Conceptual wanderlust: How to develop creative supply chain theory with analogies

Abstract

This article guides the development of creative insights in supply chain management. The authors begin by describing analogies' role in advancing organization theory with a focus on image transfers between knowledge domains. While much has been said about the merits of conceptual transfers between domains, much equally remains unknown, particularly about how to deliberately develop creative insights that have the potential to challenge or enhance existing supply chain management theory. To address this issue, this research builds on prior work on analogies, creativity, and design thinking to develop a heuristic‐analytic model. This model is designed to assist researchers in theorizing by analogy through a controlled dual cognitive process of divergence before convergence combined with a distant boundary‐spanning knowledge search. An illustration of the model shows how creative output can provide a fresh perspective that helps render supply chains potentially more resilient.

Theorizing across boundaries: How to conduct a ‘breakout’ literature review

“…While this article targets all organizational scholars, through illustrations and hints at possibilities in supply chain management, a small contribution is specifically made to advancing this discipline. To date, the few studies that help scholars theorize across knowledge domains in supply chain management tend to discuss literature reviews in broad strokes only (e.g., Gruner & Power, 2020; Gruner & Power, 2023; Stephens et al., 2022).…”

“…Exploring seemingly unrelated work across distant knowledge domains demands an open mind about what source domain knowledge might be usefully applied to an identified focus phenomenon. This approach can stimulate researchers’ imagination, encouraging them to pose uninhibited ‘Why not?’ and ‘What if?’ questions that break through disciplinary constraints (see also Gruner & Power (2023)).…”

“…We also respond to calls in management and adjacent disciplines for more plurality in theorizing styles and for its research to become less insular by working across disciplines to initiate an often welcome change in perspective (e.g., Delbridge & Fiss, 2013; Shaw et al., 2018). Additionally, by presenting the three stages of the process model in a supply chain management context, we address concerns raised by supply chain scholars who urge for more imaginative theorizing and reviews that challenge conventional theory (e.g., Carter, 2011; Flynn et al., 2020; Gruner & Power, 2023; Stephens et al., 2022).…”