A supply chain resilience maturity model
Rizwan Ahmad
Department of Accounting and Information Systems, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Email: rizwan.ahmad@pg.canterbury.ac.nz
John Vargo
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand
Email: john.vargo@canterbury.ac.nz
Venkateswarlu Pulakanam
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand
E-mail: venkat.pulakanam@canterbury.ac.nz
Mesbahuddin Chowdhury
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand
E-mail: mesbahuddin.chowdhury@canterbury.ac.nz
Submission type: Conceptual paper
1
A supply chain resilience maturity model
Short abstract
The concept of maturity model proposes that a process has a lifecycle, which is assessed on
the basis of how the process is defined, managed, measured and transformed over time. A
framework to develop supply chain (SC) resilience maturity model is proposed in this paper.
This framework is based on two dimensions: supply chain resilience elements identified
through previous literature, and supply chain management maturity levels defined by
Lockamy III and McCormack (2004a). The SC resilience maturity model will be useful for
organisations to assess their current state of supply chain resilience and also identify areas for
further improvements.
Keywords: Supply Chain Resilience, Supply Chain Management Maturity Model,
Performance Management
Topics: Supply Chain
Methodology: Conceptual paper
Introduction
Today’s organisations are continued to experience a rapid evolution from a simple
environment to dynamic environment (Duffy, 2001). In many cases, these evolution
processes are abrupt and create challenges for organisation’s sustainable development. These
unexpected events (such as an act of terrorism or operational breakage in a supplier plant),
coupled with increased global competition, have lead companies to re-evaluate their strategic
priorities (Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a). Competition is not merely about new product
and/or service offering, rather it is grounded in organisational capabilities. Organisational
capabilities are institutionalised business processes that possess unique skills and complex
knowledge (Day, 1994; Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a).
A business process involves distinct organisational methods, skills, tools, human resource
and/or materials. These elements have substantial influence on the sustainability of an
organisation (Randeree et al., 2012). In order to sustain, organisations need to appreciate the
development stages, interaction and interdependencies of various business processes (Duffy,
2001). The maturity of a process is referred to a lifecycle and it is assessed based on how the
process is defined, managed, measured and transformed over time (Randeree et al., 2012).
Maturity of a process can be measured through maturity models, which emphasise that
desired goals are achieved through incremental stages. Therefore, a maturity model indicates
a methodology that constitutes components associated with definition, evaluation,
management and control of various business processes (McCormack et al., 2008).
Organisational capabilities and processes are also influenced by interaction with outside
environment (Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a), particularly with supply chain partners.
Due to globalisation, organisations are now more interconnected and interdependent with
large number of buyers and suppliers worldwide. An organisation needs to integrate its
capabilities and processes with other organisations associated with its value-adding network.
In recent years, a growing body of literature has been focusing on understanding the
development of maturity models for the effective implementation of supply chain processes
2
(Garcia Reyes & Giachetti, 2010; Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a,b; McCormack et al.,
2008; Randeree et al., 2012; Söderberg & Bengtsson, 2010).
Additionally, firms are now under continuous pressure to develop business processes that
can ensure continuity of operations, as dependency among supply chain members has
increased in recent years. In order to effectively deal with uncertain environment, a new
concept of supply chain resilience has gained attention from researchers and practitioners.
The concept of supply chain resilience highlights business processes and capabilities that are
essential for the sustainability of an organisation. These processes involve operational aspects
as well as behavioural aspects, and also involve interaction with other business processes
within and outside of an organisation. The concept of resilience also brings a systemic
perspective to a supply chain network.
In recent years, measuring supply chain performance has become vital for organisations
(Gopal & Thakkar, 2012) and it has also gained attention from various researchers (See for
example, Bititci, Garengo, Ates, & Nudurupati, 2014; Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a;
McCormack et al., 2008; Vanathi & Swamynathan, 2013). This has led to the development of
various supply chain management maturity models and measurement tools (Garcia Reyes &
Giachetti, 2010; Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004b; McCormack et al., 2008; Randeree et
al., 2012; Söderberg & Bengtsson, 2010). However, a number of studies highlighted
limitations associated with these models and measurement tools. These include:
 Lack of attention to system perspective (Chan & Qi, 2003; Gopal & Thakkar, 2012;
Huan, Sheoran, & Wang, 2004);
 Inability to incorporate change management issues and dealing with uncertain
environment (Huan et al., 2004);
 More emphasis on structural and technical factors, thus neglecting behavioural and
cultural factors (Bititci et al., 2014).
The purpose of this conceptual paper is to propose a framework to develop supply chain
resilience maturity model that will assist organisations to foster resilience within their supply
chain. To the best of researcher’s knowledge, this paper will be the first attempt to propose
such a framework. This paper will present:
 a discussion on the concept of supply chain management and supply chain resilience;
 a discussion on the different factors of supply chain resilience;
 the proposed framework to develop supply chain resilience maturity model;
 Conclusion and future research gaps.
Supply chain management and resilience
The concept of supply chain is relatively new and growing subject in business
(Christopher & Holweg, 2011) as well as in academic world. In the literature, a supply chain
is defined as a complex network of companies involved in product flow from the initial raw
material supplier to the end consumer; linked with information and monetary flow (Bozarth
& Handfield, 2006; Pettit & Fiksel, 2010). Consequently, supply chain management (SCM)
deals with effective and efficient management of collaborative practices for the network of
companies in the whole supply chain (Bozarth & Handfield, 2006). Here, the underlying
phenomenon of “network” is a contemporary focus in the supply chain literature. A supply
chain is not an isolated group of companies; rather it is the complex network of organisations,
industries and economies involved in the flow of product and information (Christopher &
Peck, 2004).
Increased connectivity of organisations to their supply chains has brought many
challenges. A major challenge for organisations is to ensure continuity of supplies, such as
human resource, raw materials and information. As supply chain disruptions have increased
recently, organisations are now facing much more pressure to maintain smooth follow
3
operations. This challenge has increased the importance of supply chain resilience for
practitioners as well for researchers. Major disruptions, such as 9/11 terror attack, have
created adverse impact on the world wide economies. This has initiated a research stream on
supply chain resilience (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Hohenstein et al., 2015; Rice & Caniato,
2003; Sheffi & Rice Jr, 2005).
In the literature, resilience is discussed in a wide spectrum of disciplines such as ecology,
sociology, psychology and economics (Croxton & Pettit, 2013; Ponomarov & Holcomb,
2009). Although the concept of supply chain resilience has gained interest in recent years
among the SCM researchers, but a well-defined and commonly accepted definition is still
required. Table 1 summarises few definitions of resilience from organisational and supply
chain perspective.
Table 1 – Definitions of resilience from organisational and supply chain perspective
Author(s)
Rice and Caniato (2003)
Christopher and Peck
(2004)
Christopher and Peck
(2004); Sheffi and Rice Jr
(2005)
Sheffi and Rice Jr (2005);
Sheffi (2005)
Fiksel (2006, p. 16)
Seville et al. (2008)
Weick et al. (2008)
Ponomarov and Holcomb
(2009, p. 131)
Melnyk et al. (2014)
Definitions
the ability to respond and return to pre-disaster operational
level.
the system’s ability to return to its pre-disaster state or to
achieve higher and more desired state after disruption.
the dynamic capability of system to return to original state
or achieve a new and more favourable state, through
adaptability and flexibility.
the ability and speed at which companies bounce back to
its original operational level after high impact/low
probability disaster.
the ability to “survive, adapt, and grow” in an uncertain
environment.
“the ability to survive crisis and thrive in a world of
uncertainty”.
the capacity to balance and sustain desired state under
difficult and challenging event.
“the adaptive capability of supply chain to prepare for
unexpected events, respond to disruptions, and recover
from them by maintaining continuity of operations at the
desired level of connectedness and control over structure
and function”.
the capability of supply chain to sustain disruptive event
and then return to normal operational capacity.
These definitions highlight two different perspectives of supply chain resilience. The first
perspective of resilience emphasises on the system’s capability to adjust and restore to predisaster situation under unexpected and fuzzy environment (Christopher & Rutherford, 2004;
Yilmaz-Börekçi et al., 2014). The second perspective, which goes beyond just sustaining a
crisis, is the ability to achieve higher and desired state after disruption (Christopher & Peck,
2004; Fiksel, 2006; Seville et al., 2008). This approach presents broader view of resilience
and describes it as an adaptive capability to progress in the uncertain environment. Moreover,
the concept of resilience is much more than simply being flexible and adaptive, it also
provides a basis for sustainable competitive edge (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003). Seville and
Vargo (2011) suggest that crisis management coupled with the strategic planning provides
“silver lining”. This enables a firm to foresee distinct opportunities for sustainable future. It is
essential to understand the difference between the two perspectives, as it may influence how
4
an organisation defines, implements and evaluates its supply chain resilience processes and
practices. This research incorporates the second broader perspective of supply chain
resilience. Supply chain resilience is defined as “the ability to survive crisis and thrive in a
world of uncertainty” (Seville et al., 2008).
Maturity models
The concept of maturity model is first introduced by Crosby (1980) in his famous book,
Quality is Free. Crosby (1980) developed the “quality management maturity grid” which
described various stages of understanding and execution of quality improvements. In quality
management perspective, this means transformation from an inspection mind-set to a
continuous improvement/prevention mentality (Engle, 2012).
Based on the quality management maturity grid, the concept of process maturity is
associated with a lifecycle, which describe that a process has a lifecycle. This life cycle is
determined by the thoroughness of its definition, implementation, measurement and control.
It also indicates growth in process capability, resources and stability within an organisation
(Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a; Randeree et al., 2012). As a process matures, an
organisation embeds the changes through systems, standards and structure. Enabling a
maturity model to sustain for a longer time requires developing facilities and organisational
culture that is backed by methods and policies (Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a). It
consists of evolutionary phases rather than revolutionary steps. It also keeps the process
maturity up and running towards new maturity benchmarks (Randeree et al., 2012).
As a process matures, its perspective shifts from internal or isolated perspective to more
external or integrated perspective. A threshold of maturity level, when reached, triggers and
embeds changes across the entire organisation. This view is essential to attain specific
process goals. The strength of process capability for an organisation is accomplished with
each stage of maturity (Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a). The capability is characterised
as:
 Control: defined as the ability to observe and monitor the difference between actual and
desired state, and taking action to minimise the gap;
 Predictability: the extent of uncertainty in achieving getting to cost and performance
targets; and
 Effectiveness: attaining the results and capacity to set higher targets.
A maturity model presents various benefits to an organisation. It provides meaningful and
step-by-step benchmark tool through which an organisation can implement various best
practices and policies. Many authors have studied the impact of process maturity to the
business performance, i.e. higher levels of maturity leads to better performance (Bititci et al.,
2014; Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004b; McCormack et al., 2008; Vanathi &
Swamynathan, 2013). In particular, a maturity model answers the following critical questions
for an organisation (Kalmis, 2004):
 Current standing of an organisation: What level of a process maturity does an
organisation currently have?
 What does an organisation want to achieve: What ultimate level of maturity does an
organisation foresee?
 Evolutionary process towards final destination: How can an organisation achieve the
desired goal or level of maturity?
Supply chain management maturity levels
The study of Lockamy III and McCormack (2004a) presents first attempt to develop a
supply chain management maturity model. This model is based on the concepts of process
maturity and Business Process Orientation (BPO) maturity model developed by Software
5
Engineering Institute, USA. The maturity model defines five levels or stages of maturity.
These stages illustrate various business practises and capabilities used at different maturity
levels. Every achieved level of maturity brings enhanced predictability, capability, control,
effectiveness and efficiency. In the literature, these stages of maturity have become
benchmark for other researchers to develop supply chain management maturity model
(Garcia Reyes & Giachetti, 2010; Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004b; McCormack et al.,
2008; Randeree et al., 2012; Söderberg & Bengtsson, 2010). The study of Lockamy III and
McCormack (2004a) provides a detailed description of each stage of supply chain
management maturity model;
 The first level – AD Hoc: This level is associated with unstructured tasks and exercises,
and poorly defined practises. Process measurements are not applied and organisational
structures are not based on horizontal processes at a supply chain level. Results are
uncertain along with higher costs. Performance indicators, such as functional
cooperation and customer satisfaction, are low.
 The second level – Defined: This stage is characterised by minimal effort to define and
document basic functions and processes of a supply chain. Few structural changes are
made in organisation. Performance can be analysed and measured to some extent.
Substantial efforts are required to deal with inter-functional issues, but costs are high at
this level. Customer satisfaction level is generally enhanced in this level but still it’s not
sufficient.
 The third level – Linked: At this level general supply chain management practises are
implemented. The duties are assigned to process units rather than functional units; this
makes organisational structure more horizontally oriented (supply chain oriented).
Teams make cooperation plans among various actors of supply chain such as suppliers,
customers and organisational departments. These plans help to have common objective
and performance measures in whole supply chain as well as within the organisation.
Performance and productivity is achieved through these teams because they handle
continuous improvement and root cause analysis. Customers become more linked to
improvement efforts and hence higher efficiency is achieved.
 The fourth level – Integrated: This is a higher level where the company, its supply base
and customer base strategically make alliance at process level. Organisational hierarchy
and functions operate on supply chain management practices and traditional approaches
start to diminish and these are substituted with strategic practices throughout the supply
chain. Collaboration is the key and performance is measured for whole supply chain.
The process improvement activities are designed for teams and considerable cost
reduction take place. Customer satisfaction comes into being as a competitive
advantage.
 The final level – Extended: Multi-organisational teams become visible having extended
activities and planning. Their empowerment and settlement of objectives throughout the
supply chain is highly recognised. The supply chain intrigues to work on trust and
interdependence which creates a support base for organisations. In this extended
system, process performance and trust are the elements which are measured. A
customer focused culture dominates in overall supply chain. Costs, investments and
returns in system improvements are shared. Competition is based on multiorganisational supply chains.
In nutshell, this model points out various supply chain activities which may enhance a
company’s competitive supply chain performance. This research attempts to integrate these
supply chain maturity levels with the supply chain resilience elements.
Developing a supply chain resilience maturity model
6
This study proposes framework to develop supply chain resilience maturity model, which
is developed based on a two-step process. First, an analysis of three maturity models related
to supply chain management and business continuity management. Second, a consolidation
process which involves combining building blocks of resilience from the previous literature.
Step one: A review of existing supply chain management and business continuity management
maturity models
As part of the first step in this two-step process, three key existing maturity models are
reviewed briefly. These three models are Supply Chain Management (SCM) maturity model
(Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004a,b), Business Continuity Management (BCM) maturity
model (Randeree et al., 2012) and Business Continuity (BC) maturity model (Kalmis, 2004).
The SCM maturity model developed by Lockamy III and McCormack (2004a) links the
supply chain management maturity levels, as discussed in the previous section, to Supply
Chain Operational Reference (SCOR) model (Lockamy III & McCormack, 2004b). The
SCOR model is developed by Supply Chain Council to provide basic guidelines to enhance
the performance of a firm’s supply chain. The SCOR model presents the process-based
assessment in four areas: Plan, Source, Make, and Deliver. Furthermore, a scale consisting of
94 items (each using a Likert five-point scale), is then used to develop the maturity model.
The mean value of 249 indicates that firm is on linked maturity level. The lowest value, that
is 94, is associated with ad-hoc maturity, whereas the highest score of 470 defines the level of
extended maturity (McCormack et al., 2008).
The Business Continuity Management (BCM) maturity model developed by Randeree et
al. (2012) considered five areas of BCM. These areas include BCM program management,
planning and analysis, development of the business continuity process, implementation, and
maintenance. Additionally, each area is further divided into well-defined goals. BCM
maturity model also used similar maturity levels as Lockamy III and McCormack (2004a):
ad-hoc, managed, defined, integrated and optimised. This BCM maturity model presents
comprehensive steps at each level of maturity and provides assistance in defining BCM
practices.
Lastly, the business continuity maturity model prepared by Kalmis (2004) provides a
different perspective of both dimensions of maturity model. This model devises six levels of
maturity, namely, self-governed, supported self-governed, centrally governed, enterprise
awakening, planned growth and synergistic. These levels define the extent of involvement
from management and participation of different functions within an organisation. Each level
of maturity is analysed through corporate competencies such as leadership, employee
awareness, business continuity program structure, program pervasiveness, metrics, resource
commitment and external coordination.
The analysis of these three maturity models presents basic understanding of structure and
application of these models to an organisation. The level of maturity indicates that as
processes mature, the focus shifts from internally focused processes to externally or system
wide focused processes. Many authors used the same levels of maturity as defined by
Lockamy III and McCormack (2004a) and form the basis for the development of maturity
models in supply chain management research (Garcia Reyes & Giachetti, 2010; McCormack
et al., 2008; Randeree et al., 2012; Söderberg & Bengtsson, 2010).
The study of Gopal and Thakkar (2012) highlights major limitations with these models
and also with other measurement tools in the supply chain literature. It is mentioned that less
focus is given on systematic collation regarding measures to assess supply chain
performance. The integration of contemporary practices and measurement systems for
performance is not much discussed. There is also a gap in the literature about benchmarking
practices of supply chain performance. Furthermore, the application of SCM maturity models
7
does not have sufficient understanding of cultural and behavioural aspects. Huan et al. (2004)
also present weaknesses of the SCOR model. The main limitations of the model include:
 Inability to address change management issues during uncertain environment, and
 Lack of focus of networked approach in a highly dynamic marketplace.
In order to address these gaps, this paper intends to focus on supply chain resilience
perspective. The next section presents the elements of resilience based on the current
understanding of the concept in the literature.
Step two: Consolidation Process – Elements of Resilience
In addition to the maturity levels, it is also important to define elements of resilience,
through which supply chain resilience is attained. The purpose of this consolidation process is
to present and combine the factors or elements of resilience explored by other authors.
Furthermore, these elements will be divided in two categories; operational elements and
behavioural elements.
In the literature, many authors discussed these elements differently; some authors call
them elements of resilience, while others associate these factors as attributes, antecedents,
capabilities or competencies (Hohenstein et al., 2015). According to Fiksel (2003), there are
four attributes; (a) diversity, (b) efficiency, (c) adaptability and (d) cohesion, which make a
system resilient. Similarly, Sheffi and Rice Jr (2005) suggest two aspects of resilience:
redundancy and flexibility. These aspects focus on flexibility because they allow firms to
sustain during a crisis and better respond to an unexpected demand. Many authors have
suggested similar ways to achieve resilience (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Hamel &
Valikangas, 2003; Melnyk et al., 2014; Pettit & Fiksel, 2010; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009).
Table 2 summarises all different building blocks of resilience.
Table 2 – Building Blocks of Resilience
Author (s)
Fiksel (2003)
Hamel and Valikangas
(2003)
Christopher and Peck
(2004)
Sheffi and Rice Jr
(2005)
Ponomarov and
Holcomb (2009)
Melnyk et al. (2014)
Yilmaz-Börekçi et al.
(2014)
Elements of Resilience
Diversity, Efficiency, Adaptability and Cohesion
Conquering Denial, Valuing Varity, Liberating Recourses,
Embracing Paradox
Supply Chain (re) engineering – Supply base strategy, SC
understanding, SC design principle; SC Collaboration –
Collaborative planning, SC intelligence; Agility – Visibility,
Velocity; SC Risk Management Culture – Continuity Team,
Leadership, Risk consideration in Decision Making
Redundancy – Reserve resources, Flexibility – Supply &
Demand, Conversion, Distribution and customer-facing
activities, Control system, Right culture
Resilience/Capabilities Matrix: SC resilience – Readiness,
Response and Recovery; Psychological principle of
Resilience – Control, Coherence, and Connectedness
Resistance – Avoidance, Containment ; Recovery –
Stabilisation, Return
Structural Resilience (redundancy), Organisational Resilience
(requisite variety), Procession Continuity (Resources)
Hohenstein et al. (2015), through a systematic literature review, presents an analysis of
elements of resilience. The study is based on comprehensive review of supply chain
resilience concept from 63 top-tier journal articles from 2003 to 2013. The study asserts that
8
out of 36 elements majority of the authors consider six elements as critical for supply chain
resilience: flexibility, redundancy, collaboration, visibility, agility and multiple sourcing.
However, by analysing these resilience elements, it can be asserted that majority of the
authors have mainly emphasized on operational aspect of the concept. This presents a
research opportunity to analyse and integrate the non-operational aspects such as behavioural
elements of resilience.
The basic understanding of behavioural aspects of resilience comes from Benchmark
Resilience Tool developed through a series of research work (Kachali, 2013; Lee et al., 2013;
McManus, 2008; Stephenson, 2010). The final and refined version of this new tool, called
organisational resilience framework, has identified 13 indicators of resilience. These
indicators are grouped into three factors; leadership & culture, change ready and network
(Figure 1).
 Leadership & Culture: Refers to the “adaptive capacity” which is institutionalised in an
organisation. It includes leadership, staff engagement, situation awareness, decision
making, and innovation and creativity.
 Change Ready: Refers to the “planning” which helps organisation to become change
ready. It includes unity of purpose, proactive posture, planning strategies and stress
testing plans.
 Network: Refers to the “internal and external relationships” which are developed in
order to take leverage in tough conditions. It includes effective partnerships, leveraging
knowledge, breaking silos, and internal resources.
Figure 1 – Organisational resilience framework1
This organisational resilience framework presents various distinguishing characteristics as
compared to the other factors (listed in Table 2):
 The framework incorporates the softer aspect of resilience such as leadership, culture,
unity of purpose and staff engagement, whereas major focus of the other models is on
operational aspects.
1
Source: The Resilient Organisations (ResOrgs): ResOrgs is a public-good research programme based in New Zealand. ResOrgs is a
collaboration between top New Zealand research universities, diverse group of industry partners and advisors.
(http://www.resorgs.org.nz).
9
 The organisational resilience framework gives more focus on proactive posture of
resilience, by embedding resilience in the culture of an organisation, whereas other
frameworks give more weightage to the response and recovery phase.
 In conclusion, the organisational resilience framework is about “finding the silver
lining”. Whereas, for the other models, resilience is more of a “surviving and
responding to a potential crisis”.
It is essential to appreciate both aspects, operational and behavioural aspects, of resilience.
To the best of researcher’s knowledge, this research is the first attempt to integrate both
aspects of resilience and propose an enhanced version of supply chain resilience elements
(Table 3). In case of operational elements, flexibility, redundancy, collaboration, visibility
and agility are considered as major influencing factors, as discussed by majority of authors
(Hohenstein et al., 2015).
Table 3 – Supply Chain Resilience Elements
Perspective
Operational
Behavioural
Elements
Flexibility, Redundancy, Collaboration, Visibility, Agility
Leadership & Culture, Change Ready, Network
A new supply chain resilience maturity model
Based on the maturity levels defined by Lockamy III and McCormack (2004a) and supply
chain resilience elements discussed in the previous section, this study has made first attempt
to develop a conceptual framework for supply chain resilience maturity model (Figure 2).
The model presents two dimensions:
 X-axis: Supply Chain Resilience Elements
 Y-axis: Level of Maturity
Level of Maturity
Extended
Integrated
Linked
Defined
AD Hoc
Leadership
& Culture
Change
Ready
Network
Flexibility Redundancy Visibility Collaboration Agility
Behavioural Elements
Operational Elements
Supply Chain Resilience Elements
Figure 2 – Supply Chain Resilience Maturity Model
10
The above preliminary conceptual framework is based on literature review of the supply
chain resilience elements and maturity models. This research is the initial work of research’s
PhD thesis. Furthermore, it is intended to refine and complete this model based on further
research which involves empirical research on supply chain resilience.
Agenda for further investigation
This paper has analysed the current supply chain management maturity models and
identified gaps for further improvement. In order to progress, we have proposed following
research questions;
 Research Question 1: What are the factors, operational and behavioural, that build a
resilient supply chain in a network of upstream and downstream supply chain actors?
 Research Question 2: What are the characteristics and elements of a supply chain
resilience maturity model?
Developing SC resilience maturity model is part of the first author’s broader PhD thesis
proposal which primarily aims to investigate factors and building blocks of SC resilience.
As supply chain resilience is an emerging research topic and there is no widely
acknowledged theory, this research aims to build a theory of supply chain resilience. We will
therefore use inductive qualitative research methodology because it is most appropriate for
theory development. In particular, a case study methodology will be used. This methodology
is preferred when research is investigating ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions, and
understanding a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2009).
Specifically we will use what is known as multiple-case embedded (Network) design. In this
design, the primary unit of analysis is a supply chain of a focal organisation. Individual
organisations within the supply chain will be identified as subunits. This multiple-case
embedded (network) design is selected to take a network perspective of supply chain
resilience. This approach will provide detailed view of the supply chain resilience factors
from various organisations within the supply chain.
Using the results of the above multiple-case study research we will further refine the SC
resilience maturity model and define each element of resilience in terms of processes,
capabilities and resources at each level of maturity. We will further enhance and validate the
model through focus groups comprising of business experts and researchers.
The value addition of new supply chain resilience maturity model will be two folded.
From theoretical perspective, this model will enhance the current maturity models by
integrating network perspective to understand both operational and behavioural factors in a
dynamic environment. These both factors are considered critical for supply chain resilience
as well as for maturity models. From practical perspective, the refined version of this model
will be useful for organisations to assess their current state of supply chain resilience and
identify areas for further improvement. A further detailed version of this tool intends to
describe procedure, method and resources required to achieve a higher level of maturity. As
previous maturity models in supply chain management literature only state organisation’s
current level of maturity. The new maturity model will expand this perspective and will also
provide step-by-step procedure that will help an organisation to maintain and each higher
maturity level.
Conclusions
To the best of the authors’ knowledge as yet no one developed a supply chain resilience
maturity model. Such a model offers unique opportunity for organisations to evaluate their
current level of supply chain resilience and develop further strategies to achieve desirable
results.
11
This paper developed a conceptual framework for supply chain resilience maturity model.
The model is based on two dimensions: supply chain resilience elements, which are identified
through previous literature, and supply chain maturity levels, which are based on the levels
defined by Lockamy III and McCormack (2004a).
The proposed SC resilience framework combines both, operational and behavioural,
elements of resilience. The behavioural aspects of resilience, such as culture and leadership,
have been largely ignored in the previous supply chain resilience and supply chain maturity
model literature. These behavioural aspects could have significant impact on the application
of the supply chain resilience practices.
As mentioned before, developing SC resilience maturity model is part of the first author’s
broader PhD thesis proposal which primarily aims to investigate factors and building blocks
of SC resilience. The case study research, when completed, will help us to refine the
framework and define the two dimensions of the SC maturity model.
References
Bititci, U. S., Garengo, P., Ates, A. and Nudurupati, S. S. (2014), “Value of maturity models in performance
measurement”, International journal of production research, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3062-3085.
Bozarth, C. C. and Handfield, R. B. (2006), Introduction to operations and supply chain management, Prentice
Hall.
Chan, F. T. and Qi, H. J. (2003), “An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 209-223.
Christopher, M. and Holweg, M. (2011), "“Supply Chain 2.0”: managing supply chains in the era of
turbulence", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 6382.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), "Building the Resilient Supply Chain", The International Journal of
Logistics Management, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1-1.
Christopher, M. and Rutherford, C. (2004), "Creating supply chain resilience through agile six sigma", Critical
Eye, vol. 24, p. 28.
Crosby, P. B. (1980), Quality is free, Signet Book.
Croxton, K. L. and Pettit, T. J. (2013), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development and implementation of
an assessment tool”, Journal of business logistics, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 46-76.
Day, G. S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organizations”, the Journal of Marketing, pp. 37-52.
Duffy, J. (2001), “Maturity models: Blueprints for e-volution”, Strategy & Leadership, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 19-26.
Engle, P. (2012), “The maturity model”, Industrial Engineers, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 22.
Fiksel, J. (2003), “Designing resilient, sustainable systems”, Environmental science & technology, vol. 37, no.
23, pp. 5330-5339.
Fiksel, J. (2006), “Sustainability and Resilience: Toward a Systems Approach”, Sustainability: Science,
Practice, & Policy, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 14-21.
Garcia Reyes, H. and Giachetti, R. (2010), “Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in Mexico”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 415-424.
Gopal, P. and Thakkar, J. (2012), “A review on supply chain performance measures and metrics: 2000-2011”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 518-547.
Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (20030, “The quest for resilience”, Harvard business review, vol. 81, no. 9, pp.
52-65.
Hohenstein, N. O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., Giunipero, L. and Saenz, M. J. (2015), “Research on the
phenomenon of supply chain resilience: a systematic review and paths for further investigation”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 45, no. 1/2, pp. 90 - 117.
Huan, S. H., Sheoran, S. K. and Wang, G. (2004), “A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference
(SCOR) model”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol 9, no. 1, pp 23-29.
Kachali, H. (2013), Key elements of sectoral recovery and resilience after the Canterbury earthquakes: a system
dynamics approach, University of Canterbury.
Kalmis, L. (2004), “Business Continuity Maturity Model”, available at: www. virtual-corp. net/html/show_
news2. cfm
Lee, A. V., Vargo, J. and Seville, E. (2013), “Developing a Tool to Measure and Compare Organizations’
Resilience”, Natural hazards review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 29-41.
12
Lockamy III, A. and McCormack, K. (2004a), “The development of a supply chain management process
maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 272-278.
Lockamy III, A. and McCormack, K. (2004b), “Linking SCOR planning practices to supply chain performance:
An exploratory study”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 24, no. 12, pp.
1192-1218.
McCormack, K., Bronzo Ladeira, M. and Paulo Valadares de Oliveira, M. (2008), “Supply chain maturity and
performance in Brazil”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 272-282.
McManus, S. T. (2008), Organisational resilience in new zealand, University of Canterbury.
Melnyk, S. A., Closs, D. J., Griffis, S. E., Zobel, C. W. and Macdonald, J. R. (2014), “Understanding supply
chain resilience”, Supply Chain Management Review, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 34-41.
Pettit, T. J. and Fiksel, J. (2010), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a conceptual framework”,
Journal of business logistics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1-21.
Ponomarov, S. Y. and Holcomb, M. C. (2009), “Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 124-143.
Randeree, K., Mahal, A. and Narwani, A. (2012), “A business continuity management maturity model for the
UAE banking sector”, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 472-492.
Rice, J. B. and Caniato, F. (2003), “Building a secure and resilient supply network”, Supply Chain Management
Review, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 22-30.
Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., Dantas, A., Le Masurier, J., Wilkinson, S. and Vargo, J. (2008), “Organisational
resilience: Researching the reality of New Zealand organisations”, Journal of business continuity &
emergency planning, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 258-266.
Seville, E. and Vargo, J. (2011), “Crisis strategic planning for SMEs: finding the silver lining”, International
journal of production research, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 5619-5635.
Sheffi, Y. (2005), The resilient enterprise: overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage, MIT Press
Books, vol. 1.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice Jr, J. B. (2005), “A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 41-48.
Söderberg, L. and Bengtsson, L. (2010), “Supply chain management maturity and performance in SMEs”,
Operations Management Research, vol. 3, no. 1-2, pp. 90-97.
Stephenson, A. V. (2010), Benchmarking the resilience of organisations University of Canterbury,
Vanathi, R. and Swamynathan, R. (2013), “A study on adoption of supply chain maturity model for
enhancement of supply chain performance in industries”, Life Science Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1921-1925.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (2008), “Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective
mindfulness”, Crisis management, vol. 3, pp. 81-123.
Yilmaz-Börekçi, D., Say, A. İ. And Rofcanin, Y. (2014), “Measuring Supplier Resilience in Supply Networks”,
Journal of Change Management, pp. 1-19.
Yin, R. K. (2013), Case study research: Design and methods, Sage publications.
13