Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chief purchasing officer (CPO) plays a critical role in ensuring supply contributes effectively to organizational goals and strategies. The selection of the individual who will become the company's first CPO is especially important. A reporting line establishment occurs at the same time as an appointment of a first CPO when a large organization centralizes a previously decentralized supply function. Using case‐based methodology, this research in large North American and European organizations examined 26 appointments of the first CPO and corresponding reporting line establishments. Data collection and analysis covered six aspects: drivers, CPO background, reporting line, the key decision makers and influencers involved in the decision, tenure of the first CPO and tenure of the first reporting line. It was found that changes in corporate strategy accounted for nearly 80 percent of the first CPO appointments and the CEO had a major say in decisions related to who would be hired as the first CPO as well as his or her reporting line. Almost 30 percent of internally recruited CPOs did not have any supply experience. However, externally recruited CPOs always had supply experience, but did not necessarily come from a CPO position. The CPOs reported to a variety of different positions, with the CEO and VP shared services being the most popular. The average tenure for the first CPO was more than one year longer than his or her reporting line. The potential implications for supply executives are explored. Opportunities for future research are also identified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".