Search results

This study focuses on (re-)introducing computer simulation as a part of the research paradigm. Simulation is a widely applied research method in supply chain and operations management. However, leading journals, such as the International Journal of Operations and Production Management, have often been reluctant to accept simulation studies. This study provides guidelines on how to conduct simulation research that advances theory, is relevant, and matters.

This study pooled the viewpoints of the editorial team of the International Journal of Operations and Production Management and authors of simulation studies. The authors debated their views and outlined why simulation is important and what a compelling simulation should look like.

There is an increasing importance of considering uncertainty, an increasing interest in dynamic phenomena, such as the transient response(s) to disruptions, and an increasing need to consider complementary outcomes, such as sustainability, which many researchers believe can be tackled by big data and modern analytical tools. But building, elaborating, and testing theory by purposeful experimentation is the strength of computer simulation. The authors therefore argue that simulation should play an important role in supply chain and operations management research, but for this, it also has to evolve away from simply generating and analyzing data. Four types of simulation research with much promise are outlined: empirical grounded simulation, simulation that establishes causality, simulation that supplements machine learning, artificial intelligence and analytics and simulation for sensitive environments.

This study identifies reasons why simulation is important for understanding and responding to today's business and societal challenges, it provides some guidance on how to design good simulation studies in this context and it links simulation to empirical research and theory going beyond multimethod studies.

Dominant quality standards are present in all industries. Implicit in their use is the assumption that once adopted, there is little or no reason to replace them. However, there is evidence that, under certain circumstances, such standards do get replaced. The reasons for this action are not well-understood, either as they pertain to the displacement decision or to the selection and adoption of the alternative standard. The purpose of this study is to identify and explore these two issues (displacement and replacement) by drawing on data from the American healthcare system. This study is viewed through the theoretical lens of legitimacy theory. In addition, the process is viewed from a temporal perspective. The resulting findings are used to better understand how this displacement process takes place and to identify directions for interesting and meaningful future research.

This is an explanatory study that draws on data gathered from quality managers in 89 hospitals that had adopted a new healthcare quality standard (of these, some fifty percent had displaced the dominant quality standard – the Joint Commission – with a different standard – DNV Healthcare.

The combined literature review and case study data provide insights into the displacement process. This is a process that evolves over time. Initially, the process is driven by the need to meet customer demands. However, over time, as the organizations try to integrate the guidelines contained within the standards into the organization, gaps in the quality standard emerge. It is these gaps that motivate the need to displace standards. The legitimacy perspective is highly effective at explaining this displacement process. In addition, the study uncovers some critical issues, namely the important role played by the individual auditors in the certification process and the importance of fit between the standard and the context in which it is deployed.

The data for the propositions in this case study were derived from interviews and survey data from 89 healthcare organizations. It would be interesting to examine similar relationships with other quality standards and industries.

Our findings provide new insights related to motivations to decouple from a dominant quality standard. Results provide a cautionary tale for standards that hold a dominant market share such that perceived legitimacy of such standards is not as stable as originally thought.

This study illuminates the fragile nature of the stability of dominant standards and emphasizes the linkages between legitimacy concerns and divestiture of such standards.

This article seeks to broaden how researchers in supply chain management view supply chain resilience by drawing on and integrating insights from other disciplines – in particular, the literature on the resilience of social-ecological systems.

Before the authors import new notions of resilience from outside the discipline, the current state of the art in supply chain resilience research is first briefly reviewed and summarized. Drawing on five practical examples of disruptive events and challenges to supply chain practice, the authors assess how these examples expose gaps in the current theoretical lenses. These examples are used to motivate and justify the need to expand our theoretical frameworks by drawing on insights from the literature on social-ecological systems.

The supply chain resilience literature has predominantly focused on minimizing the consequences of a disruption and on returning to some form of steady state (often assumed to be identical to the state that existed prior to the disruption) implicitly assuming the supply chain behaves like an engineered system. This article broadens the debate around supply chain resilience using literature on social-ecological systems that puts forward three manifestations of resilience: (1) persistence, which is akin to an engineering-based view, (2) adaptation and (3) transformation. Furthermore, it introduces seven principles of resilience thinking that can be readily applied to supply chains.

A social-ecological interpretation of supply chains presents many new avenues of research, which may rely on the use of innovative research methods to further our understanding of supply chain resilience.

The article encourages managers to think differently about supply chains and to consider what this means for their resilience. The three manifestations of resilience are not mutually exclusive. For example, while persistence may be needed in the initial aftermath of a disruption, adaptation and transformation may be required in the longer term.

The article challenges traditional assumptions about supply chains behaving like engineered systems and puts forward an alternative perspective of supply chains as being dynamic and complex social-ecological systems that are impossible to entirely control.

Inventory management systems in health-care supply chains (HCSC) have been pushed to breaking point by the COVID-19 pandemic. Unanticipated demand shocks due to stockpiling of medical supplies caused stockouts, and the stockouts triggered systematic supply chain (SC) disruptions inconceivable for risk managers working individually with limited information about the pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to respond to calls from the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) for coordinated global action by proposing a research agenda based on a review of current knowledge and knowledge gaps on the role of collaboration in HCSCs in maintaining optimal stock levels and reinforcing resilience against stockout disruptions during pandemics.

A systematic review was conducted, and a total of 752 articles were analyzed.

Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment practices are under-researched in the HCSC literature. Similarly, a fragmented application of extant SC collaborative risk management capabilities undermines efforts to enhance resilience against systematic disruptions from medical stockouts. The paucity of HCSC articles in humanitarian logistics and SC journals indicates a need for more research interlinking two interdependent yet critical fields in responding to pandemics.

Although based on an exhaustive search of academic articles addressing HCSCs, there is a possibility of having overlooked other studies due to search variations in language controls, differences in publication cycle time and database search engines.

The paper relies on COVID-19's uniqueness to highlight the limitations in optimization and individualistic approaches to managing medical inventory and stockout risks in HCSCs. The paper proposes a shift from a fragmented to holistic application of relevant collaboration practices and capabilities to enhance the resilience of HCSCs against stockout ripple effects during future pandemics. The study propositions and suggestion for an SC learning curve provide an interdisciplinary research agenda to trigger early preparation of a coordinated HCSC and humanitarian logistics response to future pandemics.

Time is the top priority. We now live in real time. It's no longer life in the fast lane because every lane is fast. The computer has changed the way we view time. We expect everything to occur at Pentium speed! A time lag causes stress since it is viewed as an unnecessary waste. This is not a matter of immediate gratification; rather delays—such as standing in line—are viewed as something being wrong with the system, and the company that allows it to happen is perceived as not being up to speed! (Graham, 1996, p. 4).

The purpose of this paper is to focus on adoption of certified management standards, specifically public standards. Such standards play an increasingly important role in today’s business environment. However, to generate adoption benefits, they must be first widely accepted – a situation where they have become viewed as the de facto norms. For this state to occur early adopters play a critical role. Past research has argued that early adopters, in exchange for assuming more risk, are rewarded with higher economic returns. Yet, these findings are based on private, not public standards. With public standards, early adopters do not receive such benefits. There is evidence that public standards are becoming more important. This situation leads to a simple but important question addressed in this study – if early adopters assume the risks of embracing a new public standard without economic benefits, then what is their motivation? To resolve this question, this study draws on agency theory and prospect theory. The authors argue that early adopters embrace such standards because of their desire to minimize risk resulting from failure to support the goal at the heart of the public standards.

Data were obtained from the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) Partners Cost Benefit Survey and analyzed through structural equation modeling.

Early adopters of public standards are not driven by economic benefits but rather by the need to minimize their exposure to the risks associated with failing to satisfy the goals associated with a public standard. In other words, they were motivated by the need to minimize costs. In the case of C-TPAT, these costs are those of failing to provide or improve network security.

This study has shed new light on the standards adoption process by clarifying the specific motivations that drive early adoption of a public standard. In addition to identifying the loss aversion motives of early adopters and economic benefit motives of later adopters, the authors have also elaborated on the notion that standards have differing levels of precedence, particularly when comparing private with public standards.

In a world characterized by increasing demands for outcomes such as improved security and where governmental funding is falling, due to growing deficits and governments that are becoming more conservative, the authors expect the use of public standards to increase.

Different from prior research on private standard, the paper focuses on the organizations involved in the adoption and diffusion of a public standard, with special attention being devoted to the early adopters. The paper provides a theoretical explanation for the actions of early adopters of a public standard through the theoretical lens of prospect theory.

This paper examines the role played by environmental issues during the new product design process. These issues are studied through an exploratory research project based on case studies of ten companies. The firms studied can be categorized into one of five major groups: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. These groups strongly parallel the model of new product acceptance initially developed in the computer industry, as presented by Moore (1991). Of interest is the gap that exists between the early adopters and early majority users. This gap forms a chasm. Those factors that account for acceptance of environmentally responsible manufacturing in the innovators and early adopters are significantly different from those factors observed in the early majority, late majority, and laggards. This paper examines these and other differences, and the impact of these differences on the acceptance and use of environmental concerns within the new product design process.