Archetypes of sourcing decision-making: the influence of contextual factors on consensus, argumentation and cabal

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop taxonomy of sourcing decision-making (SDM) archetypes and explore how different contextual factors influence these archetypes when global sourcing of complex components is considered a viable option. Design/methodology/approach A multiple case study approach with five in-depth cases is employed. In total, 19 interviews as well as publicly available and internal data from large buying firms headquartered in Austria and Germany were collected and analyzed. Findings The results reveal three different SDM archetypes which are described in detail (i.e. “consensus,” “argumentation” and “cabal”). Furthermore, it is found that these archetypes are mainly influenced by three contextual factors: sourcing maturity, product complexity and leadership style. The final model comprises six propositions which illustrate how these contextual factors determine companies’ SDM archetypes. Research limitations/implications The study contributes to theory development at the intersection of organizational buying behavior and the (global) SDM literature. Thereby, it answers the call for more rigorous investigation of the influence of contextual factors on SDM processes. Practical implications The findings enable practitioners to better understand and consequently manage SDM processes and their outcomes. By supporting decision-makers in identifying SDM archetypes, this study allows sourcing managers and teams to make better decisions by avoiding problems that occur in situations in which the preferred decision-making type would result in suboptimal decisions. Originality/value The study provides a first step toward taxonomy of SDM archetypes and is among the first that explores their underlying contextual factors

Improving Food Supply Chain Management by a Sustainable Approach to Supplier Evaluation

[EN] Increasing food supply chain sustainability means having to deal with many conflicting aspects and involves producers, several departments in distribution companies, and consumers. The objectives of this research are to develop models to solve real-world supplier evaluation problems and validate them with real data on fresh fruits in a supermarket chain. Literature review and results from a survey with managers from purchasing, logistics, and quality departments of a food distribution company are used to establish criteria, to first model the assessment of products and, second, to model supplier evaluation. A multicriteria hybrid approach is proposed, using multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) to assess the quality of products and Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) to complete their evaluation with strategic criteria to be included in the second phase. The results allow companies to rank suppliers by product and classify them according to the main criteria categories, such as product strategy, food safety, economic, logistic, commercial, green image and corporate social responsibility. A sorting approach is also applied to obtain ordered groups of suppliers. Finally, the models proposed can form the core of a decision support system in order to create and monitor the supplier base in food distribution companies, as well as to inform sustainable decision making.This research was funded by the Regional Ministry of Education, Research, Culture and Sport of the Autonomous Government of the Valencian Region, Spain, grant number AICO/2017/066.Segura Maroto, M.; Maroto Álvarez, MC.; Segura García Del Río, B.; Casas-Rosal, JC. (2020). Improving Food Supply Chain Management by a Sustainable Approach to Supplier Evaluation. Mathematics. 8(11):1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8111952S123811Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412-1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340Aouadni, S., Aouadni, I., & Rebaï, A. (2019). A systematic review on supplier selection and order allocation problems. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 15(S1), 267-289. doi:10.1007/s40092-019-00334-yChai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112903Wetzstein, A., Hartmann, E., Benton jr., W. C., & Hohenstein, N.-O. (2016). A systematic assessment of supplier selection literature – State-of-the-art and future scope. International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 304-323. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.022Ansari, Z. N., & Kant, R. (2017). A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2524-2543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.023Schramm, V. B., Cabral, L. P. B., & Schramm, F. (2020). Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection - A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123089. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123089Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299-314. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026Demir, L., Akpınar, M. E., Araz, C., & Ilgın, M. A. (2018). A green supplier evaluation system based on a new multi-criteria sorting method: VIKORSORT. Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 479-487. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.071Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607-616. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T. S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2019). Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 1-21. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.039Konys. (2019). Green Supplier Selection Criteria: From a Literature Review to a Comprehensive Knowledge Base. Sustainability, 11(15), 4208. doi:10.3390/su11154208Segura, M., Maroto, C., & Segura, B. (2019). Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies. Sustainability, 11(21), 5875. doi:10.3390/su11215875Memari, A., Dargi, A., Akbari Jokar, M. R., Ahmad, R., & Abdul Rahim, A. R. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9-24. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002Dweiri, F., Kumar, S., Khan, S. A., & Jain, V. (2016). Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030Chang, L., Ouzrout, Y., Nongaillard, A., Bouras, A., & Jiliu, Z. (2014). Multi-criteria decision making based on trust and reputation in supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 362-372. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.014Ekici, A. (2013). An improved model for supplier selection under capacity constraint and multiple criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 574-581. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.013Lin, R.-H. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.024Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2011). A weighted max–min model for fuzzy multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 139-145. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.044Chen, Y.-J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651-1670. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.07.026Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741-2751. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064Şen, C. G., Baraçlı, H., Şen, S., & Başlıgil, H. (2009). An integrated decision support system dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for enterprise software selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5272-5283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.070Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2008). An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and products selection—An application oriented to lead-time reduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 763-781. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.03.012Segura, M., & Maroto, C. (2017). A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 69, 87-100. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.031Trapp, A. C., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Identifying Robust portfolios of suppliers: a sustainability selection and development perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2088-2100. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.062Araz, C., & Ozkarahan, I. (2007). Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(2), 585-606. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11363-11368. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00243-0Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5Nemery, P., & Lamboray, C. (2007). ℱlow $\mathcal{S}$ ort: a flow-based sorting method with limiting or central profiles. TOP, 16(1), 90-113. doi:10.1007/s11750-007-0036-xLau, H., Nakandala, D., & Shum, P. K. (2018). A business process decision model for fresh-food supplier evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 716-744. doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2016-0015D-Sight CDM http://www.d-sight.com/solutions/d-sight-cdmNemery, P., Lidouh, K., & Mareschal, B. (2011). On the usefulness of taking the weights into account in the GAIA visualisations. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 3(3), 228. doi:10.1504/ijids.2011.041585Nemery, P., Ishizaka, A., Camargo, M., & Morel, L. (2012). Enriching descriptive information in ranking and sorting problems with visualizations techniques. Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(2), 130-147. doi:10.1108/17465661211242778Xu, Z. (2000). On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3), 683-687. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00082-xOrtiz‐Barrios, M., Miranda‐De la Hoz, C., López‐Meza, P., Petrillo, A., & De Felice, F. (2019). A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 27(1-2), 104-128. doi:10.1002/mcda.169

Operational Capabilities: The Secret Ingredient

We develop a theoretical definition of operational capabilities, based on the strategic management and operations management literature, and differentiate this construct from the related constructs of resources and operational practices, drawing upon the resourcebased view of the firm as our foundation. We illustrate the key features of operational capabilities using the illustration of a restaurant kitchen. Because the traits of operational capabilities are distinct, they create a barrier to imitation, making them a potential source of competitive advantage. However, operational capabilities are particularly challenging to measure, because they emerge gradually and are tacit, embedded, and manifested differently across firms. In solving this measurement conundrum, we draw upon similar situations experienced by Schein (2004) and Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) in operationalizing organizational culture and dynamic capabilities. A taxonomy of six emergent operational capabilities is developed: operational improvement, operational innovation, operational customization, operational cooperation, operational responsiveness, and operational reconfiguration. A set of measurement scales is developed, in order to measure each of the operational capabilities, and validated using two different datasets. This allows replication of the psychometric properties of the multi-item scales and helps to ensure the validity of the resulting measures

The role of network administrative organizations in the development of social capital in inter-organizational food networks

This paper is concerned with the role of network administrative organizations (NAOs) in the development of social capital in inter‐organizational networks aiming at supporting their members to innovate in the food sector through interacting with one another. A multi‐case study approach is used whereby three Belgian inter‐organizational networks are investigated i.e. Wagralim, R&eacute;seau‐Club and Flanders Food. Our study shows that there are many options available to NAOs to build social capital within the networks they are responsible for; options which we propose to categorize in three main distinct groups: creation of boundary objects, careful selection of members and effective communication.</p

The role of supply chain integration in achieving competitive advantage: A study of UK automobile manufacturers

The competitive nature of the global automobile industry has resulted in a battle for efficiency and consistency in supply chain management (SCM). For manufacturers, the diversified network of suppliers represents more than just a production system; it is a strategic asset that must be managed, evaluated, and revised in order to attain competitive advantage. One capability that has become an increasingly essential means of alignment and assessment is supply chain integration (SCI). Through such practices, manufacturers create informational capital that is inimitable, yet transferrable, allowing suppliers to participate in a mutually-beneficial system of performance-centred outcomes. From cost reduction to time improvements to quality control, the benefits of SCI extend throughout the supply chain lifecycle, providing firms with improved predictability, flexibility, and responsiveness. Yet in spite of such benefits, key limitations including exposure to risks, supplier failures, or changing competitive conditions may expose manufacturers to a vulnerable position that can severely impact value and performance. The current study summarizes the perspectives and predictions of managers within the automobile industry in the UK, highlighting a dynamic model of interdependency and interpolation that embraces SCI as a strategic resource. Full commitment to integration is critical to achieving improved outcomes and performance; therefore, firms seeking to integrate throughout their extended supply chain must be willing to embrace a less centralized locus of control

Final report implementation of relational management

Construction teams and construction organisations have their own distinctive cultures. There also exists an infrastructure, both social and contractual, which ensures that these projects within which the teams operate are completed successfully. It is these issues which this research has addressed. The project was instigated by Queensland Department of Main Roads, Public Works and John Holland Group in order to address how they might better implement relationship management (RM) on their construction projects. The project was devised initially in order to facilitate a change in culture which would allow the project to be run in a relational manner and would lead to effective performance in terms of the KPIs that the organisations set for themselves, described as business better than usual. This report describes the project, its outcomes and deliverable and indicates the changes that were made to the project during the research process. Hence, the initial premise of the project and the problem to investigate was the implementation of relational contracting: • throughout a range of projects; • with a focus on client body staff. The additions that were made to the project, and documented in the variations to the project, included two major additional areas of study: • client management and stakeholder management; • a live case study of an alliancing project. The context within which the research was undertaken is important. The research was driven by main roads with their desire to improve their operations by focusing on the relationship between the major project participants (however, stakeholder and client organisation management became an obvious issue as the research progressed, hence the variations). The context was initially focussed on main roads, public works and John Holland group organisations but it became clear very quickly that this was in fact an industry-wide issue and not an issue specific solely to the project participants. Hence, the context within which this research took place can be described as below: The deliverables from the project are a toolkit for determining RM needs in an organisation, a monograph describing the practical implementation of RM and the outline for a RM CPD and Masters cours

Strategic Research Agenda for organic food and farming

The TP Organics Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) was finalised in December 2009. The purpose of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) is to enable research, development and knowledge transfer that will deliver relevant outcomes – results that will contribute to the improvement of the organic sector and other low external input systems. The document has been developed through a dynamic consultative process that ran from 2008 to 2009. It involved a wide range of stakeholders who enthusiastically joined the effort to define organic research priorities. From December 2008 to February; the expert groups elaborated the first draft. The consultative process involved the active participation of many different countries. Consultation involved researchers, advisors, members of inspection/certification bodies, as well as different users/beneficiaries of the research such as farmers, processors, market actors and members of civil society organisations throughout Europe and further afield in order to gather the research needs of the whole organic sector