Supplier selection and evaluation are arguably one of the most critical functions for the success of an organization. Several approaches exist in the literature to objectively evaluate suppliers, including analytic hierarchy process and total cost of ownership. Analytic hierarchy process provides a framework to cope with multiple criteria situations involving supplier selection, while the total cost of ownership is a methodology and philosophy, which look beyond just the price of a purchase to better understand and manage costs in selecting and maintaining relationships with suppliers. This paper illustrates the two approaches and provides a comparison.

The essence of benchmarking is the process of identifying the highest standards of excellence for products, services, or processes, and then making the improvements necessary to reach those standards ± commonly called``best practices''. Various companies have adopted benchmarking and customized the methodology to suit their needs. A five-step benchmarking model is suggested in this paper as a model to be used when undertaking a benchmarking study. Two case studies are enumerated and a comparison presented.

Buyer-supplier relationships play an important role in an organization's ability to respond to dynamic and unpredictable change. If the relationship is too restrictive, flexibility will be difficult to achieve and, if it is too lenient the risk of opportunism will be present. This paper provides a framework for understanding how buyer-supplier relationships have evolved over the past two decades from transaction processes based on arms-length agreements to collaborative processes based on trust and information sharing. To achieve this objective, buyer-supplier relationships are reviewed from the perspectives of transaction cost theory, strategy-structure theory and resource-based theory of the firm. Findings from early supply chain research are contrasted with the findings of more current research to provide a better understanding of how these relationships have changed. Current theory is extended by offering two proposals that test the influence of trust and information sharing and a third proposal that rejects the notion that supply chain alliances lead to monopolistic practices.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to develop the survey utilized in this research as a data collection tool for the study of organizational responsiveness.Design/methodology/approachDrawing from the operations and strategic management literature, measurement scales were developed in order to empirically test five proposed enablers of organizational responsiveness: environmental scanning, strategic planning, flexible manufacturing infrastructures, supply chain governance mechanisms, and multi‐skilled workers.FindingsThe survey produced a total of 66 responses from 59 companies in three industries: automotive suppliers, instrumentation equipment, and semiconductor components. Three of the five enablers were found to be bi‐dimensional, which produced a survey instrument with eight separate measurement scales. Coefficient alpha was observed to be within the acceptable range for all construct scales and factor analysis confirmed unidimensionality for each construct.Research limitations/implicationsThe survey instrument presented in this paper provides a better understanding of the processes that enable organizational responsiveness. This measurement scale will serve as a tool that will allow future researchers to more accurately operationalize the enablers of organizational responsiveness.Practical implicationsThe ability of firms to quickly respond to changes in their external environment is a primary determinant of firm performance. This research provides important practical implications for firms wishing to maximize their levels of agility and flexibility in responding to changing environmental conditions.Originality/valueFew measurement scales currently exist that can be utilized to measure and predict rates of organizational responsiveness. The survey instrument developed as part of this research provides important insights into various organizational factors that enable organizational responsiveness.

No abstract

Summary Transferring critically ill patients between intensive care units (ICU) is often required in the UK, particularly during the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, there is a paucity of data examining clinical outcomes following transfer of patients with COVID‐19 and whether this strategy affects their acute physiology or outcome. We investigated all transfers of critically ill patients with COVID‐19 between three different hospital ICUs, between March 2020 and March 2021. We focused on inter‐hospital ICU transfers (those patients transferred between ICUs from different hospitals) and compared this cohort with intra‐hospital ICU transfers (patients moved between different ICUs within the same hospital). A total of 507 transfers were assessed, of which 137 met the inclusion criteria. Forty‐five patients underwent inter‐hospital transfers compared with 92 intra‐hospital transfers. There was no significant change in median compliance 6 h pre‐transfer, immediately post‐transfer and 24 h post‐transfer in patients who underwent either intra‐hospital or inter‐hospital transfers. For inter‐hospital transfers, there was an initial drop in median PaO2/FIO2 ratio: from median (IQR [range]) 25.1 (17.8–33.7 [12.1–78.0]) kPa 6 h pre‐transfer to 19.5 (14.6–28.9 [9.8–52.0]) kPa immediately post‐transfer (p < 0.05). However, this had resolved at 24 h post‐transfer: 25.4 (16.2–32.9 [9.4–51.9]) kPa. For intra‐hospital transfers, there was no significant change in PaO2/FIO2 ratio. We also found no meaningful difference in pH; PaCO2;, base excess; bicarbonate; or norepinephrine requirements. Our data demonstrate that patients with COVID‐19 undergoing mechanical ventilation of the lungs may have short‐term physiological deterioration when transferred between nearby hospitals but this resolves within 24 h. This finding is relevant to the UK critical care strategy in the face of unprecedented demand during the COVID‐19 pandemic.