Developing Competitive Advantages

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0960-0035.htm
The triple-a supply chain and Supply chain

and strategic
strategic resources: developing resources
competitive advantage
David Gligor 159
Department of Marketing, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA
Received 23 August 2019
Javad Feizabadi Revised 28 October 2019
MIT Global SCALE Network, Malaysia Institute for Supply Chain Innovation, 11 February 2020
Accepted 31 March 2020
Shah Alam, Malaysia
Ivan Russo
Department of Economia Aziendale, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Michael J. Maloni
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Kennesaw State University,
Kennesaw, Georgia, USA, and
Thomas J. Goldsby
Department of Supply chain management, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Scholars have recently begun to empirically evaluate the triple-A supply chain, which emphasizes
concurrent capabilities in agility, adaptability and alignment across the supply chain to develop sustainable
competitive advantage. Complexity theory suggests however that other combinations of triple-A capabilities
may be equally effective, especially given a firm’s strategic orientation relative to its market and its supply
chain. Our research objective was to examine what combinations of these capabilities lead to the same outcome
(i.e. high firm performance).
Design/methodology/approach – We collected 182 survey responses from a global sample of supply chain
managers. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was employed to assess effective recipes of agility,
adaptability, alignment, supply chain orientation, and market orientation.
Findings – Our results revealed four distinct “recipes” (i.e. combinations of agility, adaptability, alignment,
supply chain orientation and market orientation) that lead to high levels of firm performance.
Originality/value – Our results indicate that firms currently do not necessarily have to concomitantly
develop capabilities across all triple-A components. Considering the costs associated with developing each of
these capabilities, the findings allow us to derive several theoretical and managerial insights.
Keywords Market orientation, Supply chain agility, Supply chain orientation, Supply chain alignment,
Supply chain adaptability
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Industry has awakened to the competitive imperative of supply chain management
(Gattorna, 2017; Russo and Confente, 2017). Yet, configuring the organization and its
associated supply chain members’ strategies, resources, and capabilities has proven to be a
daunting undertaking. To compete based on cost or service? To be lean or agile? To be robust
or resilient? These are some of the questions that guide supply chain strategy and International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics
configuration. The academic literature often positions these approaches as points on a Management
spectrum or discrete choices (Christopher and Lee, 2004; Mason-Jones et al., 2000). Yet, others Vol. 50 No. 2, 2020
pp. 159-190
suggest that these approaches may be employed together – and that they, in fact, should be © Emerald Publishing Limited
0960-0035
pursued simultaneously. DOI 10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2019-0258
IJPDLM One such assertion comes from Lee (2004) in his seminal presentation of the triple-A supply
50,2 chain. The triple-A focuses on three distinct capabilities: agility, adaptability, and alignment
that, when employed together, permit companies to achieve healthy margins while addressing
rapidly changing market conditions. Each of these “A’s” has been well-established
independently in existing research (Feizabadi et al., 2019a, b). Nevertheless, Lee (2004)
maintains that firms must concomitantly achieve all three A’s in order to sustain competitive
advantage. Whitten et al. (2012, p. 42) concur, “Triple-A supply chain management is
160 empirically established as a viable supply chain strategy that, when successfully implemented,
leads directly to improved supply chain performance.”
Since its incarnation, the triple-A supply chain has been widely embraced by both the
academic and professional communities. Yet evidence used to initially establish the triple-A
concept was generally anecdotal, and scholars indicate a lack of clarity of the triple-A
dimensions (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Marin-Garcia et al., 2018). Moreover, limited research
has since empirically tested the proposed relationships among the A’s with only recent
studies offering initial evidence that firms must indeed possess all three capabilities to attain
superior performance (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Marin-Garcia et al., 2018). These existing
triple-A studies apply traditional multiple regression analysis and structural equation
modeling (SEM) to explore the relationship between the three A’s and performance, capturing
“net effects” with linear associations between variables (i.e. main effects).
In contrast, extant literature suggests that the triple-A concept may be more complicated
(Feizabadi et al., 2019a). Specifically, the complex system of interconnected, interdependent
parts of the supply chain (i.e. suppliers, producers, logistics providers, etc.) is difficult to
model at an aggregate level (Choi et al., 2001; Choi and Krause, 2006). Following complexity
theory, members within the chain make decisions to adapt locally within their part of chain,
which initiates subsequent changes elsewhere in the chain (Sting et al., 2019). Series of such
bottom-up adaptions can lead to non-linear effects in the overall capabilities of the entire
chain. As such, complexity theory maintains that in reality, “relationships between variables
can be non-linear, with abrupt switches occurring, so the same ‘cause’ can, in specific
circumstances, produce different effects” (Urry 2005, p. 4). These non-linear changes could
emerge from synergies as well as cancelling effects to impact overall supply chain
capabilities. Complexity theory therefore insinuates the possibility of multiple, more intricate
relationships among the three A’s, challenging the notion that firms must always
concomitantly possess all three to achieve superior performance as proposed by Lee
(2004). Indeed, existing triple-A literature has suggested but not tested more complicated
relationships among the three A’s (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018).
Moreover, successful configurations of agility, adaptability, and alignment may be
depend on a firm’s strategic orientation relative to its market and its supply chain (Gligor,
2016; Gligor et al., 2015). Specifically, recent studies reveal that it is not sufficient to account
for firm capabilities (e.g. supply chain agility) to fully understand sources of superior firm
performance (Dhaigude and Kapoor, 2017). Rather, firms must also account for strategic
focus, such as supply chain orientation and market orientation (Braunscheidel and Suresh,
2009; Gligor et al., 2016). For managers, accounting for the role of such strategic-level
resources in addition to operational-level capabilities like agility, adaptability, alignment
provides a more holistic perspective on the potential for superior performance. This
subsequently challenges supply chain managers to develop and manage concomitant roles of
strategic and operational level resources. Given all of the above points, we thus posit in this
research the following question: What configurations of triple-A supply chain capabilities and
strategic orientations lead to superior firm performance?
We address this question by analyzing survey data of supply chain capabilities (agility,
adaptability, and alignment) and strategic-level resources (supply chain orientation and
market orientation) relative to firm performance. To do so, we utilize fuzzy set qualitative
comparative analysis (QCA) to identify effective combinations of triple-A capabilities and Supply chain
strategic resources. In essence, QCA uses Boolean algebra rules to evaluate patterns to and strategic
divulge different combinations of variables (highs and lows), deemed as “recipes,” that lead
to the same outcome (i.e. equifinality). As such, QCA goes beyond identifying direct effects to
resources
evaluate not only sufficiency of certain combinations but also potential asymmetrical
relationships. For instance, QCA assesses contrarian cases to deduce if, in some instances,
low levels of one A alone can result in high firm performance or if high levels of one A might
result in low firm performance, even when the direct impact of another A is positive. Despite 161
such strengths, use of QCA in supply chain research has been limited. Example applications
include materials traceability (Timmer and Kaufmann, 2017), reverse supply chain, (Russo
et al., 2019), service supply chain relationships (Karatzas et al., 2016) and supplier disruptions
(Reimann et al., 2017).
Following this approach, the study offers methodological, theoretical and managerial
contributions. From a methodological perspective, it presents a more nuanced understanding
of how the three A’s impact firm performance (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Feizabadi et al.,
2019b; Gligor et al., 2015). Specifically, QCA addresses limitations associated with multiple
regression and SEM approaches, which are not fully capable of explaining complex
relationships (Fiss, 2011; Woodside, 2014). We subsequently highlight QCA as a
complementary (rather than superior) method that can support a more in depth
understanding of different effective combinations of performance antecedents (Russo et al.,
2017; Woodside, 2015).
With this methodological contribution, we make a second contribution to extend the small
yet growing body of triple-A literature that has established the need to concomitantly possess
all three A’s in order to achieve competitive advantage (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Whitten
et al., 2012). Assessing other effective combinations of agility, adaptability and alignment
allows managers to efficiently allocate resources given that strong competence in all three A’s
may be cost prohibitive (Gligor, 2018). With limited firm resources, managers can thus benefit
from knowing on which attributes to focus and whether or not it is necessary to develop all
three for superior performance.
As a third contribution, previous studies have focused solely on triple-A impacts on
performance without incorporating a strategic-level nomological framework, thereby
neglecting existing literature establishing that operational-level supply chain capabilities
alone are insufficient to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Rather, firms must also
develop strategic-level resources to understand and manage their demand and supply-side
challenges and opportunities (Gligor, 2016; Gligor et al., 2015). As such, incorporating market
orientation and supply chain orientation in the research herein extends existing triple-A
research.
Below, we first provide the theoretical background of the triple-A supply chain, market
orientation, and supply chain orientation concepts of interest. We then continue by
introducing complexity theory to support development of the research propositions. Next, we
present the details of the empirical approach. Finally, we discuss the implications of the
results then explore limitations and future research opportunities.
Theoretical background
Triple-A supply chain and competitive advantage
To identify sources of competitive advantage, existing research concludes that an end-to-end
approach must be adopted relative to both supply and demand sides of organizational
activities (Barney, 1986, 2012; Day and Wensley, 1988; Hunt and Davis, 2008; Peteraf, 1993;
Ramsay, 2001). Following this tradition, we ground our competitive advantage
conceptualization with both resource advantage theory (RAT) and resource orchestration
IJPDLM theory (ROT). Drawing on RAT, we argue that a firm can create a comparative advantage
50,2 through its supply chain orientation in factor markets, which in conjunction with the firm’s
market orientation, engenders competitive advantage in product markets. In other words,
supply chain orientation enables the firm to capture more value and market orientation helps
the firm create more value (Priem and Swink, 2012).
To ensure integration between factor markets and product markets, we also draw upon
ROT to argue that a unique bundle of supply chain capabilities with the three A’s enable a
162 firm to orchestrate resources on both supply and demand sides (Gruber et al., 2010; Sirmon
et al., 2011). Lee’s (2004) triple-A supply chain concept embodies ROT, seeking advantage by
synthesizing supply chain capabilities of agility, adaptability and alignment (Feizabadi et al.,
2019b). Agility enables quick response to short-term variations in supply and demand, while
adaptability supports reaction to longer-term market shifts. Finally, alignment coordinates
supply chain members to work together to maximize performance of the entire chain.
The popular response to Lee’s work, as validated by the high citation count of the original
paper, emphasizes the timeliness of the triple-A supply chain for firm competitive advantage.
Specifically, contemporary global markets magnify both the prevalence and severity of
demand and supply disruptions, necessitating agility of response (Christopher and Lee, 2004).
Scholars also recognize the need for adaptability given that customer expectations for the
pace of product life cycles, delivery times, and cost reductions continue to become more
demanding (Christopher and Holweg, 2011, 2017). Such agility and adaptability compel firms
to align across the supply chain to look beyond their individual objectives to maximize end
customer value and subsequent rewards for the entire chain (Autry et al., 2014; Kamal and
Irani, 2014). As presented next, each of the triple-A capabilities has been well established in
extant literature, though primarily individually (Feizabadi et al., 2019b).
Agility
Increased volatility in the current business landscape makes it imperative for supply chains
to enhance their capability of coping with such volatility in a more proactive manner
(Christopher and Holweg, 2011, 2017). Agility has thus been the subject of increased attention
from supply chain scholars, who describe it as a capability to help organizations swiftly
adjust tactics and operations to short term changes (Christopher, 2000; Gligor et al., 2013). Key
components hence include flexibility and speed (Charles et al., 2010; Matawale et al., 2016;
Swafford et al., 2006).
Past studies indicate that agility positively impacts both operational and relationship
performance (Gligor and Holcomb, 2014). Operational elements capture aspects of quality,
productivity, and efficiency, while relational elements support the supplier–customer
relationship (Stank et al., 1999). For instance, research suggests that supply chain agility
enhances firm performance by reducing cycle times and time to market (Agarwal et al., 2007;
Mason-Jones and Towill, 1999; Sharifi et al., 2006). Additionally, agility has been linked to
improved financial performance. For example, Gligor et al. (2015) found a direct link between
agility and return on assets (ROA). Inman et al. (2011) also empirically link supply chain
agility to firm profitability, including return on investment (ROI) and return on sales (ROS).
Adaptability
Existing literature also stresses adaptability given the increased rate of structural changes in
the current business landscape (Gersick, 1994; Miller and Chen, 1994; Romanelli and
Tushman, 1994). Such structural changes may stem from fundamental shifts in supply (e.g.
location, cost, quality), demand (e.g. location, variety, volume) and the business environment
(technology, regulations, political instability) (Christopher and Holweg, 2017; Eckstein et al.,
2015; Feizabadi et al., 2019b). Rapid product development is thus recognized as one primary
mechanism for adaptability (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Schoenherr and Swink, 2012). Supply chain
Additionally, the process of innovation in general, and more specifically supply chain and strategic
transformations, also contribute to how firms adapt to changing environments (Adebanjo
et al., 2018). Consequently supply chains should be able to reconfigure to successfully cope
resources
with structural changes (Chan and Chan, 2010; Eckstein et al., 2015). Grounding upon
competency-capability theory, flexibility is also an internally-focused competency of both
agility and adaptability (Zhang et al., 2003).
Research reveals how adaptability can facilitate long-term firm viability by significantly 163
improving performance outcomes such as growth of sales and market share (Auh and
Menguc, 2005). Eckstein et al. (2015) also shows that the ability to adapt to long-term
structural changes is positively associated with improved cost and operational performance.
Other studies further link supply chain adaptability to superior firm performance. For
example, it can increase the level of firm innovation as well as boost customer value via
ambidextrous operational competences (Dobrzykowski and Leuschner, 2015; Fugate et al.,
2010; Kristal et al., 2010).
Alignment
Within the context of supply chain, alignment has been defined as “incentives for supply
chain partners to improve performance of the entire chain” (Lee, 2004, p. 6). Alignment seeks
to enhance customer value by promoting co-creation of such value (Knemeyer and Murphy,
2005; Narayanan and Raman, 2004). In other words, firms look beyond individual objectives
to maximize value across the chain. Alignment has been of interest to scholars primarily to
promote win-win relationships among supply chain partners (Daugherty, 2011). Accordingly,
the concept of alignment is captured in overlapping supply chain research topics such as
integration, coordination, collaboration and partnerships (Feizabadi et al., 2019b).
Many studies have linked alignment to superior financial, operational and market
performance. For example, research indicates that alignment-related initiatives result in sales
growth, enhanced ROI and profit and improvements to lead times, and time-to-market (Cao
and Zhang, 2011; Koh et al., 2006). Scholars also highlight improvements in quality, cycle
times, fill rates, forecast accuracy and customer retention (Bellingkrodt and Wallenburg,
2013; Rosenzweig, 2009). However, meta-analyses suggest that supply chain alignment does
not necessarily universally enhance all dimensions of financial, operational, and innovation
performance (Leuschner et al., 2013; Mackelprang et al., 2014).
Integrating the A’s

Despite the wealth of studies evaluating each component of the triple-A supply chain, limited
literature coordinates all three (Feizabadi et al., 2019b). Following the direction of Lee’s
original work, a few recent studies have directly tied integration of the three A’s to firm
performance (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Attia, 2015; Dubey et al., 2018; Dubey and
Gunasekaran, 2016; Marin-Garcia et al., 2018; Whitten et al., 2012). Relying on self-report
performance data, this literature supports Lee’s contention that firms must simultaneously
develop all three A’s. For example, Whitten et al. (2012) provide one of the earliest validations,
modeling agility, adaptability and alignment as a second-order triple-A construct that
improves supply chain performance and subsequent marketing and organizational
performance. In a multi-national study of manufacturing firms, Alfalla-Luque et al. (2018)
more recently found that although individual triple-A components maintain disparate
impacts on different dimensions of performance (e.g. financial, quality, delivery, flexibility),
integration of the triple-A components enhances performance across all performance
dimensions. Similarly, Feizabadi et al. (2019a) link integrated A’s with financial and market
performance.
IJPDLM Strategic orientation
50,2 To generate heterogeneity of resources among firms, attributes that holistically empower
competitive advantage via supply chain resources include not only agility, adaptability, and
alignment but also strategic orientation (Hunt and Davis, 2008; Priem and Swink, 2012).
Extant literature emphasizes the significance of strategic-level resources to enable
operational competences to drive performance, indicating that triple-A capabilities would
rely on a firm’s strategic orientations towards its market and supply chain. For instance,
164 Gligor et al. (2016) highlight the importance of foundations in market orientation and supply
chain orientation to enable supply chain agility to impact firm performance. However,
scholars have yet to link triple-A operational-level competences to strategic resources. Given
this gap, we thus extend the triple-A literature base by incorporating two strategic
perspectives: market orientation and supply chain orientation. Accounting for such firm
strategic-level resources can offer a more comprehensive perspective of triple-A impacts on
firm performance and competitive advantage.
Market orientation
Capturing market dynamics has been noted as a fundamental driving factor to succeed in
competitive markets (Hunt and Davis, 2008), ultimately enabling firms to create
heterogeneity of demand and supporting resources to gain competitive advantage (Hunt
and Davis, 2012; Priem and Swink, 2012). Existing research emphasizes that a firm must
therefore focus on demand-side resources (Liao et al., 2011; Slater and Narver, 2000).
Described as the organizational-spanning process to generate, disseminate, and respond to
market intelligence (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), market orientation manifests as a set of
activities across the organization aimed at understanding customers’ needs. This knowledge
is diffused throughout the organization, which subsequently acts on that knowledge to
satisfy customers.
A plethora of studies has presented arguments for the positive effects of market orientation
on firm performance (Chen and Hsu, 2013; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Slater and Narver, 1994).
Interestingly, despite overwhelming evidence praising performance outcomes of market
orientation, research maintains that market orientation should be considered in conjunction
with other resources to positively impact performance (Gligor, 2014; Min et al., 2007). In
relation to the triple-A supply chain for instance, market orientation would support
organizational response to demand side events (i.e. agility) and market shifts (i.e. adaptability).
Market visibility could also enhance alignment with customers. Thus, we consider market
orientation as a key attribute in potential recipes with agility, adaptability and alignment.
Supply chain orientation

Furthermore, existing literature maintains that firms must also focus on creating
heterogenous supply chain resources to achieve advantage (Mello and Stank, 2005). As
such, a majority of research on supply chain management effectiveness centers on
establishing a supply chain orientation inclusive of all relevant parties (Thornton et al., 2016).
In this view, supply chain orientation has been defined as “recognition by an organization of
the systemic, strategic implications of the tactical activities involved in managing the various
flows in a supply chain” (Mentzer et al., 2001, p. 11). Supply chain orientation thus requires
firms to not only maintain a systems focus to ensure synchronization of operations within
both the firm and the overall chain (Min et al., 2007) but also to architect organizational
structural elements like organizational design, people, systems, performance metrics and
incentives (Esper et al., 2010). A plethora of research has thus investigated the impact of
supply chain orientation on flow coordination (Fugate et al., 2006) and managing the extended
supply chain (Min and Mentzer, 2004).
Research reveals that supply chain orientation results in several desirable performance- Supply chain
related outcomes, helping firms to more effectively meet customers’ expectations by and strategic
facilitating a unified and coordinated response across the chain (Min et al., 2007; Patel et al.,
2013). As such, studies indicate that supply chain orientation positively impacts operational
resources
performance, customer performance, and organizational performance (Gligor, 2014; Min et al.,
2007). Considering triple-A competences, supply chain orientation provides a focus on
aligning supply chain members (alignment), which can support reaction to market
disruptions (agility) and longer-term market shifts (adaptability). We therefore also 165
consider supply chain orientation as a recipe attribute with agility, adaptability,
alignment, and market orientation.
Research propositions
The above discussion proposes the importance of operational-level triple-A capabilities in
coordination with strategic-level market and supply chain orientations as antecedents to
organizational performance. Existing literature has yet to verify this combination of
operational and strategic capabilities. Moreover, Sirmon et al. (2007, 2011) distinguish
between possessing resources and managing these resources. In this vein, resource
orchestration theory emphasizes how “managers need to orchestrate their resources to realize
any potential advantage” (Chirico et al., 2011, p. 310). Sirmon and his colleagues claim that
having a unique resource is necessary but not sufficient to develop a sustainable competitive
advantage, and recent literature corroborates the importance of understanding how
resources are combined to affect firm performance (Ketchen et al., 2014). In line with these
arguments, management and deployment of resources can create differential outcomes for
firms with similar resources (Esper and Crook, 2014).
Furthermore, the complexity of orchestrating resources in practice may create different
configurations. For example, prior work on the triple-A has suggested but not tested more
complicated relationships among the three A’s and performance outcomes (Alfalla-Luque
et al., 2018). Thus, some studies have considered it necessary to go beyond the examination of
direct effects of individual resources to explore how combinations of resources lead to higher
business performance (Hughes et al., 2018; Russo et al., 2019). From this perspective,
complexity theory maintains the idea of “recipes” as combinations of attributes (e.g. agility,
adaptability, alignment, market orientation and supply chain orientation) rather than
emphasizing individual antecedents per se (Kraus et al., 2018; Woodside, 2015). Ordanini et al.
(2014, p. 134) show that recipes “are more important than the ingredients” in their evaluation
of service innovation configurations. That is, any single attribute may be significant but not
necessarily sufficient to estimate the outcome variable (i.e. firm performance) and should thus
be combined with other attributes (Wu et al., 2014). Furthermore, according to RAT, the recipe
should incorporate attributes in both factor and product markets, thus necessitating
inclusion of supply chain and market orientation (Hunt and Davis, 2012). Hence, we draw
upon ROT, RAT and the tenets of complexity theory to empirically explore the expanded
view of the triple-A supply chain with market and supply chain orientation (Woodside, 2014).
The present study subsequently offers a unique perspective by applying core tenets of
complexity theory that concern how elements of a business system work together to bring
about firm performance. This perspective implies theorizing and testing complex causality.
RP1. A single attribute (agility, adaptability, alignment, market orientation and supply
chain orientation) is necessary but insufficient for high firm performance, and it
must be combined with the other attributes.
Moreover, existing literature has typically focused on linear effects of triple-A components or
strategic perspectives, relying on multiple regression and SEM analyses. In contrast,
IJPDLM complexity theory proposes that the relationship between input and output variables may not
50,2 always be linear, symmetrical, and in the same direction, producing different results when
considered in combination with other variables (Russo et al., 2016). Consequently, different
components in a “recipe” can have a positive or negative effect on the outcome variable based
on the occurrence or absence of other recipe attributes (Urry 2005). For example, Russo et al.
(2019) demonstrate that negation of different antecedent conditions may sometimes
contribute to high customer satisfaction. Therefore, complexity theory helps explain
166 relationships that are “non-linear with abrupt switches occurring, so the same “cause” can, in
specific circumstances, produce different effects” (Urry 2005, p. 4). In other words, the
cumulative effect of configurational causes of an outcome emerge from configurations in
which single antecedents are not relevant.
Thus, different combinations of variables (e.g. agility, adaptability, alignment, market
orientation and supply chain orientation) can yield the equivalent outcome (i.e. strong firm
performance) (Kraus et al., 2018; Leischnig and Woodside, 2017; Ordanini et al., 2014;
Woodside, 2015). This insinuates a more complicated and nuanced view of the triple-A supply
chain and strategic resources. Different firms may possess different resources and
capabilities and should allocate their limited resources to select their own most
appropriate path. We therefore evaluate the following proposition:
RP2. Across configurational causes for firm performance, both the presence and the
negation of a single antecedent attribute (agility, adaptability, alignment, supply
chain orientation, and market orientation) may contribute to the outcome,
depending on how the single antecedent attributes forms a configurational cause
with other antecedent attributes.
Moreover, another tenet of complexity theory argues that different combinations of attributes
can lead to the same outcome (Woodside, 2015). That is, different combinations of triple-A
capabilities in coordination with market and supply chain orientation may exist for
organizational performance. Taken together, equifinality and resource orchestration are
likely to play key roles in managing the triple A’s and firm orientations to generate high levels
of business performance. However, they leave open the question of what configurations will
lead to high firm performance. Consequently, we explore the following proposition:
RP3. No single best but disparate configurations of agility, adaptability, alignment,
market orientation, and supply chain orientation are equifinal in leading to high
firm performance.
Methodology
Given the above research propositions, QCA serves as an effective tool to identify
combinations of causal attributes (e.g. agility, adaptability, alignment, market orientation and
supply chain orientation) that lead to equifinality as the same outcome (e.g. high firm
performance). QCA extends beyond theoretical arguments directly linking each variable of
interest to firm performance, uncovering potential different combinations (i.e. recipes) of these
antecedents that enhance performance (Russo et al., 2016). This approach helps overcome
weaknesses with multiple regression and SEM, which do not always fully delineate complex
and inconsistent relationships among variables (Fiss, 2011; Woodside, 2014). QCA can thus
enhance insight into triple-A competences and strategic resources. We apply QCA below to
survey data to test the research propositions, starting next with a discussion of the data.
Data collection and scales psychometric properties

The majority of the survey items utilized in this study to measure the constructs of interest
were adopted from existing scales. Table A1 displays each item and related sources. All items
were measured with a seven-point Likert scale. The supply chain agility items were closely Supply chain
adopted from Gligor et al. (2013) and Gligor et al. (2016), while the supply chain adaptability and strategic
and alignment items were adopted from Feizabadi et al. (2019a). For the strategic resources,
€
scales were applied directly from Ozturan et al. (2014) for market orientation and Patel et al.
resources
(2013) for supply chain orientation. Finally, self-report items for firm organizational
performance were taken from Fugate et al. (2009b). All initial scales were assessed by four
industry professionals and seven scholars with expertise in supply chain via structured
interviews. Applying their feedback, we revised and consolidated the items into the scales 167
shown in Table A1.
We obtained the survey distribution list of supply chain managers from two sources: MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Global SCALE (Supply Chain and Logistics
Excellence) Network centers and CSCMP (Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals). We administered the final survey via e-mail to 2,520 target respondents
over four waves to maximize response, which yielded 182 complete useable responses (7.2%
response rate). Table A2 summarizes respondent demographics. Since respondents were
located in multiple countries across three continents, we assessed measure invariance to
ensure no significant differences for construct measures across different countries
(Vandenberg and Lance, 2000).
Non-response bias
We also investigated possible non-response bias. First, we compared responses collected
during the first wave of distribution to those collected in later rounds (Armstrong and Overton,
1977). No statistical differences were found between these batches of respondents. In addition,
we contacted a random sample of 30 non-respondents and asked five non-demographic
related questions. No statistical differences were found between these two groups.
Common method bias

Common method bias may occur with data collected from a single source. To evaluate this
possibility, we employed Harman’s one-factor test on the variables using exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) (Hochwarter et al., 2004; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
Specifically, all items were assigned to a single factor using principal component analysis (no
rotation and “1” as a fixed number of factors). The results show that the first factor only
accounts for 29.74% of the total variance with poor model fit (RMSEA 5 0.17, CFI 5 0.40,
TLI 5 0.36, SRMR 5 0.15) (Kline, 2016). We also ran the EFA without restricting all items to
one factor, which yields a significantly stronger model fit (RMSEA 5 0.095, CFI 5 0.83,
TLI 5 0.81, SRMR 5 0.49). These results show six distinct factors with eigenvalues above or
near 1.0, explaining 82.0% of total variance. The first factor explained 32.4% of the variance
(i.e. not the majority of the total variance). This evidence indicates that common method bias
is not a threat.
To further reduce concerns of common method bias, we also collected objective measures
for two organizational performance items for respondents for which public data was
available. Specifically, we measured Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Investment (ROI)
using Compustat data for 61 respondents. Correlations between the subjective and objective
ROI and ROA measures were 0.399 and 0.406 respectively, indicating that our perceptual
data does indeed satisfactorily capture the constructs of interest (Fugate et al., 2009a).
Validity and reliability

We assessed scale reliability and validity with confirmatory factor analysis. Table 1 displays
the results, and Table 2 shows the correlation matrix. For reliability, composite reliability and
Cronbach’s alpha values all exceed 0.80. Average variance extracted (AVE) values all exceed
IJPDLM Construct Item Factor loading Composite reliability Cronbach alpha AVE
50,2
Supply chain agility 1 0.78 0.93 0.91 0.68
2 0.81
3 0.82
4 0.85
5 0.85
168 6 0.84
Supply chain adaptability 1 0.77 0.94 0.92 0.72
2 0.83
3 0.79
4 0.90
5 0.90
6 0.90
Supply chain alignment 1 0.67 0.85 0.78 0.48
2 0.60
3 0.77
4 0.69
5 0.69
6 0.71
Market orientation 1 0.52 0.89 0.84 0.57
2 0.67
3 0.85
4 0.88
5 0.86
6 0.68
Supply chain orientation 1 0.80 0.92 0.90 0.67
2 0.87
3 0.72
4 0.88
5 0.84
6 0.78
Organizational Performance 1 0.87 0.95 0.94 0.76
2 0.83
3 0.84
Table 1. 4 0.91
Measurement model 5 0.89
results 6 0.89
Agility Adaptability Alignment Market orientation SC orientation
Adaptability 0.62
Alignment 0.40 0.49
Market orientation 0.45 0.52 0.54
Table 2. SC orientation 0.56 0.55 0.52 0.64
Correlation matrix Organizational performance 0.51 0.56 0.30 0.37 0.40
0.50 with the exception of alignment (Hair et al., 2006). We opted to keep all six alignment
items given the AVE value was 0.48 (Hair et al., 2006). Convergent validity is further
supported with most factor loadings exceeding 0.70 and all exceeding 0.50 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity is validated with factor loadings greater than cross-
loadings on other constructs (Hair et al., 2006). Additionally, the square root of each AVE
exceeds the largest correlation with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
An asymmetric approach: qualitative comparative analysis Supply chain
A multi-step QCA analysis was executed to explore the research question. To start, the and strategic
contrarian case analysis was performed to examine the presence of contrarian cases by cross
tabulation. Next, a configural analysis was conducted to verify the existence of different
resources
combinations of antecedents that lead to the same output (i.e. high levels of firm performance).
First, contrarian analysis assesses the existence of cases that have opposite impacts (i.e.
negative and positive) on the same outcome. Contrarian case analysis helps better illustrate
the complexity of achieving high firm performance as it reveals the existence of cases where a 169
relationship among variables is not symmetric. For instance, when X is significantly and
positively associated with Y, the same data set may include cases of high X and low Y as well
as cases of low X and high Y. However sometimes scholars ignore or overlook these
contrarian cases in their research, considering only main effects (Woodside, 2014).
The contrarian analysis process begins with a quintile analysis, which divides the
respondent cases from the lowest to highest quintile for each measured construct and
analyzes the interactions among the constructs (Russo et al., 2019). To verify the existence of
contrarian cases, a contingency table is created using SPSS. When examining the relationship
between the antecedents and firm performance, our results indicated several negative
contrarian cases for all of the antecedents except adaptability. Specifically, the results show
several negative and positive contrarian cases in the relationship between agility, alignment,
supply chain orientation, and market orientation on the one hand and firm performance on
the other. Depending on the levels of other variables (e.g. agility, adaptability, supply chain
orientation, market orientation) for example, some firms with a low degree of perceived
alignment can still experience high performance, while some firms with a high degree of
alignment can experience a low degree of performance. These contrarian cases are depicted in
Figures 1 and 2. The presence of contrarian cases can also be observed through the fuzzy
plots presented in Figures 3 and 4, which further indicate that these relationships contain
asymmetric cases. Thus, RP2 is supported.
Following the contrarian analysis, the next step is to apply configural analysis to provide
a deeper understanding of the data set. This study adopts the fsQCA approach to analyze the
data to better explain how the three A’s can lead to high firm performance. Specifically, we
examine explicit connections between high firm performance and all possible combinations
of binary states (i.e. presence or absence) of its conditions (i.e. agility, alignment, adaptability,
market orientation, supply chain orientation). The goal is to identify necessary conditions and
sufficient combinations of conditions, subsequently called configurations, for high firm
performance.
The property space

When performing fsQCA, it is necessary to follow four sequential steps: (1) define the
property space, (2) develop set-membership measures, (3) evaluate the consistency in set
relations and (4) logically reduce and analyze the configuration (Ordanini et al., 2014; Ragin,
2009; Russo et al., 2019). In the first step, we defined the property space where all possible
configurations of attributes of high firm performance are identified from the extant literature
discussed previously. The property space is composed of all combinations of binary states of
the presence or absence of the five influence attributes (agility, adaptability, alignment,
market orientation and supply chain orientation) that can impact firm performance. The
property space in this study has 32 (i.e. 25) different combinations for each row.
Set-membership measures
Next, QCA is based on the concept of set memberships and requires calibration of all
variables. This allows researchers to capture fine-grained differences in degrees of
50,2
170
Figure 1.
IJPDLM
performance
organizational
alignment and
Two outcomes -
Negative contrariaran cases
indicating ~ A->O
Cases supporting the large main effect: A->O
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFOMANCE
1 2 3 4 5 Total
ALIGNMENT 1 Count 11 4 5 5 4 29
% within Percentile Group of Alignment 37,9% 13,8% 17,2% 17,2% 13,8% 100,0%
2 Count 6 7 5 5 3 26
3 Count 6 7 7 6 3 29
4 Count 1 6 3 9 8 27
5 Count 2 5 3 9 8 27
Total Count 26 29 23 34 26 138
Positive contrariaran cases indicating

A-> ~ O
Note(s): A= antecedent condition; O = outcome condition

Negative contrariaran cases
indicating ~ A->O
Cases supporting the large main effect: A->O
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFOMANCE
1 2 3 4 5 Total
MARKET ORIENTATION 1 Count 14 8 2 5 4 33
% within Percentile Group of 42,4% 24,2% 6,1% 15,2% 12,1% 100,0%
MARKET ORIENTATION
2 Count 3 9 5 2 3 22
MARKET ORIENTATION
3 Count 5 4 7 12 3 31
MARKET ORIENTATION
4 Count 1 5 7 5 5 23
MARKET ORIENTATION
5 Count 3 3 2 10 11 29
MARKET ORIENTATION
Total Count 26 29 23 34 26 138
MARKET ORIENTATION
Positive contrariaran cases indicating

A-> ~ O
resources
and strategic
171
Supply chain
organizational
Figure 2.
performance
Two outcomes - market
orientation and
IJPDLM 0.829
Relationship between Alignment and Organizational Performance
50,2 1
0.9
0.8
Organizational Performance
0.7
172
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Figure 3. 0.1
Plot of the relationship
0
between alignment and
organizational 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
performance Alignment 0.670
0.804
Relationship between Market Performance and Organizational Performance
0.9
0.8
Organizational Performance
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Figure 4.
Plot of the relationship 0.1
between market
0
orientation and
organizational 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
performance Market Orientation 0.770
membership. Since the variables in this study are not dichotomous, we used fuzzy set
membership scores than can specify membership in the 0 to 1 range. We calibrated all the
variables included in the model into fuzzy sets and used three memberships scores
(0.95 5 fully in; 0.5 5 the crossover point; 0.05 5 fully out) (Ragin, 2009). By allowing for
partial memberships, the data sets become “fuzzy,” thereby minimizing the loss of
information (Rihoux and Ragin, 2008). The endpoints and the midpoint of the seven-point
Likert scales serves as the three qualitative anchors for calibration of full membership in the
set (value 7), full non-membership (value 1) and the crossover point (value 4). For the
calibration process, we adopted the recommendation of Greckhamer et al. (2018, p. 488) that
“effective calibration is a half-conceptual, half-empirical process.” The crossover point was Supply chain
computed by observing the distribution and median score of each attribute (Woodside et al., and strategic
2018). We used the fs/QCA 2.5 software program and applied the log-odds method for an
automatic calibration procedure.
resources
Consistency in set relations

In the third step, consistency is analogous to correlation in statistical analysis and indicates 173
the degree to which the solution or result is sufficient to produce the outcome. We set the cases
that led to high levels of firm performance with a value of “1” indicative of an outcome of high
organizational performance. To reduce the truth table to meaningful configurations, we chose
a frequency threshold of five observations to exclude less important configurations using two
criteria: frequency and consistency (Ragin, 2009). The consistency measure in this case is
calculated as the sum of the consistent (shared) membership scores in a causal set, divided by
the sum of all membership scores that pertain to that causal set (Russo et al., 2019). In line with
previous research, we used the raw consistency then set the lowest acceptable consistency
score at 0.80, which is above the minimum recommended 0.75 threshold (Fiss, 2011;
Woodside, 2013).
Logical reduction and analysis of configuration

Finally, coverage shows how well the model explains the available empirical information
(Woodside and Baxter, 2013) and indicates the degree to which a cause or causal combination
accounts for instances of high firm performance. Raw coverage expresses how much a single
configuration covers, and unique coverage indicates how much it covers on its own. Thus, we
computed the coverage measure for each sufficient configuration, ensuring that it exceeded
0.10 (Woodside et al., 2018). This study adopted the intermediate solution (both core and
peripheral conditions) following current conventions in other studies (Leischnig et al., 2018;
Leischnig and Woodside, 2017; Russo et al., 2019).
Main QCA results

Table 3 provides a summary of the QCA results along with the coverage and consistency of
the different configurations. To clearly present the fuzzy-set analyses results, we follow the
approach suggested by Ragin and Fiss (2008), depicting the presence of a condition (i.e. high
levels) with black circles (•) and the absence (i.e. low levels) with circles with a cross (⊗). A
blank cell indicates the “do not care” condition (i.e. a specific condition is not considered in a
solution). Table 3 presents four possible combinations (recipes/solutions) of agility,
Solutions
Configurations 1 2 3 4
SC agility • • ⊗ ⊗
SC Adaptability • ⊗ ⊗
SC Alignment • • • ⊗
Market Orientation • • ⊗ ⊗
SC Orientation • ⊗ •
Consistency 0.92 0.90 0.79 0.84
Raw coverage 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.44 Table 3.
Unique coverage 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 Configurations for
Solution coverage 0.74 achieving high firm’s
Solution consistency 0.80 organizational
Note(s): • 5 core causal condition present, ⊗ 5 core causal condition absent performance
IJPDLM adaptability, alignment, supply chain orientation and market orientation that lead to high
50,2 firm performance. This provides support for RP3 indicating equifinality in reaching high
levels of high firm performance. However, as shown in Table 3, solution 3 only requires a
single attribute (i.e. alignment) for high firm performance, as does solution 4 (i.e. supply chain
orientation). Given these single attribute solutions, RP1 is not supported.
Results presented in Table 3 can be interpreted as follows. Solution 1 indicates that when
agility, adaptability, alignment and market orientation are present (i.e. high levels), firm
174 performance is high irrespective of the firm’s level of market orientation. Solution 2 reveals
that when agility, alignment, supply chain orientation and market orientation are present,
firm performance is high irrespective of the firm’s level of supply chain adaptability. Solution
3 indicates that when alignment is present, firm performance is high even when levels of
supply chain agility, adaptability, supply chain orientation and market orientation are low.
Finally, solution 4 reveals that when supply chain orientation is present, firm performance is
high even when levels of agility, adaptability, alignment, and market orientation are low.
Solutions 1 and 2 exhibit the highest raw coverage (i.e. 0.60), indicating that these two
solutions are the best representation of high firm performance followed by solution 3 (i.e. 0.49)
and solution 4 (i.e. 0.44). With regard to coverage, the findings indicate an overall solution
coverage of 0.74 and an overall consistency of 0.80. This suggests that a substantial
proportion of the outcome is covered by the four configurations.
Discussion
The results reveal four distinct “recipes” of agility, adaptability, alignment, market
orientation and supply chain orientation that lead to high levels of firm performance:
(1) agility, adaptability, alignment, and market orientation; (2) agility, alignment, market
orientation and supply chain orientation; (3) alignment; (4) supply chain orientation. Each of
these solutions generally aligns with some existing literature yet contradicts other literature.
We discuss each solution below then present managerial and theoretical implications.
First, solution 1 represents the most rigorous application of the triple-A supply chain,
combining all triple-A capabilities with supply chain orientation. This generally supports
Lee’s (2004) original contention that firms must retain all three A’s for organizational success
and aligns with existing triple-A literature that has measured the triple-A supply chain as a
single second order construct (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Marin-Garcia et al., 2018; Whitten
et al., 2012). However, solution 1 also extends this literature by emphasizing the importance of
a strategic foundation in market orientation for the triple-A supply chain. This result is
certainly logical given how market orientation focuses on capturing demand-side intelligence
to understand customer needs (Hunt and Davis, 2008, 2012; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Priem
and Swink, 2012), which would directly support both short-term response (i.e. agility) and
long-term response (i.e. adaptability). Additionally, disseminating this information with
supply chain partners would enable alignment of goals and responsibilities.
Solution 1 is puzzling however with the lack of a need for supply chain orientation that
establishes the importance of a system view of the chain both internally and with supply
chain partners (Min et al., 2007). Existing literature maintains that supply chain orientation is
generally a requirement before firms can pursue advanced supply chain competences (Esper
et al., 2010; Mentzer et al., 2001), making it seemingly necessary to enable triple-A capabilities.
It is possible that the three A’s themselves manifest this orientation. Alignment, for instance,
embodies the systems perspective of supply chain orientation through its give-and-take
provision of costs and benefits among participating supply chain members.
The other three solutions contradict existing triple-A literature, revealing how all three A’s
are not always necessary for organizational performance. With solution 2 for instance, firms
do not need capabilities for adaptation but do need both market and supply chain orientations
to underly agility and alignment capabilities. Like solution 1, this solution depicts a rigorous Supply chain
supply chain competency with a strong focus on customers. The lack of need for adaptability and strategic
could possibly stem from market conditions. For example, low levels of technological change
and product innovation could reduce the significance of long-term shifts in the marketplace.
resources
Demographic, economic, and political stability in markets could also lessen the need for
adaptability. More study is needed to assess market conditions in which solution 2 is effective.
Solution 3 indicates that in some cases, supply chain alignment may in itself be
sufficient for strong firm performance. This is supported by existing triple-A literature by 175
Alfalla-Luque et al. (2018) showing that alignment alone directly supports multiple
dimensions of firm performance, including quality, cost, flexibility, financial, and market.
However, their work also establishes that the other individual triple-A elements of agility
and adaptability support firm performance. The results herein do not confirm such
additional findings.
Solution 3 also aligns with the voluminous literature over recent decades promoting the
importance of mutually beneficial relationships among supply chain partners (Daugherty,
2011). This literature frequently links alignment, integration and collaboration with different
aspects of operational and firm performance (Cao and Zhang, 2011; Koh et al., 2006). We
caution however that meta-analyses of this literature reveal that supply chain integration
does not always improve all aspects of firm performance (Leuschner et al., 2013; Mackelprang
et al., 2014). Solution 3 supports the idea that alignment does indeed support firm performance
but perhaps only under certain conditions. Like solution 2, this urges more study of the
particular conditions.
Finally, solution 4, like solution 3, relies only on one element in supply chain orientation.
This outcome indicates that in some situations, only supply chain orientation is required for
enhanced organizational performance, which aligns with prior research tying supply chain
orientation to operational, customer, and organizational performance (Gligor, 2014; Min et al.,
2007). The need for only supply chain orientation without any triple-A capabilities suggests
that these firms possibly benefit from competitors with weak supply chain competences. As
such, supply chain orientation could serve as a starting point for firms to improve supply
chain proficiency then pursue advanced skills like alignment and agility found in solution 2.
Following solutions 2 and 3, further research is still needed to understand the appropriate
conditions.
Managerial implications
The four solutions yield important insights for supply chain managers. Aligning with Lee
(2004), solution 1 does indicate that complete triple-A capabilities can enhance organizational
performance. However, market orientation should also be in place as a strategic enabler to
maximize the return from the triple-A. In contrast, the other solutions reveal that triple-A
capabilities may not be required or represent a meaningful organizational investment in all
circumstances. Thus, firms do not always need to simultaneously develop high levels of
agility, adaptability, and alignment to achieve superior performance. This is a noteworthy
managerial takeaway considering that developing such capabilities can require significant
financial resources (Gligor, 2016). Focusing on specific resources (i.e. alignment or supply
chain orientation) or certain combinations of resources (agility, adaptability, alignment and
market orientation or agility, alignment, supply chain orientation, and market orientation)
can be sufficient to achieve performance goals in some circumstances.
Comparison of the four solutions point managers to a potential roadmap for triple-A
supply chain implementation. Specifically, organizations with weak competences in supply
chain should focus on supply chain orientation (solution 4), which scholars set as a foundation
for advanced supply chain competences (Mentzer et al., 2001). Recognizing the strategic
IJPDLM implications of managing their supply chains (i.e. supply chain orientation) can lead firms to
50,2 superior performance, even when lacking in other capabilities like agility, adaptability,
alignment (Gligor, 2014; Min et al., 2007).
Extant literature depicts the four critical elements of a supply chain orientation (Esper
et al., 2010). First, the organization must set foundations with an internal structure that
supports collaborative decision making and process integration among different
departments (Stank and Traichal, 1998). As such, internal systems must be integrated to
176 support information sharing throughout the organization as well as with supply chain
partners (Sanders and Premus, 2002). Third, human resources serves as a key role as
employees must retain thorough and current supply chain knowledge, skills and abilities,
combined with interpersonal, problem solving, and time management talents (Myers et al.,
2004). Finally, in the spirit of the balanced scorecard, performance metrics must focus
broadly across supply chain, including not only traditional metrics like lead times, delivery
reliability and quality but also learning, process improvement and innovation (Brewer and
Speh, 2000).
After supply chain orientation, an effective step would then be to start the triple-A
capabilities with implementation of alignment. Per solution 3, alignment can enhance firm
performance, including under conditions of low agility and low adaptability. Existing
literature indicates that organizations must first establish internal supply chain integration
then seek alignment of goals, roles and responsibilities with supply chain partners (Gimenez,
2006; Yan and Dooley, 2014; Zhao et al., 2011). A system of risk and reward sharing as well as
performance measurement across the chain are also required (Lee, 2004). Additionally,
systems integration across partners as well as relational factors like interdependence and
trust also underly effective supply chain alignment (Paulraj and Chen, 2007; Whitten et al.,
2012; Zhang and Huo, 2013).
After alignment is implemented, organization can then strengthen market orientation
and agility per solution 2. Van Raaij and Stoelhorst (2008, p. 1281) recognize the fragmented
and complex literature depicting implementation of market orientation, noting that “we are
still in the early stages of understanding how to successfully change the market orientation
of an organization.” At a minimum, market orientation requires systems and processes to
collect, analyze, disseminate, and respond to market intelligence (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990).
Focus on customer value must also permeate the organizational culture through
integration into strategic objectives and support by training and continuous learning
(Narver et al., 1998; Ruekert, 1992). Risk taking and reward systems combined with
decentralized decision making also enable a dedication to market orientation (Jaworski and
Kohli, 1993).
Extant literature also presents enablers of agility. For instance, flexibility and quickness
in manufacturing, distribution, and logistics underscore agility (Swafford et al., 2006;
Wieland and Wallenburg, 2012). Additionally, visibility and alertness enable the organization
to sense changes and threats in the supply chain (Gligor et al., 2015). Like alignment,
organizations also need systems and process integration both internally and with supply
chain partners to enable real-time flow of information across the chain (Auramo et al., 2005;
Scholten et al., 2010). Inventory buffers, contingency planning and postponement (where
possible) further support agile response (Lee, 2004).
Finally, organizations can then seek adaptability, following solution 1. The focus with
adaptability is identifying both new markets and changes in customer needs as well as
maintaining alertness to technological and product life cycles (Lee, 2004). Many of the
antecedents for alignment and agility also sustain adaptability, including visibility,
flexibility, and process integration (Dobrzykowski and Leuschner, 2015; Flynn et al., 2016;
Kortmann et al., 2014; Ralston et al., 2015). In this sense, alignment with its coordinated goals
across the supply chain supports adaptability (Wever et al., 2012).
Implementing change in complex adaptive systems Supply chain
As a word of caution to supply chain managers, the implementation challenge in a complex and strategic
adaptive system lies with how to comprehend the system complexity to generate
improvements within even a part of the supply chain (MacIntosh and MacLean, 2001;
resources
Matos and Hall, 2007). Accordingly, Sting et al. (2019) indicate that supply chain innovation
can get “stuck.” In such cases, a strong channel leader may attempt to use its reward and
coercive power to drive top-down change. Yet, complexity theory emphasizes the importance
of autonomy to allow bottom-up change. In this sense, too much control can stem innovation 177
and flexibility, challenging the channel master to deduce when to control the chain and when
to let it adapt (Choi et al., 2001).
As such, MacIntosh and MacLean (1999) prescribe a conditional emergence process to
initiate change in a complex system with three overlapping components: order-generating
rules, introduction of disequilibrium, and feedback loops. First, simple order-generating rules
are developed to focus the organization, such as Amazon’s “Day One” mentality centers the
organization on the customer and innovation (i.e. market orientation) (Denning, 2018). Second,
instability, such as temporarily disembedding suppliers, is created to break routines to create
more openness to change (Sting et al., 2019; Tranfield and Smith, 1998). The third step is to
then implement feedback loops and rewards to reinforce the new rules to encourage
autonomous evolution (Choi et al., 2001; Nair et al., 2009).
Theoretical contributions
Beyond managerial insights, the research outcomes herein also present significant theoretical
implications. First, we contribute to the growing body of triple-A supply chain literature by
showing that, contrary to what has been suggested previously, firms do not always need to
concomitantly possess all three A’s to achieve a high level of performance. Lee’s (2004) article
is conceptual and lacks empirical evidence for its claims. Still, scholars maintain that
although each A is beneficial to performance, simultaneous triple-A capabilities is best
(Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018). Therefore, our results contradict the idea that “there is no one
predominant variable that masks the others, as they all make a relevant contribution to the
Triple-A SC construct” (Marin-Garcia et al., 2018, p. 988). As explanation, prior triple-A
research employed methods that limited their ability to determine whether all three A’s must
be concomitantly present.
Relatedly, the findings derived from the contrarian analysis indicate that the three A’s do
not always have a positive impact on firm performance. It is thus not accurate to generalize
that the three A’s will each always results in positive outcomes for all firms. Specifically, our
findings indicate several negative and positive contrarian cases in the relationship between
agility, alignment, supply chain orientation, and market orientation on the one hand and firm
performance on the other. In some cases for example, a low degree of perceived alignment
leads to high firm performance, while in other cases, a high degree of alignment leads to a low
degree of firm performance. In sum, these findings augment Lee’s (2004) claims by
highlighting the complexity surrounding the performance outcomes of the three A’s.
Third, the four solutions yield further theoretical insights about specific triple-A
competences. Each solution depicts combinations of capabilities that can lead to strong firm
performance. Interestingly, solution 3 indicates that supply chain alignment in itself can be
sufficient to generate a high level of performance. In other words, firms do not always need to
possess high levels of agility and adaptability if they possess a high level of alignment. This
has important implications for the substantial body of literature on agility (Christopher, 2000;
Gligor et al., 2015). Specifically, agility has emerged as a significant capability in supply chain
theory and practice with an abundance of studies praising associated performance outcomes
(Agarwal et al., 2007; Gligor, 2016; Sharifi et al., 2006). Performance outcomes of adaptability
IJPDLM have also been highlighted in recent research (Kristal et al., 2010), However, our findings
50,2 promote the prominence of alignment over agility and adaptability.
Fourth, our findings complement the growing body of literature on supply chain
orientation (Mentzer et al., 2001; Min et al., 2007). Specifically, previous studies have argued
that supply chain orientation can positively impact firm performance (Gligor, 2014; Patel
et al., 2013). Our findings augment these studies by highlighting that, similar to alignment,
supply chain orientation in itself can offer a source of competitive advantage by leading to
178 strong firm performance, even when levels of desired triple-A capabilities are low.
Fifth, the results reveal the importance of applying complexity theory and complex
adaptive system concepts to supply chain given its intricate interaction of many members
(Choi et al., 2001; MacIntosh and MacLean, 2001). Studying parts of the supply chain with
linear models does not necessarily offer clarity into how the overall chain functions and
evolves. By applying QCA to the field of supply chain management, we present a method that
can address some of the limitations associated with traditional multiple regression and SEM
approaches. The QCA method therefore expands the type of research questions that supply
chain scholars can address to derive more nuanced findings by enabling abstraction of the
system to capture its overall features and outcomes without delineating all of its parts.
Importantly, we do not argue that QCA is superior to multiple regression and SEM. Rather we
maintain that QCA can complement such methods, offering additional insights into supply
chain management phenomena to capture the complexity of the chain.
From this perspective, the results reveal that research to date has not fully captured
potential triple-A applications and outcomes. Existing complexity theory literature in supply
chain reveals characteristics of the chain that can affect its complexity and subsequent ability
to innovate, including numerosity of supply chain echelons, numerosity of the participants in
the chain, the diversity of these participants and the level of dyadic interconnectedness (Choi
and Krause, 2006). For instance, larger chains encompassing diverse members (e.g. firm sizes,
global locations) with enhanced levels of connectivity retain more complexity and are more
difficult to coordinate. However, such complexity also enables greater opportunity to
capitalize on local adaptions to generate non-linear changes to enhance triple-A capabilities.
As such, triple-A capabilities are likely heavily dependent not only on the characteristics of
the chain but also on the ability of its members to use the complex system to drive innovation
of each of the A’s.
Limitations and future research

While our methodological approach allowed unique theoretical and managerial insights, our
study is not without limitations. First, we used a global, cross-industry sample, which allows
us to generalize the results. Nevertheless, future research should explore the research
question in the context of specific markets (i.e. North America and/or a specific industry).
Furthermore, our choice of method (QCA) allows rich insights into performance outcomes,
but future research should individually test the four identified solutions in order to evaluate
potential enabling conditions such as competitive intensity and supply chain complexity.
Moreover, when examining the performance outcomes of the triple A’s, we accounted for
the possible roles of two strategic-level resources: supply chain orientation and market
orientation. Future research could account for additional strategic-level resources, such as
innovation orientation, learning orientation or entrepreneurial orientation. In addition, future
research can also employ traditional regression analysis to explore the role of causal
relationships between these antecedents of organizational performance (e.g. strategic
orientations, triple A’s) along with possible interaction effects.
Following complexity theory, additional research can explore, simulate, and validate
conditions to drive effective bottom-up adaptive change, such as altering supply chain
complexity (i.e. add or reduce suppliers) and enhancing cooperative, trust-based relationships Supply chain
(Choi and Krause, 2006; Nair et al., 2009). Likewise, research could also validate our prescribed and strategic
approach for building triple-A capabilities, thereby helping firms to evaluate resource
investments. Another research opportunity could examine the level of coordination (tight
resources
versus loose) by channel masters as well as application of knowledge exchange and rewards
as forms of positive feedback loops in the innovation process.
Finally, the results herein depict the current state of supply chain management
capabilities, at least among the surveyed organizations. Although volumes of literature in 179
recent decades have promoted the importance of supply chain alignment, extant literature
addressing agility and adaptability is relatively less developed (Feizabadi et al., 2019b).
Moreover, all three capabilities require lengthy and substantial organizational investments.
From these perspectives, the results may indicate the few firms have yet to fully develop and
integrate triple-A capabilities as well as market and supply chain orientation strategic
resources. This project should therefore be repeated over time to assess expansion of global
supply chain capabilities and subsequent effects on firm performance. Specifically,
benchmarking high-performing supply chain organizations could also help depict such
progress, including delineating impacts on specific performance outcomes like cost, quality,
and reliability (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018).
Conclusion
Ultimately, the research herein provides one snapshot into the progress of the triple-A supply
chain proposed be Lee 16 years ago and subsequently promoted by a multitude of scholars.
Development of triple-A capabilities appears to still be in its early stages, and researchers do
yet not appear to have a clear understanding of how to operationalize the triple-A given the
complexity of global supply chain systems. We encourage more research, including
application of complexity theory, to evaluate Lee’s triple-A vision to guide practitioners in
developing and positioning supply chain capabilities as sources of sustainable competitive
advantage. Guidance on this strategic inquiry is imperative in light of the expectations and
challenges imposed on supply chain executives today. In a volatile, uncertain, complex and
ambiguous (VUCA) environment where supply chain prowess can lead to market superiority
and supply chain frailty to business failure, practitioners find merit in investigations that
inform the former and fend off the latter (Goldsby and Zinn, 2016; Zinn and Goldsby, 2017).
References
Adebanjo, D., Teh, P.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2018), “The impact of supply chain relationships and
integration on innovative capabilities and manufacturing performance: the perspective of
rapidly developing countries”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 4,
pp. 1708-1721.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M. (2007), “Modeling agility of supply chain”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-457.
Alfalla-Luque, R., Machuca, J.A.D. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2018), “Triple-A and competitive advantage
in supply chains: empirical research in developed countries”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 203 No. 1, pp. 48-61.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Attia, A. (2015), “Testing the effect of marketing strategy alignment and triple-A supply chain on
performance in Egypt”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 163-180.
Auh, S. and Menguc, B. (2005), “Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of
competitive intensity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 1652-1661.
IJPDLM Auramo, J., Kauremaa, J. and Tanskanen, K. (2005), “Benefits of IT in supply chain management: an
explorative study of progressive companies”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
50,2 Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 82-100.
Autry, C.W., Rose, W.J. and Bell, J.E. (2014), “Reconsidering the supply chain integration-performance
relationship: in search of theoretical consistency and clarity”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 275-276.
Barney, J.B. (1986), “Types of competition and the theory of strategy: toward an integrative
180 framework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 791-800.
Barney, J.B. (2012), “Purchasing, supply chain management and sustained competitive advantage: the
relevance of resource-based theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 3-6.
Bellingkrodt, S. and Wallenburg, C.M. (2013), “The role of external relationships for LSP
innovativeness: a contingency approach”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 209-221.
Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain
agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 119-140.
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2000), “Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain
performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-79.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011), “Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and
firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 163-180.
Chan, H.K. and Chan, F.T. (2010), “Comparative study of adaptability and flexibility in distributed
manufacturing supply chains”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 331-341.
Charles, A., Lauras, M. and Wassenhove, V.L. (2010), “A model to define and assess the agility of
supply chains: building on humanitarian experience”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 8-9, pp. 722-741.
Chen, H.L. and Hsu, C.H. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in non-profit
service organizations: contingent effect of market orientation”, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 445-466.
Chirico, F., Sirmon, D.G., Sciascia, S. and Mazzola, P. (2011), “Resource orchestration in family
firms: investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and
participative strategy affect performance”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 307-326.
Choi, T.Y. and Krause, D.R. (2006), “The supply base and its complexity: implications for transaction
costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 637-652.
Choi, T.Y., Dooley, K.J. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2001), “Supply networks and complex adaptive
systems: control versus emergence”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 351-366.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Christopher, M. and Holweg, M. (2011), “Supply Chain 2.0: Managing supply chains in the era of
turbulence”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 63-82.
Christopher, M. and Holweg, M. (2017), “Supply chain 2.0 revisited: a framework for managing
volatility-induced risk in the supply chain”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
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.
Daugherty, P.J. (2011), “Review of logistics and supply chain relationship literature and suggested Supply chain
research agenda”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 16-31. and strategic
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive
resources
superiority”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Denning, S. (2018), “The role of the C-suite in agile transformation: the case of Amazon”, Strategy and
Leadership, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 14-21.
181
Dhaigude, A. and Kapoor, R. (2017), “The mediation role of supply chain agility on supply chain
orientation-supply chain performance link”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 275-293.
Dobrzykowski, D.D. and Leuschner, R. (2015), “Examining absorptive capacity in supply chains:
linking responsive strategy and firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 3-28.
Dubey, R. and Gunasekaran, A. (2016), “The sustainable humanitarian supply chain design: agility,
adaptability and alignment”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 62-82.
Dubey, R., Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Supply
chain agility, adaptability and alignment”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Tabrizi, B.N. (1995), “Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the
global computer industry”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 84-110.
Esper, T.L. and Crook, T.R. (2014), “Supply chain resources: advancing theoretical foundations and
constructs”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 3-5.
Esper, T.L., Clifford Defee, C. and Mentzer, J.T. (2010), “A framework of supply chain orientation”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 161-179.
Feizabadi, J., Gligor, D. and Motlagh, S.A. (2019a), “The triple-As supply chain competitive
advantage”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 2286-2317.
Feizabadi, J., Maloni, M. and Gligor, D. (2019b), “Benchmarking the triple-A supply chain:
orchestrating agility, adaptability, and alignment”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 271-295.
Fiss, P.C. (2011), “Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization
research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 393-420.
Flynn, B.B., Koufteros, X. and Lu, G. (2016), “On theory in supply chain uncertainty and its
implications for supply chain integration”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 3-27.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Fugate, B., Sahin, F. and Mentzer, J.T. (2006), “Supply chain management coordination mechanisms”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 129-161.
Fugate, B.S., Davis-Sramek, B. and Goldsby, T.J. (2009a), “Operational collaboration between shippers
and carriers in the transportation industry”, International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 425-447.
Fugate, B.S., Stank, T.P. and Mentzer, J.T. (2009b), “Linking improved knowledge management to
operational and organizational performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 247-264.
IJPDLM Fugate, B.S., Mentzer, J.T. and Stank, T.P. (2010), “Logistics performance: efficiency, effectiveness and
differentiation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
50,2
Gattorna, J. (2017), “Strategic supply chain management Creating shareholder value by aligning
supply chain strategy with business strategy”, in Gattorna, J. (Ed.), Strategic Supply Chain
Alignment, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 32-52.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1994), “Pacing strategic change: the case of a new venture”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 9-45.
182
Gimenez, C. (2006), “Logistics integration processes in the food industry”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 231-249.
Gligor, D.M. (2014), “A cross-disciplinary examination of firm orientations’ performance outcomes: the
role of supply chain flexibility”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 281-298.
Gligor, D.M. (2016), “The role of supply chain agility in achieving supply chain fit”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 524-553.
Gligor, D. (2018), “Performance implications of the fit between suppliers’ flexibility and their
customers’ expected flexibility: a dyadic examination”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2014), “Antecedents and consequences of integrating logistics
capabilities across the supply chain”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 211-234.
Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M.C. and Stank, T.P. (2013), “A multidisciplinary approach to supply chain
agility: conceptualization and scale development”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 94-108.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain
agility: when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 71-82.
Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M.C. and Feizabadi, J. (2016), “An exploration of the strategic antecedents of
firm supply chain agility: the role of a firm’s orientations”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 24-34.
Goldsby, T.J. and Zinn, W. (2016), “Technology innovation and new business models: can logistics and
supply chain research accelerate the evolution?”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 80-81.
Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P.C. and Aguilera, R.V. (2018), “Studying configurations with
qualitative comparative analysis: best practices in strategy and organization research”,
Strategic Organization, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 482-495.
Gruber, M., Heinemann, F., Brettel, M. and Hungeling, S. (2010), “Configurations of resources and
capabilities and their performance implications: an exploratory study on technology ventures”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 1337-1356.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatjam, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hochwarter, W.A., James, M., Johnson, D. and Ferris, G.R. (2004), “The interactive effects of politics
perceptions and trait cynicism on work outcomes”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 44-57.
Hughes, P., Hodgkinson, I.R., Elliott, K. and Hughes, M. (2018), “Strategy, operations, and profitability:
the role of resource orchestration”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Hunt, S.D. and Davis, D.F. (2008), “Grounding supply chain management in resource-advantage
theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Hunt, S.D. and Davis, D.F. (2012), “Grounding supply chain management in resource-advantage
theory: in defense of a resource-based view of the firm”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 14-20.
Inman, R.A., Sale, R.S., Green, K.W. and Whitten, D. (2011), “Agile manufacturing: relation to JIT, Supply chain
operational performance and firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 343-355. and strategic
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
resources
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
Kamal, M.M. and Irani, Z. (2014), “Analysing supply chain integration through a systematic literature
review: a normative perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19
Nos 5-6, pp. 523-557. 183
Karatzas, A., Johnson, M. and Bastl, M. (2016), “Relationship determinants of performance in service
triads: a configurational approach”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 28-47.
Ketchen, D.J. Jr, Wowak, K.D. and Craighead, C.W. (2014), “Resource gaps and resource orchestration
shortfalls in supply chain management: the case of product recalls”, Journal of Supply Chain
Kline, R.B. (2016), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Knemeyer, A.M. and Murphy, P.R. (2005), “Exploring the potential impact of relationship
characteristics and customer attributes on the outcomes of third-party logistics
arrangements”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
Koh, S.C.L., Saad, S. and Arunachalam, S. (2006), “Competing in the 21st century supply chain through
supply chain management and enterprise resource planning integration”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 455-465.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Kortmann, S., Gelhard, C., Zimmermann, C. and Piller, F.T. (2014), “Linking strategic flexibility and
operational efficiency: the mediating role of ambidextrous operational capabilities”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 475-490.
ussler, M. (2018), “Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis
Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. and Sch€
(fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research–The rise of a method”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-33.
Kristal, M.M., Huang, X. and Roth, A.V. (2010), “The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy
on combinative competitive capabilities and business perfromance”, Journal of Operations
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-a supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-112.
Leischnig, A. and Woodside, A.G. (2017), “Who approves fraudulence? Configurational causes of
consumers’ unethical judgments”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 158 No. 3, pp. 713-726.
Leischnig, A., Kasper-Brauer, K. and Thornton, S.C. (2018), “Spotlight on customization: an analysis of
necessity and sufficiency in services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 385-390.
Leuschner, R., Rogers, D.S. and Charvet, F.F. (2013), “A meta-analysis of supply chain integration and
firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 34-57.
Liao, S.H., Chang, W.J., Wu, C.C. and Katrichis, J.M. (2011), “A survey of market orientation research
(1995–2008)”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 301-310.
MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. (1999), “Conditioned emergence: a dissipative structures approach to
transformation”, Strategic Managmzent Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 297-316.
MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. (2001), “Conditioned emergence: researching change and changing
research”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 9-10,
pp. 1343-1357.
Mackelprang, A.W., Robinson, J.L., Bernardes, E. and Webb, G.S. (2014), “The relationship between
strategic supply chain integration and performance: a meta-analytic evaluation and
IJPDLM implications for supply chain management research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 71-96.
50,2
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Alfalla-Luque, R. and Machuca, J.A.D. (2018), “A triple-A supply chain
measurement model: validation and analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 976-994.
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1999), “Total cycle time compression and the agile supply chain”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1-2, pp. 61-73.
184
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supply
chain to the marketplace”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 17,
pp. 4061-4070.
Matawale, C.R., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2016), “Supplier selection in agile supply chain”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 2027-2060.
Matos, S. and Hall, J. (2007), “Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: the case of life
cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology”, Journal of Operations
Mello, J.E. and Stank, T.P. (2005), “Linking firm culture and orientation to supply chain success”,
pp. 542-554.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Miller, D. and Chen, M.-J. (1994), “Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: a study of the US
airline industry”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Min, S. and Mentzer, J.T. (2004), “Developing and measuring supply chain management concepts”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 63-99.
Min, S., Mentzer, J.T. and Ladd, R.T. (2007), “A market orientation in supply chain management”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 507-522.
Myers, M.B., Griffith, D.A., Daugherty, P.J. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Maximizing the human capital
equation in logistics: education, experience, and skills”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 211-232.
Nair, A., Narasimhan, R. and Choi, T.Y. (2009), “Supply networks as a complex adaptive system:
toward simulation-based theory building on evolutionary decision making”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 783-815.
Narayanan, V.G. and Raman, A. (2004), “Aligning incentives in supply chains”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 82 No. 11, pp. 94-102.
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and Tietje, B. (1998), “Creating a market orientation”, Journal of Market-
Focused Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 241-255.
Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A. and Rubera, G. (2014), “When the recipe is more important than the
ingredients: a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 134-149.
€
Ozturan, €
P., Ozsomer, A. and Pieters, R. (2014), “The role of market orientation in advertising
spending during economic collapse: the case of Turkey in 2001”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Patel, P.C., Azadegan, A. and Ellram, L.M. (2013), “The effects of strategic and structural supply chain
orientation on operational and customer-focused performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 713-753.
Paulraj, A. and Chen, I.J. (2007), “Strategic buyer-supplier relationships, information technology and
external logistics integration”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 2-14.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and Supply chain
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
and strategic
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
resources
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Priem, R.L. and Swink, M. (2012), “A demand-side perspective on supply chain management”, Journal
of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 7-13.
185
Ragin, C.C. (2009), “Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA)”, in Rihoux, B.
and Ragin, C.C. (Eds), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 87-121.
Ragin, C.C. and Fiss, P.C. (2008), “Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: an empirical
demonstration”, in Ragin, C.C. (Ed.), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, Chicago
University Press, Chicago, pp. 190-212.
Ralston, P.M., Blackhurst, J., Cantor, D.E. and Crum, M.R. (2015), “A structure–conduct–performance
perspective of how strategic supply chain integration affects firm performance”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 47-64.
Ramsay, J. (2001), “The resource based perspective, rents, and purchasing’s contribution to
sustainable competitive advantage”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 38-47.
Reimann, F., Kosmol, T. and Kaufmann, L. (2017), “Responses to supplier-induced disruptions: a
fuzzy-set analysis”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 37-66.
Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C.C. (2008), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M.L. (1994), “Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium:
an empirical test”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1141-1166.
Rosenzweig, E.D. (2009), “A contingent view of e-collaboration and performance in manufacturing”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 462-478.
Ruekert, R.W. (1992), “Developing a market orientation: an organizational strategy perspective”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-245.
Russo, I. and Confente, I. (2017), Customer Loyalty and Supply Chain Management: Business-to-
Business Customer Loyalty Analysis, Routledge, London.
Russo, I., Confente, I., Gligor, D.M. and Autry, C.W. (2016), “To be or not to be (loyal): is there a recipe
for customer loyalty in the B2B context?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 888-896.
Russo, I., Confente, I., Gligor, D.M. and Cobelli, N. (2017), “The combined effect of product returns
experience and switching costs on B2B customer re-purchase intent”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 664-676.
Russo, I., Confente, I., Gligor, D. and Cobelli, N. (2019), “A roadmap for applying qualitative
comparative analysis in supply chain research: the reverse supply chain case”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Sanders, N.R. and Premus, R. (2002), “IT applications in supply chain organizations: a link between
competitive priorities and organizational benefits”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 65-83.
Schoenherr, T. and Swink, M. (2012), “Revisiting the arcs of integration: cross-validations and
extensions”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1-2, pp. 99-115.
Scholten, K., Sharkey, S.P. and Fynes, B. (2010), “(Le) agility in humanitarian aid (NGO) supply
chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40
Nos 8-9, pp. 623-635.
IJPDLM Sharifi, H., Ismail, H. and Reid, I. (2006), “Achieving agility in supply chain through simultaneous
‘design of’ and ‘design for’ supply chain”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
50,2 Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1078-1098.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007), “Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: looking inside the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 273-292.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. and Gilbert, B.A. (2011), “Resource orchestration to create
186 competitive advantage: breadth, depth, and life cycle effects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37
No. 5, pp. 1390-1412.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), “Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-
performance relationship?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (2000), “The positive effect of a market orientation on business
profitability: a balanced replication”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 69-73.
Stank, T.P. and Traichal, P.A. (1998), “Logistics strategy, organizational design, and performance in a
cross-border environment”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 75-86.
Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J. and Vickery, S.K. (1999), “Effect of service supplier performance on
satisfaction and loyalty of store managers in the fast food industry”, Journal of Operations
Sting, F.J., Stevens, M. and Tarakci, M. (2019), “Temporary deembedding buyer – supplier
relationships: a complexity perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 114-135.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006), “The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm:
scale development and model testing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 170-188.
Thornton, L.M., Esper, T.L. and Autry, C.W. (2016), “Leader or lobbyist? How organizational politics
and top supply chain manager political skill impacts supply chain orientation and internal
integration”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 42-62.
Timmer, S. and Kaufmann, L. (2017), “Conflict minerals traceability – a fuzzy set analysis”,
pp. 344-367.
Tranfield, D. and Smith, S. (1998), “The strategic regeneration of manufacturing by changing
routines”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 114-129.
Urry, J. (2005), “The complexity turn”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 1-14.
Vandenberg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (2000), “A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 4-70.
van Raaij, E.M. and Stoelhorst, J.W. (2008), “The implementation of a market orientation: a review and
integration of the contributions to date”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 11-12,
pp. 1265-1293.
Wever, M., Wognum, P.M., Trienekens, J.H. and Omta, S.W.F. (2012), “Supply chain-wide
consequences of transactions risks and their contractual solutions: towards an extended
transaction cost economics framework”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 73-91.
Whitten, G.D., Green, K.W. Jr and Zelbst, P.J. (2012), “Triple-A supply chain performance”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 28-48.
Wieland, A. and Wallenburg, M.C. (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.
Woodside, A.G. (2013), “Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for Supply chain
adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and
crafting theory”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 463-472. and strategic
Woodside, A.G. (2014), “Embrace • perform • model: complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and
resources
multiple realities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 12, pp. 2495-2503.
Woodside, A.G. (2015), “The general theory of behavioral pricing: applying complexity theory to
explicate heterogeneity and achieve high-predictive validity”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 39-52. 187
Woodside, A.G. and Baxter, R. (2013), “Achieving accuracy, generalization-to-contexts, and
complexity in theories of business-to-business decision processes”, Industrial Marketing
Woodside, A.G., Nagy, G. and Megehee, C.M. (2018), “Applying complexity theory: a primer for
identifying and modeling firm anomalies”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 9-25.
Wu, P.L., Yeh, S.S. and Woodside, A.G. (2014), “Applying complexity theory to deepen service
dominant logic: configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of
professional services for personal transformations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8,
pp. 1647-1670.
Yan, T. and Dooley, K. (2014), “Buyer-supplier collaboration quality in new product development
projects”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 59-83.
Zhang, M. and Huo, B. (2013), “The impact of dependence and trust on supply chain integration”,
pp. 544-563.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A. and Lim, J.S. (2003), “Manufacturing flexibility: defining and analyzing
relationships among competence, capability, and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Operations
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Selen, W. and Yeung, J.H.Y. (2011), “The impact of internal integration and
relationship commitment on external integration”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29
Nos 1-2, pp. 17-32.
Zinn, W. and Goldsby, T.J. (2017), “Ensuring impact: thought leadership in logistics and supply chain
research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 78-79.
IJPDLM Appendix 1
Measurement Scales
50,2
Construct Items
Supply chain agility (Gligor et al., 1 My firm can quickly reconfigure its SC resources to respond to
2013, 2016) short-term changes in supply
188 2 My firm can quickly reconfigure its SC resources to respond to
short-term changes in demand
3 My firm can quickly reconfigure its SC resources to respond to
short-term changes in its environment (e.g. currency fluctuations,
economic policies, political changes)
4 As compared to our competitors, we are usually quicker to respond
to short-term changes in supply
to short-term changes in our environment (e.g. currency
fluctuations, economic policies, political changes)
to short-term changes in demand
Supply chain adaptability 1 My firm can gradually reconfigure its supply chain resources to
(Feizabadi et al., 2019b) respond to structural, long-term changes in supply
2 My firm can gradually reconfigure its supply chain resources to
respond to structural, long-term changes in demand
3 My firm can gradually reconfigure its supply chain resources to
respond to structural, long-term changes in its environment (e.g.
currency fluctuations, economic policies, political changes)
4 As compared to our competitors, we can usually better adapt and
adjust our supply chain resources to structural, long-term changes
in supply
in demand
in our environment (e.g. currency fluctuations, economic policies,
political changes)
Supply chain alignment (Feizabadi 1 My firm uses risk/revenue/cost sharing contracts with its main
et al., 2019b) suppliers
2 My firm uses risk/revenue/cost sharing contracts with its main
customers
3 The tasks, roles and responsibilities between my firm and our main
suppliers are clearly defined
4 There is no conflict of interests between my firm and our main
suppliers when responding to changes
5 There is no conflict of interests between my firm and our main
customers when responding to changes
6 When interacting with our supply chain members we go beyond
Table A1. our own self-interest and consider the well-being of our main
Likert scales from 1 supply chain members
(strongly dissagre) to 7
(strongly agree) (continued )
Construct Items
Supply chain
and strategic
€
Market orientation (Ozturan et al., 1 We poll end users at least once a year to assess the quality of our resources
2014) products and services
2 We are quick to detect changes in our customers’ product
performance
3 We have interdepartmental meetings at least once a quarter to
discuss market trends and developments 189
4 When one department finds out something important about
competitors, it is quick to alert other departments
5 Several departments get together periodically to plan a response to
changes taking place in our business environment
6 My firm is usually quick to decide how to respond to our
competitors’ price changes
Supply chain orientation (Patel 1 Top managers in our business unit emphasize on the strategic
et al., 2013) importance of supply chain management
2 Top managers view our supply chain holistically rather than as
constituent parts
3 Top managers in our business unit emphasize on relationships
with key suppliers and customers
4 Our firm recognizes the strategic importance of integrating
business functions with our firm
5 Our firm recognizes the strategic importance of integrating
business functions across firms within the supply chain
6 There is a common understanding among supply chain members
in business unit affairs
Firm Organizational performance In your judgment, how did your BUSINESS UNIT perform relative to
(Fugate et al., 2009) its major competitor in the previous fiscal year with respect to each
criterion? (If you are associated with a company that does not consist of
business units or divisions, please answer the following based on your
company performance.)
1 Overall performance
2 Market share growth in our primary market
3 Sales growth
4 Return on sales
5 Return on assets
6 Return on investments Table A1.
IJPDLM Appendix 2
50,2
Firm age % Annual sales volume (USD) % Industry %
<1 year 0.1% < $250 million 1% Energy/chemical/mining 7%

1–3 years 1.6% $250 mil–$500 mil 3% Communication/media/entertainment 3%
190 3–5 years 1% $500 mil–$1 bill 8% Retail 9%
5–10 years 8% $1 bil - $2 bil 26% Manufacturing – general 19%
10–15 years 9% $2 bil–$3 bil 12% Manufacturing – consumer products 14%
15–20 years 6% $3 bil–$5 bil 11% Manufacturing – defense/aerospace 1%
20 þ years 61% $5 bil–$9 bil 17% Manufacturing – high-tech 1%
< $9 bil 0% Utilities 1%
Financial service/insurance 2%
Life sciences - pharmaceutical 4%
Life sciences – medical devices 1%
Table A2. Health-managed care 9%
Demographic data for Transportation service provider 10%
the respondents Others 19%
Corresponding author
David Gligor can be contacted at: dgligor@bus.olemiss.edu
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

Developing Competitive Advantages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Competitive Advantages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

The triple-a supply chain and Supply chain

Integrating the A’s

Supply chain orientation

Data collection and scales psychometric properties

Common method bias

Validity and reliability

Agility Adaptability Alignment Market orientation SC orientation

The property space

Positive contrariaran cases indicating

Note(s): A= antecedent condition; O = outcome condition

Positive contrariaran cases indicating

Consistency in set relations

Logical reduction and analysis of configuration

Main QCA results

Limitations and future research

<1 year 0.1% < $250 million 1% Energy/chemical/mining 7%

You might also like