HOW SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION RELATES TO FLEXIBILITY, VISIBILITY AND VELOCITY ACROSS THE PHASES OF SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE

(1)

HOW SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION RELATES

TO FLEXIBILITY, VISIBILITY AND VELOCITY

ACROSS THE PHASES OF SUPPLY CHAIN

RESILIENCE

By

LIANNE RUNNEBOOM

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Pre-MSc Supply Chain Management

June 2020 Meeuwerderweg 132 9724 EX Groningen 0622833419 liannerunneboom@gmail.com Student number: 4149556

(2)

ABSTRACT

This paper explores how collaboration is related to the supply chain resilience capabilities; flexibility, visibility and velocity across the supply chain resilience phases; readiness, response, recovery, growth. Qualitative research and multiple-case study are conducted, consisting of six different disruptions. Findings show that in each phase the extent to which collaboration relates to the flexibility, visibility and velocity differs. On the contrary, findings also illustrate that due to a lack of collaboration drawbacks can appear. The paper contributes to the literature by explaining how and to which extend collaboration relates to other capabilities or drawbacks. Furthermore, it gives empirical insight and guidance to managers throughout the phases, giving them focus on the right interpretations and possible drawbacks.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

Supply chains are complex, uncertain, dynamic and full of disruptions. Companies are part of these supply chains and therefore, vulnerable (Ivanov, Sokolov, & Dolgui, 2014; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). The vulnerability comes from the unexpectedness of the disruption. It inhibits the normal material flow through supply chains and increases negative impacts (e.g. losses of productivity, revenue, increased costs of working) (Alcantara & Riglietti, 2019). An exceptionally large and recent disruption is the coronavirus which causes many problems in global supply chains. Many companies have to throttle down or temporarily shut assembly and manufacturing plants. In contrast, companies experience a rapid increase in demand, but cannot deliver on time due to production capacity and lead time constraints (Haren & Simch-Levi, 2020; Tilsner, 2020). There can also be smaller disruptions that cause problems in supply chains, for example; fire, broken machines or bankrupt suppliers. In 2019, at least 51,9% of the companies experienced supply chain disruptions (Alcantara & Riglietti, 2019). To better deal with disruptions organizations create supply chain resilience (SCRES). Organizations with high resilience can deal disruptions better (Scholten & Schilder, 2015).

SCRES can be divided into four phases; readiness, response, recovery and growth. Readiness ensures the preparation for disruptions. Response assures reactions or adaptions to disruptions. Recovery provides continuity of supply and restores companies to a stable situation. If this is successful, organizations can achieve growth (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson, Busby, & Zorzini, 2015). Hence, these phases can help to minimize the impact of disruptions by preparing an efficient, effective supply chain (readiness, response) and be capable to return in an original or even better state after disruptions (recovery and growth) (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Tan, Zhang, & Cai, 2019).

(4)

Although collaboration is broadly regarded as ‘the glue that holds organizations together in crisis situations” (Richey, 2009: 623), research also highlights drawbacks. Reasons demonstrating that collaboration can be distractive from resolving disruptions. Too much focus on collaboration, besides employees standard work, could increase workload, time pressure, unanticipated problems and a change of priorities (Fugate, Thomas, & Golicic, 2012). Employees will get distracted, create overdependency, reduce autonomy and conflicts which might lead to misunderstandings (Cao & Zhang, 2011). This results in e.g. bad knowledge creation (Choi, 2002), which can lead to unbalanced focused on collaboration or other business processes and therefore, lower SCRES (Fugate et al., 2012).

Hence, collaboration can negatively and positively affect operations performance. Research suggests collaboration is the formative element for SCRES (Ivanov et al., 2014; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Others state that collaboration can easily fail and harm organizations (Cao & Zhang, 2011; Fugate et al., 2012). So, it may be possible that collaboration is not equally important in each phase of SCRES. We extend on Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) and contend that SCRES capabilities change during the phases. However, limited research is found on collaboration aspects that negatively influence resilience or how collaboration is related in each phase. This leads to the following research question: How is supply chain collaboration related to the other resilience capabilities across the four phases of supply chain resilience?

The purpose of this research is to contribute to literature by explaining how and to which extend collaboration relates to flexibility, visibility and velocity. Next to theoretical insights and interpretations for each phase, this research also entails practical insights by explaining drawback- and benefit-relations between collaboration and flexibility, visibility and velocity. To answer the research question literature is studied and a case-study is applied.

(5)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this research, we follow (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009: 131) and define supply chain resilience as: “The adaptive capability of the supply chain to prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruptions, and recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations at the desired level of connectedness and control over structure and function”.

Phases of SCRES

An overall definition analysis showed four phases of SCRES: readiness, response, recovery and growth (Hohenstein, Feise, Hartmann, & Giunipero, 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Besides, there are two categories of mitigation strategies; proactive, anticipating on unexpected disruptions, and reactive, supporting to adapt the impact to recovery quickly and efficiently (Tan et al., 2019). The four phases of SCRES can be considered individually, but are related to each other and have cumulative outcomes.

Readiness reduces the disruptions probability, absorbs the possible negative impact and prepares the company for disruptions. Readiness occurs before disruptions, is the fundament of resilience and supports the other phases (Hohenstein et al., 2015). Responsiveness ensures the reaction and adaption of the disruption. Here the organization executes its mitigation strategy and activates the recovery. The longer a firm waits with responding to a disruption, the bigger the impact and the longer the recovery will be (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Tan et al., 2019). Recovery is the end of the mitigation strategy. It ensures continuity of supply and avoids the recovery taking too long (Tan et al., 2019). If recovery goes well organizations can achieve growth. Firms gain competitive advantages due to learning and experiences. For example, because of fast recovery organizations return to a stable, original or even better state than their competitors (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015).

Supply Chain Capabilities

(6)

Flexibility can be defined as the ease (minimum of time and effort) in which a supply chain can change and adapt to changing requirements of its environment and supply chain partners (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Even when it is not planned. Increasing flexibility creates SCRES, e.g., with enhancing adaptability (choices, processes, suppliers), which enables velocity, recovery and resources to redeploy more easily. In short, it is about the ability to reconfigure the number of possible states it can adapt and cope within the organization or the supply chain (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Scholten & Schilder, 2015).

Visibility is the ability to see through the supply chain and the extent to which an organization has access to other supply chain members. Visibility can increase SCRES with firms sharing formation and being transparent (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). The achievement of visibility is based on close collaborations with both upstream and downstream members as well as internal integration in the firm (Christopher & Peck, 2004).

Velocity is about efficiency, the pace of flexible adoptions and how rapidly the supply chain can react to events (e.g. demand in response and recovery) (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Increasing velocity determines the rate of loss in a risk event and puts a strong emphasis on the efficiency of the supply chain’s response and recovery (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). In case of an event, it supports to rate to which losses happen and how quickly the risk is discovered (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).

Collaboration can be defined as working on a joint project at a tactical, operational or strategic level with one or more parties (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Collaboration can be internal and external, e.g. between divisions or between supply chain members (Hartley et al., 2014; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Collaboration is also defined according to the collaborative activities of Cao et al. (2010), illustrated and defined in Table 1. With investing in these activities firms can gain collaborative advantages.

Table 1

Collaborative activities adapted from Cao et al. (2010) (Scholten & Schilder, 2015) Collaborative activities Definition

Information-sharing The extent to which firms share a variety of relevant, accurate, complete and confidential ideas, plans, and procedures with its supply chain partners in a timely manner.

Goal congruence The extent to which supply chain partners perceive their own objectives are satisfied by accomplishing the supply chain objectives.

Decision synchronization The process where supply chain partners orchestrate decisions in supply chain planning, operations and solution-seeking such as inventory management, demand forecasting or product assortment that optimize supply chain benefits.

Incentive alignment The process of co-developing systems to evaluate and publicise each other’s performance, sharing costs, risks and benefits among supply chain partners.

(7)

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

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

Collaboration drawbacks

Firms must invest in collaborative efforts while it can easily fail in case collaboration is not executed well. Designing collaborative efforts (e.g. time investment, frequent communication) can help to minimize failure (Fugate et al., 2012). If the efforts are too low, drawbacks can occur. For example, when communication about the forecast is inaccurate the bullwhip effect can occur (Ivanov et al., 2014). Other drawbacks might be inflexibility, increasing coordination costs, loss of autonomy and insufficient resources (Cao & Zhang, 2011).

Non-resilience research states that in each phase of a process other capabilities can be important. This importance depends on the dynamic and environment of a firm. So, besides an external source of knowledge (i.e. collaboration), other capabilities can be effective in a process of change (Caloghirou, Kastelli, & Tsakanikas, 2004; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 2009). Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) found that the relative importance of logistic capabilities differs during each SCRES phase; where control is characterized as logistic quality in readiness and as a cycle-time reduction in recovery. However, there is no differentiated analysis for adaptive capabilities or how collaborations relate in SCRES phases (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).

(8)

(9)

METHODOLOGY Research Design and Setting

This research conducts qualitative research and adopts a multiple-case study, to investigate if supply chain collaboration is related to flexibility, visibility and velocity across the SCRES phases. A case study is suited while it investigates a contemporary phenomenon in-depth, within a real-life context. In this case, disruptions and SCRES in different companies (and industries). The case study focusses on understanding the dynamics presented within different settings and contemporary events. This multiple-case study, typically grounded in literature, provides a strong base for theory building and explanation. Besides, boundaries of disruptions and SCRES in companies are often not evident (Yin, 1981, 2009). The unit of analysis is the disruption in a firm. With this unit of analysis, it becomes easier to investigate per disruption what happened in each phase, what was important and how it relates to SCRES capabilities. The six organizations studied, all mentioned at least one disruption.

To investigate disruptions six interviews were conducted within six chosen companies across different industries. The companies experienced one or multiple disruptions, in the range from the coronavirus to delivery problems with suppliers. ‘Diverse case’ selection was suited while selecting cases from different industries, with different disruptions and impact, will give a good view to generalize the phases (Seawnght & Gerring, 2008). The companies are active in the following industries, manufacturing (Company A, B, E), ICT (Company C), third-party logistics (3PL) (Company D) and automotive (Company F). More specific information about the cases is presented in Table 2.

Data Collection

(10)

questions about the background and position of the interviewee, followed by general characteristics of the supply chain. Ensued by specific questions about the disruptions that have occurred; how they deal with the disruption in each phase, internal and external collaboration and if there were other important SCRES capabilities. The interviewers divided the tasks; one got the observative roll, listened carefully, took notes and made sure all the questions were asked. The other interviewer engaged the conversations, asked the question and the follow-up questions in case more in-depth and specific information was needed. The interviews were recorded, took approximately one hour and were transcribed afterwards. Recording an interview is the most accurate rendition and therefore used in this research (Yin, 2009). Transcribing is used wherefore the interviews could be analysed textual. A good record was therefore obligatory. The transcript should be anonymous and had to be made after the interview as soon as possible. To check the data and receive feedback the transcripts were sent to the respondents. (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002).

Additional information was gathered with secondary data. To prepare the interviews we used LinkedIn pages, company websites and two presentations (received prior). These presentations contained information about the company and supply chain in general, the process control and quality assurance. These are used to confirm statements, impart background information and fill in the extra or missing information.

TABLE 2 Case Description

Company A B C D E F

Industry Manufacturing Manufacturing ICT Third-Party

Logistics (3PL) Manufacturing Automotive

Positions of the interviewee Purchaser Operations Manager Strategic Purchaser IT Manager Purchase Manager Supply Chain Manager Products/services Storage and conserving product for agricultural products (e.g. cooling machines). Total package for the end-customer

(11)

Position in the supply chain

Last step before the end-consumer Manufacturer. They do not deliver directly to the end-customer (only in special circumstances) Between end-customer and distributor; reseller Depends on the customer (can be everywhere) In the middle of the supply chain

Before the assembly of the end product, deliverer of semi-finished products Number of employees Worldwide circa 200 employees Worldwide circa 3200-3500

Circa 110 Circa 35, plus a pool of 100-150 flex employees Circa 550 employees Circa 180 employees Number of customers Worldwide, hundreds of customers Three groups of customers Around 500 Focused on their subsidiaries (at least four big customers) Different end-customers Worldwide a lot of customers (number not specified) Impact of

disruptions High High

Relatively small

Relatively

small Can be high High

Data Analysis

The transcribed interviews were analysed according: data reduction, data display and conclusion (Miles & Huberman, 1994). First, we started reducing data to collect relevant information to answer the research question with quotes, sentences and paragraphs from the interviews (first-order codes). Second, the data was divided by linking the first-order codes to the SCRES phases. The context of the first-order codes made clear which phase the data was from. Sometimes multiple phases were applicable. Subsequently, data were examined from two perspectives; SCRES perspective and collaboration perspective. The first-order codes were translated to a brief description and afterwards in second-order codes.

Therefore, the data concerning SCRES was analysed. The second-order categories from this perspective, adapted from the theoretical background, already illustrated resilience activities in each phase. Therefore, third-order themes could be derived; SCRES capabilities. For the collaboration-perspective, only second-order categories, the collaborative activities adapted from Cao et al (2010), are used. We could then examine relationships and determine which collaborative activities are involved. Furthermore, the dimension regarding internal and external collaboration is added.

Next, the two perspectives are juxtaposed to examine how collaborative activities are related to SCRES capabilities across the phases. Initially, we focused on individual cases to get familiar with the capabilities. The phases were sorted to look more closely to the single phases and draw some conclusions. By means of cross-case analysis, the conclusions could be compared to find patterns of how SCRES capabilities related to each other and which collaborative activities are involved.

(12)

used to identify drawbacks and benefits. Table 3 depicts an excerpt of the analysis, illustrating how we proceed through data reduction (first-order codes) over second-order codes (two perspectives) and third-order themes. Several measures were taken to guarantee reliability and validity. Theoretical frameworks and literature are used to build explanations on data and findings (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Besides, an interview protocol, multiple sources, logic model and pattern matching were used (Yin, 2009), to study the cases equally.

TABLE 3 Excerpt of Coding Link to SCRES Phase Link to supply chain resilience (third-order theme)

Data-reduction (first-order quotes) Description

Descriptive code (second-order codes) Second-order collaboration code Readiness Flexibility

"We have another supplier for this product." Alternative supplier

More alternatives

Resource-sharing (External) "You are actually trying to be as

independent of one as possible."

Not being dependent More alternatives Recourse sharing (External) Visibility

"Then, indeed, such conversations will take place in which their wishes will also come more forward, and I think that the aspect of forecasting will become very important in that again." Prognosis More information Information-sharing (Internal and External)

"So first and foremost, the provision of information is the most important thing. The moment you can just predict exactly what you are going to do the remaining year and next year, that makes life a lot easier."

Information applications

More

information

"Let us say we have the intelligence, we do not put the flexibility down in the

production process, but we put it more down to IT and operations. The provision of information and to the executive."

Flexibility in information More information Information-sharing (External) Velocity

"I am thinking it is a lot of anticipation and of course we are busy with forecasting a lot. That is also sketching a scenario."

Prognosis, anticipating

Discovering risks

Joint knowledge creation (Internal and

External) "To keep that flex, insert pool as large as

possible. These are measures that we take in advance. To keep the permanent staff as ready as possible and the flexible staff as large as possible."

Resources ready Efficiency

Collaboration

"Formally, we have delivery time information from our distributors."

Delivery time information Information-sharing Information-sharing (External) "We communicate upstream and

downstream so that we can adapt to this because we believe that this is added value."

Communication up- and downstream Collaborative communication Collaborative communication (External) "So strategic consultation, how can we

further shape partnerships. So how can we better coordinate what needs to be done with each other."

(13)

Response Flexibility "So, we changed the whole mix of products,

so we got certain products faster."

Changing the

product mix Possibilities

Visibility

"Then it might be good to explain the whole

story." Being honest Transparency

Incentive alignment (External) "Informing to early, we are very careful

about that." Careful with information-sharing More information Velocity

"This is escalated with the project leader, who in turns has to take action."

Escalated to project leader Rapid responding Information-sharing (Internal) "Well, what happened? What we did, we

built up the stocks. The suppliers, the chain, the forecast increased. The supplier raised stocks and production capacity."

Inventory, forecast, production capacity Rapid responding Collaborative communication (External)

"Depending on the disruption, depending on the impact, a risk analysis can be made at that time: what is the impact both

financially and at the construction site. And on that basis, you will make a decision."

Making a risk analysis

Discovering

risks

Collaboration

"How we have anticipated is simply to intensify contact with the suppliers and they have always answered correctly."

Intensive contact supplier Collaborative communication Collaborative communication (External) "These kinds of decisions are made in

consultation. For example, you will hold more stocks etc. and share forecasts. To classify on changed market situations. This is done with several suppliers, but it could be done with more."

Decision making together Decision synchronization Decision synchronization (External) Recovery Visibility

"So, open the chain with each other. Because one thing is the fear to trust, which is something that has to go away. Since it is one of the biggest bottlenecks. The moment you trust each other, you can at least sit down together and have conversations."

Trust Transparency Incentive alignment (External)

"So, it is here, after time, that people do try

to do some kind of evaluation interview." Evaluation

Evaluating disruptions

Joint knowledge creation (External)

"If you want to expose a problem you have to lower the water because then the iceberg will come up."

Evaluation, being transparent Transparency Growth Visibility

"It may be that you have a supplier or a solution in your range that is less sensitive to the crisis."

Better solution,

better supplier Effectiveness

"Lessons to learn." Lessons to learn Evaluation

disruptions

Velocity

"That if there are problems, we do get certain things visible that we otherwise would not have seen."

(14)

FINDINGS

The findings are presented along the four SCRES phases; readiness, response, recovery and growth. In the following sections, the phases will be outlined in detail according to the SCRES capabilities. Afterwards, across-phases-findings and further drawbacks will be described.

Readiness

Findings in readiness include all four SCRES capabilities. The findings are often linked to collaboration. Those not linked to a collaborative activity dictates drawbacks, systems or internal working methods; “this makes us dependent of one party and that is in my opinion something bad” (Purchaser; Company A) or “we are working with safety stocks”(SC Manager; Company F).

Flexibility is related to resource-sharing and collaborative communication. It is about alternatives and possibilities to prevent companies from disruptions. Firms want to be less dependent on their environment (Case A, C). For example, being a single-point company, have a broad assortment (Case C), use different kinds of packaging (Case D) or have alternative suppliers for a product (Case F). Due to lacking collaboration, an organization can become dependent on products or suppliers which can harm the organization in crises.

Visibility is found as the dominant capability. The following quote manifests that visibility, especially more information, is needed to organize prevention; “information provision is most important because it makes life easier since you can forecast what is coming up this and next year” (Head of Operations B). Here, it is about gathering information in effective ways, due information-sharing with partners e.g., with prognosis (Case A) or vendor programmes (Case C).

Velocity illustrates the necessity of discovery risks early, provided in the following quotes; “market-trends, what is the market going to do” (Head of Operations; Company B) “sometimes is it just chess, you need to think a few steps ahead” (SC Manager; Company F). Wherefore collaboration is needed, but specific collaboration activities are not found.

Response

(15)

in progress than we start to communicate downstream in the supply chain” (Strategic Purchaser C).

Findings of flexibility are about carrying out possibilities and alternatives firms have. For example, with alternative shipping (Case A, D), adapting re-order points and stock (Case B), changing workers utilization (Case D) or change product mix (Case F). Internal and external collaborative communication and goal congruence (with employees, customers, suppliers), is required to carry out these possibilities and alternatives.

We found that visibility relates to information sharing and incentive-alignment. These can result in visibility benefits, transparency, effectiveness and more information up and downstream. For example, if firms are honest (Case C) and write everything down (Case A, C) they create transparency. Due to incentive alignment firms become more proactive (Case C) or create safety stock (Case F). Furthermore, firms gain more information upstream and downstream by sharing information carefully (Case F) or by informing each other faster (Case C). However, there are differences in sharing information, stated by the following conflicting quotes; “we are careful with early sharing information” (SC Manager F); “sometimes it is good to tell the whole story” (Strategic Purchaser C).

Findings highlight the pattern of velocity due to collaboration. Velocity is applied according to proactive actions, exceptional positions (Case A), increased inventory, forecast (Case B) and standardization (Case D). No specific pattern for collaborative activities is found. However, due to missing crucial information (e.g., forecast) wrong decision (on actions, positions, inventory) can be made during rapid responding. This can have serious consequences, e.g., in inventory levels resulting in the bullwhip-effect (Case B). Furthermore, two ways of responding are found. Companies can respond “very ad-hoc” (Head of operations B) or they are prepared and follow a schedule to respond; “escalation to the project leader who takes the actions” (Purchasing Manager E).

Recovery

(16)

A pattern of flexibility is found. Organizations can become more flexible by investing and/or implementing actions after disruptions have taken place. This relates to resource sharing which is illustrated in these quotes; “we are working on alternative suppliers” (Purchaser A), “if we think the risk is too high with one partner, we can add a supplier” (Strategic Purchaser C).

Collaborative communication, incentive alignment, joint knowledge creation and information-sharing results in evaluating disruptions, having more information, creating transparency and trust. This illustrates visibility as dominant due to collaboration. Sharing experiences and conversations (Case A, C, D) are for example benefits of evaluation disruptions. To gain information, transparency and trust are needed (Case B); “if you want to expose a problem you have to lower the water and the iceberg will come up” (IT Manager D), “open the supply chain, trust each other and then you can have effective conversations” (Head of Operations B). However, a lack of collaboration activities can result in mistrust or no evaluation before investments or improvements; “you need to talk beforehand, how can we do it better” (Purchaser E).

Moving on, concentrate on new risks and accepting the disruption is the context of velocity in this phase, but is not related to collaboration.

Growth

Not all SCRES capabilities are found in growth. Collaboration is found with information-sharing as dominant. For example, having the right people in your network (Case E) and gain stronger relationships after disruptions (Case A) can result in sharing forecasts (Case A) or mutual respect (Case F).

Flexibility is not found. We found that companies can grow because of flexibility in previous phases which will eventually result in, for example, having more alternative suppliers (Case C), receiving products faster than before (Case F) or changing KPI’s to grow (Case B).

Visibility is predominant due to information-sharing with examples as sharply monitoring (Case B), standardization power (Case D) or new agreements. Information-sharing-actions differ per case, but it can result in the company returning to a better state, resilience, gaining more information, creating competitive advantage; “it may be that you have a supplier or solution in your range that is less sensitive to this crisis” (Strategic Purchaser C).

(17)

Furthermore, lessons-to-learn (Case B, F) is found which is about growing by learning. To continuously improve, firms need to evaluate disruptions, share experiences, learn from this and then start new initiatives (Case F).

Across Phases

Nothing has been found about phase-importance because companies differentiated in how they regarded to the importance of each phase.

However, we found that collaboration is highly related to visibility in readiness, recovery and growth. In response, collaboration is highly related to velocity. Next, collaboration relates to some flexibility in readiness, response and recovery. It thereby also relates to visibility in response and velocity in readiness and growth.

Drawbacks of collaboration

Drawbacks, related to the phases, are mentioned earlier. However, drawbacks not specifically related to a phase are found. For example, power, which can help to achieve goals, can also harm the organization and collaboration; “you have power in the market when you can start to play out your suppliers” (Purchaser A).

(18)

DISCUSSION

Supply chain disruptions may impact the performance of organizations (Brandon-Jones, Squire, Autry, & Petersen, 2014). SCRES capabilities can absorb these disruptions. Whereby collaboration is crucial and relates to flexibility, visibility and velocity (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). This paper contributes insights into how collaboration is related to flexibility, visibility and velocity across the phases readiness, response, recovery and growth.

Effective preventing (readiness)

To increase readiness, supply chain risk knowledge is necessary, while this increases visibility and reduces discovery-disruptions-time. Visibility reduces uncertainty, and can therefore be seen as an antecedent (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Besides risk knowledge, we argue that collaboration activities adapted from Cao et al. (2010) are needed. By performing these activities firms gained more information and a more effective approach to disruptions. Findings therefore confirm visibility as antecedent due to collaboration.

Furthermore, our findings show that collaboration is related to flexibility and velocity. Firms aim to be less dependent on their environment when using proactive strategies. Due to resource-sharing and collaborative communication the number of alternative suppliers and resources increases. Literatures supports our velocity-findings that disruption discovery is crucial for managing supply chain disruptions (Blackhurst, Craighead, Elkins, & Handfield, 2005).

However, a lack of collaboration activities can lead to dependency. Understanding the firms' dependencies of resources and suppliers can help to mitigate the impact and invest in collaboration activities to overcome dependencies and benefit from flexibility, visibility and velocity (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014).

Rapid responding (response)

(19)

The findings of information sharing and incentive alignment related mostly to visibility. It increases the transparency of information. Our findings further suggest that possibilities and alternatives can be implemented through collaboration and velocity. Flexibility ensures that changes can be absorbed in the firms through effective responses (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Scholten et al., 2014).

Concluding, collaboration relates to velocity, flexibility and visibility. However, when collaboration is insufficient firms can make wrong decisions in response because firms will lose velocity, flexibility and/or visibility. This leads to wrong mitigation strategies and responding too late.

Transparency and trust (recovery)

Recovery is crucial for successful SCRES. After the implementation of mitigation strategies recovery starts directly after a disruption has occurred (Blackhurst et al., 2005; Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015).

A topic found in recovery is evaluating disruptions. We also found that if organizations after disruptions want to return to the original or better state they need to collaborate via; collaborative communication, incentive alignment, joint knowledge creation, resource-sharing and information-sharing. These activities gain visibility. Visibility encourages knowledge sharing and supports establishing effective and efficient processes (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Scholten et al., 2014). The investigated firms gained transparency and trust. Literature also states that transparency (complete information) can increase trusting behaviour. Repeated interactions also increase trustworthiness (Kanagaretnam, Mestelman, Nainar, & Shehata, 2010). Hence, parties collaborate and get in line with each other, which results in transparency and trust. However, when there is a lack of visibility, mistrust and/or ineffective evaluation can appear.

Besides, we found that collaboration also relates to flexibility and velocity. Resource-sharing, for example, results in investments and implementations of new possibilities and alternatives for the future. While accepting disruptions and concentration on new risks states velocity.

Expanding Growth (growth)

(20)

phase. We found that firms act to disruptions different. However, they gained competitive advantages because of their actions in previous phases.

To grow, we found that information-sharing is necessary. This form of collaboration results in mutual respect, more information and is highly related to visibility. Visibility allows organizations to mitigate threats and safeguard organizational performance (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). The plans in the investigated cases mostly contain information-sharing to increase visibility and aim to be better-state-firms.

However, flexibility is more seen as an outcome of previous phases. For example, using an alternative more resilient supplier will increase inbound-performance. Furthermore, velocity slightly relates to collaboration, because information-sharing firms can discover risk afterwards as well. For example, problems they would not have seen if they did not expand their relationship or contacted the right network. Hence, flexibility and velocity are less prevalent and less related to collaboration.

Our findings show that due experience (in previous phases) firms learn, benefit and improve SCRES performance (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Firms call this, lessons-to-learn. Lessons-to-learn can be seen as a continuous process like organizational learning, in this context for disruptions (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).

What happens across phases

In each phase, collaboration relates differently to flexibility, visibility and velocity. It highly relates to visibility in readiness, recovery and growth and to velocity in response. So, visibility can be an antecedent, which can be determined by Brandon-Jones et al. (2014). But velocity can also be an antecedent, according to Elicker et al. (2010). However, flexibility, visibility and velocity also relate to a fewer extend to collaboration in some phases.

Nothing was found about the importance per phase. However, since the phases are related to each other, it could be wise to treat them equally (Hohenstein et al., 2015). Furthermore, the phases have different focuses due to the relations between capabilities and the phases. This can be explained by the fact that capabilities acquire and shed resources and integrate and combine with other capabilities to generate new advantages (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).

(21)

(22)

CONCLUSION

How is supply chain collaboration related to the other resilience capabilities across the four phases of supply chain resilience? Through collaboration, visibility was more important in readiness, recovery and growth, but velocity was more important in response. Flexibility also plays a role in readiness, response and recovery through collaboration. In response, collaboration relates to visibility as well. Furthermore, collaboration relates to some extent to velocity in readiness and growth. However, a lack of collaboration can result in drawbacks. Concluding, collaboration relates differently to SCRES capabilities across the SCRES phases.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of this research contribute to SCRES research, specifically at supply chain collaboration and SCRES phases. Throughout literature collaboration, visibility, flexibility and velocity are recognized as the SCRES capabilities, with collaboration as antecedent. However, literature showed that there was no differentiated analysis of how collaboration relates to other capabilities across readiness, response, recovery and growth. Our findings illustrate how collaboration relates to the other SCRES capabilities in each phase and too what extent. Furthermore, this research confirms that lack of collaboration can lead to several drawbacks and add that this can also vary per phase. These implications may support future research when finding divergent SCRES outcomes, since the extent and relation of collaboration with capabilities and drawback may differ per phase. Furthermore, it may be seen as a starting point for further analysis of relationships between SCRES capabilities across SCRES phases.

Managerial Implications

Next to theoretical implications, this study provides managerial implications. Positive effects of SCRES are known in theory and practice. We provide new insights and guidance for managers to improve SCRES.

(23)

resilience-actions managers can invest in. So, managers should not interpret phases only individually or unfocused. They need to be critical, creative and only apply what is relevant to their case.

Limitations and Future Research

Different organizations were interviewed to make the research generalizable. An interview protocol is used to collect the same sort of data in a consequent manner. Even though we are aware of alternative interpretations of data we did our best to provide valid, reliable research. However, there might be some limitations.

First, the second-order categories of flexibility, visibility and velocity are determined with definitions from the theoretical background. This is a good start, but future research can expand this, which is done with collaboration in the research of Cao et al. (2010). This may even result in more in-depth explanations of relations between collaboration and SCRES capabilities.

Besides, future research could focus more on phase growth and more specific drawbacks across the phases, since our findings about this were not sufficient.

(24)

REFERENCES

Alcantara, P., & Riglietti, G. 2019. Supply Chain Resilience Report 2019. Business Continuity Institute, 44.

Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C. W., Elkins, D., & Handfield, R. B. 2005. An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 43(19): 4067–4081.

Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. 2014. A Contingent Resource-Based Perspective of Supply Chain Resilience and Robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3): 55–73.

Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1): 29–39.

Cao, M., Vonderembse, M. A., Zhang, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. 2010. Supply chain

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

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

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

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

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory Building from Cases : Opportunities and Challenges Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : THEORY

BUILDING FROM CASES : OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES. Organizational Research Methods, 50(1): 25–32.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1105–1121.

Elicker, J. D., Lord, R. G., Ash, S. R., Kohari, N. E., Hruska, B. J., et al. 2010. Velocity as a predictor of performance satisfaction, mental focus, and goal revision. Applied

(25)

Fugate, B. S., Thomas, R. W., & Golicic, S. L. 2012. The impact of coping with time pressure on boundary spanner collaborative behaviors. International Journal of Physical

Distribution and Logistics Management, 42(7): 697–715.

Haren, P., & Simch-Levi, D. 2020, February 28. How Coronavirus Could Impact the Global Supply Chain by Mid-March. https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-coronavirus-could-impact-the-global-supply-chain-by-mid-march.

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

Hohenstein, N. O., Feise, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. 2015. Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience: A systematic review and paths for further investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 45(2005): 90–117.

Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., & Dolgui, A. 2014. The Ripple effect in supply chains: Trade-off “efficiency-flexibility- resilience” in disruption management. International Journal of Production Research, 52(7): 2154–2172.

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

Kanagaretnam, K., Mestelman, S., Nainar, S. M. K., & Shehata, M. 2010. Trust and

reciprocity with transparency and repeated interactions. Journal of Business Research, 63(3): 241–247.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Saga Publications.

Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1): 124–143.

Richey, R. G. 2009. The supply chain crisis and disaster pyramid, A theoretical framework for understanding preparedness and recovery. International Journal of Physical

Distribution and Logistics Management, 39(7): 619–628.

(26)

Scholten, K., Scott, P. S., & Fynes, B. 2014. Mitigation processes - antecedents for building supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management, 19(2): 211–228.

Seawnght, J., & Gerring, J. 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2): 294–308. Tan, W. J., Zhang, A. N., & Cai, W. 2019. A graph-based model to measure structural

redundancy for supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 57(20): 6385–6404.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 2009. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Knowledge and Strategy, 18(April 1991): 77–116.

Tilsner, J. 2020, March 11. Five questions on how coronavirus will impact the global supply chain. https://news.usc.edu/166804/coronavirus-global-supply-chain-economy-nick-vyas-usc-marshall/.

Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. 2015. Supply chain resilience: Definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research, 53(18): 5592–5623.

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. 2002. Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(2): 195–219.

Yin, R. 1981. The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Case Studies, 26(1): III3–III3. Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study h Researc Design and Methods. Applied Social Research

Methods Seiries, vol. 5.

(27)

APPENDIX A – Interview protocol

Interview Protocol

1. General Questions (± 10 min)

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

 Core activities and/or products  Organizational goals

 Key aspects (organization size, turnover, number of employees)  Number of suppliers (upstream) and customers (downstream)

1.2. Could you please introduce yourself and your role in the organization?  Function

 Team  Department

 A brief overview of background, education, and experience

2. Main Part (± 45 min)

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

 Cause

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

2.1..1. In general, how did you react to and resolve this disruption?

2.2. How does [Company name] prepare for disruptions?  What actions are taken?

 With whom are they collaborating? o Why with these parties? o Who initiated the cooperation?

o What was the reason that no other parties were included? o Was there also cooperation with competitors? Why yes/no? o Were there obstacles/disadvantages to cooperation?

(28)

o Communication (how, frequency)

▪ In what extend? To what extend? What are the examples? o Shared information and resources

▪ In what extend? To what extend? What are the examples? o Shared decisions

▪ In what extend? To what extend? What are the examples? o Shared goals

▪ In what extend? To what extend? What are the examples? o Experiences from previous disturbances

▪ In what extend? To what extend? What are the examples? o Obstacles/disadvantages?

▪ In what extend? To what extend? What are the examples?

 Which (other) activities/skills/elements/aspects are important in the preparation? 2.2.1. Is the impact of scenarios determined? If so, how?

 What dimensions?

 What is most important here?

2.2.2. Are disruptions preceded by investments in measures? If so, what kind of measures and where does this lead to?

 More information (visibility)

 More alternative choices (flexibility)  Faster reaction (velocity)

 More collaboration (collaboration)

2.3. Hoe does [Company name] react to disruptions?  What actions are taken?

 How did the various parties (customers, suppliers, competitors, etc.) collaborate? o Communication (how, frequency)

(29)

 Which (other) activities/skills/elements/aspects are important while responding to a disruption?

2.3.1. What measures are taken during disruption? What kind of measures are taken and where does this lead to?

 More alternative choice possibilities (flexibility)  Faster reaction (velocity)

2.4. How is the post-disturbance phase treated? How is this phase organized?  What actions are taken?

 How did the various parties (customers, suppliers, competitors, etc.) collaborate? o Communication (how, frequency)

▪ In what extend? To what extend? What are the examples? o Experiences from previous disturbances

 Which (other) activities/skills/elements/aspects are important after/during the recovery of a disruption?

2.4.1. Are investments made in measures after a disruption? If so, what kind of measures and were does this lead to?

(30)

 Faster reaction (velocity)

2.5. We would like to look back: What do you think is the most important phase?  And why?

 What are the main differences between the phases?  Why are there these differences?

 Has the degree of cooperation changed during the different phases? o Why?

o How?

 Is competitive advantage gained?

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

 More alternative choice possibilities (flexibility)  Faster reaction (velocity)

 More collaboration (collaboration) 2.5.2. Are there things you would do differently?

2.5.3. What have you learned? And how was this implemented?

2.5.4. Has cooperation helped to solve the disruption and minimize the impact?  Collaboration?

 Benefits of collaboration

 Disadvantages of working together

 Which leads to cooperation (more info, more reaction speed, more choices) 2.5.5. Is cooperation reflected with the supplier and how it can be improved?

2.5.6. Do you think you could reduce the impact by working less together focusing more on other internal processes?

2.5.7. Does cooperation with the supplier (e.g. sharing experiences) help to improve resilience after the disruption? If so, why/what?

2.5.8. Have the choices regarding the measures taken changed after the disruption?

(31)

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