In much of the current literature on supply chain management, supply networks are recognized as a system. In this paper, we take this observation to the next level by arguing the need to recognize supply networks as a complex adaptive system (CAS). We propose that many supply networks emerge rather than result from purposeful design by a singular entity. Most supply chain management literature emphasizes negative feedback for purposes of control; however, the emergent patterns in a supply network can much better be managed through positive feedback, which allows for autonomous action. Imposing too much control detracts from innovation and flexibility; conversely, allowing too much emergence can undermine managerial predictability and work routines. Therefore, when managing supply networks, managers must appropriately balance how much to control and how much to let emerge.

Supply chain disruptions and the associated operational and financial risks represent the most pressing concern facing firms that compete in today's global marketplace. Extant research has not only confirmed the costly nature of supply chain disruptions but has also contributed relevant insights on such related issues as supply chain risks, vulnerability, resilience, and continuity. In this conceptual note, we focus on a relatively unexplored issue, asking and answering the question of how and why one supply chain disruption would be more severe than another. In doing so, we argue, de facto, that supply chain disruptions are unavoidable and, as a consequence, that all supply chains are inherently risky. Employing a multiple-method, multiple-source empirical research design, we derive novel insights, presented as six propositions that relate the severity of supply chain disruptions (i) to the three supply chain design characteristics of density, complexity, and node criticality and (ii) to the two supply chain mitigation capabilities of recovery and warning. These findings not only augment existing knowledge related to supply chain risk, vulnerability, resilience, and business continuity planning but also call into question the wisdom of pursuing such practices as supply base reduction, global sourcing, and sourcing from supply clusters. † Corresponding author. 132 Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions

Despite the impact that Deming and his 14 Points have had on the practice of quality management, empirical support for the effectiveness of the Deming Management Method has not advanced beyond the presentation of anecdotal, case-study evidence.In part, this is because theory to guide the conduct of empirical research has not been available. Only recently has such a theory of quality management to describe and explain the effectiveness of the Deming Management Method been articulated in the literature. This paper continues the journey of theory development; it reports the results of an exploratory empirical analysis of an articulated theory of quality management underlying the Deming Management Method. The constructs in the proposed theory are operationalized using measurement statements developed by the World-Class Manufacturing research project team at the University of Minnesota and Iowa State University. Path analysis is applied to the World-Class Manufacturing project data to explore the empirical strength of relationships advanced in the theory. The path analytic: results provide support for several of the proposed relationships in the theory, and more importantly, suggest a number of new relationships which have not heretofore been proposed.

No abstract

A growing number of studies and evidence from industries suggest that, besides managing the relationship with its suppliers, a buyer needs to proactively manage the relationships between those suppliers. In a buyer–supplier–supplier relationship triad, the buyer, as the contracting entity, influences the suppliers’ behaviors and the relationship between them. By considering the relationships in such a triad, we are able to gain a richer and more realistic perspective of buyer–supplier relationships. In this study, our goal is to examine supplier–supplier relationships in buyer–supplier–supplier triads, focusing on how such relationships impact the supplier performance. We frame the supplier–supplier relationship as co‐opetition—one in which competing suppliers work together to meet the buyer's requirements. We investigate the role of the buyer on such relationships, and how the buyer and co‐opetitive supplier–supplier relationships affect supplier performance. We find mixed empirical support for our hypotheses. However, we are able to demonstrate the dynamics of supplier–supplier co‐opetition in the buyer–supplier–supplier triad. We point out the need for further studies in this area.