collaboration H16: Location of the Institution is influencing the Collaboration Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Collaboration

20 Study Two : Types of the Institution and the SCM Dimensions H07 : Type of the Institution is not influencing the Strategic Concepts H27: Type of the Institution is influencing the Strategic Concepts The below table shows the one way analysis of variance between Type of the institution and Strategic Concepts Dimension. The significant value is less than.05 hence we reject the null hypotheses. Type of the institution is influencing the Strategic Concepts of the institutions. Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Strategic Concepts

21 H08: Type of the Institution is not influencing the Logistics and Distribution H28:Type of the Institution is influencing the Logistics and Distribution The significant value is greater than.05 hence we accept the null hypotheses. Type of the institution is not influencing the Logistics and Distribution of the institutions. Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Logistics and Distribution

22 H09: Type of the Institution is not influencing the Supplier Collaboration H29: Type of the Institution is influencing the Supplier Collaboration The significant value is greater than.05 hence we accept the null hypotheses. Type of the institution is not influencing the Supplier Collaboration of the institutions. Dimension Mean Standard Deviations Supplier Collaboration F Value Sig

23 H010 : Type of the Institution is not influencing the Outsourcing H210: Type of the Institution is influencing the Outsourcing The significant value is greater than.05 hence we accept the null hypotheses. Type of the institution is not influencing the Outsourcing of the institutions. Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Outsourcing

24 H011 : Type of the Institution is not influencing the Technology H211: Type of the Institution is influencing the Technology The significant value is greater than.05 hence we accept the null hypotheses. Type of the institution is not influencing the Technology of the institutions. Dimension Mean Standard Deviations F Value Sig Technology

25 H012: Type of the Institution is not influencing the Collaboration H212: Type of the Institution is influencing the Collaboration The significant value is less than.05 hence we reject the null hypotheses. Type of the institution is influencing the Collaboration of the institutions. Dimension Mean Standard Deviation s F Value Sig Collaboration

26 Conclusion These findings have shown light on the potential areas and ways by which the Educational institutions can successfully implement SCM systems to achieve competitive advantage. As the mean value of all the dimensions is greater than 3 except Collaboration dimensions it tells the fact that the Higher Educational Institutions in India are having good SCM practices. Collaboration between the institutions is an important dimension in SCM practices. Higher Educational Institutions has to concentrate on this dimension to get a better result of SCM practices as it will be beneficial both financially and academically.

27 References Clare L. Comm and Dennis F.X. (2007) Sustaining higher education using Wal-Mart s best supply chain management practices, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 9 No. 2, 2008 pp Fishman, C. (2003), The Wal-Mart you don t know, Fast Company, Vol. 77, p. 68. Goldratt, E. (1984), The Goal, The North River Press Publishing Corporation, Great Barrington,MA. Goral, T. (2002), There s a hole in the bucket, available at: Green, K. (2007), Analytics and Assessment: A New Imperative for Campus and IT Services, Jeffries, C. (1996), The privatization debate, NACUBO Business Officer, January.

28 Johnstone, D.B. (1997), Financing higher education: who should pay and other issues, 3rd ed., a chapter for The American University in the 21st Century: Higher Education and Society, available at: Kaganoff, T. (1998), Collaboration, technology, and outsourcing initiatives in higher education: a literature review, report prepared by RAND for the Foundation for Independent Higher Education. Moore, J. (1993), Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review, May-June, p. 83. RAND Study (1998), Higher Education, 1998, Pardee Center Publications, available at: Slater, R. (2003), The Wal-Mart Decade: How a New Generation of Leaders Turned Sam Walton s Legacy into the World s #1 Company, Penguin Group Inc., New York, NY, pp. 28, 122. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1982), Wal-Mart Annual Report 198, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR, p. 3, available at:

29 Thank You