L5-AD1-采购与供应中的管理2017年5月试题

北美物流（NUL）运营着一个泛欧洲的配送网络。它的一个配送中心有着较高的配送出错率，区

域总监Erich Weiss被指派来调查其中的原因。NUL在整体公司内执行着一套标准的程序系统、培训以

及人力资源政策，所以绩效应该具有一致性。

周一早晨Erich抵达该配送中心后，马上注意到车辆、装卸装备以及装卸月台脏乱、不整洁，而这 并不是公司所期望的绩效标准。

Erich见到了值班主管，该主管就这些混乱的情况进行了道歉。该主管提到，周末工作的团队在下 班前说“没有时间进行清洁整理”，对此他也非常气愤。 Erich要求见一下当前值班的团队。主管将 这些人召集过来，但是有一个人因为那天生病缺席，这也导致了一个岗位的空缺。这些员工方面的问题并不少见。找到好的员工似乎成了一个问题，而且员工的流动率很高。

此外，该团队告诉Erich，车辆和设备经常出故障，因此他们花了很多时间进行临时的修理，直到 维修团队能够给出一个永久的解决方案。他们还抱怨，其他团队在交接班过程中的清洁整理、记录保存和沟通方面缺乏专业性。这个团队已经向他们的同事提出了这些问题。

Erich 请一名团队成员Jo带他参观了一下场地。Jo已经在该配送中心工作八年了，是工龄最长的 员工。在参观场地的时候，Erich问了Jo几个关于运营的问题，Jo诚实地予以回答并提出建议：

•  在正常的轮班后必须进行强制性的培训。

•  配送中心聘用员工往往是无法在当地汽车工厂找到工作的人。这些汽车工厂能够支付更高的工资以及提供更好的发展机会。

• NUL的场地管理采用的是专制的管理风格，不听取员工建议，总是引用“规则”。

•  因为怕丢掉工作，因此员工会掩饰错误，而不是进行公开的讨论。

•  员工发现他们的工作都是重复性的，因为一旦加入公司就很少会转换岗位或者部门。

•  许多员工来自城镇附近的同一个地区，因为当出现职位空缺时，员工的朋友和家人能够很快得 知。

Erich 很担心这个配送中心的人力资源流程没有遵循公司的政策。不恰当的文化似乎已经发展起来了，并且由于员工高度相似的背景以及糟糕的管理方法而逐步的恶化。他清楚要对该配送中心进行 彻底的变革，使其绩效标准能够达到公司的期望。而实现这一目标则需要大量的培训工作。

CASE STUDY – NORTHERN UNITED LOGISTICS (NUL)

Northern United Logistics (NUL) operates a pan-European distribution network. One of its distribution centres has been identified as having a high despatch error rate and the regional director, Erich Weiss, has been assigned to investigate why. NUL operates to a set of standard procedures systems, training and human resources policies across the company, and so performance should be consistent.

Erich arrived at the site on Monday morning and immediately noticed that the vehicles, handling equipment and loading bays were dirty and untidy. This was not the standard of performance which the company expected.

Erich met the shift supervisor, who apologised for the mess. The supervisor was angry with the weekend team who said that they ‘did not have time to tidy up’ before leaving. Erich asked to meet the current shift team. The supervisor assembled them, but one person was absent due to sickness that day and also there was

one vacancy unfilled. These staffing issues were not uncommon. Finding  good staff appeared to be a problem and staff turnover was high.

The team also told Erich that the vehicles and equipment often had faults, and so they spent a lot of time putting in place temporary repairs until the maintenance team could provide a permanent solution. They also complained about the professionalism of other teams in tidying, record keeping and communication in changeovers between shifts. The team had already raised these matters with their colleagues.

Erich asked one of the team to give him a tour of the site. The team member, Jo, had been with the company for eight years and was the longest serving employee at the facility. Erich asked Jo a few questions about operations as they toured the site. Jo was honest with her answers and suggested that:

• mandatory training was fitted in after normal shifts had finished

• employees tended to be people who could not get jobs at the local car plant, which paid better wages and

provided more development opportunities

• the NUL site management had an autocratic management style and did not listen to the employee

suggestions, consistently quoting ‘rules’

• mistakes were covered up by employees, rather than being discussed openly, as they were worried about

losing their jobs

• employees found their job repetitive as they seldom moved roles or departments once they joined the company

• many employees came from a single area of the nearby town, as friends and family were soon informed

when new vacancies became available.

Erich was very concerned about the human resources procedures at the site, which did not follow the company policies. It appeared that a problematic culture had developed, reinforced by a workforce from highly similar backgrounds and by poor management approaches. He knew that substantial changes would be needed to bring the standards of the site up to the expectations of the company, and that extensive training would be required to support this.