What is a hub/spoke relationship? : ccna
Define hub-and-spoke. hub-and-spoke synonyms, hub-and-spoke pronunciation, hub-and-spoke translation, English dictionary definition of hub-and-spoke. adj. Hub-and-spoke networks afford many benefits for healthcare . the manner in which healthcare delivery relationships between the two. In the sphere of East Asian relations, according to Victor There is a strong alliance between the hub and the spoke, but.
The evidence was that over a substantial period of time a conspiracy existed embracing a great number of persons. The object of the conspiracy was to smuggle narcotics into New York and distribute them to addicts both in New York and in Texas and Louisiana.
Since the evidence did not disclose any cooperation or communication between the smugglers and either group of retailers, or between the two groups of retailers themselves. However, insisted the court: The smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers, and the retailers knew that the middlemen must buy of importers of one sort or another.
Thus the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers; and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their sellers. That being true, a jury might have found that all the accused were embarked upon a [single] venture, in all parts of which each was a participant, and an abettor in the sense that the success of that part with which he was immediately concerned, was dependent upon the success of the whole.
There was apparently no contact between the two groups of retailers, possibly negating their being in a conspiracy together. For it was of no moment to them whether the middlemen sold to one or more groups of retailers, provided they had a market somewhere.
So too of any retailer; he knew that he was a necessary link in a scheme of distribution, and the others, whom he knew to be convenient to its execution, were as much parts of a single undertaking or enterprise as two salesmen in the same shop.
We think therefore that there was only one conspiracy. E—B contended that it had established a conspiracy by showing the following: Rike's used "coercion" to persuade some suppliers to grant Rike's the exclusive right to sell the merchandise involved; other suppliers granted exclusives to Rike's although E—B lacked evidence that Rike's had in fact used coercion to persuade them to do so; there was evidence of an exclusive relationship between Rike's and many of the suppliers; there was evidence of an exclusive arrangement resulting from "coercion" as to some of the suppliers; for the other suppliers, the basic evidence was they refused to sell to E—B; there was also evidence that Rike's refused to buy from certain suppliers who sold to E—B.
The Sixth Circuit said that in that case "by the very nature of the business everyone involved in the alleged conspiracy had to know that other persons would be performing illegal acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. According to Elder-Beerman's theory, Rike's was the hub of the conspiratorial wheel and its exclusive suppliers were the spokes. One of the important questions in this case is whether the suppliers or any of them agreed with each other, as well as with Rike's, to participate in the conspiracy.
My colleagues believe, and I believe, that there was no such evidence in this record. In short, there was no rim to this wheel, or to put it in more conventional antitrust language, there was no proof of a horizontal conspiracy. He found Kotteakos inapplicable because that was a ruling to protect the spokes from being tarred with one another's conduct after the hub had pleaded guilty. Here, in contrast, the supplier spokes are not in court, "and the case proceeds against the central party charged with the conspiracy, the hub of this particular wheel.
It became concerned that warehouse clubs—with substantially lower prices—presented a threat to its low-price image and its profits. The FTC determined that to eliminate this threat, Toys "R" Us used its dominant position as a toy distributor to extract parallel agreements from among ten principal toy manufacturers such as Mattel, Hasbro, Fisher Price, Tyco, and Sega to stop selling to warehouse clubs exactly the same toys that they sold to other toy distributors such as the clubs.
The FTC explained that Toys "R" Us wanted "to prevent consumers from comparing the price and quality of products in the clubs to the price and quality of the same toys displayed and sold at Toys "R" Us, and thereby to reduce the effectiveness of the clubs as competitors.
The company also used the manufacturers to police one another. The FTC found that the effect of the agreements was to eliminate competition that would have driven Toys "R" Us to lower its prices had Toys "R" Us not taken action to stifle the competitive threat posed by the clubs. The court emphasized FTC findings supporting a hub-and-spoke theory.
For example, a Toys "R" Us official testified, "We made a point to tell each of the vendors that we spoke to that we would be talking to our other key suppliers. Microsoft[ edit ] In Dickson v. The alleged conspiracy was a set of similar licensing agreements in which the licensees agreed: In exchange, the OEM defendants received various benefits, including discounts on software and "greater cooperation from Microsoft in product development.
The district court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and dismissed the case. An appeal to the Fourth Circuit followed. Citing Kotteakos, the court stated, "A rimless wheel conspiracy is one in which various defendants enter into separate agreements with a common defendant, but where the defendants have no connection with one another, other than the common defendant's involvement in each transaction.
The claim of separate vertical conspiracies, however, potentially survived a motion to dismiss. A dissenting judge distinguished Kotteakos from this case and would have found a sufficient allegation of a conspiracy.
The missing element in Kotteakos was interdependence; each of the other defendants used Brown's services independently of every other defendant's use. The rimless conspiracy pleaded here had as its elements: The dissent argued that the allegations were that "each OEM joined a conspiracy which it knew was, by its nature, broader than just itself and Microsoft. Coca-Cola had a "loyalty program" that provided that IFDs who supply customers with Coca-Cola may not "handle [ ] the soft drink products" of PepsiCo, under penalty of termination.
PepsiCo offered no evidence of direct communications among the IFDs; it offered only to prove that Coca-Cola assured the IFDs that the loyalty policy would be uniformly enforced and encouraged them to report violations. The Second Circuit said, "We agree with the district court that this was insufficient evidence of a horizontal agreement to withstand summary judgment.
But the Second Circuit said the cases on which PepsiCo relied were price-fixing hub-and-spoke cases, such as Interstate Circuit and Parke, Davis, which were based on per se illegal conduct. For example, in a system with 10 destinations, the spoke-hub system requires only 9 routes to connect all destinations, and a true point-to-point system would require 45 routes.
However distant travelled per route will necessarily be more than with a point to point system except where the route happens to have no interchange. Therefore efficiency may be reduced. Conversely, for a same number of aircraft, having fewer routes to fly means each route can be flown more frequently and with higher capacity because the demand for passengers can be resourced from more than just one city assuming the passengers are willing to change, which will of itself incur its own costs.
Complicated operations, such as package sorting and accounting, can be carried out at the hub rather than at every node, and this leads to economies of scale. As a result of this, spokes are simpler to operate and so new routes can easily be created. Drawbacks[ edit ] Because the model is centralised, day-to-day operations may be relatively inflexible, and changes at the hub, even in a single route, may have unexpected consequences throughout the network.
It may be difficult or even impossible to handle occasional periods of high demand between two spokes. As a result of this, route scheduling is complicated for the network operator, since scarce resources must be used carefully to avoid starving the hub and careful traffic analysis and precise timing are required to keep the hub operating efficiently.
The total cargo capacity of the network is limited by the hub's capacity. Delays at the hub such as from bad weather conditions can result in delays throughout the network. Cargo must pass through the hub before reaching its destination and so require longer journeys than direct point-to-point trips. The hub-and-spoke organization design represents an option that, when deployed correctly, can greatly assist healthcare establishments in their quests to serve patients well.
Hub-and-spoke, Organization design, Healthcare delivery networks, Medical care Background Health and medical providers operate in an industry characterized by perpetual change, the result of a convergence of multiple influences from both within and outside of their given establishments.
The healthcare industry, in and of itself, is immensely complex, and its immersion in and exposure to the greater political, economic, social, and technological environment only adds to associated complexities [ 12 ]. Successfully navigating such tumultuous environments requires that healthcare providers be proficient in myriad areas, including the manner in which they organize and deliver services.
Less efficient designs drain precious resources and hamper efforts to provide the best care possible to patients, making it imperative that optimal pathways are identified and pursued.
Hub-and-spoke conspiracy - Wikipedia
One particular avenue that offers great potential for serving patients well is known as the hub-and-spoke organization design [ 34 ]. Through strategic centralization of the most advanced medical services at a single site and distribution of basic services via secondary sites, the hub-and-spoke model affords unique opportunities to maximize efficiencies and effectiveness. A well-designed hub-and-spoke network satisfies patient care needs fully, yet does so in a manner that fosters resource conservation, return on investment, service excellence, and enhanced market coverage [ 4 — 7 ].
Benefits abound, but in order to capitalize fully on the hub-and-spoke organization design, healthcare providers must assemble their service delivery networks with great care and attention. Definition Formally defined, the hub-and-spoke organization design is a model which arranges service delivery assets into a network consisting of an anchor establishment hub which offers a full array of services, complemented by secondary establishments spokes which offer more limited service arrays, routing patients needing more intensive services to the hub for treatment [ 37 ].
The hub-and-spoke model yields a healthcare network consisting of a main campus and one or more satellite campuses. It is much more efficient than organization designs which replicate operations across multiple sites [ 578 ]. Hub-and-spoke networks are highly scalable, with satellites being added as needed or desired [ 67 ]. When geographic distance makes satellite-to-hub access impractical, an additional hub can be created, yielding a multi-hub network [ 459 ].
The particular manner of centralization varies from institution to institution, depending on the service array provided and size of market addressed, but a common approach is as follows: Complex medical services, especially those that are technology and skills intensive, are centralized at the main campus or hub, as are services that support care delivery and lend themselves to centralization, such as human resource management, marketing, and related operations.
Basic healthcare services are broadly distributed across the network, permitting the bulk of healthcare needs of the populace to be addressed locally. Only when complexities emerge that require care falling outside of the scope of services provided at satellite facilities are patients routed to the main campus or hub for treatment [ 347 ].