MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273245210

Managing High-Risk Outsourcing

2006· article· en· W2273245210 on OpenAlex
Emanuele Padovani, David W. Young

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

VenueArchivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutsourcingVendorBusinessQuality (philosophy)LocalityProfit (economics)IncentiveRisk managementOperations managementMarketingRisk analysis (engineering)FinanceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outsourcing is a strategy used by many municipalities in an effort to provide high quality public services at a low cost. Unfortunately, outsourcing has not always achieved these goals. In this paper, we describe a variety of techniques that a municipality can use to manage the vendor of a high-risk outsourced service.
\n
\nTo identify the nature of the risk, a municipality needs to assess a service that is a candidate for outsourcing from three perspectives: citizen sensitivity, supplier market, and switching costs. Although some outsourced activities are almost risk free, there are many others where a combination of high citizen sensitivity, low competition, and high switching costs make outsourcing more risky.
\nA high-risk service may still have considerable potential for improving the cost-effectiveness of a municipality’s public services. To achieve this potential, however, a high-risk outsourcing contract requires strong performance measures, a high level of ongoing communication and cooperation to fill the gaps that are inevitable in any high-risk contract, and a full linkage with the municipality’s management control system. In particular, outsourcing a service does not mean excluding it from a municipality’s ongoing process of programming, budgeting, reporting, and evaluating. Indeed, the reporting phase of the management control process must focus on both the results being produced by the vendor, and the monitoring activities of the department within the municipality charged with managing the vendor. Otherwise, the municipality’s senior management may learn too late of emerging problems.
\nFinally, periodic evaluation is essential. It is possible, for example, that another vendor, working in another municipality, has developed some considerable expertise in the outsourced activity, such that a change in vendors would improve the quality of the service, lower its cost, or both. This kind of information ordinarily will not emerge during the normal monitoring of the existing vendor.
\n
\nIn short, when a municipality engages in high-risk outsourcing and wishes to assure its citizens that the cost savings are not matched by a reduction in service quality and features, it must develop an appropriate set of outsourcing management activities. Given that many outsourcing arrangements are high-risk, a focus on these activities is essential.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.180 · 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