1
Master thesis Supply Chain Resilience
Facing the Unpredictable: How Behavioral Aspects in Scheduling
Contribute to Supply Chain Resilience
Lena Staubitz
Student no. s2838060
M.Sc. Supply Chain Management
Lena-Staubitz@web.de
Supervisor: Dr. K. Scholten
Co-assessor: Prof. Dr. D.P. van Donk
January 25, 2016
2 Acknowledgements
First of all many thanks to Dr. Kirstin Scholten for her fruitful, comprehensive and
challenging feedback, which sharpened my view and understanding throughout this whole
research project and definitely increased the quality of this piece of work. Furthermore, to
Prof. Dr. Dirk-Pieter van Donk, who also gave a lot of input and constructive comments.
Special thanks to all my contacts in the focal company for their open and welcoming attitude
and for always helping me with all my questions and inquiries as best as they could.
To the resilience thesis group, especially to Stephanie for the subject-specific consultations
as well as the mental support that was sometimes needed.
3 Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how behavioral aspects of scheduling are influencing supply chain resilience. It is investigated which role behavioral aspects of scheduling play in the different phases of the disruption profile.
Design/methodology/approach – A multiple case study approach was utilized gathering data from semi-structured interviews, field observations, a survey, and evaluation of data records within the supply chain of a public utility distribution network for water supply. Data analysis was conducted using coding, within-case analysis, and cross-case analysis.
Findings – It has been found that behavioral aspects of scheduling are contributing to SCR across all phases of a disruption with the strongest influence during the response phase. Several mechanisms have been identified, which explain how certain variables of behavioral aspects of scheduling enable capabilities of SCR during the phases of the disruption profile.
Originality/value – This is one of the first studies to investigate the role of behavioral aspects in achieving supply chain resilience, respectively in the different phases of a disruption. Propositions explain the influence of behavioral aspects of scheduling on resilience in light of the disruption profile.
4
Table of Contents
1
INTRODUCTION ... 6
2
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
2.1
Supply Chain Resilience ... 7
2.2
Resilience Linked to Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling ... 10
2.3
Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling ... 11
2.4
Conceptual Model ... 13
3
METHODOLOGY ... 13
3.1
General Research Design... 13
3.2
Research Context ... 14
3.3
Case Selection... 15
3.4
Data Collection ... 17
3.5
Data Reduction and Analysis ... 17
4
FINDINGS ... 18
4.1
Task Division ... 19
4.2
Task Integration ... 20
4.3
Quality Measurement ... 21
4.4
Decision- Support- Systems ... 22
4.5
Experience ... 23
4.6
Standard Operating Procedures ... 24
4.7
Concluding Findings... 24
5
DISCUSSION ... 25
5.1
Task Division and SCR ... 26
5.2
Task Integration and SCR ... 27
5.3
Quality Measurement and SCR ... 27
5.4
Decision-Support-Systems and SCR ... 28
5.5
Experience and SCR ... 29
6
CONCLUSION ... 30
6.1
Managerial Implications ... 31
6.2
Limitations and Further Research ... 31
References ... 33
APPENDIX ... 38
5
A.1 Potential Interviewees ... 38
A.2 Research Controls and Possible Interview Questions... 39
A.3 Interview Protocol ... 40
A.4 Survey Questionnaire ... 42
A.5 Final List of Contact Persons and Conducted Interviews ... 43
B.
Data Analysis and Findings ... 44
B.1 Coding Scheme Example ... 44
B.2 Survey Evaluation ... 45
B.3 Case Analyses ... 46
B.4 Case Diagrams ... 48
B.5 Mechanisms of Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling and Capabilities and Phases of SCR
... 49
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Operationalization (Capabilities) of SCR……….………..…10
Table 2 Operationalization of Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling………..….12
Table 3 Case Descriptions………16
Figure 1 Disruption Profile………..…….…8
Figure 2 Conceptual Model………...…13
Figure 3 Distribution of Cases According to Selection Dimensions………16
Figure 4 Mechanisms of Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling………..……….25
6 1 INTRODUCTION
Balancing planned and unplanned work load is one of the biggest challenges in scheduling, which describes the allocation of resources, such as equipment, materials, work force, and also information, to tasks and activities in an operation (Bendoly et al. 2015; Leung 2004; Pinedo 2012). This is due to the fact, that every supply chain is confronted with unforeseen disruptions such as errors, breakdowns, and external perturbations (Kleindorfer & Saad 2005; Ambulkar et al. 2015; Ivanov et al. 2012; Knemeyer et al. 2009), which cause the need to alter production plans, service deliveries, and planned schedules, spontaneously. Deviations from original schedules can lead to delays or neglection of originally planned tasks and have severe consequences for companies, such as customer dissatisfaction and queuing up of workload (Craighead et al. 2007; Huaccho Huatuco et al. 2009). Often, systems in place are not able to anticipate and react on the occurrence of disruptions and fail to integrate them in existing schedules (Bendoly et al. 2006). Hence, in these situations humans have to take decisions tailored to the specific circumstances and behavioral aspects are getting important in order to deal with unplanned events. Taking the right scheduling decisions to react properly to a disruption, even before it occurs, can help to limit deviations from planned schedules and to handle disruptions so that the regularly planned work is not affected (Adhitya et al. 2007; Albrecht et al. 2013; Wieland & Wallenburg 2012). Behavioral aspects are human psychological factors that influence operations, such as reasoning, motivation, emotions, interpersonal relationships, trust, power positions or individual perceptions (Gino & Pisano 2008). As behavioral aspects are crucial for integrating unforeseen events in schedules, and thus, for maintaining (scheduling) performance during disruptions, they have an influence on supply chain resilience (SCR). SCR describes the ability of a supply chain “to prepare for, respond to, and recover successfully from disruptions” (Scholten et al. 2014: 223) and to deal with variability and changes promptly and flexible (Gligor & Holcomb 2012; Christopher & Rutherford 2004). The SCR level, respectively the performance impact of a disruption on an operation, can be characterized by a disruption profile which consists of the three phases, preparation, response, and recovery (further explained in section 2.1) (Sheffi & Rice 2005; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015).
7 identified to be an important aspect in supply chain planning, which should also consider uncertainties and the possibility of disruptions (Leung 2004; Pinedo 2012; Hoogeveen 2005). However, the biggest part of the research in the field of scheduling applies mathematical model-based approaches to anticipate uncertainties (Ivanov et al. 2012; Karlsson 2009), and is rarely linked to behavioral aspects. The contribution, behavioral aspects in scheduling can make to building SCR, has not been examined so far. This research strives to investigate the link of behavioral aspects of scheduling in consideration of unplanned workload, caused by disturbances, and SCR. It seeks to provide findings to the following research question:
How do behavioral aspects of scheduling influence preparation for, response to, and recovery from a disruption?
A multiple case study within the supply chain network of a public water supplying company will be applied to provide qualitative understanding (Karlsson 2009) of the relation between behavioral aspects of scheduling and SCR. This research is of theoretical relevance because it sheds light on the link between behavioral aspects of scheduling and SCR. It investigates how particular factors of human behavior play a role to achieve resilience in scheduling problems. Thereby, it highlights the importance of considering behavioral aspects in scheduling for practice. As a managerial contribution, it provides course of action for the design of scheduling practices and guidance on which factors to focus on to improve the resilience level of the supply network and hence, to improve performance.
The paper is structured as follows: After elaborating the theoretical background of SCR and behavioral aspects of scheduling in the next section, concluding with the suggestion of a conceptual model, the methodology and design of this research will be described. Subsequently, the findings will be presented and analyzed leading to a critical discussion and establishment of propositions, and finally to the concluding remarks of this study.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Supply Chain Resilience
8 & Maklan 2011; Craighead et al. 2007; Peck 2006; Pettit et al. 2010; Ponomarov & Holcomb 2009; Scholten & Schilder 2015; Ambulkar et al. 2015; Sheffi & Rice 2005; Scholten et al. 2014). Based on the definition of SCR, there are different stages observable during the occurrence of a disruption: Preparation for a disruption, the response to it, and recovery from it (Sheffi & Rice 2005; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). During a disruption the performance level, as it is measured in the respective supply chain, typically undergoes a certain disruption profile which can be characterized by these phases (Figure 1). Preparation concerns the time during which performance of the supply chain is not affected by a disruption. Response and recovery, on the other hand, come into play after a disruption hit the supply chain. Whereas the response phase describes the time between the occurrence of a disruption and the realization of its full intensity (Sheffi & Rice 2005), the recovery phase concerns the time between realization of the full intensity of the disruption and recreation of a stable performance level (Sheffi & Rice 2005). The overall performance impact of a disruption (shaded area in figure 1), is determined by two dimensions, the disruption intensity, which is determined by the severity of a disruption, and the disruption time (Sheffi & Rice 2005). The more a supply network can actively mitigate this impact, the more resilient is it (Olson & Swenseth 2014).
Figure 1 Disruption Profile based on Sheffi & Rice (2005) and Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015)
9 uncertainty throughout the supply chain, and thus, fosters preparation for, response to, and recovery from future disruptions (Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Sheffi 2001). Further elaborating on the characteristics of the single phases, preparation refers to the readiness for a disruptive event and its anticipation in the operational design (Sheffi & Rice 2005; Ambulkar et al. 2015). Robustness can be seen as a result of all proactive actions, taken in this phase to make the supply chain more resistant to disruptions (Wieland & Wallenburg 2013). Response and recovery show similar capability requirements and operationalizations. In addition to collaboration and visibility as mentioned before, flexibility and velocity are important in these phases. However, it can be argued, that, since the performance impact can still be influenced in the response phase, effectiveness of actions, meaning their success to mitigate the disruption impact, is more important (Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Skipper & Hanna 2009). Such actions include for example inter-organizational processes, strategy (Tang & Tomlin 2008), redirection of resources or finding of alternative transportation modes (Sheffi & Rice 2005; Olson & Swenseth 2014). In the recovery phase, on the other hand, the performance impact cannot be affected anymore. However, the loss from a disruption can still be determined by the speed of the recovery (Christopher & Peck 2004; Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Stevenson & Spring 2007). Thus, efficiency of supply chain capabilities is more important during this period to reduce the time of getting back to the initial performance level and thus, the overall performance impact (Sheffi & Rice 2005; Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Christopher & Peck 2004; Stevenson & Spring 2007).
10 Table 1 Operationalization (Capabilities) of SCR
Operationalizations Pr ep ar ati o n Respo n se Rec o ve ry Collaboration
- Capability of supply chain members to combine planning and execution of supply chain operations (Scholten & Schilder 2015; Sheffi 2001; Faisal et al. 2006; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015)
- Willingness of supply chain members to share risk, information and common benefits (Faisal et al. 2006; Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Scholten & Schilder 2015; Pettit et al. 2010; Cao et al. 2010)
Flexibility/Agility
- Ability to deal with high levels of uncertainty and changes (Scholten et al. 2014; Manuj & Mentzer 2008; Rao Tummala et al. 2006; Skipper & Hanna 2009; Faisal et al. 2006; Sheffi & Rice 2005; Knemeyer et al. 2009; Brandon-Jones et al. 2014; Tang & Tomlin 2008)
- Capability to apply adequate actions to react on disruptions and mitigate their effects (Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Skipper & Hanna 2009; Scholten et al. 2014; Rao Tummala et al. 2006; Pettit et al. 2010; Tang 2006; Wieland & Wallenburg 2013)
Velocity
- Capability to adapt to a disruption quickly (Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Wieland & Wallenburg 2012; Christopher & Peck 2004; Stevenson & Spring 2007; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015)
- Determines loss that happens per unit of time (Jüttner & Maklan 2011) - Capability to detect a disruption quickly (Manuj & Mentzer 2008)
Visibility
- Availability, transparency and access of information about status of the supply chain (Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Wei & Wang 2010; Blackhurst et al. 2011)
- Monitoring, tracking, identification of disruptions (Sheffi 2001; Brandon-Jones et al. 2014; Blackhurst et al. 2011)
Robustness/Anticipation
- Capability of a supply chain to endure disruptions and to maintain performance level under different conditions (Wieland & Wallenburg 2013; Sawik 2014)
- Proactive consideration of disruptions in form of e.g. monitoring, forecasting or contingency planning (Wieland & Wallenburg 2013; Pettit et al. 2010; Blackhurst et al. 2011; Stevenson & Spring 2007; Bhamra et al. 2011)
2.2 Resilience Linked to Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling
11 processes cannot be applied during a disruption, which raises the need for human interference (Cantor et al. 2014; Bendoly et al. 2015; Ivanov et al. 2012). In case of an unforeseen event, planned schedules have to be adjusted by human planners, such that the planned work can be handled and the disruption is addressed, while maintaining the performance level.
2.3 Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling
12 the original plans cannot be maintained. Therefore, it considers several of the aforementioned aspects regarding the scheduler, organizational factors and also integration of technical elements. Human aspects of scheduling have been conceptualized according to Bendoly et al. (2015) including Task Division, Task Integration of scheduling in the overall supply chain, and interaction between organizations, Quality Measurement of scheduling and Decision-Support-Systems (DSS) in scheduling, representing the interaction with formal systems. Table 2 summarizes how these factors will be operationalized for this research. These variables constitute important organizational elements of the scheduling tasks in which human schedulers are involved and decisions according to these variables have to be taken to include disruptions in the schedule and to react on unforeseen events. The research on hand strives to link these variables to the phases of the disruption profile and thus, to reveal their relation to SCR.
Table 2 Operationalization of Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling
Variable Operationalization B e h av io ra l A sp e ct s o f Sc h ed u lin g Task division
- Allocation of tasks among schedulers (design of scheduling practices)(de Snoo et al. 2011; Bendoly et al. 2015)
- Distribution of labor among executives (result of scheduling practices)(de Snoo et al. 2011)
Task Integration
- Interconnectedness, information and knowledge sharing with other actors and organizations of the supply chain (Berglund & Karltun 2007; Bendoly et al. 2015)
- Formal and informal structures, information flows and availability across the supply chain (Westlander 1999 in Berglund & Karltun 2007) - Organization of work, hierarchies, policies, business goals and strategies
(Westlander 1999 in Berglund & Karltun 2007)
Quality Measurement
- Evaluation of scheduling practice from a behavioral perspective (Maccarthy et al. 2001)
- E.g. deviations from intended schedule, time between occurrence of a disruption until it is addressed, achievement of objectives, violation of constraints (Bendoly et al. 2015; Hoogeveen 2005)
- benchmarks for further improvements in scheduling practice (Maccarthy et al. 2001)
Decision- Support- Systems
(DSS)
- Manner in which DSS are used in scheduling practice
- Human interaction with and integration of DSS in scheduling practice (Bendoly et al. 2015)
- Limits of DSS, ability to integrate unplanned work (Maccarthy et al. 2001; Berglund & Karltun 2007)
13 2.4 Conceptual Model
Based on the conceptualizations, which have been derived from literature, the following conceptual model (Figure 2) has been developed and will guide the research. The aim of this study is to look at behavioral aspects of scheduling (Task division, task integration, quality measurement and DSS) in light of disruptions and how they influence SCR. This includes consideration of behavioral aspects during each of the three phases, characterizing the disruption profile (Preparation, Response and Recovery), and gives evidence about the resilience level of the supply chain. By means of this model this research strives to provide evidence about how the defined behavioral aspects of scheduling influence preparation for, response to, and recovery from a disruption and thus contribute to SCR. Propositions will be derived, how the variables of behavioral aspects of scheduling should be accomplished to improve SCR.
Figure 2 Conceptual Model
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 General Research Design
14 the variables are related and which role they play in particular phases of the disruption profile (Bacharach 1989; Wacker 1998). A multiple case study will be applied to investigate behavioral aspects of scheduling in light of the disruption profile and how they influence SCR. The unit of analysis is single disruptions as they have clear boundaries, which can be defined with the phases of the disruption profile (Table 1), and are suitable to investigate the identified variables of behavioral aspects. A case study is applicable to investigate how research questions and real-life phenomena in-depth as in the study on hand (Yin 2014; Voss et al. 2002). Moreover, the involvement of behavioral aspects makes a case study suitable, since they are difficult to capture with bounded constructs and rules which are prevalent in other methods (Aastrup & Halldorsson 2008). As appropriate for a case study, multiple methods and data sources were used to obtain a clear comprehension of the considered phenomenon (Almutairi et al. 2014; Yin 2014).
3.2 Research Context
15 3.3 Case Selection
16 Figure 3 Distribution of Cases According to Selection Dimensions1
Table 3 Case Descriptions
Case Description Disruption
Time
Disruption Intensity
1
- Extraordinary disruption
- Spontaneous leakage of main pipe, caused by too high pressure - Very time consuming repair
- A lot of resources needed (people and crane), but quickly in place - Water supply could be ensured with bypass
- Immediately addressed due to criticality
High High
2
- Leakage caused by external party
- Malfunction of valve caused increased disruption time because other valve needed to be looked for
- More customers affected than if valve would have been functioning - Immediately addressed due to criticality
Medium Medium
3
- Leakage caused by third party
- No complicated repair but limited space for repair led to longer repair time
- Immediately addressed due to criticality
Medium Low
4
- Spontaneous leakage - Simple and quick repair
- Rescheduling required because blocked fitter for customer jobs was working in night shift
- Scheduling of this disruption was influenced by another one during the night, which caused absence of the fitter
- Scheduled with regular two-level planning procedure according to low criticality
Low Low
5
- Leaking hydrant in apartment complex - Many affected connections
- Very short response time because fitter was free (no effect on overall schedule)
- Immediately addressed due to criticality
Medium Medium
1
17 3.4 Data Collection
Data was collected in several ways. A first round of 18 exploratory informal meetings and semi- structured interviews, considering background information, the research purpose in general and facilitating the case selection, was followed by a second round of case-related semi-structured interviews and a small survey. For each case at least one interview was conducted, at least one questionnaire was filled out and data records were reviewed. Because case 1 was a very big disruption with many people involved, three persons were available to obtain information about this disruption. For case 4, the researcher was present during the scheduling of the disruption to observe the single steps that were required. As contacts, people who were involved or informed about the investigated disruptions as well as the scheduling practice in general, were considered. Since these people obtain different positions and tasks in the overall scheduling practice, they have different views on the process, which enabled triangulation (Voss et al. 2002; Wacker 1998; Eisenhardt 1989; Karlsson 2009). An overview of data sources and collection methods in regard of the cases as well as the exploratory research stage is depicted in appendix A.5. A case study protocol, including among others an exemplary set of interview questions as well as the survey questionnaire, has been complied and gives further evidence about the research process (Appendix A). The aim of the interview questions was to get insights about the design of the behavioral variables in the respective cases and how they affected the disruption profile during the disruption. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Field observations of the scheduling in practice revealed further insights of how behavioral aspects play a role when dealing with disruptions in daily business. Moreover, historical data, obtained from company documentations and reports, was analyzed to gain further insights. Thus, multiple methods and sources of information were used for the data collection, applying triangulation to increase validity (Karlsson 2009; Voss et al. 2002; Wacker 1998; Eisenhardt 1989) and guaranteeing the quality of the research.
3.5 Data Reduction and Analysis
18 influencing the phases of the disruption profile. Therefore a pivot table was compiled for each variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling depicting all descriptive codes of this variable and the phases in which they were relevant (appendix B.1). This table was further condensed by inserting an additional column with interpretative codes, which summarize the core topics of the descriptive codes of a variable and link it to the phases of the disruption profile. These interpretative codes serve as mechanisms of the behavioral variables and explain how they contribute to SCR. They constitute the main findings of this research. Several quotes could not be linked to one of the defined variables of behavioral aspects of scheduling. Hence, after reviewing these quotes in detail, two additional variables, which address the aspects that could not been captured by the four predefined variables, were implemented (Experience and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)) and assigned to those codes. Based on this coding procedure data was analyzed regarding interactions of variables and categories from a general point of view, within cases to get a detailed understanding of the characteristics and patterns of each case (Eisenhardt 1989) as well as across cases (Sousa & Voss 2001). As an initial indication frequencies of codes were used to gain insights about which variables are more important in certain phases and to look at these relations from a more qualitative perspective afterwards. These results are depicted in figure 5. Regarding the case related data, arrays were formed for each case with descriptions of the variables of behavioral aspects of scheduling and indications of how they influenced the phases of the disruption profile. The characteristics of the variables were ranked as low, medium or high (Appendix B.3) and based on this spider charts (Appendix B.4) were compiled, which made the cases more comparable for the particular variables. These analyses in combination with the case descriptions and data from the exploratory research stage served as a basis to derive interpretations regarding the relations of the conceptual model. If a specific action was identified, which enabled the reduction of response or recovery time or contributed to reduce this time in preparation, it was assumed, that this action contributes to SCR, according to the conception of the disruption profile and thus, the variable was ranked higher. Several mechanisms were identified concerning the behavioral variables, which are contributing to SCR. The data from the survey was evaluated and helped to make the several cases more comparable.
4 FINDINGS
19 mechanisms are explained and underpinned with quotes from the interviews. Furthermore, regarding the cases, it is elaborated how the nature of the disruption affected these mechanisms and whether there are differences recognizable between the cases regarding the role of a mechanism and the behavioral variable as a whole. It is highlighted how a variable has a particular influence on the phases of the disruption profile (in one or across cases) and to which capabilities of SCR its mechanisms can be linked. If it is not particularly indicated, mechanisms are relevant during all the three phases of the disruption profile. Experience and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) have been defined as additional variables based on the data analysis (section 4.5 and 4.6).
4.1 Task Division
all-20 rounders” (Team leader 1), which was important in case 4, where another fitter had to take over the customer appointments, as well as in case 1, where it was crucial that all fitters were prepared to handle a disruption of this dimension. Universality of resource for these disruptions was created by training during the preparation phase (robustness/anticipation). The universal application of resources for any job also enables flexibility and velocity to address a disruption, because the pool of resources that can be used is bigger. It is worth mentioning that the compliance to legal regulations, such as working times constitutes a restriction which has to be considered in the scheduling, especially regarding task division: “For a long disruption like this you need several shifts of fitters and you have to plan that there is some overlap when you change the shifts that they can exchange information” (Team leader 1).
Task division has a high influence on SCR all over the phases of the disruption profile (figure 5). Within preparation it is the most important variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling. Flexible planning, buffering, responsibility, and universality of resources as described before are mainly accomplished and designed in preparation of a disruption. However, task division has the biggest influence in response, since most of the described mechanisms show their effect in this phase and enable a fast response time. Among all cases task division was an important aspect, especially in case 1, which can be explained by the fact that more people were involved and more actions needed to be accomplished in an extraordinary disruption such as case 1.
4.2 Task Integration
21 executives involved (case 1), but also relevant for disruptions with the occurrence of unforeseen factors such as a longer repair time (case 3). In case 4 a step-wise planning as the standard procedure of the focal company was applied, where the department which is receiving the disruption notification is making a pre-planning with a focus on the customer and afterwards the job is forwarded to the actual planning department where the scheduler assigns jobs to executives and creates the detailed schedule with a focus on operational aspects: “The advantage of this is that the [notification receiving department] thinks of the customer and the planner thinks of the fitters” (Division manager). Such a clear step-wise planning procedure enables an efficient collaboration of different parties involved in the scheduling and visibility in preparation and response. Related to this is the consideration of strategic goals in the scheduling practice. Throughout all cases the scheduling of the disruption was accomplished in line with strategic objectives. In case 1 it was more critical to retrieve the water supply within the legally required time: “Compliance to law and water quality must be ensured” (Operations manager); whereas in cases 2, 3, 4, and 5, the focus was more on customer service. However, for all disruptions, the focal company strived for the “alignment of the strategic, tactical and operational level” (Division manager). Furthermore, collaboration with suppliers and contractors can be seen as a mechanism of task integration as arrangements with external parties are crucial to have special or large amounts of resources available in short notice in case of a disruption (robustness/anticipation, velocity). This was applied in case 1 and 2 where a crane, which was not owned by the company, was required to fix the disruption: “It is important to have the right phone numbers, to call the right person, the right instance, you depend on, so you can act quickly” (Team leader 2). Collaborations are set up during preparation, however, if they are well-established they can significantly reduce response time to a disruption.
Task integration was found to be one of the most important variables of behavioral aspects of scheduling and the most important one during response (figure 5). Especially agreements with other parties of the supply network and information exchange foster SCR, because they enable a fast response. Similar to task division an increased importance of task integration could be detected for case 1, representing a very critical disruption with many parties involved and a high requirement of information sharing.
4.3 Quality Measurement
22 goals across all cases and can also be used as objectives when setting up the schedule. Active focus on customer service was mainly applied in case 4, where the customer could choose when the disruption should be addressed. More specific to the scheduling practice is the workload at the end of the scheduling interval which was most often applied for assessment of the weekly schedule during which a disruption happened (cases 2, 3, 4, and 5). Scheduler 1 stated that “it is not possible to have a leak and you go home and just get back on Monday. Friday always everything needs to be done”. This implies, that if workload at the end of the scheduling interval is applied as a quality measurement it is also indicates to what extent the planned work is queuing up. If the workload is very high, a supply network is less flexible in addressing disruptions, because the other work has to be finished as well and it is thus, more vulnerable to disruptions (robustness). Finally, evaluation of a single disruption and the undertaken actions can be seen as a comprehensive and detailed quality measurement which was just applied in case 1. Evaluation reveals potential for improvement and thus, makes the supply network more robust to future disruptions. Overall, quality measurement has a rather low influence on supply chain resilience. However, it plays the most important role during preparation, as this phase also covers the time after a disruption when most of the quality measurements get visible and can be evaluated. Findings from the cases show that quality measurements are mainly applied for more severe disruptions, but this might be specific to the considered supply network.
4.4 Decision- Support- Systems
23 elaborated ways, communication and the technical aspect to find the valve. Both of these mechanisms apply mainly after a disruptive event occurred and thus improve response and recovery. One further function of systems is reporting. Systems facilitate thorough and standardized reporting: “We can report much faster and easier” (Operations manager). Fitter 1 states that “now with the system, you push the button and it [information] is there […] and all our work is in it, no paper anymore”. In cases 2, 3, 4 and 5 DSS were used to report on the disruption, whereas in case one no standard reporting was applied.
DSS have the biggest influence on SCR in the response phase (figure 5), as communication and technical support, as described before, are mostly applicable in this phase. Besides that, the influence during the preparation phase is also considerable, as systems should be established during this phase.
4.5 Experience
Experience was identified, as an additional variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling, to have an influence on SCR (figure 4). Experience including knowledge of the field and general parameters has already been mentioned in the literature review as a determining factor in behavioral operations management (Berglund & Karltun 2007). It concerns the scheduler as well as the executives of the schedule and influences the estimation of a disruption and thus its treatment: “Sometimes the fitters have different estimations how long it will take to do a job” (Team leader 1). “It makes a difference if the planner also has a technical background and also what he focuses on and how much experience he has” (Team leader 1). The planner himself also bases his decisions on his experience: “Because I know a lot of disruptions happen during the weekend, I take one or two teams free for work like that on Monday” (Scheduler 2). In case 1 experience of the fitters made a fast repair possible (velocity), whereas in cases 2 and 4 the experience of the scheduler was more important to react appropriately to the occurring circumstances and make a fitter available for the disruption (flexibility). Experience of the scheduler can also help to make the supply network more robust, since experience from former disruptions makes it better prepared to coming ones.
24 4.6 Standard Operating Procedures
The second additional variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling that has been identified to influence SCR is standard operating procedures (SOP), meaning pre-defined structures of decision-making and decision algorithms (figure 4). Asset manager 1 stated in an interview: “Because they [fitters] are a large group of 30 people, I tend to say an approach which has been tested is more valuable than the feeling of my stomach”. Hence, a certain level of standardized decision-making brings more clearness (visibility) and reduces the potential of mistakes. As will be discussed later on, SOPs are closely related to DSS. The two-level planning procedure of case 4 can be seen as a SOP, which already anticipates the occurrence of disruptions, as well as the execution of the scheduling of case 3. Also in the other cases certain SOPs were observed such as looking for a valve in the system or communication between the scheduler and the fitter. These procedures create transparency and visibility and make it possible to act faster when addressing a disruption (velocity). For the assignment of fitters to jobs, planner X also follows a certain procedure, “I look where the disruption is, I look which fitter is in the neighborhood, and then I am looking for the fitter who can leave the work he is doing at the moment” (Scheduler 2). SOPs are moderately important all over the phases of the disruption profile (figure 5). However, they have the biggest influence during response.
4.7 Concluding Findings
25 particularly important and which was according to its impact evaluated and reviewed more detailed (Quality Measurement). Furthermore, it was found that DSS are less important for disruptions of this dimension. More detailed analyses for the single cases regarding the investigated variables as well as diagrams for the cross-case comparison are depicted in appendix B.3 and B.4.
Figure 4 Mechanisms of Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling
Figure 5 Influence of Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling on Phases of the Disruption Profile
5 DISCUSSION
26 prevalent in one particular phase of the disruption profile but in two or even all three. Due to this complexity propositions have just been derived for the main relations as depicted in figure 6 and more detailed aspects will be addressed in the text.
5.1 Task Division and SCR
27 Proposition 1: Task division as a variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling contributes to SCR
through flexible planning, buffering, responsibility and universality of resources.
5.2 Task Integration and SCR
One of the most important mechanisms of task integration that was identified is information exchange, which facilitates exchange and hence collaboration of parties within the supply network. As found in earlier research, information exchange allows supply chain members to combine planning and execution of operations (Scholten & Schilder 2015), in the considered cases the integration of disruptions in the schedule, and hereby to increase SCR all over the phases of the disruption profile. Furthermore, were velocity and visibility in the considered cases leveraged throughout the phases by effective and efficient information exchange, which is in line with existing literature (Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Wieland & Wallenburg 2012; Christopher & Peck 2004). A step-wise planning procedure, which was applied in case 4, makes the scheduling process more transparent as it is very clear which step of the planning is accomplished by whom at which point. Visibility and collaboration (Blackhurst et al. 2011; Jüttner & Maklan 2011), which are created by such a planning procedure, improve preparation and response time. The consideration of strategic goals in the scheduling makes it possible to maintain a focus on performance objectives also during a disruption and thus, makes the supply chain more robust (Wieland & Wallenburg 2013; Sawik 2014). The contribution of collaboration with suppliers and contractors to SCR across all phases of the disruption profile links to theory such that it enables collaboration, as defined as an antecedent of SCR (Jüttner & Maklan 2011; Scholten & Schilder 2015). It was shown that collaborations in the considered cases made the supply chain more robust to disruptions because disruptions become less harmful, if sources of additional resources are already pre-established (Wieland & Wallenburg 2012). Based on the elaborated influences of the mechanisms of task integration on all phases of the disruption profile, proposition 2 has been derived.
Proposition 2: Task integration as a variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling contributes to SCR through information exchange, consideration of strategic goals, step-wise planning and collaboration with suppliers and contractors.
5.3 Quality Measurement and SCR
28 will be easier to mitigate if there is an explicit focus on the performance level according to the targets of the supply network. This is in line with literature pointing out that robustness and anticipation help to endure disruptions and thus contribute to preparation (Wieland & Wallenburg 2013; Pettit et al. 2010). Based on the findings, it is supposed that benchmarking and evaluations of scheduling of disruptions contribute to performance improvements after a disruption as indicated in figure 1 (Maccarthy et al. 2001; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). It has to be noted that some of the found quality measurement are stronger than others and even limit each other. In the considered cases customer service was a much stricter measurement than compliance to legal regulations. Furthermore, in other settings the trade-off between quality measurements such as customer service and efficiency objectives such as costs might be more relevant than in the considered cases. For the mechanisms of quality measurement, the following proposition has been derived.
Proposition 3: Quality measurement as a variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling contributes to SCR through customer service, compliance to legal regulations, workload and
evaluation.
5.4 Decision-Support-Systems and SCR
29 et al. 2014). For the mechanisms of DSS that are enabling its contribution to SCR the following proposition has been derived:
Proposition 4: Decision-Support-Systems as a variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling contribute to SCR through communication, technical support and reporting.
As an additional variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling, SOP have been identified. If DSS are considered from a broader perspective, SOPs are closely related to them and it can be argued, that they are a certain kind of DSS. SOP can be defined as "written procedures prescribed for repetitive use as a practice, in accordance with agreed upon specifications aimed at obtaining a desired outcome" (businessdictionary.com). Also Courtney (2001) argues that DSS should contain a non-technical component, which is considering organizational procedures and personal aspects to optimize decision-making in complex settings. SOP enforce velocity, flexibility and robustness similar to the mechanisms of DSS, which have been discussed before, and are considered as a subset of DSS, leading to the following proposition:
Proposition 4a: Standard Operating Procedures as a part of Decision-Support-Systems, which
constitute a variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling, have a positive influence on SCR.
5.5 Experience and SCR
Experience has been identified as an additional variable for behavioral aspects of scheduling. Overall experience is an important factor, which has been discussed in literature concerning behavioral operations management (Katsikopoulos 2013; Crawford et al. 1999; Bendoly et al. 2006). Knowledge and skills about the circumstances of the specific scheduling situation, which are acquired over time on the job, as well as the procedure and outcomes of previous scheduling decisions shape the decision-making of schedulers and executives of the schedule (Gino & Pisano 2008; Christoph H. Loch 2007). Because experience includes the knowledge about certain effects of decisions and possible happenings, it increases the ability of the supply chain to deal with high levels of uncertainty and changes and thus, flexibility and agility (Sheffi & Rice 2005; Brandon-Jones et al. 2014; Skipper & Hanna 2009) as well as velocity (Jüttner & Maklan 2011). In line with the literature that has been reviewed these capabilities are relevant all over the phases of the disruption profile (table 1).
30 Wallenburg 2013; Sawik 2014). Hence, experience increases SCR and the following proposition has been derived.
Proposition 5: Experience as a variable of behavioral aspects of scheduling contributes to SCR.
Figure 6 Influence of Behavioral Aspects of Scheduling on SCR
6 CONCLUSION
31 behavioral aspects of scheduling, which have been defined in previous studies, mechanisms were identified by means of which the contribution of behavioral aspects of scheduling to SCR can be explained and interpreted. The influence of behavioral aspects of scheduling on SCR, as targeted by the research question, can be answered with these identified mechanisms. They enable capabilities, such as collaboration, flexibility, velocity, visibility, and robustness, during the phases of the disruption profile (appendix B.5), which have been defined as antecedents of SCR by other authors. Hence, this research extends the existing literature by linking behavioral aspects of scheduling with SCR and vice versa by identifying how the capabilities of SCR can be enabled by the mechanisms that behavioral aspects of scheduling obtain. Findings show that Task Division, Task Integration, Quality Measurement, DSS and Experience contribute to SCR with the biggest influence in the response phase (figure 5). Figure 6 summarizes the propositions, which have been derived and indicate the contribution of all variables to SCR with the underlying mechanisms.
6.1 Managerial Implications
From the derived findings managerial recommendations can be derived, which make it possible that response and recovery time of a disruption can be reduced and preparation can be improved to reduce the overall impact of the disruption and thus make the supply network more resilient. Many of the identified mechanisms, such as making resources universally deployable, information exchange among parties of the supply network, SOP or setting up relationships and collaborations with suppliers to act fast in the case of a disruption, are contributing to SCR throughout all phases of the disruption profile and are hence worth to implement. They serve as concrete guidance of action for organizations. Even mechanisms which are just prevalent in one or two phases (e.g. flexible planning or reporting) can have significant effects and offer potential for performance improvements. Furthermore, our findings can provide guidance on which factors to focus on at what point of a disruption to ensure an effective and efficient rectification and integration in the schedule.
6.2 Limitations and Further Research
33 References
Aastrup, J. & Halldorsson, A., 2008. Epistemological role of case studies in logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(10), pp.746–763.
Adhitya, A., Srinivasan, R. & Karimi, I. a., 2007. A model-based rescheduling framework for managing abnormal supply chain events. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 31(5-6), pp.496–518. Albrecht, a. R., Panton, D.M. & Lee, D.H., 2013. Rescheduling rail networks with maintenance
disruptions using Problem Space Search. Computers and Operations Research, 40(3), pp.703– 712.
Almutairi, A.F., Gardner, G.E. & McCarthy, A., 2014. Practical guidance for the use of a pattern-matching technique in case-study research: A case presentation. Nursing & Health Sciences, 16(2), pp.239–244.
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J. & Grawe, S., 2015. Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management, 33-34, pp.111– 122.
Angalakudati, M. et al., 2014. Random Emergencies Business Analytics for Flexible Resource Allocation Under Random Emergencies. Management Science, 60(6), pp.1552–1573.
Azadeh, a. et al., 2013. An integrated multi-criteria Taguchi computer simulation-DEA approach for optimum maintenance policy and planning by incorporating learning effects. International Journal of Production Research, 51(September), pp.1–12.
Bacharach, S.B., 1989. Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp.496–515.
Bendoly, E., Croson, R. & Schu, K., 2009. Bodies of Know ledge for Research in Behavioral Operations. , 19(4), pp.434–452.
Bendoly, E., Donohue, K. & Schultz, K.L., 2006. Behavior in operations management: Assessing recent findings and revisiting old assumptions. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), pp.737–752. Bendoly, E., van Wezel, W.M.D. & Bachrach, D.G., 2015. The handbook of behavioral operations
management : social and psychological dynamics in production and service settings and D. G. B. Elliot Bendoly, Wout van Wezel, ed., New York, NY : Oxford University Press.
Berglund, M. & Karltun, J., 2007. Human, technological and organizational aspects influencing the production scheduling process. International Journal of Production Economics, 110(1-2), pp.160–174.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S. & Burnard, K., 2011. Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), pp.5375–5393.
34 Brandon-Jones, E. et al., 2014. A Contingent Resource-Based Perspective of Supply Chain Resilience
and Robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), pp.55–73.
Braunscheidel, M.J. & Suresh, N.C., 2009. The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), pp.119–140. Cantor, D.E., Blackhurst, J. V. & Cortes, J.D., 2014. The clock is ticking: The role of uncertainty,
regulatory focus, and level of risk on supply chain disruption decision making behavior. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 72, pp.159–172. Cao, M. et al., 2010. Supply chain collaboration: conceptualisation and instrument development.
International Journal of Production Research, 48(22), pp.6613–6635.
Christoph H. Loch, Y.W., 2007. Behavioral Operations Management, Now Publishers Inc. Christopher, B.M. & Rutherford, C., 2004. Supply Chain Six Sigma. Context, (August), pp.24–28.
Available at: www.criticaleye.net.
Christopher, M. & Lee, H., 2004. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence Martin. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5), pp.388–396. Christopher, M. & Peck, H., 2004. BUILDING THE RESILIENT SUPPLY CHAIN. International Journal of
Logistics Management, 15(2), pp.1–13.
Courtney, J.F., 2001. Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), pp.17–38.
Craighead, C.W. et al., 2007. The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), pp.131–156.
Crawford, S. et al., 1999. Investigating the work of industrial schedulers through field study. Cognition, Technology & Work, 1(2), pp.63–77.
Eisenhardt, M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp.532–550.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. & Shankar, R., 2006. Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers. Business Process Management Journal, 12(4), pp.535–552.
Fransoo, J.C., Wäfler, T. & Wilson, J., 2011. Behavioral Operations in Planning and Scheduling, Springer Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg.
Gino, F. & Pisano, G., 2008. Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(4), pp.676–691.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
35 Gómez Fernández, J.F. & Crespo Márquez, A., 2009. Framework for implementation of maintenance
management in distribution network service providers. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(10), pp.1639–1649.
Guerin, C., Hoc, J.M. & Mebarki, N., 2012. The nature of expertise in industrial scheduling: Strategic and tactical processes, constraint and object management. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(5), pp.457–468.
Hayes, R., Wheelwright, S. & Clark, K., 1988. Dynamic Manufacturing, New York: The Free Press. Hoogeveen, H., 2005. Multicriteria scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 167(3),
pp.592–623.
Huaccho Huatuco, L. et al., 2009. Comparing the impact of different rescheduling strategies on the entropic-related complexity of manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 47(15), pp.4305–4325.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. & Sokolov, B., 2012. Applicability of optimal control theory to adaptive supply chain planning and scheduling. Annual Reviews in Control, 36(1), pp.73–84.
Jüttner, U. & Maklan, S., 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(4), pp.246–259.
Karlsson, C., 2009. Researching Operations Management, New York: Routledge.
Karltun, A. et al., 2014. HTO - a complementary ergonomics perspective. In human factors in organizational design and management-Nordic Ergonomics Society Annual Conference. pp. 355–360.
Katsikopoulos, K. V, 2013. Behavioral Operations Management: A blind spot and a research program. Journal of Supply Chain Management, (January), pp.3–7.
Kleindorfer, P.R. & Saad, G.H., 2005. Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. , 14(1), pp.53–68. Knemeyer, a. M., Zinn, W. & Eroglu, C., 2009. Proactive planning for catastrophic events in supply
chains. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), pp.141–153.
Kundu, A. et al., 2015. Expert Systems with Applications A journey from normative to behavioral operations in supply chain management : A review using Latent Semantic Analysis. Expert Systems With Applications, 42(2), pp.796–809.
Leung, J.Y.-T., 2004. Handbook of scheduling: algorithms, models and performace analysis, Boca Raton, FL [etc.] : Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Maccarthy, B.L., Wilson, J.R. & Crawford, S., 2001. Human Performance in Industrial Scheduling : A Framework for Understanding. , 11(4), pp.299–320.
36 McKay, K.N. et al., 1992. The Scheduler’s predicitve Expertise: An interdisciplinary perspective. In G. I.
Doukidis & R. J. Paul, eds. Artificial intelligence in operational research: An interdisciplinary perspective. London: Macmillan Press.
Miles, H. & Hubermann, M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Moritz, B., Siemsen, E. & Kremer, M., 2014. Judgmental forecasting: Cognitive reflection and decision speed. Production and Operations Management, 23(7), pp.1146–1160.
Olson, D.L. & Swenseth, S.R., 2014. Trade-offs in Supply Chain System Risk Mitigation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31, pp.565–579.
Peck, H., 2006. Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain management. International Journal of Logistics, 9(2), pp.127–142.
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J. & Croxton, K.L., 2010. Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development of a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), pp.1–21.
Pinedo, M.L., 2012. Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems 4th ed., New York: Springer. Ponomarov, S.Y. & Holcomb, M.C., 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1), pp.124–143.
Rao Tummala, V.M., Phillips, C.L.M. & Johnson, M., 2006. Assessing supply chain management success factors: a case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(2), pp.179–192.
Reyes Levalle, R. & Nof, S., 2014. Resilience by Teaming in Supply Network Formation and Re-configuration. International Journal of Production Economics (Under review), 160, pp.80–93. Sawik, T., 2014. On the robust decision-making in a supply chain under disruption risks. International
Journal of Production Research, 52(22), pp.6760–6781.
Scholten, K. & Schilder, S., 2015. The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20, pp.471–484.
Scholten, K., Scott, P.S. & Fynes, B., 2014. Mitigation processes – antecedents for building supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management, 19, pp.211–228.
Sheffi, Y., 2001. Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism. The International Journal of logistics management, 12(2), pp.1–11.
Sheffi, Y. & Rice, J.B., 2005. A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), pp.41–48.
Skipper, J.B. & Hanna, J.B., 2009. Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through enhanced flexibility. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(5), pp.404–427. De Snoo, C. et al., 2011. Coordination activities of human planners during rescheduling: case analysis
37 Sousa, R. & Voss, C. a, 2001. Quality Management: Universal or Context Dependent? Production and
Operations Management, 10(4), pp.383–404.
Stevenson, M. & Spring, M., 2007. Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition and review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(7), pp.685–713.
Tang, C., 2006. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Logistics, 9(1), pp.33–45.
Tang, C. & Tomlin, B., 2008. The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 116, pp.12–27.
Tukamuhabwa, B.R. et al., 2015. Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical
foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research, 7543(September), pp.1–32.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. & Frohlich, M., 2002. Case Research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), pp.195–219.
Wacker, J., 1998. A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), pp.361–385. Wäfler, T., 2001. Planning and Scheduling in Secondary Work Systems. In B. MacCarthy & J. Wilson, eds. Human Performance in Planning and Scheduling. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 411–447. 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), pp.238–249.
Westlander, G., 1999. People at Work: Investigating Social- Psychological Contexts, Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Wieland, A. & Wallenburg, C.M., 2012. Dealing with supply chain risks Linking risk management practices and strategies to performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(10), pp.887–905.
Wieland, A. & Wallenburg, C.M., 2013. The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: a relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(4), pp.300–320.
Wiers, V.C.S., 2001. Design of knowledge-based scheduling system for a sheet material
manufacturer. In B. L. MacCarthy & J. R. Wilson, eds. Human Performance in Planning and Scheduling. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 201–215.
Xu, M., Wang, X. & Zhao, L., 2014. Predicted supply chain resilience based on structural evolution against random supply disruptions. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, 1(2), pp.105–117.
38
APPENDIX
A. Case Study Protocol
The case study protocol was compiled to ensure reliability of the research.
Pre-Visit-Preparation
In the pre-visit stage of the research a pool of potential contacts was established and contact persons were approached, explaining briefly the topic and purpose of this research. The researcher thoroughly considered what information could be obtained from these contacts and based on this, derived interview questions regarding the design and effects of the investigated variables. Prior to the single interviews, questions from this pool were selected to compose interview protocols according to the position and expected information from the interviewee. However, if two different people obtaining the same position were interviewed, the same questions were selected. Furthermore, the questionnaire for the survey was designed in the pre-visit stage of the research.
A.1 Potential Interviewees
Based on information from the initial contact of the focal company the following list of contact persons, obtaining different positions regarding the scheduling procedure, has been derived and extended during the research process. The resulting meetings and interviews also including the contacts which had not been considered at the initial stage of the research are outlined in appendix A.5.
Contact Expected information Meetings/Data collection
Division Manager - Scheduling practice from tactical level - Applied systems and practices - Quality measurement
- Knowledge about more severe disruptions - Task integration
- Interviews
Manager Water Supply
- Strategic objectives, link to scheduling practice - Link between strategic and operational level - Role and definition of SCR in the supply chain - Task integration
- Interviews
Asset Manager - Role and definition of SCR in the supply chain - Interviews Team leader 1 - Quality measurement
- Knowledge about single disruptions
- Interviews Team leader 2 - Quality measurement
- Knowledge about single disruptions
- Interviews Scheduler 1 - Task division
- Operational level of scheduling
- Detailed knowledge about single disruptions
- Interviews - Field
observations Scheduler 2 - Task division
- Operational level of scheduling
- Detailed knowledge about single disruptions
39
A.2 Research Controls and Possible Interview Questions
Variable Questions Procedure/Source of
information
Task Division
- How are tasks allocated among schedulers?
- Who is responsible for including unplanned jobs in the schedule? - How do you decide which team to assign to an unplanned job? - How does the decision of assignment of jobs to fitters impact the
mitigation and elimination of a disruption?
- Do you reserve any capacity for the case of a disruption?
- Interviews - Field observations - Data records
Task Integration
- Which departments are involved in the scheduling? - How is work organized among these entities? - Which entities act when during a disruption?
- How is information about disruptions processed and shared? - Is the scheduling practice influenced by any general objectives or
the overall strategy?
- Does the involvement of entities in the scheduling practice depend on the characteristics of a disruption? How?
- Are certain kinds of disruptions treated different than others? Why?
- Interviews - Field observations
Quality Measurement
- What quality measures are applied to evaluate scheduling practice in your supply chain?
- What would you consider as an appropriate measure for the scheduling practice in your supply chain?
- Do you consider this objective in the way you act? How? - Do you review your performance according to this quality
measurement?
- Interviews
Decision Support Systems
- Where and how are decision support systems used in the scheduling practice?
- For which particular tasks do you consider them as important? Why?
- Where and how did you experience problems with these systems?
- Do you rely on these systems?
- At which state of the disruption was the support of the system most important?
- Interviews - Field observations
Preparation
- What actions do you undertake to prepare for disruptions? - What actions do you consider most important to prepare for
disruptions?
- For this particular disruption, would you say you were sufficiently prepared? Do you think you could have taken more actions to be better prepared? Which ones?
- Interviews
Response
- What actions do you consider most important to respond to a disruption?
- For this particular disruption, would you say you responded sufficiently? Do you think you could have taken more actions to respond in a better way to the disruption? Which ones?
- Interviews - Field observations - Data records
Recovery
- What actions do you consider most important to recover from disruptions?
- For this particular disruption, would you say you recovered sufficiently? Do you think you could have taken more actions to recover better from the disruption? Which ones?
- Interviews - Field observations - Data records
Supply Chain Resilience
- How would you define the resilience level of your supply chain (qualitative/quantitative)?
40
A.3 Interview Protocol
Interview planner Date and location: Attendants:
Start: End:
General
1. Can you describe the normal procedure of making a weekly schedule? - When and how are you doing it, how long in advance?
- What kind of information do you use, where do you get it from? - What systems do you use?
- Do you consider the possibility that disruptions occur already in the scheduling (e.g. do you leave buffer times open or do not extend a certain workload)? How?
2. And if then a disruption occurs, how do you include it in the schedule? - Where do you get the information about a disruption from? - What factors are influencing your decision?
- How do you decide who is addressing the disruption?
- Does the assignment of a job to a certain fitter impact the speed of resolving a disruption? Why and how?
- How fast do you in general manage to resolve a disruption? Is a fitter always first finishing his current job before going to the disruption?
- Are certain kinds of disruptions treated different than others? Why? - How do you see how many customers are affected by a disruption?
3. Can you give a rough estimation about how many disruptions occur during an average week? Task division
4. To what extent and for which issues do you exchange information with the planner of the other team?
5. Do you think you could benefit from more collaboration and joint planning with the other team?
Quality Measurement
6. When would you say that you are satisfied with your schedule of the week? How could you measure a good schedule (prospective/retrospective)?
7. Who do you report to?
