The paper 'Supply Chain Management - Nike Europe" is a good example of a management case study. This report identified the SCM-related problems at Nike Europe as the ineffective communication systems, the inability of distributors to cooperate, and the inability of Nike’ s management to coordinate the supply of products in the European market in a timely and efficient manner. The report identifies reforming the current decentralised warehousing and distribution system and centralizing warehousing and distribution as the two viable solutions that Nike could use in order to resolve its problems. The report however identifies the centralisation strategy as the more appropriate of the two and hence recommends the same for use by Nike. The physical flow of goods As indicated by Ashford (1997) in the Nike case study, the company (Nike) sources its products from different manufacturers (mainly in the Far East).
However, it is the Hong Kong Office that coordinates the manufacture and purchase of supplies based on orders from retailers. On arrival, the Nike products would be stored in warehouses and later distributed to retailers who would make the products accessible to the final consumers (customers).
Products that are not purchased within a specified time are considered as “ close-outs” and are hence subjected to three considerations as indicated in the diagram below. Supply chain map Information management at Nike is a critical aspect of the success or lack thereof of supply chain management. Notably, and as indicated by Nederpel (2008, p. 11), retailers need to place future or at-once orders and this requires good information management. Additionally, retailers need to communicate customer requirements to the manufacturers through Nike’ s coordinating offices, and this too requires good information management.
As Indicated by Ashford (1997) however, Nike’ s information management (especially at the retailers) could do with some improvements since it was uncoordinated, and in some instances, lost sales were not recorded.
Ashford, M 1997, Nike Europe’, in Taylor, D (Ed.), Global cases in logistics and supply chain management, Cengage Learning, Hampshire, UK.
Brooks, I, Weatherston, J & Wilkinson, G 2010, The International business environment: challenges and changes, Pearson Schweiz, AG, Chollerstrasse.
CFFN 2009, The law of rule: Centralised decentralised and distributed systems’, CFFN.ca, viewed 1 April 2013, < http://www2.cffn.ca/usha/part-iii-article-by-pramod-dhakal/129-the-law-of-rule-centralized-decentralized-and-distributed-systems>.
Gammelgaard, B & Larson, PD 2001, ‘Logistics skills and competencies for supply chain management’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 27-50.
Green Jr., KW, Whitten, D, & Inman, R A 2011, ‘The impact of logistics performance on organizational performance in a Supply chain context’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 317-327.
Kohn, C 2005, ‘Centralization of distribution systems and its environmental effects’, Masters Thesis, viewed 1 April 2013, < http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:20333/FULLTEXT01>,
Kourteli, L 2005, ‘Scanning the business external environment for information: Evidence from Greece’, Information Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, viewed 1 April 2013,
Lee, H & Billington, C 1992, ‘Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunities’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 65-73.
Nederpel, L 2008, ‘Improving the close-out supply forecast accuracy at Nike Inc.’, viewed 1 April 2013, < http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/afstversl/tm/Nederpel_2012.pdf>.
Piotrowitz, W, Cuthbertson, R & Islei, G 2010, ‘Performance measurement and benchmarking in the supply chain: Literature review’, viewed 1 April 2013,
Taylor, D 1997, Global cases in logistics and supply chain management, Cengage Learning, New Hampshire.