BALANCING ACTIVITIES AS THE FOUNDATION OF SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE

BALANCING ACTIVITIES AS THE FOUNDATION OF

SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE

by

JEAN PAUL PASTOOR

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Pre-MSc Technology and Operations Management

ABSTRACT

Thispaperaims toinvestigatehowresilience isinfluencedby thecombination of collaborative and internal activities; how do organizations balance these activities to mitigate consequences of disruptions. To do so, we gathered qualitative data using a multiple case study interviewing six different organizations that all recently experienced disruptions. Findings show balancing collaborative and internal activities is based on the level of dependency between organizations and the supply chain partners they collaborate with. The level of dependency among them dictates the consideration or obligation to either engage in collaboration or utilize resources internally. Reviewing existing literature, we supposed a lack of understanding on how the combination of both activities influenced resilience. By investigating this gap in our research, we made a valuable contribution to existing literature on supply chain resilience

Keywords

Disruptions, Supply chain collaboration, Supply chain resilience, Coronavirus

Supervisor

M. J. van den Adel, MSc

INTRODUCTION

In 2018, 56% oforganizationssufferedfrom asupplychaindisruption. Ofthese organizations, 48% reported losses of more than €50.000 Euro’s, leading to cumulative losses of millions (Business Continuity Institute, 2018). Untill today, there exist numerous events that severely disrupted the ability of firms to keep their daily operations up and running (Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson, Busby, & Zorzini, 2015). Common causes of disruptions are IT outages, adverse weather and a loss of talent and skill, while the recent outbreak of the coronavirus can also be seen as a severe disruption in 2020. Since the outbreak, many organizations are forced into temporary closure, have to deal with strong fluctuations in demand or experience some sort of supplyanddeliveryproblemsdue tonationalrestrictions (McKinsey, 2020). These disruptions of the daily operation impede the flow of products and services through the supply chain. This makes organizations vulnerable, as it can negatively influence their agility, financial strength and market share (Pettit, Croxton, & Fiksel, 2013; Wu, Blackhurst, & Chidambaram, 2006).

To mitigate the adverse consequences of disruptions, organizations should increase their resilience. Supply chain resilience is the adaptive capability of an organization to prepare for and respond to the consequences of disruptions on their daily operation. This adaptive capability aims to make a timely and cost-effective recovery from disruptions, ideally gaining competitive advantage by progressing to a better state of operations than prior the disruptions (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). However, it is important to recognize no organization acts solely on its own; organizations share vital infrastructures and their daily operations depend on the mutual delivery of goods and services. Disruptions within a single organization, lead to interruptions at successive organizations in the supply chain, resulting in disruptions that affect the operations of every organization in the supply chain (Craighead, Blackhurst, Rungtusanatham, & Handfield, 2007; Hartley, Brodke, Wheeler, Wu, & Steward, 2014). In many cases, organizations face disruptions that do not originate from themselves, but rather from the supply chain they are part of (Kim, Chen, & Linderman, 2015). Collaboration is therefore widely seen as the most important aspect of building supply chain resilience. By sharing information, providing each other with resources and coordinating collective countermeasures, organizations improve their preparation for and responsiveness to disruptions, which mitigates the consequences of disruptions (Hohenstein, Feise, Hartmann, & Giunipero, 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015).

the related research discipline organizational behaviour, suggests otherwise. Organizational members encounter ambivalence, as they face challenges in meeting external responsibilities, while maintaining internal activity needed for organizational sustainability. Too much focus on collaboration increases the workload and creates time pressure, which negatively affects the performance, behaviour and judgement of organizational members (Choi, 2002; Fugate, Thomas, & Golicic, 2012). As organizational members only have a limited amount of time available, allocating time towards collaborative activities, directly detracts from the amount of time available for internal activities that mitigate the consequences of disruptions. Therefore, collaboration is challenging, as it may misdirect resources and attention, which exposes organizations to negative effects. These effects will eliminate or even overpower the positive effects of collaboration; there may be a context in which collaboration hurts, rather than helps organizations to deal with the consequences of disruptions (Choi, 2002; Marrone, 2010).

Consequently, collaboration can both positively and negatively influence supply chain resilience. As there are advantages and disadvantages of solely focussing on collaborative or internal activities, it may be possible that both are of different importance in mitigating the consequences of disruptions. To be able to explore the processes that contribute to resilience, existing literature considered redundant resources as constant (Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Further research was suggested, as resilience is highly dependent on these redundant resources, which are far from constant in practice; they relate to internal organizational,physicalandhumanresources,whichstronglyfluctuateovertime(Choi,2002). However, limited research is found on how the combination of collaborative and internal activities (including internal resources), influences resilience. Considering existing research, we presume an equal importance between collaborative and internal activities. Therefore, we extend on Choi (2002) and contend that collaborative and internal activities do not compete, but rather maintain a synergistic relationship of equal importance. This leads to the following research question: ‘’How do organizations balance their collaborative and internal activities,

with the aim of mitigating the consequences of disruptions?’’

conducting a case study with interviews regarding collaborative and internal activities, will provide a unique opportunity to do so.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Supply Chain Resilience

The supply chain relates to different organizations that are mainly connected by the flow of goods and services. Due to today’s rapidly changing business environment, organizations can encounter interruptions in this flow of goods and services, leading to operational and financial challenges (Craighead et al., 2007). Therefore, organizations should continuously put efforts in identifying, measuring and evaluating their environment, to search for possibilities of risks associated with disruptions (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Skipper & Hanna, 2009). Organizations cannot prevent all disruptions from happening, but they can at least try to be well-prepared; the focus of supply chain resilience. When organizations are better prepared for unexpected events, this increases the likelihood they will reduce the impact of disruptions and recover from them faster (Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015).

Existingliteratureprovidesa wide range of differentdefinitionsregardingsupply chain resilience, but not every definition includes the aspects time and costs. However, adequate management of cost-effectiveness and time timely coordination can be used to better respond to disruptions, compared to competitors. As competitive advantage over competitors leads to an organization’s long-term success, these aspects are of considerable importance (Cao & Zhang, 2011; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Therefore, we build on the following definition of supply chain resilience in this research: ‘’the adaptive capability of a supply chain to prepare for and/or respond to disruptions, to make a timely and cost-effective recovery, and therefore progresstoapost-disruptionstateofoperations-ideally, a betterstatethanpriorthe disruption (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015: 5599).

As there is a continuous trade-off going on between the coordination and integration of resources, supply chain resilience should not comprise a one-time event, but rather be a continuously evolving and adapting business process (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Kim et al., 2015; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Jüttner and Maklan (2011) identified four supply chain capabilities that act as an operationalisation of supply chain resilience; flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration. These capabilities are used as they are widely accepted in existing literature on supply chain resilience (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2015; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). The first three capabilities will be discussed shortly toprovide as perspective for and introduction on our research pillars; collaborative and internal activities.

coordination and integration of resources; they can switch between the number of possible states the supply chain can take (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Skipper & Hanna, 2009). Although high flexibility allows for a quick response, it comes at the expense of efficiency; flexible organizations cannot achieve focus on a single resource to achieve economies of scale, as they need to hold multiple resources that serve the same purpose (Pettit et al., 2013).

Velocity describes the speed at which organizations can respond to disruptions, which is strongly connected to flexibility. Whereas flexibility refers to the number of possible states a supply chain can take, velocity focusses on the pace of these state-adaptations (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Therefore, velocity determines both the rate of loss during disruptions, and the speed at which organizations can recover from them (Christopher & Peck, 2004).

Visibilitydescribesthe ability of organizations to see through the supply chain, and the extent to which organizations have access to other supply chain members (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). The rate of visibility is determined by the extent to which supply chain members timely share information or resources, which is of great importance to prepare for and respond to disruptions. This way, visibility creates confidence among supply chain members, since knowing the state of affairs within the supply chain prevents ineffective decisions, wild interventions and opportunistic behaviour (Wei & Wang, 2010).

Collaborative Activities

Collaboration refers to the ability of working together with other organizations in the supply chain and is widely seen as the most important enabler of resilience. Supply chain resilience entails a networkwide concept, meaning the flexibility, velocity and visibility of an individual organization will not build sufficient resilience against disruptions in most cases (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Organizations share vital infrastructures, and in many cases, disruptions do not originate from an organization, but rather from the supply chain they are part of. Hence, all members of the supply chain should increase their adaptive capabilities to develop sufficient resilience against disruptions (Cao & Zhang, 2011; Kim et al., 2015). Collaboration is seen as the formative element, as it is often cited that collaborating organizations improve their visibility and increase their flexibility and velocity (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Therefore, flexibility, velocity and visibility are influenced by the intensity of collaboration. To illustrate collaboration is an antecedent of these capabilities, we will discuss their mutual relationship with examples of collaboration.

To absorb changes, organizations develop strong supply chain relationships, which enables them to modify their current operations. Without much effort or constraints, organizations can adjust orders from upstream and downstream supply chain members, or change the utilization of capacityand employees (Pettit et al., 2013; Scholten & Schilder, 2015).Therefore,the level of collaboration will dictate the amount of flexibility organizations hold in their possibilities to modify their current operations. In line with flexibility, velocity determines the speed at which organizations can alternate between the possibilities to modify. Organizations can share information regarding their experiences and stock levels, or perform joint decision-making activities, which results in fast-paced decision-making (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Kim et al., 2015). Hence,withoutcollaboration there is not enough information to accelerate this process; the level of collaboration dictates the speed at which organizations respond to and recover from disruptions. Visibility aids in this process, as it facilitates organizations to see through the supply chain and perceive events and supply chain members. Upstream and downstream information sharing on stock-levels and schedules prevents wild interventions or opportunistic behaviour, whichlimits ineffective decision (Lee, 2004; Wei & Wang, 2010). Collaboration therefore dictates the dispersion of information throughout the supply chain, which influences the ability to prepare for and respond to disruptions. (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Summarizing, collaboration influences each of the remaining capabilities and is therefore designated as the formative element of supply chain resilience.

In this paper, we measure supply chain collaboration using the collaborative activities introduced by Cao, Vonderembse, Zhang, & Ragu-Nathan (2010); information-sharing, goal congruence, joint decision-making, resource-sharing, incentive alignment, collaborative communication and joint knowledge creation among independent supply chain partners. These collaborative activities are further defined and operationalized in Table I.

Table I. Definitions of supply chain collaboration activities (Cao et al., 2010).

Collaborative activities Definitions

Information sharing The extent to which a firm shares a variety of relevant, accurate, complete and confidential ideas, plans and

procedures with its supply chain partners in a timely manner. Goal congruence The extent to which supply chain partners perceive their own

objectives are satisfied by accomplishing the supply chain objectives.

decisions in supply chain planning and operations that optimise supply chain benefits.

Resource-sharing The process of leveraging capabilities and assets and investing in capabilities and assets with supply chain partners.

Incentive alignment The process of sharing costs, risks, and benefits among supply chain partners.

Collaborative communication The contact and message transmission process among supply chain partners in terms of frequency, direction, mode and influence strategy.

Joint knowledge creation The extent to which supply chain partners develop a better understanding of and response to the market and competitive environment by working together.

Internal Activities

Although collaboration is widely accepted as the main driver of supply chain resilience, it may not always be possible or the best solution to build resilience this way. Insights from the discipline organizational behaviour suggest that collaborative activities hurt, rather than help organizations in building resilience. In today’s business environment, organizational members are forced to continuously coordinate their interactions with the external environment (Choi, 2002; Hartley et al., 2014). Organizational members need to establish and manage linkages within an organization, like teams and departments, and across organizational boundaries, like customers and suppliers. This is known as boundary spanning and challenges organizational members to meet external responsibilities, while maintaining effective internal activity needed for organizational continuity. However, the coordination of these activities is limited by the availability of resources (Choi, 2002; Marrone, 2010).

which misdirects resources and attention in regards to pressing tasks (Choi, 2002; Fugate et al., 2012; Marrone, 2010). Accordingly, time pressure can result in wrong decisions regarding the allocation of human capital or capacity, which could negatively influence the flexibility that organizations persist as response to disruptions (which decreases their resilience).

In contrast to collaboration, organizations can decide to build supply chain resilience by exploiting their internal capabilities. Organizations can create a certain insensitiveness to disruptions, as they hold resources like human capital or machinery, which are specifically attributed to them. As it is possible these specific resources concern some form of competitive advantage, chances are they could contribute to an organization’s resilience, which creates the need to exploit them (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). To measure how internal activities relate to resilience, we extend on Scholten & Schilder (2015) and Choi (2002), stating resilience highly depends on resources, which are far from constant in practice.

Conceptual Framework

Investigating the proposed variables of collaborative and internal activities, we aim to explore how organizations balance these activities to mitigating the consequences of disruptions. As collaboration influences supply chain flexibility, velocity and visibility, it is seen as the formative element of building supply chain resilience. However, the scarcity of resources and negative effects of time pressure impose some important drawbacks on collaboration. When considering the above, it may be that both activities are of different importance in mitigating the consequences of disruptions. We assume this will depend on the organization, but remain to contend that there exists a synergistic relationship of equal importance; as the sum is more than the parts, organizations naturally aim to balance both activities.

Figure 1: the influence of collaborative and internal activities on supply chain resilience.

Activities Information-sharing Goal congruence Joint decision-making Resource-sharing Incentive alignment Collaborative communication

Joint knowledge creation

Supply chain resilience

METHODOLOGY

Research Design and Setting

To measure how collaborative and internal activities influence resilience and organizations balance these activities to mitigate the consequences of disruptions, we gathered qualitative data using a multiple case study. It holds merit to use a case study, as the boundaries between the phenomenon of supply chain resilience and the research context are not clearly evident yet (Yin, 2009). As there is still little known on how the combination of collaborative and internal activities influences resilience, we needed a research design that provided a strong base for theory building. This required an in-dept explanation of the proposed variables, for which quantitative research would not be suitable.

The unit of analysis in this study was the disruption within an organization caused by the recent outbreak of the coronavirus. As we aimed to investigate how organizations balance their collaborative and internal activities to mitigate the consequences of disruptions, it would be valuable to investigate organizations that recently experienced disruptions. The outbreak of the coronavirus provided us the unique opportunity to do so, as it forced many organizations into temporary closure and caused disruptions within multiple supply chains (McKinsey, 2020). We studied six relationships between organizations and their suppliers; organizations all mentioned at least one disruption concerning one or more of their suppliers. Based on the unit of analysis, we investigated which collaborative and internal activities were carried out, and how they influenced resilience. The selected organizations were of particular interest for investigating the influence of collaborative and internal activities on resilience, as the majority experiences high volumes quickly moving though their supply chain. This, combined with the limited shelf-life products these organizations sell, makes them vulnerable to disruptions and creates the need for resilience. More information about these organizations is presented in Table II.

Data Collection

Accordingly, the interviews were structured the same and started with general questions about the organization and interviewee to begin with. Thereafter, the questions slowly built up to the core regarding disruptions, and collaborative and internal activities. As for the setup, each of the interviews was attended by two researchers; one main interviewer and one controlling interviewer. The second interviewer made sure every question was being asked and every topic was discussed. Besides observing, the second interviewer also had the opportunity to ask successive and clarifying questions. All interviews were recorded and took approximately 60 to 70 minutes, after which they were transcribed. Thereafter, we sent these transcribed texts back to the interviewees to ask for feedback, missing parts and a final approval, to validate them. Additional data was gathered by contacting interviewees for a second time, rereading company documents (annual report) and reviewing the company’s website.

Table II. Case setting.

Organization Sector Number of

employees

Position of interviewee

G Retail 80.000 Franchiser

H Retail 80.000 Supply Chain Manager

I Industry 7500 Supply Chain Director

J Retail 360 Manager Service Logistics

K Industry 78.000 Head of Procurement

L Smart manufacturing 40 Team Leader Operations

Data Analysis

already illustrated activities corresponding to the variables (third-order themes). Table III presents an excerpt of our analysis, illustrating how we proceeded through the steps of data reduction, descriptive coding and variable-linking.

Next we juxtaposed the two perspectives in order to investigate how the combination of collaborative and internal activities influenced resilience. In the beginning, we focussed on individual cases to get familiar with the different circumstances in which both activities are balanced. We sorted out our analysis based on the different variables, so we were able to draw conclusions based on each variable. Conducting cross-case analysis, we could compare each individual conclusion to find patterns in the overall importance of collaborative and internal activities. This led to the conclusion on how organizations balance both activities to mitigate the consequences of disruptions.

Of particular interest were data that could not be juxtaposed, as they were not linked to both activities. Also, some data was of interest, but could not be subdivided into activities. As these data were too valuable to leave aside, they are used in the findings section to identify the motives to focus on collaborative or internal activities. Overall, several measures were taken to ensure the reliability and validity of our study. We used a conceptual framework grounded fromliterature,aninterview-protocolwithwhichweconsulted multiplesourcesof information and a cross-analysis technique to find patterns in our findings (Yin, 2009).

Table III. Excerpt of coding.

First-order codes Second-order codes (short descriptions) Link to collaborative or internal activities Third-order codes (themes)

‘’Therefore, we provided supermarkets the

possibility to hold our inventory at our expense and risk, so they could handle the uncertainty’’

Sharing inventory collaborative Resource-sharing

‘’We gave an update on the situation in our distribution centres every two hours, so suppliers and customers could adjust their operations accordingly’’ Sharing experiences and information collaborative Information-sharing, collaborative communication ‘’Therefore, we could decide to hold back on

sharing information, as it enables us to better perform our own operations of balancing distribution’’

Focus on internal activities

internal Internal resources

Information-headquarters is in the lead on the dispersion of information, which mainly is one-way traffic that comes when it pleases them’’

dispersion sharing,

collaborative communication ‘’Certain suppliers and customers are not willing to

collaborate though common goals, as they feel it limits them in their flexibility to pursue other goals’’

Individual flexibility

internal internal resources

‘’ Experimenting with it indicated we could significantly reduce the fluctuation of product-volumes in our daily freights to supermarkets. Whilst experimenting, we involved our suppliers to think along; it eventually enabled our suppliers to better forecast sales, while we were able to differently utilize spare transport capacity’’

Common goals, create new knowledge that results in benefits collaborative Incentive alignment, goal congruence, joint knowledge creation

‘’As we are dependent on the supply of these suppliers, they are in the lead of taking action and we are forced to adhere to their command’

Dependability within relationships

collaborative Joint decision-making, goal congruence ‘’We experienced shortages in people picking

orders, which we temporary could deduct from administrative departments and certain first-tier suppliers’’

Sharing human resources

collaborative Resource sharing

‘’Sharing information though our real-time

inventory management system provides suppliers to forecast sales’’

Forecasting collaborative Information-sharing, collaborative communication ’We regularly speak with suppliers discussing our

latest experiences, mostly regarding bad

experiences, so we can improve the product or learn from our own mistakes’’

Sharing experiences collaborative Collaborative communication,

information-sharing, joint

knowledge creation ’There is a lot of coordination and validation

needed to compose briefings, since incorrect information could have some severe consequences due to the amount of supermarket receive it

Focus on internal activities

internal Internal resources

‘’Suppliers visit our distribution centres once in a while to share information but also maintain a healthy relationship with common interests’’

Contact with suppliers

collaborative Information-sharing, goal

FINDINGS

In analysing our data, we were able to identify how the variables of collaborative and internal activities influence resilience. While doing so, we identified how organizations balance both activities to mitigate the consequences of disruptions. During our analysis, we discovered not every variable could be linked to one or more second-order codes. Also, certain variables did partially or completely overlap, so we grouped our findings on these variables accordingly.

Information-sharing & Collaborative Communication

Within collaboration, sharing information with both upstream and downstream supply chain partners is of great importance. The current state of affairs regarding stock-levels (Case J), available resources (Case H) and expected developments (Case K and G) helps organizations to understand what is happening at successive stages in their supply chain. It creates visibility, as the following exemplary quote illustrates; ‘’During the peak of the hoarding-days, we gave an update on the current situation in our distribution centres every two hours, so suppliers and customers could adjust their operations accordingly’’ (Case J). However, the extensiveness and consistency with which information is being shared differs from company to company; ‘’As we are part of a large organization with many supermarkets, our headquarters is in the lead on dispersion of information, which mainly is one-way traffic that comes when it pleases the headquarters’’ (Case H). In contrast, the perspective of the headquarters of organizations H and J is captured in the following quote; ‘’In case of big disruptions, we sometimes need to hold back on sharing information as it concerns dozens of supermarkets, and we are forced to balance the distribution of products among them. Therefore, we could decide to hold back information, as thisenablesus tobetter perform our own operations balancing the distribution, which serves the bigger picture but comes at the expense of individual supermarkets’’ (Case H). Organizations mainly involve in collaborative communication using phones, emails and internally developed communication platforms (Case G, H, J, K and L).

Goal Congruence, Incentive Alignment & Joint Decision-making

we should deal with problems, the combination of them results in the best solution, as each partner contributes with case-specific knowledge’’ (Case K). Cross-analysis shows aligning objectives increases involvement of supply chain partners, as sharing risks and rewards results in common interests; ‘’Within the process of sharing information, we made agreements with departments on when to deliver essential information. We turned this into a supply chain-wide performance objective, as experimenting with it indicated we could significantly reduce the fluctuation of product-volumes in our daily freights to supermarkets. Whilst experimenting, we involved our suppliers to think along; it eventually enabled our suppliers to better forecast sales, while we were able to differently utilize spare transport capacity’’ (Case H). Therefore, by pursuing supply chain-wide goals, supplier increased their visibility (forecasting), whereas the downstream partner increased its flexibility (resource utilization), leading to resilience.

However, cross-analysis also showed aligning objectives and joint decision-making depends on the distribution of decision-making authority; ‘’Certain suppliers and customers are not always willing to collaborate through common goals, as they feel the long-term aspect limits their flexibility to pursue other goals’’ (Case K). Thus, supply chain partners, however part of the same supply chain, are not always willing to intensively collaborate. In addition to our analysis on collaborative and internal variables, we found dependency limits the extent of collaboration, therefore limiting the ability to respond to and recover from disruptions; ‘’As we are dependent on the supply of these suppliers, they are in the lead of taking action and we are forced to adhere to their command’’ (Case J). Cross-analysis revealed decision-making authority is unequally divided between supply chain partners (Case G, H, J and L), leading away from aligning efforts and incentives, limiting the ability to respond to and recover from disruptions.

Resource-sharing & Joint Knowledge Creation

access to transport capacity, so they could transfer inventory between their locations. Fairly soonafterthefirstproductsweretransferred,franchiserscame up with ideas to utilize capacity more effective, whereas the transport-specialist never thought about this’’ (Case H). This joint knowledge creation and problem-solving attitude accelerates the process of responding to disruptions, whereas leveraging resources led to more possibilities to continue operations.

Internal Resources

CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION

The findings of this paper contribute to the never-ending research regarding supply chain resilience by investigating collaborative and internal activities. We aimed to discover how these activities influenced resilience and how organizations balance them in order to mitigate the consequences of disruptions. As collaboration influences supply chain flexibility, velocity and visibility, it is seen as the formativeelement ofbuildingsupply chain resilience. However, the scarcity of resources and negative effects of time pressure imposed some drawbacks on collaboration. Therefore, collaboration could hurt, rather than help organizations in building resilience, leading to the believe organizations should focus on internal activities to mitigate the consequences of disruptions. We investigated this contradiction, as we supposed a lack of understandingonhowthecombinationbetweencollaborativeandinternalactivities influenced resilience. By doing so, we were able to conclude organizations balance their collaborative and internal activities based on the level of dependency between them and their supply chain partners; the level of dependency dictates the consideration or obligation to either engage in collaboration or utilize resources internally.

Theoretical & Managerial Implications

Limitations and Future Research

To provide valid and reliable research, we used a conceptual framework grounded from literature, an interview-protocol with which we consulted multiple sources of information and a cross-analysis technique to find patterns in our findings. Even though we did our very best, there might be some limitations related to this research.

REFERENCES

Business Continuity Institute. 2018. BCI Supply Chain Resilience Report 2018. Cao, M., Vonderembse, M. A., Zhang, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. 2010. Supply chain

collaboration: Conceptualisation and instrument development. International Journal of Production Research, 48(22): 6613–6635.

Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. 2011. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3): 163–180.

Choi, J. N. 2002. External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33(2): 181–208.

Christopher, M., & Peck, H. 2004. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2): 1–14.

Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. 2007. The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation

Capabilities. The Author Journal compilation C, vol. 38. Decision Sciences Institute. Fugate, B. S., Thomas, R. W., & Golicic, S. L. 2012. The impact of coping with time pressure

on boundary spanner collaborative behaviors. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 42(7): 697–715.

Gibson, C. B., & Dibble, R. 2013. Excess may do harm: Investigating the effect of team external environment on external activities in teams. Organization Science, 24(3): 697– 715.

Hartley, J. L., Brodke, M., Wheeler, J. V., Wu, Z., & Steward, M. D. 2014. Exploring supply management status, internal collaboration and operating performance. Operations Management Research, 7(1–2): 24–35.

Hohenstein, N. O., Feise, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. 2015. Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience: A systematic review and paths for further investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 45: 90–117.

Jüttner, U., & Maklan, S. 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An empirical study. Supply Chain Management, 16(4): 246–259.

Kim, Y., Chen, Y. S., & Linderman, K. 2015. Supply network disruption and resilience: A network structural perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34: 43–59. Lee. 2004. The Tripple-A Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review.

proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36(4): 911–940.

Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. 2013. Ensuring supply chain resilience: Development and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(1): 46–76. Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain

resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1): 124–143. Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. 2015. The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience. Supply

Chain Management, 20(4): 471–484.

Skipper, J. B., & Hanna, J. B. 2009. Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through enhanced flexibility. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 39(5): 404–427.

Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. 2015, September 17. Supply chain resilience: Definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research. Taylor and Francis Ltd.

Wei, H. L., & Wang, E. T. G. 2010. The strategic value of supply chain visibility: Increasing the ability to reconfigure. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2): 238–249. Wu, T., Blackhurst, J., & Chidambaram, V. 2006. A model for inbound supply risk analysis.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: interview-protocol (Scholten & Schilder, 2015).

Interview Protocol

(Adapted from Kirstin Scholten)

About the research

Disruptions between interdependent organizations have been recognized by many as inevitable, making the management of highly interconnected supply chains an ever-increasing challenge in today’s competitive business environment. To be able to mitigate the adverse consequences of disruptions, organizations are trying to increase their resilience – the ability of organizations to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruptions. The aim of this interview is to gain insight into supply chain management at your organization, in particular into internal and external collaboration and building resilience.

Main topics to be covered are:

● General characteristics of the supply chain ● Specific disruption that has occurred

● Collaboration within and outside the organization to deal with disruptions

Procedure of the interview

Before the interview starts, we would like you to read and fill out a consent form (please see page 2 below), in order to maintain common interests and values. The interview itself will then take approximately 60 minutes; questions to be asked can be found on page 3. After the interview, there will be room for feedback and further questions. With your consent the interview will be recorded and transcribed. The transcription of the interview will be sent to you for verification about one week after the interview took place. Audio files will be available for the researchers only and will be deleted when the transcriptions are approved by the interviewee and supervising researchers. We would like to emphasize that this interview is treated anonymously, and that no answer will be traceable to you or the organization you work for.

Consent form

Researchers’ names:

Faculty/school/department: Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Field of study: Supply Chain Collaboration / Supply Chain Resilience

Location of interview:

Function and organization of interviewee:

Time at start:

To be completed by the interviewee:

1.1 Have you been fully informed about this study?

1.2 Have you had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study?

1.3 Have you received satisfactory answers to all your questions?

1.4 Do you understand that you are free to withdraw from this study? ● At any time;

● Without giving a reason for withdrawing; and

● Without affecting your future relationship with the institute.

1.5 Have you been informed that this consent form shall be kept in the confidence of the researcher?

1.6 Do you agree that the interview will be recorded?

1.7 Do you agree to be quoted in the main text anonymously?

1.8 Do you agree to take part in this study, of which the results are likely to be published? (Please note: no information will be traced back to you).

1.9 If there are any other preferences or restrictions you would like to mutually agree upon, please write them down below. In case there are no other preferences or restrictions, please leave this open:

Interview Protocol

1. General Questions (± 10 min)

1.1. Could you please give a brief overview of your organization and its supply chain (upstream and downstream)?

✔ Core activities and/or products ✔ Organizational goals

✔ Key aspects (organization size, turnover, number of employees) ✔ Number of suppliers (upstream) and customers (downstream) 1.2. Could you please introduce yourself and your role in the organization?

✔ Function ✔ Team ✔ Department

✔ Brief overview of background, education, and experience

2. Main Part (± 45 min)

2.1. Please recall a recent disruption/problem in your supply chain. Could you outline the event in detail: What was the cause, what was the impact, who was involved, was it foreseeable?

✔ Cause

✔ Impact (financial/operational) ✔ Affected suppliers/customers ✔ Indications/warnings of disruption

✔ How does the coronavirus affect your business operations?

✔ Coronavirus has been emphatically in the Netherlands for 4 weeks now. When did you notice the influence of the coronavirus? How did it start?

✔ Were you prepared for such a disruption? How?

✔ In general, how did you react to- and resolve this disruption? ✔ To what degree were your and the company’s KPI’s affected?

2.2 Next, we would like to specifically focus on the activities outside your organization (with other organizations) undertaken in response to the disruption:

2.2.1. With whom did your organization collaborate to resolve the disruption? ▪ Why did you work with these parties?

▪ How dependent is your company on these parties? How does this dependence determine the intensity of the collaboration?

▪ Who initiated the collaboration?

▪ Were there situations where a conscious decision was made not to collaborate? So that you could focus on your own implementation. ▪ Why not other parties? Maybe outside your supply chain?

▪ Did you (ever) collaborate with competitors?

2.2.2. Were these other parties willing to collaborate? Why (not)? ▪ Any constraints for them to collaborate?

▪ What were the actions to overcome unwillingness/constraints?

2.2.3. How did your organization collaborate with these other parties? What forms of collaboration?

▪ Information- or resource-sharing ▪ Attempts to align decisions/incentives

▪ Mode of communication (e.g., email, phone, face-to-face)

▪ To what degree do you cooperate with suppliers to mitigate chainwide supply and demand shocks? (i.e. information and resource sharing, joint decision making)

▪ What kind of information do you share? (i.e. planning and/or inventory levels)

▪ If yes, how fast do you communicate new information and to whom? 2.2.4 Did the collaboration change during the different stages of the disruption?

▪ More collaboration before, during, immediately after, or in a longer period after the disruption?

▪ Why? How?

2.2.5 How would you describe the relationship between your organization and these parties in terms of trust?

▪ How did that affect the (intensity of) collaboration? 2.2.6 How dependent is your organizations on these parties?

▪ How did that affect the (intensity of) collaboration?

2.3.1 Why (not)?

▪ Was collaboration difficult and/or complex?

▪ Was collaboration time consuming (i.e., distract from internal activities)? If yes, what have you done to mitigate this?

▪ What aspects of performance where specifically important?

2.3.2. Do you think you could have minimized the impact of the disruption better with less collaboration and focusing on other, internal processes? ▪ Why (not)?

▪ How are the lines of communication within your company and between the collaborative companies? How do these lines help with obtaining critical information and what is your relationship with these other parties? (Willingness to cooperate)

▪ Do you use "surplus" resources to cover risks? Think of safety stocks, overcapacity and dual / multi sourcing?

3.1 We would now like to look back:

3.1.1.1 Which activities would you say were the most important for resolving the disruption? Why?

3.1.1.2 Regarding both of these practices, how do you think your company creates resilience? i.e. Does your firm rely on itself and its abilities or do you rely on suppliers to ensure your own operation flows as smooth as possible?

3.1.1.3 Are there things you would you do differently?

3.1.1.4 What have you learned? And how was this implemented?

4 Closing questions (± 5 min)

4.1 Are there topics about the supply chain, disruptions, and collaboration that have not been covered in this interview but that you had expected or that you would like to share your thoughts about?

Pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

Meten van resilience in interviews

De meesten van jullie zullen de lijn van Scholten and Schilder (2015) volgen met collaboration als antecedent van flexibility, velocity, and visibility. Deze laatste drie "capabilities" vormen dan je maat van resilience. D.w.z. je kan dan in je interview doorvragen hoe bepaalde maatregelen tot,

bijvoorbeeld, meer informatie (visibility), meer alternatieve keuzes (flexibility), of tot een snellere reactie (velocity) heeft geleid.

4. Results: Presents/describes the results of your research (analysis). Data needs to be collected and prepared before analysis can start.

5. Discussion/conclusions: Discuss and argue what insights your research provides in relation to the problem/gap described in the introduction and theoretical framework:

- Interpretation of results (give meaning, explanation) - Answer to RQ(s)

- Implications for theory and practice