Supply chain resilience: a dynamic and multidimensional approach

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework on resilience types in supply chain networks. Design/methodology/approach Using a complex adaptive systems perspective as an organizing framework, the paper explores three forms of resilience: engineering, ecological and evolutionary and their antecedents and links these to four phases of supply chain resilience (SCRES): readiness, response, recovery, growth and renewal. Findings Resilient supply chains need all three forms of resilience. Efficiency and system optimization approaches may promote quick recovery after a disruption. However, system-level response requires adaptive capabilities and transformational behaviors may be needed to move supply chains to new fitness levels after a disruption. The three resilience types discussed are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other and there are synergies and tradeoffs among these resilience types. Research limitations/implications The empirical validation of the theoretical propositions will open up new vistas for supply chain research. Possibilities exist for analyzing and assessing SCRES in multiple and more comprehensive ways. Practical implications The findings of the research can help managers refine their approaches to managing supply chain networks. A more balanced approach to supply chain management can reduce the risks and vulnerabilities associated with supply chain disruptions. Originality/value This study is unique as it conceptualizes SCRES in multiple ways, thereby extending our understanding of supply chain stability.

Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience

“…Srinivasan and Swink (2018) argue that organizational flexibility in terms of supply chain is defined as the ability of the supply chain managers to reconfigure their internal supply chains quickly and efficiently to adapt to the changing demand and supply market conditions. Adobor and McMullen (2018) argue that disruptions to supply chains can have significant economic impacts. Hence, managing risk and vulnerability associated with supply chains have attracted increasing attentions from practitioners and policy makers.…”

“…Hence, managing risk and vulnerability associated with supply chains have attracted increasing attentions from practitioners and policy makers. Holling (1973) argue that resilience, the capacity of a system to adapt to change and deal with surprise while retaining the system's basic function and structure, has evolved as an important aspect for managing supply chain risk and vulnerability (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009;Pettit et al, 2010;Adobor and McMullen, 2018).The resilience is a multidisciplinary concept (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017). Ates and Bititci (2011) argue that resilience in organizational context as an organizational capability to survive in turbulent environment.…”

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

“…Accordingly, it has been suggested that learning and growth represent a fourth phase of resilience after the recovery stage (e.g., Adobor and McMullen, 2018;Hohenstein et al, 2015) via learning from experiences (Pettit et al, 2010) or training and development (Blackhurst et al, 2011;Ritchie and Brindley, 2007). Yet, despite this acknowledgement of p p l y C h a i n M a n a g e m e n t : a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l 5 the role of learning for SCRes (Chowdhury and Quaddas, 2016), how organisations can learn and adapt their routines to foster SCRes has not been explicitly theorised.…”

How can cross-functional integration support the development of resilience capabilities? The case of collaboration in the automotive industry

“…Using safety stock to maintain the capacity to respond to any disruption in the supply chain Rice Jr. and Caniato (2003); Sheffi and Rice Jr. (2005); Soni et al (2015); Ali et al (2017); Adobor and McMullen (2018)…”