Search results

Outsourcing is recognized as one of the critical factors for efficient execution of pharmaceutical supply chain management (PSCM), and many pharmaceutical companies engage in international outsourcing of services (IOS) to survive in global highly competitive business. Since the key success factors for both domestic & international alliances are partnership characteristics and strategic fit management, but there is no empirical research on this issue in Thai pharmaceutical partnership offshore outsourcing. Therefore, this survey of Thai and foreign companies, both contract providers (CPs) and contract manufacturers (CMs), seeks to indicate significant relationships among both outsourcing strategic fit and partnership types, including outsourcing performance outcome. This research is two-fold. First, the partnership types (Type I, II, & III), the strategic fit types (low fit, moderate fit, and good fit), and their correlations are analyzed. And second, their outsourcing performance (company revenues and growth rates) are presented. The results showed that the most of the Thai pharmaceutical outsourcing manufacturing are classified as the partnership Type II, as well as the moderate strategic fit, and strongly support the relationship between the two models. Both of the companies’ revenue and growth rate could predict the companies’ performances outcome for each of partnership and strategic fit types. However, it is not necessary that the most integrative type of partnership, Type III, will be always the best, because it depends also on the strategic fit between each pair of partners as well.

The purpose of this paper is to examine high-tech small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) supply chain partnerships. Partnerships are considered at the level of business function rather than the entire organisation. Second, the drivers of SMEs to engage in partnerships are assessed to see whether functions engage in partnerships for different reasons. Third, performance per function is assessed to see the differential effect of partnerships on the function’s performance.

In this study, the relationship between the drivers of SMEs to engage in partnerships, four types of partnerships (marketing and sales, research and development (R&D), purchasing and logistics, and production) and four types of functional performances of firms (marketing and sales, R&D, purchasing and logistics, and production) are examined. The data have been collected from 279 SMEs. The proposed hypotheses are tested using structural equation modelling.

The results indicate that there are considerable differences between business functions in terms of the degree of involvement in partnerships and the effect of partnerships on the performance of these functions. This paper contributes to research by explaining the contradictory results of partnerships on SMEs performance.

This study helps firms understand which type of partnership should be established based on the firm’s drivers to engage in supply chain partnership; and which partnership has a significant effect on which type of business performance of the firm.

The originality of this study is to investigate the relationship between different drivers to engage in supply chain partnership and different types of partnerships and different functional performance of firm in a single model.

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.