Coordination in humanitarian logistics through clusters

Purpose – In the field of humanitarianism, cluster thinking has been suggested as a solution to the lack of coordinated disaster response. Clusters for diverse functions, including sheltering, logistics and water and sanitation, can be viewed as an effort to achieve functional coordination. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a greater understanding of the potential of cluster concepts using supply chain coordination and inter‐cluster coordination. The focus is on the conceptual level rather than on specific means of coordination. Design/methodology/approach – The cluster concept in humanitarian relief, along with some key empirical issues, is based on a case study. The concept is then compared to the literature on clusters and coordination in order to develop a theoretical framework with propositions on the tradeoffs between different types of coordination. Findings – The results provide important reflections on one of the major trends in contemporary development of humanitarian logistics. This paper shows that there is a tradeoff between different types of coordination, with horizontal coordination inside cluster drawing attention away from important issues of the supply chain as well as the need to coordinate among the clusters. Research limitations/implications – There is a need for more in‐depth case studies of experiences with clusters in various operations. Various perspectives should be taken into account, including the field, responding agencies, beneficiaries, donors, military and commercial service providers, both during and between disasters. Practical implications – The paper presents the tradeoffs between different types of coordination, in which basic aims such as standardisation through functional coordination, must be balanced with cross‐functional and vertical coordination in order to more successfully serve the users' composite needs. Originality/value – The focus on possible trade‐offs between different types of coordination is an important complement to the literature, which often assumes simultaneous high degrees of horizontal and vertical coordination.

Value and proportions of intangible assets : A comparison between the private- and the public sector

Organizations within the public- and the private sector have different aims with their accounting. Privately held organizations often have the intention to make profit, while authorities within the public sector aim to provide citizens with different services. The difference between these two sectors is also visible in the legislation, where International Accounting Standards Board set the standards for privately held organizations and Ekonomistyrningsverket do the same for the public sector. Because of the larger demand by the society for knowledge and technology, included in the category intangible assets, these are more emphasized in the accounting for organizations. Intangible assets are although linked with complexity which is associated with the measurement. The purpose of this study is therefore to see whether there are any existing differences in how to measure and value intangible assets and internally generated ones between listed companies in the private sector and authorities operating in the public sector. This study is conducted with both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. The data collected for this study is secondary, and is gathered through samples of annual reports from different companies in order to be representative for the whole population. The main results of this study is that there are differences in the measurement and valuation of intangible assets dependent on which sector an organization operates within and this is not due to the standards and regulations. The differences are visible in the percentage change in value of intangible assets since they fluctuate more heavily in the private sector than in the public sector. Simultaneously, the proportions of internally generated intangible assets compared to intangible assets in general differ between the two sectors.