Smart Supply Network—Drivers, Opportunities, and Challenges

  • Meghdad Abbasian FereidouniEmail author
  • Khatereh Azar Noor
  • Sara Ravan Ramzani
Part of the EcoProduction book series (ECOPROD)


This paper details our effort in determining how technological advancement facilitates business relationship and ameliorates the competitive advantage of supply network. Using business network management literature, current knowledge employs Activity-Resource-Actor Model (ARAM) to recap the drivers, opportunities, and challenges of smart technologies in a supply network. The following discussions reveal that in presence of technological advancement, precise knowledge sharing, stronger social co-creation, smart management, and robust legal system, business relationship and supplier collaboration can benefit from a sustainable, modern, adaptive, robust, and technology-oriented activity links, resource ties, and actor bonds, per se, smart supply network. The paper confirms that digital-linked activities empower businesses and help them gain more from interdependencies benefits. Digital-linked resources enhance heterogeneity advantage, while digital-bonded actors are obtained from transcendence. The benefits derived from digitizing activity links, resource ties, and an actor bond is reliant upon a company’s own activity structure, interdependencies, and connectedness. However, the challenges of direct/indirect relationship costs prevent companies benefiting from a smart supply network.


Business relationship SMART supply network Digital technology 


  1. 1.
    Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 67(April 2016), 23–36. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Araujo, L. (1998). Knowing and learning as networking. Management Learning, 29(3), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, L., Zhao, X., Tang, O., Price, L., Zhang, S., & Zhu, W. (2017). Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: A literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Production Economics, 194(April 2016), 73–87. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gadde, L.-E., Huemer, L., & Håkansson, H. (2003). Strategizing in industrial networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5), 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Håkansson, H. (1987). Industrial technological development: An interaction approach. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Håkansson, H. (1990). Technological collaboration in industrial networks. European Management Journal, 8(3), 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Håkansson, H., & Shenota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henneberg, S. C., Mouzas, S., & Naudé, P. (2006). Network pictures: Concepts and representations. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 408–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P., & Mouzas, S. (2010). Sense-making and management in business networks—some observations, Considerations, and a research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(3), 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho, H. D., & Lu, R. (2015). Performance implications of marketing exploitation and exploration: Moderating role of supplier collaboration. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1026–1034. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holmen, E., & Pedersen, A. (2003). Strategising through analysing and influencing the network horizon. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5), 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jain, V., & Benyoucef, L. (2008). Managing long supply chain networks: Some emerging issues and challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(4), 469–496. Scholar
  15. 15.
    La Rocca, A., Perna, A. Snehota, I., & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). The role of supplier relationships in the development of new business ventures. Industrial Marketing Management (December 2015), 1–11.
  16. 16.
    Makkonen, H., Vuori, M., & Puranen, M. (2016). Buyer attractiveness as a catalyst for buyer-supplier relationshipdevelopment. Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 156–168. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., & Delgado, C. (2018). Enhancing supply chain performance through supplier social sustainability: An emerging economy perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 195(October 2017), 259–272. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Möller, K. K., & Halinen, A. (1999). Business relationships and networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 413–427. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2017). Managing business and innovation networks—from strategic nets to business fields and ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management, 67(November), 5–22. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Möller, K., & Rajala, A. (2007). Rise of strategic nets—new modes of value creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Möller, K., & Svahn, S. (2003). Managing strategic nets: A capability perspective. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    North, D. C. (1991). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nuroğlu, H. H. (2016). Business network governance structure and IT capabilities. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 50–59. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pagani, M., & Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67(August), 185–192. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Solberg, K., Aracena, M., and Jallouli, R. (2012). Key success factors for ericsson mobile platforms using the value grid model ☆. Journal of Business Research, 65(9):1335–45. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Syntetos, A. A., Babai, Z., Boylan, J. E., Kolassa, S., & Nikolopoulos, K. (2016). Supply chain forecasting: Theory, practice, their gap and the future. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, Y., Wallace, S. W., Shen, B., & Choi, T. M. (2015). Service supply chain management: A review of operational models. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(3), 685–698. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wycisk, C., McKelvey, B., & Hülsmann, M. (2008). ‘Smart parts’ supply networks as complex adaptive systems: Analysis and implications. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(2), 108–125. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yan, T., Yang, S., & Dooley, K. (2017). A theory of supplier network-based innovation value. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 23(3), 153–162. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang, Z., Zhang, H., & Xie, E. (2017). Relative buyer-supplier relational strength and supplier’s information sharing with the buyer. Journal of Business Research, 78, 303–313. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhong, Ray Y., Newman, S. T., Huang, G. Q., & Lan, S. (2016). Big data for supply chain management in the service and manufacturing sectors: Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 572–591. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghdad Abbasian Fereidouni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Khatereh Azar Noor
    • 2
  • Sara Ravan Ramzani
    • 1
  1. 1.Center of Post Graduate Studies, Limkokwing University of Creative Technology (LUCT)CyberjayaMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMultimedia University (MMU)CyberjayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations