The effects of strategic planning, purchasing strategy and strategic partnership on operational performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global competition in the manufacturing industry has obliged the companies to adopt an efficient and effective business process and adaptability of the company's competitive strategy following the external uncertainty conditions. The competitive strategy should enhance the competitiveness of the company, which is formulated during the strategic planning process. This paper investigates the impact of strategic planning, purchasing strategy, strategic partnership, on operational performance. The research has surveyed, using a questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale, 135 manufacturing companies domiciled in the region of East Java, Indonesia. Data analysis used the PLS technique. The objective of the analysis is to assess the measurement model for validity and reliability. Besides, the analysis also examines six hypotheses developed. The result reveals that all six hypotheses were empirically supported. The manufacturing company's strategic planning influences the purchasing strategy and strategic partnership. The result also shows that purchasing strategy through periodic evaluation of supplier capability, influences the strategic partnership in terms of involvement of suppliers in the business process of the company. Overall, strategic planning, purchasing strategy, and strategic partnership affect operational performance. It was also found that purchasing strategy and strategic partnerships mediate the influence of strategic planning on the performance. The results presented here may facilitate improvements in operational performance in the context of supply chain management. This paper also contributes to the ongoing research in the supply chain management theory.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it