A social network-based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains

Purpose: This paper aims to provide a social network-based model for improving knowledge management in multi-level supply chains formed by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Design/methodology/approach: This approach uses social network analysis techniques to propose and represent a knowledge network for supply chains. Also, an empirical experience from an exploratory case study in the construction sector is presented. Findings: This proposal improves the establishment of inter-organizational relationships into networks to exchange the knowledge among the companies along the supply chain and create specific knowledge by promoting confidence and motivation. Originality/value: This proposed model is useful for academics and practitioners in supply chain management to gain a better understanding of knowledge management processes, particularly for the supply chains formed by SMEs. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Capó-Vicedo, J.; Mula, J.; Capó I Vicedo, J. (2011). A social network-based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 16(5):379-388. doi:10.1108/13598541111155884S379388165Archer, N., Wang, S., & Kang, C. (2008). Barriers to the adoption of online supply chain solutions in small and medium enterprises. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 73-82. doi:10.1108/13598540810850337Arend, R. J., & Wisner, J. D. (2005). Small business and supply chain management: is there a fit? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 403-436. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.11.003BERNARDES, E. S. (2010). THE EFFECT OF SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ON ASPECTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE: A SOCIAL NETWORK PERSPECTIVE. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(1), 45-55. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2009.03185.xBORGATTI, S. P., & LI, X. (2009). ON SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IN A SUPPLY CHAIN CONTEXT. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5-22. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2009.03166.xBorgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892-895. doi:10.1126/science.1165821Boschma, R. A., & ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge Networks and Innovative Performance in an Industrial District: The Case of a Footwear District in the South of Italy. Industry & Innovation, 14(2), 177-199. doi:10.1080/13662710701253441Cadilhon, J.J. and Fearne, A.P. (2005), “Lessons in collaboration: a case study from Vietnam”,Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 11‐12.Carter, C. R., Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. (2007). THE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IN LOGISTICS RESEARCH. Journal of Business Logistics, 28(1), 137-168. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2007.tb00235.xChen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Understanding supply chain management: critical research and a theoretical framework. International Journal of Production Research, 42(1), 131-163. doi:10.1080/00207540310001602865Cheng, J., Yeh, C., & Tu, C. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 283-295. doi:10.1108/13598540810882170CHOI, T. Y., & WU, Z. (2009). TRIADS IN SUPPLY NETWORKS: THEORIZING BUYER-SUPPLIER-SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(1), 8-25. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2009.03151.xCrone, M., & Roper, S. (2001). Local Learning from Multinational Plants: Knowledge Transfers in the Supply Chain. Regional Studies, 35(6), 535-548. doi:10.1080/00343400120065705Egbu, C. O., Hari, S., & Renukappa, S. H. (2005). Knowledge management for sustainable competitiveness in small and medium surveying practices. Structural Survey, 23(1), 7-21. doi:10.1108/02630800510586871Fong, P. S. W., & Kwok, C. W. C. (2009). Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management Success at Project and Organizational Levels in Contracting Firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(12), 1348-1356. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000106Giannakis, M. (2008). Facilitating learning and knowledge transfer through supplier development. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 62-72. doi:10.1108/13598540810850328Giuliani, E. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 139-168. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbl014Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47-68. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.10.008Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(1/2), 71-87. doi:10.1108/01443570110358468Hogarth‐Scott, S. (1999). Retailer‐supplier partnerships: hostages to fortune or the way forward for the millennium? British Food Journal, 101(9), 668-682. doi:10.1108/00070709910288865Javernick-Will, A. N., & Scott, W. R. (2010). Who Needs to Know What? Institutional Knowledge and Global Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5), 546-557. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000035Johnsen, T. E., Johnsen, R. E., & Lamming, R. C. (2008). Supply relationship evaluation: European Management Journal, 26(4), 274-287. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2007.10.001Kinder, T. (2003). Go with the flow—a conceptual framework for supply relations in the era of the extended enterprise. Research Policy, 32(3), 503-523. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00021-5Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 9(2), 1-20. doi:10.1108/09574099810805807Lamming, R., Caldwell, N., & Phillips, W. (2006). A Conceptual Model of Value-Transparency in Supply. European Management Journal, 24(2-3), 206-213. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.010Lamming, R., Caldwell, N., Phillips, W., & Harrison, D. (2005). Sharing Sensitive Information in Supply Relationships: European Management Journal, 23(5), 554-563. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2005.09.010Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000439McCarthy, T. M., & Golicic, S. L. (2002). Implementing collaborative forecasting to improve supply chain performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(6), 431-454. doi:10.1108/09600030210437960Malhotra, A., Gosain, S. and El Sawy, O.A. (2001), “Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner‐enabled market knowledge creation”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 145‐87.Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V., & Manos, B. (2007). A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri‐food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 177-186. doi:10.1108/13598540710742491Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Kafentzis, K., & Georgolios, P. (2006). Inter-organizational networks for knowledge sharing and trading. Information Technology and Management, 7(4), 259-276. doi:10.1007/s10799-006-0276-8Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of Knowledgewithin Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817-835. doi:10.1080/00343400701654178Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2009). Knowledge and Information Networks in an Italian Wine Cluster. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 983-1006. doi:10.1080/09654310902949265Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2006). Sharing Knowledge Across Projects. Management Learning, 37(2), 167-185. doi:10.1177/1350507606063441Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14Ozkul, A., & Barut, M. (2009). Measuring supply chain relationships: a social network approach. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 5(1), 38. doi:10.1504/ijism.2009.026204Ramírez-Pasillas, M. (2010). International trade fairs as amplifiers of permanent and temporary proximities in clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(2), 155-187. doi:10.1080/08985620902815106Sanderson, J., & Cox, A. (2008). The challenges of supply strategy selection in a project environment: evidence from UK naval shipbuilding. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 16-25. doi:10.1108/13598540810850283Seggie, S. H., Kim, D., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Do supply chain IT alignment and supply chain interfirm system integration impact upon brand equity and firm performance? Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 887-895. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.03.005Soosay, C. A., Hyland, P. W., & Ferrer, M. (2008). Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(2), 160-169. doi:10.1108/13598540810860994Vaaland, T. I., & Heide, M. (2007). Can the SME survive the supply chain challenges? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 20-31. doi:10.1108/13598540710724374Venters, W., Cornford, T., & Cushman, M. (2005). Knowledge about Sustainability: SSM as a Method for Conceptualising the UK Construction Industry�s Knowledge Environment. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 13(2), 137. doi:10.2498/cit.2005.02.05Wagner, B. A., Fillis, I., & Johansson, U. (2003). E‐business and e‐supply strategy in small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8(4), 343-354. doi:10.1108/13598540310490107Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 698-710. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.026Wu, C. (2008). Knowledge creation in a supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 241-250. doi:10.1108/13598540810871280Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 763-771. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.06.00

A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains

[EN] Sustainability practice within supply chains remains in an early development phase. Enterprises still need tools that support the integration of sustainability strategy into their activity, and to align their sustainability strategy with the supplier selection process. This paper proposes a methodology using a multi-criteria technique to support supplier selection decisions by taking two groups of inputs that integrate sustainability performance: supply chain performance and supplier assessment criteria. With the proposed methodology, organisations will have a tool to select suppliers based on their development towards sustainability and on their alignment with the supply chain strategy towards sustainability. The methodology is applied to an agri-food supply chain to assess sustainability in the supplier selection process.The authors of this publication acknowledge the contribution of Project GV/2017/065 'Development of a decision support tool for the management and improvement of sustainability in supply chains', funded by the Regional Valencian Government. Also, the authors acknowledge Project 691249, RUC-APS: Enhancing and implementing knowledge-based ICT solutions within high risk and uncertain conditions for agriculture production systems (www.ruc-aps.eu), funded by the European Union according to funding scheme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015.Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alarcón Valero, F.; Pérez Perales, D.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ.; Rodríguez Rodríguez, R. (2021). A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 29:1231-1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3S1231125129Agarwal G, Vijayvargy L (2012) Green supplier assessment in environmentally responsive supply chains through analytical network process. In: Proceedings international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, Hong KongAgeron B, Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A (2012) Sustainable supply management: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):168–182Akarte MM, Surendra NV, Ravi B, Rangaraj N (2001) Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process. J Oper Res Soc 52:511–522Alfaro Saiz JJ, Rodríguez R, Ortiz Bas A, Verdecho MJ (2010) An information architecture for a performance management framework by collaborating SMEs. Comput Ind 61:676–685Alfaro JJ, Ortiz A, Rodríguez R (2007) Performance measurement system for enterprise networks. Int J Prod Perform Manag 56(4):305–334Awasthi A, Govindan K, Gold S (2018) Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195:106–117Azadnia AH, Ghadimi P, Zameri M, Saman M, Wong KY, Heavey C (2013) An integrated approach for sustainable supplier selection using fuzzy logic and fuzzy AHP. Appl Mech Mater 315:206–221Azimifard A, Moosavirad SH, Ariafar S (2018) Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resour Pol 57:30–44Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124:252–264Bhagwat R, Sharma MK (2007) Performance measurement of supply chain management: a balanced scorecard approach. Comput Ind Eng 53(1):43–62Bititci US, Mendibil K, Martinez V, Albores P (2005) Measuring and managing performance in extended enterprises. Int J Oper Prod Manag 25(4):333–353Brewer PC, Speh TW (2000) Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain performance. J Bus Logist 21(1):75–93Bullinger HJ, Kühner M, Hoof AV (2002) Analysing supply chain performance using a balanced measurement method. Int J Prod Res 40(15):3533–3543Chan FTS (2003) Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: an analytical hierarchy process approach. Int J Prod Res 41(15):3549–3579De Boer L, Labro E, Morlacchi P (2001) A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 7(2):75–89Degraeve Z, Labro E, Roodhooft F (2000) An evaluation of supplier selection methods from a total cost of ownership perspective. Eur J Oper Res 125(1):34–58Dobos I, Vörösmarty G (2014) Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators. Int J of Prod Econ 157(11):273–278Dou Y, Sarkis J (2010) A joint location and outsourcing sustainability analysis for a strategic offshoring decision. Int J Prod Res 48(2):567–592Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 11:130–141Falatoonitoosi E, Leman Z, Sorooshian S (2013) Modeling for green supply chain evaluation. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–9Farzad T, Rasid OM, Aidy A, Rosnah MY, Alireza E (2008) AHP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company. JIEM 1(2):54–76Ferreira LMDF, Silva C, Garrido Azevedo S (2016) An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmark Int J 23(6):1398–1422Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard: linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strat Env 11:269–284Folan P, Browne J (2005) Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system. Prod Plan Control 16(6):531–544Freeman J, Chen T (2015) Green supplier selection using an AHP-entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Manag 20:327–340Genovese A, Koh L, Bruno G, Esposito E (2013) Greener supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. Int J Prod Res 51(10):2868–2886Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (1998) A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56–57:199–212Glock CH, Grosse EH, Ries JM (2017) Decision support models for supplier development: systematic literature review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 194:246–260Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(1/2):71–87Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202:16–24Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264Hsu CW, Kuo TC, Chen SH, Hu AH (2013) Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J Clean Prod 56:164–172Huan SH, Sheoran SK, Wang G (2004) A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manag Int J 9(9):23–29Hutchins M, Sutherland JH (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod 16(15):1688–1698Igarashi M, Boer L, Magerholm Fet A (2013) What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J Purch Supply Manag 19(4):247–263Jimenez-Jimenez D, Martínez-Costa M, Sanchez Rodriguez C (2019) The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between information technology and innovation. J Knowl Manag 23(3):548–567Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70(1):71–79Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, Kumar Mangla S, Prakash Garg C (2017) An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J Clean Prod 140:1686–1698Maestrini V, Luzzini D, Maccarrone P, Caniato F (2017) Supply chain performance measurement systems: a systematic review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 183A:299–315Masella C, Rangone A (2000) A contingent approach to the design of vendor selection systems for different types of co-operative customer/supplier relationships. Int J Oper Prod Manag 20(1):70–84Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97Mohammed A, Harris I, Govindan K (2019) A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. Int J Prod Econ 217:171–184Motevali-Haghighi S, Torabi SA, Ghasemi R (2016) An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case study). J Clean Prod 137:579–597Nawaz W, Koç M (2018) Development of a systematic framework for sustainability management of organizations. J Clean Prod 171:1255–1274Nie X (2013) Green suppliers selecting based on analytic hierarchy process for biotechnology industry. In: Zhong Z (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on information engineering and applications. Springer, London, pp 253–260Nielsen IE, Banaeian N, Golińska P, Mobli H, Omid M (2014) Green supplier selection criteria: from a literature review to a flexible framework for determination of suitable criteria. In: Golinska P (ed) Logistics operations, supply chain management and sustainability. Springer, Cham, pp 79–99Noci G (1997) Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 3(2):103–114Petersen KJ, Handfield RB, Ragatz GL (2005) Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design. J Oper Manag 23:371–388Pishchulov G, Trautrims A, Chesney T, Gold S, Schwab L (2019) The voting analytic hierarchy process revisited: a revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection. Int J Prod Econ 211:166–179Popovic T, Kraslawski A, Barbosa-Póvoa A, Carvalho A (2017) Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of society and product responsibility aspects in supply chains. J Int Stud 10(4):9–36Qorri A, Mujki Z, Kraslawski A (2018) A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. J Clean Prod 189:570–584Reefke H, Trocchi M (2013) Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: design and development guidelines. Int J Prod Perform Manag 62(8):805–826Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkSaaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 38(3–4):233–244Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710Shaik M, Abdul-Kader W (2011) Green supplier selection generic framework: a multi-attribute utility theory approach. Int J Sustain Eng 4(1):37–56Shi P, Yan B, Shi S, Ke C (2015) A decision support system to select suppliers for a sustainable supply chain based on a systematic DEA approach. Inf Technol Manag 16(1):39–49Superdecisions (2018) Tutorial on hierarchical decision models. Creative Decisions Foundation. https://www.superdecisions.com/sd_resources/v28_man03.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2018Thakkar J, Kanda A, Deshmukh S (2009) Supply chain performance measurement framework for small and medium scale enterprises. Benchmark Int J 16(5):702–723Theißen S, Spinler S (2014) Strategic analysis of manufacturer–supplier partnerships: an ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):383–397Tseng ML, Lim M, Wong WP (2015) Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop network hierarchical approach. Ind Manag Data Syst 115(3):436–461Uysal F (2012) An integrated model for sustainable performance measurement in supply chain. Proc Soc Behav Sci 62:689–694Valenzuela L, Maturana S (2016) Designing a three-dimensional performance measurement system (SMD3D) for the wine industry: a Chilean example. Agric Syst 142:112–121Verdecho MJ, Alfaro-Saiz JJ, Rodriguez-Rodriguez R, Ortiz-Bas A (2012) A multi-criteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega 40:249–263Virender P, Jayant A (2014) A green supplier selection model for an agriculture-machinery industry. Int J Appl Eng Res 9(5):597–605Weber CA, Current JR, Benton WC (1991) Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 50(1):2–18Xu L, Kumar DT, Madan Shankar K, Kannan D, Chen G (2013) Analyzing criteria and sub-criteria for the corporate social responsibility-based supplier selection process using AHP. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68(1–4):907–916Xu Z, Qin J, Liu J, Martínez L (2019) Sustainable supplier selection based on AHP Sort II in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Inf Sci 483:273–293Zaklad A, McKnight R, Kosansky A, Piermarini J (2004) The social side of the supply chain. Ind Eng 36(2):40–44Zhe S, Wong NT, Lee LH (2013) Using data envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation with environmental considerations. In: International systems conference, OrlandoZimmer K, Fröhling M, Schultmann F (2016) Sustainable supplier management: a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int J Prod Res 54(5):1412–144

Performance measurement : challenges for tomorrow

This paper demonstrates that the context within which performance measurement is used is changing. The key questions posed are: Is performance measurement ready for the emerging context? What are the gaps in our knowledge? and Which lines of enquiry do we need to pursue? A literature synthesis conducted by a team of multidisciplinary researchers charts the evolution of the performance-measurement literature and identifies that the literature largely follows the emerging business and global trends. The ensuing discussion introduces the currently emerging and predicted future trends and explores how current knowledge on performance measurement may deal with the emerging context. This results in identification of specific challenges for performance measurement within a holistic systems-based framework. The principle limitation of the paper is that it covers a broad literature base without in-depth analysis of a particular aspect of performance measurement. However, this weakness is also the strength of the paper. What is perhaps most significant is that there is a need for rethinking how we research the field of performance measurement by taking a holistic systems-based approach, recognizing the integrated and concurrent nature of challenges that the practitioners, and consequently the field, face

Methodology for Designing Decision Support Systems for Visualising and Mitigating Supply Chain Cyber Risk from IoT Technologies

This paper proposes a methodology for designing decision support systems for visualising and mitigating the Internet of Things cyber risks. Digital technologies present new cyber risk in the supply chain which are often not visible to companies participating in the supply chains. This study investigates how the Internet of Things cyber risks can be visualised and mitigated in the process of designing business and supply chain strategies. The emerging DSS methodology present new findings on how digital technologies affect business and supply chain systems. Through epistemological analysis, the article derives with a decision support system for visualising supply chain cyber risk from Internet of Things digital technologies. Such methods do not exist at present and this represents the first attempt to devise a decision support system that would enable practitioners to develop a step by step process for visualising, assessing and mitigating the emerging cyber risk from IoT technologies on shared infrastructure in legacy supply chain systems

Assessing sustainability support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)

The aim of this paper is to evaluate qualitatively the impact of sustainability support to Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) where quantitative results are often difficult to appraise. Many of these organisations require sustainable business support to enable them to start or build their business concepts on sound sustainable platforms. Many SMEs are unable to quantitatively evaluate the benefit which they have received from support programmes because they are in the project planning stage or have limited financial data. Without a form of evaluation, support networks often cannot retain funding support. This paper is based on the grounded theory approach to analyse qualitative data received from participants in a sustainability support programme. Research on such programmes to SMEs is scant. This paper proposes the use of qualitative data collection and its evaluation to be considered when making the case for funding such programmes, along with quantitative data when availabl

Strategies for sustainable socio-economic development and mechanisms their implementation in the global dimension

The authors of the book have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to effectively use modern approaches to developing and implementation strategies of sustainable socio-economic development in order to increase efficiency and competitiveness of economic entities. Basic research focuses on economic diagnostics of socio-economic potential and financial results of economic entities, transition period in the economy of individual countries and ensuring their competitiveness, assessment of educational processes and knowledge management. The research results have been implemented in the different models and strategies of supply and logistics management, development of non-profit organizations, competitiveness of tourism and transport, financing strategies for small and medium-sized enterprises, cross-border cooperation. The results of the study can be used in decision-making at the level the economic entities in different areas of activity and organizational-legal forms of ownership, ministries and departments that promote of development the economic entities on the basis of models and strategies for sustainable socio-economic development. The results can also be used by students and young scientists in modern concepts and mechanisms for management of sustainable socio-economic development of economic entities in the condition of global economic transformations and challenges

Qualitative Case Studies in Operations Management: Trends, Research Outcomes, And Future Research Implications

Our study examines the state of qualitative case studies in operations management. Five main operations management journals are included for their impact on the field. They are in alphabetical order: Decision Sciences, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Journal of Operations Management, Management Science, and Production and Operations Management. The qualitative case studies chosen were published between 1992 and 2007. With an increasing trend toward using more qualitative case studies, there have been meaningful and significant contributions to the field of operations management, especially in the area of theory building. However, in many of the qualitative case studies we reviewed, sufficient details in research design, data collection, and data analysis were missing. For instance, there are studies that do not offer sampling logic or a description of the analysis through which research out-comes are drawn. Further, research protocols for doing inductive case studies are much better developed compared to the research protocols for doing deductive case studies. Consequently, there is a lack of consistency in the way the case method has been applied. As qualitative researchers, we offer suggestions on how we can improve on what we have done and elevate the level of rigor and consistency

Challenging the Enterprises' Business Model: helping entrepreneurs to understand and interpret opportunities and threats

Christopher Brown, Diane Morrad, ‘Challenging the Enterprises' Business Model: helping entrepreneurs to understand and interpret opportunities and threats’, paper presented at the 15th Annual Edineb Conference, Malaga, Spain, 15-18 June, 2008.Enterprises are presented with ever increasing challenges regarding marketplace uncertainty and ambiguity. They face competitive pressures from local and international sources, their competitors are constantly tweaking products and services to jostle ahead of them, and their customers expect responsiveness and innovativeness to their expressed and latent needs. The enterprises’ very success, and survival, depends on their ability to change their business, market and product strategies to fit these challenges. Underlying these business, market and product strategies is the enterprises’ business model. Simply, business models are an organisation’s understanding and interpretation of how they currently, and in the future, achieve their revenue and profit streams. These business models, used by the senior management and employees, are often based on outdated perspectives of both how the marketplace works and the changing business and customer values expected by their demanding stakeholders. In SMEs the creation, development and creative deconstruction of business models is most often driven by the founding entrepreneur, or subsequent corporate entrepreneurs brought in to provide professional management of these rapidly growing businesses. Interestingly, more recent research has strongly linked entrepreneurs’ mindset, or mental models (Zahra, Korri et al. 2005), associated with the challenges to the enterprise, with their drivers for innovation and changes in their enterprises’ business models. Certainly research has identified the potential value changes, business and customer, that can often facilitate the construction and deconstruction of business value-based innovations (Munive-Hernandez, Dewhurst et al. 2004), and then reflecting these in their overall business processes. This paper discusses the research study, undertaken by the authors, to explore the link between entrepreneurs’ understanding and interpretation of business opportunities and threats, and the potential influence in challenging their mindset business model. The paper begins by discussing the two broad approaches to modelling enterprise strategies and the resulting integrated business models: innovation and process orientations.Peer reviewedSubmitted Versio