Selection of planned supply initiatives: the role of senior management expertise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the selection of planned supply initiatives and the role of senior management expertise. The drivers that influence the selection of particular supply initiatives by firms are of major interest to both practitioners and academics, as choices indicate priorities for resources, potential performance gaps and needs for future research. Moreover, theory indicates that senior management expertise and firm‐level resources might influence the likelihood of selecting particular initiatives. Design/methodology/approach A synthesis of the literature supported the development of a five‐dimensional framework of major supply initiatives. Logistic regression was conducted with data from a survey of chief purchasing officers at large North American firms. The impact of firm‐level resources and senior management expertise, including background and experience, was assessed for the selection of supply initiatives. Findings After controlling for general industry‐level factors, both firm resources and senior management expertise were found to systematically affect the likelihood of a firm planning to pursue particular initiatives. First, hiring senior management from outside the firm decreased the likelihood that network‐based initiatives were planned, while senior management who last worked in supply were found to be negatively related to planned supply strategy initiatives. Second, firms with greater use of e‐business technologies favored additional investment in supply networks. Research limitations/implications This research focused on large firms in developed countries, and additional research is needed to explore the generalizability to small and medium‐sized enterprises and less‐developed countries. Moreover, additional work is needed to explore trade‐offs between planned and emergent initiatives, as only the former were empirically assessed. Originality/value Senior management expertise has received relatively little attention in prior research, yet was found to be a significant factor influencing strategic, process and network‐related supply initiatives. Moreover, the framework of supply initiatives provides a basis for assessing and benchmarking firm‐level supply chain strategy and investment patterns. Finally, empirical evidence emerged that both firm and individual‐level factors influenced the probability of selecting particular initiatives.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".