IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opmare/v18y2025i1d10.1007_s12063-024-00474-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drivers of supply chain adaptability: insights into mobilizing supply chain processes. A multi-country and multi-sector empirical research

Author

Listed:
  • Michiya Morita

    (Gakushuin University)

  • Jose A. D. Machuca

    (Universidad de Sevilla)

  • Juan A. Marin-Garcia

    (Universitat Politècnica de València)

  • Rafaela Alfalla-Luque

    (Universidad de Sevilla)

Abstract

Supply chain (SC) adaptability (SC-Ad) implies that SC processes should change and adapt to anticipated structural and market changes. However, when these changes are related to shifts from exploitative to explorative focuses, companies face an inflexibility problem because of involved uncertainties, creating a barrier to obtaining SC-Ad. This research proposes to overcome this barrier by integrating new combinations of the product/market strategy and SC processes and securing their fit over time. To get it, this study proposes two SC-Ad drivers (related to the SC process (ASCOS) and new product development competences (PDC)), which secure the aforementioned fit by reducing its uncertainties and thus ensuring a SC-Ad that responds to emerging competitive changes. Measurement and structural models were assessed following PLS-SEM. ASCOS and PDC’ relative importance was analyzed using the importance/performance/analysis procedure. PLS, PLS-predict, and CVPAT were used to analyze model’s in-sample and out-of-sample predictive capacity. ANOVA was used to compare SC-Ad, ASCOS and PDC in different plant groups. Results suggest that ASCOS and PDC are SC-Ad’s drivers, and that the plants with highest SC-Ad values are those with the higher ASCOS and PDC’ values. This expand knowledge about SC-Ad drivers, which represents an important literature gap. In an indirect way, some new light is also added to the topic of ambidextrous management. The adequate generalizability of these results is supported by a) a wide multi-country, multi-informant, and multi-sector sample of 268 plants, b) a good out-of-sample model predictive capacity c) no heterogeneity issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Michiya Morita & Jose A. D. Machuca & Juan A. Marin-Garcia & Rafaela Alfalla-Luque, 2025. "Drivers of supply chain adaptability: insights into mobilizing supply chain processes. A multi-country and multi-sector empirical research," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 373-399, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opmare:v:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s12063-024-00474-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12063-024-00474-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12063-024-00474-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12063-024-00474-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Arnoud De Meyer & Jinichiro Nakane & Jeffrey G. Miller & Kasra Ferdows, 1989. "Flexibility: The next competitive battle the manufacturing futures survey," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 135-144, March.
    3. Fosso Wamba, Samuel & Queiroz, Maciel M. & Trinchera, Laura, 2020. "Dynamics between blockchain adoption determinants and supply chain performance: An empirical investigation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    4. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    5. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    6. Sarstedt, Marko & Hair, Joseph F. & Cheah, Jun-Hwa & Becker, Jan-Michael & Ringle, Christian M., 2019. "How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 197-211.
    7. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    8. Dominik Eckstein & Matthias Goellner & Constantin Blome & Michael Henke, 2015. "The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(10), pages 3028-3046, May.
    9. Ivanov, Dmitry & Sokolov, Boris & Kaeschel, Joachim, 2010. "A multi-structural framework for adaptive supply chain planning and operations control with structure dynamics considerations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(2), pages 409-420, January.
    10. Alfalla-Luque, Rafaela & Machuca, José A.D. & Marin-Garcia, Juan A., 2018. "Triple-A and competitive advantage in supply chains: Empirical research in developed countries," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 48-61.
    11. Shmueli, Galit & Ray, Soumya & Velasquez Estrada, Juan Manuel & Chatla, Suneel Babu, 2016. "The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4552-4564.
    12. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    13. Peter Boumgarden & Jackson Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 587-610, June.
    14. Johannes Luger & Sebastian Raisch & Markus Schimmer, 2018. "Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 449-470, June.
    15. Tuominen, Matti & Rajala, Arto & Moller, Kristian, 2004. "How does adaptability drive firm innovativeness?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(5), pages 495-506, May.
    16. Maisam Abbasi & Liz Varga, 2022. "Steering supply chains from a complex systems perspective," European Journal of Management Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 27(1), pages 5-38, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katou, Anastasia A. & Budhwar, Pawan S. & Patel, Charmi, 2021. "A trilogy of organizational ambidexterity: Leader’s social intelligence, employee work engagement and environmental changes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 688-700.
    2. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    3. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2020. "Shifting back and forth: How does the temporal cycling between exploratory and exploitative R&D influence firm performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 386-396.
    4. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    5. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    6. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    7. Wenke, Kathrin & Zapkau, Florian B. & Schwens, Christian, 2021. "Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 653-665.
    8. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    9. François Constant & Richard Calvi & Thomas Johnsen, 2020. "Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing function ambidexterity Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing functio," Post-Print hal-02891790, HAL.
    10. Shuwaikh, Fatima & Brintte, Souad & Khemiri, Sabrina, 2022. "The impact of dynamic ambidexterity on the performance of organizations: Evidence from corporate venture capital investing in North America," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 991-1009.
    11. Youngtak M. Kim & John R. Busenbark & Seung-Hwan Jeong & Son K. Lam, 2022. "The performance impact of marketing dualities: a response surface approach to resolving empirical challenges," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(5), pages 915-940, September.
    12. Bruyaka, Olga & Prange, Christiane, 2020. "International cultural ambidexterity: Balancing tensions of foreign market entry into distant and proximate cultures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 491-506.
    13. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    14. Feifei Jiang & Donghan Wang & Zelong Wei, 2022. "How Yin-Yang cognition affects organizational ambidexterity: the mediating role of strategic flexibility," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 1187-1214, December.
    15. Fourné, Sebastian P.L. & Rosenbusch, Nina & Heyden, Mariano L.M. & Jansen, Justin J.P., 2019. "Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 564-576.
    16. Jingoo Kang & Sang‐Joon Kim, 2020. "Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 1083-1111, June.
    17. Telma Mendes & Vítor Braga & Carina Silva & Vanessa Ratten, 2023. "Taking a closer look at the regionally clustered firms: How can ambidexterity explain the link between management, entrepreneurship, and innovation in a post-industrialized world?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2007-2053, December.
    18. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    19. Chang, Kuo-Hsiung & Gotcher, Donald F., 2020. "How and when does co-production facilitate eco-innovation in international buyer-supplier relationships? The role of environmental innovation ambidexterity and institutional pressures," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(5).
    20. Sabyasachi Sinha, 2015. "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma: A Review in the Context of Managing Growth of New Ventures," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(3), pages 313-323, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:opmare:v:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s12063-024-00474-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.