MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034468362 · doi:10.1108/10878570610676873

Making the case for the added‐value chain

2006· article· en· W2034468362 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne McPhee, David Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategy and Leadership · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCommunity Based Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue chainGoodwillValue (mathematics)Business valueBusinessMarketingOutsourcingIndustrial organizationValue networkValue propositionReputationDemand chainBusiness modelSupply chainEconomicsProfit (economics)MicroeconomicsSupply chain managementService managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Porter's value chain has been a keystone of strategic analysis. However, because of processes associated with economic globalization: outsourcing, brand marketing and “knowledge economy” phenomena, value drivers have changed dramatically over the last 20 years. The added‐value chain provides an expanded mental model for practitioners and academics to develop and communicate strategies for value creation. Design/methodology/approach The expanded set of activities in the added‐value chain was developed based on experience using the value chain in real world situations and analyzing leading business and strategy models that are commonly used by firms today. Findings The added‐value chain incorporates new sources of value creation such as the firm's brand, reputation and “social capital” or goodwill in addition to profit margin. The Added‐Value Chain also adds three primary activities. Practical implications Managers performing value‐chain analysis need to take into account newly important business drivers. Originality/value Expanding the value chain ensures that no potential strategic activity is forgotten and no opportunity for enhancing value is over‐looked.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.041
Scholarly communication0.0200.041
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.102 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategy and LeadershipSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207