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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1746-8809.htm

IJOEM
18,6 Supply chain analytics and post-
pandemic performance: mediating
role of triple-A supply
1330 chain strategies
Received 19 November 2021 Syed Abdul Rehman Khan
Revised 5 March 2022
2 June 2022 School of Engineering and Management, Xuzhou University of Technology,
Accepted 6 June 2022 Xuzhou, China and
Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Spatial Information Engineering, Beijing, China
Arsalan Zahid Piprani
Department of Business Administration,
Federal Urdu University of Arts Science and Technology–Karachi Campus,
Karachi, Pakistan, and
Zhang Yu
School of Economics and Management, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China and
Department of Business Administration, ILMA University, Karachi, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – The abrupt outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) hit every nation in 2020–2021, causing a
worldwide pandemic. The worldwide COVID-19 epidemic, described as a “black swan”, has severely disrupted
manufacturing firms’ supply chain. The purpose of this study is to investigate how supply chain data analytics
enable the effective deployment of agility, adaptability and alignment (3As) strategies, resulting in improving
post-COVID disruption performance. It also analyses the indirect effect of supply chain data analytics on
disruption performance through the 3As supply chain strategies.
Design/methodology/approach – The hypothesis and theoretical framework were tested using a
questionnaire survey. The authors employed structural equation modelling through the SMART PLS version
3.2.7 to analyse data from 163 textile firms located in Pakistan.
Findings – The results revealed that the supply chain data analytics contributed positively and significantly
to the agility and adaptability, while all 3As supply chain strategies impacted the PPERF substantially.
Further, the connection between supply chain data analytics (SCDA) and disruption performance has
substantially been influenced through 3As supply chain strategies.
Practical implications – The results imply that in the event of low likelihood, high effect disruptions,
managers and decision-makers should focus their efforts on integrating data analytics capabilities with 3As
supply chain policies to ensure long-term company success.
Originality/value – This research sheds fresh light on the importance of data analytics in effectively
implementing 3As strategies for sustaining company performance amid COVID-19 disruptions.
Keywords Supply chain data analytics, Agility, Adaptability, COVID-19, Performance, Risk management
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has in recent times impacted the supply chain
of various goods all around the world (Araz et al., 2020). The repercussions of COVID-19 on
the world economy were severe, and numerous sectors were crippled due to the disruptions
International Journal of Emerging
Markets
(Ivanov, 2020). According to Fortune (2020), this COVID-19 has had a damaging impact on
Vol. 18 No. 6, 2023
pp. 1330-1354
© Emerald Publishing Limited This research is supported by the Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Spatial Information Engineering
1746-8809
DOI 10.1108/IJOEM-11-2021-1744 (No. 20210218).
more than 94% of the top 1,000 organizations. Aside from that, the COVID-19 is directly Supply chain
responsible for the disruptions in supply and demand that are occurring at the global and analytics
local levels (Ivanov, 2020). Because of its uniqueness and distinctiveness, the new coronavirus
(COVID-19) has posed significant hurdles to a wide range of industrial sectors (Queiroz et al.,
2021). The coronavirus epidemic has wreaked havoc on Asia’s clothing industry too. Border
restrictions in numerous countries and limited air freight capacity exacerbated
manufacturing firms’ supply issues (Spieske and Birkel, 2021). In addition, the global
economy weakened, and the need for fashion clothing declined significantly, resulting in 1331
substantial sales declines (Majumdar et al., 2020). These are especially pronounced in nations
where textiles make for a significant portion of total exports. The International Labour
Organization (ILO) assessed the pandemic’s effect on ten major Asian textile manufacturing
countries: Pakistan, China, India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar,
Philippines and Vietnam. ILO estimates that about 65 m people are employed in the textile
sector, or 75% of all textile workers globally. According to the survey, the global textile trade
declined during the first half of the year. Exports to the EU, USA and Japan plummeted by
70%. Simultaneously, firms’ supply chains were interrupted, resulting in shortages of cotton,
fabric and other critical resources for production (Becker, 2020).
During the COVID-19 outbreak, Pakistan’s textile industry faced various difficulties and
influenced the manufacturing business (Shafi et al., 2020). According to State Bank of
Pakistan (SBP) figures, textile exports decreased to USD 12.8 billion in 2020 from USD 13.6
billion in 2019. The reduction may be attributed to changes in government fiscal and
monetary policies, order cancellations and shipping delays owing to pandemic-induced
worldwide lockdowns (Shujaat, 2021). Despite forced lockdowns and a fall in shipments
during COVID times, the sector saw a resurgence and survived since Pakistan was the first
country to open up (Ahmed, 2021). Eventually, as the global economy began to open up, the
demand for goods and services outpaced supply. Post-lockdown, the textile and clothing
sector was hailed as an economic boom due to the rising demand for textiles (Muhammad
et al., 2021). However, the supply chain was unprepared for the spike in demand caused by
protracted global lockouts (Shahed et al., 2021; Tasnim, 2020). These unanticipated shifts in
demand fostered the development of a bullwhip effect in the supply chain. Hence, firms need
to introduce new strategies to lessen the detrimental impact of any disruptive occurrence
from an adaptive standpoint (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2017). Companies concerned about supply
chain disruptions must also look for ways to adjust quickly and be ready to take proactive
measures when problems arise (Frederico, 2021). Businesses can only achieve these
characteristics with a long-term strategic focus (Burnard et al., 2018).
The COVID-19 outbreak highlighted flaws in functioning the effective supply chain due to
the suddenly increased responsibility of assuring critical products and services supply in
unprecedented quantities and time frames. In the case of Pakistan, lead time and productivity
are two of the most pressing challenges. Consequently, to stay competitive globally,
Pakistan’s textile industry must strive for operational excellence and reconfigure its
processes. Many manufacturers have operational excellence issues owing to SC obstacles,
such as lack of adaptability to variable demand patterns, poor competitiveness, and inability
to bring agility to SC systems (Manzoor et al., 2021). Patrucco and K€ahk€onen (2021) claimed
that the prospects of an emergent supply chain network seem to be oriented on three
capabilities – agility, adaptability and alignment (3As) – to reduce the effect of such a
disaster. A post-pandemic future necessitates that 3A capabilities become unique aspects of
many supply chains (Lee, 2021). For years, the triple-A supply chain idea has been hailed as a
source of outstanding company performance (Feizabadi et al., 2021). Using the COVID-19
pandemic as an example, van Hoek and Thomas (2021) have emphasized the necessity of
rethinking supply chains (SCs), recommending more studies into the implications of SCs and
fresh ideas on how to handle SCs in the face of an unforeseen occurrence. In this context, a
IJOEM recent paper by Lee (2021) underlines that, in the post-pandemic era, global supply chains do
18,6 not need to (re)invent new capacities. Organizations should instead concentrate their efforts
on evaluating the depth and strength of three widely recognized supply chain capabilities:
3As, to be better equipped for the threats provided by the external environment (Patrucco and
K€ahk€onen, 2021). As evidenced by the consequences of COVID-19, there is a pressing need to
revive and broaden the scope of 3As capabilities and a dire need for the supply chain to
improve its capacity to deal with supply chain disruption and provide better disaster
1332 response. Since its inception, supply chain management experts have hailed the Triple-A idea
as the key to better business performance (Escamilla et al., 2021; Whitten et al., 2012), but it
has yet to answer the question of whether agility, adaptability or alignment may affect
minimizing disruption.
The extant studies indicated their relevance in constructing a resilient and robust
enterprise. However, it is yet unclear how 3As supply chain initiatives contribute to
mitigating the effect of COVID-19 disruptions and help in recovery in post-pandemic times.
To fill this research gap, we define our first research question as
RQ1. What are the effects of triple supply chain strategies (3As) on post-COVID
disruption performance (PPERF)?
Additionally, Queiroz et al. (2021) stressed the need for global supply chain’s to be more
interconnected and digitally prepared in the event of a pandemic breakout. Ivanov and Dolgui
(2020) agreed, claiming that SC digitization increases operational flexibility and, hence, the
ability to react to outbreak-related interruptions. Meanwhile, experts formerly argued that
traditional information systems could not adequately support the sustainable supply chain. It
may be changing with Industry 4.0 (I4.0), which is built on the notion of interconnected and
independently interacting equipment, goods, and processes inside and across enterprises
(Ivanov and Dolgui, 2021; Talwar et al., 2021). Industry 4.0 has become a strategic
requirement for supply chains to gain an advantage in the marketplace (Frederico, 2021).
Disruptive technologies like supply chain data analytics (SCDA) will be critical in the supply
chain environment. It will strive to enhance the effectiveness and competitiveness of the
supply chain in terms of operational efficiency and hence strategic results (Khan et al., 2021a).
Yu et al. (2022a) reported that data analytics helps an organization provide business models
that allow them to produce greater profits. Its use is expected to assist organizations in
improving their financial performance and operations performance (Wamba et al., 2020;
Dubey et al., 2019, 2021). In the Industry 4.0 context, SCDA enhances supply processes,
increasing supply networks’ ability to respond.
Furthermore, the application of SCDA greatly enhances the decision-making process and
successfully assists supply chains in times of extreme disruption (Frederico et al., 2021). Thus,
the supply chain processes might be better at meeting their performance requirements if they
were more transparent, efficient and flexible. They could also be better at working together
and measuring how well they work. By improving these key performance aspects, the supply
chain will be better equipped to handle unforeseen events, allowing it to be more responsive
(Alzoubi and Yanamandra, 2020).
In the last few years, research on technological innovation has gained popularity. The
literature does not yet have an exhaustive analysis of data-driven supply chain capability to
mitigate the impact of disruption; disruption is regarded as a particularly complicated
problem that needs holistic viewpoints (Spieske and Birkel, 2021). Further to this, the prior
literature is quiet on the role of data analytics capability in deploying 3As strategies to
maintain and sustain business performance during times of disruption. Although the
literature on operations and supply chain management has documented the value of 3As in
improving organizational performance (Cohen and Kouvelis, 2021; Escamilla et al., 2021),
there has been dearth of an empirical study on triple-A supply chain strategies in connection
with SCDA. There are just a few empirical investigations that investigate the effect of SCDA Supply chain
on strategies independently (Yu et al., 2022b; Dubey et al., 2019, 2021; Wamba et al., 2020), yet analytics
it is still unclear how SCDA can help to add value to 3As supply chain strategy and ultimately
improving performance at the times of disruption. With these constraints in mind, we may
claim that the usefulness of SCDA for performance optimization is an obvious research need.
Hence, to fill this void and lay the groundwork for future research, we performed a
comprehensive literature review in the context with COVID-19 and developed a framework to
determine the role of SCDA in reducing the disruption impact, and focused on investigating 1333
its role with 3As supply chain strategies to overcome SC challenges associated with
pandemics and post-pandemic shocks. As a result, in an effort to fill these research gaps, we
have posed the following research question:
RQ2. What is the distinct and combined effect of SCDA and 3As supply chain strategies
on post-COVID disruption performance?
The current research focuses on the textile sector of Pakistan, which accounts for around
25% of the country’s total industrial value-added and employs more than 40% of the
country’s total industrial labour force. For its part, Pakistan ranks fourth in cotton production
and third in consumption, making it a major player on both fronts. Because it accounts for
more than 60% of the country’s total exports, the textile sector acts as the primary support
structure and primary economic driver. Even though this sector has the potential to help the
country’s economy, globalization is making its value chains more complicated and longer,
which could make them more vulnerable to supply chain risks. As an example, the absence of
a defined investment strategy and an accommodative economic climate and political
instability after the 9/11 attacks have all contributed to increased competitiveness with
nations in the area, such as China, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. In addition, the increase in
the cost of gas and other products derived from petroleum has rendered the textile industry
uncompetitive, which has led to the closure of a significant number of textile plants for the
past two years and the relocation of investment to countries in other parts of the region (Khan
et al., 2021b). For Pakistan’s textile manufacturing companies to remain competitive in
today’s market, they must continually establish robust supply chain capabilities. As a result,
the results of this research are likely to aid manufacturers in Pakistan and other emerging
nations in creating a robust textile supply chain.
The remainder of our paper is organized as follows. First, we conduct a literature review to
establish the theoretical model’s foundations, emphasizing the assumptions surrounding
SCDA, 3As supply chain strategies, and PPERF. Following that, there is a discussion of the
research methodology, followed by the presentation of the findings. Finally, we examine and
discuss our results before drawing theoretical and managerial implications.

2. Literature review
2.1 Supply chain data analytics
The literature has reported using data analytics in various fields (Shayaa et al., 2018). One
area where an analytics capability could be highly beneficial is supply chain management
(Saleem et al., 2020; Waller and Fawcett, 2013). While research on SCDA is developing, some
studies have tried to conceptualize SCDA (Chae et al., 2014; Shafiq et al., 2019). SCDA, as
defined by Souza (2014), is the use of prescriptive, descriptive, and predictive methodologies
to the planning, sourcing, manufacturing and delivering operations of a supply chain.
Utilizing data to understand processes, data mining to provide insights for successful choices,
optimization modelling and simulations to discover the optimal course of action, and risk
analysis using simulations are all examples of practical applications of analytics (Bag et al.,
2020; Sanders, 2016; Bag et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2015; Lassen et al., 2014; Sanders, 2016). Many
IJOEM academics believe that a company’s capacity to capture, integrate, deploy and analyse large
18,6 amounts of big data gives it a significant competitive advantage in the market (Shayaa et al.,
2018). The firm’s data analytics capabilities enable it to perceive and analyse external
developments in a more efficient way (Dubey et al., 2018). Having the ability to gather, analyse
and synthesize data will allow a company to establish effective and correct plans and policies
essential to improving the supply chain in a dynamic and erratic business environment
(Wamba et al., 2017).
1334
2.2 Triple-A supply chain strategies
Prior researchers have identified 3As supply chain strategies as critical characteristics
that supply chains should exhibit while functioning in an environment marked by many
market difficulties (Feizabadi et al., 2019; Whitten et al., 2012). It has long been recognized
that the success of world-class supply chains is dependent on 3As strategies (Lee, 2021).
Some or all of these strategies are required to counter these challenges. The combination
and effect of 3As supply chain strategies have been studied mainly in the supply chain
domain to signify their importance in improving firm performance in general (Feizabadi
et al., 2021). Several scholars have recently examined how 3As strategies work together to
produce more competitive supply chains (e.g. Feizabadi et al., 2021; Marin-Garcia
et al., 2018).
Agility is described as the capacity to “react swiftly and seamlessly to short-term changes
in demand or supply” (Lee, 2004, p. 105), which drives supply chain partners to quickly adapt
to changes in consumer expectations. Flexibility and speed are two of the most critical
aspects of agility (Swafford et al., 2008). Companies are progressively making investments in
the construction of more agile supply chains to keep up with the ever-changing demands of
the marketplace (Gligor et al., 2019; Whitten et al., 2012). Networks need to create and
maintain agility if they are to adapt to and withstand high levels of turbulence and
unpredictability and quickly develop, manufacture and distribute goods (Swafford
et al., 2008).
On the other hand, adaptability is defined as the capacity to “adjust the supply chain’s
design to account for structural changes in markets and alter the supply network to account
for variations in strategies, technologies, and products” (Lee, 2004, p. 105). To thrive in
today’s dynamic and unpredictable market (characterized by rapid shifts in the economy,
politics, and society, and shifting demographics and changing customer demands on a global
scale), a SC that can quickly adapt is essential (Erol et al., 2010). Even amid the current
epidemic and international tariff and trade dispute turmoil, companies utilizing their global
supply chain to adapt to changing situations remains of fundamental significance. These
features make supply chain adaptability different from agility, which mainly focuses on
responding fast to short-term supply and demand fluctuations.
Finally, alignment is the ability to “align the interests of all enterprises in their supply
chains” (Lee, 2004, p. 104), allowing organizations to integrate and coordinate supply chain
activities with fair cost and benefit-sharing. It represents the degree to which the organization
utilizes risk/revenue/cost-sharing with its suppliers and consumers (Feizabadi et al., 2019).
Supply chain agility and adaptability mainly focus on the company’s ability to respond to
immediate and long-term shifts. However, supply chain alignment focuses on how closely a
company works with its supply chain members to achieve its performance goals (through
shared incentives) (e.g. responding to changes). While the phrase “alignment” is seldom used
in the existing literature, the basic notion developed decades ago when experts realized the
potential associated with win–win partnerships between buyers and suppliers. The roots of
supply chain integration, cooperation and coordination may be traced back to these notions
(Tipu et al., 2019). This holistic perspective views the SC as an extended enterprise (Lee, 2004).
It entails strategic cooperation among its many members and coherence in its aims, strategies Supply chain
and procedures (Flynn et al., 2010). analytics

3. Theoretical framing and hypotheses development

This study utilizes the dynamic capability view as a theoretical lens, which is the upgradation
of the resource-based view. Information technology capability research has extensively
recognized the dynamic capability view (DCV). It attempts to understand how a company 1335
retains its competitive advantages via organizational resources and competencies in a
changing business environment (Teece, 2007). Because of the significant degree of
uncertainty in today’s marketplaces, it is critical to have the ability to swiftly combine,
transform, or refresh resources and skills to have the dynamic skills needed to thrive in such
an unpredictable environment (Eckstein et al., 2015). As a result, a lot of focus has been placed
recently on a company’s ability to improve its analytics capabilities (Chen et al., 2015; Wamba
et al., 2020). These considerations have led researchers to see data analytics as a dynamic
capability (Wamba et al., 2017) that is a consequence of an organization’s ability to
reconfigure and modify organizational resources and assets. Hence, with its ability to extract
valuable information from massive datasets, data analytics is considered an essential
corporate resource in supply chain literature (Jeble et al., 2018).
Furthermore, decision-makers cannot depend on their instincts while operating in a very
complicated, highly regulated, dynamic and complex business environment. As a result,
businesses rely on business analytics to assist in decision-making (Dubey et al., 2019, 2021).
Figure 1 proposes the research framework that examines the effect of SCDA on 3As
strategies and leads to improved post-COVID disruption performance.

3.1 Supply chain data analytics and 3As supply chain strategies
Essentially, supply chain agility is the firm’s capacity to swiftly modify its supply network
(Do et al., 2021). An agile supply chain allows the organization to respond promptly to the
customer needs and meet surges in demand promptly. These spikes in order in a brief period
need firms to sense and respond at the same rate, requiring them to have a “super-sensitive
sense” and a “super-responsive response” (Lee, 2021). Hence, in a highly disruptive
environment, the supply chain must be super-agile from beginning to finish. However, it

Agility
H3a
H1a

Supply Chain Post COVID

AnalyƟcs H1b Alignment H3b disrupƟon
performance

H1c
H3c
Adaptability

3As – SCRM strategies

H2

H4a: SCDA -> AGI -> PPERF Figure 1.

H4b: SCDA -> ADP -> PPERF Conceptual framework
H4c: SCDA -> ALM -> PPERF
IJOEM demands the data analytics capability to process timely information and acquire meaningful
18,6 insights to respond aggressively in a short time. Hence, it is inferred as
H1a. Supply chain data analytics has a positive impact on supply chain agility.
Technological advancements also spur SC adaptation. Data analytics improves SC
adaptability since it is stated that data-driven solutions improve cooperation and are
considered the primary driver for SC adaptability (Wamba et al., 2020). According to
1336 Srinivasan and Swink (2018), the capacity to identify and analyse macro conditions using
data analytics helps the organization to match and modify its SC to market demand. It is
pertinent to mention that SCDA offers the intrinsic ability to acquire meaningful insights for
the available information rapidly. The use of technologically driven solutions may aid in the
creation of a more accurate demand prediction, inventory management and backup when the
market environment changes (Ivanov et al., 2018). Technological solutions like data analytics
allow organizations to quickly switch suppliers, designs and other aspects of their operations
while also improving decision-making (Zhu et al., 2018). Thus,
H1b. Supply chain data analytics has a positive impact on supply chain adaptability.
Supply chain managers must assess customer and supplier gathered data for insights that
help drive choices and strategies that decrease mismatches in updated realizations of demand
and supply. Information about recent consumer spending and sales patterns might help
estimate future demand. Shared product projections and inventory levels, on the other hand,
reveal consumer demand patterns that must be handled swiftly (Srinivasan and Swink, 2018).
Data analytics improve business operations’ precision and reliability by speeding up their
execution (Wamba et al., 2019). It allows members to exchange records with trade partners,
resolving trust difficulties (Dubey et al., 2019, 2021). This aligns the whole supply chain
around a single shared objective. Additionally, equitable distribution of risk and reward
among all stakeholders may also be achieved through the effective utilization of SCDA
(Papadopoulos et al., 2016). Thus,
H1c. Supply chain data analytics has a positive impact on supply chain alignment.

3.2 Supply chain analytics and post-COVID disruption performance

SCDA’s primary goal is to gather useable insights and new information that can be used to
enhance operational performance and achieve a competitive advantage. Due to its strong
operational and strategic potential, SCDA skills may be considered a game-changer that
increases company effectiveness and success (Bahrami and Shokouhyar, 2021). Recent
research shows that SCDA capabilities may help enterprises and the supply chain function
better. Some believe data analytics distinguishes between high- and low-performing
companies (Wamba et al., 2017). Even though data analytics is a competitive need, it is not yet
clear how it influences many elements of a firm’s supply chain performance, especially during
times of disruption (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2021). According to Dubey et al. (2019, 2021), data
analytics aids in improving end-to-end visibility, which is viewed as a desirable capacity that
may mitigate the adverse effects of a supply chain interruption (J€ uttner and Maklan, 2011;
Sabahi and Parast, 2020).
Furthermore, data analytics capability contributes significantly to disaster mitigation and
assists firms in responding to disruptive occurrences (Bahrami and Shokouhyar, 2021). Also,
when it comes to coping with supply chain risks, it has been reported that data analytics
assists enterprises in managing supply chain risks and strengthening their resilience
capability (Spieske and Birkel, 2021). Additionally, Yasmin et al. (2020) demonstrated that
data analytics capability adds value to the supply chain, resulting in improved financial and
market performance and increased customer satisfaction. In turbulent and complicated
markets, information processing helps decrease the uncertainty, and BDA significantly Supply chain
speeds up the decision-making process for businesses (Sivarajah et al., 2017). These findings analytics
provide a wealth of information that may be used to enhance operations. In a disruptive and
highly volatile situation, SCDA is intimately tied to the firm’s operations management, and
the company has achieved significant progress, especially in turbulent times (Record et al.,
2021). Hence, based on the above contentions, managers must use data technology to detect
possible risks or causes of disruptions to establish business continuity plans that aid speeds
up recovery in the case of disorder. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: 1337
H2. Supply chain analytics has a positive impact on post-pandemic performance.

3.3 Triple-A SCRM strategies and post COVID-19 disruption performance

Following the COVID-19 crisis, Ajmal et al. (2021) claimed that the supply chain network had
been confronted with a slew of new issues, which the management had to address and
overcome (Khan et al., 2022a). For instance, turbulence and resonating effects spread over
global networks as a result of the demand and supply ripples (Sarkis, 2021). Lee (2021)
reported that 3As supply chain strategies are the risk management strategies that are
primarily concerned with decreasing susceptibility and mitigating damage caused by
interruptions (Cohen and Kouvelis, 2021). With 3As strategies in place, the consequences of
supply chain (SC) interruptions on material and information flow inside the SC may be
minimized (El Baz and Ruel, 2021). For instance, agility may not be necessary for controlling
operational risk; it is critical in times of severe uncertainty, such as unforeseen disruption and
hypercompetitive scenarios (Do et al., 2021). Hence, the effect of COVID-19 may be mitigated
by a quick and prompt treatment (Patrucco and K€ahk€onen, 2021). Previous research has
documented the favourable connection between agility and supply chain performance in a
high supply chain risk environment (Altay et al., 2018; Wieland and Wallenburg, 2012).
Hence, its importance in connection with post-COVID-19 supply chain performance is critical.
As the COVID-19 epidemic spreads worldwide, the demand for clothing and textiles goods
has shifted (Ahmed, 2021), necessitating the development of a dynamic response capability
with speed and agility by enterprises and their supply chains (Do et al., 2021).
Meanwhile, SC adaptability refers to a company’s ability to create supply chain
redundancy by constantly adding new vendors and logistical infrastructure (Khan et al.,
2022b; Lee, 2004). Supply-side interruptions may be mitigated due to this strategy (Aslam
et al., 2020). The extant literature established the role of adaptability, dealing with supply
chain disruptions and building resilience in the supply chain (Erol et al., 2010; Piprani et al.,
2020b). Furthermore, the COVID-19 environment demonstrated that businesses must
diversify their supply chains by reducing their dependency on a particular supplier and
geographical location. Using multiple or parallel sourcing tactics regularly may be more
successful in shifting the supply network as required, even if it is less efficient. This does not
compromise the prospect of developing collaborative relationships (Patrucco and
K€ahk€onen, 2021).
Additionally, SC alignment underpins the fair distribution of risks amongst value chain
partners (Lee, 2004) and the coordination of work activities along the supply chain (Lee, 2021).
It encourages the supply chain participants to work together to avoid and mitigate
interruptions in the supply chain. Hence, risk management capabilities allow a focused
business to maintain operations, manufacture, and deliver quality goods to customers in a
disruption (Brusset and Teller, 2017; Dohale et al., 2022). Acquiring these competencies also
allows companies to predict and react to supply chain problems and respond and recover
once the disruptions have occurred. Hence, it is inferred that
H3a. Supply chain agility has a positive impact on post-COVID disruption performance.
IJOEM H3b. Supply chain adaptability has a positive effect on post-COVID disruption
18,6 performance.
H3c. Supply chain alignment has a positive impact on post-COVID disruption
performance.

1338 3.4 Mediation analysis

The current pandemic epidemic has had a substantial impact on disruption in the supply chain,
resulting in lower efficiency of operations and customer commitments (Queiroz et al., 2021). As
discussed earlier, organizations use data analytics to minimize costs and uncertainty and
improve decision-making. Using supply chain analytic techniques, decision-makers may be
informed of the likelihood of such risks; they can build strategies to adapt to various shocks; and
boost the firm’s flexibility in the face of a changing environment and fierce competition (Shamout,
2019). Further to this, Paul and Chowdhury (2020) argued that a pandemic like COVID-19
necessitates a rapid response by supply chain professionals. Advances in manufacturing and
electronic platforms may improve the reactivity of SCs in disruptive situations.
Nevertheless, in today’s changing financial world, organizations that depend entirely on
data analytics competence may not always recover from the wrong scenario and achieve the
desired performance. Indeed, 3As supply chain strategies are critical to the profitability and
survival of the business (Srimarut and Mekhum, 2020). 3As supply chains can better recognize
environmental risks (potential disruptions) and react fast utilizing their collaborative value
chain network, backup resources and employing shared infrastructure for improved risk
response (Khan et al., 2022c; Piprani et al., 2020a). As stated before, SCDA is crucial in
implementing 3As supply chain solutions. Consequently, businesses will be able to manage
their risk better and improve their overall company performance in a highly unpredictable
market. In hypotheses H1a–H3c, we aimed to evaluate the impact of 3As supply chain risk
management strategies as a result of SCDA and as a predictor of PPERF. As a result, we
hypothesized that 3As supply chain techniques act as mediators in the link between SCDA
and PPERF.
H4a. Supply chain agility mediates the relationship between supply chain analytics and
post-pandemic performance.
H4b. Supply chain adaptability mediates the relationship between supply chain
analytics and post-pandemic performance.
H4c. Supply chain alignment mediates the relationship between supply chain analytics
and post-pandemic performance.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Instrument development
A questionnaire survey tested the theoretical model and the established assumptions
quantitatively. As part of the pre-testing process, the scales adapted from the extant literature
were pre-tested by specialists (three academics and ten supply chain professionals). It was
done to ensure that the questions were presented in the context of our research and that the
choice of words used was clear and precise. Next, a brief cover letter outlining the purpose of
our study and assuring the confidentiality of their responses to our survey questions is
created. We created a seven-point Likert scale questionnaire, where one denotes strongly
disagree and seven strongly agree. The questionnaire is divided into two sections: the first
has a list of five distinct reflective constructs. SCDA is tested using six items that were
adapted from Shafiq et al. (2019). For post-COVID disruption performance, five items were
adapted from Altay et al. (2018). Additionally, the seven-item adaptability and alignment Supply chain
scale was adopted from Marin-Garcia et al. (2018), while the eight-item agility scale was taken analytics
from Altay et al. (2018) and Whitten et al. (2012).

4.2 Sample and data collection

This research used a cross-sectional survey methodology. The core survey data from textile
enterprises in Pakistan was between January 2021 and March 2021. With the assistance of the 1339
All Pakistan Textile Mill Association and the Supply Chain Association of Pakistan, the
convenient sampling approach was employed and shortlisted by 500 manufacturing firm.
With the assistance of the associations, we distributed survey invitations via WhatsApp to
supply chain professionals. They were employed in full-time roles within the supply chain
domain, such as procurement, supply chain, operations, planning, logistics, store and so on,
and who was responsible for implementing various SCM practices in their organizations.
Furthermore, most respondents (almost 95%) had been in their surveyed organization for
more than 3 years, showing that they have adequate expertise and knowledge about practices
to answer the survey’s questions (see Table 1). Initially, researchers received 107 responses in
the first round. Another follow-up message was issued to the 393 non-respondents who had
not yet responded. Following the second round, we received an additional 56 replies. Hence,
altogether 163 responses have been received, which is considered a moderately large sample.
The two rounds yielded 163 responses, with a 32.6% response rate.
Sekaran and Bougie (2016) indicated that a response rate of 30% was appropriate for web-
based or online approaches. Furthermore, this response rate is comparable to previous
research in data analytics and supply chain risk management (Gualandris and Kalchschmidt,
2015; Saleem et al., 2020). Table 1 summarizes the respondents’ demographic profiles and the
features of their businesses. As stated before (Hair et al., 2019), a sample size of at least 100 for
a research model with five or fewer theoretical constructs with more than three items
assessed variables with high commonality may be regarded as suitable for structural
equation modelling (SEM) (i.e. a sample size of at least 100). In this investigation, 163 samples
were gathered, with five theoretical constructs and a commonality value of 0.40 or above
(Shmueli et al., 2016). As a result, the sample size is sufficient to conduct SEM in this
investigation. Furthermore, the sample size is similar to prior survey-based risk management
research (e.g. Aslam et al., 2020; Piprani et al., 2020b), which is positive.

4.3 Non-response and common method bias

This research compared early and late responders on demographic factors to assess non-
response bias. The t-tests found no significant differences (p > 0.05) between early and late
responders regarding staff count and company age. The findings indicate that non-response
bias did not pose a substantial issue in this investigation. A combination of ex ante and ex-
post techniques was employed to identify and control any possibility of common method bias
(CMB). Before conducting the questionnaire survey, we ensured that the respondents would
not discern between the independent and dependent variables by randomizing the sequence
of the measurement items and keeping the questions basic, brief and well-phrased.
Furthermore, in the cover letter, we guaranteed responders that their identities will be kept
confidential. These strategies were used to aid in the reduction of CMB in self-report research
(Podsakoff et al., 2012). Due to earlier research indicating that Harman’s single-factor test did
not wholly rule out the possibility of CMB, the partial least squares (PLS) marker variable
technique was employed to check CMB (R€onkk€o and Ylitalo, 2011). We used a four-item social
desirability measure as a marker variable in this research. The assessment of R2 with and
without the marker variables is then performed. A minor change (less than 10%) in R2 was
found in the dataset, indicating that the common method variance was insignificant. In light
IJOEM Demographic characteristics Percent
18,6
Major products
Home textiles 32.4
Denim 19.2
Garments 29.3
Technical textiles 3.7
1340 Hosiery 12.5
Others 2.9
Annual sales (PKR)
Less than 1 billion 12.2
1–15 billion 33.2
16–30 billion 24.3
31–50 billion 22.1
More than 50 billion 8.2
Age of the organization
<15 years 1.3
16–30 years 8.4
31–45 years 57.3
46–60 years 28.8
More than 60 years 4.2
Number of employees
Less than 250 2.5
250–499 9.8
500–1,000 17.2
1,000–2,500 40.4
More than 2,500 30.1
Job title
CEO/Director 1.5
GM/DGM 9.2
Senior Manager/Manager/HOD 36.7
Deputy Manager/Assistant Manager 39.1
Executive/Officer 13.5
Job function
Supply Chain 10.5
Procurement 21.3
Production/Operations 26.1
Logistics/Distribution 12.4
Store/Warehouse 15.2
Other 14.5
Years of experience
Less than 3 years 5.2
3–5 years 35.2
6–10 years 31.3
Table 1. 11–15 years 18.7
Demographic profile More than 15 years 9.6

of the above measures, we conclude that CMB poses no danger to the validity of the study
findings.
4.4 Data analysis technique
In this research, we employed the SEM technique using the PLS approach to assess
relationships among various variables used in the study. It has received widespread
recognition and acceptance in the literature on data analytics and SCRM. The literature has Supply chain
covered all of the various fundamental aspects that should be considered while deciding on analytics
the PLS-SEM method. It is thought that the PLS-SEM appropriately manages a large number
of indicator variables and can deal with non-normal data due to its ability to accept
complicated models. This study used PLS-SEM to predict or investigate the relationship
between exogenous and endogenous factors (Hair et al., 2017, 2019).
1341
5. Results
A two-phase process was used to perform the SEM evaluation using PLS to assess the
relationship. First, the measurement model was used, followed by a structural model
assessment to analyse the hypothesis as stated above.

5.1 Measurement model assessment

At first, this study used confirmatory factor analysis to examine the reflective measuring
scales in terms of construct reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. For the
reflective measurement model, the items loading method analyses the indicator reliability of
the measuring items, whereas the AVE method analyses construct validity. The AVE should
be at least 0.5, indicating that the construct explains at least half of the variance in its
measurement items (Hair et al., 2019). Items loadings of 0.7, on the other hand, indicate a
satisfactory degree of indicator reliability. However, Chin (1998) argues that loadings over 0.5
are permissible if the associated construct has an AVE above 0.5. In this research, five
reflective constructs are examined, and the results are shown in Table 2.
Additionally, composite reliability is used to determine internal consistency reliability.
Following the findings shown in Table 2, the value is within an acceptable range of 0.7–0.95
(Hair et al., 2017, 2019), which indicates strong evidence for the reliability of all reflective
constructs. The findings provided in Table 2 suggest that the Cronbach’s alpha (ranged from
0.816 to 0.896) and composite reliability scores (ranged from 0.866 to 0.921) are substantially
above the frequently recognized cut-off value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017), indicating adequate
evidence of reliability.
Next, we used two ways to ascertain discriminant validity. First, we examined Fornell and
Larcker’s criteria, which states that each construct’s square root of AVE must be greater than
the sum of its correlations with all other constructs to be considered significant. Table 3
shows that all constructs satisfied this condition. Second, we employed the Heterotrait-
Monotrait ratio (HTMT) technique developed by Henseler et al. (2016). The constructs had
HTMT values ranging from 0.250 to 0.861 (see Table 3), which were less than the limit of 0.90
(Henseler et al., 2016). Thus this study’s findings for Fornell–Larcker and HTMT.90, all
support the constructs’ discriminant validity.

5.2 Structural model assessment

Structural model testing was carried out using SEM after evaluating the measurement model.
The findings of hypothesis testing are summarized in Table 4. Despite being included as
control variables in the research, firm age and number of employees had no significant
influence on PPERF. The model accounts for 33.2% of the variation in agile supply chain
strategy, 37.7% of the variance in adaptable supply chain strategy, 30.1% of the variance in
alignment strategy and 67.2% of the variance in post-COVID 19 disruption performance
(PPERF). Furthermore, the predictive relevance of the suggested model is assessed not only
using the R2 value, but also using the cross-validated redundancy technique via Q2. The
cross-validated redundancy approach takes into account both measurement and structural
model predictions. A Q2 number greater than 0 indicates that the model is predictively
IJOEM Construct Items Loading AVE CR Cronbach’s α
18,6
Supply chain data analytics SCDA1 0.656 0.546 0.866 0.823
SCDA2 0.721
SCDA3 0.829
SCDA4 0.745
SCDA5 0.794
1342 Supply chain agility AGI1 0.761 0.596 0.921 0.896
AGI2 0.872
AGI3 0.673
AGI4 0.716
AGI5 0.897
AGI6 0.750
AGI7 0.734
AGI8 0.748
Supply chain adaptability ADP1 0.762 0.559 0.898 0.846
ADP2 0.745
ADP3 0.723
ADP4 0.821
ADP5 0.756
ADP6 0.671
ADP7 0.748
Supply chain alignment ALM1 0.813 0.620 0.920
ALM2 0.827
ALM3 0.758 0.698 0.902 0.858
ALM4 0.823
ALM5 0.762
ALM6 0.790
ALM7 0.736
Post-COVID disruption performance PPERF1 0.837 0.596 0.880 0.816
PPERF2 0.761
Table 2. PPERF3 0.739
Reliability and validity PPERF4 0.693
assessment PPERF5 0.822

SCDA AGI ADP ALM PPERF

A. Fornell–Larcker
SCDA 0.739
AGI 0.121 0.772
ADP 0.219 0.519 0.748
ALM 0.109 0.326 0.326 0.835
PPERF 0.464 0.438 0.439 0.239 0.772
B. HTMT results
SCDA
AGI 0.612
ADP 0.861 0.683
Table 3. ALM 0.390 0.478 0.628
Discriminant validity PPERF 0.362 0.250 0.842 0.693
Direct effect Direct effect t-statistics p-value Supported (yes/no/WS)
Supply chain
analytics
H1a: SCDA → PPERF 0.187 1.674 0.0964 WS
H2a: SCDA → AGI 0.414 4.437 0.000 Yes
H2b: SCDA → ADP 0.237 2.879 0.000 Yes
H2c: SCDA → ALM 0.172 1.556 0.125 No
H3a: AGI → PPERF 0.316 3.868 0.000 Yes
H3b: ADP → PPERF 0.375 4.451 0.000 Yes 1343
H3c: ALM → PPERF 0.224 2.471 0.016 Yes
R2 values: AGI – 0.332; ADP – 0.377; ALM – 0.301; PPERF – 0.672
Q2 values: AGI – 0.198; ADP – 0.227; ALM – 0.263; PPERF – 0.538

95% BC
Direct Indirect confidence
Structural paths effect effect t-statistics p-value interval Results

H4a: 0.187 0.131 2.334 0.021 0.227–0.518 Yes

SCDA → AGI → PPERF
H4b: 0.187 0.089 1.871 0.072 0.096–0.214 WS
SCDA → ADP → PPERF
H4c: 0.187 0.056 2.074 0.040 0.189–0.425 Yes
SCDA → ALM → PPERF
Note(s): SCDA: Supply chain data analytics, PPERF: Post-COVID disruption performance, AGI: Agility,
ADP: Adaptability, ALM: Alignment
***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1; τp > 0.1 but value of 0 is not in range of BC; ns: not supported Table 4.
Yes: supported with p-value < 0.05 or 0.01, WS: Weak support with p-value > 0.05 or <0.1; No: Not supported Path results

relevant, whereas a Q2 value less than 0 suggests that the model is not predictively relevant.
Table 4 presents the findings of a construct cross-validated redundancy estimation, which
reveals that the Q2 value of AGI, ADP, ALG AND PPERF are 0.198, 0.227, 0.263 and 0.538,
respectively. There appears to be a good level of predictive relevance for all these constructs
because the results are substantially over the threshold. Table 4 also indicates the structural
model results, showing that SCDA is positively associated with PPERF (β 5 0.187), thus
supporting H1. In the case of the relationship between SCDA and triple A-supply chain risk
management strategies, the results indicated that SCDA is positively and significantly
associated with AGI (β 5 0.414) and ADP (β 5 0.237). In contrast, no significant result was
found in the case of ALM. These findings support H1a and H1b, while rejecting H1c. In the
case of 3As supply chain strategies and post-COVID disruption performance, all 3As supply
chain strategies (AGI, ADP, ALM) have a favourable effect on PPERF. The results signify
that ADP (β 5 0.375) contributes most significantly, followed by AGI (β 5 0.316) and ALM
(β 5 0.224). These findings imply that H3a, H3b and H3c are all supported.
We used a bootstrap approach (n 5 2,000 bootstrap resamples) to examine the mediation
of 3As supply chain risk management strategies. Table 4 shows the results of the
bootstrapping analysis. The results indicated that SCDA has a direct impact on PPERF
(β 5 0.187, p > 0.05) or has weak support at p < 0.1, thus accepting H2. In the case of the
mediation effect, the indirect effect of alignment strategy (β 5 0.056, p < 0.05) on the link
between supply chain data analytics and post-COVID disruption performance is statistically
significant, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.189–0.425. Likewise, indirect effect is
significant and positive for agile strategy (β 5 0.131, p < 0.05), with 95% confidence interval
of 0.227–0.518, whereas a weak significant effect is observed for adaptability strategy
(β 5 0.089, p < 0.1). This implies that H4a, H4b, and H4c are all supported. Hence, the findings
IJOEM imply that the alignment strategy completely mediates the association between SCDA and
18,6 PPERF. The bootstrap test supports hypotheses H4a, H4b and H4c, indicating that supply
chain analytics indirectly impact post-pandemic disruption performance via 3As supply
chain risk management strategies.

6. Discussion
1344 The findings of this survey complement the evidence outlined and described by Lee (2021)
thinking on new 3A strategies. 3As considered the proven supply chain strategies that
improve firm and supply chain performance. However, an organization’s supply chain
success relies on the capability of the supply chain to perform better in vulnerable times,
which is contingent on the capacity of supply chain partnering firms to construct a supply
chain that demonstrates 3As all at the same time. The findings show that 3As have a
favourable and considerable impact on post-COVID disruption performance. On the other
side, supply chain adaptability has the most significant effect on performance during times of
disruption. As a result, it is plausible to conclude that textile firms in Pakistan have utilized
this strategy to alleviate the detrimental consequences of COVID disruptions. The findings of
our study are consistent with Wamba et al. (2020), who found a correlation between supply
chain adaptation and operational success in enterprises in as many as 40 countries.
Adaptable supply chains allow businesses to assess the current possibilities more quickly
than their competitors in high-risk situations. For the sake of managing supply chain risk,
several studies stress the need to invest in the adaptability capability of a company (Eckstein
et al., 2015; Rozhkov et al., 2022). The findings also show that SC agility and PPERF have a
favourable association. This implies that an agile supply chain has the potential to improve
performance in a highly disruptive environment significantly. Companies and supply chains
might damage their financial performance if they take too long to respond to a crisis (Gligor
et al., 2019). In light of the COVID-19 situation, one of the most pressing problems businesses
had to deal with during these months was a lack of agility and adaptability. As a result, the
supply side was sluggish to respond due to a lack of openness and information visibility,
strict processes, lean inventory strategies and procurement from various suppliers with
transactional relationships (Paul and Chowdhury, 2020). When faced with adversity,
especially in industries with low levels of environmental unpredictability, organizations
should ramp up their short- and medium-term investments in those capabilities that allow
them to be responsive quickly. Due to restrictive processes and protocols, firms were
particularly sluggish in reacting to the crises. As illustrated by COVID-19, even in normal
times, there is a need for agile and adaptable processes that do not merely create the capacity
to react rapidly in an emergency. The company and its supply chain will be more responsive
due to any or all of these measures (Patrucco and K€ahk€onen, 2021).
Furthermore, SCDA has the potential to improve organizations’ performance in highly
disruptive environments such as COVID-19. In turbulent and complicated markets, the use of
SCDA helps to lower the risk. The usage of SCDA accelerates the pace at which firms make
decisions by many times. The use of data analytics enables visibility in the supply chain
allows firms to adapt different strategies, such as local sourcing or even sourcing from
multiple suppliers, to deal with unexpected spikes in demand, and rapid transshipment and to
encourage stakeholders in the SC to collaborate (Huma and Ahmed, 2022). Also, customer-
imposed demand constraints may be identified promptly using shared anticipated demand
and inventory levels. This information provides insight into variations in downstream
demand. Analytics capability allows organizations to swiftly collect and analyse different
information sources and streams, generating solutions quickly. Analytics capabilities allow
managers to utilize precious resources more effectively, speed up or scale down production,
make adjustments to the product mix or volume, and divert shipments from different
locations with more accuracy (Srinivasan and Swink, 2018). In recent literature, SCDA has Supply chain
been seen to improve corporate performance (Bag et al., 2020; Gunasekaran et al., 2017); analytics
however, its relationship to disruption performance has been mostly neglected. This research
revealed weak correlation between SCDA and PPERF. On the other hand, the current
research discovered that the impact was reliant on the success of the triple A supply chain
strategy. According to this research, the SCDA’s influence on the PPERF can only be seen if
the organizations have agile and alignment capabilities.
In contrast, the adaptable supply chain strategy had a modest impact. The findings show 1345
a nonlinear relationship between the SCDA and PPERF, and triple-A strategies had a role in
this outcome. In a high-disruption environment, the SCDA’s advantages will not be realised
until enterprises implement 3As strategies successfully into their systems. Thus, consistent
with earlier studies (Srimarut and Mekhum, 2020; Wamba et al., 2020), this study’s results
shed light on the benefits of SCDA capabilities and 3As supply chain risk management
practices on increased performance during times of disruption.

7. Conclusion, limitation and future research directions

The worldwide impact of the coronavirus pandemic is unparallelled and exceptional. Amid
the COVID-19 epidemic, maintaining the continuity of supply chain operations is a pressing
worldwide problem. The COVID-19 disrupted supply chains at the global level, making it
challenging to attain and sustain operational excellence. Government-mandated social
distancing, border closing and slowing port operations, restricted movement of goods, and
disruption in supplies all heightened the need for alternative ways of handling supply chain
disruptions. This research examined the influence of SDAC on enhancing PPERF and the role
of 3As – SCRM strategies in improving PPERF. The study examined the present scenario
from a dynamic capabilities perspective, which hampered day-to-day operations and
excellence. The required measures to increase performance are evaluated based on the
existing system. Based on the research outcomes, it can be reckoned that SCDA alone will not
be able to minimize the disruptive situation and achieve sustained business performance.
Instead, they will need to rely on the practical implementation of 3As strategies to maintain
sustained business performance even during disruption.

7.1 Theoretical implications

COVID-19 alerted many firms to the value of supplier networks. As a result, many businesses
have begun to recognize the importance of structuring supply networks. Organizations have
realized that they cannot exist or compete effectively without a network equipped with the
necessary competencies. As a result, companies that build their organizations in this way will
be better prepared for unprecedented disruptive events like COVID-19 or tragic global events.
This study used DCT to connect the SCDA, 3As supply chain strategies and the PPERF.
Using data from textile firms in Pakistan, this study adds value to the existing literature on
COVID-19 disruption management by establishing a relationship between the SCDA and the
PPERF of those firms, as well as the role and effect of 3As supply chain risk management
strategies in between the relationship between SCDA and PPERF.
Despite the importance of data analytics in the supply chain, literature is silent on the
influence of SCDA on PPERF. To our knowledge, no empirical research has been done on the
effect of data analytics in influencing PPERF. The 3As strategies are another critical concern.
While the research focuses heavily on the success of 3As strategies in improving company
performance, little attention has been paid to how these strategies impact the relationship
between an SCDA and PPERF. Also, considering that dynamic capability may provide long-
term competitive advantage via other core competencies. This research substantiated the
IJOEM beneficial effect of SCDA capabilities in boosting firm performance and presented triple-A
18,6 supply chain strategies to deliver benefits from SCDA capabilities to the company. The
results not only add to the body of knowledge about data analytics and dynamic capabilities,
but they also add to the body of knowledge about 3As, urging more research into how 3As
may be reinforced and whether or not these strategies can improve company performance.
The empirical findings of our research also demonstrate the need to immediately adapt to
swiftly fluctuating demand, supply and technological market turbulences to perform better
1346 during supply chain disruptions and recover more quickly after suffering a crisis. 3As supply
chain strategies are desired risk management strategies that have been previously
documented (see Dubey et al., 2018). Therefore, managers must realize that the advantages
of supply chain data analytics may not instantly transfer into performance until the 3As are
successfully applied in dealing with turbulence.
Furthermore, this study was done in a developing nation like Pakistan, which lends it
further significance. The bulk of research on data analytics and SCRM has occurred in
developed countries such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Germany.
But past research has shown the usefulness of SCRM and risk mitigation strategies,
especially in developing nations (Khan et al., 2022b; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2017). Additionally,
as Piprani et al. (2020c) demonstrate, uncertainty is higher in developing countries such as
Pakistan, owing to these countries’ more unstable economic and political frameworks.
Therefore, the ability of these countries to compete with developed economies hinges on their
ability to properly manage risks.

7.2 Managerial implications

This study’s results have various implications for management. First, textile firms should
put their efforts into risk management strategies with intelligent information systems and
data analytics solutions to enhance performance in disruptive times. Using 3As as supply
chain risk management strategies, supply chain managers may prepare an effective system
reaction to interruptions, which can then be used to improve mitigation capacities and
ensure supply chain continuity (Afraz et al., 2021). Also, we expect that practitioners will
utilize our model’s findings to build dynamic capabilities in their supply chain, make
possible concerns more manageable, or lessen the effect of potentially hazardous scenarios
like the COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain. The findings, in particular, might serve as
an example for managers looking to understand the effect of dynamic capabilities in textile
supply chains. In a highly disruptive situation, managers may benefit from our research
findings. For instance, organizations may suffer both supply and demand uncertainty in a
disruption. Managers may accumulate safety stock near marketplaces and improve
distribution capabilities to meet supply unpredictability in this situation. These empirical
findings may encourage industry professionals, particularly in developing markets
(characterized by a lack of resources), to adopt and deploy 3As methods to sustain and grow
at turbulent times. SC managers must thus establish and manage the 3As of their
organizations in light of their capacity to process capability at times of disruption.
Managers may choose anyone of the strategic measures for improving performance. Marin-
Garcia et al. (2018) found that each of the 3As supply chain strategies has a distinct impact
on the various performance measurements, which may drive managers to prioritize one
over the others based on their business goals.
Our findings also imply that organizations may expand their information processing
capability while decreasing resource costs by investing in vertical information systems.
Hence, the outcomes of our research may serve as a pathway for managers considering
investments in data analytics-driven dynamic capability. Before making any investments,
they should increase their capacity to detect and respond quickly and appropriately to
dynamic changes in the internal and external environment to mitigate risks and adapt to Supply chain
these changes by reconfiguring their intangible and tangible assets to improve long-term analytics
business performance during times of disruption. Investment in data analytics capabilities
may improve competitiveness and capacity to deal with disruptive situations and enhance
performance in volatile times. As a result, enhancing supply chain data analytics assists
firms in increasing the agility and adaptability of their supply chains to achieve better
organizational performance.
Consequently, managers must guarantee that investments in dynamic capabilities offered 1347
by data analytics assist the business stay agile and adaptive while also helping the firm
endure in times of turmoil. Technological solutions may help mitigate many of the dangers
encountered by the textile supply chain during the COVID-19 epidemic. Firms can maximize
the benefits of technology-driven solutions by tracking the end-to-end movement of
materials, parts and components through the SC. It is possible to make better decisions and
take better countermeasures if the manager has greater insight into safety supplies,
manufacturing capacity, and ship and truck whereabouts. Our research also shows that
companies that can swiftly adjust to shifting patterns in demand and supply and technology
turbulence perform better during supply chain disruptions and recover faster following a
crisis.
Finally, in the present article, we underlined the critical role of managers’ attention to
various approaches and tactics for achieving the predicted benefits of SCDA. According to
Bahrami and Shokouhyar (2021), a company’s ability to compete is based on its ability to use
technology effectively instead of the technology itself. Even if the company has SCDA, the
intended business value may not be immediately realised. While SCDA is required for
achieving desired performance in a highly volatile business environment, it is not sufficient,
underlining the critical need to properly organize and manage such competencies. 3As supply
chain strategies proposed by Lee (2004) are the desirable quality of supply networks that
have been empirically tested in the recent past (see Escamilla et al., 2021; Feizabadi et al.,
2021). As a result, managers must understand that the utilization of data analytics
capabilities is contingent upon the organization’s ability to adapt to changing surroundings.
In addition to this, alignment of its business processes with its supply chain partners is
necessary to have a better and swift response during turbulences to achieve the desirable and
sustained business performance.

7.3 Limitations and suggestions for future studies

This study also has some limitations, which might be considered avenues for further
research. First, the study examined the effect of supply chain data analytics and 3As supply
chain risk management techniques on the performance of textile manufacturers during a
COVID interruption. Hence, in future research, data from organizations in other sectors may
be highly reliant on suppliers, such as the FMCG and pharmaceutical sectors, which are
particularly susceptible to supply chain risks, to increase the generalizability of the results.
Next, the study is about a focused firm’s perception of COVID-19 disruptive performance.
Future research should gather objective data obtained from real-time instead of subjective
assessments.
Additionally, we only had access to data collected at a single moment; therefore, we could
not investigate causation over a more extended period. Thus, the longitudinal study may give
helpful information on the connection between SCDA, 3As strategies, and PPERF. Finally,
the data that were utilized were from textile factories in Pakistan; therefore, it would be
interesting to undertake a cross-country study to see how well this model performs in other
countries outside Pakistan from the COVID-19 perspective.
IJOEM References
18,6 Afraz, M.F., Bhatti, S.H., Ferraris, A. and Couturier, J. (2021), The impact of supply chain
innovation on competitive advantage in the construction industry: evidence from a
moderated multi-mediation model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier,
Vol. 162, June, 120370.
Ahmed, M. (2021), “Broken supply chains”, The News, available at: https://www.thenews.com.pk/
print/855605-broken-supply-chains.
1348
Ajmal, M.M., Khan, M., Shad, M.K., AlKatheeri, H. and Jabeen, F. (2021), “Socio-economic and
technological new normal in supply chain management: lessons from COVID-19 pandemic”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.
1108/IJLM-04-2021-0231.
Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Agility and resilience as antecedents of
supply chain performance under moderating effects of organizational culture within the
humanitarian setting: a dynamic capability view”, Production Planning and Control, Taylor &
Francis, Vol. 29 No. 14, pp. 1158-1174.
Alzoubi, H.M. and Yanamandra, R. (2020), “Investigating the mediating role of information sharing
strategy on agile supply chain”, Uncertain Supply Chain Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 273-284.
Araz, O.M., Choi, T.M., Olson, D.L. and Salman, F.S. (2020), “Data analytics for operational risk
management”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1316-1319.
Aslam, H., Khan, A.Q., Rashid, K. and Rehman, S.ur. (2020), “Achieving supply chain resilience: the
role of supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain agility”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1185-1204, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-07-2019-0263.
Bag, S., Wood, L.C., Xu, L., Dhamija, P. and Kayikci, Y. (2020), “Big data analytics as an operational
excellence approach to enhance sustainable supply chain performance”, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier, Vol. 153, October 2019, 104559.
Bahrami, M. and Shokouhyar, S. (2021), “The role of big data analytics capabilities in bolstering
supply chain resilience and firm performance: a dynamic capability view”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/itp-01-2021-0048.
Becker, A. (2020), “Asia’s textile industry hit hard by COVID-19 downturn”, available at: https://www.
dw.com/en/asias-textile-industry-hit-hard-by-covid-19-downturn/a-55345713.
Brusset, X. and Teller, C. (2017), “Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 184 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Burnard, K., Bhamra, R. and Tsinopoulos, C. (2018), “Building organizational resilience: four
configurations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 351-362.
Chae, B.K., Olson, D. and Sheu, C. (2014), “The impact of supply chain analytics on operational
performance: a resource-based view”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52
No. 16, pp. 4695-4710.
Chen, D.Q., Preston, D.S. and Swink, M. (2015), “How the use of big data analytics affects value
creation in supply chain management”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Routledge, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 4-39.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. vii-xvi.
Cohen, M.A. and Kouvelis, P. (2021), “Revisit of AAA excellence of global value chains: robustness,
resilience, and realignment”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 633-643.
Do, Q.N., Mishra, N., Wulandhari, N.B.I., Ramudhin, A., Sivarajah, U. and Milligan, G. (2021), “Supply
chain agility responding to unprecedented changes: empirical evidence from the UK food
supply chain during COVID-19 crisis”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 737-752.
Dohale, V., Ambilkar, P., Gunasekaran, A. and Verma, P. (2022), “Supply chain risk mitigation Supply chain
strategies during COVID-19: exploratory cases of ‘make-to-order’ handloom saree apparel
industries”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 52 analytics
No. 2, pp. 109-129.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Big data analytics capability in supply chain
agility: the moderating effect of organizational flexibility”, Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 8,
pp. 2092-2112, doi: 10.1108/MD-01-2018-0119.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D. and Foropon, C. (2021), 1349
“Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as
complements to supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Production Research,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 110-128.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Roubaud, D., Fosso Wamba, S., Giannakis, M. and Foropon,
C. (2019), “Big data analytics and organizational culture as complements to swift trust and
collaborative performance in the humanitarian supply chain”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 210, pp. 120-136.
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. 3028-3304.
El Baz, J. and Ruel, S. (2021), “Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption
impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a
COVID-19 outbreak era”, International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 233,
June, 107972.
Erol, O., Sauser, B.J. and Mansouri, M. (2010), “A framework for investigation into extended enterprise
resilience”, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 111-136.
Escamilla, R., Fransoo, J.C. and Tang, C.S. (2021), “Improving agility, adaptability, alignment,
accessibility, and affordability in nanostore supply chains”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 676-688.
Feizabadi, J., Maloni, M. and Gligor, D. (2019), “Benchmarking the triple-a supply chain: orchestrating
agility, adaptability, and alignment”, Benchmarking, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 271-295.
Feizabadi, J., Gligor, D.M. and Alibakhshi, S. (2021), “Examining the synergistic effect of supply chain
agility, adaptability and alignment: a complementarity perspective”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 514-531.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010), “The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a
contingency and configuration approach”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 58-71.
Frederico, G.F. (2021), “Towards a Supply Chain 4.0 on the post-COVID-19 pandemic: a conceptual
and strategic discussion for more resilient supply chains”, Rajagiri Management Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Frederico, G.F., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, A. and Agrawal, R. (2021), “Impact of I4.0
technologies and their interoperability on performance: future pathways for supply chain
resilience post-COVID-19”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. ahead-of-
print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/ijlm-03-2021-0181.
Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Holcomb, M. and Bozkurt, S. (2019), “Distinguishing between the concepts of
supply chain agility and resilience: a multidisciplinary literature review”, International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 467-487.
Gualandris, J. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2015), “Mitigating the effect of risk conditions on supply
disruptions: the role of manufacturing postponement enablers”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 637-653.
IJOEM Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S.F., Childe, S.J., Hazen, B. and Akter, S.
(2017), “Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance”,
18,6 Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, Vol. 70, pp. 308-317.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J., Risher, J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
1350
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Huma, S. and Ahmed, W. (2022), “Understanding influence of supply chain competencies when
developing Triple-A”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-
print, doi: 10.1108/bij-06-2021-0337.
Ivanov, D. (2020), “Viable supply chain model: integrating agility , resilience and sustainability
perspectives — lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic”, Annals of
Operations Research, Springer US. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6.
Ivanov, D. and Dolgui, A. (2020), “Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply
chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19
outbreak”, International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 58
No. 10, pp. 1-12.
Ivanov, D. and Dolgui, A. (2021), “A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and
resilience in the era of Industry 4 0”, Production Planning and Control, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 32
No. 9, pp. 775-788, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. and Sokolov, B. (2018), “Scheduling of recovery actions in the supply chain with
resilience analysis considerations”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 19,
pp. 6473-6490.
Jeble, S., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Roubaud, D. and Prakash, A. (2018), “Impact of big
data and predictive analytics capability on supply chain sustainability”, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 513-538.
uttner, U. and Maklan, S. (2011), “Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an
J€
empirical study”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 246-259.
Khan, S.A.R., Godil, D.I., Quddoos, M.U., Yu, Z., Akhtar, M.H. and Liang, Z. (2021b), “Investigating the
nexus between energy, economic growth, and environmental quality: a road map for the
sustainable development”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 835-846, doi: 10.1002/
sd.2178.
Khan, S.A.R., Godil, D.I., Yu, Z., Abbas, F. and Shamim, M.A. (2022c), “Adoption of renewable energy
sources, low-carbon initiatives, and advanced logistical infrastructure—an step toward
integrated global progress”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 275-288, doi: 10.1002/
sd.2243.
Khan, S.A.R., Razzaq, A., Yu, Z., Shah, A., Sharif, A. and Janjua, L. (2022b), “Disruption in food supply
chain and undernourishment challenges: an empirical study in the context of Asian countries”,
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 82, Part A, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101033.
Khan, S.A.R., Yu, Z., Sarwat, S., Godil, D.I., Amin, S. and Shujaat, S. (2022a), “The role of block chain
technology in circular economy practices to improve organisational performance”, International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 25 Nos 4-5, pp. 605-622, doi: 10.1080/
13675567.2021.1872512.
Khan, S.A.R., Yu, Z. and Sharif, A. (2021a), “No silver bullet for de-carbonization: preparing for
tomorrow, today”, Resources Policy, Vol. 71, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101942.
Lassen, N.B., Madsen, R. and Vatrapu, R. (2014), “Predicting iPhone sales from iPhone tweets”, Supply chain
Proceedings . IEEE 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference,
Vol. 2014, December, pp. 81-90. analytics
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-A supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-113.
Lee, H.L. (2021), “The new AAA supply chain”, Management and Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 173-176.
Majumdar, A., Shaw, M. and Sinha, S. (2020), “COVID-19 debunks the myth of socially sustainable 1351
supply chain: a case of the clothing industry in South Asian countries”, Sustainable Production
and Consumption, Vol. 24, pp. 150-155.
Manzoor, U., Baig, S.A., Hashim, M., Sami, A., Rehman, H.U. and Sajjad, I. (2021), “The effect of supply
chain agility and lean practices on operational performance: a resource-based view and
dynamic capabilities perspective”, TQM Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.
1108/TQM-01-2021-0006.
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, Emerald Group Holdings, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 976-994.
Muhammad, S., Ximei, K., Haq, Z.U., Ali, I. and Beutell, N. (2021), “COVID-19 pandemic, a blessing or a
curse for sales? A study of women entrepreneurs from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa community”,
Journal of Enterprising Communities, Emerald Group Holdings. doi: 10.1108/JEC-05-2021-0060/
FULL/HTML.
Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Altay, N., Childe, S.J. and Fosso-Wamba, S. (2016),
“The role of big data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 1108-1118, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.059.
Patrucco, A.S. and K€ahk€onen, A.K. (2021), “Agility, adaptability, and alignment: new capabilities for
PSM in a post-pandemic world”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 27 No. 4,
doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100719.
Paul, S.K. and Chowdhury, P. (2020), “Strategies for managing the impacts of disruptions during
COVID-19: an example of toilet paper”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer
India, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 283-293.
Piprani, A., Jaafar, N. and Mohezar, S.I. (2020a), “Exposure to different supply chain risks: what
matters the most to supply chain resilience and supply chain performance”, International
Journal of Innovation and Creativity, Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 217-239.
Piprani, A., Jaafar, N.I. and Mohezar, S. (2020b), “Prioritizing resilient capability factors of dealing with
supply chain disruptions: an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) application in the textile
industry”, Benchmarking, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 2537-2563.
Piprani, A.Z., Mohezar, S. and Jaafar, N.I. (2020c), “Supply chain integration and supply chain
performance: the mediating role of supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 58-73.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 539-569.
Queiroz, M.M., Fosso Wamba, S. and Branski, R.M. (2021), “Supply chain resilience during the COVID-
19: empirical evidence from an emerging economy”, Benchmarking, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0454.
Record, N., Kumthekar, N., Kohli, A. and Advisors, A. (2021), “The role of digital technology adoption
in coping with SC the role of digital technology adoption in coping with SC disruptions caused
by COVID-19 pandemic disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic the role of digital
technology adoption in coping with SC d”, available at: https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/
thinking-matters-symposium/2021/poster-sessions/35.
IJOEM R€onkk€o, M. and Ylitalo, J. (2011), “PLS marker variable approach to diagnosing and controlling for
method variance”, Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1-16.
18,6
Rozhkov, M., Ivanov, D., Blackhurst, J. and Nair, A. (2022), “Adapting supply chain operations in
anticipation of and during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Omega (United Kingdom), Elsevier,
Vol. 110, 102635.
Sabahi, S. and Parast, M.M. (2020), “Firm innovation and supply chain resilience: a dynamic capability
perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Taylor & Francis,
1352 Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 254-269.
Saleem, H., Li, Y., Ali, Z., Ayyoub, M., Wang, Y. and Mehreen, A. (2020), “Big data use and its
outcomes in supply chain context: the roles of information sharing and technological
innovation”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, August, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-03-
2020-0119.
Sanders, N.R. (2016), “How to use big data to drive your supply chain”, California Management
Review, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 26-48.
Sarkis, J. (2021), “Supply chain sustainability: learning from the COVID-19 pandemic”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2016), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Shafi, M., Liu, J. and Ren, W. (2020), “Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on micro, small, and medium-
sized enterprises operating in Pakistan”, Research in Globalization, Vol. 2, 100018.
Shafiq, A., Ahmed, M.U. and Mahmoodi, F. (2019), “Impact of supply chain analytics and customer
pressure for ethical conduct on socially responsible practices and performance: an exploratory
study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 225, 107571, doi: 10.
1016/j.ijpe.2019.107571.
Shahed, K.S., Azeem, A., Ali, S.M. and Moktadir, M.A. (2021), “A supply chain disruption risk
mitigation model to manage COVID-19 pandemic risk”, Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-
12289-4.
Shamout, M.D. (2019), “Does supply chain analytics enhance supply chain innovation and robustness
capability?”, Organizacija, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 95-106.
Shayaa, S., Jaafar, N.I., Bahri, S., Sulaiman, A., Wai, P.S., Chung, Y.W., Piprani, A.Z. and Al-Garadi,
M.A. (2018), “Sentiment analysis of big data: methods, applications, and open challenges”, IEEE
Access, IEEE, Vol. 6, pp. 37807-37827.
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J.M. and Chatla, S.B. (2016), “The elephant in the room:
predictive performance of PLS models”, Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, Vol. 69 No. 10,
pp. 4552-4564.
Shujaat, S. (2021), “Textile industry of Pakistan in the time of Covid-19”, Daily Times, available at:
https://dailytimes.com.pk/734742/textile-industry-of-pakistan-in-the-time-of-covid-19/.
Sivarajah, U., Kamal, M.M., Irani, Z. and Weerakkody, V. (2017), “Critical analysis of Big Data
challenges and analytical methods”, Journal of Business Research, The Authors, Vol. 70,
pp. 263-286.
Souza, G.C. (2014), “Supply chain analytics”, Business Horizons, Elsevier, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 595-605.
Spieske, A. and Birkel, H. (2021), “Improving supply chain resilience through Industry 4.01q
systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic”, Computers and
Industrial Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 158, June, 107452.
Srimarut, T. and Mekhum, W. (2020), “From supply chain connectivity (SCC) to supply chain agility
(SCA), adaptability and alignment: mediating role of big data analytics capability”,
International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 183-189.
Srinivasan, R. and Swink, M. (2018), “An investigation of visibility and flexibility as complements to Supply chain
supply chain analytics: an organizational information processing theory perspective”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 1849-1867. analytics
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2008), “Achieving supply chain agility through IT
integration and flexibility”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116 No. 2,
pp. 288-297.
Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Fosso Wamba, S. and Dhir, A. (2021), “Big Data in operations and supply chain
management: a systematic literature review and future research agenda”, International Journal 1353
of Production Research, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 59 No. 11, pp. 3509-3534.
Tasnim, Z. (2020), “Disruption in global food supply chain (FSCs) due to covid-19 pandemic and
impact of digitalization through block chain technology in FSCs management”, European
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 12 No. 17, pp. 73-84.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 28 No. 13,
pp. 1319-1350.
Tipu, S.A.A., Fantazy, K. and Kumar, V. (2019), “An empirical examination of the effects of the
attributes of supply chain openness on organizational performance”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 788-814.
Tukamuhabwa, B., Stevenson, M. and Busby, J. (2017), “Supply chain resilience in a developing
country context: a case study on the interconnectedness of threats, strategies and outcomes”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 486-505.
van Hoek, R. and Thomas, R. (2021), “Notes and debate paper: should merchandising and sourcing be
worlds apart? The opportunity for more integrated strategic sourcing research”, Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, 100659.
Waller, M.A. and Fawcett, S.E. (2013), “Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: a revolution
that will transform supply chain design and management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Wiley
Online Library, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 77-84.
Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Renfan, S.J., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2017), “Big data
analytics and firm performance: effects of dynamic capabilities”, Journal of Business Research,
Elsevier, Vol. 70, pp. 356-365.
Wamba, S.F., Akter, S. and de Bourmont, M. (2019), “Quality dominant logic in big data analytics and
firm performance”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 512-532.
Wamba, S.F., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Akter, S. (2020), “The performance effects of big data
analytics and supply chain ambidexterity: the moderating effect of environmental dynamism”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 222, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.
09.019.
Whitten, G.D., Green, K.W. 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, C.M. (2012), “Dealing with supply chain risks linking risk management
practices and strategies to performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 887-905.
Yasmin, M., Tatoglu, E., Kilic, H.S., Zaim, S. and Delen, D. (2020), “Big data analytics capabilities and
firm performance: an integrated MCDM approach”, Journal of Business Research, Elsevier,
Vol. 114, March, pp. 1-15.
Yu, Z., Khan, S.A.R. and Umar, M. (2022a), “Circular economy practices and Industry 4.0 technologies:
a strategic move of automobile industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 796-809, doi: 10.1002/bse.2918.
Yu, Z., Khan, S.A.R., Ponce, P., Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2022b), “Factors affecting
carbon emissions in emerging economies in the context of a green recovery: implications for
IJOEM sustainable development goals”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 176, doi: 10.
1016/j.techfore.2021.121417.
18,6
Zhu, S., Song, J., Hazen, B.T., Lee, K. and Cegielski, C. (2018), “How supply chain analytics enables
operational supply chain transparency: an organizational information processing theory
perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 47-68.

1354
Corresponding author
Syed Abdul Rehman Khan can be contacted at: sarehman_cscp@yahoo.com

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