Faculty of Economics & Business MSc Thesis Supply Chain management

(1)

Faculty of Economics & Business

MSc Thesis Supply Chain management

‘The role of Interpersonal Relationships between employees of buyers and suppliers in facilitating Supply Chain Resilience’

By: Jeroen Hodes Student number: S2549867 Email: J.B.Hodes@student.rug.nl

Supervisor University of Groningen: Dr. Kirstin Scholten Co-assessor University of Groningen: Dr. Kristian Peters

Word count: 12995

March 2021

Acknowledgements:

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Kirstin Scholten for her guidance, useful feedback and overall tremendous support during this project. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Kristian Peters for his feedback on my research proposal and thesis presentation. Finally, thanks to all other people involved who have provided valuable insights into my research topic and/or have given constructive feedback.

(2)

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to provide more detailed insight into how Interpersonal Relationships

between boundary-spanning individuals may help to manage supply chain disruptions and – ultimately – attain supply chain resilience.

Methods: A multiple-case study was conducted in the high-tech, chemical, industrial and food

industry. Data was collected through eight semi-structured interviews in four different companies.

Results: Interpersonal Relationships lead to timely information sharing, engagement in

solution-findings activities, additional organisational support and/or getting a preferred customer status, which all help in managing disruptions and foster supply chain resilience. Furthermore, we have identified several contingencies that constrain the use of Interpersonal Relationships in attaining supply chain resilience.

Originality/ value: Whereas the vast majority of studies focus on the organisational level of

supply chain resilience, ours is one of the first to investigate the role of Interpersonal Relationships instead.

(3)

Introduction

The current COVID-19 pandemic causes a wide variety of countries to shut down their economies. As a result, the 1000 world’s largest companies had over 12000 production facilities in quarantined regions in early March 2020 (Linton & Vakil 2020 in Hoek, 2020). Consequently, companies are struggling to maintain their business processes, as the steady flow of delivery of goods and services is hindered (Sharma et al., 2020). This pandemic perfectly illustrates that some supply chain (SC) disruptions cannot be prevented from happening, which raises awareness among both practitioners and academics to protect SCs from the disastrous influence of SC disruptions by designing more resilient SCs (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Hence, interest in how to develop SC resilience-capabilities to manage SC disruptions efficiently and effectively, is growing (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). SC resilience refers to ‘the adaptive capability of the SC to prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruptions, and recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations at the desired level of connectedness and control over structure and function’ (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009, p. 131). Jüttner & Maklan (2011) categorised SC resilience into four main capabilities: flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration. Good organisational relationships have shown to be of importance in facilitating SC resilience, as organisations are highly dependent on each other in managing SC disruptions (Pulles & Hartman, 2017; Rood et al., 2018). However, it are boundary-spanning individuals from the collaborating firms within the SC that form personal relationships and are responsible for executing the relationship on the organisational level (Gilgor & Autry, 2012). The problem is that many of these organisational alliances ‘fail to meet expectations because little attention is given to nurturing the close working relationships and interpersonal connections that unite partnering organisations’ (Hut et al., 2001 p. 51). Analysing these Interpersonal Relationships (IPRs) on an individual level and how they facilitate SC resilience has been largely overlooked (Rood et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016).

IPRs refer to ‘relationships that employees in the buying firm have with individuals in the supplier firm’ (Fan et al., 2020 p2). The IPRs make up dyadic, inter-organisational relationships (Fan et al., 2020). Investigating their role in influencing inter-organisational relationships, IPRs are mostly broken down into three separate constructs (Barnes et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016, 2018): personal affection (i.e. human feelings, sentiments, and emotions), personal credibility (i.e. the degree to gain confidence, reliability, and trust from other individuals over time) and personal communication (i.e. the individuals’ interaction involving information sharing that is able to generate greater familiarity, closeness, and understanding for involved individuals).

(5)

Combined, these are used to develop ‘a deeper understanding of the behavioural complexities that emerge through the interaction between the buyer and supplier’ (Wang et al., 2016, p. 839) on a person-to-person level. Since personal affection among individuals positively influences the willingness to collaborate (Pulles & Hartman, 2017), it may enhance SC resilience via increasing the SC collaboration-capability. Durach & Machuca (2018) also found that a socially embedded IPR has a positive relationship with SC resilience. Furthermore, stronger IPRs create multiple benefits that facilitate SC visibility-capability, namely improved communication, coordination, information sharing and member commitment (Rood et al, 2018). Finally, both Wang et al. (2016) and Fan & Stevenson (2019) concluded that IPRs between boundary-spanning individuals are the key to establishing and improving relationships on the organisational level.

In conclusion, IPRs, especially those between boundary-spanning individuals, play a crucial role in improving SC resilience. Yet, despite these findings, insights are lacking into how exactly IPRs could facilitate the SC resilience-capabilities of flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration.

Therefore, this research aims to answer the following research question:

How do interpersonal relationships (IPRs) between employees of buyers and suppliers help in facilitating supply chain resilience?

Even though previous studies have shown that IPRs between boundary-spanning individuals are important in attaining SC resilience (Fan & Stevenson, 2019; Gilgor & Autry, 2012; Qian et al., 2020), it has been mostly been studied from an organisational perspective (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). By conducting a qualitative, multiple-case study, and investigating the role of IPR in managing SC disruptions in a variety of buying organisations operating in the chemical, high-tech, industrial, and food industry, we provide detailed insights into how the formative capabilities of SC resilience are influenced by the separate constructs of IPRs. Furthermore – but this was not anticipated for prior to conducting this research – additional detail is provided on several contingency factors that are constraining the use of IPRs in attaining SC resilience. From a practical point of view, insight into this complex topic helps practitioners to understand the importance of establishing and maintaining good IPRs. Subsequently, tools and guidelines to enhance IPR establishment can be developed. These may ultimately help practitioners to attain SC resilience.

(6)

Theoretical Background

Supply chain resilience

Not all SC disruptions can be prevented (Pettit et al., 2013; Skipper & Hanna, 2009). Therefore, traditional risk management approaches to deal with unexpected disruptions are not always effective and sufficient (Pettit et al., 2013). Hence, developing SC resilience as a ‘proactive and holistic approach to managing supply chain risks enhancing traditional risk management strategies’ (Scholten et al., 2014, p. 212) is very important.

Current knowledge on SC resilience is fragmented; there is a range of overlapping terminologies used to capture formative capabilities of SC resilience (Ali et al., 2017; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). First of all, Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015), find flexibility (1), creating redundancy (2), forming collaborative SC relationships (3) and improving SC agility (4) as formative capabilities of SC resilience. These capabilities are the most cited SC resilience-strategies in current literature. Secondly, Jüttner & Maklan (2011) conceptualised SC resilience according to the following four capabilities: flexibility (1), velocity (2), visibility (3) and collaboration (4). These authors take a slightly different perspective, by stating that SC ‘agility’ is a term used to capture the distinct strategies of flexibility, velocity and visibility. Furthermore, they indicate that ‘redundancy’ as duplication of resources is rather a route to flexibility than a distinct strategy on its own. Jüttner and Maklan’s four capabilities of resilience form a widely accepted conceptualisation of SC resilience (Scholten & Schilder, 2015), hence the same conceptualisation is used in this paper. The operationalisations of these SC resilience capabilities are summarised in Table 1.

SC resilience-capabilities Definition

Flexibility ‘The ability to adapt to unexpected circumstances and focuses on an organization’s ability to encounter, resolve, and when appropriate, exploit an unexpected opportunity’ (Skipper & Hanna, 2009, p. 408)

Velocity ‘The pace of flexible adaptations that can determine the recovery speed of the supply chain from a disruption’ (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015, p. 5603)

Visibility ‘The extent to which supply chain actors have access to, or timely, share information that is of key importance to operations’ (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011, p. 251)

(7)

Collaboration ‘Two or more autonomous firms that form long-term relationships and work closely to plan and execute supply chain operations toward common goals, thereby achieving more benefits than acting independently’ (Cao et al., 2010, p. 6614)

Table 1: Resilience-capabilities and operationalisations

2.1.1 Flexibility

SC flexibility has become a main strategy and strategic goal for organisations and SCs to deal with uncertainties, adapt to the changing environment and improve resilience (Chirra & Kumar, 2018). Skipper & Hanna (2009) state that SC flexibility comprises ‘the ability to adapt to unexpected circumstances and focuses on an organisation’s ability to encounter, resolve, and when appropriate, exploit an unexpected opportunity’ (Skipper & Hanna, 2009, p. 408). Using SC flexibility to respond to the ever changing environment and to mitigate the impact of SC disruptions effectively is considered an important capability of SC resilience (Skipper & Hanna, 2009). Scholten & Schilder (2015) reinforce this view by acknowledging that SC flexibility can help organisations deal with uncertainty by facilitating coordination processes. This enables a SC to quickly react to sudden changes in its environment. Several practices can be derived from literature to increase a SC’s flexibility. Examples include ‘postponement, a flexible supply base, flexible transportation, flexible labour arrangements, and order fulfilment flexibility’ (Tang 2006b; Christopher and Holweg 2011; Pettit, Croxton, and Fiksel 2013 in Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). A ‘flexible supply base’ could enhance SC resilience by enabling a buyer to quickly source its products from alternative suppliers in case of SC disruptions, ensuring that usual business processes can be continued quickly (Pettit et al., 2013). Furthermore, Petitt et al. (2013) state that ‘order fulfilment flexibility’ comprises the ability of a company to quickly change its production output, or the mode of delivering this output to customers, which ultimately improves SC resilience.

2.1.2 Velocity

According to Jüttner & Maklan (2011), ‘SC velocity’ is closely related to SC flexibility. SC velocity refers to ‘the pace of flexible adaptations that can determine the recovery speed of the supply chain from a disruption’ (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015, p. 5603). It emphasizes more on the efficiency and speed of the SC’s reaction in managing a SC disruption as it focuses on the ‘pace of flexible adaptations’ (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011, p. 248), while flexibility is more concerned with the effectiveness of the SC’s reaction to a disruption (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).

(8)

SC velocity therefore contributes to SC resilience as it determines how fast a SC can react and recover from a SC disruption (Christopher & Peck, 2004).

2.1.3 Visibility

SC visibility is defined as ‘the extent to which supply chain actors have access to, or timely, share information that is of key importance to operations’ (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011, p. 251). Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) indicate that SC visibility enables firms to observe the processes in the SC clearly, therefore helping firms to recognize SC disruptions in time. Consequently, this might enable a firm to soften, or even prevent the impact of the disruptions by timely developing countermeasures (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Thus, SC visibility acts as a warning function and is of great importance in improving SC resilience (Ali et al., 2017). Furthermore, increased SC visibility is important in preventing inadequate decision making, overreacting to certain situations or unnecessary interventions in case of a disruption (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). SC visibility is all about enabling (timely) information-sharing between individuals and organisations within the SC by creating transparency and connectivity (Ali et al., 2017). Therefore, organisations are focused on improving external connections with SC partners on the organisational level to increase information sharing, with as goal to facilitate SC visibility (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). Practices that can improve the SC visibility, and therefore SC resilience, include monitoring key performance indicators (KPIS) and investing in IT capabilities (Melnyk et al., 2010; Jüttner and Maklan, 2011; Brandon-Jones et al., 2014 in Ali et al., 2017).

2.1.4 Collaboration

SC resilience is an inter-organisational concept. As companies in a SC are dependent on each other, it is not sufficient for just one organisation to develop the capabilities of flexibility, velocity and visibility. Hence, SC resilience-capabilities have to be developed by all members of the SC to manage a disruption. Therefore, collaboration on the SC level is very important to improve SC resilience (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011 in Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Collaboration is defined as ‘two or more autonomous firms that form long-term relationships and work closely to plan and execute supply chain operations toward common goals, thereby achieving more benefits than acting independently’ (Cao et al., 2010, p. 6614). Collaborative practices include ‘product development and just-in-time practices; exchanging data about demand forecasts and delivery schedules; and sharing cost and other strategic information’ (Cao et al., 2010, p. 6614). Scholten & Schilder (2015) reinforce this view, by stating that collaboration on the SC level enables ‘synergies among partners, facilitates joint planning and encourages real-time

(9)

information exchange’ (Scholten & Schilder, 2015, p. 473), which is seen as a necessity in managing SC disruptions. Thus, SC collaboration is very important in building SC resilience.

2.1.5 Linkages between the SC resilience capabilities

The different capabilities of SC resilience are not independent of each other. SC visibility enables managers to know about changes in the business environment (Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013). Consequently, it helps in facilitating SC resilience through improved decision-making, improved confidence and reduced interventions (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011 in Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). SC visibility thus can be considered as an antecedent of SC resilience (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). Scholten & Schilder (2015) take a different perspective by considering SC collaboration as an antecedent to SC resilience. They found that collaborative practices facilitate the capabilities of SC flexibility, velocity and visibility. The linkages between the SC resilience capabilities are mostly studied from an organisational perspective, even though it are individuals that are responsible for executing these relationships on an organisational level (Fan & Stevenson, 2019). The mechanisms and linkages underpinning the IPRs between boundary-spanning individuals and how they facilitate SC resilience have been largely unexplored (Fan et al., 2020).

Interpersonal Relationships (IPRs)

IPRs refer to the ‘relationships that employees in the buying firm have with individuals in the supplier firm’ (Fan et al., 2020 p2). Boundary-spanning individuals are responsible for executing the organisational relationship. Hence, it is important to develop and maintain good IPRs. These IPRs been studied from different perspectives. First of all, Fan et al. (2020) took an organisational perspective by studying the effect of the size (1) and range (2) of the IPR, in which ‘size’ refers to ‘the number of contacts in a buyer-supplier relationship’ and ‘range’ to ‘the diversity of contacts in a buyer-supplier relationships’ (Fan et al., 2020, p. 2). Fan et al. (2020) found that a wide ‘range’ has a positive influence on SC resilience. Secondly, IPR can be studied by examining the hard skillsets of individuals (Durach & Machuca, 2018). More specifically, Durach & Machuca (2018) studied the degree of skillset complementarity (the degree to which individuals eliminate each other’s shortcomings). Skillset complementarity was found to be positively related to SC resilience. Several papers used yet another approach, which involved researching IPR on the individual, psychological level (Barnes et al., 2015; Rood et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016, 2018). These papers opted to measure how two individuals get along and trust each other, and operationalised IPRs into three separate constructs: personal

(10)

commonly used operationalisation of IPRs. Our research aim is to investigate how the emotional bond and trust between individuals help in facilitating SC resilience. Therefore, there is a need to investigate these IPRs on this individual, psychological level. Hence, we use the same operationalisation (Table 2).

Dimensions of IPR Definition of dimension References

Personal affection An internal and relational aspect of IPRs; it is a reflection of an individual’s feelings and sentiments and is related to enduring and emotional commitments to other individuals Wang et al. (2016), Wang et al., (2018), Rood et al., (2018), Barnes et al., (2015) Personal credibility The trust and confidence an individual

can inspire in a business over time Personal communication The individuals’ interaction involving

information sharing that is able to generate greater familiarity, closeness, and understanding for involved individuals

Table 2: operationalisation of IPR

2.2.1 Personal affection

Personal affection is considered a major component of IPRs and found to be an important factor in predicting the quality of the relationship on an organisational level (Cousins et al., 2006). Personal affection refers to the ‘individual’s feelings and sentiments and is related to enduring and emotional commitments to other individuals’ (Wang et al., 2018, p. 831). Personal affection can enable the feeling of empathy towards another individual, which in turn could enable flexibility towards the other when there is a need to handle a difficult, or changing situation (Wang et al., 2018). Furthermore, personal affection can create a feeling of understanding resulting in increased information sharing and better process coordination. It is found that individuals liking each other generally results in an increased willingness to disclose information (Collins & Miller, 1994). Thus, it is expected that personal affection facilitates SC visibility. Furthermore, literature indicates that personal affection between two individuals increases enthusiasm and the willingness to collaborate strategically on the organisational level (Lee et al., 2011; Pulles & Hartman, 2017).

(11)

2.2.2 Personal credibility

Another construct of IPR is personal credibility (Wang et al., 2016), which refers to ‘the trust and confidence an individual can inspire in a business over time’ (Wang et al., 2018, p. 832). It is acknowledged by Wang et al. (2016 & 2018) that personal credibility can be based both on an individuals’ character (1) and on its reliability (2). Therefore, it can be divided into two distinct dimensions: character-based personal credibility (1) and reliability-based personal credibility (2). Firstly, character-based credibility ‘involves the perception that boundary spanners are socially similar to themselves’. Secondly, reliability-based personal credibility is based on ‘an individual’s actual behaviour and performance’ (Wang et al., 2018, p. 832). Wang et al (2018) also state that personal credibility of one employee could increase the confidence of the other organisation’s employee(s), which could result in the willingness to dedicate more time to the relationships, increased information sharing (relating to SC visibility) and an incentive to maintain the relationship. This expectation is strengthened by the positive correlation that Lee et al. (2011) found between personal credibility and the willingness to collaborate on the organisational level (related to SC collaboration).

2.2.3 Personal communication

Personal communication is referred to as ‘the interaction between individuals involving information sharing that is able to generate greater familiarity, closeness, and understanding for involved individuals’ (Wang et al., 2016, p. 843), which is helpful in building good IPRs. Personal communication is seen as the main way to exchange information and ideas with partners within the SC. Gilgor & Autry (2012) state that frequent and high quality of information exchange between cooperating parties enables effective knowledge sharing. Wang et al (2016) observed that personal communication is an encouraging factor among individuals to share trustworthy information. Thus, personal communication could lead to facilitating visibility in the SC. Moreover, Ring and Van der Ven (1994) found that open and frequent communication leads to the feeling that parties will hold on to their agreements, which could result in improved relationships among SC partners on the organisational level (Ring & de Ven, 1994). Similarly, Cousins et al. (2006) found that informal, personal communication among individuals taking place outside of the work-space, also has a positive impact on collaboration among buyers and suppliers on the organisational level (Cousins et al., 2006). Hence, personal communication could improve both individual and organisational collaboration.

(12)

Research Framework

After analysing the current available literature on the variables and underlying constructs of IPR and SC resilience, it becomes evident that literature to date found a positive link between the distinct dimensions of IPR and the SC resilience-capabilities. However, detailed insights lack into how personal affection, personal credibility and personal communication as dimensions of IPRs relate to the SC resilience-capabilities of SC flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration. By exposing the underpinning mechanisms and linkages between IPRs on the individual level, and SC resilience on the organisational level, we aim to gain more insights into how IPRs can be leveraged efficiently and effectively to attain SC resilience. Our research framework is shown in Figure 1.

Inter-personal Relationships: • Personal affection • Personal credibility • Personal communication SC resilience-capabilities: • Flexibility • Velocity • Visibility • Collaboration Figure 1: Research framework

(13)

Methodology

Research design

To examine how IPRs between employees of buyers and suppliers help in facilitating SC resilience, a multiple-case study was executed. In light of our research problem, the usage of a multiple-case study is suitable for several reasons. First, our research question aims to investigate complex, dynamic human behaviour and addresses a relatively unexplored phenomena (Gilgor & Autry, 2012). To study complex phenomena, a case-study is particularly useful (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, as the link between IPRs and facilitating SC resilience is a largely unexplored domain and we aim to study the ‘how and why’ (as opposed to finding exact statistical correlations), a case-study design is favourable (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Lastly, we want to make comparisons across multiple industries and compare the role of IPRs in managing disruptions and in attaining SC resilience. Hence, there is decided to study multiple cases. Overall, a multiple-case study is considered to be the appropriate research method.

Research setting

The unit of analysis in our study is a ‘Supply Chain’. To answer our research question, we need to conduct our research in a setting that is prone to SC disruptions. According to Donadi et al. (2019), such settings can be found in high-tech, chemical, industrial, and food industries These industries’ vulnerability to SC disruptions results from dependence on a wide variety of suppliers, spread all over the globe: they source a wide variety of product-components at multiple suppliers and thus have to deal with a complex supply network involving a large number of entities (Donadoni et al., 2019). The food industry in particular is prone to disruptions as the produced products are perishable and operations are taking place continuously, which makes it more complex to manage disruptions in this context (Donadoni et al. 2019). Hence, in each of these aforementioned industries, we randomly selected one case-organisation at which our data will be gathered.

Case selection

When aiming for building theory from a multiple-case study, the selection of appropriate cases is very important (Eisenhardt, 1989). We selected a total of 7 cases within 4 case-organisations. Generally, managing SCs with strategic suppliers requires more information sharing and collaborative efforts as opposed to routine-suppliers (Park et al., 2010). Therefore, we expect that IPRs play a way more important and interesting role in facilitating SC resilience within a strategic SC than in a routine SC. As such, we decided to analyse strategic SCs as cases only.

(14)

We aimed to have at least two cases per organisation. Due to time constraints however, we were only able to select two cases in two out of four case-organisations. Cases were selected where different outcomes were expected, therefore creating theoretical replication (Seawnght & Gerring, 2008). The cases were selected on the duration of the collaborative relationship and on the fact whether the supplier was a sole supplier or not. An overview of the selected cases is shown in Table 3 below.

Case

organisation/ Company

Industry Cases Supplier type Duration of the relationship (SC collaboration) Short-term: 0-10 years Medium-term: 10-20 years Long-term: 20+ years Sole supplier/ non-sole supplier

A Food A1 Strategic supplier Long-term Non sole-supplier A2 Strategic supplier Short-term Sole-supplier

B Chemical B3 Strategic supplier Long-term Sole-supplier B4 Strategic supplier Medium-term Sole-supplier B5 Strategic supplier Medium-term Sole-supplier

C High-tech C6 Strategic supplier Long-term Sole-supplier

D Industrial D7 Strategic supplier Medium-term Sole-supplier

Table 3: Case selection

Data collection

As we intent to gain insight into IPRs, which is a rather psychological, perception-based variable, we decided to collect our primary, qualitative data by conducting 8 semi-structured interviews with 9 different respondents. Respondents were chosen from the buyer’s part, as it was expected that employees of buying organisations were better able to judge and explain the importance of IPRs in attaining SC resilience. Our initial aim was to interview more than one person about the same case to achieve data triangulation. Unfortunately, this was only possible in C6, where three different respondents working at different management positions reflected on the same case. Interviewees from the buying organisation were chosen based on two criteria: being involved in managing a SC with a strategic supplier (1) and having an IPR with an employee from the supplying organisation (2). In this way, we ensure that we can analyse the link between the IPR between employees of the buying and supplying organisation and the aspects of resilience.

The respondents were asked to reflect on a SC disruption in which they were involved in managing by working together with a personal contact from the supplying organisation. To hedge for retrospective bias, the interviewees were asked to reflect on a SC disruption that occurred last year, which is considered a reasonable time-frame to be able to accurately recall

(15)

events that have happened (Tippmann et al., 2012). To overcome informant bias (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), we interviewed managers from different layers within the case-organisations to get insights from different angles within the organisation, and to get a holistic view of how IPR can lead to SC resilience. A detailed overview of the interviewees, and which cases they reflected upon, is provided in Table 4 below.

Before conducting the semi-structured interviews, an interview-protocol (Appendix A) and consent form (Appendix B) were sent to the interviewees. The consent form served to ensure that the respondents were aware of how their provided answers would be used. The interview-protocol was developed and sent beforehand as it is considered a necessary and useful instrument to guide the interview, improve the reliability, and to make sure that different answers from several interviewees can be compared (Yin, 2009 in Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Moreover, the interview-protocol enabled the respondent to prepare for the interview, which allowed us to capture the needed information to answer our research question. During the interview, the questions were asked in a very open way, with specific follow-up questions to gain more specific insights into variables of both IPRs and SC resilience. Furthermore, ‘floating prompts’ were used to encourage the respondent to elaborate on discussed subjects further in more detail (Gilgor & Autry, 2012). All interviews were conducted with two researches by making use of video-calls. One researcher was in charge of leading the interview, while the other one was keeping track whether all subjects were covered. Before conducting the interviews, the interviewees were asked permission to record the interview for later references. In the three interviews where the respondent did not want to be recorded, one of the researchers took extensive notes. Moreover, all interviews had been directly transcribed after conducting the interview according to the 24-hour rule (Eisenhardt, 1989) to ensure that all provided data was captured accurately. Whenever certain quotes were unclear in terms of their actual meaning, we sent follow-up questions via email to the corresponding respondent to ask for clarification, which improved the reliability of our data. After transcribing, the transcripts were immediately sent back to the interviewee to get signed for approval.

(16)

Case

Case-organisation/ Company

#Interviewee Position interviewee Total length interview (min) A1 A (Food industry) 1 Procurement category manager 60:57 A2 2 Procurement category manager 57:15 B3 B (Chemical industry) 3 Director procurement 70:00 B4 4 Sourcing manager 70:00 B5 5 Head of procurement 80:00 C6 C (High-tech industry) 6 Director SCM 84:31

7 Director Strategic sourcing

8 Supply manager electronics 60:00

D7 D

(Industrial industry)

9 Project manager 63:51

(17)

Data analysis

After transcribing the interviews, the data organisation was structured as follows. First of all, we reduced the raw data by selecting ‘1st_{order codes’ from the interview-transcript; these are}

quotes of interviewees, ranging from just a few words to a couple of sentences in length. We only selected those quotes that were deemed to be relevant in light of our research problem, and inserted them, structured per case, in an Excel-sheet. Thereafter, we constructed descriptive, ‘2nd_{order-codes’, indicating the subject of the quote (e.g: supplier contact; means of}

communication). Subsequently, ‘3rd_{order-codes’ were inductively derived. Here, an}

interpretation of the meaning of the quote was assigned (e.g: feeling free to contact; limited

personal contact). Fourthly, quotes were deductively allocated to a construct of IPR (i.e: personal affection, personal communication or personal credibility). Finally, the quotes were

inductively linked to an ‘underlying practice enabling SC resilience’ and deductively to a top-level aspect of SC resilience (i.e: SC visibility, velocity, flexibility or collaboration).

After organising the data for each case via this method, all quotes were put together in one sheet. By comparing the ‘underlying aspects enabling SC resilience’ over all cases, we found that these aspects could be grouped into several broader, overarching themes, which were identified as our mechanisms. Now, we were able to see how different elements of IPR lead to SC resilience. An excerpt of such a coding tree, where we filtered for the dimension of IPR ‘personal affection’, is depicted in Table 5. Note that for Company B, we were not allowed to show any quotes. Therefore, the quotes for Company B have been paraphrased throughout this thesis.

It was decided to analyse each case separately and formulate case narratives. The idea behind this was to get familiar with the data and insights provided in each case and to identify unique patterns before generalising patterns across cases (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). While ‘telling the story’ for each individual case, we found that the use of IPRs in facilitating SC resilience differed across cases. Hence, we looked for contingency factors explaining these different results. Furthermore, we noticed that several respondents made more general statements concerning how IPR could help facilitating SC resilience in other instances than in the discussed case. Thus, it was possible to triangulate some findings towards other cases. This led to the identification of the additional finding that the need to develop an IPR differs per management position within the company. An excerpt of the coding tree for the identification of the contingency factors limiting the use of IPRs in facilitating SC resilience (market-circumstances

(18)

and organisational relationship) and the additional finding (position within the company) is shown in Table 6. The findings will be discussed in detail in the next section.

(19)

Data reduction (1st_{order codes)} _{Descriptive code} (2nd_order) Interpretative code (3rd_order) Aspect enabling SC resilience Overarching theme (mechanism) Dimension SC resilience Dimension IPR

Paraphrased quote: Relationship with counterparts are very

important. If you don’t get along with your counterpart, you will unconsciously avoid talking to each other, or even stop being in contact at all (B4)

Importance IPR Good personal relationships are crucial to maintain visibility on the organisational level

Sharing strategic information

Information sharing SC visibility

Personal affection

Paraphrased quote:

Just imagine that your friend needs help. For somebody you like you are willing to make much more effort. It works similar in a professional way (B5)

Importance IPR Likeability is favourable to get more help

Making more effort

Preferential treatment SC flexibility

The personal relation was important and a cross-functional team was not needed. There was nothing new needed (e.g. new supplier). It was not about finding new businesses. If a friend asks you something, you will help. It is something personal. Therefore, the personal relationship helps here (A1)

Personal relationship

Good personal relationship is crucial if you need help from that person Help in solution finding Engagement in solution-finding activities SC flexibility

Based on the good relationship, they preferred our portfolio compared to the portfolio of other customers. So they are not only supplying us but also other customers. So basically, really based on the relationship we managed to do so (A2)

Supplier relation Priority over competitors based on good relationship

Getting priority Preferential treatment SC velocity

Paraphrased quote: The supplier could prioritise my request and

show some extra flexibility within its powers. If you develop liking towards each other, you might be able to get a small extra margin of extra help, which you otherwise do not get (B3)

Importance IPR Slight organisational benefits for having good personal connection

Prioritizing requests

Preferential treatment SC flexibility

Table 5: Excerpt of coding tree (personal affection)

Data reduction (1st_{order codes)} _Descriptive

code (2nd_order) Aspect enabling SC resilience Overarching theme (mechanism) Dimension SC resilience Dimension IPR

Usage of IPR dependent on (contingency):

I would say for daily communication it is important to have a really good personal relationship. So, you know you understand each other, you know you both respond to each other in a timely manner, and you respect each other, obviously (D7)

Importance IPR Timely communication

Timely information sharing

SC visibility Personal affection

Position within the company

If they have to select whom to send the stock to, they cannot make the selection based on whether they like me personally or not. They really need to make the decision based on how important we are as a company to them (D7)

Importance IPR Getting priority over customers Preferred customer status SC flexibility Personal affection Organisational relationship

Paraphrased quote: There are fixed rules in place, so the personal relationship

is not that important. Although it can help in getting informed just a little bit earlier about certain issues, which enables us to respond faster (B5)

Importance IPR Getting contact earlier Timely information sharing SC visibility Personal affection Market-circumstances

(20)

Findings

Two parts make up the findings section: the within-case analysis (1) and the cross-case analysis

(2). The within-case analysis depicts the main findings, which are followed by a case-by-case

explanation, in which each case is divided into two paragraphs. The first paragraph contains a short introduction of the case (the encountered SC disruption), an impression of how the IPR between the respondent and its counterpart looked like, and an overview of how the IPR specifically helped in solving the disruption, through which mechanisms, and how it was linked to SC resilience. The second paragraph contains additional insights from the respondent, insights into contingencies and triangulation of case-specific findings towards other cases. The second paragraph forms the basis of the second part of the findings section, the cross-case

analysis, where the main findings and contingency factors of the individual cases are compared.

Within-case analysis

From the within-case analysis, we mainly derived that a good IPR between individual employees of a buyer and supplier – constructed through showing personal interest, having an open interaction approach and being honest towards each other (personal affection,

communication -and credibility) – led to either one or a combination of the following

mechanisms: getting a preferred customer status, timely information sharing, engagement in

solution-findings activities, or getting additional organisational support. These mechanisms

influenced (a combination of) SC flexibility, visibility or velocity and thus enabled an increase of SC resilience. An overview of the main findings per case is provided in Table 6.

(21)

Case Supply-side disruption Characteristics of IPR with counterpart Mechanisms: efforts made by counterpart

Linkage to SC resilience-capability

Usage of IPR with counterpart from the supplier in managing the disruption

A1 Supply shortage of single product

Open interaction approach, showing personal interest, being open & honest, feeling free to contact

Engagement in solution-finding activities

SC flexibility Quick solution was found by getting help from the buyer’s counterpart in finding an alternate supplier Information sharing SC visibility

Preferred customer status SC velocity A2 Supply shortage of single

product

Meeting regularly in person, showing personal interest, knowing each other’s background

Preferred customer status SC velocity Mutual flexibility and getting preference helped in speeding up the disruption-solving process

Engagement in solution-finding activities

SC flexibility

B3 Plant shutdown of strategic supplier: shortage of strategic product

No active development of IPR, feeling

free to contact, trust & mutual

understanding (based on organisational relationship)

Proactive communication SC visibility

(indirectly SC velocity)

No IPR had been developed, still the respondent had nothing to complain about the disruption-solving process Timely information

sharing

No active development of IPR,

Lack of mutual understanding

Lack of timely information sharing

SC visibility

Poorly developed IPR hindered information to be shared timely

Using most personal possible

communication means, direct contacting, friendly way of communicating

SC visibility

IPR was used to get additional organisation support

Additional organisational support

SC flexibility

C6 Fire at production plant of strategic supplier: shortage of wide variety of products

Feeling free to contact, mutual understand and trust (based on organisational

relationship) (respondent. A, B and C), no

active development of IPR (respondent A and C)

SC visibility

No developed IPR impeded in taking fast actions (respondent A)

IPR helped to speed up the disruption-solving process (respondent B)

No IPR had been developed, still the respondent had nothing to complain about the disruption-solving process (respondent C)

D7 Fire at production plant of strategic supplier: shortage of strategic product

Open interaction approach, feeling free to contact, trust (based on working together for a couple of years)

SC visibility

Good working relationship with the counterpart helped in attaining SC visibility & velocity

(22)

4.1.1 Case A1

In case A1 a SC disruption with a strategic supplier was discussed that involved a supply shortage of a single product component. The respondent (A1) built a personal connection with its counterpart from the supplier by calling his contact once or twice per month to engage in personal conversations, asking how he is doing and by showing personal interest (personal

affection -and communication), of which he believed that it would help whenever disruptions

are encountered: “I often make use of personal talk. The result is, that sometimes more is

delivered than expected beforehand” (A1). In this case, we found that SC flexibility, SC

visibility and SC velocity was facilitated through information sharing, engagement in

solution-finding activities and getting a preferred customer status based on the established personal affection -and communication between respondent A1 and its counterpart. Respondent A1

acknowledged that interacting openly, and being honest (personal communication -and

credibility), leads to more efforts being made by the supplier to share information and engage

in solution-finding activities, which is helpful when disruptions need to be solved and thus leads to SC flexibility: “If a friend asks you something, you will help. It is something personal.

Therefore, the personal relationship helps here”; “Open discussions, negotiations and trust were key to achieve our goals. Open and personal communication took place to manage the issue, which helped managing the disruption” (A1). Moreover, by having established a personal

connection, the respondent felt free to directly call its counterpart when the disruption was encountered (personal communication), which directly led to information sharing and getting insights into the SC timely, and thus helped in attaining SC visibility & SC velocity. Lastly, because of the established personal connection, respondent A1’s counterpart was flexible in fulfilling the buyers’ order and prioritise its request over other customers, even though Company A was not the highest priority for the supplier. Having acquired this preferred

customer status inherently led to SC velocity: “I asked my personal contact if they could put some pressure internally as they are using the same inner part for another type of packaging supplied to us. This request was handled with priority and discussed within the supplying company” (A1). The supplier helped the respondent by quickly finding an alternate supply

source for this product component. To summarise, the established IPR (the combination of

personal affection, credibility -and communication) between respondent A1 and its

counterpart was of great value when the SC disruption had to be managed. It led to SC visibility, SC flexibility and SC velocity through the mechanisms information sharing, engagement in

solution-finding activities and getting a preferred customer status respectively, and therefore

(23)

Additional insights/ insights into contingencies

In case A1, it is important to acknowledge that the respondent was the only person responsible for managing the disruption. Moreover, in this case there was an alternative supplier available that was able to quickly take over the production of this particular product. These market-circumstances and the low severity of the disruption, enabled the IPR to be helpful and effective when the disruption had to be solved.

4.1.2 Case A2

In case A2, a disruption was encountered with a strategic supplier who experienced a lack of manpower at its facility due to COVID-19. The respondent and its counterpart at the supplying organisation had established an IPR by meeting regularly in person and engaging in personal conversations (personal communication). This allowed them to get to know each other on a personal level and created trust (personal affection -and credibility): “I always think it helps

that you know each other and don’t talk about business only. We also have some chit-chat so to say, talk about family, just to understand a little bit from each other’s background. That takes time, but is truly important. You need to build some trust, and that takes time as well” (A2). In

this case, we found that SC flexibility and SC velocity was facilitated through engagement in

solution-finding activities and getting a preferred customer status respectively based on the

established IPR (personal affection, communication -and credibility). Similar to case A1, the supplier got a preferred customer status due to the established IPR: “Based on the good

relationship, they preferred our portfolio compared to the portfolio of other customers. So they are not only supplying us but also other customers. So basically, really based on the relationship we managed to do so” (A2). This inherently led to SC velocity through the ability

to get the needed products slightly faster. Furthermore, the established IPR led to mutual flexibility towards each other as the buyer’s counterpart got engaged in solution-finding

activities and showed willingness to be flexible towards the buyer. Mutual flexibility initiated

by both the buyer and supplier helped in managing the disruption and attaining SC flexibility: “Normally we have really straight forward specifications. Like this is how we need to have it,

this is OTIF and this is the quality we need to have guaranteed. We built flexibility towards the supplier. We were flexible in changing this for a max period of time in these unusual times like COVID. The supplier agreed upon. They actually delivered everything as we wanted, in the right conditions and at the right time. That was really helpful” (A2). To summarise, a previously

established good IPR (personal affection, communication -and credibility) in this case was of importance in attaining SC resilience, as it led to SC velocity and SC flexibility via the

(24)

mechanisms of getting a preferred costumer status and engagement in solution-finding

activities respectively.

Additional insights, insights into contingencies and triangulation to other cases

In contrast with case A1, there was no alternative supplier available in case A2 to take over the production of the specific product in shortage. Instead, the disruption had to be solved with the current supplier. Even though the IPR led to a preferred customer status and engagement in

solution-finding activities (facilitating SC velocity and SC flexibility respectively), the supplier

still experienced issues and was by far not able to solve the disruption as quickly and efficiently as in case A1. The IPR helped, but its usefulness in case A2 was limited by the severity of the disruption and the different market circumstances. Respondent A2 also stressed that in general it is important to keep interacting (personal communication) with former suppliers to hedge and prepare for SC disruptions, as it enables a company to switch back to these suppliers in case disruptions occur. Thus, by maintaining a personal communication approach (keeping the relationship ‘warm’ through regularly interacting), an IPR could be leveraged in such a way that it enables SC flexibility through maintaining a flexible supply base: “In the past, we

produced [product] with a supplier in [country]. At a certain moment we said, okay let’s move it to another supplier, mainly because of cost optimisation, but also other reasons. So we switched the entire portfolio to another supplier. But we still know that the supplier in [country] has the experience and the capability to produce that specific product. So, it is really key to keep that relationship with the [country] supplier good and active. So that in case we are having issues with the new supplier I just mentioned, we can always go back” (A2). So, in case of a

disruption in a SC with availability of other capable suppliers, there is now the option to quickly alter supply sources and maintain continuity of supply.

4.1.3 Case B3

In case B3 the respondent reflects on a supplier who experienced technical issues at its production plant, which freed them from their contractual obligations. Respondent B3 stated that a personal connection (personal affection) had not been established between him and his counterpart, because this counterpart just started working for the supplier. However, there was

personal credibility and understanding on a professional level, as the respondent and its

counterpart were both working in the same industry and for a credible, mutually respected company. On an organisational level, the supplier had been working with Company B for a long time and knew what Company B expected from them. Based on the long-term and stable organisational relationship, the respondent trusted his/her counterpart and its professional way

(25)

of working. Thus, personal credibility was established due to the stable organisational relationship. As a result, the respondent believed that the benefits from putting in time and effort to establish a good personal connection (personal affection) would be limited. When the disruption had to be managed, the contact person of the respondent shared information timely over phone-calls and was communicating proactively during the disruption, which helped Company B to continuously have the right information available in time and take actions to manage the disruption quickly. Timely and proactive information sharing facilitated SC visibility, and indirectly influenced SC velocity by enabling them to timely take action. This case illustrates that some aspects of IPRs (personal affection- and communication) are not always needed to manage disruptions efficiently. Even without making specific efforts such as engaging in personal conversations and showing personal interest, the disruption was still managed efficiently.

Although in case B3 the respondent had not established an IPR (personal affection -and

communication) with its counterpart, he/she acknowledged – in line with the respondents in

case A1 & A2 – that it could be useful to maintain a good personal connection with your counterpart from the supplying organisation. It could help in getting a preferred customer status, and thus facilitate SC velocity. Moreover, respondent B3 acknowledged that maintaining a good IPR (personal affection) will help in attaining SC flexibility through engagement in

solution-finding activities, as your counterpart will be willing to be more flexible within the

possibilities there are available to help. However, in contrast with respondents A1 and A2, respondent B3 was much more nuanced in its believe in the use of IPRs related to managing disruptions. Whereas respondent A1 indicates “that the outcome of the relationship, is for 80%

dependent on the personal relationship” (A1), respondent B3 states that the IPR does not

necessarily lead to having ‘super-powers’ to solve disruptions. The severity of the encountered disruption seems an explaining contingency factor for why the IPR has not been a deal breaker in the ability to solve the disruption, which elucidates the more nuanced view towards the use of IPRs in managing disruptions. Furthermore, the professionalism of both companies and the already established organisational relationship in case B3 counterbalanced the importance of developing a personal connection. Hence, the established organisational relationship is another contingency factor explaining the differentiated view towards the use of IPRs in managing disruptions.

(26)

4.1.4 Case B4

In case B4, the respondent reflected on a disruption where a production facility of an important strategic supplier had to be closed due to COVID-19. Respondent B4 just took over the sourcing of this particular strategic product, and indicated that he/she had not developed a personal connection (personal affection) with its counterpart; resulting in a lack of understanding regarding each other’s businesses’ needs. It was stressed that having a personal connection

(personal affection) with your counterpart is an important deciding factor in sharing strategic information timely. In this case B4 it was observed that due to the fact that there was no

established personal connection (personal affection), there was a lack of timely information

sharing. When the disruption had to be managed, it took a long time before clarity was given

by the respondent’s counterpart concerning the status of the disruption. Therefore, the respondent did not have timely insights into the SC (limited SC visibility), which impeded fast actions to be taken by Company B (limited SC velocity). After solving the initial disruption, respondent B4 and his/her counterpart mutually agreed that it would be beneficial to establish a personal connection. Therefore, they took extensive time to call each other (personal

communication) to get to know each other on a personal level (personal affection). They

believed that in case of another disruption happening, this would enable Company B to have earlier and better insights into the SC (increasing SC visibility) and would enable Company B to take actions faster (increasing SC velocity). The usefulness of establishing this personal connection became prevalent when new technical issues were encountered by the supplier. The respondent’s counterpart proactively called him/her and told about the constraints they were experiencing at their production plant. Thus, through taking a personal communication approach, and building personal affection, mutual understanding concerning each other’s business needs was increased. This led to proactive and timely communication initiated by the respondent’s counterpart (increased SC visibility). As a consequence, reactive measures to manage disruptions could be taken by the buyer quickly (increased SC velocity). In conclusion, building a personal connection helped to facilitate SC visibility and indirectly SC velocity. Even though the lack of a personal connection hindered the SC to be resilient in the discussed disruption, it was also illustrated that through building a personal connection SC resilience can be facilitated through proactive and timely information sharing.

Respondent B4 specifically stressed that it is extremely important to have good personal

(27)

counterpart on a personal level is an important deciding factor whether you will contact each other timely to share (strategic) information concerning changes or (eventual) disruptions in the SC (facilitating SC visibility). Consequently, actions can be taken quickly to manage the disruptions (indirectly linking to SC velocity).

4.1.5 Case B5

The disruption discussed in case B5, involving the closure of a production facility of a strategic supplier, was solved on two management levels. The actual solving of the disruption was done by the responsible sourcing manager. Our respondent in case B5 though, operates on a higher management level, and got involved at a later stage when escalation and additional organisational support was needed. Thus, several IPRs were involved in managing the disruption. In this case it was observed that using personal forms of communication (personal

communication) and addressing issues in a collaborative, friendly way (personal affection)

helped in attaining SC flexibility, SC visibility and indirectly SC velocity through timely

information sharing and getting additional organisational support. These aspects of the IPR (personal communication -and affection) between respondent B5 and its counterpart enabled

the respondent to call his counterpart directly when something was needed. It was indicated that the established IPR helped in information to be shared timely and efficiently (facilitating SC visibility). Timely information sharing also facilitated taking actions to be taken faster, and thus indirectly relates to SC velocity. Respondent B5 indicated that to get additional organisational

support, several calls had to be made with his counterpart, and the issues needed to be addressed

in a friendly way, as collaborating partners. Thus, personal involvement and use of personal forms of communication such as video-calls (personal communication) are needed to effectively collaborate with important strategic partners. Emails do not suffice, and there is a need to stress the issues in a personal and friendly way (personal affection) to get additional

organisational support, which in turn leads to SC flexibility. In short, in this case the established

personal connection and a personal way of communicating (personal affection -and

communication) led to timely information sharing and getting additional support. Therefore,

it facilitated SC visibility & SC flexibility, and indirectly SC velocity.

Respondent B5 operates on a higher management level, and additional to reflecting on case B5, some other interesting insights were obtained, which can be triangulated towards other cases. First of all, respondent B5 indicated similar to respondent A1, that for somebody with who you encounter great personal affection, you will be much more likely to make an effort in helping

(28)

when disruptions arise, as people are more incentivised to help each other and to be flexible towards each other whenever disruptions are encountered. Thus, personal affection leads to SC flexibility through engagement in solution-finding activities. Furthermore, respondent B5 explicitly supports the view of respondent B4 by stating that a good IPR (mostly personal

affection) might help in being contacted by your counterpart earlier compared with

competitors. Therefore, it enables timely information sharing and facilitates the ability to take actions quickly; it helps in attaining SC visibility, and indirectly SC velocity. Interestingly, respondent B5 shared the same nuanced view towards the value of an IPR related to managing disruptions as indicated in case B3; a good personal relation does not always lead to ‘super-powers’ to solve disruptions quickly. It might lead to being contacted earlier, prioritising the requests initiated by the buyer and receiving a slightly bigger cut of materials in comparison with competitors (preferred costumer status) and thus to SC velocity. However, as there are still fixed allocation rules in place, the actual benefits of the IPR in managing SC disruptions could never be that significant.

4.1.6 Case C6

In case C6 a fire took place at the production facility of an important strategic supplier that is responsible for delivering a wide variety of important product components for Company C. These two organisations have already been working together for a long time; they are highly interdependent and need to work together so closely, that the organisations are connected through multiple departments and individuals across different departments of both companies. Thus, the organisational relationship is made up of a wide variety of IPRs: “In all areas of the

organisation, people communicate directly with different accounts at the supplier’s side. There are different layers of the organisation in contact with the supplier” (C6, respondent C).

Because of this highly interdependent collaboration, the impact of the disruption was severe. Therefore, the two organisations had to work together as a single entity to solve the disruption quickly. The respondents on this case (A, B and C) had to meet with the supplier on a day-to-day basis for about 6 months and worked together extensively to solve the disruptions. Interestingly, managing the disruption was not dependent on one specific IPR as the companies were connected through individuals on a larger scale and the severity of the disruption was high; it just had to be solved. In case C6, we found that an IPR (personal affection,

communication -and credibility) could help in attaining SC visibility and SC velocity and

therefore facilitates SC resilience. All three respondents in case C6 indicated that they trusted their counterparts from the supplier (personal credibility) and felt free to contact them

(29)

whenever needed, using whatever communication means necessary: email, phone-calls, or meeting face-to-face (personal communication). It was acknowledged that their IPRs with their counterparts, and knowing each other on a personal level (personal affection), smoothens the process of exchanging information and increases its efficiency: “It is easier to communicate

when you know each other personally. We are operating in the same business, and the Supplier X with which we encountered a disruption knows what we need. I haven't really developed a one-to-one relationship with the employee from Supplier X, but I know him already for 6 years” (C6- C). This illustrates that building an IPR could foster SC visibility and SC velocity through efficient information sharing. However, it also illustrates that building a personal connection is

not that important in this situation, because both the companies and the individuals are already connected for a long time and know what to expect from each other, similar to case B3. Respondent C6-A acknowledged that the lack of a personal connection (personal affection) between him/her and his/her counterpart hampered quick actions to be taken, and thus hindered SC velocity: “I think some things would have worked faster if me and my contact had known

each other beforehand. However, I was pretty new to Company C, so I learned a lot about the organisation and about Supplier X in the first few weeks. I would have known more about typical behaviour, and about the culture and cultural differences between Company C and Supplier X if I had worked here longer and had known my counterpart of Supplier X better” (C6-3A). To summarise, case C6 shows that the IPR helps in attaining SC visibility and SC

velocity through timely information sharing.

Case C6 discusses a severe SC disruption, which is being managed by two companies working together based on multiple IPRs. Similar to case B3, there was trust (personal credibility) between the respondents and their counterparts based on the established organisational relationship. This questions the overall need to establish an IPR (personal credibility) with a counterpart as it became prevalent that personal credibility could also be obtained through the organisational relationship.

4.1.7 Case D7

The disruption discussed in case D7 also involved a fire at a production facility of a strategic supplier, which reduced the delivery capacity of the supplier by 50%. This disruption affected a lot of different factories of Company D, as they all needed that product component delivered by the strategic supplier. To solve the disruption, the respondent had contact with the account manager from the supplier. In this case it was found that despite the fact that there was no

Faculty of Economics & Business MSc Thesis Supply Chain management