Aydin Teymourifar

Institutional evaluation in higher education is increasingly shaped by multiple, coexisting systems, including research assessment, university rankings, accreditation and quality assurance, and responsible research assessment. Although these systems are widely examined individually, their dynamic interactions and cumulative institutional effects remain insufficiently understood. This study develops a conceptual System Dynamics framework and introduces Sustainable Institutional Capacity (SIC) as a central theoretical construct for explaining how institutions respond to multiple evaluation demands over time. Drawing on institutional logics, organizational response, research evaluation, quality assurance, and System Dynamics perspectives, the framework integrates four evaluation subsystems: research prestige, competitive ranking, accreditation and quality assurance, and responsible assessment. Their interaction generates cross-system feedback mechanisms involving evaluation internalization, reputation and resource attraction, capability development, internationalization, strategic alignment, diversification, and organizational sustainability. SIC is defined as the level of evaluation-oriented activity that an institution can sustain without excessive organizational strain, quality deterioration, mission displacement, or capability erosion. By linking evaluation pressures to endogenous feedback and capacity constraints, the framework explains how initially beneficial evaluation-driven strategies may produce growth, adaptation, stabilization, oscillation, overextension, or collapse as feedback dominance changes over time. The framework provides a theoretical basis for empirical validation and subsequent stock-and-flow simulation of institutional evaluation dynamics.

As omnichannel grocery retailers increasingly expand Buy-Online-and-Pick-up-in-Store (BOPS) fulfillment, determining which store locations should offer BOPS services has become a critical operations strategy decision. We develop an empirically-grounded machine learning–based decision model to support retailers in selecting store locations for BOPS expansion. The model estimates product revenue—both aggregate and channel-specific—under alternative store assignment scenarios, enabling retailers to evaluate the revenue implications of different expansion strategies. Using a real-world application, we demonstrate how the model identifies store allocations that improve revenue performance in omnichannel retail operations. We find that expansion scenarios with greater BOPS accessibility (average customer distance to the nearest BOPS-enabled store) are associated with higher aggregate revenue, while the marginal gains taper with expansion intensity. Importantly, improved BOPS accessibility relates to increased revenue across BOPS, home delivery, and offline (in-store) channels, suggesting that BOPS expansion creates channel synergies rather than cannibalization.

Patient complaints represent a significant yet sometimes underutilized source of organisational learning in hospitals. While they are sometimes processed as administrative tasks aimed at resolution, emerging research demonstrates their value as indicators of system vulnerability and early warning signals for patient safety. This mini-review contributes to the literature by offering a new integrative framework that synthesizes eight previously fragmented domains of complaint management: System Consistency in Learning from Complaints, standard classification of complaints, leadership commitment for organisational learning, effective individual and interpersonal behaviour for organisational learning, organisational change driven by organisational learning, data analytics for organisational learning, proactive risk detection, ethical and legal considerations. Using an integrative, framework-informed methodology, the paper combines inductive identification of conceptual patterns with deductive synthesis across theoretical and policy literatures. The review's key contribution lies in reconceptualizing patient complaints as a system embedded within hospital operations, rather than an administrative function. By mapping connections across the eight domains, the framework reveals how complaints serve as multidimensional organisational assets that can expose systemic weaknesses, cultural blind spots, and latent safety risks. The review also identifies significant theoretical and measurement gaps, including the lack of validated multidimensional instruments to assess complaint management holistically. It further proposes a new research direction by outlining how performance-based contracting could align incentives among patients, clinicians, and managers to strengthen responsiveness and learning, with implications for health system governance and public health oversight.

Despite extensive critiques of key performance indicator (KPI)-based performance measurement and rapid advances in digital health technologies, limited research has examined how such technological and data capabilities intersect with the fundamental limitations of hospital KPIs. This study addresses this gap through a critical-conceptual review that synthesizes the literature on hospital performance measurement and healthcare technology. Focusing on the main critiques of KPIs across six major categories of hospital performance, financial performance, timeliness of care and access, patient experience, quality of care and patient safety, workforce-related performance, and resource utilization and operational efficiency, the review analyzes how technological advancements influence the use of commonly applied hospital and emergency department KPIs. The paper discusses that technological and data-related advancements consistently mitigate technical constraints on KPI use by improving data completeness, timeliness, and system integration. However, these improvements do not resolve the core limitations of KPI-based performance frameworks. Across the main critiques of KPIs, enhanced technologies are shown not to resolve all limitations and may even intensify problems related to metric dominance, inequitable benchmarking, and performance paradoxes. Overall, the review demonstrates that technology, as a standalone intervention, does not improve hospital performance. By conceptually linking established KPI critiques with technological advancements across performance domains, this study closes an important gap in the literature. The review furthermore provides a structured foundation for future research and managerial decision-making on value-driven hospital performance measurement.

The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model has long served as a global framework for analyzing and improving supply chain performance. Its digital successor, the SCOR Digital Standard (SCOR-DS), introduced in 2019, incorporates dimensions of digital transformation, sustainability, and advanced performance management. This paper critically examines the evolution from SCOR to SCOR-DS, assessing its strengths, limitations, and implications for both academia and practice. Using a critical-conceptual review approach that integrates academic and practitioner sources, including the Association for Supply Chain Management (ASCM) materials and relevant gray literature, the study combines descriptive synthesis, evaluative critique, and conceptual development. The analysis reveals that while SCOR-DS expands the traditional framework to address digitalization and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) priorities, it remains underexplored in academic research and exhibits conceptual gaps, particularly in demand management, product design integration, and the specification of key performance indicators (KPIs). To address these limitations, the paper proposes an illustrative KPI framework to operationalize SCOR-DS processes and enhance their analytical depth. By bridging practitioner-driven evolution with academic conceptualization, this study provides one of the first scholarly assessments of SCOR-DS. It establishes a foundation for future empirical and theoretical research on digital supply chain performance management.

Journal ranking systems have evolved from evaluative instruments into powerful mechanisms of research governance in higher education, shaping academic careers, institutional strategies, and accreditation outcomes. Within business and management education, the Association of Business Schools (ABS) journal ranking system has become one of the most influential and contested evaluative regimes. This article offers a critical-conceptual review of the ABS journal ranking system, reframing it not as a neutral technical device but as a governance mechanism that structures legitimacy, incentives, and conformity across business schools. Integrating scholarly literature, policy documents, and accreditation frameworks, the review examines the origins, evaluative logic, global diffusion, and consequences of the ABS journal ranking system. It shows how the system reinforces Anglo-American epistemic dominance, incentivizes conservative and prestige-driven research behavior, marginalizes interdisciplinary and practice-oriented scholarship, and contributes to global academic inequalities, particularly in non-Anglophone and Global South contexts. By linking debates on journal rankings to business-school accreditation regimes and contrasting them with outcome-based engineering accreditation models, the study reveals a misalignment between journal-centric evaluation and mission-driven, impact-oriented education. A regional analytical case from Turkey further illustrates how ABS-oriented governance logics interact with national quality-assurance and accreditation systems, highlighting mechanisms of adaptation and institutional tension. Overall, the article consolidates major critiques of the ABS journal ranking system to underscore the importance of responsible research assessment and to outline pathways toward more transparent, pluralistic, and mission-aligned research evaluation in business education.

Although technological innovations are often intended to improve quality and efficiency, they can exacerbate systemic challenges when not aligned with the principles of value-based care. As a result, healthcare systems in many countries face persistent inefficiencies stemming from the overuse, underuse, misuse, and waste associated with the adoption of health technology. This narrative review examines the dual impact of healthcare technology and evaluates how contract mechanisms can serve as strategic tools for promoting cost-effective, outcome-oriented integration. Drawing from healthcare management, and supply chain literature, this paper analyzes various payment and contract models, including performance-based, bundled, cost-sharing, and revenue-sharing agreements, through the lens of stakeholder alignment. It explores how these mechanisms influence provider behavior, patient access, and system sustainability. The study contends that well-designed contract mechanisms can align stakeholder incentives, reduce inefficiencies, and support the delivery of high-value care across diverse healthcare settings. We provide concrete examples to illustrate how various contract mechanisms impact the integration of health technologies in practice.