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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2059-5891.htm

Nexus between
The nexus between supply chain supply chain
analytic, innovation and analytic

robustness capability
Does firm age matter?
Mohamed Dawood Shamout Received 31 March 2019
Revised 18 November 2019
Department of Business Management, American University in the Emirates, Accepted 4 January 2020
Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
Purpose – By drawing on knowledge-based view, this paper aims to test causal model linking supply chain
analytics, innovation, robustness capability and firm age. More specifically, the mediating role of supply chain
innovation on supply chain analytics and robustness capability link and the moderating role of firm age.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were procured from companies operating in the United
Arab Emirates using a simple random sampling technique. The obtained data were analyzed with variance-
based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Findings – The findings from PLS-SEM revealed that supply chain innovation fully mediate supply chain
analytics and robustness capability associations. Findings from multi-group analysis (MGA) denote that firm
age did not moderate any of the paths of the research model. Suggesting that the associations are similar for
old, mid-aged and younger firms.
Originality/value – This work demonstrates that supply chain analytic is valuable tool that can foster
innovation and robustness in supply chain. This work is among the first to scrutinize the variation among old,
mid-aged and younger firms in supply chain analytics research stream. The paper concludes with
implications for theory and practice.
Keywords Data analytics, Supply chain analytics, Innovation, Routes stability, Resilience
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Rapid changes in market, intense competition, shorter product and service life cycle and
incessant innovational breakthrough has created several opportunities and challenges for
firms. One of these opportunities is big data, which has the capability to generate unforeseen
and unpredicted business value for firms (Chen et al., 2013). Firms in the supply chain
industry are expanding their expenditure on big data analytics not only for cost and
competitive advantage but also to reduce cost, uncertainty and strengthen decision-making
capability (Kache and Seuring, 2017). Big data by definition refers to huge dataset that is
characterized as high in volume, velocity, variety, veracity and value. Big data analytics
(BDA) delineate the technical tools used to extract relevant and valuable insights from big
data to help firms attain competitive advantage (Fosso et al., 2017).
BDA has been associated with increased performance (Akter et al., 2016; Côrte-Real et al.,
2016), market efficiency (Xu et al., 2016), decision-making quality and correctness
VINE Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or © Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5891
not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflict of interest. DOI 10.1108/VJIKMS-03-2019-0045
VJIKMS (Abubakar et al., 2017; Marijn et al., 2017). BDA is referred to as supply chain analytics in the
supply chain industry (Jeble et al., 2018). Supply chain analytics involve extricating,
diagnosing, integrating and transforming supply chain data into valuable information and
meaningful patterns for decision-makers (Tiwari et al., 2018). Supply chain analytics can boost
the operational performance of firms (Wang et al., 2016) and provides foresight information and
patterns that could aid innovative activities in the supply chain e.g. supply chain route or
warehouse data (Fosso et al., 2018; Jeble et al., 2018). Moreover, timely and accurate data
coupled with data analytics can improve supply chain innovation (Fernando et al., 2018).
Supply chain innovation evolves as a type of new, investment and progressive
techniques within the supply chain (Wagner, 2008) to minimize risk, foster resources and
reconfigure process that would boost resilience (Ambulkar et al., 2015). Physical strength or
ruggedness can be translated as robustness. In supply chain ecosystem, robustness
delineates the capacity to resist varied shocks, man-made errors and variability in the
business environment (Wieland and Wallenburg, 2012). Hence, robustness plays an
important role during disruption because well-equipped supply chain and logistics networks
with risk awareness can alleviate or eliminate the occurrence of risk (Kwak et al., 2018). The
quality data and ability to process the data can abate disruption and also reduce uncertainty
Papadopoulos et al. (2017) and possibly boost a supply chain robustness.
The extant literature and abstractions denote the potentiality of nexus among important
supply chain variables e.g. robustness capability, supply data analytics and innovation.
However, empirical evidence on this nexus is still an uncharted area (Lai et al., 2018). For
instance, the linear dependency linking robustness capability and supply chain innovation
has been proven by Kwak, Seo and Mason (2018). Existing researches highlighted the need to
further expound how and when data analytics improves important outcome variables in
logistics and supply chain industry (Papadopoulos et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2018). Additionally,
supply data analytics has been shown to open business opportunities for firms, thus,
warranting additional research (Waller and Fawcett, 2013). This paper responds to this call
by expounding the indirect effect of supply chain analytics on robustness capability through
supply chain innovation by using knowledge-based view (KBV) as a theoretical framework.
In doing so, the paper set out to catechize theory developed for and tested in Western settings.
Furthermore, this paper strived to provide fresh insights on how firm age shape the above
said inter-relationships. Accordingly, this study attempts to answer these research questions:

RQ1. Does supply chain analytics has an indirect effect on robustness capability
through supply chain innovation?
RQ2. Does firm age moderate the link between supply chain analytic and supply chain
innovation?
RQ3. Does firm age moderate the link between supply chain innovation and robustness
capability?

Literature and hypotheses

According to KBV propositions, business enterprises can prosper through effective and
efficient use of knowledge rather than mere possession. This imply that having unique
knowledge does not equate to success (Grant, 1996). In this sense, firm should possess the
skills, tools and know-how needed to acquire, process and transfer knowledge to attain
uniqueness, and competitive edge over rivals (Blome et al., 2014). The central variable in this
study is supply chain analytics, an iterative exploration of past, present and potential
environment intelligence and knowledge, coupled with modern technologies and practices to
gain insight. Implementation of such practices are likely to arm firms with inimitable Nexus between
resources and capabilities. This study assembled supply chain innovation and robustness supply chain
capability as potential antecedents of supply chain analytics.
analytic
The mediating role of supply chain innovation
Globalization, outsourcing and offshore production are business strategies designed to
increase market access and share and cost advantage. Apart from their benefits, they pose
several risks such as political and economic stability, transportation risks and other
environmental uncertainties that might harm or disrupt the movement of raw materials and
finished goods. To avoid these risks, supply chain managers rely on timely, accurate and
reliable information must respond to the preceding risks (Christopher and Lee, 2004).
According to Chae et al. (2014), the intersection between supply chain and data analytics
equates to supply chain analytics, which is a combination of IT-enabled resources, data
management and supply chain management. Supply chain analytics entail the use of
analytical tools, past and present data for predictive modeling that can improve supply
chain operational performance (Gunasekaran et al., 2017).
Data analytic tools are empowered to reduce cost, risks, evade precarious situations and
enhances decision-making speed and correctness (Kache and Seuring, 2017). KBV posits
that knowledge can grant firms differential capacity and long-term competitive advantage.
Information from supply chain analytics can boost firm’s pliability against changing
environment and intense competition, logically supply chain innovation is an inclusive
category. Research show that innovation is vital for organizational sustainability (Gao et al.,
2017). Innovation depicts development and deployment of advanced solutions that meet new
requirements, unarticulated needs and/or existing market needs. Supply chain innovation
can view as the application of new information and/or alteration ideas, methods and
initiatives to derive greater value in the supply chain. In this view, supply chain innovation
warrants several changes in the supply chain processes and rules, which has the tendency to
create unforeseen risks and uncertainty in supply chain and logistics operations.
On the negative front, risk a price of innovation and on the positive front, robustness is price
of innovation. According to Kwak et al. (2018), innovation in supply chain has the propensity to
strengthen firms risk management capability. This occurs when firms execute and deploys an
innovative process, such that the process will serve as a firm’s deficiency notifying mechanism
due to its interaction with other supply chain entities. As a result, firms can develop necessary
measures for continuous innovation and strategies to reduce risk and disruptions (Matook et al.,
2009), technically, supply chain robustness. For example, real-time supply chain and logistic
channels tracking systems can increase firm’s resilience against internal and external
disruptions and potentials risks. Additionally, innovative vehicles, packages, agile and
responsive processes appear to be an auxiliary mechanism by which supply chain and logistic
firms use for risk management capabilities, logically enhancing resilience and/or robustness
capacity (Waters, 2007). Data analytics has been shown to improve supply chain performance,
visibility, resilience and robustness (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Schoenherr and Speier-Pero,
2015; Waller and Fawcett, 2013). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. Supply chain innovation mediates the link between supply chain analytics and
supply chain robustness capability.

The moderating role of firm age

Supply chain analytics is the effective acquisition and transformation of data into meaningful
information that supports decision-making. This process can unveil and/or spot errors and help
VJIKMS decision-makers develop effective and efficient strategies that might aid reduction of costs,
delivery time, error rates and improve operational capability. Innovation on the other is a complex
process involving the identifications of new ways and methods and/or turning opportunities into
new practical ideas for supply chain management (Lee et al., 2011). Interestingly, these changes
are mostly conditioned by accurate, timely and reliable data. Drawing on KBV, supply chain
analytics that uses supply chain data to enhance decision-making quality may function as a
booster for supply chain innovation and this may vary across firm age. Because innovation
requires opportunity recognition, explorative and exploitation capabilities, which are generally
accrued over time from a firm’s cumulative learning and experience.
Research suggests that firm age may affect a firm’s ability to produce innovation activity
(Huergo and Jaumandreu, 2004). For example, older firms can obtain higher outputs from their
capabilities than younger firms (Withers et al., 2011). Hansen (1992) showed that firm age is
significantly and inversely related to innovation output. Coad et al. (2016) revealed that young firms
face larger performance benefits from research and development (R&D), a proxy for data analytics
in today’s market. Alliance ambidexterity positively influences innovation performance, and firm
age exerts a negative moderating effect (Ardito et al., 2019). Another research shows that firm age
does not change how data analytics improve firm decision-making quality (Ghasemaghaei, 2019).
The extant literature suggest that the literature is full of mix results, which warrant additional
research. This study theorizes that older firms can obtain higher outputs from their supply chain
analytical capabilities than younger firms. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2a. Firm age will moderate the link between supply chain analytics and supply chain
innovation.
Robust supply chain and logistics networks can endure, confront and control disruptions.
Robustness can buy time for a firm to identify and implement control mechanism against
exposure to risks (Kwak et al., 2018). Firm benefits from well-embedded, robust routines
derived from prior operating experiences, thus, a firm’s competence to increase innovation
output improves with age (Kotha et al., 2011). For instance, older firms possess industrial
experience that ensure that they have an understand of technological domain for optimal
reconfiguration (Zahra and George, 2002). This knowledge and know-how make older firms
turn away from fruitless innovation, avoid “dead ends” and develop defensive wall against
external shocks (Kotha et al., 2011). Younger firms have lesser tendency to engage in routine
search strategies and/or quest for innovation due to resource constraints and lack of experience
compare to older firms (George, 2005).
Contrariwise, Aziz and Samad (2016) found that firm age moderates the link between
innovation and competitive advantage. That is, younger firms are more likely to have
competitive advantage than older firms. Recently, Gölgeci and Kuivalainen (2019) show that as
firm age increases supply chain resilience decreases among Turkish firms. Consequently,
difficulties in terms of information sharing in older firms may favor younger firms to
flexibility, resilience and technological niches (Kotha et al., 2011). Arend (2014) explore how
firm age and size conditioned the association between capability-enhancing processes and firm
performance and found that no significant differences among younger or older firms. The
extant literature suggest that the literature is full of mix results, which warrant additional
research. This study theorizes that older firms can obtain higher robustness from their
innovation activities than younger firms Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed (Figure 1):

H2b. Firm age will moderate the link supply chain innovation and robustness
capability.
Methods Nexus between
Sample and procedure supply chain
The survey items were initially in English, two professional translators were contracted to
back-translate the items from English to Arabic and vice versa. The items were modified to
analytic
fit the research and cultural context to increase understanding and validity of the outcome.
The research context comprises of firms having supply chain departments. Based on a
simple random sampling technique, 400 firms operating in the UAE were targeted. Line
managers in supply and logistics departments have accurate and valid information about
the supply chain management and related activities in each firm. Henceforth, survey forms
were sent to line managers of the participating firms and asked to fill the survey forms at
their free time. The cover page briefed the participants about the aims and value of the
study, participants confsidentiality and anonymity were also assured. These strategies were
used to increase response rate and abate the negative impact of social desirability and
common method bias. In addition, the questions were arranged in a way that make them
appear not related e.g. placing the survey items for independent, mediator and dependent
variables on separate pages. A total of 245 valid survey forms were returned, out of which
32 had missing data. Forms with missing information were disqualified and only 213 valid
responses were used for analysis.

Measures
Supply chain analytics was operationalized with a second-order construct with three
dimensions from Wang and Byrd (2017). The dimensions are effective use of data
aggregation, effective use of data analysis tools and effective use of data interpretation tools.
Participants were asked to rate the level their firms utilize data analytic tools in their supply
chain on a five-point scale spanning from 1-poorly developed to 5-well developed. Supply
chain innovation was operationalized with six item scale borrowed from Seo et al. (2014),
Kwak et al. (2018) study. In which the participants rated how much the pursue number of
innovation activities. Robustness capability was operationalized with four item scale
borrowed from Kwak et al. (2018), Wieland and Wallenburg (2012). Supply chain innovation
and robustness capability were anchored on a five-point scale ranging from 1-strongly
disagree to 5-strongly agree. The scale items are presented in Table I.

Data analysis and findings

Demographic data are presented in Table I.
The proposed structural model was subject to series of test using the newly partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique. PLS-SEM is robust
and rigorous in nature, which makes it suitable for smaller sample and complex of the
model (Hair et al., 2013). The author deployed Smart PLS software version 3.0 to assess
the model reliability, convergent and divergent validities. The factor loadings in outer

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
VJIKMS Variables Frequency (%)

Number of employees
Less than 50 27 12.6
51-100 37 17.3
Above 100 149 69.6
Total 213 100
Firms age
1-5 years 67 31.3
6-10 years 50 23.4
10 years and above 96 44.9
Total 213 100
Manufacturing/production/procurement process
Job shop 48 22.4
Batch 37 17.3
Repetitive assembly 58 27.1
Continuous flow 70 32.7
Total 213 100
Sector/Industry
Apparel and other textile products 34 15.9
Automotive/spare parts 28 13.1
Vegetables/perishable goods 34 15.9
Supermarkets and households’ products 44 20.6
Construction and building materials 35 16.4
Electric and electronics products 27 12.6
Table I. Chemicals and allied products 11 5.1
Respondent profile Total 213 100

model of Figure 2 were acceptable and significant enough. Cronbach’s alpha (a), composite
reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 70, 0.70 and 0.5, respectively
(Hair et al., 2013). The square root of AVE values (diagonal values) for each construct is
greater than its correlation coefficients with other constructs, which satisfies Fornell and
Larcker’s (1981) criterion. Based on these estimates the author concluded that presence of
internal consistency and reliability, as well as evidence of convergent and divergent validity.
The above said coefficients are presented in Table III.
Figure 2 presents the direct effects (beta estimates) in inner links; item factor loadings are
given in the outer model links and the R2 estimates for each effect is illustrated on the blue
circles. Prior to hypotheses testing, we assess the inter-relationships among the variables in
the measurement model. It appears that supply chain analytics has a significant effect on
supply chain innovation ( b = 0.73, r = 0.000) and supply chain innovation has a significant
effect on robustness capability ( b = 0.86, r = 0.000) (Table IV). H1 states that supply chain
innovation will mediate the association between supply chain analytics and robustness
capability. Following the recommendation of Hair et al. (2013). A bias-corrected and
accelerated (BCa) Bootstrap analysis with a resample of 5,000 was carried out. Results in
Table IV revealed that supply chain innovation fully mediate the relationship between
supply chain analytics and robustness capability ( b = 0.63, r = 0.000) with the following
intervals (Bias = 0.004; 2.5 per cent = 0.538; 97.5 per cent = 0.695). Thus, H1 gained support.
SmartPLS was used to conduct a multi-group moderation analysis also known as the
multi-group analysis (MGA). It permits scholars to assess group differences (i.e. pre-defined
Scale items
Nexus between
supply chain
Supply chain analytics analytic
Effective use of data aggregation tools
SCD1: “Collect data from external sources and from various supply chain channels and systems
throughout your organization”
SCD2: “Make supply chains records consistent, visible and easily accessible for further analysis”
SCD3: “Store transaction or channel data into appropriate databases”
Effective use of data analysis tools
SCD4: “Identify important business insights and trends to improve the supply chain value”
SCD5: “Predict patterns of each channel in response to each supply chain need”
SCD6: “Analyze data in near-real or real-time that allows responses to unexpected events”
SCD7: “Analyze social media data to understand current trends from a large population”
Effective use of data interpretation tools
SCD8: “Provide systemic and comprehensive reporting to help recognize feasible opportunities for supply
chains channels and service improvement”
SCD9: “Support data visualization that enables users to easily interpret results”
SCD10: “Provide near-real or real-time information on public operations and services within organization
and across other supply chain systems/organizations”
Supply chain innovation
SCI1: “We pursue a cutting-edge system that can integrate supply chain information”
SCI2: “We pursue technology for real-time tracking of our supply chain and channels”
SCI3: “We pursue innovative vehicles, packages or other physical assets”
SCI4: “We pursue continuous innovation in core global supply chain processes”
SCI5: “We pursue agile and responsive processes against changes in our supply chain”
SCI6: “We pursue creative supply chain methods and/or service”
Robustness capability – Our supply chain and logistics networks
RC1: “Our supply chain and logistics networks can remain effective and sustain even when internal/
external disruptions occur”
RC2: “Our supply chain and logistics networks can avoid or minimize risk occurrence by anticipating and
preparing for them”
RC3: “Our supply chain and logistics networks can absorb a significant level of negative impacts from
recurrent risks” Table II.
RC4: “Our supply chain and logistics networks can have sufficient time to consider most effective reactions” Scale items

Figure 2.
Directs effects and
factor loadings
VJIKMS data groups) based on path coefficients, as well as the strength of relationship. Based on
H2a and H2 b, the test for significant differences in their group-specific parameter estimates
was carried out using MGA with a BCa Bootstrap with a resample of 5,000.
MGA results in Tables V, VI and VII show that there is no difference between young and
mid-aged firms ( b = 0.04, r  0.05), young and older firms ( b = 0.08, r  0.05) and mid-
aged and older firms ( b = 0.04, r  0.05) on supply chain analytics and supply chain

Variables 1 2 3 a CR AVE R2 f2
Table III. Fornell–Larcker Criterion
Reliability, "Supply chain analytics" 0.70 0.89 0.91 0.49
convergent and "Supply chain innovation" 0.73 0.72 0.81 0.86 0.51 0.54 1.15
divergent validity "Robustness capability" 0.65 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.87 0.63 0.74 2.84

[Confidence interval]
Relationships b t r Bias L-2.5% U-97.5%

Direct effects
“Supply chain analytics – Supply
chain innovation” 0.73 17.21 0.000 0.001 0.634 0.800
“Supply chain innovation –
Robustness capability” 0.86 49.80 0.000 0.003 0.815 0.887
Indirect effects
“Supply chain analytics – Supply
Table IV. chain innovation – Robustness
capability” 0.63 16.06 0.000 0.003 0.538 0.695
Direct and indirect
effects Notes: b = path coefficient; t = t-values; r = p-value; L = lower bound; U = upper bound

G1 (n = 67) G2 (n = 50) G1 vs G2
Paths b (r ) b (r ) b (r ) Decision

“Supply chain analytics – Supply chain

innovation” 0.69 (0.000) 0.73 (0.000) 0.04 (0.664) Rejected
Table V. “Supply chain innovation – Robustness
capability” 0.88 (0.000) 0.87 (0.000) 0.01 (0.445) Rejected
MGA for young and
mid-aged firms Notes: G1 = Young firms; G2 = Mid aged-firms; G3 = older firms

G1 (n = 67) G3 (n = 96) G1 vs G3
Paths b (r ) b (r ) b (r ) Decision

"Supply chain analytics – Supply chain 0.69 (0.000) 0.78 (0.000) 0.08 (0.816) Rejected
innovation"
"Supply chain innovation – Robustness 0.88 (0.000) 0.85 (0.000) 0.03 (0.257) Rejected
Table VI. capability"
MGA for young and
older firms Notes: G1 = Young firms; G2 = Mid aged-firms; G3 = older firms
innovation path. Suggesting that the impact of supply chain analytics on supply chain Nexus between
innovation is the same for firms of all ages. Thus, H2a was rejected. supply chain
MGA results in Tables V, VI and VII show that there is no difference between young and
mid-aged firms ( b = 0.01, r  0.05), young and older firms ( b = 0.03, r  0.05) and mid-
analytic
aged and older firms ( b = 0.02, r  0.05) on supply chain innovation and robustness
capability path. Suggesting that the impact of supply chain innovation on robustness
capability is the same for firms of all ages. Thus, H2 b was rejected.

Discussion
Despite frequent discussion of supply data analytics in the supply chain literature, the
extant literature has yet to investigate the implied impact on innovation per KBV. This
oversight has also been seen in the robustness capability literature although supply data
analytics is consistently cited as an integral part of robustness capability building
mechanics. To address the aforementioned voids, this study integrates and examines the
mediating role of supply chain innovation between supply chain analytics and robustness
capability, and the moderating role of firm age on the above said relationships.
First, this paper found that supply chain analytics has an indirect effect on robustness
capability through supply chain innovation. Specifically, supply chain analytics nurture
supply chain innovation capabilities through data aggregation, data analysis, and data
interpretation; all of which enhances effective decision-making. Moreover, effective decision-
making can mitigate risks by functioning as a shock observer (Matook et al., 2009).
Innovation capabilities outlines firm’s vulnerabilities through which robustness can emerge
as firm strive to overcome uncertainty and disruptions (Kwak et al., 2018). By drawing on
KBV, this empirical work unveils the mechanistic link between supply chain analytics and
robustness capability through the mediatory role of supply chain innovation capability.
Second, this paper revealed a significant association between supply chain analytics and
supply chain innovation. Prior work asserted that data analytics is a predictor for
innovation (Fernando et al., 2018), organizational performance and competitive intelligence
(Gunasekaran et al., 2017). The outcome in this study implies that firms with supply chain
analytics are prone to develop supply chain innovation, a test for the moderating effect of
firm age on the link was conducted. In particular, no significant difference was uncovered,
suggesting that supply chain analytics can be leveraged by firms of all ages. Similar
findings were echoed by Ghasemaghaei (2019). The result showed that supply chain
analytics can predict greater levels of supply chain innovation for firms of all ages.
Third, this paper revealed a significant association between supply chain innovation and
robustness capability. Prior work linked supply chain analytics with risk management (Zhu et al.,
2018) and risk mitigation (Papadopoulos et al., 2017). García-Sánchez et al. (2018) argued that
innovation can nurture its absorptive capacity. This study outlines that supply chain analytics
can boost supply chain innovation, which further strengthen robustness capability via
adjustment and modifications of business processes and rules in the supply chain ecosystem. As

G2 (n = 50) G3 (n = 96) G1 vs G3
Paths b (r ) b (r ) b (r ) Decision

Supply chain analytics - Supply chain innovation 0.73 (0.000) 0.78 (0.000) 0.04 (0.657) Rejected
Supply chain innovation - Robustness capability 0.87 (0.000) 0.85 (0.000) 0.02 (0.310) Rejected Table VII.
MGA for mid-aged
Notes: G1 = Young firms; G2 = Mid aged-firms; G3 = older firms and older firms
VJIKMS a next step, a test for the moderating effect of firm age on the link between supply chain
innovation and robustness capability was conducted. In particular, no significant difference was
uncovered, suggesting that firm age does not alter the nature of the relationship. Similar findings
were echoed by Arend (2014). The results showed that supply chain innovation can predict
greater levels of robustness capability for firms of all ages.
In sum, results concerning the moderating role of firm age delineate that no difference
exist. Several data analytics tools exist. In that older firms with financial and other
abundant resources can acquire and use these tools. On the other hand, younger firms with
limited resources can Pay per Use options. Older firms can easily reallocate resources to set
up team or unit for supply chain analytics, while younger firms can leverage the power of
Crowdsourcing and/or hire online freelancers.

Implication for theory and practice

Technological breakthrough and innovations put pressure on firms to acquire, analyze,
interpret market or environmental intelligence and/or make decision in a timely manner
(Dehghani et al., 2018). Thus, managers must harvest all valuable information within their
digital channels to determine feasible business process and routes. Data analytics empower
technology manufacturers to mine consumer preferences via social network sites, they were
able to address deficiency in their products and satisfy consumers’ needs in their new
products e.g. increase battery life, waterproof devices, higher speed of smart devices (Xu
et al., 2016). Further, supply chain innovation is associated with increased resilience
capability (Kwak et al., 2018). Empirical evidence showed that risk management capability
can be enriched by the adoption of new technologies and innovative supply chain practices
(Grant, 1991). Subsequently, data analytics can help firms to overcome problems such as
demand uncertainty, routes and supply disruptions (Wang et al., 2016).
This study showed that supply chain firms can leverage the power of supply chain analytics
to empower innovative products and services; in that firms can survival today’s competitive
market environment (Likoum et al., 2018) through increased innovation and robustness
capability. This paper argues that supply chain analytics a form of digital information sources is
important for supply chain managers in on several dimensions. One, managers can leverage on
supply chain analytics to increase the number of innovations and business value. Two,
information with competitive advantage texture can be harvested with supply chain analytics,
and such meaningful knowledge could serve as a backbone for innovation, network and strength
capacity building. Three, this paper recommends that firm of all ages (i.e. young, mid-aged and
old) can leverage the power of data for innovation and to create agile and robust business process.
Four, the research adds to supply chain analytics literature by identifying supply chain
innovation as a mediating mechanism linking supply chain analytics and robustness capability;
and firm age as a moderating mechanism on the paths.
This work is not without limitations. First, self-report and cross-sectional data are
problematic and as such we cannot draw concrete assertions on the outcome. Second, small
sample size and data is drawn from UAE and as such results can only be generalized after
similar findings have emerged from other countries. Third, due to data limitation, we did not
difference among sectors was not gauged for. Lastly, areas left less discussed in this work is
type of sector, industrial network and alliance. Future research can investigate the
discrepancies between sectors using a larger sample size. Future studies should investigate
how collaborations and interfirm networks may strengthen the effect of supply chain analytics
on innovation and robustness. Future work should consider alternative methods such as
artificial neural network, decision tree, Bayesian network, etc. because Correlation, regression
and structural equation modeling have lesser predictive power (Abubakar et al., 2019).
References Nexus between
Abubakar, A.M., Behravesh, E., Rezapouraghdam, H. and Yildiz, S.B. (2019), “Applying artificial supply chain
intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding behavior”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 49, pp. 45-57.
analytic
Abubakar, A.M., Elrehail, H., Alatailat, M.A. and ElcôI, A. (2017), “Knowledge management, decision-
making style and organizational performance”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 104-114.
Akter, S., Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2016), “How to improve firm
performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy alignment?”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 182 No. 1, pp. 113-131.
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J. and Grae, S. (2015), “Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale
development and empirical examination”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33-34 No. 1,
pp. 111-122.
Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, A.M. and Albino, V. (2019), “The influence of alliance ambidexterity on
innovation performance and the moderating role of firm age”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management.
Arend, R.J. (2014), “Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: how firm age and size affect the
‘capability enhancement–SME performance’ relationship”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 33-57.
Aziz, N.N.A. and Samad, S. (2016), “Innovation and competitive advantage: moderating effects of firm age
in foods manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 256-266.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T. and Eckstein, D. (2014), “The impact of knowledge transfer and complexity
on supply chain flexibility: a knowledge-based view”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 307-316.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W. and Petersen, K.J. (2014), “A contingent resource-based
perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 55-73.
Chae, B., Olson, D. and Sheu, C. (2014), “The impact of supply chain analytics on operational
performance: a resource-based view”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52
No. 16, pp. 4695-4710.
Chen, H., Chiang, R.H.L. and Storey, V.C. (2013), “Special issue: business intelligence research business
intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 1165-1188.
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 388-396.
Coad, A., Segarra, A. and Teruel, M. (2016), “Innovation and firm growth: does firm age play a role?”,
Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 387-400.
Côrte-Real, N., Oliveira, T. and Ruivo, P. (2016), “Assessing business value of big data analytics in
European firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 379-390.
Dehghani, M., Abubakar, A.M. and Pashna, M. (2018), “Market-driven management of start-ups: the
case of wearable technology”, Applied Computing and Informatics, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aci.2018.11.002.
Fernando, Y., Chidambaram, R.R.M. and Wahyuni-Td, I.S. (2018), “The impact of big data analytics
and data security practices on service supply chain performance”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 4009-4034, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-
2017-0194.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
VJIKMS Fosso, W.S., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T. and Ngai, E. (2018), “Big data analytics in logistics and
supply chain management”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 478-484, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2018-0026
Fosso, W.S., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S.J.F., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2017), “Big data analytics
and firm performance: effects of dynamic capabilities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70,
pp. 356-365.
Gao, D., Xu, Z., Ruan, Y.Z. and Lu, H. (2017), “From a systematic literature review to integrated definition
for sustainable supply chain innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 1518-1538.
García-Sánchez, E., García-Morales, V.J. and Martín-Rojas, R. (2018), “Influence of technological assets
on organizational performance through absorptive capacity”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 770.
George, G. (2005), “Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 661-676.
Ghasemaghaei, M. (2019), “Does data analytics use improve firm decision-making quality? The role of
knowledge sharing and data analytics competency”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 120,
pp. 14-24.
Gölgeci, I. and Kuivalainen, O. (2019), “Does social capital matter for supply chain resilience? The role
of absorptive capacity and marketing-supply chain management alignment”, Industrial
Marketing Management.
Grant, R. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy
formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 109-122.
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S.F., Childe, S.J., Hazen, B. and Akter, S. (2017),
“Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 308-317.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous apps, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2,
pp. 1-12.
Hansen, J.A. (1992), “Innovation, firm size, and firm age”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 37-44.
Huergo, E. and Jaumandreu, J. (2004), “How does probability of innovation change with firm age? ”,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, pp. 193-207.
Jeble, S., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Roubaud, D. and Prakash, A. (2018), “Impact of big
data and predictive analytics capability on supply chain sustainability”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 513-538, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLM-05-2017-0134
Kache, F. and Seuring, S. (2017), “Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the intersection
of big data analytics and supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 10-36.
Kotha, R., Zheng, Y. and George, G. (2011), “Entry into new niches: the effects of firm age and the
expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1011-1024.
Kwak, D.W., Seo, Y.J. and Mason, R. (2018), “Investigating the relationship between supply chain
innovation, risk management capabilities and competitive advantage in global supply chains”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Lai, Y., Sun, H. and Ren, J. (2018), “Understanding the determinants of big data analytics (BDA)
adoption in logistics and supply chain management: an empirical investigation”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 676-703, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-06-2017-0153
Lee, S.M., Lee, D. and Schniederjans, M.J. (2011), “Supply chain innovation and organizational Nexus between
performance in the healthcare industry”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 1193-1214.
supply chain
Likoum, S.W.B., Shamout, M.D., Harazneh, I. and Abubakar, A.M. (2018), “Market-sensing capability,
analytic
innovativeness, brand management systems, market dynamism, competitive intensity, and
performance: an integrative review”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, pp. 1-21.
Marijn, J., van der Voort, H. and Wahyudi, A. (2017), “Factors influencing big data decision making
quality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 338-345.
Matook, S., Lasch, R. and Tamaschke, R. (2009), “Supplier development with benchmarking as part of a
comprehensive supplier risk management framework”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 241-267.
Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Altay, N., Childe, S.J. and Fosso-Wamba, S. (2017), “The
role of big data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 1108-1118.
Schoenherr, T. and Speier-Pero, C. (2015), “Data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply
chain management: current state and future potential”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 120-132.
Seo, Y.J., Dinwoodie, J. and Kwak, D.W. (2014), “The impact of innovativeness on supply chain
performance: is supply chain integration a missing link? Supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 733-746.
Tiwari, S., Wee, H.M. and Daryanto, Y. (2018), “Big data analytics in supply chain management
between 2010 and 2016: insights to industries”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 115,
pp. 319-330.
Wagner, S.M. (2008), “Innovation management in the German transportation industry”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 215-231.
Waller, M.A. and Fawcett, S.E. (2013), “Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: a revolution
that will transform supply chain design and management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 77-84.
Wang, Y. and Byrd, T.A. (2017), “Business analytics-enabled decision-making effectiveness through
knowledge absorptive capacity in health care”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 517-539.
Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T. and Papadopoulos, T. (2016), “Big data analytics in logistics
and supply chain management: certain investigations for research and applications”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 176 No. 1, pp. 98-110.
Waters, D. (2007), Supply Chain Risk Management: Vulnerability and Resilience, The Chartered Institute
of Logistics and Transportation, London, pp. 35-50.
Wieland, A. and Wallenburg, C.M. (2012), “Dealing with supply chain risks: linking risk management
practices and strategies to performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 887-905.
Withers, M.C., Drnevich, P.L. and Marino, L. (2011), “Doing more with less: the disordinal implications
of firm age for leveraging capabilities for innovation activity”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 515-536.
Xu, Z., Frankwick, G.L. and Ramirez, E. (2016), “Effects of big data analytics and traditional marketing
analytics on new product success: a knowledge fusion perspective”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1562-1566.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), “Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
Zhu, S., Song, J., Hazen, B.T., Lee, K. and Cegielski, C. (2018), “How supply chain analytics enables
operational supply chain transparency: an organizational information processing theory
VJIKMS perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 47-68, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0341

Further reading
Jahmani, K., Fadiya, S.O., Abubakar, A.M. and Elrehail, H. (2018), “Knowledge content quality,
perceived usefulness, KMS use for sharing and retrieval: a flock leadership application”, VINE
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 470-490.
Klein-Schmeink, S. and Peisl, T. (2013), “Supply chain innovation and risk assessment (SCIRA) model”,
Supply Chain Safety Management, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 309-326.

Corresponding author
Mohamed Dawood Shamout can be contacted at: shamoutmd@yandex.com and mohamed.
shamout@aue.ae

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com