Supply-side resilience as practice bundles: a critical incident study

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a typology of supply-side resilience capabilities and empirically validates these capabilities and their constituent bundles of practices. Design/methodology/approach – The study is primarily qualitative, employing the critical incident technique to collect data across 22 firms and seeking to validate how and why practice bundles form and relate to operations performance. It contains a frequency of occurrence analysis for the purpose of triangulation, a minor statistical part to provide some additional evidence of bundle formation and correlation between adoption of bundles of practices and recovered operations performance after upstream supply chain disruptions. Findings – Four supply-side resilience capabilities are conceptualized along two dichotomous dimensions – “proactive/reactive” and “internal/external” – in a 2×2 matrix as proactive-internal, proactive-external, reactive-internal and reactive-external resilience capabilities. Empirical support for the conceptualized typology is found. Bundles of specific practices that can be associated with each capability are identified. Moreover, the study finds a relationship between these practice bundles and recovered operations performance. Research limitations/implications – The statistical part is used just to provide some additional evidence through factor and regression analyses that these capabilities exist and do benefit adopting firms. Practical implications – Specifies practices that lead to recovered operations performance in the event of supply disruptions. Originality/value – Advances current theory by operationalizing resilience as a set of dynamic capabilities in terms of practice bundles that aid in recovering operations performance upon supply disruptions.

Non-linear effects of relational capital on supply-side resilience

“…This includes, for example, enhancing a firm's responsive capability, which gives managers a greater sense of mastery, control, and preparedness (Gu et al, 2008). This is needed for being alert to, adapting to, responding to, and recovering from upstream disruptions (Dabhilkar et al, 2016). As a result, we expect the beneficial impact of RC on supply-side resilience to persist longer for a boundary spanner with more diverse ties, such that the point when it turns negative occurs at a higher level of RC.…”

“…As RC increases, diminishing returns for resilience may be mitigated through more effective leveraging of the firm's information and resources. Information from stronger BSPTs will allow the buyer to know first-hand the urgency of a given disruption situation, allowing it to respond positively to changes from upstream suppliers (Dabhilkar et al, 2016) or to any requests to implement disruption-recovery plans. Developing strong ties outside the firm may also provide access to private information that is unavailable to others (Uzzi and Dunlap, 2005) enabling the buyer firm to be proactive (Knemeyer et al, 2009) in anticipating potential disruptions, devising more creative solutions (Tortoriello et al, 2012) in response to and recovery from those disruptions.…”

“…Such reflection seems especially critical in contexts where businesses need to manage supply disruptions and develop supply-side resilience (Dabhilkar et al, 2016).…”

Natural disasters, PC supply chain and corporate performance

“…Such practices espouse efficiency and enhance profitability of the firm and thus reduce internal vulnerability -the downside of excess inventory. Nevertheless, lean inventory trades off lower internal vulnerability for higher external vulnerability, as it becomes susceptible to disruptions being less agile and flexible (Dabhilkar et al, 2016;Fiksel et al, 2015).…”

A conceptual framework for improving effectiveness of risk management in supply networks

“…with supply network members Joint risk assessment Hallikas et al, 2004;Pournader et al, 2016 Joint risk mitigation planning Hallikas et al, 2004;Craighead et al, 2007;Manuj and Mentzer, 2008;Cantor et al, 2014 Joint business continuity planning Jüttner and Maklan, 2011 Information sharing, personal communication Spekman and Davis, 2004;Brandon-Jones et al, 2014;Li et al, 2015;Huong Tran et al, 2016 Knowledge sharing across the network and with external stakeholders Manuj and Mentzer, 2008;Jüttner and Maklan, 2011;Biotto et al, 2012;Ellinger et al, 2015;Scholten and Schilder,2015;Tukamuhabwa et al, 2015;Dabhilkar et al, 2016;Zsidisin et al, 2016;Busse et al, 2017 Joint problem solving with suppliers Reimann et al, 2017 Risk planning within the organization Collect data and intelligence on market trends and supply chain Cantor et al, 2014;Ellinger et al, 2015 Disseminate trends in supply chain with other functions Cantor et al,2014 Scanning the environment for potential disruptions Dabhilkar et al, 2016 Notify other departments when something important happens with a key Cantor et al, 2014;Ali et al, Chaudhuri, A., Ghadge, A., Gaudenzi, B. and Dani, S. (2020), "A conceptual framework for improving effectiveness of risk management in supply networks", International Journal of Logistics Management, (10.1108/IJLM-11-2018 Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005;Johnson et al, 2013 Minimize effect of disruption…”