New product supply chain planning is challenging, primarily due to the lack of historical demand data. Rarely, however, do the academic literature or companies differentiate the demand forecasting process for new products from existing ones, despite their increased reliance on judgmental estimates. This research focuses on how judgmental errors lead to an under-estimation of the difference between the highest- and lowest-demand stock-keeping units (SKUs), and consequently negatively impact supply chain planning for new product family introductions. A generalized empirical model and accompanying discrete event simulation are developed and applied to data from a major consumer packaged goods (CPG) firm during the launch of a new cosmetics product family. This application allows us to identify a focal type of judgmental error (identified as the SKU-level spread bias) inherent to new product forecasting and to provide a new theoretical understanding of how this type of bias harms supply chain performance. Via an empirically driven theory-building approach that iterates between the simulation outcomes and existing literature, SKU-level spread bias is demonstrated to harm demand forecasts and, thereby, supply chain plans. Our unique theory-building approach advances theory by identifying planner SKU-level spread bias as a new source of bias that firms should seek to mitigate when introducing new product families.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the activities that nascent firms undertake to improve customer attractiveness and gain collaborative commitment from strategic suppliers.Design/methodology/approachData from a grounded theory study consisting of 26 participants from 15 firms and a review of extant literature were used to develop a theoretical model that explains how a nascent firm increases its customer attractiveness to elicit commitment and collaboration from strategic suppliers.FindingsThe authors find that social capital, born of close social ties and social history, enhances the effectiveness of a nascent firm's relationship-building practices. This counteracts a supplier's collaborative risk and consequently increases the nascent firm's customer attractiveness, thus enabling it to obtain strategic supplier collaborative commitment.Practical implicationsThis research helps managers by providing direction on what practices nascent firms pursue to gain strategic supplier resources and collaboration. Given the reality of resource constraints in nascent firms, it is suggested that this insight is essential to obtaining crucial external resources needed to survive and grow.Originality/valueExtant research on buyer–supplier collaboration is mostly confined to the context of mature firms and does not account for the unique inter-organizational relational challenges faced by nascent firms. This research uncovers the idiosyncrasies of supplier management in nascent firms, and elucidates on the actions that nascent firm managers take to gain supplier collaborative commitment.

The designation of a supply chain as efficient or responsive has often been considered to be a dichotomy in theory and practice. This technical note explores this issue by describing an engagement by the research team with a large consumer packaged‐goods company within their cosmetics supply chain during the launch of a new product family. The company was experiencing high supply–demand mismatch costs that they attributed to their supply chain that was designed to emphasize efficiency over responsiveness. We analyzed the appropriateness of the supply‐chain design through the lens of theory and concluded that the efficient design was in fact a good match for the product. A simulation model allowed us to organize available data and identify the root cause of the mismatch costs. Results from the simulation showed that the mismatch costs stemmed primarily from a failure to deploy small but important responsiveness opportunities: Because the supply chain was designated as efficient, responsiveness was ignored, and this substantially increased mismatches. Mismatches also occurred because decision makers failed to distinguish between delivery and decision lead time.

As developed markets become more saturated, managers increasingly recognize the value of emerging markets as venues for growth opportunities. Yet, launching products into these markets is extremely risky due to weak institutional environments (e.g., lack of physical infrastructure), making success more uncertain. To alleviate this challenge, theory points to using emerging market footholds that yield market-specific knowledge. However, it is unclear whether knowledge is realized and, if so, what facets of harvested knowledge are effective in driving performance. Accordingly, we used data collected from a survey of business professionals to examine emerging market footholds and market-specific knowledge (i.e., customer, competitor, and logistics knowledge). Our results show that the extent of market presence held by an emerging market foothold is positively associated with all types of knowledge, yet only competitor and logistics knowledge-not customer knowledge-is positively associated with product launch performance. A supplemental sample of new product launches in developed markets revealed the opposite results wherein customer knowledge was the only significant predictor. Viewed collectively, the results suggest a market maturity threshold wherein logistics and competitive knowledge becomes less influential in driving performance, and customer knowledge becomes more influential.

AbstractTo extend previous research, this study focuses on how a firm’s supply chain agility affects performance through the lens of resource orchestration theory. We offer an additional extension to theory by examining the impact of environmental uncertainty in the resource orchestration process. Research indicates that a firm’s capabilities must be considered within the context of larger uncontrollable and environmental factors. While the Fisher model focuses explicitly on a product’s demand volatility, the contemporary environment for many firms can be portrayed as rapidly changing with turbulent markets, rapid product life cycles, and a changing competitive landscape. Focusing on three underlying dimensions of environmental uncertainty, namely dynamism, munificence, and complexity, we theorize that this uncertainty facilitates market orientation and moderates the mediating relationship between the firm’s market orientation and supply chain orientation and a firm’s supply chain agility. In short, orchestrating resources for a firm’s supply chain agility may or may not be as significant to achieving financial performance, depending on environmental uncertainty. Therefore, our overall contribution rests in the understanding that firms must determine the appropriate level of supply chain agility.

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.

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.

Emerging markets present intriguing growth opportunities, but they are often extremely risky for foreign entrants. Given this riskiness, companies entering emerging markets may establish strategic footholdssmall positions that they can later choose to expand (referred to as an attack) or abandon (referred to as a withdrawal)rather than making costly large-scale entries. While scholars have begun to examine the competitive dynamics surrounding footholds, the influence of the supply chain has not been considered. This is surprising given that supply chains are key to the daunting task of meeting emerging market demands. To build on extant research, we theorize about how environmental uncertainty (e.g., stemming from factors such as poor infrastructure and political unrest), foothold portability (i.e., how easily the foothold resources can be redeployed in the firm's supply chain), and supply chain knowledge influence (or should influence) firms' decisions about footholds. This represents a needed step forward in understanding the central role of supply chains in foothold maneuvers in emerging markets. In taking this step, we posit that firms must consider both competitive dynamics and their supply chains or they risk over/under estimating the viability and value of their footholds.

Agility has been identified as one of the most salient issues of contemporary supply chain management (Lee, 2004). Despite its importance, there has been limited theory development in supply chain agility at the firm level. The antecedents of firm supply chain agility are understood even less as they have been primarily addressed at an operational level. Gligor and Holcomb (2012b) emphasized that more research is needed to identify the firm supply chain agility strategic level antecedents. Gligor et al. (2015) specifically called for future research to investigate the role of market orientation and supply chain orientation in achieving supply chain agility. We address this call and expand on the work of Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) who explored the role of different managerial orientations in achieving supply chain agility. The current research hypothesizes that market orientation has a direct impact on firm supply chain agility. Further, it is not enough to be market oriented to achieve a high level of supply chain agility; rather, a supply chain orientation also needs to be developed. In order to increase the explanatory power of our model we account for the impact of environmental uncertainty (Dess and Beard, 1984). Important theoretical and managerial implications are put forth as well.

Current conditions have rendered the primary pursuit to reduce transportation costs ineffective. A cure for the cost savings addiction is a collaborative partnership that has an aligned long-term view of mutual success.

Traditionally, researchers have claimed agility as an attribute closely tied to the effectiveness of strategic supply chain management. Because of its association with customer effectiveness, some researchers have considered agility to be fundamentally different from lean, which has been linked to cost efficiency (Goldsby et al., 2006). Therefore, the relationship between agility and cost efficiency is not clear due to limited empirical scrutiny from researchers. Since elimination of waste is the cornerstone of lean, unraveling the relationship between agility and efficiency can also offer a better perspective on relationship between the fundamental paradigms of agility and lean. The manuscript makes a key contribution to the agility literature by examining the association between supply chain agility (FSCA), cost efficiency and customer effectiveness across various environmental situations. We use archival data to examine the moderating effects of environmental munificence, dynamism, and complexity. It has been argued that firms should embrace agile strategies when operating in highly uncertain environments, and embrace lean strategies when operating in more stable environments (Lee, 2002; Sebastiao and Golicic, 2008). We empirically question this premise to determine whether supply chain agility can also lead to superior performance for firms operating in stable environments. The study results also provide a better understanding of how FSCA contributes to firm financial performance. We evaluate the impact of FSCA on the firm's Return on Assets using archival data from the Compustat database. Thus, we provide evidence to managers that deploying resource to enhance FSCA can positively impact the firm's bottom line.

The talent squeeze is real. The number of jobs is expected to grow by more than 20 percent by 2022 while Baby Boomer retirement continues to deplete the ranks of experienced supply chain professionals. Some observers believe the demand for supply chain professionals might now exceed supply by a six-to-one ratio. But the picture is brighter than it might appear. One ray of hope: the efforts of business and academic leaders to attract and develop potential supply chain leaders.

Although current literature acknowledges the importance of integrated logistics capabilities, little empirical research exists on the antecedents and outcomes of this capability The current study addresses this gap by examining how firms can develop integrated logistics capabilities and how this capability impacts firm performance. Specifically, the study identifies and empirically establishes the link.between the behavioral elements of cooperation, coordination, and communication, and the achievement of integrated logistics capabilities. The results suggest that all three behavioral elements contribute directly to the integration of logistics capabilities across members of the supply chain. Further, it was found that the integration of logistics capabilities does impact operational and relational performance. The integration of logistics capabilities has the potential to lower the overall firm costs, and lead to better relationships with customers and the delivery of superior customer value.

Purpose – The concept of supply chain agility (SCA) has been identified as one of the most important issues in supply chain management literature. However, despite the popularity of the concept, many attributes of SCA are largely unexplored. One area that is deficient in research is the antecedents of SCA. This paper aims to seek further theory development by addressing these gaps in the SCA literature. Design/methodology/approach – Data for this study were obtained from a field survey. A mail questionnaire was constructed that contained items measuring the constructs of interest. The theoretical model was evaluated using structural equation modeling. Findings – The findings indicate that logistics capabilities positively impact SCA. The results provide empirical evidence for logistics’ unique and critical role in helping firms respond in a timely and effective manner to market volatility and other uncertainties. Research limitations/implications – As is the case with most supply chain survey research, the constructs of interest were evaluated based on the perception of a single party involved in a specific relationship. Future research using multiple dyads or triads within various supply chains could address this limitation. Practical implications – If limited resources are available for investment (as is often the case), a more balanced distribution of resources toward the development of multiple logistics capabilities (e.g. demand-management interface, information-management interface) is preferred to pooling all the resources toward the development of a single capability (e.g. information-management interface). Originality/value – Considering logistics’ boundary-spanning nature, prior research suggest that logistics capabilities perform a key role in achieving SCA. However, the relationship between firm-specific logistics capabilities and SCA has not been empirically tested. This paper address that gap in the research.