Top-down, bottom-up, or both? Toward an integrative perspective on operations strategy formation.

Kim, Y. H., Sting, F. J., & Loch, C. H. (2014). Top-down, bottom-up, or both? Toward an integrative perspective on operations strategy formation. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7-8), 7-8.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2014

Volume

32

Issue

7-8

Pages

7-8

DOI

10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.005

DOI registrant

Wiley

Link

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.005

Cited from

systems_cybernetics

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Bottom-Up Perspectives
  • Bottom-Up Perspectives are not the same as Top-Down Perspectives

    This sourceIntegrative model of top-down planning and bottom-up learning

    SupportedVerified against the work's full text

    Kim, Sting and Loch distinguish top-down from bottom-up strategy formation by the initiative's origin and the sequence of intentions, actions and outcomes.

    “In sum, a top -down strategy can be distinguished from a bottom -up strategy in terms of two characteristics: (i) the initiative’s origin and (ii) the sequence of events”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:e0ac0e7e6c4a · see in the full table