The superefficient company

Most companies do a great job promoting efficiency within their own walls, streamlining internal processes wherever possible. But they have less success coordinating cross-company business interactions. When data pass between companies, inconsistencies, errors, and misunderstandings routinely arise, leading to wasted work--for instance, the same sales, order entry, and customer data may be entered repeatedly into different systems. Typically, scores of employees at each company manage these cumbersome interactions. The costs of such inefficiencies are very real and very large. In this article, Michael Hammer outlines the activities and goals used in streamlining cross-company processes. He breaks down the approach into four stages: scoping--identifying the business process for redesign and selecting a partner; organizing--establishing a joint committee to oversee the redesign and convening a design team to implement it; redesigning--taking apart and reassembling the process, with performance goals in mind; and implementing--rolling out the new process and communicating it across the collaborating companies. The author describes how several companies have streamlined their supply-chain and product development processes. Plastics compounder Geon integrated its forecasting and fulfillment processes with those of its main supplier after watching inventories, working capital, and shipping times creep up. General Mills coordinated the delivery of its yogurt with Land O'Lakes; butter and yogurt travel cost effectively in the same trucks to the same stores. Hammer says this new kind of collaboration promises to change the traditional vocabulary of corporate relationships. What if you and I sell different products to the same customer? We're not competitors, but what are we? In the past, we didn't care. Now, we should, the author says.     

Measuring private transfers between generations and gender: an application of national transfer accounts for Austria 2015

Empirica - Few data sources provide information on private transfers between generations and gender. We use a novel approach based on the National Transfer Accounts methodology to estimate the...     

When Philosophy and Business Professors Talk: Assessment of Ethical Reasoning in a Cross Disciplinary Business Ethics Course

Can instructors with apparently divergent approaches to the goals and methods of teaching business ethics agree upon a core set of course objectives? Can they agree upon a common method of assessment for measuring student performance against shared standards? This paper reports the results of a project intended to address these questions. The goals of the project were threefold: (1) to identify a shared set of core competencies for all students in business ethics; (2) to adopt a common assessment of ethical reasoning (neutral to disciplinary bias) for measuring student performance in core competencies; (3) to determine whether students show improvement in core competencies over the course of a semester. Our findings suggest that it is possible to find common ground in measurable objectives and to expect instructors to interpret, apply, and teach to these objectives effectively without infringing upon their disciplinary differences.     

On the financial balance of input–output constructs: revisiting an axiomatic evaluation

Financial balance is fundamental to input–output (IO) analysis, and consequently the respect of this balance is one of the dominant criteria in evaluating IO constructs. Kop Jansen, and ten Raa [(1990) The Choice of Model in the Construction of Input–Output Coefficients Matrices. International Economic Review 31, 213] proved that the byproduct-technology construct (BTC) and the industry-technology construct (ITC) do not generally conserve financial balance. In contrast, Majeau-Bettez et al. [(2016) When do Allocations and Constructs Respect Material, Energy, Financial, and Production Balances in LCA and EEIO? Journal of Industrial Ecology 20, 67–84] demonstrated that the BTC necessarily respects financial balance and that the ITC is always financially balanced when applied to data recorded in monetary units. The present article resolves this paradox.     

A MULTI-OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF INPUT–OUTPUT MATRIX UPDATING METHODS

This paper shows that important insights can be lost when assessing the relative performance of balancing methods solely based on individual optima. This is demonstrated through a multi-objective assessment. A trade-off curve between RAS and sign-preserving absolute differences (SPAD) is obtained based on the 60×60 Norwegian 2001 input–output table. The trade-off curve takes on a form that is close to a step function. This demonstrates that the solution surface around the RAS and SPAD optimums are very flat. Solutions can be identified that improve on the other objective or measure with little or marginal cost to the original objective function. Motivation for the assessment is provided, the technique applied is presented and the implications of the findings are discussed in an input–output and industrial ecology context.