Supply chain resilience: a dynamic and multidimensional approach

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2017-0093
Pages1451-1471
Date13 July 2018
Published date13 July 2018
AuthorHenry Adobor,Ronald S. McMullen
Subject MatterLogistics,Management science & operations
Supply chain
resilience: a dynamic and
multidimensional approach
Henry Adobor
Department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, School of Business,
Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut, USA, and
Ronald S. McMullen
Department of Management, School of Business, Quinnipiac University,
Hamden, Connecticut, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework on resilience types in supply
chain networks.
Design/methodology/approach Using a complex adaptive systems perspective as an organizing
framework, the paper explores three forms of resilience: engineering, ecological and evolutionary and their
antecedents and links these to four phases of supply chain resilience (SCRES): readiness, response, recovery,
growth and renewal.
Findings Resilient supply chains need all three forms of resilience. Efficiency and system optimization
approaches may promote quick recovery after a disruption. However, system-level response requires
adaptive capabilities and transformational behaviors may be needed to move supply chains to new fitness
levels after a disruption. The three resilience types discussed are not mutually exclusive, but rather
complement each other and there are synergies and tradeoffs among these resilience types.
Research limitations/implications The empirical validation of the theoretical propositions will open up
new vistas for supply chain research. Possibilities exist for analyzing and assessing SCRES in multiple and
more comprehensive ways.
Practical implications The findings of the research can help managers refine their approaches to
managing supply chain networks. A more balanced approach to supply chain management can reduce the
risks and vulnerabilities associated with supply chain disruptions.
Originality/value This study is unique as it conceptualizes SCRES in multiple ways, thereby extending
our understanding of supply chain stability.
Keywords North America, Supplier relations, complex adaptive systems, Supply chain management,
Engineering, Conceptual research, Response flexibility, Ecological and evolutionary resilience,
Supply chain networks
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Disruptions to commercial supply chains can have significant economic impacts. Managing
risk and vulnerability associated with supply chains have therefore assumed some urgency.
Resilience, the capacity of a system to adapt to change and deal with surprise while
retaining the systems basic function and structure (Holling, 1973), has emerged as an
important tool for managing supply chain risk and vulnerability (Ponomarov and Holcomb,
2009; Pettit et al., 2010).
Early research on supply chain resilience (SCRES) focused on resilience as a means for
reducing risk and vulnerability in supply chains (Martin and Peck, 2004) and as an
organizational capability that confers competitive advantage (Sheffi, 2005). That stream of
research discusses resilient supply chains as capable of absorbing or avoiding disruptions
entirely (Sheffi and Rice, 2005), or recovering much faster after a disruption (Zsidisin and
Smith, 2005). Researchers have also focused on strategies that firms can use to build
resilient supply chains (Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013), as well as factors that both reduce
The International Journal of
Logistics Management
Vol. 29 No. 4, 2018
pp. 1451-1471
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-4093
DOI 10.1108/IJLM-04-2017-0093
Received 13 April 2017
Revised 3 November 2017
31 January 2018
16 March 2018
Accepted 13 May 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm
1451
Supply chain
resilience
and enhance resilience in supply chains (Blackhurst et al., 2011). New efforts to assess
SCRES are emerging. For example, Barroso et al. (2015) calculated what they call
the resiliency index of a supply chain by measuring the disruptive capacity as the recovery
time of a supply chain following a disruption and recent reviews have begun to categorize
studies into typologies. For example, Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) categorized resilience
strategies into proactive and reactive strategies. Our understanding of supply chain
dynamics has been enhanced by the ongoing focus on resilience. Despite this progress, some
gaps remain in our understanding of both the concept and its usefulness in explaining
supply chain dynamics.
First, resilience by definition is a dynamic concept. Specifically, because resilience is a
property of dynamic systems, it is important to focus on system attributes and the dynamic
structure of supply chain networks. As Walker et al. (2004, p. 1) noted, resilience of a
system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the systems
dynamics.Second, while resilience is clearly a multidimensional construct, few studies in
the supply chain literature have explicitly addressed this (see Eltantawy, 2016 for an
exception). Third, although resilience has been conceptualized in terms of a supply chains
ability to be ready, respond, recover and transform (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015), not much is
known about the capabilities for managing the growth and transformation phases. Finally,
the emerging SCRES literature has been largely atheoretical and other researchers
(e.g. Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2017) have noted this. Researchers have used the
resource-based view (Blackhurst et al., 2011), social capital (Johnson et al., 2013) and
complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory (Day, 2014; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015) to explain
resilience. There is a need to adopt theoretical lenses more in tune with the dynamic nature
of supply chains.
This research extends existing research by developing a multidimensional framework of
SCRES and in so doing bridges some of the existing gaps. We adopt a CAS perspective as an
organizing framework to emphasize the dynamic and nonlinear nature of supply chain
networks (Pathak et al., 2007; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). We explore three forms of
resilience: engineering, ecological and evolutionary resilience and their antecedents and link
these to the overall system resilience, defined as the ability of a supply chain to be ready,
respond, recover and have the capacity for renewal following a disruption. The rest of the
paper is organized as follows to explore the issues. The first section identifies and discusses
the three forms of resilience. This section explores the key antecedents (SCRES elements) of
each resilience type as well as the strategies and capabilities required for each resilience
type. The section after that discusses the synergies and tradeoffs inherent in the
multidimensional concept of resilience. The next and concluding section presents a
discussion of both the practice and research implications of the paper.
Figure 1 presents a summary of the conceptual framework of the paper. It relates SCRES
capabilities to different resilience types and to the four phases of SCRES. The resilience
types do not just have direct effects on the phases of SCRES, they may interact with each
other and there are inherent tradeoffs between them. The key presumption is that a resilient
supply chain must be able to navigate all the stages of disruption. This means that resilient
supply chains have the capabilities to respond, recover and transform after a disruption.
Pettit et al. (2010) in fact suggested that the desired level of resilience is achieved when there
is a match between vulnerabilities and corresponding capabilities. We suggest that
although there are different types of resilience, ideally resilient supply chains need to have
not just some, but all the three types of resilience. More important, there may be synergies as
well as tradeoffs among the resilience types.
This paper makes a number of significant contributions to research on resilience in
supply chain networks. First, we explore the multidimensional nature of resilience in supply
chain networks. As Pettit et al. (2010) noted, we need a broader view of resilience than
1452
IJLM
29,4

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT