A Tool for Increased Cognitive Ergonomics in Operative Supplier Selection in a Global Context



In this chapter, we put forth a decision support system that aims to increase cognitive ergonomics of actual, routine sourcing praxis in operative procurement work. The tool is motivated by a lack of academic methods as well as practical tools for evaluating suppliers’ actual, tangible appropriateness for specific supply tasks, as opposed to the fit of a supplier in general, or on average. Furthermore, and importantly, this company-internal tool is intended to serve as a platform for a more extensive tool to organize inter-organizational buyer-supplier interaction practices. The tool is developed at a case company, a large marine product manufacturer with globally dispersed supplier and customer bases.


Sourcing Supplier selection Procurement Decision making Decision support systems Cognitive ergonomics Organizational practices Complex products 


  1. Alavi, M., & Leinder, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, G. G., Oppenheimer, R. J., & Bastien, A. (2002). Trust deterioration in an international buyer-supplier relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1), 65–78.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P. D., Gerstenfeld, A., & Zengh, A. Z. (2004). How many suppliers are best? A decision-analysis approach. Omega, 32(1), 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinkman, W. P., & Neerincx, M. (2011). Cognitive ergonomics for situated human-automation collaboration. Interacting with Computers, 23(4), iii–iiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Lexington, MA: Digital Frontier Press.Google Scholar
  6. Butler Jr., J. K. (1999). Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation effectiveness and efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demirkan, H., & Delen, D. (2013). Leveraging the capabilities of service-oriented decision support systems: Putting analytics and big data in cloud. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 412–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 7(2), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Boer, L., & van der Wegen, L. (2003). Practice and promise of formal supplier selection: A study of four empirical cases. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(3), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Degani, A., & Wiener, E. L. (1993). Cockpit checklists: Concepts, design, and use. Human Factors, 35(2), 345–359.Google Scholar
  11. Droege, S. B., & Hoobler, J. M. (2003). Employee turnover and tacit knowledge diffusion: A network perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(1), 50–64.Google Scholar
  12. Dui, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Faizon, P., Marras, W. S., et al. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ely, J. W., Graber, M. L., & Croskerry, P. (2011). Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Academic Medicine, 86(3), 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engelbrecht, A. P. (2007). Computational intelligence: An introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez, M., & Bouty, I. (2011). The emergence of an influential practice: Food for thought. Organization Studies, 32(7), 921–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000). Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hassal, M., Xiao, T., Sanderson, P., & Neal, A. (2015). Human factors and ergonomics. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 297–305). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization. Research Policy, 26(6), 689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang, S. H., & Kerskar, H. (2007). Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(2), 510–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29(11), 1391–1426.Google Scholar
  22. Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, A. P., & Smets, M. (2013). Material artifacts: Practices for doing strategy with ‘stuff’. European Management Journal, 31(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarzabkowski, P., & Wilson, D. C. (2002). Top teams and strategy in a UK university. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22(2), 320–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kauffman, R. G., & Leszczyc, P. T. L. P. (2005). An optimization approach to business buyer choice sets: How many suppliers should be included? Industrial Marketing Management, 34(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinoshita, S., & Yamada, M. (1989). The impacts of robotization on macro and sectoral economies with a world econometric model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 35(2–3), 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ko, M., Tiwari, A., & Mehnen, J. (2010). A review of soft computing applications in supply chain management. Applied Soft Computing, 10(3), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lundgren, E. L., & Kock, S. (2016). A sensemaking perspective on coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mantere, S. (2013). What is organizational strategy? A language-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1408–1426.Google Scholar
  33. Marra, M., Ho, W., & Edwards, J. S. (2012). Supply chain knowledge management: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 6103–6110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moisander, J., & Stenfors, S. (2009). Exploring the edges of theory-practice gap: Epistemic cultures in strategy-tool development and use. Organization, 16(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nah, F. F. H., Lau, J. L. S., & Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Management Journal, 7(3), 285–296.Google Scholar
  36. Panteli, N., & Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: A framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roth, E. M. (1997). Analysis of decision making in nuclear power plant emergencies: An investigation of aided decision making. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 175–182). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rozemeijr, F. (2000). How to manage corporate purchasing synergy in a decentralized company? Towards design rules for managing and organising purchasing synergy in decentralised companies. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shim, J. P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J. F., Power, D. J., Shadra, R., & Carlsson, C. (2002). Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simpson, B. (2009). Pragmatism, Mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1329–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.Google Scholar
  44. Stinchcombe, A., & Heimer, C. (1985). Organization theory and project management: Administering uncertainty in Norwegian offshore oil. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Trent, R. J., & Monzcka, R. M. (2003a). International purchasing and global sourcing—What are the differences? Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39(3), 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trent, R. J., & Monzcka, R. M. (2003b). Understanding integrated global sourcing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33(7), 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tuomikangas, N., & Kaipia, R. (2014). A coordination framework for sales and operations planning (S&OP): Synthesis from the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 154(4), 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Urbach, D. R., Govindarajan, A., Saskin, R., Wilton, A. S., & Baxter, N. N. (2014). Introducing surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wagner, W. P., Otto, J., & Chung, Q. B. (2002). Knowledge acquisition for expert systems in accounting and financial problem domains. Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(8), 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations