從供應(yīng)鏈的角度來看，惠普(HP)決定暫時(shí)恢復(fù)其 TouchPad 平板裝置生產(chǎn)的舉措是明智的；它可能是HP一連串失誤中，唯一做對(duì)的事情。根據(jù)分析師們的說法，HP重啟TouchPad生產(chǎn)線的原因，是要把預(yù)先采購的零組件庫存用完，他們也認(rèn)為HP將因此面臨虧損風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。但實(shí)際上，筆者認(rèn)為HP的做法是“兩害相權(quán)取其輕”。 HP可以有幾個(gè)選項(xiàng)：在零組件部分，該公司或許可嘗試退貨給供貨商；但考量到目前供應(yīng)鏈中半導(dǎo)體與顯示器零件庫存水位高漲，供貨商們恐怕不會(huì)接受。如果供貨商們真的接受了，因庫存品的價(jià)值遠(yuǎn)不及其原始價(jià)值，該筆損失會(huì)記在供貨商的帳上，不是HP。 或許HP也可以試著把零組件賣到開放市場(chǎng)；供貨商們不會(huì)喜歡這種自家產(chǎn)品被透過非法管道銷售的狀況，卻也無法阻止HP這么做。但因?yàn)槿毡敬蟮卣鸷?，包括半?dǎo)體組件、互連產(chǎn)品、被動(dòng)組件、機(jī)電產(chǎn)品等零組件的庫存，已經(jīng)不再處于供不應(yīng)求的狀態(tài)，開放市場(chǎng)的零組件價(jià)格大跌，HP恐怕得虧本賣那些零件，這筆損失會(huì)記在自己帳上。 但如果以上兩種都不選，HP就得在終端產(chǎn)品上蒙受虧損。根據(jù)美國華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)(Wall Street Journal)，一臺(tái)16GB的TouchPad成本約306美元，HP的最后出清價(jià)是99美元，將虧損207美元。以消費(fèi)者的眼光來看，這似乎很不劃算；但從供應(yīng)鏈的角度看來，這或許是合理的策略──至少HP已經(jīng)知道消費(fèi)者愿意花99美元買一臺(tái)TouchPad，卻無法確定拋售一臺(tái)TouchPad零組件可能蒙受的損失會(huì)不會(huì)高于207美元；知道總比不知道好。 HP的另一個(gè)選項(xiàng)，是將那些零組件消耗在其它的產(chǎn)品上，但這是有局限的；雖然PC與企業(yè)用產(chǎn)品所用的零組件有一些是相同的，但那些高單價(jià)的零件──例如半導(dǎo)體組件與顯示器──不太容易相互替換，所以HP還是得回到原點(diǎn)來考量。 最后一個(gè)選項(xiàng)則是請(qǐng)渠道商幫忙，但這得看有多少零件是透過渠道商所取得。渠道業(yè)者會(huì)在底線不受損失的前提下，同意協(xié)助將未使用的零組件退回給供貨商；但這通常僅適用于廣泛見于各種終端產(chǎn)品的通用零組件，各種特制產(chǎn)品，例如半導(dǎo)體組件、F{GA與顯示器，都是不能退貨的。渠道商不會(huì)愿意回收這種產(chǎn)品，因?yàn)闊o法退回給供貨商，或是再轉(zhuǎn)賣給其它客戶。 因此，HP終究還是做了正確的決定──但這種“兩害相權(quán)取其輕”的作法，對(duì)長期業(yè)務(wù)經(jīng)營策略來說也不是件好事。 編譯：Judith Cheng 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 參考英文原文： HP Chooses the Lesser of Two Evils，by Barbara Jorgensen

相關(guān)閱讀：
• HP分拆PC業(yè)務(wù)對(duì)電腦代工廠家的沖擊幾何？
• 惠普放棄PC和webOS業(yè)務(wù)，新CEO hold不住了？
• Q2 NB市場(chǎng)：宏碁歐洲失血，HP趁機(jī)竄起euSesmc

{pagination} HP Chooses the Lesser of Two Evils Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor From the supply chain standpoint, Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE: HPQ) is making a smart move on the last-run production of its TouchPad. It might be the only move in a series of HP blunders that makes sense. (See: Bumbling HP Strikes Again.) The purpose of the production run, analysts say, is to use up pre-purchased components. Even though the company will be taking a loss on the lot, HP is actually going with the lesser of two evils. Consider HP's options: at the component level, it could try to return products to its suppliers. With semiconductor and display inventories building up in the supply chain, suppliers don't want the stuff. Even if they did, the inventory's value will be nowhere near its original cost. The difference would show up on suppliers' books, not HP's. HP could try to sell components into the open market. Although suppliers frown upon this practice -- their brands are now being sold through unauthorized channels -- there's nothing stopping HP from doing this. But the company still faces a bookkeeping dilemma. Component inventories of all products -- semiconductor, interconnect, passive, and electromechanical -- are no longer in short supply as they were after the Japan earthquake. As a result, component prices in the open market have taken a dive. HP would be selling its components below what it paid, and this loss would show up on HP's books. So instead, HP will take a loss on the end product. According to the Wall Street Journal, a 16GB TouchPad costs HP $306 to manufacture. At $99 -- the price HP charged for its last batch of TouchPads -- that's a loss of $207. That doesn't make sense from the consumer standpoint, but it might make sense from the supply chain standpoint. HP already knows customers are willing to pay $99 for the TouchPad. It has no idea how much the open market is willing to pay for the components. The component-related losses could be higher than the $207 HP knows it's losing. Better to go with the known than the unknown. Another option for HP would be to consume those components within another business unit, but the options are limited. PC and enterprise products have some overlap in components, but the highest-cost parts -- semiconductors and displays -- aren't easily swapped. So HP is back to square one. A final option would be to look at the distribution channel, depending on how much product is sourced through distributors. Distributors are permitted to return unused parts to suppliers under certain circumstances with no impact on the distributors' bottom line. However, this practice is mostly applied to commodity parts that are used over a wide range of end products. Anything proprietary, such as semiconductors, FPGAs, or displays, is non-returnable. Distributors would be reluctant to take this stuff back because they can't return it to suppliers or resell it to other customers. So finally, HP is doing something right -- although choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a good long-term business strategy.