Search results

Increasing amount of empirical research in operations and supply chain management is using institutional theory as its theoretical lens. Yet, a common scale to measure the three institutional pressures – coercive, mimetic and normative – is lacking. Many studies use proxies or a single, grouped, construct of external pressures which present methodological challenges. This study aims to present the development of multi-item scales to measure institutional pressures (in a purchasing context).

First, items were generated based on the theoretical construct definitions. These items were then tested through academic sorting and an international survey. The first empirical testing failed to produce reliable and valid scales, and further refinement and analysis revealed that coercive pressure splits into two separate constructs. A second q-sorting was then conducted with purchasing practitioners, followed by another survey in Italy to verify the new measurement scale for four institutional pressures.

The multimethod and multistage measurement development reveals that empirically the three institutional pressures actually turn into four pressures. The theoretical construct of coercive pressure splits into two distinct constructs: coercive market pressure and coercive regulatory pressure.

The results of the paper, namely, the measurement scales, are an important theoretical and methodological contribution to future empirical research. They present a much-needed measurement for these theoretical constructs increasingly used in management research.

Contemporary supply chain relationships inherently rely on delegation of work between organizations and, thus, are subject to agency problems for which a wide range of governance mechanisms exist. This review of agency theory (AT), across four distinct fields, explains the connection between governance mechanisms and supply chain relationship types.

The study uses a systematic literature review (SLR) of articles using AT in a supply chain context from the operations and supply chain management, general management, marketing, and economics fields.

The authors categorize the governance mechanisms identified to create a typology of agency relationships in supply chains.

The developed typology provides parsimonious theory on different forms of supply chain agency relationships and takes a step towards a “supply chain-oriented agency theory” explaining and predicting relationship types and governance in supply chains. Furthermore, a future research agenda calls for more accurate measuring of agency costs, to examine residual gains alongside residual losses, to take a dual-sided perspective of agency relations and to adopt AT to examine more complex supply networks.

The review provides a menu of governance mechanisms and describes situations under which these mechanisms could be deployed to guide managers when developing their supply chain relationships.

The first review to combine and elaborate views from four major disciplines using AT as a lens to supply chain relationships. Expanding the traditional set of governance mechanisms provides academics and practitioners with a bigger “menu” of options to consider.

The purpose of this paper is to compare service outsourcing decisions between public and private organizations and against a theoretical decision-making framework to both understand differences across the sectors and to provide an outsourcing framework more suitable specifically for outsourcing (and for the public sector).

Multiple case studies, i.e. a study of phenomena (here outsourcing process) at various sites is used as an approach.

Findings indicate that public sector organizations are trailing behind private sector organizations in how the decision-making process is conducted and resourced. The authors suggest regular evaluation of service functions internally as a starting point for the outsourcing service decision-making process. Additionally, the market analysis should be done prior to cost analysis and benchmarking as the availability of suppliers more qualified than the internal process defines the make or buy decision.

The newly developed framework based on empirical evidence includes the following phases: regular evaluation of service functions, market analysis, cost analysis and benchmarking and evaluating relevant service activities. Applying the framework improves the efficient delivery of outsourced public services and brings public sector outsourcing closer to the professionalism currently present in the private sector.

Choosing between in-house and outsourced service delivery is a fundamental decision in both private and public sector organizations. Previous outsourcing research has mostly focused on the private sector, with limited focus on the public sector’s outsourcing processes, yet understanding of the service outsourcing process is important in ensuring organizational competitiveness and cost efficiency.