The Vlerick Repository is a searchable Open Access publication database, containing the complete archive of research output (articles, books, cases, doctoral dissertations,…) written by Vlerick faculty and researchers and preserved by the Vlerick Library.
Find out more about Open Access.
Call to action!
Making your past and future work Open Access in the Vlerick Repository is easy. Send the details of your research output (incl. post-print version) to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Communities in Vlerick Repository
Select a community to browse its collections.
De verblinde samenleving - Hebben we echt een catastrofe nodig om vooruitgang te boeken?Hoe we als maatschappij fundamentele vooruitgang kunnen boeken? Hoe leert een samenleving? En vooral: waarom leren we zo vaak ook de verkeerde dingen? Het zijn vragen die verrassend weinig worden gesteld. Het lijkt wel alsof we altijd eerst een catastrofe nodig hebben voordat we vooruitgang kunnen boeken. In dit boek brengt organisatie-expert Marc Buelens een messcherpe analyse van hoe samenlevingen zichzelf al te vaak in de voet schieten. Hij legt uit hoe de drie trekpaarden van onze maatschappij - wetenschap, economie en politiek - altijd maar lijken door te draven... en hoe ze onze 'luwe' systemen, zoals cultuur, zingeving en solidariteit, op die manier compleet dreigen te vertrappelen. In plaats van de politieke besluitvorming te stroomlijnen, gezondheidscrisissen te managen of de immense uitdagingen inzake ongelijkheid, klimaat en milieu aan te pakken, blijven we in rondjes draaien. Wat kunnen we dan leren opdat het coronadebacle geen generale repetitie voor de klimaatcrisis wordt? Kunnen we onszelf uit het moeras trekken of blijven we blind voor onze catastrofale leerprocessen?
Performance and reward management in an agile environment. 10 Key findings based on a qualitative studyAgility is an emerging key dimension of business excellence. Research by Vlerick Business School, surveying the largest for-profit organisations in Belgium, revealed that, for 93% of them, agile ways of working have become more important in the last few years. And the top three terms associated with the concept of agility are: adaptability, speed and customer centricity. Although agility has really taken off, many organisations are still struggling with implementing agile approaches in the area of performance and reward management. An agile way of working is transforming how organisations manage and reward their talent, but only a mere 18% of the largest for-profit organisations in Belgium consider themselves to be agile on performance management and 28% on reward management. How do you approach performance management when you need to evaluate projects that are run by several different leaders and organised around teams? How to align employees’ career aspirations with business needs in a non-hierarchical environment? Can we allow a merit-pay process when talent systems are becoming more team-focused? That’s why our Centre for Excellence in Strategic Talent Management and our Centre for Excellence in Strategic Rewards joined forces for a new study that sheds a light on 8 Belgian and 4 Dutch companies that were either working agilely from the very beginning or changed the tires while driving the car. Based on a qualitative study with the support of our Chair Partner Hudson, the research team identified 10 key findings, each representing a phenomenon, trend or influence currently playing in agile working contexts: A purpose-led approach towards performance & career development From taking up additional roles to role-based job design Career self-management as the main driver for career evolution Questioning the role of supervisors in the performance management process Transparency to enhance trust, ownership and internal fairness Actively identifying and managing poor performance Team members deciding on salary increases and promotions To pay or not to pay for individual performance? It all depends... Customised and on the spot recognition Managing and rewarding agile teams in crisis situations
Supply chain planning in the digital ageWith new, digital technologies entering the factories and the supply chain, the role of people in manufacturing and logistics is undeniably changing. Existing tasks are disappearing or changing, new tasks are emerging. Digital technologies can be used to automate certain tasks, yet their full power is in how they can augment and extend the human capabilities of employees. But what about the planning function? How is this function being impacted by the introduction of digital technologies – and, in particular, artificial intelligence – making the planning system more advanced? In collaboration with OMP, partner in our Research Centre for People in the Smart Digitised Supply Chain, Professor Ann Vereecke, and researchers Alejandra Cabos-Rodríguez and Nicholas Vijverman, conducted a series of interviews with decision-makers in multinational manufacturing companies. The insights from those interviews can be found in the report ‘Supply Chain Planning in the Digital Age’. The reports looks into the future of supply chain planning in order to answer two sets of questions: What does the planning system of the future look like for manufacturing companies? Knowing that planning algorithms are becoming more advanced, self-learning and prescriptive, will this have an impact on the different modules of the planning system and on how these modules interact with each other? And what impact will this have on the interaction between the ‘human’ and the ‘machine’ – that is, between the planner and the planning tool? Who is the planner of the future? What will the planner’s responsibility be if algorithms are doing the planning? What skills and competencies does the planner need? Somewhat controversially, one may even wonder whether we will still need a planner in the future.
Hybrid warfare, international negotiation, and an experiment in “remote convening”The authors are leading a multinational effort to understand the effects of “hybrid” warfare on international commercial negotiation. The start‐up process is itself essentially a negotiation, among about forty individual practitioners and scholars with very diverse backgrounds, over whether and how they will work together. In a pandemic, a key risk is that the necessary cooperation and trust will be harder to build, particularly among professionals who are dealing with security‐sensitive issues and who have never met each other. This article discusses the current necessity of replacing the in‐person model for eliciting such cooperation which the authors had developed previously for large collaborative projects, and describes a “remote convening” replacement process.
Evaluation of precision medicine assessment reports of the Belgian healthcare payer to inform reimbursement decisionsIntroduction. Precision medicines rely on companion diagnostics to identify patient subgroups eligible for receiving the pharmaceutical product. Until recently, the Belgian public health payer, RIZIV-INAMI, assessed precision medicines and companion diagnostics separately for reimbursement decisions. As both components are considered co-dependent technologies, their assessment should be conducted jointly from a health technology assessment (HTA) perspective. As of July 2019, a novel procedure was implemented accommodating for this joint assessment practice. The aim of this research was to formulate recommendations to improve the assessment in the novel procedure. Methods. This study evaluated the precision medicine assessment reports of RIZIV-INAMI of the last 5 years under the former assessment procedure. The HTA framework for co-dependent technologies developed by Merlin et al. for the Australian healthcare system was used as a reference standard in this evaluation. Criteria were scored as either present or not present. Results. Thirteen assessment reports were evaluated. Varying scores between reports were obtained for the domain establishing the co-dependent relationship between diagnostic and pharmaceutical. Domains evaluating the clinical utility of the biomarker and the cost-effectiveness performed poorly, whereas the budget impact and the transfer of trial data to the local setting performed well. Recommendations. Based on these results we recommend three amendments for the novel procedure. (i) The implementation of the linked evidence approach when direct evidence of clinical utility is not present, (ii) incorporation of a bias assessment tool, and (iii) further specify guidelines for submission and assessment to decrease the variability of reported evidence between assessment reports.