Int. J.

Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Production Economics

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

The impact of information technology usage on supply chain resilience and

performance: An ambidexterous view
Minhao Gu a, Lu Yang b, Baofeng Huo a, *
a
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Scholars and practitioners have recognized the importance of supply chain (SC) resilience. However, it remains
Information technology use unclear how to build SC resilience and whether SC resilience can enhance firm performance and bring values to
Ambidexterity customers. By analyzing data collected from 206 manufacturers in China, this study empirically examines how
Supply chain resilience
firms implement different information technology (IT) patterns (exploitative versus explorative) with SC partners
Supply chain performance
Information processing theory
to achieve supplier and customer resilience from information processing theory, and examines the performance
implications of these two dimensions of SC resilience. In addition, this study also investigates how IT ambi­
dexterity reconciles the paradox between IT exploitation and IT exploration in enhancing SC resilience. The
results show that both supplier and customer resilience could improve SC performance. To achieve the two
aspects of SC resilience, only explorative use of IT with suppliers and customers have significant effects. The
results also show that the ambidextrous use of IT on the customer side takes effect. The exploitative and
explorative use of IT complement each other to improve customer resilience. The findings of this study contribute
to IT and SC resilience literature.

1. Introduction different types of resilience and their performance implications, which

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe global disruptions of
supply and demand in many companies, leading to huge financial losses
to them. Some companies, such as Haier, have made full use of infor­
mation technology (IT) such as the industrial Internet platform to
effectively address the disruption and quickly recover from it. Conse­
quently, as the ability of the supply chain (SC) to recover and maintain
the continuity of material, information and cash flow in the presence of
SC disruptions, SC resilience is attracting increasing attention from
scholars and practitioners (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Brusset and
Teller, 2017; Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017; Jüttner and Maklan,
2011; Sawik, 2013; Yu et al., 2019). Especially in today’s vulnerable
business environment under COVID-19, firms are likely to be disrupted
by some unexpected events in different parts of a SC (Hendricks and
Singhal, 2005; Narasimhan and Talluri, 2009; Wagner and Bode, 2008).
Based on the nodes where disruptions may occur and the continuity of
operations that needs to be guaranteed in the SC, SC resilience can be
classified into internal, supplier and customer resilience. Extant
research, however, mainly addresses SC resilience from the perspective
of a single firm. Few empirical studies simultaneously investigate
lends us a research opportunity. In this study, we mainly focus on sup­
plier and customer resilience and their performance implications. They
are recognized as external resilience that could ensure continuous ma­
terial supply and stable product delivery in a three-level SC setting, and
are critical for firm survival and performance (Pournader et al., 2016;
Voss et al., 2009). For instance, when faced with the same chip crisis
caused by a fire disaster at their chip supplier Philips, Nokia and
Ericsson ended up differently. Nokia integrated with Philips to adjust
production plans in time and captured the market share while Ericsson
stopped the mobile phone business in the following year due to lack of
such external resilience (Lee, 2004). Consequently, we mainly focus on
external resilience and its performance implications.
Previous literature suggested that IT has revolutionized SCs to ach­
ieve numerous benefits such as coordination, increased efficiency,
responsiveness, and competitive advantages (Huo et al., 2015; Prajogo
and Olhager, 2012; Rai et al., 2012; Singh, 2020; Subramani, 2004).
Firms implement IT to share information and knowledge across func­
tions and organizational boundaries. It improves sensing and informa­
tion processing capabilities so that firms can deal with unforeseen events
rapidly, and compete successfully in the changing environment (Ngai

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: minhaogu@tju.edu.cn (M. Gu), lu_yang@zju.edu.cn (L. Yang), baofeng@tju.edu.cn (B. Huo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107956
Received 31 December 2019; Received in revised form 14 June 2020; Accepted 13 October 2020
Available online 13 October 2020
0925-5273/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Gu et al.
et al., 2011). Some studies examined the effects of IT-related factors (e.
g., IT infrastructure capability, big data analytics) on firm’s response to
disruptions and unpredicted changes (Dubey et al., 2019a; Singh and
Singh, 2019; Wamba and Akter, 2019; Wamba et al., 2020). However,
these studies considered IT factors as general capabilities and have not
specifically investigated how IT implementation at different nodes of a
SC influences SC resilience. It provides us the opportunity to explore
how IT implementation on supplier and customer sides (i.e., external IT
use) affects SC resilience differentially. In order to effectively address
disruptions, it is critical for firms to share information and integrate with
upstream and downstream partners via IT use that crosses firm bound­
ary. In addition, we classify supplier/customer IT implementation into
patterns of exploitative and explorative use to test their effects in
enhancing SC resilience respectively.
To recover from SC disruptions, firms should excel at using IT to
exploit their current structured processes (IT exploitation) or explore
unstructured processes (IT exploration) (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009;
Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). According to information processing
theory (IPT), the use of IT is an effective approach to enhancing infor­
mation sharing and processing capabilities that are conducive for
disruption recoveries (Dubey et al., 2019a; Galbraith, 1974; Premkumar
et al., 2005; Zhou and Benton Jr, 2007). Specifically, the exploitative use
of IT standardizes information formats to improve information pro­
cessing capability, which enables focal firm and its SC partners to make
rapid decisions and take immediate actions when addressing SC dis­
ruptions. While explorative use of IT strengthens extensive interfirm
information sharing, which enables them to collaboratively develop
novel solutions towards SC disruptions. But operations managers are
often faced with a paradox between exploitation and exploration
(Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; He and Wong, 2004; Lee et al., 2015).
On the one hand, they are contradictory yet interrelated operational
processes as they compete for scarce firm resources when managing SC
disruptions (Chiu, 2014; Gupta et al., 2006). On the other hand, they
orient the organization in the pursuit of different goals as IT exploitation
addresses efficiency and IT exploration emphasizes flexibility in opera­
tions, which may have different impacts on firm recovery (Chiu, 2014;
He and Wong, 2004; Koryak et al., 2018). IT ambidexterity that firms
simultaneously use IT exploitation and IT exploration in a way that both
complement each other or are balanced has been recognized as a
fundamental IT implementation mode in SCs (Gibson and Birkinshaw,
2004; Lee and Rha, 2016; Li et al., 2013; Ojha et al., 2018; Sanders,
2008; Subramani, 2004). It is prized as a means of resolving the
exploitation-exploration paradox, rather than increasing the tension
between the two, and enables firms to recover from disruptions quickly
and efficiently (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; Chiu, 2014; He and
Wong, 2004; Lee et al., 2015). Although the ambidextrous use of IT
could reconcile the paradox and becomes vital to the maneuvers of SC
disruption recovery, the extant literature has seldom examined the
relationship between explorative, exploitative and ambidextrous use of
IT and SC resilience.
To fill these research gaps, this study grounds in IPT to underpin the
relationships between patterns of IT use, SC resilience and SC perfor­
mance. Specifically, our research questions are as follows: (1) How will
the exploitative, explorative, and ambidextrous use of IT influence
customer and supplier resilience respectively? (2) How will supplier and
customer resilience influence SC performance? By answering the above
questions, this study contributes to the literature in several ways. First,
this study extends the extant IT-enabled SC resilience literature by
revealing comprehensive mechanisms between different patterns of IT
use (i.e., exploitative and explorative) and SC resilience (i.e., supplier
and customer resilience). Second, this study applied ambidexterity
perspective to shed light on how IT ambidexterity reconciles the paradox
between IT exploitation and IT exploration in improving SC resilience.
Third, this study provides empirical evidence on performance implica­
tions of supplier and customer resilience. In addition, this study provides
practical guidelines for managers to adopt appropriate patterns of IT to
2
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
recover from disruptions with SC partners more effectively, which is
extremely useful and critical for SCM practices under the global SC
disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, it will introduce
the definitions of the relevant constructs and provide the theoretical
foundation. Hypotheses will be developed based on these contents. Next,
it will depict the research methodology and analyze the data to get re­
sults. Then, it will discuss the findings and provide theoretical and
managerial implications. Finally, limitations and suggestions for future
research will be provided.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Patterns of IT use in SCM
Previous studies distinguished two categories of IT use in supply
chain management (SCM): internal and external IT use (Savitskie, 2007;
Zhang et al., 2016b). Internal IT use is conceptualized as the imple­
mentation of IT throughout manufacturing processes to share informa­
tion within the firm (Savitskie, 2007; Zhang et al., 2016b). It generally
includes the applications within the focal firm that facilitate its internal
operations and enhance collaboration among different functions. For
instance, traditional systems like ERP is the most common case of in­
ternal IT use (Zhang et al., 2016b). In contrast, external IT use does not
refer to the use of one specific IT tool. It is defined as the extent of using
IT such as EDI, CRM, Internet, or cloud computing to integrate SC
partners and digitize activities beyond firm boundaries (Xue et al., 2013;
Zhang et al., 2016b). It acts as an electronic linkage across firm
boundaries, which is embedded in business routines with suppliers and
customers (Gonzalvez-Gallego et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016b). Spe­
cifically, supplier IT use is the use of IT for integrating suppliers and
digitizing supply-side activities such as purchasing and material in­
ventory management. In contrast, customer IT use is the use of IT for
integrating customers and digitizing customer-side activities such as
delivering and retailing (Xue et al., 2013).
This study mainly focuses on external IT use and considers supplier
and customer IT use separately. On the one hand, although internal IT
use (e.g., ERP system) can help the focal firm to cope with disruptions to
some extent by controlling and monitoring internal processes within the
firm, and the software applications and IT infrastructure for internal
operations are now available to most of the firms (Zhang et al., 2016b).
Firms still suffers from coping with SC disruptions due to the weakness
in collecting external information by internal IT usage. On the other
hand, IT linkage with suppliers and customers extends information
breadth and depth, which will determine the successfulness of
responding, adapting and recovering from SC disruptions. For instance,
although the COVID-19 pandemic has caused global SC disruptions to
many companies, Haier can still rely on their solid external IT linkage
with global partners for daily production and sales planning, which
leads to stable customer services during the challenging days.
In addition, according to organizational learning theory, the
methods of how firms leverage resources and capabilities can be
considered into two patterns, exploitation and exploration (Levinthal
and March 1993). Exploitation is defined by terms such as refinement,
choice, execution, selection and implementation. The primary purpose
of exploitation is to improve operational efficiency. It can be achieved
through standardization, process control, streamlined activities with
variance reduction and a high level of consistency. In contrast, explo­
ration is defined by terms such as risk-taking and experimentation,
search, innovation, discovery and flexibility. The primary pursuit of
exploration is to create new possibilities and establish distinctive com­
petency. It can be achieved through reassessment of current solution
with variance-seek and novel solutions development (Andriopoulos and
Lewis, 2009; Chiu, 2014; March, 1991; Sanders, 2008; Subramani,
2004). Based on this theory, we extend the exploitation versus explo­
ration construct to define a new typology of external IT use: (1) external
M. Gu et al.
IT use for exploitation and (2) external IT use for exploration (Sanders,
2008; Subramani, 2004). Specifically, supplier IT use for exploitation is
defined as firms using IT to automate structured processes (e.g., pur­
chase processing, invoicing, warehouse and inventory management,
shipment and delivery) with their suppliers. It aims to improve capa­
bilities incrementally and achieve definable benefits in supplier man­
agement, such as purchasing cost reduction, supply continuity and
efficiency enhancement. In contrast, supplier IT use for exploration is
defined as firms using IT to digitalize unstructured processes (e.g.,
forecasting market demands, coordination and integration, suppliers’
expertise exploration and leverage) with their suppliers. It aims to
generate novel solutions to supply-side problems and harvest benefits in
the long-run. Customer IT use for exploitation and exploration are
defined similarly. Customer IT use for exploitation automates
customer-side structured processes, and improves efficiency in infor­
mation and knowledge exchange with customers. Customer IT use for
exploration is implemented in unstructured processes. It aims to uncover
new methods of problem-solving and develop long-run benefits with
customers (Sanders, 2008; Subramani, 2004).
2.2. SC resilience
SC resilience is defined as the capability of the SC to recover from SC
disruptions and maintain the continuity of material, information, and
cash flow (Day, 2014; Johnson et al., 2013; Sawik, 2013). It requires the
focal firm to work together with its suppliers and customers to guarantee
the integrity of cooperative structures and processes (Brandon-Jones
et al., 2014; Jüttner and Maklan, 2011; Ponomarov and Holcomb,
2009).
Both supply and customer side may be disrupted due to severe ca­
tastrophes, such as natural disasters, wars, terrorist attacks, and eco­
nomic crises, as well as operational uncertainties, such as stockouts,
quality problems, production fluctuations, and order cancellations
(Kumar et al., 2010; Lin and Zhou, 2011; Tang, 2006; Trkman and
McCormack, 2009). According to the node in the SCs that disruptions
may occur and the continuous operations to be maintained, SC resilience
can be classified into internal, supplier, and customer resilience (Pour­
nader et al., 2016; Sawik, 2013; Voss et al., 2009). This study mainly
focuses on supplier and customer resilience, which are commonly
recognized as external resilience. Because from the practical view,
compared with internal operations, it is more difficult for firms to con­
trol external activities and to recover from disruptions with their sup­
pliers and customers in unpredictable environments. While external
resilience is recognized as the important capability of the focal firm and
its SC partners to maintain upstream material supply and downstream
product delivery after disruptions in a three-level SC setting. It de­
termines firm’s survival and performance improvement. Specifically,
supplier resilience is the capability embedded between the focal firm
and its suppliers to maintain the continuity of supply and guarantee the
integrity of upstream structures and functions. Customer resilience is the
capability embedded between the focal firm and its customers to pre­
serve the continuity of demand and ensure the integrity of downstream
structures and functions.
2.3. Information processing theory
IPT views every firm as an open information-processing system
which must deal with several sources of uncertainties and fluctuations.
Firms can mitigate the negative impacts of uncertainties by improving
information processing capability (Galbraith, 1974). In the volatile
environment, streamlined information is needed to generate more syn­
chronized decision making and coordinated actions. In other words,
firms will suffer from misunderstandings of environmental stimuli and
conflict in risk management practices if their information processing
capability is poor (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Applying this theory in SCM,
firms need to improve interfirm information processing capabilities to
3
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
cope with uncertainties and achieve competitiveness (Mason-Jones and
Towill, 1997). Wang et al. (2013) suggested two types of information
processes to respond to SC disruptions. The first type is to share more
information between SC partners to mitigate information distortions and
generate more solutions. Another type is to reduce information sources
by standardizing information formats so that rapid decisions and
responsive actions can be made.
As an essential intermediary for information sharing in SCs, IT helps
firms to diffuse information across organizational boundaries effectively
(Huo et al., 2015; Iyer, 2011; Li et al., 2009; Patnayakuni et al., 2006;
Song et al., 2007; Yu et al., 2017). It connects suppliers and customers
with formalized language and streamlined information flow, which fa­
cilitates information processing capability and allows firms to cope with
uncertainties with their SC partners quickly (Srinivasan and Swink,
2015; Yao et al., 2009). IPT provides a theoretical lens to understand
how firms implement different patterns of IT with suppliers and cus­
tomers to build SC resilience. This study considers that the exploitative
use of IT improves information processing capability by standardizing
information formats. It facilitates firms to make immediate reactions to
uncertainties with their SC partners. While the explorative use of IT
allows for abundant information sharing. Firms generate novel solutions
with their SC partners and they can win the competitiveness in the
long-run.
3. Conceptual model and research hypotheses
3.1. Exploitative use of IT and SC resilience
Based on IPT, syntactic (common language), semantic (common
meaning), and pragmatic (means for value assessing and information
sharing) boundaries impede the transfer of information across firms
(Carlile, 2004). The exploitative use of IT automates data recording and
overcomes misunderstandings between SC partners. Therefore, it pro­
motes coherence among activities and the efficient utilization of re­
sources (Im and Rai, 2008; Malhotra et al., 2007). In the highly volatile
environment, especially when SC disruptions threaten firms, SC partners
need to build standardized information formats and garner shared un­
derstandings of mutual concerns, which will reduce conflicts and time in
disruption recovery processes. Therefore, the exploitative use of IT with
suppliers and customers will improve each resilience respectively.
Specifically, supplier IT use for exploitation automates structured
processes in the upstream, such as purchasing, invoicing, inventory
management, and material shipment. When the upstream endures the
hardship of disruptions, firms can quickly search for substitutive mate­
rials by the standardized and institutionalized information, which al­
lows firms to remedy material shortage and recover from disruptions
quickly, thus leading to improved supplier resilience (Wang and Wei,
2007). In addition, the focal firm and its suppliers can obtain highly
visible and accessible searching for information through the exploitation
use of IT. When their operations are disrupted, they will have a better
understanding of the situation they are facing. Congruent decisions can
be made and the following actions can be taken by the two parties
quickly, leading to improved supplier resilience (Kim et al., 2011).
Similarly, we also propose that customer IT use for exploitation
improves customer resilience. Firms and their customers can search for
and exchange needed information quickly, which is standardized and
institutionalized recorded in integrated IT platforms (Rai and Tang,
2010). For example, firms can keep aware of demand fluctuations while
customers can trace distribution and logistics information over time. It
will create the opportunity for both parties to take immediate action
when any of them find abnormal signals of potential disruptions (Sub­
ramani, 2004). When disruptions happen, customer IT use for exploi­
tation improves customer resilience by structuring inter-firm
transactions with standard protocols (Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2014).
They can follow standardized routines for disruption recovery. Based on
the aforementioned argumentations, we propose the following two
M. Gu et al.
hypotheses:
H1a. Supplier IT use for exploitation is positively related to supplier
resilience
H1b. Customer IT use for exploitation is positively related to customer
resilience
3.2. Explorative use of IT and SC resilience
IT use for exploration encourages broad and deep information
sharing between SC partners for unstructured tasks (Subramani, 2004).
It facilitates the generation of new knowledge and ideas to idiosyncratic
environments through experimentation and innovation (Im and Rai,
2008; Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2014). This information and expertise
promote responsiveness and are more valuable when environments are
dynamic (Kim and Lee, 2010; Rai and Tang, 2010). When disruptions
occur, the environment becomes highly volatile. Firms and their SC
partners need sufficient information about their mutual operations and
external environment so that they can initiate actions immediately. IT
use for exploration catalyzes more vibrant information sharing. There­
fore, firms can make mutual process reconfigurations dynamically with
evolving environmental requirements, leading to a higher level of sup­
plier and customer resilience.
Specifically, firms and their suppliers will have more excellent in­
formation processing capability to execute uninformed plans and un­
structured processes when they implement IT for exploration. IT
infrastructure integrated into a higher level of interfirm collaboration
can facilitate thorough information sharing and streamline unordered
upstream activities (Gosain et al., 2004; Rai et al., 2006). Once an un­
expected disruption arises in the upstream, firms and their suppliers use
IT to share specific knowledge effectively and adjust purchase planning
and material delivery accordingly. Therefore, they can react to unfore­
seen SC disruptions rapidly and keep the continuity of upstream oper­
ations in the long-run. In addition, firms integrate with their suppliers to
a greater extent by leveraging IT exploration. They can routinize un­
structured processes, accelerate problem-solving, and succeed in
disruption recovery (Wang and Wei, 2007; Zhang et al., 2016a).
Therefore, supplier IT use for exploration improves supplier resilience.
Similarly, customer IT use for exploration improves customer resilience
by enriching information sharing and enhancing integration in un­
structured processes. The collecting and analyzing data of disruptions
through the support of the explorative use of IT enhance firms’ ability to
respond to demand changes and meet customer specifications (Tarafdar
and Qrunfleh, 2017). It also reduces information processing lead time to
cope with downstream disruptions. Therefore, customer resilience is
improved. Based on the aforementioned argumentations, we propose
the following two hypotheses:
H2a. Supplier IT use for exploration is positively related to supplier
resilience
H2b. Customer IT use for exploration is positively related to customer
resilience
3.3. Ambidextrous use of IT and SC resilience
The interplay between exploitative and explorative use of IT with SC
partners can be a paradox (Lee et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2015). However,
from organizational learning literature on ambidexterity, the two pat­
terns can be achieved simultaneously in a way that both complement
each other or are balanced (He and Wong, 2004). The collective impact
of exploitation and exploration will be maximized when the two pat­
terns are balanced (comparable in magnitude) or complementary
(reinforce each other’s marginal effect), especially in dynamic envi­
ronments (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008;
Venkatraman, 1989). Based on the ambidexterity perspective and the
patterns of IT use proposed by Sanders (2008); Subramani (2004) and
4
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
Lee et al. (2015), we introduced the concept of “ambidextrous IT use”
and test its impact on SC resilience. It indicates that firms simulta­
neously pursue IT exploration and IT exploitation. We define ambidex­
trous IT use in two alternative ways: balanced use of IT patterns and
complementary use of IT patterns (Cao et al., 2009; He and Wong, 2004;
Mehrabi et al., 2019; Venugopal et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2013). Spe­
cifically, balanced IT use is defined as the case in which firms maintain
relatively similar levels of exploitative and explorative use of IT with
their SC partners. It indicates that a match between supplier/customer
IT use for exploitation and exploration could enhance performance. In
contrast, we define the complementary IT use as the case in which firms
complement two patterns use of IT with SC partners to leverage their
combined strengths (Cao et al., 2009; He and Wong, 2004; Lee et al.,
2015; Patel et al., 2012; Venugopal et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2013;
Zhang et al., 2016a). It signifies that supplier/customer IT use for
exploitation and exploration can be supportive of one another, which
enables greater marginal effect of each other in improving performance.
The ambidextrous use of IT for SC resilience has not been addressed
by extant literature (Han et al., 2017). We propose that the balanced and
complementary use of IT patterns leads to enhanced supplier and
customer resilience. It allows firms to simultaneously achieve stan­
dardized and streamlined processes for the rapid response, as well as
abundant knowledge and tighter integration for the long-run recovery
(Goo et al., 2015). Specifically, the balanced use of IT exploitation and
exploration increases resilience by searching and obtaining essential
information in a standardized format easily, and also by integrating and
adjusting processes with SC partners effectively. The complementary use
of two IT patterns also improves supplier and customer resilience. Firms
use explorative IT to share a large amount of information and collabo­
rate with suppliers and customers to recover from disruptions. The
effectiveness for the recovery can be improved if the SC is visible and
firms can obtain the essential information structurally through IT
exploitation (Johnson et al., 2013; Pettit et al., 2013; Scholten and
Schilder, 2015). For instance, Haier records daily transaction informa­
tion such as procurement, production, and sales with customers and
suppliers based on exploitative IT use. Simultaneously, based on the
structured information, it takes advantage of its industrial Internet
platform-COSMOPlat to track demand changes and fit customers’ re­
quirements with its supply network. Through the balanced and com­
plementary use of IT patterns, Haier successfully builds a resilient SC
and maintains stable operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, we propose the following two hypotheses:
H3a. Ambidextrous (balanced and complementary) supplier IT use is
positively related to supplier resilience
H3b. Ambidextrous (balanced and complementary) customer IT use is
positively related to customer resilience
3.4. SC resilience and SC performance
SC performance measures the extent to which the whole SC can keep
products available and make on-time delivery to meet end customers’
requirements (Huo et al., 2014; Tarafdar and Qrunfleh, 2017). When
assaulted by disruptions, supplier and customer resilience facilitate a
quick recovery and ensures continuity of material supply and product
delivery, which reduces the negative impacts of SC disruptions and en­
hances end customers’ value and satisfaction (Chowdhury and Quaddus,
2017; Fiksel et al., 2015; Singh, 2020). Specifically, the continuous
material supply is the prerequisite for production activities and
customer service. SC operations cannot sustain and customer demands
cannot satisfied without stable material flows from suppliers. Therefore,
supplier resilience lays the foundation for SC performance enhance­
ment. Comparatively, customer resilience ensures continuous products
and services delivered to customers under SC disruptions, which will
safeguard their value and loyalty. Therefore, we propose the following
two hypotheses:
M. Gu et al. International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956

H4a. Supplier resilience is positively related to SC performance (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2010). It was evaluated by the
respondents’ perceptions of how they agreed on the feeling to have a lot
H4b. Customer resilience is positively related to SC performance
of friends, a cheerful person full of energy, and the sense of talking with
others, with “1” for “strongly disagree” and “7” for “strongly agree”. In
4. Research methodology
addition, we added company size (measured by the number of em­
ployees and fixed assets) as a control variable since larger companies
4.1. Questionnaire design
tend to have more resources. They may achieve a higher level of SC
resilience and performance compared with smaller competitors (Huo
The questionnaire was designed based on the adaptation of a number
et al., 2015; Revilla and Saenz, 2017).
of extant valid instruments. First, we developed an English version
questionnaire by an extensive literature review on SC resilience and IT
patterns. Then, the questionnaire was translated into Chinese. Two 4.2. Sampling and data collection
doctoral students were asked to translate the Chinese version back into
English dependently. After that, we compared the translated version We randomly selected sample companies that were located in four
with the original one so that the conceptual equivalence can be ach­ representative regions (Bohai Bay Economic Rim, Pearl River Delta,
ieved. Minor revisions would be made in the Chinese version if any Yangzi River Delta, and other areas) in China. Specifically, other areas
differences were found. Finally, a pre-test of the questionnaire was include northeastern, central, and western parts of China, which
conducted in 18 companies. Face-to-face interviews were held with represent a lower stage of economic development compared with the
managers who hold executive positions in departments such as SCM, other three coastal areas (Zhao et al., 2006). The contact information
purchasing, and distribution. They were asked to fill out the preliminary was listed in the directory provided by the National Bureau Statistics of
version of the questionnaire. They also provide feedback on the de­ China. A wide range of industries such as automobiles, electronics,
scriptions of the items and difficulties in answering the questionnaire. computers, food, chemicals, and so on are included in the directory.
We made some modifications based on their feedback to make sure all Therefore, generalized results can be obtained based on this dataset.
items were understandable and relevant to practices in China. All We first contacted those randomly selected companies to identify a
measures are shown in Appendix A. key informant who was knowledgeable about SCM practices. We
All constructs were measured using 7-point Likert reflective scales. explained the research objective to enhance their willingness to partic­
Specifically, the measures for SC performance were adopted from (Huo ipate in this survey. 2820 companies were contacted and 812 of them
et al., 2014) and Beamon (1999). We asked the respondents to indicate agreed to participate in the survey. Then we sent out 812 questionnaires
the degree to which they agreed with the statements that their SC could to the key informant who was willing to participate in, along with a
meet customer requirements, introduce new products, speed up the SC cover letter to guide them to fill out. Simultaneously, we clarified the
process, have an outstanding delivery performance, and provide purpose of the questionnaire in the cover letter and promised not to
high-level customer service, with “1” for “strongly disagree” and “7” for divulge their information. Respondents were encouraged to participate
“strongly agree”. by entitlement to a summary report, which will finally be sent to them
The measures for supplier and customer resilience were mainly according to the information they provide. To further improve the
adapted from Ambulkar et al. (2015), who developed a four-item scale response rate, we made a second wave of phone calls. We got 298
to measure firm resilience which is internally focused. We extended returned responses and finally obtained 206 useable responses after
these measures into the SC level. We asked the respondents to evaluate eliminating 92 invalid responses with a lot of missing values, reflecting a
their perceptions of how they agree that their company can maintain response rate of 25.4%. The profiles of the companies and the essential
high situational awareness, provide a quick response, cope with information of the informants are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Various
changes, and adapt to SC disruptions with its major supplier and companies with different company sizes, from different regions and in­
customer to represent supplier and customer resilience respectively. dustries, have been investigated. In addition, most of the informants
Furthermore, based on the review of previous literature on SC resilience were middle or top managers and had been in their position for more
and the interview with managers, we also added one additional item than five years, indicating that they were knowledgeable about the
that was adapted from Brandon-Jones et al. (2014), and asked how they questions (Flynn et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2011). We made follow up
agree that their company can speedily recover to normal operations with phone calls to further ensure that the informants understood each of the
its major supplier and customer after the SC disruption, with “1” for
“strongly disagree” and “7” for “strongly agree”. We provided defini­ Table 1
tions of supplier and customer resilience at the beginning of related Profiles of responding firms.
questions so that the respondents would better comprehend the Industry Percentage Region Percentage
measures.
Metal, Mechanical & 40.78% Bohai Bay Economic 35.44%
The measures for supplier and customer IT use for exploitation and Engineering Rim
exploration were adapted from Sanders (2008) and Subramani (2004). Electronics & Electrical 19.42 Yangzi River Delta 24.76
We asked the respondents to evaluate the extent to which their company Textiles & Apparel 10.19 Pearl River Delta 19.90
implemented specific IT tools (e.g., ERP, EDI, IOS, SCMS, CRM, Intranet, Chemicals & Petrochemicals 7.77 Other areas in China 19.90
Food, Beverage, Alcohol & 6.31
and Extranet) for the basic operations with the major supplier and Cigarettes
customer to represent IT use for exploitation. These operations included Building Materials 4.85
order processing, invoicing, accounts settling, shipment and delivery Publishing and Printing 4.37
information exchanging, warehouse stock and inventories management, Rubber & Plastics 3.88
Pharmaceutical & Medicals 2.43
and document processing. To measure supplier and customer IT use for
exploration, we asked the respondents to evaluate the extent to which
Number of employees Ownership
their company use these IT tools with the major supplier and customer in <50 0.97% State-owned 16.02%
the explorative activities such as predicting trends in sales and cus­ 50–99 0.97 Privately-owned 53.88
tomer’s preferences, integrating and coordinating, and creating new 100–199 23.30 Foreign-owned 19.42
200–499 33.98 Joint venture 10.68
business opportunities, with “1” for “not at all usage” and “7” for
500–999 17.96
“extensive usage”. 1000–4999 18.45
We also added the respondent’s character as the marker variable 5000 or more 4.37

5
M. Gu et al. International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956

Table 2 4.4. Reliability and validity

Respondent characteristics.
Tenure of the current position in firm (years) Percentage The two-step method was applied to test reliability (Narasimhan and
Jayaram, 1998). First, EFA was performed to ensure the unidimen­
≤1 0%
2–5 23.3 sionality of the constructs. Table 4 and Table 5 show that all items had
6–10 39.8 higher loadings on the constructs they were intended to measure and
11–15 18.9 had low cross-loadings on other factors, indicating unidimensionality.
≥16 18.0 Second, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability for
the constructs. The values exceeded the threshold of 0.70, indicating the
Position of respondent
Top manager (e.g., presidents, CEO, director, and deputy of these 22.3%
reliability of the constructs (Table 6) (Hair et al., 2010).
positions) To assess convergent validity, we employed CFA that all items were
Middle manager (e.g., manager of purchasing, marketing, production, 76.2 linked to the corresponding constructs, with the covariance freely esti­
and other operations related positions) mated. The model fit indices were χ2 = 1056.58 with d. f. = 566,
Others (e.g., purchaser and salesman) 1.5
RMSEA = 0.066, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, and SRMR = 0.047. The
results indicated that the model was acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
questions and they answered the questionnaire according to the actual In addition, the CFA results showed that all factor loadings were larger
practices. than 0.50, and they were significant at the 0.01 level. These results
indicated that convergent validity was satisfied. We calculated the
4.3. Bias average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs. Table 6 showed that
AVE for all constructs was greater than 0.50, further indicating
We searched the basic information from the website of the non- convergent validity (Flynn et al., 2010).
respondent companies, such as company age, ownership, fixed asset, To assess discriminant validity, we compared the square root of AVE
region, industry, and the number of employees. We compared the values (the bold diagonal of the matrix in Table 3) with the correlation
with those of respondent companies (Schilke, 2014). The results of
t-tests showed no significant differences (p > 0.05), indicating
non-response bias is not a problem in this study. We also compared the Table 4
early and late responses in terms of the mean values of the measure­ EFA results of supplier IT use patterns, supplier resilience, and supply chain
performance.
ments (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). No significant differences (p >
0.05) were found in the results of t-tests, further indicating non-response Factor Loadings
bias is not a concern in this study. Supply chain Supplier Supplier IT use Supplier IT use
Because only one informant answered all questions in each ques­ performance resilience for exploration for exploitation
tionnaire, common method bias could be a potential problem. First, we Sres1 .257 .712 .268 .156
performed Harman’s one-factor test with exploratory factor analysis Sres2 .234 .833 .200 .164
(EFA) (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). The EFA Sres3 .237 .806 .127 .193
Sres4 .242 .773 .198 .097
results revealed seven factors with eigenvalues above 1.0, explaining
Sres5 .183 .811 .092 .106
72.2 percent of the total variance, and the first factor did not explain the SITexploi1 .127 .285 .217 .807
majority of the total variance. The results of Harman’s one-factor test SITexploi2 .132 .165 .403 .780
indicated common method bias is not a problem in this study. Second, SITexploi3 .103 .015 .453 .742
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to Harman’s one-factor SITexploi4 .075 .183 .225 .843
SITexplor1 .213 .236 .771 .354
test (Sanchez and Brock, 1996). The model fit indices were χ 2 =
SITexplor2 .202 .181 .791 .315
3121.35 with d. f. = 594, RMSEA = 0.18, SRMR = 0.12, NNFI = 0.78, SITexplor3 .141 .288 .764 .364
and CFI = 0.79, which were much worse than those of the measurement SITexplor4 .174 .219 .823 .286
model, indicating that a single factor was not acceptable. Third, we used SCperf1 .745 .282 -.092 .139
SCperf2 .729 .195 .030 .176
the respondent’s character as the marker variable to assess the potential
SCperf3 .610 .182 .111 .002
common method bias (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). It was theoretically SCperf4 .820 .117 .265 .070
unrelated to other variables in this study. The lowest positive correlation SCperf5 .814 .102 .222 .025
between marker variable and other latent variables (r = 0.26) served to SCperf6 .794 .135 .163 .029
adjust the correlations among the variables. Table 3 shows that only one SCperf7 .713 .288 .131 .182
Eigenvalues 4.386 3.744 3.308 3.158
of the 21 significant correlations became nonsignificant after the partial
Total variance explained 72.98%
correlation adjustment. These results provide evidence that common
method bias is unlikely to be a concern in this study. Sres: supplier resilience; SITexploi: supplier IT use for exploitation; SITexplor:
supplier IT use for exploration; SCperf: supply chain performance.

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Construct Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Customer resilience 5.36 0.984 .74 .50** .14* .23** .17* .26** .32** .09
2. Supplier resilience 5.15 1.048 .63** .82 .38** .36** .23** .35** .35** .09
3. Customer IT use for exploitation 5.45 1.185 .37** .54** .82 .63** .47** .43** .19** .01
4. Customer IT use for exploration 5.13 1.266 .43** .53** .72** .87 .27** .50** .19** .00
5. Supplier IT use for exploitation 5.13 1.252 .39** .43** .61** .47** .84 .60** .07 .03
6. Supplier IT use for exploration 4.87 1.317 .46** .52** .58** .63** .71** .88 .22** .06
7. Supply chain performance 5.16 0.963 .50** .52** .41** .41** .32** .43** .75 .08
8. Marker variable 5.64 0.945 .33** .33** .27** .26** .28** .31** .32** .75

Note: Zero-order correlations are below the diagonal; adjust correlation for potential common method bias are above the diagonal; square root of AVE shown on the
diagonal of the matrix in bold; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

6
M. Gu et al. International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956

Table 5 5. Analyses and results

EFA results of customer IT patterns, customer resilience, and marker variable.
Factor Loadings 5.1. Hypotheses testing
Customer IT use Customer Customer IT use Marker
for exploration resilience for exploitation variable Structural equation modeling was performed to test the direct effect
hypotheses (H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H4a, and H4b) (see Fig. 1). The model
Cres1 .078 .747 .162 .011
Cres2 .100 .818 .233 .100
fit indices were χ 2 = 1086.12 with d. f. = 537, RMSEA = 0.070, NNFI =
Cres3 .093 .751 .259 .237 0.97, CFI = 0.97, and SRMR = 0.093, indicating the model was
Cres4 .285 .770 -.020 .095 acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Fig. 2 Shows significant paths with
Cres5 .202 .758 -.077 .157 standard coefficients. Neither supplier nor customer IT use for exploi­
CITexploi1 .329 .131 .783 .091
tation had a significant effect on supplier and customer resilience.
CITexploi2 .529 .181 .679 .044
CITexploi3 .486 .071 .677 .151 Therefore, H1a and H1b were rejected. Both supplier and customer IT
CITexploi4 .242 .146 .823 .094 use for exploration were significantly and positively related to supply
CITexplor1 .775 .171 .349 .103 and customer resilience respectively. Therefore, H2a and H2b were
CITexplor2 .854 .194 .240 .082 supported. The impact of supplier and customer resilience on SC per­
CITexplor3 .828 .196 .286 .091
CITexplor4 .801 .207 .324 .068
formance was positive and significant, supporting H4a and H4b.
MV1 -.054 .170 .127 .778 We performed the hierarchical regression analysis to test the ambi­
MV2 .306 .112 .005 .800 dextrous hypotheses (H3a and H3b). Based on previous studies, we used
MV3 .052 .121 .109 .864 two alternative measures to depict IT ambidexterity (Cao et al., 2009; He
Eigenvalues 3.585 3.240 2.757 2.163
and Wong, 2004; Mehrabi et al., 2019; Venugopal et al., 2020; Wong
Total variance explained 73.40%
et al., 2013). Specifically, when operationalizing the concept of
Cres: customer resilience; CITexploi: customer IT use for exploitation; CITexplor: balanced IT use, we adapted the method for measuring balance between
customer IT use for exploration; MV: marker variable. exploitation and exploration by subtracting the absolute difference be­
tween IT use for exploration and exploitation from 7 (since IT use for
exploration and exploitation were measured on scales from 1 to 7). A
Table 6
higher value indicates a better balance of IT use for exploitation and
Reliability and validity analysis.
exploration without overemphasizing one of the two activities (Cao
Construct No. of Cronbach’s Composite AVE
et al., 2009; He and Wong, 2004; Patel et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2013).
items alpha reliability
Complementary IT use was operationalized as the interactive term of IT
1. Customer resilience 5 0.859 0.859 0.55 use for exploitation and exploration. We mean-centered the constructs
2. Supplier resilience 5 0.907 0.909 0.67
to mitigate the potential of multicollinearity (He and Wong, 2004; Wong
3. Customer IT use for 4 0.886 0.888 0.67
exploitation et al., 2013). Such an approach to operationalizing balanced and com­
4. Customer IT use for 4 0.923 0.926 0.76 plementary ambidexterity of exploitation and exploration has been
exploration widely used in previous studies in different research contexts (Cao et al.,
5. Supplier IT use for 4 0.903 0.906 0.71
2009; He and Wong, 2004; Mehrabi et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2012;
exploitation
6. Supplier IT use for 4 0.930 0.929 0.77
Venugopal et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2013). In hierarchical regression,
exploration we brought variables into the model in three steps. First, we introduced
7. Supply chain 7 0.896 0.897 0.56 control variables (i.e., employees, fixed assets) into Model 1. Second, we
performance introduced independent variables (i.e., supplier/customer IT use for
8. Marker variable 3 0.784 0.791 0.56
exploitation and exploration) into Model 2. Third, we introduced two
measures of IT ambidexterity (i.e., balanced/complementary supplier IT
coefficient between the focal construct and all other constructs. The use, balanced/complementary customer IT use) into Model 3 to further
values were higher than the correlation coefficients, indicating identify their influence on SC resilience. Table 8 demonstrates the re­
discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). We also employed sults of the hierarchical regression. The ambidextrous hypotheses were
heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of correlations approach to assess partially supported. Specifically, neither balanced nor complementary
discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). HTMT indicates a com­ supplier IT use had a significant effect on supplier resilience. Therefore,
parison of the average of the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations (i.e., H3a was rejected. The balanced customer IT use had a significant and
the correlations of indicators across constructs measuring different negative effect on customer resilience, while the complementary
phenomena) and the average of the monotrait-heteromethod correla­ customer IT use had a marginally significant and positive effect on
tions (i.e., the correlations of indicators within the same construct). customer resilience, which partially supported H3b.
Table 7 shows that the HTMT ratio of correlations is lower than the
predefined threshold of 0.85, which satisfies the HTMT0.85 criteria and 5.2. Tests for endogeneity
indicates discriminant validity (Clark and Watson, 2016; Henseler et al.,
2015; Kline, 2015). We addressed the possible endogeneity concerns in the following

Table 7
HTMT results.
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Customer resilience
2. Supplier resilience 0.720
3. Customer IT use for exploitation 0.425 0.602
4. Customer IT use for exploration 0.485 0.576 0.797
5. Supplier IT use for exploitation 0.442 0.479 0.681 0.506
6. Supplier IT use for exploration 0.509 0.568 0.635 0.680 0.771
7. Supply chain performance 0.566 0.583 0.458 0.446 0.354 0.465
8. Marker variable 0.408 0.394 0.323 0.315 0.334 0.365 0.388

7
M. Gu et al.
Fig. 1. The conceptual model.
Fig. 2. Structural equation modeling results. + p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
ways. First, we addressed simultaneity by collecting temporally lagged
data for dependent variables in different parts of the questionnaire
(Rindfleisch et al., 2008). Consequently, we minimized the potential
threats of endogeneity due to measurement error that mainly resulted
from common method bias (Wang et al., 2016).
Second, following Hamilton and Nickerson (2003), we conducted a
two-stage least square (2SLS) regression to test potential endogeneity
caused by omitted variables (Li et al., 2010; Zhou and Li, 2012). Supplier
IT use for exploration/exploitation and customer IT use for exploita­
tion/exploration are exogenous role in our model. In Stage 1, we
employed the instrumental variable approach by asking the respondent
to evaluate the extent of “the level of strategic partnership with major
supplier” and “significant investments in equipment dedicated to the
relationship with major supplier”. Previous literature suggested that
strategic relationship and specific asset investments with suppliers
enable the focal firm to implement IT to interact and integrate with
them. These two one-item variables created predicted values for supplier
IT use for exploitation and exploration. The regression results showed
that the two instrumental variables were significantly related to supplier
IT use for exploitation (β = 0.36, p < 0.001 for the first instrumental
variable; and β = 0.17, p < 0.001 for the second) and supplier IT use for
the exploration (β = 0.45, p < 0.001 for the first instrumental variable;
and β = 0.26, p < 0.001 for the second). Similarly, we asked the
respondent the extent “the level of strategic partnership with our major
customer” and “significant investments in equipment dedicated to the
relationship with major customer”. Previous literature indicated that
high involvement of customers and specific asset investments with them
encourage the focal firm to adopt IT to integrate with them to avoid
opportunism. These two one-item variables created predicted values for
customer IT use for exploitation and exploration. The regression results
showed that the two instrumental variables relate positively to customer
IT use for exploitation (β = 0.30, p < 0.001 for the first instrumental
variable; and β = 0.16, p < 0.001 for the second) and customer IT use for
8
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
the exploration (β = 0.22, p < 0.01 for the first instrumental variable;
and β = 0.17, p < 0.01 for the second). In Stage 2, we added instrumental
variables as indicators of supplier/customer IT use for exploration and
exploitation into model and estimated their effects on supplier/customer
resilience. The results of 2SLS regression were consistent with our pre­
vious results, indicating that we did not omitted important variables in
our conceptual model. Thus, we find no evidence of endogeneity prob­
lems to our findings.
6. Discussion and implications
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe global disruptions in
supply and demand. Firms such as Haier that could establish external
resilience based on external IT implementation to ensure supply and
demand are the one that can survive and grow under such SC disrup­
tions. Consequently, this study aims to complement SC resilience liter­
ature by investigating impacts of different patterns of IT use on supplier
and customer resilience and their effectiveness on SC performance. First,
this study examined the performance implications of supplier and
customer resilience. It echoes the call of Chowdhury and Quaddus
(2017) for more empirical research to explore the relationship between
SC resilience and SC performance in different nations. Our results find
that both supplier and customer resilience are positively related to SC
performance, verifying the importance of external resilience in miti­
gating SC disruptions and enhancing SC performance. Firms need to
build resilience capability with their SC partners to ensure stable ma­
terial supply as well as continuous product and service delivery so that
the end customers’ needs can be satisfied and they can improve SC
performance. This result is supported by previous studies (Chowdhury
and Quaddus, 2017; Dubey et al., 2019a; Ortiz-De-Mandojana and
Bansal, 2016; Ruiz-Benitez et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2019). For instance,
Ortiz-De-Mandojana and Bansal (2016) emphasized that firm resilience
contributes to firms’ survival and sustainability by helping firms to
 M. Gu et al. International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956

behave as complex dynamic systems, operating within dynamic systems

4.49*** (.656)
of SC partners.

.39*** (.083)

-.27** (.099)

.07þ (.036)
Model 3 Second, this study examined the impacts of supplier/customer IT use

.01 (.063)
.00 (.052)

.09 (.076)
for exploitation and exploration in improving supplier and customer

4.054
9.610
.225
.032

.019
resilience respectively. It answers the call of Dubey et al. (2019b) for
more research to consider other enablers of SC resilience, such as
technical resources. The results demonstrate that only IT use for
exploration with SC partners can improve supplier and customer resil­
3.40*** (.381)
Dependent variable: customer resilience

.27*** (.072) ience, while IT use for exploitation shows no significant effects. This
Model 2

-.00 (.052)

finding is in line with Sanders (2008) to some extent that although firms
.01 (.064)

.10 (.077)

23.857
12.023
use IT more for exploitation than exploration, the exploitation will

.193
.192

.000
subject firms to the risk of obsolescence. IT use for exploitation results in
immediate positive feedback that will produce a strong path depen­
dence and ultimately harms the long-run survival in the face of turbulent
and unpredictable environments. Our findings indicate that IT use for
5.37*** (.266)

exploitation mainly standardizes information formats in the structured

Model 1

-.03 (.058)

transaction process between SC partners. It improves SC visibility and

.03 (.071)

helps firms to search for information conveniently. However, IT use for

.002

.155

exploitation is not sufficient to build SC resilience. When SC disruption

–

–
–

occurs, firms have to conduct the unstructured process with suppliers

and customers in the volatile environment. IT use for exploration pro­
vides the platform for absorbing more diversified information and
H3b: Complementary customer IT use
H1b: Customer IT use for exploitation
H2b: Customer IT use for exploration

developing more integrated relationship between SC partners. It will

therefore improve SC resilience capability and keep the continuity of
H3b: Balanced customer IT use

upstream and downstream operations successfully.

Third, this study applied the ambidexterity perspective to shed light
on how IT ambidexterity reconciles the paradox between IT use for
Independent variable

Ambidextrous variable
Independent variable

exploitation and IT use for exploration in enhancing SC resilience. It

Control variable

echoes the call of He and Wong (2004) to test the ambidexterity hy­
Fixed assets

pothesis in other management research domains. The regression results

Employees
Constant

show that the ambidextrous (balanced and complementary) use of IT

with suppliers cannot improve supplier resilience. However, the
balanced use of IT with customers shows a negative effect on customer
resilience and complementary use shows a positive effect. Our findings
underscore the complexity of IT use in different parts of a SC, and further
3.12*** (.633)

highlight the importance of the explorative use of IT with SC partners to

.36*** (.079)
Model 3

-.07 (.053)

-.02 (.101)

improve SC resilience. Specifically, when coping with frequent demand

.06 (.066)

.09 (.077)

.01 (.039)

13.294

changes, firms need to make IT use for exploration and IT use for
0.075
.286
.001

.928

exploitation in the customer side complement each other to jointly

contribute to disruption recovery with its customers. It indicates that the
The standard error for each unstandardized parameter estimate is shown in parentheses.

focal firm needs to enhance extensive information sharing via explor­

ative use of IT with customers. It helps the focal firm to sense down­
3.05*** (.353)

stream changes in the market and better integrate with customers to

.35*** (.068)
Dependent variable: supplier resilience

Model 2

-.07 (.052)

reconfigure structures and processes towards disruptions. At the same

.06 (.065)

.09 (.071)

38.565
20.088

time, if firms could improve efficiency in information processing and

.286
.274

.000

recording via exploitative IT use with customers (i.e., integrated IT

Significant parameter estimates and changes in F-values are in bold.

platforms), they could quickly call up relevant information to effectively

manage SC disruptions (Johnson et al., 2013; Pettit et al., 2013;
Scholten and Schilder, 2015). However, the regression results indicate
5.11*** (.282)

that when coping with disruptions in the supplier side, ambidextrous

Note: +p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Model 1

-.09 (.061)
.01 (.075)

(balanced and complementary) use of IT with suppliers does not take

effect. Combined with the previous SEM results, it suggests that the focal
1.176
.011

firm should rely on supplier IT use for exploration to share information

–

–
–

and integrate with suppliers, which enables the focal firm and its sup­
pliers to address disruptions responsively and maintain stable materials
supply (Sanders, 2008).
H3a: Complementary supplier IT use
H1a: Supplier IT use for exploitation
H2a: Supplier IT use for exploration

To summarize, on the one hand, these findings demonstrate that

Hierarchical regression results.

ambidextrous IT use (i.e., complementary customer IT use) could help

the focal firm to reconcile the paradox between IT exploitation and IT
exploration in the customer side in managing SC disruptions. In other
H3a: Balanced supplier
Independent variable

Ambidextrous variable

words, efforts in implementing IT for exploitation can improve firm’s

Independent variable

p-value (change)

effectiveness in exploring new information and initiating reconfigura­

Control variable

Change in R2

tions towards SC disruptions. Proficiency in firm’s explorative IT use

Change in F
Fixed assets
Employees

enhance its capability to engage in successful exploitation. On the other

Constant

IT use
Table 8

hand, the findings indicate that it is necessary for the focal firm and its
2

SC partners to manage the paradox by laying relatively more emphasizes

R

9
M. Gu et al.
on IT exploration when resources are limited (Goo et al., 2015). Because
the tension between two patterns of IT use actually results from their
competition for scarce resources (Cao et al., 2009; Chiu, 2014; Gupta
et al., 2006; March, 1991), and IT use for exploration with SC partners,
however, has been empirically shown to improve supplier and customer
resilience in most configurations. Such findings also complement to the
tenets of IPT (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1974). To improve in­
formation processing capability in the volatile environment, extensive
information sharing that generates more solutions and fewer informa­
tion distortions is more important than information format standardi­
zation that reduces information source and the difficulty to search and
analyze needed information (Wang et al., 2013).
For managers, this study provides some practical guidelines. First,
both supplier and customer resilience are important for boosting SC
performance. Firms should pay equal attention to keep the continuity of
upstream and downstream operations of their SC when they are attacked
by disruptions. Second, to achieve supplier and customer resilience
simultaneously, firms should consider the difference between the
exploitative and explorative use of IT with their SC partners. Resources
need to be invested more in IT exploration. Firms should use IT to share
rich information so that they can better understand the trends in envi­
ronmental changes and create new solutions to recover from SC dis­
ruptions. They should also use IT to build integrated relationships with
suppliers and customers so that more synchronized and efficient actions
can be taken. Third, although the exploitative use of IT with customers
such as recording customer-related data does not affect customer resil­
ience directly, it still has some merits. It could complement the benefits
of explorative use in effectively reconfiguring and recovering from dis­
ruptions with customers. These practical implications are extremely
useful and critical for firms to manage SCM practices under the global
disruptions of COVID-19 pandemic. Since although the COVID-19
pandemic has caused severe global disruptions in supply and demand,
some companies such as Haier relied on their solid external IT linkage to
quickly respond and stood out with stable customer service while others
had to suspend production lines.
7. Conclusions, limitations, and future research directions
This study investigates impacts of different IT patterns (exploitative
versus explorative and ambidextrous) with SC partners on supplier and
customer resilience and their effectiveness on SC performance. Our re­
sults indicate that only explorative use of IT with suppliers and cus­
tomers can facilitate supplier and customer resilience, while exploitative
use of IT demonstrates no significant effects. Our results also show that
the ambidextrous (balanced and complementary) use of IT with sup­
pliers cannot improve supplier resilience. However, the ambidextrous
use of IT patterns on the customer side takes effect. Specifically, the
balanced use of IT with customers shows a negative effect on customer
resilience and complementary use shows a positive effect. In addition,
this study shows that both supplier and customer resilience can improve
SC performance in the highly volatile environment.
Although this study makes contributions to theory and practice,
some limitations should be considered. First, this study only examined
the antecedents and outcomes of external resilience while omitting the
role of internal resilience. Future research can investigate how internal
resilience will influence firm performance. Second, this study only
investigated how inter-firm IT implementation improves SC resilience.
Future research can take intra-firm IT into considerations and explore
how intra-firm IT patterns improve SC resilience. Third, this study
treated IT as non-specific, and firms may implement different IT tools
with suppliers and customers. Future research can examine the impact
of some specific and emerging IT tools usage (e.g., big data analytics,
blockchain technology) on SC resilience. Fourth, the hypotheses were
tested with cross-sectional data collected from limited samples. Future
research can verify the casual relationship between the adoption of a
specific or emerging technology and firm’s recovery from SC disruptions
10
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
by using difference-in-difference approach with panel data. Fifth,
although we used Harman’s one-factor test and marker variable
methods to eliminate the concern about common method bias, it is
unlikely to completely resolve this concern resulted from the single-
informant questionnaire design. Future research can involve managers
in different functions to fill in the most relevant parts of the survey, or
collect some objective data to mitigate the common method bias. In
addition, although we have strictly controlled the questionnaire design
and data collection processes, there is still a problem that the informa­
tion in the non-anonymous questionnaire may be not true. Future
studies could collect multi-source and secondary data to verify the
results.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Minhao Gu: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Lu
Yang: Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Baofeng
Huo: Supervision, Resources.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation
of China (#71525005, #71821002, #71961137004).
Appendix A. Constructs measurement
Supply chain performance
SCperf1: Our supply chain has the ability to quickly modify products
to meet customers’ requirements.
SCperf2: Our supply chain allows us to quickly introduce new
products into our markets.
SCperf2: The length of the supply chain process is getting shorter.
SCperf2: We are satisfied with the speediness of the supply chain
process.
SCperf2: Based on our knowledge of the supply chain process, we
think that it is efficient.
SCperf2: Our supply chain has an outstanding on-time delivery
record.
SCperf2: Our supply chain provides high-level customer services.
Customer resilience
Cres1: We and our main customer are able to maintain high situa­
tional awareness at all times.
Cres2: We and our main customer are able to provide a quick
response to the supply chain disruption.
Cres3: We and our main customer are able to cope with changes
brought by the supply chain disruption.
Cres4: We and our main customer are able to adapt to the supply
chain disruption easily.
Cres5: We and our main customer can recovery to normal operations
speedily after the supply chain disruption.
Supplier resilience
Sres1: We and our main supplier are able to maintain high situational
awareness at all times.
Sres2: We and our main supplier are able to provide a quick response
to the supply chain disruption.
Sres3: We and our main supplier are able to cope with changes
brought by the supply chain disruption.
Sres4: We and our main supplier are able to adapt to the supply chain
disruption easily.
Sres5: We and our main supplier can recovery to normal operations
speedily after the supply chain disruption.
M. Gu et al.
Customer IT use for exploitation
CITexploi1: We use specific IT based support for order processing,
invoicing and settling accounts with our major customer.
CITexploi2: We use specific IT based support for exchange of ship­
ment and delivery information with our major customer.
CITexploi3: We use specific IT based support for managing ware­
house stock and inventories with our major customer.
CITexploi4: We use specific IT based support for our daily work, such
as document processing with our major customer.
Customer IT use for exploration
CITexplor1: We use specific IT based support with our major
customer for understanding trends in sales and customer’s preferences.
CITexplor2: We use specific IT based support for integrating our
company and major customer.
CITexplor3: We use specific IT based support to coordinate with our
major customer.
CITexplor4: We use specific IT based support for leveraging our
customer’s expertise to create new business opportunities.
Supplier IT use for exploitation
SITexploi1: We use specific IT based support for order processing,
invoicing and settling accounts with our major supplier.
SITexploi2: We use specific IT based support for exchange of ship­
ment and delivery information with our major supplier.
SITexploi3: We use specific IT based support for managing ware­
house stock and inventories with our major supplier.
SITexploi4: We use specific IT based support for our daily work, such
as document processing with our major supplier.
Supplier IT use for exploration
SITexplor1: We use specific IT based support with our major supplier
for understanding trends in sales and customer’s preferences.
SITexplor2: We use specific IT based support for integrating our
company and major supplier.
SITexplor3: We use specific IT based support to coordinate with our
major supplier.
SITexplor4: We use specific IT based support for leveraging our
supplier’s expertise to create new business opportunities.
Marker variable (Respondent’s character)
MV1: I am feeling very good to have a lot of friends.
MV2: I am a cheerful person full of energy.
MV3: I enjoy talking with others.
References
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., Grawe, S., 2015. Firm’s resilience to supply chain
disruptions: scale development and empirical examination. J. Oper. Manag. 33–34,
111–122.
Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W., 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and
organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20 (4),
696–717.
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
J. Market. Res. 14 (3), 396–402.
Beamon, B.M., 1999. Measuring supply chain performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 19
(3), 275–292.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W., Petersen, K.J., 2014. A contigent resource-
based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. J. Supply Chain Manag.
50 (3), 55–73.
Brusset, X., Teller, C., 2017. Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 184, 59–68.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H., 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity:
dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ. Sci. 20 (4), 781–796.
11
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework
for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15 (5), 555–568.
Chiu, Y.-C., 2014. Balancing exploration and exploitation in supply chain portfolios. IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag. 61 (1), 18–27.
Chowdhury, M.M.H., Quaddus, M., 2017. Supply chain resilience: conceptualization and
scale development using dynamic capability theory. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 188,
185–204.
Clark, L.A., Watson, D., 2016. Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale
Development.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness
and structural design. Manag. Sci. 32 (5), 554–571.
Day, J.M., 2014. Fostering emergent resilience: the complex adaptive supply network of
disaster relief. Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (7), 1970–1988.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., Foropon, C.,
2019a. Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational
flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–19.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Blome, C., Luo, Z.W., 2019b.
Antecedents of resilient supply chains: an empirical study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.
66 (1), 8–19.
Fiksel, J., Polyviou, M., Croxton, K.L., Pettit, T.J., 2015. From risk to resilience: learning
to deal with disruption. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 56 (2), 79–86.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X., 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on
performance: a contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 28 (1),
58–71.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Galbraith, J.R., 1974. Organization design: an information processing view. Interfaces 4
(3), 28–36.
Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (2), 209–226.
Gonzalvez-Gallego, N., Molina-Castillo, F.J., Soto-Acosta, P., Varajao, J., Trigo, A., 2015.
Using integrated information systems in supply chain management. Enterprise Inf.
Syst. 9 (2), 210–232.
Goo, J., Huang, C.D., Koo, C., 2015. Learning for healthy outcomes: exploration and
exploitation with electronic medical records. Inf. Manag. 52 (5), 550–562.
Gosain, S., Malhotra, A., El Sawy, O.A., 2004. Coordinating for flexibility in e-business
supply chains. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 21 (3), 7–45.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E., 2006. The interplay between exploration and
exploitation. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (4), 693–706.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J., Black, W.C., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: a
Global Perspective. Pearson Upper, Saddle River, NJ.
Hamilton, B.H., Nickerson, J.A., 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic
management research. Strat. Organ. 1 (1), 51–78.
Han, J.H., Wang, Y.L., Naim, M., 2017. Reconceptualization of information technology
flexibility for supply chain management: an empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 187,
196–215.
He, Z.-L., Wong, P.-K., 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the
ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 15 (4), 481–494.
Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R., 2005. Association between supply chain glitches and
operating performance. Manag. Sci. 51 (5), 695–711.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Hu, L.t., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.
Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1–55.
Huo, B., Zhang, C., Zhao, X., 2015. The effect of IT and relationship commitment on
supply chain coordination: a contingency and configuration approach. Inf. Manag.
52 (6), 728–740.
Huo, B., Zhao, X., Zhou, H., 2014. The effects of competitive environment on supply
chain information sharing and performance: an empirical study in China. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 23 (4), 552–569.
Im, G.Y., Rai, A., 2008. Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term
interorganizational relationships. Manag. Sci. 54 (7), 1281–1296.
Iyer, K.N.S., 2011. Demand chain collaboration and operational performance: role of IT
analytic capability and environmental uncertainty. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 26 (2),
81–91.
Johnson, N., Elliott, D., Drake, P., 2013. Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating
supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Manag. 18 (3), 324–336.
Jüttner, U., Maklan, S., 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an
empirical study. Supply Chain Manag. 16 (4), 246–259.
Kim, D., Lee, R.P., 2010. Systems collaboration and strategic collaboration: their impacts
on supply chain responsiveness and market performance Decis. Sci 41 (4), 955–981.
Kim, K.K., Ryoo, S.Y., Jung, M.D., 2011. Inter-organizational information systems
visibility in buyer-supplier relationships: the case of telecommunication equipment
component manufacturing industry. Omega-Int. J. Manage. Sci. 39 (6), 667–676.
Kline, R.B., 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford
publications.
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., Mole, K., 2018. Disentangling the
antecedents of ambidexterity: exploration and exploitation. Res. Pol. 47 (2),
413–427.
Kumar, S.K., Tiwari, M., Babiceanu, R.F., 2010. Minimisation of supply chain cost with
embedded risk using computational intelligence approaches. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48
(13), 3717–3739.
Lee, H.L., 2004. The triple-A supply chain, Harv. Bus. Rev. 82 (10), 102–112, 157.
M. Gu et al.
Lee, O.-K., Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K.H., Wei, K.K., 2015. How does IT ambidexterity
impact organizational agility? Inf. Syst. Res. 26 (2), 398–417.
Lee, S.M., Rha, J.S., 2016. Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: building a
resilient supply chain. Manag. Decis. 54 (1), 2–23.
Levinthal, D.A., March, J.G., 1993. The myopia of learning. Strat. Manag. J. 14, 95.
Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L., Sohal, A.S., 2009. The impact of IT implementation on supply
chain integration and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 120 (1), 125–138.
Li, J.J., Poppo, L., Zhou, K.Z., 2010. Relational mechanisms, formal contracts, and local
knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries. Strat. Manag. J. 31 (4),
349–370.
Li, Y., Wei, Z.L., Zhao, J., Zhang, C.L., Liu, Y., 2013. Ambidextrous organizational
learning, environmental munificence and new product performance: moderating
effect of managerial ties in China. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 146 (1), 95–105.
Lin, Y., Zhou, L., 2011. The impacts of product design changes on supply chain risk: a
case study. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (2), 162–186.
Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114.
Luo, Y.M., Zhang, C., Xu, Y.J., Ling, H., 2015. Creativity in IS usage and workgroup
performance: the mediating role of ambidextrous usage. Comput. Hum. Behav. 42,
110–119.
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., El Sawy, O.A., 2007. Leveraging standard electronic business
interfaces to enable adaptive supply chain partnerships. Inf. Syst. Res. 18 (3),
260–279.
March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2
(1), 71–87.
Mason-Jones, R., Towill, D.R., 1997. Information enrichment: designing the supply chain
for competitive advantage. Supply Chain Manag. 2 (4), 137–148.
Mehrabi, H., Coviello, N., Ranaweera, C., 2019. Ambidextrous marketing capabilities
and performance: how and when entrepreneurial orientation makes a difference.
Ind. Market. Manag. 77, 129–142.
Narasimhan, R., Jayaram, J., 1998. Causal linkages in supply chain management: an
exploratory study of North American manufacturing firms. Decis. Sci. J. 29 (3),
579–605.
Narasimhan, R., Talluri, S., 2009. Perspectives on risk management in supply chains.
J. Oper. Manag. 27 (2), 114–118.
Ngai, E.W.T., Chau, D.C.K., Chan, T.L.A., 2011. Information technology, operational, and
management competencies for supply chain agility: findings from case studies.
J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 20 (3), 232–249.
Ojha, D., Struckell, E., Acharya, C., Patel, P.C., 2018. Supply chain organizational
learning, exploration, exploitation, and firm performance: a creation-dispersion
perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 204, 70–82.
Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N., Bansal, P., 2016. The long-term benefits of organizational
resilience through sustainable business practices. Strat. Manag. J. 37 (8),
1615–1631.
Patel, P.C., Terjesen, S., Li, D., 2012. Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility
through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. J. Oper.
Manag. 30 (3), 201–220.
Patnayakuni, R., Rai, A., Seth, N., 2006. Relational antecedents of information flow
integration for supply chain coordination. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23 (1), 13–49.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L., Fiksel, J., 2013. Ensuring supply chain resilience: development
and implementation of an assessment tool. J. Bus. Logist. 34 (1), 46–76.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems
and prospects. J. Manag. 12 (4), 531–544.
Ponomarov, S.Y., Holcomb, M.C., 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain
resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20 (1), 124–143.
Pournader, M., Rotaru, K., Kach, A.P., Razavi Hajiagha, S.H., 2016. An analytical model
for system-wide and tier-specific assessment of resilience to supply chain risks.
Supply Chain Manag. 21 (5), 589–609.
Prajogo, D., Olhager, J., 2012. Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of
long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics
integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135 (1), 514–522.
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., Saunders, C.S., 2005. Information processing view of
organizations: an exploratory examination of fit in the context of interorganizational
relationships. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22 (1), 257–294.
Qrunfleh, S., Tarafdar, M., 2014. Supply chain information systems strategy: impacts on
supply chain performance and firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 340–350.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., Seth, N., 2006. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled
supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Q. 30 (2), 225–246.
Rai, A., Pavlou, P.A., Im, G., Du, S., 2012. Interfirm IT capability profiles and
communications for cocreating relational value: evidence from the logistics industry.
MIS Q. 36 (1), 233–262.
Rai, A., Tang, X.L., 2010. Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities
for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Inf. Syst. Res. 21
(3), 516–542.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes,
and moderators. J. Manag. 34 (3), 375–409.
Revilla, E., Saenz, M.J., 2017. The impact of risk management on the frequency of supply
chain disruptions: a configurational approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 37 (5),
557–576.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S., Moorman, C., 2008. Cross-sectional versus
longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines. J. Market. Res. 45
(3), 261–279.
12
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
Ruiz-Benitez, R., Lopez, C., Real, J.C., 2018. The lean and resilient management of the
supply chain and its impact on performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 203, 190–202.
Sanchez, J.I., Brock, P., 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic
employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Acad. Manag. J. 39 (3),
704–719.
Sanders, N.R., 2008. Pattern of information technology use: the impact on buyer-supplier
coordination and performance. J. Oper. Manag. 26 (3), 349–367.
Savitskie, K., 2007. Internal and external logistics information technologies. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 37 (6), 454–468.
Sawik, T., 2013. Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega-Int.
J. Manage. Sci. 41 (2), 259–269.
Schilke, O., 2014. On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive
advantage: the nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strat.
Manag. J. 35 (2), 179–203.
Scholten, K., Schilder, S., 2015. The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience.
Supply Chain Manag. 20 (4), 471–484.
Singh, N.P., 2020. Managing environmental uncertainty for improved firm financial
performance: the moderating role of supply chain risk management practices on
managerial decision making. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications 23 (3), 270–290.
Singh, N.P., Singh, S., 2019. Building supply chain risk resilience: role of big data
analytics in supply chain disruption mitigation. Benchmark Int. J. 26 (7),
2318–2342.
Song, M., Di Benedetto, C.A., Nason, R.W., 2007. Capabilities and financial performance:
the moderating effect of strategic type. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 35 (1), 18–34.
Srinivasan, R., Swink, M., 2015. Leveraging supply chain integration through planning
comprehensiveness: an organizational information processing theory perspective.
Decis. Sci. J. 46 (5), 823–861.
Subramani, M., 2004. How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in
supply chain relationships? MIS Q. 28 (1), 45–73.
Tang, C.S., 2006. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 103
(2), 451–488.
Tarafdar, M., Qrunfleh, S., 2017. Agile supply chain strategy and supply chain
performance: complementary roles of supply chain practices and information
systems capability for agility. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (4), 925–938.
Trkman, P., McCormack, K., 2009. Supply chain risk in turbulent environments: a
conceptual model for managing supply chain network risk. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 119
(2), 247–258.
Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A., 1996. The ambidextrous organizations: managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manag. Rev. 38 (4), 8–30.
Venkatraman, N., 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and
statistical correspondence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (3), 423–444.
Venugopal, A., Krishnan, T., Upadhyayula, R.S., Kumar, M., 2020. Finding the
microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity-demystifying the role of top
management behavioural integration. J. Bus. Res. 106, 1–11.
Voss, M.D., Whipple, J.M., Closs, D.J., 2009. The role of strategic security: internal and
external security measures with security performance implications. Transport. J. 48
(2), 5–23.
Wagner, S.M., Bode, C., 2008. An empirical examination of supply chain performance
along several dimensions of risk. J. Bus. Logist. 29 (1), 307–325.
Wamba, S.F., Akter, S., 2019. Understanding supply chain analytics capabilities and
agility for data-rich environments. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 39 (6/7/8), 887–912.
Wamba, S.F., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., 2020. The performance effects of big
data analytics and supply chain ambidexterity: the moderating effect of
environmental dynamism. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 222, 107498.
Wang, E.T.G., Tai, J.C.F., Grover, V., 2013. Examining the relational benefits of
improved interfirm information processing capability in buyer-supplier dyads. MIS
Q. 37 (1), 149–173.
Wang, E.T.G., Wei, H.-L., 2007. Interorganizational governance value creation:
coordinating for information visibility and flexibility in supply chains. Decis. Sci. J.
38 (4), 647–674.
Wang, J.J., Li, J.J., Chang, J., 2016. Product co-development in an emerging market: the
role of buyer-supplier compatibility and institutional environment. J. Oper. Manag.
46, 69–83.
Williams, L.J., Hartman, N., Cavazotte, F., 2010. Method variance and marker variables:
a review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organ. Res. Methods 13 (3),
477–514.
Wong, C.W.Y., Wong, C.Y., Boon-itt, S., 2013. The combined effects of internal and
external supply chain integration on product innovation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 146 (2),
566–574.
Xue, L., Ray, G., Sambamurthy, V., 2013. The impact of supply-side electronic
integration on customer service performance. J. Oper. Manag. 31 (6), 363–375.
Yao, Y.L., Dresner, M., Palmer, J.W., 2009. Impact of boundary-spanning information
technology and position in chain on firm performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 45
(4), 3–17.
Yu, W.T., Jacobs, M.A., Chavez, R., Feng, M.Y., 2017. The impacts of IT capability and
marketing capability on supply chain integration: a resource-based perspective. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 55 (14), 4196–4211.
Yu, W.T., Jacobs, M.A., Chavez, R., Yang, J.H., 2019. Dynamism, disruption orientation,
and resilience in the supply chain and the impacts on financial performance: a
dynamic capabilities perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 218, 352–362.
Zhang, C., Xue, L., Dhaliwal, J., 2016a. Alignments between the depth and breadth of
inter-organizational systems deployment and their impact on firm performance. Inf.
Manag. 53 (1), 79–90.
M. Gu et al.
Zhang, X., Van Donk, D.P., van der Vaart, T., 2016b. The different impact of inter-
organizational and intra-organizational ICT on supply chain performance. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 36 (7), 803–824.
Zhao, X., Flynn, B.B., Roth, A.V., 2006. Decision sciences research in China: a critical
review and research agenda: foundations and overview. Decis. Sci. J. 37 (4),
451–496.
13
International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107956
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Selen, W., Yeung, J.H.Y., 2011. The impact of internal integration and
relationship commitment on external integration. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (1), 17–32.
Zhou, H., Benton Jr., W.C., 2007. Supply chain practice and information sharing. J. Oper.
Manag. 25 (6), 1348–1365.
Zhou, K.Z., Li, C.B., 2012. How knowledge affects radical innovation: knowledge base,
market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strat. Manag. J. 33
(9), 1090–1102.