To eliminate or absorb supply chain complexity: a conceptual model and case study

Abstract

Purpose Existing works in the supply chain complexity area have either focused on the overall behavior of multi-firm complex adaptive systems or on listing specific tools and techniques that business units (BUs) can use to manage supply chain complexity but without providing a thorough discussion about when and why they should be deployed. This research aims to address this gap by developing a conceptually sound model, based on the literature, regarding how an individual BU should reduce versus absorb supply chain complexity. Design/methodology/approach This research synthesizes the supply chain complexity and organizational design literature to present a conceptual model of how a BU should respond to supply chain complexity. The authors illustrate the model through a longitudinal case study analysis of a packaged foods manufacturer. Findings Regardless of its type or origin, supply chain complexity can arise because of the strategic business requirements of the BU (strategic) or because of suboptimal business practices (dysfunctional complexity). Consistent with the proposed conceptual model, the illustrative case study showed that a firm must first distinguish between strategic and dysfunctional drivers prior to choosing an organizational response. Furthermore, it was found that efforts to address supply chain complexity can reveal other system weaknesses that lie dormant until the system is stressed. Research limitations/implications The case study provides empirical support for the literature-derived conceptual model. Nevertheless, any findings derived from a single, in-depth case study require further research to produce generalizable results. Practical implications The conceptual model presented here provides a more granular view of supply chain complexity and how an individual BU should respond, than what can be found in the existing literature. The model recognizes that an individual BU can simultaneously face both strategic and dysfunctional complexity drivers, each requiring a different organizational response. Originality/value There are no other research works that have synthesized the supply chain complexity and organizational design literature to present a conceptual model of how an individual BU should respond to supply chain complexity. As such, this paper improves the understanding of supply chain complexity effects and provides a basis for future research, as well as guidance for BUs facing complexity challenges.

Upstream supply chain visibility and complexity effect on focal company’s sustainable performance: Indian manufacturers’ perspective

“…We look into complexity, which has been increasingly recognized as one of the key area of managerial concern (see Choi and Krause, 2006;Eckstein et al 2015;Perez Mesa and Gomez, 2015;Aitken et al 2016) and a critical factor moderating various performance relationships (Jacob, 2013). In this context, we argue that complexity is one of the factors of uncertainty which may enhance or hamper the effectiveness of the supply chain visibility (Caridi et al 2010 a).…”

Static supply chain complexity and sustainability practices: A multitier examination

“…However, considering the internal perspective only is clearly insufficient (Krause, Vachon, & Klassen, 2009), especially in international industries (Harms et al, 2013). Most of the current literature focuses on complexity issues as they impact individual companies only, without considering the SC perspective, especially in relation to the adoption of sustainability practices (Aitken, Bozarth, & Garn, 2016). Hall et al (2012) confirm the limitations of this perspective, arguing that firms focusing on individual sustainable development without a joint SC vision are unlikely to find satisfactory solutions to their sustainability challenges.…”

An information-content based measure of proliferation as a proxi for structural complexity

“…proliferation. Indeed, proliferation of activities, channels, customers, processes, products, markets, and so on, is at the root of the definition of complexity for both, practitioners (George and Wilson, 2004;Heywood et al, 2007;Mariotti, 2008;Golfmann and Lammers, 2015;Adams et al, 2016;Hirose et al, 2017) and academics (Rutenberg and Shaftel, 1971;Wilding, 1998;Fisher and Ittner, 1999;Choi et al, 2001;Novak and Eppinger, 2001;Blecker and Kersten, 2006;Choi and Krause, 2006;Abdelkafi, 2008;Schaffer and Schleich, 2008;Bozarth et al, 2009;Subramanian and Rahman, 2014;Aitken et al, 2016). We base our work on the definition provided by Saeed and Young (1998):…”