Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience. A multidisciplinary literature review

• Published date: 13 May 2019
• Date: 13 May 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2017-0259
• Pages: 467-487
• Author: David Gligor,Nichole Gligor,Mary Holcomb,Siddik Bozkurt
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations

Distinguishing between the

concepts of supply chain

agility and resilience

A multidisciplinary literature review

David Gligor

Department of Marketing, School of Business Administration,

University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA

Nichole Gligor

Department of Supply Chain Management,

University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA

Mary Holcomb

Department of Supply Chain Management,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, and

Siddik Bozkurt

Department of Marketing, University of Mississippi,

Oxford, Mississippi, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to add clarity to the multidimensional concepts of agility and

resilience. In addition, this paper seeks to clarify the differences and similarities between the two concepts by

integrating the distinct bodies of knowledge on agility and resilience.

Design/methodology/approach –A multidisciplinary systematic literature review is conducted.

The concept of agility is explored through a review of the sports science, manufacturing, organizational,

information systems and information systems development and supply chain literature bases. The concept of

resilience is investigated through a review of the psychological and psychopathological, ecological, economic,

organizational and supply chain literature bases.

Findings –Examining the complex relationship between the two constructs led to the emergence of six

major dimensions to capture the concept of agility (i.e. ability to quickly change direction, speed/accelerate

operations, scan the environment/anticipate, empower the customer/customize, adjust tactics and operations

(flexibility), and integrate processes within and across firms). Similarly, six dimensions were uncovered for

resilience (i.e. ability to resist/survive disruptions, avoid the shock altogether, recover/return to original form

following disruption, speed/accelerate operations, adjust tactics and operations (flexibility) and scan the

environment/anticipate). Agility and resilience were found to share three common dimensions (i.e. ability to

adjust tactics and operations (flexibility), speed/accelerate operations and scan the environment/anticipate).

Practical implications –The identification of the common characteristics of agility and resilience carries

important managerial implications from a resource allocation perspective. Allocating resources to the

development of the common characteristics of agility and resilience can help firms maximize the impact of

such investments. That is, by investing in the common characteristics of both they can improve supply chain

agility and supply chain resilience. If firms approach the development or improvement of supply chain agility

or resilience independent from one another, without an awareness of the common characteristics, they could

be duplicating their investments resulting in supply chain redundancies and inefficiencies.

Originality/value –Not having a clear and comprehensive understanding of the similarities and differences

between agility and resilience is problematic from a theoretical perspective. A clear understanding of what

each construct represents provides a platform for building generalizable theory by helping researchers

operationalize these constructs in a consistent manner. Further, providing a generalizable,comprehensive and

multidisciplinary perspective on agility and resilience within supply chain management literature can help

increase the visibility of the field of supply chain management across other disciplines as scholars outside the

field of supply chain management can utilize the results of this research effort.

Keywords North America, Supply chain risk, Literature review, Agile

Paper type Literature review

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 30 No. 2, 2019

pp. 467-487

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-10-2017-0259

Received 12 October 2017

Revised 28 February 2018

22 July 2018

13 November 2018

26 December 2018

4 January 2019

Accepted 25 January 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

467

Concepts of

supply chain

agility

Introduction

In the current business environment firms are dealing with a myriad of challenges including

constant change, shorter product life cycles, diverse customer requirements and increased

uncertainty of demand (Christopher, 2000; Gligor, 2015). While any of these issues alone are

difficult to deal with, combining them makes it increasingly difficult for firms to satisfy the

demands of their customers in a timely manner. The concept of agility has been suggested

as a means for handling change, increasing customer responsiveness and mastering market

turbulence (Swafford et al., 2006; Gligor et al., 2016).

However, companies no longer compete against eachother as autonomous entities;instead

today’s competition is supply chain against supply chain(Christopher, 2000; Christopherand

Towill, 2001). One of the most important lessons for achieving competitive advantage in the

modern business environment is that companies have to coordinate with suppliers,

the suppliers of the suppliers, customers and the customers of the customers and even with

the competitors in order to streamline operations. This is also a fundamental principle for

creating supply chain agility; members of the supply chain must be capable of rapidly

coordinating theircollective capabilities to respondto changes in supply and demand (Gligor

and Holcomb, 2014). Toillustrate, Ford relies on hundreds of suppliers and service providers

to offer the F-150 XL in over4bin different configurations(Appel, 2016). As such, Fords relies

on a high level of supply chainagility to successfully deliver on its customers’widely variable

and highly unpredictable expectations. Carrying too much or not enough inventory has

important implications for firms. In 2001 Cisco’s supply chain did not anticipate a sudden

decline in demand. The company carried $2.5bn in surplus raw materials resulting in a

$2.69bn net loss in a single quarter. The same day the announcement of the loss was made

Cisco’s stockprice dropped by 6 percent (Narayanan and Raman,2004). Consequently, it is no

surprise that supply chain agility has been identified by researchers and managers alike as

one of the most important issues of contemporary supply chain management (Lee, 2004).

Various disruptions, such as political changes, accidents, natural disasters and supplier

failures can affect both the revenues and costs of the entire supply chain (Craighead et al.,

2007). The 2011 tsunami which triggered the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a

wake-up call for many large corporations such as General Motors (GM). Mr. Howe with

GM’s strategic risk management department stated that following the tsunami GM learned

that it is not sufficient to nominate “the person who will call the fire department. You need to

identify how an event will affect plants and respond quickly!”(Banker, 2016). Following the

incident where GM “circled the wagons and tried to figure out how to respond,”supply

chain risk management became a strategic initiative at GM (Banker, 2016). Supply chains

must be capable to recover to their original state or even better post the disruptive event.

This capacity has been termed supply chain resilience (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009).

Both concepts, supply chain agility and supply chain resilience have emerged as

important attributes of world-class supply chains (Gligor et al., 2015; Hohenstein et al., 2015).

Although a plethora of studies has examined either agility or resilience, no study to date has

focused exclusively on the complex relationship between the two constructs. There are

several noteworthy theoretical and managerial reasons for addressing this gap.

Not having a clear and comprehensive understanding of the similarities and differences

between agility and resilience is problematic from a theoretical perspective. Both, agility and

resilience are multidimensional and multidisciplinary concepts. It is uncommon for any two

studies to adopt the same definition for agility or resilience (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009;

Gligor and Holcomb, 2012; Hohenstein et al., 2015). While the confusion surrounding these

concepts on an individual level is problematic in and of itself, another limitation of the

literature is that it does not offer a clear distinction between agility and resilience.

The purpose of this study is to add clarity to what the concepts of agility and resilience

embody. In addition, this paper seeks to clarify the differences and similarities between

468

IJLM

30,2