A research agenda to reflect reality: On being responsive

IF 11.2 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Business Logistics Pub Date : 2022-01-27 DOI:10.1111/jbl.12297
Robert Glenn Richey, Beth Davis-Sramek
{"title":"A research agenda to reflect reality: On being responsive","authors":"Robert Glenn Richey,&nbsp;Beth Davis-Sramek","doi":"10.1111/jbl.12297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>If you ignored the news, isolated yourself from the stock market, and were not a fan of musician Jack White, here is what else you may have missed in 2021: logistics and supply chain management matter to the point that the field is now under a microscope (McLain et al. <span>2021</span>). While media pundits and politicians continue to incorrectly say “the” supply chain (Singman, <span>2021</span>), it is refreshing that, for the first time ever, the public at large understands that getting products to retail shelves or to one's doorstep can actually be rather complicated.</p><p>At the time of this editorial, one of the most significant challenges for many companies around the globe is responding to pandemic pent-up demand and adjusting to the related supply chain constraints and bottlenecks (Pylas, <span>2021</span>; Thorbecke, <span>2021</span>). Globally, a shortage of hourly labor for essential supply chain roles has created a ripple effect that continues to interrupt business operations and exacerbate supply chain disruptions (Taylor, <span>2021</span>). Likewise, companies are struggling to recruit and retain professional supply chain talent, especially as supply chain roles evolve to become more strategic—literally to those that help shape business strategy (Supply Chain Digital, <span>2020</span>).</p><p>Looking back, the last two decades have seen major growth in the importance of logistics and supply chain management (L&amp;SCM) as an invaluable career and as a major research discipline. Yet, most business schools have been unresponsive to market needs, with many displaying an unwillingness to be adaptable, flexible, agile, or improvisational enough to include L&amp;SCM education within their degree offerings. More inexplicably, many business schools do not even have an L&amp;SCM course in their core curriculum (Opatrny-Yazell &amp; Nelson, <span>2021</span>).</p><p>The reality is that operational efficiency will always be integral to L&amp;SCM decisions, but when it consistently comes at the expense of developing L&amp;SCM processes that adapt to market changes, the outcome can be disastrous. This is one of several reasons that as JBL editors, we emphasize research that underscores the strategic importance of L&amp;SCM both within the firm and across the extended supply chain. We want to see the research reflected in JBL aligned with current business reality—because supply chain stuff is really tricky, even for Elon Musk.</p><p>After experiencing the recent global supply chain disruption—the largest since WW2—L&amp;SCM strategy seems to be evolving. The lean manufacturing and inventory strategy once coveted by most companies is losing favor. For instance, the pioneer of the lean strategy, Toyota, has paused its Just-in-Time (JIT) approach (Trivedi, <span>2021</span>). Disruptions in recent years have exposed vulnerabilities of sole sourcing strategies, while globally accessible e-commerce allows consumers to demand low prices, even as it complicates last mile delivery (Shih, <span>2020</span>). The reality: many supply chains that were designed for efficiency are unable to be sufficiently responsive.</p><p>We are seeing this shift reflected in JBL submissions as well. The JBL articles published in 2021 reflect an evolving direction for L&amp;SCM—one that focuses on strategic investments in technology (Dong &amp; Franklin, <span>2021</span>; Durach et al. <span>2021</span>; Kurpjuweit et al. <span>2021</span>; Sternberg et al. <span>2021</span>), the significance of managing a complex and changing global landscape (Choi et al. <span>2021</span>; Novak et al. <span>2021</span>; Wiedmer &amp; Griffis, <span>2021</span>; Wieland &amp; Durach, <span>2021</span>) and a shifting role of expectations and skill sets for L&amp;SCM managers (Ellram &amp; Tate, <span>2021</span>; Falcone et al. <span>2021</span>). The current issue also reflects research that emphasizes the strategic nature of L&amp;SCM and the value creation that comes as a result, as we highlight below.</p><p>In the first issue of 2022, we ask this question to the body of L&amp;SCM scholars: What is next for our discipline? We believe that recent events and the painful adjustment period provide a ripe opportunity to build unique discipline-based theory to illuminate the scope, dimensions, and dynamics of L&amp;SCM philosophy. That is, we should expand the research within our disciple to further highlight the what, why, when, and how of L&amp;SCM. Even more purposely, an important goal should be to leverage our research as a means to reflect the current business landscape and underscore the need for more business school investment in L&amp;SCM programs.</p><p>The authors argue for a specific and defined foundational perspective within the L&amp;SCM literature. This is an important step on the path to becoming a mature business discipline, and to answer those fundamental questions of why the field exists and why the scholarship is relevant to business. The authors contend that responsiveness provides organizations and supply chains direction—and the associated outcomes—to motivate convergence of objectives within the firm and across an entire L&amp;SCM network. It is also relevant as managers wrestle with complicated external conditions, including how they exert influence on firm decision making and decisions by other actors in the supply chain. Thus, a responsiveness view of L&amp;SCM could provide researchers a foundation to develop and test relationships between activities and outcomes that more accurately capture L&amp;SCM phenomena and associated relationships. It may also provide outcomes that L&amp;SCM managers focus on, and importantly, are within their control. This article provides a starting point for debating the usefulness of a responsiveness-based view, and it offers five dimensions responsiveness: <i>adaptability</i>, <i>flexibility</i>, <i>agility</i>, <i>improvisation</i>, and <i>resilience</i>. After several decades of attention to supply chain efficiency, it seems appropriate to build theory through a new lens that reflects the transformative potential of the supply chain.</p><p>We took the liberty of discussing the Richey et al. (<span>2022</span>) paper first not only because of familiarity, but also because the other papers in this issue reflect phenomena that are connected to L&amp;SCM responsiveness. The research provides solid contributions related to firm and supply chain responses to product recalls, delivery demands, repurposing for opportunities, external threats, and transparency expectations.</p><p>In, “Food for thought: Recalls and outcomes,” Wowak et al. (<span>2022</span>) address the significance of firm responses to product recall situations in food supply chains. They highlight both severe financial consequences of these recalls, and they also note that the field has not uncovered why some companies have recall processes in place that allow them to respond quickly, while other recalls can be more time-consuming and costly. To investigate this discrepancy, they investigate both the recall process and stakeholder communication. Outcomes uncover financial, brand, and consumer impacts.</p><p>Specifically, this study finds that managers respond to recalls by scaling, deferring, abandoning, or layering (dividing the recall into segments) the recall. The authors also find that companies that have the most responsive recall process—one that minimizes harmful outcomes—when they can quickly and accurately diagnose a potential recall. Effective recall communication also enables the proficient extraction of a product. In contrast, the recall process can become difficult when supply chain complexity impacts diagnosis and coordination, and these conditions make the layering process more important for responding to the problem.</p><p>The second manuscript “Hybrid last mile delivery fleets with crowdsourcing: A systems view of managing the cost-service trade-off,” by Castillo et al. (<span>2022</span>), highlights responsiveness to competitive and consumer pressure for expedited last-mile delivery to consumers. To be responsive to consumer demands and to control costs, some companies are experimenting with hybrid delivery systems that utilize both private fleets and crowdsourcing (outsourcing deliveries to gig economy workers). The authors point out crowdsourcing introduces a new wrinkle in customer service levels, logistics performance, and route optimization—driver autonomy.</p><p>The study employs an agent-based simulation that utilizes home delivery data from a retail pharmacy in the United States to examine how supply chains respond to changes in last mile delivery. Expectedly, the authors find that the most significant incentive for crowdsourced drivers is compensation, but rather unexpectedly, they find that there is not a linear relationship between compensation and unit delivery cost. That is, when drivers’ compensation is too low, the delivery acceptance rates are lower, which means that the company has to use its private fleet for expedited delivery, which increases unit delivery costs. Likewise, they find that high compensation rates do not significantly improve same-day fulfillment times.</p><p>In “Supply chain plasticity during a global disruption: Effects of CEO and supply chain networks on operational repurposing,” Falcone et al. (<span>2022</span><b>)</b> underscore how companies can respond to societal needs during a disruption by adapting their existing production operations (e.g., apparel producers providing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic). This closely aligns to the adaptation dimension of responsiveness in the Richey et al. (<span>2022</span>) paper. The authors refer to this as “operational repurposing,” and they note that it can create a great deal of uncertainty for companies. The authors argue that key to operational repurposing is supply chain plasticity, of the ability to rapidly make major adaptations to the supply chain to accommodate massive shifts in the overall business environment.</p><p>The study highlights the significance of interorganizational network characteristics in operational repurposing. Specifically, the authors use social network analysis to examine how prominent and entrepreneurial positions in both the firm's supply chain network and the CEO’s network influence the likelihood of the firm engaging in operational repurposing. Results indicate that a firm's entrepreneurial position in both its supply chain and CEO networks positively influence the likelihood of implementing operational repurposing, while but prominent positions have negative relationships. They also find that the CEO’s network plays a particularly important role in operational repurposing when the firm hold an entrepreneurial supply chain network position.</p><p>In “Supply disruptions and protection motivation: Why some managers act proactively (and others don't),” Bode et al. (<span>2022</span>) take a micro-foundational view of responsiveness by examining managers’ proactive and reactive responses to threats of a supply chain disruption. Drawing upon protection motivation theory and using a discrete choice experiment, the authors examine factors that influence a manager's decision to take proactive measures to prepare for a supply chain disruption. They find that managers are most influenced by the cost of the response. That is, even when managers perceive that proactive measures to mitigate the threat of a disruption are effective, they are more likely to be influenced by the implementation and relationship cost of those measures. The research also finds inconsistency in what factors managers say is most important and what they actually do based on those factors. This is a fascinating study of human behavior, and it highlights the cost-focused orientation of most L&amp;SCM managers.</p><p>Finally, in “Utilizing blockchain technology for supply chain transparency: A resource orchestration perspective”, Gligor et al. (<span>2022</span>) utilize a case study to understand how resources can be orchestrated to develop supply chain transparency (SCT)—the disclosure of sustainable practices and/or production processes to the stakeholders. The authors offer a theoretical framework for understanding the structuring, bundling and leveraging processes, and they contextualize the managerial action required to accumulate, combine, and exploit resources. Drawing from Richey et al. (<span>2022</span>), this research highlights the flexibility dimension of responsiveness because the case company, a small coffee producer, changed its current policy to adopt blockchain technology (BCT) for enhanced SCT. The traceability capability offered by BCT allowed the company to verify the raw materials from their origin and to document real-time flow of those materials throughout the supply chain. This change allowed the company to enhance its value to consumers and meet their demands for authenticity.</p><p>In sum, the articles in this issue reflect the kind of research that we want to continue to publish in 2022 and throughout the rest of our tenure as editors. We will continue to highlight the importance of the L&amp;SCM discipline, and we hope that the current visibility and changes occurring in the field will advance further theoretical development as it relates exclusively to defining the discipline as unique to others. We will also be vocal advocates for growth of the discipline through continued advancement of L&amp;SCM curriculum, programs within business schools at every education level, and other non-degree opportunities that will open the door for more scholars to embrace this field and pursue relevant and rigorous scholarship that makes a meaningful difference to business and society.</p>","PeriodicalId":48090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Logistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbl.12297","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Logistics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbl.12297","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

If you ignored the news, isolated yourself from the stock market, and were not a fan of musician Jack White, here is what else you may have missed in 2021: logistics and supply chain management matter to the point that the field is now under a microscope (McLain et al. 2021). While media pundits and politicians continue to incorrectly say “the” supply chain (Singman, 2021), it is refreshing that, for the first time ever, the public at large understands that getting products to retail shelves or to one's doorstep can actually be rather complicated.

At the time of this editorial, one of the most significant challenges for many companies around the globe is responding to pandemic pent-up demand and adjusting to the related supply chain constraints and bottlenecks (Pylas, 2021; Thorbecke, 2021). Globally, a shortage of hourly labor for essential supply chain roles has created a ripple effect that continues to interrupt business operations and exacerbate supply chain disruptions (Taylor, 2021). Likewise, companies are struggling to recruit and retain professional supply chain talent, especially as supply chain roles evolve to become more strategic—literally to those that help shape business strategy (Supply Chain Digital, 2020).

Looking back, the last two decades have seen major growth in the importance of logistics and supply chain management (L&SCM) as an invaluable career and as a major research discipline. Yet, most business schools have been unresponsive to market needs, with many displaying an unwillingness to be adaptable, flexible, agile, or improvisational enough to include L&SCM education within their degree offerings. More inexplicably, many business schools do not even have an L&SCM course in their core curriculum (Opatrny-Yazell & Nelson, 2021).

The reality is that operational efficiency will always be integral to L&SCM decisions, but when it consistently comes at the expense of developing L&SCM processes that adapt to market changes, the outcome can be disastrous. This is one of several reasons that as JBL editors, we emphasize research that underscores the strategic importance of L&SCM both within the firm and across the extended supply chain. We want to see the research reflected in JBL aligned with current business reality—because supply chain stuff is really tricky, even for Elon Musk.

After experiencing the recent global supply chain disruption—the largest since WW2—L&SCM strategy seems to be evolving. The lean manufacturing and inventory strategy once coveted by most companies is losing favor. For instance, the pioneer of the lean strategy, Toyota, has paused its Just-in-Time (JIT) approach (Trivedi, 2021). Disruptions in recent years have exposed vulnerabilities of sole sourcing strategies, while globally accessible e-commerce allows consumers to demand low prices, even as it complicates last mile delivery (Shih, 2020). The reality: many supply chains that were designed for efficiency are unable to be sufficiently responsive.

We are seeing this shift reflected in JBL submissions as well. The JBL articles published in 2021 reflect an evolving direction for L&SCM—one that focuses on strategic investments in technology (Dong & Franklin, 2021; Durach et al. 2021; Kurpjuweit et al. 2021; Sternberg et al. 2021), the significance of managing a complex and changing global landscape (Choi et al. 2021; Novak et al. 2021; Wiedmer & Griffis, 2021; Wieland & Durach, 2021) and a shifting role of expectations and skill sets for L&SCM managers (Ellram & Tate, 2021; Falcone et al. 2021). The current issue also reflects research that emphasizes the strategic nature of L&SCM and the value creation that comes as a result, as we highlight below.

In the first issue of 2022, we ask this question to the body of L&SCM scholars: What is next for our discipline? We believe that recent events and the painful adjustment period provide a ripe opportunity to build unique discipline-based theory to illuminate the scope, dimensions, and dynamics of L&SCM philosophy. That is, we should expand the research within our disciple to further highlight the what, why, when, and how of L&SCM. Even more purposely, an important goal should be to leverage our research as a means to reflect the current business landscape and underscore the need for more business school investment in L&SCM programs.

The authors argue for a specific and defined foundational perspective within the L&SCM literature. This is an important step on the path to becoming a mature business discipline, and to answer those fundamental questions of why the field exists and why the scholarship is relevant to business. The authors contend that responsiveness provides organizations and supply chains direction—and the associated outcomes—to motivate convergence of objectives within the firm and across an entire L&SCM network. It is also relevant as managers wrestle with complicated external conditions, including how they exert influence on firm decision making and decisions by other actors in the supply chain. Thus, a responsiveness view of L&SCM could provide researchers a foundation to develop and test relationships between activities and outcomes that more accurately capture L&SCM phenomena and associated relationships. It may also provide outcomes that L&SCM managers focus on, and importantly, are within their control. This article provides a starting point for debating the usefulness of a responsiveness-based view, and it offers five dimensions responsiveness: adaptability, flexibility, agility, improvisation, and resilience. After several decades of attention to supply chain efficiency, it seems appropriate to build theory through a new lens that reflects the transformative potential of the supply chain.

We took the liberty of discussing the Richey et al. (2022) paper first not only because of familiarity, but also because the other papers in this issue reflect phenomena that are connected to L&SCM responsiveness. The research provides solid contributions related to firm and supply chain responses to product recalls, delivery demands, repurposing for opportunities, external threats, and transparency expectations.

In, “Food for thought: Recalls and outcomes,” Wowak et al. (2022) address the significance of firm responses to product recall situations in food supply chains. They highlight both severe financial consequences of these recalls, and they also note that the field has not uncovered why some companies have recall processes in place that allow them to respond quickly, while other recalls can be more time-consuming and costly. To investigate this discrepancy, they investigate both the recall process and stakeholder communication. Outcomes uncover financial, brand, and consumer impacts.

Specifically, this study finds that managers respond to recalls by scaling, deferring, abandoning, or layering (dividing the recall into segments) the recall. The authors also find that companies that have the most responsive recall process—one that minimizes harmful outcomes—when they can quickly and accurately diagnose a potential recall. Effective recall communication also enables the proficient extraction of a product. In contrast, the recall process can become difficult when supply chain complexity impacts diagnosis and coordination, and these conditions make the layering process more important for responding to the problem.

The second manuscript “Hybrid last mile delivery fleets with crowdsourcing: A systems view of managing the cost-service trade-off,” by Castillo et al. (2022), highlights responsiveness to competitive and consumer pressure for expedited last-mile delivery to consumers. To be responsive to consumer demands and to control costs, some companies are experimenting with hybrid delivery systems that utilize both private fleets and crowdsourcing (outsourcing deliveries to gig economy workers). The authors point out crowdsourcing introduces a new wrinkle in customer service levels, logistics performance, and route optimization—driver autonomy.

The study employs an agent-based simulation that utilizes home delivery data from a retail pharmacy in the United States to examine how supply chains respond to changes in last mile delivery. Expectedly, the authors find that the most significant incentive for crowdsourced drivers is compensation, but rather unexpectedly, they find that there is not a linear relationship between compensation and unit delivery cost. That is, when drivers’ compensation is too low, the delivery acceptance rates are lower, which means that the company has to use its private fleet for expedited delivery, which increases unit delivery costs. Likewise, they find that high compensation rates do not significantly improve same-day fulfillment times.

In “Supply chain plasticity during a global disruption: Effects of CEO and supply chain networks on operational repurposing,” Falcone et al. (2022) underscore how companies can respond to societal needs during a disruption by adapting their existing production operations (e.g., apparel producers providing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic). This closely aligns to the adaptation dimension of responsiveness in the Richey et al. (2022) paper. The authors refer to this as “operational repurposing,” and they note that it can create a great deal of uncertainty for companies. The authors argue that key to operational repurposing is supply chain plasticity, of the ability to rapidly make major adaptations to the supply chain to accommodate massive shifts in the overall business environment.

The study highlights the significance of interorganizational network characteristics in operational repurposing. Specifically, the authors use social network analysis to examine how prominent and entrepreneurial positions in both the firm's supply chain network and the CEO’s network influence the likelihood of the firm engaging in operational repurposing. Results indicate that a firm's entrepreneurial position in both its supply chain and CEO networks positively influence the likelihood of implementing operational repurposing, while but prominent positions have negative relationships. They also find that the CEO’s network plays a particularly important role in operational repurposing when the firm hold an entrepreneurial supply chain network position.

In “Supply disruptions and protection motivation: Why some managers act proactively (and others don't),” Bode et al. (2022) take a micro-foundational view of responsiveness by examining managers’ proactive and reactive responses to threats of a supply chain disruption. Drawing upon protection motivation theory and using a discrete choice experiment, the authors examine factors that influence a manager's decision to take proactive measures to prepare for a supply chain disruption. They find that managers are most influenced by the cost of the response. That is, even when managers perceive that proactive measures to mitigate the threat of a disruption are effective, they are more likely to be influenced by the implementation and relationship cost of those measures. The research also finds inconsistency in what factors managers say is most important and what they actually do based on those factors. This is a fascinating study of human behavior, and it highlights the cost-focused orientation of most L&SCM managers.

Finally, in “Utilizing blockchain technology for supply chain transparency: A resource orchestration perspective”, Gligor et al. (2022) utilize a case study to understand how resources can be orchestrated to develop supply chain transparency (SCT)—the disclosure of sustainable practices and/or production processes to the stakeholders. The authors offer a theoretical framework for understanding the structuring, bundling and leveraging processes, and they contextualize the managerial action required to accumulate, combine, and exploit resources. Drawing from Richey et al. (2022), this research highlights the flexibility dimension of responsiveness because the case company, a small coffee producer, changed its current policy to adopt blockchain technology (BCT) for enhanced SCT. The traceability capability offered by BCT allowed the company to verify the raw materials from their origin and to document real-time flow of those materials throughout the supply chain. This change allowed the company to enhance its value to consumers and meet their demands for authenticity.

In sum, the articles in this issue reflect the kind of research that we want to continue to publish in 2022 and throughout the rest of our tenure as editors. We will continue to highlight the importance of the L&SCM discipline, and we hope that the current visibility and changes occurring in the field will advance further theoretical development as it relates exclusively to defining the discipline as unique to others. We will also be vocal advocates for growth of the discipline through continued advancement of L&SCM curriculum, programs within business schools at every education level, and other non-degree opportunities that will open the door for more scholars to embrace this field and pursue relevant and rigorous scholarship that makes a meaningful difference to business and society.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个反映现实的研究议程:关于反应
如果你忽略了这些新闻,将自己与股市隔离,并且不是音乐家Jack White的粉丝,那么2021年你可能还会错过以下内容:物流和供应链管理的重要性,以至于该领域现在被置于显微镜下(McLain et al. 2021)。虽然媒体专家和政客们继续错误地说“供应链”(Singman, 2021),但令人耳目一新的是,有史以来第一次,公众明白,将产品放到零售货架上或送到家门口实际上是相当复杂的。在撰写这篇社论时,全球许多公司面临的最重大挑战之一是应对大流行被压抑的需求,并适应相关的供应链约束和瓶颈(Pylas, 2021;Thorbecke, 2021)。在全球范围内,基本供应链角色的小时劳动力短缺已经产生了连锁反应,继续中断业务运营并加剧供应链中断(Taylor, 2021)。同样,公司也在努力招聘和留住专业的供应链人才,尤其是随着供应链角色的发展变得更具战略性——从字面上讲,就是那些帮助塑造商业战略的人(供应链数字化,2020)。回顾过去,在过去的二十年中,物流和供应链管理(L&SCM)作为一项宝贵的职业和主要的研究学科的重要性显著增长。然而,大多数商学院对市场需求反应迟钝,许多商学院表现出不愿意适应、灵活、敏捷或即兴发挥到足以将供应链管理教育纳入其学位课程的程度。更令人费解的是,许多商学院的核心课程中甚至没有管理管理课程(Opatrny-Yazell &;尼尔森,2021)。实际情况是,操作效率始终是供应链管理决策不可或缺的一部分,但是当它始终以开发适应市场变化的供应链管理过程为代价时,结果可能是灾难性的。这是作为JBL编辑的几个原因之一,我们强调研究,强调供应链管理在公司内部和整个扩展供应链中的战略重要性。我们希望看到JBL的研究与当前的商业现实保持一致,因为供应链真的很棘手,即使对埃隆·马斯克来说也是如此。在经历了自二战以来最大的全球供应链中断之后,供应链管理战略似乎正在演变。精益生产和库存战略曾经被大多数公司所觊觎,现在正失去青睐。例如,精益战略的先驱丰田已经暂停了其准时制(JIT)方法(Trivedi, 2021)。近年来的中断暴露了单一采购策略的脆弱性,而全球可访问的电子商务允许消费者要求低价,即使它使最后一英里交付复杂化(Shih, 2020)。现实是:许多以效率为目的的供应链无法充分响应。我们在JBL提交中也看到了这种转变。2021年发表的JBL文章反映了L& sc的一个不断发展的方向-一个专注于技术战略投资的方向(Dong &富兰克林,2021;Durach et al. 2021;Kurpjuweit et al. 2021;Sternberg et al. 2021),管理复杂和不断变化的全球景观的重要性(Choi et al. 2021;Novak et al. 2021;Wiedmer,Griffis, 2021;维兰德,Durach, 2021)以及供应链管理经理的期望和技能组合的角色转变(Ellram &泰特,2021;Falcone et al. 2021)。当前的问题也反映了强调供应链管理的战略性质和由此产生的价值创造的研究,正如我们在下面强调的那样。在2022年的第一期,我们向供应链管理学者们提出了这样一个问题:我们学科的下一步是什么?我们认为,最近的事件和痛苦的调整期提供了一个成熟的机会来建立独特的基于学科的理论,以阐明供应链管理哲学的范围、维度和动态。也就是说,我们应该在我们的弟子中扩展研究,以进一步强调L&SCM是什么,为什么,何时以及如何。更有目的的是,一个重要的目标应该是利用我们的研究作为一种反映当前商业环境的手段,并强调商学院在供应链管理项目上投入更多资金的必要性。作者主张在供应链管理文献中有一个具体的和明确的基础视角。这是迈向成熟商业学科道路上的重要一步,并回答了为什么这个领域存在以及为什么学术与商业相关这些基本问题。作者认为,响应性为组织和供应链提供了方向——以及相关的结果——以激励公司内部和整个供应链管理网络的目标趋同。 它也与管理人员与复杂的外部条件搏斗有关,包括他们如何对公司决策和供应链中其他参与者的决策施加影响。因此,供应链管理的响应性观点可以为研究人员提供一个基础,以开发和测试活动与结果之间的关系,从而更准确地捕获供应链管理现象和相关关系。它也可能提供供应链管理经理关注的结果,重要的是,在他们的控制范围内。本文为讨论基于响应性的观点的有用性提供了一个起点,它提供了五个维度的响应性:适应性、灵活性、敏捷性、即兴性和弹性。在对供应链效率进行了几十年的关注之后,通过一个反映供应链变革潜力的新视角来构建理论似乎是合适的。我们冒昧地首先讨论Richey等人(2022)的论文,不仅是因为熟悉,还因为本期的其他论文反映了与L&SCM响应性相关的现象。该研究为企业和供应链对产品召回、交付需求、重新利用机会、外部威胁和透明度期望的响应提供了坚实的贡献。在“值得思考的食物:召回和结果”中,Wowak等人(2022)讨论了食品供应链中对产品召回情况的坚定反应的重要性。他们强调了这些召回的严重财务后果,并指出,该领域还没有发现为什么一些公司有适当的召回程序,使他们能够迅速做出反应,而另一些召回可能更耗时、更昂贵。为了调查这种差异,他们调查了召回过程和利益相关者沟通。结果揭示了财务、品牌和消费者的影响。具体来说,本研究发现管理者对召回的反应是:扩大召回、推迟召回、放弃召回或分层召回(将召回分成几个部分)。作者还发现,当公司能够快速准确地诊断出潜在的召回时,拥有最灵敏的召回流程(将有害后果降至最低)的公司。有效的召回沟通也使产品的熟练提取。相反,当供应链的复杂性影响到诊断和协调时,召回过程就会变得困难,这些情况使得分层过程对于响应问题更加重要。Castillo等人(2022)撰写的第二篇手稿“混合最后一英里交付车队与众包:管理成本-服务权衡的系统观点”,强调了对竞争和消费者压力的响应,以加快最后一英里交付给消费者。为了响应消费者需求并控制成本,一些公司正在试验混合配送系统,既利用私人车队,也利用众包(将配送外包给零工经济工人)。作者指出,众包在客户服务水平、物流绩效和路线优化方面引入了一个新的问题——司机自主。这项研究采用了一种基于代理的模拟方法,利用美国一家零售药店的送货上门数据,研究供应链如何应对最后一英里送货的变化。出乎意料的是,作者发现对众包司机最显著的激励是报酬,但出乎意料的是,他们发现报酬与单位交付成本之间不存在线性关系。也就是说,当司机的补偿过低时,送货接受率就会降低,这意味着公司不得不使用私人车队进行加急送货,这就增加了单位送货成本。同样,他们发现,高薪酬率并没有显著改善当日配送时间。在“全球中断期间的供应链可塑性:首席执行官和供应链网络对运营再利用的影响”中,Falcone等人(2022)强调了公司如何通过调整现有的生产运营来应对中断期间的社会需求(例如,服装生产商在COVID-19大流行期间提供口罩)。这与Richey et al.(2022)论文中的响应性适应维度密切相关。作者将此称为“操作性重新利用”,他们指出,这可能会给公司带来很大的不确定性。作者认为,运营重新定位的关键是供应链的可塑性,即快速对供应链做出重大调整以适应整体商业环境的巨大变化的能力。该研究强调了组织间网络特征在业务再利用中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Supply chain management and logistics processes play a crucial role in the success of businesses, both in terms of operations, strategy, and finances. To gain a deep understanding of these processes, it is essential to explore academic literature such as The Journal of Business Logistics. This journal serves as a scholarly platform for sharing original ideas, research findings, and effective strategies in the field of logistics and supply chain management. By providing innovative insights and research-driven knowledge, it equips organizations with the necessary tools to navigate the ever-changing business environment.
期刊最新文献
Consumer-Centric Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review, Framework, and Research Agenda Supply Chain Plasticity: A Responsive Network Capability to Ensure Resilience Last-Mile Delivery: A Process View, Framework, and Research Agenda Developing Grounded Theory Systematic Approach for Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research Do Supply Chain Characteristics Influence a Rival Firm's Responses to a Focal Firm's Product Preannouncements? A Competitive Dynamics Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1