Dynamism, disruption orientation, and resilience in the supply chain and the impacts on financial performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective

Operational resilience, disruption, and efficiency: Conceptual and empirical analyses

“…The proposed conceptualization of operational resilience in this study is useful for research and practice in that it detaches the conceptual drivers of the construct from its core components (Hosseini et al, 2019;Scholten et al, 2019), affording a fine-grained theorization and appraisal of the performance consequences of operational resilience at its component level (Manhart et al, 2020). Second, this study extends previous research on resilience-efficiency linkage (e. g., Wong et al, 2019;Yu et al, 2019) by explicitly linking each component of operational resilience to operational efficiency to uncover their unique performance values. Third, in further advancing the work of Wong et al (2019), we examine and test the unique effects of the components of operational resilience on operational efficiency at varying conditions of operational disruption.…”

“…Within this stream of research, concepts such as disruption absorption, 1 recoverability, adaptability, and transformability have been identified as core OBR elements (Scholten et al, 2019;Pettit et al, 2019;Davidson et al, 2016). Following the OBR perspective, several empirical studies (e.g., Yu et al, 2019;Buyl et al, 2017;Brandon-Jones et al, 2014) argue that IBR elements do not capture the notion of resilience in that they cannot fully account for the variances in OBR elements. That said, it is argued that IBR elements do not in themselves reflect the core conceptual domain of resilience (Davidson et al, 2016): at best, they are indicative of "formative resilience elements" (Scholten et al, 2019), "resilience-enhancers" (Blackhurst et al, 2011) or "drivers of resilience" (Hosseini et al, 2019).…”

“…These arguments highlight the problem of using IBR elements to make conclusions about the nature of resilience. Unlike IBR elements, OBR elements are defined and measured with respect to disruptions (see e.g., Wong et al, 2019;Yu et al, 2019;Buyl et al, 2017), allowing for effective appraisal of the strategic and operational value of resilience. Taken together, the OBR perspective allows analysis of resilience as a distinct concept that is separate from its antecedents and consequences.…”

“…Researchers have made several attempts to examine the performance outcomes of resilience. While some studies have investigated the performance effects of resilience using IBR elements (e.g., Chowdhury et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2018;Li et al, 2017;Birkie et al, 2017), others have examined the performance outcomes of OBR elements (see e.g., Wong et al, 2019;Yu et al, 2019;Kwak et al, 2018). Despite the valuable insights these studies offer, several scholars (Dormady et al, 2019;Pettit et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2019) have called for further investigation into the resilience-performance relationship.…”

“…Research indicates that resilient firms have mechanisms for dealing with disruptions, enabling such firms to reap superior performance outcomes (Wong et al, 2019;Yu et al, 2019). While research interest in resilience is growing (e.g., Pettit et al, 2019;Ivanov et al, 2017), knowledge of the operational resilience construct is limited in two important ways.…”