Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Interorganizational Systems and Supply Chain Agility in Uncertain Environments: : The Mediation Role of Supply Chain Collaboration

Published: 07 April 2023 Publication History

Abstract

The economy is recovering in today’s postpandemic phase, but uncertainties such as supply chain disruptions remain a top risk. Environmental uncertainty creates the need for swift supply chain adjustments in response to these external changes. Supply chain agility (SCA) has been recognized as a key capability for firms working to achieve superior performance in uncertain business environments. SCA is challenging to achieve, however, because it requires the firm and its supply chain partners to collaborate closely yet flexibly across organizational boundaries. Considering interorganizational systems (IOS) have been widely deployed to establish digital connections across organizational boundaries, this study aims to explore to what extent and how IOS as boundary objects, characterized by standardization and adaptability, affect SCA under different levels of environmental uncertainty. This study provides guidance for information technology (IT) and business directors on how to achieve SCA through the design or implementation of IOS, provides guidance for business directors on how to invest more effectively to capture opportunities and deal with risks, and advises business and IT directors on how to respond appropriately to different levels of environmental uncertainty (e.g., IT directors should design adaptive IOS and business directors should invest in supply chain collaboration when environmental uncertainty is high).

Abstract

Supply chain agility has been recognized as a key capability for firms working to achieve superior performance in uncertain business environments. Supply chain agility is challenging to achieve, however, because it requires the firm and its supply chain partners to collaborate closely yet flexibly across organizational boundaries. Extending the boundary object literature to the supply chain context, this study unveils the mechanism through which interorganizational systems (IOS), widely deployed to span organizational boundaries through interfirm digital connections, promote supply chain agility in uncertain environments. The concept of supply chain collaboration is introduced as the mediating mechanism between two key IOS characteristics (i.e., standardization and adaptability) and supply chain agility. Environmental uncertainty is incorporated as the contextual condition through contextualized theorization of IOS as boundary objects. The resulting hypotheses are tested via a two-wave, match-paired survey study on business and information technology executives in 156 manufacturing firms. Empirical findings provide general support to most hypotheses, and implications for theory development and professional practice are discussed.
History: Manju Ahuja, Senior Editor; Robert Gregory, Associate Editor.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72101259], the National Science Foundation of China [Grant 72071171], and the General Research Fund [Grant 11509420].
Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.1210.

References

[1]
Ahuja G (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(3):425–455.
[2]
Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Marketing Res. 14(3):396–402.
[3]
Avgar A, Tambe P, Hitt LM (2018) Built to learn: How work practices affect employee learning during healthcare information technology implementation. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 42(2):645–660.
[4]
Barratt M (2004) Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management 9(1):30–42.
[5]
Bensaou M, Venkatraman N (1995) Configurations of interorganizational relationships: A comparison between US and Japanese automakers. Management Sci. 41(9):1471–1492.
[6]
Blome C, Schoenherr T, Rexhausen D (2013) Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility and its effect on performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Internat. J. Production Res. 51(4):1295–1318.
[7]
Braunscheidel MJ, Suresh NC (2009) The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. J. Oper. Management 27(2):119–140.
[8]
Brown RD, Hauenstein NM (2005) Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the RWG indices. Organ. Res. Methods 8(2):165–184.
[9]
Burton-Jones A, Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: A multilevel perspective. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 31(4):657–679.
[10]
Cai S, Jun M, Yang Z (2010) Implementing supply chain information integration in China: The role of institutional forces and trust. J. Oper. Management 28(3):257–268.
[11]
Cao M, Zhang Q (2011) Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Management 29(3):163–180.
[12]
Cao M, Vonderembse MA, Zhang Q, Ragu-Nathan TS (2010) Supply chain collaboration: Conceptualization and instrument development. Internat. J. Production Res. 48(22):6613–6635.
[13]
Caridi M, Cigolini R, De Marco D (2005) Improving supply chain collaboration by linking intelligent agents to CPFR. Internat. J. Production Res. 43(20):4191–4218.
[14]
Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442–455.
[15]
Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5):555–568.
[16]
Chae B, Yen HR, Sheu C (2005) Information technology and supply chain collaboration: Moderating effects of existing relationships between partners. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 52(4):440–448.
[17]
Chen IJ, Paulraj A (2004) Understanding supply chain management: Critical research and a theoretical framework. Internat. J. Production Res. 42(1):131–163.
[18]
Chiang CY, Kocabasoglu-Hillmer C, Suresh N (2012) An empirical investigation of the impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply chain agility. Internat. J. Oper. Production Management 32(1):49–78.
[19]
Davidson R, MacKinnon JG (1993) Estimation and Inference in Econometrics (Oxford, New York).
[20]
Dong MC, Fang Y, Straub DW (2017) The impact of institutional distance on the joint performance of collaborating firms: The role of adaptive interorganizational systems. Inform. Systems Res. 28(2):309–331.
[21]
Drenik G (2022) How this DTC furniture brand takes a proactive approach to solving supply chain issues. Forbes Magazine (May 10), https://biz.crast.net/how-this-dtc-furniture-brand-takes-a-proactive-approach-to-solving-supply-chain-issues/.
[22]
Edwards JR, Lambert LS (2007) Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psych. Methods 12(1):1–22.
[23]
Ellingrud K (2020). Reimagining supply chain resilience. Forbes Magazine (August 20), https://www.forbes.com/sites/kweilinellingrud/2020/08/20/reimagining-supply-chain-resilience/?sh=58f1fd489c87.
[24]
Fawcett SE, Magnan GM, McCarter MW (2008) Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supply chain management. Supply Chain Management 13(1):35–48.
[25]
Fayezi S, Zutshi A, O’Loughlin A (2017) Understanding and development of supply chain agility and flexibility: A structured literature review. Internat. J. Management Rev. 19(4):379–407.
[26]
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18(1):39–50.
[27]
Germain R, Dröge C, Daugherty PJ (1994) The effect of just-in-time selling on organizational structure: An empirical investigation. J. Marketing Res. 31(4):471–483.
[28]
Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource vs. routine rigidity. Acad. Management J. 48(5):741–763.
[29]
Gligor DM, Esmark CL, Holcomb MC (2015) Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: When should you be agile? J. Oper. Management 33–34:71–82.
[30]
Gligor DM, Holcomb MC (2012) Antecedents and consequences of supply chain agility: Establishing the link to firm performance. J. Bus. Logist. 33(4):295–308.
[31]
Gligor DM, Holcomb MC, Feizabadi J (2016) An exploration of the strategic antecedents of firm supply chain agility: The role of a firm’s orientations. Internat. J. Production Econom. 179(September):24–34.
[32]
Gosain S, Malhotra A, El Sawy OA (2004) Coordinating for flexibility in e-business supply chains. J. Management Inform. Systems 21(3):7–45.
[33]
Gregory RW, Henfridsson O (2021) Bridging art and science: Phenomenon-driven theorizing. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 22(6):1509–1523.
[34]
Grover V, Lyytinen K (2015) New state of play in information systems research. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 39(2):271–296.
[35]
Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F, Zhelyazkov P (2012) The two facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Acad. Management Ann. 6(1):531–583.
[36]
Gunasekaran A, Lai KH, Cheng TE (2008) Responsive supply chain: A competitive strategy in a networked economy. Omega 36(4):549–564.
[37]
Gutman K (2003) How GM is accelerating vehicle deployment. Supply Chain Management Rev. 7(3):34–39.
[38]
Huo B, Zhao X, Zhou H (2014) The effects of competitive environment on supply chain information sharing and performance: An empirical study in China. Production Oper. Management 23(4):552–569.
[39]
Im G, Rai A (2008) Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Sci. 54(7):1281–1296.
[40]
Im G, Rai A (2013) IT-enabled coordination for ambidextrous interorganizational relationships. Inform. Systems Res. 25(1):72–92.
[41]
Keats BW, Hitt MA (1988) A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Acad. Management J. 31(3):570–598.
[42]
Ketokivi M, McIntosh CN (2017) Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in operations management research: Theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic considerations. J. Oper. Management 52:1–14.
[43]
Kogut B (2000) The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management J. 21(3):405–425.
[44]
Kumar RL (2004) A framework for assessing the business value of information technology infrastructures. J. Management Inform. Systems 21(2):11–32.
[45]
Kumar R, Pacchia ML, Milutinovic A, Schmidt J (2021) Navigating the retail storm through supply chain agility. McKinsey Quarterly (May 11), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/navigating-the-retail-storm-through-supply-chain-agility.
[46]
Lance CE, Butts MM, Michels LC (2006) The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organ. Res. Methods 9(2):202–220.
[47]
Lejeune MA, Yakova N (2005) On characterizing the 4 C’s in supply chain management. J. Oper. Management 23(1):81–100.
[48]
Levina N, Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 29(2):335–363.
[49]
Levina N, Vaast E (2008) Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 32(32):307–332.
[50]
Li G, Lin Y, Wang S, Yan H (2006) Enhancing agility by timely sharing of supply information. Supply Chain Management 11(5):425–435.
[51]
Lu G, Ding XD, Peng DX, Chuang HH-C (2018) Addressing endogeneity in operations management research: Recent developments, common problems, and directions for future research. J. Oper. Management 64:53–64.
[52]
Malhotra A, Gasain S, El Sawy OA (2005) Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: Gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 29(1):145–187.
[53]
Malhotra A, Gosain S, El Sawy OA (2007) Leveraging standard electronic business interfaces to enable adaptive supply chain partnerships. Inform. Systems Res. 18(3):260–279.
[54]
Manthou V, Vlachopoulou M, Folinas D (2004) Virtual e-Chain (VeC) model for supply chain collaboration. Internat. J. Production Econom. 87(3):241–250.
[55]
Mark G, Lyytinen K, Bergman M (2007) Boundary objects in design: An ecological view of design artifacts. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 8(11):546–568.
[56]
Metters R (1997) Quantifying the bullwhip effect in supply chains. J. Oper. Management 15(2):89–100.
[57]
Mondragon AE, Lyons AC, Kehoe DF (2004) Assessing the value of information systems in supporting agility in high-tech manufacturing enterprises. Internat. J. Oper. Production Management 24(12):1219–1246.
[58]
Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ. Sci. 23(3):612–629.
[59]
Nyaga GN, Whipple JM, Lynch DF (2010) Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J. Oper. Management 28(2):101–114.
[60]
Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA (2006) From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Inform. Systems Res. 17(3):198–227.
[61]
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psych. 88(5):879–903.
[62]
Rai A, Tang X (2013) Research commentary—Information technology-enabled business models: A conceptual framework and a coevolution perspective for future research. Inform. Systems Res. 25(1):1–14.
[63]
Rivard S (2021) Theory building is neither an art nor a science. It is a craft. J. Inform. Tech. 36(3):316–328.
[64]
Robey D, Im G, Wareham JD (2008) Theoretical foundations of empirical research on interorganizational systems: Assessing past contributions and guiding future directions. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 9(9):497–518.
[65]
Sänger F (2022) Achieving supply chain resiliency in consumer goods amid disruption. McKinsey Quarterly (January 10), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/achieving-supply-chain-resiliency-in-consumer-goods-amid-disruption.
[66]
Saraf N, Langdon CS, Gosain S (2007) IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships. Inform. Systems Res. 18(3):320–339.
[67]
Sawyerr OO, McGee J, Peterson M (2003) Perceived uncertainty and firm performance in SMEs: The role of personal networking activities. Internat. Small Bus. J. 21(3):269–290.
[68]
Schilke O (2014) On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management J. 35(2):179–203.
[69]
Segars AH, Grover V (1998) Strategic information systems planning success: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 22(2):139–163.
[70]
Shen ZM, Sun Y (2021) Strengthening supply chain resilience during COVID-19: A case study of JD. com. J. Oper. Management. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.1161.
[71]
Simatupang TM, Sridharan R (2005) An integrative framework for supply chain collaboration. Internat. J. Logist. Management 16(2):257–274.
[72]
Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Methodology 13:290–312.
[73]
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3):387–420.
[74]
Steerman H (2003) A practical look at CPFR: The Sears-Michelin experience. Supply Chain Management Re. 7(4):46–53.
[75]
Swafford PM, Ghosh S, Murthy N (2006) The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: Scale development and model testing. J. Oper. Management 24(2):170–188.
[76]
Swafford PM, Ghosh S, Murthy N (2008) Achieving supply chain agility through IT integration and flexibility. Internat. J. Production Econom. 116(2):288–297.
[77]
Tallon PP, Pinsonneault A (2011) Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: Insights from a mediation model. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 35(2):463–486.
[78]
Tortoriello M, Krackhardt D (2010) Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Acad. Management J. 53(1):167–181.
[79]
Wang L, Yeung JHY, Zhang M (2011) The impact of trust and contract on innovation performance: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty. Internat. J. Production Econom. 134(1):114–122.
[80]
Wong CY, Boon-Itt S, Wong CWY (2011) The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance. J. Oper. Management 29(6):604–615.
[81]
Wu L, Chiu ML (2018) Examining supply chain collaboration with determinants and performance impact: Social capital, justice, and technology use perspectives. Internat. J. Inform. Management 39(April):5–19.
[82]
Xue L, Ray G, Sambamurthy V (2012) Efficiency or innovation: How do industry environments moderate the effects of firms’ IT asset portfolios? Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(2):509–528.
[83]
Yang J (2014) Supply chain agility: Securing performance for Chinese manufacturers. Internat. J. Production Econom. 150(April):104–113.
[84]
Zhang Q, Cao M (2018) Exploring antecedents of supply chain collaboration: Effects of culture and interorganizational system appropriation. Internat. J. Production Econom. 195:146–157.
[85]
Zhao K, Xia M (2014) Forming interoperability through interorganizational systems standards. J. Management Inform. Systems 30(4):269–298.
[86]
Zhu K, Kraemer KL, Gurbaxani V, Xu SX (2006) Migration to open-standard interorganizational systems: Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 30(1):515–539.
[87]
Zietsma C, Lawrence TB (2010) Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(2):189–221.

Index Terms

  1. Interorganizational Systems and Supply Chain Agility in Uncertain Environments: The Mediation Role of Supply Chain Collaboration
            Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Information & Contributors

            Information

            Published In

            cover image Information Systems Research
            Information Systems Research  Volume 35, Issue 1
            March 2024
            447 pages
            DOI:10.1287/isre.2024.35.issue-1
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Publisher

            INFORMS

            Linthicum, MD, United States

            Publication History

            Published: 07 April 2023
            Accepted: 07 January 2023
            Received: 27 June 2019

            Author Tags

            1. IOS adaptability
            2. IOS standardization
            3. supply chain collaboration
            4. supply chain agility
            5. environmental uncertainty

            Qualifiers

            • Research-article

            Contributors

            Other Metrics

            Bibliometrics & Citations

            Bibliometrics

            Article Metrics

            • 0
              Total Citations
            • 0
              Total Downloads
            • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
            Reflects downloads up to 21 Sep 2024

            Other Metrics

            Citations

            View Options

            View options

            Get Access

            Login options

            Media

            Figures

            Other

            Tables

            Share

            Share

            Share this Publication link

            Share on social media