Effectiveness of resilience capabilities in mitigating disruptions: leveraging on supply chain structural complexity

Abstract

Purpose-This study aims to investigate the influence of supply chain (SC) complexity on the effectiveness of resilience capabilities in mitigating supply chain disruptions. Hypotheses about direct and moderating influences of complexity on resilience capabilities and performance change after disruption are built and quantitatively tested. Design/methodology/approach-Partial least square-based Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with formative constructs was employed as an overall approach. Secondary data on SC disruptions, related performance change and resilience practices was collected from multiple sources through a systematic procedure. The data pertaining to independent, moderating and dependent variables was systematically encoded prior to performing regression analysis. Findings-SC structural complexity is found to have a significant positive relation with performance improvement after disruption, along with resilience capability; it also positively moderates the resilience-performance link. Research limitations/implications-The complexity factors we considered in this study do not include dynamic forms due to the nature of data collected. Future research may attempt to include and test if the results of this study could hold also when additional complexity parameters are taken into account. Practical implications-Managers are often trying to reduce supply chain complexity. This study implies that some level of complexity is beneficial also for a better recovery of operational performance affected due to disruption. Resilience capabilities become more effective when leveraged on higher resources and complexity in the supply chain. Originality/value-This is the first study to empirically investigate the influence of SC complexity on the resilience-performance link.

Building routines for non-routine events: supply chain resilience learning mechanisms and their antecedents

“…While there are differences in identifying the formative elements of resilience, it is generally acknowledged that these elements combine to develop the adaptive capability of an organisation (SCRes) based on bundles of routine practices (Birkie et al, 2017). At the same time, when a disruption occurs, organisations need to adapt their routines to respond to and recover from "experience by modification of its [in this case the organisation's] technologies, forms and practices" -the definition of learning by Levinthal and March (1993, p. 96).…”

Operational resilience, disruption, and efficiency: Conceptual and empirical analyses

“…This perspective assumes that a system's ability to effectively respond to disruptions, in terms of absorbing and recovering from impacts and repositioning itself in the face of disruptions, is determined by the system's score on IBR scales. Key IBR elements used to capture the resilience construct include firm flexibility, buffers, visibility, disruption preparedness, agility, collaboration, integration, and information sharing (see e.g., Chowdhury et al, 2019;Brusset and Teller, 2017;Birkie et al, 2017;Liu et al, 2018;Li et al, 2017).…”

“…Researchers have made several attempts to examine the performance outcomes of resilience. While some studies have investigated the performance effects of resilience using IBR elements (e.g., Chowdhury et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2018;Li et al, 2017;Birkie et al, 2017), others have examined the performance outcomes of OBR elements (see e.g., Wong et al, 2019;Yu et al, 2019;Kwak et al, 2018). Despite the valuable insights these studies offer, several scholars (Dormady et al, 2019;Pettit et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2019) have called for further investigation into the resilience-performance relationship.…”

Modeling supply network configuration problems with varying demand profiles

“…Mitigating the impact of such risks involves improving SC robustness and resilience through building capacity to: withstand disruptions, including any structural adjustments required; respond quickly to disruptions; and recover effectively from any disruptive incidents [7][8]. Specific measures of risk mitigation that have been proposed in the literature include: strategies such as holding buffer stocks, maintaining back-up capacity, multiple-sourcing and adaptive ordering [3][4]; structural adjustments in supply networks [2]; and dynamic integration of logistics capabilities [9]. For instance, [10] proposed six measures covering both operational strategies and structural adjustments to deal with SC disruptions and uncertainty, namely facility dispersion, facility reinforcement, use of sub-assemblies, multiple sourcing, and keeping inventory and considering primary and alternative bills of material (BOM).…”