The impact of cross-functional teams on an organisation’s supply
chain resilience
MSc. Supply Chain Management
University of Groningen - Faculty of Economics and Business
Author: Lia Doreen Petersen (S4185102)
Email: l.d.petersen@student.rug.nl
Word Count: 12150
Date: 19.04.2021
Supervisor: Dr. Kirstin Scholten/ Dr. Dirk Pieter Van Donk
Second Assessor: Dr. Esther Metting
Acknowledgements:
I want to thank Dr. Scholten for supporting me and helping me to continue my research. Not only did she provided feedback to enhance my work, but also was understanding of my situation and gave emotional support. Furthermore, I want to thank Dr. Van Donk and Dr. Metting for giving me feedback on my thesis draft. Moreover, I want to thank the people who were willing to participate in this research and made it possible to gain insights. Finally, I really appreciate the emotional support from my friends and family.
Abstract
Purpose: Previous literature acknowledged that cross-functional teams (CFTs) do impact supply chain resilience (SCRes) mostly through enhancing internal integration. However, knowledge is lacking on how CFT integration processes influence supply chain resilience. Hence, the aim of this research is to gain insights on the impact of CFT integration processes on the supply chain resilience capabilities namely flexibility, visibility, velocity, and collaboration to understand which should be facilitated by organisations to manage and solve disruptions.
Method/Design: To answer the research question a multiple case study was conducted within the food and manufacturing industry. In total 10 interviews are held within four companies. Findings: CFTs can enhance SCRes by increasing supply chain flexibility, visibility, velocity, and collaboration through interaction within the team, interpersonal experiences, and organisational influences. Hence, extending recent literature on internal integration and teams. Originality/Value: This research is unique as it is one of the first investigating the impact of CFT integration processes on SCRes. Contributions are made that show the impact (direct/indirect) of each CFT integration process on a SCRes capability.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical Background ... 7
2.1 Supply Chain Resilience (SCRes) ... 7
2.1.1 Flexibility ... 8
2.1.2 Velocity ... 9
2.1.3 Visibility ... 9
2.1.4 Collaboration ... 10
2.2 Cross-functional Teams (CFTs) ... 11
2.2.1 Interaction within the Team ... 14
2.2.2 Interpersonal Experiences ... 14 2.2.3 Organisational Influences ... 15 2.3 Conceptual model ... 16 3. Methodology ... 17 3.1 Research Design ... 17 3.2 Research Context ... 18 3.3 Case Selection ... 19 3.4 Data Collection ... 20 3.4.1 Finding Interviewees ... 21 3.4.2 Interview Protocol ... 21
3.4.3 Conducting the Interviews ... 22
3.5 Data Analysis ... 22
4. Findings ... 23
4.1 Flexibility ... 24
4.1.1 Interaction within the teams ... 24
4.1.2 Interpersonal experiences ... 24
4.1.3 Organisational influences ... 25
4.2 Visibility ... 25
4.2.1 Interaction within the teams ... 25
4.2.2 Interpersonal experiences ... 26
4.2.3 Organisational influences ... 27
4.3 Velocity ... 27
4.3.1 Interaction within the teams ... 27
4.3.2 Interpersonal experiences ... 28
4.3.3 Organisational influences ... 29
4.4 Collaboration ... 30
4.4.1 Interaction within the teams ... 30
4.4.2 Interpersonal experiences ... 31
... 32
4.4 Influences between CFT Categories ... 33
4.4.1 Link between Interaction and Interpersonal experiences ... 33
4.4.2 Link between Interpersonal experiences and organisational influences ... 36
5. Discussion ... 37
5.1 How interaction within the team impacts SCRes ... 37
5.1.1 Interaction and Flexibility ... 37
5.1.2 Interaction and Visibility ... 38
5.1.4 Interaction and Collaboration ... 38
5.2 How interpersonal experiences impact SCRes ... 39
5.2.1 Interpersonal Experiences and Flexibility ... 39
5.2.2 Interpersonal Experiences and Visibility ... 39
5.2.3 Interpersonal Experiences and Velocity ... 40
5.2.4 Interpersonal Experience and Collaboration ... 40
5.3 How organisational influences impact SCRes ... 41
5.3.1 Organisational Influences and Flexibility ... 41
5.3.2 Organisational Influences and Visibility ... 41
5.3.3 Organisational Influences and Velocity ... 41
5.3.4 Organisational Influences and Collaboration ... 41
5.2 How the categories impact each other ... 42
6. Conclusion ... 42
6.1 Managerial Implications ... 43
6.2 Limitations and Directions for Future Research ... 43
Reference List ... 45
Appendix ... 54
Appendix A - Information Letter ... 54
Appendix B – Interview Protocol for Interviewees ... 55
Appendix C – Interview Protocol with Sub-Questions ... 56
Appendix D – Consent Form ... 63
Appendix E – Extract of the coding tree ... 65
1. Introduction
The Covid-19 outbreak in 2020 resulted in delay and shortages of raw materials and components. This led to the shutdown of manufacturing plants all around the world (Cai & Luo, 2020). Nevertheless, manufacturers were exposed to an increase in customer demand for certain products (e.g., toilet paper) (Paul & Chowdhury, 2020). This example illustrates that some disruptions are unavoidable and provide an operational and financial risk to organisations (Craighead, Blackhurst, Rungtusanatham, & Handfield, 2007). Supply chain disruptions are events that interrupt the normal or planned flows of materials/components and can result in loss of productivity, customer complaints, and loss of revenue (Svensson, 2000; Business Continuity Institute, 2019). Such a disruption highlights the importance of risk management approaches by, for instance, creating supply chain resilience (SCRes) (Alicke & Strigel, 2020). SCRes focuses on preparing for and reacting to supply chain disruptions to quickly and cost-efficiently recover from supply chain disruptions (Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson, Busby, & Zorzini, 2015). For organisations to become more resilient, the employment of cross-functional teams (CFTs) is important as they can help with promptly and efficiently managing a supply chain disruption (Blackhurst, Dunn, & Craighead, 2011; Poberschnigg, Pimenta, & Hilletofth, 2020). CFTs are teams that include employees from different business functions within an organisation (Hillebrand & Biemans, 2003) and they can impact SCRes through, for instance, facilitating internal collaboration within the organisation by eliminating silo thinking (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Blackhurst, et al., 2011). As a result, external collaboration between the supply chain partners is also enhanced (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). Thus, CFTs appear to be important to enhance an organisation’s SCRes. However, research in that area is still lacking as it is currently unclear how exactly CFTs integration processes influence SCRes. Previous literature has covered supply chain integration (Scholten, & Schilder, 2015), as well as, internal (intra-organisational) integration (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020) as a mean to enhance SCRes. Recent studies have increasingly looked at the aspect of internal integration and its relation to SCRes as external collaboration was found to be dependent on internal integration (Zhao, Huo, Selen, & Yeung, 2011; Schoenherr & Swink, 2012). Internal integration involves different departments working (informally) together, their commitment, and that they share mutual understanding, goals, and ideas (Stank, Keller & Daugherty, 2001; Ellinger, 2000; Baihaqi & Sohal, 2013). Poberschnigg, et al. (2020) investigated the effect of cross-functional integration processes on SCRes and found that internal integration does support fast reactions to problems. Flynn, Huo, and Zhao (2010) took a broader perspective by looking at supply chain integration, but they also mention the positive impact of internal integration on the
business and operational performance of an organisation. Hence, internal integration can enhance an organisations performance which might help in quickly managing and recovering from disruptions. Moreover, Swink and Schoenherr (2015) acknowledge that internal integration can reduce uncertainties and supports the processing of information between supply chain partners. Furthermore, several researchers found CFTs as enablers of internal integration because they facilitate different functions within one organisation working together (Ellinger 2000; Stank, et al., 2001; Christopher & Peck, 2004; Schoenherr & Swink, 2012; Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). Therefore, there is a consensus in literature that CFTs do impact SCRes through facilitating internal integration (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). Literature mostly mentions CFTs as an enabler of internal integration (Flynn, et al., 2010) but researchers did not analyse the role of CFT integration processes for SCRes. Thus, this research extends a very recent paper of Poberschnigg, et al. (2020) who discuss the practice of cross-functional integration processes to enhance supply chain resilience. The focus of the present research lays on cross-functional teams employed within an organisation to manage supply chain disruptions. Instead of focusing on internal integration in general, this research goes into depth with one of the internal integration factors, namely CFTs, during disruptions. This appears important as it might be beneficial for organisations to understand which CFT integration processes have a direct or indirect influence on SCRes to enhance how organisations and CFTs deal with disruptions. Consequently, the following research question will be investigated:
How do integration processes of cross-functional teams improve an organisation’s supply chain resilience?
A multiple case study is executed as it enables the analysis of the complex and unique phenomena of the influence of CFT integration processes on SCRes within real-life (Yin, 1981; Yin, 2009). Therefore, ten interviews within four organisations are conducted.
The contributions include insights on the importance and influence of CFTs for SCRes. More specifically, which CFT integration processes play a role in enhancing SCRes and should therefore be facilitated by managers. Furthermore, the insights of this research enable managers to optimally use CFTs during disruptions to manage those efficiently. Lastly, instead of an indirect link of CFTs to SCRes through internal integration, this study shows a direct relation which provides a base for further research in that area.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Supply Chain Resilience (SCRes)
SCRes can be defined as “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 progress to a post-disruption state of operations – ideally, a better state than prior to the disruption.” (Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015, p.5599). This definition is similar to other definitions where the focus lies on being prepared for disruptions, rapidly respond to and recover from them (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). The phases can be seen in Figure 1. Generally, the creation of SCRes can reduce the negative impact of supply chain disruptions on the revenue, lead time, availability of components, and costs for an organisation (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).
SCRes typically encompasses certain capabilities which have been differently defined in previous literature. Frequently mentioned capabilities are redundancy (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015), collaboration (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2012; Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015), flexibility (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2012; Ambulkar, Blackhurst, & Grawe., 2015; Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015), velocity (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2012; Ambulkar, et al., 2015), agility (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Scholten, Scott, & Fynes, 2014; Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015), and visibility (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2012).
Redundancy covers aspects such as extra capacity and/or inventory which is helpful when demand uncertainty exists (Christopher & Peck, 2004). Yet, Jüttner and Maklan (2011) state that this is not a SCRes capability itself but influences flexibility and velocity. Furthermore, agility appears to be a concept consisting of visibility, flexibility, and velocity (Christopher &
Peck, 2004; Tang & Tomlin, 2008; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Scholten, et al., 2014). Hence, instead of combining those capabilities, Jüttner and Maklan (2011) considered those formative capabilities on their own for improved clarity. This research uses the capabilities and their operationalisations as defined by Jüttner and Maklan (2011), namely (1) flexibility, (2) visibility, (3) velocity, and (4) collaboration. Their operationalisations can be found in Table 1 below and are widely recognised within the literature (Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Scholten, Scott, & Fynes, 2019; Um & Han, 2020).
To answer the research question, this research focuses on how the identified SCRes capabilities can be influenced by CFT integration processes. Firstly, the SCRes capabilities will be discussed, and the CFT integration processes will be subsequently explained.
2.1.1 Flexibility
Flexibility deals with the ease of making effective adjustments or reconfigurations to the supply chain when facing supply disruptions or demand changes without leading to variations in the service level offered to customers (Stevenson & Spring, 2007). Consequently, aspects such as dual and/or multiple sourcing, especially for crucial components, or multiple transportation modes are important so that an organisation can respond flexibly to a disruptive event (Tang & Tomlin, 2008; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). However, using multiple suppliers can lead to disadvantages, such as enhanced complexity and threats (Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015).
Furthermore, flexibility includes actions “to reallocate capacity and to optimise capacity utilisation within the internal and/or external network” (Jüttner & Makla, 2011, p.254). This
avoiding being out of stock or having too high inventory levels (Vickery, Calantone, & Dröge, 1999; Martínez Sánchez, & Pérez Pérez, 2005; Gosling, Purvis, & Naim, 2010; Jüttner & Makla, 2011).
Moreover, flexibility can also be associated with postponement strategies (Vickery, et al., 1999; Martínez Sánchez & Pérez Pérez, 2005; Tang & Tomlin, 2008). Postponement strategies allow for customisation even later on in the production process and hence provide opportunities for more flexibility (Tang & Tomlin, 2008; Gosling, Purvis, & Naim, 2010). However, postponement strategies might not be suitable for all industries.
2.1.2 Velocity
While flexibility is focused on the ease and effectiveness of changing to alternative options, velocity focuses on the pace with which those reconfigurations can be made (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Therefore, velocity covers the distance over time and deals with the pace at which organisations can react to market changes by making adaptions to the supply chain (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2012)
One way, suggested by Sheffi and Rice (2005), to ensure that rapid actions can be taken by the organisation to manage disruptions, is to make use of control systems. This is the case as those systems help to discover disruptions fast and facilitate rapid action taking (Sheffi & Rice, 2005). Fast corrective actions can include altering the production volumes or placing orders at suppliers (Tang, 2006). This, however, depends on the availability of alternative suppliers (Tang, 2006) and, thus, flexibility.
2.1.3 Visibility
Visibility deals with the access to and sharing of timely information (Barratt & Oke, 2007; Jüttner and Maklan, 2011). A more detailed definition can be found in Table 1 above. Scholten and Schilder (2015) also highlight the aspect of information sharing as a mean to provide transparency and, thus, enabling to discover disruptions and take actions. However, they also add the aspect of collaborative communication as a way of enhancing visibility.
When considering to share information within the organisation and/or with external supply chain partners, it is important to think about (1) the kind of information to be distributed (e.g., forecasts, schedules, etc.), (2) the share rate, (3) who will receive the information, and (4) how the information will be shared and used (Baihaqi & Sohal, 2013; Scholten & Schilder, 2015).
Zhao, et al. (2011) mention integrated information and data technologies (e.g., ERP systems) as a mechanism to share timely and accurate information.
The sharing of quality information has several benefits, such as lower uncertainty, increased visibility, and enhanced decision-making (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Swink & Schoenherr, 2015). Enhanced decision-making can be related to supply and demand disparities where timely information allows well-timed decisions (Sodhi & Tang, 2019). This also aligns with Jüttner and Maklan (2011) who state that greater visibility allows for better timing of corrective actions.
Yet, organisations might be reluctant to share sensitive information because they want to secure their competitive advantage leading to the impediment of visibility (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Sodhi & Tang, 2019). Nevertheless, other researchers found that a distinctive visibility can lead to a sustained competitive advantage for the network (Barratt & Oke, 2007).
2.1.4 Collaboration
Jüttner and Maklan (2011) define collaboration as members of the supply chain making joint-decisions and working together (see Table 1). Joint-joint-decisions can be made, for instance, aimed at forecasting related topics (Barratt, 2004). Moreover, collaborative activities can entail “information sharing, goal congruence, decision synchronisation, incentive alignment, resource sharing, collaborative communication, and joint knowledge creation.” (Cao, Vonderembse, Zhang, & Ragu-Nathan, 2010, p.6613).
Supply chain collaboration can lead to the reduction of vulnerabilities (Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015) as it makes an organisation more sensitive to the market (Jain, Kumar, Soni, & Chandra, 2017). Suggesting, changes within the market are detected early. This also aligns with other researchers who state that collaboration among supply chain actors enhances risk mitigation as uncertainty is decreased through information sharing (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Chen, Sohal, & Prajogo. 2013). However, to be able to share information between supply chain actors, some sort of community needs to be created (Christopher & Peck, 2004). Jain, et al., (2017) indicate something similar and mention the need to integrate the processes (e.g., common systems, collaborative working, joint development of products) between supply chain actors to leverage the shared information.
Furthermore, it is important to consider with whom an organisation wants to collaborate. Barratt (2004) suggests to limit collaborative efforts to a certain number of strategic suppliers to ensure the costs of collaboration do not offset the advantages gained from it. This is also
supported by De Leeuw and Fransoo (2009) who state that close collaboration is needed for suppliers with distinctive capabilities. Nevertheless, they also mention a downside of close collaboration as it can lead to comfort and, thus, inertia, meaning partners wait for the other part to take improvement initiatives, which leads to being locked as nobody takes the first step (De Leeuw & Fransoo, 2009).
2.2 Cross-functional Teams (CFTs)
As mentioned above, CFTs are teams that are composed of employees that work within different functions of an organisation (Hillebrand & Biemans, 2003; Henke, Krachenburg, & Lyons, 1993). More specifically, a CFT is a team that “[...] brings together a carefully selected array of specialists who share information and make product, process, and manufacturing decisions, jointly and simultaneously.” (Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., Jayaram, J., 2005, p.101). Therefore, CFTs keep employees from thinking in silos and, facilitate internal collaboration and information sharing between the functions of an organisation (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Blackhurst, et al., 2011). These teams can include functions such as marketing, logistics, sales, supply management, procurement, and operations (Henke, et al., 1993; Ellinger, 2000; Schoenherr & Swink, 2012). Normally, those teams are formed temporarily to accomplish an activity (Helms & Wyskida, 1984; Pinto, Pinto & Prescott, 1993). Therefore, the focus of this research lies on the response and recovery phase of SCRes.
Previous researchers mention several advantages of CFTs like enhanced performance (e.g., distribution service) (Ellinger, 2000) and successful project implementation (Pinto, et al. 1993; Pagell & LePine, 2002). This might be the case because CFTs enable functions to interact (e.g., share knowledge) which would otherwise not happen (Pagell, 2004; Swink & Schoenherr (2015). This also enhances internal integration (Pagell, 2004) and seems beneficial for disruptions when projects (e.g., finding a new supplier) need to be successful to minimise impact and recover from them.
Because this paper extends the research of Poberschnigg, et al. (2020), their internal integration factors are used but adapted to CFTs to fit this study. For instance, adequate communication was changed to adequate communication between the team members. Furthermore, the factors of ‘consideration of informal working groups’ and ‘CFTs’ were not included in the present research as teams are focused on. Likewise, the factor of ‘Joint planning’ is also not included because the focus does not lay only on joint planning but generally working together.
Moreover, some of the integration factors appear to have the same underlying themes. Therefore, this research creates three categories which are similarly present within existing literature and allocates the CFT integration processes to them to make it more comprehensible: (1) Interaction within the team (Deeter-Schmelz, 1997; Molyneux, 2001); (2) Interpersonal experiences (Henke, et al., 1993; Deeter-Schmelz, 1997; Grütter, Field, & Faull, 2002); and (3) Organisational influences (Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990; Henke, et al., 1993; Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996). The adapted integration factors and their related categories can be found in Table 2 and are explained in more detail below.
2.2.1 Interaction within the Team
This category deals with interactive elements within the CFTs and entails elements such as (1) adequate communication, (2) team meetings, (3) information sharing, and (4) the proximity of the workplaces.
Firstly, the element of adequate communication between the team members is a crucial enabler for integration (Pagell, 2004). Communication is influenced by the proximity of the functions (team members) and the culture of the company (Pagell, 2004). If team members are located close to each other, communication is enhanced. However, if a blame- or oppressive top-down decision-making company culture exists, then open communication between team members about issues and opportunities might be inhibited (Pagell, 2004).
Secondly, team meetings enable team members “to propose quick solutions to what is pending” (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020, p.796). Consequently, team meetings avoid the making of suboptimal solutions based on the knowledge of a single function (Pagell, 2004). However, meetings with the team members should only be scheduled when the interaction is necessary and only the essential members should be included (Henke, et al., 1993).
Thirdly, the information that is shared between the members can enable the alignment of decisions (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). Moreover, distinctive and relevant information is necessary for a team to create superior solutions regarding complicated decision-making responsibilities (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). The information can be shared through team meetings (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020).
Fourthly, Pagell (2004) states when team members are located close to each other, communication is enhanced. This is also supported by Pinto, et al. (1993) who determined that physical proximity influences the rate and kind of interaction, thus, enhances co-operation between team members.
2.2.2 Interpersonal Experiences
Included in this category are the elements that deal with the interpersonal relationships between the team members such as (1) solving conflicts together, (2) trust, (3) longevity of the relationship, (4) understanding of each other’s activities, (5) recognition of interdependence, and (6) group spirit.
First, when solving conflicts together, team members need to represent their function and be creative (Denison, et al., 1996). Joint solving of problems has the advantage that a solution that both parties accept can be found, which in turn improves the success of the teamwork (Mohr & Spekman, 1994).
Second, trust is important for a good working relationship between the team members (Dawes & Massey, 2006; Ellinger, et al., 2006). It is hereby easier to build trust when team members have access to each other (Pinto, et al., 1993), which can be linked to the proximity of workplaces. This, however, might be a challenge for organisations operating on a global scale because employees can be located all over the world. However, proximity only creates a context for employee interaction (Pinto, et al., 1993), another context might be virtual (e.g., video calls, etc.). Likewise, the frequent interactions between team members influence trust as it develops over time (Mayer, et al., 1995; Pagell & LePine, 2002).
Third, as previously mentioned, frequent interactions and, thus, the longevity of the relationship between team members enhances trust between them (Mayer, et al., 1995; Poberschnigg, et al., 2020) as well as informal communication which can enhance the teamwork (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020).
Fourth, it is important to understand the activities of the other team members to enhance the support they can offer each other (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). This understanding is influenced by the longevity of the relationships between the team members, as discussed above.
Fifth, understanding each other’s activities evolves out of the need for team members from other departments. Team members recognising their interdependence also has an effect on the evolvement of trust among the team members (Dawes & Massey, 2006).
Sixth, Helms and Wyskida (1984) state that successful (e.g., project) results are more probable when team spirit is created early on.
2.2.3 Organisational Influences
This category entails the five elements of the organisation itself which influence the team work: (1) top-management support, (2) non-conflicting goals, (3) goal congruence with strategy, (4) mutual evaluation and reward systems, and (5) cross-functional education and training. Firstly, top-management can facilitate communication among team members (Pagell, 2004). Likewise, it can enhance the interdependence between functions by connecting functional activities (Dawes & Massey, 2006). Furthermore, decision-making can be eased for team members by assigning them authority (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020).
Secondly, if goals of team members do conflict with each other, collaboration between the team members is impeded. Conflicts can arise due to team members oftentimes focusing on reaching their individual functional goals (Ellinger, et al., 2006) instead of mutual goals which will
increase co-operation among team members and enhance the outcome of the tasks (Pinto, et al., 1993).
Thirdly, not only should goals not conflict, but also be congruent with the overall strategy of the organisation to ensure the strategic relevance of actions made by the team (Narasimhan & Das, 2001; Pagell, 2004). For this a consensus on the strategy is needed which can be achieved through communication between the functions (Pagell, 2004).
Fourthly, next to the goals of the team members, the rewards should also be centred around the organisations strategy (goals) as mutual reward and evaluation systems can enhance co-operation among team members (Ellinger, 2002; Pagell, 2004).
Finally, cross-functional education and training enhances cooperation among team members and understanding the emotional point of view of the team members which is helpful when solving conflicts together (Johnson, 1975).
2.3 Conceptual model
CFTs and their integration processes have been discussed above. Below, a link between those and SCRes is developed. Additionally, the conceptual model of this research is presented. The conceptual model, which is derived from the research question stated above, can be seen in Figure 1.
The category of ‘interaction within the team’ enables clarification and the solving of ambiguities through the discussion of new information (Swink & Schoenherr, 2015). Therefore, it appears that this category could enhance supply chain visibility and velocity through information sharing via meetings that create fast solutions (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). This might also impact flexibility as possibilities to adapt to changes (e.g., reallocation of capacity) could be discussed. Moreover, if suppliers are part of the meetings, then collaboration might also be improved.
The second category of ‘interpersonal experiences’ might influence velocity through e.g., the group spirit or solving conflicts and finding a consensus so that decisions may be made quickly without further discussions. Trust might also influence velocity as it can improve the flow of activities leading to effective time usage and eliminating reworks (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). Moreover, this category may impact visibility through gaining knowledge of the function and activities of the other team members (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). In general, ‘interpersonal experiences’ appear to impact the way of working within the team and the efficiency of the teamwork and, hence, might impact velocity and visibility.
The third category of ‘organisational influences’ could impact visibility and velocity by enhancing cooperation of the team members through, for instance, mutual reward and evaluation systems (Ellinger, 2002). Moreover, if top-management assigns decision-making authority to the team, decisions may be made quicker (Poberschnigg, et al., 2020), enhancing velocity. This might additionally enhance flexibility as the team might be able to focus on another aspect than costs, making it easier to, for example, switch to more expensive suppliers. ‘Organisational influences’ appear to also influence the previous two categories because top-management support can impact how team members interact (Pagell, 2004) and their interdependence (Dawes & Massey, 2006). Thus, it might also have an indirect effect on SCRes.
CFTs are often used to manage certain risks (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011), meaning they are mostly employed after a disruption took place. Thus, this research focuses on the response and recovery phase of SCRes when investigating the influence of the CFT integration processes.
3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design
So far, the role of CFT integration processes with regard to facilitating organisational SCRes remains unspecified. Case studies allow to analyse a phenomenon in real-life where boundaries concerning it and the context are not very visible (Yin, 1981). Thus, an exploratory case study design is suitable as the phenomena is complex and unique and a real-life context allows to investigate how CFTs operate during different types of disruptions and how this influences SCRes (Yin, 1981; Yin, 2009). Moreover, a multiple case study allows for comparison of the results and, therefore, enhances the generalisability of the results (Eisenhardt, 1991; Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002; Yin, 2009). This is important to see whether the influence of
CFT integration processes is specific to one industry or case, or similar compared to other industries or cases, providing insights into which integration processes should be facilitated by organisations to enhance SCRes.
The unit of analysis for this research is a CFT. This is suitable as the focus of this research does lay on CFT integration processes. Hence, different CFTs should be investigated that managed a disruption to answer the research question.
3.2 Research Context
Today`s supply chains are exposed to risks that can lead to the discontinuity of material and information flow more often, resulting in supply chain disruptions that have a significant impact on the organisation (Wagner & Neshat, 2010; Baghersad & Zobel, 2021). Especially organisations within Manufacturing and Food & Beverages are affected by such disruptions (Whipple, Voss, & Closs, 2009; Wagner & Neshat, 2010). The food industry often deals with perishable goods which are vulnerable to supply chain disruptions as they become obsolete over time (Blackburn & Scudder, 2009; Ivanov, Sokolov, Dolgui, & Jie, 2016). Manufacturing is impacted by supply chain disruptions through unavailability of raw materials and components, change in demand, and deterioration in logistics (Cai & Luo, 2020). This can lead to the shutdown of plants (Cai & Luo, 2020). Thus, these industries are well suited for gaining insight in CFT integration processes and their impact on SCRes.
As this research focuses on the context of supply chain disruptions, four large organisations (more than 1,000 employees), which operate on a global scope, are selected. Due to Covid-19, increased remote working, and language barriers only one organisation operating within the food industry was able to participate in this research.
Moreover, larger organisations are chosen to ensure that several functional areas exist within the organisation and that teams composed of members from those functions are actually formed to deal with the disruptions. Otherwise, it would not be possible to investigate the influence of CFT integration processes. The context of global operations appears important in selecting companies as they are confronted with increased risk of experiencing a supply chain disruption and, thus, might be more likely to address security concerns and profit from this study (Whipple, et al., 2009). Table 3 shows an overview of the selected organisations and their specific industry.
3.3 Case Selection
Situated within four organisations are a total of nine cases which are chosen to gain knowledge about the effect of each CFT integration process on the resilience capabilities of an organisation. Initially, interviewees were asked to reflect on a disruption with a strategic (supplies critical components) and a routine supplier to analyse whether the CFT integration processes and SCRes capabilities differ per supplier type. This distinction is chosen because researchers have suggested to focus on strategic suppliers for collaborative activities (Barratt, 2004; De Leeuw and Fransoo, 2009). Thus, collaboration might be minimized or absent for non-essential (routine) suppliers. Without collaboration, CFT integration processes might become more or less important to manage the disruption.
Due to the time constraints and recognising that strategic cases generally generate more interesting insights, the focus shifted to only asking for strategic cases while shortly asking how it differs for routine suppliers. A case overview can be found in Table 4. The replication logic for the case selection is a mix between theoretical and literal replication as different results are expected for different disruption types. Moreover, results could differ for temporary or permanent teams. However, similar results are expected for the cases covering similar disruptions (Voss, et al., 2002; Seawnght & Gerring, 2008).
Since the interviews took place during Covid-19 and close to the Christmas holidays, it was sometimes not possible to interview more employees of an organisation (e.g., Company D).
3.4 Data Collection
Within the chosen organisations different people were interviewed who were actively part of a CFT when managing a disruption to take a closer look at the CFT integration processes and their influence on SCRes. Nine semi-structured interviews with ten interviewees in total were used to collect the data between November and December 2020. For Case 8 data triangulation was used because three interviewees provided insight on one disruption during two main interviews (Voss, Johnson, & Godsell 2016). This was not successfully applied to the other cases, limiting their objectivity. However, as several people from one organisation were interviewed (except for Company D), a general idea of the teams and their integration processes can be created. An overview of the interviews can be found in Table 5. Moreover, the position of the interviewees can also be found in the table and includes employees who are normally present in CFTs (e.g., procurement). Therefore, they are suited for the purpose of this research.
3.4.1 Finding Interviewees
Potential interviewees were contacted via email and/or phone calls to share basic information about this research (information letter), gather information about their suitability for this study, and find out if they are interested in giving interviews. The information letter, incorporating basic background information, data handling, and contact information, can be found in Appendix A. To ensure that the needed information can be gathered, interviewees were selected based on the following criteria: (1) The organisation experienced a supply chain disruption within the last year; (2) The interviewee was actively part of a CFT responsible for solving the disruption; (3) The interviewee is able to conduct the interview in English.
3.4.2 Interview Protocol
When the interviewees were found suitable for this research and they showed an interest in participating, they received the interview protocol (Appendix B & C) and a consent form (Appendix D) allowing us to use the data later on for our research and recording the interviews to enhance the correctness of the data. The interview protocol was developed and tested by two researchers via several drafts to guide the interview and to ensure that the questions are understandable and lead to the desired answers. After the first three interviews, the questions regarding the routine supplier were deleted due to time constraints. Instead, a question was added to briefly compare the strategic to a routine supplier. Moreover, the questions are based on the three categories of ‘interaction within the team’, ‘interpersonal experiences’ and ‘organisational influences’ to gain an understanding of their influence on SCRes. The interview protocol starts with introductory questions to get to know the interviewee and the organisation such as ‘Can you please briefly introduce yourself, your company, as well as your position, and your role within the organisation?’. During the interview, the interviewee(s) was/were asked to provide specific examples about a disruption with a strategic supplier to get detailed insights into the functioning of CFTs and their integration processes. Hence questions such as ‘Please recall the disruption you experienced with the strategic supplier and outline it in detail (from the moment you heard about it till it was resolved)?’ and ‘How did the (1) cross-functional teams [...], help you with managing and solving the disruption?’. Those questions helped gaining insight into the three categories of CFTs and how these might influence SCRes. At the end of the interview the interviewees were asked to reflect on the CFT to find out what went well and what could be improved ‘Looking back at managing the disruption, what would you do (not) differently to be better prepared for the future, with respect to the involvement of
the cross-functional teams?’. This helps pointing out which aspects of the CFT integration processes organisations should pay (more) attention to enhance their SCRes.
3.4.3 Conducting the Interviews
All interviews were conducted by two researchers to reduce personal biases, and enhance the fullness and the accuracy of the collected data and, hence, assurance for the findings (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987; Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss, et al., 2002). Furthermore, due to restrictions related to the Corona outbreak, all interviews are conducted online via Microsoft Teams.
The interview was transcribed as soon as possible, especially for interviews that were not recorded (via phone), to avoid loss of data (Benbasat, et al., 1987). Moreover, all transcripts were stored in the same place with limited access. Four interviewees did not allow the recording of the interview due to anonymity and data concerns. Within 10 working days, the transcript was sent to the interviewee to confirm the correctness of the information and check unclear or missing parts, thus, enhancing the accuracy of the collected data (Voss, et al., 2016).
3.5 Data Analysis
After inserting the interview transcripts into Excel, the data was analysed in the following way: (1) data organisation; (2) coding; (3) finding links; (4) finding patterns.
First, the quotes were sorted per case and organisation within the excel sheet.
Then, first-order codes were deductively created in form of a shorter summary of relevant aspects of the original quote. Generally, this research makes use of deductive reasoning as the results of the analysis and later the propositions are based on the observations that are deducted from the interviews (Karlsson, 2016). After creating the first-order codes, they were allocated to the SCRes capabilities. During the next step of the coding, CFT integration processes were looked at to see which of them relate to the quote and to the linked SCRes capability. This helped with identifying patterns between CFT integration processes and SCRes. Sometimes the quote only linked to one, either a SCRes capability or CFT integration processes, with the latter occurring more often. Then it was analysed if there is another link, meaning whether the CFT integration process is linked to another CFT integration process and influences SCRes indirectly.
Next, a within-case analysis is performed, as suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), to ensure internal validity, by looking at links between a specific CFT integration process and a SCRes capability and determining why this connection exists for the specific disruption.
Continuing, a cross-case analysis is performed to understand the influence of CFT integration processes on one another and on SCRes for a specific organisation. Then, a cross-case analysis between the organisations is conducted to generalise the influences (direct and/or indirect) of the CFT integration processes on SCRes (Eisenhardt, 1989). The comparison between the cases enabled to identify how and why cases are similar or different to each other.
An extract of the created coding tree for supply chain visibility can be seen in Figure 3 below. Others can be found in Appendix E alongside an extract of the excel sheet (Appendix F).
4. Findings
This section is outlined as follows. First, comparisons between CFTs are made related to the SCRes capabilities to find general patterns about the influence of CFT integration processes on SCRes. Second, CFT integration processes that indirectly influence SCRes through other CFT integration processes are analysed.
4.1 Flexibility
4.1.1 Interaction within the teams
CFTs are found to enhance flexibility through information sharing. For instance, to approve the safety measures (e.g., consignment stock), the team needs to share relevant information (C5). The same applies when selecting new suppliers to ensure their suitability (C2; C3; C5) to continue operations and avoid product shortages. However, this is not mentioned within other cases (C5; C6; C8; C9), because there was no switch of suppliers.
4.1.2 Interpersonal experiences
CFTs were formed within the organisations as the employees recognised their interdependence to be able to manage the disruption by, for instance, securing the supply by finding alternative suppliers. Within most cases it was mentioned that other functions (e.g., Quality) are needed when looking for and approving new suppliers when the current one is unavailable (C1; C2; C3; C4; C7; C8). Within Case 9 it was a little different because R&D was responsible to find an alternative product that could be used instead of the current one as it could not be supplied anymore.
“So, part of the crisis was managed by R&D who found alternative items [...]” (C9).
In Company A the process of finding alternative suppliers is made easier by already having knowledgeable alternative suppliers in place, meaning the organisation can switch suppliers faster when a disruptive event occurred:
“[...] you can try to stay as long as needed at the current supplier and then move to another supplier which has preferably already experience with the products.” (C1); “[...] what I found really important is that the new suppliers are organisations who have already performed the service multiple times. So, [...] they can also guide you through the process and […] around the pitfalls.” (C2); “So, what we do is we select suppliers but we also look for a back-up supplier for everything and if one supplier is not doing well, we can automatically switch to the second supplier.” (C4).
This strategy was also mentioned within Company B where multiple suppliers for one component are used to ensure continuous supply (C5). Nevertheless, the alternative suppliers
Purchasing, etc.). Thus, the use of CFTs is suitable for it. Other cases might not mention the use of multiple suppliers because few or no suppliers can offer the same products or services (C6; C7). Then CFTs are not needed to look for alternative suppliers but to solve the problems with the current supplier to ensure operations.
In Case 9 flexibility is also related to the understanding of the team members activities. Yet, this link is not found in other cases. Moreover, it appears to be linked to the recognition of interdependence (see next section) and so, more indirectly, to supply chain flexibility. The same applies to trust (e.g., indicated time buffers) mentioned in Case 7 which is linked to another CFT integration process element.
4.1.3 Organisational influences
In Case 2, top-management support was mentioned as the decision-maker to switch suppliers. This is not mentioned in other cases because it either was not possible or needed to switch suppliers (C5; C6; C8; C9) or there was no supply resulting in a natural switch between suppliers without having top-management involved (C1; C3; C4; C7). In Case 2 the supplier switch was decided after being blackmailed.
Generally, when looking at the difference between more strategic and more routine suppliers, consensus exists that it is harder to switch strategic than routine suppliers (C1; C4). Thus, CFTs might be more important when looking for alternative strategic suppliers to ensure the product/ service is suitable to avoid negative consequences (e.g., bad quality), than for suppliers where a lot of alternatives exist.
4.2 Visibility
4.2.1 Interaction within the teams
To find solutions and manage disruptions, a clear understanding of the situation is needed (C1; C2; C4; C5; C6; C9). Therefore, team members need to share information (e.g., expectations of stakeholders, updates, risks, etc.), for instance, via team meetings (virtual or face-to-face) (C1; C3; C7; C8) which the supplier can also be part of.
“So basically, first we had a call with the three of us and we really made sure that we understood their issue, we showed empathy, but at the same time we also tried to turn it around and shared our expectations that we have an agreement, and that we had to count on them.” (C1).
“First 2/3 months after the fire took place, we were present at the office every day to interact and to look for ways to solve the disruption” (C8).
Those meetings enable everyone involved to gain a clear understanding of the situation, find solutions for problems and showing the supplier that the problem will be solved (C2; C3). Thus, meetings and sharing information between team members enhance visibility by understanding what is happening and what needs to be done to solve the disruption and avoid losses. Moreover, updates can be shared internally and with the supplier via the meetings (C3; C4; C5; C6). Different from other cases is that in Case 4 also the business owners were included into some meetings to gather certain information (e.g., about daily challenges) which were needed to manage the disruption. While top-management was also used to gain information within other cases (C6), they were not included within the meetings. The difference might be due to the type of the disruption. In Case 4 it was a logistical (e.g., export) disruption and not at a factory like in the other cases. As the logistic disruption covered several business ranges, more people needed to be involved to reallocate capacity. For the other disruptions only a few product types were affected.
Furthermore, CFTs enhanced visibility because different functions shared information to create accurate demand forecasts that were shared with the suppliers (C5) and shortages were identified (C6). Therefore, a clearer picture of supply and demand is created and can help during disruptions by knowing how much safety stock is needed (C5).
4.2.2 Interpersonal experiences
To get the right information and, thus, be able to react to disruptions, the input from other departments is needed (C1; C2; C9). This was achieved by sharing functional knowledge within the CFTs and enhanced supply chain visibility.
“In a crisis you need a lot of departments to be involved and not only the supply chain.” (C9) This is supported by all cases as all made use of CFTs to solve and recover from the disruption. Furthermore, the use of the CFTs and their functional knowledge also enhanced the correctness and completeness of the information (C2; C4). For instance, different functions (e.g., demand, sales, and marketing) shared and matched supply and demand information to see the available/
missing capacity and create a priority setting (C4; C9). This was important to make well-informed decisions and react to the disruption.
4.2.3 Organisational influences
Several cases mention that top-management support led to an increase in visibility and helped with managing the disruption. For instance, top-management helped to create a clear picture of the situation (C2; C6) and getting advice (C2; C4; C7). For the other cases, top-management might not have been needed to make decisions or understand the situation as it was already clear. Moreover, when problems (e.g., unclear answers) with the supplier occurred and the CFT was not able to solve those, top-management was able to help by discussing the situation with the supplier so the CFT could continue to manage the disruption (C1; C5; C6). However, the interception of top-management was not needed for the other cases because suppliers were clear in their statements about their situation and what they could offer the organisation. Some cases mention that team members should continue to centrally share regular updates even later on to keep others aligned and informed about the situation so that major changes can be detected earlier (C4; C5; C6; C9). Hence, team members and the organisation are able to react to changes faster because visibility is enhanced. This was not declared within other cases because either updates were still given regularly, or it did not appear necessary anymore after the disruption was successfully solved and the solution worked well.
4.3 Velocity
4.3.1 Interaction within the teams
Interviewee #10 states that forming the CFTs earlier can help in being prepared and quickly react to issues. If this is the case, certain information (e.g., missing components) can be shared between the team members prior to the disruption and the CFTs can start managing it more quickly (C5; C6; C9). The interviewee gives the following example:
“So, if we do not have enough stock to produce then we do not need to have so much staff within the factory who in the end remain idle. The crisis would still be there but we would be prepared and we would actually not have as many people on site at this specific day if we do not have anything to start production.” (C9).
Because CFTs were used within all cases to manage the disruption and go back to normal operations, organisations were able to adapt to changes within the environment faster when
CFTs were formed early on. This is not explicitly mentioned within the other cases, but also there, CFTs were formed as soon as the organisation recognised the disruption.
4.3.2 Interpersonal experiences
To start reacting to disruptions quickly (e.g., find alternative suppliers), it is important to already know that you need people from other departments and levels, and who exactly is needed to enhance the efficiency of the team (C2; C3), because:
“If you have to decide half-way that not the right departments have been included then you basically are back in time, because you have to know how to get them on board, on the story, et cetera.” (C2).
Thus, it will take longer to solve the problems. Within all cases the right people seemed to be involved from the beginning. Therefore, it appears that having a good network in place is crucial (C2). This again is linked to the longevity of the relationship. The longer you know each other the better you know whether they are the right fit for the team or not. Moreover, personal relationships with the team members improve teamwork, and facilitate idea generation (C5). Thus, some interviewees mention that permanent teams offer the advantage of already knowing the team members and that a relationship and trust are already developed, enhancing the effectiveness of the teamwork (C5; C7). However, for most of the cases the teams were temporary (C2-C4; C7-C9). Yet, there were no significant differences in their efficiency and effectiveness.
It is interesting that the group spirit appears to have an effect on the efficiency of the teamwork and, thus, how fast teams react to changes within the environment. For instance, motivation to be part of the team enhances information sharing so solutions can be generated on time (C8). “This willingness to participate helped in distributing the relevant information throughout the company faster.” (C8)
Therefore, the reaction speed of the team depends on the attitude, so whether they are in what the interviewees called a defending- (C6) or crisis-mode (C4; C7). So, if the team members accept the situation and start managing it (C4; C7) or deny the situation and it takes time for the team members to accept and comprehend the issue (C6). For instance, in Case 2, team
members were highly motivated and accomplished a task that would usually take more than three months within two weeks. Therefore, CFTs are able to react to disruptions fast and take action quickly to solve the issues. Within Case 8, the motivation of the team members was occasionally lacking which impacted the availability of timely information. This can be very problematic as:
“The consequence of when you don’t have information on time then, is that you will not be able to provide solutions in time either.” (C8).
Thus, velocity is impeded when the group spirit is lacking and team members are not motivated to manage the disruption.
Furthermore, the willingness to work together to solve conflicts influences the efficiency of the teamwork and the actions that are taken. If team members do not jointly work on solving conflicts, members might not feel listened to and if conflicts are not solved, it takes longer to find solutions and make decisions as no consensus is reached and it has to be escalated (C1; C2; C5; C6).
“So, giving them feedback [...] really gave them the feeling that they were listened to” (C2); “Most of the time, to be honest, we find consensus about what to do. If not, there is always an escalation mode.” (C1).
Escalation was not always needed, so a consensus was mostly reached and the CFT could react to changes (C3; C4; C7; C8).
4.3.3 Organisational influences
Top-management cannot only support the solving of conflicts but also influences velocity as it has an influence on the efficiency and effectiveness of the teamwork. To illustrate this, top-management can enhance the decision-making speed and quality (C2; C7). Something similar can be found within other cases where top-management was needed to get a clear picture of the situation to make the right decisions (C2; C4; C6; C7). This helps in quickly making good decisions without rework due to missing information. The other cases did not make use of it. This might be because they already had all information available or had other ways (e.g., suppliers) to gain the needed information.
Moreover, the longevity of the relationship between the team members appears to play a role when looking at velocity because a personal relationship enhances teamwork as well as finding solutions to manage the disruption (C5; C7). Also, a good network helps in finding the right team members to avoid delays and reforming of teams (C2). Only Case 5 was a permanent team. The other cases mentioning the importance of relationships all formed temporary CFTs. This shows that teams do not have to be permanent to build relationships with other functions and sometimes it might not even be needed because other temporary teams do not mention issues relating to personal relationships.
While no case mentions cross-functional training and education as being important, training on interaction and problem solving (C5) can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the teamwork and therefore, enables quicker adaption to changes and avoid losses due to disruptions (C6). For other cases, training did not play a role because employees depended on experiences and culture (C2; C4; C8; C9).
4.4 Collaboration
4.4.1 Interaction within the teams
CFTs were sometimes needed to discuss options to solve the issue together with the supplier via meetings (C1; C3; C8).
“Each day we worked together with the supplier, face-to-face. We arranged some rooms to have an open discussion concerning the business and the issue at hand.” (C8)
In some cases, the CFTs did not collaborate with the suppliers as they exerted pressure on them to solve the issue (C7; C9) or just switched suppliers (C2).
“[…] we pushed the supplier to their limits to really make sure that they actually prioritize us over other customers.” (C9)
Therefore, for most of the cases little or no collaboration with the supplier took place and CFTs were needed to manage the issue (e.g., secure supply) (C2; C4; C5; C6; C7; C9).
4.4.2 Interpersonal experiences
A reoccurring element is the recognition of interdependence. For collaborative activities and/ or discussions with other supply chain parties to manage disruptions, different functions are needed (C1; C2; C3; C4; C5; C8).
“And also, sometimes during this whole thing, you work together also on joint improvements which can be both on the procurement or the operational side.” (C4).
For instance, in Case 3 where the current supplier was used to find a new packaging production location and the team members (Quality and Technology) had to double-check the suitability of the new supplier.
Some even suggest to make suppliers part of the team when managing a disruption because they are important stakeholders (C3; C4).
“But still keeping constant contact, and seeing them as an extension of our own team. Giving them the credibility, so that they would do everything for us, and really using the relationship in the most positively possible way.” (C4).
Generally, there were little links between CFT integration processes and collaboration which is not surprising because the integration processes focus on internal integration and not on external integration with suppliers. Moreover, within a lot of cases the teams did not collaborate with the suppliers or only used them to gain information (visibility).
4.4 Influences between CFT Categories
The findings also indicate a link between the CFT integration processes which is explained below.
4.4.1 Link between Interaction and Interpersonal experiences
Interaction between the team members, especially the factor of information sharing, is influenced by the interpersonal experience.
For instance, different functions and trust are needed to get the correct and needed information (e.g., supply, demand, time buffers, etc.) and create a clear understanding of the situation (e.g., capacity; safety stock; supply gap; problems) (C4; C5; C6; C7; C8; C9), thus, enhancing visibility and velocity.
“Knowledge and specialized people helped to get extra information and advanced reports to see the complete picture.” (C8); “For example, if you ask someone for information and you really need it within a short period of time, then you really need to trust that he is going to provide it to you.” (C9)
Moreover, the CFT integration processes within one category are also related. Within interpersonal experiences, knowing what other functions do (e.g., Quality for quality checks) is related to and helps with finding the right team members for the team (linked to velocity) as well as realising that other functions are in fact needed to manage the disruption (e.g., approve new supplier) (C1; C3; C4; C5; C7; C8; C9). Moreover, trust is influenced by the longevity of the relationships as it is built over time (C1; C3; C5) and without trust:
“[...] everyone would be in for his own good.” (C4).
Therefore, the CFT would not be able to efficiently and effectively work together towards managing and solving the disruption, reducing velocity and visibility.
Additionally, integration processes in the category of interaction within the CFTs are related. For instance, meetings allow for the sharing of information (visibility) (C1; C2; C3; C4; C5; C6; C7; C8) and the type of meeting depends on the proximity of the workplaces. Hence, when team members are located distant each other, meetings are more likely to be held via phone- or video calls (C1; C4; C7; C9). Even though it was stated that face-to-face meetings might be more efficient because:
“[...] You see his reactions and what he needs from you. In the end it is more human and it helps to understand the other person with less effort.” (C9).
Others state that online meetings save driving time (C6; C7). Nevertheless, the type of meeting did not appear to influence the efficiency or effectiveness (velocity) of the teamwork.
Furthermore, the category of interaction also impacts interpersonal experiences, specifically, the solving of conflicts within the team through adequate communication (see Figure 5). Hence, team members communicating adequately with each other enhances the solving of conflicts and, thus, a consensus can be found quickly and CFTs can make fast decisions (velocity) to manage and solve the issues.
4.4.2 Link between Interpersonal experiences and organisational influences
The solving of conflicts (interpersonal experience) is not only impacted by the interaction within the team but also by several organisational factors (see Figure 6). For instance, the congruence of the goal with the strategy can provide a direction for solutions.
“Looking at those facts and also looking at the strategy we have as a company we should do this or that.” (C1).
Thus, a consensus might be found based on the strategy and CFTs can work on adapting to the changes faster (velocity). Moreover, goals being congruent with the strategy eliminates silo thinking of team members by overcoming their individual goals (C5; C6; C7; C8; C9). This enhances teamwork and makes actions more efficient (velocity) as everything is directed to one common goal.
Moreover, organisational influences can enhance the group spirit of team members and, thus, the velocity (see Figure 7).
5. Discussion
The present qualitative study shows several perspectives on how CFTs can influence SCRes. Contrary to Poberschnigg, et al. (2020), this research shows that CFTs were perceived to not only enhance collaboration, but also visibility, velocity, and visibility through interaction within the team, interpersonal experiences, and organisational influences. Therefore, this research contributes to literature by showing the importance of CFTs to facilitate SCRes. A thorough discussion is given below.
5.1 How interaction within the team impacts SCRes 5.1.1 Interaction and Flexibility
The findings show that interactions within the teams, especially information sharing, can enhance flexibility by enabling the finding and approval of alternative suppliers during disruptions and change volume allocation by creating priority criteria with the shared information. This enabled organisations to limit product shortages and ensure supply while continuing production. The findings support current literature (Rojo, Stevenson, Lloréns Montes, & Perez-Arostegui, 2018) while contributing to other papers which only mention the link between interaction (e.g., information sharing) and visibility as well as velocity (Li, Li,
Wang, & Yan, 2006; Swink & Schoenherr, 2015; Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). Thus, this research shows that practitioners think that interaction within CFTs can enhance SCRes by facilitating flexibility.
Proposition 1a: The interaction within the CFTs, especially the sharing of information, can enhance supply chain flexibility and, thus, SCRes.
5.1.2 Interaction and Visibility
Interaction within the CFTs (e.g., information sharing and meetings) was found to increase visibility internally and externally. This finding is not surprising as information sharing is an integrated part that leads to visibility and other researchers found similar links (Li, et al., 2006; Swink & Schoenherr, 2015; Jain, et al.,2017; Poberschnigg, et al., 2020).
Proposition 1b: The interaction within the CFTs, especially the sharing of information through meetings, can enhance supply chain visibility and, thus, SCRes.
5.1.3 Interaction and Velocity
Interestingly, no link was found between velocity and interaction (e.g., information sharing; proximity of workplaces) as suggested by previous research (Li, et al., 2006; Swink & Schoenherr, 2015; Poberschnigg, et al., 2020). This difference might be due to it being perceived as less relevant when acting quickly in response to disruptions. For instance, the location of the team members appeared not to impact how fast teams can react to changes because team members could efficiently work together via virtual meetings as well as via face-to-face.
5.1.4 Interaction and Collaboration
The case study found that practitioners perceived interaction within the CFTs, such as team meetings, important for working together with suppliers to solve issues. This is new and extends the findings of Poberschnigg, et al. (2020). Hence, collaboration with external parties is eased by including them within the team meetings and supports working towards solving and recovering from disruptions.
Proposition 1d: The interaction within the CFTs, especially team meetings, can enhance collaboration with supply chain actors, and, thus, SCRes.
