Theory Building on Supply Chain Resilience: A SAP–LAP Analysis

Abstract

Supply chain (SC) disruption management is a complex issue that involves building SC resilience through enhancing the organizational ability to anticipate, adapt, respond, recover and learn from disruptions; it needs participation and coordinated efforts of all SC stakeholders and their processes. There is a need for a qualitative, interpretive, holistic and flexible framework in the literature. The main purpose of this work is to propose a framework. Therefore, the present study uses an interpretive method, namely “situation–actor–process–learning–action–performance” (SAP–LAP) analysis, to enhance the understanding and analyze the SC resilience building and improvement in the case company, ABC, a prominent automaker in India. Findings reveal several issues, including the establishment of risk management culture, building collaborative capabilities, framing flexible contracts, enhancing the awareness level of risks, security, and resilience among stakeholders, seamless information sharing, require attention. The efficacy and simplicity of the SAPLAP framework may enable SC stakeholders to initiate resilience-building processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ali, A., Mahfouz, A., & Arisha, A. (2017). Analysing supply chain resilience: Integrating the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,22(1), 16–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2018). Agility and resilience as antecedents of supply chain performance under moderating effects of organizational culture within the humanitarian setting: A dynamic capability view. Production Planning & Control,29(14), 1158–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015). Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management,33, 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arshinder., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2007). Supply chain coordination issues: An SAP–LAP framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,19(3), 240–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850710772923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K. S., & Craighead, C. W. (2011). An empirically derived framework of global supply resiliency. Journal of Business Logistics,32(4), 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal,54(4), 833–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. (2014). A contingent resource-based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management,50(3), 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brusset, X., & Teller, C. (2017). Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience. International Journal of Production Economics,184, 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Business Continuity Institute. (2018). BCI supply chain resilience report 2018. Retrieved December 30, 2018 from https://www.thebci.org/uploads/assets/uploaded/c50072bf-df5c-4c98-a5e1876aafb15bd0.pdf.

  10. Chauhan, G., & Singh, T. P. (2013). Resource flexibility for lean manufacturing: SAP–LAP analysis of a case study. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,4(4), 370–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. (2017). Supply chain resilience: Conceptualization and scale development using dynamic capability theory. International Journal of Production Economics,188, 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management,15(2), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DHL. (2015). A look back at 2015: the top 10 supply chain disruptions. Available at: http://www.delivered.dhl.com/en/articles/2015/11/a-look-back-at-2015-the-top-10-supply-chain-disruptions.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.

  14. Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2018). Ripple effect in the supply chain: An analysis and recent literature. International Journal of Production Research,56(1–2), 414–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., & Foropon, C. (2019). Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1582820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Blome, C., & Luo, Z. (2017). Antecedents of resilient supply chains: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,66(1), 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S., & Hazen, B. (2017). Understanding risk management for intentional supply chain disruptions: Risk detection, risk mitigation, and risk recovery. Annals of Operations Research,283, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Elluru, S., Gupta, H., Kaur, H., & Singh, S. P. (2017). Proactive and reactive models for disaster resilient supply chain. Annals of Operations Research,283, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Garg, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2010). Engineering support issues for flexibility in maintenance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics.

  20. Ghosh, K., & Sahney, S. (2010). Organizational sociotechnical diagnosis of managerial retention in an IT organization: SAP–LAP framework. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,18(1), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gölgeci, I., & Kuivalainen, O. (2020). Does social capital matter for supply chain resilience? The role of absorptive capacity and marketing-supply chain management alignment. Industrial Marketing Management,84, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gölgeci, I., & Ponomarov, S. Y. (2015). How does firm innovativeness enable supply chain resilience? The moderating role of supply uncertainty and interdependence. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,27(3), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., & Rahman, S. (2015). Supply chain resilience: Role of complexities and strategies. International Journal of Production Research,53(22), 6809–6819. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1093667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Production and Operations Management,14(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hohenstein, N. O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience: A systematic review and paths for further investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,45(1/2), 90–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hosseini, S., & Ivanov, D. (2019). A new resilience measure for supply networks with the ripple effect considerations: a Bayesian network approach. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03350-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research,57(3), 829–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2019). Simultaneous structural–operational control of supply chain dynamics and resilience. Annals of Operations Research,283, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jain, V., Kumar, S., Soni, U., & Chandra, C. (2017). Supply chain resilience: Model development and empirical analysis. International Journal of Production Research,55(22), 6779–6800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. John, L., & Ramesh, A. (2012). Humanitarian supply chain management in India: A SAP–LAP framework. Journal of Advances in Management Research,9(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson, N., Elliott, D., & Drake, P. (2013). Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,18(3), 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jüttner, U., & Maklan, S. (2011). Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,16(4), 246–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kabra, G., & Ramesh, A. (2015). Analyzing ICT issues in humanitarian supply chain management: A SAP–LAP linkages framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,16(2), 157–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2016). A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research. International Journal of Production Economics,171, 116–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Karnatak, K., & Mitra, A. (2015). Establishing visibility across the value chain of a beverage giant by implementing flexible systems. In Sushil & G. Chroust (Eds.), Systemic Flexibility and Business Agility (pp. 285–303), Flexible Systems Management, New Delhi: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kochan, C. G., & Nowicki, D. R. (2018). Supply chain resilience: A systematic literature review and typological framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,48(8), 842–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kumar, S., & Anbanandam, R. (2019a). An integrated Delphi—Fuzzy logic approach for measuring supply chain resilience: An illustrative case from manufacturing industry. Measuring Business Excellence,23(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-01-2019-0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumar, S., & Anbanandam, R. (2019b). Impact of risk management culture on supply chain resilience: An empirical study from Indian manufacturing industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006x19886718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu, C. L., Shang, K. C., Lirn, T. C., Lai, K. H., & Lun, Y. V. (2018). Supply chain resilience, firm performance, and management policies in the liner shipping industry. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,110, 202–219.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2014). Greening the supply chain using SAP–LAP analysis: A case study of an auto ancillary company in India. International Journal of Business Excellence,7(6), 724–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Majumdar, S. K., & Gupta, M. P. (2001). E-business strategy of car industry: SAP–LAP analysis of select case studies. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,2(3), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Malik, S., Maheshwari, G. C., & Singh, A. (2019). Understanding financial inclusion in India: A theoretical framework building through SAP–LAP and efficient IRP. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(2), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2014). A flexible decision framework for building risk mitigation strategies in green supply chain using SAP–LAP and IRP approaches. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,15(3), 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mishra, D., Sharma, R. R. K., Kumar, S., & Dubey, R. (2016). Bridging and buffering: Strategies for mitigating supply risk and improving supply chain performance. International Journal of Production Economics,180, 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mittal, S. (2019). Role of continuity, specificity and frequency of firm–supplier exchanges in customer fulfilment: Evidence from Latin America. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(Suppl 1), S25–S37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pal, R., Torstensson, H., & Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises—An empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. International Journal of Production Economics,147, 410–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Altay, N., Childe, S. J., & Fosso-Wamba, S. (2017). The role of big data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,142, 1108–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pereira, C. R., Christopher, M., & Lago Da Silva, A. (2014). Achieving supply chain resilience: The role of procurement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,19(5/6), 626–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ponis, S. T., & Koronis, E. (2012). Supply chain resilience? Definition of concept and its formative elements. The Journal of Applied Business Research,28(5), 921–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management,20(1), 124–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rajesh, R. (2017). Technological capabilities and supply chain resilience of firms: A relational analysis using total interpretive structural modeling (TISM). Technological Forecasting and Social Change,118, 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ramanathan, U., & Gunasekaran, A. (2014). Supply chain collaboration: Impact of success in long-term partnerships. International Journal of Production Economics,147, 252–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rawani, A. M., & Gupta, M. P. (2001). Flexible framework for strategic information systems planning: A case study from banking sector. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,2(2), 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Resilinc. (2018). First half 2018 supply chain disruption report. Retrieved December 30, 2018 from https://info.resilinc.com/eventwatch-2018-h1-report#.

  55. Rice, J. B., & Caniato, F. (2003). Building a secure and resilient supply network. Supply Chain Management Review,7(5), 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sahebjamnia, N., Torabi, S. A., & Mansouri, S. A. (2018). Building organizational resilience in the face of multiple disruptions. International Journal of Production Economics,197, 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sahoo, T., Banwet, D. K., & Momaya, K. (2010). Strategic technology management in practice: dynamic SAP–LAP analysis of an auto component manufacturing firm in India. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,11(1–2), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sahoo, T., Banwet, D. K., & Momaya, K. (2011). Strategic technology management in practice: SAP–LAP hills analysis of an automobile manufacturer in India. International Journal of Business Excellence,4(5), 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. SC24. (2018). https://www.supplychain247.com/article/supply_chain_disruption_the_bad_the_ugly_the_future/news. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.

  60. Scholten, K., Sharkey Scott, P., & Fynes, B. (2014). Mitigation processes–antecedents for building supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,19(2), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Singh, R. K., & Acharya, P. (2013). Supply chain flexibility: A frame work of research dimensions. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 14(3), 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Singh, R. K., Modgil, S., & Acharya, P. (2019). Assessment of Supply Chain Flexibility Using System Dynamics Modeling. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(Suppl 1), S39–S63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sharma, O. P. (2001). Incorporating flexibility in manufacturing and operations: A case study in the Indian context. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,2(1), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B., Jr. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review,47(1), 41.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Singh, N., & Shalender, K. (2014). Success of tatanano through marketing flexibility: A SAP–LAP matrices and linkages approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,15(2), 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Soni, U., Jain, V., & Kumar, S. (2014). Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic modeling approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering,74, 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sushil. (1997). Flexible systems management: An evolving paradigm. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research,14(4), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sushil. (2000). SAP–LAP models of inquiry. Management Decision,38(5), 347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sushil. (2001). SAP-LAP Framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2(1), 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sushil. (2005). Interpretive Matrix: A Tool to Aid Interpretation of Management and Social Research. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sushil. (2009). SAP–LAP linkages—A generic interpretive framework for analyzing managerial contexts. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,10(2), 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sushil. (2019). Theory building using SAP–LAP linkages: An application in the context of disaster management. Annals of Operations Research, 283(1-2), 811-836. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Urciuoli, L. (2015). Cyber-resilience: a strategic approach for supply chain management. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(4), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix—A tool for situational analysis. Longrange Planning,15(2), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wieland, A., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2013). The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: A relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,43(4), 300–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. World Economic Forum Report. (2013). Resilient dynamism. Retrieved December 30, 2018 from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/AM13/WEF_AM13_Report.pdf.

  77. Yilmaz Borekci, D., Rofcanin, Y., & Gürbüz, H. (2015). Organisational resilience and relational dynamics in triadic networks: A multiple case analysis. International Journal of Production Research,53(22), 6839–6867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the managers, suppliers and dealers of the case company for their support and input. We also thank anonymous reviewers and the editor of the journal for their valuable inputs.

Funding

We received financial assistance from the Ministry of Human Resource Department, Govt of India (MHRD/IITR/16918010).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramesh Anbanandam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no potential conflicts of interest concerning this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Questions:

  1. 1.

    What are the key drivers of your company’s success?

  2. 2.

    What are the core competencies of your company?

  3. 3.

    How different your company is from the competitors/other players in the automotive industry?

  4. 4.

    How many members are involved in the supply chain?

  5. 5.

    Please briefly explain about your supply chain design (location of partners, flow of material and information).

  6. 6.

    How many suppliers does your company source from?

  7. 7.

    How is the employee’s awareness level of supply chain risk management and resilience?

  8. 8.

    How is risk management culture in your company?

  9. 9.

    How is your company’s relationship with supply chain members?

  10. 10.

    What initiatives are being undertaken for intra and inter-organizational coordination?

  11. 11.

    What governs the relationship with the supply chain members?

  12. 12.

    Did your company experience any SC disruption in the past few years?

  13. 13.

    How quickly can your company discover disruptive events?

  14. 14.

    What disruptive event detection mechanisms are there in place to trigger early warning signals?

  15. 15.

    How does your company deal with disruptions?

  16. 16.

    Does your company have reliable business continuity plans?

  17. 17.

    How much importance is given to the risk management and resilience?

  18. 18.

    How is supply chain members motivated for quick/accurate/timely information sharing?

  19. 19.

    How are your partners understanding supply chain resilience? How they define it?

  20. 20.

    Do your supply chain members share information? How quickly/accurate/timely/frequently?

  21. 21.

    Do your supply chain members collaboratively work?

  22. 22.

    How frequently new products/services are launched? How frequently new technologies adopted?

  23. 23.

    What are the bottlenecks/barriers your company experienced while managing disruptions?

  24. 24.

    How resilient your supply chain is?

  25. 25.

    Does your company concern about resilience of your supply chain?

  26. 26.

    How often risk assessment and awareness exercises are conducted in your company?

  27. 27.

    How the processes related to sourcing are coordinated with the suppliers?

  28. 28.

    How is the visibility of your supply chain?

  29. 29.

    How visibility is achieved? What visibility tools and mechanisms are available?

  30. 30.

    How are demand side fluctuations managed by your supply chain?

  31. 31.

    How are supply side fluctuations managed by your supply chain?

  32. 32.

    What sort of training is given to employees regarding supply chain resilience?

  33. 33.

    What initiatives are under taken with SC members to ensure supply chain resilience?

Appendix 2

Exhibit 1: Cross-interaction matrix → Situation (S) × Actors (A)

(1) Binary matrix

Situation Actors
A1 A2 A3
S1 1 1 0
S2 1 0 1
S3 1 1 0
S4 0 1 0
S5 1 1 0

(2) Interpretive matrix

Situation Actors
A1 A2 A3
S1 Synchronized efforts of SC stakeholders can reduce the impact of disruptions Effective strategies/policies for business continuity _
S2 Seamless information sharing among SC partners minimizes supply/demand uncertainties _ Accurate forecasting of supply/demand
S3 Synchronized efforts of SC stakeholders can satisfy the customer needs Understanding changing market, customer needs _
S4 _ Proactive vision and policies implementation _
S5 Synchronized efforts of SC stakeholders Global vision and policies for business continuity _

Exhibit 2: Cross-interaction matrix → Situation (S) × Process (P)

(1) Binary matrix

Situation Process
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
S1 1 0 1 0 0 0
S2 1 1 1 1 1 1
S3 0 0 1 1 0 1
S4 1 0 1 1 1 0
S5 1 1 1 1 0 0

(2) Interpretive matrix

Situation Process
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
S1 Reduces the impact of potential risks _ Better planning results better disruption management _ _ _
S2 Predicts the uncertainties and handles them effectively Manage supply/demand uncertainties effectively Manage supply/demand uncertainties effectively Reduces supply uncertainties Handles fluctuations in demand Reduces uncertainties effectively
S3 _ _ Positively influences Understands customer needs _ Helps in realizing customer needs
S4 Minimizes the negative effect of rules and obligations risks _ Ensures the government rules and obligations Conform to rules and obligations Enable to conform to rules and obligations _
S5 Manage the negative effect of global risks Helps to improve competitiveness Manage the negative effect of global risks Adapts quickly to global changes _ _

Exhibit 3: Cross-interaction matrix → Actor (A) × Process (P)

(1) Binary matrix

Actor Process
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
A1 1 0 0 0 0 1
A2 1 1 1 0 1 1
A3 1 1 0 1 0 1

(2) Interpretive matrix

Actor Process
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
A1 Implementation methods and commitment _ _ _ _ Integration of IT systems
A2 Broad guidance and policy Guiding philosophy Broad guidance and policy   Implementation strategy Guiding policy
A3 Guiding policy Broad guidance and policy _ Methods and assessment criteria _ Cooperation and commitment

Exhibit 4: Cross-interaction matrix → Situation (S) × Learning (L*)

(1) Binary matrix

Situation Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
S1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S2 1 0 0 1 1 0
S3 1 0 1 0 0 0
S4 1 0 1 0 0 0
S5 1 0 1 1 1 0

(2) Interpretive matrix

Situation Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
S1 Greater will be the impact of disruptions and vulnerable SCs More time to recover and severe losses Constraints the severe consequences of disruptions Leads to larger risk profile of firm Inefficient handling of disruptions, leads more losses Low expertise growth
S2 Leads to more uncertainty and vulnerable SCs _   Leads to larger risk profile of firm Inefficient handling of uncertainties _
S3 Leads to loss of customer and vulnerable SCs _ Proactively senses customer needs _ _ _
S4 Vulnerable SCs _ Conforms to rules and obligations _ _ _
S5 Vulnerable SCs _ Proactive strategies for global changes Leads to larger risk profile of firm Loss of market _

Exhibit 5: Cross-interaction matrix → Actor (A) × Learning (L*)

(1) Binary matrix

Actor Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
A1 1 1 0 1 1 1
A2 0 1 1 0 0 0
A3 1 0 0 1 1 1

(2) Interpretive matrix

Actor Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
A1 Low understanding of notion of SC resilience Low supply chain surplus _ Low coordination, mutual learning Ineffective crisis management Ineffective crisis management
A2 _ Policy paralysis Policy paralysis _ _ _
A3 Low risk management knowledge _ _ Low mutual learning Ineffective crisis management Knowledge gap, low expertise

Exhibit 6: Cross-interaction matrix → Process (P) × Learning (L*)

(1) Binary matrix

Process Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
P1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P2 1 0 1 0 0 0
P3 1 0 1 0 1 1
P4 1 0 0 0 1 0
P5 0 0 0 1 0 0
P6 1 1 1 1 0 1

(2) Interpretive matrix

Process Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
P1 Poor risk management performance Increased costs of disruptions Larger risk profile Low SC risk management efficiency Poor risk management performance Ineffective risk management
P2 Waste of resources _ Lean philosophy establishment _ _ _
P3 Poor proactive vision for disruptions _ Proactive policy implementation _ Leads to ineffective planning Ineffective planning
P4 supply uncertainties _ _ _ Wrong supplier selection _
P5 _ _ _ Low level of flexibility _ _
P6 Risk is not communicated Ineffective disruptions management Information asymmetry Low mutual learning _ Improves mutual learning

Exhibit 7: Cross-interaction matrix → Learning (L*) × Action (A*)

(1) Binary matrix

Learning Action
A1* A2* A3* A4* A5* A6* A7*
L1* 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
L2* 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
L3* 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
L4* 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
L5* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
L6* 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

(2) Interpretive matrix

Learning Action
A1* A2* A3* A4* A5* A6* A7*
L1* Better understanding of risk and resilience _ Awareness, better picture of SC risk and resilience Improves awareness and builds confidence Better understanding and awareness _ _
L2* Improved planning capability Visibility of SC Effective planning and execution Better planning, execution Improved planning capability _ Better flexibility
L3* _ Supports in decision making _ _ _ _ _
L4* Mutual learning and knowledge development Better coordination among SC partners Mutual development, benefit Mutual benefit Mutual learning and knowledge development _ _
L5* Leads to expertise development _ _ _ _ _ _
L6* Increased in learning and understanding _ Mutual learning, development Facilitates good learning Facilitates good learning Facilitates learning _

Exhibit 8: Cross-interaction matrix → Action (A*) × Performance (P*)

(1) Binary matrix

Action Performance
P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*
A1* 0 1 0 1 1 1
A2* 0 1 1 1 0 0
A3* 1 1 1 1 0 1
A4* 1 0 1 0 1 1
A5* 1 0 1 0 1 1
A6*   1 1 1 0 0
A7* 1 0 0 0 0 0

(2) Interpretive matrix

Action Performance
P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*
A1* _ Smooth information flow _ Visibility and transparency Well-prepared SC for disruptions Quick response and recovery
A2* _ Smooth information flow Responsiveness Visibility and transparency _ _
A3* Better flexibility and agility Seamless information flow Supports responsiveness Visibility and transparency _ Quick response and recovery
A4* Flexibility and agility _ Responsiveness _ Better anticipation, adaptation Quick response and recovery
A5* Flexibility and agility _ Responsiveness _ Better anticipation, adaptation Quick response and recovery
A6* _ Smooth information flow Supports responsiveness Visibility and transparency _ _
A7* Flexibility and agility _ _ _ _ _

Exhibit 9: Cross-interaction matrix → Performance (P*) × Learning (L*)

(1) Binary matrix

Performance Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
P1* 0 1 0 1 0 0
P2* 0 0 0 1 0 0
P3* 1 1 1 1 1 1
P4* 1 0 0 1 0 0
P5* 1 1 1 1 1 1
P6* 1 1 1 1 1 1

(2) Interpretive matrix

Performance Learning
L1* L2* L3* L4* L5* L6*
P1* _ Poor flexibility and agility _ Poor flexibility and agility _ _
P2* _ _ _ Poor information sharing _ _
P3* Poor responsiveness Poor responsiveness Poor responsiveness Poor responsiveness Poor responsiveness Poor responsiveness
P4* Limited visibility _ _ Poor visibility _ _
P5* Poor ability to anticipate and adapt Poor ability to anticipate and adapt Poor ability to anticipate and adapt Poor ability to anticipate and adapt Poor ability to anticipate and adapt Poor ability to anticipate and adapt
P6* Delayed respond and recover Delayed respond and recover Delayed respond and recover Delayed respond and recover Delayed respond and recover Delayed respond and recover

Exhibit 10: Self-interaction matrix for actions (A*)

(1) Binary matrix

figurec

(2) Interpretive matrix

figured

Exhibit 11: Self-interaction matrix for performance (P*)

(1) Binary matrix

figuree

(2) Interpretive matrix

figuref

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siva Kumar, P., Anbanandam, R. Theory Building on Supply Chain Resilience: A SAP–LAP Analysis. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 21, 113–133 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-020-00233-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Case study
  • Qualitative decision support tool
  • SAP–LAP framework
  • Supply chain disruptions
  • Supply chain resilience
  • Theory building