"The book discusses how to align enterprises with the patient at the center. It details the historical context of the biopharmaceutical value chain and the current set of challenges facing the industry, and then details the author's unique and sustainable agenda for change .... The book traces the critical but often ignored relationships among hospitals, insurance companies, biopharma manufacturers, government regulators, and clinical scientists. For too long, these parties have been operating in a void, without recognizing the interconnectedness of their objectives, even though these objectives are often competing and misaligned. This book points out the gaps that exist and develops a set of recommendations regarding disease treatments, clinical development of new products, and collaboration among these players that can result in a sustainable solution to the healthcare mess"--Back cover
Purpose Each year, the US defense industry outsources nearly $400 bn of domestic goods and services through competitive bids. These procurement activities are quite often complex and specialized in nature because of a highly regulated federal acquisition contracting environment. Ongoing calls to improve supplier management and drive innovation in the defense industry offers an opportunity to adopt Early Supplier Integration (ESI) initiatives that have proven successful in the private sector. This paper identifies critical ESI activities and acquisition practices that the defense industry should adopt to ensure enhanced effectiveness in new product development.
Design/methodology/approach Leveraging a conceptual ESI model derived from the research, an in-depth case study of 12 product development projects from a major defense contractor was performed. In the context of project performance, critical ESI activities and moderating effects were assessed.
Findings Three key ESI activities have the greatest impact on aggregate project performance: system design involvement, design adjustment opportunities and design for manufacturability/assembly/testability involvement. Use of formal supplier agreements also significantly impacts project performance during the development phase. In addition, project complexity and product team maturity were identified as environment moderators; higher complexity projects tended to negatively moderate the impact of ESI upon performance, and higher team maturity levels tended to positively moderate the impact of ESI upon performance.
Originality/value The results provide a sound framework for empirical validation through future quantitative studies and defense industry analyses. In addition, insights and recommendations for interpretation and adaptation of federal acquisition regulations to allow increased utilization of ESI within the defense industry are substantiated.
PurposeThis paper aims to seek answers to the question: What are the relevant factors that allow not-for-profit innovation networks to successfully transition new technologies from proof-of-concept to commercialisation?Design/methodology/approachThis question is examined using the knowledge-based view and network orchestration theory. Data are collected from 35 interviews with managers and engineers working within seven centres that comprise the High Value Manufacturing Catapult (HVMC). These centres constitute a not-for-profit innovation network where suppliers, customers and competitors collaborate to help transition new technologies across the "Valley of Death" (the gap between establishing a proof of concept and commercialisation).FindingsNetwork orchestration theory suggests that a hub firm facilitates the exchange of knowledge amongst network members (knowledge mobility), to enable these members to profit from innovation (innovation appropriability). The hub firm ensures positive network growth, and also allows for the entry and exit of network members (network stability). This study of not-for-profit innovation networks suggests the role of a network orchestrator is to help ensure that intellectual property becomes a public resource that enhances the productivity of the domestic economy. The authors observed how network stability was achieved by the HVMC's seven centres employing a loosely-coupled hybrid network configuration. This configuration however ensured that new technology development teams, comprised of suppliers, customers and competitors, remained tightly-coupled to enable co-development of innovative technologies. Matching internal technical and sectoral expertise with complementary experience from network members allowed knowledge to flow across organisational boundaries and throughout the network. Matrix organisational structures and distributed decision-making authority created opportunities for knowledge integration to occur. Actively moving individuals and teams between centres also helped to diffuse knowledge to network members, while regular meetings between senior management ensured network coordination and removed resource redundancies.Originality/valueThe study contributes to knowledge-based theory by moving beyond existing understanding of knowledge integration in firms, and identified how knowledge is exchanged and aggregated within not-for-profit innovation networks. The findings contribute to network orchestration theory by challenging the notion that network orchestrators should enact and enforce appropriability regimes (patents, licences, copyrights) to allow members to profit from innovations. Instead, the authors find that not-for-profit innovation networks can overcome the frictions that appropriability regimes often create when exchanging knowledge during new technology development. This is achieved by pre-defining the terms of network membership/partnership and setting out clear pathways for innovation scaling, which embodies newly generated intellectual property as a public resource. The findings inform a framework that is useful for policy makers, academics and managers interested in using not-for-profit networks to transition new technologies across the Valley of Death.
Purpose: Why do managers redesign global supply chains in a particular manner when faced with compounding geopolitical disruptions? In answering this research question, our study identifies a constrained system of reasoning (decision-making logic) employed by managers when they redesign their supply chains in situations of heightened uncertainty. Design/methodology/approach: We conducted 40 elite interviews with senior supply chain executives in 28 companies across nine industries from November 2019 to June 2020, when the United Kingdom was preparing to leave the European Union, the US-China trade war was escalating, and Covid-19 was spreading rapidly around the globe. Findings: When redesigning global supply chains, we find that managerial decision-making logic is constrained by three distinct environmental ecosystem conditions: 1) the perceived intensity of institutional pressures; 2) the relative mobility of suppliers and supply chain assets, and; 3) the perceived severity of the potential disruption risk. Intense government pressure and persistent geopolitical risk tend to impact firms in the same industry, resulting in similar approaches to decision-making regarding supply chain design. However, where suppliers are relatively immobile and supply chain assets are relatively fixed, a dominant logic is consistently present. Originality/value: Building on an institutional logics perspective, our study finds that managerial decision-making under heightened uncertainty is not solely guided by institutional pressures but also by perceptions of the risk of supply chain disruption and immobility of supply chain assets. These findings support the theoretical development of a novel construct that we term 'supply chain logics.' Finally, our study provides a decision-making framework for Senior Executives competing in an increasingly complex and unstable business environment.
Purpose: Why do managers redesign global supply chains in a particular manner when faced with compounding geopolitical disruptions? In answering this research question, our study identifies a constrained system of reasoning (decision-making logic) employed by managers when they redesign their supply chains in situations of heightened uncertainty. Design/methodology/approach: We conducted 40 elite interviews with senior supply chain executives in 28 companies across nine industries from November 2019 to June 2020, when the United Kingdom was preparing to leave the European Union, the US-China trade war was escalating, and Covid-19 was spreading rapidly around the globe. Findings: When redesigning global supply chains, we find that managerial decision-making logic is constrained by three distinct environmental conditions: 1) the perceived intensity of institutional pressures; 2) the relative mobility of suppliers and supply chain assets, and; 3) the perceived severity of the potential disruption risk. Intense government pressure and persistent geopolitical risk tend to impact firms in the same industry, resulting in similar approaches to decision-making regarding supply chain design. However, where suppliers are relatively immobile and supply chain assets are relatively fixed, a dominant logic is consistently present. Originality/value: Building on an institutional logics perspective, our study finds that managerial decision-making under heightened uncertainty is not solely guided by institutional pressures but also by perceptions of the risk of supply chain disruption and immobility of supply chain assets. These findings support the theoretical development of a novel construct that we term 'supply chain logics.' Finally, our study provides a decision-making framework for Senior Executives competing in an increasingly complex and unstable business environment.
ABSTRACTInspired by recent discussions of the systematic costs that external rankings impose on academic institutions, and the undeniable shifts in the landscape of institutional data, a concerted and pragmatic re‐evaluation of ranking efforts has begun. In this study, multiple administrators and researchers representing both public and private institutions across the United States weigh in on these issues. While reaffirming the social contract we hold with society, we argue that the fundamental methodological shortcomings of existing rankings, and ultimately any ordinal ranking system, limit the value of current rankings. These shortcomings emerge from the conceptualization and the architecture of comparisons, and are evident in survey designs, data collection methods, and data aggregation procedures. Our discussion continues by outlining the minimal requirements that a socially responsible, transparent, flexible, and highly representative rating (vs. ranking) approach should employ. Ultimately, we call on academic institutions and organizing bodies to take a collective stand against existing rankings and to embrace the strategic use of multidimensional alternatives that faithfully serve prospective students, parents, and other key stakeholders. We conclude with a number of suggestions and opportunities for practice‐oriented research in the decision sciences aimed to support this fundamental shift in evaluative framing.
