Modelling, collaboration and integration : a case study for the delivery of public buildings

An evolution in the use of digital modelling has occurred in the Queensland Department of Public Works Division of Project Services over the last 20 years from: the initial implementation of computer aided design and documentation (CADD); to experimentation with building information modelling (BIM); to embedding integrated practice (IP); to current steps towards integrated project delivery (IPD) including the active involvement of consultants and contractors in the design/delivery process. This case study is one of three undertaken through the Australian Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre investigating past R&D investment. The intent of these cases is to inform the development of policy guidelines for future investment in the construction industry in Australia. This research is informing the activities of CIB Task Group 85 R&D Investment and Impact. The uptake of digital modelling by Project Services has been approached through an incremental learning approach. This has been driven by a strong and clear vision with a focus on developing more efficient delivery mechanisms through the use of new technology coupled with process change. Findings reveal an organisational focus on several areas including: (i) strategic decision making including the empowerment of innovation leaders and champions; (ii) the acquisition and exploitation of knowledge; (iii) product and process development (with a focus on efficiency and productivity); (iv) organisational learning; (v) maximising the use of technology; and (vi) supply chain integration. Key elements of this approach include pilot projects, researcher engagement, industry partnerships and leadership.

Statistics critical in securing our food supply

“World food security … is at its lowest in half a century,” wrote Julian Cribb FTSE, a wellknown consultant in science communication and founding editor of www.sciencealert. com.au in the lead article in the 2008 ATSE Focus magazine issue entitled “Food for the world: the nation’s challenge”. Food security continues to be a key national and international concern and it is pleasing to see this issue of Focus again exploring aspects of the topic with the aim of continuing to raise awareness of issues and influencing relevant policy decisions. Statistics (or statistical science, more broadly) has been critical to the information and decision-making value chain needed to optimise agriculture and the food supply chain. The key steps are most often addressed by multidisciplinary research groups including statisticians in collaboration with life and physical scientists, agri-industry personnel and other relevant stakeholders.

Why the World Suddenly Cares About Global Supply Chains

The global value chain (GVC) concept has gained popularity as a way to analyze the international expansion and geographical fragmentation of contemporary supply chains and value creation and capture therein. It has been used broadly in academic publications that examine a wide range of global industries, and by many of the international organizations concerned with economic development. This note highlights some of the main features of GVC analysis and discusses the relationship between the core concepts of governance and upgrading. The key dynamics of contemporary global supply chains and their implications for global production and trade are illustrated by: (1) the consolidation of global value chains and the new geography of value creation and capture, with an emphasis on China; (2) the key roles of global supermarkets and private standards in agri-food supply chains; and (3) how the recent economic crisis contributes to shifting end markets and the regionalization of value chains. It concludes with a discussion of the future direction of GVC analysis and a potential collaboration with supply chain researchers. © 2012 Institute for Supply Management, Inc.

De la cooperativa agroalimentaria a la "learning netchain". Hacia un planteamiento teorico interorganizativo e interpersonal

Se propone un planteamiento teórico/conceptual para determinar si las relaciones interorganizativas e interpersonales de la netchain de las cooperativas agroalimentarias evolucionan hacia una learning netchain. Las propuestas del trabajo muestran que el mayor grado de asociacionismo y la mayor cooperación/colaboración vertical a lo largo de la cadena están positivamente relacionados con la posición horizontal de la empresa focal más cercana del consumidor final. Esto requiere una planificación y una resolución de problemas de manera conjunta, lo que está positivamente relacionado con el mayor flujo y diversidad de la información/conocimiento obtenido y diseminado a lo largo de la netchain. Al mismo tiempo se necesita desarrollar un contexto social en el que fluya la información/conocimiento y las nuevas ideas de manera informal y esto se logra con redes personales y, principalmente, profesionales y con redes internas y, principalmente, externas. Todo esto permitirá una mayor satisfacción de los socios de la cooperativa agroalimentaria y de sus distribuidores y una mayor intensidad en I+D, convirtiéndose la netchain de la cooperativa agroalimentaria, así, en una learning netchain.

Strategic supply lead time management. Case Nokia Networks, Hardware Services

Teollisuuden palveluiden on huomattu olevan potentiaalinen lisätulojen lähde. Teollisuuden palveluiden dynaamisessa maailmassa räätälöinti ja kyky toimia nopeasti ovat kriittisiä asiakastyytyväisyyden ja kilpailuedun luomisprosessin osia. Toimitusketjussa käytetyn ajan lyhentämisellä voidaan saavuttaa sekä paremmat vasteajat, että alhaisemmat kokonaiskustannukset. Tutkielman tavoitteena on kuvata teollisuuden palveluiden dynaamista ympäristöä: asiakastarvetta, sekä mahdollisuuksia kaventaa pyydetyn ja saavutetun toimitusajan välistä eroa. Tämä toteutetaan pääosin strategisen toimitusajan hallinnan keinoin. Langattomien tietoliikenneverkkojen operaattorit haluavat vähentää ydinosaamiseensa kuulumatomiin toimintoihin, kuten ylläpitoon sitoutuneita pääomia. Tutkielman case osiossa varaosapalvelujen toimitusketjun kysyntä-, materiaali- ja informaatiovirtoja analysoidaan niin kvalitatiivisten haastatteluiden, sisäisten dokumenttien, kuin kvantitatiivisten tilastollisten menetelmienkin avulla. Löydöksiä peilataan vallitsevaa toimitusketjun ja ajanhallinnan paradigmaa vasten. Tulokset osoittavat, että vahvan palvelukulttuurin omaksuminen ja kokonaisvaltainen toimitusketjun tehokkuuden mittaaminen ovat ajanhallinnan lähtökohtia teollisuuden palveluissa.

Happy growers! Relationship quality in the German organic apple chain

Relational factors between supply chain actors have been acknowledged to contribute significantly to competitiveness. With the example of the German market for organic apples the suitability of the concept of the Relational View for explaining competitiveness was investigated. Structured interviews were conducted with selected actors of the supply chain. Actors at all levels of the supply chain proved to be highly committed and described their business relations as satisfying and trustful. Strong vertical and horizontal collaboration was found. Thus, the Relational View proved to be highly suitable to explain competitiveness in the market for organic apples.

El Outsourcing en la dinámica de sistemas hacia mercados extranjeros

Este trabajo recopila literatura académica relevante sobre estrategias de entrada y metodologías para la toma de decisión sobre la contratación de servicios de Outsourcing para el caso de empresas que planean expandirse hacia mercados extranjeros. La manera en que una empresa planifica su entrada a un mercado extranjero, y realiza la consideración y evaluación de información relevante y el diseño de la estrategia, determina el éxito o no de la misma. De otro lado, las metodologías consideradas se concentran en el nivel estratégico de la pirámide organizacional. Se parte de métodos simples para llegar a aquellos basados en la Teoría de Decisión Multicriterio, tanto individuales como híbridos. Finalmente, se presenta la Dinámica de Sistemas como herramienta valiosa en el proceso, por cuanto puede combinarse con métodos multicriterio.

Small business collaboration through electronic marketplace

It is widely recognized that small businesses with less than 50 employees make significant contributions to the prosperity of local, regional, and national economies. They are a major source of job creation and a driving force of economic growth for developed countries like the USA (Headd, 2005; SBA, 2005), the UK (Dixon, Thompson, & McAllister, 2002; SBS, 2005), Europe (European Commission, 2003), and developing countries such as China (Bo, 2005). The economic potential is further strengthened when firms collaborate with each other; for example, formation of a supply chain, strategic alliances, or sharing of information and resources (Horvath, 2001; O’Donnell, Cilmore, Cummins, & Carson, 2001; MacGregor, 2004; Todeva & Knoke, 2005). Owing to heterogeneous aspects of small businesses, such as firm size and business sector, a single e-business solution is unlikely to be suitable for all firms (Dixon et al., 2002; Taylor & Murphy, 2004a); however, collaboration requires individual firms to adopt standardized, simplified solutions based on open architectures and data design (Horvath, 2001). The purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual e-business framework and a generic e-catalogue, which enables small businesses to collaborate through the creation of an e-marketplace. To assist with the task, analysis of data from 6,000 small businesses situated within a locality of Greater Manchester, England within the context of an e-business portal is incorporated within this study.

CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

Private label supply chains: a model for competitiveness?

The search for efficiency in supply chains has usually focused on logistic optimization aspects. Initiatives like the ECR are an example. This research questions the appropriateness of this focus comparing detailed cost structures of fifteen consumer products, covering five different product categories. It compares supply chains of private label products, presumably more efficient due to closer collaboration between chain members, to national brands supply chains. The major source of cost differences lies in other indirect costs incurred by the national brands and not directly assignable to advertising. Results indicate that a complete reconception of the supply chain, exploring different governance structures offers greater opportunities for cost savings than the logistic aspect in isolation. Research was done in the UK in 1995-1997, but results are only now publishable due to confidentiality agreements

A management model for closed-loop supply chains of reusable articles

This PhD dissertation is framed in the emergent fields of Reverse Logistics and ClosedLoop Supply Chain (CLSC) management. This subarea of supply chain management has gained researchers and practitioners' attention over the last 15 years to become a fully recognized subdiscipline of the Operations Management field. More specifically, among all the activities that are included within the CLSC area, the focus of this dissertation is centered in direct reuse aspects. The main contribution of this dissertation to current knowledge is twofold. First, a framework for the so-called reuse CLSC is developed. This conceptual model is grounded in a set of six case studies conducted by the author in real industrial settings. The model has also been contrasted with existing literature and with academic and professional experts on the topic as well. The framework encompasses four building blocks. In the first block, a typology for reusable articles is put forward, distinguishing between Returnable Transport Items (RTI), Reusable Packaging Materials (RPM), and Reusable Products (RP). In the second block, the common characteristics that render reuse CLSC difficult to manage from a logistical standpoint are identified, namely: fleet shrinkage, significant investment and limited visibility. In the third block, the main problems arising in the management of reuse CLSC are analyzed, such as: (1) define fleet size dimension, (2) control cycle time and promote articles rotation, (3) control return rate and prevent shrinkage, (4) define purchase policies for new articles, (5) plan and control reconditioning activities, and (6) balance inventory between depots. Finally, in the fourth block some solutions to those issues are developed. Firstly, problems (2) and (3) are addressed through the comparative analysis of alternative strategies for controlling cycle time and return rate. Secondly, a methodology for calculating the required fleet size is elaborated (problem (1)). This methodology is valid for different configurations of the physical flows in the reuse CLSC. Likewise, some directions are pointed out for further development of a similar method for defining purchase policies for new articles (problem (4)). The second main contribution of this dissertation is embedded in the solutions part (block 4) of the conceptual framework and comprises a two-level decision problem integrating two mixed integer linear programming (MILP) models that have been formulated and solved to optimality using AIMMS as modeling language, CPLEX as solver and Excel spreadsheet for data introduction and output presentation. The results obtained are analyzed in order to measure in a client-supplier system the economic impact of two alternative control strategies (recovery policies) in the context of reuse. In addition, the models support decision-making regarding the selection of the appropriate recovery policy against the characteristics of demand pattern and the structure of the relevant costs in the system. The triangulation of methods used in this thesis has enabled to address the same research topic with different approaches and thus, the robustness of the results obtained is strengthened.

Evaluation of configurations of supply networks supported by it systems

Los sistemas transaccionales tales como los programas informáticos para la planificación de recursos empresariales (ERP software) se han implementado ampliamente mientras que los sistemas analíticos para la gestión de la cadena de suministro (SCM software) no han tenido el éxito deseado por la industria de tecnología de información (TI). Aunque se documentan beneficios importantes derivados de las implantaciones de SCM software, las empresas industriales son reacias a invertir en este tipo de sistemas. Por una parte esto es debido a la falta de métodos que son capaces de detectar los beneficios por emplear esos sistemas, y por otra parte porque el coste asociado no está identificado, detallado y cuantificado suficientemente. Los esquemas de coordinación basados únicamente en sistemas ERP son alternativas válidas en la práctica industrial siempre que la relación coste-beneficio esta favorable. Por lo tanto, la evaluación de formas organizativas teniendo en cuenta explícitamente el coste debido a procesos administrativos, en particular por ciclos iterativos, es de gran interés para la toma de decisiones en el ámbito de inversiones en TI. Con el fin de cerrar la brecha, el propósito de esta investigación es proporcionar métodos de evaluación que permitan la comparación de diferentes formas de organización y niveles de soporte por sistemas informáticos. La tesis proporciona una amplia introducción, analizando los retos a los que se enfrenta la industria. Concluye con las necesidades de la industria de SCM software: unas herramientas que facilitan la evaluación integral de diferentes propuestas de organización. A continuación, la terminología clave se detalla centrándose en la teoría de la organización, las peculiaridades de inversión en TI y la tipología de software de gestión de la cadena de suministro. La revisión de la literatura clasifica las contribuciones recientes sobre la gestión de la cadena de suministro, tratando ambos conceptos, el diseño de la organización y su soporte por las TI. La clasificación incluye criterios relacionados con la metodología de la investigación y su contenido. Los estudios empíricos en el ámbito de la administración de empresas se centran en tipologías de redes industriales. Nuevos algoritmos de planificación y esquemas de coordinación innovadoras se desarrollan principalmente en el campo de la investigación de operaciones con el fin de proponer nuevas funciones de software. Artículos procedentes del área de la gestión de la producción se centran en el análisis de coste y beneficio de las implantaciones de sistemas. La revisión de la literatura revela que el éxito de las TI para la coordinación de redes industriales depende en gran medida de características de tres dimensiones: la configuración de la red industrial, los esquemas de coordinación y las funcionalidades del software. La literatura disponible está enfocada sobre todo en los beneficios de las implantaciones de SCM software. Sin embargo, la coordinación de la cadena de suministro, basándose en el sistema ERP, sigue siendo la práctica industrial generalizada, pero el coste de coordinación asociado no ha sido abordado por los investigadores. Los fundamentos de diseño organizativo eficiente se explican en detalle en la medida necesaria para la comprensión de la síntesis de las diferentes formas de organización. Se han generado varios esquemas de coordinación variando los siguientes parámetros de diseño: la estructura organizativa, los mecanismos de coordinación y el soporte por TI. Las diferentes propuestas de organización desarrolladas son evaluadas por un método heurístico y otro basado en la simulación por eventos discretos. Para ambos métodos, se tienen en cuenta los principios de la teoría de la organización. La falta de rendimiento empresarial se debe a las dependencias entre actividades que no se gestionan adecuadamente. Dentro del método heurístico, se clasifican las dependencias y se mide su intensidad basándose en factores contextuales. A continuación, se valora la idoneidad de cada elemento de diseño organizativo para cada dependencia específica. Por último, cada forma de organización se evalúa basándose en la contribución de los elementos de diseño tanto al beneficio como al coste. El beneficio de coordinación se refiere a la mejora en el rendimiento logístico - este concepto es el objeto central en la mayoría de modelos de evaluación de la gestión de la cadena de suministro. Por el contrario, el coste de coordinación que se debe incurrir para lograr beneficios no se suele considerar en detalle. Procesos iterativos son costosos si se ejecutan manualmente. Este es el caso cuando SCM software no está implementada y el sistema ERP es el único instrumento de coordinación disponible. El modelo heurístico proporciona un procedimiento simplificado para la clasificación sistemática de las dependencias, la cuantificación de los factores de influencia y la identificación de configuraciones que indican el uso de formas organizativas y de soporte de TI más o menos complejas. La simulación de eventos discretos se aplica en el segundo modelo de evaluación utilizando el paquete de software ‘Plant Simulation’. Con respecto al rendimiento logístico, por un lado se mide el coste de fabricación, de inventario y de transporte y las penalizaciones por pérdida de ventas. Por otro lado, se cuantifica explícitamente el coste de la coordinación teniendo en cuenta los ciclos de coordinación iterativos. El método se aplica a una configuración de cadena de suministro ejemplar considerando diversos parámetros. Los resultados de la simulación confirman que, en la mayoría de los casos, el beneficio aumenta cuando se intensifica la coordinación. Sin embargo, en ciertas situaciones en las que se aplican ciclos de planificación manuales e iterativos el coste de coordinación adicional no siempre conduce a mejor rendimiento logístico. Estos resultados inesperados no se pueden atribuir a ningún parámetro particular. La investigación confirma la gran importancia de nuevas dimensiones hasta ahora ignoradas en la evaluación de propuestas organizativas y herramientas de TI. A través del método heurístico se puede comparar de forma rápida, pero sólo aproximada, la eficiencia de diferentes formas de organización. Por el contrario, el método de simulación es más complejo pero da resultados más detallados, teniendo en cuenta parámetros específicos del contexto del caso concreto y del diseño organizativo. ABSTRACT Transactional systems such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems have been implemented widely while analytical software like Supply Chain Management (SCM) add-ons are adopted less by manufacturing companies. Although significant benefits are reported stemming from SCM software implementations, companies are reluctant to invest in such systems. On the one hand this is due to the lack of methods that are able to detect benefits from the use of SCM software and on the other hand associated costs are not identified, detailed and quantified sufficiently. Coordination schemes based only on ERP systems are valid alternatives in industrial practice because significant investment in IT can be avoided. Therefore, the evaluation of these coordination procedures, in particular the cost due to iterations, is of high managerial interest and corresponding methods are comprehensive tools for strategic IT decision making. The purpose of this research is to provide evaluation methods that allow the comparison of different organizational forms and software support levels. The research begins with a comprehensive introduction dealing with the business environment that industrial networks are facing and concludes highlighting the challenges for the supply chain software industry. Afterwards, the central terminology is addressed, focusing on organization theory, IT investment peculiarities and supply chain management software typology. The literature review classifies recent supply chain management research referring to organizational design and its software support. The classification encompasses criteria related to research methodology and content. Empirical studies from management science focus on network types and organizational fit. Novel planning algorithms and innovative coordination schemes are developed mostly in the field of operations research in order to propose new software features. Operations and production management researchers realize cost-benefit analysis of IT software implementations. The literature review reveals that the success of software solutions for network coordination depends strongly on the fit of three dimensions: network configuration, coordination scheme and software functionality. Reviewed literature is mostly centered on the benefits of SCM software implementations. However, ERP system based supply chain coordination is still widespread industrial practice but the associated coordination cost has not been addressed by researchers. Fundamentals of efficient organizational design are explained in detail as far as required for the understanding of the synthesis of different organizational forms. Several coordination schemes have been shaped through the variation of the following design parameters: organizational structuring, coordination mechanisms and software support. The different organizational proposals are evaluated using a heuristic approach and a simulation-based method. For both cases, the principles of organization theory are respected. A lack of performance is due to dependencies between activities which are not managed properly. Therefore, within the heuristic method, dependencies are classified and their intensity is measured based on contextual factors. Afterwards the suitability of each organizational design element for the management of a specific dependency is determined. Finally, each organizational form is evaluated based on the contribution of the sum of design elements to coordination benefit and to coordination cost. Coordination benefit refers to improvement in logistic performance – this is the core concept of most supply chain evaluation models. Unfortunately, coordination cost which must be incurred to achieve benefits is usually not considered in detail. Iterative processes are costly when manually executed. This is the case when SCM software is not implemented and the ERP system is the only available coordination instrument. The heuristic model provides a simplified procedure for the classification of dependencies, quantification of influence factors and systematic search for adequate organizational forms and IT support. Discrete event simulation is applied in the second evaluation model using the software package ‘Plant Simulation’. On the one hand logistic performance is measured by manufacturing, inventory and transportation cost and penalties for lost sales. On the other hand coordination cost is explicitly considered taking into account iterative coordination cycles. The method is applied to an exemplary supply chain configuration considering various parameter settings. The simulation results confirm that, in most cases, benefit increases when coordination is intensified. However, in some situations when manual, iterative planning cycles are applied, additional coordination cost does not always lead to improved logistic performance. These unexpected results cannot be attributed to any particular parameter. The research confirms the great importance of up to now disregarded dimensions when evaluating SCM concepts and IT tools. The heuristic method provides a quick, but only approximate comparison of coordination efficiency for different organizational forms. In contrast, the more complex simulation method delivers detailed results taking into consideration specific parameter settings of network context and organizational design.

The growing importance of inter-company collaboration

Guest editorial: This special issue has been drawn from papers that were published as part of the Second European Conference on Management of Technology (EuroMOT) which was held at Aston Business School (Birmingham, UK) 10-12 September 2006. This was the official European conference for the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT); the overall theme of the conference was “Technology and global integration.” There were many high-calibre papers submitted to the conference and published in the associated proceedings (Bennett et al., 2006). The streams of interest that emerged from these submissions were the importance of: technology strategy, innovation, process technologies, managing change, national policies and systems, research and development, supply chain technology, service and operational technology, education and training, small company incubation, technology transfer, virtual operations, technology in developing countries, partnership and alliance, and financing and investment. This special issue focuses upon the streams of interest that accentuate the importance of collaboration between different organisations. Such organisations vary greatly in character; for instance, they may be large or small, publicly or privately owned, and operate in manufacturing or service sectors. Despite these varying characteristics they all have something in common; they all stress the importance of inter-organisational collaboration as a critical success factor for their organisation. In today's global economy it is essential that organisations decide what their core competencies are what those of complementing organisations are. Core competences should be developed to become a bases of differentiation, leverage and competitive advantage, whilst those that are less mature should be outsourced to other organisations that can claim to have had more recognition and success in that particular core competence (Porter, 2001). This strategic trend can be observed throughout advanced economies and is growing strongly. If a posteriori reasoning is applied here it follows that organisations could continue to become more specialised in fewer areas whilst simultaneously becoming more dependent upon other organisations for critical parts of their operations. Such actions seem to fly in the face of rational business strategy and so the question must be asked: why are organisations developing this way? The answer could lie in the recent changes in endogenous and exogenous factors of the organisation; the former emphasising resource-based issues in the short-term, and strategic positioning in the long-term whilst the later emphasises transaction costs in the short-term and acquisition of new skills and knowledge in the long-term. For a harmonious balance of these forces to prevail requires organisations to firstly declare a shared meta-strategy, then to put some cross-organisational processes into place which have their routine operations automated as far as possible. A rolling business plan would review, assess and reposition each organisation within this meta-strategy according to how well they have contributed (Binder and Clegg, 2006). The important common issue here is that an increasing number of businesses today are gaining direct benefit from increasing their levels of inter-organisational collaboration. Such collaboration has largely been possible due to recent technological advances which can make organisational structures more agile (e.g. the extended or the virtual enterprise), organisational infra-structure more connected, and the sharing of real-time information an operational reality. This special issue consists of research papers that have explored the above phenomenon in some way. For instance, the role of government intervention, the use of internet-based technologies, the role of research and development organisations, the changing relationships between start-ups and established firms, the importance of cross-company communities of practice, the practice of networking, the front-loading of large-scale projects, innovation and the probabilistic uncertainties that organisations experience are explored in these papers. The cases cited in these papers are limited as they have a Eurocentric focus. However, it is hoped that readers of this special issue will gain a valuable insight into the increasing importance of collaborative practices via these studies.

Designing a support system for aerospace maintenance supply chains

Purpose - To develop a systems strategy for supply chain management in aerospace maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO). Design/methodology/approach - A standard systems development methodology has been followed to produce a process model (i.e. the AMSCR model); an information model (i.e. business rules) and a computerised information management capability (i.e. automated optimisation). Findings - The proof of concept for this web-based MRO supply chain system has been established through collaboration with a sample of the different types of supply chain members. The proven benefits comprise new potential to minimise the stock holding costs of the whole supply chain whilst also minimising non-flying time of the aircraft that the supply chain supports. Research limitations/implications - The scale of change needed to successfully model and automate the supply chain is vast. This research is a limited-scale experiment intended to show the power of process analysis and automation, coupled with strategic use of management science techniques, to derive tangible business benefit. Practical implications - This type of system is now vital in an industry that has continuously decreasing profit margins; which in turn means pressure to reduce servicing times and increase the mean time between them. Originality/value - Original work has been conducted at several levels: process, information and automation. The proof-of-concept system has been applied to an aircraft MRO supply chain. This is an area of research that has been neglected, and as a result is not well served by current systems solutions. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Information systems, inter-functional collaboration and innovation in Taiwanese high-tech manufacturing firms

This article investigates whether (1) cross-functional integration within a firm and the use of information systems (IS) that support information sharing with external parties can enhance integration across the supply chain and wider networks and (2) whether collaboration with customers, suppliers and other external parties leads to increased supply chain performance in terms of new product development and introduction of new processes. Data from a high-quality survey carried out in Taiwan in 2009 were used, and appropriate econometric models were applied. Results show that the adoption of IS that enhance information sharing is vital not only for the effective communication with suppliers and with wider network members, but their adoption also has a direct effect across a firm's innovative effort. Cross-functional integration appears to matter only for the introduction of an innovative process. Collaboration with customers and suppliers affected a product's design and its overall features and functionality, respectively. © 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.