Search results

Purpose – This research study aims to answer the question of how good is the development of the extended regency, and which shows better autonomy of development—before or after expanding. The implications of this study is to answer whether expanding a regent is truly needed to improve the economic development and welfare of the remote regions and their people. This study analyzes the autonomous state of three regencies, North Aceh, Bireuen and Lhokseumawe districts, which have expanded. The analysis takes into consideration the difference in the proportion of their regional revenues, budgeting perfomance, and economic growth as indicators of regional autonomy.

Design/Method/Approach – The data used in this research are secondary data sourced from the budget realization report and the accountability report of North Aceh, Bireuen, and Lhokseumawe districts from 2006 to 2013. The data analysis methods used in this study are the analysis of financial ratios and the comparative mean of one way anova.

Finding – The results showed a significant value or a probability value more than 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis (H1) is rejected, and therefore the hypothesis (H0) is received.

Research Impication – The implication is that there is no difference in the average of regional autonomy of North Aceh Regency, Bireuen, and Lhokseumawe districts as seen from the proportion of local revenue, budgeting perfomance, and regional growth. It means that with regard to financial performance there is no difference in the level of independence in autonomy among the three regions. The proportion of local revenue, financial permormance area, and the development of North Aceh, Bireuen, and Lhokseumawe districts demonstrate no influence on the level of independence in autonomy.

Cross-docking is a supply chain distribution and logistics strategy for which less-than-truckload shipments are consolidated into full-truckload shipments. Goods are stored up to a maximum of 24 hours in a cross-docking terminal. In this chapter, we build on the literature review by Ladier and Alpan (2016), who reviewed cross-docking research and conducted interviews with cross-docking managers to find research gaps and provide recommendations for future research. We conduct a systematic literature review, following the framework by Ladier and Alpan (2016), on cross-docking literature from 2015 up to 2020. We focus on papers that consider the intersection of research and industry, e.g., case studies or studies presenting real-world data. We investigate whether the research has changed according to the recommendations of Ladier and Alpan (2016). Additionally, we examine the adoption of Industry 4.0 practices in cross-docking research, e.g., related to features of the physical internet, the Internet of Things and cyber-physical systems in cross-docking methodologies or case studies. We conclude that only small adaptations have been done based on the recommendations of Ladier and Alpan (2016), but we see growing attention for Industry 4.0 concepts in cross-docking, especially for physical internet hubs.

Purpose: Previous research identified a measurement gap in the individual assessment of social misconduct in the workplace related to gender. This gap implies that women respond to comparable self-reported acts of bullying or sexual discrimination slightly more often than men with the self-labeling as “bullied” or “sexually discriminated and/or harassed.” This study tests this hypothesis for women and men in the scientific workplace and explores patterns of gender-related differences in self-reporting behavior.

Basic design: The hypotheses on the connection between gender and the threshold for self-labeling as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against were tested based on a sample from a large German research organization. The sample includes 5,831 responses on bullying and 6,987 on sexual discrimination (coverage of 24.5 resp. 29.4 percentage of all employees). Due to a large number of cases and the associated high statistical power, this sample for the first time allows a detailed analysis of the “gender-related measurement gap.” The research questions formulated in this study were addressed using two hierarchical regression models to predict the mean values of persons who self-labeled as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against. The status of the respondents as scientific or non-scientific employees was included as a control variable.

Results: According to a self-labeling approach, women reported both bullying and sexual discrimination more frequently. This difference between women and men disappeared for sexual discrimination when, in addition to the gender of a person, self-reported behavioral items were considered in the prediction of self-labeling. For bullying, the difference between the two genders remained even in this extended prediction. No statistically significant relationship was found between the frequency of self-reported items and the effect size of their interaction with gender for either bullying or sexual discrimination. When comparing bullying and sexual discrimination, it should be emphasized that, on average, women report experiencing a larger number of different behavioral items than men.

Interpretation and relevance: The results of the study support the current state of research. However, they also show how volatile the measurement instruments for bullying and sexual discrimination are. For example, the gender-related measurement gap is considerably influenced by single items in the Negative Acts Questionnaire and Sexual Experience Questionnaire. The results suggest that women are generally more likely than men to report having experienced bullying and sexual discrimination. While an unexplained “gender gap” in the understanding of bullying was found for bullying, this was not the case for sexual discrimination.