Journal of Business Logistics, 2011, 32(4): 374–391 Ó Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

An Empirically Derived Framework of Global Supply Resiliency
Jennifer Blackhurst1, Kaitlin S. Dunn2, and Christopher W. Craighead2
1 2

Iowa State University The Pennsylvania State University

I

n today’s global business environment, supply chains have increased in both length and complexity. This increase in length and complexity coupled with a focus on improving efficiency, such as lean manufacturing practices, may lead to higher levels of supply chain risk where the likelihood of a disruption severely impacting supply chain performance increases. Resilient supply chains have been touted as a means to reduce the likelihood and severity of supply chain disruptions. However, there is little empirical evidence relative to the factors that contribute to or detract from supply resiliency. Using systems theory and the resource-based view of the firm as the theoretical underpinnings, this study provides an in-depth systematic investigation of supply resiliency. Adopting a theory-building approach based on a multi-industry empirical investigation, this study derives empirical generalizations linking 19 supply chain characteristics to supply resiliency. The study culminates in a framework that could be used to assess the level of resiliency in a supply base. Building on this framework, the study also provides a supply resiliency matrix that can be utilized to classify supply chains, or supply chains segments according to the level of resiliency realized. This article concludes by proposing several future research directions and issues that may be investigated in more detail. Keywords: supply chain management; supply resiliency; supply risk; supply disruptions; systems theory; resource-based view of the firm

INTRODUCTION In today’s global business environment, supply chains have increased in both length and complexity (Blackhurst et al. 2005). This increase in length and complexity coupled with a focus on improving efficiency, such as lean manufacturing practices, may lead to higher levels of supply chain risk where the likelihood of a disruption (defined as events that interrupt the regular flow of goods or services within a system—cf. Svensson 2000; Kleindorfer and Saad 2005; Craighead et al. 2007) severely impacting supply chain performance increases (Chopra and Sodhi 2004; Zsidisin et al. 2005b; Wagner and Bode 2008). Recently, interest in supply chain disruptions has increased as disruptions have been shown to culminate in negative consequences to a firm’s operations and performance. These negative consequences can have immediate detrimental impact as well as longer term effects on the firm. Ericsson, for example, reported a $400 million loss when it did not receive chip deliveries from a Philips plant due to a 10-min fire (Latour 2001). A survey by Rice and Caniato (2003) estimate the daily cost of a supply chain disruption to be anywhere from $50 to $100 million. The negative impact of disruptions often extends beyond short-term losses. Publicly traded firms experience significant decreases in shareholder value after announcing a disruption in their supply chain (Knight and Pretty 1998, 2003; Hendricks and Singhal 2003, 2005a,b). Although firms cannot completely eliminate the probability of disruptions within their supply network (Blackhurst et al. 2005; Zsidisin et al. 2005a), scholars have
Corresponding author: Jennifer Blackhurst, Supply Chain and Information Systems Department, College of Business, Iowa State University, 3131 Gerdin Business Building, Ames, IA 50011, USA; E-mail: jvblackh@iastate.edu

explored various actions that can be taken to reduce vulnerability to risks and the likelihood of disruptions (e.g., Norrman and Jansson 2004; Craighead et al. 2007; Deane et al. 2009). Companies, for example, can build resilience in their supply networks, which enhances a firm’s ability to absorb disruptions or enables the supply network to return to stable conditions faster and thus has a positive impact on firm performance (Sheffi and Rice 2005). Sheffi and Rice (2005) contend that building a resilient supply chain should be a strategic initiative because the flow of goods through a supply network is vital to a firm’s existence. Likewise, Zsidisin et al. (2005a) note that a firm’s ability to survive after a disruption is directly related to the level of resiliency within their supply chain. In fact, a number of supply chain risk researchers note the importance of increasing resiliency within a supply chain (e.g., Zsidisin and Ellram 2003; Zsidisin et al. 2004). In this article, we specifically define supply chain resilience as a firm’s ability to recover from disruptive events (Rice and Caniato 2003; Sheffi and Rice 2005). Extant research in the area of supply chain disruptions and the selection of strategies that help firms build a resilient supply chain is informative. For example, Manuj and Mentzer (2008a) provide an important and foundational step in shedding insight into how firms can begin to develop effective supply chain risk management strategies. Manuj and Mentzer (2008a) propose the temporal focus on the firm, level of flexibility in the supply chain, and supply chain environment (demand and supply side risks) affect the selection of a mitigation strategy and are moderated by the composition of the risk management team. Risk management strategies are broken down into six broad categories and the authors note that managers need to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy and when they are appropriate. While research progress has been made, more attention is needed to more fully develop our understanding of disruptions and resilience. Research gaps have been noted

2002. state that it is critical for firms to enhance the resiliency in their supply chains and call for research that investigates specific tactics that help firms develop such capabilities. Our study intends to provide an in-depth systematic investigation of supply resiliency by employing a multi-industry empirical investigation of supply disruptions and corresponding supply design characteristics that enhance (resiliency enhancers) or take away from (resiliency reducers) supply resiliency. As the body of knowledge relative to supply resiliency is still in its infancy and findings are fragmented across the literature. These disruptions. Blackhurst et al. Zsidisin and Ellram 2003. we use systems theory (Bertalanffy 1951) as a broad framework to organize supply chain characteristics that detract from resiliency (reducers) and the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Barney 1991) as a means to frame our findings relative to organizational mitigation capabilities that increase resiliency (enhancers). to extreme weather conditions that result in power outages or transportation issues. Dill 1958). As open systems.e.e. Skipper et al. We adopt Sheffi and Rice’s (2005) view of a resilient firm where vulnerability to a disruption is decreased through specific mechanisms that impact resiliency. we believe our research contributes to a solid foundation to further the maturation of the supply resilience body of knowledge. From our findings. While disruptions may occur within upstream and downstream portions of the supply chain. 132). Frankel et al. a firm’s resiliency reducers have the opposite effect and are defined as: attributes that decrease a firm’s ability to quickly and efficiently recover from a disruptive event. Specifically.Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 375 by several researchers. Manuj and Mentzer 2008b. organizations rely on a steady flow of inputs that originate and are extracted from sources in the environment to sustain their operations (Deeter-Schmelz 1997. This ideal state of the system is altered when unexpected events (i. In this article. 2005. inputs flow from the environment (i. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION Since our study is exploratory in nature with the intent of developing. Elkins et al. this study is designed to be exploratory in nature. supplier) to the focal firm as scheduled and in a desired quantity and quality thus contributing to negentropy. we derive several empirical generalizations (Handfield and Melnyk 1998) that culminate in a supply resiliency framework. In a manufacturing supply chain. we used two theoretical bases to guide and frame our research (Eisenhardt 1989). although organizations interchange with their environment (i. Other scholars recognize the large amount of work that remains to be done in regards to supply chain disruptions and specific strategies to help firms increase the resiliency within their supply networks (Hallikas et al. 2008. can be anything from a truck breaking down or a supplier’s workforce going on strike. We recognize there are various types of organizational environments. receive materials from upstream suppliers and deliver products to downstream customers). Conversely. we limit our investigation to the supply side. Hendricks and Singhal 2003. Zsidisin and Ellram 2003. 1992). This gap in the literature. Disruptions. Hendricks et al. Locke 1996.g. Hendricks et al. While our empirical generalizations and framework certainly need to be thoroughly examined in future research. theory (Handfield and Melnyk 1998). for example. which offers both research and managerial implications.. 2008). Zsidisin and Ellram 2003).. In essence. systems theory is an intuitive and widely used theoretical base in supply chain literature (cf. as opposed to testing.. 2007. whereas semifinished products may be considered inputs farther downstream. provides the motivation for this research. As supply chains are composed of nodes that are interconnected by the physical flow of materials (Towill et al. which illustrates the systems theory concept of negentropy—organizational self maintenance due to the presence of environmental inputs (Bertalanffy 1956). which we define as ‘‘unplanned and unanticipated events that disrupt the normal flow of goods and materials within a supply chain’’ (Craighead et al. for example. disruptions) interrupt the normal flow of goods (Svensson 2000. Kleindorfer and Saad 2005). which views the supply side of the chain as a source of environmental inputs (cf. (2008) note the lack of rigorous empirical evidence that examines which strategies reduce the probability and severity of disruptions. Ideally. A firm’s resiliency enhancers are defined as: attributes that increase a firm’s ability to quickly and efficiently recover from a disruptive event. namely the lack of understanding in how to help firms develop strategies to improve their resilience to supply chain disruptions. 2008) we did not rely solely on the current body of knowledge as this could result in missing important elements of supply resiliency that have not yet been identified. the objective of this research was to move toward a holistic view of supply resiliency that is grounded in practice and thus qualitative methods were deemed as appropriate (Eisenhardt 1989. for example. Systems theory Organizations are systems (Bertalanffy 1951) that are open and therefore are influenced by and interact with the external environment (Katz and Kahn 1978). we refer to the task environment. This work answers the calls for empirical research that investigates specific strategies to enhance supply resilience. Strauss and Corbin 1998). the necessary inputs from the environment will vary depending on the industry and a firm’s position in the supply network. Braunscheidel and Suresh 2009).. manifest themselves in various forms. We briefly discuss these two theoretical bases in light of supply disruptions and resiliency. Hendricks and Singhal (2005b). Yin 1994. As open systems. our research focuses on the supply side of the chain.e. . The impact of disruptions on a system varies depending on the level of resiliency within the supply chain. (2008) suggest working closely with companies to produce case studies that capture specific characteristics of supply chain disruptions to shed light on the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies. As a reminder. raw materials may be considered inputs upstream. While this study builds upon the foundational work of Manuj and Mentzer (2008a) and others (e.

Yin 1994. organizations may be able to lessen the disruption severity via mitigation capabilities (e. Barney 1991) to frame the mitigation capabilities. In this scenario. which are associated with activities (e. divide the speed of risk into three unique categories: (1) the rate of the event that leads in loss. We incorporate the concepts of systems theory coupled with the structure of a supply chain (entities such as suppliers. grow. In other words. and may be combined to create capabilities that determine how firms react to various internal and external threats and opportunities (Wernerfelt 1984. RBV. like systems theory. it is important to note that some resources may be more difficult and slower to be realized than others as firms strive to build resiliency. 2004. Resource-based view Although supply chain disruptions are inevitable. Human Capital Resources.. Resources.g. 3.376 J. A firm. The resiliency of a supply chain and the recovery time from a disruption should be inversely related. Byrd et al. A supply chain’s resiliency lies on a continuum and thus a supply network can be classified as being more or less resilient. Blackhurst et al. 1997) and can quickly change the rate at which they commit investments (money and time) to obtain additional resources (Dierickx and Cool 1989).. for example. 2. has been a widely utilized theoretical base in supply chain research (cf. transportation) related to the extraction of inputs from the environment (Buckley 1967). 1997). subassemblies. This view is consistent with other researchers. 514) state that resources ⁄ capabilities are ‘‘sticky’’ in that ‘‘firms are. Flow units. Barney (1991) contends that each resource category alone is not sufficient to create unique capabilities. More importantly. Craighead et al. which are the units (e. 2. the supply chain is vulnerable to disruptive events. as the resiliency of a supply chain increases the total recovery time decreases. which are intangible assets of the firm such as the planning. or right after. we recognize that firms are heterogeneous relative to their resource endowments (Teece et al. Flows. Gibbert et al. The case research methodology was chosen because it is particularly well suited for conducting research . Teece et al. For our research purposes. Esper et al. (2) the METHODOLOGY This study employed case research methodology (Eisenhardt 1989).g. which are intangible assets of the firm such as management training. Manuj and Mentzer 2008a). we view these capabilities. suppliers) (Tomer 1987). Physical Capital Resources. For example. Ellram 1996. and coordinating of systems or the relationships between the focal firm and firms within the environment (e. which may be defined as complex interactions and coordination of people and other resources (Grant 1991). Conversely. which are tangible assets of the firm such as physical technology. Therefore. Although we use the three above categories to frame our findings relative to resiliency enhancers. Organizational and Interorganizational Capital Resources. finished products. controlling. technology) or intangible (e. which is the supply node in the environment where the inputs (i. manufacturers. to some degree. 3..e. 2007) and thus enhance the resiliency of their supply chain. research has purported that the impact of a disruption is moderated when firms implement mitigation tactics before... human capital resources are used in conjunction with organizational and interorganizational capital resources. 2008). and inventory (Williamson 1975).e. equipment. Therefore. but then rely on a highly trained manager to select and execute the mitigation strategy. firms can close resource gaps (Grant 1991) particularly in the longer run (Teece et al. 2008). education. stuck with what they have and may have to live with what they lack. which may be tangible (e. The RBV of the firm regards the firm as a collection of resources and capabilities that may culminate in enhanced performance (Wernerfelt 1984). A vulnerable (i. Manuj and Mentzer (2008a). interaction and coordination of all three resource categories are necessary to create effective mitigation tactics. the more time a disruption has to propagate. We use the RBV of the firm (Wernerfelt 1984. Certain supply design characteristics may impact supply resiliency.g. flow units) originated (Scott and Davis 2003).’’ Notwithstanding this issue. Barney 1991). as the mechanism to mitigate the potential impact of a disruption and thus enhance supply resiliency. We use these categories to frame our results relative to supply resiliency enhancers: 1. (1997. a disruption occurs. resilient supply chains have the ability to absorb or avoid disruptions entirely (Sheffi and Rice 2005). and experience (Becker 1964). Implementing mitigation strategies on a timely basis after a disruption is discovered can significantly reduce the overall impact (Craighead et al. when firms discover resource gaps that need to be filled (Grant 1991) they may be somewhat limited relative to the speed at which the overall resource endowment may be altered. and negatively impact firm performance. and (3) the rate at which the risk event is discovered. rate losses occurs. 2007.g. However. knowledge). less resilient) supply chain’s operation is volatile because it does not possess the capabilities to continue operating when disruptions occur (Sheffi and Rice 2005).. The longer it takes for a firm to execute mitigation strategies. which is a rigorous and well-established research method (Eisenhardt 1989. and warehouses connected by flows of materials) to develop a framework for our findings relative to supply resiliency reducers: 1. Source. service parts) that are extracted from the environment and are inputs to the focal firm (Bertalanffy 1950). Mentzer et al. Barney (1991) describes three categories of resources that may be used to create capabilities..g. 2007.. raw materials. that routinely shares information among supply chain members may discover that a disruption has occurred.g.

we obtained insights from a major automobile original equipment manufacturer. Triangulation. Consistent with other case-based research. Voss et al. The interviews were scheduled in intervals that enabled us to discuss the findings and refine the interview protocol between sessions. and disruption recovery tactics used Distribution center East Cost of United States . As noted in Voss et al. which is common practice in case-based research while crafting instruments and protocols (Eisenhardt 1989. and Wu and Choi (2005). mitigation strategies employed. In the first phase. (2007). we performed an in-depth investigation of a U. (2010). (2007). Similar to the interviews conducted in Closs et al. mitigation strategies employed. key informants from the automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as AutoMfg) were carefully selected from various positions within the firm to provide a holistic perspective of the firm’s operations in light of disruptions and resiliency. consistent with traditional case-based research guidelines. 2008) and facilitates conceptual framework development by using data gathered through interactions with key informants (Mahapatra et al. and a key warehouse ⁄ distribution center involved in global product flow. Mahapatra et al.-based automobile manufacturer (Table 1). and disruption recovery tactics used Product flow from supplier’s facility to AutoMfg Supply chain disruption management strategies Supply chain design characteristics that amplify or increase the impact of a disruption.Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 377 in areas with little preexisting theory (Meredith 1998. and disruption recovery tactics used Risk identification ⁄ assessment and classification Supply chain risk and disruption management strategies Supply chain risk management capabilities and activities International procurement and logistics process ⁄ flows First-tier supplier China Supply chain design characteristics that amplify or increase the impact of a disruption. The final set of questions used to guide the interviews is shown in Appendix A. Data for this study were gathered in two distinct phases that used multiple data sources and data collection methods. we adhered to guidelines and protocols described in Yin (1994) and Eisenhardt (1989) and followed qualitative data analysis procedures outlined in Miles and Huberman (1994). 2002). Specifically. (2002).S. mitigation strategies employed. 2002. Esper et al. We collected the majority of data on a multiday visit to AutoMfg’s facility. such as Ellram and Siferd (1998). and content Position in supply chain AutoMfg focal entity Data source ⁄ method Key informants: Semistructured interviews: Lasted 45–90 min Conducted by face-to-face or by telephone with seven executives Archival records: Presentations by: Operations Manager Risk Analyst Two Purchasing Engineers Key informants: Semistructured interviews with Account Manager for AutoMfg Conducted by face-to-face or by telephone Archival records: Presentations by: Account Manager from AutoMfg Key informants: Semistructured interviews with Account Manager for AutoMfg Conducted by face-to-face or by telephone Archival records: Presentations by: Account Manager from AutoMfg Key informant: Written response to interview questions from the International Receiving Manager (Note: The manager requested to submit written responses instead of an interview) Data content Supply chain design characteristics that amplify or increase the impact of a disruption. which is the use of multiple data sources to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the Table 1: Automobile manufacturer (AutoMfg) case study—data source. rather than breadth. (2002) limiting the number of cases allows scholars to achieve depth. Stuart et al. and disruption recovery tactics used First-tier supplier South Korea Product flow from supplier’s facility to AutoMfg Supply chain disruption management strategies Supply chain design characteristics that amplify or increase the impact of a disruption. Gibbert et al. method. 2010). it is extremely important to seek key informants who are knowledgeable about the phenomenon being investigated. (2008). Thus. each interview lasted between 45 and 90 min. As discussed in Voss et al. mitigation strategies employed. which was our primary objective of this phase. two of its overseas first-tier suppliers. and Wu and Choi (2005). Esper et al. of knowledge.

In fact. In case study research. The presentations addressed important aspects of AutoMfg’s global procurement process and comprehensive risk management program.g. All interactions with AutoMfg’s two first-tier suppliers took place at AutoMfg’s facility and were conducted in English. Director of Global Distribution. The second phase of this study consisted of semistructured telephone interviews with executives at six firms in various industries (Table 2). Theoretical sampling is commonly used in case study research and is consistent with several case-based research studies. (2002) by having two of the researchers involved in each interview and presentation. The recordings were used to clarify and validate the data when necessary.378 J. Choi and Hong 2002. More specifically. participated in each interview. including a single case (Boyer et al. for example. we extended great efforts to facilitate the triangulation process. 538). Finally. After reaching the point of theoretical saturation with AutoMfg’s key informants. Stuart et al. Voss et al. Yin 1994). Smaros 2007) and is often considered to be a major strength of this research strategy (Yin 1994. Blackhurst et al. (2008). subsequently transcribed their notes. is a key component of case research (McCutcheon and Meredith 1993. Bourgeois and Eisenhardt 1988. Gibbert et al. these presentations were interactive in nature and thus allowed us to probe for critical insights into the research questions initially identified. Once again. procurement. We were able to interact with the informants during their presentations. First. Ellram 1996). having multiple investigators enables convergence of observations and thus ‘‘enhances confidence in the findings’’ (Eisenhardt 1989. we were able to obtain various perspectives on the interview questions. which enabled us to probe beyond the surface to obtain rich and more in-depth information. Triangulation is commonly used to help establish construct validity in case study research (e. Voss et al. First. 2008). One supplier was based in Korea and the other supplier was based in China. Once all phone interviews were complete. As suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) and McCutcheon and Meredith (1993). 2002).g. triangulation helps overcome potential discrepancies or limitations in the data by combining multiple forms of data that measure the same phenomenon (Yin 1994. Ellram 1996. which were guided by the same set of questions that were employed during the interviews with AutoMfg’s key informants. and discussed the findings via phone after every session (Bourgeois and Eisenhardt 1988. 2002). Ellram and Siferd 1998. we then gathered data from two of their first-tier suppliers. By selecting firms from different industry sectors that occupied a variety of positions along a supply chain. The presentations ranged from overviews of the global procurement and logistics processes ⁄ flows to risk management capabilities and activities. the interviews were scheduled in a manner that allowed us to debrief and refine the interview protocol between sessions (Eisenhardt 1989. Wu and Choi 2005. we reviewed the data and refined our notes. but rather that the researcher continues collecting and analyzing data until they reach theoretical saturation (Eisenhardt 1989). which enabled us to integrate the findings from each source in a comprehensive manner. 2002. which is when collecting additional data yields no new insights (Eisenhardt 1989). Second. . We also had several conference calls with key personnel at AutoMfg both before and after the on-site visit to clarify and confirm information. theoretical sampling was employed to strategically select firms with an assorted collection of product flow and supply chain design characteristics. we adhered to guidelines outlined by Eisenhardt (1989) and Voss et al. 2008). Stuart et al. we participated in presentations made by key personnel. The use of data triangulation significantly increases the reliability and rigor of the research findings (McCutcheon and Meredith 1993. Every session was recorded with a digital voice recorder (Bourgeois and Eisenhardt 1988. After the on-site data collection process. Voss et al. operations. we conducted semistructured interview sessions with personnel in a variety of functional areas such as logistics. Two researchers. and Wu and Choi (2005). Both first-tier suppliers also made presentations relative to the flow of products and disruptions ⁄ risk management. The interview questions and data collection procedures employed in phase 1 were also used in this phase.. During this phase of the research. Manrodt and Vitasek 2004. having two researchers involved in the data collection process is advantageous for several reasons. Again. Meredith 1998. of knowledge. Finally. they responded to the interview questions in written format. complementary insights can be captured. All executives interviewed were responsible for managing their firm’s product flow from various overseas suppliers and held titles. however. We followed the ‘‘24-hr rule’’ recommended by Yin (1994) and utilized by Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) that requires all notes relating to interviews and presentations be transcribed within one day of the data collection. We were unable to conduct interviews with key informants at the distribution center. Closs et al. such as Senior Manager of Import Operations. and risk management. and Chief Operating Officer. we stopped collecting data. 2002). including Choi and Hong (2002). Gibbert et al. however. we were able to examine archival records and directly observe risk mechanisms that AutoMfg utilized. 538). Consistent with other case study research (e. The suppliers were responsible for providing items in different procurement categories and were based in separate countries. When we reached the point of theoretical saturation (Eisenhardt 1989). Eisenhardt 1989. 2002).. Yin 1994. Key informants from each of the first-tier suppliers participated in semistructured interviews. rather than depth. Eisenhardt 1989). Yin 1994. we obtained insights from a key warehouse ⁄ distribution center located on the East Coast of the United States. As noted by Eisenhardt (1989) and Miles and Huberman (1994). 2002). Bourgeois and Eisenhardt 1988). it is not the number of cases that is important. Second. which increases the ‘‘creative potential of the study’’ (Eisenhardt 1989. These debriefings were conducted within a 12-hr period following the interview and thus adhered to the ‘‘24-hr rule’’ (Bourgeois and Eisenhardt 1988. Although there is no exact number of cases that should be included in a study. phenomenon under investigation (Ellram 1996. we met face-to-face to organize and analyze the data to identify key findings within and across each interview (Jick 1979. generally 4–10 cases are ideal (Eisenhardt 1989). The primary objective of this phase was to obtain breadth. rigorous case-based research has been conducted with a wide variety of cases.

We considered using qualitative software analysis programs.000+ stores in the United States Workforce consists of 25. we followed guidelines put forth by Miles and Huberman (1994) to develop a deeper and more holistic understanding of the data. observations. Australia). Wu and Choi 2005. VERBI GmbH.g.-based retailer with 1. such as NUD. six cases (Closs et al. executives.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.000+ employees Provides distribution. warehousing. high costs U. for example. Step 2 consisted of pattern coding to reduce the data by grouping similar codes and descriptions. Although a distinct form of qualitative research. small size. 2002). Berlin.S.S. The coding process plays an instrumental role in qualitative data analysis and thus. Alternatively. 2008). Smaros 2007). 2007).000+ employees with manufacturing facilities in Ireland. and vaccines Workforce consists of 100. assists researchers in developing data categories and visualizing relationships between categories (Lewins and Silver 2004). Closs et al. to facilitate the coding process.200+ stores in the United States Imports 24% of merchandise from 60+ countries Experiences large seasonal demand fluctuations Large discount retailer with 2. for example. Furthermore. Esper et al..IST (QSR International Pty Ltd. Yin 1994. and 11 cases (Ellram and Siferd 1998). which is widely used in case study research (e. and company profiles Informant’s corporate title Director of Global Distribution Firm PharMfg (pharmaceutical manufacturer) Company profile International pharmaceutical company that manufactures prescription medication. Step 3 consisted of arranging findings into empirical generalizations that explain why certain supply chain characteristics contribute or take away from supply resiliency. Strauss Retailer1 Senior Manager. consumer health products. and supply chain management consulting ⁄ assistance services International end-to-end logistics provider who operates in 214 counties Provides wide range of services from single package shipments to third-party logistic solutions theory-building software. Melbourne. freight forwarding. 2008). Import Operations Retailer2 Chief Logistics Officer Retailer3 LogProvider 1 (logistics provider 1) Vice President. Atlas. and the United Kingdom Government agencies heavily regulate supply chain Vertically integrated supply chain Supply chain security a major issue Product: Long development times. Germany). There are numerous types of qualitative software packages available depending on the primary objective of the research (Lewins and Silver 2004). International Supply Chain Chief Operating Officer LogProvider 2 (logistics provider 2) Manager of Latin American Operations Manrodt and Vitasek 2004. four cases (Bourgeois and Eisenhardt 1988. come from similar sources. Step 1 consisted of first-level coding to summarize and describe the data. three cases (Choi and Hong 2002. Germany). Grutter et al. The data collected from both phases were analyzed according to a three-step process outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994). in order to preserve to context surrounding the quotes and remain connected to the data.000+ employees Imports 50% of merchandise from overseas. and archival records (Eisenhardt 1989. majority (80%) of imports come from China U. such as interviews.500+ stores in the United States Imports 10% of merchandise from 35 counties. eight cases (Wu and Choi 2005).Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 379 Table 2: Phase 2 interview participants—firms. Code-based . Singapore. Berlin. To ensure our understanding of the data was not restricted by a particular software program. more text-based qualitative software packages provide insight into natural language processing and focus more on grammatical and semantic information embedded in both unstructured and structured text (Lewins and Silver 2004). qualitative software packages may require a high degree of familiarization and are unable to incorporate aspects of the surrounding context in the analysis of the data (Bezborodova and Bennett 2004). Data for case studies and grounded theory. we choose to code the data according to guidelines outlined in Miles and Huberman (1994). The coding criteria employed in step 2 are listed in Appendix B. and MAXQDA (2010 version.ti (Atlas.-based mass merchandise retailer with 1. the case study method shares certain similarities with grounded theory. majority (80%) of imports come from the Asia basin International logistics provider with 300+ warehouse and office locations Workforce consists of 10.

Similarly. etc. for example. These factors involved the knowledge and training of employees. Obtaining a holistic understanding of how costs are related will enable managers to systematically combine financial resources and thus be able to more effectively manage supply chain disruptions. understanding the total cost of supply chain management. When a disruption occurs. Managers. The proper education and training of supply chain managers equips them with the necessary skills to know when it is appropriate to take action. which was employed in this research. it is believed that researchers can gain deeper insights into the data by allowing a priori theory to help guide the data collection and analysis (Locke 1996. The last three sets of empirical generalizations are related to factors that amplify the impact of a disruption and thus take away from supply resiliency. RESULTS The results of the analysis yielded six sets of empirical generalizations in two major areas. or implementing employee overtime. Empirical generalization 1a: Supply chain education and training are positively related to supply resiliency. With this approach to grounded theory.380 J. we refer to these as supply resiliency reducers. discussed how supply chains are extremely complex systems and thus managers must be ‘‘fluent’’ in all aspects of the supply chain. The most effective action considering a variety of factors (i. Yin 1994). and physical capital resources (Williamson 1975). resources available. AutoMfg specifically noted that supply chain managers must understand cost ⁄ benefit trade-offs in order to effectively handle supply chain disruptions. The latter approach to grounded theory is more structured and shares numerous similarities with the case study method. lessons should be captured and disseminated throughout the supply chain. AutoMfg. for example. This allows the research findings to be compared with extant literature to provide a deeper and more holistic understanding (Eisenhardt 1989). the phenomenon under investigation completely shapes the theorizing process (Glaser and Strauss 1967. In today’s economy. for instance. organizational and interorganizational capital resources (Tomer 1987) can also . which has also been highlighted in the literature (e. On the other end of the continuum. Locke 1996). Manuj and Mentzer 2008b). The action performed may be communicating with firms in other areas of the supply chain. researchers collect and analyze data without any a priori assumptions (Glaser and Strauss 1967.) is determined by managers employing knowledge acquired through training and drawing on their past experiences. As a reminder. Education and training of supply chain employees was identified by six of the seven firms as playing a major role in increasing supply resiliency. Human capital resources The data analysis culminated in an assortment of human capital factors (Becker 1964) that can increase supply resiliency. the type of disruption. When presenting the results we enfold literature (Eisenhardt 1989) into the discussion when appropriate. and Corbin 1998). We divided these resiliency enhancers into three main categories including human capital resources (Becker 1964). Blackhurst et al. which is consistent with the RBV of the firm (Barney 1991). Empirical generalization 1c: Postdisruption feedback is positively related to supply resiliency. Locke 1996). Empirical generalization 1b: Understanding cost ⁄ benefit trade-offs are positively related to supply resiliency. Glaser 1992. While the primary objective of grounded theory is to develop theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967. we refer to these as supply resiliency enhancers. Although holding excess inventory is a commonly used approach to guard against disruptions (Ho 1992).e.. Meepetchdee and Shah 2007. Again. should ask themselves was communication effective throughout the supply chain and what mitigation strategies were employed? Conversely. there is certainly a hefty cost associated with this mitigation strategy. The grounded theory approach to qualitative research can be seen as lying on a continuum.. characteristics of the supply chain. organizational and interorganizational capital resources (Tomer 1987). Glaser 1992. Retailer2 stated that educated employees are ‘‘key’’ for effectively managing supply chain disruptions. supply chain managers have limited resources and thus must carefully decide how and where to allocate them (Chopra and Sodhi 2004). LogProvider1. Hale and Moberg 2005. When a disruption is handled successfully.g. Firms that learn from postdisruption feedback are generally better equipped to handle future supply chain disruptions. locating inventory throughout the supply chain. Strauss and Corbin 1998). Four of the seven firms noted the importance of employees having a comprehensive understanding of cost ⁄ benefit trade-offs when managing risks in a supply chain. Corbin and Strauss 2008). The first three sets of empirical generalizations are related to factors that reduce the impact of a disruption and thus contribute to supply resiliency. Organizational and interorganizational capital resources In addition to human capital resources. trained and experienced managers will probably stabilize the supply chain more quickly than managers without training and experience. for example. On one end. Resiliency enhancers Analysis of the data revealed a variety of factors that can enhance supply resiliency (Table 3). attempted to buffer against shipments not arriving on time by holding six weeks of inventory for all globally sourced parts. firms should probe beyond the surface to understand how and why it was handled in a successful manner. and the ability to conduct an effective postdisruption analysis. when a disruption is handled in a suboptimal manner. Postdisruption analysis was identified by four of the firms as a primary factor in enhancing supply resiliency. Hence: EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION 1: Human capital enhancers are positively related to supply resiliency. case studies can also be employed to generate theory (Eisenhardt 1989. Miemczky and Holweg 2004.

Six of the seven firms stressed the need to have communication protocols predefined so when a disruption occurs managers are cognizant of who to contact and how to com- municate (i. pharmaceutical manufacturer. AutoMfg.. email. such as interactions between groups within the firm and relationships between the focal firm and other firms within the supply chain. Having well-defined communication channels eliminates confusion and can help prevent costly delays in deploying mitigation tactics as information is quickly and efficiently distributed (Fugate et al. predefined contingency plans. 2009). automobile manufacturer. cross-functional risk management teams. such as suppliers (Barney 1991). logistics provider 2. for example. logistics provider 1. LogProvider 1. Risk management teams that are crossfunctional in nature are able to optimize the entire supply chain rather than small portions of the supply chain and thus eliminate potential bottlenecks in the system. fax). cross-functional risk management teams were identified by six firms as playing a large role in enhancing supply resilience.e.. discussed the importance of well-defined communication protocols. These factors center on intangible assets. phone. firm) in the supply chain Ability to quickly redesign the supply chain X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Note: PharMfg.e. AutoMfg. increase supply resiliency. Organizational and interorganizational capital resources revealed during the data analysis include well-defined communication networks. partnering with customs programs and creating port diversification plans. Crossfunctional risk management teams also help avoid a ‘‘silo . LogProvider 2. Likewise. and developing supplier relationship management programs.Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 381 Table 3: Supply resiliency enhancers: coding Supply resiliency enhancers PharMfg AutoMfg X Retailer1 X Retailer2 X Retailer3 X LogProvider1 X LogProvider2 X Human capital resources Education and training of employees to execute supply chain contingency plans Employee’s understanding of cost ⁄ benefit trade-offs when managing risk in a supply chain Ability to perform postdisruption analysis Organizational and interorganizational capital resources Defined communication protocols Cross-functional supply chain risk management teams Predefined and ⁄ or self-executing contingency plans Partnering with customs programs (such as C-TPAT) and ⁄ or developing port diversification plans Developing supplier relationship management programs Physical capital resources Use of safety stock Increased visibility in the supply chain Exception reporting systems and predictive tools for early awareness of impending disruptions Risk monitoring systems for each node (i.

Five of the seven firms discussed the value of developing and practicing contingency plans in anticipation of a disruption as means to help reduce response time. ports. trade contracts. Empirical generalization 2b: Cross-functional risk management teams are positively related to supply resiliency. firms). noted that a ‘‘real-time. When discussing sources of risk in a supply chain. Empirical generalization 2d: Partnering with customs programs and developing port diversification plans are positively related to supply resiliency. One manager stated: …Making a sale has always been more important than the amount of inventory you hold because of the margins we work with. for example. end-to-end supply chain wide monitoring system’’ would be particularly valuable in helping them manage their supply chains. bility to quickly redesign the supply chain when disruptions occur. The margins are so huge that every sale adds dollars to the bottom line. Retailer3. Several firms also mentioned self-executing plans. Understanding these factors can help firms manage disruptions more effectively because they know how the supply chain is designed. Implementing control limits or exception reporting (i. and how disruptions propagate throughout the supply chain. Blackhurst et al. AutoMfg stated their suppliers are their ‘‘number one worry.e. Retailer2 monitors their supply chain and attempts to predict disruptions by closely following issues. Conversely. and regulatory changes. and where inventory is located. As a means to avoid stringent customs policies and to help diversify risk in case of port closure or congestion.382 J. Pharmaceutical manufacturer (PharMfg) noted that they rely heavily on safety stock to reduce the likelihood of lost sales due to stock outs. Empirical generalization 2e: Developing supplier relationship management programs are positively related to supply resiliency. These factors include the use of safety stock. Empirical generalization 2c: Developing and practicing contingency plans (including self-executing plans) are positively related to supply resiliency. Five firms also discussed the importance of utilizing customs programs such as Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) to reduce the variability and length of time it takes for goods to pass through customs. Empirical generalization 2a: Defined communication networks are positively related to supply resiliency. which are plans that are automatically triggered when a disruption occurs without human intervention. flagging activities when they fall outside acceptable limits) was discussed as a means to helps firms engage in reactive disruption discovery because supply chains are simply too large and complex to track each individual event. All seven firms discussed the need for increased visibility within the supply chain. thereby increasing supply resiliency. Practicing contingency plans can help reduce mistakes and developing self-executing plans enable firms to deploy mitigation strategies quickly. Six firms highlighted the need for systems that help them monitor their supply chains in real-time to be able to make strategic decisions to avoid impending disruptions.S. how the system reacts to various external influences.. AutoMfg noted that managing a supply chain with limited visibility is a particularly challenging task (Lorentz et al. A manager from Retailer2 stated: My expectation for my staff is that they are well read and they stay up with what is going on in the Physical capital resources Physical capital resources (Williamson 1975).…We know when they’re shipping their seats to us…but we don’t know who the supplier buys the leather from or some of the electronics…we don’t know where they are…and if their Tier 2 has a serious failure… Increasing the visibility within a supply chain can reveal where resources are located. Retailer1. While carrying high levels of inventory throughout the entire supply chain can actually decrease resiliency (Giunipero and Eltantawy 2004). for example. such as labor negotiations. in what form it should be held. implemented a port diversification plan to reduce the likelihood of disruptions in the flow of goods through U. which consists of tangible assets.’’ Some firms discussed developing higher levels of trust with their key suppliers while other firms stressed the importance of understanding supplier capacity restrictions as well as options for alternative suppliers. the ability to manage risks at individual nodes (i. where risk is present. 2007) and stated: …There’s one thing I know that we struggle with—that is visibility into our Tier 2 suppliers. understanding where inventory should be strategically placed. Hence: EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION 2: Organizational and interorganizational capital enhancers are positively related to supply resiliency. and the capa- . mentality’’ and enable firms to stabilize their supply chain after a disruption quickly and more efficiently.e. Five of the seven firms discussed holding safety stock throughout the supply chain as a primary strategy to mitigate the impact of disruptions (Ho 1992). Partnering with customs programs and developing port diversification plans can help streamline the throughput of goods into and out of countries and thus eliminate potential bottlenecks in a supply chain. systems that monitor the supply chain and predict weak areas. some firms were in the process of developing port diversification plans. technologies that increase visibility within the supply chain. also contribute to supply resilience.. which are extremely costly because of the high profit margins on many pharmaceutical products. and how much is necessary can give a company a competitive advantage and can increase their supply resiliency. All firms stressed the need to develop supplier relationship management programs to mitigate the exposure of risks from suppliers.

which make it more difficult to source and move products through a supply chain. it will take longer to get items into a country and it will become more challenging to move materials through the system. you need to be able to quickly re-route and ramp up at other nodes. as well as individual nodes. which increases the amount of time it takes for materials to flow through the supply chain and thus reduces the system’s responsiveness and resiliency (Rahman 2002). the node from where the flow unit originated) (Scott and Davis 2003) (Table 4). flow units (i. Four firms discussed the need to be able to quickly redesign their supply chains to reduce the impact of disruptions.e. noted that vessel capacity during peak season out of China has become a critical problem and stated: During a typical retail peak season. and source of Flow units Factors related to the product itself (i. can reveal where a supply chain is most susceptible to risks and can help firms predict disruptions before they occur. Empirical generalization 3b: Visibility in the supply chain is positively related to supply resiliency. ‘‘One of the biggest drivers of supply chain disruptions is customs issues around the world. which was noted when one manager stated. Flow activities Factors related to the flow of material between nodes may significantly reduce supply resilience (Buckley 1967. Strategies that help firms discover disruptions or are able to give warning signs before a disruption occurs allow firms to recover faster and enable them to employ tactics to avoid disruptions altogether. These factors include the complexity of the product as well as stringent storage and quality requirements. and regulations in attempt to anticipate disruptions. Empirical generalization 3d: The ability to monitor risk at individual nodes (i.Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 383 industry—what is happening with labor negotiations in the east coast? What is happening with trade relations with China? Five of the seven firms noted the importance of monitoring individual nodes within a supply chain in order to predict disruptions. Empirical generalization 4c: Port and vessel capacity restrictions are negatively related to supply resiliency.. Svensson 2003). These factors include the number of nodes in the supply chain. the supply chain becomes longer and more complex.e. Hence: EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION 4: Flow activity reducers are negatively related to supply resiliency.e. revealed the primary bottleneck and main source of disruptions in the flow of products into countries is getting goods through customs and stated. Both Retailer1 and PharMfg. Empirical generalization 3a: Safety stock is positively related to supply resiliency. receive weekly updates from each firm in their supply chains on issues related to transportation carriers. firms) in the supply chain is positively related to supply resiliency. AutoMfg highlighted a particular incident when a tornado damaged one of their manufacturing plants. a firm must understand the design of their supply chain from beginning to end. Four of the seven firms noted that the number of nodes in a supply chain and the system’s resiliency are inversely related..e.. items ⁄ materials that flow through a supply chain) (Bertalanffy 1950). That is.. presence of regulation and security issues. They were unable to quickly reroute materials from upstream suppliers to other manufacturing facilities. Hence: EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION 3: Physical capital enhancers are positively related to supply resiliency. for example.. Retailer2. Empirical generalization 4a: The number of nodes in the supply chain is negatively related to supply resiliency. seaports. for example. We divided these resiliency reducers into three main categories including flow activities (i. because there is so much merchandise being shipped out of China.’’ The ability to quickly redesign a supply chain facilitates a firm’s recovery from disruptions and thus may increase the supply chain’s resiliency. . Empirical generalization 3e: The ability to quickly redesign a supply chain is positively related supply resiliency. which may reduce supply resiliency.e. for example. flow unit) can also reduce supply resiliency (Bertalanffy 1950).e. factors having the opposite effect were also revealed (Table 4). Empirical generalization 3c: Monitoring systems and other predictive risk tools are positively related to supply resiliency. which significantly increased the detrimental impact of the disruption to the supply chain. As ports and vessels reach their maximum capacities. security check points) are typically put in place that increase the amount of time it takes for materials to flow through a supply network. Five firms noted that the presence of security and customs regulations also have a negative impact on supply resiliency because additional precautions (i. security. sometimes there are problems associated with vessel capacity and availability—it becomes cumbersome to get space. Resiliency reducers In addition to discovering factors that can increase supply resiliency.’’ Four of the seven firms discussed how port congestion and vessel capacity restrictions can reduce supply resiliency. LogProvider2. actions required to move materials from one node to another) (Buckley 1967). and congestion of ports and vessel capacity restrictions in the supply chain. To effectively handle disruptions. Monitoring the entire supply chain. as the number of nodes increase. ‘‘When a node becomes a bottleneck. flow units (i.. Empirical generalization 4b: Stringent security and customs regulations are negatively related to supply resiliency.

Rigid storage and quality requirements may make it more difficult to recover from supply chain disruptions due to the added precautions and specific needs of the product.384 J. automobile manufacturer. Five of the seven firms noted that suppliers who are located in risk prone areas and ⁄ or are geographically clustered increase the likelihood of disruptions within a supply chain. political uncertainty or natural disasters. stated that the clustering of suppliers increased the severity of disruptions within their supply chain. AutoMfg specifically noted the challenges associated with complex parts: Unfortunately in automotive a lot of our stuff is like that: can’t be resourced. AutoMfg. is more difficult to move in a supply chain than one with no requirements. Characteristics of complex products result in a longer and typically more difficult recovery from a supply chain disruption. logistics provider 1. Empirical generalization 5a: Product complexity is negatively related to supply resiliency. LogProvider 1.. for instance. logistics provider 2. Several firms noted that suppliers are enticed by factors such as cheap labor to locate in geographically unstable areas of the world (Manuj and Mentzer 2008a).g. there is no alternative and it’s extremely complex…I would say an example that—think about the instrument panel of the front dash board of your car. Blackhurst et al. Six of the seven firms discussed how complex products (i. Empirical generalization 5b: Stringent storage and quality requirements are negatively related to supply resiliency. Table 4: Supply resiliency reducers: coding Supply resiliency reducers Flow activities Number of nodes in the supply chain Stringent customs regulations and security issues Port congestion and vessel capacity restrictions Flow units Product complexity (number of and uniqueness of parts and need for proprietary technology) Stringent quality and storage requirements Source of flow units Volatility of supplier’s location (e. Source of flow units Factors related to the source of the flow unit can negatively impact supply resilience (Svensson 2000..e.…so they’re (suppliers) are doing a lot of module assembly and they just give you the module and how do you go to somebody else to get that done if there’s a problem. These factors include the volatility of the supplier’s location and issues related to labor and manufacturing capacity at the supplier’s facility. pharmaceutical manufacturer. long lead time. And they may have the patent. unique or challenging to source. A particularly vulnerable component or a part that requires cold storage. some legal barriers and you run into this overseas—if you’re buying something specialized you know all bets are off. for example. products that are difficult to produce. You can’t. Retailer2. AutoMfg discussed how they are more concerned about . Four firms noted that stringent storage and ⁄ or quality requirements of materials can significantly reduce supply resiliency. Hence: EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION 5: Flow unit reducers are negatively related to supply resiliency. LogProvider 2. and ⁄ or required some sort of proprietary technology) make it more difficult to manage risk in a supply chain. such as tsunamis) and ⁄ or supplier clusters Limitations on supplier manufacturing capacity and labor availability PharMfg X X AutoMfg X X X Retailer1 X X X X X Retailer2 Retailer3 LogProvider1 LogProvider2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Note: PharMfg. Scott and Davis 2003).

Likewise. Firms may be able to moderate the impact of resiliency reducers. Further. for example. such as extreme weather conditions (i. tsunamis) or political uncertainty.. Education and Training Cost/Benefit Knowledge Post-Disruption Feedback Number of Nodes Human Capital Resources Flow Activities Stringent Security and Customs Regulations Port/Vessel Capacity Restrictions Communication Protocols Cross-Functional Risk Management Teams Contingency Plans Customs Programs/Port Diversification Plans Supplier Relationship Management Organizational & Interorganizational Capital Resources Enhancers + Supply Resiliency - Reducers Flow Units Product Complexity Stringent Storage/Quality Requirements Safety Stock Visibility Tools Node Monitoring/ Exception Tools Redesign Tools Physical Capital Resources Sources of Flow Units Volatility of Supplier’s Location Supplier Capacity/Labor Restrictions . One manager stated: I would say that concentration (of suppliers) in a point is important…You have a lot of suppliers in one region and then something happens to that region. human capital) (Becker 1964) and organizational and interorganizational capital resources (Tomer 1987). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In today’s highly competitive global business environment. Sheffi and Rice 2005). Regional disruptions can manifest themselves in various forms. there may be moderating effects both within and between each enhancer or reducer. which affect a cluster of suppliers.e. Each resource. Retailer1. Four firms discussed that restrictions on a supplier’s ability to produce goods. Retailer2 discussed the importance of monitoring labor issues in the supply chain. Systems theory (Bertalanffy 1951) is employed to capture essential components of open systems including flows (Buckley 1967). Resiliency enhancers are created by combining both tangible (i. specific strategies that increase supply resiliency are unknown and thus companies have little guidance on which tactics are most effective. Figure 1: Framework of supply resiliency. Because a systematic investigation that operationalizes the concept of resiliency has not been performed. which is consistent with the RBV of the firm (Barney 1991). Hence: EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION 6: Source reducers are negatively related to supply resiliency. flow units (Bertalanffy 1950). While it may be possible to test all six sets of empirical generalizations in a single large-scale empirical study.. for example. negatively impacts supply resiliency. noted that all their suppliers are prequalified and are required to specify their maximum manufacturing capacity in order to reduce the likelihood of disruptions. which includes manufacturing capacity and labor availability. However. having a resilient supply chain should give companies a competitive advantage and therefore building a resilient supply chain should be a strategic initiative (Sheffi and Rice 2005).. The components of open systems both individually and collectively detract from supply resiliency and thus may act as resiliency reducers. but the literature on how to increase resiliency is fragmented and provides a more general overview of supply resiliency. rather than disruptions that impact individual suppliers. Zsidisin et al.e. It really is regional disruptions you worry about more than a specific supplier. 2005a. resiliency reducers may fall outside a firm’s control (such as customs regulations) and therefore it could be more effective for firms to focus on developing resiliency enhancers. Systems theory (Bertalanffy 1951) and the RBV of the firm (Barney 1991) are used to ground this research and thus provide a solid theoretical foundation for the framework.g. and sources of flow units (Scott and Davis 2003). modeling the various interactions between variables could become extremely complex and could culminate in a lengthy survey instrument. The main research contribution of this study is an empirically derived framework of supply resiliency (Figure 1). Zsidisin and Ellram 2003. Several empirical generalizations were derived from the research findings that address specific characteristics that may enhance or reduce supply resiliency. physical capital resources) (Williamson 1975) and intangible resources (i. This study attempts to fill that gap in the literature and provides both research and managerial implications. Empirical generalization 6b: Limitations on supplier capacity and labor availability are negatively related to supply resiliency.e. Empirical generalization 6a: The volatility of a supplier’s location and supplier clusters are negatively related to supply resiliency. A number of scholars note the importance of increasing resiliency within a supply chain (e..Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 385 regional disruptions. which was specifically highlighted by AutoMfg as a source of recent regional disruptions within their supply chain. 2004.

We also believe a particularly fruitful investigation is to analyze the level of resiliency within supply chains and performance via a longitudinal study. Figure 2: Supply resiliency matrix. • In our study. are the most problematic and thus warrant the majority of a firm’s attention and resources. The empirical generalizations lend themselves to be tested by a variety of research methods. segments of their supply chains. In addition to the future research needs discussed above. we believe it also offers practical implications. and more importantly. Craighead et al. sensitive supply chains have low resiliency enhancers and low resiliency reducers.g. Blackhurst et al.. researchers could capture the level of resiliency within each supply chain at the beginning of the study.e. We believe that the framework (Figure 1) and matrix (Figure 2) are versatile in that they are not industry specific and can be employed to determine the level of supply resiliency in certain segments of supply chains (i. While this may not appear to be problematic.e. for instance. Conversely. for example. These supply chains are particularly vulnerable and even minor disruptions may have a severe impact on the firm’s operations. For example. One study. 2009). which would allow researchers to observe how resilient supply chains respond to disruptions compared to nonresilient supply chains. and postdisruption feedback) that interact to create individual resource categories (i. In sum. the system may absorb the disruption one time and experience severe repercussions the next. supply chain knowledge. which makes them extremely unpredictable and hard to manage. more realistically. • Future research should analyze various company and supply chain contextual variables in light of our findings. While the resiliency framework (Figure 1) lays the groundwork for a series of research studies. Of course. Multiple investigations may be necessary so researchers are able isolate and control certain variables while manipulating others. which have low resiliency enhancers and high resiliency reducers. Resilient supply chains have high resiliency enhancers and low resiliency reducers. Consequently. Future research should examine the process.e. The framework and matrix can serve as tools for managerial decisions relative to supply resiliency within a firm’s supply chain. Resilient supply chains are able to absorb disruptions and return to stable conditions quickly (Sheffi and Rice 2005). to capture all the interactions in one broad study. the complexity of the interaction among variables may make it challenging. When a disruption occurs in a volatile supply chain. interactions between factors within one resource category may affect interactions between resource categories. In essence. Managers could then summarize their resiliency assessments into a supply resiliency matrix (a possible matrix is shown in Figure 2) that captures the various levels of risk in their supply chain. supply chains are dynamic and therefore.. could serve as a basis to prioritize supply resiliency building efforts. which is the ideal situation. several of which were highlighted above. for particular countries or regions of the world) or for specific product flows (i. including cost ⁄ benefit issues. much more research is needed to further investigate the insights provided by the framework—this framework should serve as a starting point for future research on supply resiliency and we certainly do not claim that it is comprehensive or conclusive. Choi and Krause 2006) and thus even small disruptions could increase in severity and propagate both upstream and downstream within the supply chain (this is consistent with the concept of the sensitivity to initial conditions—cf.. It would be quite valuable to investigate if ⁄ how these strategies ⁄ practices affect our proposed supply resiliency enhancers and reducers. Vulnerable supply chains. The resource categories then interact among themselves to enhance supply resiliency. the supply resiliency matrix ⁄ typology should be revisited when necessary. which could give companies a unique competitive advantage. of if ⁄ how firms can close Resiliency Enhancers High Volatile Supply Chain Resilient Supply Chain Low Vulnerable Supply Chain Sensitive Supply Chain Resiliency Reducers High Low . Researchers could also compare the outcome of specific disruptions to quantify the value of supply resiliency. but are not limited to the following: • The empirical generalizations proposed in this study should be further investigated across multiple service and ⁄ or manufacturing sectors with the intent of capturing new insights on both supply resiliency enhancers and reducers. mission-critical items). supply chains are complex systems (Levy 1994. The supply chains could be monitored over a certain period. the framework could be converted to a type of supply resiliency scorecard.. Clearly. if not impossible. Each quadrant in the matrix captures a level of resiliency inherent in the supply chain.386 J.. For example. Fugate et al. future studies can branch off in a number of different directions. 2009. managers could use the framework to assess the current level of supply resiliency in their supply chains or. education and training. we captured resources that impact resiliency. human capital resources). consists of factors (e.g. could focus on human capital resources by building on the extant research on strategies to build and management knowledge in supply chains (e. Volatile supply chains have high resiliency enhancers and high resiliency reducers. the literature on complexity ⁄ chaos theory). Some of the possible research examinations include.

. As we previously discussed. training. Removing the face-to-face interaction and allowing respondents to be interviewed in the privacy of their office may have reduced the desire of informants to provide socially APPENDIX B: CODING CRITERIA Enhancer Categories (Barney 1991) (P) Physical Capital Resources are the tangible assets of the firm including physical technology. How can the supply chain be redesigned to minimize the potential for.. we conducted interviews via telephone.Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 387 • • • • resource gaps. Employing multiple data sources and data collection methods helped mitigate these potential limitations and allowed this study to provide a more holistic perspective of supply resiliency that spans across industry sectors. however. To reduce this potential bias.. 2. Hallikas et al. the planning. for example. although interviews provide rich data. and impacts of. we suggest there may be interaction effects (shown by dotted-line in Figure 1) among both the reducers and enhancers. resource stickiness will likely be an issue. such as why certain resources were allocated in supply chains with various product characteristics (e. While our intent was to be more inclusive relative to the enhancers and reducers. future research should scrutinize each and every factor. for example. what are the alternative activities and mechanisms that may be employed to deal with disruptions? 7. (H) Human Capital Resources are intangible assets of the firm including the knowledge. a future research opportunity could be to conduct interviews with suppliers at their own facility or at a neutral location.g. However. Researchers. controlling and coordinating systems. the disruptions? 3.g. this would be consistent with the concept of complementarity (i. Providing socially desirable responses. desirable responses. but could be investigated in future research studies is the connectivity of nodes via information sharing. or impact of. products with stringent storage requirements. and inventory (Williamson 1975). the ‘‘blank’’ spaces in Tables 3 and 4 need to be thoroughly examined. Please provide a brief description of your international supply chain design (location of overseas sources and general flow of information and material flow). experience. Related to the issue directly above. What are the primary barriers to an effective disruption recovery? What are the technology. Although not directly captured from the research findings. facilities. Additionally. equipment. is a limitation in regard to all interviews (Berg 2003. Braunscheidel and Suresh 2009). how does a firm efficiently assess what areas of the supply chain will be affected by the disruption? 6. APPENDIX A: FINAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 1. or highly complex products). conducting interviews via telephone could be a potential limitation of the study because we were not able to observe nonverbal channels of communication (Berg 2003). (O) Organizational and Interorganizational Capital Resources are intangible assets of the firm including the formal ⁄ informal reporting structure. What supply chain ⁄ product characteristics amplify the potential for. synergy—cf. interviewees are susceptible to natural human biases (Berg 2003. In the latter case. What characteristics are common among severe disruptions? 4. rather than face-to-face. We hope our efforts in this research help to fill this gap and contribute the supply resilience body of knowledge. but certain limitations do exist. In general. and decision-making processes enablers of an effective recovery program? 8. Further investigation is necessary to determine if complementarities among a firm’s enhancement resources exist. may have influenced the informants to provide socially desirable answers. personnel. Zsidisin and Ellram 2003. Alvesson 2003). and relationships of individual managers within the firm (Becker 1964). 2002. could investigate the impact information sharing across cultures has on mitigating or enhancing risk within a supply chain. Findings from this study are particularly important in today’s global business environment where firms are more likely to source from companies in foreign counties and thus face cultural differences on a daily basis both within and between firms. intuition. high-cost products. Complementarity between resources arises when enhancing one resource also increases the value of the other resources (Zhu 2004). Zhu 2004) between a firm’s internal resources. It is likely that some factors will play a much larger role in building resiliency than the others. as well as relationships among groups within the firm or relationships between the . How does a firm quickly discover the disruption and ⁄ or the event that will trigger the disruption? What are the key metrics available to detect early warning signals? 5. Research on supply chain disruptions and corresponding strategies that increase resiliency is still in its infancy and thus a considerable amount of work remains to be done in this area (e. disruptions? In sum.e. Given the discovery of the disruption ⁄ event. in the second phase of the study. Conducting interviews with the automobile manufacturer’s first-tier suppliers on-site at the manufacturer’s location. We believe investigating this study’s findings from a ‘‘why not’’ perspective could provide fascinating new insights. A factor that did not surface in the research findings. the findings from this study provide guidance on strategies that may increase supply resiliency and lay the foundation for future research. Alvesson 2003) and is not a unique limitation of this study. A fruitful next step could be matching product characteristics and resource allocation for optimal supply resiliency and thus enhanced supply chain performance. First.

. Blackhurst..’’ Journal of Operations Management 27(2):119–40. G.’’ Journal of Operations Management 27(5): 405–21.. Choi. 2003. Acura. Craighead. R. Dierickx. R. 1989. and Ragsdale. transportation) related to the extraction of the flow units from the source (Buckley 1967).. D. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. R. ‘‘Managing Risk to Avoid Supply-Chain Breakdown.388 J. Hallowell. 2008.. 1997. — —. ‘‘Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. (F) Flow is associated with activities (e. Buckley. subassemblies. Braunscheidel. 2002. Swing. Elkins. . Corbin.. J. C. J. D. 2003.’’ Human Biology 3:23–29. W. Bertalanffy.’’ Academy of Management Review 28(1):13–33. and Innovation. 1950. 3rd ed. R. Barney.L. REFERENCES Alvesson. ‘‘E-Services: Operating Strategy—A Case Study and a Method for Analyzing Operational Benefits.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 29(2):161–87.. Jr. Ellram. Elkins. Scheibe. ‘‘Supplier Risk Assessment and Monitoring for the Automotive Industry.’’ Academy of Management Review 14(4):532–50. Blackhurst. Human Capital. and Krause.. T. 1958. ‘‘The Organizational Antecedents of a Firm’s Supply Chain Agility for Risk Mitigation and Response. 2008.J. and Handfield. M. Y. ‘‘Toward a Theory of Competencies for the Management of Product Complexity: Six Case Studies. ‘‘General Systems Theory: A New Approach to — Unity of Science.A. ‘‘An Investigation Into the Non-Usage of Qualitative Software in the Marketing Research Industry. Hult. MA: Allyn & Bacon. M. raw materials. ‘‘The Effects of Innovation-Cost Strategy. Deane. ‘‘An Empirically Derived Agenda of Critical Research Issues for Managing Supply-Chain Disruptions.M. Romantics.. CA: Sage. — —. and Suresh. ‘‘The Supply Base and Its Complexity: Implications for Transaction Costs. A.. B. Bourgeois. ‘‘Applying Teams to Logistics Processes: Information Acquisition and the Impact of Team Role Clarity and Norms. D. Needham Heights. B. M.. 1989.g.. 1956. 1951. and Bennett...g. ‘‘An Outline of General System Theory. 1967. Handfield.. E.’’ Management Science 34(7):816–35.’’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1(2): 134–65..’’ Journal of Operations Management 20(2):175–88. 2009. 1991. and Davidson. Becker. J. A. (S) Source is the supply node in the environment where the flow units originated (Scott and Davis 2003). C. 1964. W.’’ Journal of Operations Management 24(5):637–52. ‘‘Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environment: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry. and Johnson. 2002. Craighead. Responsiveness..’’ MIT Sloan Management Review 46(1):53–61. A. Byrd. C. Upper Saddle River. Rungtusanatham.. 2009. and Cool. Dill. Deeter-Schmelz.J. J. J.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 17(2):93–138. N. M. 2008. finished products..’’ Journal of Business Logistics 18(1):159–78.. 2007.’’ Journal of Operations Management 20(5):469–93. and Localists: A Reflective Approach to Interviews in Organization Research. and Strauss.. focal firm and the firms within the environment (e. M.. T. C.. L. ‘‘The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 39(10):861–83. and Sodhi.’’ Supply Chain Management Review 9(1):46–53. Risks. Pitts. Blackhurst et al. G. and DaimlerChrysler. 2008. N. I.’’ General Systems: — Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Research 1:1–10. suppliers) (Tomer 1987). service parts) that are being extracted from the environment as an input for the focal firm (Bertalanffy 1950). D. T. D. ‘‘Mitigating Environmental and Density Risk in Global Sourcing.’’ Journal of Management 17(1):99–121.. and Eisenhardt. Adrian. Closs.. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. ‘‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. K. Chapter 4. Craighead...’’ Journal of Operations Management 26(5):590–610.S. Craighead. K.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 38(2):143–65. 2005. K. and Handfield. ‘‘Building Theories From Case Study Research.. and Ketchen. Eisenhardt. 1988.... 2009. New York: Columbia.’’ Decision Sciences 38(1):131–56. Blackhurst. ‘‘Environments as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy. ‘‘18 Ways to Guard Against Disruption. 2004. K. M. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. J. Choi. NJ: Prentice Hall. Knowledge and Action in the Supply Chain on Firm Performance. ‘‘Unveiling the Structure of Supply Networks: Case Studies in Honda..g. D. Berg. Blackhurst.’’ Management Science 35(12):1504–11. Jacobs. 2004. D.. S. L. Reducer Categories (Scott and Davis 2003) (U) Flow Unit is the units (e.. Bezborodova.. ‘‘General Systems Theory. and Roth.’’ International Journal of Production Research 43(19):4067–81. and Craighead.. J. C. and Hong.’’ Irish Marketing Review 17(1 ⁄ 2):49–52. Tomas. J. ‘‘Beyond Neopositivists. Chopra. ‘‘Examination of a Path Model Relating Information Technology Infrastructure With Firm Performance. 2006.. L. S. J. Newbury Park. K. 2005. ‘‘The Use of the Case Study Method in Logistics Research. Boyer. 1996. and Webb. 5th ed.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 2(4):409–43. C.

Application. — —.’’ Journal of Operations Management 11(3):239–56. Virolainen. ‘‘The Effect of Operational Slack. ‘‘Linking Improved Knowledge Management to Operational and Organizational Performance. ‘‘The Effect of Supply Chain Glitches on Shareholder Wealth. 2005. and Zhang. and Mentzer. 2004. O.’’ Journal of Operations Management 21(5):501–22. New York: John Wiley. 2004. Hale.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 25(1):1–23. Bolumole.’’ Journal of Operations Management 16(4):321–39. C. 2005. Knight. ‘‘Improving Supply Chain Disaster Preparedness: A Decision Process for Secure Site Location. and Vitasek. A..-P. A. Frankel. ‘‘The Scientific TheoryBuilding Process: A Primer Using the Case of TQM. 2007. Handfield. Fugate.’’ Journal of Operations Management 27(3): 233–46. ‘‘Logistical Network Design With Robustness and Complexity Considerations. 2008. ‘‘Global Supply Chain Risk Management. R. L. 2004. and Bobbitt. K. V. B. Min. 2004.A. K.’’ Management Science 51(5):695–711.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):1–30. Hendricks.. ‘‘Chaos Theory and Strategy: Theory. ‘‘What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study?’’ Strategic Management Journal 29(13):1465–74. A. A1.. and Kahn. S. 2005a. V.. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. J.’’ International Journal of . and Pretty.. G. January 29. ‘‘Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Lewins. K. 2008. — —. Gibbert. Field.. L. R.’’ California Management Review 33(3):114–35. Manrodt.’’ CAQDAS Networking Project 1–32. 2008b. and Siferd. — —. 1st ed. ‘‘Strategic Interdependence. and Shah. L. 2003. Governance Effectiveness and Supplier Performance: A Dyadic Case Study Investigation and Theory Development.M.’’ Production and Operations Management 14(1):35–52. ‘‘Toward a Unified Theory of Logistics. Mahapatra. Lorentz. I.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 37(3):201–22. J. R. R. ‘‘Risk Analysis and Assessment in Network Environments: A Dyadic Case Study. and Vertical Relatedness on the Stock Market Reaction on Supply Chain Disruptions.-J. K.. 1994.-M. R. ‘‘Association Between Supply Chain Glitches — and Operating Performance.. S. Diversification... and Tuominen. Ho. ‘‘Global Process Standardization: A Case Study. ‘‘Logistics Learning Capability: Sustaining the Competitive Advantage Gained Through Logistics Leverage.. 1979. 2nd ed. 1978. ‘‘Understanding the Risks Behind Sudden Shifts — in Shareholder Value...’’ Strategic Management Journal 15: 167–78. Manuj.’’ Journal of Operations Management 28(6):537–52. and Melnyk. and Meredith. and Faull. N..’’ Journal of Business Logistics 28(2):57–81.. J. B.. 2005b.. Singhal. A. 1992.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 19(1):55–84. and Strauss. S. and Moberg.. Glaser.. N.. P. 2009. 2007. J. CA: Sociology Press. Y.. ‘‘Trial by Fire: A Blaze in Albuquerque Sets Off Major Crisis for Cell-Phone Giants—Nokia Handles Supply Shock With Aplomb as Ericsson of Sweden Gets Burned—Was SISU the Difference?’’ Wall Street Journal. Giunipero. Fugate. The Social Psychology of Organizations. 1992. A. M. and Hilmola. Grutter. Latour. C. R. and Barbieri.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 34(9):698–713. 1993. ‘‘The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation.. J.. Hendricks.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 13(2):125–52. and Managerial Implications. Grant.. 2007. Paulraj.. ‘‘An Examination of a Distribution Resource Planning Problem: DRP System Nervousness.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4):602–11. S. T. Levy. 2002. 1998. Narasimhan. 2003. Locke. and Silver. M. ‘‘Conducting Case Study Research in Operations Management. 2002. ‘‘Securing the Upstream Supply Chain: A Risk Management Approach. 1967. J.’’ Production and Operations Management 14(1):53–68. Jick. Glaser.’’ Journal of Operations Management 20(5):641–57. Hallikas. and Gundlach. B. ‘‘Work Team Performance Over Time: Three Case Studies of South African Manufacturers. ‘‘Value at Risk: The Effects of Catastrophes on Share Price.’’ Risk Management 45(5):39–41. Eltantawy. Y. ‘‘An Empirical Analysis on the Effect of Sup— ply Chain Disruptions on Long-Run Stock Price Performance and Equity Risk of the Firm. Chicago: Aldine Transaction. R. B. K. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. 1998.Y. ‘‘Managing Disruption Risk in Supply Chains. C. ‘‘The Domain and Scope of SCM’s Foundation Disciplines—Insights and Issues to Advance Research. ‘‘Total Cost of Ownership: A Key Concept in Strategic Cost Management Decisions. B. R.’’ — Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):133–55. D.. ‘‘Global Supply Chain Risk Management Strategies.. W. — —. 1991.. 1996. 2010. 2008. and Davis-Sramek. McCutcheon. T. Mill Valley. T. C. D. Esper.Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 389 Ellram. B. and Saad. T..’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 35(3):195–207. Mentzer.. H.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 37(8):670–97.. D. 1998. Ruigrok.’’ Journal of Operations Management 27(3):247–64. and Eltantawy.. 2008a.’’ International Journal of Production Economics 78(1):45–55. ‘‘Choosing a CAQDAS Package. Stank. D. and Wicki. and Mentzer. Kleindorfer. 2001. R.. 1st ed. P. Wong.. G.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 38(3):192–223.. Katz. ‘‘Emerging Distribution Systems in Central and Eastern Europe: Implications From Two Case Studies.’’ Corporate Finance Review 7(5):5– 12. Meepetchdee. ‘‘Rewriting the Discovery of Grounded Theory After 25 Years?’’ Journal of Management Inquiry 5(3):239–45.

Tomer. ‘‘Building Cars to Customer Order—What Does it Mean for Inbound Logistics Operations?’’ Journal of Business Logistics 25(2):171–97. ‘‘Towards a Theoretical Foundation of Supply Network Interdependence and Technology-Enabled Coordination Strategies. Handfield. L..’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 38(1):39–56. 2003. 2005a. Rice. R. 2008... C. J. 5th ed.. Scott. Stuart. ‘‘An Analysis of Supply Risk Assessment Techniques. Strauss. J. ‘‘Effective Case Research in Operations Management: A Process Perspective.. Skipper. 1975.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 34(5):397–413. S. New York: Free Press. Ragatz. 2007. J. 2000. ‘‘Industrial Dynamics Simulation Models in the Design of Supply Chains. ‘‘A Resource-Based View of the Firm. CA: Sage. Organizational Capital: The Path to Higher Productive and Well-Being.’’ Strategic Management Journal 5(2):171–80. D. Y. 1994.’’ International Journal of Production Research 43(16):3401–20. ‘‘Case Research in Operations Management. J. McLachlin. Tsikriktsis. 2003. ‘‘Forecasting Collaboration in the European Grocery Sector: Observations From a Case Study. G.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics 33(5):427– 448.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 32(10):809–28. M. D. Dunn (MS in Information and Telecommunication Systems) is a Doctoral Candidate in Supply Chain and Information Systems in the Smeal College of Business at The Pennsylvania State University. M. C. N. R. G. F. Thousand Oaks..’’ Strategic Management Journal 18(7):509–33. J. Zsidisin.B. Markets and Hierarchies. Zsidisin.’’ Journal of Supply Chain Management 39(3):15–27. 2008.. CA: Sage. and Shuen. 2002. and Samson. 2004. and Huberman. Blackhurst et al. J. Natural and Open System Perspectives. CA: Sage. Carter. G. S. ‘‘The Principle of Balance Between Companies’ — Inventories and Disturbances in Logistics Flows. ‘‘Ericsson’s Proactive Supply Chain Risk Management Approach After a Serious Sub-Supplier Accident. Yin. NJ: Pearson Education. Meredith. Organizations and Organizing: Rational.. R. K. A.. 2003. and Supplier Assessment and Selection. Teece. Norrman. 1987. and Caniato... She graduated with a Master’s degree in . Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 34(8):606–27. Smaros. Strategic Sourcing.-U. J. SHORT BIOGRAPHIES Jennifer Blackhurst (PhD University of Iowa) is an Associate Professor in the College of Business at Iowa State University. — —.. G. 1992. Craighead. Pisano. G. Rahman. Y. ‘‘A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Vulnerability in Supply Chains. Production and Operations Management. F. McCutcheon. and Melnyk. R. and Holweg. Thousand Oaks. J. Upper Saddle River. and Cavinato.. Melnyk. ‘‘Supplier–Supplier Relationships in the Buyer–Supplier Triad: Building Theories From Eight Case Studies. ‘‘An Agency Theory Investigation of Supply Risk Management. in Friedrichs Grangsjo. and Davis.. 2005b.. A.’’ Journal of Operations Management 25(3):702–16.. 2003. 2nd ed. and Choi. 1994. Miles.’’ Supply Chain Management Review 9(2):46–52.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 22(5):3–14. ‘‘An Empirical Examination of Supply Chain Performance Along Several Dimensions of Risk. M..’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 34(5):434–56. and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. J. U. 2005. ‘‘A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. C. O. 2nd ed. G. and Rainer.. Z. Zsidisin. Ellram. and Ellram. 2003. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2004.. Her publications have appeared in such journals as Journal of Operations Management. ‘‘An Institutional Theory Perspective of Business Continuity Planning for Purchasing and Supply Management.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics 30(9):731– 49. Sheffi. Her research interests include: Procurement. ‘‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. J. M. Supply Chain Coordination.. Williamson. D. and Corbin.. Towill. and Supply Risk and Disruptions.. and Bode. B. and Mark. S.. Zsidisin.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):307–25.. 2004. 1998. Wu. 2nd ed..’’ Supply Chain Management Review 7(5):22–30. Her research interests include: Supply Chain Risk and Disruption.’’ Journal of Operations Management 16(4):441–54.’’ Journal of Operations Management 24(1):27–52. L.390 J. Zhu.. G. A. Kaitlin S. Qualitative Data Analysis.. S. and Jansson. T. and Ragatz. ‘‘Building Operations Management Theory Through Case and Field Research. Byrd. G. Voss. 2005. Wernerfelt. ‘‘The Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Process Approach to Developing Strategies in Supply Chains. T. ‘‘Building a Secure and Resilient Supply Network. and Wikner. ‘‘The Complementarity of Information Technology Infrastructure and E-Commerce Capability: A Resourced-Based Assessment of Their Business Value. ‘‘The Dark Side of Supply Chain Management.. Wagner. I. 1998.’’ Journal of Management Information Systems 21(1):167–202. Newbury Park.. G. 2004. Miemczky. ‘‘Destination Networking: Co-Opetition in Peripheral Surroundings. Naim.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics 22(2):195– 219. 1984. D. 2002.’’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 33(9):765–84. 2002.’’ Journal of Operations Management 20(5):419–33. J. and Rice. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods..’’ MIT Sloan Management Review 47(1):41–48. New York: Praeger. Inc. 1997. Svensson.

and serves on the Review Board of Production and Operations Management.Framework of Global Supply Resiliency 391 Information and Telecommunication Systems for Business from Johns Hopkins University and has a undergraduate degree in Finance from the University of Florida. International Journal of Logistics Management. Craighead (PhD Clemson University) joined the Smeal College of Business at The Pennsylvania State University in 2008. He is an Associate Editor of the Journal of Operations Management. . and other journals. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. He has articles in Journal of Operations Management. an Area Editor for Operations Management Research. Christopher W. Production and Operations Management. Supply Chain Management Review. Decision Sciences.