Perspectives on Various Issues of Interest

Technical issue resolution in open-source software development projects

Open source software (OSS) development platform is one of the most popular software development environments that organizations use to source high quality information system products. For example, the most popular open source product, the Linux kernel powers world’s largest stock exchanges; and Apache, the most popular web server was developed in open source platform, powers 52% of all websites globally. Projects are increasingly being conducted in OSS platform due to increased interest from the organizations. For example, major IT companies including Google, Microsoft and Facebook have increased their reliance on software development initiatives on OSS platforms . These developments have important implications for service operations management, particularly in terms of how projects should be managed within these contexts. OSS provides an Internet based virtual community-like software development venue where software developers collaborate voluntarily toward the goal of developing unique information system products. Such voluntary participation is important for sustainability of the OSS projects as inadequate participation has resulted in 80% of the OSS projects being canceled in the development phase. OSS developers stay motivated to participate in OSS because they enjoy the coding process and value the sense of unity with fellow developers while interacting in the software development project.

Traditional software development in firms differs from OSS development in three important ways: first, for OSS development volunteers the source of motivation is different than pay or career incentives; second, the lack of formal governance structure in a OSS development team excludes managers from exerting project control mechanisms; and third, in contrast to traditional software development, the ability of volunteers to coordinate work among OSS developers is contingent on effective information exchange over the Internet. To that extent, OSS platforms have been created that facilitate information exchanges among project members by means of mailing list or thread communications relating to a software code. However, the effect of increased interaction among members in unregulated virtual environment on project performance in terms of its quality and service delivery is unclear. A lack of synchronous interactions in virtual software development environment may weaken flow of information which may, in turn, impact project performance adversely. Higher interactions present teams with increased overhead which lowers team productivity. However, interactions among team members help members to self-regulate to distribute project activities and enhance productivity.

It seems that some form of interaction in self-regulated OSS teams is necessary for efficient information flow within team and to keep members motivated. On the other hand, beyond a certain threshold it may bring in overload to weigh down team performance. Communication frequency in a cross-functional team in traditional projects may have a curvilinear relationship with project goal achievement. Given the increasingly virtual nature of project management and its implications for operations management, it is important to understand how team member interactions related to performance in projects that are not governed within the traditional project context. To the best of our knowledge, no previous empirical work has considered how team member interactions influence project performance in alternative project context such as OSS development that are characterized by their virtual setting and voluntary participation by team members. The first research objective of this study is to address this gap.

Proactive planning for problem resolution in the traditional software development context is challenging. Given the additional complexities of self-regulated OSS teams including, but not limited to, absence of governance structure in a team, independence of members to contribute to projects, geographical and cultural dispersion of volunteers and keeping volunteers motivated in project activities without traditional incentive mechanisms, proactive project management is even more challenging for a project manager responsible for an OSS development initiative. Traditional project management process, which allows physical interaction among members and offers associated visual cues for managing projects, will fall short in the case of open-source projects. Virtual project venues and online knowledge communities, such as OSS platforms, further accentuate these challenges since team members do not interact in person with each other.

 
To enforce project control, managers of OSS projects often engage actively in discussion threads to remove information asymmetry involving team activities. Such participation helps project team members to access critical knowledge resources that generally much experienced managers bring along. Project managers exploit their connection to other projects to bring critical knowledge resources that enhance project performance. In the OSS development context, as managers are unable to pick up visual and verbal cues, active participation in project discussions becomes all the more important. However, we do not know how self-guided OSS development teams respond to such project control mechanism. Additionally, participation increases information processing overload for team members. Understanding the impact of project managers’ active participation in OSS projects on project performance is relatively understudied and forms the forms the basis for the second research objective of our study.

Project manager’s active participation may not only directly affect project performance but may also affect performance by influencing team member interactions. Effective and efficient ways of enabling information exchanges within team have been a cornerstone of project management research. With decreasing performance the motivation of project members, the glue that binds them to OSS platform, starts to wane and OSS projects may see higher dropouts. Inadequate participation has resulted in 80% of the OSS projects being canceled in the development phase. Project manager’s active participation may help with establishing formal structural coordination mechanisms in OSS development projects, thereby enabling participants and projects to reach their goals. Enforcement of process structure by means of effective project management in virtual software development context can alleviate conflict and enhance performance. The importance of project managers’ active participation in managing team interaction in a self-organizing OSS team structure is notably understudied and warrants research attention. Our third research objective aims at contributing to this need for further research.

We draw on social network theory and task familiarity literature to guide our research. Social network theory posits that ties among entities in a network generate social capital that translates to performance. We use this theoretical lens to understand the impact of team member interactions in a project network on project performance. To examine this relationship, we consider project team member interaction networks for 1842 open-source software development projects on the GitHub platform. For each of these projects we collect panel data that include evolving network measures and other project characteristics for two years (104 weeks) from the time of project initiation. Specifically, within each week we consider the project team member interaction network formed by actual comments and replies by software developers in response to an open issues and pull requests for these projects. Open issues refer to bugs reported in the software bugs management system of OSS platforms such as GitHub. Project members work toward resolution of these bugs by making necessary code changes. The changed codes are then merged in the source code by issuing pull requests.

We draw on task familiarity literature to explain how project manager’s active participation impacts project performance. Task familiarity literature suggests that familiarity with team member activities enables the manager to be aware of the flow of information in the project, which enables effective project management. We build on this reasoning to study the impact of manager participation in the OSS context. To study the relationship, we collect data on project manager’s participation in the network formed by team member interactions in response to the open issues and pull requests. In the GitHub platform closing an open issue is an indicator of completion of a specific project task. We consider the number of closed issues in a given week as our dependent variable and examine how this performance measure is impacted by the direct and interaction effects of network characteristics of team interaction and project manager’s active participation.
The results obtained from analyzing 133,023 observations of unbalanced dynamic panel show that as the density of the network formed by communication instances among project team members increase, the number of weekly closed issues in an OSS project initially increase but then decrease. We find that project manager’s degree centrality in the team interaction network has a direct effect of increasing the number of weekly closed issues as well as a moderating effect of flattening the curvilinear relationship between team interaction and weekly issue closure rate. In essence, project manager’s active participation alleviates the reduction in weekly issue closure rate once the density of team interaction goes beyond the inflection point.

Source: Pal, S., Nair, A., Zhou, Z. XXXX. Managing Projects in Virtual Settings: Information Exchange Networks and Project Performance. Journal of Operations Management.

Implementing emerging technologies in Sourcing

In a recently concluded project my collaborators and I draw from previous studies conducted by Center for Applied Purchasing Studies (CAPS), relevant academic and trade journals, as well as case interview data from relevant organizations to investigate use cases and practical applications of implementation of emerging technologies in supply management. Emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Robotic Process Automation (RPA), Internet of Things (IoT) and Blockchain are increasingly being deployed in organizations to execute and facilitate supply chain and procurement activities. Yet knowledge is still lacking with respect to the effectiveness of these technologies.  Our study provides insights into the justification, use cases, implementation process, barriers to implementation, critical success factors for implementation, and overall assessment of the effectiveness of Blockchain, Internet of things, Descriptive, Predictive and Prescriptive Analytics, Robotic Process Automation, Contract Analytics, Procure-to-Pay, Spend Analytics, Optical Character Recognition and Radio Frequency Identification technology.

As new technologies continue to emerge in supply chains and in procurement in particular, the adoption and implementation of such technologies will continue to evolve. Our conversations with several procurement leaders help in shaping our perspectives on the future of supply technologies. Overall, we believe that procurement professionals will need to have a clear business case preceding an organization’s technology choice. Niche technologies ranging from spend visibility, track and trace and spend analytics are more likely to solve many of the problems in sourcing as compared to an end-to-end solution. Technology can act as enablers but it is important to first identify the problem, identify potential solutions and upgrade the skill set needed to onboard a specific technological solution.  

Companies are leveraging emergent technology very cautiously. There are a few companies that have clients who embrace the technologies significantly but a large majority are just sort of dipping their toes in the water.The primary reason is that many organizations have been burned by these technology implementations. Oftentimes a technology which looks great on PowerPoint does not turn out to be as promising when delivered. After a lot of expenditure, business cases were made to realize the true value of the technology. Given the budget constraints, many companies are now implementing technologies more cleverly by working around some of the limitations.

There is a lack of clarity as to which technologies should be classified as ‘emerging technologies’ in procurement. One way to think about a technology as ‘emerging’ is to consider the founding or relaunching year of a technology. Around 2014 there were some structural changes to older technologies in terms of API driven methodologies and analytics based tools. Big data was 2014 technology. However, over time, technologies have gotten smarter due to some industry influence and disruptors.  These emerging technologies are in their evolutionary phase and are becoming more prescriptive with a specific focus on a particular sourcing problem. Technologies delivering true value to an organization are typically aimed at doing a particular set of activities and not at doing everything. Managers want very deep solutions in areas such as spend analysis, risk, sustainability supplier relationship, and, hence, technology needs to be best suited to deal with certain situations and has to bring precision to the required solutions.  For example, a sourcing tool that is right for a high volume low complexity environment may not be appropriate for a low volume high complexity environment. A completely different tool might be needed. Similarly, sourcing tools in the manufacturing context could differ substantially from technologies used in the services context.

Emerging technologies in the risk management domain will need to consider lessons learned in the COVID-19 pandemic.  Technologies will need to account for event based risk, cyber risk, financial risk, sustainability risk, etc. The emerging technologies should bring in better insights for risk management. Similarly, technologies dealing with sustainability or relationship management will need to cover additional nuances that organizations will be facing in the sourcing domain. Notwithstanding the need for new models for risk management, sustainability, relationship management etc., before implementation it is still important that organizations have a goal of how to fix the most basic things. The emerging technologies must help organizations in spend visibility, payment centralization, governance mechanisms, and contract analytics and tied to these are some good supplier information management systems. This should get the company doing a basic level of sourcing. Implementation of any emerging technology has to happen in parallel to the basic buildup of functions because if the organization waits to build on the stages they may fall behind exponentially and lose the competitive edge. An organization should find the top three critical points and go ahead using emergent technology to fix them in parallel. The business case for implementing technologies needs to be precise and should unravel the critical need of increasing sourcing velocity. Then the organization should use technology to address the need. The savings the company incurs should be used to fund the next steps.

Although technology implementation needs to be planned by considering specific technologies, it is important to note that as technology usage evolves in an organization these technologies start to get highly coupled with each other. A forward looking implementation plan that considers the coupling and integration between technologies would serve organizations well when decision makers may want to change course. While a long term technology roadmap is effective in planning for technology implementation, such roadmaps should have a certain degree of flexibility to incorporate changing business conditions and requirements.

Source: Goke, A., Nair, A. 2021. Compelling Applications of Emerging Technologies in Supply Management. CAPS Report. (Research assistants: Sukrit Pal, Ashok Gopalakrishnan)

The Effects of External Auditors and Certification Bodies on the Operational and Market-Oriented Outcomes of ISO 9001 Implementation

There are a number of practical implications drawn from the findings of our study. First, our study confirms once again that quality implementation is the key determinant of the operational outcomes of ISO 9001 adoption. At the same time, however, the findings also confirm the important role of external auditors in enhancing the effect of implementation on the operational outcome from ISO 9001 standard. This result is instructive in that it is the quality of auditors rather than the reputation of certification bodies that help firms in gaining the operational outcomes. For many firms, however, this finding could raise a practical problem: how to find good auditors? The answer to this question is not straightforward because, unlike certification bodies who have certain brand equity, auditors are employed by certification bodies and their quality is somewhat hidden from the customers and is only revealed after they are engaged after the ISO 9001 certification is over. Indeed, this problem is exacerbated by the fact that firms cannot simply resort to reputable certification bodies in order to find good auditors. The positive correlations between quality of auditors and reputable certification bodies only show a medium strength and, hence, this does not provide a strong assurance that reputable certification bodies will always send quality auditors. Therefore, while engaging reputable certification bodies is recommended, firms should request that they are served by experienced and quality external auditors whose characteristics are partly captured in this study. At the same time, however, the findings also infer that high quality auditors are not necessarily always employed by reputable certification bodies; they could also be part of less reputable certification bodies. In this regard, our findings also provide a ray of hope for firms who cannot afford to engage reputable certification bodies that normally charge higher costs than their counterparts. In particular, smaller firms with limited resources still have a chance to engage high quality auditors and to benefit from their services.

Our findings show that the reputation of certification bodies (rather than the quality of external auditors) helps firms improve their market-oriented outcome, including broadening their market scope and winning more customers. This finding suggests that customers still rely on “brand image” of reputable certification bodies. Customers perceive ISO 9001 certifications issued by reputable certification bodies to be of higher value than others. While this may be true to a certain extent, it is important to balance this notion with our finding, which shows that certification bodies do not have a direct positive effect on operational outcomes. Instead, firms ought to seek high quality ISO 9001 implementations that are then vetted by high quality auditors so as to obtain operational outcomes. The operational outcomes in turn exert a positive effect on market performance. This result therefore sends a strong message to firms that are trying to attain market-oriented outcomes solely from compliance to the standard’s requirements without internalizing the implementation process. More importantly, since it is operational outcomes that are mainly desired by customers (rather than the certification), simply signaling high quality ISO 9001 implementation by tapping into the reputation of certification bodies could be a misleading strategy to gain market-oriented outcome.

COVID-19 and the Healthcare Supply Chain

The COVID-19 situation resulted in a sudden and unprecedented peak in global demand. This led to inventory shortages and capacity constraints. Healthcare organizations experienced congestion and resorted to demand substitution. The supply chain for pharmaceuticals and medical devices were impacted by disruptions. Pharmaceutical manufacturing companies get their supplies from more than 2000 active pharmaceutical ingredient suppliers as well as from other suppliers. Several of these inbound supplies were constrained during the pandemic. Close to 6,800 branded, generic, and biologic pharmaceutical manufacturers supply to traditional and specialty distributors who account for about 92% of sales. Distributors supply to retail and non-retail pharmacies amounting to more than 180,000 in numbers. The link from pharmaceutical manufacturers to distributors and retail pharmacies also experienced disruptions resulting in shortage of several medicines. The globally dispersed medical devices supply chain is very complex involving several to-and-fro cross border movement of supplies.

 

 

In 2019 the global annual demand of ventilators was 77,000 new ventilators. However, 2020 saw an unprecedented increase in the demand for ventilators. 5000-7000 ventilators were required per week in April and May of 2020. Some ventilator manufacturers boosted their production by 30-50% but, by themselves, could’t deliver the 500 or 1000% growth in production required. Top ventilator manufacturers in this tightly regulated market include Becton Dickinson, (Vyaire Medical), Philips, Hamilton Medical, Fisher & PaykelHealthcare, Dräger, Medtronic, GE Heathcare, Gelinge, Mindray, Löwenstein, and Hill-Rom. About 700 parts go into making a typical ventilator and these ventilators cost about $25,000 to $50,000 each. Some innovative inter-industry tie-ups (e.g. GM and Ventec Life Systems; Ford and GE Healthcare) helped in alleviating some of the pain. Under Defense Production Act, an order was issued to help U.S. ventilator manufacturers by removing "obstacles" to their accessing parts and materials needed to ramp up production of the breathing devices in response to the coronavirus crisis.

The root causes of disruption within the healthcare supply chain are a result of the global dispersion of supply base, supply chain complexity, lack of visibility and delayed response. To address the situation it is important to manage capacity (including labor), understand lead-times for suppliers, and be aware of the interdependencies (e.g. interdependence between testing capability and hospital capacity). Cross-industry collaborations by involving industry partners in automotive, consumer goods and cosmetics was helpful, but more of such collaboration will be needed to address the future needs. Developing new products and finding substitutes is critical to effectively manage the 'bottleneck' supply market. The process of creating private-public partnerships should be streamlined so that quick response to disruptions can be achieved. COVID-19 had taught an important lesson of developing responsive/adaptable supply chains, assessing current allocation/coordination approaches in response to the pandemic, and considering possible supply chain structural and/or regulatory changes.

 

Protecting Brand Value through Anticounterfeiting Supply Chain Strategies

Combating counterfeits is not a matter of developing software or systems or markings. Our research suggests that a multi-layered approach that adopts multiple strategies and engages the entire organization is needed. Initially, the size of the problem must be defined and the return on investment approximated. This can help define the need for a team of experts to work in this area, leading to a set of performance metrics that are aligned with business objectives and outcomes. Next, the key focal product seg­ ments should be targeted, and a system for identifying products through product trade­ mark registration with customs authorities should be completed.

We discuss the roles of Drug Serialization and the Drug Quality and Security Act, Pharmaceutical Security Institute Database, and technologies such as Blockchain for combating the counterfeiting problem.

Condensing the time-line of developing vaccine - Some scenarios

Here are some key points from an interesting opinion piece published in the New York Times.

Assuming we already know Corona virus, vaccine is expected to be ready by May 2036 if no strategies for shortening the time-line is taken:

If we don’t wait for academic research, vaccine can be made available by August 2034:

 

If we rely on work from studying SARS and MERS to shorten preparations before clinical trials and start trials early, vaccine can be made available by January 2034:

If we don’t wait for academic research and start trials early, vaccine can be made available by April 2032:

Neither of these scenarios seem to help the prevailing situation. Hence, there is a need to move at “pandemic-speed” and put all the existing drug discovery work that is underway that relate to Covid-19. There are at least 254 therapies and 95 vaccines related to Covid-19 being explored.

It is important to recognize that less than 10 percent of drugs that enter clinical trials are ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The rest are either not effective, don’t perform better than existing drugs or have too many side effects.

Typically, vaccine development process takes a decade or longer.

Since the virus that causes Covid-19, are roughly 80 percent identical to the ones causing SARS, and given that both use so-called spike proteins to grab onto a specific receptor found on cells in human lungs, there has been some head start with regards to research. 

Here are some additional options to shorten the timeline (even earlier than April 2032):

By going with ‘pandemic speed’ time-line and starting subsequent steps before previous phases are completed, vaccine can be made available by July 2030:

By moving more swiftly to Phase 3 trials by combining phases, vaccine can be made available by January 2030:

If the decision is made to go with emergency provisioning, i.e. vaccinating front-line and essential workers early, vaccine can be made available by December 2030:

If the three above-mentioned strategies are adopted (i.e. moving at 'pandemic-speed’ timeline, pushing to large-scale testing sooner, and using emergency provisions), vaccine can be made available to front-line and essential workers by February 2028 and to everyone else by June 2029.

Along with the above mentioned steps, if we take a bet on a successful mRNA vaccine, this experimental technology may be faster to produce than traditional vaccines and the vaccine can be made available by February 2028.

 

Unfortunately, none of these scenarios can make the vaccine available in 12 to 18 months time horizon.

The risks and difficulties of fast-tracking vaccine research are huge ranging from the fact that poorly researched vaccines can actually makes it easier to catch the virus, or makes the disease worse after someone’s infected. Researchers also can’t easily infect vaccinated participants with the coronavirus to see how the body behaves. They normally wait until some volunteers contract the virus naturally. That means dosing people in regions hit hardest by the virus, like New York, or vaccinating family members of an infected person to see if they get the virus next. If the pandemic subsides, this step could be slowed.

As can be seen the longest time in the fastest scenario illustrated above is taken by supply chain activities such as building factories and manufacturing. If factories can be built now and manufacture can begin early, anticipating that factories will be useful for a future vaccine and that the product will clear regulatory hurdles, the timeline can be brought down from June 2029 (without taking a bet on the mRNA vaccine) to October 2023:

Finally if we can start building factories now and can bet on mRNA vaccine, vaccine can be made available by June 2022:

Finally fast tracking federal approval from one year to six months can further bring down the time and make the vaccine available by December 2021:

Source: Thompson, S.A. 2020. How Long Will a Vaccine Really Take? New York Times, April 30, 2020

First-Aid, Rapid Response Drone in India

https://t.co/I2QUtW0g8i

— Anand Nair (@Dr_Nair) December 4, 2019

Africa's first drone 'Air Corridor’ - A partnership initiative by UNICEF and Zipline

https://t.co/A2mFRvqmsP

— Anand Nair (@Dr_Nair) December 4, 2019

Smart shopping based on your DNA

Smart shopping.

📕 Read more: https://t.co/SPQMERhB1i pic.twitter.com/cHyVKfkg34

— World Economic Forum (@wef) November 16, 2019

Aerial blood sample deliveries in Norway

https://t.co/CZBmkZCPyf

— Anand Nair (@Dr_Nair) December 4, 2019