MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Supply Organizational Structure Dilemma

2001· article· en· W2001633093 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Supply Chain Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational structureBusinessPurchasingFlexibility (engineering)Strategic business unitIndustrial organizationProcess managementOrganizational performanceDilemmaMarketingManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This article presents the findings of research into how and why large, multiunit firms make major changes to the organizational structure of the supply function. The research used case‐based methodology to investigate 10 large companies that had recently made a major supply structure change. A total of 15 major supply organizational changes were studied at the 10 sites. The research found that these major changes were a result of changes in the overall corporate structure, challenging the conventional view found in standard purchasing texts that supply executives have flexibility in matters of organizational design. The research identified that a common driver for corporate organizational change in each of the sites studied involved an attempt by the company to improve its cost structure. Chief financial officers (CPOs), business unit managers, consultants, and chief purchasing officers (CPOs) were all identified as having involvement in the supply organizational structure change process at some sites. A principal challenge for CPOs is to understand how to provide supply improvement opportunities under any organizational structure.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it