检验供应链管理研究的严谨性:以供应链敏捷性为例

D. Gligor, T. Stank, Nichole Gligor, Jeffrey A. Ogden, D. Nowicki, T. Farris, Yavuz Idug, Rishabh Rana, Jamie Porchia, Patil Kiran
{"title":"检验供应链管理研究的严谨性:以供应链敏捷性为例","authors":"D. Gligor, T. Stank, Nichole Gligor, Jeffrey A. Ogden, D. Nowicki, T. Farris, Yavuz Idug, Rishabh Rana, Jamie Porchia, Patil Kiran","doi":"10.1108/scm-12-2021-0575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to explore the impact of one significant threat to the rigor of theory building within supply chain management, namely, the improper development of different measures for the same construct.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nTwo survey studies are conducted. Study 1 investigates the impact of three firm orientations on five of the most cited supply chain agility (SCA) scales. Study 2 explores the impact of the same five SCA scales on three firm performance indicators.\n\n\nFindings\nThe findings reveal that the five SCA scales display adequate discriminant validity and thus measure distinct concepts. Further, the relationships between SCA and its antecedents and consequences vary significantly depending on the SCA scale used. In essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nIn essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs. The findings indicate the need for further scrutiny and investigation regarding the rigor and validity of theory building within the area of SCA. Importantly, rigorous scale development should be encouraged. Scholars should develop new scales when necessary while carefully distinguishing their proposed constructs and measures from extant ones.\n","PeriodicalId":43857,"journal":{"name":"Operations and Supply Chain Management-An International Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the rigor of SCM research: the case of supply chain agility\",\"authors\":\"D. Gligor, T. Stank, Nichole Gligor, Jeffrey A. Ogden, D. Nowicki, T. Farris, Yavuz Idug, Rishabh Rana, Jamie Porchia, Patil Kiran\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/scm-12-2021-0575\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to explore the impact of one significant threat to the rigor of theory building within supply chain management, namely, the improper development of different measures for the same construct.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nTwo survey studies are conducted. Study 1 investigates the impact of three firm orientations on five of the most cited supply chain agility (SCA) scales. Study 2 explores the impact of the same five SCA scales on three firm performance indicators.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe findings reveal that the five SCA scales display adequate discriminant validity and thus measure distinct concepts. Further, the relationships between SCA and its antecedents and consequences vary significantly depending on the SCA scale used. In essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nIn essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs. The findings indicate the need for further scrutiny and investigation regarding the rigor and validity of theory building within the area of SCA. Importantly, rigorous scale development should be encouraged. Scholars should develop new scales when necessary while carefully distinguishing their proposed constructs and measures from extant ones.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":43857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Operations and Supply Chain Management-An International Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Operations and Supply Chain Management-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-12-2021-0575\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operations and Supply Chain Management-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-12-2021-0575","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本研究旨在探讨供应链管理中理论构建严谨性的一个重大威胁,即对同一构建制定不同措施的不当影响。设计/方法/方法进行了两次调查研究。研究1调查了三种企业导向对五种最常被引用的供应链敏捷性(SCA)量表的影响。研究2探讨了相同的五个SCA量表对三个公司绩效指标的影响。研究结果表明,五个SCA量表显示出足够的区别效度,从而测量不同的概念。此外,SCA及其前因和结果之间的关系因所使用的SCA规模而有很大差异。本质上,所使用的量表决定了一种关系是否被支持,这意味着研究人员一直在松散地将相同的标签(即SCA)应用于不同的构念。原创性/价值本质上,所使用的量表决定了一种关系是否被支持,这意味着研究人员一直在松散地将相同的标签(即SCA)应用于不同的结构。研究结果表明,需要进一步的审查和调查关于理论建设的严谨性和有效性在SCA领域。重要的是,应该鼓励严格的规模发展。学者们应该在必要时开发新的量表,同时仔细区分他们所提出的结构和测量与现有的结构和测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Examining the rigor of SCM research: the case of supply chain agility
Purpose This study aims to explore the impact of one significant threat to the rigor of theory building within supply chain management, namely, the improper development of different measures for the same construct. Design/methodology/approach Two survey studies are conducted. Study 1 investigates the impact of three firm orientations on five of the most cited supply chain agility (SCA) scales. Study 2 explores the impact of the same five SCA scales on three firm performance indicators. Findings The findings reveal that the five SCA scales display adequate discriminant validity and thus measure distinct concepts. Further, the relationships between SCA and its antecedents and consequences vary significantly depending on the SCA scale used. In essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs. Originality/value In essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs. The findings indicate the need for further scrutiny and investigation regarding the rigor and validity of theory building within the area of SCA. Importantly, rigorous scale development should be encouraged. Scholars should develop new scales when necessary while carefully distinguishing their proposed constructs and measures from extant ones.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
27.80%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
A Study of Different Croston-Like Forecasting Methods Evolution of Performance Measurement Research: An Update on Research Development from 2005 to 2020 and Future Outlook for the Field Can the supply chain management field be more critical? Building new bridges with critical management studies On the Effectiveness of Option Contracts under Supply Disruption From Wireframe to Dashboard – Creating Transparency in Supply Chain Networks
×
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