原文： In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage. There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of changing suppliers—that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny. This can create four possible situations. In Type 1 situations, there are many alternatives and change is relatively easy. Open pursuit of alternatives—by frequent competitive bidding, if possible—will likely yield the best results. In Type 2 situations, where there are many alternatives but change is difficult—as for providers of employee health-care benefits—it is important to continuously test the market and use the results to secure concessions from existing suppliers. Alternatives provide a credible threat to suppliers, even if the ability to switch is constrained. In Type 3 situations, there are few alternatives, but the ability to switch without difficulty creates a threat that companies can use to negotiate concessions from existing suppliers. In Type 4 situations, where there are few alternatives and change is difficult, partnerships may be unavoidable.
GWD1-Q36
Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage?A. They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers.B. They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.C. They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.D. They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products.？？？？E. They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited.
答案是选B很多网友觉得选D 我觉得E 原因是：答案选B 网上说的是因为有个leverage 这里 所以就付出的多了 首先OG上说了不需要背景知识 如果只从leverage就退出B的话 那杠杆效应有正面也有负面的啊 为什么不说。 对于D选项 我当初也是徘徊在DE之间 但是分析后发现在文中只在indirect里面提到这个
supplier partnerships，并没有提到在direct里面不行 退一步说 对于direct来说 文章说说的只是limited to suppliers限制一部分供应商 也并没有提到在这些供应商里面就没有supplier partnership。 我选择E 虽然很多人说E和文章意思相反 但是我理解的是(不要YY 从文章找)There are two independent variables—availabilityof alternatives and ease of changing suppliers 说明如果change suppliers is limited 那么就会像direct的情况一样不合适。 其实这里我觉得E选项对D选项就是起一个补充的关系，D太绝对 用的是not feasible 而E用的是least感觉上会好一些作者: myice 时间: 2012-3-5 15:31
周谢慧老师：E选项属于“偏”，根据文中第二段，四种情况中，有两种情况都属于采购商更换供应商能力有限的时候，但是如果供应商很丰富，supplier partnerships仍然是可以避免的。看这句原文：Alternatives provide a credible threat to suppliers, even if the ability to switch is constrained
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/forum/)
