Talk:Value chain

message: The best theory ==Yenus fedlu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenus (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: (Comment)

message: Its a really strong model that does show some indication where value could be added, but does not really show where costs efficiencies can be made.
Dr. Nawaid
: I propose starting a separate article on SCOR, and perhaps someone else can take up DCOR. Any takers? Nshuks7 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that someone who is more familiar with this than I adds some content about the secondary activities. Mentioning the primary activities without mentioning the secondary results in the article being a bit incomplete.
Dr.Habib
The value chain varies from a firm to another. It all depends on the capabilities of the firm in terms of resources and management. If the firm can use its resources more efficiently and applies proper controls over its operations, then it will get more advanatage by reducing cost and gaining more profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freebahraini (talk • contribs) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Value Chain

message: --131.172.4.44 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add diagram

message: I have some concerns about the value network critique; I think it is a bit overblown. I have successfully applied value chain theory to large scale IT service management. Value networks are merely unions of value chains. Where does Porter insist that the value chain sub-sections are always single sourced? Charles T. Betz 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I continue to have these concerns I was not the one to delete the supporting material, a move I consider borderline vandalism when not accompanied by discussion on this page. I am reverting. Charles T. Betz 16:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Value network critique overblown

message: * Rolf G. Poluha: Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. Youngstown, NY 2007, , .
I suspect that this reference has been added purely for promotional purposes. See Talk:Supply chain management/Archives/2012#Reference spam? -- Ronz  00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference was added with no change to content . -- Ronz  16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it again today after it was re-added to two articles as a reference with (again) no corresponding addition of content. -- SiobhanHansa 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference spam?

message: The addition of the supply chain 'hype' links needs to stop. This is an article about the definition of "value chain". An extended discourse on EVA would be useful, but the 'supply chain' links are from persons who are either involved in data warehousing or data mining, or the red-herring cover-issue of national security which is not credible, at least from a business perspetive, and possibly otherwise. Suggest that there be one reference to supply chain as part of the distribution system, but 'that's it, folks. Most people involved in 'supply chain' services have 'zip' understanding of what a value-chain (or value chain analysis' is for. Most are government 'lifers'. Many work in DHS customs. Ask them what a cost-driver is, what is a make-or-buy decision, what is EVA, what is the purpose of even 'having' a value chain defined for a firm. They have no clue. For them it's all about 'information sharing'.
I'd edit it, but to be frank, I can't be bothered. Pearls, swine, and all that....
85.1.133.184 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Get over the 'Supply Chain' already

message: I was reading this article to learn what the value chain is. I read about "costs" and "value drivers". I am ignorant in this matter: I can guess what costs are, but I do not know what are value drivers, nor did I find a Wikipedia article explaining it. Could someone knowledgeable add such info in the appropriate article, or create a new one, and link it from here? --Pot (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Value driver?

message: The current Definition is from Seller's perspective.
May I suggest we research into the definition of Value from Customer/Consumer Perspective?
In my opinion, we can define the Value from Customer's perspective by finding the answer to 2 questions below:
 1. How a Customer accept the value of a product?
 In other words, the product solve which Customer's problems ?
 2. How a Customer accept to pay for the value of a product?
 How Customer feel they accept the cost to pay for the product?
My rough definition at the moment is:
Value is the solution(s) Customer accept and afford to solve their problems.
I hope that if we research a little further into this perspective, we can project the future values better (what Customers will like to have in the next 5-10 or 20 years) and avoid the mismatch between supply and demand in the next 10-20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minh Le SCM (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Value Chain from Customer/Consumer Perspective

message: There are references to Global Value Chains in Development in the significance and in the GVC section.  I have combined these in one place (as a subsection in the GVC section) but it could be placed elsewhere.  Thuriaux (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Value Chain in Development 

message: I propose merging Virtual value chain into this article, specifically into Value_chain#Physical,_virtual_and_combined_value_chain. The other article is a badly written essay and an atrociously sourced fog of marketing buzzwords. It goes into unencyclopedic depth about trivial details but a few sentences or a paragraph might be usefully accommodated here. Reyk YO! 12:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge