Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain

2016, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

Empirical studies about supply chain flexibility have mainly focused on one (manufacturing) company, occasionally incorporating the adjoining view from a supplier, distributor, or retailer. The present paper argues that a dyadic perspective is not sufficient and that an integrated perspective is required. In-depth case study data was collected and analyzed. The data covers eight organizations in a fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) food supply chain, including suppliers, the main manufacturer, the logistics service provider, and retailers. Drawing on network theory and stakeholder theory, the study analyzed how these eight organizations experience flexibility across the supply chain. The findings show that each chain member implements flexibility to fulfill the direct needs of the next-tier chain member. Organizations at different positions in the supply chain prioritize other flexibilities. There is no support for overall supply chain flexibility.

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain Jorieke H. M. Manders a,n, Marjolein C. J. Caniëls b, Paul W. Th. Ghijsen b a Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Open University and School of Technology and Logistics, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Tegelseweg 255, 5912 BG Venlo, The Netherlands b Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Open University, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 6 January 2016 Received in revised form 30 May 2016 Accepted 1 June 2016 Empirical studies about supply chain flexibility have mainly focused on one (manufacturing) company, occasionally incorporating the adjoining view from a supplier, distributor, or retailer. The present paper argues that a dyadic perspective is not sufficient and that an integrated perspective is required. In-depth case study data was collected and analyzed. The data covers eight organizations in a fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) food supply chain, including suppliers, the main manufacturer, the logistics service provider, and retailers. Drawing on network theory and stakeholder theory, the study analyzed how these eight organizations experience flexibility across the supply chain. The findings show that each chain member implements flexibility to fulfill the direct needs of the next-tier chain member. Organizations at different positions in the supply chain prioritize other flexibilities. There is no support for overall supply chain flexibility. & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Supply chain flexibility Flexibility dimensions Goals Network theory Stakeholder theory FMCG food supply chain 1. Introduction Supply chain flexibility is crucial in today's business environment, which is characterized by complexity, continuous change, and uncertainty. Organizations must be flexible to cope with globalization, technological change and innovation, as well as changing customer needs and expectations (Pujawan, 2004; Tachizawa and Thomsen, 2007; Marley et al., 2014). The literature presents many different definitions of flexibility and no uniform concept is broadly accepted. The challenge of developing and maintaining flexibility does not stop at the boundaries of the firm (Bessant et al., 2003). Firms operate within value streams involving many firms that are organized in supply chains (Volberda, 2009). Several studies have argued that in order for a firm to achieve a level of flexibility that adds value to customers, it must look beyond manufacturing flexibility and include a supply chain or value chain perspective (Krajewski et al., 2005; Schmenner and Tatikonda, 2005). This reasoning implies that supply chain flexibility should be broadly defined and should include all types of flexibility that have a direct impact on a firm's customers (Kumar et al., 2006). However, there is no consensus about the dimensions underlying supply chain flexibility (Soon and Udin, 2011). Most empirical studies have focused on a single manufacturing company, occasionally incorporating the adjoining view from a supplier, distributor, or retailer and, at best, taking a dyadic perspective. Few studies on supply chain flexibility have included three or more tiered organizations. To date, only four studies have investigated three or four tiers (Reichart, 2007; Yi et al., 2011; Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Singh and Sharma, 2013). Even these studies still overlook that, for flexibility across the supply chain, it is not sufficient to investigate the dyadic perspective of several supply chain members. It is also necessary to study the relationships between all these parties from an integral point of view. Following stakeholder theory and network theory, the present study emphasizes the importance of investigating the role of supply chain members in decision making about flexibility-oriented activities and processes in the supply chain. The aim of this study is to address the above-mentioned research gap by examining supply chain flexibility from an integrated viewpoint of multiple supply chain members. The study's key assumption is that, for supply chain flexibility, the organizations within the supply chain should be integrated to act collectively to enhance supply chain flexibility in their supply chain. The research questions are:  How do supply chain members experience flexibility, and in n Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.H.M. Manders), [email protected] (M.C.J. Caniëls), [email protected] (P.W.Th. Ghijsen).  particular, supply chain flexibility? What are their reasons for being flexible? Which flexibility dimensions are prioritized as the supply chain http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001 1478-4092/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i 2 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Table 1 An overview of flexibility dimensions. Business area Flexibility dimension Description Source Product development Product development flexibility New product design flexibility Product modification flexibility The ability to respond to changing customer needs with new products and modifications to existing products The ability to design and introduce new products into the system Zhang et al. (2002b) The ability to customize (standard) products to meet customer specifications Vickery et al. (1999); Lummus et al. (2003) Procurement flexibility The ability to respond to changing requirements regarding the sourcing, purchasing and supply of goods The ability to find more suppliers for each specific material, component or service The ability to respond to changing requirements in terms of location and/or delivery date The ability to respond to changing needs in the ordering, delivery and receipt of supplied goods Mandersa Procurement Sourcing flexibility Supply flexibility Purchasing flexibility Manufacturing Manufacturing flexibility Volume flexibility Mix flexibility Operations flexibility Process flexibility Logistics Expansion flexibility The ability to easy add capacity to the system Logistics flexibility The ability to align, adapt and adjust the process of the goods flow including the inbound and outbound activities and the storage of the goods to the changing customers’ needs The ability to transport and produce products by different paths throughout the processing centers of the system The ability to have a number of alternative paths a part or product can take through the system in order to be completed The ability to move the different products between processing centers throughout the system using multiple paths The ability to adjust inventory and transport to provide a widespread access to products and meet customers’ needs The ability to respond to changes in the delivery requests regarding location and/or delivery date The ability to adjust the storage capacity and/or move the stock between locations to transfer the goods/products in time Inbound logistics flexibility Routing flexibility Material handling flexibility Physical distribution flexibility Delivery flexibility Storage flexibility Marketing Marketing flexibility Launch flexibility Responsive flexibility Organization The ability to manage production resources to meet customer requests The ability to adjust (increase or decrease) capacity, batch sizes, output levels and/or quantities in response to customer demand The ability to change the variety or combination of produced or delivered products and/or performed activities The ability in which an activity can be done in different ways using alternative process plans, processes and available assets The ability to produce a range of different (types of) products or fulfill different activities in a certain fixed situation Network flexibility Organizational flexibility Labor flexibility Worker flexibility Inter-organizational relationship flexibility (Financial) information Information systems flexibility Spanning flexibility Stevenson and Spring (2007) Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005) Based on Tachizawa and Thomsen (2007) Mandersa Nair (2005) Based on Beamon (1999); Lummus et al. 2003; Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005) Based on Beamon (1999); Zhang et al. (2003) Based on Sethi and Sethi (1990); Vokurka and O’Leary Kelly (2000) Based on Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005); Stevenson and Spring (2007); Hopp et al. (2010) Stevenson and Spring (2007) Swafford et al. (2000); Nair (2005); Soon and Udin (2011) Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007) Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000); Stevenson and Spring (2007) Koste and Malhotra (1999); Stevenson and Spring (2007) Based on Lummus et al. (2003); Zhang et al. (2005); Singh et al. (2011) Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007); Skintzi (2007) Based on Schütz and Tomasgard 2011; Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005) The ability to adapt to changes in the market environment and/or in customer needs by customization and build close relationships with customers The ability to rapidly introduce new products and/or product varieties to the market The ability to respond to target market needs Based on Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000); Lummus et al. 2003; Stevenson and Spring (2007) Vickery et al. (1999); Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005) Lummus et al. (2003) The ability to respond to changing circumstances by managing the organizations relationships, structures and controlling its capacity The ability to align the organization management and labor force to meet customer demand/service requirements The ability to change the number of workers The ability of a worker to perform a number of different tasks with different responsibilities The ability to build and maintain collaborative relationships up and/ or downstream to adapt to changing circumstances Based on Yi et al. (2011) Lummus et al. (2005) Based on Gong (2008) Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007) Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007) Lummus et al. (2005) The ability to align the information system architectures and systems with the changing information needs of the organization as it responds to changing customer demand Zhang et al. (2006); Nair (2005) The ability of the organizations to collect, store and disseminate information in horizontal information connections across the supply chain to increase value to customers a In the literature, flexibility dimensions found in the fields of procurement, sourcing, supply and purchasing overlap. Based on the procurement literature, purchasing flexibility is defined as flexibility focused on the ordering, delivery and receipt of goods. Procurement flexibility is defined to incorporate the whole procurement process including supply, sourcing and purchasing flexibility. J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ members strive for supply chain flexibility? 3 2.2. Network theory, stakeholder theory, and supply chain flexibility  Why do supply chain members prioritize certain flexibility dimensions? This research makes three contributions. First, as far as can be ascertained, this is the first study to take into account several subsequent members in a supply chain; namely, the focal firm plus its suppliers, the logistic service provider (LSP), and its retailers. Second, this investigation adds to studies that investigate supply chain flexibility. The present study explores the experiences of supply chain organizations regarding flexibility in general, and supply chain flexibility in particular. The focus is on the importance of mutuality and integration activities, such as a continuous information flow. Findings suggest that each chain member implements flexibility to fulfill the direct needs of the next-tier chain member. An overall focus on supply chain flexibility is lacking. Third, existing studies have identified a number of flexibility dimensions (e.g., Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007), but have not provided insights into how these flexibility dimensions are experienced by organizations in a supply chain, and the reasons why certain flexibility dimensions are prioritized. The present study shows how supply chain goals, processes, activities, and relationships of supply chain organizations are linked to the priority given to certain flexibility dimensions in the short, medium and long term. The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 defines supply chain flexibility and briefly identifies the concept of supply chain flexibility dimensions from literature. That section also explains why stakeholder and network theory is used to analyze the experiences of the supply chain members regarding flexibility in the supply chain. Section 3 describes the research methodology, followed by the research findings in Section 4. The article ends with conclusions and a discussion of academic contributions and managerial implications, followed by limitations and suggestions for future research. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Supply chain flexibility Gunasekaran et al. (2001) and Yi et al. (2011) defined supply chain flexibility as the flexibility to meet particular customer needs in the supply chain. This definition is extended to reflect the supply chain by proposing that supply chain flexibility is the ability of all members within the supply chain to adopt a chain perspective and change or react to environmental uncertainty and meet the increasing variety of customer expectations without excessive costs, time, and organizational disruptions or performance losses (based on Upton (1994), (1995); Zhang et al. (2002a)). (Supply chain) flexibility is a multidimensional concept. We identified 95 flexibility dimensions in supply chain flexibility literature (Appendix 1) (Manders et al., 2014). Based on insights from the resource-based view and the knowledge-based view, these 95 dimensions were categorized into seven business areas: product development, procurement, manufacturing, logistics, marketing, (financial) information, and organization. For each business area, the flexibility definitions are mapped on the functions and characteristics of the supply chain (Pujawan, 2004; Fantazy et al., 2009). In this way, overlapping flexibility dimensions were identified. Furthermore, definitions and dimensions that have been adopted in the literature were discerned. Based on this compilation of seven mappings, the 30 most used dimensions were identified that cover the topic of flexibility within the supply chain (see Table 1). Supply chains are, in essence, a form of a network: “a network of actors that transform raw materials into distributed products” (Handfield and Nichols (2002) cited in Ketchen and Guinepro, (2004:52)). Some of the activities may occur within one firm, while other activities may cross firm boundaries and involve various stakeholders. Network theory focuses on the relationships that an organization has with other organizations and how these relationships influence the organization's behavior and outcomes (Thorelli, 1986). Networks can amplify the resources of individual organizations through integration (Mentzer et al., 2001). Integration can occur in terms of material flows and information sharing (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Chen and Paulraj, 2004). The need for flexibility is influenced by the way information is shared, as well as how the material flows are coordinated and stocks are kept (Bowersox et al., 2002; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). Organizations are influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the activities and choices of other stakeholders in the supply chain (Handfield and Nichols, 2002; Cantor et al., 2014; Zsidisin et al., 2015). Stakeholders are any group of individuals that can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization's objective (Freeman, 1984:46). Stakeholders along the supply chain are entities that influence a firm's supply chain policies and practices. They include the customers, retail outlets, financial institutions, governmental organizations, third-party logistics providers, authorized representatives and distributors, manufacturers and contract manufacturers, and suppliers and vendors (Co and Barro, 2009). Internal stakeholders are stakeholders within the (focal) firm, such as managers and employees, while those outside of the organization – such as suppliers, third-party logistics service providers, and governmental organizations – are defined as external stakeholders (Sarkis et al., 2010; Cantor et al., 2014). Clarkson (1995) made a further distinction between primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are those who contribute to the survival of the organization. Without the participation and support of these stakeholders, which can include customers, suppliers and manufacturers, an organization cannot survive. Secondary stakeholders make a more limited contribution. These stakeholders (which include the media, governmental and non-governmental organizations) affect and are affected by the organization, but are not engaged in its economic transactions. The underlying study focuses on flexibility experiences within the supply chain. Stakeholder theory is followed by investigating the goals and activities of several primary, internal and external stakeholders in the chain, namely the suppliers, the manufacturer (focal firm), the LSP and the retailers. Following network theory, the relationships between these stakeholders in the chain are explored. The specific area of interest was how supply chain flexibility is experienced by the organizations that operate as a supply chain. By adopting stakeholder and network theory, the experiences of the organizations are covered, as well as the link among the organizations regarding the adoption of flexibility in the supply chain. 3. Methodology Much remains unknown about how supply chain members decide which flexibilities are important for their own organization, for their relationship with supply chain members, and for the entire supply chain as a whole. The need for in-depth knowledge about (supply chain) flexibility and its dimensions warrants an exploratory, case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss et al., 2002; Yin, 2009). In order to study supply chain flexibility from a Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i 4 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ supply chain perspective and develop a more complete understanding of supply chain flexibility, it is important to assess the impact on the wider supply chain, across groups of inter-related organizations (Stevenson and Spring, 2007). Hence, one supply chain is investigated (single case study) and eight organizations within the chain (embedded cases). Network theory and stakeholder theory are used to map and analyze the single, embedded case. Although single case study research has limited generalizability, it does make it possible to acquire in-depth insights into unexplored territory (Dubois and Gadde, 2014). Given the limited empirical evidence on this topic from prior studies, an abductive nonlinear approach is followed, as described by Dubois and Gadde (2002, Dubois and Gadde 2014), in which the researcher constantly goes back and forth between empirical observations and theory. 3.1. The sampling process Theoretical sampling led to the selection of several supply chains from a list of Dutch manufacturing companies with one hundred or more employees. Selection criteria were:  There are active efforts to integrate along the chain. A focus on integration between supply chain members underlies supply chain thinking, supply chain performance and, as such, (supply chain) flexibility (Tan et al., 1998; Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001). Information exchange within the supply chain takes place. Information exchange underlies cooperation (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Ellram and Cooper, 2014). Companies in the chain underline the importance of creating mutual benefits for all supply chain members. The underlying assumption in this study was that the organizations within the chain should be integrated to some extent in order for supply chain flexibility to be possible. In that way, they can act as a single entity to enhance overall supply chain flexibility (Mentzer et al., 2001; Bowersox et al., 2002).   The latter two criteria were implemented as a check on whether there are active efforts to integrate along the chain. Three focal firms fulfilled the criteria and were sent more information concerning the research plan and requirements regarding the participation of their supply chain members. The study proceeded with the company that could best fulfill the requirements with respect to providing access to supply chain members. 3.2. Data collection and analyses The FMCG food supply chain in this study consists of eight companies (excluding the consumers): three suppliers, one manufacturer (the focal company), one LSP and three retailers. Names of the organizations have been kept confidential at the participants' request. Data about the supply chain framework were collected, including archival records of documents and presentations to improve the researchers' understanding of the supply chain. Introductory meetings were held with key informants of the focal firm in order to become familiar with the focal company and the other members of the chain. The interviewees were selected via the key informant method (McCracken, 1988). Purposive sampling generated a complete and detailed overview of supply chain flexibility from the operational and commercial perspective. In total, 19 semi-structured interviews of approximately 90 min each were carried out with representatives from the organizations involved (Table 2). The interviews gathered information about the supply chain, the processes and activities, and the position of the interviewee. The main themes addressed in the interviews were: the interviewees’ perspective on flexibility and supply chain flexibility, their experiences with flexibility and supply chain flexibility, the flexibility dimensions that were important for them (and their organization) and the reasons why they chose to focus on a certain dimensions given their goals (see Fig. 1). In addition to the interviews, observation data was gathered regarding the processes, and the flexibility choices made within these processes during site visits and discussions with employees at the shop floor. The companies also gave access to relevant company info (such as spreadsheets and systems data) and other data sources, such as presentations and forms. Secondary data from company websites and company publications was reviewed as well. The case study protocol is available upon request. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed by the researchers, also using written notes and pictures made during the interviews and company visits. Coding was used to structure and analyze the collected data (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The codes were based on our research questions and the semi-structured interview protocol. The codes cover:  The meaning or definitions used;  The experiences, including barriers and developments encountered;  The importance; that is, which aspects are important and why from supply chain or/and organization perspective;  The moment of action (time horizon); when certain aspects are important and when they are used. Table 2 An overview of the organizations involved in this study. Organization Firm Product #Employees Revenue (€) A Supplier Packaging materials 1400 275 million 4 B C D Supplier Supplier Manufacturer Raw material Raw material Food 605 2400 1200 888 million 5.9 billion 1.1 billion 1 1 7 E Logistics Service Provider (LSP) 1253 274,5 million 3 F G H Retailer Retailer Retailer Warehouse, logistics and distribution services Food/Non-food Food/Non-food Food/Non-food 110,000 741 9100 32.6 billion 2 billion 2.5 billion #Participants Participant position 1 1 1 Plant manager, Supply Chain Manager, Key account manager, Customer Service Executive Logistics Executive Supply Chain Manager Factory outbound logistics manager, Market Logistics Director, Supply Inbound manager, OPTS, Supervisor production planning, Planner, Scheduler. Site Manager Factory Operations, Site Manager, Business Unit Manager Transport Replenishment Operations Manager Logistics Director Supply Chain Manager Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5 analysis is the supply chain, which equals the focal company plus suppliers, LSP and retailers as primary stakeholders. The relationships between these organizations influence the functioning of the entire supply chain. 4. Findings 4.1. The FMCG food supply chain Fig. 1. Research framework. Appendix 2 presents the coding scheme. The transcripts and coding files, as well as the original recordings, were collected in a case study database together with all the other case information (Gibbert et al., 2008). After the coding process, pattern matching was applied and data matrices were used to analyze the data (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In this way, information from various parties could be compared regarding (1) their (supply chain) flexibility experiences within this supply chain, (2) their prioritized supply chain flexibility dimensions, and (3) the reasons why these dimensions were prioritized. Information was processed in an iterative way (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). Initial observations and findings were discussed with the participants of the organizations involved. A draft report was presented to all eight organizations. Their feedback was incorporated and final findings were shared with the focal company in the form of fact sheets as well as a final report. 3.3. Research framework The aim of this study was to investigate how supply chain members experience flexibility and supply chain flexibility, and which flexibility dimensions are prioritized when focusing on their goal(s). It became clear during the interviews that the focus on certain flexibility dimensions was dependent on the time horizon of goals. Consistent with an abductive nonlinear approach in our analysis (Dubois and Gadde, 2002, 2014), this information was included within the research framework by adding “the moment of action” (see Fig. 1). The first interviewees were re-interviewed about this “when” question. Fig. 1 presents the finalized research framework. The unit of Fig. 2 present an overview of the FMCG food supply chain. Organization (A) is a supplier of packaging materials and has several locations in Europe. A VMI stock held at the LSP (E), near the site of the manufacturing organization (D), generally covers demand for two to eight weeks. The lead-time is three to four weeks, depending on the complexity of the product. Organization (B) is in fact a cooperative with five locations in The Netherlands. It is involved in the manufacturing of raw materials for the food industry and final products for the consumer market. The raw materials are delivered in bulk cargo to manufacturing company (D), 24/7. After production, the product is stored in bulk silos at the factory location, from where it is processed into the substance requested by the customer and transported several times a day to industrial customers, including company (D). Organization (C) is a multinational family business that provides food and agricultural products. The organization has several locations in The Netherlands and Europe at large. Two of these locations process the raw material on order on a 24/7 basis. Organization (C) has an inventory level for this specific commodity with a maximum of one week, and its production has a lead time of three days. Before delivery, the standard product is processed to the requested substance and shipped in several truck-loads a day. Organization (D), our focal company, is a worldwide organization and manufacturer of FMCG goods in the food industry. It has a factory (operations) and market organization in The Netherlands. Its factory operates on a continuous base, for 80% on forecast and 20% on order. Storage and transport activities are outsourced to LSP (E) and several other transport companies. Organization (E) is a worldwide LSP to which the manufacturing company (D) outsourced its warehouse, logistics and distribution services. Organization (E) undertakes the picking and packing of the outgoing flows. It performs international customs activities and transport activities in The Netherlands. The employees of this organization also arrange the delivery and logistics of packing materials to the production lines. The locations of organization (E) that were visited for the present study are situated nearby the production plant of the focal company (D). Organization (F) is a Dutch retailer with regional and central Fig. 2. A graphical overview of the FMCG food supply chain. Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i 6 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ distribution centers, from which it delivers to its stores all over The Netherlands. The stores receive daily fresh products and dry groceries. Suppliers such as the focal company (D) make daily deliveries at the retailer's warehouse. Goods are usually delivered on the same day they are ordered. As not all suppliers deliver during the weekend, most products are received on Friday up front. Lead time from the warehouse to the stores is 18 h. Organization (G) is a retail cooperative of independent stores in The Netherlands. All stores are open from Monday till Saturday and mostly also on Sundays. As legislation regarding opening on Sundays obliges different opening hours for each of these stores, several logistic complexities apply. At these stores, most products are received by the retailer's distribution centers on Friday up front. The stores are replenished by the retailer's own trucks and receive fresh products and dry groceries on a daily basis. Organization (H) is a food organization that undertakes retail activities as well as food services market activities. The organization has cash and carry wholesale locations and offers delivery services using their Dutch distribution centers. For its retail, (H) has separate distribution centers and stores in the middle and south of The Netherlands. The following points can be made regarding convergence and alignment in the chain. The focal organization (D) has contact with all the other supply chain organizations regarding the different processes and activities in the chain. This contact consists of interactions between employees from different organizations. Information is shared via multiple planning systems, interfaces, or EDI connections. Due to developments in the Dutch retail market, the focal company cannot be seen as the supply chain leader or overall supply chain coordinator. In the last decade, the Dutch retail market has been characterized by takeovers and bankruptcies of a few large retailers. As a result, the remaining retailers have increased their size and market position leading to a powerful position in this chain. Concretely, this means that not only the focal company (D), but also retailers (F, G, and H) have sought to integrate activities in this chain from their own perspective, while aiming at creating benefits for all supply chain members. 4.2. Flexibility and supply chain flexibility 4.2.1. Respondents' view on flexibility and their reasons for being flexible Respondents state that flexibility has become increasingly important in recent years in the FMCG food chain because retailers have downsized their stock positions. Customers determine the amount of demanded products and the organizations in the supply chain must respond to fluctuations until the moment of fulfillment. Respondents from organization (E), which fulfills parts of the logistic process of manufacturing organization (D), stated that flexibility is “their way of life”. All respondents describe flexibility as a way to “adapt or respond to the needs of the customer,” “deliver what the customer expects,” and “meet customer demand”. Respondents stressed the particular importance of on shelf availability and case fill of the product; that is, the percentage of the orders that can be delivered right away. One supplier stated that “flexibility is not a goal in itself”, indicating that flexibility is not used for the purpose of gaining profits, but merely to maintain the relationship with the first-tier customers. The interviews covered the type of products for which flexibility is most needed. Respondents expressed that for the most commonly ordered products – the so-called fast movers – the “normal” demand pattern is quite stable, or at least can be forecasted quite well. Demand influences, such as the weather forecast, do not usually lead to flexibility requests, as these circumstances are simply taken into account in the short-term prognosis or in the orders communicated. Demand for slow movers, seasonal products and promotions is different. The forecast for these products can exceed or fall behind by up to 25% compared to the actual order. Promotion activities also influence the regular demand pattern. For example, if consumers buy more of a product within a promotion period, they will need less of that product in the weeks following that promotion period. Promotions of one retailer could also influence the regular or promotional demand pattern of the other retailers in a certain period. Not all stakeholders in this supply chain experience flexibility as a competitive advantage. Although all of the organizations stated that they would do anything to respond to customer needs, which means they are flexible, some critical remarks regarding the concept of flexibility were also made, such as:  Flexibility should be a (two-way) interaction: “The customer is    king, but the customer has to behave in a royal way too! ” (supplier). “Flexibility can lead to complexity as well” (manufacturer). One supplier stated, in line with the manufacturer, that “the demand for flexibility is growing in comparison to earlier periods, where we worked with sharing only the ‘real orders’ instead of sharing all kinds of information, such as forecast data and order data.” Also: “Flexibility is needed when we cannot forecast adequately” (supplier). “With the right information, a reliable forecast, we could become adaptive instead of being flexible until the very last moment” (manufacturer). All organizations noted that they should only need flexibility for occasional hiccups that occur. More flexibility is not always better. One supplier, the manufacturing company, and the retailer organizations all mentioned the cost of flexibility and the tradeoffs that they experience. However, the tradeoff between cost and flexibility is not explicit, because there is no factual data available on the costs of flexibility. The combination of downsized stock positions, fluctuations in demand pattern, and production lines that are mostly designed with efficiency or capacity in mind, leads to complexity and increases the demand for flexibility and the number of flexibility decisions that need to be made. Furthermore, the organizations have rethought their use of flexibility with questions such as those presented by participants of the manufacturing company. For example: Is it necessary to be flexible in all aspects? To what extent do we need to be flexible? Are we overreacting? Can we be adaptive instead of flexible, because the latter is reactive instead of proactive. And if so, what do we need to be proactive and control a situation rather than just respond to it after it has happened. Another point that emerged prominently during the interviews was that flexibility is a priori expected by buying supply chain members. Many respondents explained that “saying no is not an option”. Firms are assumed to supply the requested amount and “we have a problem if we are not flexible”, as one supplier put it. 4.2.2. Respondents' views on supply chain flexibility A question that arose is whether supply chains are flexible as a whole and act as a single entity (Tan et al., 1998), or whether flexibility occurs in dyadic relationships only. In our study, all organizations noted that they have not experienced any overall supply chain flexibility. In fact, they have experienced a lack of coordination and alignment between chain members. Respondents stated that every individual organization uses flexibility to fulfill the requests of the next supply chain member. Hence, they only experience flexibility in dyadic relationships. For suppliers (A), (B), and (C), the requests made by manufacturing company (D) are highly important. The logistic service provider (E) focuses on manufacturing company (D), some of the suppliers and retailers (F), (G), and (H). Manufacturing company (D) focuses Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i 7 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ on the retailer's demand, which is, indirectly, the demand of the final customers. The final customers buy the products in the store, and their wishes are the main focus of the retailers. Even though supply chain members are in contact with each other, there is no multiparty governance mechanism or coordinator that creates value based on flexibility within the whole supply chain. Respondents of the focal manufacturing organization, as well as suppliers and the LSP, indicate that information systems are non-compatible, that time delays appear in information sharing, variations in communication methods exist, and hence a lack of coherent information processing occurs. The contacts between the retailers and the manufacturer, and between the manufacturer and the suppliers, are primarily determined by daily operations and transactions. Manufacturer (D) is in daily contact about forecasts and demand changes with the suppliers (A), (B) and (C), and retailers (F), (G) and (H), but no information is shared about why changes in forecasts and actual demand occur. A reason for changes in demand from the retailer could be an incidental promotional action for the product of manufacturer (D), or a competing product, which may not be a reason for manufacturer (D) to change its longer-term demand to its suppliers. One of the respondents provided the following example: When the manufacturer receives a sudden increase in demand by the retailers, it could be due to the wish of retailers to fill available truck capacity. The manufacturing company may erroneously interpret the increased retailer demand as increased final customer demand and may therefore react by increasing production and enlarging supply orders. Respondents stated that sharing of more detailed information and forecasts about customer demand would enable them to operate and react flexibly to customer demand with the supply chain as a whole. One retailer explained: “The culture to think as one supply chain seems to be missing within the supply chain organizations”. Another retailer said: “Our procurement department bought wine for a lower price than usual. Instead of boxes with six bottles of wine, we now received boxes with eight bottles of wine. These boxes with eight bottles have different sizes and cannot be stacked as high on a pallet as the boxes with six bottles. As a result, we in the logistics warehouse and transport have to deal with more pallets and make more costs for the transport, handling and storage. We wish that this decision would have been discussed with us.” Respondents felt that if more detailed information would be shared between supply chain members, actions throughout the chain could be aligned. The information could provide valuable input for future (collaborative) developments in the supply chain. Another example of a lacking supply chain perspective stems from the inbound and outbound logistic activities that are outsourced to the LSP. Such outsourcing could provide opportunities to combine these activities. However, apart from the coordination of some operational activities by the LSP, most coordination still takes place within the focal manufacturing firm, and is governed by the appointments of the manufacturer and the retailers with the other stakeholders in the chain. Proper coordination does not take place. Table 3 Summary of the case study results on flexibility dimensions. TOTAL (n¼ 8) Business area Flexibility dimensions # % SUPPLIER (n¼ 3) # MANUFACTURER (n¼ 1) # LSP (n ¼1) # RETAILER (n ¼ 3) # Product development Product development flexibility New product design flexibility Product modification flexibility 4.62 4.48 4.76 58% 56% 60% 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.29 0.14 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 Procurement Procurement flexibility Sourcing flexibility Supply flexibility Purchasing flexibility 5.15 5.15 6.02 4.93 64% 64% 75% 62% 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 0.57 0.57 0.86 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Manufacturing Manufacturing flexibility Volume flexibility Mix flexibility Operations flexibility Process flexibility Expansion flexibility 2.18 8.00 5.80 3.32 3.65 5.45 27% 100% 72% 42% 46% 68% 1.75 3.00 1.75 0.75 1.75 2.50 0.43 1.00 0.71 0.57 0.57 0.29 0.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 3,00 3,00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Logistics Logistics flexibility Inbound logistics flexibility Material handling flexibility Routing flexibility Physical distribution flexibility Storage flexibility Delivery flexibility 6.88 3.95 2.00 2.06 5.79 7.57 6.24 86% 49% 25% 26% 72% 95% 78% 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.71 0.29 0.00 0.14 0.29 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.67 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 Marketing Marketing flexibility Launch flexibility Responsive flexibility 3.50 2.64 6.51 44% 33% 81% 2.50 1.50 2.75 0.00 0.14 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 3.00 Organization Network flexibility Organizational flexibility Labor flexibility Worker flexibility Interorganizational relationship flexibility 5.65 6.85 6.04 6.13 5.65 71% 86% 75% 77% 71% 2.75 2.75 1.75 2.75 2.75 0.57 0.43 0.29 0.71 0.57 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.33 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 (Financial) information Information systems flexibility Spanning flexibility 6.86 6.75 86% 84% 2.00 1.75 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 Numbers in cells were calculated by averaging individual responses for one firm and then adding up the responses for the firms of one type. Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i 8 Panel A All parties (n ¼ 8) Panel B Short-term (n ¼ 8) SUPPLIER MANUFACTURER (n ¼ 3) (n¼ 1) LSP (n ¼ 1) RETAILER (n ¼ 3) Flexibility dimensions Shortterm Midterm Long term Product development Product development flexibility New product design flexibility Product modification flexibility 0.25 3.98 0.39 1.50 0.14 0.33 2.00 0.00 4.23 0.25 1.75 0.14 0.33 2.00 0.00 4.37 0.39 1.75 0.29 0.33 2.00 Procurement flexibility Sourcing flexibility Supply flexibility Purchasing flexibility 1.00 1.00 3.01 2.39 4.01 4.01 3.01 2.54 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.33 2.00 2.00 Manufacturing flexibility Volume flexibility Mix flexibility Operations flexibility Process flexibility Expansion flexibility 0.14 8.00 4.07 1.48 0.00 0.00 2.04 0.00 1.73 1.85 3.51 5.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.25 1.75 0.29 0.75 1.75 2.25 0.43 0.43 0.29 Logistics flexibility Inbound logistics flexibility Material handling flexibility Routing flexibility Physical distribution flexibility Storage flexibility Delivery flexibility 3.14 2.00 1.00 3.60 1.81 1.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 0.43 0.14 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 5.06 1.06 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.14 0.14 0.67 0.14 1.00 2.00 0.25 2.25 6.39 5.74 1.18 0.50 0.00 0.00 2.25 2.50 0.57 1.00 0.67 3.00 2.00 Marketing flexibility Launch flexibility Responsive flexibility 0.00 0.25 3.54 3.00 2.25 2.73 0.50 0.14 0.25 Network flexibility Organizational flexibility Labor flexibility Worker flexibility Interorganizational relationship flexibility 1.14 1.64 0.50 0.39 1.29 3.89 5.21 5.54 5.74 3.89 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.29 Information systems flexibility Spanning flexibility 0.54 1.45 4.87 0,29 0.14 1.76 4.85 Manufacturing Logistics Marketing Organization (Financial) information 3.00 1.50 1.25 RETAILER (n¼ 3) MANUFACTURER (n ¼ 1) Business area Procurement LSP (n¼ 1) Mid-term (n ¼ 8) SUPPLIER (n ¼ 3) 0.43 0.33 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.29 0.33 0.67 0.33 0.67 Long-term (n ¼ 8) SUPPLIER (n ¼ 3) MANUFACTURER (n¼ 1) LSP (n ¼1) RETAILER (n ¼3) 0.14 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i Table 4 Supply chain flexibility dimensions by time horizon. 1.00 2.00 0.14 0.43 2.00 2.00 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.75 2.25 1.25 2.50 2.75 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.33 0.29 0.29 0.57 0.29 0.43 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.29 0.33 0.33 1.25 0.29 1.75 0.43 3.00 0.67 2.00 Shading indicates importance (Panel A) as well as the level of agreement over types of actor (Panel B). Numbers in cells were calculated by averaging individual responses for one firm and then adding up the responses for the firms of one type. J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 4.3. Flexibility dimensions As part of the interviews, respondents indicated the flexibility dimensions that they considered critical for a flexible organization. Table 3 summarizes the frequencies with which each dimension was mentioned (darker shading denotes more mentions in the “TOTAL” column). Table 3 illustrates that volume flexibility is generally indicated as the most important dimension for being flexible. The light-greyshaded flexibilities were described as important by the majority of respondents. When asked about reasons for prioritizing certain dimensions and not others, the respondents indicated that priorities are determined by the time frame for which goals are formulated and in which activities take place. Three time horizons emerged as having an impact on the prioritization of flexibilities: (1) short-term, daily operations, and goals; (2) mid-term, weekly/monthly goals; and (3) long-term goals, yearly issues. Panel A in Table 4 shows how many parties mentioned the importance of a particular flexibility in a certain time frame. Shading indicates the importance for that time frame. Panel B shows the flexibility dimensions that various types of actor mentioned most often. Here, shading indicates importance as well as agreement about importance. The darkest shading indicates that four out of four types mentioned this particular flexibility. The light grey shading shows instances in which three out of four types mention a particular flexibility. 4.3.1. Short-term All respondents highlighted the importance of volume flexibility for supply chain flexibility (Table 3 and 4). However, each supply chain member had different ideas about the exact way to achieve volume flexibility in the chain. Respondents in a production context mentioned volume flexibility regarding the product line capacity. Respondents in transport mentioned volume flexibility regarding the carrier capacity. All supply chain members felt that the ability to adjust capacity, batch sizes, output levels, and quantities in response to customer demand was important on a daily basis in order to fulfill customer demand and to deliver logistics customer service. Delivering the right product and the right amount of the product (volume, mix flexibility) was imperative for supply chain flexibility in the short term, as was the delivery time to the right place (physical distribution, delivery, supply and storage flexibility). Regarding supply and delivery flexibility, respondents indicated that the delivery moments and delivery dates are particularly important. For instance, they need flexibility in distributing deliveries to multiple warehouse locations. All parties except the LSP identified mix flexibility, as related to volume flexibility; the LSP simply delivers the volume requested. Suppliers, retailers, and manufacturers all mentioned the importance of storage flexibility. Notably, respondents took a dyadic perspective instead of a supply chain perspective. They referred to storage flexibility in terms of inventory and flexibility in stock levels of certain products. Only the LSP offered an overarching supply chain view. LSP respondents are concerned about the storage capacity within the chain and the possibility of moving stock between locations, as well as the need to rent additional storage capacity. 4.3.2. Mid-term Table 4 shows the need for each flexibility dimension on a midterm basis, except for volume flexibility. The relative importance of these mid-term flexibility dimensions depends on specific organizational processes, and hence on the position of an organization within the supply chain. Product development flexibility (development of new products 9 and the modification of existing products) is most important for suppliers, especially organization A. The packaging company works in a make-to-order environment and has an innovation center to design and modify its packaging on customer request. For this organization, flexibility refers to being able to provide packaging solutions in a very short time frame, sometimes within days. The respondent from this organization mentioned that “although the organization excels in flexibility with regard to product development, the approval process involved with using a new packaging solution by the manufacturing company (D) can be slow, and may take months.” In general, respondents indicated that organizational flexibility, labor, and worker flexibility are most important in the mid-term. In almost all companies, employees are trained to be able to replace team members in case of holidays and short-term absence. Additionally, all organizations employ a flexible workforce from a temporary work agency. Several organizations even have an auxiliary temporary work agency within their own realms. All respondents mentioned the importance of procurement flexibility. Most organizations employ multiple transport companies. Some organizations indicated that they rely on a few key suppliers. To increase sourcing flexibility, they wish to build an approved supplier database for certain products. Also, the retailer prefers access to multiple suppliers as one supplier cannot always fulfill the demand. Furthermore, respondents stated that the purchasing process itself requires flexibility. Changing forecasts and actual customer demands require intense communication among supply chain members concerning flexibility in the ordering, delivery, and receipt of the goods. As each type of supply chain organization performs unique activities in the mid-term, they differ largely in their prioritization of flexibilities. An overarching supply chain perspective on these mid-term flexibilities was not found. 4.3.3. Long-term In the long-term, the importance of spanning and information systems flexibility was mentioned most often (Table 4). These flexibilities involve building, aligning, and maintaining relationships with the other organizations in the chain. This requires making strategic decisions that may imply large investments; in IT, for instance. The respondents indicated that they were aware of the need for these flexibilities, but admitted that they actually devote minimal time to achieving them. The respondents considered complete alignment, as in the case of a virtual integrated supply chain, to be “a bridge too far”. The data reveals that none of the organizations in the chain are able to take an overall supply chain view and initiate discussions about strategic flexibility issues. 5. Discussion and conclusion This study has demonstrated the flexibility experiences in a supply chain, by exploring the way flexibility is perceived by four tiered members in a FMCG food supply chain. 5.1. Addressing flexibility experiences at the supply chain level Our first research question addressed how supply chain members experience flexibility, and in particular, supply chain flexibility. In line with previous studies (e.g., Vickery et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2002a; Kumar et al., 2006), our empirical observations indicate that supply chain parties view flexibility as a way to adapt to the needs of the customer. Flexibility is not perceived as a way to improve the functioning and competitiveness of the entire chain. Hence, supply chain flexibility, as such, is not present in Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i 10 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ practice. Furthermore, the study shows that organizations are concerned about the costs involved with being flexible. So far, existing studies have only hinted towards possible flexibility costs (Stevenson and Spring, 2007). As far as can be ascertained, this is the first study in which respondents have pointed out the possible negative consequences of being flexible. The second and third research questions addressed which flexibility dimensions are prioritized and why these are prioritized. In line with articles focusing on supply chain flexibility (Zhang et al. 2002a; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007), the results of the present study indicate that all 30 flexibility dimensions are important to supply chain parties. Previous studies have stressed the importance of volume and delivery flexibility (e.g., Sánchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Thomé et al., 2014). The present study’s findings are in line with those studies, but also indicate why the focus is mainly on these flexibilities. By taking into account the time horizon of different firm activities, it becomes clear that a firm’s shortterm actions concentrate on maintaining the relationship with first-tier customers. There is a dyadic focus on delivering the right product, in the right amount (volume and mix flexibility), at the right moment, to the right place (physical distribution, supply-/ delivery- and storage flexibility). Volume and delivery flexibility are predominantly at play in the short-term, in the day-to-day activities of firms (Table 4). Hence, these are prioritized. Furthermore, the present study reveals that the prioritization of flexibilities in the medium term differs for each type of supply chain organization (Table 4). These findings support those of earlier studies that a firm's supply chain position in the chain may determine the relative importance of each flexibility dimension for that firm (Stevenson and Spring, 2007, 2009). Again, however, prior studies have not explained why this would be the case. The present study suggests that, especially in the medium term, the position in the chain determines which flexibility is prioritized. Consequently, a lack of overview and mutual understanding of each party's role in the chain hinders an integrated supply chain perspective. This study has shown that, in the long term, firms stress the importance of supply chain overarching flexibilities such as spanning and information systems flexibility. This finding is explained by studies about up and downstream relationships between supply chain parties (e.g., Stevenson and Spring, 2007). Spanning and information systems flexibility are typically related to improving relationships between the members in the supply chain, sharing information, and thinking as a whole instead of acting as separate actors (Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Zhang et al., 2006). Therefore, these flexibilities are considered essential in the long term. However, the findings from the present study also indicate that such initiatives are rarely undertaken in practice, as short- and mid-term operations determine daily concerns. As a result, a clear perception of the supply chain as a single entity is still absent in supply chain parties. 5.2. Theoretical contribution This study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, the study has a broad theoretical and empirical scope. Prior conceptual research has identified various sets of flexibility dimensions based on limited literature reviews (e.g., Kumar et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2011). In contrast, the present study systematically overviewed 92 studies and identified 30 dimensions of flexibility that together address all processes in the chain and are the most commonly used in the current literature (Table 1). Furthermore, whereas prior empirical research has mainly focused on isolated flexibility dimensions (e.g., Hopp et al., 2010; Soon and Udin, 2011), the empirical research presented herein investigates all dimensions in an embedded case study design. Second, the case study data in the present study has demonstrated that although the case shows forward and backward integration activities regarding information sharing and logistics coordination, this level of integration is not enough to achieve supply chain flexibility within the chain. Existing studies advocate forward and backward integration activities, such as the sharing of forecasts and orders, by permitting access to planning systems or by using EDI connections (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Chen and Paulraj, 2004). The present study demonstrates that this is not sufficient. Even if these systems are in place, there is still a lack of coherent information processing in practice. Available information is not used, or even retrieved from the systems, or is not transferred quickly enough between systems and organizations. The shared information only contains data that the organizations themselves would like to receive, or find important to share. There is a lack of background information that is needed in order to understand the data offered in information systems. The complexity of the shared information leads to (own) interpretations per organization, giving rise to increasing confusion in the communication between members. Hence, the present results extend findings from studies that have focused on supply chain relationships (e.g., Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012), which show that a lack of communication is detrimental for mutual respect and tolerance. In addition to this point, the present study shows that as parties give their own interpretation to information from planning systems, this can lead to bull whip effects (Lee et al., 1997) and even increase the need for flexibility in the chain. These findings have nuanced the debated role of information sharing in supply chain management. Several studies have indicated that too little information sharing leads to high inventories throughout the chain (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001) and deteriorates chain performance (Prajago and Ollhager, 2012). In contrast, other studies have shown that information overload leads to bull whip effects (Wang, 2010). The results of the present study show that it is crucial to study the interpretation of the shared information by each organization in the chain. Future studies should focus less on the amount of shared information and more on the content of shared information and how this content is interpreted by other chain members. This study has shown that there are many ways in which data sharing in the chain can go wrong, which may instigate less cooperation, and less willingness to be flexible. Consequently, the flexibility of the supply chain as a whole to adapt to exogenous influences may spiral downward, even when information systems are used. Future studies into supply chain flexibility should be aware of this phenomenon and employ in-depth analysis of data to be able to reveal what truly lies beneath the surface of data sharing. Third, despite the integration activities within this supply chain, the data in this study did not provide evidence of an overarching nature of supply chain flexibility. Organizations strive for supply chain flexibility, but, in practice, flexibility predominantly affects the operational aspects of dyadic relationships. Network theory suggests that supply chain organizations should integrate supply chain operations, and all organizations should focus on joint supply chain goals, including decreasing the long-term total costs of the supply chain and increasing value added (Bowersox et al., 2002; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Ellram and Cooper, 2014). However, the present findings show that although organizations try to act as a coordinated supply chain entity and incorporate supply chain flexibility, each party still has its own financial objectives and key performance indicators that dictate its day-to-day actions. Hence, parties minimize their own costs instead of using an overarching cost-efficient supply chain approach. All Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ organizations within the researched chain prioritize their first-tier customers when they make flexibility decisions. This is in contrast with an overarching chain perspective, as advocated by the supply chain and network literature (Tan et al., 1998; Mentzer et al., 2001), yet in practice this behavior prevails. Furthermore, although our case claimed to have a high level of logistic integration, in practice, its performance remained limited. The focal manufacturing company and the retailers undertook isolated coordination activities, which were driven by internal financial objectives, and were not beneficial for achieving supply chain flexibility. This confirms results from Sandberg (2007), whose study of logistics collaboration also found that there are significant differences between supply chain management theory and practice. In conclusion, while there may be integration and coordination on the surface, daily supply chain practice may be very different. 5.3. Limitations The present study has certain limitations. The first is connected to the sample. The study was conducted in a FMCG food supply chain that has logistics service provision as its aim. Further research is needed to supply chains in industries with other characteristics, such as durables, long-time investment products, slowmoving creative goods, other non-durables, and services. Research could also be conducted in supply chains in different settings, such as a chain that involves many small and medium-sized enterprises. An often mentioned limitation of supply chain research pertains to the fact that firms may be involved in many other supply chains, which may be of higher priority to the firm. Although we did not find prominent evidence of the boundary issue in our case study, it may still be at play to some degree. Future case study research may want to explicitly address the boundary issue in interviews. Additionally, future research may want to extend the number of firms in their investigation to include for instance also the network of alternative manufacturers that suppliers supply to. Another limitation of the present study is that all organizations were interviewed within the time span of two months. It would be interesting to find out how supply chains develop over time and whether progress is made towards more alignment on supply chain overarching issues. A longitudinal study would be the best way to gather this data. 5.4. Managerial implications With regard to managerial implications, the present study provides insights to professionals in the area of supply chain management. The study shows which flexibilities are prioritized for different time horizons. Furthermore, professionals are made aware that although supply chain members may strive for alignment of goals and performance indicators, this is hard to attain in practice. Supply chain managers should check whether organizations in their chain have difficulties to adopt an overarching supply chain view. Efforts to integrate the chain should go beyond 11 involving first-tier buyers and suppliers. Supply chain managers could proactively schedule discussions with all parties simultaneously with the objective of improving the functioning of the chain as a whole. In this way, supply chain managers could create insight and awareness about how the actions of one party may have consequences throughout the chain. Such discussion would improve mutual understanding of each supply chain party's processes and activities. Yet, this is only an initial step towards a more intense supply chain view that is shared by all involved parties. An improved mutual understanding should be a starting point for indepth discussions about specific issues that concern the entire chain, for example issues of data sharing. Even though data sharing is taking place across supply chain organizations, consensus is needed about when information is shared and what this information should contain to facilitate the entire chain. This is essential in order to avoid a downward spiral in which incorrect interpretations of information lead to less cooperation, and ultimately less flexibility. Moreover, the results of this study show that the LSP holds a unique position in the chain by having close day-to-day interaction with many supply chain members. In general, supply chain managers should assess whether there are certain parties in their chain that hold such a unique position. Such organization may be in a position to coordinate information that is crucial for aligning the chain. In a discussion with all parties involved in the chain it could be explored whether this party is allowed to have access to information that is critical to develop an overall supply chain view. If such a party, for instance the LSP, is trusted by the other supply chain parties, the chain as a whole can possibly increase the level of integration and act as a single entity regarding supply chain flexibility. Acknowledgments Aspects of this work have been presented at the IPSERA annual conference (April 2015). The authors would like to thank those who attended the presentation, and reviewers of previous versions of this manuscript, for their helpful comments. The authors would also like to acknowledge the funding of this project provided by the Open University and Fontys University of Applied Sciences. The authors also wish to thank Margriet de Bakker and James Morrison for their role in editing this paper. Appendix A See Table A1. Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i 12 Dimension #Articles Authors Sourcing flexibility 13 Prater et al., 2001; Pujawan, 2004; Sánchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2008; Fantazy et al., 2009; Gosling et al., 2009, 2013; Singh et al., 2011; Yi et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a; Thomé et al., 2014 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Tachizawa and Thomsen, 2007; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Chiang et al., 2012; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a, 2014b Soon and Udin, 2011; Jin et al., 2014 Garavelli, 2003; Sawhney, 2006; Avittathur and Swamidass, 2007; Kumar et al., 2008; Jin et al., 2010; Das, 2011; Hartmann and De Grahl, 2011; Singh et al. 2011; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Singh and Sharma 2013; Jin et al., 2014 Gosling et al., 2009, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b Aprile 2005; Jin et al., 2010 Zhang et al. 2002a, Zhang et al., 2002b; Nair 2005; Jin et al., 2010, 2014 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon 1999; Bertrand, 2002, 2003; Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Chang et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2006; Sawhney 2006; Fantazy et al., 2009; EngelhardtNowitzki, 2012; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Thomé et al 2014 Stevenson and Spring, 2007 Pujawan, 2004; Chiang et al., 2012 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Bertrand 2002; Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Bertrand 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Soon and Udin, 2011; Yi et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012 (Physical/Product) Supply flexibility 9 Supply network/base flexibility Supplier(s) flexibility 2 10 Vendor flexibility Purchasing flexibility Procurement flexibility Product development flexibility New product flexibility 3 1 2 4 12 New design flexibility Product design flexibility Product prototype flexibility Product concept flexibility R&D flexibility Product modification flexibility Operation(s) flexibility Operating/Operations (system)/network flexibility Production (capacity) flexibility Manufacturing/manufacturer flexibility Machine flexibility Material(s) handling flexibility Material flexibility Component flexibility Plant flexibility Internal flexibility Process flexibility Routing flexibility 1 2 1 1 1 5 5 8 8 15 8 6 1 1 1 1 8 13 Reconfiguration/changeover/transformation flexibility Resource flexibility Equipment flexibility Layout flexibility Sequencing flexibility Labor flexibility Worker flexibility Human (resource) flexibility Program flexibility Operational decision flexibility Output flexibility Volume flexibility 3 1 2 1 2 9 1 2 2 2 1 26 (Order) Quantity flexibility Leadtime flexibility Timing flexibility Mix flexibility 6 1 1 18 Bish and Muriel, 2000; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Das, 2011; Jin et al., 2010, 2014; Prater et al., 2001; Zhang and Cao, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2003, 2004; Pujawan, 2004; Nair 2005; Kumar et al., 2008; Engelhardt and Nowitzky, 2012; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Singh and Sharma, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a, 2014b; He et al., 2014 Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Gong, 2008; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Kim et al., 2013 Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004 Avittathur and Swamidass, 2007 Merschmann and Thonemann, 2011 Garavelli, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Aprile 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Chiang et al., 2012; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a Viswanadham, 1997; Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Gong, 2008; Singh et al., 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Wadhwa et al., 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007 Bertrand, 2003 Sawhney, 2006; Bai and Sarkis, 2013 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Wadwha et al., 2006 Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring 2007; Gong 2008; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kim et al., 2013 Bertrand, 2003; Kayis and Kara, 2005; Winkler, 2009 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007 Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a Stevenson and Spring, 2007 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon 1999; Vickery et al., 1999; Bertrand 2002, 2003; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Oke, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Feng and Yamashiro, 2005; Ndubisi et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Chang et al., 2006; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring 2007; Arawati, 2011; Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Singh et al., 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kemmoe et al., 2014; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a; Thomé et al., 2014 Chan and Chan, 2006; Wang, 2008; Chan et al., 2009; Chung et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2010; Kim, 2011, Kim, 2012 Wang, 2008 Bertrand, 2002 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon, 1999; Bertrand, 2002, Bertrand, 2003; Zhang et al., 2002, Zhang et al., 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Chang et al., 2006; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Das, 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kemmoe et al., 2014; Thomé et al., 2014 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i Table A1 Summary of the dimensions of supply chain flexibility. Quality flexibility Postponement flexibility Logistics (network) flexibility 1 3 20 (Physical) Distribution flexibility Delivery flexibility 6 18 Due date flexibility Transhipment flexibility Transport flexibility Mode flexibility Fleet flexibility Vehicle flexibility Node flexibility Link flexibility Storage flexibility Order (fulfillment/variety) flexibility Assembler flexibility Location flexibility Organizational (structure)/organization network (design) flexibility Firm flexibility Inter-firm flexibility Inter-organizational flexibilities Relationship/relational flexibility Cultural flex. Offering flexibility Partnering /other party flexibility Communication flex. Re-configuration flexibility Technological flexibility Automation flexibility Demand management flexibility Supply chain information dissemination flexibility Information systems/technology flexibility System(s) flexibility Spanning flexibility Vertical flexibility Strategy development flexibility Expansion flexibility Market flexibility Marketing flexibility Customer (oriented) flexibility Launch flexibility (new product introduction) Responsive(ness)to target markets/response flexibility Access (widespread distribution) flexibility Robustness (robust network) flexibility Temporal flexibility Operational flexibility Tactical flexibility Strategic flexibility Structural flexibility Active flexibility Dormant flexibility 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 11 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 10 3 3 1 2 6 5 1 3 5 Vickery et al., 1999; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Closs et al., 2005; Ndubisi et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Kumar et al., 2006; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Wadwha et al., 2006; Fantazy et al., 2009; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Arawati, 2011; Singh et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013 Sawhney, 2006 Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Singh et al., 2011; Thomé et al., 2014 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, Lummus et al., 2005; Garavelli, 2003; Aprile 2005; Closs et al., 2005; Nair 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Stevenson and Spring 2007; Kumar et al., 2008; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Soon and Udin, 2011; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a, 2014b; Jin et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2002; Aprile 2005; Jin et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2011; Yi et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon, 1999; Prater et al., 2001; Pujawan, 2004; Closs et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar et al., 2006; Naim et al., 2006, Naim et al., 2010; Sawhney, 2006; Chan et al., 2009; Fantazy et al., 2009; Jin et al., 2010; Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Singh et al., 2011; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a; Thomé et al., 2014 Chan et al., 2009 Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Singh et al., 2011 Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a Naim et al., 2006, 2010 Naim et al., 2006, 2010 Naim et al., 2006, 2010 Naim et al., 2006, 2010 Naim et al., 2006, 2010 Schütz and Tomasgard 2011; Kemmoe et al., 2014; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a Viswanadham, 1997; Closs et al., 2005; Jin et al., 2010 Garavelli, 2003 Kumar et al., 2008 Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Kayis and Kara, 2005; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Chuu, 2011, Chuu, 2014; Singh et al., 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013 Jin et al., 2010; Stevenson and Spring, 2009 Stevenson and Spring, 2007 Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Thomé et al., 2014 Bai and Sarkis, 2013 Choy et al., 2008 Choy et al., 2008; Bai and Sarkis, 2013 Naim et al., 2006, 2010 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Kayis and Kara, 2005; Winkler, 2009 Stevenson and Spring, 2007 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b Zhang et al., 2002, 2002b, 2006 Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Kayis and Kara, 2005; Gong, 2008; Fantazy et al., 2009; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Yi et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012 Zhang et al., 2002; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Moon et al., 2012 Nair, 2005; Zhang et al., 2002, 2006 Hopp et al., 2010 Zhang et al., 2002, 2006 Bertrand, 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Duclos et al., 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Singh et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Das, 2011; Merschmann and Thonemann, 2011; Singh and Sharma, 2013 Vickery et al., 1999; Ndubisi et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez 2005; Arawati 2011; Singh et al., 2011 7 Vickery et al., 1999; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Closs et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2011; Thomé et al., 2014 4 Vickery et al., 1999; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Naim et al., 2006, 2010 2 2 6 2 6 2 1 1 Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Naim et al., 2006, 2010 Viswanadham, 1997; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Grawe et al., 2011; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kim et al., 2013; Gligor, 2014 Viswanadham, 1997; Stevenson and Spring, 2007 Viswanadham, 1997; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Chiang et al., 2012; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Kim et al., 2013 Winkler, 2009; Bai and Sarkis, 2013 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012 13 15 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i Product flexibility 14 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Appendix B See Table B1. Table B1 Coding scheme case studies. Main topics Subgroups Case characteristics Organization information Position in the chain Function interviewee Product information Market information Role logistics Process (activities) Meaning/definition used Experiences review (incl. barriers, developments) Importance (SC/org. focus) Moment of action Meaning/definition used Experiences review (incl. barriers, developments) Importance (SC/org. focus) Moment of action (existence) Definition Experiences (main goals link with flexibility) Importance (SC/org. focus) Moment of action Definition Experience review Importance Moment of action (Level usage) Flexibility Supply chain flexibility Goals Dimensions References Aprile, D., Garavelli, A.C., Giannoccaro, I., 2005. Operations planning and flexibility in a supply chain. Production Planning & Control 16 (1), 21–31. Arawati, A., 2011. Supply chain management, supply chain flexibility and business performance. Journal of Global Strategic Management 9, 134–145. Avittathur, B., Swamidass, P., 2007. Matching plant flexibility and supplier flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 25 (3), 717–735. Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2013. Flexibility in reverse logistics. Journal of Cleaner Production 47, 306–318. Beamon, B.M., 1999. Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19 (3), 275–292. Bertrand, J.W.M., 2002. An overview of flexibility literature from the operations management perspective. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Bertrand, J.W.M., 2003. Supply chain design: flexibility considerations. Handbooks in OR & MS, 2003, Elsevier BV, North-Holland, pp. 133–198. Bessant, J., Kaplinsky, R., Lamming, R., 2003. Putting supply chain learning into practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23 (2), 167–184. Bish, E. and Muriel, A., 2000. Impact of manufacturing flexiblity on supply chain performance. Conference on Production and Operations Manegment (POM), Sevilla. Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., Cooper, M.B., 2002. Supply Chain Logistics Management. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Cantor, E.D., Blackhurst, J., Pan, M., Crum, M., 2014. Examining the role of stakeholder pressure and knowledge management on supply chain risk and demand responsiveness. International Journal of Logistics Management 25 (1), 202–223. Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K., 2006. A simulation study with quantity flexibility in a supply chain subjected to uncertainties. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2), 148–160. Chan, H.K., Wang, W.Y.C., Luong, L.H.S., Chan, F.T.S., 2009. Flexibility and adaptability in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14 (6), 407–410. Chang, S.-C., Chen, R.-H., Lin, R.-J., Tien, S.-W., Sheu, C., 2006. Supplier involvement and manufacturing flexibility. Technovation 26 (10), 1136–1146. Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management 22 (2), 119–150. Chiang, C.Y., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C., Suresh, N., 2012. An empirical investigation of the impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm's supply chain agility. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32 (1), 49–78. Choy, K.L., Chow, H.K.H., Tan, K.H., Chan, C.-K., Mok, E.C.M., Wang, Q., 2008. Leveraging the supply chain flexibility of third party logistics. Expert Systems with Applications 35 (4), 1998–2016. Chung, W., Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R., 2010. Flexibility or Cost Saving? Decision Sciences 41 (3), 623–650. Chuu, S.-J., 2014. A fuzzy multi-granularity linguistic approach under group decision-making for the evaluation of supply chain flexibility. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 31 (6), 303–322. Chuu, S.-J., 2011. Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research 213 (1), 279–289. Clarkson, M.B.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 92–117. Closs, D.J., Swink, M., Nair, A., 2005. The role of information connectivity in making flexible logistics programs succesful. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35 (4), 258–277. Co, H.C., Barro, F., 2009. Stakeholder theory and dynamics in supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29 (6), 591–611. Das, K., 2011. Integrating effective flexibility measures into a strategic supply chain planning model. European Journal of Operational Research 211 (1), 170–183. Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2002. Systematic combining. Journal of Business Research 55 (7), 553–560. Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2014. Systematic combining—A decade later. Journal of Business Research 67 (6), 1277–1284. Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J., Lummus, R.R., 2003. A conceptual model of supply chain flexibility. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103 (6), 446–456. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550. Ellram, L.M., Cooper, M.C., 2014. Supply chain management: It's all about the journey, not the destination. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50 (1), 8–20. Engelhardt-Nowitzki, C., 2012. Improving value chain flexibility and adaptability in build-to-order environments. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 42 (4), 318–337. Esmaeilikia, M., Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Govindan, K., Kumar, A., Mo, J., 2014a. A tactical supply chain planning model with multiple flexibility options: an empirical evaluation. Annals of Operations Research, 1–26. Esmaeilikia, M., Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Govindan, K., Kumar, A., Mo, J., 2014b. Tactical supply chain planning models with inherent flexibility. Annals of Operations Research, 1–21. Fantazy, K.A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., 2009. An empirical study of the relationships among strategy, flexibility, and performance in the supply chain context. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14 (3), 177–188. Feng, D.-Z., Yamashiro, M., 2005. Optimal production policy for a manufacturing system with volume flexibility in a supply chain under lumpy demand. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25 (7-8), 777–784. Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management. Pitman Series in Business and Public Policy, Marshfield. Frohlich, M.T., Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of integration. Journal of Operations Management 19 (2), 185–200. Garavelli, A.C., 2003. Flexibility configurations for the supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics 85 (2), 141–153. Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., Wicki, B., 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal 29 (13), 1465–1474. Gligor, D.M., 2014. A Cross-Disciplinary Examination of Firm Orientations’ Performance Outcomes: the role of supply chain flexibility. Journal of Business Logistics 35 (4), 281–298. Gong, Z., Hu, S., 2008. An economic evaluation model of product mix flexibility. Omega 36 (5), 852–864. Gong, Z., 2008. An economic evaluation model of supply chain flexibility. European Journal of Operational Research 184 (2), 745–758. Gosling, J., Purvis, L., Naim, M.M., 2009. Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics 128 (1), 11–21. Gosling, J., Naim, M., Towill, D., 2013. A supply chain flexibility framework for engineer-to-order systems. Production Planning & Control 24 (7), 552–566. Grawe, S.J., Daugherty, P.J., Roath, A.S., 2011. Knowledge synthesis and innovative logistics processes: enhancing operational flexiblity and performance. Journal of Business Logistics 32 (1), 9–80. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., Tirtiroglu, E., 2001. Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (1-2), 71–87. Handfield, R.B., Nichols Jr., E.L., 2002. Supply chain redesign. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hartmann, E.V.I., De Grahl, A., 2011. The flexibility of logistics service providers and its impact on customer loyalty. Journal of Supply Chain Management 47 (3), 63–85. He, Y., Keung Lai, K., Sun, H., Chen, Y., 2014. The impact of supplier integration on customer integration and new product performance. International Journal of Production Economics 147, 260–270. Hopp, W.J., Iravani, S.M., Xu, W.L., 2010. Vertical flexibility in supply chains. Management Science 56 (3), 495–502. Jin, Y., Hopkins, M.M., Wittmer, J.L.S., 2010. Linking human capital to competitive advantages: flexibility in a manufacturing firm’s supply chain. Human Resource Management 49 (5), 939–963. Jin, Y., Vonderembse, M., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Smith, J.T., 2014. Exploring relationships among IT-enabled sharing capability, supply chain flexibility, and competitive performance. International Journal of Production Economics 153, 24–34. Kayis, B., Kara, S., 2005. The supplier and customer contribution to manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16 (7), 733–752. Kemmoe, S., Pernot, P.-A., Tchernev, N., 2014. Model for flexibility evaluation in manufacturing network strategic planning. International Journal of Production Research 52 (15), 4396–4411. Ketchen, D.J., Giunipero, L.C., 2004. The intersection of strategic management and supply chain management. Industrial Marketing Management 33 (1), 51–56. Kim, M., Suresh, N.C., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C., 2013. An impact of manufacturing Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ flexibility and technological dimensions of manufacturing strategy on improving supply chain responsiveness. International Journal of Production Research 51 (18), 5597–5611. Kim, W.-S., 2012. A supply chain contract with flexibility as a risk-sharing mechanism for demand forecasting. International Journal of Systems Science 44 (6), 1134–1149. Kim, W.-S., 2011. Order quantity flexibility as a form of customer service in a supply chain contract model. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 23 (3), 290–315. Koste, L.L., Malhotra, M.K., 1999. A theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 18 (1), 75–93. Krajewski, L., Wei, J.C., Tang, L.L., 2005. Responding to schedule changes in build-toorder supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 23 (5), 452–469. Kumar, P., Deshmukh, S.G., 2006. A model for flexible supply chain through flexible manufacturing. Global. Journal of Flexible Systems Management 7 (3-4), 17–24. Kumar, P., Shankar, R., Yadav, S.S., 2008. Flexibility in global supply chain. Journal of Modelling in Management 3 (3), 277–297. Kumar, V., Fantazy, K.A., Kumar, U., 2006. Implementation and management framework for supply chain flexibility. Journal of Enterprise Information 19 (3), 303–319. Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Industrial marketing management 29 (1), 65–83. Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V., Whang, S., 1997. Information distortion in a supply chain. Management science 43 (4), 546–558. Lummus, R.R., Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J., 2005. Delphi study on supply chain flexibility. International Journal of Production Research 43 (13), 2687–2708. Lummus, R.R., Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J., 2003. Supply chain flexibility: building a new model. Global. Journal of Flexible Systems Management 4 (4), 1–13. Malhotra, M.K., Mackelprang, A.W., 2012. Are internal manufacturing and external supply chain flexibilities complementary capabilities? Journal of Operations Management 30 (3), 180–200. Manders, J. H. M., Caniëls, M. C. J. and Ghijsen, P., 2014. Supply chain flexibility: a systematic literature review and research directions for future research. Annual conference IPSERA (South-Africa). Marley, K.A., Ward, P.T., Ward, Hill, J.A., 2014. Mitigating supply chain disruptions. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19 (2), 142–152. McCracken, G., 1988. The long interview: Qualitative research methods. Sage, Newbury Park, California. Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., Zacharia, Z.G., 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2), 1–25. Merschmann, U., Thonemann, U.W., 2011. Supply chain flexibility, uncertainty and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics 130 (1), 43–53. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Moon, K.K.-L., Yi, C.Y., Ngai, E.W.T., 2012. An instrument for measuring supply chain flexibility for the textile and clothing companies. European Journal of Operational Research 222 (2), 191–203. Naim, M.M., Potter, A.T., Mason, R.J., Bateman, N., 2006. The role of transport flexibility in logistics provision. The International Journal of Logistics Management 17 (3), 297–311. Naim, M., Aryee, G., Potter, A., 2010. Determining a logistics provider’s flexibility capability. International Journal of Production Economics 127 (1), 39–45. Nair, A., 2005. Linking manufacturing postponement, centralized distribution and value chain flexibility with performance. International Journal of Production Research 43 (3), 447–463. Ndubisi, N.O., Jantan, M., Hing, L.C., Ayub, M.S., 2005. Supplier selection and management strategies and manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 18 (3), 330–349. Oke, A., 2003. Drivers of volume flexibility requirements in manufacturing plants. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23 (12), 1497–1513. Prajogo, D., Olhager, J., 2012. Supply chain integration and performance. International Journal of Production Economics 135 (1), 514–522. Prater, E., Biehl, M., Smith, M.A., 2001. International supply chain agility: tradeoffs between flexibility and uncertainty. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (5-6), 823–839. Pujawan, I.N., 2004. Assessing supply chain flexibility. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management 1 (1), 79–97. Reichart, A., 2007. Supply chain flexibility. Judge business school, University of Cambridge, pp. 1–42. Sánchez, A.M., Pérez Pérez, M., 2005. Supply chain flexibility and firm performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (7), 681–700. Sandberg, E., 2007. Logistics collaboration in supply chains. International Journal of Logistics Management 18 (2), 274–293. Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., Adenso-Diaz, B., 2010. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices. Journal of Operations Management 28 (2), 163–176. Sawhney, R., 2006. Interplay between uncertainty and flexibility across the valuechain. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 476–493. Schmenner, R.W., Tatikonda, M.V., 2005. Manufacturing process flexibility revisited. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (12), 1183–1189. Schütz, P., Tomasgard, A., 2011. The impact of flexibility on operational supply chain 15 planning. International Journal of Production Economics 134 (2), 300–311. Sethi, A.K., Sethi, S.P., 1990. Flexibility in manufacturing. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 2 (4), 289–328. Singh, D., Oberoi, J.S., Ahuja, I.S., 2011. A survey of literature of conceptual frameworks assessing supply chain flexibility. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 2 (1), 172. Singh, R.K., Sharma, M.K., 2013. Prioritising the alternatives for flexibility in supply chains. Production Planning & Control 25 (2), 176–192. Skintzi, G.D., 2007. Supply chain design. Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece. Soon, Q.H., Udin, Z.M., 2011. Supply chain management from the perspective of value chain flexibility. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22 (4), 505–526. Stevenson, M., Spring, M., 2007. Flexibility from a supply chain perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27 (7), 685–713. Stevenson, M., Spring, M., 2009. Supply chain flexibility. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29 (9), 946–971. Swafford, P., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N., 2000. A model of global supply chain agility and its impact on competitive performance. 31st National DSI Meeting, 1037–1039. Tachizawa, E.M., Thomsen, C.G., 2007. Drivers and sources of supply flexibility. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27 (10), 1115–1136. Tan, K.C., Kannan, V.R., Handfield, R.B., 1998. Supply chain management: supplier performance and firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management 34 (3), 2–9. Tang, C., Tomlin, B., 2008. The Power of Flexibility for Mitigating Supply Chain Risks. UCLA Anderson School, Los Angeles. Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Pires, S.R., Ceryno, P., Klingebiel, K., 2014. A multi-tier study on supply chain flexibility in the automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 158, 91–105. Thorelli, H.B., 1986. Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal 7, 37–51. Upton, D.M., 1994. The management of manufacturing flexibility. California management review 36 (2), 72–89. Upton, D.M., 1995. Flexibility as process mobility. Journal of Operations Management 12 (3-4), 205–224. Vickery, S.N., Calantone, R., Droge, C., 1999. Supply chain flexibility. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 35 (3), 16–24. Viswanadham, N., Srinivasa Raghavan, N., 1997. Flexibility in manufacturing enterprises. Sadhana (Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences), Indian Academy of Sciences, 135–163. Vokurka, R.J., O'Leary-Kelly, S.W., 2000. A review of empirical research on manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 18 (4), 485–501. Volberda, H.W., 2009. De flexibele onderneming. Kluwer, Deventer. Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Frohlich, M., 2002. Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22 (2), 195–219. Wadhwa, S., Rao, K.S., 2003. Enterprise modeling of supply chains involving multiple entity flows. Studies in informatics and control 12 (1), 5–20. Wadhwa, S., Rao, K.S., 2004. A unified framework for manufacturing and supply chain flexibility. Global. Journal of Flexible Systems Management 5 (1), 29–36. Wadhwa, S., Rao, K.S., Chan, F.T.S., 2006. Comparative influence of three flexibility types on manufacturing lead-time performance. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29 (9-10), 1002–1007. Wang, J., 2010. Supply Chain Optimization, Management and Integration. IGI Global, Hersey, New York. Wang, Y.-C., 2008. Evaluating flexibility on order quantity and delivery lead time for a supply chain system. International Journal of Systems Science 39 (12), 1193–1202. Winkler, H., 2009. How to improve supply chain flexibility using strategic supply chain networks. Logistics Research 1 (1), 15–25. Yi, C.Y., Ngai, E.W.T., Moon, K.L., 2011. Supply chain flexibility in an uncertain environment. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16 (4), 271–283. Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Zhang, Q., Cao, M., 2002. Business process reengineering for flexibility and innovation in manufacturing. Industrial Management & Data Systems 102 (3), 146–152. Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2002a. Value chain flexibility. International Journal of Production Research 40 (3), 561–583. Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2002b. Product development flexibility. Arkansas State University and The university of Toledo. Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2003. Manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 21 (2), 173–191. Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2005. Logistics flexibility and its impact on customer satisfaction. The International Journal of Logistics Management 16 (1), 71–95. Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2006. Spanning flexibility. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 1 (5), 390–399. Zsidisin, G.A., Hartley, J.L., Bernardes, E.S., Saunders, L.W., 2015. Examining supply market scanning and internal communication climate as facilitators of supply chain integration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20 (5), 549–560. Please cite this article as: Manders, J.H.M., et al., Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001i