Selecting resilient suppliers: a case study on supplier characteristics that affect the performance of suppliers on resilience

a case study on supplier characteristics that

affect the performance of suppliers on

resilience

Master thesis, MSc Supply Chain Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics & Business

January 25th, 2016

R.O. Hamilton

Student number: S1768468

Email:

r.o.hamilton@student.rug.nl

Supervisor / University of Groningen

Dr. K. Scholten

Co-assessor / University of Groningen

Prof. Dr. D.P. van Donk

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 4

ABSTRACT ... 5

1. INTRODUCTION ... 5

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 7

2.1. Supply Chain Resilience ... 7

5. DISCUSSION ... 33

5.1. Introduction ... 33

5.2. Technical Capability & Resilience ... 33

5.3. Size & Resilience ... 34

5.4. Supplier Involvement & Resilience ... 35

5.5. Demographic Distance & Resilience ... 36

5.6. Organizational Culture & Resilience ... 37

6. CONCLUSION ... 38

6.1. Theoretical Implications ... 38

6.2. Managerial Implications ... 38

6.3. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ... 39

LITERATURE ... 40

APPENDICES ... 46

Appendix I – Interview Protocol ... 46

Appendix II – Questionnaire ... 48

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr. K. Scholten, for her great patience, commitment and support throughout the whole process of writing this thesis. The process can be characterized by its up and downs, but because of her guidance, extensive feedback and our useful discussions, I stayed on the right track and remained motivated to finalize this thesis. Furthermore, I would also like to thank my co-assessor, Prof. Dr. D.P. van Donk, for taking the time to give critical feedback on my thesis during the last six months.

I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor at the focal organization. He gave me the great opportunity to do my graduation project at his organization. His support, input, useful practical insights, and most of all his great personality, made my period at the focal organization very instructive and enjoyable. In addition, a special thanks to all the interviewees at the suppliers and focal organization for making time available for me and providing me with data for this thesis.

ABSTRACT

Purpose –The aim of this paper is to investigate how to select suppliers in order to improve

supply chain resilience. Here, the relation between five supplier characteristics and flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration is studied.

Design/Methodology/approach – A multiple case study is conducted among four suppliers

from a focal organization in the offshore industry, in which both semi-structured interviews and quantitative data are collected.

Findings – The findings provide empirical evidence on how the characteristics of a supplier

in terms of technical capability, size, supplier involvement, demographic distance and organizational culture influence that supplier’s performance as regards flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration during disruptions. Furthermore, the underlying mechanisms and interrelatedness of these characteristics are identified.

Originality/value – This paper sheds new light on the concept of Supply Chain Resilience

(SCR), by linking it with the different organizational characteristics of suppliers. By doing so, this paper is the first to provide insights into which supplier characteristics are important to when selecting resilient suppliers.

Keywords – Supply Chain Resilience, Supplier Characteristics, Disruptions, Technical

Capability, Size, Supplier Involvement, Demographic distance and Organizational Culture.

1. INTRODUCTION

Fiksel, 2013; Choi & Krause, 2006). Hence, the influence of suppliers’ performance on the resilience of a supply chain cannot be ignored, and underlines the need to research look how to select resilient suppliers.

Building a resilient supply chain has become a strategic tool to survive, adapt and reduce the impact or even grow from unexpected events that disrupt the flow of products or services (Knemeyer, Zinn, & Eroglu, 2009; Chen, Sohal, and Prajogo 2013). Several examples of disruptions at a supplier include transportation accidents, extreme weather conditions, fire at a production facility, workforce strikes or changing regulations (Blackhurst, Dunn, & Craighead, 2011; Wagner & Bode, 2006). Previous research has shown that close collaboration between supply chain members, and having redundancy of physical, human and organizational resources throughout the supply chain, improve the resilience of a supply chain when facing disruptions (Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Tang, 2006). Since all members of the supply chain have to take active part to successfully achieve resilience (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009) and disruptions upstream in the supply chain have a ripple effect on the entire supply chain, it highlights the important role suppliers play to improve resilience (Pereira, et al., 2014). Their performance determines the ability to respond to changing requirements, unexpected events and risks and to meet future demand, which makes selecting the right suppliers crucial for the success and continuity of a supply chain (Su, Dyer, & Gargeya, 2009). While selecting the right supplier is an acknowledged element of purchasing and seems to improve resilience as well, research in the field of resilience is still a rather neglected and undeveloped topic (Luo et al., 2009). Previous research about supplier selection is mainly focuses on selecting suppliers based on costs, delivery speed, quality and variety of their products (Nahm, Vonderembse, & Koufteros, 2003) and completely ignores the performance on resilience. As empirical evidence on this topic is missing, this paper aims to gain a better understanding on how to select suppliers which will improve SCR. By doing so, the influence of suppliers’ characteristics on the performance of SCR will be investigated in a multiple case study with various suppliers. To fill this gap, the following research question is addressed:

“How to select suppliers in order to improve the resilience of a supply chain?”

influence the performance of suppliers in previous research. It will provide novel insights into the effect of each specific supplier characteristic on different aspects of SCR. Secondly, while we know how to select suppliers based on costs, quality and delivery speed, these findings will contribute in determining which supplier characteristics should be included when selecting suppliers in order to increase SCR. The findings of this paper will also provide managers with a tool to determine the factors on which a supplier should also be selected to improve the resilience of a supply chain.

In order to answer the research question, it is essential to start by reviewing all relevant literature on SCR, supplier selection and supplier characteristics which influence the performance of suppliers. From this review, a conceptual model is designed. Following this model, the design and context of the multiple case studies are presented and analyzed. Subsequently, the findings of this study will be further discussed and linked to existing literature, in the discussion section. Finally, the conclusion will provide theoretical and practical implications, limitations and suggestions for further research.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The concept of SCR has emerged from research on risk management, in which researchers recognized the fact that disruptions are inevitable and can no longer always be foreseen, prevented and controlled up front (Pettit et al., 2013; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Whereas the goal of risk management is to reduce the probability and likelihood of risks to occur, SCR is related to dealing with and minimizing the impact of unexpected disruptive events (Chopra & Sodhi, 2004; Blackhurst et al., 2011). Most researchers define resilience as the ability of a supply chain to respond, detect and recover from disruptions (Blackhurst et al., 2011; Christopher & Peck, 2008; Pettit et al., 2013) where the aim is to reduce the financial and operational impact of disruptions in the shortest time possible (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009). Hence, this paper will combine the definitions of Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) and Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) and define SCR as follows: “The adaptive capability to prepare

In order to establish a resilient supply chain, an organization should have adaptive capabilities (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2013). However, there is no consensus on the concept of these capabilities. According to Pettit et al. (2013), capabilities such as structured information sharing, redundant resources (human, physical and organizational) and knowledge of the supply chain are critical to be able to increase resilience. This is in contrast to Christopher and Peck (2004), who emphasize on the considerations to (re-) engineer the supply chain, develop and gain a better understanding of the supply chain, being able to establish supply chain collaboration, improve agility and create a supply chain risk management culture. However, the framework of Christopher and Peck (2004) does not take into account that resilience is an on-going and dynamic process which never reaches an optimal state, rather than one-time event (Scholten, Sharkey-Scott, & Fynes, 2014; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Therefore, Jüttner and Maklan (2011) suggest formative capabilities instead of the system level-capabilities of Christopher and Peck (2004). The framework of Jüttner and Maklan (2011) is frequently used and well accepted in literature (Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Johnson, Elliott, & Drake, 2013). The framework consists of flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration and, will be used in this paper to conceptualize resilience. The next paragraphs will shortly elaborate on these four capabilities.

2.1.1.Flexibiltiy

2.1.2. Visibility

Visibility is defined by Francis (2008) as “the identity, location and status of entities

transiting the supply chain, captured in timely messages about events, along with the planned and actual dates/times of these events” (Francis, 2008: 182). It emphasizes the capability of

having access to information, gaining an overview of the entire supply chain and timely detecting unexpected disruptive events (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Sheffi & Rice, 2005). Furthermore, shared information that is accurate, trusted, timely, useful and accessible to different members in the supply chain will improve the visibility (Caridi et al., 2010). By increasing the visibility, managers are able to reveal uncertainties, manage risk and determine the impact disruptions could potentially have for the supply chain (Blackhurst et al., 2011). This way unfounded and overreacted actions, decisions and interventions can be avoided (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015).

2.1.3. Velocity

Velocity is the speed in which members in a supply chain are able to adjust or change their supply chain and recover from a disruption (Blackhurst et al., 2011). Furthermore, Christopher and Peck (2004) describe velocity as the distance in time and the costs per unit of time a supply chain suffers from disruptions. Quickly regaining the control over disruptions is important to prevent escalation of lead times, unnecessary financial damage and disruption of the flow of products throughout the supply chain (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008). Hence, the faster visibility is created, and the more additional solutions are available, the faster supply chains are able to respond to these events and minimize the impact on the supply chain (Craighead, Blackhurst, Rungtusanatham, & Handfield, 2007). Therefore, velocity entails how efficient and at which pace members in the supply chain can adapt to disruptions (Stevenson & Spring, 2007). In other words, it is the rate at which risk events happen, losses occur, speed disruptions are discovered and a supply chain can recover (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008).

2.1.4.Collaboration

Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Furthermore, collaboration is seen as “the glue that holds supply

chain organizations together in times of crisis” (Richey, 2009: p.623). It creates an

environment where members will not act on their own, and stimulates goal congruence and decision synchronization in order to find effective solutions (Simatupang & Sridharan, 2008; Scholten & Schilder, 2015).

Thus, it appears that the four formative capabilities reinforce each other and should be considered together in order to improve resilience (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009). To summarize the capabilities and their definitions, an overview is presented in Table 1. However, in order to effectively deal with disruptions and improve resilience, Jüttner and Maklan (2011) state that all members within the supply chain, both upstream and downstream, must adopt flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration and have them aligned. In addition, disruptions upstream in the supply chain cause a great ripple effect on the entire supply chain (Ivanov, Sokolov, & Dolgui, 2014). Therefore, it is essential to select the right suppliers and agree on the objectives with all members involved. Considerably little research is being conducted on how selecting the right suppliers influences the flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration of a supply chain. The next paragraph

elaborates on the selection process of suppliers and factors that influence their performance.

Formative Capability Operationalization of definition

Flexibility

Visibility

Velocity

Collaboration

The ease to change between different options and alter processes in response to emerging and unforeseen changing requirements, environmental and operational uncertainty in a supply chain, without wasting too much time, effort or cost (Upton, 2004; Manuj & Mentzer, 2008; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015)

The extent to which supply chain members have access to, or timely share relevant, key or useful information about events, operations and members of the supply chain (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).

The speed at which members in a supply chain are able to respond, adjust or change a supply chain and recover from changing market circumstances and disruptions (Blackhurst et al., 2011).

The extent to which supply chain members work in a joint and coordinated way when responding, adjusting and recovering from unexpected disruptions (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).

2.2.Selecting Suppliers

Both researchers and practitioners have become more aware of the negative consequences poor decision-making in selecting suppliers could have on the performance and vulnerability of a supply chain (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Choi & Krause, 2006). Accordingly, Su et al. (2009) state that supplier performance is one of the most decisive elements to create a competitive advantage, and which is also able to influence the performance, both operational and financial, of a supply chain. Supplier performance is defined by Sarkar and Mohapatra (2006: 152) as “supplier’s demonstrated ability to meet the buyer’s requirements in terms of

costs, quality, service and other short-term criteria”. In addition to the buyer’s requirements

described in the definition, flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration should be included in order to assess supplier performance on resilience. Suppliers’ performance will give insights into whether a supplier is able to meet current and future demand in times of disruptions, which is crucial for the continuity of a supply chain (Prajogo, Chowdhury, Yeung, & Cheng, 2012).

demographic distance and organizational culture (Caridi et al., 2010; Ateş, Wynstra, & Van Raaij, 2015; Choi & Krause, 2006). These supplier characteristics have shown to be positively related to the performance on quality, costs, information sharing, cooperation and even flexibility (Lawson, Cousins, Handfield, & Petersen, 2009; Choi & Krause, 2006; Pereira et al., 2014). Therefore, this paper assumes these factors have an effect on resilience as well and will discuss them further below. The operationalization of the different constructs is presented in Table 2.

2.2.1. Technical Capability

Wu & Weng (2010) defined technical capability as the extent to which suppliers make effective use of their skills, expertise and knowledge to set up a plant, utilize it efficiently, improve and expand it over time, and are able remain operational in severe circumstances. The better the suppliers’ understanding of their market and expertise in their field of work, the more flexible they become in achieving their goals and dealing with unexpected situations. (Petersen et al., 2005). It makes suppliers able to find ways to grow along with the focal organization, to keep up with the future demand and deal with changing buyer’s requirements in terms of quality, delivery time and costs (Marthadisastra et al., 2014). Knowledge and experience from past events will give suppliers the ability to develop skills to identify threats and opportunities at an early stage, act responsively, and make comprehensively estimate how this will affect the organization (Blackhurst et al, 2011). As stated by Scholten et al., (2014),

Factor Construct Operationalization of definition

Supplier Characteristics Technical Capability Size Supplier Involvement Geographic Distance Organizational Culture

The extent to which suppliers make effective use of their skills, expertise and knowledge to set up a plant, utilize it efficiently, improve and expand it over time, and are able to remain operational under severe circumstances (Wu & Weng, 2010).

The extent to which a supplier has the financial, operational & physical resources and organizational structure to deal with current and future demand of a focal organization and with changing circumstances which disrupt the flow of goods or services (Choi & Krause, 2006; Barney, 1991).

The extent to which suppliers participate and interact in the product design and production phase of a focal organization (Cao et al., 2010; Petersen et al., 2005).

Is the physical distance (#km and travel time) between suppliers and their focal organization and the ‘communication distance’ in terms of language barriers, communication styles and time zones (Stringfellow, Teagarden, & Nie, 2008). The extent to which suppliers and a focal organization share the same needs, views, norms and values (Choi & Krause, 2006; Ateş et al., 2015).

it creates risk-awareness, preparedness and ability to adjust to changing and unexpected circumstances.

2.2.2. Size

The size of a supplier can be described in two ways, in terms of the availability of financial, operational and physical resources and in terms of the organizational structure (Barney, 1991). By effectively managing, utilizing and obtaining available and additional resources, a supplier is able to survive severe circumstances and to be flexible and responsive towards future demands or changing requirements (Ambulkar et al., 2015; Davis, Eisenhardt, & Bingham, 2009; (Blackhurst et al., 2011). Apart from the flexibility of having redundant resources in terms of stock (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Johnson, et al., 2013), there is hardly any literature that links the available capacity (operational resources) and the physical and financial resources to the four capabilities of resilience. Larger suppliers have more options to quickly obtain resources due the larger financial possibilities and higher availability of additional capacity (Johnson, et al., 2013), while smaller suppliers need to make a trade-off on which resources to use and which to obtain externally (Hwang & Min, 2013; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Although larger suppliers are seen as more organized and financially reliable (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009), due to their formal structure they are less responsive and the decision-making is considered as less effective (Claver-Cortés et al., 2007). More organically structured and in general smaller suppliers are characterized by the minimalized number of hierarchical layers, which makes it easier to communicate with the right person(s) both internally and externally, reduces the perceived distance between layers, and enhances joint decision-making (Stringfellow et al., 2008). Furthermore, the horizontal nature of these organizations, also stimulates team-work, face-to-face interactions, more frequent meetings and learning (Claver-Cortés et al., 2007). This results in better accessibility and transparency of information, which improves the flexibility of suppliers to deal with problems in different ways (Villena, Revilla, & Choi, 2011).

2.2.3. Supplier Involvement

of supplier integration, presented in Figure 1 (Monczka, Handfield, Frayer, Ragatz, & Scannell, 2000). This figure clearly shows four distinctive degrees to which a supplier can be involved in the design and production phase of a focal organization. Suppliers can be valued on the level of involvement, and this can determine whether a supplier will be selected or not (Lawson et al, 2009; Carr & Pearson, 2002). For example, when a supplier is in the black box, more is expected from him in terms of quality, flexibility and delivery speed, than from a supplier in the first quadrant (Monczka et al., 2000).

Successful involvement of suppliers can only be achieved by explicit agreements regarding the planning, responsibility and budget of a project (Petersen et al., 2005). By integrating the suppliers in the design and production process of a focal organization, new product development and quality improvement are enhanced (Petersen et al., 2005). Additionally, it improves the coordination and sharing of knowledge, information and resources between a supplier and a focal organization and increases the performance in terms of shorter lead-time, better quality and higher reliability (Lawson et al., 2009; Narayanan, Narasimhan, & Schoenherr, 2015). A high degree of supplier involvement creates an environment in which both the supplier and a focal organization are highly intertwined with each other and share the same interests and goals (Narayanan et al. 2015). Therefore, in case of threats or problems at either of the two organizations, the supplier and the focal organization share the willingness to protect each other and solve the problem quickly and effectively. While this could lead to a reduction in the probability of risk, Zsidisin & Smith (2005) state that it increases the mutual dependency. Therefore, there is a possibility that a focal organization and a supplier become intertwined with each other, causing them to be less flexible, innovative and responsive to changing circumstances in the environment (Petersen et al., 2005).

2.2.4. Demographic Distance

Due to the global nature of today’s business environment, organizations have become geographically dispersed. While this is seen as an interesting trend from a cost-perspective, it has a few critical logistical and risk related downsides (Caridi et al., 2010). Potential consequences of supplier and focal organizations being located at a greater physical distance from one another include longer delivery times, less flexibility and higher vulnerabilities to different forms of logistical risks (Gray, Roth, & Leiblein, 2011; Choi & Krause, 2006). Schiele (2007) stresses that when suppliers are in the proximity of the focal organization, the effectiveness of communication, coordination and information sharing increases between these members of a supply chain. As mentioned in the previous paragraph referring to size, distance can be measured either physically or by perception. Not sharing the same communication style and power distance, the inability to the reach the organization in times of need and the difficulties of language barriers have a negative effect on collaboration (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). Furthermore, this incompatibility could lead to ambiguities about the demand, which cause delays, differences in the quality level and the inability to meet the demand and respond to unexpected threats and opportunities (Gray et al., 2011; Choi & Krause, 2006).

2.2.5. Organizational Culture

2.3.Conceptual Model

Hence, previous literature shows that the technical capabilities, amount of resources, the size, supplier involvement, demographic distance and sharing the same organizational culture, affect the performance of a supplier (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Caridi et al., 2010; Craighead et al., 2007). While it seems that these characteristics have a positive effect on the performance of a supplier, there is literature that contradicts this. Dooley & Van de Ven (1999) state for example that differences in organizational culture, demographic distance and technical ability actually stimulate innovative, flexible, ad-hoc and out-of-the-box solutions for problems. This is due to the different views, background, expertise and knowledge of the suppliers and focal organizations on a specific matter. Nevertheless, linkages can be found between these characteristics and the performance of a supplier; therefore this paper expects that linkages can be found with the four formative capabilities of resilience as well. However, there is hardly any literature available that acknowledges this relation. Thus, in order to select resilient suppliers, it is important to get a better understanding of the effects these five supplier characteristics have on the flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration of a supplier during disruptions. This paper will describe this relation in more detail by means of an in-depth multiple case study. Figure 2 provides a conceptual model to visualize the link between supplier characteristics and the formative capabilities of resilience.

3. METHODOLOGY

In order to get a better empirical understanding and build theory on how to select resilient suppliers, a multiple case study is applied (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). By conducting a multiple case study new knowledge and in-depth insights are gained about the five characteristics of a supplier in relation to flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration in the different cases, which cannot be collected by conducting only statistical research (Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). Furthermore, since there is hardly any empirical literature available about the relationship between these constructs and their underlying mechanism during specific unexpected disruptions, a multiple case study is a suitable method to explore this unknown and complex phenomenon in its real-life and natural context (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009). Finally, the case study methodology allows the researcher to give answer to ‘how-questions’ and to use multiple sources of evidence to facilitate triangulation of data, which increases the validity of this research (Voss et al., 2002). Suppliers are defined as the unit of analysis in this research.

3.2.Case Context

the constructs to a larger populations of cases, both offshore and onshore suppliers (Gerring, 2007).

3.3.Case Selection

In this paper, four cases are studied. In order to select three fairly similar cases and one contrasting case and which are suitable for analysis, explorative informal meetings were held in advance with managers of the focal organization and suppliers. By doing so, this paper follows the highly accepted case selection method of Yinn (2003) & Eisenhardt (1989), which

“ensure unity and comparability on some case characteristics, while enabling maximum variation on others” (De Blok, Luijkx, Meijboom, & Schols, 2010: 81). In other words, the

paper will use a combination of theoretical and literal replication, where the goal is to see whether the results in the findings are unique for a single case, or whether they can also be applicable to and replicated in several cases (Yin, 2009). The cases were categorized and scaled by the five supplier characteristics, discussed in the theoretical background. As presented in Table 3, the suppliers in cases 1, 2, and 3 have similar characteristics, while case 4 has a few contrary ones. Thus, the similar cases possess experienced technical ability, are small to medium sized, are medium to highly involved in the different processes of the focal organization, demographically medium to close distant and share the same organizational culture. It is expected that the similar cases will have similar results regarding their performance on resilience, while case 4 will score differently due the contrasting characteristics.

3.4.Data Collection

This research will use of three data collection methods to achieve internal triangulations (Eisenhardt, 1989). Data are collected by semi-structured interviews, a short questionnaire, supplier documents (newspaper articles and documented correspondence during the disruption) and supplier rating reports. In the questionnaire and during the interviews, the respondents of the focal organization and suppliers were asked to talk about a disruption which was agreed in advance and did occur at the specific suppliers in the past.

21 provide a better understanding about the specific disruption at the suppliers, the performance of the supplier during the event and the impact of disruptions, an interview protocol was established (see Appendix I). The protocol is derived from the theory section and consists of open-ended questions regarding the general background of the interviewee, a specific disruption, the roles of the five supplier characteristics during the event, the effect on resilience and ways to improve resilience in the future. People with high levels of responsibility and status within their organization were selected for the interviews, since they are assumed to have the appropriate knowledge, information, expertise and experience with the suppliers, the selection of suppliers, their performance and the specific disruption. Furthermore, by conducting interviews with both suppliers and managers from different departments, different perspectives were highlighted. The topic of the semi-structured interview, the selected interviewees, their function and the length of the interview are presented in the Table 4. All the interviews were held face-to-face and with the permission of the interviewee, notes were taken and the conversation recorded with a digital voice recorder. The transcription of every interview took place in accordance with the 24h hours rule of Yin (2009). Finally, once the interview was transcribed, the transcription was sent back to the

interviewee to check for completeness and accuracy of content.

Topic interview Organization Function of interviewee Length of interview

Interview 1 Case 1 & 4 Focal Organization (FC1) Manager Procurement & Logistics 50 min

Interview 2 Case 2 & 3 Focal Organization (FC2) Manager Service 40 min

Interview 3 Case 2 & 4 Focal Organization (FC3) Manager QHSE 50 min

Interview 4 Case 1 & 3 Focal Organization (FC4) Manager Production 50 min

Interview 5 Case 1 Supplier A Manager Operations 45 min

Interview 6 Case 2 Supplier B CEO 40 min

Interview 7 Case 3 Supplier C Account Manager Europe 65 min

The quantitative data are used to explain, emphasize and support the qualitative findings, which are open-ended and not tested in literature yet (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to avoid misinterpretations, missing less salient findings and gain false impressions from data collected in the semi-structured interviews (Eisenhardt, 1989), the respondents had to fill in a questionnaire prior to the interviews (Appendix II). This provides a better understanding on what the different interviewees think about certain characteristics of a supplier during a disruption. Furthermore, the results are used to compare these views with each other and ask more focused questions related to the disruptions, the supplier characteristics and resilience, during the semi-structured interviews. Supplier selection reports will provide insight into how suppliers are selected, and how they perform on different aspects as regards resilience.

3.5.Data Analysis

supplier and those from the focal organization. From this analysis, for each case a peer-reviewed report is compiled for each case, which is then compared with the other eight reports during a cross-case analysis. By using a cross-analysis, patterns within the same context (specific disruption) are identified, which explain on which characteristics suppliers should be selected, and how these characteristics will improve SCR.

4. FINDINGS

After analyzing the data, this paper gained specific insights into how supplier characteristics in terms of supplier involvement, organizational culture, demographic distance between a supplier and a focal organization, and the size and technical capabilities of a supplier either enable or hinder flexibly, velocity, visibility and collaboration in case of a disruption. These findings will contribute to the aim of this paper to get a better understanding on how to select resilient suppliers. Table 5 presents a description of the specific disruptions for each individual case and which puts the findings in a better perspective. Based on the data obtained from the interviews, the questionnaire and the suppliers’ documents, each element of the characteristics of the supplier will be discussed and linked to resilience in the following paragraphs.

4.2.Technical Capability

The findings demonstrate the importance of having technical expertise of the product and market, detecting and adjustment skills, and to set up a knowledge teams during disruptions. These mechanisms improve resilience via flexibility, the velocity, visibility and collaboration.

Supplier A Supplier B Supplier C Supplier D

Disruption: Design & production fault of one of the critical components of the system of the focal

organization. Length disruption: 4 weeks Disruption: Server breakdown, making drawings inaccessible. Length of disruption: 3 days Disruption: Destructive fire at a production facility

where all components of focal organization were

produced.

Length disruption: 1,5 month

Disruption: Produced wrong components for the

system of the focal organization.

Length disruption: 1 week

First, the analysis of data shows that due to the characteristics of the offshore market in terms of tight deadlines, and the custom-made nature and the high requirements of the products, it is critical that suppliers possess the right expertise and knowledge about their own product. Furthermore, they also need to know about the application of their products to the system of the focal organization. In doing so, suppliers need to have a technical understanding of the system. This not always needed for the less critical products such as in the case of Supplier D.

The complexity of our system and the relatively small time available to react to disruptions, makes it crucial for our supplier to have experience in working with us and knowledge of the system.” (FC4). Having technical knowledge about the system of the focal organization

creates visibility through the ability of a supplier to speeds-up the process of finding reasons why produced and delivered components are causing problems. In addition, it increases the flexibility and velocity through the ability to find effective solutions, alternatives and necessary resources, to solve the problem. “By having years of experience with the system and

knowing it from the inside and out, we were able to quickly find the cause of the problem, obtain the right resources and able to fix it.” (Supplier A). Secondly, expertise in the market

is also important in all cases to improve the four capabilities of SCR. “Having knowledge of

the global market due to the 60 years of experience increases the number of options to tackle a disruption in an effective way, which will eventually result in avoiding harm to the focal organization.” (Supplier D). “In the world of offshore, other laws apply. E.g. the requirements and expectations of clients regarding disruptions are much higher.” (FC3).

Besides, also employees who have gained expertise the through experiencing similar disruptions in the past have also shown to be useful in finding effective solutions that increase the flexibility and collaboration. These previous experiences made the suppliers in the different cases more aware of the importance of sharing critical information and knowledge in the proper manner to the right stakeholder, both internally and externally. Moreover, due to their experience, all suppliers had developed better detecting and adjustment skills towards disruptions. “We were able to recognize disruptions at an earlier stage, because we have

learned from our mistakes in the past.” (Supplier B). Furthermore, we found that during a

team with specialized people which together were able to map, communicate, solve and reduce the impact of the disruption, as quickly as possible and in the appropriate manner.”

(Supplier C).

4.3.Size

The findings highlight the importance of suppliers who are well rated by by a credit agency, are able to scale up or adjust their capacity, have an ERP system in place to identify additional resources, and have direct communication lines. These mechanisms influence the flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration of a supplier during disruptions.

Firstly, it appears from the data that when a supplier is financially strong, it increases flexibility by having access to more potential solutions. In the case of Supplier C, it opened possibilities to move to another facility, buy new machines, scale up their production, have a comprehensive insurance, and to deal with an unexpected financial setback. Furthermore, it provided security for both the supplier and the focal organization. “Our suppliers are rated by

a credit rating agency on their financial resilience and it appears those that score high are

much more solid in their response to disruptions. It creates security and trust.” (FC3).

Secondly, the operational resources also influence on the flexibility, velocity and collaboration of a supplier. In all cases, it appears that having machines, locations and skilled employees available, or the ability to quickly obtain additional forms of capacity, increases flexibility and velocity towards disruptions. “Despite the fact that one of their production

facilities was destroyed by a fire, Supplier C had contingency arrangements available to move to other production facilities around the world. With this approach they were able to produce the same volumes for the focal organization again within a month.” (FC2). Furthermore, next

to having the ability to invest in new facilities, we found that Supplier C tried to scale up the

production capacity of other facilities and asked subcontractors to do the same. “The

production capacity of facilities in China and the VS were scaled up to 250% by assigning extra employees from other facilities to these facilities.” (Supplier C). However, the suppliers

who have grown along the focal organization from the beginning, and are rather small compared to Suppliers C and D, do not have the same amount of resources to apply these kinds of solutions. Suppliers such as in the case 1 and 2 do not have the ability to quickly switch between locations and unlimited access to financial resources to e.g. buy new expensive machines or facilities. “Supplier A has only one production facility and will not

occurred to Supplier C”. (FC4). These smaller suppliers tried to reduce the impact of their

less critical disruptions by letting employees work double shifts. “We had to schedule in

additional staff hours and run double shifts to increase the velocity and still be able to meet the deadline.” (Supplier A). However, in the case of Supplier B, where time availability was

an issue due to other deadlines, a flexible response such as rescheduling the production-process was not always an option. “Due to limited time available and by not having the

capability to adjust their production capacity, Supplier B had serious problems in effectively dealing with the manufacturing faults.” (FC2). Furthermore, the findings indicate that when it

appeared that expertise and skills were not internally available, smaller suppliers were forced to obtain these technical capabilities externally. This resulted in suppliers A and B encountering serious velocity problems to response during the disruption. For example, Supplier A had to contact a number of different stakeholders to obtain this specific information and discuss the potential solutions with them. This was causing delays. “First the

hydraulics supplier had problems convincing his subcontractor to come over from Italy to discuss the problem and when this finally happened, they needed quite some time to figure out a solution. This definitely did not benefit the process; it took them 3 weeks to figure it out.”

(FC1). However obtaining information and knowledge externally was the only solution in these specific cases. Looking at the larger suppliers (C and D), having the knowledge, skills and expertise available internally did contribute to the flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration. Next to having the ability to deploy skilled and experienced employees as physical resources, the findings show that it is also important to have a buffer stock available to increase flexibility and velocity. It appeared from the cases that the larger suppliers (C and D) had a more redundant stock available then the smaller suppliers. “The reason is because

the stock will cover the first demand of the focal organization and give the supplier the time to develop solutions to meet the remaining demand and execute it effectively.“ (FC1). Case 3

showed that an ERP system is an effective tool to create visibility by providing a quick indication of the location and quantity of available stock. “We used our ERP system to look

up our worldwide stock and see if there were possibilities to postpone orders from other clients in order to meet the demand of the focal organization.” (Supplier C).

and velocity towards disruptions. “Decisions, which in our opinion should be made as quickly

as possible, had to go over many different hierarchical layers before being made.” (FC4). “It just takes longer before decisions are made.” (Supplier D). Most interviewees prefer a more

direct line, since it increases the resilience of a supplier by better collaboration, the velocity in

which information can be shared, the ease in finding flexible solutions and improved visibility. “Sometimes you have to act really quickly, work closely together and be flexible. In

those situations, you see that larger suppliers have more difficulties.” (FC3). In addition, this

also depends on the reliability of the supplier on the focal organization: “The smaller the

supplier and the greater proportion of the sales you occupy as a customer, the more service and flexibility you get from the supplier. Because you are more important to them.” (FC2).

4.4.Supplier Involvement

While, the findings show that supplier involvement creates higher willingness to deal with disruptions and stimulates effective information and knowledge sharing, it can also reduce the objectivity of decisions and suppliers can be too pleasant towards the focal organization. Therefore, the findings indicate that supplier involvement influences the flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration in both positive and negative ways.

However, according to the interviewees it is an inevitable part of the offshore industry, due to the high complexity and requirements of the products. For example, Suppliers A and B are highly involved in the production process. “Over the years, these suppliers have become

intertwined with the focal organization” (FC4). Together with the focal organization,

Supplier A is also responsible for the design of highly critical components. “We design,

assembly and produce the cylinders for the system of the focal organization. You could say that our relationship is really close.” (Supplier A). Next to high the complexity of the system,

and due the fact that the focal organization does not have all the expertise available internally, it is sometimes even necessary to have involved suppliers. However, as in the cases of Suppliers A and B, when something goes wrong in the design that is discovered when the product is due for shipping, the impact for the supplier and the focal organization can be very high. “Mistakes made by these kinds of suppliers have bigger consequences for both our

organization and theirs than in case of standardized products.” (FC3). However, due the high

to solve the disruption. This enhances velocity and flexibility. “You see that Supplier B has a

higher willingness to find a solution as quickly as possible, than for example the Supplier D. The reason is that both the interests of our company and theirs are at stake in those situations.” (FC1). According to Supplier B, it does not matter whether the disruption is small

or large, but working and finding solutions together does really increase resilience. Furthermore, we found that knowledge and information are shared more easily, which increases visibility and collaboration as well: “We communicate everything with the focal

organization. Right away. We have no secrets from them.” (Supplier B). While Supplier C is

not as highly involved in the design and production process as Supplier A and B, during the event they showed high involvement in finding solutions for the two-month delay. Within a day, they sat together with the focal organization to discuss the disruption. This resulted in them being able to find a quick solution, which was beneficial for both the focal organization and Supplier C. However, during less critical disruptions this is not always the case for Supplier C; thus this supplier is perceived as less flexible, collaborative and quick: “The

account manager of Supplier C really tries to hold a finger on the pulse. So while he wants to be highly involved, you notice that due to the different priorities of his organization, he is not always allowed to.” (FC4). Furthermore, highly involved is not always beneficial for the

resilience of a supplier and sometimes more ‘distant’ suppliers are preferred. From the case of Supplier D it appears that when a supplier is less involved, he can make more objective decisions and better analyze the problem. Instead of takings actions head over heels, they think it more through. “This approach really contributes to the outcome.” (Supplier D). Finally, suppliers who are too involved, are sometimes perceived as too pleasant according the interviewees of the focal organization. This means that suppliers take too much work on their plate, which decreases the flexibility and visibility during a disruption. “The process can

be perceived as chaotic, which blurred the visibility of what’s going on and which resulted in lower quality of products.” (FC4). Although supplier involvement appears to have some

4.5.Demographic Distance

The data analysis indicates that having a contact person at a close range, intensive contact and sharing the same communicating styles and tools, positively influences the flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration during a disruption.

First, most of the suppliers are located in the Netherlands, except for Supplier A and C, who are located in Belgium and Germany respectively. Despite the physical distance of around 400 to 500 kilometers to the focal organization, the data from the questionnaire (Table 6) and interviews show that none of the interviewees see the physical distance in these cases as an obstacle that negatively influence SCR. “Don’t see the distance as a shortcoming. I think we

are able to get together really quick in case of emergencies. We would even take a plane and go offshore, if necessary.” (Supplier A). Despite the fact that the physical distance did not

play a role in the cases, respondents believed that when a supplier is located further away, this could potentially influence the collaboration, visibility and velocity negatively. “When a

supplier is located further away than in case of Supplier A and C, you will notice that really strange things could occur. Problems will not always be communicated and when picked up, the process could go much slower.” (FC4). It appears from the data that minimalizing the

physical distance between a supplier and a focal organizational and high intensity contact, are preferred during all kinds of disruptions. “Having a service-office close or having the

supplier’s representative even in the same building will improve the communication, collaboration and velocity even more. It creates control and stimulates improvements and more importantly disruptions will come to light even quicker, which creates visibility.” (FC3).

Answers to question: "The focal organization and supplier are located too far from each other in order to respond / manage a disruption effectively”

Table 6 - Results questionnaire Physical Distance

As already mentioned in the paragraph about the size of a supplier, when suppliers are more hierarchically organized or the organization is scattered across many different countries, the perceived distance increases, as in the case of Supplier D. “Because of our decentralized

structure and having different offices located around the world, the organization is a bit slow during disruptions, therefore it becomes more difficult to come up with quick solutions.”

(Supplier D). Furthermore, we found when a supplier and a focal organization are not speaking the same language, the perceived distance also increases. The interviewees agreed that the language barrier could form an obstacle to perform flexibly and quickly, create visibility, and work closely together during all kind of disruptions. Supplier C is an example of this. “We didn’t have a contact person who spoke Dutch, instead we had to call people at

the headquarters in Germany. We didn’t know who the contact person was, and also due to the language barrier, even more miscommunication and understanding occurred.” (FC4). “Sometimes, I even have problems understanding the Belgians (Supplier A) correctly, although they speak Dutch.” (FC1). On the other hand, new ways of communication in

today’s world have made it easier and faster for suppliers to inform and make a disruption ‘visible’ to the focal organization, employees internally, or subcontractors. “Nowadays

technological and communication tools are very fast and easy to use. We can use Whatsapp,

sending photos, Skype, mail and phone.” (Supplier A). The communication tools give the

supplier the ability to share globally information and knowledge regarding the disruption. In cases of less critical disruptions, it even gives them the flexibility to come up with solutions, without meeting specific persons face-to-face.

4.6.Organizational Culture

It appears from the findings that a long partnership history allows suppliers and their focal organization to adapt to each other’s norms, values and goals, and having the same attitude improves resilience. On the other hand, a contrasting culture also seems to positively influence the resilience of suppliers. These findings will be discussed in more detail below.

From the questionnaire and data retrieved from the interviews, it appears that in all cases the supplier shares the risk considerations with the focal organization. “Due to safety and quality

Share opinion    

regulations in the offshore industry, every disruption has to be reported. By us, by everyone.”

(Supplier A). However, when it comes to the management of disruptions, in most cases, the focal organization and its supplier does not share the same norms, values, views and beliefs. As can be seen in Table 7, in all cases the supplier believes the focal organization and their organization share the same organizational culture. However, in the case of Supplier C and D, the managers of the focal organization think otherwise. This can be explained by the fact that Supplier A and B share a long history with the focal organization, resulting in the adoption and understanding of each other norms, values, beliefs and way of working. “We started

working with the focal organization from day one. We know the system, the people, the organization and way of working very well.” (Supplier B). This difference in organizational

culture can be

Table 7 - Results Questionnaire Organizational Culture

noticed particularly during less critical disruptions. “After the fire, Supplier C did everything

in their power to solve it and minimalize the impact. But when less critical disruptions occur, you see a completely different mindset.” (FC4). In those circumstances, you see that the

mindset changed from being very flexible, quick, transparent and collaborative, to a supplier that is rather slow and inefficient during disruptions. In those cases, smaller suppliers have in those cases a higher willingness to learn from and successfully respond to the less critical disruptions, which results in flexibility and velocity. “The same structure, size and definitely

culture go in my opinion hand in hand in quickly dealing with a disruption.” (Supplier B).

Answers to question: "The focal organization and the supplier share the same norms, values, views and beliefs when responding and managing a disruption”

Case 1 (Supplier A) Case 2 (Supplier B) Case 3 (Supplier C) Case 4 (Supplier D) FC1 4 4 3 2 FC2 5 4 2 3 FC3 5 4 2 3 FC4 5 2 4 2 Specific supplier at each case 4 4 4 4 Share opinion   _{X X}

32 The respondents believe that the chemistry between organizations is very crucial during disruptions, because it enhances collaboration and velocity. “A supplier should have to share

the same attitude towards learning, ambitions, goals, the will to improve and way of working to overcome issues effectively.” (FC3). Finally, while the focal organization and suppliers C

and D do not always share the same norms & values and way of working with the focal organization, this does not mean that disruptions cannot be solved in the right manner, and nor that resilience cannot be established. Sharing the same culture did contribute to solving disruptions in an ad-hoc manner in the less critical cases: “If we have to we get in the car at 4

in the morning and don’t go to sleep before it is solved, we do it.” (Supplier A). However,

during more critical and catastrophic disruptions, a different mindset or approach is may be needed and which does not necessarily influence the outcome in a negative way: “Supplier C

is well known for their ‘German thoroughness’. Their attitude and process is based on statistics, data, solid facts and thorough analysis. They are following a more organized and

formalized way of solving the problem; a wholly different approach to our ad-hoc way of

working. But it worked.” (FC1). This way the disruptions can be better visualized and more

solid solutions can be found.

4.7.Concluding Findings

interviewees mentioned one of the supplier characteristics and linked it with either flexibility, visibility, velocity or collaboration, a pie-chart is created as in Figure 3. Regarding the flexibility of a supplier, it shows that the technical capability, size and to a slightly lesser extent supplier involvement is seen as important to consider during disruptions. The same applies to technical capability and supplier involvement for visibility; all the characteristics for collaboration; and size and technical capability for velocity.

5. DISCUSSION

As disruptions upstream in a supply chain could potentially affect all members in the supply chain (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Pereira et al., 2014), resilient suppliers who are able to deal with these unexpected events through flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011), are very critical. This paper provides new empirical insights on how to select resilient suppliers, by relating the four formative capabilities of resilience (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011) with the technical capability, size of a supplier, the supplier involvement, the demographic distance and differences in organizational culture between a supplier and a focal organization. The findings show that next to costs, quality and delivery speed, resilience is also an important factor to be considered when selecting suppliers. The following paragraphs will give meaning to the most important findings and reflect on existing literature.

5.2.Technical Capability & Resilience

specific knowledge and expertise improves the readiness of an organizations and the ability to quickly detect a disruptive event. Furthermore, knowledge is useful to adjust to unexpected disruptive events (Scholten et al., 2014) and find effective solutions for problems regarding the quality of products and design mistakes (Marthadisastra et al., 2014). Finally, setting up teams with knowledgeable, competent and diverse groups of employees is crucial to improve resilience. Cross-functional teams improve communication, information sharing, collaboration and commitment across a supplier and improve effectiveness of solutions during disruptions (Scholten et al., 2014; Christopher & Peck, 2004). Thus, the findings show that selecting suppliers with extensive technical capabilities improves the visibility, flexibility, velocity and collaboration during disruptions. Therefore, this paper proposes the following:

P1. The technical capability of a supplier influences supply chain resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P1a. The technical knowledge and expertise of a supplier about their own product and

the product of focal organization improve resilience and hence need to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P1b. The knowledge and expertise of a supplier about the market improve resilience

and hence needs need to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P1c. Detection and adjustments skills improve resilience and hence need to be

considered in the supplier selection.

- P1d. The ability to set up teams with various backgrounds, knowledge and expertise

improves resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

5.3.Size & Resilience

supplier has to act quickly due to an unexpected event, this is more difficult when the resources are not available internally. Therefore, the findings show that when suppliers score high with an acknowledged credit rating agency, they are more secure and resilient in terms of the velocity, visibility and flexibility. However, large suppliers are characterized by their centralized and hierarchical structure, which reduces the organizational effectiveness and increases the duration of decision-making processes (Zheng, Yang, & Mclean, 2010). This paper extends on these findings by offering evidence that during disruptions, a flat structure in which people have a ‘direct line’ with experts or supervisors enhances velocity, visibility and closer collaboration through quicker communication, both internally and between organizations. Furthermore, in accordance with Stringfellow et al. (2008), small suppliers are more dependent on the focal organization and service-oriented, which makes them more flexible during disruptions. In summary, considering the size during the selection is important to improve resilience. Therefore, the following propositions are established:

P2. The size of a supplier influences resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection

- P2a. The ability of a supplier to upscale and adjust the production capacity improves

flexibility and velocity and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P2b. A supplier who is well rated by a credit-agency on having the necessary

financial, operational and physical resources internally available improves flexibility, visibility and velocity and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P2c. A supplier who applies a flat structure which fosters a direct line to experts and

supervisors improves collaboration, velocity and visibility and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

5.4.Supplier Involvement & Resilience

organizations will get intertwined with each other and will be forced to remain in a partnership (Petersen et al., 2005). Furthermore, a supplier who is less involved could be less emotionally attached to a focal organization and perceive the problem more objectively and analytically. These findings can be related to the research by Villena et al. (2011), which states that when a buyer-supplier relationship is too highly intertwined, there are risks of opportunistic behavior, the loss off objectivity, and ineffective decision-making. A more ‘distant’ supplier will create more thorough solutions and be able to visualize, interrupt and communicate the disruptions better, resulting in improved flexibility, velocity and especially visibility. However, this approach is not effective with every disruption. During less critical disruptions a more collaborative and ad-hoc approach is preferred and in those situations a high supplier involvement turns out to be more effective. Hence, this paper proposes that:

P3. The level of involvement of a supplier influences resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P3a. Supplier involvement enhances higher willingness of suppliers to deal with

disruptions effectively, which improves resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P3b. A more ‘distant’ suppliers improves flexibility, velocity and visibility during

highly critical disruptions and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

5.5.Demographic Distance & Resilience

However, when the supplier and the focal organization share the same communication styles, have no language barrier, and make effective use of modern communication tools, the perceived distance is lower and all aspects of SCR are improved. Therefore, this proposes the following:

P4. The demographic distance between a focal organization and a supplier influence resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection

- P4a. When a supplier is located within 0-500km the physical distance does not

influence resilience and hence does not need to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P4b. A focal organization and a supplier that share the same language, and

communication styles and tools, decrease the perceived distance and improve resilience and hence need to be considered in the supplier selection.

5.6.Organizational Culture & Resilience

P5. A focal organization and a supplier that share the same organizational culture influence resilience and hence need to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P5a. Long-term partnership stimulates a supplier and focal organization to share the

same organizational culture which improves resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P5b. A supplier and focal organization which share the same attitude and willingness

towards disruptions improves resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

- P5c. Differences in organizational culture between a supplier and focal organization

improve resilience and hence needs to be considered in the supplier selection.

6. CONCLUSION

The findings of this research give new insights into the concept of SCR by investigating the effect of five specific characteristics of a supplier on resilience. By linking these characteristics with the four formative capabilities of resilience from an upstream point of view, it contributes to the aim of this research, to find out how to select resilient suppliers. Except from the physical distance, the findings give empirical evidence on the importance of considering all identified characteristics and mechanisms while selecting resilient suppliers. Furthermore, the findings show the importance of including the factor resilience when selecting suppliers. Related to resilience, none of the characteristics are identified as more important than the others and sometimes they are even directly or indirectly linked with each other. Therefore, all of them need be taken into account in order to improve the resilience of a supplier. These considerations and underlying mechanisms, which are presented as propositions in the discussion section, answer the research question: how to select suppliers in order to improve the resilience of a supply chain. In addition, they contribute in getting a step closer to improving SCR and for suppliers to deal more effectively with disruptive events.

6.2.Managerial Implications

an addition to the general decision-making-tool to select suppliers. Instead of selecting suppliers mainly on factors such as quality, delivery speed and costs, this paper shows that resilience is increasingly important and hence needs to be considered as well. For managers of suppliers it could give guidance to adjust and improve their organization to become more resilient and therefore more attractive for buying organizations.

6.3.Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research