Question

请英文高手帮助翻译一下这段文章

继续帮助翻译这段文章 Although these perspectives on defining supply chain management are helpful, a careful examination of them indicates the literature is actually trying to define two concepts with one term, i.e., supply chain management. The idea of viewing the coordination of a supply chain from an overall system perspective, with each of the tactical activities of distribution flows seen within a broader strategic context (what has been called SCM as a management philosophy) is more accurately called a Supply Chain Orientation. The actual implementation of this orientation, across various companies in the supply chain, is more appropriately called Supply Chain Management.
This perspective leads us to the definition of one of these crucial constructs. Supply Chain Orientation is defined as the recognition by an organization of the systemic, strategic implications of the tactical activities involved in managing the various flows in a supply chain. Thus, a company possesses a supply chain orientation (SCO) if its management can see the implications of managing the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances, and information across their suppliers and their customers. From this definition, a company does not have a supply chain orientation
if it only sees the systemic, strategic implications in one direction. Thus, in Figure 1a, the company in the middle of the direct supply chain may have a SCO, but the two companies on the ends do not (because the supplier is only focused down the supply chain—an historical “channels” orientation— and the customer is only focused up the supply chain—an historical “procurement” orientation).

Answer 1

Although these perspectives on defining supply chain management are helpful, a careful examination of them indicates the literature is actually trying to define two concepts with one term, i.e., supply chain management. The idea of viewing the coordination of a supply chain from an overall system perspective, with each of the tactical activities of distribution flows seen within a broader strategic context (what has been called SCM as a management philosophy) is more accurately called a Supply Chain Orientation. The actual implementation of this orientation, across various companies in the supply chain, is more appropriately called Supply Chain Management.
This perspective leads us to the definition of one of these crucial constructs. Supply Chain Orientation is defined as the recognition by an organization of the systemic, strategic implications of the tactical activities involved in managing the various flows in a supply chain. Thus, a company possesses a supply chain orientation (SCO) if its management can see the implications of managing the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances, and information across their suppliers and their customers. From this definition, a company does not have a supply chain orientation
if it only sees the systemic, strategic implications in one direction. Thus, in Figure 1a, the company in the middle of the direct supply chain may have a SCO, but the two companies on the ends do not (because the supplier is only focused down the supply chain—an historical “channels” orientation— and the customer is only focused up the supply chain—an historical “procurement” orientation).

虽然这些观点在确定供应链管理是有帮助的，仔细审查了他们表明了文学，其实是试图界定这两个概念与一个任期，即供应链管理。的想法看，协调供应链从整体系统的角度来看，与每个战术的活动分布流动看到一个更广泛的战略背景下（这是什么，被称为供应链管理作为一种管理哲学）是更准确地称为供应链方向。实际执行这一方向，各公司在供应链中，是较为恰当的所谓供应链管理。
这个角度来看，导致我们的定义之一，这些关键的建构。供应链的方向是对的定义为承认的一个组织系统，战略影响战术涉及的活动管理的各项流动在一个供应链。因此，一个公司拥有的供应链方向（上海合作组织） ，如果其管理可以看到的影响，管理的上游和下游流量的产品，服务，金融，信息和他们的供应商和他们的客户。从这个定义，公司没有一个供应链方向
如果只看到系统性的，战略性的影响，在一个方向。因此，在数字一号A ，该公司在中东的直接供应链可能有一个上海合作组织，但两家公司对两端不（因为供应商是唯一的重点是降低供应链的一个历史的“渠道”的方向和客户只集中了供应链的一个历史“采购”方向） 。